you ran away from my previous posts few days ago lol , hence you are either ignorant or trying to be coward like your mohamad you went to wear a woman garmet to get the "revelation" to come now to utter personal attack??You're are either stupid or trying to be ridiculous. You do not know the difference between "version" and "translations"?
HE (mohammad) said to her, " do not annoy me regardding Aisha. the revelation does not come to me when i am in the garment of any woman except Aisha"You're are either stupid or trying to be ridiculous. You do not know the difference between "version" and "translations"? Is the Arabic Quran not the same?
Your post is pregnant with many issues you are pulling as straw man from here and there. That is not the way to debate.so you are saying that for all the praised eloquence of the quran, it still fails to explicitly differentiate between written scriptures and other forms of revelations? and you have to go fishing and projecting to make that distinction? could he not possibly borrowed the space for one verse from sourat el massad to make something so much controversial a little bit clearer?
though the references to a written book are irrefutable. "يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ" there is no doubt that when the quran refers to the "injil" it is referring to a written book, even Christians and jews are referred to as people of the book.
islam since its very inception, has been at a frenzy to anchor the role of muhammad in prophecies both in the old and new testament. there is nothing in the NT that refers to muhammad except that part you do not like with the warning against false prophets.
it is not simply a matter of stretching one word you find in the bible, there is a whole context and perspective that needs to be observed and respected and which stands in sharp contradiction to most of what was brought fourth by islam.
if you think the bible is corrupted, then you have no reason to quote anything from it, neither about prophecy nor about anything else in order to validate the case for prophet muhammad, in particular when you do not know what has been corrupted and what has not. so what? you take what suites you and claim that part is not corrupt, while you pretend that what does not suite you is?
the fact remains though, you as a muslem possess no criteria for the evaluation what is from God and what is not. i have been pushing this question for a very long time now, and i have never really received an answer to it. how do you know if something is of divine origin or not? how can you tell you if the quran itself is of divine origin or not? there is process in islam to validate or invalidate that, and linking it back to the previous point, this is one of the reasons why islamic rleigious figures were trying very hard to anchor islam on prophecies found in the bible and the torah.
so will i will lask again, how do you know if something is divine or not? how do you evaluate it? how do you assess it? the answer is very simple, and islam fails that test. everything of divine origin has to reflect the infinite ideal, morality, ethics, goodness, universality, etc.. when something fails to meet these standards or that direction then you can rest assured it is not of divine origin. in this day and age, the morality of the civil society, despite all the plagues that ail it, has surpassed the morality of allah as depicted in the quran, that's without addressing the life of the prophet himself.
you want to know something though, despite all the calls for the unity of allah, and all the calls for worship, bel tarhib wal targhib, i think whoever wrote the quran was an atheist without a single shred of belief in the divine. you cannot truly believe in God and write something of that sort.
this is yet another evidence that the quran believes the injil is not written by people's hands. i have explained to you more than a dozen times so far that all of Christianity since the first time the first gospel was written realizes very well the Gospels are witness accounts written by the disciples of Christ and their own disciples. no where did Christianity ever claimed that these texts were not written by a human hand. and yet the quran is very oblivious to what is common knowledge among Christians. i will also be explaining what the bible exactly is shortly.
impressive, i would like for you to apply that very same standard to sourat el fil, the shohob in the sky, zhou el qarnayn trapping the haggog and maggog people behind a metal dam, the story of the seven sleepers written by monks centuries earlier becoming a chapter in the quran, etc.....
but you obviously cannot do that.
At the time there was no printing press or computers and hard drives to store information. If today, I use my hand to write a Quran copy and I make errors in the writing of the text, and someone discovers my handwritten Quran after ten thousand years, it won't be convincing to say the Quran was changed deliberately or even by mistake. That is because it is the error of a man. For that very reason, several copies of the Quran, based on the preserved manuscripts recorded in the time of the Prophet, and based on the memorization of the scribes who had penned the revelation were produced. Those became standard copies as point of reference over the centuries that Muslims can refer to.
again, not very true. the epistles of Paul depict quite a developed Christology and are in perfect harmony with the Gospel of John, and they date back to a couple of decades post the Crucifixion. more to it, all the three Gospels assert the divine nature of Christ although each of are written with a different style. John was a very sweet and spiritual person and he was the closest disciple to Christ, it is normal that this will be reflected in his style, and it was also very normal that he would write at a more spiritual level, and that is also reflected in his epistles. but even that aside, mark's presents several irrefutable attestations to the Divinity of Christ, and in addition to the very early writings of the church,@Dark Angel
Does the Quran Require Christians to engage in Redaction Criticism?
James finds it incredible that the Quran would tell Christians to judge by the Gospel if indeed the Gospel is corrupted. The verse he refers to is as follows in the Yusuf Ali translation:
Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Quran 5:47)
From this verse James argues as follows:
1. This verse approves of the Gospels as they are;
2. Muhammad who authored the Quran did not know the contents of the Gospels to realize that his own teachings contradict the Gospels; and
3. Muslims now seeing the contradiction between the Quran and the Gospels defend their faith by inventing the doctrine of biblical corruption.
In the first place, however, this verse does not approve of the Gospels as they are. It calls on Christians to judge not ‘by the Gospels’ but ‘by what God has revealed in the Gospel’. There is a difference between Gospel and Gospels. One is singular; the other plural. God taught the Gospel to Jesus, and we may presume that this is the Gospel that Jesus preached. Now in the Bible there are four Gospels which contradict each other on essential points. Obviously God did not reveal such contradictory statements in the Gospels.
Second, it is no secret now, nor was it a secret in the time of the Prophet, that the Gospels teach that Jesus is the Son of God. Yet the Quran says that this is an invented claim matching that of those who disbelieved of old:
The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth! (Quran 9:30)
Hence it is incorrect to say that Muhammad did not realize that the Quran contradicts the Gospels on this point.
Third, Muslims did not need to invent a doctrine of biblical corruption, because the errors in the Bible were already plain for everyone to see. Some early Church Fathers did acknowledge that the Bible contained errors. But later, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible became generally accepted after the Quranic revelation was already established. Therefore at the time of the Quranic revelation it was not necessary to go to great lengths to debunk the doctrine. The Quran mostly took a passive stance of merely correcting the narratives that are known from the Bible. On occasion, however, the Quran does make statements about the invention of scripture such as in the verse already cited, and in 2:79:
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: "This is from Allah" to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby. (Quran 2:79)
Redaction criticism is of course a highly developed aspect of modern Biblical studies. It would seem ridiculous to assert that the Quran was asking Christians in the seventh century to engage in an activity which will not become known until the twentieth century. But this does not mean that people at the time were naïve. Even at the time people could differentiate between what God revealed in the Scripture and what people invented without sanction from God.
At the time people could see that what Jesus preached was in many respects different from the later claims made about him. It was already obvious that the Gospel of John presented a highly developed Christology, for example, that could not be credited to the historical Jesus. People at the time could ask themselves, even if they did not do so before: Is not everything in the Scripture inspired by God? Why would anyone say, “Judge by what God has revealed therein”?
We should recall that at the time the Canon of the Eastern Syriac Christians was still being worked out. For a long time they had accepted only twenty-two of the now twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament. Hence it would still be fresh in the minds of Christians that the inspiration of Bible is not self-evident, and needs some human judgment to accept or reject certain books.
At the time the Quran did charge believers with the responsibility of verifying news that came to them. Based on this principle Muslims soon developed elaborate measures to sift conflicting claims about what our prophet said, and did. This was their version of Redaction Criticism, even though they did not use this term. There is no reason to suppose that Christians were not capable of doing something similar which would eventually develop into full-blown redaction criticism.
But the fact that the Quran did not require seventh-century Christians to engage in Redaction Criticism with all its modern apparatuses does not mean that the Quran would excuse present-day folks from exercising their mental faculties. The Quran requires us to use our faculty of reason, and God will hold us responsible for that which we are capable. If the tools and thinking were not developed at the time people would not be responsible for applying it, but now that they are available we would be held responsible if we reject their use.
James’ Mention of Bart Ehrman
It is already evident to me from the Biola debate that mention of Bart Ehrman will not help to advance my point with James. In the Seattle Debate, therefore, I did not appeal to Bart Ehrman, proving my case instead either by (a) presenting the actual proof that leads to my conclusions, by (b) citing scholars other than Bart Ehrman, or by doing both (a) and (b).
But the fact of Bart Ehrman’s importance in modern discourse on the Bible is also evident from the fact that James himself cannot seem to avoid mentioning him.
Aside from the recognition that this scholar must receive, however, James’ mention of him creates the very distraction I wished to avoid. If I had cited him James would have attacked him. I did not mention him and James is still attacking him while attempting to refute me. Why?
James needs to deal with the scholars whom I did cite in specific reference to Redaction Criticism, such as Scott McKnight, James Dunn, and Raymond Brown. But it seems that he is unable to attack these scholars, and he picks on Ehrman instead. Even if we do not like the man, is it fair to keep criticizing him like this? Moreover, even if this scholar is the worst devil around, how does James’ attack on him disprove my points which I supported with reference to McKnight, Dunn, and Brown whom James evidently does not dare attack in a similar fashion?
James’ Understanding of Redaction Criticism
James expresses the view that Bart Ehrman starts with the assumption that the synoptic Gospels are giving different views of Jesus. He asks why it should be necessary to assume that, whereas a more reasonable hypothesis would be that the various writers were addressing different audiences.
I am sorry to say that this manner of putting the matter does not demonstrate adequate knowledge of Redaction Criticism. The ‘assumption’ that the Gospels give different views of Jesus is not an assumption with which scholars such as Ehrman, McKnight and Dunn begin. Rather, it is the conclusion that comes from a careful examination of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of course this is now an inherited conclusion from previous generations of scholars who, having conducted such investigations found this conclusion unavoidable.
But even if one starts with the assumption that the writers were addressing different readers, a fair mind will be compelled, on examining the evidence, to conclude, all over again, that Matthew and Luke in using Mark have each in their own way modified the information about Jesus to make him conform to the writer’s own view of Jesus. In our debates I have shown clear evidence of an author modifying the facts of the story about Jesus, such as in the story of Jairus’ daughter. In this particular case James admitted that Matthew has telescoped the story; and I as I have pointed out, this gave Matthew the license to take what one man said and put in into the mouth of another man at a different point in the story.
I really do not know how hard it is for Christians to affirm the divinity of Christ by simply presenting two verses only. Where Jesus said:again, not very true. the epistles of Paul depict quite a developed Christology and are in perfect harmony with the Gospel of John, and they date back to a couple of decades post the Crucifixion. more to it, all the three Gospels assert the divine nature of Christ although each of are written with a different style. John was a very sweet and spiritual person and he was the closest disciple to Christ, it is normal that this will be reflected in his style, and it was also very normal that he would write at a more spiritual level, and that is also reflected in his epistles. but even that aside, mark's presents several irrefutable attestations to the Divinity of Christ, and in addition to the very early writings of the church,
One thing you have to realize is this:it does not matter how eloquently it is written, it is still pretty erroneous. in addition the jews have no recollection of ever proclaiming uzeir as being the son of allah. there seems to be no reference to that outside of islamic circles. it is simply a faulty conjecture made in the quran. so i really have no clue why this continues to be a point of debate at the first place. everything that went in the quran seems to have seeped into the text through the prism of isolated arabian tribes and badou story tellers around camp fires. facts are mixed with legends and myths, and it is all very obvious. i will not recount the countless examples to that.
When you claim knowledge, you will be asked how do you know and for proof. So do not say you know in such matters relating to the spiritual realm or the unseen or mysticism. Say: "I don't think" or "I don't believe". That is more accurate.we know that God does not fight evil with shooting stars. please ask me how do we know that? (kidding.. please don't)
When you mention a statement like "I or we know", you're claiming knowledge.
No doubt, the Muslim has been ignorant in identifying four gospels written by some Tom, **** and Harry to be the "Injil" referred to in the Quran. You can watch Deedat's explanation in the video I earlier posted.one of these wrong presumptions is that regarding the injil and the torah. now it is obvious that all the islamic world, not just shabir ali, is trying to reconcile these erroneous notions with reality through every possible mean available. there is a plethora of mistakes in the quran about Christianity, it is not simply the matter of correctly identifying what the "injil" is.
I am not interested in the debate. I do not need Shabbir Ally to inform me or enlighten me that the Creator does not beget but rather creates and God begetting a son is just Christians exaggerating the status of Jesus (as). It is too elementary to even consider going through these arguments again. We call this "ghuluw" like we do refer to the Alawites who deem Imam Ali (as) of divine status. I posted his (Shabbir Ally) article because it deals on redaction criticism. It explains why a book would tell you to judge based on revelation "therein" and also declare woe unto those who write the book with their own hands and falsely say it is from God and also condemns those who distort the revelations with their mouths. What is revelation is revelation and what is forgery is forgery. It is your obligation to separate the wheat from the chaff.so addressing what shabir ali wrote in the aftermath of a debate is really not all that meaningful, it would have served you better to post the debate itself to hear both sides of the argument. it quite interesting thought how far shabir willing to go in his critical analysis without even directing a hint of critical thinking towards the islamic scriptures, including the quran, that by itself is quite telling.
i think this is the debate shabir is post writing about, and James White's present the evidence that in the very first few years following Christ the hymns and common prayers of the Christians indeed affirm the divinity of Christ prior to the writing and the copying of the Gospels. feel free to watch the full debate if you are really seeking answers.
hayda saff 7ake bala ta3me, and it only further indicates how little you know about our faith. that kind of ignorance is not acceptable in the 21st century. you are willing to argue for days and months none end, but you do not have the time to educate yourself for a couple of hours on the subject matter so that you could at least discuss it properly? the proclamation that Christ is Lord is not based on "parables" nor was He ever "possessed" by the devil, nor was He ever considered "half man half god".I really do not know how hard it is for Christians to affirm the divinity of Christ by simply presenting two verses only. Where Jesus said:
1. He is god/I am god.
2. That he should be worshipped/worship me
All the parables you mistake and interpret as indicative of his divinity are just parables that have meanings contrary to what you suppose. And parables are not to be taken literal often times. And there are other verses which exist to prove that Jesus was never god. Your confusion isn't even in proving Jesus is god. It is in refuting or reconciling that he was man, who ate, slept, wept, was possessed by the devil, was supposedly killed, was a product of the womb, was circumcised etc . In an attemp to do that, you have made him half god and half man. That's quite ridiculous, isn't it?
the nerves on some people...One thing you have to realize is this:
The Qur'anic revelation does not revolve around you or around what you know or desire or around what you do not know.
You always say "there is nothing new" in the Quran. That many of the stories are about the Israelites and their prophets, whom we Muslims associate with as true prophets or God Almighty and do not shy away from their lives and narrations about them. But when what is new is presented or shown to you, you use your lack of knowledge to hint or claim that these weren't reality or they're fictitious accounts. This is seen in the case of the jinns, Prophet Hud, Zhul Qarnain, Lukman etc.
You keep picking up issues with the Quran based on things that are either of the unseen (beyond our scope of knowledge) or historical issues which are not recorded in secular history or on which you have no contrary evidence to disprove. This isn't a problem of the Quran. It is your own problem actually. It isn't my problem as a Muslim. It is a shortcoming on your own part for failing to have the needed evidence to admit the stories or the needed evidence to refute the stories. Lack of evidence does not always constitute an evidence in and of itself. For example, if you tell me that people in China can fly, and I have never been to China, I cannot simply reject that claim because where I live people do not fly. Until I can at least go to China to prove or disprove that claim, or I can set my hands on evidence that portray people in China the same as people elsewhere, my dismissal of your claim will be a baseless one. Such argument cannot be used to make any case, whether it is relating to jinns, Zhul Qarnanin, Uzair etc. As far as the Quran is concerned, its veracity is proven based on the things we know and we have proof to assert on.
For you to imagine that someone will invent a story about a group of people holding a belief that they do not hold is mind boggling. Assuming the Quran speaks about the red Indians of the Americas and make such a claim, you can say lack of evidence to support the claim means nothing as such existed. But the Quran is making a claim about a people (Jews) who lived alongside the Prophet in Arabia. The simple answer is that a Jewish group did hold a view that Uzayr is the son of God as Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. You can read further, if interested:
The same also when it comes to your claim that the Quran says demons are chased by "shooting stars". The verse doesn't talk about shooting stars but smokeless flames, which very much exist in out space.
Earlier, you arrogantly made this claim:
When you claim knowledge, you will be asked how do you know and for proof. So do not say you know in such matters relating to the spiritual realm or the unseen or mysticism. Say: "I don't think" or "I don't believe". That is more accurate.
The like of this issue is metaphysical and not scientific theories. But to say you know, when you actually do not know anything, it is conceited arrogance presented as knowledge to mislead and deceive.
You "know" God doesn't fight evil spirits with "shooting stars" (note: star isn't found in the Quran verse in the original Arabic) but your Bible says Satan was cast out of heaven with lightening (this will remind you of Harry Potter):
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
As per the above verses, can you walk over scorpions and and serpents? I don't doubt that but I don't doubt Satan, a spiritual creature was cast out of the heavens by the force of lightening. But I doubt you can walk on serpents and snakes and not get hurt!
And look at this from New Testament Book of Revelations:
"And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son...And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."
(Revelation 12:1-9 Douay-Rheims, emphasis added)
It seems your problem is just with "shooting stars" but not with lightening being used to cast out spiritual creatures.
No doubt, the Muslim has been ignorant in identifying four gospels written by some Tom, **** and Harry to be the "Injil" referred to in the Quran. You can watch Deedat's explanation in the video I earlier posted.
The NT itself clearly states that "Jesus preached the Gospel". In the NT, in John, it is stated that Jesus preached what message he received from God. That means Jesus did receive revelation as the Quran states. If you don't believe that is a book, your problem. The Quran itself did not descend as a book form but in verses. Muhammad (s) was commanded to write the revelation. Jesus (a) was not and he did not write anything. Later accounts were written based on eyewitnesses and earwitnesses. Whatever you make out of this is your problem and the problem of your likes. We can explain but we cannot force you to understand.
I am not interested in the debate. I do not need Shabbir Ally to inform me or enlighten me that the Creator does not beget but rather creates and God begetting a son is just Christians exaggerating the status of Jesus (as). It is too elementary to even consider going through these arguments again. We call this "ghuluw" like we do refer to the Alawites who deem Imam Ali (as) of divine status. I posted his (Shabbir Ally) article because it deals on redaction criticism. It explains why a book would tell you to judge based on revelation "therein" and also declare woe unto those who write the book with their own hands and falsely say it is from God and also condemns those who distort the revelations with their mouths. What is revelation is revelation and what is forgery is forgery. It is your obligation to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me how Matthew could have written the book of Matthew, where Matthew referred to him as "Jesus saw a man named Matthew". At least, if you're shocked, be brave enough to say you admit the related verses could not have been written by Matthew. But I understand why you cannot say that. Because of you say that, the next question would be who wrote it and who authorized that person to insert narrations not written by Matthew and attribute them to Matthew. And more questions will arise like: what else could have been insertions or interpolations. Based on this, the entire book of Matthew and the other three gospels, where such cases are found too, will have no credibility. It will literal unwrap your faith and shatter it. Everything will fall like a pack of cards. Continue talking about things you or I don't know about in the Quran relating to jinns, Zhul Qarnain and the likes (which the Quran itself declares as revelation from the unseen; meaning that people didn't have knowledge about these things during that time), while the very things we know about in your faith are enough to shut you up and the very things we know about in the Quran are enough to unscrew your brain and make you think and see the light.
And a big liar
"المركزية": وزير الخارجية والمغتربين باسيل لن يرافق رئيس الحكومة الحريري إلى مكة المكرمة للمشاركة في القمة الإسلامية الخميس المقبل
Of course not; he is not allowed to enter Mecca as he is Moushrek.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا ۚ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ (28)
يعني إختار لحس طيز الحاكم على قول ألحق
ما يتحدث به أعلاه كان في الشرع والبلاغة وبخلاف ما أنتم عليه من تبعية عمياء لتعاليم الكنيسة .. ما تحدث به العريفي في ما يخص الدين وأدعاء أن عيسى أبن مريم هو أبن الله يعرفه أكثر من داعية وشيخ مسلم قبل وبعد وخلال زمن العريفي
أما التصاريح السياسية فمن المعروف أن أنظمة سايكس بيكو القمعية تعتقل الشيوخ التي تصرّح بغير سياسة الطواغيت لا بل يتم التخلص منهم أيضا
والعريفي أختار أن يكون من المطبّلين للسلاطين والطواغيت على أن يتم أعتقاله وقتله
ما حاجج به يحاجج به أي مسلم يعلم دينه جيدايعني إختار لحس طيز الحاكم على قول ألحق
و أنت لا تزال تستشهد بكلامه
ِألله عزّ وجلّ قال أعطينا عيسى الأنجيل ولم يقل تلاميذته كتبوا 40 نسخة من ما يظنون أنه الأنجيل
كل ما أراد ألله تعالى أن يقول لبنو الصليب أن عيسى بن مريم لم يأتي بالأنجيل ولا بالمعجزات من تلقاء نفسه أو من أختراعه فقط لا غير
أما من يخترع نسخ مختلفة على يا ليلاه فذلك لا يلّزم الله تعالى
وبالمناسبة الأنجيل نزل على عيسى بن مرّيم على شكل وحي وليس كتاب كالذي تحمله في يدك
كتابة الأنجيل أتت لاحقا وتحّرفيه بنسخ كتبها تلاميذته
"And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah ? Those will be presented before their Lord, and the witnesses will say, "These are the ones who lied against their Lord." Unquestionably, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.hayda saff 7ake bala ta3me, and it only further indicates how little you know about our faith. that kind of ignorance is not acceptable in the 21st century. you are willing to argue for days and months none end, but you do not have the time to educate yourself for a couple of hours on the subject matter so that you could at least discuss it properly? the proclamation that Christ is Lord is not based on "parables" nor was He ever "possessed" by the devil, nor was He ever considered "half man half god".
te3tir man. i told you spend this holy month with your loved ones instead of spending it arguing. you didn't want to. probably because somewhere in some silly text you read there that such arguments will be counted for you in ramadan. i can assure you, it wont. that is not what faith is nor what religion is, and whatever you have been made to believe in that bizaro mindset is not even worth the effort of rewriting it. so i will advise you again, stop this silly argument and spend this time with your loved ones, because you obviously are refusing to learn anything nor are you offering anything valuable for others to learn.
the nerves on some people...