Support NeoGAF

[RiZ III]

Also just a general thought for those calling Paul's authenticity into question...

How is Paul receiving a vision from Jesus, less reliable than Muhammad receiving a vision in his dreams from God?

It's kind of difficult to compare the two figure zmoney. The problem with Paul, as I pointed out above, is that he isn't the source of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was the original preacher of his message, whatever it may have been. Just like that, Muhammad was the source of the Quran (well as a Muslim we believe it was God). The Quran is the same book which Muhammad had. If we had something similar to the Quran of Jesus, then you could make a direct comparison. The problem with Paul is that he never knew Jesus, he said he had a vision and afterwards we find him teaching things Jesus never preached in the Gospels (example: Jesus says follow the Jewish Law, Paul says the Law is a curse). Meanwhile the original disciples of Jesus continued observing the Law and eventually had a falling off with Paul. That is why his teachings are questionable.

That's long. Good points, it's late so I don't have time to respond, I will though.

I have one, maybe two questions though that tie into this "forged and fake NT" discussion.

I look forward to your post.

I've heard that Muslims like to point to areas of the New Testament (and Old) and say that there are prophecies about Muhammad? What areas are these. If the NT is so untrustworthy, how are these verses that are cited about Muhammad reliable?

The Quran says that Jesus foretold the coming of another prophet named who would be called the praised one (Muhammad means one who is praiseworthy).

The verse which is usually referred to by Muslims is found in the Gospel of John:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, The Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment." John 16: 7-8 Jesus said: "If you love Me, keep My commandments. Then I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete to be with you forever. He is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, for it does not see Him nor know Him, but you know Him, for He is ever with you and will be in you." John 14:15-17.

This however is not necessarily the passage the Quran is referring to. The Quran says that Jesus, just like Muhammad, received a scripture. We don't have any book from Jesus surviving in the modern times though. If there were copies, they were probably destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE by the Romans. It might have survived past that with the surviving members of Jesus's followers, but even in the time of Muhammad it didn't exist. Who knows, maybe someday a copy of it will be found.

The NT is unreliable. I'm not saying that as a Muslim, I'm saying that as a student of the study of early Christianity. The Quran says that the bible in general has been corrupted by the hands of scribes and that people have added and taken from it and said it is from God and this is in perfect agreement with modern scholarship. The four Gospels are all pseudonymous, all were written decades after Jesus, and none of the were eye witness accounts, a fact made clear due to the fact that they were all originally composed in Greek. Jesus's disciples were mostly Jewish peasants who probably couldn't read or write in Aramaic or Hebrew much less in fluent Greek.

 

[OttomanScribe]

It's actually quite understandable. I suppose calling something incomprehensible is a convenient way to not address it. So let me explain again: Christianity, even in all its slightly different form, did not match up with Islam, which you claim is the word of god. So in essences, there was never a breakdown from a correct word. The population of the world sat on something incorrect without intervention from god. And as I have been discussing and will discuss later in this responses, is something uncharacteristic of the god presented in Islam thus showing a contradiction of motives by way of inaction.

It is not the argument that is incomprehensible, it is the sentence. I am happy to engage with your arguments, but I have to understand them first surely, and I could not penetrate that sentence.

The sentences above are a little clearer, but I still find them obtuse. I'll do my best to reply, but maybe you could make them a bit simpler for me?

The first point, that Christianity did not match up with Islam, which I apparently claim is the word of God (I don't, by the way). This is a discussion occurring all around us, whether or not Christians deify Jesus (alayhis salaam) rightly or wrongly. You aren't in a position to argue irrefutably that Christianity was always in its current form, if you want to make that argument, then you have to refer to the other arguments going on in this thread, specifically upon that topic.

I also previously explained that in the Islamic cosmology, that people will diverge from the true path of their religion is seen as inevitable, and will happen to the Muslims as well. So your second point doesn't fly either.

God's absence demonstrates that god does not care if people know his will or whatever makes god talk to people. Yet the fact that, well in your faith, god talks to people show he indeed does hold interest. It's a play off god's inactions and failure.

You are using a bunch of words without explaining what you mean by them. You are also begging the question all over the place. You say 'God's absence demonstrates this', automatically assuming God's absence within your point. This is begging the question.

So it's nothing more than an article of faith. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. Also, why did you put the Islam in apostrophes?

Because Islam means different things. When you talk about 'Islam' you are using it in a word like 'Christianity', whereas I more generally am not. I put the quotations to indicate that I was referring to your use of the word, not my own. Islam means 'active acceptance of God's will' and thus is not confined as a description to 'what Muslims do'.

And this ties back into my point, why does god make an effort to essentially fail? He continually 'sends' people in your opinion who fuck up so badly classic islam does not even recognize them as 'of the book' like it does Christianity and Judaism. It is uncharacteristic of what one could even call 'God'.

This ties back to my previous point, why do you make no effort to engage with my points?

You are reasserting your point, without engaging with mine. God does not fail when people reject the religion or corrupt it, because that is His will as much as it is that people accept it and maintain it.

The quran is but a vessel for stories and ideas. The same for the bible and the torah. In addition, the stories and ideas presented in the quran can in many scenarios be tied to stories and ideas presented in the two latter books. That was the point.

Your definition of the books as being a 'vessel for stories and ideas' is sufficiently broad to render itself useless in comparison. If that is what you want to go with, then go with it. It doesn't make your point.

BTW @ bolded, you said something outright incorrect. In your Muslim view, you should believe that the quran was not given in a single moment in time, but in revelations over the course of many years. Why do you believe in such unorthodox ideas?

Technically, most Muslims do believe that the Qur'an descended to earth in its entirety on the single night of Laylat al-Qadr. However that is not what I meant when I said 'moment in time', I rather was referring to the fact that it was not compiled like the Old Testament, in various writings scattered across 100s of years, or like the New Testament, compiled by numerous different and disconnected individuals again, across a few hundred years.

You obviously don't agree but you can see the point of using that word yes?

No. The word plagiarism doesn't seem to work to represent the argument you are trying to make.

I'm just making the assumption that god want's people to follow his will.

Here is where you seem to be stumbling. God's will is whatever occurs, this includes those who are misguided. 'Whomsoever he guides, none can misguide, whomsoever he misguides, none can return'. This is the problem with your understanding my points, is that you are focussing, despite all my points, upon the idea that God's only will is that people know the Qur'an or something similar. I have never said that.

You make claims that god is a judge who judges all the little girls and boys on how they were bad or good according to Islam. Equal access would certainly dispel doubt, questions, and as you continuously claim 'decay' that arise from only one man getting the extraworldy transmissions from god as opposed to everyone. And accordingly, it would allow people to be judged equally, no prophets getting free passes over the not-so-fortunate-to-have-been-contacted-by-god plebeians. Equal. Like a judge who judges should judge. That would not only be the fairest way, but it would be the most efficient way. And as has been shown again and again, your god at least lacks efficiently.

Again, we have a problem. You say that God judges all according to Islam, however you are using your own definition of that word. God judges all according to what was revealed to them, not according to what was revealed to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) unless they have absolute access to that. Considering God's ability to know exactly what was revealed to them, this is just as equal as were God to pass revelation directly to them.

What purpose do you believe are revelation and prophet hood if god doesn't care if people know his word? Does he or doesn't he? It's one of two and you can't have it both ways.

What do you mean by 'care'? You are getting deep into anthropomorphism here. The function of revelation and Prophethood are the manner in which the traditions of belief and the articles of faith are given to the community. The completeness of understanding that any specific individual has of the religion, is not an issue, as they will be judged according to what measure of understanding they had.

First off, direct revelation is the fairest and most efficient method. Why use a less efficient method to get what you want across? Is god not powerful enough to be assed with talking to everyone whom him will all judge the same?

I do not see any significant difference between the two methods discussed here.

And humanity exists because god exists and has attributes? Err, what? Now THAT is an unsupported assumption. Humanity exists because god exists for starters. Why does god need to create humanity if it exists? So god is not allowed to exist without creating humans? Did a greater god set up this rule? Is allah merely a player in a larger scheme?

God exists without the creation of humans, but because God exists, human's exist as a reflection of what God is. One of the attributes of God is 'Creator', so creation exists as a reflection of God.

In addition because god has attributes... I'm not sure what is being said here. We are extensions of gods attributes?

No.

Or perhaps you mean because god needs to be a judge? He likes to judge his creations on criteria that he fails to even get across on multiple occasions? Or perhaps he just wants little robots to revel in his greatness and sing him praise like a king expecting bows from his subjects?

You are begging the question again. You seem to refer so rarely to my actual arguments that I almost feel as if we are not in a discussion at all.

Although Islam apologists "explained" why a man would be given twice as much inheritance than women due to the men's role in taking care of their wives, I'd love to see how they justify why a man's testimony in court is worth two women's as stated in Al-Baqarah:282.

It is not in court, and it is not a permanent ruling as far as I am aware. It relates to the issue of a lack of education amongst women in relation to the law. The Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha)'s testimony alone was the equivalent of two witnesses, so it is not, as far as I understand it, taken to be a general ruling.

Wat? Quran doesn't say at all Jesus was conceived divinely. Jesus was brought into existence in Mary's womb without any conception, divine or otherwise.

This speaks to my lack of vocabulary rather than khufr, insha'Allah. General, 'conception' means 'to conceive', conceive meaning 'to become pregnant'. Thus I understand that Maryam (alayhis salaam) was made pregnant through an extraordinary creation act. However I understand that 'divine conception' has a specific meaning, which I did not mean to endorse. Thanks for pointing this out bro

Disagreed. Completely and totally disagreed. Cultures change and as long as they're not doing anything that contradicts the Quran (or the Sunnah if you want to go that route) then why be sad? Muslims in South Asia don't get married like Muslims in Central Asia, or the Middle East or the Far East or Northern Africa and frankly all of them don't get married now like they did 50 years ago and those didn't get married like they did 100 years ago etc. Which one of these incredibly diverse methods is the 'correct' way that should be persevered and everything else is bad? Diversity isn't a bad thing and change is inherent in human nature.

My argument was not about diversity, and I did not say that cultures do not change. What I did say was problematic was the abandoning of one's own culture and the mimicking of another, accompanied by the abandoning of the Sunnah.

I absolutely HATE attitudes like that, obsessing about the minute details over what is the correct Muslim way to do anything and everything, and looking askance at everybody else who does things differently.

The first thing is admirable, the second thing is a contradiction to the first.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

GIFSoup

 

[RiZ III]

Considering I have yet to see compelling evidence for your religion I take the only other alternative, that of plagiarism. You obviously don't agree but you can see the point of using that word yes?

Have you read the Quran Patapwn? I understand it is natural to think it is nothing, but people don't become Muslims out of thin air. Everyone I know who has come to Islam later in their life came to it after reading the Quran. Christians, Athiests, and even a Bhuddist. Obviously there must be something in there. Despite what people think, the Quran isn't a straight recollection of biblical stories. There are differences even in the stories it does repeat, differences which end up correcting the biblical version of the story in subtle or obvious ways historically, scientifically, and also removes internal story errors which weren't noticed until more recently. I can list examples here, but I would rather encourage you to read it yourself.

Your opinion of the quran's greatness is an article of faith on a foundation of circular logic. It's all fine and dandy that you think it's so great, but claiming it's 'evidence of it's own greatness' is not a claim you should be making. Honestly, it's fine that think that, not the best idea to bring up in a debate.

Ottoman is right though. The Arabic of the Quran is exquisite especially when one considers it comes from an illiterate man living in the middle of the backwater of the ancient world. Even if you don't speak the language, you are able to hear it. Listen to these if you want and perhaps you will hear it.

youtu.be/sH3gI0sZ16k
youtu.be/vr8DR8frP_s
http://youtu.be/lxKAUAQ_Vbk
youtu.be/2CVJ-tIbvZo
youtu.be/AWXDiuUHRFQ
http://youtu.be/RFQgeCmyX44
youtu.be/6u9p69dsHZs


The Quran itself challenges people to come up with something equivalent to it if they claim it is made up by a man. The challenge is not just to bring something equivalent in words or verses, or rhyme or grammar. It must meet the equivalency of beauty, inspiration, and living relevance. It must make grown men break down and cry. I'll be the first to admit it has brought me to tears by it's eloquence and beauty on a regular occasion. It must transform hearts and change the world as the Quran did, is doing, and will continue to do. The equivalent book must be easy to remember and be committed to the hearts of its unlettered reciter and it must inspire other words and books and deeds as no other book is able to. If you can bring me this book, then I will believe you when you say the Quran is just a book written by man.

 

[Scorpion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OncYfSpD_gU


http://www.halaltube.com/passion-of-jesus-son-of-mary



http://www.halaltube.com/nouman-ali-khan-brilliance-of-the-book


http://www.halaltube.com/nouman-ali-khan-quran-the-book-of-timeless-guidance



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6658CB49AD34193DAB9766&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

 

[coldfoot]

It is not in court, and it is not a permanent ruling as far as I am aware. It relates to the issue of a lack of education amongst women in relation to the law. The Lady Aisha (radiAllahu anha)'s testimony alone was the equivalent of two witnesses, so it is not, as far as I understand it, taken to be a general ruling.

So you're disregarding the actual text of the Quran for some hearsay from Allah knows who? Even if it was to be true, the Prophet's wives have a special status that don't apply to everyone, such as they're not allowed to be married after the Prophet's death unlike all other women.

There is NOTHING in the Quran that suggests that Al-Baqara:282 is "not permanent and not to be taken as a general ruling."

 

[Ashes]

Read this in the Guardian today, thought it be of interest to folks in this thread:

Muslims are not betraying Islam in embracing liberal democracy

It is far better to propose Islam than impose it, for if there is no liberty there can be no genuine religiosity, writes Mustafa Akyol.

Full article here

I think Akyol has a book coming out, but the article still makes some interesting points.

 

[OttomanScribe]

So you're disregarding the actual text of the Quran for some hearsay from Allah knows who? Even if it was to be true, the Prophet's wives have a special status that don't apply to everyone, such as they're not allowed to be married after the Prophet's death unlike all other women.

There is NOTHING in the Quran that suggests that Al-Baqara:282 is "not permanent and not to be taken as a general ruling."

The vast majority of Muslims accept the veracity of the hadith.

You are arguing against your own idea of the religion, which has no relation to what Muslims actually believe. What a strange exercise!

I am happy to just leave you to it. You can interpret the Qur'an for yourself, in ways that Muslims don't, then attack your own interpretation. Though why you want such a thing to happen in this thread is beyond me.

 

[coldfoot]

The vast majority of Muslims accept the veracity of the hadith.

I warned you against using argumentum ad populum before, vast majority of people choose Christianity over Islam, so it means it has to be correct choice, right?

You are arguing against your own idea of the religion, which has no relation to what Muslims actually believe. What a strange exercise!

Because what the Muslims actually follow has no basis in the Quran. Most of them have not even read it, and they're only Muslims because Islam is pushed into their minds from their parents/friends/environments since they were little kids, just like any other religion. They can't even fathom the Quran not being right, so rather than admitting with an open mind that Quran was really intended for 6th century arabs and it's outdated now, they cling to what they've been brainwashed for decades and seek reform in the hadith and other hearsay. It's called not being brave enough to entertain the possibility that what you've seen and known for all of your life can indeed be a false reality.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I warned you against using argumentum ad populum before, vast majority of people choose Christianity over Islam, so it means it has to be correct choice, right?

This is not argumentum ad populum when your argument is against the religion of Islam... and when you are choosing to base your interpretation of Islam purely upon the Qur'an.

Because what the Muslims actually follow has no basis in the Quran.

Any support for this assertion?

Most of them have not even read it,

Really? Any support for this?

and they're only Muslims because Islam is pushed into their minds from their parents/friends/environments since they were little kids, just like any other religion.

This is not the case for me, and most of the Muslims I know, who are predominantly converts.

They can't even fathom the Quran not being right, so rather than admitting with an open mind that Quran was really intended for 6th century arabs and it's outdated now, they cling to what they've been brainwashed for decades and seek reform in the hadith and other hearsay.

Brainwashed for decades? Maybe you should look into what brainwashing means? It is not a phenomenon accepted by most psychologists.

Reform in the hadith? What does that even mean?

It's called not being brave enough to entertain the possibility that what you've seen and known for all of your life can indeed be a false reality.

Brave enough? Ad hominum point. Again.

 

[crazy monkey]

I warned you against using argumentum ad populum before, vast majority of people choose Christianity over Islam, so it means it has to be correct choice, right?


Because what the Muslims actually follow has no basis in the Quran. Most of them have not even read it, and they're only Muslims because Islam is pushed into their minds from their parents/friends/environments since they were little kids, just like any other religion. They can't even fathom the Quran not being right, so rather than admitting with an open mind that Quran was really intended for 6th century arabs and it's outdated now, they cling to what they've been brainwashed for decades and seek reform in the hadith and other hearsay.

Hold it playa. WTF are you talking about? I know all of the muslim I know studied quran. one of the first thing we did in out life was to study quran

It's called not being brave enough to entertain the possibility that what you've seen and known for all of your life can indeed be a false reality.

Also dude hold your horses people say this all the time. I had more than enough share of people reminding me I believe in religion. Get off the drug you are smoking.

 

[SmokyDave]

Hold it playa. WTF are you talking about? I know all of the muslim I know studied quran. one of the first thing we did in out life was to study quran.

Reading something and understanding something are two totally different things. Particularly when it's all open to interpretation anyway. You don't really learn the Qur' an, I assume, you learn your teachers interpretation of it. That may differ from the next mans teacher and you can't always both be correct.

 

[OttomanScribe]

He didn't say 'understand' though...

New picture bro? You lose some weight?

 

[crazy monkey]

Reading something and understanding something are two totally different things. Particularly when it's all open to interpretation anyway. You don't really learn the Qur' an, I assume, you learn your teachers interpretation of it. That may differ from the next mans teacher and you can't always both be correct.

We learn it. Each line by line. You are always free to learn on your own. We did not learn only one teachers interpretation. You always use your mind. Everyone asks millions of questions when they are learning this.

 

[kingslunk]

I have a simple question that I've wondered for awhile. Just out of curiosity sake.

How many of you of Islamic faith have sat there and questioned the Qur'an and it's legitimacy?

 

[SmokyDave]

He didn't say 'understand' though...

New picture bro? You lose some weight?

Y'know, that's a really good point. He didn't. Grrrr

Cheers, but nah, I've always been svelte, I just don't photo well.

We learn it. Each line by line. You are always free to learn on your own. We did not learn only one teachers interpretation. You always use your mind. Everyone asks millions of questions when they are learning this.

The thing is, how many of those questions have just one answer, agreed upon by everyone?

I'm digressing though, I commented before fully reading your previous post and understanding it. How ironic

 

[Raist]

You ever heard a woman telling a story? You/Your liberal sex-equality might not like this, but there are more differences between the sexes besides dicks and vags.

Holy shit.

Anyway.

Yet when it comes to performance rather than qualifications, we find no statistically significant differences between the decision-making ability of male and female judges in any of our data sets.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...09/10/do_women_make_better_judges.single.html

 

[OttomanScribe]

I have a simple question that I've wondered for awhile. Just out of curiosity sake.

How many of you of Islamic faith have sat there and questioned the Qur'an and it's legitimacy?

Legitimacy in what respect? I am a convert, so the answer is obviously I have on both possible counts, historical and theological.

 

[Azih]

Where does it say that in the Quran?

The verse said the purpose of the rule is to remove doubt on the validity of loan contracts. It seems obvious to me that if loan contracts can be made strong enough to be be legally binding with another method then the purpose of the rule is satisfied and everything's fine. Your interpretation of the verse seems to be different than mine which is all well and good but has nothing to do with my faith.

This conversation has been incredibly weird, following the pattern of the inheritance question earlier.

You go: "Here's a smoking gun verse that there is NO WAY ANYONE CAN JUSTIFY (as I interpret it)".

Everybody else goes: "Well here are some interpretations that are logical and consistent".

You go: "Your interpretation is invalid, mine is valid and CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED".

What's up with that?

 

[Azih]

I have a simple question that I've wondered for awhile. Just out of curiosity sake.

How many of you of Islamic faith have sat there and questioned the Qur'an and it's legitimacy?

I think everyone here who is quoting from the Quran extensively is able to do so because they pondered the Quran deeply. I know 'the verses of the sword' stuff that gets thrown at Islam disturbed me deeply until I actually looked at the verses in the Quran and their context which proved that they were being incredibly selectively quoted (much like is happening with the debt contract verse right now) and I've been reading the Quran deeply ever since.

 

[SmokyDave]

I think everyone here who is quoting from the Quran extensively is able to do so because they pondered the Quran deeply. I know 'the verses of the sword' stuff that gets thrown at Islam disturbed me deeply until I actually looked at the verses in the Quran and their context which proved that they were being incredibly selectively quoted (much like is happening with the debt contract verse right now) and I've been reading the Quran deeply ever since.

Did you find any objectionable verses that couldn't be whittled away with context?

I'm referring, in particular, to the punishment for adultery. I don't see how that one can be misquoted / misread.

I'm not trying to be an arsehole, I'm genuinely curious. I've never heard a decent justification / interpretation for that one.

 

[OttomanScribe]

My troll senses are tingling with him. I think it was most obvious when his first line of argument kind of stalled and then he started paraphrasing Riz.. And now has taken it upon himself to be an anti-Islam quranist as that gets a rise out of people... I think an Ummah wide ignore is in the making

 

[Azih]

Did you find any objectionable verses that couldn't be whittled away with context?

I'm referring, in particular, to the punishment for adultery. I don't see how that one can be misquoted / misread.

I'm not trying to be an arsehole, I'm genuinely curious. I've never heard a decent justification / interpretation for that one.

Honestly The start of Surah 24 always gets me when I reread the Quran but even there the evidence requirement is absurdly high (four eyewitnesses) and verse 5 rescinds the punishment for those who repent and reform.

 

[crazy monkey]

Did you find any objectionable verses that couldn't be whittled away with context?

I'm referring, in particular, to the punishment for adultery. I don't see how that one can be misquoted / misread.

I'm not trying to be an arsehole, I'm genuinely curious. I've never heard a decent justification / interpretation for that one.

I was confused a lot when I was young but there was other chapter about forgiveness and its greatness and its virtues. Forgiveness is always bigger than revenge IMO. One time one of my teacher said story about how Also This story is still fresh since I heard it in my heart From some article"

"Prophet Mohummed says " Once a thirsty dog was going around a well trying hard to drink from it but couldn't . A whore from a Jewish tribe , on seeing this , took off her shoes and filled it with water to quench the thirst of the dog . Though she was a whore , God remitted her sins for quenching the thirst of the dog ."

The first story is about a woman who took adultery as a craft , a sin that displeases God , a sin that will surely incur God's wrath . But all the sins of the world are nothing if compared with God's mercy . Though quenching the thirst of a dog is something that is not so much , she got a reward that is so much . God stresses this fact in the Holy Quran , God says what means "Is there any Reward for Good other than Good?" (AL-Rahman-60)"

 

[SmokyDave]

Honestly The start of Surah 24 always gets me when I reread the Quran but even there the evidence requirement is absurdly high (four eyewitnesses) and verse 5 rescinds the punishment for those who repent and reform.

That's cool, I can see how you would reconcile that. It kinda opens up another can of worms with the witness requirement but that's not what I was wondering about. Thank you for answering.

I was confused a lot when I was young but there was other chapter about forgiveness and its greatness and I have since followed that. Forgiveness is always bigger than revenge IMO.

In an ideal world, no doubt. Forgiveness is one of those things that is spoken often, but granted rarely.

 

[kingslunk]

Legitimacy in what respect? I am a convert, so the answer is obviously I have on both possible counts, historical and theological.

May I ask what you were before you converted?

I was confused a lot when I was young but there was other chapter about forgiveness and its greatness and its virtues. Forgiveness is always bigger than revenge IMO. One time one of my teacher said story about how Also This story is still fresh since I heard it in my heart From some article"

"Prophet Mohummed says " Once a thirsty dog was going around a well trying hard to drink from it but couldn't . A whore from a Jewish tribe , on seeing this , took off her shoes and filled it with water to quench the thirst of the dog . Though she was a whore , God remitted her sins for quenching the thirst of the dog ."

The first story is about a woman who took adultery as a craft , a sin that displeases God , a sin that will surely incur God's wrath . But all the sins of the world are nothing if compared with God's mercy . Though quenching the thirst of a dog is something that is not so much , she got a reward that is so much . God stresses this fact in the Holy Quran , God says what means "Is there any Reward for Good other than Good?" (AL-Rahman-60)"

So you can commit a major sin like adultery, in islam, as long as eventually, at some point in your life, you do something unselfish, god will forgive your sin? You didn't think this is ironic at all?

 

[Chaplain]

Ok? But how can you know he is lying before even reading what he has to say?

Because he contradicts what God says in the Old and New Testament.

edit: The point is that yes there is ample evidence that "4 accounts of jesus (matthew, mark, luke, john) are grossly error and misinterpreted?". Ehrman's books are a good place to start if anyone wants to know the details.

Jesus said, "“O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes, Father, it pleased you to do it this way!"

God knows who really wants to know him and who doesn't. That is why God hides the truth from those who are in it to turn people away from Him.

This is why the Prophet Isaiah wrote the following about people rejecting God's Word:

“The Lord has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts—
so that their eyes cannot see,
and their hearts cannot understand,
and they cannot turn to me
and have me heal them.”

 

[crazy monkey]

In an ideal world, no doubt. Forgiveness is one of those things that is spoken often, but granted rarely.

We can at least try our best right? World is filled with people of all kinds. Even in the family some times you have totally different personalities but all you can do is correct your self first.

 

[SmokyDave]

We can at least try our best right? World is filled with people of all kinds. Even in the family some times you have totally different personalities but all you can do is correct your self first.

Certainly that is fair. I really like the Gandhi quote, "be the change you wish to see in the world". It's a nice sentiment.

 

[crazy monkey]

Certainly that is fair. I really like the Gandhi quote, "be the change you wish to see in the world". It's a nice sentiment.

His book is one of my favorite. My father gave me that in grade 6.

 

[Azih]

His book is one of my favorite. My father gave me that in grade 6.

Which book is that?

 

[crazy monkey]

Which book is that?

My Experiments with Truth

 

[Pollux]

In response to Riz regarding a defense to the changes in the New Testament...I got nothing. I've looked into it, and yea there have been changes made but from what I can gather the message wasnt affected. Even Erhman says that the message wasn't changed so with that I happily conced that little back and forth to you.

 

[coldfoot]

This is not argumentum ad populum when your argument is against the religion of Islam...

Huh? Your defense is "most muslims accept the hadith so it has to be the truth". Textbook argumentum ad populum. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so

and when you are choosing to base your interpretation of Islam purely upon the Qur'an.

As the only uncorrupted source of Islam, it's more valid and logical to look at Quran than hadith.

Any support for this assertion?
Really? Any support for this?
This is not the case for me, and most of the Muslims I know, who are predominantly converts.

Anecdotal, just like every "support" you give to your arguments. I knew muslims when I was in Turkey but they've never read the Quran besites reciting verses in Arabic they did not even know the meaning of. All of them were unquestionably muslims when asked, despite having no problems with drinking or sex without marriage, but they wouldn't eat pork. Having a beer with them after they came back from the mosque on Friday was not uncommon. It's the only "Muslim country" that's actually making progress instead of being stuck in the 6th century like most other Muslim countries, and the reason is they've westernized the Quran in their minds...Hey, who am I to argue if it works for them, right?

Brainwashed for decades? Maybe you should look into what brainwashing means? It is not a phenomenon accepted by most psychologists.

People overwhelmingly pick the religion of their parents or wherever they grew up. Some fall in with the wrong crowd later on. You're a minority in Australia as obviously not many people take up Islam later on in life in western countries.

 

[Wazzim]

Anecdotal, just like every "support" you give to your arguments. I knew muslims when I was in Turkey but they've never read the Quran besites reciting verses in Arabic they did not even know the meaning of. All of them were unquestionably muslims when asked, despite having no problems with drinking or sex without marriage, but they wouldn't eat pork. Having a beer with them after they came back from the mosque on Friday was not uncommon. It's the only "Muslim country" that's actually making progress instead of being stuck in the 6th century like most other Muslim countries, and the reason is they've westernized the Quran in their minds...Hey, who am I to argue if it works for them, right

Oh come on, when are we finally going to stop seeing these kind of ridiculous remarks?

 

[Pollux]

Oh come on, when are we finally going to stop seeing these kind of ridiculous remarks?

No clue. I'm an American. I love my country.

With that being said, the biggest hypocrisy of the West is that we throw out all this rhetoric about democracy and the will of the people, etc. Yet, when predominately Muslim countries DO have elections and CHOOSE candidates that will implement laws based off religious beliefs, the West bitches and moans about "terrorism and oppression and blah blah blah".

If the people of Egypt want to elect the Muslim Brotherhood, we have no right to tell them not to. If the people in Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan want fundamentalist Muslim governments, that's their right. If we weren't characterizing their religion as evil and backwards then maybe the West and the Middle East might have better relations.

While the way that people may choose to live might not make sense to others, it does not make that way of life wrong. To each his own.

Just my two cents.

 

[Patapwn]

The sentences above are a little clearer, but I still find them obtuse. I'll do my best to reply, but maybe you could make them a bit simpler for me?

Okay.

The first point, that Christianity did not match up with Islam, which I apparently claim is the word of God (I don't, by the way). This is a discussion occurring all around us, whether or not Christians deify Jesus (alayhis salaam) rightly or wrongly. You aren't in a position to argue irrefutably that Christianity was always in its current form, if you want to make that argument, then you have to refer to the other arguments going on in this thread, specifically upon that topic.

I am arguing that the ideas and words presented in the quran were not know or followed by man since the introduction of Christianity. Christianity in it's current form or in a different form does not matter. It's that god sat idol as men in effect were unaware of his supposed religion. In this effect, there was no decay. You cannot claim decay if something has never experienced 'continuous and compounded' breakdown. That was the foundation of my original post so I don't know why it has been lost to you. But that's it in a nutshell.

I also previously explained that in the Islamic cosmology, that people will diverge from the true path of their religion is seen as inevitable, and will happen to the Muslims as well. So your second point doesn't fly either.

You made a claim. However no evidence was presented that this 'decay' exists. Actually, the point I was making about Christianity being different and god not stepping in etc. was argument against your claim. I don't know why that doesn't fly. Just because you don't like a counterargument doesn't mean it doesn't fly. And because you are making nothing but statements without evidence, I claimed you believed such things on faith alone.

You are using a bunch of words without explaining what you mean by them. You are also begging the question all over the place. You say 'God's absence demonstrates this', automatically assuming God's absence within your point. This is begging the question.

Perhaps you believe that god is everywhere always. Fine. That wasn't how I used the word absence though. I was talking about the time period between your god supposedly contacting someone and giving them a prophet license. In that sense, there is no assumption or begging of anything. You said I should make things more simple for you so sorry if there's a problem with semantics. I hope you have a better understanding of my position now.

This ties back to my previous point, why do you make no effort to engage with my points?

You are reasserting your point, without engaging with mine. God does not fail when people reject the religion or corrupt it, because that is His will as much as it is that people accept it and maintain it.

So you believe that it is gods will that people reject and corrupt his religion?

If yes, why does he judge people at all? Should he not judge himself for the wrongdoings of man as opposed to the man he created and willed?

If no, please explain what you believe further. I didn't exactly follow your line of reasoning.

Your definition of the books as being a 'vessel for stories and ideas' is sufficiently broad to render itself useless in comparison. If that is what you want to go with, then go with it. It doesn't make your point.

You claimed your book was magic and unlike anything in it's magicness. I made the claim it was a book made with words and expressing many ideas similar to those found in the bible and torah. You agree that my claim is correct even though it's a broad comparison. I don't agree with your claim for reasons I explained in my responses to you.

The only reason comparisons between the 3 books sparked was because you said the supposed book you ascribe to was 'proof of it's own greatness'. And under investigation this is a claim based on nothing but an article of faith so perhaps it shouldn't be used as proof of anything.

No. The word plagiarism doesn't seem to work to represent the argument you are trying to make.

Uh, yes it does. I did a pretty good job explaining my positing the first time around and see no need in being redundant. If you have questions reread what I wrote. If you wish to debate say something more than 'you just wrong bro'.

Here is where you seem to be stumbling. God's will is whatever occurs, this includes those who are misguided. 'Whomsoever he guides, none can misguide, whomsoever he misguides, none can return'. This is the problem with your understanding my points, is that you are focussing, despite all my points, upon the idea that God's only will is that people know the Qur'an or something similar. I have never said that.

Does your god want people to know his religion or not? I can't break that down any simpler for you. Because there are various implications if yes (which I have been discussing). And there are various implications if no (which I haven't been discussing).

Again, we have a problem. You say that God judges all according to Islam, however you are using your own definition of that word. God judges all according to what was revealed to them, not according to what was revealed to the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) unless they have absolute access to that. Considering God's ability to know exactly what was revealed to them, this is just as equal as were God to pass revelation directly to them.

You made a claim in your response to me I would like to point out. You said: "...God does not fail when people reject the religion or corrupt it..." Comparing this statement with the one above, do you notice a glaring inequality with how god judges? There are people who are revealed info and must believe on faith alone, and then their are as you say sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam... those who are given a situation devoid of faith but an actual occurrence. It's the difference between the apostate who just can't believe on faith alone and rejects your religion (or any religion) and that of the messenger of god. You claim that god judges all equally... given this reality, how? Because it's pretty clear there is no equality in terms of your religion.

What do you mean by 'care'? You are getting deep into anthropomorphism here. The function of revelation and Prophethood are the manner in which the traditions of belief and the articles of faith are given to the community. The completeness of understanding that any specific individual has of the religion, is not an issue, as they will be judged according to what measure of understanding they had.

Going back to the point above, there are people who understand but do not believe. And that makes a great deal of difference. If your god would allow the same circumstances to behoove people as those of the supposed 'messenger of god', perhaps then people could be judged on equal footing.

God exists without the creation of humans, but because God exists, human's exist as a reflection of what God is. One of the attributes of God is 'Creator', so creation exists as a reflection of God.

Is your god powerful enough to be a creator but not create humans? Or create anything? Is he also omnipotent enough to create a rock so heavy not even he could lift it?

No.

Aww snap.

You are begging the question again. You seem to refer so rarely to my actual arguments that I almost feel as if we are not in a discussion at all.

We are having a discussion I think but it's a very odd one. I think I'm making my points clear, but you claim I do nothing but 'beg the question'. I think I've been understandable in my assertions but you claim I have not.

Perhaps we should rewind a tad. The whole discussion I've been pointing out what I would consider inconsistencies with your god as has been presented by islam. The disappearing act he preforms, the unequal judging, the only one man picking up on the heavenly god signals, these issues compound into my overall assertion that your prophet was merely one of the many men who manufacture stories and claims. That is the basis of the discussion.

Currently, you won't even agree on my use of the word plagiarism even though it was used correctly in the assertion it was being made. I'm also feeling very redundant at this point. Do you understand the semantics of that word? Just look at the decay thing, you bark out your points, I ask for some evidence + even give counter points, and you do nothing but... beg the question.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Fisking |OT|

 

[coldfoot]

If the people of Egypt want to elect the Muslim Brotherhood, we have no right to tell them not to. If the people in Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan want fundamentalist Muslim governments, that's their right. If we weren't characterizing their religion as evil and backwards then maybe the West and the Middle East might have better relations.

While I agree that it's not the US's business to tell other countries what to do, we also have the right to condemn countries that ban human rights, or at least use our influence to show them how desirable it is to live where freedom prevails, or even have sanctions against them. For example, I'm perfectly fine with where Iran is today. They'll eventually grow up just like every other country.

 

[RustyNails]

How many of you of Islamic faith have sat there and questioned the Qur'an and it's legitimacy?

I did. Due to ignorance I pretty much left Islam, and this might sound corny but that's around the same time I learned about Sh. Hamza Yusuf. I was back in.

I think everyone here who is quoting from the Quran extensively is able to do so because they pondered the Quran deeply. I know 'the verses of the sword' stuff that gets thrown at Islam disturbed me deeply until I actually looked at the verses in the Quran and their context which proved that they were being incredibly selectively quoted (much like is happening with the debt contract verse right now) and I've been reading the Quran deeply ever since.

Read this Quran tafseer. It goes along with my previous post: http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem.html

It's by maulana syed maududi. As a matter of fact I recommend it to everyone seeking understanding.

 

[Azih]

While I agree that it's not the US's business to tell other countries what to do, we also have the right to condemn countries that ban human rights, or at least use our influence to show them how desirable it is to live where freedom prevails, or even have sanctions against them. For example, I'm perfectly fine with where Iran is today. They'll eventually grow up just like every other country.

That would be fine if such as a standard was applied consistently but it isn't. What happened in Bahrain is as bad as what's happening elsewhere in the Arab world. Hell it's worse because the regime got an outside army to come in and utterly crush the protestors but there's not a peep about it while Syria is constantly being told off. Double standards rob us of our moral authority.

 

[Pollux]

While I agree that it's not the US's business to tell other countries what to do, we also have the right to condemn countries that ban human rights, or at least use our influence to show them how desirable it is to live where freedom prevails, or even have sanctions against them. For example, I'm perfectly fine with where Iran is today. They'll eventually grow up just like every other country.

Yea, I got nothing wrong with Iran. Although I do spout some crazy jingoist American rhetoric in the Iran threads since it stirs people up and usually leads to a good fiery debate.

That would be fine if such as a standard was applied consistently but it isn't. What happened in Bahrain is as bad as what's happening elsewhere in the Arab world. Hell it's worse because the regime got an outside army to come in and utterly crush the protestors but there's not a peep about it while Syria is constantly being told off. Double standards rob us of our moral authority.

Agreed. 110%.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Yea, I got nothing wrong with Iran. Although I do spout some crazy jingoist American rhetoric in the Iran threads since it stirs people up and usually leads to a good fiery debate.

I'll keep this in mind.

 

[crazy monkey]

People overwhelmingly pick the religion of their parents or wherever they grew up. Some fall in with the wrong crowd later on. You're a minority in Australia as obviously not many people take up Islam later on in life in western countries.

Dude you have no idea how many students converted at my university. Every month we had couple of Students at least.

 

[Pollux]

I'll keep this in mind.

You're going to blow my cover aren't you? Guess I'll never be able to troll theignormaus in Iran threads again...

 

[Patapwn]

Have you read the Quran Patapwn? I understand it is natural to think it is nothing, but people don't become Muslims out of thin air. Everyone I know who has come to Islam later in their life came to it after reading the Quran. Christians, Athiests, and even a Bhuddist. Obviously there must be something in there. Despite what people think, the Quran isn't a straight recollection of biblical stories. There are differences even in the stories it does repeat, differences which end up correcting the biblical version of the story in subtle or obvious ways historically, scientifically, and also removes internal story errors which weren't noticed until more recently. I can list examples here, but I would rather encourage you to read it yourself.

The issue that I have with your position is that any religion can make such claims. "people don't become muslims out of thin air" can be changed to "people don't become Christians out of thin air". And that "everyone I know who has come to Islam later in life came to it after reading the quran" can be changed to "everyone I know who has come to christianity/judaism/buddism etc. has come about by reading the bible, the torah, meditating on the principals of Gautama Buddha. Obviously there must be something there!"

I have known musilms who now are christian. They claim that the holy spirit entered them and filled a void that was presnet. My mother who is christian makes these same claims like reading the bible with the holy spirit ect. Does that mean there's something there? I guess, nothing but neurology.

btw go ahead and list the supposed 'corrections'. I would like to see if it is based off of something more substantial than articles of faith.

And btw the oddity of you original statement is that islam claims all are born muslim but that they are converted to another religion so with that said and considering you are muslim saying it doesn't come out of thin air is a bit odd

Ottoman is right though. The Arabic of the Quran is exquisite especially when one considers it comes from an illiterate man living in the middle of the backwater of the ancient world. Even if you don't speak the language, you are able to hear it. Listen to these if you want and perhaps you will hear it.

*snip*

The Quran itself challenges people to come up with something equivalent to it if they claim it is made up by a man. The challenge is not just to bring something equivalent in words or verses, or rhyme or grammar. It must meet the equivalency of beauty, inspiration, and living relevance. It must make grown men break down and cry. I'll be the first to admit it has brought me to tears by it's eloquence and beauty on a regular occasion. It must transform hearts and change the world as the Quran did, is doing, and will continue to do. The equivalent book must be easy to remember and be committed to the hearts of its unlettered reciter and it must inspire other words and books and deeds as no other book is able to. If you can bring me this book, then I will believe you when you say the Quran is just a book written by man.

I hear words of a language. Sorry, but this ties back into a very important point that I was making with ottoman scribe. People talk of the book so highly because they are caught in a cycle of circular logic. It's the same reason the bible was revered as the greatest literature piece in Medieval Europe. And it's no surprise you spout the same ideas word for word I've heard a thousand times about 'the book challenges people to come up with something equivalent etc.' That's because such a thought is not your own idea but the idea of people biased in their proclamation that something is the 'word of god'.

And just for the fun of it, I have found many books and ideas that have done as you claim, are doing as you claim, and will continue to do as you claim. The bible, the torah, the Vinaya Pitaka, etc. Just take dionetics from Scientology and the 'creeds' of Ron L. Hubbard. It even has more southpark episodes dedicated to it than islam! Just because all these religions fit your supposed criteria doesn't mean shit to you. You are a musim working off nothing more than articles of faith. The same as the followers of the various texts I've listed.

 

[Pollux]

The issue that I have with your position is that any religion can make such claims. "people don't become muslims out of thin air" can be changed to "people don't become Christians out of thin air". And that "everyone I know who has come to Islam later in life came to it after reading the quran" can be changed to "everyone I know who has come to christianity/judaism/buddism etc. has come about by reading the bible, the torah, meditating on the principals of Gautama Buddha. Obviously there must be something there!"

Paul did lol. But let's really not get back into that debate.

I have known musilms who now are christian. They claim that the holy spirit entered them and filled a void that was presnet. My mother who is christian makes these same claims like reading the bible with the holy spirit ect. Does that mean there's something there? I guess, nothing but neurology.

btw go ahead and list the supposed 'corrections'. I would like to see if it is based off of something more substantial than articles of faith.

And btw the oddity of you original statement is that islam claims all are born muslim but that they are converted to another religion so with that said and considering you are muslim saying it doesn't come out of thin air is a bit odd




I hear words of a language. Sorry, but this ties back into a very important point that I was making with ottoman scribe. People talk of the book so highly because they are caught in a cycle of circular logic. It's the same reason the bible was revered as the greatest literature piece in Medieval Europe. And it's no surprise you spout the same ideas word for word I've heard a thousand times about 'the book challenges people to come up with something equivalent etc.' That's because such a thought is not your own idea but the idea of people biased in their proclamation that something is the 'word of god'.

And just for the fun of it, I have found many books and ideas that have done as you claim, are doing as you claim, and will continue to do as you claim. The bible, the torah, the Vinaya Pitaka, etc. Just take dionetics from Scientology and the 'creeds' of Ron L. Hubbard. It even has more southpark episodes dedicated to it than islam! Just because all these religions fit your supposed criteria doesn't mean shit to you. You are a musim working off nothing more than articles of faith. The same as the followers of the various texts I've listed.

Part of the problem with followers of any religion is they get too caught up in the word and fail to see the message. The "step back from the trees and see the forrest" sort of thing.

The Bible has no business being considered a great piece of literature for ANY time period. The Bible in the original Greek is stilted and grammatically incorrect. Which does lend credence to the idea that it WAS written by low class manual laborers in the area of modern Israel. Since Greek, or the bastardized form that the Bible was written in, was the lingua franca of the region. Everyone spoke their own language, EVERYONE spoke a bastardized form of Greek, especially those like Peter who were fisherman and would have dealt with foreigners or traders. The educated spoke Latin. Despite it being the Roman Empire, they never forced Latin on their subjects, they just used the Greek that had been there since the time of Alexander.

I've read parts of the New Testament in Greek. It's horrid. If Nietzsche were correct about one thing it was that "If God wrote the New Testament he knew surprisingly little Greek". But you must keep in mind that the Bible, at least the New Testament, unlike the Quran was not dictated to man by God. It was inspired by God and given to man.

Vatican II put's it succinctly as:

In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
(Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 11)

The Blessed Pope John Paul II ("the Great" only the Fourth to have the honorific and the first in a millennia) said this of the Bible:

The language of the Bible is to some degree linked to language which changed over the course of time.... But this only reaffirms the paradox of the [Christian] proclamation of revelation: ...people and events at particular points in history become the bearers of an absolute and transcendent message.
(Pope John Paul II, Address, April 26, 1979)

If an argument for the divine revelation of the Bible is the beauty of its writing, then that is a weak foundation to stand on. The Orations of Cicero and profoundly beautiful, intricate, and moving; and yet, they were only written by a man. The works of many Classical poets such as Homer, Virgil, Livy, and Ovid are examples of the masterful use of language; and yet, they were only written by men. The plays of Shakespeare are another example of the brilliant and masterful use of language that can bring men and women to tears; and yet, they were all written by a man (or men if you give any credence to conspiracies).

Just because a piece of literature is masterfully written, does not mean that it is inspired by God. Just because a piece of literature was written by someone without a firm grasp of the language, does not make it profane (or un-holy/uninspired by God).

The message of the New Testament is what makes it beautiful and holy. It is the New Covenant that God made with man. My Muslim friends in this thread will disagree with this statement. But, we are all free to disagree. That is why religion is a personal and private thing. That is why it should remain private. That is not to say that we can't debate, that is fine.

An exchange of ideas is what this should be about. The idea that you can force conversion on someone is idiotic. One of the last Emperor's of Byzantium said it best when he said:

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood... Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

Don't really know what the last part had to do with anything. I think it comes from someone mentioning forced conversion to Islam earlier in this thread. But I could be wrong. Either way...those are my thoughts for the early afternoon.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Before I get into the replies, this hadith came up in class the other day:

Our Mistress and Mother in Faith, Aeysha narrated, "I ate some thareedah of bread and meat, then I came unto the Messenger of God at which I belched, he said, 'What is this? Stop belching, for those who are most satiated in the world are those who are the hungriest on the Day of Arising'"!--Hakim with an authentic chain.

May I ask what you were before you converted?

I was an agnostic atheist (I believed that God very likely did not exist, but I was not in a position of gnosis on the issue).

Huh? Your defense is "most muslims accept the hadith so it has to be the truth". Textbook argumentum ad populum. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so

This is a strawman argument. My defence is not 'most Muslims accept the hadith so it has to be the truth'.

Rather I am pointing out that you are apparently arguing against the religion of Islam, and against the beliefs of Muslims more generally, yet instead of responding to what Muslims actually believe, you decide that you want to interpret Muslim religious texts yourself, and then tell Muslims that what they believe about them is wrong... and that you find your own interpretation of them to be abhorrent.

As I said, this is you essentially having an argument with yourself. It ties in to my impression that you are trolling.

As the only uncorrupted source of Islam, it's more valid and logical to look at Quran than hadith.

This does not work, your arguments merely end up being against those who only take the interpretation you do, which is very few. Your selective interpretation and cherry picking of Muslim traditions makes your arguments weak and not applicable to the majority of Muslims.

You are limiting the people you are debating with, to those who share your position on the Qur'an, which is a minute minority of Muslims. I don't feel a need, therefore, to engage with you, as your points have everything to do with your own cherry picked assertions, and nothing to do with what I, or Muslims more generally, believe.

I am arguing that the ideas and words presented in the quran were not know or followed by man since the introduction of Christianity. Christianity in it's current form or in a different form does not matter. It's that god sat idol as men in effect were unaware of his supposed religion. In this effect, there was no decay. You cannot claim decay if something has never experienced 'continuous and compounded' breakdown. That was the foundation of my original post so I don't know why it has been lost to you. But that's it in a nutshell.

So you are making a historical argument? If this is the case, then we need to ground our discussion in history. So I ask first:

Do you believe that Christianity existed in the same, unchanged form, from the time of Jesus (alayhis salaam) to the coming of the Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam)?

You made a claim. However no evidence was presented that this 'decay' exists. Actually, the point I was making about Christianity being different and god not stepping in etc. was argument against your claim. I don't know why that doesn't fly. Just because you don't like a counterargument doesn't mean it doesn't fly. And because you are making nothing but statements without evidence, I claimed you believed such things on faith alone.

I made several points, you merely chose to ignore them. I pointed out that the council of Nicea occurred some 300 years after the coming of Jesus (alayhis salaam) and that there remained examples of people who did not anthropomorphise God amongst the Christians, until the time of the coming of the Prophet Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and even after that.

Perhaps you believe that god is everywhere always.

This is not what I believe. God always exists, but is separate from creation. Creation is willed into existence, constantly, at all moments. Indeed as God exists, unchanging, across all points in time, time is not a concept that applies to God at all. For all we know, a multitude of universes and worlds could have blinked in and out of existence, an infinite number of times before this one, and it would not mean anything to God.

That wasn't how I used the word absence though. I was talking about the time period between your god supposedly contacting someone and giving them a prophet license. In that sense, there is no assumption or begging of anything.

The assumption is that an absence exists, and the sense that you use it implies that this absence is more than merely a time period in human perception when no Prophet comes. You use the time period as a foundation for your argument that a more general absence exists, that of God existing at all.

I do not dispute that there are times when Prophets (alayhis salaam) do not walk amongst the community, indeed we live in such a time now, but that does not form a logical foundation to assume that a lack of Prophets automatically means a lack of God, as a Muslim does not believe that God's only role is as a sender of Prophets (alayhis salaam).

So you believe that it is gods will that people reject and corrupt his religion?

Yes, as I said previously, whomever He guides, none can misguide, whomever He misguides, none can return. I don't believe that anything occurs within creation that is outside the bounds of His will.

If yes, why does he judge people at all? Should he not judge himself for the wrongdoings of man as opposed to the man he created and willed?

People are judged because He is the Judge. Those who are judged are testament to His might, testament to His attributes.

You claimed your book was magic and unlike anything in it's magicness.

This initial discussion came out of your assertion that the Qur'an was a book like the OT or NT. I pointed out that it was not, at least not in its form or what people within the religions that follow it believe about it. The Qur'an as proof of the religion was a fairly unrelated point.

The only reason comparisons between the 3 books sparked was because you said the supposed book you ascribe to was 'proof of it's own greatness'.

That is not what happened, read over the posts again.

Uh, yes it does. I did a pretty good job explaining my positing the first time around and see no need in being redundant. If you have questions reread what I wrote. If you wish to debate say something more than 'you just wrong bro'.

I have pointed out the reason that, according to the widely accepted definition of plagiarism, this point does not work. If you either a: have a different definition, or b: reject that the point doesn't work because it does somehow fulfil the definition of plagiarism I have provided, then you need to say so.

Plagiarism is 'taking someone else's works or ideas and passing them of as their own'. I have explained that the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) never passed anything off 'as his own', and indeed affirmed that he came with revelation that confirmed parts of the traditions of others, and clarified other parts. So again, how do you argue that he was 'passing off someone else's work as his own'?

You made a claim in your response to me I would like to point out. You said: "...God does not fail when people reject the religion or corrupt it..." Comparing this statement with the one above, do you notice a glaring inequality with how god judges? There are people who are revealed info and must believe on faith alone, and then their are as you say sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam... those who are given a situation devoid of faith but an actual occurrence. It's the difference between the apostate who just can't believe on faith alone and rejects your religion (or any religion) and that of the messenger of god. You claim that god judges all equally... given this reality, how? Because it's pretty clear there is no equality in terms of your religion.

I have already addressed this, God judges people according to what is revealed to them, he will not judge a Sahabi (radiAllahu anhu) in the same way he will judge me or you. He judges people according to what is revealed to them, if they know little of the religion, they are only judged according to what they know. In this manner, a raging anti-Muslim atheist can be judged favourably, if all they have known of the religion is lies told to them by others.

The definition, in Ashar'i aqidah, of a kafir, is one who is in a position to say that the Rasul'Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is a liar. One who does not know who he is, is not in that position. One who has heard of him, but has only heard lies about him, is not in that position either.

Is your god powerful enough to be a creator but not create humans? Or create anything?

That seems a rather null point.

Is he also omnipotent enough to create a rock so heavy not even he could lift it?

This is a trick of language, not a real point, come on. Why don't you ask if God is powerful enough to make a square triangle?

 

[OttomanScribe]

In other news:

http://theconversation.edu.au/long-...+(The+Conversation)&utm_content=Google+Reader

I thought the above was interesting. It is an article about Indigenous conversion to Islam in Australia.

 

[RiZ III]

In response to Riz regarding a defense to the changes in the New Testament...I got nothing. I've looked into it, and yea there have been changes made but from what I can gather the message wasnt affected. Even Erhman says that the message wasn't changed so with that I happily conced that little back and forth to you.

In "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", Ehrman actually talks about the major implications scribal changes have had on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. He doesn't say the message hasn't changed, he implies but never outright says the opposite. He usually ends his book by saying that faith is faith or something similar, but he lost his own Christian beliefs due to what he came to find out about the historical Jesus in seminary school, which is common among students of seminaries.

The truth is that the original Jewish beliefs of Jesus and his followers were what the Quran claims them to be. In "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity", Lutheran Minister Jeffery Butz puts it best when he says:

"It is more than intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy - the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus." (186)

And in "The Jesus Dynasty", Professor Tabor says

"Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Qu'ran. However, by affirming Jesus as Messiah they are attesting to his messianic message, not his mission as a heavenly Christ [something proclaimed by Paul alone]. There are some rather strking connections between the research I have presented in The Jesus Dynasty and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as a messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source [the source the three synoptics based their gospels on], in the book of James, and in the Didache. To be the Messiah is to proclaim a message, but it is the same message as that proclaimed by Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets. Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Bouth sought to call people back to what might be called the “Abrahamic faith.” This is precisely what we find emphasized in the book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, emphasize doing the will of God as a demonstration of one's faith. Also, the dietary laws of Islam, as quoted in the Qu'ran, echo the taechings of James in Acts 15 almost word for word: 'Abstain from swineflesh, blood, things offered to idols, and carrion' (Qu'ran 2:172).” (315-216)