Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of macgre
macgreFlag for Canada

asked on

Is the Quran flawless? (continued)

This question is a continuation of https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20758455/Is-the-Quran-flawless.html

At mohsyn request I am creating this question, never would I want technology to silence someone's opinion!

I also decided this is an extremely difficult question and so will reward more points (I have quite a few to spare...)
Avatar of hao64
hao64

Hello Mcgre,

Here is a site which provides some background info regarding Quran.

http://www.islamicity.com/education/understandingislamandmuslims/default.asp?ContentLocation=/Education/UnderstandingIslamAndMuslims&CurrentPageID=12&Top=&Bottom=&Right=&Left=&SideBarWidth
=&RightWidth=&LeftWidth=&SideBarLocation=&Style=&CatID=&Destination=/Education/UnderstandingIslamAndMuslims/12.asp

*** link edited by CetusMOD to prevent horizontal scrolling, to use the link, please copy/paste it ***

I will be on a business trip for a few weeks, God Willing I will be back and continue our discussion.  

Peace,
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> We Muslims believe that there is only ONE GOSPEL revealed to Jesus (pbuh), and you plainly prove it to us in your NT you have FOUR DIFFERENT VERSIONS of Gospels which are word by word different from each other

Compare the message of each Gospel and you will see agreement.  Matthew and John were eye witnesses to what Jesus did, their Gospels differ only in perspective not in substance.  Mark and Luke were disciples of the original 12 apostles, and again their gospels only differ in perspective not substance.  This is key, four different people each inspired by God to writte an account of Jesus' life on earth, they all tell their story from different perspectives but they all agree!  Muslims have a single self-proclaimed "prophet" who performed no miracles.

I mean even Muslims must see that a man's testimony about himself is worthless, yet they fully accept the testimony of the one man Mohammed and his "book from God".  The following sums up quite nicely what Christians think about this:

Jesus speaking in John 5:31-47, '"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.
"You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.
"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
"I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?
"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"'

John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Messiah and God Himself said "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased" and God also testified by way of the many miracles that he performed through Jesus.  Who testifies for Mohammed?

> and getting closer and closer to trinity towards the end.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I can say that the concept of trinity is found throughout all four gospels.

> It seems like the further you go away from Jesus, the closer you get to "SHIRK", that is association other gods beside The God, which is the gravest sin of all for eternity.

FTR Trinity is not polytheistic, it is three persons, one God; not three Gods in association.

> This is only your opinion and only a doubt.

Maybe, but I can at least back it up with modern scholarship.  See the following link posted in the earlier thread for some of it (it comes in three parts all of which are interesting reading) http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

> unlike people of the Book who have different Bibles depending on whether they are Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Christian.

Tell me what the Quran was referring to when it spoke of the Bible then?  Do you know?  If you don't then how can you say that any of it is corrupt and expect me to believe you?

> The miracle is that God says in Quran that He made it EASY TO REMEMBER.  And this is proven by millions of people some who do not even know Arabic, memorizing the whole book.  Now, this is a miracle to me.

I knew a fellow who memorized some Shakespear in old english.  He didn't understand all the words he memorized but he thought it was kinda cool anyway.  Is this a miracle?  Human memory does not require God so it is not a miracle for someone to memorize something, even something they don't understand (sort of reminds me of many of my fellow university students ;-)  The miracles performed by Jesus could only have been done by the hand of God and were intended to establish Jesus' authority and God's approval Jesus' teachings.

> The greatest miracle of all that God has sent to mankind is Qur'an in my opinion.

One more reason to reject it then, as it contains clear errors...

> After Quran, I think the greatest miracle of Muhammed (pbuh) is his ascend to heaven and going beyond what Archangel Gabriel could go, closer to God.

How do you know this happened?

> If you knew Muhammed (pbuh), you would love him as much as you love Jesus (pbuh),

What I know of Mohammed I learned from the Quran, and I am not impressed, Jesus though did die for my sins, something that does inspire me to love far more than anything I have ever read in the Quran...

> In one case, Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon to show a miracle to the disbelievers, and they still denied it as you would probably deny it.

Actually Mohammed did not split the moon, at least that is not what I get from Sura 54:1, rather some claim that the 21 kg of loose rocks the astronauts brought back to earth in 1969 constitute as "splitting" the moon; whereas all the moon rock thrown clear by meteorite impacts over the last 1000 years doesn't constitute as "splitting" the moon.  It should be noted that moon rocks were landing on earth LONG before 1969 as a result of meteorite impacts on the moon; but they of course do not fit with the prophecy so they do not count.

I "deny it" because to believe it requires ignoring other facts that contradict it, something I won't do.  Now had the Quran clearly predicted that man would travel to the moon that would be interesting and it does not require me to ignore other facts that contradict it either.

> Miracle of 19 has not affected you even though you seem to like Math.

Truthfully, it is because I know and like math so much that I reject the "Miracle of 19"!  So many of the calculations seem random to me, sometimes you add a little, sometimes you subtract, the only constant that I see throughout is that you can do anything you want as long as you get 19 as a result.

I also find it very interesting that you seem to believe in the "Miracle of 19" as it requires that you also believe that the Quran has been corrupted!  Specifically it only works if you drop the last two verses from Sura 9, verses 128 and 129.  And you still expect me to believe that the Quran is unchanged throughout history and that it is the ONLY uncorrupt word of God?  So it appears that millions of Muslims have memorized these corrupt verses as well, so you can memorize lies as well as truth, interesting...

FTR I also reject similar "numerical miracles" that some claim exist in the Bible, so I am not simply rejecting the Quran.

As for all the people converting Islam, why should I follow in their mistakes?!  They are mere humans and as fully capable of making mistakes as any other human, including you and I!  You and I must make our own decisions because God will hold us accountable for the decision we make, not those made by others.  If I decide to follow them and believe what they say then God will hold me accountable for the decision to FOLLOW them.

PS A fair number of Muslims are converting to Christianty, does that mean that you should too?

> I do not have time to write the whole Bible here and show what is accepted and what is not

Don't feel bad, it appears that no Muslim has the time as I have never encountered a resource anywhere claiming to do just that.  Still, stop saying that the Quran is confirming "it" unless you can say what "it" the Quran is confirming.  I can show that the Bible I read today is the same as the one that existed during the time of Mohammed so unless you can say how they differ I will believe that the Bible being confirmed by the Quran is the same Bible I have today.

> I have answered in my earlier postings what was accepted such as the existence of Spirit, and what was not, such as Spirit not being God Himself.

All you have done is contradicted the Bible and quoted the Quran as proof.  The Quran was written 600 years after the Bible when no one who walked with Jesus was alive.  The Bible was written by people who walked and talked with Jesus or by people who were taught by people who walked and talked with Jesus.  Who do you think new Jesus best?

> No one could dare to exploit or corrupt the Word of God as they would not today, except those who are misguided.

Tell me then what do you think of the last two verses of Sura 9?

> You cannot compare Quran to NT in anyway for the reasons that I have explained to you.  You got to rid of all these concepts in your mind to understand the Truth.

The only concept you seem willing to accept is that the Quran is the perfect word of God, and that I should simply accept that without question.  Sorry I am not going to do that.  I have no problem with you challenging my belief that the Bible as the inspired word of God, why is it so difficult for you to accept a similar challenge?

Sura 5:116, is simply what Mohammed claims Allah (God) told him about what Jesus said when asked about men worshipping him.  Yet those who knew Jesus best, who walked with him, talked with him, ate, drank and slept with him and eventually suffered and died because of him all said that Jesus accepted worship!  You accept the testimony of one man who according to the Quran itself performed no miracles and has no one testifying on his behalf over the word of the many who actually knew Jesus!  Incredible, I say, truly incredible!

> Similar to this you would again not be able to show me any evidence from Jesus (pbuh) regarding his crucifixion, something that goes to say that he was crucified for your sins.  That is again your misinterpretation.

I could but first I would like some closure on the trinity question...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> I will be on a business trip for a few weeks, God Willing I will be back and continue our discussion.

Have a safe trip.  I am a very patient man, I look forward to your return.
Dear Mcghe,

While I am still here I would like to respond to your postings.

We Muslims believe that there is only one Gospel revealed to Jesus (pbuh), yet you have four gospels related by others, in that case it goes into the category of "related" and not "revealed".

We believe that the message of God to His creatures has been the same through out the history Quran being the final one.  All messengers testify for one another and God testifies for all of them and believers also testify for them all making no distinction among them.

See the following verse:
2:285 The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His apostles. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His apostles." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

We make no distinction among messengers (Moses, Jesus, Muhammed,... peace be upon them all) nor among the books (Torah revealed to Moses, Gospel revealed to Jesus Qur'an revealed to Muhammed ...)
When God refers to the scripture he refers to the revelations to His Messengers, and not the related words.  That is why we have in Quran some verses explaining the misunderstandings by the People of The Book, such as the Divinity of Jesus, the crucifixion, the Concept of God, etc.  I believe in Jesus's message as much as a Christian should, as well as Moses's message as much as a Jew should.  That is why I consider myself a Jew, a Christian and Muslim at the same time.  That is why I consider the People of the Book as my brethren in Islam, which was the religion of all the messengers, as Quran states.

You wrote:
FTR Trinity is not polytheistic, it is three persons, one God; not three Gods in association.

And you also wrote:
Jesus saying "if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? "

I see a clear contradiction here because Jesus (pbuh) himself talks about the only God.  That is exactly what the message is, The God is One and Only.  There are no three persons in One God, Spirit of God is NOT GOD, nor Jesus (son of God) is God.  Those are not to be taken in their literal sense because God has clarified that in Quran, He is Only One.  It is obvious that Jesus (pbuh) also had made this point however he is misunderstood.


You wrote:
Who do you think new Jesus best?

Of course God knows him the best, who else?

You wrote:
So many of the calculations seem random to me, sometimes you add a little, sometimes you subtract, the only constant that I see throughout is that you can do anything you want as long as you get 19 as a result.

I do not see anything random as the number of times God mentioned in a book comes to a multiple of 19, as well as the letters used at the opening used in some chapters appear as multiples of 19.    

You wrote:
Tell me then what do you think of the last two verses of Sura 9?

Who decides to keep them out and according to what?  Appearantly their understanding is not perfect and this is what is expected from human beings.


You wrote:
I could but first I would like some closure on the trinity question...

I have shown you how you misinterpreted the verses regarding Spirit in the OT giving you similar examples in Quran.  Hence you have no evidence in the OT as you claimed.
It is not a logical concept to believe in three person in God, because we know about God that HE DOES NOT SHARE HIS DOMINION WITH ANYONE.  

Regarding the splitting of the moon...  As I would not be able to prove you that Moses (pbuh) split the Red Sea, I could not prove you that Mohammed (pbuh) split the moon.  



http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/action.lasso.asp?-database=Quran&-Table=tblMasterTranslit&-Response=Sreply1.asp&-Error=Sreply1.asp&-MaxRecords=10&-sortfield=Verse&-token=&-op=eq&chapter=74&-find.x=10&-find.y=10


Regarding the miracle of 19 and other points you have raised so far...
Read Surah 74-1:56 and think.  I believe it is relevant.


Peace bro,
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> This I believe is the main difference between a Muslim and a Christian, the Concept of The God.  We fear Him and we love Him and we would easily die for Him, but you are just glad that he 'died' for you.

I agree on the first point, but not on the rest...

Christians too love and fear God and would willingly die for him as well, but we also believe that he died for our sins.  That only the sacrifice of a sinless man can atone for sin; that all mankind has sinned, that there is nothing you can do to atone for even the mildest of sins.  So God the Son came to earth as a man, remained sinless and allowed himself to be killed so that his blood could atone for our sins.  What exactly do Muslims believe?

> the Christians do not have sound proofs in their own books but only misinterpretations.

What exactly do you consider a "sound proof" then?  Are not the five verses I posted showing Jesus accepting worship as pretty sound proof that Jesus saw himself as God?  Want to restrict the discussion to the Old Testament only?  Fine, you tell me then how people could see God and live when no one can see God and live?  If not at least a duality then what?

PS The Quran is clearly using plural references to God in We and Our, so it seems to be either an abrogation or a contradiction, it can't be an abrogation because God's character is unchanging so that leaves...

MohdAsalah,

> Exactly, the Christians claim that Jesus(pbuh) is son of the God because as they say that he claim that, they just depend on bibles which written after Jesus(pbuh) after hundred of years and most of historians agree about that and who wrote it not the closely Jesus friends but their students. May be Jesus(pbuh) claim the he son of the God  in a spiritual meaning.

I can produce all manner evidence that is accepted by most scholars that the Bible was written prior to 70 AD and much of it as early as 45 AD, all well within the lifetimes of those who knew Jesus personally.

I checked your links and all the errors I saw listed were translation errors and NONE challenge the central message of the Christian Bible!


PS Am I the only one who is getting a super wide screen version of this question?  I have to scroll to the end of each line in order to read it, most annoying!
سيشسسسسسسسسشس
Sorry for this error.

Macgre,
>I can produce all manner evidence that is accepted by most scholars that the Bible was written prior to 70 AD and much of it as early as 45 AD...

There is no evidence that the Gospel have been written by the disciples of Jesus Himself or even written prior AD, this issue is controversial, so being Gospel like that loose
its reliability.

>PS Am I the only one who is getting a super wide screen version of this question?  

No, I have the same problem.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> We Muslims believe that there is only one Gospel revealed to Jesus (pbuh), yet you have four gospels related by others

We believe that Jesus had only one Gospel too, not four as you suggest.  We have four different writers each telling the same story.
It is sort of like having four different people write your life story, it is still just one story...

>  All messengers testify for one another and God testifies for all of them and believers also testify for them all making no distinction among them.

Yet you make distinctions when you say that the message I have in the Bible is corrupt.

> That is why we have in Quran some verses explaining the misunderstandings by the People of The Book

That is not an explanation, it is a contradiction.  Which would reduce us to "the Quran says..." and "the Bible says..."  
But I further say that the Quran has errors and so cannot be quoted to "clarify" the Bible in any way as no book with errors can come from a perfect God.

> I see a clear contradiction here because Jesus (pbuh) himself talks about the only God

According to the trinity there is only one God, just in three persons.  Does it makes sense?  No.  Does everything about God make sense?  
I say no because God is infinite, no mortal man can ever hope to fully comprehend him.  To say that God can only be what I comprehend is to unjustly
limit God according to my petty limitations.

> Of course God knows him the best, who else?

So now the challenge is did Mohammed know God?

> I do not see anything random as the number of times God mentioned in a book comes to a multiple of 19...

Nor do I but I often encounter a very different interpretation of this "Miracle of 19", maybe you could tell me exactly what you think it is?

> Who decides to keep them out and according to what?

The person who discovered the "miracle" did as it is the only way to get it to work, see http://www.submission.org/tampering.html

I checked and it is interesting to note that Allah (God) is mentioned in those two verses, so the only way to get the word God (Allah) to occur a multiple of 19
is to, as Dr. Khalifa did, drop those two verses.

> I have shown you how you misinterpreted the verses regarding Spirit in the OT giving you similar examples in Quran.

First, I only agreed (and still do) with Callandor regarding the Spirit of God, my verses were about seeing God and living when none who see God can live.
Second, your evidence for my "misinterpretation" was the Quran, a book that is in direct competition with the Bible for the right to be called God's Word.
If the Quran is, as I say, nothing more than the vain imaginations of Mohammed then of what value is it to quote the Quran as evidence that I am
"misinterpretating" the Bible?  Tell me, if you look only at the Bible and not at the Quran, do you agree that the Bible is teaching trinity?  You don't have to
agree that God is a trinity, just tell me if you see trinity in what is written?
SOLUTION
Avatar of hao64
hao64

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
I can't comment on the Quran points here, but I can on the Bible.
MohdAsiah is right (don't faint, MohdAsiah...), it is not mainstream scholarship
that the New Testament (the rest of the Bible isn't relevant to this point surely?) was
written before 70AD. The letters genuinely attributed to Paul were, possibly Mark was,
but the normal dates for Matthew and Luke are around 75-85, with John sometime after that.

The main proponent of an earlier date was JAT Robinson, and many evangelical scholars
have picked up on what he said because it adds authenticity. If you pick up a mainstream
introduction to the New Testament, however, (Brown, Stanton, Kummel etc) you'll get
dates more like those above.

It's also not the case that the Bible is trinitarian. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament isn't,
although there are inidcations which Christians will take as proto-trinitarian such as the
Spirit of God (Ruach) moving over the waters. The only explicitly trinitarian statement in
the New Testament is 1 John 5:7 in the KJV, which is missing from virtually all subsequent
translations because it is accepted as a late addition. There is, however, enough indication
of the way early Christians were wrestling with the position of Jesus and the Spirit, and
signs that they were moving towards an acceptance that they were all part of the one God:
see for example the analysis in John 16 (which liberal scholarship takes to be the Johannine
church's view of what Jesus SHOULD have said on the night before he died...).

Finally, the Trinity is not polytheistic. It's a bit like a Zen koan; three in one and one in three.
Some churches will emphasise the three-ness too much and risk being polytheistic, others
will emphasise the one-ness so much that they risk being Arian (a heresy from the early
church that placed Christ and the Spirit one step below God). But the true expression of the
Trinity is to hold the two experiential truths - that there is only one God, but that in
Christ and the Spirit we meet God - in constructive tension... One of the better analogies is
to say that it is like ice water and steam - three different appearances, different functions,
different characteristics, but the same chemical molecule.
By the way there are too many Christians do not know that Mohammad(PBUH) & Quran have been mentioned in John Gospel(the most eyewitness of Jesus(PBUH) life). He use the word “comforter” translated from the word "Paraclete" in Greek… here is the whole story: http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Since they are related words, they do not qualify as revelation.

OK then I am having considerable problems clearly understanding the difference between "related" and "revealed".

Jesus is a living revelation, the apostles witnessed it, wrote it down and taught their disciples, who also wrote it down;
God also revealed himself to others, like Paul, who would then record what God revealed to them.  How is it "related"?

Jesus had the testimony of men (John the Baptist), and of God, and performed miracles, the apostles also performed miracles.
Mohammed has no testimony, performed no miracles, all we know comes only from him so in a sense everything we have from
Mohammed is "related" as their is nothing supporting his claim that it is "revealed" from God!

> Of course Christians misinterpreted it and go to the other extreme, especially because of their pagan heritage.

Prove it!  I mean really, those who walked with Jesus have a very different story to tell, and I am more inclined to believe those who were with Jesus
who saw the miracles he performed than the one man Mohammed who never knew Jesus.

> No it is God says, not Quran says.

No, you BELIEVE the Quran is God's "revealed" word, I do not and for good reason.  You may say something like, "God says in the Holy Quran...",
I will say something like, "God says in the Holy Bible..." and we get nowhere.

> You did not answer the question.  You had quoted Jesus (pbuh) saying "The Only God".

Actually I did, the doctrine of the Trinity is that there only is one God, but that he exists as three persons.  A mystery no doubt, but it is taught in both old
and new testaments.

> how do you explain that there was no such condition for people to go to Paradise before Jesus came?  What happens to those who came before him?

The condition has always been, before Jesus was born the Jews were waiting for the Messiah to save them from their sins, Jesus is that Messiah, nothing has changed.

Here is an interesting passage about those who were before Jesus (it also alludes to Jesus being God, coming before and being greater than Abraham) John 8:48-59,

The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

> Mohammed (pbuh) similar to Jesus (pbuh) knows nothing except what he is told by God.

How can you be so sure that Mohammed heard from God?  I mean, no one testified on his behalf, he performed no miracles, all we have is his single solitary word!

> I would like you though to realize the point, how a Muslim can read the Bible and do not get the message that you are getting, because they have seen the whole truth not just part of it.

Oh I understand, but I strongly dispute your claim that the Quran is the "whole truth".  I feel you are a LONG way from establishing the Quran as being connected with
God in any way shape or form.

> There are multiple verses in both OT and Quran about Spirit of God, yet we are specifically taught in another verse in Quran about Spirit that He is NOT GOD.

How is it that you rule out the idea that the Quran is contradicting itself then?

> Regarding Jesus (pbuh) from all what he says in Bible, since he never said that he was God, you cannot, we cannot call him God.

But he does!  In John 5:18 we learn that to call God your Father is to make yourself equal with God,
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
It also explained why the Jews were always trying to kill him and accused him of blasphemy.  And Jesus on several occaisons admitted that he was the Son of God or
claimed God as his Father.  The most dramatic example can be found before the Sanhedrin in Matthew 26:63-66,

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.

Clearly to claim that he was the Son of God in this context was to claim equality with God and as such was blasphemy worthy of death.  Is this not clear enough?

> That whoever follows the guidance shall neither fear nor grieve.

First I do truly appreciate you elaborating Muslim belief, but I still have two questions:

1) Where does sin come from?  The Christian idea is that we are free to choose but that we knew no evil until after we ate the fruit of the knowledge of
good and evil and so could not do evil until after we ate.

2) The statement "That whoever follows the guidance shall neither fear nor grieve" sounds a lot like you earn forgiveness, what role does mercy play if you can
earn forgiveness?  Mercy is underserved, "following guidance" is deserved.

PS Enjoy your trip.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah, MATruman,

I am attaching three more or less randomly chosen links that show the LATEST the New Testament could have been written.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/ntmss.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2104/biblioNT.html

http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm

MATRuman,

> The letters genuinely attributed to Paul were, possibly Mark was,
but the normal dates for Matthew and Luke are around 75-85, with John sometime after that

Is that not an early enough date for actual eye witnesses to dispute any forgeries?  Factor in that 75-85 is a conservative estimate of the LATEST date these documents
could have been written and that there are no contemporary accounts of these gospels being forgeries and you have a pretty strong case for them being accurate and
genuine don't you think?

One more point that I want to make that is oft overlooked, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, the temple was destroyed in 70 AD fulfilling that prophecy;
yet no manuscript that I know of mentions the fulfillment of that prophecy.  You would think that someone who was adding things at a later date would say something
wouldn't you?

> It's also not the case that the Bible is trinitarian.

Have you considered any of the quotes I have mentioned previously?  Have you read the first 18 verses of John 1?  I can go on at great length, but lets start there.

MohdAsalah,

Question, did God ever speak directly to Mohammed or was it only the angel Gabriel?

I have to go now but I do plan to respond the the very interesting claim that you make about Jesus actually naming Mohammed...
Dear Mcghe,

You wrote:
OK then I am having considerable problems clearly understanding the difference between "related" and "revealed".
Jesus is a living revelation, the apostles witnessed it, wrote it down and taught their disciples, who also wrote it down;
God also revealed himself to others, like Paul, who would then record what God revealed to them.  How is it "related"?

In the case of Quran, it was memorized as it was revealed, and dictated to the scribes during the lifetime of the Messenger (pbuh).
The whole Quran was complete before he passed away.  In the case of Jesus (pbuh) there was no Gospel other than Jesus (pbuh) himself.  He was raised to heaven and his followers started writing what they remembered.
We do not consider Jesus's (pbuh) followers as Prophets like Jesus (pbuh) though some might have acted on good faith.

You wrote:
Prove it!  I mean really, those who walked with Jesus have a very different story to tell, and I am more inclined to believe those who were with Jesus
who saw the miracles he performed than the one man Mohammed who never knew Jesus.

I do not believe that you have enough evidence in your Bible to contradict Quran regarding trinity, crucifixion, original sin, etc other than your vague interpretations of what Jesus (pbuh) had said.  Remember that the message should be very specific to be accepted.

You wrote:
How is it that you rule out the idea that the Quran is contradicting itself then?

There is no contradiction, just our misinterpretations when there is no clear evidence.  We should not start elaborating until we see clear evidence.  That is the key.

You wrote:
we learn that to call God your Father is to make yourself equal with God, ..Clearly to claim that he was the Son of God in this context was to claim equality with God and as such was blasphemy worthy of death.  Is this not clear enough?

We all call Him Father sometimes, this is not a proof.  Some Jews were just trying to kill Jesus (pbuh) and that was their excuse.  You would read Satan saying to God "You tricked me" in Quran or something to that extent, now should we believe in Satan, in what he says?  Of course not.

You wrote:
>1) Where does sin come from?  The Christian idea is that we are free to choose but that we knew no evil until after we ate the fruit of the knowledge of
good and evil and so could not do evil until after we ate.

Regarding the sin...  That was the way God planned it to happen?  After the disobedience, God forgave Adam (pbuh) and He taught Adam (pbuh) how to ask forgiveness as well.

You wrote:
>2) The statement "That whoever follows the guidance shall neither fear nor grieve" sounds a lot like you earn forgiveness, what role does mercy play if you can
earn forgiveness?  Mercy is underserved, "following guidance" is deserved.

Since the guidance is from Allah and all the facilities provided to you are also from Allah (such your eyes, ears, etc) when you follow the guidance, you have partial credit.  Besides, you would not be thanking enough if you spent your whole life in worship let alone getting to go to Paradise for the blessings that God has given you.  However since you make the right choices in way that is satisfactory to The God, then He rewards you with Paradise as He promised.  Though none of us are perfect so we cannot really boast at any point even right before we die that we would go to Paradise.  However we must always have hope to be going to Paradise.

However the story is Hell is different.  God has made the process of earning good deeds very rewarding , God says when someone walks to Him, He would come running in Quran.  So, there are a lot of ways one can get on and stay on the right path.  It is very hard to get on the wrong one due to Allah's Mercy, except for the one who knowingly chooses to disobey.  And Hell is EARNED through those bad deeds.  It is the fruit of what the inhabitants used to do, says God in Quran.  He classifies them as those who used to reject His Signs, such as His verses, His Scripture, personal experiences, etc.

God has the Infinite Knowledge, Wisdom and He is Absolute, so only He could provide the Justice and could see how a good deed penetrates through the centuries and vice versa.  So we are totally safe in His Hands while we have to watch our back because God warns us against our sworn enemy Satan, who is determined to prove that we are no better than him/her so that we could be his/her neighbours in Hell.

I believe the story of Satan could also be very enlightening, Quran also provides a lot more than what was already known regarding Satans personality and the history.
 
BTW, thanks for the good wishes.  

Peace.
Dear Mcghe,

You wrote:
The condition has always been, before Jesus was born the Jews were waiting for the Messiah to save them from their sins, Jesus is that Messiah, nothing has changed.

I think that Messiah is not someone "to save them from their sins" but "to lead them against their enemies with victories".
Also Messiah could not come to defunct the foundation of their religion and introduce a concept like trinity.
That would create a contradiction to the basis of their belief.
That is probably why some used this logic to kill him..
If I was a Jew at the time of Jesus and he talked about trinity, I would not belive him either, no matter what miracles he shows.
Actually there is a concept of Dajjal in the hadith talking about a creature, who is capable of doing miracles and inviting people to disbelief.

Thanks to Quran, we know that Jesus (pbuh) never said that.  It was just an excuse to destroy him and his message that challenges the common belief.

5:116 And behold! Allah will say: "O jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Peace,
Dear Mcghe,

You responded to my comment as follows:
>> You did not answer the question.  You had quoted Jesus (pbuh) saying "The Only God".

>Actually I did, the doctrine of the Trinity is that there only is one God, but that he exists as three persons.  A mystery no doubt, but it is taught in both old
and new testaments.

I would expect then Jesus (pbuh) to say Us instead of the Only God.  He is talking about "Himself", doesn't he?
This may seem pedantic, but I'm uncomfortable in a multi-faith discussion dating by reference
to my own Christian beliefs. I'm going to use the standard abbrevations of CE (Common Era)
and BCE (Before Common Era) - they mean the same as AD and BC but don't carry the
theological baggage.

Mcghe:

>I am attaching three more or less randomly chosen links that show the LATEST the
New Testament could have been written.

The first link is to a site that majors on the dating of papyri, especially the Magdalen
Papyrus, P64. Carsten Thiede, on whose work the 68CE date depends, does not seem
to hold a university position, and is given to writing books with screaming
titles about 'sensational news'. This site is a response
to Thiede:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

Thiede is pretty much out on his own with this dating, which depends entirely on comparing
the style of handwriting in a tiny fragment of papyrus with the styles in other papyri of known
dates. The consensus for P64 is that it's around 200CE.

The second link is to a site that says none of the differences in the texts create a new
doctrine. I almost agree with that; the exception perhaps is the 'Johannine comma' in
1 John 5 previously referred to and again below, which would have been a strong trinitarian statement.

The third link is to a piece by FF Bruce. Bruce was a major, major, NT scholar, but the
piece referenced is from the 1940s, so it can hardly be taken as the 'latest' evidence.
Even so, he acknowledges that consensus dates are more or less as I stated above,
but he prefers slightly (and only slightly) earlier ones.

When we speak about 'forgeries' and the gospels being 'genuine' I think we're asking the
wrong question. The most likely reason for NOT writing the gospels earlier is that the
apostles were still around and Jesus was expected back any time now. When the apostles
started to die, the need to preserve their teaching about Jesus came to the forefront.The
gospels are undoubtedly genuine records of the teaching as then understood in the churches,
and changes to the gospels since then are unlikely to be significant, but that doesn't answer
the question about how much of what is recorded is what actually happened or was said.

On the Trinity, I'm well aware of the relevant passages. They all point to a growing
awareness of the interrelation between Father Son and Spirit, and John is more explicit
than any other book about the divinity of Jesus. But nowhere in the NT (much less the
OT/Hebrew Bible) is there an explicit statement that God is three in one and one in three.
You say that your NIV stil has 1 John 5:7. The 'official' NIV leaves only the words "for
there are three that testify" from this verse. The KJV adds "in heaven, the Father, the Word and
the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." In the KJV v8 continues "And there are three
that bear witness in earth" before tying up again with the NIV "the Spirit, the water and the
blood". The official note to vv7,8 quotes the passage but says it is not in any Greek manuscript
before the 16th C, and is only in late versions of the Vulgate (Latin translation). If your NIV
has the missing words then it does so because the publisher wanted to include it despite it
being rejected by virtually all translators - the only one I'm aware of that does that is the
Gideons, but there may be others.

To be clear, I don't doubt the Trinity. It's fundamental to my Christian faith. But it's a
doctrine that had not yet been reached by the time of the NT, they were feeling their
way towards it. It's not until the third century CE that there is a clear and widely accepted
doctrine of the Trinity.
so
Macgre,

>did God ever speak directly to Mohammed or was it only the angel Gabriel?
As I know, No.  
but why you ask like this question
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> He was raised to heaven and his followers started writing what they remembered.

Did you not say that the Quran was first memorized?  Could not the apostles have done the same?  Where is the difference?
Could not the apostles have wrote down the gospel in parts much as Mohammed's followers wrote the Quran on palm leaves,
bones, etc.?  Just as the Quran was compiled into a single book AFTER Mohammed died, so to was the New Testament compiled
into a single book AFTER Jesus died.  Exactly how are the two different?

> I do not believe that you have enough evidence in your Bible to contradict Quran regarding trinity, crucifixion, original sin, etc other than your vague interpretations

They are not vague interpretations, they are all quite explicitly stated in the New Testament.  Besides, I say that the Quran contradicts the Bible, I do not say that the
Bible contradicts the Quran, the Bible came first.

More importantly I flatly reject the idea that the Quran comes from God and I don't need the Bible to say that either.  All my reasons for rejecting the Quran as a
divinely revealed book are based on the serious errors I have found within the Quran itself.

> We all call Him Father sometimes, this is not a proof.  Some Jews were just trying to kill Jesus (pbuh) and that was their excuse.

You are carefully ignoring the context, the Jews wanted to kill him because they considered calling God your Father in the sense that Jesus was a capital crime.  Surely
calling God your father in the sense that you imply could NEVER be passed as a legitimate reason to kill someone!

> Regarding the sin...  That was the way God planned it to happen?

I am not sure I understand you correctly, do you completly agree with the Biblical account of how sin entered the world?

> Since the guidance is from Allah ...

I sense that though the words are similar in meaning the thoughts behind them are vastly different.  This is most clearly conveyed when you say that we have to earn
our way into hell.  The Christian idea is that all who sin will go to hell unless God forgives them, and since all have sinned all will go to hell unless God forgives them.
Forgiveness can only be had in one of two ways, though most missionaries will likely have only mentioned the first, the second is very important:

1) By asking God, which imples that you know God and accept his authority.

2) For those who do not know God the following verses apply: Romans 2:12-15,

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are
righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required
by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

> I think that Messiah is not someone "to save them from their sins" but "to lead them against their enemies with victories".

That does not agree with the definition of Messiah I am familar with, please see the following for an excellent discussion on who the Messiah will be:
http://www.i-amfaithweb.net/messiah_ot.htm

> Actually there is a concept of Dajjal in the hadith talking about a creature, who is capable of doing miracles and inviting people to disbelief.

Was Jesus a Dajjal then?  How can you tell a Dajjal miracle from a God miracle?

> I would expect then Jesus (pbuh) to say Us instead of the Only God.  He is talking about "Himself", doesn't he?

Actaully God does say "us" in Genesis 1:26, 'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,"'

In the Trinity there still is Only One God, so there is nothing wrong with what Jesus said, and as we see in Genesis, God has used the term "us" in the past.

> There is no contradiction, just our misinterpretations when there is no clear evidence.

Well then this whole discussion may well be a waste of time.  The Quran suggests that if it were not from God it would have many errors; see Sura 4:82,
"Do they not consider the Quran?  If it were from other than Allah, they would have found many errors."  But it seems that when confronted with an error rather
than admit that there is an error you claim that it is merely a misinterpretation, anything but admit that there is an error.  Sort of like me saying 2 + 2 = 5, you saying
that I am wrong, proving that I am wrong, but I respond by saying, no I am not wrong you merely misinterpret me... much like what is happening with the
inheritance problem in the Quran.

Well I prefer truth and I like to think that I have the courage to admit when I am wrong, even about my most cherished beliefs, so I am content in my knowledge
that the Quran contains many non-trivial errors and so cannot truly be from God.  Sorry if that offends, but in the absence of adequate explanation of the problems I
see in the Quran there is little else I can do...

> If I was a Jew at the time of Jesus and he talked about trinity, I would not belive him either, no matter what miracles he shows.

So we are wasting our time then, you have made up your mind and even if you saw miracles would still not believe...

I have learned a lot about Islam and I do appreciate the respectful manner that you have conducted yourself in this conversation, I wish you all the best.  I have no problem
continuing this discussion as I have learned a lot, but it will take a different "flavour" from this point on.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> I have to go now but I do plan to respond the the very interesting claim that you make about Jesus actually naming Mohammed...

The whole of this argument depends on a single Greek word, "parakletos" or as Muslims claim "periklytos".

My response is to simply copy the following from http://debate.org.uk/topics/trtracts/t04.htm

If in any doubt as to how this word is written, it is simple to review any of the existing manuscripts (MSS). They are open for anyone to examine (including
two of the oldest, the Codex Siniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, both in the British Museum, in London). There are more than 70 Greek manuscripts of
the New Testament dating from before the time of Muhammad. Not one of them uses the word periklytos! All use the word parakletos. In fact, the word
periklytos does not even appear in the Bible!

The rest of the argument was interesting but ultimately invalid because it depends on the usage of the word "periklytos" which was not used in the Bible.

> As I know, No.  
but why you ask like this question

Mostly I am curious, it is a very minor point but I'll mention it any way.

In the Bible when the Holy Spirit came to Jesus as a dove, we are also told that God himself spoke on Jesus' behalf; Matthew 3:16 and 17,

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove
and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

So Jesus fulfilled prophecy, John the Baptist testified on his behalf, the Spirit of God visibly descended on him, he performed miracles that no one else has been
able to do (e.g. healing a man born blind), gave prophecies, AND God himself confirmed that he was his Son.

Mohammed claims to have talked to Gabriel, not God, performed no miracles, but he did recite the Quran.

I mean if today a man came from the desert claiming to have heard from an angel (not God) and could perform no miracles, and has nothing other than his
own word to back up his story... my first thought is get this man a glass of water he is obviously suffering from dehydration!

Exactly what is so compelling to Muslims that convinces them that Mohammed is telling the truth?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> The most likely reason for NOT writing the gospels earlier is that the
apostles were still around and Jesus was expected back any time now.

That is speculation, reasonable, but still just speculation.  I could speculate that because the early church was persecuted that much
of the earlier documents have been destroyed by that persecution or that little was actually written in order to deny persecutors
physical evidence.  In that case Christians and Muslims have much in common as the NT would have been preserved and transmitted
primarily by memory and a few isolated texts.  In either case there is no compelling reason to believe that either the NT or the Quran
has changed, so if we find trinity in the later documents I see no reason to believe that it was not a fundamental doctrine from the very
beginning.

> that doesn't answer
the question about how much of what is recorded is what actually happened or was said.

Intellectually I admit that we most likely will never know with any kind of absolute certainty, but I am reasonably certain that the NT is
accurate and complete today.

> On the Trinity, I'm well aware of the relevant passages.

Do you accept that the foundation for the Trinity doctrine existed from the very beginning, that it is not a later human addition?

PS My NIV does not have the added text, and I have no problem with that.  My faith is in the original words not in the translations,
but I do rely on those translations because I don't comprehend the original languages.  I also study the topic to make sure that I
understand the background of those translations so I can gauge how much they can be trusted.

I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the trinity is true and was part of Christian doctrine from the very beginning.

I understand that you do too, though seemingly for slightly different reasons, I have no problem with that.
Macgre,

>The Answer is the Holy Spirit, who Arrived 50 Days Later…

What a convenient!
"to be with you forever” (John14:16)
I want to understand how the Holy Spirit will be forever with us, where is it now?!

>performed no miracles…

Who told you that he did not perform any miracles! Please try to verify before suppose anything by yourself .

>I mean if today a man came from the desert claiming to have heard from an angel (not God) and could perform no miracles, and has nothing other than his own word to back up his story

What is this insults?!!! Please try to choose your words carefully…
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> I want to understand how the Holy Spirit will be forever with us, where is it now?!

All who confess Jesus as their saviour have the Holy Spirit in them forever as a deposit guaranteeing their salvation.  I can quote
the appropriate NT verses if you like...

> Who told you that he did not perform any miracles!

The Quran does, read Sura 29:50,
Ye they say: "Why are not Signs sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "The signs are indeed with Allah. and I am indeed a clear Warner."

Now the next verse says to consider the Quran, but I would hardly call a book that can't add (as in the case of inheritance) a miracle!

> What is this insults?!!! Please try to choose your words carefully…

I apologize.

I meant no insult, but I can see how what I said could be seen as an insult.

Still, why are Muslims so convinced that Mohammed is telling the truth?
Avatar of Callandor
If Jesus accepted worship from men, He would be qualified as equal with God.  
If Jesus said He had the power to forgive men's sins and actually did so, He would be qualified as equal with God.
If Jesus was not God and did these things, He could not be a prophet of God, because he would be guilty of idolatry.

Does anyone need the specific verses pointed out to them?
macgre

I accept that the Trinity existed from the beginning, it's what God is. The DOCTRINE of the Trinity
certainly didn't; you can trace its growth in the NT texts and then on into the discussions of the early church. The
first issue was the relationship of Christ and God; the "logos" theology which is expressed in John 1:1-18 (The Word
existed from the very beginning... the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us) is the clear step towards a "binary"
but not yet a Trinity. There were also many other issues to settle - were there actually two 'persons' in Jesus, the
human and the divine? Was the flesh merely a 'cloak' over the divinity of Jesus, so that he didn't really suffer?
And so on. A good book setting out the early controversies is 'The Early Church', Henry Chadwick, Penguin Books.

The full doctrine of the Trinity does not develop in the NT. There is no statement in the NT apart from the Johannine
comma that says anything about Father Son and Holy Spirit being one God in three persons. It is a human doctrine
and it's probably incomplete, but the experience of Christians down the ages is that it is true, and when you try
to put any one person of the Trinity "in charge" the church tends to fall into error.

I'm not sure I follow your argument about the texts. We don't have the original letter from John the Elder which
is in the Bible as 1 John, we only have later copies. All of the copies that we have in Greek are missing 1 John 5:7
until you get to 16th century copies where it appears again (it appears as a variant reading in a few earlier Greek texts,
but none before about 1200). The only old-ish text we have which has the comma is the 4th C Vulgate, the Latin translation
of the original Greek. It seems likely that this was a marginal gloss, added as a teaching point - just as v8 shows
Spirit blood and water, so you have a trinity of Father Son and Spirit. The overwhelming evidence is that it was not
part of the original text.
Macgre,
> I mean if today a man came from the desert claiming…

By the way, most of prophets are from the desert like, Jackob, Isaac, Saleh, Ismaeel or descendant from people live in desert like Jesus himself (peace be upon them all) and many other.


For your information the Quran itself is miracle, I show you before the scientific facts that Quran contain it but I do not know what is wrong with you!
The Quran mentioned scientific facts, which discovered just in this century and contain a unique mathematical structure as a manifest sign from the God.


>All who confess Jesus as their saviour have the Holy Spirit in them forever as a deposit guaranteeing their salvation….

Excuse me!….this is myth.
Well, then how the Holy Spirit “will remind you of everything I [Jesus] have said to you”?
Claiming that “parakletos” which mean “'lawyer'” or “glorious” is the Holy Spirit is not convincible and does not make sense!



Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Callandor,

> If Jesus said He had the power to forgive men's sins and actually did so, He would be qualified as equal with God.

I know that in Mark 2:7 we are told that only God can forgive sins, but it also appears that Jesus gave us the power to forgive sins in
John 20:23,

If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

So a reasonable challenge could be made against that statement.  However, a detailed examination will reveal that before Jesus made
this statement it was widely accepted that only God could forgive sins; and Jesus' habit of forgiving sins oft caused him trouble for
that very reason.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> The DOCTRINE of the Trinity
certainly didn't; you can trace its growth in the NT texts and then on into the discussions of the early church.

I most respectfully disagree.  The doctrine of the trinity can be clearly found in the "Synoptic" gospels which you accept as some of the
earliest texts we have.  The church may have struggled with understanding it, but that struggle was born out of the presence of the
doctrine in the earliest texts, the doctrine is not a alter addition born out of mere human debate.  I like to think of myself as a somewhat
intelligent person and I admit that I can make no rational sense out of a trintarian relationship, so the debate is perfectly understandable.

Maybe this is just a misunderstanding, but when I read comments like "you can trace its growth in the NT texts" I get the impression
that the version of a book of the NT I have today is not the same as the one written in the first century.  That the text has changed
over time to incorporate this doctrine.  That conflicts with my knowledge of earliest texts, that they are essentially the same as later
ones.  However if what you meant was that later books of the NT were more explicit in teaching the trinity, then that is acceptable to
me as it agrees with the evidence that I am familiar with.  If that is not the case then please point me to the evidence that any NT book
has been edited over time into something significantly different then what it started out as.

> The full doctrine of the Trinity does not develop in the NT.

If you are looking for an explicit statement like, "God is a trinity of Father, Son and Spirit" then you are correct that is not found
anywhere in the Bible.  However, the evidence supporting a trinitarian view is considerable, in fact it is impossible to ignore, so I hardly
consider the trinitarian doctrine a mere human doctrine.  Is it incomplete?  Well ya!  Everything we know about God is incomplete, no
one can claim to fully know the character and nature of God!

> I'm not sure I follow your argument about the texts.

My NIV Bible lists the alternate reading as a footnote and in the appendix it explains it pretty much as you did.  If there is anything else
about what I posted that you would like clarified just ask.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> By the way, most of prophets are from the desert like, Jackob, Isaac, Saleh, Ismaeel or descendant from people live in desert like Jesus himself

All the Biblical prophets performed miracles to distinguish them as genuine prophets of God and not mere pretenders.  Mohammed did not.

> For your information the Quran itself is miracle, I show you before the scientific facts that Quran contain it but I do not know what is wrong with you!
The Quran mentioned scientific facts, which discovered just in this century and contain a unique mathematical structure as a manifest sign from the God.

I have heard all your claims about scientific facts and mathematical codes and I have investigated them for myself and found them utterly empty!  If you have
answers to any of my previous questions or have any new "facts" or "codes" to present I will gladly hear them now; otherwise your claim that they exist is of
absolutely no value.

> Excuse me!….this is myth.

Oh really, who says so?

> Well, then how the Holy Spirit “will remind you of everything I [Jesus] have said to you”?

By interacting with our human spirit, this can be manifest simply as a "small still voice" (our conscience), or in more dramatic cases signs, visions and such.

> Claiming that “parakletos” which mean “'lawyer'” or “glorious” is the Holy Spirit is not convincible and does not make sense!

So now in order for something to be true about God it has to make sense to you.  I would not believe in any God that could be fully contained in the thoughts of men!
By this statement are you also suggesting that everything in the Quran makes sense to you?  How then can the Quran be misinterpreted?  I do clearly remember you
saying that once, I can provide a direct quote if you like...
>If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

I think this is in reference to sins committed by someone against you; only Jesus had to power to forgive sins against God.
Otherwise, people would have a way of escaping the last judgment by means other than Jesus' atonement.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Callandor,

It sort of depends on who Jesus was talking to, anyone in general and your objection is duly noted, believers only would be another
question.  In any event, I am sure if my motive for forgiving was not pure God would still hold people accountable.  Personally there is
far more reason in the Bible to let God be the only judge, I truly don't want that responsibility!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

Just in case you forgot I went ahead found one of the statements you made earlier...

On 03/18/2004 04:31AM PST in https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20919712/Scientific-facts-prove-the-existence-of-God.html you said:

Macgre, if there is realy error this error in our interpretations not in the quran, and also in some of translation(not precisely)
We are trying in our interpretation of Quran verses especially when he is talking about the scientific facts to search for most one is fit
for corresponding verse, some of these may not fit not because these verse have error but because these verse have an ambiguity and
we may not find yet which fact that can fitting these verse or we may make error in fitting method.  as example if Quran realy said that
the barrier is between Atlantic & Mediterranean and the water completely did not overpass then all of us will agree with you, also there
is other facts are 100% fitting the verses.  Again there is no error, if there is really error in some of these facts then the error in out
interpretation of some this verses.

From this I get two things:

1) Muslims simply believed Mohammed when he said the Quran is from God, still I ask why?

2) You don't understand everything in the Quran, just like I don't understand everything in the Bible, like the trinity...
Macgre,

>All the Biblical prophets performed miracles to distinguish them as genuine prophets of God and not mere pretenders..

This is not true, please tell me what is the miracles that Noah performed?! or Abraham? or Jackob? (Peace bee upon them all).

>I have heard all your claims about scientific facts and mathematical codes and I have investigated them for myself
and found them utterly empty...

Excuse me!
of course it is empty because it doe not fit your believe...

>By interacting with our human spirit, this can be manifest simply as a "small still voice" (our conscience), or in more dramatic cases signs,
visions and such.

From all of your mind believe that!

>So now in order for something to be true about God it has to make sense to you...

I said that the argument FROM CHRISTIANS(not from God) about the interpretation of "Parakletos" and
will remind us of everything Jesus have said to mean as Holy Spirit does not make sense.

> Muslims simply believed Mohammed when he said the Quran is from God, still I ask why?

What is this strange question!
This is like this question, Why do you believe that Jesus(PBUH) is son of the god?

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> This is not true, please tell me what is the miracles that Noah performed?! or Abraham? or Jackob? (Peace bee upon them all).

Maybe you should ask me first if I believe that Noah, Abraham and Jacob are prophets.  It may surprise you to learn that as far as I
know Jews and Christians don't consider any of these men prophets, largely because the performed no miracles!  Why do you consider
them prophets?  There is no Book of Noah, or Book of Abraham, or Book of Jacob, yet every other prophet has a book named after him,
ever wonder why?

> of course it is empty because it doe not fit your believe...

I know that is what you believe, fact is in order for me to accept those ideas as true and therefore evidence that the Quran is from
God, I have to ignore other facts that I am certain are true.  Something I simply will not do.

It goes like this MohdAsalah:

1) you claim X to be true
2) in order for X to be true Y must be false (they are mutually exclusive premises)
3) I KNOW beyond any reasonable doubt that Y is true
4) therefore X cannot be true

So far for every X that you have mentioned I have found a Y that I know is true and so I reject your X as false.

> From all of your mind believe that!

Yes, I have experienced it personally and I can find numerous quotes from the Bible in support of it.

> This is like this question, Why do you believe that Jesus(PBUH) is son of the god?

No it isn't!  Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Son of God, the Spirit of God
descended visibly on Jesus, God himself confirmed verbally that Jesus was his Son, Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that
he was from God, the apostles performed many miracles in the name of Jesus.  All these acts were performed openly for all to see
from the very beginning and not hidden like your presumed "Miracle of 19" mathematical code and "scientific miracles" that are only
NOW being understood...

Mohammed said he heard from the angel Gabriel.

Don't you see a difference?  I mean when someone asks why I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, I have a long list of reasons to
point to; when someone asks why do you believe that Mohammed heard from the angel Gabriel all you say is "Because Mohammed
said so..." or something like that.

If I am missing something then please forgive my ignorance and tell me why do you believe that Mohammed heard from the angel
Gabriel?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

FTR The Bible mentions a test for prophets, it is found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22,

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name
of other gods, must be put to death."  You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the
LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not
spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
macgre

I think a lot of the differences between us are semantic. When I say that the doctrine of the
Trinity is human, all I mean is that it is a human attempt to express a divine truth. The
Trinity itself is the truth, the doctrine is a limited human expression of it.

I don't mean that the texts of the NT have changed over the years; there are differences but
they're not in most cases significant. I mean that the later the text was originally written the
more likely you are to find the beginnings of trinitarian thought in it. We may disagree about
the level of that trinitarianism, but that's a fairly minor point.

But let's try another one... !

Prophets. I think I agree with you that I wouldn't put Abraham and Moses in the category of
prophets, I would put them as patriarchs. But it's an interesting question as to why they're
not. Mostly I think it's the categorisation that Judaism gives them; Torah, History and Prophets.

But I don't think you can claim miracles as the test. We have no record of miracles by most of
the minor prophets in the OT. And you can't make having a book of the Bible named after you
a test either; there's no book of Elijah or Elisha, yet there's a book of Ruth.
Macgre,

> Jews and Christians don't consider any of these men prophets, largely because the performed no miracles!...

Then what do you consider them!
The prophet is who send by God to people to say His message. the God may sometimes support him with miracles
if the people deny that he is prophet.

> There is no Book of Noah, or Book of Abraham, or Book of Jacob, yet every other prophet has a book named after him,
ever wonder why?

You may make chaos between the concept of prophet and messenger here, The messenger is sent to a CERTAIN people and mostly
do not have book. The prophet is sent to ALL people to a different era like Jesus(PBUH),Mohammad(PBUH) .

> I have to ignore other facts that I am certain are true....

Like what?

>I have experienced it personally and I can find numerous quotes from the Bible in support of it.

come on macgre, still believe in your experiment!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> But let's try another one... !

Actually I rushed myself a bit with that one and made some sweeping generalizations that may come back and bite me... OUCH

You have pointed out two of them in any case, miracles are not required, though they do lend considerable authority when
they are present; nor is having a book named after you.

But the main point I have still stands, why do Muslims believe that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel?  As far as I know
they only have Mohammed's word that he did...

As for your comment that most of the minor prophets performed any miracles, I am not certain, I will have check and get
back to you...

Something else that you may find interesting is that Christians consider Daniel a prophet but most Jews don't!
Matruman,

> I think I agree with you that I wouldn't put Abraham and Moses in the category of
prophets, I would put them as patriarchs. But it's an interesting question as to why they're
not.

May be this is your own categorization, but if we refer to the meaning of prophet we find that
the prophet who is send a message from god to the people as Moses(PBUH) and Abraham(PBUH) did.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> Like what?

Like iron having only three stable isotopes and not four as is required by the "Miracle of 19", lets start there and see where it goes...

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

I suggest that the test for a prophet be as in described in the Bible, the verse I mentioned earlier in Deuteronomy...

If we agree on that then we can discuss who is and is not a prophet if it is deemed important.

My main point is getting lost, so I will restate it once again:

Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed spoke with the angel Gabriel?
>Like iron having only three stable isotopes and not four as is required by the "Miracle of 19",

First,  "Miracle of 19" did not relate to the Iron that mentioned in Quran.

Second, Did the Quran said that the iron have three stable isotopes or four! why do you consider this as wrong
if we faild(I suppose) in the interpretation of the verse itself.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> First,  "Miracle of 19" did not relate to the Iron that mentioned in Quran.

I have heard it mentioned in connection several times, see http://www.submission.org/miracle/iron.html

If you do not see it connected to the "Miracle of 19" then I will henceforth out of respect for your individuality refer to it as the
"Manifest Sign of Iron".

> Second, Did the Quran said that the iron have three stable isotopes or four! why do you consider this as wrong
if we faild(I suppose) in the interpretation of the verse itself.

Fine then, retract your claim that there is a miracle in the Quran commonly known as the "Manifest Sign of Iron" until such a time as
you can correctly interpret the verse.

As it stands your "interpretation" (if you can call it that) clearly stated that iron has only 22 isotopes and that four of those are stable.

From https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/20919712/Scientific-facts-prove-the-existence-of-God.html on 03/18/2004 10:52AM PST:

- There are 4 stable isotopes of Fe
[30 - 26] = 4

- One of the stable isotopes of Fe is is Fe-57.
[Sura 57]

- There are 22 known isotopes of Fe.
[Iron is mentioned in 22.22]

According to the latest scientific research that I found in  http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/iso026.html iron only has three stable
isotopes, the most abundant isotope is Fe-56 (>90%) and there are 30 known isotopes.

So either your interpretation is wrong or the Quran is wrong, either way you should not claim the "Manifest Sign of Iron" as a miracle
until you can get your facts straight...

Again I want to know why Muslims believe that Mohammed was telling the truth when he said he spoke with the angel Gabriel?

You asked me why I think Jesus is the Son of God and I gave you several reasons, can you give me even one reason for believing
that Mohammed spoke with Gabriel?
>Fine then, retract your claim that there is a miracle in the Quran commonly known as the "Manifest Sign of Iron" until such a time as
you can correctly interpret the verse.

Our main point was if the Quran has wrong or not, the interpretation is another issue.
I think we talk too much about the iron that mentioned in the Quran, and no need to reopen it here, Just I want to say that the other
isotopes is man-made.

>If we agree on that then we can discuss who is and is not a prophet if it is deemed important.My main point is
getting lost, so I will restate it once again.

No, this is our main point, You can not test the prophet if he has miracle or not and not all prophets had miracles as I showed you.


>You asked me why I think Jesus is the Son of God and I gave you several reasons
What is these reasons, you did not give me any reason!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> Just I want to say that the other isotopes is man-made.

Where did you get that information?  If it is just your opinion and you can't back it up then retract it please.

Still, you said that there were four stable isotopes, yet there are only three, and the one we differ on is most certainly not man-made!

> No, this is our main point, You can not test the prophet if he has miracle or not and not all prophets had miracles as I showed you.

I tentatively agree, I was rash when I made that statement initially, something I work hard at avoiding, but hey I am human after all.  I still want to know why
Muslims believe that Mohammed spoke with Gabriel.  If you want to talk about other prophets fine we can do that, but please answer this question.

> What is these reasons, you did not give me any reason!

I gave you a long list of reasons, but to save you the trouble of looking them up I will repost them here:

Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Son of God, the Spirit of God
descended visibly on Jesus, God himself confirmed verbally that Jesus was his Son, Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that
he was from God, the apostles performed many miracles in the name of Jesus.  All these acts were performed openly for all to see
from the very beginning and not hidden like your presumed "Miracle of 19" mathematical code and "scientific miracles" that are only
NOW being understood...

Plus in many other places I have quoted verses from the Bible were Jesus accepts worship and even openly admits that he is the Son of God.  If it is really
important to you I will attempt to make a complete list of every reason I have for believeing that Jesus is God and that God is a trinity, but be forwarned the
list is VERY long... it will take a long time to compile and will easily double this threads current size!  And still there may be some that I miss...

accroding to macgre
>>Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Son of God, the Spirit of God
descended visibly on Jesus, God himself confirmed verbally that Jesus was his Son, Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that
he was from God, the apostles performed many miracles in the name of Jesus.  All these acts were performed openly for all to see
from the very beginning and not hidden like your presumed "Miracle of 19" mathematical code and "scientific miracles" that are only
NOW being understood...

i dint understand why dint god save Jesus (his own son) from hanging on cross till death.

Because the Old Testament stated that the shedding of blood was necessary for covering sin.
The Passover lamb was a preview of what Jesus would do, except what Jesus did would apply to all who believe,
for all time - unlike the lamb which needed to be sacrificed year after year.  This is the reason Jesus had to be God,
because no ordinary sacrifice could ever cover all sins, for all time.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

qatil,

> i dint understand why dint god save Jesus (his own son) from hanging on cross till death.

Why stop there, why not ask why Jesus, God's Son, didn't live in a palace with servants as a king with absolute authority?

The answer is that is not why he came!  Living in a palace with servants as a king would not save us from our sins.  Some of the Old
Testament prophecies that Jesus fulfills speak of him suffering and dying.  How could God's Son suffer and die unless God intended to
let it happen?  God, with all the power and authority available to him could have saved Jesus at any moment; so why would he let Jesus
suffer and die if not for the most noble purpose of all, to save us all from our sins!  Just as the New Testament says he did and as the
Old Testament predicted long before he was born.

Do you think that Jesus should be more like Mohammed, a wealthy man with wives and the authority of an earthly king?
Macgre,

> wealthy man with wives and the authority of an earthly king

This is not true, Mohammad(PBUH) was poor, I do not know from where did you get your information!

>Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies.

Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies as just prophet, not Son of God.

>John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Son of God...

Unfortunately, Gospels is unreliable resource, they had been written after Jesus for a long time and contain too many contradictions.
Macgre, there is no resources other than Gospels said that Jesus is Son of God.

>Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that he was from God.

Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that he was prophet as many prophets before him did that.

>to save us all from our sins

How so!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> This is not true, Mohammad(PBUH) was poor, I do not know from where did you get your information!

From http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/trade/prophetmohammed.htm (among other places) where it says that:

His uncle arranged a marriage for Mohammed when he was 25 with Khadija a wealthy widow who was 10-15 years older than Mohammed.  

> Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies as just prophet, not Son of God.

Does that include this one about the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6,

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Here we have a "son" being called Mighty God, seems pretty clear to me that the Messiah (Jesus) was much more than just a prophet...

> Macgre, there is no resources other than Gospels said that Jesus is Son of God.

I would limit myself to just the Old Testament if it would make a difference.  The truth is MohdAsalah, you will always claim that whatever evidence from
the Bible I produce in favour of Jesus being the Son of God is nothing more than a corruption.  You have already made up your mind and no amount of
Biblical evidence or evidence that the Bible is uncorrupt will ever convince you.

> Jesus performed many miracles to confirm that he was prophet as many prophets before him did that.

As one would expect for such a major revelation.  What did Mohammed do?

> How so!

It involves the concept of redemption.  We are redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice, not without condition, but the only conditions are that we believe in God and his
promises, one of which is that we are saved by Jesus' sacrifice.

As Callandor mentioned earlier, all this is in accordance to what is taught in the Old Testament.

We cannot redeem ourselves by any human effort, no act of obedience or righteousness can atone for even the most trivial sin we have committed, and we
have ALL sinned.  What is required is an offering unblemished with sin and no mere mortal man is without sin so no man can make the required offering. That
is why God sent his Son in the flesh to be what is required, to ransom us from sin and death.

God made the law, we broke the law, God saved us from the law.  The law is perfect and good, it exposes our sinful nature, and so cannot be abolished, only
fulfilled, yet we could not fulfill the requirements of the law, so God had mercy on us and fulfilled the requirements of the law for us and gave us hope.  Now we
have only to believe in God's promise of salvation.  Does this mean we should not strive to live good lives?  No, that would be to mock God, something that has
very serious consequences.  God still expects us to try to live good lives, but our salvation is in no way dependent on how well we live good lives, only that we
believe God's promise of salvation, that is the promised Messiah, Jesus.

Just as Cato ended all his speeches with "and Carthage must be destroyed", I will end by repeating my question:

Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed talked with the angel Gabriel?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I also learned that Mohammed had 23 wives.  His "favourite" wife was only 6 years old when he married her (she was 17 when he died).

According to the Quran Sura 8:41, 20% of all war plunder was given to "Allah and the Prophet", so Mohammed had access to CONSIDERABLE wealth...

Jesus had no wives, and no war plunder, he came to serve not be served...


Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed talked with the angel Gabriel?
MohdAsaiah

>there is no resources other than Gospels said that Jesus is Son of God.

The Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of Paul, the Letter to the Hebrews, the epistles of Peter,
and the epistles of John all say that Jesus is the Son of God. If you meant the New Testament
and not the gospels, many of the apocryphal gospels also say that Jesus was the Son of God. So
does the first Epistle of Clement, dated probably to the end of the first century CE. So do almost
all of the early church fathers after Clement. So do all Christians after that.

There is no witness outside the Christian tradition that Jesus is the Son of God. This is for the very
good reason that admitting Jesus to be Lord makes you a Christian...
In past in order for you to be heard you needed to be with the Herd.

God was created as no one was knowing nitti-gritties of nature and could not believe without any apperent power it can sustain.

Change is basic truth of nature, thats why todays truth may be tommorrows false, turn the pages of history and remove your
prejudices you will find it.

Neuton was greatest of his time now Einstein is greatest, thanks god they did not require to be declared prophets to be believed and
not burnt or crucified.

PS: Pardon me for spellings and grammer.
MATruman & Macgre,

Sorry I mean New Testament not Gospels, by the way what is the different between them?

>many of the apocryphal gospels also say that Jesus was the Son of God.

And some other say that he is not son of God
MohdAsaiah

The (canonical) gospels are the first four books of the New Testament
it contains 28 in all, though the gospels are longer than most of the others.

I'm not an expert on the apocryphal gospels, but since most are later than the canonical
ones I would expect most to either affirm that Jesus is the son of God or at least not deny it.
Which apocryphal gospels specifically deny the divine nature of Jesus?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

ashunigam,

> Neuton was greatest of his time now Einstein is greatest, thanks god they did not require to be declared prophets to be believed and
not burnt or crucified.

Funny, last I checked scientific knowledge does not require faith; still the scientific community has been known to ridicule non-standard
theories and ruin the careers of those who propose them, the academic equivalent of being burnt and crucified...

You are comparing apples and oranges, Newton's and Eistien's theories are mathematical in nature and have been confirmed by
experimentation.  Neither the Bible nor the Quran are anywhere near as precise as mathematics and I am unaware of any experiment
confirming their "theories".
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> it contains 28 in all

Last I counted my NIV had only 27... ;-)

I think MohdAsalah may be referring to the gospel of Barnabbas (sp?), I vaguely remember reading that it does not teach that Jesus
is the Son of God, very vaguely...
>There is no witness outside the Christian tradition that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is my argument, nither Old testanment nor Quran say that Jesus is son of God, there is even
some Gospels also did not say that.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

The Old Testament quite clearly says that the Messiah is the Son of God, remember Isaiah 9:6 I quoted earlier?  Sura 3:45 of the Quran
admits that Jesus is "the Messiah" (or "the Christ" in Greek).

So according to the Quran Jesus is the Messiah and according to the Old Testament the Messiah is the Son of God, actually the verse I
quoted in Isaiah explicitly says Mighty God, but it also refers to the Messiah as a "son", put two and two together and you have a very
convincing argument for the Messiah being the "Son of God".

I can provide many more Old Testament verses that support the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God.

PS I checked my vague memory and indeed it is the gospel of Barnabas that claims that Jesus denied being the Messiah and the Son of
God.  However, there is very strong evidence that it is a Muslim forgery written between 1300 and 1350 AD.

This site gives a good quick overview of the subject: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/barnabas.htm

I did a lot more research and I can tell you that it is only the tip of the iceberg!

Do you have any other texts that claim that Jesus is not the Messiah/Christ/Son of God?  I would be most interested to learn about them...


Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed talked with the angel Gabriel?
Macgre

>Last I counted my NIV had only 27... ;-)

Whoops!! I can never remember, and always count. The Bible I looked in had the
books in two parallel columns, I counted the first and multiplied by two without realising they
had adjusted the spacing in the second column... I think I'd better just stop digging this
hole deeper...

Good stuff on the Gospel of Barnabas, as you say it is totally different from the epistle, and
clearly a mediaeval forgery.
I had come to this discussion too late.  Here are some links I have found after some extensive research.
I found the site www.islamonline.org and http://www.thetruereligion.org to be very interesting to learn about islam.
A lot of the questions are asked and answered by scholars of Islam.  They are very open minded, respectful and open to more questions.  I had found a lot of the questions being asked here, being asked on the site.
Lets get the answer from the people who know and have studied the religion and the Quran longer than us.  
I do not know much about the Quran.  But I believe that if I have any questions regarding it, I ask someone who knows the MOST about it.

http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=55489
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=74390
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=78283
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

I agree that you should ask those that know it best, that is why I welcome and enjoy the participation of Muslims in this discussion.
To the credit of those who have participated, their responses are VERY similar to those in the links you provided.  I just may post
some of my questions there that have yet to be answered here, maybe I will get a response...

However, contrary to the claims made in the links you posted, there are some who claim to be Muslim who believe that the Quran
that is recited today is not the same as the original.  Specifically some claim that two verses were added to the end of Sura 9.  Those
that accept those verses say that those who reject them are not true Muslims and the debate rages on.

Well now how can ANY Muslim claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved if some say it contains additions and some say it doesn't?  I
must now choose who to believe, I cannot simply believe what each says about themselves or each other, that will surely be biased!  
So I have to research what each claims to see if any one is more believable than the other.  And guess what I found?  That neither
one is worth believing!  Not only did I find many non-trivial internal and external errors, I learned that there are many variations and
differences within the Islamic community both currently and historically.  They are FAR from the perfectly agreeing homogenous group
that those links suggest!

PS This memory thing is starting to get tiresome, why do Muslims continually point to it as something special?!?  All humans have the
capacity to memorize whatever they choose, so what is so special about millions of people choosing to memorize the same thing?!?
If the Catholic Pope said today that all Christians should memorize the New Testament, which is of comparable size to the Quran, and
as a result millions of Catholics do memorize the NT, does that mean that the NT is special in any way?  No, it just means that millions
of people obeyed the Pope and choose to memorize the NT.

Oh I can hear the response now, but the Quran was memorized from day one and it has never changed since then!  Two things come
to mind:

1) At best all that proves is that the Quran has not changed, not that it is from God.

2) There is no way to prove this, as the handful of people who originally memorized it have been dead for a long time now...
I do agree that it is most unlikely that it will change today, but in the early days when those who knew it by heart were few and wars
were many, the potential for error was great.  But Muslims seem unable to admit that, and I don't understand why!
macgre,

Thank you for your response.  I believe that someone who is in persuit of knowledge like this must be of great understanding.

>However, contrary to the claims made in the links you posted, there are some who claim to be Muslim who believe that the Quran
that is recited today is not the same as the original.  Specifically some claim that two verses were added to the end of Sura 9.  Those
that accept those verses say that those who reject them are not true Muslims and the debate rages on.
- First, no one can say who is a Muslim and who isn't.  Let God decide that.
Second, Before anyone says anything, ask for proof.  If there is no proof you can touch, see, feel, hear, etc.. then you must be sure that your resources are reliable.  Your support of argument is strong.  I am sure that this is the form of which any philosopher/scientist would go about arguing or finding an answer.  That is why I suggested to get answers from scholars.  I do not know all the answers myself.  I am in constant persue of answers and learning new things.  I am not saying anyone who made claims here is a liar.  But I believe that, the best answer you can get is from someone who is an expert in the field, and someone who has studied the subject extensively.

>Well now how can ANY Muslim claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved if some say it contains additions and some say it doesn't?  I
must now choose who to believe, I cannot simply believe what each says about themselves or each other, that will surely be biased!  
So I have to research what each claims to see if any one is more believable than the other.  And guess what I found?  That neither
one is worth believing!  Not only did I find many non-trivial internal and external errors, I learned that there are many variations and
differences within the Islamic community both currently and historically.  They are FAR from the perfectly agreeing homogenous group
that those links suggest!
- I do not doubt that you have done extensive research on this topic.  But what is the reliability of the sources you have?  If they are reliable, would you please be kind enough to post your resources?

>PS This memory thing is starting to get tiresome, why do Muslims continually point to it as something special?!?  All humans have the
capacity to memorize whatever they choose, so what is so special about millions of people choosing to memorize the same thing?!?
If the Catholic Pope said today that all Christians should memorize the New Testament, which is of comparable size to the Quran, and
as a result millions of Catholics do memorize the NT, does that mean that the NT is special in any way?  No, it just means that millions
of people obeyed the Pope and choose to memorize the NT.
- When the quran is memorized, it is not memorized word by word, but by syllable by syllable.  Arabic language is such that even if you change or mispronounce a syllable, the meaning of a particular word may change.  The memorization of the Quran since early times shows the significance and the imporance by showing that it has not been changed.  NOT A SYLLABLE.  Here is a link which I support my statement upon.
http://www.islam101.com/quran/source_quran.html
I have more sources if you need also...

>Oh I can hear the response now, but the Quran was memorized from day one and it has never changed since then!  Two things come
to mind:
1) At best all that proves is that the Quran has not changed, not that it is from God.
2) There is no way to prove this, as the handful of people who originally memorized it have been dead for a long time now...
I do agree that it is most unlikely that it will change today, but in the early days when those who knew it by heart were few and wars
were many, the potential for error was great.  But Muslims seem unable to admit that, and I don't understand why!
- (I had deleted the spaces in your above statement, yet unaltered any of your words.)
Yes, you are correct, by showing that Quran has been memorized, it has never been changed.  From my point of view, this contradicts your first statement of how it can have extra verses in there.
To prove that the Quran has been unchanged, please see the link above, and also, if you sit two people from two different parts of the world who each memorized the quran at different ages, who have memorized the quran, and write the quran as they are reciting it, you will see how exact are each syllable which they recite.  What is the probability that the recorded quran and the memorized quran from two distinct parts of the world (ex. America and China), that they are exactly the same?  Unless they are exactly the same in two different regions at two different times.

If you have any further questions/comments, please feel free to keep posting.  I won't be able to check again till tomorrow morning.

Cheers.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

I would not say that I have great understanding, I am always open to the possibility that I am wrong, even my most cherished beliefs.

> Second, Before anyone says anything, ask for proof.

What role does faith play in Islam then?  If you have proof then you don't need faith, faith is the absence of proof, proof is knowledge.

> But what is the reliability of the sources you have?

For the internal differences I use an online English translation of the Quran found here: http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/
For the external differences I use the same Quran and recorded history, geography and science; plus to a lessor degree common
sense when applicable.

I never take anyones word at face value, very few people are neutral and objective and I don't want my opinions clouded by their
bias.  I check every claim made until I am certain beyond any reasonable doubt that what they say is true.  When they quote the
Bible or the Quran I will read for myself what is written in context to make sure that they are not misquoting.  When the claim
involves disputable external facts I will research until I am sure which is accurate, if my research is inconclusive then I will either
remain silent or publically state that I am not sure.

Can I be wrong?  You bet, in fact I am certain that some of the things I believe are true are in fact not, I just don't know which...
However, the number of problems I have found in the Quran make it very unlikely that I am wrong to conclude that it is not from God.
Especially since even the Quran admits that if it is from God then there cannot be even ONE error, and I believe that I have found
many non-trivial errors.

> From my point of view, this contradicts your first statement of how it can have extra verses in there.

Actually I think you may have slightly misunderstood me.  I said that "at best" meaning that it is possible that the Quran has not changed
not that I actually believe that it has not changed.  Also, I do not say that two verses were added, only that some who claim to be
Muslim say that two verses have been added.  So the contradiction to me is how can the Quran be both perfectly preserved and have
two "corrupt" verses added?  Who do I believe?

I checked your link out and was most intrigued by the following, "at the end of which the researchers concluded that apart from copying mistakes,
there was no discrepancy in the text of these forty-two thousand copies, even though they belonged to the period between the 1st Century Hijra
to 14th Century Hijra...".  I wonder exactly what was considered a "copying" mistake as opposed to any other kind of mistake?

Just for fun go to google and do a search on "variant quran" and then tell me that the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of a perfect God.

Here is a book done by a Muslim on the topic:
http://www.kvisionbooks.com/browseproducts/Variant-Readings-of-the-Quran.html

Here is a small list of references and a brief discussion:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-quran-changed-20-versions.htm

Here is a somewhat more thorough discussion on ONE aspect of the topic:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Collection/chap3.html

Finally here is another Muslim's opinion on the topic:
http://www.submission.org/quran/warsh.html

> you will see how exact are each syllable which they recite

Do you still believe that every Quran in the world is exactly, syllable for syllable, the same?
Macgre, this is Varian readings not variant versions!
variant reading mean reading the same words in different voices. the references that you provided it do not know like
this fact and think it is varian versions.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

Actually if you do a thorough check you will find that some of these variants actually do affect the meaning.  I don't have time now but I
can find examples if you like.

In any case, there are variations, it has not been transmitted perfectly over time...
JK2429

>I ask someone who knows the MOST about it

This is fine but we answered his questions very well, if you suspect that we did not know too much about Quran then check our previous posts.
Anyway welcome to you in this thread.
Macgre,

>Actually if you do a thorough check you will find that some of these variants actually do affect the meaning

please do not argue about something you do not know about it, I know my language very well, variant reading for
Quran never affect its meaning.
Macgre,
>The Old Testament quite clearly says that the Messiah is the Son of God
"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"

This is not true, please note the word "called", if this word is not found then I can agree with you but it is changing the meanning.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

By variant I mean to include not just variant readings but textual variants as well.  A quick search revealed the following link that shows that there are
many variants where the meaning is affected not just the voice: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm

Many are minor and excusable but some are not.  In any case to claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved is to ignore the evidence that it has
changed over time, despite being memorized!


Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed talked with the angel Gabriel?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

> This is not true, please note the word "called", if this word is not found then I can agree with you but it is changing the meanning.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, please elaborate.

OK Now I am REALLY out of time, see you all tomorrow.
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

From the first link you provided I found the following statement:

"Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate
context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought."

This all by itself invalidates the claim that the Quran is the PERFECTLY preserved word of God.  Even one error no matter how minor makes it
imperfect.  Many Muslims claim that the Quran is the VERY WORDS of God, yet there are differences in the various ahruf that affect the
meaning of the text, even if it is only a local variance.  This is not perfect and so you cannot claim that the Quran represents the very words
of God.  At best you can claim that the meaning of the words are consistent with what God meant, but you cannot claim to have the actual
words of God as they are different in meaning!

(Again let me remind you that "at best" means the upper limit of what you can claim, not that your claim is true).

I am familar with your second link, it is one I used in support of my own arguement!  How do you think it supports your view?

From your third link I read that Sura 117:105 and 106 speaks of there being a SINGLE copy of the Quran in heaven.  How then can there be
seven ahruf here on earth?

> but I still believe that I can prove you wrong.   I would like to prove to you that Quran is flawless.

I am open to the possibility, all I really ask is that you be open to the possibility that I am right...

PS I am patient, take as long as you like, if you don't post for a while I will understand.

PPS I am not entirely certain that I am using the word "ahruf" correctly, feel free to correct if I am wrong.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

CORRECTION:

Where I said, "At best you can claim that the meaning of the words are consistent with what God meant"

I meant to say, "At best you can claim that the meaning of the words are [usually] consistent with what God meant"

Big difference one word can make, sort of indirectly and most unintentionally illustrates my point...
Macgre,

>A quick search revealed the following link that shows that there are
many variants where the meaning is affected not just the voice: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm

Those variants are resulted from completely misunderstanding by the author of the site.
The variants just among the DIFFERENT English TRANSLATIONS. the same Arabic verses have different English translations by different translators and some of them are not authorized.
I will show you an example from your site:
“YUSUFALI: By (the mystery of) the creation of (wama khalaqa) male and female;-
PICKTHAL: And Him Who hath created male and female,
SHAKIR: And the creating of the male and the female,”
Those are different English translations for one Arabic verse, and SHAKIR, PICKTHAL and YUSUFALI are the translators.
Some other of examples in you site is not Quranic verses but Hadith(Hadith is what Mohammad Said and did).

if you still confused please let me know and feel free to show me example from that site.

>I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, please elaborate.

I mean, there is a different between: 1-Jesus will be son of God.  
And
2- Jesus will be CALLED son of God.
I think it  is now become clear, the old testaments use the statement 2 which say nothing about if he is son of god or not, but say that they will called them son of god.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I disagree, the very first one I double cheked listed two Arabic variants for the same passage, specifically one reads as "min du 'fin" while another reads "min da 'fin".
This is not merely a translation issue, the original Arabic varies and this variance causes a minor change in meaning, it even mentions which ahruf use which!

The issue is not that the English translations are different but that the text being translated was in dispute, the evidence for the dispute was found in a hadith.

So there are two kinds of problems, actual textual variants that effect meaning, and disputed content as mentioned in hadith.

> I mean, there is a different between: 1-Jesus will be son of God.  
And
2- Jesus will be CALLED son of God.

OK now I understand, but I still don't agree with your assessment.  Isaiah says that he will be called "Mighty God" because he IS "Mighty God".  For Isaiah to call
him "Mighty God" and not explain that he is not really God would be a sin.  There is absolutely nothing in the text to support your contention that we should
distinguish between being called son of God and actually being son of God.

I am called Garry, because my name IS Garry, I am Garry; the Messiah is a son called "Mighty God" because he IS "Mighty God".  Unless someone were to add that
I am not really Garry, that Garry is just an alias that I go by and my real name is James, then there is absolutely NO REASON to believe that I am NOT Garry.  Since
Isaiah doesn't do anything remotely like this, there is absolutely NO REASON to think that the Messiah is NOT the Son of God!

PS JK2429 has listed three Arbaic soruces in defence of the claim that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, with no variations; yet it seems that even Islamic
scholars admit that there are variants, but try to dismiss them as trivial and not effecting Muslim thought.  Feel free to check any of them out and my associated
comments.


Why do Muslims believe that Mohammed talked with the angel Gabriel?
Macgre,

>I disagree, the very first one I double cheked listed two Arabic variants for the same passage, specifically one reads as…

We can not talk in generality without specified each case, so put the example that confuse you.

>I am called Garry, because my name IS Garry, I am Garry…

This is not the same case, there is too big difference , “Garry” is name, “mighty God” is adjective. “I am” is in present that mean there is assurance.

I will give you an example:
Macgre will be called The-Argumentative.

Now this mean that there will be some people will call you The- Argumentative, this mean that those people may wrongly call you The-Argumentative.
That mean this statement does not assure if you are really The-Argumentative or not.

Sorry for (The-Argumentative) this is just example.
Regards.

 
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I checked again there is a discussion about the usage of "min da 'fin" or "min du 'fin" in the paragraph that beigns:
"‘Atiyyah b. Sa’d al-‘Awfi said: I recited to ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar the verse: ", right near the top of the page...

> Now this mean that there will be some people will call you The- Argumentative

If one of those people was a prophet of God uttering a prophecy of God, then I am "The- Argumentative"!

Isaiah is a prophet of God and this verse is one of his prophecies, so the Messiah IS Mighty God!

To call someone something they are not is to tell a lie, something that prophets will not do!

> Sorry for (The-Argumentative) this is just example.

Not bothered at all, but I do appreciate your sensitivity  ;-)

SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

From your wikipedia site:

"Since Uthman's version contained no diacritical marks and could be read in various ways, around the year 700 the development
of a vocalized version started. Today the Qur'an is published in fully vocalized versions."

and

"Today seven canonical readings of the Qur'an and several uncanonical exist. This sevener-system was laid down by Ibn Mujahid
who tried to find the special characteristics of each reading and thus derived common rules by analogical reasoning (qiyas)."

So it appears that there are seven differnt versions of the Quran.  It also appears that these versions differ in meaning, but not enough to
effect any important Islamic doctrine or belief; much like the variances found in the various Christian texts...

Still even these mostly minor variances do in fact invalidate the claim that the Quran is superior in preservation as God's Unaltered Word.
Macgre,

>I checked again there is a discussion about the usage of "min da 'fin" or "min
du 'fin" in the paragraph that beigns: "‘Atiyyah b. Sa’d al-‘Awfi said: I
recited to ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar the verse: ", right near the top of the page...

"min da 'fin" and "min du 'fin" written in same letters in Arabic but the
difference in the diacritical marks. The old Arabic language do not have
diacritical marks.


>If one of those people was a prophet of God uttering a prophecy of God, then I
am "The- Argumentative"! Isaiah is a prophet of God and this verse is one of his
prophecies, so the Messiah IS Mighty God!


It is look like that you did not understand me,
The prophet issah was who predicted that people would call Jesus as Mighty God ,
not he who called Jesus as Mighty God.



MATruman,

>it seems that the written Arabic of the Qu'ran did not originally have
diacritical marks to show the vowels and whether they were short or long…

Exactly…

>Now if the difference between the sound transliterated as t and as y is due
solely to a diacritical mark(which show up mostly as dots, as I understand it)
then it is right to say that the text is unchanged. The meaning which a hearer
receives, however, is changed.

If  the text is unchanged then how the meaning would change! The meaning which a hearer
receives is changed just if the Quran wrongly read.

Macgre,

>Today seven canonical readings of the Qur'an and several uncanonical exist. This sevener-system
was laid down by Ibn Mujahid who tried to find the special characteristics of each reading and thus
derived common rules by analogical reasoning (qiyas)." So it appears that there are seven differnt
versions of the Quran.  It also appears that these versions differ in meaning, but not enough to
effect any important Islamic doctrine or belief;

You misunderstand, the seven canonical readings is seven cantillation (tilawa) NOT seven
different versions.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> The prophet issah was who predicted that people would call Jesus as Mighty God ,
not he who called Jesus as Mighty God.

Look at your own words.  In order to convey the meaning that the Messiah(Jesus) would be called Mighty God but not actually be the
Mighty God you had to add the word "as".  Isaiah, did not use any such device and there are many to convey the idea that Jesus was
not in fact the Mighty God.  In fact the way the verse exists lends only one sensible translation, that being the Messiah would be called
Mighty God because he IS the Mighty God.

I mean even if I ignore everything else and accept your interepretation I have to wonder why God, through the prophet Isaiah, didn't
make it clear that the people were wrong to call the Messiah (Jesus) God...

I did some more research and found that Isaiah 9:6 is not the only place were the Messiah is called God, and in all these verses there is no
hint that this is wrong:

Jeremiah 23:5 and 6, this one merely says that the Messiah will be called God

"The days are coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch,
a King who will reign wisely
and do what is just and right in the land.
In his days Judah will be saved
and Israel will live in safety.
This is the name by which he will be called:
The LORD Our Righteousness.

Proverbs 30:4, this one says that the Messiah will be God's son, it also associates divine abilities to both Father AND Son:

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!

Psalm 2, this one is quoted entirely for context but it to identifies the Messiah as God's son:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
"Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
"I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill."

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :

He said to me, "You are my Son ;
today I have become your Father.  
Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."

Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry
and you be destroyed in your way,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

> You misunderstand, the seven canonical readings is seven cantillation (tilawa) NOT seven
different versions.

What is a version then?  Those "canonical readings" vary such that the meanings of some words are different, if that does not count as a
version then I don't know what a version is!  You can give it any name you like, but if the effect is a different version then I will call it a
different version.
macgre,

"Cantillation" is a word that also applies to how the Torah is read in public.  
It refers to the musical notations for reading the Torah out-loud - as in singing it.  
Cantillation does not affect the translation or meaning of the text, but (I think) varies with the various ethnic traditions under which it was developed by customs in different countries.
Perhaps the same applies to the previous comment.  In that case, there are not multiple versions, but just different ways of "singing" it.


MohdAsaiah

I gave an example in my previous post where what I assume to be a
diacritical mark has changed the meaning. It was immediately above a paragraph that
you quoted in your reply, yet you did not address it. Here it is again:

>Qur’an x. 58. In this verse the word fa‘l-yafrah has two readings: Abu Ja‘far and Ibn ‘Amir and
>others read it fa‘l-yafrahu (let them rejoice); and Ya‘qub read it fa‘l-tafrahu (let you rejoice).

Can you let us know:

a) is that the result of a diacritical mark; or if not what is it?

b) Would you say that the difference between yafrahu and tafrahu is part of the cantillation
or if not then what is it?

c) Whatever the answers to the two questions above are, it seems that the Qu'ran
does have two variant meanings, even though the text (without diacritical markings) is the
same, which destroys the argument that the Qu'ran is unique in the way it transmits God's
word, since we don't know whether God intended to say 'let them rejoice' or 'let you rejoice'
MATruman,

> a) is that the result of a diacritical mark; or if not what is it?

yes. it is  the result of a diacritical mark.

>b) Would you say that the difference between yafrahu and tafrahu is part of the cantillation
or if not then what is it?

No, cantillation is another issue.
THe old arabic language was without diacritical mark so some words like yafrahu and tafrahu have the same written
word(same letters) but it can be read as either yafrahu or tafrahu. but when Uthman ibn Affan see that there are some people
who became moslem and new to learn arabic make like these errors he decide with another Islamic scholars to
add a diacritical marks.


WaterStreet,

Welcome to you in this thread.

>"Cantillation" is a word that also applies to how the Torah is read in public.  
It refers to the musical notations for reading the Torah out-loud - as in singing it.  
Cantillation does not affect the translation or meaning of the text, but (I think) varies with the various ethnic traditions under
which it was developed by customs in different countries.Perhaps the same applies to the previous comment.  In that case, there are
 not multiple versions, but just different ways of "singing" it.

Exactly, thank you.


Macgre,

>Proverbs 30:4, this one says that the Messiah will be God's son, it also associates divine abilities to both Father AND Son:

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/prov304.htm


Psalm 2, this one is quoted entirely for context but it to identifies the Messiah as God's son.

http://messiahtruth.com/psal2.html

>Jeremiah 23:5 and 6, this one merely says that the Messiah will be called God

This is also have the word “called”
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

WaterStreet,

> Cantillation does not affect the translation or meaning of the text

Does this mean that the words are spoken differently but have the same meaning?

Help me to understand this clearly, there are marks added to the words that alter their pronounciation but not their meaning?  So
you may see different marks in different Torahs but when asked what do the words mean you will always be given the same answer?

If that is so then that is very different from what MATruman and I are learning about the diacritical marks used in Arabic.  It appears
that these diacritical marks often do not alter the meaning of the word but some times they DO ALTER THE MEANING.  In most cases
the difference is very trivial, and I have read that even the more serious variations do not alter Islamic doctrine in anyway.  But it seems
quite clear that there are seven different Qirâ'ât, each having minor variances, and these variances effect meaning not just oral recitation.

JK2429 provided me with a link that was a direct response to a link that I had provided earlier, specifically:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html#3

It quotes the work of one Adrian Brockett to substantiate the Muslim claim that the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God, i.e.
that there is only one Quran, that it is unchanged, and that all Quran are the same.  The following is their own quote from Brockett's
work:

"The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of
Warsh has any great effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are
differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself, but without any significant wider influence on
Muslim thought."

So the Quran is a reliable transmission from the original, I have no problem stating that.  But it is NOT the perfectly preserved word of
God that Muslims claim, there are differences in meaning!

It is crystal clear to me that Muslims are aware that there are differences in the various Qirâ'ât and that these differences do effect
meaning, but not in any significant way.  What I don't understand is how they can then say that the Quran represents the perfectly
preserved word of God!  If it was perfectly preserved then I would expect that these differences would be like the different cantillations
of the Torah that you mentioned, none effecting meaning.  But the meaning is affected and it varies so it cannot be perfectly preserved!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

From you second link I found this statement:

"Was the Qur’an compiled from previously revealed scriptures?

1- Had the Qur’an been contrived from old scriptures, Muhammad's adversaries would not have ignored the matter and remained
silent. They would undoubtedly have seized the opportunity to accuse him to that effect . All their allegations were unfounded and
lacked proof. The Qur’an itself has already mentioned these allegations and their refutation."

The first sentence suggests that if the accusation were true then "Muhammad's adversaries would not have ignored the matter and
remained silent".  Later we read that this in fact did happen and it is even recorded in the Quran, which of course also is said to have
refuted them.  So they did not remain silent, and the accusation was serious enough to warrant a response in the Quran itself!

So once again we are left with a choice, believe the accusation or the refutation.  I have examined this a little and I am aware of at
least one strong case in support of the accusation that hasn't been answered.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I understand that old Arabic did not have diacritical marks so words like yafrahu and tafrahu were written the same.  I also
understand that today the Quran is written with diacritical marks.  I also understand that not every copy of the Quran uses the same
diacritical marks so both yafrahu and tafrahu appear in different Qurans.

My question to you is quite simple: do the words yafrahu and tafrahu mean the same thing?
Macgre,

> I also understand that not every copy of the Quran uses the same
diacritical marks so both yafrahu and tafrahu appear in different Qurans.

I do not know how did you understand that not every copy of the Quran uses the same
diacritical marks!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I read the link you provided in repsonse to Proverbs 30:4 and I see the same idea there as in your response to the Messiah being "called" Mighty God
yet not actually being Mighty God.  Specifically the verse asks a series of "who" questions where the answer to each is God, but the writer in this site
would have you answer "no man" to explicitly demonstrate that no man can do the things listed, which also directly implies that only God can do those
things.

The very last question asks for a name and the name of his son.  Well the name of the only one who could do all the things listed is God, yet the question
suggests that the one who could do all those things has a son and specifically asks for his name.  Taken together this directly implies that God has a son.

So how does the writer in your link justify insisting that the questions be applied to only mortal men, when the obvious answer to all of them was God?
His whole argument depends on limiting the question to just men when nothing in the text supports that kind of limiting interpretation.  In fact his
argument depends on the assumption that God has no son and ignores not only this verse but many others that indicate otherwise.  Let the words of the
Bible speak for themsleves, the only acceptible answer to all those questions is God and so likewise God must have a son.

Your response to Psalm 2 is a very good one, for the moment I retract it from my argument.

Can you please tell me why you think the text would have Isaiah saying that the Messiah will be called Mighty God and not mention that he is not really the
Mighty God?  I have read and re-read that entire section of that chapter and there is nothing that suggests that he is NOT what the verse claims.

The English word "called" appears 499 times in the Bible.  I checked every last one of them in the OT and not once was the word used in the sense you
imply.  I found a very close parallel in Genesis 17:5,

"No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations."

Clearly this means that Abram IS Abraham, the tense is future just as Isaiah is.

Again something very similar appears in Genesis 35:10 when Jacob is renamed Israel.

In fact the phrase "will be called" occurs most often in Isaiah and never does it mean that the thing so called is not in fact what it is being called.

If I were to believe you, then I would have to say that the only times that a prophet said someone will be called something they are not is in the two
verses (Isaiah 9:6 and Jeremiah 23:5, 6) that say that the Messiah is God.  Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?  It seems to me like rather that
accept what is written, you superimpose a pre-existing belief and deny what is plainly written.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

Please read the comment I made to WaterStreet on 07/20/2004 06:59AM PDT

Also please tell me in your own words what is a Ahrûf and what is a Qirâ'ât.
macgre,

<Does this mean that the words are spoken differently but have the same meaning?>

<Help me to understand this clearly, there are marks added to the words that alter their pronounciation but not their meaning?  So
you may see different marks in different Torahs but when asked what do the words mean you will always be given the same answer?>

I'm just talking about the Torah - and trying to help.

My understanding is that the cantellation (sp?) do not change the meaning of the words or any other meaning.  They are like groups of musical notes applied to the words.  I will check further and let you know in a day or two. I have limited access this week.
Mohd Asaiah

I'm sensing an all too familiar pattern here. I posed three questions to you in my last post. You answered two, but not
the third, which was the one that challenged your views.

It seems we agree on the following:

a) The text of the Qu'ran without diacritical or pointing marks is the same throughout the world.

b) There are seven accepted readings (Qirâ'ât) of the Qu'ran, which do contain diacritical marks, and in some cases these marks
differ.

c) An example of this is Qur’an x. 58. In this verse the word fa‘l-yafrah has two readings: Abu Ja‘far and Ibn ‘Amir and
others read it fa‘l-yafrahu (let them rejoice); and Ya‘qub read it fa‘l-tafrahu (let you rejoice). The text without diacritical marks
in Arabic is the same, the readings are different, AND PRODUCE DIFFERENT MEANINGS. Both readings, however, are
accepted as valid readings of the Qu'ran

If we agree on those points, which your responses above seem to show we do, I don't see how you avoid the conclusion:

d) Therefore, although it can be argued that the plain text of the Qu'ran has been preserved, it cannot be argued that the
message of God to mankind has been preserved without alteration and in one form only, because the differences in
diacritical marks lead to a difference in meaning. The differences are admittedly not significant to doctrine which the Qu'ran
teaches, but with very few exceptions nor are the differences in the Christian New Testament, yet Muslims cite these differences
as the reason why the Qu'ran is needed as a perfect revelation.

You only need to respond to points a b or c if I have misunderstood and you want to correct me. You need to repond to
point d with a valid argument if you want to support your claim.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

WaterStreet,

> I'm just talking about the Torah - and trying to help.

Understood and appreciated.  I just wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing.  Personally I think the
diacritical marks in the Quran have effect on meaning, I am not sure about the Torah, though I am interested to know...
Macgre,

 

>Can you please tell me why you think the text would have Isaiah saying that the Messiah will be called Mighty God and not mention that he is not really the

Mighty God?  

 

If Messiah were really mighty God then Isaiah would say it clearly by saying “Messiah will be son of God”. But he did not say that.

 

 

>No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations." Clearly this means that Abram IS Abraham, the tense is future just as Isaiah is.

 

Macgre I have said that before, Abram here is name and NOT adjective.

 

Example:

If someone in the past predicted that you will be born, he would say:

“There will be person born and he will be CALLED Macgre” in this statement there is no doubt that you will be

called Macgre because it is your name.

But if he said: “There will be born and he will be CALLED The-Argumentative”

Now this statement say that Macgre will be CALLED The-Argumentative but it did not say if you are really argumentative or not.

 

>If I were to believe you, then I would have to say that the only times that a prophet said someone will be called something

they are not is in the two verses (Isaiah 9:6 and Jeremiah 23:5, 6) that say that the Messiah is God…

 

Excuse me! Messiah is God!. From where did you get it.

I want to understand how did you conclude that Messiah is God from the prior statement “that a prophet said someone will

be called something they are not is in the two verses”.

 

Look Macgre, you can not discover the truth of Jesus(PBUH) without know some facts:

1) The God prefer some prophets more than other prophets(for reasons HE only know).

2) Some prophets have been given more miracles than other prophets.

 

Now from these facts we can say that God preferred prophets like Jesus, Moses and Mohammad and each

of them have been given different miracles. The reason why HE creates Jesus without father just to make

him as manifest sign to the people to believe him. And HE supports him with Holy Spirit  as also HE let Moses talk with him directly.

Now if Jesus really said that he is son of the God then he said it in a spiritual meaning not more.

 

> please tell me in your own words what is a Ahrûf and what is a Qirâ'ât.

 

Ahruf mean letters.

Qira'at mean Cantillations.

 

 

 

MATruman,

 

>a) The text of the Qu'ran without diacritical or pointing marks is the same throughout the world.



That is right.

 

> b) There are seven accepted readings (Qirâ'ât) of the Qu'ran, which do contain diacritical marks, and in some cases these marks
differ..

 

There are seven Cantillations for the Quran but have the same diacritical marks.

It is look like that you mean what is the Cantillations. The Cantillations is just musical-like tune to read the Quran.

 

>c) An example of this is Qur’an x. 58. In this verse the word fa‘l-yafrah has two readings: Abu Ja‘far and
Ibn ‘Amir and others read it fa‘l-yafrahu (let them rejoice); and Ya‘qub read it fa‘l-tafrahu (let you rejoice).
The text without diacritical marks in Arabic is the same, the readings are different, AND PRODUCE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
 Both readings, however, are accepted as valid readings of the Qu'ran.


You have chaos between Cantillations and the difference of reading some Arabic words(like fa‘l-yafrah & fa‘l-tafrahu ).

Cantillations is different issue, as I said before it is just musical-like tune to read the Quran.

The difference of reading some Arabic words(like fa‘l-yafrah & fa‘l-tafrahu ). Resulted from absence of diacritical marks.
And DO NOT PRODUCE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

By the way do not think that The difference of reading some Arabic words(like fa‘l-yafrah & fa‘l-tafrahu ) is too much exist
in Quran, it is just some few not more than 3 or 4 words as I know.

 

>d) Therefore, although it can be argued that the plain text of the Qu'ran has been preserved, it cannot be argued
that the message of God to mankind has been preserved without alteration and in one form only, because the
differences in diacritical marks lead to a difference in meaning.

No there is no difference in meaning because the differences in diacritical marks.

 

sorry for the poor format.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> If Messiah were really mighty God then Isaiah would say it clearly by saying “Messiah will be son of God”. But he did not say that.

Well I think he did, he said a son will be given and the son will be called Mighty God.  I guess we are just going to have to agree to
disagree on this one...

> Macgre I have said that before, Abram here is name and NOT adjective.

Drop the word "Mighty" (an adjective) and you have God (a noun like Abram).  In full it is Mighty God so we still have the Messiah being
called God.

> Now this statement say that Macgre will be CALLED The-Argumentative but it did not say if you are really argumentative or not.

Small correction to make, "Mighty God" is more like "The-Argumentative Macgre" then just "The-Argumentative".

Second, when the person so speaking is uttering prophetic statements as directed by God then I am what the statements say I am, if that
be "The-Argumentative" then I am argumentative because God and prophets don't lie.

> I want to understand how did you conclude that Messiah is God from the prior statement “that a prophet said someone will
be called something they are not is in the two verses”.

As far as I am concerned the verses in Isaiah and Jeremiah quite clearly state that the Messiah will be God.  My research into the usage of
the word "called" that seems to be causing us so many problems revealed that every time it was used it was used to name or describe
something as it truly was and not as something that some people thought it was in error.  So if I accept your arguement that when Isaiah and
Jeremiah used the word "called" that they used it to mean only that the Messiah will be falsely called God and not actually be God and that this
would be the only times that the word "called" would have that particular meaning.

So I have to choose which meaning of the word "called" to believe, I see no reason to accept your interpretation, which disagrees with EVERY OTHER
time the word is used!  Sorry.

> Now if Jesus really said that he is son of the God then he said it in a spiritual meaning not more.

Well he did say that he was the son of God and it wasn't in the spiritual sense because the priests considered what he said blasphemy worthy of death.
Calling God your spiritual father does not deserve death!

> The difference of reading some Arabic words(like fa‘l-yafrah & fa‘l-tafrahu ). Resulted from absence of diacritical marks.
And DO NOT PRODUCE DIFFERENT MEANINGS.

What does "fa‘l-yafrah" mean?  Does it mean "let them rejoice" as the site says?

What does "fa‘l-tafrahu" mean?  Does it mean "let you rejoice" as the site says?

What did Allah tell Gabriel to tell Mohammed to tell the people, "them" or "you"?
MohdAsalah,

You are missing an important point - Jesus was worshipped by men.  
How can a prophet of God accept worship that is reserved only for God?

Jesus forgave sins against God.
How can an ordinary man do that which only God can do?

Jesus said He existed before Abraham.
How can an ordinary man be alive for over a thousand years?
Callandor,

>You are missing an important point - Jesus was worshipped by men.
>Jesus forgave sins against God.
>Jesus said He existed before Abraham.

Gospel said also the Jesus(PBUH) is son of God.
There is nothing new here; all these claims are from one source!
Actually the Holy Spirit was talking with people on behalf of Jesus(PBUH),he talked with people when he was few days age.
If we suppose that Jesus really said that he is son of God there is a possibility that he said it in a spiritual meaning.
Son of God is even does not make sense!

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> There is nothing new here; all these claims are from one source!

Interesting...

By "one source" I assume you mean just the New Testament, a compilation of several God inspired men as opposed to the
single source of the Quran, the work of just one man.

Very interesting...

> Son of God is even does not make sense!

Since when does something have to make sense to be true?  Do you understand all of the Quran?
MohdAsaiah

OK, let's get this down to the real bare bones. It is accepted that in Qur’an x. 58 the word fa‘l-yafrah has two readings: Abu Ja‘far and
Ibn ‘Amir and others read it fa‘l-yafrahu (let them rejoice); and Ya‘qub read it fa‘l-tafrahu (let you rejoice).

This difference in reading arises from different diacritical marks, which are a later addition to Arabic.

It is one of very few variations, and none of them have a significant impact on meaning.

BUT... Muslims do not know which God intended - 'let them rejoice' or 'let you rejoice'. So the supposed
superiority of the Quran as a perfect revelation is incomplete.
Macgre,

>Well he did say that he was the son of God and it wasn't in the spiritual sense because the priests considered what he said blasphemy worthy of death.
Calling God your spiritual father does not deserve death!

also saying it in a spiritual meanning will be considered what he said blasphemy worthy of death.
THe reason that let priests tried to kill Jesus is not religius reason but social reason they some of them felt that Jesus
would take their place if he become the king of israel.

>What did Allah tell Gabriel to tell Mohammed to tell the people, "them" or "you"?

I told you that "fa‘l-yafrah" & "fa‘l-tafrahu" have the same plain text(same word), which mean that the
Quran did not change.
by the way "you" here does not refer to a single but to the plural.

>Drop the word "Mighty" (an adjective) and you have God (a noun like Abram).

Excuse me! do you want me to drop the word "Mighty" to fit your claims! what the hell is this!
MATruman,

"you" in 'let you rejoice' not like english can be said to one or to many, in arabic it is said just to many therefore it has the same
meanning to 'let them rejoice'.
Macgre,

>By "one source" I assume you mean just the New Testament, a compilation of several God inspired men as opposed to the
single source of the Quran, the work of just one man.

YOu can not compare between Quran & New Testamen -sorry for that-, hey are completely different in
many way like the way they are written, the time they are written, who were write each of them and even the Quran is
God words not like the bible what recording of Jesus life.

Regards.
 
Macgre,

>  Do you understand all of the Quran?

What do you mean by that !
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> Excuse me! do you want me to drop the word "Mighty" to fit your claims! what the hell is this!

The verse says he will be called "Mighty God", the word "Mighty" is an adjective but it is also only part of what he will be called.
The second word is "God", so you can drop the word "Mighty" to see that the subject in question is God, I am not saying change the
text I as saying that because mighty is an adjective it doesn't change the fact that the Messiah is being called God.  Mighty God is
equal to just plain God.  Making a big deal out of the presence of the word Mighty is nothing more than a distraction or evidence that
you have a limited knowledge of English grammar.  But hey don't just take my word on it, ask anyone who speaks English...

Lets be perfectly clear, when the verse says, "he will be called Mighty God" the verse is saying that he will be called God, the presence
of the word Mighty does not effect that one bit!

> YOu can not compare between Quran & New Testamen -sorry for that-, hey are completely different in
many way like the way they are written, the time they are written, who were write each of them and even the Quran is
God words not like the bible what recording of Jesus life.

No MohdAsalah, you believe the Quran is God's words, but it most certainly is not, there are too many problems for it to have come
from God!

What we are trying to do is establish which is Gods word and which is not, so you bet I will compare them.  You are right that they are
completely different, that is because only one of them can be from God, otherwise they would be in agreement.  So as painful and as
difficult as this has been and will likely be I will not simply allow you to dismiss my claim that the New Testament is from God and I
will not simply accept your claim that the Quran is from God.  Back up your claim or retract it!
"There is nothing new here; all these claims are from one source!
Actually the Holy Spirit was talking with people on behalf of Jesus(PBUH),he talked with people when he was few days age.
If we suppose that Jesus really said that he is son of God there is a possibility that he said it in a spiritual meaning.
Son of God is even does not make sense!"

So what is your reason for accepting or rejecting text as being trustworthy?
How do you determine that a book is true or not, because you are clearly saying here that you KNOW this book is untrue.

Son of God is understood in the context of how the people at that time understood it, not how you choose to interpret
it today.

33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
  Matt 14:33 (NIV)
63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
  Matt 26:63 (NIV)
39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads
40 and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"
  Matt 27:39-40 (NIV)
7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
  John 19:7 (NIV)
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
  1 John 5:20 (NIV)

These together clearly say they understood Son of God as Christ, and God Himself.  
If you're going to discount these, then lay out your reasons for doing so.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

I was in a hurry yesterday, so I want to expand a little on what I said now.

Regarding your "one source" comment.  

The New Testament was written by 11 different men all inspired by God and all in agreement.  Many of these men were actually with
Jesus while he was on earth and the rest were taught by men who were with Jesus.  Many of these men performed miracles both
while Jesus was here on earth and after he left.

The Quran was written by one man who performed no miracles.  His work contains gross mathematical and historical errors, and
contradicts itself (some of these are called abrogations).

Given the above evidence I find the Biblical claim far more compelling than the Quranic claim, hence I am a Christian and not a Muslim.

Regarding your "can't compare the Bible to the Quran" comment.

My understanding of what you said was that because the Quran is different and from God it can't be compared to the Bible because the
Bible is not from God.

Summary: without evidence or reason just your word that it is corrupt I am to reject the Bible as a reliable divinely inspired document.
Without evidence or reason just your word I am to accept that the Quran is a reliable divinely inspired document.

What little evidence you do bring is often based on faulty translations, in any event you have yet to produce anything close to a strong
arguement in support of your claim that the Bible is corrupt.  Yet you continue to insist it is, back up your claim or retract it!  When you
did bring a good arguement against my use of Psalm 2 I had the courage to retract it until I have had time to look at it more closely, I
am trying to be objective and fair.

NOTE: If you merely stated that it is your opinion that the Bible is corrupt and then stated why you believe/think it is then that would be
far easier to tolerate.  As it is you insist that the Bible is corrupt despite your complete inability to provide anything close to a good reason
for doing so.

When confronted with clear errors in the Quran you either deny them outright or ignore them altogether.  Fine that is your choice, but you
still insist that the Quran is the perfectly preserved perfected revelation of a perfect God, superior to all other religous texts.  Such a claim
is completely unsupportable until you can respond to the errors found in the Quran.  For myself I am really interested to see an answer to
my inheritance questions...

Regarding the preservation of the Quran and the effect diacritcial marks have on meaning.

FTR "you" (plural or otherwise) is very different from "them".  From my Oxford English Reference dictionary the defintion of you:
"used with reference to the person or PERSONS addressed or one such person and one or more associated persons"

The key points here are:
a) that "you" can refer to more than one person even in English.
b) that "you" includes the person being addressed.

The word "them" on the other hand clearly implies that the person being addressed is NOT included.  Here is an example that I hope helps,
if I say to you MohdAsalah, "let them rejoice" I am addressing you but I am referring to a group that does not include you; if I say "let you
rejoice" in the simplest sense I am saying that you are to rejoice as well (by yourself or as part of a group).

So now does "fa‘l-yafrah" which translates to "let them rejoice" include the person addressed or not?  If it does then I have serious questions
about how the Quran was translated...

>>  Do you understand all of the Quran?
>What do you mean by that !

Exactly what I say, do you understand everything in the Quran?  I do remember you saying once that you don't but I just want to confirm that
you still don't understand it all.

The reason I ask is because one of your stated reasons for rejecting the idea that Jesus/Messiah is the Son of God is because it makes no
sense to you.  Well I am thinking that you still believe things in the Quran even though you don't understand them, so how is not understanding
something in the Bible, like how Jesus can be the Son of God, mean that it can't be true?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Callandor,

> These together clearly say they understood Son of God as Christ, and God Himself.

Excellent!  Though I do strongly suspect that MohdAsalah will simply dismiss it as coming from the single source that he considers corrupt...
Callandor,
 
>So what is your reason for accepting or rejecting text as being trustworthy?
How do you determine that a book is true or not, because you are clearly saying here that you KNOW this book is untrue.


I said that before. The problem that Christians rely too much on Gospels, I am one who read many studies and theories about the Gospels history which say that Gospels are resulted from oral tradition not just from Jesus apostles but from another people that lived at same time that Jesus live, you may noticed the horrible contradictions among them, and some mention story that not found in some other and so on.
That all mean the Gospels do not have any credibility.
 
 
>Son of God is understood in the context of how the people at that time understood it, not how you choose to interpret it today.
 
Then what do you understand the meaning of Son of God? What is your point here!
 
>Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
 
Callandor, there is no need to copy & paste from Gospel. The point that misled people that Jesus was supported with Holy Spirit and this Holy Spirit was talking on behalf of God , this let some people think that he is from the sky or he is son of God(because he do not have father), and some other go far than that and claim the he is the God an worshiped him.  
 
Macgre,
 
>The New Testament was written by 11 different men all inspired by God and all in agreement.  Many of these men were actually with Jesus while he was on earth and the rest were taught by men who were with Jesus.
 
This is a common error, the Gospels are written after oral tradition and there is no evidence who wrote the Gospels are the apostles. In contrast, there are many scientific studies & theories show that no one of apostles have wrote the Gospels.
 
>Many of these men performed miracles both while Jesus was here on earth and after he left….
 
Come on man, make up your mind, Apostles are just students they can not do any miracles.
 
>The Quran was written by one man who performed no miracles.
The Quran itself is miracle, it contain a scientific facts that discovered these days, and also contain a mathematical structure that no human can create like it.
 
>His work contains gross mathematical and historical errors, and contradicts itself (some of these are called abrogations).


really! I remember that you tried to show me these alleged contradicts, mathematical and historical errors but I show you that they are reflect your misunderstanding! The best new example is “fa‘l-yafrahu” and “fa‘l-tafrahu”.
 
>When confronted with clear errors in the Quran you either deny them outright or ignore them altogether…
 
heh, the error is in your thinking way!
 
>Fine that is your choice, but you still insist that the Quran is the perfectly preserved perfected revelation of a perfect God, superior to all other religous texts.  Such a claim is completely unsupportable until you can respond to the errors found in the Quran.
 
Unsupportable? Along the preceding thread (scientific fact thread) there are more than 20 posts from me to you trying to explain to you the mathematical structure in Quran that show the Quran is preserved. But how the closes mind will admit!.
 
>Exactly what I say, do you understand everything in the Quran?  I do remember you saying once that you don't but I just want to confirm that you still don't understand it all.


I did not say that we do not understand everything in the Quran, I said that some of our understanding to the Quranic verses is limited.
 
>The reason I ask is because one of your stated reasons for rejecting the idea that Jesus/Messiah is the Son of God is because it makes no sense to you.
 
I even suspect if it is make sense for all Christians also.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> I am one who read many studies and theories about the Gospels

I too have read many such studies and theories but I didn't just believe what was said I investigated on my own and found them unconvincing.  Maybe you could
point me to some of the ones you think are the strongest, I would really like to know what has so convinced you that the Bible is corrupt!

I find it odd that you have no problem accepting studies and theories that "prove" the Bible corrupt, but NEVER accept any study or theory that says that the Quran is
corrupt.  Why is that MohdAsalah?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> This is a common error, the Gospels are written after oral tradition and there is no evidence who wrote the Gospels are the apostles. In contrast, there are many
scientific studies & theories show that no one of apostles have wrote the Gospels.

Can you name one of these studies so that I can check for myself?

BTW What's wrong with oral tradition is that not how the Quran was originally preserved, by recitation?

> Come on man, make up your mind, Apostles are just students they can not do any miracles.

Hey I am just stating what is in the Bible, the Apostles performed miracles both while Jesus was with them and after he left.  They did so in his sight, and he not only
approved but encouraged them to do so.  If you want I can find the appropriate scriptures...

> I remember that you tried to show me these alleged contradicts, mathematical and historical errors but I show you that they are reflect your misunderstanding!

I remember you either outright denying them or simply ignoring them, rarely have you been able to show that I misunderstood anything.  Do you want me to
reiterate them for you to consider anew?

If you are bothered by me bringing new problems then I will happily pick a few that you have yet to answer and stick with them until you do...

Here is one to start with:

The inheritance laws and adding fractions to 1.  If I remember correctly you said I misunderstood the word "walad" to mean children when it means child.  I then
asked you to provide an English translation of the Quran that translated it correctly, you never answered...

> the error is in your thinking way!

Are you always right?

> there are more than 20 posts from me to you trying to explain to you the mathematical structure in Quran that show the Quran is preserved.
But how the closes mind will admit!.

Funny in order to accept the "Miracle of 19" mathematical structure of the Quran you have to admit that the Quran contains two corrupt verses.  Yet without even
taking a breath you will then try to tell me that the Quran is not corrupt.  Why should I believe you, you seem to believe that the Quran is both corrupt and uncorrupt
at the same time (and you say that the Trinity doesn't make sense!)

I looked at every last one of your "Miracle of 19" claims and found every last one of them utterly unconvincing, shall we review them?

> I did not say that we do not understand everything in the Quran, I said that some of our understanding to the Quranic verses is limited.

So you still don't understand it all, but still believe that what you read in the Quran is true.  OK then, I don't understand the Trinity but I do believe that what I read
in the Bible is true.  So the Trinity is not false becaue you and I don't understand it, actually I would never believe in a God that could be completely understood by
any human mind...

> I even suspect if it is make sense for all Christians also.

I don't know of any Christian that seriously claims to "understand" the Trinity.
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Muslims are taught to love Jesus, and a person cannot be a Muslim without believing in the virgin birth and miracles of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him.

Muslims believe these things about Jesus not because of the Bible or any other religion, but simply because the Holy Qur.aan says these things about him. However, Muslims always emphasise that the miracles of Jesus, and all other prophets, were by "God's permission". This having been said, many Christians feel to not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God", "God Incarnate" or the "Third Person" of the Trinity. This is because the Qur.aan clearly says that Almighty God does not have a "Son" --- neither allegorically, physically, metaphorically or metaphysically.

The Pure Monotheism of Islaam rejects the notion of "defining" God (which is basically what the "Doctrine of the Trinity" does), saying that someone is "like" God or equal to him, or praying to someone else besides God. Also, Islaam teaches that titles such as "Lord" and "Saviour" are due to God alone.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that when we Muslims criticise the Bible or the teachings of Christianity, we are not attacking "God's Word" or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. From the Muslim point of view, we are defending Jesus and God's Word, which they have in the form of the Qur.aan. Muslim criticism is targeted at writings that some people claim are God's word, but Muslim's simply don't accept their claim that they are really God's word.

Additionally, Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Atonement are criticised by Muslims precisely because they did not originate from Jesus, peace be upon him. In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.

There are many statements here about who Jesus is, and what is the reliable source is for recording what He did and said.  
I find it very interesting that the muslims here are forced to say the Bible is in error in order to preserve what the Quran says.
This is similar to what I have seen other groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses do: claim that the revelation they received
later on was more accurate and supercedes what was stated before, or that the earlier revelation was outright wrong.

This leads to a very bad conclusion about God - the omnipotent God was unable to keep the truth straight about His nature
and His person until 600 years or more later (1800 years, if you believe Jehovah's Witnesses).  This is a conclusion that
atheists and agnostics can easily grasp, but seems to escape those of other faiths who deny Jesus' deity.  You cannot possibly
believe in a God who is sovereign, if God sent Jesus on His mission and then neglected to tell the world who Jesus really was
for so long. This explanation lowers God, no matter what you believe in.
>> I find it very interesting that the muslims here are forced to say the Bible is in error in order to preserve what the Quran says.

The biggest reason for muslims to believe this way is as  God has told us in Holy Quran about this ......
The second reason being that there is not one bible but multiple bibles present now a days.......Which one is the correct ?
The Revised  Version , Re-revised Version or King John Version or what ? Has God revealed so much books ? Which one is the original ?
 If you ask Christians most of them will come up with different answers........

But on the other hand if you go to any part of the world like the most uncivilized part of Africa and you find a muslim there you will find
the Holy Quran same (Even not a single punctuation) to be different from what you find in any other part of world( apart from printing mistakes).....
Similarly  another big Miracle of Quran is that you will find not hundreds not thousands but Millions of Muslims who have learnt Quran by Heart........
You can go to any part of the world and start listening from any Muslim and you will not find a single difference in the recitation.......
Memorization and recitation is hardly a "miracle". Besides, when you say that millions of Muslims know the Quran word-for-word, syllable-by-syllable, are you referring to the original Arabic version? If so, then the question of "how many people have memorized it?" becomes much less significant. A more important question would be: How many of those people *understand* it? How many of those people would be able to explain exactly what it means?
Macgre

On the gospels, almost any first year college course textbook will give the reasons for the synoptic
gospels not being written by eyewitnesses. One of them (Luke) doesn't claim to be, the other two make no claim. The
names attached to them are not in the texts: Matthew is attributed to Matthew because it has that name instead of Levi,
and it is often rumoured that Mark is the young man who ran away in the Garden, and is identified with John Mark.

The reason for doubting that they are eyewitness accounts is that the three are clearly dependent on one another; much
of Mark gets repeated in Matthew and Luke more or less word for word. Luke and Matthew also share either another common source,
or one is dependent on the other (probably Luke on Matthew).

John is a special case; most scholars still say it's at best 'school of John'; personally I find it reads much more like
an author who was there. But it doesn't read like an author who was trying to write historical truth, he was trying
to write spiritual truth. That much was accepted by the early church fathers right from the start of their comments
on the gospels - Papias, for example.

All this sort of scholarship is now commonplace in Christianity, but only started a couple of centuries ago. Islam has
yet to accept that the same disciplines could be applied to the Qu'ran, AFAIK. So it is no argument for the Qu'ran to
say that New Testamtent scholarship has shown the authors are unlikely to have been apostles when Islamic scholarship
doesn't seem to even want to ask the same questions about the Qu'ran.
>> Memorization and recitation is hardly a "miracle".

Can you imagine of memorizing a book which is not in your native language ? A book that has 30 chapters.....Have you ever seen Quran and its size?
If you would have seen it you might not have said that it is not a miracle to memorize it........

>> when you say that millions of Muslims know the Quran word-for-word, syllable-by-syllable, are you referring to the original Arabic version?

Yes of course I am talking about original Arabic Version of Quran.......

>> If so, then the question of "how many people have memorized it?" becomes much less significant. A more important question would be: How many of those people *understand* it? How many of those people would be able to explain >>exactly what it means?

First of all about 1/4(more or less) of Muslims ara Arabs or know Arabics.......So you can say 1/4 of those who memorize Quran already know
Arabics as their Native or learnt language......

No coming to those countries where Arabics is not the official language. Even in these countries most of the schools where Quran is memorized
the pupils are taught Arabic Language alongside its memorizing.........

But still I agree to your point.........and I am working on a similar project so that there must be no school where Quran is memorized without
teaching he pupils Arabic Language so that each pupil should know what he is reciting.......
imarshad,

"The biggest reason for muslims to believe this way is as  God has told us in Holy Quran about this ......
The second reason being that there is not one bible but multiple bibles present now a days.......Which one is the correct ?"

Your first reason is circular - you can't use the reason "because my book says so" to back up its authenticity.

Your second reason avoids the same logic you apply to the Quran - you say the original version in Arabic
is the one to use.  So why do you not apply the same reasoning to the New Testament and use the Greek
version?

And what about God's inability to get out the truth about Jesus until 600 years later?
A failure to communicate something as fundamental as the nature of God is pretty serious.
imarshad - No, I never said memorization was easy. However, it is not a "miracle." Anyone can memorize virtually anything if they want to - thanks to the incredible abilities of the brains that God gave us. In any case, many people memorizing something proves nothing more than the fact that those people believe it's important. It in no way proves the truth of the text itself - only the dedication of the believers.
> A more important question would be: How many of those people *understand* it? How many of those people would
 be able to explain exactly what it means?

I do not know what is that mean! from where do you get your information!
Yes we understand it all.
MATruman,

>Islam has yet to accept that the same disciplines could be applied to the Qu'ran, AFAIK. So it is no argument for the Qu'ran to
say that New Testamtent scholarship has shown the authors are unlikely to have been apostles when Islamic scholarship
doesn't seem to even want to ask the same questions about the Qu'ran.

MATruman, This is not true, The proccess of writing Quran was completely different, the Quran was written verse by verse after revealation, one by one
and by administration of Mohammad(PBUH). I do not know from where you did you get this information!
MohdAsaiah

Here's an example of what I mean:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

It looks like the Yemeni Qu'rans may well be the Dead Sea Scrolls of Islam. Certainly history
is repeating itself in the attempt to limit access: the precedent of hte Dead Sea Srolls
suggests this will backfire and merely create more conspiracy theories.

Ho hum. The trouble is, I know what you're going to reply. Let me save you the trouble and
write your reply for you:

MATruman what is this? I do not understand where you getting are information from! US media
is Jew owned, see how these people are laughing at you! I found on a site whose URL I can't now
trace that the author of this article, Toby Lester, was circumcised as Tobit Leviticus! Qu'ran = good
Bible = bad, why you not accept what I say when I argue so persuasively?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> Let me save you the trouble and write your reply for you: ...

That is highly inflammatory!

It is also likely to be pretty darn accurate.

In any event it made me laugh out loud, thanks :-)
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> Yes we understand it all.

But didn't you say earlier that, "I did not say that we do not understand everything in the Quran, I said that some of our understanding to the Quranic verses is limited."?

If your understanding is limited, then how can you say that you understand it all?

> The proccess of writing Quran was completely different, the Quran was written verse by verse after revealation, one by one
and by administration of Mohammad(PBUH).

OK, let me ask you from the moment Mohammed recited to the moment you bought your Quran, tell me exactly how Mohammed's message was preserved?  I
believe it started out on palm leaves, bone, scraps of paper, etc. what happened next...

PS Don't forget to explain how two corrupt verses were added to Sura 9, because I know you believe in the "Miracle of 19" which requires that you believe that
there are two corrupt verses in every Quran, (except yours of course).

I am not trying to be difficult MohdAsalh, I am just trying to understand, but that IS proving to be very difficult...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MATruman,

> On the gospels, almost any first year college course textbook will give the reasons for the synoptic gospels not being written by eyewitnesses.

I understand where you are coming from, but I am not convinced by the evidence to date that the synoptic gospels are not eyewitness accounts.  Copying and
similarities do not establish that the authors were not eyewitnesses.  Are you aware of any compelling reasons that show that the synoptic gospels were not
written by eye witnesses?

In fact I would expect many similarities in wording from men who would sit around the fire together and talk about what they saw earlier that day...  Far from
introducing doubt in my mind it actually works more to confirm that the "common source" is the shared experineces the authors had!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

First let me welcome you to this discussion.

> In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.

Neither did Mohammed, and I highly doubt that you can prove that Jesus never instructed anyone to write down what he was saying or
that none of the apostles actually didn't write anything down while he was alive.

> What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!

Some believe that, none have ever been able to prove it... can you?

> Similarly for Bible to be authentic(words of God) it should be in the same language and same wordings as it was revealed...

So far your strongest criticism of the Bible has mentioned only the translations.  Have you ever looked into what those translations are translating?

> Can you tell me where to find the actual Bible in its own language in which it came from Heavens ?

I read that the original Quran was written on scraps of paper, palm leaves, bone, etc.  Do you have these originals?  If not then you no more have an original
Quran than I have any original Biblical document.

> Can you tell me where to find the language itself ?

Very few people do speak the languages that the Bible was written in, but there are scholars who have studied them so much that they understand them as naturally
as I understand English and you understand Arabic (I assume you do).

> Was the language English in which we find the Bible now a days ?

Not entirely sure I understand this statement.  But my guess is you are asking was English spoken at the time the Bible was written, the answer is no.

> The second reason being that there is not one bible but multiple bibles present now a days.......Which one is the correct ?

Lets be VERY CLEAR, there are multiple TRANSLATIONS, NOT muliple Bibles.

> You can go to any part of the world and start listening from any Muslim and you will not find a single difference in the recitation.......

My guess is you have not read many of the previous posts.  The original classical Arabic had no diacritical marks as the current printed Qurans do.  So right there you
have at least one difference from the original.  Second today there are seven different versions of diacritical markings in use in the Quran today, and that some of these
different diacritical marks effect meaning.  So now you tell me which of the seven is correct and from Allah?

For example: we have been discussing Sura 10:58, in particular we see that in one Qirâ'ât of the Quran it is written "fa‘l-yafrah" which means "let them rejoice" and
in another Qirâ'ât it is written "fa‘l-tafrahu" which means "let you rejoice" where the "you" is plural.  MohdAsalah tells me they mean the same thing, so lets assume
that he is right for the moment.  

Well now we cannot say that the words are exact anymore, we have to say that the meanings are the same.  So it is the meaning of the words that is most important
not the actual word itself.  Well then, how can you object to English translations of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramic Bible or Arabic Quran if the meaning is preserved?  If it is
absolutely essential that the exact word that God used be preserved then you have some muslims reading, memorizing and reciting something as God's word which is
not God's word.  My question is, which IS God's word then?

> Can you imagine of memorizing a book which is not in your native language ? A book that has 30 chapters.....Have you ever seen Quran and its size?
If you would have seen it you might not have said that it is not a miracle to memorize it........

Any human can memorize text if he or she CHOOSES to do so, that is no miralce.  All you have is millions of people CHOOSING to memorize the Quran.  Tell me as a
Muslim are you asked to memorize the Quran?  Why do so many muslims memorize the Quran?
MATruman,

From when did you start to believe anything in the Internet! Do you accept what you want,
just select that site that fit your claim! , I remember that you did not accept any of my
references. Why just now believe them!
Anyway this is hoax, I know this site before and someone before you in the first part of this
thread have put it, I have tracked this story from some people at a high level and some
organizations in Yemen, what they have found is just a fragments contains poets that do not
have any relationship between it and Quran.
When the first time I read this site I did not suspect for a second that he is saying something
right. Just reading it carefully will find how much he is biased and trying to compare it with
bibles.
You are always argue about my resources and the first time that you get a resource get it
like this!
Macgre,

>If your understanding is limited, then how can you say that you understand it all?

I said SOME understanding is limited,
That mean two things:
1- SOME understanding to some verses
2- "understanding is limited" is different from "not understanding"

>OK, let me ask you from the moment Mohammed recited to the moment you bought your Quran,
tell me exactly how Mohammed's message was preserved?  I believe it started out on palm leaves, bone,
scraps of paper, etc. what happened next...

http://www.quran.net/quran/PreservationOfTheQuran.htm

>I am just trying to understand

I do not think so, you are trying to find any gap in Quran just to prove to yourself that Jesus is son of God, so
I do not have a time for that, this is what you have believe or not(you will not believe I know).
Macgre,

>My guess is you have not read many of the previous posts.  The original classical Arabic had no diacritical marks as the
 current printed Qurans do.  So right there you have at least one difference from the original.

My guess that you did not understand diacritical marks....

>Neither did Mohammed...

Funny...what did you know about Mohammad...it is good if you know that he is the prophet of Islam.
Macgre, when you decide to have a rational discussion I will be happy to start again with you but before that
I am not willing to reply to a self serving information.
I admit that I don't know anything about diacritical marks, but common sense tells me they can't be there for absolutely no reason - their existence or addition *must* serve some kind of purpose. You say that macgre simply does not understand them - to me, the only logical conclusion from that statement is that they do not do anything - they don't change the wording or the meaning. Yet, if they don't, why are they there?
beaker67 , In the past when Islam published more and non-Arabs started to become Moslems
they did not read the Quran in a right way because they need a preceding knowledge in Arabic l
anguage to select which suitable diacritical mark to use(please note I am still saying that this the
meaning is not changing ), Arabic Moslems scholars did not like that they starting to search for a
way to let those new Moslems to read the Quran in a right way then they found a way to represent
a diacritical mark in a special characters that can be written with letter and be put to the upper and lower of the letters that help who do not know Arabic too much to read it in a right way.

By the way we can see here how much Moslem scholars are care of not to even do not read it in
a right way. This is just to see how much they interesting in preserving the Quran.

 You may now wonder and ask if the diacritical marks do not change the meaning at most, then
what is the meaning of not reading the Quran in a right way for new Arabic learner?
The answer is the same Arabic words can be read in different ways but the meaning still the
same(Please note this is not the seven reading this is a different issue) and who determine which
reading way to select is the context. If you do not select the right way to read it then you make error
here but the meaning is still the same. This is what make it complex language.



In support of what MohdAsalah seems to be saying, it appears that the same applies for Hebrew with regard to the vowels.  

In Hebrew there are 22 consonants.  The vowels are implied by the construction of the words and context of the text, and they are not printed in classic Hebrew texts, because they were not needed.  

They are only printed in texts for people who are not familiar with Hebrew.  
A native Israeli speaker of Hebrew does not need vowels to read every-day Hebrew texts such as newspapers.
However, someone like me, who is still learning needs to see the vowel points added to the consonants, in order to be able to correctly pronounce the text.  
Hopefully, at some point in time, I won’t need them.

By the way, cant illation shares a pronunciation function with vowels, but adds musical qualities for traditional chanting of the Torah.  
They do not change the meaning.  
Meaning, is derived from the placement and order of the consonants within the words, and from the placement and order of the words within the context of the text.


Does anyone know why the text does not seem to wrap properly in this thread?
MohdAsalah,

"... you are trying to find any gap in Quran just to prove to yourself that Jesus is son of God"

Wow!  I didn't know that would that do it?

How would a gap in Quran prove that?

WaterStreet,

>How would a gap in Quran prove that?

Macgre will understand that because it depend on previous discussion, anyway I will tell you, he trys to show by any way that the
Quran have been changed  or even it is not from the God and therefore he will prove that what the Quran say about Jesus that he is not
son of God is wrong.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> 2- "understanding is limited" is different from "not understanding"

You sure like to play word games don't you?

If you have limited understanding of just one verse in the Quran then there is at least one part of the Quran that you DO NOT understand.  If you understood every
part of the Quran you wouldn't have limited understanding.  My question was very specific, do you understand ALL of the Quran?  Yes or No?  I will interpret an
answer of limited to be No.  Just as there are parts in the Bible that I have "limited" understanding of...

> My guess that you did not understand diacritical marks....

You guessed wrong then.  My wife is French, and I have learned quite a bit of French while being married to her.  The French language uses diacritical marks to
modifiy how words are pronounced and in some rare cases these marks will also effect the meaning of the words.

> I do not think so, you are trying to find any gap in Quran just to prove to yourself that Jesus is son of God,

Nope, if I want to prove that Jesus is the Son of God I will look in the Bible.  The reason I don't believe the Quran is because I find non-trivial errors, don't have to
look all that hard to find them either.  BTW will you ever give me a link to a version of the Quran which correctly translates "walad" to child in Sura 4:11 and 12?  
If not then how do you explain the math behind the inheritance laws in the Quran?

> Please note this is not the seven reading this is a different issue

That is the issue that MATruman and myself have been trying to discuss with you for quite some time now!  The diacritical marks in one of those readings not
only effects the vowels, but at times the consonants, which can also effect meaning!  Sura 10:58 is the example we have been concentrating on lately, specifically
on whether God said "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice" (the you in question is plural).  You includes the person being addressed, them does not, different
meaning.  I am currently waiting for MohdAsalah or any other native Arabic speaker to confirm if the original Arabic also conveys this difference in meaning...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> he trys to show by any way that the
Quran have been changed  or even it is not from the God and therefore he will prove that what the Quran say about Jesus that he is not
son of God is wrong.

Actually MohdAsalah, I am merely telling YOU why *I* don't believe the Quran is from God and as a side issue I am also telling YOU why *I*
believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  In so doing I am giving you an open and honest chance to repsond to my questions, something you routinely
fail to do...

I have in the past retracted comments I made that you responded to with good reasons and arguements, most recently was your response to my
use of Psalm 2.  What is interesting to note is that despite the fact that you rarely provide a good argument in response you NEVER retract anything
you say!  But of course I am not being fair, I am only trying to show by "any way" that the Quran is false...
Hi all !
The Glorious Quran is the last and final Revelation which was revealed to the last and final Messenger Prophet Mohammed, peace be
upon him. For any book to claim that it is a Revelation from Almighty God, it should stand the test of time. Previously in the olden days,
it was the age of miracles - Alhamdulillah, the Quran is the miracle of miracles. Later on came the age of literature and poetry, and
Muslims and Non Muslims alike, they claim the Glorious Quran to be the best Arabic literature available on the face of the Earth.
 But today is the age of science and technology. Let us analyze whether the Quran is compatible or incompatible with modern science.
 Albert Einstein said Science without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind. Let me remind you that the Glorious Quran
is not a book of Science S-C-I-E-N-C-E, It is a book of signs S-I-G-N-S It is a book of Ayats. And there more than 6000 signs Ayats in
the Glorious Quran out of which more than a thousand speak about science.

 
a)    The field of Astronomy

.....................................................................Point 1...............................................................................................................
The Scientists, the Astronomers, a few decades earlier, they described, how the universe came into
existence - They call it the Big Bang. And they said Initially there was one primary nebula, which later on it separated with
a Big Bang, which gave rise to Galaxies, Stars, Sun and the Earth, we live in. This information is given in a nutshell in the
 Glorious Quran, in Surah Ambiya, Ch. 21, Verse No. 30, which says. "Do not the unbelievers see? . That the heavens and the
earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder. Imagine this information which we came to
know recently, the Quran mentions 14 hundred years ago.

.....................................................................Point 2...............................................................................................................

When I was in school, I had learned that the Sun in respect to the Earth - it was stationary - the Earth and the Moon, they rotated
about in axis, but the sun was stationary. But when I read a Verse of the Quran saying, in Surah AlAmbiya, Ch.. 21 Verse No. 33,
it says "It is Allah who has created the night and the day. The sun and the moon. Each one travelling in an orbit with its own motion".
 Now Alhamdulillah, modern science has confirmed the Quranic statement. The Arabic word used in the Quran is Yasbahoon, which
describes the motion of a moving body. When it refers to a celestial body, it means it is rotating about its own axis. So Quran says the
sun and the Moon, they revolve as well as rotate about their own axis. Today we have come to know that the Sun takes approximately
25 days to complete one rotation.

.....................................................................Point 3...............................................................................................................

It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered that the universe is expanding. The Quran says in Surah Dhariyat, Ch. 51, Verse No. 47, that
"We have created the expanding universe - The vastness of space". The Arabic word Mohsiana refers to vastness the expanding
universe.

The field of Geology
 
We have come to know today - the Geologists, they tell us, that the radius of the Earth is approximately 3750 miles, and the deeper
layers, they are hot and fluid, and cannot sustain life. And the superficial part of the Earths crust, which we live on, it is very thin -
 Hardly 1 to 30 miles. Some portions are thicker, but majority one to 30 miles. And there are high possibility that this superficial layer,
the Earths crust - it will shake. It is due to the Folding phenomenon, which gives rise to mountain ranges, which gives stability to this
 Earth. And Quran says in Surah Nabaa, Ch. No. 78, Verse No. 6 and 7 "We have made the Earth as an expanse and the mountains as
stakes". The Quran does not say, mountains were thrown up as stakes, mountain as stakes. Arabic word Autaad means "stakes"
meaning tent peg. And today we have come to know in the study of modern Geology, that mountain has got deep roots. This was
known in the second half of the 19th century. And the superficial part that we see of the mountain, is a very small percentage.
The deeper part is within - Exactly like a stake how it is driven in the ground. You can only see a small part on top the majority is down
in the ground - or like a tip of the ice bergyou can see the tip on the top and about 90% is beneath water. The Quran says in
Surah Gashiya, Ch. 88, Verse No. 19, and Surah Naziat, Ch. No. 79, Verse No. 32 "And We have made the mountains standing firm on
the Earth". Today after modern Geology has advanced, It was propounded in 1960, which gives rise to mountain ranges. The Geologists
today, do say that the mountains give stability to the Earth - Not all Geologists, but many do say. I have not come across a single
Geological book, And if you read the book &#145;The Earth&#146; which is referred by almost all the universities, in the field of Geology,
one of its authors by the name of Dr Frank Press, who was the advisor to the former president of USA, Jimmy Carter, and was the president of
the Academy of Science of USA. He writes in his book that -The mountains are wedge shaped - It  has deep roots within. And he says that
The function of the mountain is to stabilize the earth. And the Quran says in Surah Ambiya, Ch. No 21, Verse No. 31, in Surah Luqman,
Ch. No. 31 Verse No.10, as well as in Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 16, Verse No. 15, that "We have made the mountains standing firm on the Earth,
lest it would shake with them and with you". The function of the mountain in the Quran, is given to prevent the Earth from shaking. A
geological fact that has just been recently revealed and it is present in Quran that was revealed some 1400 years ago......

     The field of Oceanology

The Glorious Quran says, in Surah Furqan, Ch. No. 25, Verse No. 53, that "It is Allah who has let free two bodies of following water
- One sweet and palatable, the other salt and bitter. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is a barrier which is
forbidden to be trespassed. Quran says in Surah Rahman, Ch. 55 Verse No. 19 and 20. "It is Allah who has let free two bodies of
flowing water. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is barrier, which is forbidden to be trespassed."
 Previously the commentators of the Quran wondered What does the Quran mean? We know about sweet and salt water -
But between them there is a barrier - though they meet do not mix. Today after advancement of Oceanology, we have come to
know, that whenever one type of water flows into the other type of water, it looses its constituents, and gets homogenized into the
water it flows. There is a slanting homogenizing area, which the Quran refers to as "Barzak"  unseen barrier And this has been
agreed upon by several Scientists, even of America, by the name of Dr. Hay - he is an Oceanologist.

Quran says in such Surah Nisa Ch. 4, Verse 56, that "As to those who reject Our signs, We shall cast them into the hell fire, and as often as their skins are roasted,
 We shall give them fresh skin, so that they shall feel the pain. Indicating that there is something in the skin, which is responsible for  feeling of pain, which the Quran
 refers to as " pain receptors."  Professor Thagada Tagada Shaun, who is the head of the department of Anatomy, in Chang Mai University in Thailand, - Only on the
basis of this one Verse, he proclaimed the Shahada, in the 8th Medical conference in Riyadh, and said That "There is no God but Allah,
 and that Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, is the Messenger of Allah". Verse from the Glorious Quran from Surah from
Surah Fussilat, Ch. 41, Verse 53, which says "That soon We shall show them Our signs in the farthest reaches of the horizons,
and into their souls, until it is clear to them, that this is the truth."  This one Verse was sufficient to prove to Dr. Thagada,  
Thagada Shaun, that Quran is a Divine Revelation. Some may require 10 signs,  some may require 100.  Some, even after a 1000
 signs are given, they will not accept the truth. Quran calls such people, as in Surah Baqarah Ch. 2, Verse 18 "The deaf, the dumb,
the blind, they will not return to the true path. The Bible says the same thing in Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 13, Verse No. 13
"Seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither will they understand"

I will soon post a question regarding the Scientific errors in Bible........and I will hope to see you all there defending those points......

Macgre I will soon reply to your posts........

Muhammad Imran Arshad
 
Macgre if you do not believe us then why you ask us! we are not liars. I have more than 5 posts explainning to you that the
diacritical marks do not affect the meanning and not just that there is another one with another religion like WaterStreet told
you that  diacritical marks do not affect the meanning but you do not blieve us. then we told you that seven Quranic reading
(cantillatoin) is a diffrent issue but you also insistedthat it is not! If you do not believe anyone just search for this topic by yourself
and do not waste our time.

What I said about the diacritical marks were only in regard to Hebrew.  
I mentioned them as trying to be helpful, by giving what MIGHT be a similar usage in another language - for what it was worth.
I have no way of knowing if the use of diacritical marks applies exactly the same in the Quran.

I now realize my comments have interrupted a conversation - sorry.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> Macgre if you do not believe us then why you ask us! we are not liars.

Never have I accused you of lying!  But I do most sincerely believe that you are mistaken.

What WaterStreet said applies to Hebrew a different language.  All my research clearly indicates that it is different for Arabic.
If you really want to help why don't you answer my questions?  

You said that:

"you" in 'let you rejoice' not like english can be said to one or to many, in arabic it is said just to many therefore it has the same
meanning to 'let them rejoice'.

Your response seems to be that because the Arabic "you" is plural and "them" is also plural that they both mean the same thing.

But there is still a big difference that you were either unaware of or ignored as unimportant.  "You" can refer to more than one
person but it also includes the person being addressed.  "Them" clearly refers to more than one but it also does NOT include the
person being addressed.  So now is this an incorrect translation as the Arabic words both include (or don't include) the person
being addressed or is it accurate and therefore the Quran has two different meanings?

You don't answer this question, why?

> then we told you that seven Quranic reading (cantillatoin) is a diffrent issue but you also insistedthat it is not!

The research that lead me to the "let them/you rejoice" question was based entirely on the fact that one of the seven Quranic
readings reads "them", and another reads "you".  I am not "insisting" anything I am merely stating the obvious, something that
you are having trouble accepting at the moment...

WaterStreet,

> I now realize my comments have interrupted a conversation - sorry.

No need to apologize, it is something worth knowing.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

CetusMOD,

Thanks, it screwed up some of the earlier posts (whihc is OK), it should work much better now.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

I could respond to each of your claims individually (I have seen all these claims before) but I would rather ask you if I could find even just one clear error in the Quran would you then accept that the Quran is not from God?

If you do then I would like to ask you to tell me how my inheritance will be distributed when I die.  I have two daughters a father and mother and one wife.  As far as I can tell from Sura 4 verses 11 and 12 my daughters get
2/3, my mother and father get 1/6 each (total of 1/3) and my wife gets 1/8.  That adds up to more than 1!

MohdAsalah tells me that I am using a faulty translation, that the word "walad" is translated children when it should have been translated child in at least one place.  The version I use can be found here: http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/

PS I look forward to your evidence that the Bible is unscientific and your responses to my earlier comments to you.

By the way, the Bible is not a book of science.  What is the big deal about science?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

WaterStreet,

> By the way, the Bible is not a book of science.

I agree, but I am interested to see why people like imarshad and MohdAsalah, are so convinced that the Bible is not from God...

> What is the big deal about science?

To some, science is the ultimate authority on what is true, so any connection they can make with science is seen as a good reason to accept what they claim as true.


PS I am going on vacation until August 9th, and my idea of vacation involves complete isolation from civilization.
Thanks,

Have a good vacation.
>>By the way, the Bible is not a book of science.  What is the big deal about science?

Yes and so is Quran..... as I have stated earlier in my post
Let me remind you that the Glorious Quran is not a book of Science S-C-I-E-N-C-E, It is a book of signs S-I-G-N-S......

But these scientific facts were provided just to show all of you that the Quran is a word of Allah and to show Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him) was not the author of this book.....

Can you imagine such scientific facts to be authored by some human 1400 years ago ? and that too in Arab where there were depths of Ignorance and by a man who couldnot read or write?????????????? It was in the 16-17 th century that people were being killed for even saying that Earth is Flat and imagine in 6th century Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) to be knowing the facts of Astrology like rotation of Sun about its own axis , Big Bang theory, Expanding Universe etc. and many other points which I have not even touched Is this possible for some human ? The answer is simply no..... So Quran is a word of Allah which has been revealed on Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

 No scientist has ever been able to even point out a single scientific error(or any other) in Quran......
Allah has challenged in Quran all the Non beleivers to join together and try to make even a single verse like the one in Quran and no one has been able to do so even after 1400 years passed....

>>but I am interested to see why people like imarshad and MohdAsalah, are so convinced that the Bible is not from God...

We muslims have the belief that Bible was revealed on Jesus (Peace be upon him) and before Quran it was the Guidance for the world........So we muslims are being ordered to accept Bible as a book revealed from God to Jesus.....No one can be Muslim without having this faith.......The contradictory point is that our Quran tells us that the Christian scholars tailored and rewrote the Bible according to their own benefits..... as well as hiding different parts of Bible that could have worked against them.....So we muslims have the faith that Bible was revealed on Jesus by God but now it has been changed, rewritten and tailored by different people (over a period of 2000 years) and now it is not in its original state.....


 
WaterStreet,

>What I said about the diacritical marks were only in regard to Hebrew.

Did I say that it refer to arabic!
I mentioned it just to support what I said and give myself a credibility to let him know that the diacritical marks do not always affect the meaning like hebraw in contrary to his belief that diacritical marks change the meanning as french.
Macgre,

>If you have limited understanding of just one verse in the Quran then there is at least one part of the Quran that you DO NOT understand.  If you understood every part of the Quran you wouldn't have limited understanding.  My question was very specific, do you understand ALL of the Quran?  Yes or No?  I will interpret an answer of limited to be No.  Just as there are parts in the Bible that I have "limited" understanding of...

"Limit of understanding" is different from "Not understand", you may did not understand what I mean of "Limit of understanding" of some Quranic verse, as the Quran is Gods's words and the God who has the full knowledge of all things it is hard to understand all of what he said or what he means for some things that relate to the universe and some other facts, our understanding is limited of what we know and based just on our limited knowledge. as a science keep progress and discover new facts we more understand what the God means and discovered that some of these scientific facts was mentioned in Quran.
MohdAsaiah

Well, my pastiche turned out to be a pretty accurate imiitation of your reply...

My link was to the website of Atlantic Monthly, a well-known and well-respected US magazine. I'll leave it to others to decide whether they prefer that as a source or the Aryan supremacist sites that you normally quote.

I don't know what you mean by a 'hoax'. Are you saying that no Qu'ran manuscripts were found at Sa'na? Because plenty of other authorities, including Islamic sites disagree; see for example:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

And if that's still not enough, there are extracts online from UNESCO:

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/visite/sanaa/en/present1.html

Yes, they found other non-Quaranic material there as well, but they also found Quranic fragments.

Would you or Imarshad care to answer the main outstanding question that Macgre and I have:

"The diacritical marks in one of those readings not only effects the vowels, but at times the consonants, which can also effect meaning!  Sura 10:58 is the example we have been concentrating on lately, specifically on whether God said "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice" (the you in question is plural).  You includes the person being addressed, them does not, different meaning."
Hi Macgre !
                Coming back to your comments

>> In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. Neither did Mohammed

I can agree to the first part of what you have said..... and that is Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him) neither wrote a word.....Yes it might be true as he couldnot write......But the second part is totally wrong........Whenever any Ayah from Quran was revealed it was memorized as well as written on Palm Leaves, bones etc. etc. There were 42 such people which we call "Katibeen" or writers who wrote each and every word of what was revealed on Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and this was under the instruction and supervision of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).......

>> and I highly doubt that you can prove that Jesus never instructed anyone to write down what he was saying or that >>none of the apostles actually didn't write anything down while he was alive.

Even the Christians do not claim anywhere that the Bible they have was written under the instructions of Jesus..... They call it the narration of eye witnesses....(Which too we doubt). So how can you claim that these gospels were written under the instructions of Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) ?

> Can you tell me where to find the actual Bible in its own language in which it came from Heavens ?
>I read that the original Quran was written on scraps of paper, palm leaves, bone, etc.  Do you have these originals?  If >not then you no more have an original Quran than I have any original Biblical document.

Your comment made me laugh....... The top most  comment from you was that Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) neither wrote it and neither instructed it to be written..... Now here you are saying that it was written on Palm Leaves and Bones...
and it was the original one ? Which of your statement is True?
Now I have never mentioned that we need the original Bones and Palm leaves to certify the Bible or Quran to be authentic...
Have I ? Can you quote some of my comment whcih says so ? I was refering to the original language of Bible and Quran....
Since the language(Arabics) and Quran both are preserved so this doubt should be out of your mind that Quran has been changed from its original state......All you can argue is about the authenticity of Quran to be from God or written by Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)......

> The second reason being that there is not one bible but multiple bibles present now a days.......Which one is the correct ?
>Lets be VERY CLEAR, there are multiple TRANSLATIONS, NOT muliple Bibles.

Muslims reject the New Testament as a 'superior Holy Book' because there is not a single sentence in it that is uniform. Oh! we also forgot to mention that according to the great Church tradition, we have the Bibles of the Protestant Church, Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church and Syriac Church. They contain different number of books and God knows best how many variants one is expected to see in them. So, our question now is which variants and the books in the Bible are inspired by God? And what the evidence for it?


>>The original classical Arabic had no diacritical marks as the current printed Qurans do.

This is very clearly described in the following link.....I donot want to reproduce it again here so you can read it there......
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html

and again what I have already stated.....

Some may require 10 signs,  some may require 100.  Some, even after a 1000 signs are given, they will not accept the truth. Quran calls such people, as in Surah Baqarah Ch. 2, Verse 18 "The deaf, the dumb, the blind, they will not return to the true path." The Bible says the same thing in Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 13, Verse No. 13 "Seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither will they understand".........

Muhammad Imran Arshad
>>Would you or Imarshad care to answer the main outstanding question that Macgre and I have?

This has been answered on the following link as stated abve in my Post......
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html
Imarshad

Both macgre and I are very well aware of this website, and have worked our way through the page you reference as best we can. But it doesn't answer the question we raise. We accept that none of the meanings changes doctrine. We accept that there are many situations where different words could have bene read different ways and aren't. We accept that many of the changes caused by diacritical marks are just to do with pronunciation and not meaning. However, the text from Brockett quoted with approval on that site reads:

"The simple fact is that none of the differences, whether vocal or graphic, between the transmission of Hafs and the transmission of Warsh has any **great** effect on the meaning. Many are the differences which do not change the meaning at all, and the rest are ***differences with an effect on the meaning in the immediate context of the text itself***, but without any significant wider influence on Muslim thought." (my emphasis)

There is no GREAT effect, but there is some effect. The effects have no impact on doctrine, but they preclude an argument that the text is one single text that God has revealed perfectly to the world, bercause there are a few (admittedly small) areas where we are not sure what the text actually says. One of them is 10:58. Does it say 'let you rejoice' or 'let them rejoice'? Despite what you say, the page you reference does not answer this.
MATruman,

>I don't know what you mean by a 'hoax'

I mean that the information that your site (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm) mentioned is lies like how the author trying to suspect that it is not perfect and some other arguments, what I know about this story the material found was a peot and some small few parts of Quran. So you are all confused about what is the Quran readin? any way I will try to explain it tomorrow. I am tired now.
I haven't heard any muslims address the issue of why God would let His nature be mistaken for 600 years.  Christians were worshipping Jesus as God, but this seems to have been a "minor" mistake allowed by God for a long time.

And I haven't heard any muslims argue about the different versions of the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Bible?  If one must look at the Arabic for the Quran, why not the original languages of the Bible?
Hello Callandor,

You wrote:
And what about God's inability to get out the truth about Jesus until 600 years later?
A failure to communicate something as fundamental as the nature of God is pretty serious.

It is interesting because earlier in the thread I made a similar argument, how with the inventions made by the Church and something Jesus (pbuh) never said, Churchians made God a man of family, with a son, like a human, God's creation, rejecting thousands years of truth, God being The One, The Only.  Refer to the Old Testament, it is in your Bible.

I also read in this thread that there were Christians who denied the trinity, and it was the trinitarians with power who made it official around the 320 AD.  So, it was not really 600 years but only a couple centuries which is just enough for trinitarian belief to settle.

So, it is amazing how Jews worshipped Calf in 40 days of absence of Moses, and similarly it is amazing, how in the absence of Jesus (pbuh) Christians worshipped multiple gods, despite a later revelation, The Quran.  Unfortunately they still do.

We know that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, so if you bring Aramaic Gospel, we will be happy to read it.
hao64,

Basically, you are saying you don't trust what the Bible says, without providing any evidence that it is untrustworthy.  Talking about different translations is not the same as talking about the original language text.  The part about the church putting together its own idea of God is a pretty good conspiracy theory, but you should try to stay with the facts.  Textual criticism is the study of the transmission of the Bible through time, and it points to a very accurate copy of the Bible today from the originals.  It doesn't matter that you think a council decided in 320AD to formalize the Trinity, the text itself supports the idea from the beginning.

>So, it is amazing how Jews worshipped Calf in 40 days of absence of Moses, and similarly it is amazing, how in the absence of Jesus (pbuh) Christians worshipped multiple gods, despite a later revelation, The Quran.  Unfortunately they still do.

Nowhere were the Israelites told by God that the calf was to be worshipped - they did that on their own, and suffered for it.  You may think Christians worship multiple gods, but there is one God, three persons.  Since Jesus Himself was worshipped and He accepted that worship, that should make Him a false prophet in your eyes, unless He really was God.

>We know that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, so if you bring Aramaic Gospel, we will be happy to read it.

Here is some background study on Aramaic, since you are misunderstanding what it was and how it was used:
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html
Dear Callandor,

The site you provided ,... I quote:
"Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. "

We Muslims believe in the Gospel revealed to Jesus (pbuh) and hence it should be in Aramaic, since Jesus (buh) spoke Aramaic.  The fact that you do not have a single Gospel in Aramaic proves that they are not Jesus's words but someone's interpretations.  And since Muslims believe Quran is the only Word, after Jesus (pbuh), and it is preserved in the way it was revealed, Arabic, starting with "In the name of The God", this gives us the Criterion, as Quran calls itself, to tell us what is really right and what is really wrong.  For example, if a man claims to be God and was able to resurrect people as Jesus (pbuh) did, I would refer back to Quran and see that the man is wrong.  Miracles are not ways to divert my belief.  Jews use this as an excuse to kill Jesus (pbuh) which he never claimed, but he wanted to change their very strict ways.  Unfortunately while Jesus said that "he did not come to change the law", they misunderstood and took it the other extreme including eating pork and worshipping multiple persons..

You somehow try to justify shirk (making equals with The God) by saying you only worship One God but three persons.  In Quran, we are taught by God what shirk means very comprehensively; if what you make equal with God is not even a person but a thing, it is still shirk.  Such as people who worship money, power, race, etc, may God protect us from being among those.  This concept is very deep, as you are also aware, I believe; God does not accept a good deed if it was not 100% done for His Sake, because He only accepts what is pure.  How do you think that he would accept a worship which is ONLY 33/100?  The good news for you though we read in Quran that Jesus (pbuh) will plead for you, asking God to forgive you asking for Mercy even though he will say that he never asked you to worship him.  Now it is up to God, and not to me, but if I were you I would not gamble with the eternal life, and it is God's Word, that if you donot say trinity it is better for you.  And we know that God Keeps His Promise.  But we also know that there are multiple levels in Heaven as well as Hell, so, what means by better.. only Allah (The God: Al-ilah in Arabic) Knows.  

Dear Callandor,

Coming back to being worshipped..  Where did Jesus (pbuh) asked his followers to worship him?  Read Old Testament and Quran and see how God asks to be worshipped ALONE.  If Jesus (pbuh) was God, where in Gospels he uses the same style and asks to be worshipped?  

Let me tell you what Quran, The Word says...   Jesus (pbuh) is not God, but The Word, supported by the Holy Spirit.  And what Jesus says in your Bible supports this more than it supports what you believe.  So my evidence is what Jesus said in your Bible.

BTW... Does it really matter?  Not really.  If you take these..  however huge, few differences away, all three semitic religions believe in the same values which really make a difference in the way we live.  Whether I believe in Jesus to be God or not, this is between me and the Creator.  However not to opress weak, not to persecute people because of the way they believe, not to take a life unjustly, etc, are all what matters, and the values are the same.  So, it is amazing how ateists show religions as the cause of chaos in the world, which are actually human greed and fight for power.  

I believe that this site helps us understand why we believe the way we do, without really expecting anyone to make a change in the way s/he believes, I believe once you see the light, you won't miss the darkness.

Quran Chapter 2: Verse 254
Let there be no compulsion in religion,
Truth stands clear from error
Whoever believes in Allah has grasped the most trusthworthy handhold that never breaks
Allah is The Hearer, The Knower.

hao64,

I don't know why you attach special significance to the requirement that the Gospels should be in Aramaic - is that a magic formula to guarantee accuracy?  We are communicating in English here, but that is not a guarantee that meanings will be preserved if a recording of our conversations are written down by another person in English.  You are looking at things from man's perspective, and man's abilities.  If God is sending a revelation of who He is and is all-powerful, what does the requirement for being in the original language add to His ability?  You are diminishing the sovereignty of God in the preservation and transmission of His revelation.  The original writings are in Greek, and that does not in any way make the records less trustworthy.  You would have to show evidence that keeping things in the original language guarantees that someone writing it will write it accurately, which I don't think you can do.

As far as Jesus' view on worship, He said
10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
  Matt 4:10 (NIV)

and combining that with
33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
  Matt 14:33 (NIV)

9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.
  Matt 28:9 (NIV)

17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
  Matt 28:17 (NIV)

52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
  Luke 24:52 (NIV)

38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
  John 9:38 (NIV)

Jesus did not tell them to not worship Him, as a prophet who is only a man should have.  He also forgave sins against God, which only God could do:

1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
2 Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
5 Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?
6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
7 And the man got up and went home.
  Matt 9:1-7 (NIV)

It is clear that the teachers of the law understood that Jesus was claiming the ability to forgive sins against God, or they would not have said He was blaspheming.

So far, the only response I have seen to these references is to dismiss them as not being the Word of God.  If you do so, then you are once again stating that God did not have the power make it clear who Jesus was or who God was, until the Quran came along.  Are you prepared to make such a statement?
By the way, I have no disagreement with your last remarks about how we ought to live - to show compassion and respect for others in the world.  Whatever your faith, this is an admirable thing to do.
Dear MATruman,

You wrote:
There is no GREAT effect, but there is some effect. The effects have no impact on doctrine, but they preclude an argument that the text is one single text that God has revealed perfectly to the world, bercause there are a few (admittedly small) areas where we are not sure what the text actually says. One of them is 10:58. Does it say 'let you rejoice' or 'let them rejoice'? Despite what you say, the page you reference does not answer this.

Considering the fact that Christians not having a Gospel as it was revealed to the Messenger, in Aramaic, the argument you have over the wovel marks in Qur'an is really interesting.  Quran is usually memorized and recited from memory as well.  In ignorant ages, when many did not know how to read or write, wovel marks were not an issue.  When we look at very important documents, such as peace agreements between waring factions, we still see no wovel marks in ancient Arabic documents.  

Quran makes many points about the virtues of thinking and understanding, and it is God's right since he has given us those facilities.  

On the one hand we have Christians who make a person into being god, something Jesus (pbuh) has never said, with or without wovel marks, and those Christians turning around and arguing with their Muslim brethren about Quran, arguing about wovel marks changing the meaning of a text, while the text has nothing to do with the nature of God that is fundamental to a faith.  On the other hand, the verses regarding the nature of God, the nature of Jesus not being God, trinity, crucifixion, the nature of Spirit not being God, being spelled out very clearly.

If it is our belief that there is God, and He sends Messengers to convey the Truth, it must be obvious that Quran confirms the previous revelations and the messengers, and also stands as a criterion to clear out our misunderstandings from previous revelations.  There are hundreds of websites where the latest revelation, The Quran, is available to those who seek guidance.  And it has not changed as the LAST REVELATION, it should not and cannot change, because God protects it, as He protected it against the Meccan idolaters, as He protected it against crusades, as He protected it and still protects it against hypocrites in Muslim lands.  Has God kept His Promise, that He would send guidance to human beings, so that if they followed it , they would not fall into the traps of Satan?  YES INDEED,  I AM A WITNESS, THANKS TO THE GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, THE LORD OF THE WORLDS.


ISLAM:    SUBMISSION TO THE GOD'S WILL AND ACHIEVING PEACE IN THIS WORLD AND HEREAFTER
MUSLIM: THE ONE WHO SUBMITS HIMSELF TO THE WILL OF THE GOD

Quran, Chapter 2 Verse 140:
Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma'il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah. Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah. but Allah is not unmindful of what ye do!

Let us asks ourselves, are we truly a Muslim?  Messengers were and they showed us how to become one.  Why can't we?

I love you all.  May God help us all to become true Muslims.  AMEN.

Dear Callandor,

Regarding the worship...  People worshipped kings too prostrating in front of them.  Do we say that they worship them because they are god, it is only out of due respect.  God asked angels to prostrate in front of Adam, as a sign of submission.  Did Jesus (pbuh) say worship me, I am God?  No, but this is how he was admired and greeted, and if I knew Jesus (pbuh) probably I would also bow to kiss his hand, this is how I am taught to greet respectable leaders in my culture.  Though as a Muslim, we are taught one should not bow except to God.  We are taught clearly by the Last Messenger of The God, not go to the extreme like Christians did.  As long as Jesus has not said to be worshipped, you could not take the eye witness accounts of what happened as a sign to claim him as God.

Regarding Jesus (pbuh) forgiving sins, it happened by God's Will.  He WAS WORD.  When he spoke, he said of what The Father, The God says.  May be this is why he was born with no father and he never married.  These are just my limited thoughts, however Allah Knows, I do not know.  In a tradition of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) he said that every human being has a satan that he has to deal with, and Jesus (pbuh) did not have one.  I do not know the authenticity of this tradition, however it just shows that Jesus (pbuh) was an extra ordinary man, like his birth.

We also know that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) declared the names of people who would go to Paradise while they were still alive, and it happened only by God's Will.  If people did not believe in Muhammed (pbuh) they could also say that he was blaspheming since only God knows whom to send to Heaven.

Dear Callandor,

It is up to God what to do, if He wanted he could make everyone a believer.  All He has to say is Be, and it will be.  It is His creation, His Decision.  He does have Power to do anything He wants.  The Guidance is from Him.  He could choose to leave us in the darkness, He could drown us in acid rain, He could bring the sun and clash it with the earth right now.  There are people now who has the knowledge of God and yet they choose to do evil, oppressing or taking innocent lives.  Allah sees them but "He only gives them respite until the Day that is appointed."

I believe that God tests us in the most beatiful way at the most beatiful times to see if we could bring out the best within us.  See, in Arabian peninsula before Islam, Jews ridiculed Arabs as ignorant and taught themselves as chosen.  What did God do?  He sent a messenger to the world from among the Arabs, instead of the Jews.  Some accepted Islam and most did not.  How is God testing Christian World now?  Muslim World is now underdeveleoped and Christian World is developed.  The challenge of a Christian in the West is to recognize the Truth even though it originates from a land inferior in technology.  Now I am thinking, how God is testing or will test Muslims?  Islam is the last religion, so there won't be any challenge to Muslims in the form of a religion but only from the sworn enemy of mankind, Satan.  So you see Muslims deviating from the right path, becoming hypocrites to achieve higher positions and offices.  
hao64,

You cannot impose any meaning that may fit into worship.  The question is, did the Jewish people in the first century worship kings or other human beings?  Since God clearly instructed them in this and it was part of their beliefs, I am inclined to say no.  In another culture and another time, you might be able to put forward your case, but it has no basis here.  The same applies to forgiving sins against God - it isn't a question of what YOU think is acceptable, but what did the people of that time think was acceptable?  It is clear from the response that they saw it as God's prerogative.  If you don't keep to the context of culture and time, you can come to all sorts of wrong conclusions, which people do at their own peril.

If you say God can do anything He pleases, you run into the problem of logical inconsistencies.  No, God can't make a rock so big He couldn't lift it - that is a logical inconsistency.

Peace Callandor,

Considering that Jesus (pbuh) was raising people from death by God's Will, and speaking The Word, he had no equal.  Jews might not have worshipped anyone however ignorant people, seeing all these miracles would act in a way that looks like worship, which actually is not.  We are talking about people who lived 2000 years ago.  Even today you would see people almost worshipping their "idols", with the kind of respect or love they show.  If you ask them if they worship, they would say no, but the way they behave is actually looks like they worship.  This is my experience, and may be one day you will also observe that behavior.

Just wondering if you had thought about it at all.  
Don't Christians believe that you have to believe that Jesus died on the cross to be forgiven?
How do you explain what happens to all the people who lived before Jesus?
If there was another way of salvation before Jesus, why that is not good anymore?



 
>>you are saying you don't trust what the Bible says, without providing any evidence that it is untrustworthy.

Callandor, I said that before, the contradictions in different Gospels make it untrustworthy.
hao64,

I don't think it is a fair assumption to say that people who lived 2000 years ago had flawed logic or in any way were less "smart" than we are today.  They had less facts available than we do and were technologically behind us, but that in no way made them less capable of thinking.  The area of religion has not advanced, so what are you basing your statement on?  The disciple John wanted to worship the angel delivering the message in Revelation, but he was immediately corrected and told not to do so.  You are extrapolating your own ideas into what happened 2000 years ago, instead of looking at the facts and letting them tell you what they say.

The way of salvation has not changed at all - faith in God was required to please Him before, and faith in God is required to please Him now.  The sacrifice of the Passover lamb for sins was instituted early on, and it was fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus.  The quality lacking in the annual sacrifice was that it had to be done repeatedly, whereas the sacrifice of Jesus was done just once and for all.  The book of Hebrews says Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.  No difference, just an unveiling of what was intended from the beginning.
MohdAsalah,

Did you stop researching as soon as you saw something that looked like a contradiction?  I find that most contradictions can be resolved by digging a little deeper and asking yourself if it can be explained.  But I suspect that if you have no incentive to do so, you won't look any further.
The trouble that some of contradictions in Gospels do not need too much digging to be known, it is enough to read two Gospels to easily know the discrepancies that they have!
MohdAsalah,

I am surprised that you say this.  There are a few "Bible contradiction" threads open, and yet I have not seen you post to any of them.  So if you really think this is true, I suggest that you start voicing your objections and laying out your evidence.  It would be more appropriate in those threads than this one.
Callandor

>There are a few "Bible contradiction" threads open, and yet I have not seen you post to any of them.  

It is not of my interesting.

>I suggest that you start voicing your objections and laying out your evidence

Come on Callandor, Do you deny that there are a horrible contradictions in bible or what!
I do not understand what you are argue about! Most of researchers agree that the Gospels did not written by apostels and they have many contradictions! Do not come after all that and tell us it is trustworthy.
MohdAsalah,

>It is not of my interesting.

You are going to have to make up your mind - if it isn't interesting to you, don't bring it up here, because I would consider it a waste of my time to discuss something that doesn't interest you.

>I do not understand what you are argue about! Most of researchers agree that the Gospels did not written by apostels and they have many contradictions! Do not come after all that and tell us it is trustworthy.

And you will have to do better than that - I am interested in what YOU think, and YOUR reasoning.  Just telling me that some people don't agree on the authenticity of the Gospels is not sufficient.  By that same logic, I should listen to those who say the Quran is not authentic without giving it a thought myself.
Peace Callandor,

You wrote:
I don't think it is a fair assumption to say that people who lived 2000 years ago had flawed logic or in any way were less "smart" than we are today.  They had less facts available than we do and were technologically behind us, but that in no way made them less capable of thinking.  


The point is that the human beings, regardless of the time, tend to exaggerate things.  If Jesus (pbuh) never told anyone to worship him, and people have done it out of exaggerated admiration, how could we make this a fundamental part of our faith, especially when there is a later revelation telling us the truth?

You also said:
You are extrapolating your own ideas into what happened 2000 years ago, instead of looking at the facts and letting them tell you what they say.

These are not my ideas, but what God has told His Messenger regarding about the divinity of Jesus (pbuh).  

Thanks for the answer to my question.  Though would you say, if I were to keep sacrifice lambs every year, would it be alright?  If "the way to salvation has not changed", it should be OK, shouldn't it?

We are taught that the annual sacrifice is to celebrate the submission of Abraham (pbuh) to God's Will, when he decided to sacrifice his son.  It is suppose to be a sign of obediyence rather than an act of washing the sins off.  What is your reference regarding the sacrifice washing the sins?
"Thanks for the answer to my question.  Though would you say, if I were to keep sacrifice lambs every year, would it be alright?  If "the way to salvation has not changed", it should be OK, shouldn't it?

We are taught that the annual sacrifice is to celebrate the submission of Abraham (pbuh) to God's Will, when he decided to sacrifice his son.  It is suppose to be a sign of obediyence rather than an act of washing the sins off.  What is your reference regarding the sacrifice washing the sins?"

Strictly speaking, no, the way to salvation has not changed at all. However, you are forgetting the entire purpose of Christianity and the Bible (at least the New Testament) - the reason Jesus died is so that he would *become* the "sacrifical lamb" - the *one and only* sacrificial lamb to *replace* the frequent periodic sacrifices. Hence, sacricifing lambs would be redundant at this point.
hao64,

>If Jesus (pbuh) never told anyone to worship him, and people have done it out of exaggerated admiration, how could we make this a fundamental part of our faith, especially when there is a later revelation telling us the truth?

It should be clear that if Jesus, being a great teacher of God's laws, did nothing to change peoples' minds when they worshipped Him, He was implicitly agreeing to their actions.  To make it more clear, look at the context of John 9:35-38

35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
36"Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him."
37Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."
38Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

The blind man was looking for the Messiah to believe in (Son of Man in Jesus' day was associated with Dan 7 and the Messiah), and when Jesus told him it was He, the man responded by putting his trust in Jesus and worshipping.  Prior to this, the blind man only knew Jesus first in name only, then as a prophet, then bearing witness that Jesus is one come from God, and finally accepting his claim to be the Son of Man.  Trying to say the man was exaggerating (as well as the disciples, in other passges) puts a meaning in there that has no support from the text.  The Greek word proskyneo is always used in the New Testament to mean adoration of something divine.

To add more support,

54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Jesus was claiming to have been around when Abraham was around, an impossible feat for a human being living in His day.  On top of that, He uses the "I am" to refer to Himself, a phrase reserved exclusively for God by the Jewish people.

beaker67 has explained the end of the need for sacrifice today, because no sacrifice can add more to what was already done by Jesus' sacrifice.

The reference for the sacrifice cleansing us of our sins is found in Ex 24:8
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

and Heb 9:22

22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Dear Callandor,

The references you sited do not plainly prove that Jesus (pbuh) is God.  It is only interpretations.  I have seen too many times the media picking only a few words of a speech and bending it to mean entirely different things than what the speaker intended.    Even if Jesus (pbuh) has said those words, you could interpret it differently as well.  For example, as a Muslim, I know that The God existed before Abraham, and His Word, as well.  Jesus (pbuh) was The Word, hence in a way he did existed before Abraham (pbuh).  All Messengers are given knowledge by God, and it is not uncommon that Abraham (pbuh) rejoiced if he was given the news about Jesus (pbuh).  We do believe that Jesus (pbuh) also mentioned the coming of Muhammed (pbuh), as it is written in Quran.

Another interpretation is that God created/planned the whole sequence of events from the final hour towards beginning.  We see that in the way God has chosen the words in Quran, such as "He has created death and life".  In this case everything already exists in God's Knowledge, planned starting from the end of time towards zero.  Hence Jesus (pbuh) comes before Abraham in the plan, and actually Muhammad is the messenger that comes first in this plan since he is the last messenger.  Of course, this is only an interpretation and The God Knows Best.

As you see, I see the meanings of what Jesus (pbuh) said different from you, in the Light of the Quran.  And this is not how God asks His servants to worship Him either, He is very direct, plain and He commands.  Refer to the OT and The Quran.

Regarding the shedding of blood, I believe the OT verses are taken out of context.  What Moses (pbuh) does is marking the covenant and has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins.  The covenant is about the Children of Israel to be odedient to God, as you read the previous verses in Exodus.  Your reference in Hebrews on the other hand is from the New Testament and that is not what Jesus (pbuh) had said either.  Hence it is someone's imagination, who believes that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified and he was the perfect sacrifice.  Do you have any OT verses that really points to shedding of blood as an obligation to forgive sins?  This is similar to trying to find trinity in OT, and we went through this earlier in the thread, and no evidence could be produced.  I wonder if the same holds for blood for forgiveness argument.  Thanks in advance for your reply.  

It seems that in this thread we not only prove that there is no inconsistency in Quran but also in God's Message through His Messengers, in OT and Gospels when the messengers speak.  In the fundamentals of the faith, with the Light provided by Quran, we see no inconsistency.  This is a testimony that God's Message is preserved by God for thousands of years, and we all witness to that.  And if this is not a miracle, what is?  The God is The Greatest.  (Allahu Akbar)  
Callandor

>> if it isn't interesting to you, don't bring it up here, because I would consider it a waste of my time to discuss something that doesn't interest you.

I did not want to discuss it dude, I just mentioned it to give you evidence about the untrustworthy of the Gospels.

>>... Just telling me that some people don't agree on the authenticity of the Gospels is not sufficient.

Not sufficient? Funny!...those people are not like you, there reasoning do not depend of what they feel. They did not just tell us that the Gospels are not trustworthy and stop, they give us a logical reasoning resulted from their scientific study.

>> By that same logic, I should listen to those who say the Quran is not authentic without giving it a thought myself.

Huh? Really?
Look Callandor I have study all the criticisms against Quran, And I did not find anyone really deserve to take it into our considerations and most of it based on misunderstanding of Arabic languages.
hao64

Motion to strike as non-responsive, your honor...

10.58. Does it say 'let them rejoice' or 'let you rejoice'?

You won't get any argument from me that the gospels are not the 'ipissima verba' (the very words) of Jesus. I'm just arguing that the Qu'ran is, equally, not the very words of God. I doubt very much that it's the very words of the prophet either, but most of the textual evidence that could have show that is now gone, however the minor differences in meaning that some of the diacritical marks introduce is proof that it is not the final and perfect revelation of God.

I'm ignoring any and all replies that don't actually address the question of what 10.58 actually says; if it's not answered I'm going to assume that I'm right...
MATruman,  

Here is Your Honor talking:

In the Name of The God, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful,

6:102 That is Allah, your Lord! there is no god but He, the Creator of all things: then worship ye Him: and He hath power to dispose of all affairs.
6:103 No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.
6:104 "Now have come to you, from your Lord, proofs (to open your eyes): if any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings."
6:105 Thus do we explain the signs by various (symbols): that they may say, "Thou hast taught (us) diligently," and that We may make the matter clear to those who know.
6:106 Follow what thou art taught by inspiration from thy Lord: there is no god but He: and turn aside from those who join gods with Allah.
6:107 If it had been Allah's plan, they would not have taken false gods: but We made thee not one to watch over their doings, nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs.
6:108 Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.
6:109 They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly (all) signs are in the power of Allah. but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe."?
6:110 We (too) shall turn to (confusion) their hearts and their eyes, even as they refused to believe in this in the first instance: We shall leave them in their trespasses, to wander in distraction.
6:111 Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).
6:112 Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.
6:113 To such (deceit) let the hearts of those incline, who have no faith in the hereafter: let them delight in it, and let them earn from it what they may.
6:114 Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah. - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.
6:115 The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.
6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.
6:117 Thy Lord knoweth best who strayeth from His way: He knoweth best who they are that receive His guidance.

The God has spoken The Truth.
hao64,

You still fail to address the question of why Jesus accepted worship from men.  This is something not permitted by the Law and He was a teacher of the Law.  The explanation of exaggeration doesn't deal with His response.

Your explanation of Jesus' statement that He was present before Abraham is evasive, and you couldn't arrive at it from reading the text.  The text says He was about to be stoned for blasphemy after He said that - a person could only be stoned for specific offenses in that day.

Lev 5:1-13 speaks of the necessity of a sin offering, and almost always requires the sacrifice of an animal.  The exception is if the person is too poor to afford such an offering; then a substitute is acceptable.  The temple rituals revolved around the various sacrifices, and are an intrinsic part of the Mosaic covenant.
Callandor,

Thanks for providing the references.  I was wrong to assume that OT would not have a reference regarding the forgiveness of sin.  Please forgive my ignorance.  This explains what drove the misinterpretations regarding Jesus (pbuh).  

In reality, the tradition of sacrifice comes from Abraham (pbuh) and it is done as a sign of obedience, not as a sign of forgivenes of sins.  It probably goes all the way to the sons of Adam:

5:27 But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil).

Millions of Muslims sacrifice an animal (camel, sheep, etc) every year, to commemorate Abraham's obedience to The God.  He was ordered to sacrifice his son, and he and his son Ishmael (peace be upon them) were obedient.  

Regarding people's "worship" to Jesus (pbuh);  We are told in Quran that Jesus (pbuh) never asked people to worship him, and you do not have an evidence in Jesus 's words either.  How do you know that he told them not to worship, and those who wanted to misguide people omitted them.  How do you explain the divisions among early Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus (pbuh)?  

Taking people's reactions and what they do as a reference is not reliable.  People do what they do:  See the verse:

6:116 Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.

You might have followed with good intention, but now there has come to you The Truth from your Lord, so it is up to you to accept or to reject.  As much as Jesus (pbuh) was The Word, Quran is The Word protected in the memories of the followers.  Quran is not narrations but protected as it was revealed, shedding light to the questions in the minds of the believers, providing a clear and plain message for the believers to follow.

     


 
hao64,

I appreciate that you can see that you missed something, and realizing it is part of the learning process.  What I also wanted to show was the continuity of the O.T. in the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, which was a picture of what Jesus would do in the future.  I know muslims don't believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, but the idea of the sacrifice for sins is consistent from its inception to its fulfillment in Jesus.  Isa 53 is a prophetic view of this.

Regarding worship of Jesus, how do I know if there wasn't an omission by those who wanted to spread their own ideas of Jesus as God?  This supposition would lead to these conclusions:
- The Word of God was not preserved as God intended.  After keeping the Old Testament in its entirety for so many years, God failed to pass on His Word to future generations accurately.
- God allowed the knowledge of who He is to be completely misunderstood to the point of people worshipping someone else (the golden calf doesn't count, because no Word of God said it was God).
- If the New Testament is the compilation of church leaders who wanted to push their own ideas forward, why are there pictures of weakness of the original apostles?  You don’t convince the world that you have the right way if your leaders behave badly, or are perceived as weak and doubting.

We have a fragment of John that dates back to 120AD, and it supports the idea that the New Testament has not changed since.  The church was still young then, not powerful at all and it was close enough to the time when things actually happened that wrong recordings would have been challenged.  In fact, the enemies of Christians would gladly have taken any opportunity to discredit them and do away with them.
     The Qur’an is unique in consistency, harmony, intelligence and rationality.  The Qur’an is the book without inconsistencies; one part of its text, (or doctrine) does not clash with the other. In fact, it sets the absence of contradiction, irrationality, and incoherence, as one of the criteria for checking the authenticity of any divine revelation. It states "Do they not ponder the Qur’an (with care)? Had this book been from anybody but Allah, you would have found much inconsistencies." (Surat An-Nisa:82).

      Because contradictions and inconsistencies call for the negation of one part, which is in conflict with the other and this automatically invalidates portions of the book. In turn that makes it difficult for a man to remain true to any one value, thereby creating mental conflict, emotional and spiritual instability. "Skip some, follow some," "pick and choose" and "no absolutes" become the pattern. And these exercise an extremely damaging influence upon a truth-conscious, rational man with regard to belief in Allah and with regard to the credibility of the book itself. And it leads to dilemmas where sincere minds become "disjointed" and "disenchanted," eventually steering them away from the book or turn them into hypocrites.

      It is unique in its intact preservation in the original language. The Quran is the only religious book today that remains intact-unchanged. Unadulterated, untampered-by any human hand, in its entirety in the original language of revelation. Because:
a) it was set down in writing at the time of the prophet. Whenever the verses of Qur'an were revealed to the prophet, the Prophet called one of the literate companions and dictated to him, giving the exact position of the new verses in the fabric of what had already been received earlier, thus putting his seal to the Text. One of the most famous scribes to whom the Prophet dictated the Text was Zaid Ibn Thabit. Another method of preservation-for guarding the precious te?t- was memorization of Qur'an. At a time, when not many could go to schools, and not many could learn to write, recitation was the best method of preservation, for every one could easily memorize and recite the text. It was the easiest method that everybody could afford-the educated and the uneducated, the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the men, the women and even the little children, as it is the practice even today. Human mind better than computer memory, isn't it? Indeed an ingenious method! God Himself commanded the believers: to memorize and recite the Qur'an (17:78); to listen to the Recitation attentively as a blessing (7:204)-, in homes and families (33:34); and to convey it to others (3:187, 2:159). The Prophet obeyed this commandment himself and enjoined upon his followers. He said: "memorize the Qur'an, for God will not punish the heart which contains the Quran. " He also said "One who has nothing of the Quran inside him is like a desolate and ruined house" and this practice continues right on up to this very day when millions of Muslims recite the Quran, thousands upon thousands memorize the whole of the Quran. The very word Quran in fact means "The Recitation" (of Gods' Revelation) or "The Noble Reading". The prophet used to recite the Quran to the angel Gabriel; and his followers recited the book in daily prayers; some such as Omar, the second Caliph of Islam, used to finish the whole book in one week, so the book was constantly in use and guarded.

      Could an unlettered, unschooled, illiterate man raised 14 centuries ago among desert nomads author a book which even the Ph.D.'s, the most educated doctors of literature, most prolific scholars of journal- ism, the graduates of Al Azhar universities (Oxford, Harvard and Shakespeare compatibles of Arabic literature), of 20th century, of computer age who can think and write electronically, can not match or even come close to it? In face of such irrefutable evidence, it takes a blind man to deny its Divine Authorship.
      Regarding the diacritical markings and variants of the quran, I have found a very info.  Please read the links below.  I know you may not be able to read all this in one day.  But please take your time to read it and understand it.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
The site submission.org is wriiten by someone called Rashad Khalifa, this is a man who was claiming that: HE WAS COMMANDED BY GABRIEL TO TELL THE WORLD HE WAS THE MESSIAH AND “SECOND COMING” OF CHRIST (Check this http://answering-christianity.com/rk_4.htm)

So please remove this whole site and the claimed miracle from consideration when talking about Muslims. ALL Muslims believe that Mohamed is the last prophet of God and that his Holy Quran remained and will remain unchanged forever.

For more information check this: http://answering-christianity.com/rk_cult_exposed.htm


Sources:
http://www.iiie.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html 
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Quran
http://muslim-canada.org/quran_collation.html
http://www.islamonline.org/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=116630
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html
http://www.islamonline.org/English/Qur'an/2004/07/article16.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=6605
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=79452
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=74390
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/08/article03.shtml
http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=55489
Please go to all the sources sites and read the material.  
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

First I am back, and it seems you have all been busy too, I am still catching up so I hope my comments don't appear to time warped... ;-)

imarshad,

> Yes it might be true as he couldnot write......But the second part is totally wrong

No problem, but I believe you quoted me out of context and may have misunderstood me.  Here is what I actually did say on 07/26/2004 09:54AM PDT:

"Neither did Mohammed, and I highly doubt that you can prove that Jesus never instructed anyone to write down what he was saying or that none of the apostles actually didn't write anything down while he was alive."

True I am not aware of any record of Jesus telling anyone to write what he said down, nor is there any record that he didn't.  All I am saying is that just because Mohammed said to write what he said down does not mean that what he said came from God through the angel Gabriel and so does not make the Quran superior in any way.  Personally I find it VERY hard to believe that the men who believed Jesus to be a prophet of God/Messiah did not write ANYTHING he said or did down!

> I was refering to the original language of Bible and Quran....
Since the language(Arabics) and Quran both are preserved so this doubt should be out of your mind that Quran has been changed from its original state

So was I.  We have ancient manuscripts written in the original language, they are not original documents, but the language is.  What is your point???

Tell me the Quran that you read most often, does it have diacritics or not?  If it does then it is not the original as the original does not have any diacritical marks.  Further more there are seven different "versions" of diacritical marks and as I have been discussing at length with MohdAsalah these marks do seem to effect meaning at times...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

MohdAsalah,

> it is hard to understand all of what he said or what he means for some things that relate to the universe and some other facts

Well then that is not the question I asked.  I was not asking if you understand all the "scientific miracles" in the Quran I asked do you understand ALL of the Quran?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

> I did not want to discuss it dude, I just mentioned it to give you evidence about the untrustworthy of the Gospels.

Evidence?!  You saying that scholars agree that the Bible was not written by eyewitnesses and is full of contradictions counts as evidence in your mind?!  I have asked for you to point me to those scholars so I can see for myself, something I have yet to see you do.

Sorry MohdAsalah, I will not simply take your word on anything, nor should you simply take mine.  In the future if you have no intention of providing named references of an external source then please make no mention of that external source.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

> So, our question now is which variants and the books in the Bible are inspired by God?

First, I know that some who call themselves Muslim believe that there are at least two corrupt verses in the Quran.  I am also aware that the Quran is written with at least seven different sets of diacritical marks and that these different marks do at times effect meaning, so which of these "variants" is inspired by God?

So it seems you have a similar problem, but for the sake of our discussion I am willing to limit myself to just the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; which are rendered the same in all sects.


                                                                       >>> BONUS POINTS TO BE WON <<<


Finally I am willing to give 100 points to someone who can explain what Sura 10:58 says: "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice".  Why is such a simple question causing so much difficulty?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Hello hao64,

> We know that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, so if you bring Aramaic Gospel, we will be happy to read it.

I do understand that preserving the actual words of a prophet in their original language is very important to Muslims, but I can show that it wasn't important to Jesus.

In Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 we have Jesus quoted as saying in his native language Aramaic, "Eloi, Eloi. lama sabachthani" - which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What is interesting to note is that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 verse 1, which was written in Hebrew, NOT Aramaic.

Now we know that Jesus (as most other Jews) knew Hebrew because he read from the scroll in a synagogue (Luke 4:16-30).

So if preserving a prophets words in their original language is SO important why did the prophet Jesus not use the original Hebrew which was commonly understood instead of Aramaic?  Maybe it is because the message is more important than the words and so long as the message is preserved the words can change...

> The good news for you though we read in Quran that Jesus (pbuh) will plead for you, asking God to forgive you asking for Mercy even though he will say that he never asked you to worship him.

Try reading John 10:22-42, highlights follow:

v30 Jesus claims to be God, "I and the Father are one" (this is just one of many times he does this).

v33 The Jews decide this is blasphemy and try to kill Jesus "because you [Jesus], a mere man, claim to be God"

Now rather than simply say, "I am not God" he actually defends his claim to divinity by describing how the Father has set him apart from the other "'gods,' to whom the word of God came" and "sent [Jesus] into the world" as "God's Son" (reaffirming his divine nature).  Jesus then draws attention to the miracles as evidence that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" once again affirming that he was God.  No other mere prophet spoke like this, Jesus is quite unique in that regard.

Except for verse 33 everything I quoted is Jesus' own words, never does he deny that he is God, rather he twice reaffirms that he is God.

Jesus uses divine titles (I AM), claims to be the Messiah (which according to the OT is the same as claiming to be God), said that he and God (the Father) are one, claimed to be God's Son, claimed to be in God (the Father) and that God (the Father) was in him.  No other prophet described his relationship with God that way.  Even you admit that he is special, but draw the line at calling him God, citing the Quran as a primary reason.

Furthermore I believe I asked a question long ago about how the OT can say that no one can see God and live when there are so many places where people have seen God and lived?  I offered this as evidence of the Trinity in the OT, but I have yet to hear an answer.

Some more food for thought, what other prophet says, "believe IN me"?  Jesus repeatedly said to "believe IN me", which is very different from saying "believe me" or "believe in my message."  Tell me, are Muslims asked to believe in Mohammed or in his message?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> it must be obvious that Quran confirms the previous revelations and the messengers,

No it is not, rather there are many times where it contradicts and conflicts with Old and New Testament historical facts, not just doctrines and teachings.

> also stands as a criterion to clear out our misunderstandings from previous revelations.

Your idea of clearing up a misunderstanding is to insist that the Quran is from God and that it is the final authority of what is correct and what is corrupt.  Sorry, I simply don't believe that a book that can't add fractions (among other things) is from God.  Seems far more likely that it is nothing more then the invention of Mohammed and his followers.

> How do you explain what happens to all the people who lived before Jesus?

You asked that question before and I believe I answered much earlier in this thread...

> These are not my ideas, but what God has told His Messenger regarding about the divinity of Jesus (pbuh).

So you are expecting me to believe that God told the angel Gabriel to tell Mohammed that Jesus is not God, when those with Jesus worshipped him as God and were not told to stop?  What if I am right and Mohammed never heard from the angel Gabriel?  Would that mean that Jesus is God?

> The references you sited do not plainly prove that Jesus (pbuh) is God.  It is only interpretations.

It seems the only thing you will except is Jesus saying "I am God" in those very words, all else is "just an interpretation" to you.  Jesus rarely taught directly, often in parables, so I find it highly unlikely that we will find what you are looking for.  Though it does seem quite plain to me that he does in fact claim to be God in many different ways, he is not doing so in the manor you desire so you simply reject it.  Truth doesn't always come in the package we desire...

> The God existed before Abraham, and His Word, as well.  Jesus (pbuh) was The Word

How do you know this?  It is recorded in only one place in the Bible, and that is in John 1, where we are also told that Jesus is the Word and that the Word is God?!? Jesus himself never said any such thing!  You seem to be picking just the words that you like and agree with and ignore the rest of the sentence, chapter, paragraph and book!  It would be much easier if I knew in advance which parts of the Bible Muslims accept and which they reject...

> We do believe that Jesus (pbuh) also mentioned the coming of Muhammed (pbuh), as it is written in Quran.

I have heard this before and responded to it here as well, does it involve the Greek words "parakletos" or "periklytos"?

> How do you know that he told them not to worship, and those who wanted to misguide people omitted them.   How do you explain the divisions among early Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus (pbuh)?

Because all the text we have teach trinity, I am not aware of any ancient manuscript that even remotely denies the trinity.  Now if this were a deliberate attempt to misguide people it would require the co-operation of EVERYONE involved and that is just not very likely.

As for the earliest Christian beliefs they were quite consistent, and even the differences that do exist are the result of differing interpretations of the existing text and are not based on a different text.  I may be wrong but I do believe that doctrines that denied the trinity did not exist until many years after the fact, the earliest Christians all appeared to agree that Jesus was God.

> Quran is not narrations but protected as it was revealed, shedding light to the questions in the minds of the believers, providing a clear and plain message for the believers to follow.

I have read much of the Quran and I would not say that it provides a clear and plain message on anything, I actually find it VERY difficult to read and understand.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

> In fact, it sets the absence of contradiction, irrationality, and incoherence, as one of the criteria for checking the authenticity of any divine revelation.

Are you familiar with the practice of abrogation in the Quran?  The Quran itself mentions the practice in Sura 2:106, "Nothing of our revelation do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things?"

I have read verses where it you can't be drunk while praying and later that you shouldn't drink at all.  You think an all knowing God would be able to make up his mind wouldn't you?  Well then why does the Quran portray God as being unable to do so?

> can not match or even come close to it?

That depends on who is doing the judging now doesn't it?  I mean I have read much better literature than the Quran but I am not the judge, and the only judges that you will recognize will most certainly say that the Quran is better so where do we go from here?
Can you please provide the verse which states you shouldn't be drunk while praying?
Abrogation is defined as:
1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL
2 : to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities>
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abrogation+

I believe it is trying to state that you can not nullify the quran.
I hope I have answered that question.  If not, I am not sure what you mean in the question:
 >Are you familiar with the practice of abrogation in the Quran?
What are you trying to prove or say?

When one states can you match it or even come close to it, it means, "Why don't you create your own literature or poems or philosophy which states how to live one's life which can compare to the quran."
If you have read a work which states how one should live their life, can you please tell me, I would be very interested in reading what they have to say.
Macgre,
>I have read verses where it you can't be drunk while praying and later that you shouldn't drink at all.  You think an all >knowing God would be able to make up his mind wouldn't you?  Well then why does the Quran portray God as being >unable to do so?

First of all welcome back from your Vacations.....Hope you have enjoyed them.....

This is a common point that people keep asking about the Holy Quran..... But they altogether forget how Quarn was revealed.....It was revealed within a span of 23 years.... I hope you also know it......Keeping this point into mind let us go to the clarification of the point you have made.....

The issue of abrogation is not reflective of an indecisiveness of God, rather, it is a matter of mercy to mankind. As mentioned in the hadeeth of the prophet's wife Aisha (pbut), had God started out with the command to not drink, not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not lie, not eat pork, pray five times, fast the month of Ramadan, perform pilgrimage, etc. then not too many people would have accepted His command and most of them would have been destined for the fire. However, out of His mercy He presented them with these regulations gradually.

The marines have a lofty goal they have set for themselves; to build strong men of discipline and strength. They do this by gradually increasing the pressure of training they apply to their men with each passing day until they are able to perform tasks they would have considered impossible at the start. Had the recruits been required to pass all of their tests on the first day then the vast majority of them would fail. This is exactly how we raise our children and teach them; out of mercy we do so gradually, building them up slowly until they are able to handle the difficult tasks. We do not start by overloading our children with the most difficult obligations and tasks and then reduce them as they grow older and become adults, if their backs have not been broken first, till in the end we require nothing of them at all.  

This is indeed the goal of Islam; to generate a nation of men and women who discipline themselves continuously throughout the day and year to worship God, improve themselves, improve their communities, and have faith in God to assist them in their efforts.

Abrogation according to Islam follows the general guideline of "the only person who can abrogate a text is the original speaker himself or one who is higher in authority." This is the attitude of the Qur'an in this regard. Thus:

Only the Qur'an can abrogate the Qur'an. In other words, since no one is higher in authority than God Himself, therefore, He is the only one who can abrogate His words.
The Qur'an and Sunnah can abrogate the Sunnah. In other words, the only one who would be allowed to abrogate the words of the prophet of God is either the prophet of God or else the only one higher in authority than him, namely, Allah Himself.
When contrasting this with the Bible we find the exact opposite system. According to this system, the explicit words of Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime can be abrogated by those lesser in authority than he, such as Paul. The issue of Paul's cancellation of Jesus' confirmation of the law of Moses is only one example of this system. Many others can be found in the Bible.

(from http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_abrogation.htm)

Now I think macgre you should be clear about abrogation in Islam and Quran and why it was necessary.......I think anyone with a logical approach will accept this point but to those whom Allah has sealed their hearts shall never hear or understand........

Imran Arshad
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

> Can you please provide the verse which states you shouldn't be drunk while praying?

I'll have to look it up, I can't remember at the moment.

You claim the Quran is free "of contradiction, irrationality, and incoherence", yet I find large parts of the Quran to be irrational and incoherent and I consider abrogations as contradictions.  I do not accept that God changes the rules, fulfill the requirements of the law for sure but change them no.  Do some research on what the Quran says about drinking alcohol, at face value these are contradictions, to claim that God is abrogating the rules with better rules implies that God didn't do a very good job the first time which directly challenges the perfection of God!

> If you have read a work which states how one should live their life, can you please tell me, I would be very interested in reading what they have to say.

Gladly!  Try the New Testament.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

> However, out of His mercy He presented them with these regulations gradually.

Yet when you were born all these abrogations had taken effect and your were expected to obey them all right?  If what you are saying is true then the abrogations should only be gradually applied to new converts, is that how you are taught?
Macgre,

>Finally I am willing to give 100 points to someone who can explain what Sura 10:58 says: "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice".  Why is such a simple question causing so much difficulty?

I want to complete from the point that MohdAsalah stoped(Thank you Mohd), actually the text itself is the same(did not changed), what make this different(let YOU rejoice & let them rejoice) is the diacterical marks, so I think now there is no argument that the Quran has been chenged.
Now, the impact of this different is too much ridiculus and the meanning itself did not cheange if we take the whole verse as one context,here is the verse with the preceding one:
(Sura 10.057) "O mankind! there hath come to you a direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts,- and for those who believe, a guidance and a Mercy. "
(Sura 10.058) "In the bounty of Allah. And in His Mercy,- in that let them rejoice"
(Sura 10.059) "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet ye hold forbidden some things thereof and (some things) lawful." Say: "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah?"

Try to read it in the two words(them, you) you will not see any different.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Welcome Abdu Allah,

> what make this different(let YOU rejoice & let them rejoice) is the diacterical marks, so I think now there is no argument that the Quran has been chenged.

THANK YOU for that simple but obvious admission!

> Try to read it in the two words(them, you) you will not see any different.

I already did that, you includes the person addressed, them does not, that difference has no impact on Islamic doctrine or thought, but it does directly challenge the Muslim claim that you have the very words that God spoke to Gabriel who then spoke to Mohammed.
Macgre,

Please my name is Abdu_Allah (with underscore), thank you.

>but it does directly challenge the Muslim claim that you have the very words that God spoke to Gabriel who then spoke to Mohammed.

Yes we have the very words that God spoke to Gabriel who then spoke to Mohammed, the plain text itself did not change.

Regards.
This may confused you, you may think that the words(them,you) are part of the plain text, no it is not. in Arabic language there is not separate words to represent the words "them" and "you". in contrast "them" and "you" is represented by diacterical marks.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

Sorry about mistyping your name, underscores don't show up well on text that has been made into a link.

What I understand is that when the Quran was first written there were no diacritcal marks so you could not know simply by reading whether it was them or you.  The diacritical marks were added later.  What is very interesting is that there are different diacritical marks and that the meaning is effected by them.  Different diacritical marks are OK so long as the meaning is the same, but differences in meaning suggest to me that some kind of error has crept in and you can now no longer claim that you have the very words of God.  Otherwise you have a God who can't make up his mind on whether to include the person(s) being addressed with "you" or to exclude with "them".
>>What I understand is that when the Quran was first written there were no diacritcal marks so you could not know simply by reading whether it was them or you.  The diacritical marks were added later.

This is right.

>>What is very interesting is that there are different diacritical marks and that the meaning is effected by them.

You said by yourself the meaning did not change!
Here is what you said: "that difference has no impact on Islamic doctrine or thought..."

>>but differences in meaning suggest to me that some kind of error has crept in and you can now no longer claim that you have the very words of God.

How so! the words(plain text) are the same and the meanning are the sam, what do you want more!
Abdu_Allah,
I believe macgre's point is that, Quran was first written w.o. diacritical marks.  Now it is not written w.o. diacritical marks, thus there is a change.  Am I correct macgre?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

If I say that it rained most of the day, and I later say that it rained all day, there is no significant difference in what I am saying but I am clearly not saying the same thing.  So if you wanted to know if you need an umbrella or not most of the day or all day have the same effect, bring an umbrella.  But most is not the same as all, and a perfect being would not make that kind of mistake, I would, but God would not.  So if the Quran records God as having said you and them, the difference is minor, it does not effect any Muslim doctrine that I know of, but it is more than a perfect God would commit so I say that the difference is indication that the Quran does not have God's very words.

> Here is what you said: "that difference has no impact on Islamic doctrine or thought..."

There is still a difference in meaning, I have always said that there was a difference in meaning, it is just not a significant one.  But God is perfect and he would not commit such an error so I still maintain that the Quran is not the very words of God.

JK2429,

That is part of it, more importantly is that the meaning is effected by these marks and that there are differences.

When you look at an Arabic word can you tell what it means without the diacritic marks?  In the example we have been discussing it seems you can't, without the marks it could mean you or them but you don't know for sure.

This makes me wonder, why would God choose Arabic for his Final Revelation knowing that its written form was error prone at the time? (diacritics were added many years later)  I mean surely there were other more developed languages that could have better preserved his Final Revelation.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Sorry,
There is a quite difference
NOT
quit different

Thanks
> Yet when you were born all these abrogations had taken effect and your were expected to obey them all right?  
> If what you are saying is true then the abrogations should only be gradually applied to new converts, is that how
> you are taught?

First Point....... When I was born all these abrogations had taken effect ......Agreed......But all of this is included into my system, my environment.....I am taught to do all this right from my childhood and I know I have to do all of this to be a muslim......So this is not a valid point for a new born muslim's child as he sees right from his childhood that he has to do perform all of the duties of a muslim......

Second Point........For a new convertor........
After the revealation of Quran was completed and Islamis society was established the need for abrogation was finished.
Any non-muslim who wants to convert to islam can see all the forbidden things and all the must to do things....At the time of Prophet Muhammad( Peace Be Upon Him) this wasn't the case.......and Allah knows this much better then us so he has promised more rewards for the New converts then the one who are Muslims by birth.......

Imran Arshad

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> Yes I can. it is rearly happen like thie example (Them rejoice, you rejoice).

But in this case it did happen and it happened in the Quran.  So tell me what did God say "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice"?  Did God include the person addressed or did he exclude them because that is the difference between them and you.

> That mean you ignore the Arabic language, the Arabic language is one of the world richest language and it is very developed language.

That may be true today now that Arabic has diacritics to tell you which vowel or consonant to use, but when the Quran was first written there were no diacritics so there was no way a person looking at a diacriticless Arabic word could know for certain if it meant "them" or "you".
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

JK2429,

> So this is not a valid point for a new born muslim's child as he sees right from his childhood that he has to do perform all of the duties of a muslim

If that is true then why did you say earlier that...

"This is exactly how we raise our children and teach them; out of mercy we do so gradually, building them up slowly until they are able to handle the difficult tasks. We do not start by overloading our children with the most difficult obligations and tasks ..."

Do you or do you not expect a Muslim child to perform all the duties of a Muslim?  If the reason God abrogated the Quran was because it was too much for an adult, then how much more of a burden would it be for a child!  And why do you use the way we raise children as an example justifying abrogation if all the rules and regulations of the Quran are in effect even for a Muslim child?

Your second point doesn't answer my question.  Let me re-word it a bit, maybe it will make it clearer:

What is the difference between someone who converts to Islam today after the Quran has been fully revealed and someone who converted to Islam before it was fully revealed?  If God abrogated it before it was fully revealed to make it easier for new converts to accept, why are today's new converts expected to obey every requirement as soon as they convert?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Sorry my last post was directed at JK2429, it should have been directed at imarshad...

Welcome back mcgre, hope that you had a good time.


> it must be obvious that Quran confirms the previous revelations and the messengers,

>>No it is not, rather there are many times where it contradicts and conflicts with Old and New Testament historical facts, not just doctrines and teachings.

It does not conflict with The ONeness of God which is in Old Testament, and The New Testament DOES CONFLICT with OT and Quran.  This is the BIGGEST SIN that one can commit.  Instead of worrying about fractions, you should start with this.  By the way I was able to submit the question to the site and waiting for an answer.  

>> also stands as a criterion to clear out our misunderstandings from previous revelations.

>Your idea of clearing up a misunderstanding is to insist that the Quran is from God and that it is the final authority of what is correct and what is corrupt.  Sorry, I simply don't believe that a book that can't add fractions (among other things) is from God.  Seems far more likely that it is nothing more then the invention of Mohammed and his followers.

That is the difference between you and me, I am a Muslim and believe that Quran is the Final Revelation from The God of Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them all).

>> How do you explain what happens to all the people who lived before Jesus?

>You asked that question before and I believe I answered much earlier in this thread...

The people who lived before Jesus (pbuh) did not have to commit SHIRK, that is associating others with God, which is THE BIGGEST SIN.  Your explanation has got the biggest loop unfortunately.

>> These are not my ideas, but what God has told His Messenger regarding about the divinity of Jesus (pbuh).

>So you are expecting me to believe that God told the angel Gabriel to tell Mohammed that Jesus is not God, when those with Jesus worshipped him as God and were not told to stop?  What if I am right and Mohammed never heard from the angel Gabriel?  Would that mean that Jesus is God?

How could God of the OT tell that there is another GOD?  It is inconsistent and the biggest contradiction ever.  You mean that your God LIED for thousands of years to the people of Adam, ...Novah, ...Moses and ...David...?

>> The references you sited do not plainly prove that Jesus (pbuh) is God.  It is only interpretations.

>It seems the only thing you will except is Jesus saying "I am God" in those very words, all else is "just an interpretation" to you.  Jesus rarely taught directly, often in parables, so I find it highly unlikely that we will find what you are looking for.  Though it does seem quite plain to me that he does in fact claim to be God in many different ways, he is not doing so in the manor you desire so you simply reject it.  Truth doesn't always come in the package we desire...

Dear Mcghe, it is admirable to see your faith in Jesus (pbuh) and yes he will plead for your forgiveness.  It is not a package I desire, it is The Truth from Your Lord, whether you like it or not.  See OT how God taught about His Being One, and to worship Him Alone.  The religion is suppose to be plain and simple, and not require interpretations to figure out who is God and who is not.

>> The God existed before Abraham, and His Word, as well.  Jesus (pbuh) was The Word

>How do you know this?  It is recorded in only one place in the Bible, and that is in John 1, where we are also told that Jesus is the Word and that the Word is God?!? Jesus himself never said any such thing!  You seem to be picking just the words that you like and agree with and ignore the rest of the sentence, chapter, paragraph and book!  It would be much easier if I knew in advance which parts of the Bible Muslims accept and which they reject...

It seems like you have not even read the references from the Quran that I quoted here.  It is Your Lord Who says that Jesus (pbuh) Was The Word in Quran.  John also said that The Word was God, so, that is when he went to the extreme, as usual.

>> We do believe that Jesus (pbuh) also mentioned the coming of Muhammed (pbuh), as it is written in Quran.

>I have heard this before and responded to it here as well, does it involve the Greek words "parakletos" or "periklytos"?

No, again my reference is Quran, though you might also be right.

>> How do you know that he told them not to worship, and those who wanted to misguide people omitted them.   How do you explain the divisions among early Christians regarding the divinity of Jesus (pbuh)?

>Because all the text we have teach trinity, I am not aware of any ancient manuscript that even remotely denies the trinity.  Now if this were a deliberate attempt to misguide people it would require the co-operation of EVERYONE involved and that is just not very likely.

When people are free to choose what is canonical and what is not, and they are free to burn hundreds of other eyewitness stories, and they stand for trinity, what do you expect?

>As for the earliest Christian beliefs they were quite consistent, and even the differences that do exist are the result of differing interpretations of the existing text and are not based on a different text.  I may be wrong but I do believe that doctrines that denied the trinity did not exist until many years after the fact, the earliest Christians all appeared to agree that Jesus was God.

You are wrong, those were Jews who followed Jesus (pbuh) believing that he was a Messenger, and The Word.  When pagans started joining and coming up with their extreme ways, then there were deviations, and unfortunately former pagans had the upper hand.

>> Quran is not narrations but protected as it was revealed, shedding light to the questions in the minds of the believers, providing a clear and plain message for the believers to follow.

>I have read much of the Quran and I would not say that it provides a clear and plain message on anything, I actually find it VERY difficult to read and understand.

Dear Mcghe, I am sorry to read this, but I can tell that you have not read it since you keep misinterpreting what I said, even though I tried to provide references direct from Quran earlier.  Let me say that personally you are probably a better person than I am, but at least I am not committing shirk.  In the day of judgement when I stand before the Lord of The Universe, I can say that I have not committed the worst of sins.  I wish that you could also change your way.  However as you said, the way the things go is not always what we would like.

Please forgive me if I have said anything that might have broken your heart or cause it to go hard against Islam, the religion of all the Messengers of God.  I wish you the best in this world and hereafter.

My Best Regards,
Macgre,

>But in this case it did happen and it happened in the Quran.  So tell me what did God say "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice"?

What is your argument here?! I showed you how the Quran did not change and the old Arabic language itself sometimes cause like this confusion.
If you want really what God said so he said: ”let them/you rejoice”, I put “them/you ” together because they have the same word In Arabic.


>That may be true today now that Arabic has diacritics to tell you which vowel or consonant to use, but when the Quran was first written there were no diacritics so there was no way a person looking at a diacriticless Arabic word could know for certain if it meant "them" or "you".

As I told you it is rarely happen and not all vowels or consonant need diacriticl marks.
Also this is the only case that happened in Quran.
>>That may be true today.

Absolutely, it is not just today, the diacriticl marks do not determine if the language is strong or not. There are many different criteria to measure the weakness & strongest in any languages.    
Macgre,
>Do you or do you not expect a Muslim child to perform all the duties of a Muslim?

If you have studied the way our Prophet has ordered us to train our childs then you should not have asked this question......

We have been ordered to teach our childs how to offer "Salat" (Prayers) when they become 5 years.....and if they reach 10 years and still dont say "Salat" then we have to forcefully make them to Pray.....
Similarly our childs are ordered to Fast when they become able to fast (mostly 10-12 years ).....
and it is true for all other things as well......So our childs are grown up in a Society that is Muslim and they adopt all of this as habits............

Imran Arshad

Hello Mcghe,

>> We know that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic, so if you bring Aramaic Gospel, we will be happy to read it.

>I do understand that preserving the actual words of a prophet in their original language is very important to Muslims, but I can show that it wasn't important to Jesus.

That is not a concern to a Messenger, they receive it from The God.  Mcghe, it seems like your concern is playing with words to get an upper hand, instead of searching the truth.  Muhammed (pbuh) also repeated previous teachings in Arabic.  For us who are searching for the true reference it makes a huge difference.  There is a huge difference between related stories and the true revelation protected in its original form.  It is not the language, it is the fact that it is in its original form that matters. Hadith (what is related about Muhammed (pbuh)) is also Arabic, but they are related stories, so they do not count as authentic as Quran.  If I translate an English Translation of Quran into Arabic, it WILL NOT BE Quran.  Or if I wrote what Muhammed said as Quran without worrying about the way it was said exactly, it would not be Quran.  Quran was memorized as it was revealed and The God made it easy to remember, so that it could be protected in the hearts of the believers.  What you have in gospels is not only related words, but selected words that suits the political beliefs of a particular group.  I hope you get the point.


>So if preserving a prophets words in their original language is SO important why did the prophet Jesus not use the original Hebrew which was commonly understood instead of Aramaic?  Maybe it is because the message is more important than the words and so long as the message is preserved the words can change...

The problem is whether the message was preserved or not, especially when you have unauthorized individuals writing their minds and making up things mixed with what Messenger said and done.

> Now rather than simply say, "I am not God" he actually defends his claim to divinity by describing how the Father has set him apart from the other "'gods,' to whom the word of God came" and "sent [Jesus] into the world" as "God's Son" (reaffirming his divine nature).  Jesus then draws attention to the miracles as evidence that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" once again affirming that he was God.  No other mere prophet spoke like this, Jesus is quite unique in that regard.

I do not agree, except that Jesus (pbuh) was unique, but that does not make him God.  He was The Word unlike other messengers who had to receive The Word.  But since Christians went astray and misunderstood, God sent the final messenger with the Final Message to set things straight.  Let me repeat, Jesus' Word and God's Word were One.  But that did not make Jesus (pbuh) God, is that clear?  If I made a robot and was able to see what he sees, and I talked using a remote connection through the Robot, that would not make that robot me, but my representative.  The robot would try to convince people that he was representing me in one of the most direct ways possible so that they would listen to what he says, but some ignorant would be deceived and start thinking that the robot is me, even if robot never said so.  How could a robot be me, while I made and maintained that robot?  What kind of ignorance is that?  But considering that there were people who made gods out dates and ate them when they got hungry, that is expected.  I am sorry to say this but it seems that the same ignorance continues in 21st century.  

>Except for verse 33 everything I quoted is Jesus' own words, never does he deny that he is God, rather he twice reaffirms that he is God.

You do not have the whole truth Mcghe, just biased collections of a council.  Jesus (pbuh) never said that he was God, and God is Witness to that.  You cannot even provide an evidence from your own Book.  You are only following a "conjecture" as Quran says.

>Jesus uses divine titles (I AM), claims to be the Messiah (which according to the OT is the same as claiming to be God), said that he and God (the Father) are one, claimed to be God's Son, claimed to be in God (the Father) and that God (the Father) was in him.  No other prophet described his relationship with God that way.  Even you admit that he is special, but draw the line at calling him God, citing the Quran as a primary reason.

Jesus was WORD and so he was in that respect Divine, but he was not God.  God chose to send a messenger who was born without a father, never marry, fight and speak the same as He would, but that did not make Jesus God Mcghe, God is FAR............FAR........... INFINITE- GREATER than what you think He is.

>Furthermore I believe I asked a question long ago about how the OT can say that no one can see God and live when there are so many places where people have seen God and lived?  I offered this as evidence of the Trinity in the OT, but I have yet to hear an answer.

The answer is that they have seen God's representative similar to Jesus (pbuh) or The Spirit, but not God Himself.  How could a chair see a human who made it?  That would be too much to expect from the made thing ofcourse unless God wants.  We are told in Islamic sources that people who are  in the highest level in Paradise in the hereafter will be seeing the God's Beauty and Magnificience, and that will be the highest pleasure that one can have.  How could we see God with our limited vision in this World?  How could our vision comprise God, while He is Infinite in Power?  That is absurd.  We could only see what He sends us to see from among His Messengers, including humans, angels and The Spirit.  God has created us in a way to live in this world, not to see Him.  This is like taking an electronic device and plugging it into a voltage that is much higher than it is designed to, which will burn the circuit.  However people's body in the Hereafter will be different, as we refer to the Quran, those in Hell depending on their level will have different bodies to suffer at different levels, similarly those in Paradise will have different bodies to enjoy at different levels.  God Knows Best.
 
>Some more food for thought, what other prophet says, "believe IN me"?  Jesus repeatedly said to "believe IN me", which is very different from saying "believe me" or "believe in my message."  Tell me, are Muslims asked to believe in Mohammed or in his message?


Go back to the robot example and check what he would say.

God orders in Holy Quran to follow Him and the Messenger, and that He has given us a perfect example in Muhammed (pbuh) who was a human and yet he was like "Walking Quran", that is he was living the Way of Life as prescribed in Quran, similar to Jesus who was The Word and yet human.  However Jesus was The Word, and Muhammed (pbuh) received The Word from God.  Of course we see Muhammed (pbuh) rebuked in Quran because he turned away from a blind man while he was trying convey the message to someone who had high class in society, and did not like to be interrupted at that particular moment.  If he was Word, probably he would not have done that.. God Knows Best.  However I believe, in Muhammed (pbuh) we have a better example than we have in Jesus (pbuh) since Muhammed (pbuh) was just like us, unlike Jesus (pbuh) who was The Word.  We should not make any differentiation between Jesus and Muhammed (pbut) as we are commanded in Quran.  They were all Muslims spreading Islam, the way Abraham did and Moses did and Jesus did and Muhammad did, may peace be upon them all.

Mcghe, I do not consider this as an intellectual contest, and I am not here to beat you.  We should act like creatures who are searching for truth to find their Creator, since we believe that He exists.  Do not let your pride get on the way, as Satan did and was cursed for eternity.

Dear Callandor,

>I appreciate that you can see that you missed something, and realizing it is part of the learning process.  

We are taught always to search for truth and true knowledge, and I appreciate that you go into trouble of teaching me.  

>What I also wanted to show was the continuity of the O.T. in the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, which was a picture of what Jesus would do in the future.  I know muslims don't believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, but the idea of the sacrifice for sins is consistent from its inception to its fulfillment in Jesus.  Isa 53 is a prophetic view of this.

I see now that it exists in OT, but I am still not sure about this idea, because the only thing that is consistent with basic teachings is the obedience of Abraham (pbuh) to God's Order, to sacrifice his son.  Moses's example was also about obedience to God's command, to keep the covenant.  So, obviously the inception of sacrifice for keeping covenant starts with Abraham, carried out by Moses and Muhammed (pbut).  Whereas the sacrifice for sins do not seem to have a hard reference but some hard to understand text written by who knows who.  I had a real difficulty trying to figure out Isaiah since it is so vague.  Do you have the text embedded with some Prophet and his action such as the one you referred with Moses except it turned out to be covenant and not sin?  Thanks in advance.


> The Word of God was not preserved as God intended.  After keeping the Old Testament in its entirety for so many years, God failed to pass on His Word to future generations accurately.

How do you know what God intended? Let me tell you: He sent a messenger and people took him as god.  So he sent another one.  This is obviously what he intended.

> God allowed the knowledge of who He is to be completely misunderstood to the point of people worshipping someone else (the golden calf doesn't count, because no Word of God said it was God).

God allows Satan to play tricks on humans as well.  So?  We are not suppose to fall into this if we were to follow the guidance, which starts with the basic teaching, that God Is One, and there is no other God but Him.

>If the New Testament is the compilation of church leaders who wanted to push their own ideas forward, why are there pictures of weakness of the original apostles?  You don&#8217;t convince the world that you have the right way if your leaders behave badly, or are perceived as weak and doubting.

We know that there was a dispute about trinity and they did push their own official ideas, and they still do.  For example see below:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)

I bet in original saying of Jesus there is no part of "which is the Holy Ghost".  And the way Muslims would interpret then that Jesus (pbuh) gives the good news of Muhammed (pbuh) coming, whose name is Ahmet, which also means comforter.  That is also how Jesus (pbuh) gives the good news of Muhammed in Quran.

>We have a fragment of John that dates back to 120AD, and it supports the idea that the New Testament has not changed since.  The church was still young then, not powerful at all and it was close enough to the time when things actually happened that wrong recordings would have been challenged.  In fact, the enemies of Christians would gladly have taken any opportunity to discredit them and do away with them.

I do not understand this argument.  If you dig all the writings about 2nd world war, you could put together a story using only what you think that happened showing the references that suit your idea.  All those references would also be old.  So, where is the objectivity?  It is obvious, it is Gospel ACCORDING TO X, Y, Z.  Not Gospel as it was revealed to Jesus (PBUH).  It is not objective, hence it automatically reflects the opininons of those who compiled it, especially we know that trinitarians were the compilers.  Refer to the history.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> It does not conflict with The ONeness of God which is in Old Testament, and The New Testament DOES CONFLICT with OT and Quran.

There is only ONE God in both Old and New Testaments, the Trinity is not a plurality of Gods, but a plurality of persons in the ONE God.

Please explain to me given that the Old Testament states that no one can see God and live, how then is it that in at least three crystal clear instances people have seen God and lived?  If there is only ONE God in the sense that you believe then this is impossible, the people who saw God should have died, but they did not!  Now if you accept that in the New Testament we have Jesus saying before Abraham I AM as a statement clearly indicating that he existed prior to his own birth as a divine being (by using the divine title I AM).  And clearly people can see Jesus and live, so then it is the ONLY way people could have seen God in the Old Testament and lived.

> The people who lived before Jesus (pbuh) did not have to commit SHIRK, that is associating others with God, which is THE BIGGEST SIN.

If I remember correctly my explanation does not require that you believe in God at all, only that you obey God's law in your heart/conscience, you don't have to know that it is God's law.  And that this rule only applies if you do not have access to God's message.

> How could God of the OT tell that there is another GOD?

Clearly you haven't understood that God is ONE TRINITY, there is not a TRINITY of Gods!  There is plenty of evidence in the OT to support that God was plural.  Jesus did not say that he was ANOTHER God, he said that he was one with God (the Father).

> When people are free to choose what is canonical and what is not, and they are free to burn hundreds of other eyewitness stories, and they stand for trinity, what do you expect?

What did Uthman do with all the copies of the Quran that *HE* considered corrupt?

FTR There are known sects that reject Trinity but none have different texts (that I know of), they just interpret the text we have differently.

> When pagans started joining and coming up with their extreme ways, then there were deviations, and unfortunately former pagans had the upper hand.

That is so easily shown to be false!  Why were Christians persecuted for hundreds of years by Pagans if Christianty was so acceptable to Pagan beliefs?!?!  Check this link out about just how much Pagans "liked" Christianty:

http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/arl_religion_christianity.htm
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> If you want really what God said so he said: ”let them/you rejoice”, I put “them/you ” together because they have the same word In Arabic.

You (plural or otherwise) includes the person be addressed; if I say to you and your friends, "let you rejoice" then I am saying that you and your friends should rejoice; however if I say, "let them rejoice" I am saying that your friends should rejoice but NOT you.

If you understand the difference I am making above then you should also understand that you cannot say "them/you".  So if God said them and you then he is contradicting himself, which a true God would never do; so if the Quran does say "them" and "you" then you can be certain that it is an error.

> Absolutely, it is not just today, the diacriticl marks do not determine if the language is strong or not. There are many different criteria to measure the weakness & strongest in any languages.

You also have a problem with a language that without diacritics can't tell if it is them or you who should rejoice.  Modern Arabic is an excellent language with the diacritics, without the diacritics important information can be lost and that is a very clear and serious weakness.

Now if you are saying that even modern Arabic can't tell between them and you then I would say that that is a weakness of the modern language as well, and a serious weakness too!

FTR This is not the ONLY time the diacritics effect meaning, I provided a link long ago that listed many such differences and that site even said that there were more that were not listed.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

> If you have studied the way our Prophet has ordered us to train our childs then you should not have asked this question

I asked the question because of what you said, not because of anything in the Quran.  Still what you describe is not like abrogation, you are gradually expecting more from your children, you are not nullifying old rules with new ones.

The idea of forcing someone to do something like pray is not what the Christian God wants, he wants genuine faith not compelled ritual.  It is also very close to what we call brainwashing here in the west...

I note that you didn't respond to my second point...
Macgre,

>You (plural or otherwise) includes the person be addressed; if I say to you and your friends, "let you rejoice" then I am saying that you and your friends should rejoice; however if I say, "let them rejoice" I am saying that your friends should rejoice but NOT you

Please understand me, I use “them/you”  to clear the image and to make it similar to Arabic language, actually “them/you” have the same word in Arabic.

>You also have a problem with a language that without diacritics can't tell if it is them or you who should rejoice.  Modern Arabic is an excellent language with the diacritics, without the diacritics important information can be lost and that is a very clear and serious weakness.

I said this is a rare case. You can not judge on the whole language just because like this rare case!

>FTR This is not the ONLY time the diacritics effect meaning, I provided a link long ago that listed many such differences and that site even said that there were more that were not listed.

I looked at this link and found that most of them resulted from misunderstanding of some aspects in Islamic religion.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Or if I wrote what Muhammed said as Quran without worrying about the way it was said exactly, it would not be Quran.  Quran was memorized as it was revealed and The God made it easy to remember, so that it could be protected in the hearts of the believers.

But you clearly don't have the "way it was said exactly" or do you have an answer to my question about Sura 10:58, does it say "let them rejoice" or "let you rejoice"?  It is written and recited both ways but there is a difference in meaning between the two, a difference too great to have been made by a perfect God!

> Let me repeat, Jesus' Word and God's Word were One

Now who is "writing their minds and making up things mixed with what Messenger said and done."  Jesus said that he and the Father are one, he also said I am in the Father and the Father is in me; in these cases he is not talking about his words being one with the Father or that his words are in the Fathers and the Fathers words are in his (if he did then you could still say that he was claiming to be God by saying that his words are in the Father).  You are distorting the meaning to suit your own purpose, which is to deny the divinity to Christ.

> The answer is that they have seen God's representative similar to Jesus (pbuh) or The Spirit, but not God Himself.

Big problem then, in the Old Testament people worshipped the representative.  Another big problem is that if it was just a representative then there was no need to fear dying would there?  Yet there are several places in the OT where we have people saying that they saw God "face to face" yet lived.  Clearly this is not a case of a representative, again you are modifying the words to suit your own purpose, I thought you said only Christians did that...

> We should act like creatures who are searching for truth to find their Creator, since we believe that He exists.

I will accept something as truth when I am reasonably certain that something is true, that is why I am asking these questions, if you can answer them then you have truth, if you cannot then apply your own rules to yourself and be willing to reject what is false when it can be shown to be false.

> We should act like creatures who are searching for truth to find their Creator, since we believe that He exists.

You too had a council to remove all the corrupt Qurans in the early days and to promote and official Quran...

> And the way Muslims would interpret then that Jesus (pbuh) gives the good news of Muhammed (pbuh) coming, whose name is Ahmet, which also means comforter.

Well hao64, that is the reference I was referring to when you said that Jesus predicted Mohammed would come, please refer to the Greek words and the link I provided earlier in this thread.

> It is not objective, hence it automatically reflects the opininons of those who compiled it

Why should I believe that the Quran is objective?  Because you say so?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> I said this is a rare case. You can not judge on the whole language just because like this rare case!

I don't know how well you know English, but I find it hard to believe there is a worse language out there ;-)

English has to be one of the worse languages for clear communicationt that I know of.  I only speak Englsih but I know people who speak many other languages, so far the most logically structured language I have ever heard of would be German, but even it has problems...

I am not trying to attack your language, but you must admit that without diacritics it is prone to error.

Now if it is the same word, does that mean that you cannot tell if the word means them or you, not even with diacritics?  Can you explain then why someone would translate it to you over them, or them over you?  The article I mentioned seems to be quite clear that the words are different in Arabic and that this difference is in the diacritics, could it also be a different dialect of Arabic?
come on macgre...make up your mind, do you consider like this case a changing in the God scripture or what!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

No you come on Abdu_Allah, do you or do you not have the very words of God perfectly preserved in the Quran?
Yes we have the very words of God perfectly preserved in the Quran, we have exactly the same plain text.
Dear Mcghe,

>There is only ONE God in both Old and New Testaments, the Trinity is not a plurality of Gods, but a plurality of persons in the ONE God.

Refer back to fraction argument you made and you will see that what you say above does not make sense.  I believe that you got the inteligence, but you just take it as faith.  The part I take by faith is something about inheritance, and interpreted to suit the faithful.  On the other hand, the part you take by faith is fundamental to belief, and makes all the difference in the eternity, since shirk is the biggest sin.  

>Please explain to me given that the Old Testament states that no one can see God and live, how then is it that in at least three crystal clear instances people have seen God and lived?  If there is only ONE God in the sense that you believe then this is impossible, the people who saw God should have died, but they did not!  Now if you accept that in the New Testament we have Jesus saying before Abraham I AM as a statement clearly indicating that he existed prior to his own birth as a divine being (by using the divine title I AM).  And clearly people can see Jesus and live, so then it is the ONLY way people could have seen God in the Old Testament and lived.

I explained that in my earlier posting, refer to examples about robots and adaptors.

>If I remember correctly my explanation does not require that you believe in God at all, only that you obey God's law in your heart/conscience, you don't have to know that it is God's law.  And that this rule only applies if you do not have access to God's message.

Your explanation conveniently left out the most critical part that is there was no shirk committed by people before Jesus (pbuh) to obey God.  It also does not address the Concept of God, how it has been changed from ONENESS to TRINITY.

> Clearly you haven't understood that God is ONE TRINITY, there is not a TRINITY of Gods!  There is plenty of evidence in the OT to support that God was plural.  Jesus did not say that he was ANOTHER God, he said that he was one with God (the Father).

Clearly you have not understood the robot example.  Jesus (pbuh) was a creation not The God Himself.  

> What did Uthman do with all the copies of the Quran that *HE* considered corrupt?

It is funny that you make a comparison.  The whole Quran already was memorized, and it only involved putting into a text.  People had a lot of collections in written form and putting those into an order as it was taught by the Prophet for 23 years was the task.  The Muslims were not being persecuted rather they were victorius.  The religion was already accepted by hundreds of thousands as itw as taught and there was no need to make it suiting to any dominant group.  Even if I accept your comparison, I could say that there was no argument about the concepts especially about Oneness versus Trinity.  The fact that Quran carries the message of OT in Oneness of God and corrects the misconceptions about Jesus (pbuh) are sufficient to take it as the natural continuation of the original message revealed to all the Messengers of The God.  I choose Oneness, and you choose trinity.

>FTR There are known sects that reject Trinity but none have different texts (that I know of), they just interpret the text we have differently.

So, this is another evidence that your tet is not plain in this matter and you actually follow a "conjecture" as Quran says.

> That is so easily shown to be false!  Why were Christians persecuted for hundreds of years by Pagans if Christianty was so acceptable to Pagan beliefs?!?!  Check this link out about just how much Pagans "liked" Christianty:

I do not agree.  Even today you can look around you and see how paganistic practices still change the shape of Christianity and priests just continue approving them and make them part of religion, such as homosexual marriages in the church.
This question cannot be answered, but interesting to discuss
Actually we answered it iceure but unfortunatly the answer has lost behind the fog of fanaticism.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> we have exactly the same plain text

By "plain text" do you mean the text without the diacritics?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Refer back to fraction argument you made and you will see that what you say above does not make sense.

I firmly believe that no man can completely comprehend the true nature of God and I would believe in no God that could be completely comprehended by the mind of man.  I don't understand Trinity, but it is taught in the Bible so you are right, I choose to believe it.

But math is another thing altogether, either you solve the fraction problem or you admit to a clear error in the Quran.  And of course if there is a clear error then it could not have been written by God.

> I explained that in my earlier posting, refer to examples about robots and adaptors.

The example is fine when it says that I am in the robot, but it fails when it says the robot is in me.  Jesus said both.

> Your explanation conveniently left out the most critical part that is there was no shirk committed by people before Jesus

I don't understand the point, no belief in God is required in my explanation about people before Jesus so no shirk was possible.  Christians believe there is no greater sin than to grieve the Holy Spirit, and that denying that Christ is God is committing that sin (i.e. grieving the Holy Spirit).  Still, my explanation has no effect on even this sin because it doesn't involve the belief in any God.

> It also does not address the Concept of God, how it has been changed from ONENESS to TRINITY.

It was never changed, it always was.

> So, this is another evidence that your tet is not plain in this matter and you actually follow a "conjecture" as Quran says.

Nope the text is plain, the fact that some are mistaken does not mean that all are mistaken.  You have to work pretty hard and be very creative in your thinking to ignore the teaching of Trinity in the Bible.

> Even today you can look around you and see how paganistic practices still change the shape of Christianity and priests just continue approving them and make them part of religion

That is the practice of a few, but even among those few you do not find them altering the text to agree with pagan practices.  So I can still say that no Pagan practice is in the text of the Bible, and that the text of the Bible still teaches Trinity.

Maybe you can tell me exactly how do Shia and Sunni Muslims differ?
Hello Mcgre,

Thanks for the response.

>I don't understand Trinity, but it is taught in the Bible

It is not taught in the Bible, but only in the NT.  Even you do not have a clear proof in NT by the words of Jesus (pbuh) but through interpretations of his words.  You also admitted that there were unitarians using the same bible, which obviously mean that their interpretations are different.


>But math is another thing altogether, either you solve the fraction problem or you admit to a clear error in the Quran.  And of course if there is a clear error then it could not have been written by God.

I do not know the answer to your question and since it involves a lot of convoluted clauses in a single sentence, and I doubt about the translation.  And I am also willing to believe that if there were cases left out, they would never apply, through a miracle.  It does not affect my fundamental belief in the God of Moses, Jesus and Muhammed (pbut), so I do not worry about it.  However the points brought up here are deeply affecting your belief, hence you better have clear understanding instead of relying on interpretations and subjectively collected text.

>> It also does not address the Concept of God, how it has been changed from ONENESS to TRINITY.

>It was never changed, it always was.

I am not sure if you have even read your Bible now, since you say that it always was, yet you have an opposite argument in OT.  Does God ever talk anywhere in OT about 3 persons in 1 God?  Your arguments are so far fetched that you could even find trinity in Quran, and disregard all the contradicting evidence, such as the verses spelling out trinity clearly as being wrong.  As far as I can see it, trinity is a huge oximoron, which was corrected by God through His Final Message, The Quran.  Trinity was made up by people who misunderstood who Jesus (pbuh) was, since he was Word, yet he never said that he was God.  It is easy to misinterpret for people who are not equipped by 21st century technology.  In my home country people still make gods out of dead people by exalting them to be much greater than they were, and didn't people exalted Pharoh, though he had no extraordinary powers?

>Nope the text is plain, the fact that some are mistaken does not mean that all are mistaken.  You have to work pretty hard and be very creative in your thinking to ignore the teaching of Trinity in the Bible.

Well, I cannot argue with someone who disregard the clear evidence and is willing to follow conjecture, calling it "plain".  All the evidence shows that your "evidence" is anything but plain.  

>I don't understand the point, no belief in God is required in my explanation ..

Then your explanation is leaving out critical material.
If you do not know your god, how could you worship him?
If there are 3 persons who are 1 god as you believe, by claiming himself as the only one, "the father" had betrayed the other 2 for thousands of years, until the son came and clarified the situation.  The father commanded all the folks for thousands of years to worship only him, leaving out his son, and not giving the spirit enough credit.  But thanks to the self claimed prophets and unknown authors of NT as well as the council of Nicea, now we know who really are, sorry is, the god.  

Interestingly enough, if you were to compare exactly what is written in Quran and what Jesus (pbuh) said, you would find them in harmony, Quran reaffirming and strengthening Jesus (pbuh) claims.  It is all about the extras which exaggerated Jesus (pbuh) beyond who really he was, those were not what Jesus (pbuh) said, but people who misinterpreted it one way or another and passed through generations as revelation, which were actually eye witness accounts and interpretations.  


>That is the practice of a few, but even among those few you do not find them altering the text to agree with pagan practices.  So I can still say that no Pagan practice is in the text of the Bible, and that the text of the Bible still teaches Trinity.

It is a pagan practice and accepted openly by some churches.  It is not written in the bible and even cursed in the bible, but yet it could be reinterpreted and with the momentum of coming up with a new all forgiving god, it could also be acceptable.  Because it is open to interpretation when you claim that god of the OT has now changed his policy and everything is basically OK.  That is the problem with accepting that god can have a son, though he never mentioned it, that god could have partners, though he never mentioned it, well guess what, eating pork is OK, though it was prohibited before, same sex marr is OK, though it was not accepted before, I could do whatever I want because Jesus died for me.  And what is the best way of corrupting the faithful but with paganistic beliefs under the mask of an all forgiving and all loving god, and so much forgiving that he would die for me on the cross?  And ain't I lucky because I live after he died for me, so that now I can enjoy the evil as much as I like, and still get away with it, because listen, god died for ME.  I consider this to be the next biggest oximoron after trinity.

Forgive me Mcghe if I sound harsh, however I am trying to bring home the point that Quran makes, that the message has been the same all along, which is basically to worship God alone, and not associate partners with Him.  The God has been the same God for Abraham as well as Jesus.  Satan is our greates enemy.  Believers are brothers and sisters.  We should join our strength together against those who are out there trying to corrupt religion, which is pure, and follow only what we are told by God and His messengers, not rely on interpretations.  God saved His messenger from being humiliated infront of his followers, by a miracle, Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified.  Jesus (pbuh) was The Word but not The God Himself.  The origin of sacrifice goes back to the submission of Abraham to the Will of God, and has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin.  There is no such thing as original sin, every human being is born pure.  

The religion is suppose to be simple, not impossible to understand.  I can say that I understand all the fundamentals of my belief since they are simple.  However you cannot understand the most fundamental belief of your faith.  May God help you and guide you, so that you may truly understand.

As far as Shiis and Sunnis, as far as I know the argument is all political, and nothing to do with religion.  They both believe in the same God and read the same Quran.  Since the text is truly plain, they cannot differ about the fundamentals of faith, such as tawheed (oneness of God) and the messengers, books, etc.  In practice there are slight differences, and at least some shiis believe in perfect humans with no sins, hence blindly following whatever they are told by those special people.  I must say that I have seen the same among few sunnis though they would not admit it.  If you go back to the source of religion, that is Quran and sunnah, you do not find those astray practices, that is why educated Muslims always seek the evidence, as God commands in Quran: "BRING YOUR EVIDENCE IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL"  

Evidence should be plain and simple to qualify, and it should stand to the time test.  

If I have said anything right it is through the guidance of God, and if I have said anything wrong, it is through my own weakness.

Best Regards,

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Does God ever talk anywhere in OT about 3 persons in 1 God?

Never in direct language, nor is the complete nature of God revealed in OT, NT or Quran.

>  you could even find trinity in Quran, and disregard all the contradicting evidence, such as the verses spelling out trinity clearly as being wrong.

I have found evidence of a plurality in the Quran, and the verse that "spelling it out" as being clearly wrong is evidence of an internal contradiction to me, further reason to reject the Quran.  Do you deny the times where the Quran refers to God with collective pronouns such as we?

> However the points brought up here are deeply affecting your belief

Your belief that you have the perfectly preserved word of God in the Quran is deeply effected by ANY error that can be found, including the fraction problem.  If you don't like the English translation look at it in Arabic and tell me if it means anything different.

> As far as I can see it, trinity is a huge oximoron

Where does God come from then?  You and I both believe that he just is and has no cause, well that too is an oxymoron of sorts.  And I don't know how much quantum theory you know, but it abounds in counter-intuitive oxymoron like statements that can all be experimentally verified; the totality of truth is more than any human mind(s) can comprehend.

> yet he never said that he was God

How can you keep saying that even after I have produced several instances where he does do just that!

> The father commanded all the folks for thousands of years to worship only him

There is only one God, you are to worship only one God, no one is left out.

> if you were to compare exactly what is written in Quran and what Jesus (pbuh) said, you would find them in harmony

I don't know about that.  Jesus told his followers to put away the sword when they came to arrest him, he also told Pilate and the High Priests that his kingdom was not of this earth or his followers would have saved him from them.  Where in all the Quran is that kind of attitude found?  I have read many verses that are quite the opposite in character, commanding followers to take up the sword, make war on earth.

On what authority do you deny the Trinity?  The Quran?  A book that claims to be from a perfect God but can't add fractions?  A book that comes only from only one man over a very short period of time?  Jesus taught that we are to not believe in anything without multiple witnesses; the Old and New Testament consists of many witnesses, the Quran has only one.

> now I can enjoy the evil as much as I like

Have you read the Bible?  It never says anything like that, in fact it very clearly teaches against such an attitude!

> that god could have partners, though he never mentioned it

In the very first book of the Bible God refers to himself in the plural "us".  So right from the very beginning God had and admitted to having partners.



Forgive me hao64, but you often quote the Quran as a final authority which results in circular reasoning as the very question is the Quran a final authority (i.e. flawless).  If the Quran is from God then I agree the Trinity would be false, but you and your Muslim brothers are a long way from convincing me that the Quran is indeed from God.

So questions about the Trinity etc. are interesting but before I will accept what the Quran has to say about trinity etc. I want to know that the Quran is from God.  I am told by Jesus, whom we agree is a prophet, to only accept the testimony of someone who has two or more witnesses, Mohammed has only his word (no witnesses) and performed no miracles; also there are serious errors in the text of the Quran itself (the fraction problem for example).  So I simply do not accept what the Quran has to say about the Bible.  First convince me that the Quran is from God and then you will have a much easier time convincing me that the Trinity etc. is false.
>By "plain text" do you mean the text without the diacritics?

Macgre if you want to consider some rediculus confusion that some diacriticals marks have generated in a rare case then you will proof what MohdAsalah have said was right when he said that you are searching for any gab in the Quran to proof to yourself before the other what the Quran said about Jesus is wrong(not son of God).
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

Read the title of this question, it is not, "Is Jesus the Son of God", it is "Is the Quran Flawless".  So the purpose of this thread was to find errors in the Quran if they exist.  I take it that you concede that the Quran is NOT flawless when you say that there is some "confusion that some diacriticals marks have generated in a rare case".  Well then follow that to its natural conclusion and you will see that the Quran could not have come from God if it has even a minor error.  I say this because the Quran claims to be perfect and Muslims claim that they have perfectly preserved God's word.  So either Muslims have not perfectly preserved God's word, or the Quran is not from God, you tell me.

BTW I do appreciate the honesty and courage it takes to admit even that much.
Macgre,
>But math is another thing altogether, either you solve the fraction problem or you admit to a clear error in the Quran.  
>And of course if there is a clear error then it could not have been written by God.

I think you are refering to yor same old point regarding to Inheritence.....While going through the first Question i saw that someone has already answered it for you.....
Any ways here is the link again....It will answer all questions regarding to the distribution of Inheritence......

http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14
and I am happy that it is being answered by my brother in Islam from my own country......

It is basically answering questions raised by Mr. Jochen Katz about the inheritence law of Islam..... and it has been the same since the time of Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him)......

I also strongly suggest my Muslim brothers to read the article so that they can easily answer the questions posted by people like Macgre......

Imran Arshad
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Macgre,

>BTW I do appreciate the honesty and courage it takes to admit even that much

Macgre want to let me forcibly admit that there is a flaw in the Quran!!
Macgre I did not say that there is any thing wrong in Quran but your preconceptions say that!

>Read the title of this question, it is not, "Is Jesus the Son of God", it is "Is the Quran Flawless".  So the purpose of this thread was to find errors in the Quran if they exist.

Huh? Then why you are trying to find errors in the Quran?! I do not think that you want to verify from the Quran and then to become Muslim!

>I take it that you concede that the Quran is NOT flawless when you say that there is some "confusion that some diacriticals marks have generated in a rare case".  

There is a difference between confusion & not flawless! Think of it again if you still see that there is no different then ask me and I will try to show you the difference.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

I have encountered the "inheritance category" response to my question before; what I find sorely lacking in it is clear evidence that such a system is being taught in the Quran.  I have read and re-read the translation in the link you provided and still I find not even the slightest hint that there are categories of inheritance in the Quran.  Nowhere does it say that this group inherits before this group, nowhere does it say that here is a group that is composed of these individuals.  So I ask, on what do you base the idea of groups/categories?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Callandor,

Daniel 7:14, how could I have missed that one, thanks for finding it!

The more we look the more we see that even the Old Testament makes continual references to a single God existing as a plurality of persons.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> Macgre want to let me forcibly admit that there is a flaw in the Quran!!

I am not forcing you to say anything, I am only telling you what I understand from what you have said.

> Then why you are trying to find errors in the Quran?! I do not think that you want to verify from the Quran and then to become Muslim!

For two reasons mainly a) to verify the Muslim claim that the Quran is from God; and b) to see if the Quran is perfectly preserved by Muslims.  If you could convince me that the Quran is God's perfectly preserved word I would become a Muslim.  I am not a Muslim and given what I have seen so far in the Quran I don't think that is likely to change any time soon either...

> There is a difference between confusion & not flawless!

God is not a God of confusion, if the Quran has a confusing passage of the kind that we have been discussing then you cannot claim that the Quran is God's word AND that Muslims have perfectly preserved it; the AND is the important part.  If it is perfectly preserved then it is not from God, if it is from God then it is not perfectly preserved.
Callandor >>If you want to see God referred to as a plurality in the O.T., look at
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…"

Macgre>> Do you deny the times where the Quran refers to God with collective pronouns such as we?


This is very pitiful and I am really felt sorry of what I read from you guys!! You based your arguments on misunderstanding and misinformation!
In Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic the plurality is used for aggrandizement(ennoblement), so for example if I want to say something for a king  or president I say “You are all…” even if I say that to one single king, and same thing if a king or president want to say something he say “We are…” (he just intend just himself).
I bet you people that also the idea of son of God have been resulted from like this misunderstanding and confusion of the difference between different languages.
Abdu_Allah,

>This is very pitiful and I am really felt sorry of what I read from you guys!! You based your arguments on misunderstanding and misinformation!

Before you have pity on us poor ignorant folk, do you have evidence that this is what the Hebrew says, other than conjecture?  Just because you had heard this used does not mean that was it's usage at the time the passage was written.  Don't take examples that earthly kings and nobles used to back up your claim - you have to connect the same words used in the text with this meaning.  Are you telling us now that you are an expert in Hebrew?  You have also ignored the other references that point to plurality.
Callandor,

>Before you have pity on us poor ignorant folk

No please do not misunderstand me I did not mean something like that.

>do you have evidence that this is what the Hebrew says.

The best evidence in this case is to hear that from which Hebrew is their native language: http://reslight.addr.com/elohimplural.html

In the Quran and Arabic languages also when God want to refer to himself he say "we" for aggrandizement purpose, Actually Hebrew & Arabic are too much similar and both of them resulted from one source.

>Are you telling us now that you are an expert in Hebrew?

No, If I know some aspects in some languages that do not give me the rights to be an expert in this languages!

>You have also ignored the other references that point to plurality.

I do not ignore something, I just handle one reference and refute it in regard of the fact that say the plurality is for aggrandizement purpose, if there is another references I believe they must discussed separately.


Peace.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> In the Quran and Arabic languages also when God want to refer to himself he say "we" for aggrandizement purpose

OK I retract the use of plural pronouns such as "we" and "us" as evidence that God is plural.

> if there is another references I believe they must discussed separately.

Callandor mentioned Daniel 7:13 and 14 earlier where we have the Son of Man being worshipped in the persence of the Ancient of Days.  The term Ancient of Days is a reference to God, and in the New Testament Jesus frequently refers to himself as the Son of Man.  Is this a better example that Jesus is God?

Even if you do not accept that Jesus is the Son of Man, how do you explain God (the Ancient of Days) letting someone else be worshipped in his presence!

Peace gentlemen,

Mcgre wrote:
>Even if you do not accept that Jesus is the Son of Man, how do you explain God (the Ancient of Days) letting someone else be worshipped in his presence!

I have the most ancient reference in Quran, which implicates angels prostrating before Adam with God's command
2:34 And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.

That is The God ordering His Creation to "worship" Adam.  I said worship, because bowing down is a sign of submission and humiliation.  It is probably what is referred as worship both in OT and NT when the word worship is used for someone other than THE GOD.  Adam (pbuh) was the viceroy of God and God demanded obedience from His creation for Adam (pbuh).  Bowing down was meant for obedience for the sake of God, and not worshipping like one would worship God.
Hello Callandor,

hao64,

>>The origin of sacrifice goes back to the submission of Abraham to the Will of God, and has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin

>I can't believe how quickly you ignored what I showed you in the O.T. from Lev 5:13.  Your own words:
"Thanks for providing the references.  I was wrong to assume that OT would not have a reference regarding the forgiveness of sin.  Please forgive my ignorance"

I argued that there was NOTHING in OT about acrifice for sin and I was wrong, which shook my trust in OT.
Nevertheless I still say what I am saying above, because Abraham (pbuh) is the Father of both Jews and Muslims.  And considering Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew, Abraham's example is the true origin of sacrifice.  I also mentioned sons of Adam who are even much older than Abraham's example.  The sacrifice was for obedience, not for forgiveness.  Now you have shown me some reference in OT but have not yet shown me a well supported reference similar to Abraham's example.  The OT references that deal with sacrifice for sin seems not to be incorporating any well known Prophet into the picture.  That is at least what I have seen from what you have quoted.  I would appreciate if you could prove me wrong once more.  


>I think it is clear about someone taking on our transgressions, and bearing them to the point of death.  It even specifies in v8 that it was for the sins of the author’s people.  

Who is the author?  That is what I mean.  WHo was the messenger involved with the act?  What did the messenger say regarding it and giving us a clear proof that this is a valid practice?  We might be looking at some stories mixed with pagan beliefs and we would not know unless we know the source.

>This is a continuation of the idea of a sacrifice for sins, only this time it covered more than just one man or a few people, it covered a whole nation.  This is one of the reasons that Jesus being God fits in, because no ordinary man can die for all those people and for all time, and still have the sacrifice be accepted by God.  You don't believe the crucixion happened, but combining Isa 53 and Psa 22 puts together the picture of what Jesus' sacrifice would be like in the future, including the experience of crucifixion.

Well, thanks for the references, however I believe you are manipulating the text to fit a certain idea.  We are not talking about a simple thing here, the claim you make is HUGE.  And you better have STRONG evidence.  Also consider the authenticity of the text.  Also consider the fact that it is refuting the ONENESS of God, a belief that people carried for thousands of years.  3 person = 1 God is not a good idea because it does not stand to our common sense.  And it is not something DECLARED PLAINLY neither by God nor by Jesus, let alone the idea being refuted by God in Quran later.

>This is in clear opposition to:
>1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
>2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
>3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
>4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the >dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
 > Romans 6:1-4 (NIV)

So this is what Paul says.  Of course when you come up with the theory you got to fill the holes.  That is not God's theory though, it is Paul's imagination.  Refer to the guy who build the golden calf in the absence of Moses, and those who followed him.


>If you want to see God referred to as a plurality in the O.T., look at

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
  Gen 1:26-27 (NIV)

SImilar to the Spirit example, you would see similar verses in Quran, so those do not prove that God is plural.  It is the way God choose to addres Himself.  I believe Abdullah went through this with you.  



>The appearance of Christ in the O.T.

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
  Dan 3:25 (NIV)

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Again you are relying too much on the specific use of words, which are not original.  You do not have a single clear plain evidence.  Sorry, but Muslims could not even fast if there was no clear evidence let alone to claim that God has a s..n.

Hello Mcghe,

>> Does God ever talk anywhere in OT about 3 persons in 1 God?

>Never in direct language, nor is the complete nature of God revealed in OT, NT or Quran.

You are wrong Mcghe, we know that God is One, and He has no partner.  God has used 1/3 of the Quran to iterate this.  I did not say complete nature, as I also said we are not created to comprehend that, but the question was about Oneness vs Trinity.

>>  you could even find trinity in Quran, and disregard all the contradicting evidence, such as the verses spelling out trinity clearly as being wrong.

>I have found evidence of a plurality in the Quran, and the verse that "spelling it out" as being clearly wrong is evidence of an internal contradiction to me, further reason to reject the Quran.  Do you deny the times where the Quran refers to God with collective pronouns such as we?

No, but you got your answer on that.  However the point is that with the way you made a god out Jesus, you could do a lot of other things using Quran.  Because you do not have clear evidence.  


> Your belief that you have the perfectly preserved word of God in the Quran is deeply effected by ANY error that can be found, including the fraction problem.  If you don't like the English translation look at it in Arabic and tell me if it means anything different.

I am not an expert Mcghe, and not being able to understand a verse regarding inheritance would not shake my belief.  Do you think people understood bingbang in that verse?  No, but they still went on and believed.  Whereas you, you should stop and think, because the trinity, crucifixion, are the foundation of your belief, and yet you base them on conjecture.

> Where does God come from then?  You and I both believe that he just is and has no cause, well that too is an oxymoron of sorts.  And I don't know how much quantum theory you know, but it abounds in counter-intuitive oxymoron like statements that can all be experimentally verified; the totality of truth is more than any human mind(s) can comprehend.

I agree.  However considering that there is God, trinity is an oximoron.  Because as God points out in Quran, if there were more than one god, there would be chaos in the universe.

>> yet he never said that he was God

>How can you keep saying that even after I have produced several instances where he does do just that!

He has not said it CLEARLY, as I stated above.

>> The father commanded all the folks for thousands of years to worship only him

>There is only one God, you are to worship only one God, no one is left out.

But you always leave out The Father since you pray to Jesus (pbuh),and I rarely witness when you remember The Spirit.  See, there is a problem.  Which person of the God do you have to please?  Jesus, father or the spirit?  Since they are all the same, could you just worship spirit and forget about the rest?  How do you make a balanced diet for all three?  Come on Mcghe, fall on your knees and repent.  That is the best advise you will ever get, from me anyways.

>> if you were to compare exactly what is written in Quran and what Jesus (pbuh) said, you would find them in harmony

>I don't know about that.  Jesus told his followers to put away the sword when they came to arrest him, he also told Pilate and the High Priests that his kingdom was not of this earth or his followers would have saved him from them.  Where in all the Quran is that kind of attitude found?  I have read many verses that are quite the opposite in character, commanding followers to take up the sword, make war on earth.

That is because he knew that God would rescue him, and so God did.  He was not crucified.

>On what authority do you deny the Trinity?  The Quran?  A book that claims to be from a perfect God but can't add fractions?  A book that comes only from only one man over a very short period of time?  Jesus taught that we are to not believe in anything without multiple witnesses; the Old and New Testament consists of many witnesses, the Quran has only one.

23 years is not a short time for the guidance to be revealed to a Messenger.  It is probably the optimized time, after the messenger reaches 40, when he is known among his people by his word and righteousness and generosity and affection.  I cannot describe God's beloved messenger completely.  You must read his life and learn what kind of person he was, from Islamic sources of course, otherwise you would be poisoned.  I believe that Quran being the Word and the Final Message itself had to be revealed this way.  I prefer the revelation to eyewitness or unknown author stories.

>> now I can enjoy the evil as much as I like

>Have you read the Bible?  It never says anything like that, in fact it very clearly teaches against such an attitude!

I am sorry.  I did not mean that.  However let us face the truth, that is why pagans loved it.  Good for Paul, good thinking.

>> that god could have partners, though he never mentioned it

>In the very first book of the Bible God refers to himself in the plural "us".  So right from the very beginning God had and admitted to having partners.

And no one really noticed.  Mcghe, this reminds me the Christian who claimed that there was trinity in Quran because God always started with "In the name of God, The Most Benficient, The Most Merciful".   That was really funny because that is the Christian attitude, you guys ignore all the rest of text and take something which is not clear and come up with a huge claim.   That guy pronbably knew the rest of the book, but he did not want to admit.  He was just tring to play with words instead of genuinely searching for truth.  

>Forgive me hao64, but you often quote the Quran as a final authority which results in circular reasoning as the very question is the Quran a final authority (i.e. flawless).  If the Quran is from God then I agree the Trinity would be false, but you and your Muslim brothers are a long way from convincing me that the Quran is indeed from God.

It is something to do with faith, and the challenge is if you think that you can come up with a better guidance, then bring it if you are truthful.  See, your faith could not stand to the standards set in Quran.  To start with, you have no revelation, it is all related words from the nth chain.  You also have no clear evidence, it is all interpretations of related words in the nth translated language.  Your faith does not stand to the test of time, there is a discontinuity in the concept of God, Who Is One, and you insist making Him three after thousands of years, despite later revelation telling you the truth.  There is the perfect sacrifice thing not mentioning original sin and the rest of the inventions.  

>So questions about the Trinity etc. are interesting but before I will accept what the Quran has to say about trinity etc. I want to know that the Quran is from God.  I am told by Jesus, whom we agree is a prophet, to only accept the testimony of someone who has two or more witnesses, Mohammed has only his word (no witnesses) and performed no miracles; also there are serious errors in the text of the Quran itself (the fraction problem for example).  So I simply do not accept what the Quran has to say about the Bible.  First convince me that the Quran is from God and then you will have a much easier time convincing me that the Trinity etc. is false.

Unless the revelation is come down simultaneously to more than one messenger, there is always one to convince the rest that he is the messenger.  That has alwas been the case from Novah to Muhammed (pbut).  That is why God chose His messengers from among men with great character.  

We believe that all messengers came down with the same message, hence one confirms the previous revelations.  In that respect there should be continuity, and that is where Christianity fails.  It puts the blame on God for sin, and associate partners with Him.  

I cannot convince you by the way, the guidance is from God.  And I pray that He does not shot your ears, eyes and mind.  Because then there would be hope for you.  The more you resist to the truth though the closer you get because you keep rejecting the signs revealed to you.

Best Regards,

Hello Mcghe,

In my last sentence I meant to say that there would be no hope for you.  God Knows Best.

Peace


>I have encountered the "inheritance category" response to my question before; what I find sorely lacking in it is clear
>evidence that such a system is being taught in the Quran.  I have read and re-read the translation in the link you provided
>and still I find not even the slightest hint that there are categories of inheritance in the Quran.  Nowhere does it say that
>this group inherits before this group, nowhere does it say that here is a group that is composed of these individuals.  So I
>ask, on what do you base the idea of groups/categories?

Macgre,
              I think you haven't read the article completely.....In the end of that article you will find the answer to your question.....In Ref No. [5].....
I wil reproduce it here for you.........

The share of the deceased's children has primarily been mentioned in the following words:

Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male's share shall equal that of two females...

(For the purpose of understanding the verse more easily, its remaining part that relates to the share of a person's offspring -- i.e., in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half --  is not yet being considered. This part of the verse shall be considered in detail, later.)

If the commandment of the Qur'an, regarding the law of inheritance had ended here, it would have meant that the total property and assets of the deceased are to be distributed among his/her children, according to the principle that each male child gets double the share of every female child. For example, if someone says: "This money is to be distributed among your children equally", it would simply imply that: 1) the money is to be distributed among all the children, according to the principle of equality; and 2) no one except the "children" has a right on the total money. In the same way, if someone says: "This money is to be distributed among your children in such a way that each female child gets half of what each male child gets", there shall be no change in the two stipulated implications of the sentence, except that in the latter case the principle of distribution, rather than "equality" shall be "each female gets half of what each male gets".

But, as a matter of fact, the commandment of the Qur'an does not end here. The Qur'an has mentioned a few other relations, like the parents and the spouse of the deceased, who are to be given a specified portion of the deceased's property. But the words used in describing the shares of the relations other than the children of the deceased are such that clearly imply that the other relations are to be given a fixed proportion of the total property and assets of the deceased, while his/her children are to share the balance of the property remaining after the share of the other relations has been given.

Suppose someone says: "Distribute this money equally among your children; give one-third of it to your parents". Obviously the implication of this sentence is quite clear. It simply means that first, one-third of the total money should be given to the parents and the remaining amount (two-thirds of the total) should be distributed equally among the children. In the same way, if someone says: "Distribute this money among your children in such a way that each girl gets half of what each boy gets; give one-third of it to your parents and a quarter of it to your wife", it would simply mean that after giving one-fourth of the money to the wife and one-third to the parents, the remaining five-twelfths is to be distributed among the children in such a way that each boy gets the double of what each girl gets. It also means that if the person does not have either or both the parents and the wife, the total money would then be distributed among his children according to the given principle.

The directive of the Qur'an is quite similar to the above example statements. In a simplified form, it says that the deceased's children are to share the property on the principle that each male child gets double the share of each female child; parents are to get one-sixth each; and the deceased's wife is to be given one-eighth. This simply means that the deceased's mother, father and wife are to be given one-sixth, one-sixth and one-eighth of the total property respectively. The remaining balance (13/24th) shall then be distributed among the children according to the stipulated principle.

From the above, it can easily be seen that according to the law of inheritance of the Qur'an, Children of the deceased are to share in the balance of the property and assets according to the specified principle, after the shares of the first category of inheritors has been given.

hao64,

I am surprised that you do not know about this most fundamental principle in the O.T.  Before you can make sense of anything else about sacrifices for sin, you need to understand what the O.T. says about it.

Read Exodus 25-29, which is about the explicit instructions  given by God for construction of the tabernacle and the way to make sacrifices to God, in detail.  The Tabernacle (and later, the Temple) was the place where God’s presence would be manifested in the Holy of Holies.  Whoever went into God’s presence had to first be cleansed of sin before they could approach.  This practice of atoning for sin is continued today on Yom Kippur.  Here’s an excerpt which points to the need (but you should read the entire passages):

36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it.
37 For seven days make atonement for the altar and consecrate it. Then the altar will be most holy, and whatever touches it will be holy.
  Ex 29:36-37 (NIV)



11 "Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering.
  Lev 16:11 (NIV)

27 The bull and the goat for the sin offerings, whose blood was brought into the Most Holy Place to make atonement, must be taken outside the camp; their hides, flesh and offal are to be burned up.
28 The man who burns them must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water; afterward he may come into the camp.
29 "This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work--whether native-born or an alien living among you--
30 because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.
  Lev 16:27-30 (NIV)

It is understood that Moses is the author of most of the Pentateuch, which are the first five books of the O.T.  He was considered the foremost of all the prophets of the O.T.  

You should take your time examining these things carefully, because if you were taught that sacrifices were just an act of obedience, this will be an eye-opener.  I understand now why you don’t believe Jesus died for everyone’s sins, because it makes no sense, unless there was a need from the O.T.  I don’t expect that you will change ideas instilled over a lifetime, but if you are a seeker of truth, you need to understand what the O.T. really says about sacrifices.  Only after you do so will the verses below make any sense.

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
  Jer 31:31-34 (NIV)
Callandor and all,

Not all of the burnt offerings in the Holy Temple were regarding sins.  Some were part of continual daily ritual, submission to G-d’s will and communing with G-d.  They could only be performed in the Temple.  “In current Jewish practice, prayer and study of the laws of sacrifices has taken the place of sacrifices.  In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3); please note that the KJV translates this somewhat differently).” (quote from the link below)

The partial quote below is from http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/qorbanot.htm
<start of quote>

Certain qorbanot [pronounced: core-ban-oat] are brought purely for the purpose of communing with God and becoming closer to Him.  Others are brought for the purpose of expressing thanks, love, or gratitude to God.  Others are used to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (which does not necessarily have anything to do with sin).  And yes, some qorbanot are brought for purposes of atonement.

The atoning aspect of qorbanot is carefully circumscribed.  For the most part, qorbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin.  No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress, and for the most part, qorbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin.  In addition, qorbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents of his actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person harmed by his sin.
 
Types of Qorbanot
There are many different types of qorbanot, and the laws related to them are detailed and complicated.  This section will merely introduce some of the major types of qorbanot, their names, and their characteristics.  There are many subtypes within these classifications, and some other types that do not fit neatly into these categories.
 
Olah:  Burnt Offering
Perhaps the best-known class of offerings is the burnt offering [the continual daily offering both morning and evening].  It was the oldest and commonest sacrifice, and represented submission to God's will.
<end of quote>
Hi WaterStreet,

Glad to have a Jewish perspective on this.  Is the quote that you gave a definition of modern practice, or is the modern practice different from what was done in the O.T.?  I have wondered how the commands for offerings can be practiced today, without a Temple and altars in Jerusalem.  Are you saying Hosea 14:2 supercedes previous laws?

2 Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips.
  Hosea 14:2 (NIV)
Callandor,

<Is the quote that you gave a definition of modern practice, or is the modern practice different from what was done in the O.T.?>  
Yes the quote is the modern practice and is quite different from the Hebrew Bible; “In current Jewish practice, prayer and study of the laws of sacrifices has taken the place of sacrifices. In accordance with the words of Hosea, we render instead of bullocks the offering of our lips (Hosea 14:3); please note that the KJV translates this somewhat differently).”

FYI.  As part of the Orthodox Jewish preliminary prayer service, the laws of the [Temple] offerings are recited, and at their conclusion, the following supplication is made:  “May it be the will before you [Lord] our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers that this recital be worthy, acceptable and favorable before you as if we offered the continual offering in its set time, in its place, and according to its requirement.”

<I have wondered how the commands for offerings can be practiced today, without a Temple and altars in Jerusalem.>
Your thinking correctly: They can’t be practiced today.  The command was to only make these offerings in a (central) place of G-d’s choosing.  Now that the Temple (the last place of His choosing) has been destroyed, Jews can’t make these offerings.

<Are you saying Hosea 14:2 supercedes previous laws?>
[I think the Jewish reference for the same text is Hosea 14:3.]  I don’t know that “supercede” is the proper verb [I think substitute is proper].  Hosea 14.2/14.3 seems to be the basic text argument for substituting prayer for sacrifices.    

As mentioned below, prayer is one of 20 different actions that the rabbinic sages of the first several centuries said could atone for our sins.  Five of these mentioned below are: “Prayer, Deeds of Lovingkindness, Study of Torah, Repentance, and Fasting.”


<start of quote from http://www.bethyeshurun.org/sacrifices.htm>
The Rabbis of the generation that witnessed the destruction of the Temple turned back to the Bible and discovered more than 20 different actions we can take that will atone for our sins. Let’s review five of these actions in particular.

First, our Sages tell us, the prayer takes the place of sacrifices in atoning for our sins. (Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 24:19 [5th century Rabbinic text]) The Prophet Hosea (14:3) said, “Return O Israel, to the LORD your God, for you have fallen because of your sin. Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him: ‘Forgive all guilt and accept what is good; instead of bulls we will pay [the offering of] our lips.’” The prophet’s words are pretty clear, but in case we missed their significance, Rabbi Abbahu made this comment on them: “How are we to compensate You (God) for the bulls we used to offer to You? Our lips will pay by means of the prayer we offer to You.” …

A second type of activity that takes the place of sacrifices is learned from another statement of the Prophet Hosea. The story is told (Avot de Rabbi Natan 11a [Talmud]) that sometime after the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was walking with his pupil Rabbi Joshua near the burned out Temple site.  Rabbi Joshua saw the Temple ruins and said: “Alas for us! The place which atoned for the sins of the people Israel through the ritual of animal sacrifice lies in ruins!” Then Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: “Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining atonement even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain atonement through gemilut hasadim (deeds of lovingkindness).” For it is written (Hosea 6:6), “Lovingkindness I desire, not sacrifice.” Again this is a pretty good Biblical support for the Rabbinic proposition that sacrifices are not required for atonement.

Our Sages were, of course, major proponents of the need for all of us to study and learn the texts and traditions of our people. How else can we Jews hope to understand what God ultimately wants from us? We have centuries of wisdom to learn from. Scholars and Sages who spent most of their lives trying to understand God and what God wants us to do in this world. So, it is not surprising that the Sages would also conclude that to study our traditions is yet another way to atone for our sins. Simply to engage in Torah study is an act of balancing our accounts with God and a means to bring us closer to Him. But, of course, the Sages could not simply say that Torah study had this powerful effect without some Biblical basis for doing so. Therefore, we find (Shemot Rabbah 38:4[Midrash]) that they referred to the same verse in Hosea (14:3) used to prove that prayer substitutes for sacrifices, in order to prove that Torah study substitutes for sacrifices. Thus, when the Prophet Hosea says “Take with you words, and return to the LORD” the Rabbis interpret the “words” to mean “words of Torah.” And for this, too, they have a proof text: the Book of Deuteronomy opens with the words “Eleh hadevarim asher dibber Moshe el kol Yisrael” – “These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel” [Deut. 1:1] What words did Moses speak? Words of Torah, of course! So we can take these same words and return to God. By learning Torah we atone for our sins.

The very act of repenting of our sins acts also as an atonement, according to the Rabbis. (Vayikra Rabbah 7:2 [Midrash]) “How do we know that one who has repented is credited as if he had gone up to Jerusalem, rebuilt the Temple, built the altar, and offered on it all of the sacrifices that are specified in the Torah?” our Sages ask. And they answer their own question by quoting a verse from Psalms. “Because it says in Psalms [51:19] ‘The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit.’”  When we repent of our sins and we return to God with a contrite heart and a humble spirit admitting our sins, God considers it as if we offered a sacrifice to atone for them.

Finally, on Yom Kippur we fast for the entire day. This act of fasting is seen as an act of atoning for our sins. The story is told (Berakhot 17a) that when Rabbi Sheshet would fast he would conclude his prayers by saying: “Sovereign of the Universe, You know full well that in the time when the Temple was standing, if a person sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and although all that was offered of it was its fat and blood, atonement was made for him therewith. Now I have kept a fast, and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Your will to account my fat and blood, which have been diminished, as if I had offered them before You on the altar.”  

Here are five things we can do, five actions that our Rabbis have established take the place of the Temple sacrifices: Prayer, Deeds of Lovingkindness, Study of Torah, Repentance, and Fasting. These five measures atone for our sins. They counteract or offset the bad things we do, and help to bring us closer to God.
<end of quote>
oops,  the supplication after the recital of the laws of sacrafice is quoted from "The Schottenstein edition Siddur for Weekdays with an Interlinear Translation", Artscroll Mesorah.  It's a prayer book.
I want to support what the brother Imran said about inheritance laws by mentioning Hadith(what Mohammad PBUH Said):
The Prophet said, "Give the Fara'id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur'an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased ."

Macgre,

>OK I retract the use of plural pronouns such as "we" and "us" as evidence that God is plural.

I am happy to hear that and I hope you continue with such mentality.

>Even if you do not accept that Jesus is the Son of Man, how do you explain God (the Ancient of Days) letting someone else be worshipped in his presence

"worshipped" meaning here is misleading, at most it means Bowing, but the different between different languages generate like this confusion!, please have a look at this link: http://members.aol.com/IslamTeam/pworship.htm
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

Does the command to "bow down" imply worship?  The verse in Daniel clearly states worship.

> He has not said it CLEARLY, as I stated above.

You want to read Jesus saying, "I am God", and I am almost certain that if I could find those very words in the Bible you would simply reject them as some sort of paganistic corruption and insist that the Quran is the only source of truth and it says that Jesus is not God so no matter what I say you will never accept it.

FTR As far as I am concerned, when the high priest asked Jesus if he was the Christ, the Son of God, and Jesus said yes, that is a VERY clear admission by Jesus as being God, and he was killed because of it!

> Which person of the God do you have to please?

There is only one God, acknowledging any of the persons of the Trinity is acknowledging the One God and pleases all members of the Trinity!

> That is because he knew that God would rescue him, and so God did.  He was not crucified.

If he was not crucified then why did Jesus repeatedly say that he was going to be?  Can a prophet lie?

> You must read his life and learn what kind of person he was, from Islamic sources of course, otherwise you would be poisoned.

Why say poisoned?  Can truth only come from Islamic sources?  What if Islam is nothing more than the vain imagination of the one man Mohammed?

> However let us face the truth, that is why pagans loved it.

Pagans hated Christians, for you to say that Pagans "loved it" is to show that you have a complete lack of understanding of the relationship between Pagans and Christians in the early days.

> See, your faith could not stand to the standards set in Quran.

The Quran can't stand up to its own standards!  You have yet to convince me that the Quran is the word of God as opposed to the imagination of the one man Mohammed.  My Bible tells me get two or more witnesses to confirm a messengers words; you have NO WITNESSES just the word of Mohammed saying that he heard from the angel Gabriel.  Did anyone beside Mohammed hear the angel Gabriel?  Did Mohammed perform any miracles or signs?  Why do people believe that Mohammed talked to Gabriel?  Just because Mohammed said so?  I am not convinced, why are you?

> The more you resist to the truth though the closer you get because you keep rejecting the signs revealed to you.

So far the clearest sign I have seen is that whoever wrote the Quran made a mistake and didn't add his fractions properly; whoever it was it most certainly was not God!  So I thank you for showing me the signs of truth, now I only wish that God would open your mind, eyes and ears and soften your heart so that you may accept the truth that Jesus is the Saviour of the world.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

> From the above, it can easily be seen that according to the law of inheritance of the Qur'an

Never do I see anything that even suggests that children inherit what remains.  As far as I can tell all inheritors inherit equally from the original estate after legacies and debts are paid.  Can you please point to the clear language that says otherwise.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_allah,

> I want to support what the brother Imran said about inheritance laws by mentioning Hadith

Does the Hadith have authority equal to the Quran?  I am repeatedly told that it does not, so if the Hadith contradicts the Quran we are to follow the Quran and not the Hadith right?  Well then I repeat my challenge where in the Quran does it say that children (or anyone else) only inherit what remains after someone else inherits?
Macgre,
              Please study this again and again.........May Allah open up your mind.......

Suppose someone says: "Distribute this money equally among your children; give one-third of it to your parents". Obviously the implication of this sentence is quite clear. It simply means that first, one-third of the total money should be given to the parents and the remaining amount (two-thirds of the total) should be distributed equally among the children. In the same way, if someone says: "Distribute this money among your children in such a way that each girl gets half of what each boy gets; give one-third of it to your parents and a quarter of it to your wife", it would simply mean that after giving one-fourth of the money to the wife and one-third to the parents, the remaining five-twelfths is to be distributed among the children in such a way that each boy gets the double of what each girl gets. It also means that if the person does not have either or both the parents and the wife, the total money would then be distributed among his children according to the given principle.

The directive of the Qur'an is quite similar to the above example statements. In a simplified form, it says that the deceased's children are to share the property on the principle that each male child gets double the share of each female child; parents are to get one-sixth each; and the deceased's wife is to be given one-eighth. This simply means that the deceased's mother, father and wife are to be given one-sixth, one-sixth and one-eighth of the total property respectively. The remaining balance (13/24th) shall then be distributed among the children according to the stipulated principle.

Imran Arshad....
>Does the Hadith have authority equal to the Quran?  I am repeatedly told that it does not, so if the Hadith contradicts the >Quran we are to follow the Quran and not the Hadith right?

Yes you are true that the Hadih donot have the authority equal to that of Quran (because it has not been preserved completely and error free as Quran has been preserved )Though we have Six books (Sihah Sittah) of Ahadeeth which almost have all the correct Hadeeth but this is a separate topic....... But this doesnot mean that we have every reason to reject a Hadith...... Had only Quran being revealed and no Prophet and no Hadith we would have been betrayed from the right path due to our limited knowledge and understanding of Quran like this case where our Prophet has told us how to distribute the inheritence which is exactly according to the words of Quran but we might not have reached to it.... The purpose of a Prophet is to display a role model according to the teachings of Quran and the Holy Books before and clear any difficulties we face while understanding  Quran due to our limited knowledge .....

Imran Arshad
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

You link addresses Daniel chapter 2, my question had to do with Daniel 7.

For a somewhat detailed explanation why "proskuneos" directed at Jesus is translated "bowing down" sometimes and other times it is translated "worship" please see http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/jesuswor.htm

Key point is that the Greek word was used in conjunction to bowing down and so could not mean simply to bow down, that would result in the passage saying "they bowed down and bowed down"?!?!

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

I appreciate your patience with me but I still do not see what you are saying in the Quran.  I repeatedly read "of the inheritance" and never "of the REMAINING inheritance".  The concept of remainder is not absent in the Quran as all inheritors will inherit the remainder after all legacies and debts have been paid.  Yet never do we read that children inherit after all parents and wives have inherited, why?  Could it be simply that there is an error in the flawless Quran?
Macgre,

>Does the Hadith have authority equal to the Quran?

Of course actually Hadith is the second source for Islam and the complement and the interpreter for Quran.

> I am repeatedly told that it does not

Excuse me! who told you that!

Imranarshad To Macgre:>Please study this again and again.........May Allah open up your mind.......

I pray also for macgre...

Macgre,

Actually "proskuneo" have many meaning "Bow down", "Worship", "kneel or prostrate".
That let the Christians mix up between its different meanings. What I want to say that there is no proof in OT that Jesus(PBUH) is god, but in contrast we see that he is "Son of Man" and some other revelations " proskuneo no one but the Father."
That all make "Bow down" meaning is the likelihood one.
Hello Mcghe,

You wrote:
>Does the command to "bow down" imply worship?  The verse in Daniel clearly states worship.

I showed you, with the help of God once more, that whatever proof you think you have are just your misinterpretations.  Because we see similar passages in Quran, and yet we do not misinterpret them, because the message is complete to arrive to the whole truth.  In the example of Spirit, I showed you how Quran used Spirit the way it was used in OT, and yet in other verses clarified who Spirit really was.  In the example of worship of Jesus, I showed you how the  angels and jins were ordered to prostrate (bow down) to Adam (pbuh) in Quran, and it was meant to submit and not worship as one would to The God.  In the example of Jesus being Word, I showed you with verses from Quran and also with the robot example.  You still insist that you have clear evidence, and yet you cannot show me your proof.  All the proof you have is your word, and you are not a messenger from God, receiving revelation, so your word is not enough.

The verse in Daniel...  Prove me that it truly means worship.  Or as Abdallah pointed out, it might mean many things.  

Pagans still love Christianity because it kills the god for their sins.  That is why they convert to Christianity, and Church made it easier for them as the church transformed pagan holidays into religious holidays, such as Christmas, which was originally a pagan holiday and church declared the day to be the birthday of Jesus (pbuh).  All to make Christianity more lovable by former pagans and pagans alike.    

I do also believe that Jesus(pbuh) is Messiah (The Savior) of the world/universe, because that is what the angels call him in Quran, by The Will of The God.

3:45 (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

But  I do not believe that He WAS The God.  

About poisoning.  That is similar to learning something.  I have seen some well educated people, who somehow learned something wrong at the beginning, and then never got right.  Such as one who learned to spell Tuesday as Teusday, and kept making the same mistake, never remembering which one is right, etc.  It is better to learn it right from the beginning, and then look at the criticism, see if the argument stands.  Otherwise, you create so many artificial obstacles in your mind that you would have terrible time to find the truth.  That is what orientalist did in Islam, they produced thousands of books with right mixed up with wrong, and deviating the minds with their doubts.  In Quran we read that some doubt is a sin.  However for the true followers of guidance, they can always reach to the truth since they sincerely seek to find God, and they do not become the slave of their own ego.  That is what destroyed Satan in the first place.

You wrote:
>My Bible tells me get two or more witnesses to confirm a messengers words

Of course you would find the people of the book recognizing the message as it was revealed to them.  The criteria is that the message should confirm the previous revelations and that is what Quran does, unlike the NT, where thousands years of ONENESS of God is torn apart.  Yet, when we look at the what Jesus (pbuh) has said, we cannot find a single clear evidence, but only conjecture.  However there is really no one who can confirm a messenger other than people's faith because message is revelaed to one person alone at the time frame.   You are confused because you think all those NT authors received revelation, though you do not realize that they were just following their common sense.  Revelation is different from one's opinion.  Refer to the golden calf's story.  The guy thought that he was inspired to build the calf to be worshiped.  

I do not know of any incidence where there were more than one messenger of God receiving revelation.  This is almost like having more than one god.  If you have multiple messengers then you have multiple messages, while except one, all of them redundant.  Similar to not having the true concept of God, you do not have the true concept of message or messenger either.    

You are still asking about miracles of Muhammed, while I use Quran to show you how weak your arguments are about the fundamentals of your faith.  Don't you think that this is a miracle, that I can find a verse for each argument you have in Quran that points you clearly to the right path?  We have done that regarding Spirit, sacrifice to clean sin and worship of Jesus.  

Mcghe, let me ask you if Jesus (pbuh) came today and claimed that He was/is a Muslim, would you follow him (pbuh)?  Because there is a possibilty that he is, since you have no clear proof that he is not.

Best Regards,







macgre,


<Is the Quran flawless?>

Yes, it’s quite clear from reading this thread that it’s flawless for the Moslems.  And, in my opinion, that’s all that should matter to the other monotheists at this time.

I’ve never really considered myself a participant in the central topic of this thread, for a couple of reasons:
1.  I have almost no knowledge of the Quran, other than it represents a monotheistic belief that, despite many profound similarities, is in conflict with my own (Jewish) monotheistic beliefs.  I can also say the same about the Christian Scriptures and belief.
2.  In my opinion, it’s counterproductive (maybe even self-destructive) for monotheists to pursue a question like this beyond obtaining just a basic understanding of another viewpoint.  What I trying to say is that if we take faith questions like is the Quran flawless or is the “New Testament” flawless, or is the Torah flawless and push beyond the basic explanations then they can turn into nonproductive confrontations of faith.

Why should we be concerned about nonproductivity and confrontations of faith?  Because these three monotheistic beliefs share common values and are working toward the same goal, in my opinion, whether they see it or not.  I expect they share a common set of basic laws / beliefs.  To many monotheists, these basic laws are known as the Seven Laws of Noah, which are: “Not to deny God. Not to blaspheme God. Not to murder. Not to engage in incestuous, adulterous, bestial or homosexual relationships. Not to steal. Not to eat a limb torn from a living animal. To set up courts to ensure obedience to the other six laws.” (quoted from: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Seven_Noahide_Laws.html)
(or see detailed discussion at: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=42596)

It seems to me from the traditional Jewish viewpoint, that practicing Christians and Moslems already observe the Seven Laws of Noah and are thereby assured a place in the World-To-Come as are Jews who observe the 613 laws in the Torah.  So, from a Jewish viewpoint, it doesn’t matter that it took Mohammed or the Quran, or Jesus or the Christian Scriptures to bring non Jews to recognize G-d’s sovereignty and obey his laws.  However, for Jews, the laws of Moses in the Torah are eternal and can not superseded.

Additionally, in my opinion, most non-believers detest religious confrontations and attempts at religious persuasions, and conversion attempts.  IMO, the monotheists would do better to concentrate on spreading the beauty of their faiths by being living examples to those who are unaffiliated, rather than “preaching to the choir.” or in this case, “arguing with the choir,” so to speak.

So, again, is the Quran flawless?  Yes, the point is that it is flawless for the Moslem because it brings them to G-d and to observe His basic laws for all humankind, in my opinion; and that’s all that should matter to the other monotheists at this time when viewing another monotheistic religion.

By the way, in the very first answer in your original thread, on 10/06/2003, Sunbow said “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” – a short summary to what I just said.
The only problem with saying that "it's not a big deal" is that both the Bible and the Quran claim to be the words of God (or at least, with the Bible, inspired by God), which *by definition* would have to be flawless. If even a single real flaw is found in either, than the rest of the book (including the very existence of God himself, or at least his basic nature) is called into question. Not an insignificant problem. Particularly so with the Bible since Jesus claims to be "the *only" way" to Heaven.

I do think you have a point on #2 though - most people aren't going to change their viewpoint (especially not by opinions presented on an Internet discussion board), but it can be interesting to learn about how other people think.

Although, I also think it's good to discuss things like this and ask questions - even if it may actually hold no real significance (like you said in your 2nd-to-last sentence) - just for the purpose of finding *the truth*.
>So, again, is the Quran flawless?  Yes, the point is that it is flawless for the Moslem because it brings them to G-d and to observe His basic laws for all humankind, in my opinion; and that’s all that should matter to the other monotheists at this time when viewing another monotheistic religion.
>By the way, in the very first answer in your original thread, on 10/06/2003, Sunbow said “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” – a short summary to what I just said

Sorry but we name that naive and shallow point of view!. The religion is one in regard to God, and all of these religions have one source, there is no religion is special for some people or
special time absolutely, in contrast it is valid for any time and any people. There the measurement of religion flawlessness in what God wants and Not of what people require.
The importance of this topic come from the some differences between N. T. in one side and O. T. and Quran in other side and these differences are basic, and some of it against God's laws so one of it must be flaw and once we know which one is flaw we must get rid or stop from believing in it.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Well I am about done.

I am reasonably convinced that the Quran is not flawless, and therefore not from God.  I offered this thread to Muslims to counter that belief but nothing was presented that could reasonably account for the problems I am aware of.

Though I did enjoy the side discussions that developed, most notably the divinity of Christ, I was disappointed to see that the primary Muslim response was to insist that the Quran is a superior document and that the Bible is corrupt but failing to provide sufficient evidence to support either claim.

However, I did learn a lot about Islamic beliefs which was a secondary goal of this question, to have an informative dialog.

I thank you all for your sincere concern and prayers on my behalf, I too will pray for you, may all our best wishes for each other come true!

As I have seen so often:

Peace
>Well I am about done.

Macgre you have done it before you opened this question!

>I am reasonably convinced that the Quran is not flawless

heh I also reasonably convinced that your way of thinking is not flawless.
I hope that you also convinced that the Gospels are also not flawless and son-of-God idea is myth.

MohdAsalah you are right your suspesions was right.
macgre,
              There is just one advice that I can give to you...... Always discuss something with an open mind...... If you follow my advice Allah might guide you to the true path of Jesus.....

>I am reasonably convinced that the Quran is not flawless

MohdAsalah was correct...............

Glad that you accepted my Comment that was about the errors in Bible.......

Imran Arshad
I also want to advice Macgre: Always discuss something by mind....
 

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah, imarshad

> There is just one advice that I can give to you...... Always discuss something with an open mind......

You should also keep and open mind...

It is still very discouraging to see that the mere idea that you [that is a plural you] could be wrong and that I could be right still hasn't even entered your minds (including MohdAsalah's).

> Glad that you accepted my Comment that was about the errors in Bible.......

I believed that post best captured some key points of the Muslim point of view; that does not mean that I agree with what you said.  I also apprecitated your patience and the general attitude of respect that you displayed in these discussions, I do wish you all the best.

> MohdAsalah you are right your suspesions was right.
> MohdAsalah was correct...............

FTR MohdAsalah's habit was to expect everyone to simply accept what he was saying as true without question, and ridicule anyone who would dare question something he said.  So if you mean that because I simply won't accept what MohdAsalah says is true without reason that he is right about me [being argumentative?] then, you are right.  If you mean something else then please tell me.

> Macgre you have done it before you opened this question!

I am giving points I am not censoring discussion.  If you still have something to say then say it, I am sure many are still listening.
Thanks for the points, a very long discussion...!

Peace Mcgre,

You wrote:
>I am reasonably convinced that the Quran is not flawless

Sorry Mcgre, this is all I/we could do, the rest was/is up to you.  
Unfortunately in your case, the more you know, the more responsible you become.

Thanks for bringing it up anyways, because even if one person change their way towards the truth, it is worth as much as the whole humanity.

>...may all our best wishes for each other come true!

May The God Almighty guide us all to the straight path.  Amen.


Best Regards,


 
It was a great thread; I learned about the point of view of muslims, and I hope they learned something about their understanding of the O.T.  
Strong emotions were displayed, but I think everyone stayed respectful of others; no mean feat in today's world.

Hello all,

I just noticed today this long new thread, I thought the previous has already ended. I didn't read all this discussion and I don't want to re-open it. I just want to warn Moslems from submission.org site, please read the previous thread, I have wrote a very clear logical concept to prove that he (I forgot his name, I think it was Khalifa) is a lier.  I am surprised that it was reopen again. (macgre, Didn't we end the discussion about him !?)

I would like also to ask everyone to take the basic concepts only about Islam from this discussion, we are not scholars (we are developers) and we have certainly done many mistakes in this discussion. So please, if you are interested in knowing more about Islam, take it in more details from trusted organizations and qualified people, knowing from chats like this.

"Say: Who gives you sustenance, from the heavens and the earth? Say: it is Allah; and certain it is that either we or ye are on right guidance or in manifest error" [34-24]

Osama
Hello Callandor,

I was hooping that you could provide some references from OT as I requested.
The verses that mention the sacrifice for sin associated with a known messenger.
That would be the last favor I would ask you in this thread.

Best Regards,
hao64,

I thought I did - the Exodus and Leviticus passages are acknowledged as having been written by Moses, as they are part of the Torah.  If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
Hello, sorry but is this thread closed?
Hello Kollision,

We still communicate (at least me) if a question arises.

Callandor,

Please refer to the passage in OT where Moses is told to be dead and buried, and tell me if that chapter is acknowledged as having been written by Moses.

Thanks in advance,
Note: this is long, but I really enjoyed writing this

Thanks Hao,

First I would like to say hello to everyone.  I just saw this lenghty thread as well as the other one
and would like to answer a question that arised in one if the posts if it hasn't been answered.  I
personally only use Qu'ran (in regards to Islam) and I will tell you why later.

According to the 2 false verses in Qu'ran, I think some of you failed to realize that it indeed didnt belong there,
according to aHadith (which I do not follow, but it helped here) and some historical references.  So it makes sense
as to why Khalifa had to remove these two verses in order for the prime number 19 to work.

Now this may get a few Muslims angry but there is no ayat (verse) in Qu'ran that never said Satan was not an angel.
When Allah told all the ANGELS ( and I stress the word) all except Satan prostrated.  The Qu'ran is pretty straightfoward
and from the way I see it, he was an angel.  If not, there would be no reason to say the Angels or include him in the statement.
Allah could have just said that he commanded everyone to prostrate, all but Satan did.  This is what I get from that ayat.

As to how the Angels were created, I don't believe Allah ever told us how it was done.  We know that the Jinn are created from
smokeless fire, but he never said that angels were created from light, this is from aHadiths.

Onto the subject of aHadiths, this is one of the reasons why the Muslim community has divided into sects, not staying as one.  It clearly
states in Qu'ran for us not to divide into groups (sects).  No one in the Muslim sects has disputes over Qu'ran (from what I know) except
with there aHadiths and the Sunna of the Prophet.  Now, to the Muslims, Allah said that he would guard the Qu'ran from corruption.  The aHadiths
and the Sunna are not Qu'ran, therefore it is likely to have corruptions through this long time line.  

As for corruptions, we can easily see many of these corruptions in aHadiths.  Some say that if a man orders a woman to move a mountain, she should be
ready to move it.  Others degrade woman and this is far off of the religion of Ibraham(Abraham), Moses, Jesus(Eesa), Muhammad, and all the other prophets.
Allah says that men and women are equal.  If anything, women should be the very ones protected.

AHadiths even condemn owning dogs, pictures, and add new laws to the Shariah.  How can owning a dog be bad if they are creatures of Allah?  They are
Muslims(Submitters) as well. Allah is Most Merciful (Ar Raheem).  How could we expect God not to like animals or have his angels not enter houses with dogs?  
He/She can do whatever he/she wants.  Allah says "Be" and it is.  

We know from Qu'ran that no one can say what is halal (lawful) and what is haram (prohibited) except for Allah himself.  Only He/She (I use it in this term since Allah has no gender, arabic expresses this unlike english) has the right to make things halal and haram, He/She has given this right to no one.  In the Qu'ran we can see that even Muhammad was corrected (therefore he was no perfect,
we must remember he was a man) when he created his own law.

Sadly, the Shariah (Islamic Law) has been mixed up with man made laws.  Examples being stoning for adultery (women only) when it is supposed to be 100 lashes (both
men and women, the couple) and if they repent you should leave them alone.  Now, the man made laws can be clearly seen to be in direct violation with the equality of
men and women and especially against Gods authority.

Allah also says that he left nothing out of the Qu'ran, it is fully detailed.  If this is the case, there is no need for aHadiths and Sunnah.  Some people say we need Sunnah to follow the
ways of Muhammad but we do follow it, as it is dictated in Qu'ran.  Also, Salaat was not brought by Muhammad.  The Quran says that Muhammads only mission was to bring Qu'ran,
nothing more.  Salaat is ancient, and was given to Abraham as all religious duties regarding Islam was.  Therefore, there is no need for making up new prayers for salaat and we even
know that they are all done at specific times, therefore it is not something we can feel free to do on our own time.  Another thing is the Shahaddah (declaration of faith) during Salaat.  People now(many
I might add) put Muhammads name in the Shahadah.  What about in the days before Shahaddah, did they substitute it with Abraham instead?  Quran clearly says not to make distiniguishes
among his messengers, but today, people all see Muhammad almost in the same regard as modern day Christianity views Jesus.  THere are no partners with God, so Muhammad can do
nothing, all is God and He/She is One.  We know that the Masjid (Mosque) is dedicated only to Allah, however, with the Shahadah and other prayers that some people do use Muhammad
in it.  Now if this is what you do, please take no offense.  I am only stating things from Qu'rans perspective.

To the Christians, I was raised as a Christian (the modern day one) and I found many conflicting views of the authors and many contradictions.  I could not understand how
God who claims to be one could be actually 3-in-1 and I viewed this as Polytheistic.  Now, I do think that God has many attributes and those attributes can be singled
out via different names and gender (Some Hindu sects are like this, not all) but in the case of having his own creation being equal to him, I just cannot see that.  Jesus
prayed to God, even said "Why hast thou forsaken me" (KJV).  In my opinion, if he wanted to claim divinity he would have said "I am your God and am equal to God".  Jesus
in the Bible is known as saying that his message is not his own, that everyone should worship God ALONE (I am stressing this as well) and that everyone, him as well as
the believers will be One with God.  He is not the ONLY begotton son as god begot other sons in the Bible, there fore he is not unique.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: (note: I was reading somewhere that Israel was referred to as a person, not
sure if it was Moses or Abraham)

Jeremiah 31:9 They will come with weeping;
they will pray as I bring them back.
I will lead them beside streams of water
on a level path where they will not stumble,
because I am Israel's father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn son.

II Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

These are some of the reasons why I turned down modern Christianity.  I am not going to get into Mithraism, the Church, or the Council of Nicea as some people
might say that it is onlky controversey.  However if any one would like insight into it, just ask.  Please, no one take offense to my writings, I am only stating from
what can be read in Qu'ran and if you have problems with Qu'ran and are Muslim, then I do not know what to say.  I hope we are all able to learn from each
other.  Take care.


O yea I forgot, the Jewish people pray similarly to the Muslims when they do Salaat.  Here is a good book that is shown a site that I really like:
http://www.submission.org/jews.html

Also, in the bible we see that many of the prophets and messengers prostrated to G-d as the Muslims do and the Jewish used to (and some still do).
Jesus did this before his crucifiction in the Bible.

If  any one has any questions, feel free to ask.  I will try my best to help of what little knowledge I have.  
Kollision,

>but there is no ayat (verse) in Qu'ran that never said Satan was not an angel.

Absolutely not, The Quran clearly said that Satan is Jinn, here is the Verse (18:50): "Behold! We said to the Angels, 'Bow down to Adam': they bowed down except Iblis.  He was One of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord..."

By the way the Bible never directly claimed that Satan was actually an Angel.  Also, the Bible never really talked about how Satan became bad and why?
Last one, I just found this in the bible:

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

If this is the case, how could Jesus atone for sin.  Clearly it says here, that everyone is responsible for their own sin.  This is what
I believe, you are judged by your own works and faith alone.  

Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for
the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Yet here it is different.  How can at first you be judged according to your own sins yet here the offspring is punished for their
fathers sin

Theres more here: http://biblical.justdrew.net/acts.html

I will also take a look at these contradictions of the Quran that some people mentioned.

A little on sacrificing not having to be blood:

If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Eternal by fire. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering. [Leviticus 5:11-13]

Muslims should take note of this, though many do not:

Quran 22:36 The animal offerings are among the rites decreed by GOD for your own good.* You shall mention GOD's name on them while they are stand- ing in line. Once they are offered for sacrifice, you shall eat therefrom and feed the poor and the needy. This is why we subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation.
 
22:37 Neither their meat, nor their blood reaches GOD. What reaches Him is your righteousness. He has subdued them for you, that you may show your appreciation by glorifying GOD for guiding you. Give good news to the charitable.

G-d is not appeased by blood. It is that you SACRIFICE something important to you and give to others.  You are doing something good for others and this is really how people should look at about
absolving of sin.  You take something important to you, in that time livestock, and you sacrifice it in the name of God and then share it amongst others.  This is one take on the reason why
Jewish people did sacrifices, but stopped it when they realized that G-d forgives through prayer as well.  It is ridiculous to believe that G-d is appeased by the blood, it is deeper than that.  
Blood sacrifice is a pagan tradition.
Abdu_Allah thanks for pointing that out, however from my translation it even extends what I was explaining:

 [18:50] We said to the angels, "Fall prostrate before Adam." They fell prostrate, except Satan. He became a jinn, for he disobeyed the order of His Lord. Will you choose him and his descendants as lords instead of Me, even though they are your enemies? What a miserable substitute!
SOrry for not putting this in the last post, but further more from Yusuf Ali it says

Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis.

Allah said it to the angels only, not to any one else in this case.  If it were pointed to everyone, even hte Jinns it could have been stated

"We said to all creatures...."
He became a jinn!   There is a translation error! not "became" the right one "was", he was from Jinn.   who is the translator? .
Anyway Refer to arabic version and verify it.

Regards.
Hi Abdu,

     Like I said, it wouldnt make any sense if Allah was commanding the Angels and not the Jinn at all.  We see that Allah commanded the Angels, no one else.
If this is the case, it would be irrelevant to even include Shaytan in it.  Refer to this page it talks about how it is translated and that it could mean that he was
a Jinn or became one.  

http://www.submission.org/satan/app21letter.html

Take care.
hao64,

>Please refer to the passage in OT where Moses is told to be dead and buried, and tell me if that chapter is acknowledged as having been written by Moses.

Ex 34 is not a problem being credited to Moses, since Moses as a prophet foretold other things in the future.  Knowing the details of his death
beforehand would not be difficult.  It is also possible that it was written by Joshua, his acknowledged successor.

Do you make a distinction between what was written by Moses and everything else?
According to Qu'ran, no one can tell the future, everything is by G-d's leave.  

For me, I would definitely make a distinction between Moses and the other so called Prophets.  Has anyone ever thought why some books are in the bible and others are omitted?
Also these Revisions get to me as well.  I am not saying some might be real or not, but Moses is in higher regard to me than these other people that wrote in the bible.
" According to Qu'ran, no one can tell the future, everything is by G-d's leave."

Yes, only God can tell the future. And what keeps God from revealing it to people?
Ya He/She does reveal it to people.  I was just stating that as some dont think so.

Hello Callandor,

In Islam we believe that the Quran is The Word of God as it was revealed in stages for 23 years and memorized word by word.  There is no question in a Muslim's mind about the source of Quran, if there is then he is considered to be outside the fold of Islam.  In OT however, I do not see the same strong tie between the verses and the messengers.  I have great respect for the OT since it was the source for centuries for the believers like us.  However as God, with His Infinite Wisdom revealed the perfect Word as a miracle, like Juses(pbuh) but now as a Book to live with us, then we should take that as a reference and show the wisdom of accepting the guidance by God's Will.

I still would like you to produce an evidence from OT that connects a messenger tightly with the passage regarding the sacrifice and sin connection.

hao64, kollision  and other Moslems, Here is new thread that raise some of issues in this thread that need your participation:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/21184021/Do-Moslems-believe-that-bad-people-changed-the-bible.html

Regards.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

Welcome.

You said you reject Christianity because the Bible has contradictions and then you listed some of the things you consider contradictions.  All very interesting but lets focus on the topic of this question, "Is the Quran flawless", you can start your own question and give it the title "Is the Bible flawless" and I will be glad to address your concerns there, just post a link here when you do.  Too often we wandered off topic and talked about the Bible when the question concerns only the Quran.

Now having said that, and assuming you have read enough of this thread to appreciate the reasons why I consider the Quran flawed and therefore reject the claim that the Quran is the word of God, do you have any responses to my concerns?

PS One thing I recall as being a bit odd, Christians are routinely criticized for "explaining and interpreting" God's word when we read the Bible, yet the only answer I ever received re the Quranic Inheritance Math problem was to "explain and interpret" it as being different categories.  No response I have yet seen can point to any verse in the Quran as justification for such an "interpretation".  Meanwhile, the numbers just don't add up...

So if you reject Christianity because of contradictions, why don't you reject Islam as it sure does appear to have contradictions to me?
Hello Macgre,

    Sorry for digressing on your topic, I just wanted to introduce myself.  I read a lot of these contradictions you speak of, but could you give me a list of what
are the ones that really stick out to you so I may analyse it for myself.  Like I said this is really lengthy, I read more than half but not the whole thing, mainly
because I just see people going back and forth on the same topic.

When you speak of the math, are you saying that it helps explain and interpret Qu'ran?  If this is the case, that is not true.  The whole purpose for the mathmatical
structure is to insure it from corruption from people such as the imams and scholars.  We have already seen that it has been corrupted in several translations and even
some arabic sources.  When you use math, it shows you what is added and what is original.  If you have read, there were two different arabic styles of writing in the
Quran.  I believe it was called  Hafs Mus-haf and Warsh Mus-haf, which are different writing of the Qu'ran.  Even though they relay the same message, with the math, you can
tell which is the original writting from the area and which isnt.  This way, you can determine the original style it was written in.  This is just a minute piece that the mathematical
miracle has solved, as well as with the 2 false ayat (verses).  G-d knew that there would be corruptions to this so He/She implemented this mathematical structure to Qu'ran.  SOrry
for bringing this up, but it even says so in the Bible (according to KJV, but I dont find it very reliable)  Sadly, even though some Muslims know this, they still dont follow it.  

So, can you please list your contradictions?  Or a site that might have some?  I am not trying to convert any one, but please muslims, use Qu'ran sources only and no aHadith,
as this is not Qu'ranic, besides the fact that it doesnt coincide with Qu'ran. Take care Macgre, and thanks for the great topic!
Abdu_Allah,

Thank you.
Thx Abdu, sorry I didnt respond to it earlier, I just saw it now thx!
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

I am content to stick to just one VERY grave error.  The inheritance law as given in the Quran results in a division of he inheritance into fractions that when added up exceed 1!  Effectively giving away more than was there to begin with.  I will not repeat it here, you can look for my posts on it.

As for your Miracle of 19, it has MANY serious errors, but it depends on exactly what you believe this Miracle of 19 applies to.  I have seen all manner of very complex calculations purporting to support this Miracle that apon closer investigation simply do not, in fact most contradict it!

As for the KJV it is 400 years old and no one speaks like that anymore, there are many more accurate and readable translations, I prefer the New International Version (NIV) myself.

Peace
Macgre, I am still wonder why you can not be able to understand that verse! any Let me try to put what brother ImranArashad said,
but in another way and I think it will works now:

So please answer this question:

If someone had recommended his family before he died and said: Give my sons each one double to each daughter and give my wife
one-four.

Now if that person left 100$, and he has 2 daughters and one son and wife, now depending on his recommendation what each one
will take?


Regards.
Hi,

MACGRE -<
As for your Miracle of 19, it has MANY serious errors, but it depends on exactly what you believe this Miracle of 19 applies to.  I have seen all manner of very complex calculations purporting to support this Miracle that apon closer investigation simply do not, in fact most contradict it!

Well I really havent seen it contradict anything, but prove false verses, prove our Salah, and even more.  Can you give me an example?  I wrote more on 19 on the other thread.

MACGRE -<
As for the KJV it is 400 years old and no one speaks like that anymore, there are many more accurate and readable translations, I prefer the New International Version (NIV) myself.

I like NIV as well.  Heres a good site that has all the known translations of the Bible I believe.   http://bible.gospelcom.net/

Also, Mac can you give me the sura and ayat that you are saying is wrong?  I checked this thread but I couldnt seem to find it, thanks.
Take care Mac!
hao64,

24 After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end,
25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD:
26 "Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.
  Deut 31:24-26 (NIV)

As I said before, most conservative scholars attribute the first five books to Moses.  If you are going pick and choose only what is in
agreement with your current beliefs against the weight of scholarly opinion, then there is no possibility of learning anything new.
You are going to have to decide whether truth goes beyond your boundaries.
Hi Callandor,

   Sorry if this is butting in but scholars are not always right.  There are scholars in Islam that arnt even right and I do not even
follow them.  Not everyone believes in scholars, even if they have PH Ds and have researched it themselves.  I find it personally
to judge things myself whether I believe in it or not, and disregard others opinions before I even establish my own.
kollision,

I don't mind, because I don't think all scholars are right, either.  I think all people should do their own thinking and come to their
own conclusions, but scholars are useful for presenting information or explaining ideas that you may not have.  
Sometimes we are wrong, and we need to be able to recognize when that happens so that we don't persist in heading the down the
wrong path.  I am open to correction when it is demonstrated to me clearly that I have made an error, but we are human, after all.
You are right about that.  That is exactly what I do, I come to my own conclusions, but I wouldn't mind being helped.  Its just that some times people
(these scholars included) tend to force their own opinions on things and disregard the other side of things.  I hope I am making sense.  A lot of this is stemming
from what I see in Islam and it really disappoints me.  I have some views on Christianity scholars or pastors for that matter but hey, we all do.  Lots of them
make quick and degrading remarks which I really do not like.   This may be a little of subject, but has anyone heard of Robert Tilton, hehe?
Yes, that's why I look at scholars' writings with a critical eye and test what they have to say.  I expect truth to be consistent and validated by other sources.
Most televangelists turn me off too - someone who walks with God should be humbled by that experience, not find a way to turn it into personal gain.  
Others seem to have a bad opinion of Tilton, too: http://www.discernment.org/wordfaith/tilton.htm
Yes your right about that, they should be humbled.  What also gets to me is that they have this lavish life style (which is not bad, but I know not all of that is coming from
generous gifts).  Heres a good reference to Tilton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tilton  I also saw a ABC investigation of Benny Hinn and I was really disappointed.

To tell you the truth, I would really admire a preacher that is down to earth, doesnt wear suits to look good, and teaches people to lead a righteous life.  I would really
care less if they quoted the Bible or Qu'ran or not (not saying that they shouldnt, but I would like that more than what I see today) but just taught people to live a good
life.
Hello Callandor,

All I am asking is some verses from the OT which has Moses or some other messenger making a statement regarding sin and sacrifice that supports Christian stand today.  I thank you for the ones you have sent earlier but those looked like some stories with no clear reference to the author.

Thanks in advance,
Hello Kollision,

It is interesting to run into someone who is a follower of Rashad Khalifa.  Other than two verses and rejecting hadith, what other claims does Khalifa has I wonder, that are different from the main stream Islam?

I have come to the conclusion that the People of the Book and Muslims could live peacefully since their scripture draws the same fundamental outlines regarding the moral ethics.  The differences are in the fundamentals of the belief which are between the servant and the Creator, not binding the social life.  I wonder if you would disagree.

Thanks in advance,
hao64,

As early as Gen 3:21, we see God Himself providing an animal sacrifice for sin.  Adam and Eve had made a covering for their nakedness out of leaves,
which knowledge resulted from their sin, but this was not good enough for God - He provided animal skin covering, which meant an animal had to die.

In Levitcus 16, there are two goats involved in the removal of sin from Israel on the day of atonement: one to be sacrificed as a sin offering (v15), and the
other to be released into the wilderness.  These are the instructions from God Himself to Moses, and the day of atonement is the most holy day in the
lives of Jewish people, which is kept in practice to this day.

There are some who don't believe Levitcus is written by Moses, but those people deny miracles, the power of God active in people and even the existence
of God.  You may want to believe them, but what do you do about their other stands?
Hello Hao64,

  There is a lot of things that differ with Rashad Khalifa and this "main-stream" Islam.  I actually believed in Rashads view on Islam and when I found that site I was
really amazed.  Heres some differences:

1. Does not believe in Sects (eg: Sunni, Shia)
2. Does not believe in Hadith or Sunna
3. Says there are mistranslations of Qu'ran to english (which can throw us non-arabics off)
4. Salat
5. Praising Mohammad over all the other prophets

and many more...

Its not that we cant get along with other Muslims or Jews or Chirstions, its just that this is our belief from what we see in Qu'ran as well as what we see today.  Many Muslims follow
traditions instead of religion which they often confuse with each other.  For example women praying in the back, althought it has meaning to it (however I
oppose it as I see this as a weakness of men) it is not actually Islamic.  As well as stoning women for "adultery" (I say this as many are raped) and the
inequality of women and mistreatment of animals, especially dogs.  That is some of the reasons why I follow Rashads view, however I do not exalt him,
he is just a mere man influenced by G-d in my opinion.  This is just my view and I am just trying to explain the differences, not trying to change any one
or anything.  Sorry if it came out that way.  Take care Hao.
Sorry for not putting this in the last post Hao, but I forgot to answer one of your questions.

Actually I believe the Jews and Muslims are so so so similar.  I cant understand how the modern-Christians (I am not bashing it is just what I think) and
the Jews get along together more than the Muslims and the Jews.  They are more similar to each other than the Christians of today are.  The reason why
it astounds me is because the modernday-Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of G-d and is also part of a trinity, while the Jewish believe that G-d
is only one and does not have any partners, same as the Muslims.  Too bad that there has to be so much fighting amongst the inhabitants (I speak of the animals
as well, as they are Submitters to G-d) of this world that G-d has allowed us all, animals included, to live on.  Here are some similarities if you didnt know already.

                                                         PILGRIMAGE
For example,there are many parts in the Bible that speak of the Jews making a pilgrimage to a valley called Bacca and the muslims also make Hajj(pilgrimage) to Mecca
if they can afford it.  Weird though, in Qu'ran when it speaks of Mecca in one verse it spells it Becca.  If that werent the case, the miracle of 19
would not work.  But do you see a resemblance between how the Bible says it as well as Qu'ran.

                                                         PRAYER (Salat)
The Bible also speaks of different times of the day when the Jews would pray (it was 3 times a day as far as I know).  The Jews also fell prostrate (the Muslims do this, it is
called Sujood) when praying their daily prayer.  We also see Yeshua (Jesus and Eesa in Arabic) do this when he is praying before they take him away.  Theres also a book
that Rashad has on his site from a Jewish Rabbi I believe that talks about how the Jews used to pray as the Muslims do.  I believe it was callled "How To Pray as a Jew".

Hao, you said  <-----The differences are in the fundamentals of the belief which are between the servant and the Creator, not binding the social life.>

The way I am interpreting that is that you are saying that the Jews, Muslims, and Christians have a different belief on how they interact between themselves
and G-d.  If this is the case, then I would say that you are right. We know that the Muslims do Salat and such, the Jews do Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), etc.
However, with social life, there can be a difference.  Muslims have the dressing code and I would think this is part of the social life, as you are seen by
society.  The women do not actually have a strict dressing code as we see today amongst many modern-Muslims, such as the Hijab, and the Burqa.  These
are man made laws and really covers the true essence of Islam.    As for the Christians, I do not think there is any thing that guards their social life (in regards
to clothing and staring at the opposite sex), sorry if I am wrong and please correct me.  I am only relaying from what I see in the ones that are around me.

In conclusion, be it People of the Book or not, everyone should get along with each other.  If you are a pagan or a polytheist, I will not look at you any differently, so
long you treat me with respect and are a kind and nice person.  Actually I take that back, you will be uplifted over people (even Muslims) if you are kind, nice,
and have respect for everyone.  I would rather see that then be around a Muslim who is judgemental and has no compassion.  One of the points of Islam
is Peace, and everyone should do their best to keep it.


I also have to add Homosexuals in this, they should not be pursecuted as we see today.  It is up to G-d for punishment of me, you, and them.  No one should
judge them and hurt them, especially on the basis of religion.  Whether you believe its right or wrong its up to you, but you shouldn't end up forcing it on them.
kollision,

Today, traditional Jewish practice includes (as it has for nearly 2000 years since the Temple was destroyed):
1) Three prayer services a day with an extra service on the Sabbath and holy days.
and
2) Prostration - The form of prostration is bowing while bending the knees at several points during each of the three or four daily services.  A full prostration (bowing with knees and forehead on floor) occurs at least three times on Yom Kippur.

Jewish Pilgrimage - The pilgrimage I believe you’re speaking of is pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem done three times during the year.  This is for the three major festivals, as required in the Torah.  Today there is no Temple.

Deut 16:16
“Three times a year all your men must appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles. No man should appear before the LORD empty-handed: 17 Each of you must bring a gift in proportion to the way the LORD your God has blessed you.” From http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+16&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on
Hello WaterStreet,

2) You are right about those except that only a few actually do it as the Muslims do today.  When I meant prostration I meant the full prostration.  Some Rabbis in the temple still do it this way
as well as the orthodox.

As for the Jewish Pilgrimage, you are right about that one as well.  However I was speaking of this ancient one:

 As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools. [ 84:6 Or [ blessings ] ]

In Qu'ran, like I said, in one area it speaks of Mecca but spells it Becca (Rashad says it is so that the 19 code works) but either way, it still
stands as being called Becca (Bakkah).  We also have to remember that the Semetic languages (in reference to Arabic and Hebrew) does not specify the
vowels (in most cases).

I also have done some reading and they say Makkah is as Psalms describes Baca.

Psalms 84:1 How lovely is your dwelling place,
O LORD Almighty!
2 My soul yearns, even faints,
for the courts of the LORD ;
my heart and my flesh cry out
for the living God.

3 Even the sparrow has found a home,
and the swallow a nest for herself,
where she may have her young-
a place near your altar,
O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.
4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house;
they are ever praising you.
Selah

Everyone finds a home here.  This is a DWELLING place of G-d.  I am not saying they are the same, as we are not sure, but they sure do seem similar.  Even more so, the Jews
and the Muslims are so similar.

Apparently, the Jewish were going to Makkah but then it was defiled by the idol worshippers so the Jewish changed their direction.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> So please answer this question:
> If someone had recommended his family before he died and said: Give my sons each one double to each daughter and give my wife one-four.

If that was all the Quran stated then I would have nothing to complain about, but read the verses I mention carefully, they actually specify fractional portions that when summed up exceed 1.

Kollision,

Sura 4, verses 11 and 12, see my comments on Date: 07/27/2004 11:12AM PDT

As for the Miracle of 19, I have discussed it at length with Mohdasalah before, he was very selective about what he considered evidence of this Miracle and what was not, so I prefer you tell me what you think is evidence and I will look into it.
Please Macgre answer my prevoius question, I did not finish yet!
Hello Macgre,

As for your question about the will, I think Abdu is right and you should answer the first question before this one and keep everything on track.

As for the Miracle of 19, I am not going to say it is a fact and base my whole faith on it, but it is quite astounding and I wouldnt be surprised if it is correct.  
Right now I am currently reading rebuttals against it (as you need to hear both sides of everything) and there
is some interesting stuff that has arised from it.  Here is some interesting stuff I came along when reading aobut the 19 thing.

Here is some links to rebuttals against the 19:         http://www.submission.org/Rashad-Khalifa.htm   (actually shows two sides)
                                                                           http://www.inet.ba/~hardy/                                (all against 19)

There is one site (I forgot) which mentions that he cut and pasted an edited part of his works, and hte site shows where it was cut as the
paper was uneven.  I dont know about that one but they had some proof of their own against Rashad.

There are 209 bones in the body (I am actually studying hte human anatomy and I read that there are 206 bones in the body.  However as I saw later,
                                                 the tail bone I think it was has 4 bones that they comprise as 1)                          19 x 11
The lips touch 19 times in the Al-Fatehah (what all muslims recite during Salat)

Theres so many things that do have a factor of 19 in it in the Qu'ran, and things in life as well.  If you havent checked, read http://www.submission.org/simple.html as it is small
and not long to read.  There are way more complicated stuff but read that first and if your interested Ill send you the other place with the calculations.

Honestly I have questioned myself as to why is it only specific parts of Qu'ran.  However, I also saw that there are important parts in Qu'ran that do have the exact
same formula as the other proofs.  There is also the initials such as A.L.M which no one knows what that is.  However Rashad was able to use this in his
formulas which I thought was pretty impressive.

Take care Macgre
And about your question on Inheritance, you havent actually read the whole verse.  Make sure you read every word in it, I jsut checked it and it makes perfect
sense.  THere is something that you missed, but Ill let you figure it out for yourself.  Like Abdu asked, please answer his question first and he will get to you
about this one after.  

Take care Macgre.
Sorry for not putting this in the last post, but I have just read some different translations of that verse.

Refer to this: http://www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/sura4.html

and tell me if you still have a question regarding the inheritance.  Sorry about that.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> Please Macgre answer my prevoius question, I did not finish yet!

I will answer your question if you promise to answer mine.

To repeat your formula:

> If someone had recommended his family before he died and said: Give my sons each one double to each daughter and give my wife one-four.

And your specific question:

> Now if that person left 100$, and he has 2 daughters and one son and wife, now depending on his recommendation what each one will take?

Your wording suggests that the wife gets 1/4 of the estate right away, which is $25, leaving $75.

Next you set up a ratio of 2 to 1 son to daughter, your wording suggests that one son has twice as much as one daughter and not that the sum of all the sons is twice the sum of all the daughters.  This results in 2x + 2x = $75, or 4x = $75 so x = $18.75.  The son inherits $37.50 and each daughter inherits $18.75.

So there is no problem here, everything adds up just fine; but that is not the question I asked...

Your calculations are based solely on the first part of Sura 4:11, my question involves large parts of Sura 4 verses 11 and 12.  Now you answer my question:

I have a wife, two daughters, a father and a mother.  If I die leaving $100 what will each of them get according to the Quran and just the Quran?

In verse 11 I read, "only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance", which means they share $66.67 (rounding up).

Later in the same verse I read, "For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children", I am the deceased and I left two children, two daughters to be precise, therefore my parents get $16.67 each for a total of $33.34.  Already just between my daughters and parents, excluding rounding errors which are perfectly acceptible to me I have given away my entire $100 estate, but the Quran continues to give...

In verse 12 I read, "In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth;", this concerns what my wife will inherit, no matter how little the Quran decides to give my wife it will result in a math error and creates a pretty serious challenge to the idea that the Quran is flawless.  At least I think so...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

Lets look at one of the "simple" examples for a moment:

> 4-The total number of verses in the Quran is 6346, or 19X334 (6234 numbered
verses and 112 unnumbered verses (Basmalla). 6234+112=6346. notice also that
6+3+4+6= 19

This calculation only works if you drop the two "false verses".  So if the two verses are not false then this "Miracle of 19" starts to crumble, the number of verse would no longer be a multiple of 19.  Yet when asked how do you know that these two verses are false?  Often I am told because of the Miracle of 19!  This results in a circular argument/self-fulfilling prophecy relationship that shouldn't be trusted at all.

1) The number of verses in the Quran is a multiple of 19, this is a Miracle that validates the perfection of the Quran.

2) But the number of verses in the Quran is not a multiple of 19, there are two extra verses.

3) No those verses are false verses.

4) How do you know they are false, especially when every Quran I have ever seen has them, and Muslims tell me the Quran has NEVER been changed!

5) They are false because they do not agree with the Miracle of 19.

6) But the Miracle of 19 only works if you drop those two verses, if the only reason for dropping those verses is to make the Miracle work then I don't think you have a "Miracle" at all...


Still more from the "simple" site:

> 16-The total of the 29 sura numbers where the Quranic initials occur is

2+3+7....+50+68=822, and 822 +14 (14 sets of initials)=836 =19X44

This seems completely arbitrary to me, the sum of the Sura numbers was not a multiple of 19 by itself, it was out by 14.  So why add all the Sura numbers and then add the number of the sets of initials unless you are trying to make the "Miracle" a miracle, when really you could arbitrarily pick any calculation and then add the missing number and still be right.

Correct me if I am wrong but the two false verses containe the word "Allah" right?  If so then the following is also wrong:

> 20- The word God (ALLAH) occurs throughout the Quran in its 114 Suras
2698 times and 2698= 19X142.

> 21-The number of verses where the word God occurs add up to 118123
also a multiple of 19, = 19X6217

They only work if you exclude the two "false verses"...

Still more arbitrariness:

> 24-The word "Quran" occurs in the Quran 58 times, with one of them referring to
"another Quran" in 10:15, therefore, if excluded, the frequency of "this Quran" in
the Quran is 57, or 19X3

It appears that you don't just count words, but contextual meanings, I wonder if all the other counts are so carefully done...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Kollision,

No now I have a question about the translation, it seems quite contrived to support the doctrines of one Rashad Khalifa.

I did some checking on Rashad Khalifa's English translation of the Quran, it is not as good as I would expect.  For example one of the sites I came across had this to say about his translation:

"Only Rashad Khalifa inserts the word "blasphemies" into the text which is not found in the Arabic. The word just means "sayings" or "statements". At this time, no need for further remarks about 9:30b."

I found the above at: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Versions/009.030.html

In http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/r/ra/rashad_khalifa.html I read, "his critics noted that Khalifa had initially produced patterns that included the [false] verses and only removed them (and made other lesser changes to the text) when errors were demonstrated."

So it does appear that the "Miracle of 19" is entirely contrived by the one man, Rashad Khalifa and not by God or Muhammed.

In any event I am not convinced, nor do I trust that it is a Miracle of anything other than one man's imagination.

I understand that what I am saying may be hard to hear, please believe me when I say that I mean no harm.

Peace.
Hello Callandor,

What is puzzling for me how could have Moses(pbuh) have written passages in OT while he is dead in his grave.  
That is why it is hard for me to accept every passage in OT as what comes from Moses (pbuh).
This is pretty much like NT where we have all sorts of claims about Jesus (pbuh) however when we study what Jesus (pbuh) has actually said, we do not arrive to the same conclusions unless we choose to interpret it that way.

Similarly, let us see if you could generate a passage from OT that connects Moses to the concept of sacrifice to clean sin.

In Quran we have tenets of faith clearly spelled out leaving no space for guess work.  That is also what makes Quran infallible.  The subjects which are not fundamental to the faith are not provided in clear terms encouraging mankind to use their God given brain.  We have many verses encouraging mankind to think, such as "In the creation of heavens and the earth, in the alternation of the night and day, there are signs for the men of understanding."  Our Creator would like to be explored so that our faith can increase to realize His Magnificence.  He would like us to ask questions and look for answers, as Quran is full of the questions answered by God, questions as the come from the unbelievers.  It is also full of examples of the messengers and how they met the challenges.  Read the Quran with an open mind, and let God show you the Truth.  

Best Regards,
Dear Kollision,

I think you do not have anything against those two verses other than their mathematical effect.  Am I correct?

That is, as a Muslim whether there are those two verses or not, what you believe in Islam, such as Who your God is, does not change.  

Isn't your position is different from Christians; in their case what is added by human beings as Word causes a great change in who they believe their God is.

hao64,

>What is puzzling for me how could have Moses(pbuh) have written passages in OT while he is dead in his grave.  

I think we have gone over this ground already - I said:
Ex 34 is not a problem being credited to Moses, since Moses as a prophet foretold other things in the future.  Knowing the details of his death beforehand would not be difficult.  It is also possible that it was written by Joshua, his acknowledged successor.

I have also cited the passages in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus relating to sacrifices for sin, but you have not responded to any in detail, so I don't want to clutter things up by repeating them again.  They are in this thread and can be found by doing a search.
Macgre,


>I have a wife, two daughters, a father&#8230;

Macgre, please let me finish first and do not add complexity to the problem, I am trying to simplify the problem to let you understand it and then I will try to take more complex problems. I will answer your questions later.


>Your wording suggests that the wife gets 1/4 of the estate right away, which is $25, leaving $75.
>Next you set up a ratio of 2 to 1 son to daughter, your wording suggests that one son has twice as much as one daughter and not that the sum of all the sons is twice the sum of all the daughters.  This results in 2x + 2x = $75, or 4x = $75 so x = $18.75.  The son inherits $37.50 and each daughter inherits $18.75.

Great, you gave first the ¼ to the wife and the remaining distributed them among the children because it is understood implicitly here that the children will receive after give wife its portion.

Now, Suppose the previous recommendation was like the following:
&#8220; Give my sons each one double to each daughter if it was one daughter give it the half and give my wife one-four.&#8221;

Now, how much each one will receive if he has just one daughter and wife, if he left 100$?

Hello all,

Macgre

You are right about the two false verses, however he corrected himself (according to the site) and made it work out.  Now what puzzles me is that I would think that he would get it all at the same
time and not have any mistakes.  That is the main thing that is troubling me right now, however, the site does say he was "human", so as a human he made mistakes.  However, there are a lot of
other things that are just out of this world to me.  And the two false verses, they were actually being speculated about back in that time.  There is textual proof from an aHadith that said that all
the recitations of Qu'ran were the same except for one, and that one included two new verses into Sura 9.  Now this is not hard to understand.  If everyone is saying the same Qu'ran except for one
person, which one is right?  Also, there is the story of Ali not going out because he was angry at the fact of the two new Suras added.

As for Rashad entering things into the text, we have to remember, this is his translation of the text, the way he sees the Qu'ran.  I find his view point a great one as well.  Refer
to this site: http://www.submission.org/math-ap1.html   and go to Historical Background

hao64

Yes sir I am Muslim.  I see the Qu'ran more as a tool for me, and I believe it should be for everyone else.  It acts as a miracle (not the 19, I mean the book itself) and a proof
for those that believe.  The Miracle of 19 is not what my faith is based on, neither is Qu'ran.  People shouldnt be obsessed over 19. They can either accept it or not, but I dont think
that it should be their faith.  I have never seen any contradictions in Qu'ran, therefore I see it as a Word from G-d, unlike the Bible which is totally contradicting on itself and the New
Testament and Old Testament do not even work together.  Plus, the New Testament was chosen, what about all the other books like Jubilees that wasnt added?  For me, this is
my opinion, I think that what Christians see in the Bible they take it as fact, no matter what.  For me though, I do not take Qu'ran or any scripture as fact (even though I know
Qu'ran is) unless it settles in my soul.  For me, when I was a Christian and when I read Qu'ran, there was just something about it that confirmed all of my beliefs without
one doubt.

Thanks all, I did not mean any disrespect, this is my view.


 
O yea I do not consider aHadith as a word from G-d and there are many contradictions to that an Qu'ran, however it prooved here the 2 verses of the last sura and goes in
accordance with Ali.  I also wonder why there is no Basmalah in sura 9 but it is already explained by Rashad.  It makes perfect sense to me.  ALso consder the Initials such as
A.L.M.  What is their meaning?  With 19 it finally has a meaning.  Not saying that 19 should be taken as fact, but it is pretty impressive.

Hello Callandor,

>>What is puzzling for me how could have Moses(pbuh) have written passages in OT while he is dead in his grave.  

>I think we have gone over this ground already - I said:
Ex 34 is not a problem being credited to Moses, since Moses as a prophet foretold other things in the future.  Knowing the details of his death beforehand would not be difficult.  It is also possible that it was written by Joshua, his acknowledged successor.

Callandor,

The issue I see is that the verse in question talks about it in the past tense, not as a prophecy but something that has already happened.  So it is clearly someone else who knows that because it has already happened.  If you refer to the Quran for similar verses foretelling what is going to happen in the future, they are in future tense.

Other references you provided did not answer my request because they did not mention the name of Moses at all.  It was an unknown author talking about sacrifice and sin.  The only thing that could tie it to Moses was that it was from OT but we see that Moses is not involved in some of the writings, hence we cannot trust every passage unless it has clear reference to the message and the mesenger.  Stories with no reference to the author cannot be taken as the Word since we do not really know the source, other than it is in the Book.  I am afraid, as I already said before, we have to treat OT similar to NT and only take those verses that satisfies the criterion.  

Later The God (The Amighty) with His Infinite Mercy revealed the Criterion, The Furqan, which is The Quran itself.  That explains who Jesus (pbuh) is, who Spirit is, and who The God is in very clear terms, confirming the OT where messengers has spoken The Word, and clarifying the disagreements between the Jews and the Christians, who are both the People of the Book... so in a way, we are all brothers and sisters whose ancestors believed in the same God, though now we are divided not only with each other, but also amongst ourselves.  

So let us come to common terms and worship none except The God, and do not listen to others beside The God regarding what is right or wrong, but only accept the message that clearly explains us the right path, which is The Last Revelation to mankind, The Quran.  As long as we worship God alone, He is The Most Merciful and The Most Forgiving, and we will be alright with our human errors, but there is one thing that He will never fórgive, that is Shirk, worshipping others besides Him.

The God The Almighty Knows Best.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Other references you provided did not answer my request because they did not mention the name of Moses at all.

Are you expecting every thought and idea in the Bible to be directly connected to a particular author?  Should every sentence begin with, "and so and so said this"?  Would even that convince you?  Could you not still say that so and so really didn't say such and such that it is just a corruption a later addition?  I can't say that I have seen you post that, but I have seen others say exactly that.

Is the Quran any better?  Often when I read it I can't tell who is being spoken of and who is being spoken to, and at times it is so unlcear I am not sure what is being said at all!

Again, the topic of this thread is not the quality and character of the Bible, but whether or not the *Quran* is flawless, please address those issues.  There are plenty of other threads that are devoted to the Bible where you are free and welcome to challenge the Biblical text.
Hello Mcgre,

The start of the Quran gives us a clear idea, read surah Baqarah (2:1-3).  It also starts with "In the name of God" at the beginning of every chapter except one chapter.  So it is definitely God's Word, with no doubt.  At least this is what Muslims believe.  

Best Regards,  
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

Curious, you said all but one say in the name of God, do you still believe that one chapter is from God?  Why or why not?

PS I am sure you know the difference between saying "In the name of God" and actually being in the name of God.  Many have claimed to be acting in the name of God and done some pretty unGodly things; Crusades, Terrorism, etc.

So when you read "In the name of God" why do you believe that it is truly in the name of God and not just the words of Muhammed or one of his more educated followers?
Mcgre,

That chapter is also part of the quran as it is instructed by the messenger to whom the Quran was revealed.
There are even some traditions of the messenger where we are told that they are the Word of God, though they are not in Quran.
Quran is the Word of God, but not all the Word revealed to the messenger is in Quran, some are in Hadith Qudsi.

The Basmalahs (In the name of God, The Most Gracious The Most Merciful) are also part of the Quran.  You can open a Quran and see for yourself.

As far as what is done in the name of God, well that is why there is Hell and Paradise.

Mcgre, if you lived at the time of the Prophet and got to know him, you would laugh at your questions.  You need to know more about him.  See if you can get a hold of the movie "The Message".   And also there is an animated one suppose to be coming to theaters in a few weeks.  To me, Muhammed (Pbuh) is like Jesus (pbuh).  They are both beloved messengers of God.  Though Jesus (pbuh) was the Word, and Muhammed (pbuh) had the Word revealed to him in 23 years.

Education is nothing if there is no faith.  A man with no faith regardless how many degrees he has is still ignorant.  When God reveals the Knowledge to His servant, no education in the world could match that.  Read the surah Kahf (Chapter 18) in the Quran about the servant who is given Knowledge by God, and see if there is any match you can find to that knowledge even in this time and age.

Glory be to The God, Far above He is from what you associate Him with.
 
Hello all,

   Hi hao, do you actually think that Hadith  is the word of G-d?  I really cannot believe this as much of it goes against Qu'ran.  Even the Sunnah goes against Qu'ran in some parts.  G-d teaches us that man
and woman was created equally, however in one it says that "If a man wants a woman to move a mountain, she should be able to lift it" and sexual issues favoring the man as well.  Also, G-d dictated that the
Qu'ran was fully dictated and G-d left nothing out of that book.  Plus, we believe that Qu'ran is the final testament.  One more thing, it was fitted to withstand corruption.  What of hadith?  I always wanted to know
why people followed Hadith (majority is tradition, such as being from a sect).  No disrespect on your belief, but why do you read Hadith if Qu'ran is fully detailed and complete?  I do agree with you on matters aside
Hadith though, as many Muslims have come to believe that Muhammad is the best of the best.  To let those who dont know much about islam:

"You have NO duty EXCEPT DELIVERING the message." 42:48   Rashad
Thy duty is but to convey (the Message).  42:48 Yusuf

We get the message here and it is clear that the only purpose for Muhammad was to bring down the final testament, the Qu'ran.  He did not bring down Salat, as Salat was given to Abraham because he
received the religious duties.  Only Qu'ran.

Though Jesus (pbuh) was the Word, and Muhammed (pbuh) had the Word revealed to him in 23 years.
"Glory be to The God, Far above He is from what you associate Him with."

You got that right!

   
Hao I havea question regarding Jesus,

   According to Qu'ran and Qu'ran alone, was Jesus sinless?  I do not want to make assumptions thats why.  I know it said he wouldnt burden his mother, but was he sinless?
Thanks a lot!
Macgre,

 I do not know if there is a game of questions, exchanging the question refusing to answer my question until
I answer your question...is this a game or what!
I am trying to let you understand the inheritance math in quran and to stop claiming that there is a flaw in Quran's math, I am not trying to get forcibly information from you or something like that! I postponed answering your question because it will noise what I am trying to clear, if you do not want to understand it then it is your own problem.
So please answer my last question, let me repeat it:

First let me briefly repeat my first question and your answer:

I asked you If someone had recommended his family before he died and said: Give my sons each one double to each daughter and give my wife one-four.
if that person left 100$, and he has 2 daughters and two sons and wife, now depending on his recommendation what each one will take?

You respond me with a right answer and was: >Next you set up a ratio of 2 to 1 son to daughter, your wording suggests that one son has twice as much as one daughter and not that the sum of all the sons is twice the sum of all the daughters.  This results in 2x + 2x = $75, or 4x = $75 so x = $18.75.  The son inherits $37.50 and each daughter inherits $18.75.<

Now my second question is
The recommendation was like this:
"Give my sons each one double to each daughter if it was one daughter give it the half and give my wife one-four"

Now, how much each one will receive if he has just one daughter and wife, if he left 100$?

Regards.
Hello Kollision,

Regarding the traditions (hadith), I believe that they are useful for us to understand dynamics better.  For example:
We know that Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her) said for her husband, Muhammed (peace be upon him) that he is The Walking Quran, meaning that he lived the message in his life so much so that he was the message itself.  If someone lives what he receives, he is not likely to make mistakes, though we see in chapter Abasa(Frowned) God rebukes His messenger, meaning that the messenger was not perfect.  And also Allah (Glory be to Him) says that "Muhammed(pbuh) is only a messenger and many have been sent before him," the verse that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) recited outloud when Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that he would kill anyone who said Muhammed (pbuh) is dead, after the death of the messenger.  In another verse we are told that God has set a perfect example to us with Muhammed (pbuh).  It makes sense, only someone with an extraordinary good character could have been chosen to receive the revelation and convey it to the people and jinns even.  So, as long as it makes sense, we should follow what we have available from that treasure.  There are authentic traditions and fake ones, and we could tell the athentic ones if they go hand to hand with Quran.  There is also work done regarding the authenticity of hadith and I have found the authentic collections to be mostly reliable.  


There is no clear reference in Quran about Jesus (pbuh) being sinless, but we know that he is The Word.  Could someone, who is The Word AND supported by the Holy Spirit, sin?  I do not know for sure but I could say NO.  
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> I do not know if there is a game of questions, exchanging the question refusing to answer my question until
I answer your question...is this a game or what!

No game, but you continue to ignore cases where the Quran's math doesn't work and seem to want to discuss only cases where it does work.  I have no problem saying there are many cases where the Quranic inheritance math either adds up to one or less than one, but I have BIG problems with cases where it adds up to MORE than one!

So before you can say that there are no problems with Quranic inheritance math you have to show me that it works in all cases, not just a select few...

If it makes it any easier for you, by itself there is no math error in the ratio of two to one for son to daughter, so if that was all the Quran had to say about inheritance then you would be right to say there are no errors; but that is not all the Quran has to say about inheritance.  Look at all the rules as stipulated by the Quran, do the math and then tell me how there are no errors.

BTW In cases where the inheritance adds up to less than one, according to the Quran alone, what happens to the left over part?

Now your second question is just such a case!  Assuming that the wife and daughter are the only inheritors, then according to your rules the daughter will get one half or $50 and the wife one quarter or $25, leaving $25 unaccounted for.

FTR I consider this an error, the inheritance should be fully dispersed, but at least it is not as bad as trying to give away more than there was to give in the first place!

PS Are you ever going to get around to the case I mentioned?  I am very interested because I really have two daughters, a wife and two parents, I would be most interested to see what the Quran says each should get if I were to die today!
Macgre,
>but you continue to ignore cases where the Quran's math doesn't work and...

I am not ignoring it! I just postponed it until finishing show you some basic cases! I told you that!

>you have to show me that it works in all cases

I will show you that later, I swear.

>Now your second question is just such a case!  Assuming that the wife and daughter are the only inheritors, then according to your rules the daughter will get one half or $50 and the wife one quarter or $25, leaving $25 unaccounted for.

Excuse me! why in the preceding case you gave the children what remains after you had given one-four to the wife and now in this case you gave the children(one daughter in this case) from the total 100$ and not from what remains after gave one-four to the wife ?! Is this fair?! Of course not.
Did you know where is your error now?
The right answer is: The wife will get one quarter or $25, the remainning is 75$, now the daughter will get half of it or 37.5$.
Now you may wonder now and ask : why Quran just consider the case of single daughter and do not mention about single son, Actually he mentioned that implicitly when he said the one daughter will get half of one son and she will get half if it was a single child, so if there is just single son he will get the double of one daughter that mean he will get all of what his father left but of course after his mother get her portion. Did you see the Quran intelligence and how it expressed many cases in few lines?!
Now let me answer your question:
>I have a wife, two daughters, a father and a mother.  If I die leaving $100 what will each of them get according to the Quran and just the Quran?

In regard to verse 4:11, 4:12, the wife will take in this case 1/8  or 12.5$, father and mother will take 1/3 or 33.3$ and the two daughters will take 2/3 from what remain after gave the others their portions(As I explained to you befor) so they will get 2/3 from 54$, that mean both will get 36$.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> Did you know where is your error now?

Yes, but it doesn't help you, in fact it makes things much worse for you!

In your first example, I ASSUMED the children would inherit the remainder after the mother inherited, but all your rule explicitly states is that each son will inherit twice a daughter.  No actual portion of the estate is named for the children, so if each daugher inherited $1 then the son would have to inherit $2, the son and daughters combined would inherit $4, the children and their mother would inherit a total of $29, the rules according to the complete and perfect Quran would be met and $71 would be left over uninherited.

Likewise I could let each daughter inherit $5, the son would get $10 and again the Quran would be happy, this time there would be only $55 left over.  My first answer actually represents the MOST that the children could inherit.

However, in the example I mentioned the Quran DOES name the portion of the estate to be divided, it is not in the form of ratios but in actual fractional shares.  The problem is these fractions don't add up properly!



Now lets all agree that I am not God and that I am not perfect, should be no problem getting everyone to agree to that ;-)

Now if I, a mere mortal, can devise a system that will never produce a mathematical error and yet allow unlimited flexiblilty in dividing up an estate no matter who is involved then I ask why couldn't God do so through Mohammed and the Quran?  Is it at least possible that it is becasue God had nothing to do with writing the Quran?

Instead of setting actual fractional portions which have to be contrived to always add up to one; why not simply assign a system of shares?  What you do then is add up the total shares of each eligible inheritor and then for each inheritor you divide their share by the total to get a percentage of the total estate.  You can think of this as normalized inheritance.  No matter how many people are involved the sum of all the inherited amounts will always equal the total estate, never more and never less.

Want each son to inherit twice that of a daughter?  No problem simply double each son's share, then recalculate.  If you know some relatively basic alegbra you can use inequalities to make special rules such as in your first example where the mother is to inherit exactly one quarter of the estate it would look like this:

Let M = what the mother inherits, S = what each son inherits and D = what each daughter will inherit.  In your specific case we have:

M + S + D = 100%

Now factor in that each S = 2D and that their are two daughters and only one son we now have:

M + 2D + 2D = 100% or M + 4D = 100%

But now we need a second equation to show that the mother has to inherit EXACTLY 25%.  You can do this as M= 25% or as S + D = 75%, it doesn't matter which, if you choose S + D = 75% then you need to rewrite in terms of the single variable D which can do by applying the rule that S = 2D giving 2D + D = 75%, now adjust for there being only one son and two daughters and we have 2D + 2D = 75%, or 4D = 75%

And that should look very familar to you...

In fact you can generalize this entire equation for any number of sons and daughters, and make an equation that is to applied whenever there is only a mother and children (male OR female) inheritors!  Watch:

Let ns = the number of sons, and nd = number of daughters, the generalized equation becomes:

M + ns * S + nd * D = 100%

Now we know that each son is to inherit twice each daughter we replace S with 2D and...

M + ns * 2D + nd * D = 100% or M + D(2ns + nd) = 100%

Finally, we implement the rule that the mother always inherits exactly 25%, giving M = 25%

Solving for two unknowns with two equations is as follows:

  M + D(2ns + nd) = 100%
- M                      = 25%
-------------------------------
        D(2ns + nd)  = 75%

Simply replace ns with the actual number of sons (can be zero) and nd with the actual number of daughters (again can be zero) and you will always have the mother inheriting EXACTLY 25% and each son having EXACTLY twice what each daughter inherots no matter how many sons and daughters there are!  No left over and no giving more than is there!

Actually if you want to know we actually solved for three unknowns with three equations (S = 2D could have been written as S - 2D = 0), pretty basic math for God.

If I can do this, and we know that God is FAR above me in any kind of math, and it is actually quite simple, why couldn't God tell Mohammed something similar?  My guess is that Mohammed wasn't speaking with the angel Gabriel and consequently the Quran is not from God, just Mohammed...

Peace
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> In regard to verse 4:11, 4:12, the wife will take in this case 1/8  or 12.5$, father and mother will take 1/3 or 33.3$ and the two daughters will take 2/3 from what remain after gave the others their portions(As I explained to you befor) so they will get 2/3 from 54$, that mean both will get 36$.

Now please tell me where in the Quran does it say that the daughters inherit what remains after the wife and parents inherit their share?

And in your example what happens to the uninherited $18?  ($18.06 actually)
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

> Did you see the Quran intelligence and how it expressed many cases in few lines?!

No I don't.  Actually what I see is you making the same mistake I initially did, that is ASSUMING that the children inherit what remains after the wife and parents!

When I re-read the verses carefully there is nothing that even remotely suggests that any group only inherits after some other group.  If some other part of the Quran establishes some sort of inheritance order then please point me to it.

I am curious, if what you say is true I would expect to read somewhere that a particular group inherits what remains and not some fraction of what remains.  If every group inherits some fraction of the estate then the entire estate is never inherited, there will always be some portion left over...
>states is that each son will inherit twice a daughter.  No actual portion of the estate is named for the children

No actual portion?! really! if someone do not know how much dolars in his hand and told you to give your brother half of what you take? the portions is determined implicitly, your portion is 2 times more than your brother portion from what is in his hand.
Macgre,

>so if each daugher inherited $1 then the son would have to inherit $2, the son and daughters combined would inherit $4, the children and their mother would inherit a total of $29, the rules according to the complete and perfect Quran would be met and $71 would be left over uninherited.

From all of your mind saying that or what!

>My first answer actually represents the MOST that the children could inherit.

Baseless proposition! If the Quran want to give each one the MOST that you are talking about, then it will not give a single daughter the half instead it will give it the all after what the wife got.

> should be no problem getting everyone to agree to that ;-)

Actually there is a problem which is you did not add any new thing! but just represented it in math form! you just bothered yourself!
Hello All,

Man I really find this funny that there is bickering over a math problem, all these so called contradictions and each one is shut down.  However this math one is pretty complex so I am not going
to get myself into it as I myself suck at math.  Good luck to the both of you, no really, because I would really be surprised to see this proved that it is indeed wrong (which I do not think is possible).

Hao,

I really like your viewpoint of things.  I understand that Ahadith may have things that are in agreement with Qu'ran, but how about things that aren't in agreement with Qu'ran and are still practiced
now a days.  I will give you some examples from the Sunnis (which I am not, I have no sect) Sunnah:

Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 7.123, Narrated Abu Huraira
"It is not lawful for a lady to fast (Nawafil) without the permission of her husband when he is at home; and she should not allow anyone to enter his house except with his permission; and if she spends of his wealth (on charitable purposes) without being ordered by him, he will get half of the reward."

Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi 3257, narrated Talq ibn Ali
"When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied at the oven."

It is not the man that orders the wife to fast it is G-d.  We see a lot of things in this...  Also, what happened to woman being equal to man?  I am not saying that all Hadiths are wrong, but I wouldn't approve
them over Qu'ran any time.  I am not saying that you do, but many of the mainstream muslims do.  We see that they stone women for "adultery" which is most of the time rape, when the punishment
for adultery is lashes, and not death.  Plus, both people who did wrong receives the punishment, not just the women.  THere are a lot of other things to discuss on this matter but I will await to see your
response.  Please take no offense, I was not targetting you.  Also, I thank you that you are also not one to believe Muhammad was not sinless, I know of the sure you are talking about when he made
his own law, and also not to judge one prophet over the other, which is also in another sura. Take care Hao, I enjoy your views.  I also think that Y'shua was sinless, seeing that he had
the holy spirit and was the Word, however I am not going to say it is fact as it, so far from what I have read in Qu'ran, is not addressed.  Thanks for answering my question!

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

The ratio of two to one is only PART I repeat ** PART ** of what the Quran says about inheritance.  The math problem arises when you look at the fractions and add them up and see that the total is greater than one.

No where in the Quran do I read that the two daughters inherit 2/3 of what remains AFTER the wife and parents inherit.

> From all of your mind saying that or what!

Are you using all your mind?  You most certainly are not using all the Quran...

Hello Kollision,

I am glad that we agree on so many things.  But we can also agree to disagree.  For example about woman, the way I personally see it, the relation is always like honeymoon.  People do not get married in/before Ramadhan, so that the compulsary fasting does not become any more challenge than it already is.  Other times fasting is not compulsory, so if the wife does her voluntary fasting when her husband is at work, it is better, that way life long honeymoon can get going.

You mentioned eqality, and I believe that ithis is how it becomes equal.  The way Allah created man is that he can easily get aroused.  So, if his wife demands him and acts in an encouraging way, there is no force on earth that can stop that man.  Unlike woman, she is not easily aroused, and in that, man has got a disadvantage.  I think the advise given in hadith is directed to make the situation equal for both sides.  It is better for the sexual relationship to be active  and mutually complete and equal.  At the end both sides should have satisfied their demands.

Regarding the charity...  It is only fair if the wife spends her husbands money for charity for them to have equal good deed.  The wives in Islam are like blessings for men, and only with a wife a man's religion can be complete.  It is not because wife is second class, but because it is man who gets the hot seat in the hereafter.  Think about Quranic verses about the sin that Adam and Eve committed, and there is no mention of Eve, Adam is the one who is in the hot seat.  Also man is ordered to protect his family from hell fire.  If a wife could be like Khadejah (May Allah be pleased with her) then it would be great.  I believe Khadeejah - Mary and Muhammed-Jesus are 1-1 correlating relations as a group if you see what I mean.

This is a deep topic but hope that we can elaborate more.

Hello Hao,

Thank you for responding.  However, I do have another question regarding Hadith.  We know that G-d protected Qu'ran but he did not say anything in the likes of AHadith and the Sunnah.  Also,
didn't G-d say that His Qu'ran was "Fully Detailed" and that "He didn't live anything out of this book"?  Also, like you said, Muhammads purpose was "only to deliver Qu'ran".  If this is the case,
do you believe that Hadith are still needed?  I understand agreeeing on some aspects of it though, but I find many of hadith contradictory to Qu'ran.  

You said that man is at a disadvantage regarding sex.  Being so, this should be a test for man to become close to G-d and disregard there sexual drives.  This is one of the reasons I do not agree
with women sitting in the back of the masjids just because a man is so weak to control his desires.  If you are in a masjid, or anywhere for that matter, you should be able to control your sex drive
and try your best to focus your mind on Al-ah.  If you cannot do this for G-d and blame it on woman because of your sex drive, then I really do not know what to say to you.  Of course, I am speaking
in general, not to "you".  

I do agree  that woman are a blessing to man, but many men in Islamic countries do not realize this (as you probably have seen).  Also regarding Adam and Eve, they both were responsible for
disobeying G-d, and they both repented.  I believe that the reason Adam was focused is because the Bible makes it seem as if it was Eves fault, however G-d does say that we are responsible for our
own actions, therefore Eve wronged G-d as well and had to ask for forgiveness.  Back to the the last paragraph, you are right there are disadvantages to both men and women.  For example,
it would be ridiculous to have women as cops (as they are not built to have the physical strength, etc.) however this shouldnt automatically disallow women to be in the police because there might
be some that are just as strong as men or stronger and also know some sort of martial arts to supplement them.  

I believe that there wouldn't be any sects especially if there were no AHadith and Sunnah.  Isn't this one of the factors Shia' and Sunni disagree on?  They both dont disagree on Qu'ran however,
yet many of them do things that go against Qu'ran.  For example, I am not sure if this is in Sunnah, but there are extra Rukoo on Salat.  Did not G-d say that Salat was reserved for certain times?

4:103
When ye pass (Congregational) prayers, celebrate Allah's praises, standing, sitting down, or lying down on your sides; but when ye are free from danger, set up Regular Prayers: For such prayers are enjoined on believers at stated times.

[4:103] Once you complete your Contact Prayer (Salat), you shall remember GOD while standing, sitting, or lying down.* Once the war is over, you shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat); the Contact Prayers (Salat) are decreed for the believers at specific times.

I am probably getting ahead on the conversation and I am sorry.  But I felt that this needed to be addressed, as my friend just asked me about doing more Rukoo then what is required as extra.
Take care Hao and I also cannot wait to elaborate more on this.

Also,

64:12 So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger: but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly

Therefore we should only follow the message (quran) and nothing else, even his life.  Like you said, in Qu'ran it even talks about him committing sin as he made his own law.  Many people also do Wudu where you
wash your nose, back of the ears, etc.  People view wudu as cleaning for the physical, however it is more spiritual.

5:6
O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.

I personally would not want to change the ways it was dictated.  From what I read (as I do not know arabic but hope to learn so I can read Qu'ran) this is all done to purify your presenc e with G-d.  If He/She wanted
you to be clean, He/She would just say to go take a shower.  Now, I am not saying that it is wrong to do the nose, ears, mouth, etc, as I am not going to judge, but the way the Qu'ran states it, it is just these
4 things required.  I see people going overboard and making/adding new things to what Al-ah has decreed.  Whats more important is people adding things to Shariah.  Like I said about the stoning of the women
and such and also making the country an Islamic Nation and forcing people to be Muslims when we know that Al-ah said there shall be no force into religion.  Phew, that was a lot of yapping but I hope you didnt
get tired of that.  Again I was not pointing anything towards you, just the modern muslims and there addition/subtraction to G-ds Word as well as His/Her Shariah.  I am also not trying to change anyones viewpoint
but I am using Qu'ran alone to state my beliefs.  Sorry but needed to add more ayats :)

31:27 (Yusuf)
And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom.

Therefore if He/She needed to tell us anything else, it could have all been in the Qu'ran as it is stated here that G-d does not run out of words.  We also all agree that Quran is the last testament.

33:62 (Yusuf)
(Such was) the practice (approved) of Allah among those who lived aforetime: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of Allah.

The practice (Sunnah) of G-d is approved, not the one of Mohammad.  What do you think of this ayat?

6:114 (Rashad)
"Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt."

Therefore, why seek anything else if this has been fully detailed plus it is the last testament?

 I would like to see your views on these ayats.  Also, I chose different translations however I verified that in the translations, they all relayed the same message because from Rashads and Yusufs, several ayats
convey different meanings, therefore I only chose ayats that agreed in both Yusuf and Rashad.  Take care Hao and I cant wait to hear from you.
Macgre, I guess your math degrees was too much bad! Anyway, here is a site that you can improve your math skills: http://iaia.essortment.com/mathskillsimpr_rsvq.htm 
So good luck.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

Your a very funny man, but I notice you STILL haven't been able to show me a SINGLE verse in the "perfect" and "complete" Quran that says children inherit AFTER the wife and parents of the deceased.  If what you are saying is true and the Quran is perfect and complete and so easy to understand then where is the verse?

As it stands 2/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/8 > 1, either Mohammed can't add or God can't add, in any event the Quran is wrong and so is your claim that its "perfection" is proof that it is from God.

I am SUPREMELY confident that God had nothing to do with the writing of that book, and your complete inability to explain this math error only serves to strengthen my confidence.  You see every time a Muslim resorts to insults when confronted with this problem and fails to explain it I am even more convinced that there is no explanation because there really is an error and so the claim that the Quran is perfect and from God is utterly false.  So I thank you for your assistance in confirming that the Quran is indeed flawed.

Peace
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64 and kollision,

I am curious about something, it appears that you both seem to think that the Quran makes women equal to men.  Why then does it explicitly state that a son should inherit twice as much as a daughter?

Also I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Quran permit a man to have up to four wives?  Why can't a woman have up to four husbands if they are truly equal?  I am also puzzled by this one because there are equal number of men and women in the world so there simply is not enough women to go around for every man to have four wives...  In fact any more than one will quickly result in shortages :-(

Peace
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> That chapter is also part of the quran as it is instructed by the messenger to whom the Quran was revealed.

If it doesn't start with "In the name of God" then how do you know that it is from God.  If a chapter of the Quran doesn't have to start with "In the name of God" in order to be from God then could not a chapter of the Bible also be from God even though it too does not begin with "In the name of God"?

If you are going to make a rule and use that rule to say that the Bible is corrupt then the rule would also make the Quran corrupt as there is one chapter in the Quran that doesn't obey the rule.  If you do not apply the rule to the Quran the same way you apply it to the Bible then you are being hypocritical...

Peace
Macgre,

> but I notice you STILL haven't been able to show me a SINGLE verse in the "perfect" and "complete" Quran that says children inherit AFTER the wife and parents of the deceased

I showed you but your faith do not let you see it. Anyway this is the last trial, here is, look carefully:
In the name of Allah:
"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half."

Did you see it? No? do not warry, here you can see it clearly:
if a person left 100$, and he has 2 daughters and two sons and wife, now depending on his recommendation what each one will take?

You yourself replied: give one-four to the wife and the remain to the chidren! Is that enough!

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

Abdu_Allah,

Exactly where in "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half." do you read that the children only inherit what remains after the wife and parents inherit?

Absolutely nothing in the wording of that verse (Sura 4:11) even remotely suggests such an arrangement.  It explicitly states "if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance", it says THE inheritance, not the remaining inheritance.  The same wording is used later when the parents share is set at 1/6 each, that is it says "For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each".  It says THE inheritance, just like it says THE inheritance for the children meaning the same inheritance, not initial and remaining as you are suggesting.

In my example I can completely ignore the "to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" because I have no male heirs, so I am left with the fractions as stipulated in the Quran and they add up to more than 1.  THIS IS A CLEAR ERROR!

You keep bringing me examples where the rule of a male inherits twice the female is involved, my example has no male heirs.

> You yourself replied: give one-four to the wife and the remain to the chidren! Is that enough!

Yes and I corrected myself too, I also pointed out that my example has no male heir and so that rule of two to one has absolutely no effect on my question which is: two daughters, two parents and one wife.  When there is no male heir and there are two daughters two parents and one wife the Quran is very explicit in stating what each is to inherit, but it is also very mistaken since the shares add up to more than 1!

Peace

PS No amount of faith is going to let my wife, parents and children inherit more than I have when I die.  If I die with only $100 to give I cannot divide my estate up so that a total of $112.50 is given to all my inheritors!  If your faith can create money from thin air you must be a very rich man indeed!
Hello Macgre,

<Why then does it explicitly state that a son should inherit twice as much as a daughter?

Men are the ones that usually are in charge of the family, with working and all.  Also, the daughters are most likely married and if not will be married and will be supported by the husband,
therefore they do not need as much money as the son as he takes care of his family.  

<Also I may be mistaken, but doesn't the Quran permit a man to have up to four wives?  Why can't a woman have up to four husbands if they are truly equal?  I am also puzzled by this one because there are equal number of men and women in the world so there simply is not enough women to go around for every man to have four wives...  In fact any more than one will quickly result in shortages :-(

The Qu'ran does not put a limit on the number of wives you have (in Khalifas), it is just a figure of speech,  however, it is almost strictly forbidden to resort to polygamy.  The only reason for
having more than one wife has nothing to do with sexual relations.  For example, some men may marry a woman to take care of her family such that in the event of her husbands death, however
it is still almost prohibited even in this sense.  Like I said though, it is almost considered forbidden to engage in this act.  Read Sura 4, which I think you already have but since you dont understand
the reason for marrying one wife, I would suggest reading it again. (not being harsh I am being serious)

4:3 (Khalifa)
If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,
or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.

4:129 (Khalifa)
You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage,
nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

4:3 (Yusuf)
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

4:129 (Yusuf)
Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air).
If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

I tend to lean towards Khalifas (Not 19 or any of that numbers thing) translations as he shows the arabic words in his appendixes and describes the grammer and such, whereas Yusuf Alis
doesn't.  Take care Macgre and hope that helped.
Peace Mcgre,

You would like to think everything in black and white, and that is why it is a challenge for you to see the wisdom in some things, this goes for inheritance question and now the basmala.  It is a faith thing, and no matter how oximoron it is for 2 billion people to believe in a god in the form of a man, they do.  Because it is their faith.  I do believe that Quran is from God, and this is my faith.  As simple as that.  If you have a problem understanding something, you should check yourself and see if you have any similarity in your belief, and if you find it, it will help you to understand.

Best Regards,
I like the way you worded that regarding faith Hao, but still Macgre I dont mind you asking Questions, as it helps for me as well so thank you.  

Hao, did you happen to read my post to you bro?

Take care.
Peace Kollision,

Thanks for the message.  I would say that if you find a hadith contradictory to Quran, definitely do not follow it.  The main reference is Quran and there cannot be a hadith that contradicts Quran, this is against the shariat of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), how could he go against what he preaches to be the Word of God, while people gave their lives to defend it.

You suggest the men to control themselves.  Well, I admire those who do, I have great respect for them.  They do exist, you are right.  However there are also as much and even more men who lack that capacity.  And we know that for example Friday prayer is compulsory, it is compulsory for all men, not only those who are good at controlling themselves and but also for those who are not.  How could you ask them to come into an environment where they will sin with their eyes?  If you really want to help these people to strengthen their faith, you should provide them an environment where they can get away from sin.  Hopefully they may learn somethings that will help them get better control over their feelings, as if it is ever going to happen :-).  Really, they should be taken to Hell like once a week to remember it, so that they can control their gaze.  It is very much like trying to tell a 2 year old to stay away from something that they want to get into.  I am sorry if I am harsh on men, but I am one, so do not be offended.  As I said, not everyone is like that, but some are, and we got to think about those who are worst while we design something, as it is in any kind of science or engineering project.

I still insist that men are the ones who are in hot seat.  Think about the witnessing situation.  While a man becomes responsible for what he says, women is not as there is an assistant to her testimony.  

Sorry, I need to get up because my wife is on top of me telling to get off.  Let us continue this later.  

Best regards,  
Salaam Hao,

I can really relate to you.  Thanks for explaining your views on men.  I am a man as well, and it saddens me to see woman in these so called Islamic countries being treated worse than men when they should
be given the world.  We are told to respect them and respect our parents, especially the mothers.  It is funny (it aint, just my use of word) to see that these "Muslims" read Qu'ran yet they omit sections when it
refers to respecting Nesa (woman).  I agree with your saying about the Masjid and about making it easier for both sexes so that they dont sin.  However I also think that being in the masjid (mosque) that they wholeheartedly become a muslim and submit themselves to G-d and not their fleshly desires.  In my opinion, just mine, I think if this were the case it would make it so easier when men are outside, since it is
being applied when they are praying.  To be honest with you, I would really like to go to a masjid that had the two mixed.  I currently do not go to any However with what you said, if they are seperated for those weak men, then it does give security to the women from wondering eyes.  But I hope that one day that men will gain the strength and everyone can just be seen as G-ds creation, neither male or female, and worshop Him/Her
together.

I also thank you for stating that about Hadith and that not all can be trusted.  It is like the Bible (Im speaking of us obviously so please no one take offense), there are things that are true and agree with Islam yet there
are a lot of things that doesn't.  

I thank you again hao.  Men indeed are in the hot seat in many cases and I feel that it is good and this gives more freedom to women that men should realize.  Both men and women are a blessing to one another and
the men need to step up to the plate.  I hope everythings goes good Hao and hope your wife is doing fine.  Take care Hao.

Khuda Hafiz (G-d be with you)  I am not Indian but I know some Hindi and I like that word

Peace Kollision,

You are right, hadith is similar to Bible, as it contains the Word (Hadith Qudsi) as well as what the messenger said and done, etc, and there are authentic parts as well as fabrications.  However still hadith collection is much more reliable than bible because you would hardly find something that goes against the fundamentals such as tawheed, such as The Oneness of God.  

What you said about Muslim men being weak in faith is true for all men.  If it was not, we would not be in this shape and we all need that prayer.  Thanks for it, and you see there is a hadith that whenever you make a supplication for your fellow, there is an angel appointed who makes the same supplication for you.  

Women, by creation do not care so much about leadership but they are content having babies and raising them.  The few heroes who are up for the challenge get a work but in this society, where you cannot even restrain some men in the mosques, they are easily abused.  That is why we have all those training classes in the workplace to prevent sexual abuse etc.  

What makes me the mad is the double standard that while a man can do all sort of things, it is considered wrong for women to do them before marriage.  If we look at the Quran there is no double standard, and the adulterer can only mary an adulteress.  However those ignorant Muslim adulterers are always after innocent virgins, as if they deserve them.  If it was not for them, there would not be the problem of having women who have committed adultery in the first place.  

May Allah (SWT) help us and increase our faith.  We have completed the Quran twice this Ramadhan in the mosque that I am going, one during the taraweeh and the other one during the qiyaam before dawn.  It has been a challenge for those hafizes, one of them led both taraweeh and qiyaam in another mosque.   It is truly an amazing experience, though most people do not realize.  I wonder how it feels to have the whole Quran in the heart and recite it outloud twice throughout Ramadhan leading hundreds men and women.

Have a happy Eid

Hello Hao,

Thanks for sharing your views on Hadith, because there are a lot of Muslims that follow Hadith more than they do Qu'ran, even if it goes in direct violation of G-ds Shari'ah.

I agree that we are weak and we need G-d to complete us spiritually.  I also agree with you regarding why we need to do Salat as well as meditation on G-d.  As for Hadith, I am not saying it is wrong or right but it sounds
really nice.  I may be a little hard on Hadith, as in Islam it is really important not to make false accusations or false words regarding G-d, sorry if I dont initially accept hadith.  However, I do like the Hadiths that speak in the case of Animal Rights, as they are Muslims as well and obey G-ds commands, unlike many of us humans....

You are so right about the majority of women, as they care on the more important aspects of life.  I would not like to hold women down from doign whatever they want to do in work.  As in women being harassed in
Masjid, that is just sad.  You are not a Muslim if you cannot submit your own will to G-ds will, another reason why I believe in having the two together in a Mosque.  G-d knows best.  This is a test, and if you cannot
restrain yourself for G-d, then you are not a Muslim (in the sense of submission).

I also dislike the double standard.  Men are praised for things they do, while women are demoralized.  Also the Qu'ran speaks the truth in regards to marriage of adulterers and adultresses, this is fair to the victim
and gives mercy among the adulterer/ess.  As for going after innocent virgins, in many Islamic countries, it is rape not adultry on the womens end.  Yet who gets punished?  The women.  And they get punished
for adultry which is far away from Shari'ah, stoning.  Didn't Qu'ran say lashes?  I really dispise these "Islamic" countries, with various other reasons as well.

It is great to hear that you folks finished Qu'ran twice in just this month.  It is really an inspiring and beautiful text.  You are right that most cannot and do not want to experience Qu'ran, as they do not take it as a
valid scripture.  I also wish I could know Qu'ran (In arabic) by heart and understand (arabic), this would be a real blessing.  I cannot believe that there are even 7 year olds who memorise the whole Qu'ran, however
I really doubt that they even understand what they are saying.

As for Eid, I am not doing any Eid, but thanks any ways.  Have a great Ramadhan, it is a great experience.  However, people should not pull away from G-d after this but be strengthened and keep even more remembrance
of our King.  Take care my friend, and thanks a lot.  



Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> Men are the ones that usually are in charge of the family, with working and all.  Also, the daughters are most likely married and if not will be married and will be supported by the husband,
therefore they do not need as much money as the son as he takes care of his family.

You are denying women the equality of choice, by denying them equal inheritance you give them little choice but to depend on a man to take care of them.  What are training, education and wage policies for women in the Quran?

I looked closely at your references and I did some research on my own, still I see no prohibition of multiple wives.  In fact I looked closely into Islamic sites that were defending the very verses you quoted, and one things stood out throughout, women are considered second class to men, their primary role/ultimate achievement is to find a husband.  And everywhere I read the justifications for multiple wives were very, very, weak.
If you wish to believe so macgre.  You have a tendency to look down on Qu'ran and try to see the bad parts in it, which I understand from your perspective.  

4:3 (Khalifa)
If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,
or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.

Explains it enough.  If you are fearing that will be unfair with the wives, then you shall be content with what you have.  It is not hard to understand.  You also have to remember
that alot of childrens are orphaned from their fathers through war back in those times and women were widowed.

4:129 (Khalifa)
You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try.

We know that you can never love both women the same, it says it here.  Plus, the women have a choice in regards to marriage in general, be it monagamous or polygamous

4:19 (Yusuf)
O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.

Women are given a high ranks in society (according to Qu'ran), yet you tend to judge it with money and jobs.  In the OT there are many people who had more than one wives as well, for obvious reasons.

Whos to questions G-ds authority for why we can and why we cant do things?  However, I have clearly stated the reasons up there.  You can either believe in it or not, it really doesnt matter to me.  You have your
faith which I do not want to change and I got my faith.  Take care macgre hope i answered your question.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> You would like to think everything in black and white, and that is why it is a challenge for you to see the wisdom in some things, this goes for inheritance question and now the basmala.

Primarily I am interested in the source of the confidence you have in the rightness of your beliefs, especially in the face of such difficulties.

What I have noticed is a tendency to ignore and dismiss the most difficult of the Quran's problems (e.g. Inheritance math), while using rules to dismiss competitors such as the Bible that would also dismiss the Quran if applied equally to it.

So once again I am left wondering, why do you believe in the Quran?  Why are you so certain that it is not just the words of the one man Mohammed and do believe that it is the words of God as spoken by the angel Gabriel?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> If you wish to believe so macgre.  You have a tendency to look down on Qu'ran and try to see the bad parts in it, which I understand from your perspective.

The Muslim's claim that the Quran is the flawless, perfectly preserved word of God is its grandest statement, one that should stand up to my investigation with little or no trouble, yet it fails, and fails badly.  If the primary source of your faith is in the Quran "flawless and pefectly preserved Quran" then it is a misplaced faith as it is a flawed document.

> Women are given a high ranks in society (according to Qu'ran), yet you tend to judge it with money and jobs.

No, I value freedom to choose, and I get the distinct impression that women are not as free as men in the eyes of the Quran...

> Whos to questions G-ds authority for why we can and why we cant do things?

First lets establish that the Quran is indeed the words of God, otherwise to attribute the authroity of God to the words of the one man Mohammed is ... not good.

Mcghe,


you also wrote:
"..why do you believe in the Quran?  Why are you so certain that it is not just the words of the one man Mohammed and do believe that it is the words of God as spoken by the angel Gabriel?"

Because as I have shown through out the thread, it completes the picture, removing the misconceptions and purifying the faith.


you also wrote:
"What I have noticed is a tendency to ignore and dismiss the most difficult of the Quran's problems (e.g. Inheritance math), while using rules to dismiss competitors such as the Bible that would also dismiss the Quran if applied equally to it."

Everything fundamental to the faith is clearly spelled out in Quran such as telling us why we are here, who is God, who is satan, who are angels, what is the message, what are some of the previous messages, who are some of the previous messengers, etc etc etc.  It also clarifies your misconceptions such as there is no trinity, such as Spirit is not God, such as Jesus is not God, etc.  These are the most important things.  In the NT you could not produce a single verse as plain as what is emphasized in Quran so many times helping you to udnerstand who your Creator is. All you have a conjecture to follow, and yet you dare to challenge Quran.  It is the revelation for the perfected religion, that is Islam.  

"Most difficult Quran problems" do not exist because there is none.  Yes, some try to create them, but it is only in vain.  There is an explanation (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14) but you just choose to refuse it.  Suit yourself.  You can tell them to God in the day of judgement and "may be" He can give you a chance to speak.  

Glory be To God, far above is He from who you think He is.

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

Again with the categories and kinds of inheritance.  Tell me in Sura 4:11 and 12 where it says 2/3, 1/6 each and 1/8, exactly where does it say there are any categories or kinds of inheriting groups?  For something that is supposed to be so perfect and clear you still haven't produce a single verse confirming or even suggesting your "kinds and categories" of inheritances.

As for everything else the Quran says, it can only "complete the picture, removing the misconceptions and purifying the faith" if it indeed comes from God.  If it only comes from the one man Mohammed then it only confuses and pollutes the picture.  Everything depends on two things:

1) Did Mohammed really talk to Gabriel, who talked to God?

2) Is the Quran flawless?  Hence this thread.

I am firmly convinced the answer to the second question is NO, and following up on that I conclude that the first is also best answered with a solid NO.

> Glory be To God, far above is He from who you think He is.

I agree, except the "you" I am referring to is you and all Muslims.

Peace
Hello Macgre,

<The Muslim's claim that the Quran is the flawless, perfectly preserved word of God is its grandest statement, one that should stand up to my investigation with little or no trouble, yet it fails, and fails badly.  If the primary source of your faith is in the Quran "flawless and pefectly preserved Quran" then it is a misplaced faith as it is a flawed document.

Your making it sound as if there are so many wrong thing in there.  The only thing you could point out was the math problem, and I am not even sure who is right between you and abdu.  Point something
else out besides that, which I can actually understand lol.

<No, I value freedom to choose, and I get the distinct impression that women are not as free as men in the eyes of the Quran...

You really do not understand it.  Do you not know that men and women have different makeups?  Chemical as well as physical?  From that alone we know they are not equal (in the sense
that they are not made the same) therefore they think differently and have different values.  However, women do have a freedom of choice to do what they want.  You must remember, though,
the majority among society is men in the work place.  If you want a women who doesnt have the hormones as men to do Hard labor then go ahead and believe that.  

1) Did Mohammed really talk to Gabriel, who talked to God?
You tell me.  How could all the scientific proofs be made such as Chemistry, Cosmology (The big bang theory, evolution, etc.) which was not known back then.

2) Is the Quran flawless?  Hence this thread.
Regarding the math problem, I really suck at math and couldn't even do the problem.  I am not going to answer that (math) as I cant even do the problem.

<I agree, except the "you" I am referring to is you and all Muslims.

That is a really harsh statement.  I didnt see Hao bashing Christians, that was uncalled for.  You can believe in your Trinity or what ever you want, even though Christ himself spoke of
G-d and prayed to G-d.
Peace Mcgre,

I am sorry for my previous message, I tempted you to react.  However I do not think that anyone can match how high a true Muslim considers his Creator.  Why, because God describes Best Himself and His Power in Quran.

There are some who choose to disbelieve in Islam, because it does not talk about dinasours, because "if it is suppose to be perfect and complete" etc.  Your case is somehow similar.  You are free to believe as you want, that is what the freewill is about.  If God wanted this to be so easy, He could make us all believers.  

I have asked you a single verse about Jesus (pbuh) saying that he is God, and you could not produce it.  And then you refuse Quran because it did not clearly mention how people are suppose to be classified for inheritance.  That is the difference between Quran and the previous messages.    

I more than welcome things like that because Quran says that if the oceans were ink, they would not be enough to write His Word all down.  And it would be hard for us to know it by heart, though it could still be possible if God wanted.    

May be the classification is in the language.  EVen if the answer was given through language you would complain saying that why it is not in Quran.  Probably it is, it is just that you could not see it, you look at it but cannot see it.  It is like looking at an expression of a math problem, you may look at it but cannot see the answer.  That is how we treat Quran, admitting that we have no full knowledge, because after a while the answer becomes clear, through the increase in our knowledge.  Otherwise we would not like the verses about the bing bang either.  

The inheritance... that is not what people worry so much about.  But people worry about who their God is.  If you choose to disbelieve after the Truth has come to you, because it did not tell you the kind and class of people for inheritance to suit your satisfaction, and on the other hand you believe in a book where who you claim to be God does not say that He is, even once, you have work to do when you stand in front of The One True God.

All The Best,
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> I have asked you a single verse about Jesus (pbuh) saying that he is God, and you could not produce it.

This thread is about the Quran and the claim/belief that it is flawless, it is not about Jesus.  If you want to talk about the divinty of Jesus open up another thread and invite me to participate.  Otherwise lets please focus on the topic at hand, OK?
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> who you claim to be God does not say that He is, even once, you have work to do when you stand in front of The One True God.

> That is how we treat Quran, admitting that we have no full knowledge, because after a while the answer becomes clear, through the increase in our knowledge.

What I really find odd about these two statements is that often I read that Muslims reject the Trinity becasue they don't understand it, yet they are fully willing to believe parts of the Quran that they don't understand.

Ah but the Quran says that Jesus is not God.  Now I ask, why do you believe that the Quran is right and the Bible is wrong?  Because it is "flawless and perfectly preserved..."  But it is not flawless and perfectly preserved!  You just finished ignoring/dismissing a glaring flaw (the inheritance math problem) as a matter of faith, hoping that some day your knowledge will increase enough to understand it and make the problem go away.  That is why I so intently focus on the inheritance math problem, because the only way it will go away is if math itself is somehow drastically changed!

IMO your faith is in vain, math ain't going to allow what you require.
Eeee, Im out of this thread.  Take care hao, yo uare by far one of the most humble and best muslims I have come in contact with online.  May G-d be pleased with you my friend.
Also Macgre, I have no hard feelings for you, like Hao said, you havea freedom of choice.  Thanks for the thread, but it is really getting out of hand.

Take care all.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision/hao64,

Let me try a different approach.

If Muslims simply stated that their beliefs are based on faith, and as such are equal in kind to all other faith based beliefs then I would have no problem.  But that is not the case, Muslims claim superiority based on the idea that the Quran is both flawless and perfectly preserved.  Well unlike statements of faith, these two claims CAN be tested to see of they are true; NEITHER is!

Faith is not testable, it is highly subjective; what seems reasonable to one person is not to another.  I routinely ask why you believe that Mohammed spoke with Gabriel who spoke to God because I am curious about what sustains your faith.  Your claims about the Quran are testable, your belief that Mohammed heard from God through the angel Gabriel is not, so tell me, why do you believe that Mohammed spoke with Gabriel who spoke to God?

FTR kollision, I am aware of dozens of errors in the Quran, but none are as clear and objective as the inheritance math problem.  I also think you are overestimating the complexity of the problem, read Sura 4:11 and 12 for yourself, add up the fractions and tell me if it is more than 1 or not?  If you like, closely examine the words to see if you can find evidence for the kinds and categories that are said to exist.  I tried and could not.
Peace Kollision,
Thanks for your kindness.
May Allah (SWT) be with you always.

Peace Mcgre,

>What I really find odd about these two statements is that often I read that Muslims reject the Trinity becasue they don't understand it, yet they are fully >willing to believe parts of the Quran that they don't understand.

When we die, God is not going to ask us about inheritance but whom we worshipped.
It seems that you do not have a clear answer but we do.  We know God better than He has explained Himself in OT and NT.  God says in Quran that He has perfected the religion and chosen it for us as Islam.

I may not understand a particular verse in Quran because the translation might not be serving it right, or may be my knowledge is not sufficient.  We find these kind of verses in Quran, but they are not related to the fundamentals of faith.  In that case I can search for a scholar who can try to explain it to me.  In the inheritance question, we have an answer that is satisfying the math however you raise different objectives then.   If I had all the answers I would surely provide them to you, but admit it, that is not really the problem you have, it is just that you have already made up your mind.  It is not about solving the problem but simply denying the truth when it has come to you, and feel free because God has given you that permission.

When God says in Quran that Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified but people thought that he was... there is no further detail.  I take this as a miracle, and do not question it any further.  I do not know how, but God knows.  

You could go back and relate all the science related verses, I am sure people did not know the answers at some point and there are more that we still do not know, but none of them is essential to worship God as He should be worshipped.  That is the whole point.

We do not know anything except what Quran tells us and the traditions of the Messenger (pbuh) which are not in Quran.  We can elaborate using our mind and understanding as we are suppose to to reach the truth.  In some cases we may never reach it such as the matter with The Spirit.  This is another gray area because there are some who believe that Gabriel is Holy Spirit though we have no clear knowledge.  

You wrote:
>I am aware of dozens of errors in the Quran, but none are as clear and objective as the inheritance math problem

Sceptics have found dozens of errors in Quran, and you could filter it to one which has been answered in the referenced site(http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14).  

Did you know that they have also found 100,000 errors in Bible?  For me Bible is a Holy Book as well, as I have shown how Biblical verses still preserve their truth since they line up with Quran regarding Oneness of God, who the Spirit is, the identity of Jesus (pbuh) as the Word and supported by the Holy Spirit.  However Quran superceded it since some included exaggerated identity of Jesus (pbuh) into the Book (The Bible).

Mcgre, I pray that God will give you guidance someday.  Because there is no guidance except from Him.
Hello all,

Thanks for the nice words Hao.  I hope I can walk G-d, inshallah (If G-d wills), to the best of my abilities and serve Him/Her to my utmost best.

Ya hao you make really good points.  I also see Macgres side of things.  I mean hes a christian and if he sees one thing that doesnt make sense for him it gives more assurance to
himself.  I have to agree that almost everyone does that, even me at some times.  I also have told Macgre regarding the inheritance.  I am not going to lie and say I know how to do
it even though I dont, let alone even the one he proved.  

I believe Macgres problem with accepting Qu'ran is probably the fact on Christ.  I bet if Christ was included in it where he died for our sins there would be no problem with it, if anything,
I think it would be considered one of the holiest of scriptures to the christians and they would stand up for the science included within its texts.  I dont want to and am not trying to convert any
one here, I just want others to see that G-ds Qu'ran is beautiful.  

Like I said before, I use this as a tool for myself and my own salvation, not to force it on others.  If they want to believe in Christ as their G-d, even though I know this is a gross sin in the Qu'ra, so
be it.  Like you said, we have freedom of choice.  

I hold no grudge against you macgre, its just that I think that all this over an inheritance problem is ridiculous (even though youll say otherwise as the topic of this is if Qu'ran is flawless).  I would like other contradictiosn
besides this (as I cant answer or understand) and I asked for some.  You mentioned other so called contradictions and they have all been answered, except for this one (and I am not going to ponder on this
as I dont have an answer and am nto going to lie).  I would rather have you mention something that is more meaningful than money, which also fell into your category of making women and men not equal,
which I gave you the reasons yet you still didnt see them.  Its up to you how you want to think, however I hope that you can see Qu'ran in another light, as you are viewing it currently as wrong.  If you read the
Qu'ran you will see G-ds mercy and that he is gracious, even through a translation which is still not even Qu'ran at the heart.  Again no hard feelings against you, but I do hope you can change your views towards it
and get something out of it instead of an inheritance problem.  

Take care Macgre and Hao.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> We know God better than He has explained Himself in OT and NT.  God says in Quran that He has perfected the religion and chosen it for us as Islam.

ARRGH (that is a sound that Canadians make when they are very frustrated, Charlie Brown does it too ;-)

You are still stating something as fact (Quran explains God better than OT or NT) while admiting that there are parts of the Quran you don't understand, specifically the inheritance math problem!  How do you know that you know God better?  Because the Quran says so!  Double ARRGH!  Round and round we go where we stop nobody knows...

You still assume that the Quran is God's word!  You also claim that the Quran is flawless, yet there is this math problem that you don't fully understand yet but are sure that some day it will make perfect sense... but since it is in the Quran and the Quran is flawless this math problem is an example of our limited human understanding and not a genuine error. THAT is called faith, not fact!

From my point of view this is how your argument looks:

hao64: The Quran is flawless.

macgre: There is a flaw in one of the inheritance math cases.

hao64: There is no flaw in the Quran because the Quran is flawless, if anything it is our understanding that is flawed.

macgre: But what about the challenge in Sura 4:82 "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy."  Does not the inheritance problem I pointed out qualify as a "discrepancy"?

hao64: No the Quran is flawless, it is your understanding that is flawed.

macgre: Well then how do you know that the Quran is flawless, if every example of a flaw I find is not really a flaw in the Quran but a flaw in my understanding?  All you have done is ignored and dismissed obvious flaws by claiming that some day our understanding will permit us to understand better and see that there is no flaw.  What if that day never comes because the flaw is real, because the Quran is not from God?  You would have me believe in a flawless Quran by pure faith, only to find out that it is all a lie?  Sorry, not going to do that...

Peace and Wisdom I pray to all
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

> Did you know that they have also found 100,000 errors in Bible?

ENOUGH ALREADY THESE ERRORS ARE *** TRANSLATION *** ERRORS THEY ARE NOT SOURCE ERRORS AS YOU SEEM TO CLAIM

The KJV in particulat being 400 years old is notorious for making many translation errors, but nothing in the orginal documents changed!

Tell me, 400 years from now when English has changed as much as it has since the KJV was written, what will you say about all the current English translations of the Quran?  400 years from now people will likely have found thousands of translation errors does that mean the Quran is full of errors?  No?  THEN STOP SAYING THAT THE 2,000+ YEAR OLD BIBLE IS FULL OF ERRORS WHEN YOU FIND TRANSLATION ERRORS IN MODERN BIBLES!!!

Now I have to question why do you keep trying to divert me to talking about the Bible when the question is about flaws in the Quran?  Are you deliberately trying to hide or avoid something?
Hey Macgre I got a question for ya.

Do you believe Christ died for mankinds sin?  Do you believe Christ is G-d?  Thats the only questions I really want to know right now.

Take care.
NVM dont answer it, its going off topic.
Hi Mac, regarding the math proiblem I was just looking over it again.

DOesnt the daughters get 2/3s only if ALL the inheritors are women?  You said you had a father and hes inheriting the money as well.  WOuldnt the equation
be different?

Thanks.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> I believe Macgres problem with accepting Qu'ran is probably the fact on Christ.  I bet if Christ was included in it where he died for our sins there would be no problem with it, if anything

No, that's not why, I reject the Quran because it has many clear errors, far too many to be a flawless and perfectly preserved document from God as Muslims claim.

> I think it would be considered one of the holiest of scriptures to the christians and they would stand up for the science included within its texts.

Funny you should mention that, because there are a good number of scientific errors in the Quran, and many of the so called scientific facts are examples of very selective reading, picking only those verses that agree with science and ignoring all that don't.

> I think that all this over an inheritance problem is ridiculous (even though youll say otherwise as the topic of this is if Qu'ran is flawless).  

Well it may be "ridiculous" to you but the topic IS about the claim that the Quran is flawless, so any example of a flaw is sufficient to prove that claim false.  Ignoring or dismissing or pleading ignorance doesn't change a thing!

I would love to give you a long list of flaws, but I have very little time, I also remember asking you for details about the Miracle of 19 which you didn't give.  If you like when I find more time I will post a few more problems for you to consider, but not today.

Peace and Wisdom to all I pray...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> DOesnt the daughters get 2/3s only if ALL the inheritors are women?  You said you had a father and hes inheriting the money as well.  WOuldnt the equation be different?

Fair question, lets re-read the verse in question:

"Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance"

As I understand it, the directive concerns children, specifically if there are no sons (only daughters).

Next we read "For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;"

So we have the rules for parents, explicitly stating 1/6 each.  I do not see a rule of only women applying to both children and parents.

Also I still see no mention of either children or parents inheriting a portion of what remains...
Hi Mac,

That makes sense thanks.  However this is what it reads from Rashads:

 [4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female*. If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed. If only one daughter is left, she gets one-half. The parents of the deceased get one-sixth of the inheritance each, if the deceased has left any children. If he left no children, and his parents are the only inheritors, the mother gets one-third. If he has siblings, then the mother gets one-sixth. All this, after fulfilling any will the deceased has left, and after paying off all debts. When it comes to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is really the best to you and the most beneficial. This is GOD's law. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise

Although it comes after the Children then disgnates the parents, since I dont know arabic, I wouldn't know what the real intent of the meaning was.  Theres already debate on how t odo Wudu based
on the arabic instructions.  However, if the 2/3rds were to apply to all women and not just the children, do you think it would work then?  I am not good at these fractions, so Im asking your opinion on
this, thanks.  

Take care.


Hi mac,

I got another verse thanks to Rashads explanation, and it explains that the will has to be made reasonably.  I believe that 4:11 and 4:12 stands as a tool for someone to use,
however, if other needs need to be met, it should as it says in this verse

2:180 (Yusuf Ali)
It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin,
according to reasonable usage; this is due from the Allah-fearing.

2:181
If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change. For Allah hears and knows (All things).

[2:180] (Rashad Khalifa)
It is decreed that when death approaches, you shall write a will for the benefit of the parents and relatives, equitably. This is a duty upon the righteous.

[2:181] If anyone alters a will he had heard, the sin of altering befalls those responsible for such altering. GOD is Hearer, Knower.

I know this still doesnt answer your question about it being flawless, but it does answer your case in being equal with how you give your will.
Take care.
Peace Mcgre,

You said about 100,000 errors in Bible:

"ENOUGH ALREADY THESE ERRORS ARE *** TRANSLATION *** ERRORS THEY ARE NOT SOURCE ERRORS AS YOU SEEM TO CLAIM"

Then why look at the Quran translation and claim that it has an error while you reject the explanation of the verses from someone who knows Arabic?


You wrote:
"All you have done is ignored and dismissed obvious flaws by claiming that some day our understanding will permit us to understand better and see that there is no flaw. "
" there is this math problem that you don't fully understand yet but are sure that some day it will make perfect sense"

You have raised a question about inheritance and it has been answered by a scholar in a website, which has been provided to you.  If I were to study Arabic and contemplated verses myself, I would have provided you the answer myself.  However I am not at that position. The waiting is about verses that no one knows anything about such as the science related verses.  And I bet people like you used to fall for them until we figured out what they actually referred to as our knowledge increased.  Anyways, I do not base my faith whether I understand the whole Quran perfectly, because it is The Word.  Almost everytime I read it, I see yet another sign that it is definitely from The God.  And I do not think that this will ever change, because it is the greatest miracle ever given to mankind.

you wrote:
"Now I have to question why do you keep trying to divert me to talking about the Bible when the question is about flaws in the Quran?  Are you deliberately trying to hide or avoid something?"

I want to put things in perspective for you so that you may understand.  We have Quran telling us about our Creator, The messengers, The Hereafter, everything that we need to know to make sense about the whole creation, the fundamental information about our faith, in plain and simple language.  Then we are given condensed verses about the rest which are a challenge for us to seek the knowledge of.  On the other hand you have your book, where you are challenged to even figure out who your God is.  Instead of praising God for His Mercy that He has revealed the Truth to you to help you solve your dilemma, you reject it and challenge the condensed verses and inquiring that why the detailed information did not exist in the book.      

"Peace and Wisdom to all I pray..."

Do you know that prayer, asking God for wisdom to know the difference between what can be changed and what cannot, so that the supplicant could accept the ones that s/he couldn't change.  You need that wisdom to figure out what you should really worry about, whether the fact that you have nowhere in Bible Jesus (pbuh) claiming to be God, or that ...
 
<<Again with the categories and kinds of inheritance.  Tell me in Sura 4:11 and 12 where it says 2/3, 1/6 each and 1/8, exactly where does it say there are any categories or kinds of inheriting groups?  For something that is supposed to be so perfect and clear you still haven't produce a single verse confirming or even suggesting your "kinds and categories" of inheritances.>>
 
Do you really care?  You wanted an answer to your math question and you got it.  Then you are not satisfied with the method.  I believe that it is embedded in the language and I just do not have that science to point it out to you.  But even if I did, you would just create a reason to refute it.  God knows Best, but I think that is exactly why God put those verses in the Quran, to give an excuse to those who want to disbelieve.  If you want to disbelieve, God is not going to grant you the guidance.  That is the whole point.  You need to want to believe, then you can receive the guidance and see the Truth.  It is very interesting and I never thought that I would say that.  Because that is exactly the same argument Christians use to convince one to trinity.  Well, this also supports my answer about how I put things into perspective for you.  While I am trying to tell you how the math is done using categories, and you want full proof, the Christians try to convince Muslims to who their God is, and Muslims want the full proof.  If you were a risk analyst, which group would you like to be in, considering that you belive in Heaven and Hell?  Would you want to be with those who do not know their God for sure and require blind faith on something they do not have any clear proof, or with those who have got all the answers for a safe travel to Heaven.  As far as the verses that you get stuck, they are just a challenge to motivate you to get more knowledge to understand the glory of God. As your knowledge increases you will definitely appreciate them as the many verses already prove.
Salaam Hao (I rarely say that to any one by the way, I only say that to one fellow friend of mine),

I was really surprised when your wrote this:

< Would you want to be with those who do not know their God for sure and require blind faith on something they do not have any clear proof, or with those who have got all the answers for a safe travel to Heaven.  As far as the verses that you get stuck, they are just a challenge to motivate you to get more knowledge to understand the glory of God. As your knowledge increases you will definitely appreciate them as the many verses already prove.

I totally see Qu'ran in this light.  THere are so many proofs and many people claim to dismiss them even though they have been proven through science (even Qu'ran is not a science book,
but G-d created these laws)  Who would have known, 1400 years ago, that mountains are stabilizers for the earth?  Who would have known that the universe was created through a Big Bang?
Who would have known so many things dictated in the Qu'ran besides G-d, which resides all knowledge.  I bet if the the Christians books contained such knowledge they would uphold it as
their own proof, yet if it is in the other hands of another belief of G-d not of theres, its disregarded.

I would really like to figure out this math problem, as I know somehow it is solvable.  This is another point that you made that with more knowledge it confirms the Qu'ran as well as the belief in
G-d.  Science has proven it so many times.  Although many Christians disregard evolution, billions of years on the earth, and dinosaurs, when it is revealed, it falls into place with our beliefs.  THe more science unravels, the more it upholds our faith.  Do people actually believe with all the proofs from G-d in Qu'ran that He/She wouldn't be able to get a simple math problem corect (as Macgre said as well).  The Word from G-d
was bestowed upon Jesus, and we hold him in such a high regard, yet many do not know.

Take care.
Walaikumus salaam wa rahmatullah (and peace and blessings of God be upon you) Kollision,

This is how I should respond to you when you say salaam according to a tradition.

There is no math problem but a condensed verse which has taken a scholar a few pages to explain its meaning.  The answer is in the posted website (http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=14).  However Mcgre is not satisfied with the answer, because it eliminates his "math problem".  That reminds me of the story from the second chapter of Quran, Baqarah (Cow), where the Children of Israel are commanded by God to sacrifice a cow, but instead of doing it, they keep asking questions about the cow.  Instead of hearing and obeying, they keep asking Moses (pbuh) to ask his God about how the cow is suppose to be, like its colour, then its age, etc.  They make it look like they are really genuinely interested in doing the sacrifice better, however God tells us their true intention, that they almost did not sacrifice the animal, because they did not want to do it.  It is kind of similar here.  Mcgre is trying to convince us that he is genuinely interested in figuring out whether Quran is from God or not, so he is making inquiries to some questions.  As we come up or find the answers by God's Will, he keeps making more inquiries.  God Knows Best, but he is acting very similar to the Children of Israel, so I suspect that he is not really after the truth, but he just does not want to believe in it.  Forgive me Mcgree if I am wrong.  

The fact is that we are all taking an exam and everyone of us has different challenges.  Mcgre's challenge is probably one of the hardest, however the reward is also the greatest.  I am glad you made it thru Kollision, pray for me as I need it always.  Since your past sins are forgiven and become good deeds as you have chosen Islam, you are as free and pure as a new born.  What a great reward and may Allah (SWT) bless you with the best place in Paradise where you can witness God's Infinite Power and Beauty.

Wassalaam,

Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

Its nice to see that you know me so well, I wonder where you get this knowledge from...

My oldest daughter Megan speaks both English and French.  When she is counting in French she says all the numbers from 1 to 10 perfectly OK, but when she switched to English for months she would always miss the number 5.  No matter what I tried she was convinced she was right, she would say the word five when I asked her to, but when counting she would always skip it.  No matter how hard she tried to convince me that she was right I KNEW she was wrong and it wasn't simply a matter of subjective opinion, there is a 5 and it comes after 4 and before 6.

You may think you have "answered" my question, you have responded, just as my daughter responded, but your response doesn't answer or solve the original problem.

Read the verses in Arabic or English I don't care; if the Quran had simply said the male inherits twice the female then I would find it reasonable to assume that the remainder is divided according to those proportions.  But it didn't, it continued and assigned portions in different circumstances, and those portions don't add up right.

As it stands it mentions children first and it does not say that children inherit a portion of what remains after some other group has taken their inheritance.  But I do understand why some say that children inherit from what remains because it "solves" the math problem.  But I want to see something in the Quran that justifies that "interpretation".  So far I haven't seen anything, despite many attempts, so I am starting to think it is because there is no justification for that interpretation.

BTW I am noticing different English translations of the same Quranic verse, maybe now you can understand how the "errors" you say you find in the Bible may not be in the Bible rather only in a translation of the Bible.

Peace and Wisdom to all...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> While I am trying to tell you how the math is done using categories, and you want full proof, the Christians try to convince Muslims to who their God is, and Muslims want the full proof.  If you were a risk analyst, which group would you like to be in, considering that you belive in Heaven and Hell?  Would you want to be with those who do not know their God for sure and require blind faith on something they do not have any clear proof, or with those who have got all the answers for a safe travel to Heaven.  As far as the verses that you get stuck, they are just a challenge to motivate you to get more knowledge to understand the glory of God. As your knowledge increases you will definitely appreciate them as the many verses already prove.

After reading that I can see that you really don't understand me at all, most importantly you don't seem to see the distinction I make between faith and fact.  Nor do you seem to grasp the subjective nature of what is called "reasonable faith".

I believe in God, this is not a fact it is belief maintained by faith; I believe the way Jesus is represented in the Bible leaves no "reasonable" doubt that he is God in the flesh.

I can accept that you don't believe what I believe about Jesus, I can accept that you believe that God told Gabriel to give Allah the Quran.  What I can't accept is you stating as fact that the Quran is flawless and perfectly preserved.

All faith held beliefs are subjective, as I said before what one person finds reasonable an other considers unreasonable.  But statements of fact, such as "the Quran is flawless" CAN be OBJECTIVELY tested to see if the claim is true.  So I examined and tested, and as far as I am concerned the Quran has failed.  I am truly sorry if that causes you grief, but I would not like to be the sort of man that hides the truth simply because it is painful to someone (myself included).

Sincerely: Peace and Wisdom to all...
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> [4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female*. If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed. If only one daughter is left, she gets one-half. The parents of the deceased get one-sixth of the inheritance each, if the deceased has left any children. If he left no children, and his parents are the only inheritors, the mother gets one-third. If he has siblings, then the mother gets one-sixth. All this, after fulfilling any will the deceased has left, and after paying off all debts. When it comes to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is really the best to you and the most beneficial. This is GOD's law. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise

> Although it comes after the Children then disgnates the parents, since I dont know arabic, I wouldn't know what the real intent of the meaning was.  Theres already debate on how t odo Wudu based
on the arabic instructions.  However, if the 2/3rds were to apply to all women and not just the children, do you think it would work then?  I am not good at these fractions, so Im asking your opinion on
this, thanks.  

I don't know about you but I find this translation kinda odd.  I am suspicious of it but not being a language expert can only repeat what other language experts have said.  Rashad's translation is unique and I have read that he has been known to introduce words that are not in the original Arabic text.

What I find odd about it is that the verse begins by addressing the inheritance rules of children but contains a rule that applies to all inheritors.  We then see the rules for parents and in the next verse husbands and wives, etc.  It seems quite contrived to me, but my decision to suspect the translation you are using is based on the fact that he seems to be the only one who thinks it should be translated that way.

Furthermore, it creates considerable confusion, if the inheritors are only women then why do they only get two thirds of the inheritance?  Why not all?  There are no men, so why not simply give it all to the women; you can assign different shares to the wife(s), sister(s), daughter(s) and mother.  Sure the math may work now, but if you know that all the inheritors are women, why not divide ALL the inheritance among them.  The math problem is gone, but now I think you have replaced it with something worse...
Macgre,
I was not going to enter this question again...... but I have to...... for two reasons.......
1)   Please start another question maybe of 20 points so that it is easier for us to read the posts..... It takes about 10 min. for me to load this question.....
2)   Secondly I have answered this question(regarding Inheritence) many a times before here but you are still going with it....... Pleasssse read this carefully and tell me what you find hard to understand in this explaination..... It is simple logic and anyone who reads this unbiased will follow the reasoning....

Suppose someone says: "Distribute this money equally among your children; give one-third of it to your parents". Obviously the implication of this sentence is quite clear. It simply means that first, one-third of the total money should be given to the parents and the remaining amount (two-thirds of the total) should be distributed equally among the children. In the same way, if someone says: "Distribute this money among your children in such a way that each girl gets half of what each boy gets; give one-third of it to your parents and a quarter of it to your wife", it would simply mean that after giving one-fourth of the money to the wife and one-third to the parents, the remaining five-twelfths is to be distributed among the children in such a way that each boy gets the double of what each girl gets. It also means that if the person does not have either or both the parents and the wife, the total money would then be distributed among his children according to the given principle.

The directive of the Qur'an is quite similar to the above example statements. In a simplified form, it says that the deceased's children are to share the property on the principle that each male child gets double the share of each female child; parents are to get one-sixth each; and the deceased's wife is to be given one-eighth. This simply means that the deceased's mother, father and wife are to be given one-sixth, one-sixth and one-eighth of the total property respectively. The remaining balance (13/24th) shall then be distributed among the children according to the stipulated principle.


Imran Arshad....
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imarshad,

Everything you say is true, but the Quran says more than you.

It specifically allocates 2/3 of the total inheritance if there are two or more daughters and no sons.  It is THIS calculation that is flawed, not the one you mentioned.  If the Quran had not said that then there would be no flaw, but it is there and so the flaw remains...

I will open another thread called "Is the Quran flawless? (continued again)", I have don it yet so I don have the link, I will post it once I do.
Hi Macgre,


Ya you make sense, however I am already seeing differences regarding translations and yes I know about how he supposedly brings words that are not Arabic, however I am just trying to see if
things would work regarding the way he worded it.  Again since it is a translation and not The Qu'ran, same regarding the Bible.  We already according to Yusuf Alis version see a difference in regards
to Satan in his translation as always being a Jinn and in Rashads as becoming a Jinn, and at least Rashad gives an Arabic lesson to us whereas obviously Yusuf didn't.  I see more evidence via Rashad because
he actually explains the Arabic, where other translations we only rely on translations, and nothing more.  This is regardless of the 19, as I dont see it important as a reason to read Qu'ran or even to base a faith
on.

< Furthermore, it creates considerable confusion, if the inheritors are only women then why do they only get two thirds of the inheritance?  

I would say the same but I really dont know the answer so I am not going to provide you with one.  Probably the rest could go to charity?  I have no clue and probably even my speculation of the 2/3s is wrong as
well, just trying to see every possible avenue.

Imar, I should would like to see you do that problem he gave regarding the 100 dollars, and I havent seen Abdu anywhere.
Hello Mcgre,

>Its nice to see that you know me so well, I wonder where you get this knowledge from...

Quran is full of examples of the stories of old so that we might reflect and avoid falling for the same.  That is for everyone, not just you.  I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.  

You wrote:
> ... but I would not like to be the sort of man that hides the truth simply because it is painful to someone

Children of Israel probably were not trying to hide a truth, but just deny a truth.  If they believed that it was the truth, they would have heared and obeyed.  


You wrote:
>... the Quran has failed.  I am truly sorry if that causes you grief

I should grieve, if I cared about you even if you might be acting just like the Children of Israel who tried to delay the slaughter of the cow, because they did not really believe.


You wrote:
> I believe the way Jesus is represented in the Bible leaves no "reasonable" doubt that he is God in the flesh.

If you mean that he (peace be upon him) was The Word, I believe that too.  That is also what he (peace be upon him) said.  We have no disagreement there.  However I think you mean  trinity, that is where we deviate because of Quran, where everything is clearly explained and human beings are called to use their "reasoning" against trinity.  And that is not what you might call "subjective reasoning" , I would like to call that common sense.  

Now you raise another question... Where in Bible Jesus said that he was "God in Flesh"?


>..statements of fact, such as "the Quran is flawless" CAN be OBJECTIVELY tested to see if the claim is true

You are right, and that is the challenge of God to you  and all of us.  Yet, we have provided you with the answers, but they do not seem to satisfind your taste.  Here is what you wrote:

>...I do understand why some say that children inherit from what remains because it "solves" the math problem.  But I want to see something in the Quran that justifies that "interpretation". ...

For someone who believes a man is his god with no verse of that man claiming to be God in his own scripture, it is odd that you require "explanation of an explanation" to be "clearly" present in the text.  Do you think that this is a law book?  No Mcgre, it is neither a law book, nor a science book.  However if you want the Truth that is enough for salvation, stick to the verses, such as the ones plainly and clearly providing you the message that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham,.. (peace be upon them) are His messengers.

Peace
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> Children of Israel probably were not trying to hide a truth, but just deny a truth.  If they believed that it was the truth, they would have heared and obeyed.

In all kindness and respect, to assume that I am simply denying the "truth" is pure arrogance, and is VERY offensive!

Have you ever considered that having carefully thought things through that I may actually believe differently than you?  With a sincere devout heart even?

I have studied philosophy, and there I learned that there are precious few things that one can be 100% certain of, so we all have to decide what is reasonable.  I do not consider a God who cannot add fractions as reasonable; now combine that simple fact with your dual claim that the Quran is both flawless and perfectly preserved and I am left with no other choice but to reject your claims... all of them.

We are mere humans, I believe we can agree that there are truths about God that no man can comprehend.  So although I do not comprehend the Trinity I do accept by faith as revealed in the Bible that God is a Triune being.  If you insist that everything we believe make sense or is comprehensible then you must apply that to the Quran.  All parts must make sense to you, can you say that they do?

> For someone who believes a man is his god with no verse of that man claiming to be God in his own scripture

First: I do not require the words of the man himself to establish who he is.  I remember you telling me once that there is a chapter in the Quran that does not begin with, "In the Name of God" yet you still believe it is from God.

Second: In the Gospel of John chapter 1 verse 1 and verse 14 establish that the Word was God and that the Word was made flesh.

Third:  On several occaisions Jesus Jesus was treated as God and called God and he never denied it.  In more than one very clear example he was asked if he was the Son of God in the sense that he was God and he said YES!  The charge was levelled at him in the sense of, "Are you by claiming to be the Son of God making yourself equal with God?"  This was a very clear and distinct charge being made by the chief priests, and Jesus understood what they were asking and by answering the way he did he WAS saying "I AM GOD!".  Now this is Jesus the man himself speaking, and I know you are just going to say that it is an example of corruption... oh well I tried.

Now that is all I will say, if you want to talk about Jesus then open your own thread and invite me.  Otherwise please remember the title of this thread and STOP trying to avoid the question!
Hey Macgre can I ask you a questions, its off topic thugh.  I just wanted to know what you thought of a certain verse.  THanks.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

Sure, I guess, so long as it doesn't result in pages of off topic discussion...
Thanks Macgre,

Heres the verse I would like to know how you interpret it, thats all because I see this as Jesus having a god:

John 20:17 (NIV)
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

Hao,

What does this ayat (verse) from Qu'ran mean to you?

[43:86] (Rashad Khalifa)
None of those whom they idolize beside Him possess any power to intercede, unless their intercession coincides with the truth, and they fully know.

43:86 (Yusuf Ali)
And those whom they invoke besides Allah have no power of intercession;- only he who bears witness to the Truth, and they know (him).

What does "unless their intercession coincides with the truth" actually mean?  

Thanks guys.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

Not sure exactly what your question is, but I will tell you what I think it means/represents.

Jesus was made into flesh, as a man, all men are subject to God, Jesus had not reclaimed his full authority alongside God (not yet returned), so was still subject to God the Father as are all humans.

Hello Mcghe,

You misunderstood me again.  Let me try to undersatnd you clearly.

You wrote:
 >I do not consider a God who cannot add fractions as reasonable;

I thought you said that this was answered but you did not like the interpretation.  See below.

>...I do understand why some say that children inherit from what remains because it "solves" the math problem.  But I want to see something in the Quran that justifies that "interpretation". ...

I would appreciate if you shed some more light here.

You wrote:
>I do not require the words of the man himself to establish who he is.  I remember you telling me once that there is a chapter in the Quran that does not begin with, "In the Name of God" yet you still believe it is from God.

The book starts with a chapter that says that it is from God, I do not need it to be repeated at the beginning of every chapter.  And even so, how could you compare that making someone God while he eats and sleeps and ...  We are told in Quran that angels came down to earth in the form of men and they refused to eat.  Something that is not fitting to angels, how could it be fitting to God?  


> In the Gospel of John chapter 1 verse 1 and verse 14 establish that the Word was God and that the Word was made flesh.

Those are not the messenger's words, but a followers own interpretation.  Did Jesus (pbuh) say that?  Refer to OT and Quran and see how God says who He is, and how plain he says who he is.  For thousands of years the believers followed One God, and suddenly for a couple centuries we have some people trying to inject polytheism into the religion through Christianity, however very soon God sends His Final messenger with the Preserved Word, so that it is restored not to be changed again.

You wrote:
>All parts must make sense to you, can you say that they do?

I never claimed that I can understand the whole Quran, and that is not what God intended either, as He said that He would show His signs in the horizons until they become clear to us.  That is a continuos process, and we will keep finding verses that we cannot understand which could be understood only through study and research.  I prefer to have a clear concept of God based on solid clear plain Word and search for His Signs, then have a faith based on interpretations that might change from one to other.  

If the verse does not make sense it is only because of my own ignorance.  I do not think that people could make sense out of big bang verse centuries ago, but now they are able to.  And there was a website provided to you explaining how you could make sense out of inheritance related verses.  

It is intruiging how you make so many interpretations to make a god out of a man, while you cannot tolerate any room for interpretation in how to share a worldly gain.


You wrote:
> On several occaisions Jesus Jesus was treated as God and called God and he never denied it.  In more than one very clear example he was asked if he was the Son of God in the sense that he was God and he said YES!  The charge was levelled at him in the sense of, "Are you by claiming to be the Son of God making yourself equal with God?"  This was a very clear and distinct charge being made by the chief priests, and Jesus understood what they were asking and by answering the way he did he WAS saying "I AM GOD!".  Now this is Jesus the man himself speaking, and I know you are just going to say that it is an example of corruption... oh well I tried.<

Could not it be because he was The Word, and allowed people to show respect to what he said.  
Son was used to mean Servant those days, didn't you know?
And he might not have objected to Jews because he was the Word of God, so in that sense he was equal to God.  

His Word was of God, but that does not mean that he was God.
I am not saying corruption, just misinterpretation.  
 
Mcgre, God sent another revelation with Muhammed to help you solve the puzzle, and The Quran it is.

You wrote:
>Now that is all I will say, if you want to talk about Jesus then open your own thread and invite me.  Otherwise please remember the title of this thread and STOP trying to avoid the question!<

Thanks for the response Mcgre.  There is not really much to talk about, other than what has to the surface in this thread.  I am not avoiding the question, I wanted to give you the way I loook at things from my own perspective and thanks for sharing your perspective.  

I believe that you have been mocking God by saying that he could not do fractions, despite the fact that you have been provided with an asnwer, and I would not like to be in your place.  May God forgive you Mcgre.


 






Hello Kollision,

You wrote:
>What does this ayat (verse) from Qu'ran mean to you?

[43:86] (Rashad Khalifa)
None of those whom they idolize beside Him possess any power to intercede, unless their intercession coincides with the truth, and they fully know.

43:86 (Yusuf Ali)
And those whom they invoke besides Allah have no power of intercession;- only he who bears witness to the Truth, and they know (him).

What does "unless their intercession coincides with the truth" actually mean?  <


We are told in a hadith that Muhammed (pbuh) will plead for his people in the day of judgement.

There is a verse in Quran where you could interpret it to mean that Jesus (pbuh) will plead for his own people.  Are you aware of that verse?  Basically he asks forgiveness for his people for taking him as something he never said, God.

As far as the rest of the verse...  We are all tested by God showing us signs.  The way we react to these signs (our choices) define whether we deserve the forgiveness or not.  We all need to be forgiven since we can never deserve the Paradise and all we have is from God including Guidance.  However there are those who ask for forgiveness sincerely and try to mend their ways, and those who do not ask forgiveness at all and continue transgressing, as well as all the others in between.  Messengers intercede for their people, but the way their people have reacted to the signs of God defines whether the intercession coincides with the truth or not.  It will be oversimplifying, but if the servant has not followed the guidance from the messenger, he would not qualify to receive the intercession as the intercession would not coincide with the truth.  God Knows Best.

If you like an answer from a more qualified person, I could look it up.

Wassalaam,


Avatar of macgre

ASKER

hao64,

> I believe that you have been mocking God by saying that he could not do fractions, despite the fact that you have been provided with an asnwer, and I would not like to be in your place.  May God forgive you Mcgre.

I am not, nor would I ever mock God.  If anything I am trying to point out that God would be able to do simple fractions.  As such, it is my firm opinion that whoever wrote the Quran could not do simple fractions, but it was not God as I am certain that he can do simple fractions.

> And he might not have objected to Jews because he was the Word of God, so in that sense he was equal to God.

If equal then what are we arguing about?

> If the verse does not make sense it is only because of my own ignorance.

So then maybe the fact that God is beyond the comprehension of any man because he is a Trinity is yet another example of your own ignorance.  You seem willing to believe in the Quran even though it contains things you don't understand while rejecting Trinity because you don't understand; please be consistent!  Do you have to understand or don't you?

>  thought you said that this was answered but you did not like the interpretation.  See below.

You have answerd me but the answer is lacking any meaningful connection to the question.  The Quran does not teach groups or categories, claiming that as an answer is just replacing one mistake with an other.  It was never a question of "like", it was a question of is that really what the Quran is saying or is it a man made interpretation designed to avoid or cover up the error?


Let me try an experiment:

hao64 said, "Allah is a fool!"

Now I am certain that you will say that you didn't say that.  I know that, and you know that, but what of someone else when all the see is they written words "hao64 said, 'Allah is a fool!'"  How are they going to know you didn't say that?

Just becasue the Quran claims to be the Word of God is not sufficient reason to believe that it is!  Mohammed simply has to say "In the name of God I tell you that there is only one God and that Jesus is not the God!"  It takes faith to believe that the Quran is God's words and not just the words of the one man Mohammed...

Peace
Thanks Hao and Macgre for answering my questions.

Macgre,

So your viewpoint is that Jesus, since he was a flesh, had to worship G-d the Father?  That is how you view that?  The reason why it gets to me is because jesus is claiming
G-d as a seperate entity and that His G-d is the Peoples G-d as well, therefore saying they all worship the same G-d.  I am maming sense?  Heheh sorry if my words tumbled over
each other.

Hao,

So does that actually coencide with Jesus's "I am the Way the Truth and he Life, no man commeth to the father but by me?"  I dont agree with that but was that what you were
implying?  As for intercession, I thought it said that Jesus, Muhammad, etc. would speak against the people and disown them.  Doesnt it say the idols will disown their followers in the
Qu'ran?

THanks guys and take care.
Peace Mcgre,

you wrote:
>If equal then what are we arguing about?<

I said "in that sense equal," not equal in all aspects.  

>Trinity is yet another example of your own ignorance<

Not after the Quran, if it was not for Quran, you are right, I would be believing in it out of ignorance.


You wrote:
>hao64 said, "Allah is a fool!"<

This is as foolish as saying that god has a son.  And if I did not have Quran, you are right, I would have said that.


And here is my experiment:

You wrote:
>"In the name of God I tell you that there is only one God and that Jesus is not the God!" <

Yes Mcgre, exactly.  That is just the way it is.  That shows how you pick and choose you could make people believe in things, even if they have not meant that.  That was the transformation the Gospel of Jesus went through.  The trinitarians picked and chose as they wished.


By the way,  you wrote:
>You have answerd me but the answer is lacking any meaningful connection to the question.  

How could an answer not be connected to the question, and yet explains it.  


Peace Kollision,

>So does that actually coencide with Jesus's "I am the Way the Truth and he Life, no man commeth to the father but by me?"  I dont agree with that but was that what you were
implying?  As for intercession, I thought it said that Jesus, Muhammad, etc. would speak against the people and disown them.  Doesnt it say the idols will disown their followers in the
Qu'ran?

THanks guys and take care.<


When Jesus (pbuh) called people to God, his message was the only Right Path to be followed.  This is the case for every messenger.

If you look at what God says to the people through His Messengers, He tells them to make a covenant with Him to deserve His Mercy.  The messenger is the one who is given responsibility to convey the covenant to the people.  In the day of judgement, the messengers and the people who followed the covenant that they conveyed stand together.  And if you refer to the Quran, God asks Jesus (pbuh) if he has told his followers to take him as God, Jesus (pbuh) refuses that he has not said anything that he has no right to say, while he asks forgiveness for them.  It is up to God then to forgive or not.  On the other hand, there is the issue how well the followers abode by the covenant.  And that is when people would pass or fail depending on their performance.  That is true for everyone who is Muslim or among the people of the book.  God says in Quran to the Christians that it would be better if they did not say trinity.  So, that is definitely a warning to those who would stand behind Jesus (pbuh).  In reality Quran has superceded the previous revelations since God says that He has perfected the religion and chosen it Islam for us in Quran as well.  That is another command from God to follow Islam, and not Judaism or Christianity even though the source of the Scripture is the same, the most authentic source is the Quran.

Allah Knows Best.  
Salaam Hao,

    THanks for explaining what you meant, however I still have some questions.

<That is another command from God to follow Islam, and not Judaism or Christianity even though the source of the Scripture is the same, the most authentic source is the Quran.

But at the same time it says that be it the Jews, Christians, the sabians, the converts, any one who 1) believes in G-d, 2) believes in the hereafter 3) and lives a righteous life has nothing to fear nor will they
grieve.  It says this twice in the Quran, one being in chapter 5.  This tells us that not only "Muslims" (as to how we see it today, not actually the meaning) but other people can be saved if they meet these
requirments.  At the same time, if they follow these requirements, they are Muslim in the sense of the word as being a submitter.

However, do yo uthink this applies to Trinitarian Christians?  I was on another thread and I had to state that fact that G-d said for us to follow christians does not mean Trinitarians, as they go against
Qu'ran, as Qu'ran states against Idol Worship.  THere were and still is other christians that are unitarian and do not follow the trinitarian mindset of calling Christ a god.  

I agree that the judgement resides with G-d, but when it says that if idol worship is continued till death, its unforgivable, correct?

What is your thoughts on this?
And salaam to you Kollision,

I totally agree when you said that the judgement resides with The God.  

"be it the Jews, Christians, the sabians, the converts, any one who 1) believes in G-d, 2) believes in the hereafter 3) and lives a righteous life has nothing to fear nor will they
grieve.  "

These verses might refer to those both who lived in the past and those who has not received the message.  God also says in the Quran that He does not punish unless He sends messengers, and in another verse God says that He has sent a messenger to every nation... That does not really mean that all would be punished if they do not follow the True Guidance, since the guidance other than Quran was not protected as Quran has, so by the time the message could be corrupted as trinity has been inserted into the Christ's message.  

There are some scholars who argue that in this time and age, Islam could be accessed easily if one wants, hence that increases individual's responsibility to seek for it.  

So it is a complicated situation, one should choose the safest side, because The Punishment of God would be Severe, May God show His Mercy on us.

Yes, Qu’ran is flawless that’s what I believe and all the Muslims believe on this statement .As Allah says
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; (002.001)

Allah challenges all the people to make any verse like the Quran but since 14 centuries no one is able to do that even Arabs in that era who were very proud on their language Arabic, they could not do that as well. Allah challenges

"If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. (017: 88)

Further more Allah says that

“ (Their doom is) because Allah sent down the Book in truth but those who seek causes of dispute in the Book are in a schism far (from the purpose). (002:176)”


 Now tell me what is in your mind? What flaw did u find in Holy Qur’ran? I will try to remove your doubts and solve your confusion on the basis of your points
Regards
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

leo_online,

You have made similar posts in two parts of this thread.  I will not repeat my arguments, you will have to read them for yourself.  I will direct you to my comments on inheritance math, just do a search for the word math and go from there.

As for your most powerful language and no verse like it I have two things to say.  Delusion and vanity.

Who decided that Arabic was the most powerful language?  Are you aware that the earliest written copies of Qur'ran suffered from the imperfection of the written form of Arabic, your "most powerful language"?  It lacked vowels!  Diacritics were introduced to correct this. This is discussed in these threads as well, do a search on versions or variants and read from there.

As for the "verse like it" challenge who is the judge?  What are the rules?  I have read quantum physics text books that are more comprehensible than parts of the Quran; likewise I have read graceful poetry that makes the Quran seem silly and awkward.  Who are you to say my judgement is wrong?  What criteria or set of rules did you use to decide that I was wrong?  Is it not just your opinion which starts out with you believing that, "the Quran is perfect and there is nothing better than the Quran".  You have made up your mind before reading a single letter...

Finally your point on schisms, I am aware of schisms within Muslim belief.  There is the well known Shia and Sunni, there is all manner of contention about the Hadith, and lately there is a new group that refer to themselves as "Submitters" that openly declare that the Quran contains at least two corrupt verses.
hello macgre,

first of all let me clear that I haven't read the all matter just read n replying to your last n most recent post.I am sorting things out with points hope it would help u to understand or to give arguements.

1-let me know about the language which is older than Arabic and peoples still know how to speak that language:)

2-if you are supposed to be an expert in any field and someone challenges you than you yourself would be a judge in that case similarly peoples who consider themself good in arabic accepts the challenge and judged that there is nothing parallel to quran.

3-experts knows all the rules and regulations very well:) so it is supposed that nothing is hidden and all the basic and common rules applies

4-about your quantum physics let me know how old is that text book is and what about the author who wrotes that book ? moreoever in physics there are lots of disputes and almost every scientist have it's own laws and theory which may vary person to person

5-poetry have no comparison with quran because poetry is the creation of man and it's said to be good only for the temporary time period and usually the language of poetry and the poetry itself have no life & message as compare to the life of quran aswell as message.

6-about the opinion matter let me know about you, isn't it just your opinion that you consider yourself right? at this point alot of questions arose like do u know who made you? and do u know what's your final destiny? why you and other peoples are here? and what you beleive is right or wrong? I would not ask you to use your common sense but would recommend you to read books and beleive things.btw, I hope that you already know about the first person and the religion on the earth ..... I mean about "Hazrat Adam Alayai Salam" and the very first religion was Islam.

looking forward your postback:)
(No offense intended)
Hi again Macgre,

   As for Arabic, it is one of the hardest and most expressive languages in the world.  Its like comparing Hindi to English, but on a wider scale.  English is very limited compared to Arabic.  The translation of the Quran is not the same as its original form, just as the Bible isnt.  You cant get the exact message or meaning you do once something is translated, its a fact.  The poetry of Quran cant be judged unless you personally know arabic, classical arabic.  I watch a few christian shows and soem translate teh words and the meaning is off fromteh english translation of the Bible.  My point being is that you and I arnt reading the Bible or Quran unless we read it in its original context and language.  As for:

"Finally your point on schisms, I am aware of schisms within Muslim belief.  There is the well known Shia and Sunni, there is all manner of contention about the Hadith, and lately there is a new group that refer to themselves as "Submitters"that openly declare that the Quran contains at least two corrupt verses."

You are so far from the point.  No where in Quran does it mention about Sunni or Shia.  It only mentions Quran.  Yes there are divisions and Quran talks against it.  Its the same as if I were a Christian and accepted a new book for the NT.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

imnajam,

1) Try Tamil, Sanskrit, Finnish or Hebrew all at least 1000 years older than any known dialect of Arabic and the ancient versions are used and comprehended by the modern living people.

Now also consider languages like Greek and Latin.  A modern Greek can comprehend ancient Greek even though it is different.  That is 3,500 years of comprehensible language, in fact Greek and Latin were the languages of scholars for many hundreds of years...

2) Experts can be wrong...  it has happened before it will happen again.

3) Well then can you provide me a copy or a link to a copy of those rules?  I have tried to find them in the past but was unable to locate.

4) "in physics there are lots of disputes and almost every scientist have it's own laws and theory which may vary person to person".  So I guess you are saying that all Muslims are in 100% agreement about every idea expressed in the Quran?

5) I believe the Quran is the creation of a man, you believe it is from God.  I believe there are good reasons for my belief, reasons that no Muslim has yet been able to provide a reasonable explanation for.

Your answer also suggests that you have read very little poetry, some poetry is meaningless, some is intended to convey and teach great and important truths.

6) The difference is I understand that it is only just my opinion, and that has a imperfect human my opinions can be false.  So I must be ever diligent about what I choose to believe.

Most Muslims I have encountered equate their personal opinion that the Quran is the flawless word of God as a fact that the Quran is the flawless word of God.  The most common response to any challenge to that personal opinion is to simply restate that the Quran is the flawless word of God.  Most unconvincing...

kollision,

Tell me what language does God speak?  What language does God think in?  When God translates his thoughts into our human languages is the meaning somehow corrupted?!

You may say no because God is perfect, so he is able to perfectly translate his thoughts into any language!  So the act of translation does not inherently result in corruption, it depends on the quality of the translation.  This suggests that concepts are independent of language, so the same concepts can be represented in different languages!  So it shouldn't matter what language God actually speaks or reveals in, the concepts behind the words is what matters and this can be represented with different words in different languages.
Hi Macgre,

"Tell me what language does God speak?  What language does God think in?  When God translates his thoughts into our human languages is the meaning somehow corrupted?!

You may say no because God is perfect, so he is able to perfectly translate his thoughts into any language!  So the act of translation does not inherently result in corruption, it depends on the quality of the translation.  This suggests that concepts are independent of language, so the same concepts can be represented in different languages!  So it shouldn't matter what language God actually speaks or reveals in, the concepts behind the words is what matters and this can be represented with different words in different languages."

Mate we were talking on the subject of poetry, not the message.  Two different things.  Also Arabic is a more descriptive language.  If you know any other language besides english (arabic, spanish, french) you'll get my point.  
Also, no where did I say anything about corruption.  
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

So the challenge is not just can you make another verse like it, but can you make another classical Arabic verse like it.  Well I know for a fact that I won't be able to do that, nor would I be able to research that claim.  The simple fact is because it is a subjective belief, the adherents of which are so convinced that it can't be done and have taken the extra step to regard their initial belief as fact.

Who are the judges?  What are the rules and tests performed to determine that there is no better classical Arabic poetry then that found in the Quran?  So far the only rule I have seen is the simple declarative statement that the Quran's classical Arabic poetry is perfect.  If that is the case the challenge is empty, silly even, but not quite as silly as those who think it proves anything.  Let me explain:

If you simply DECLARE the Quran is the best then no matter what anyone else does the Quran will always win because the only rule is, "The Quran is the best".  However, if you say, "The Quran is the best BECAUSE it has no spelling mistakes".  Now you have something meaningful to test with!  So what are the tests that establish the Quran as the best?  Please note subjective tests, like the Quran is most beautiful or most elegant, etc. are no different than declarative statements, there is no meaningful way to test them.

I know some French, I have been married to a French woman for close to five years now... what I have learned from that experience is that sometimes a single Englsih word means the same thing as several French words and vice versa, but when all is said and done the concept is the same, the words used to describe it are different, but the idea is consistent.

I also took philosophy in university and we covered language in one of the courses.  What I learned there is that the meaning of even simple common words varies considerably from person to person and region to region even when the spoken/written words are identical!  This is because words represent thoughts, they are not the thoughts themselves but a means of representing them and communicating them.  I am translating my thoughts into English, typing/speaking them out, you read/hear them and translate them into your own thoughts which are at best interpretations of my thoughts.  That is the fundamental nature of communication in ANY language!  Even when you read the Quran you are translating the printed words into thoughts, what guarantee do you have that your translation actually represents what God intended?

Not knowing Arabic I can't say if it is more or less descriptive than English, but to date I have not found myself in a situation where I couldn't find Englsih words to describe my thoughts.

> Also, no where did I say anything about corruption.

What did you mean when you said the following then:

"English is very limited compared to Arabic.  The translation of the Quran is not the same as its original form, just as the Bible isnt.  You cant get the exact message or meaning you do once something is translated, its a fact.  The poetry of Quran cant be judged unless you personally know arabic, classical arabic.  I watch a few christian shows and soem translate teh words and the meaning is off fromteh english translation of the Bible."

If you "cant get the exact message or meaning you do once something is translated" then ALL translations are corrupt in some way or form, including any and all English translations of the Quran.

PS I strongly suspect that English is not your native tongue, maybe what is "very limited" is your comprehension of the English language and not the language itself.
Hey Macgre,

        About English, it is my native tongue.  However I have learned Hindi and all I can say is that it is way more descriptive than english.  THere are also some things that cannot be easily translated.  When Im speaking about language, what I am saying is that since it is not being read from its original source (Quran, Bible, etc) then non of us know its real meaning.  Yes we can get the general meaning but not hte entire because its not in the language it was composed in.  I have read several translations of Quran and some have very different translations because of the way the Author of that translation interpreted it himself.  One example is the word "Ummy" that could be used as "Gentile" or "Illiterate", another reason why many scholars say he was illiterate (which I dont buy).  Right there there is already a conflict.  Even in its original language.  So how can we expect to understand what it says in plain english when even some Muslims cant get it straight on whether its Illiterate or Gentile?  In quran however it mentions Ummy as a gentile because it uses that word when it compares the gentiles to those who know the Scriptures.  So that one can easily be solved.  However if this problem arises here, imagine if there is any less or more deviations of the text.

      The Bible, Quran, whatever that is in its original language and then translated is just that, a translation, not the original scripture.  Now Im not stating that QUran poetry is the best or not, Im not stating this from a religious standpoint.  It is just the facts.  When it comes to religion, the same applies to me as well.
Avatar of macgre

ASKER

kollision,

> I have read several translations of Quran and some have very different translations because of the way the Author of that translation interpreted it himself.

Exactly!  Not just the author but the reader as well!

> One example is the word "Ummy" that could be used as "Gentile" or "Illiterate"

Excellent example!  It clearly illustrates the point that often the meaning of words is modified by the context.  This is most problematic when dealing with a word that can have more than one meaning depending on the context.  AFAIK *** ALL *** languages have this problem, that is a word that by itself can mean different things and it is only by INTERPRETING the context that the intended meaning can even be guessed at.

The Quran and Arabic, classical or otherwise is no different.

BTW If your standard of perfection is a complete lack of ambiguity then the Quran fails, why else do some say Illiterate and others (like you) say Gentile?  Aside from interpreting based on context (which is highly subjective) is there any way to know for certain which meaning is intended?
Hey Macgre,

< BTW If your standard of perfection is a complete lack of ambiguity then the Quran fails, why else do some say Illiterate and others (like you) say Gentile?  Aside from interpreting based on context (which is highly subjective) is there any way to know for certain which meaning is intended?

True you say that and I for one say its perfect for myself, and I am not going to say it is for others.  Even if I did know the exact arabic text, I still wouldnt say it for respect of other peoples religion or opinions.  However for the word "Ummy", it makes perfect sense (to me that is) that it means gentile as for every other translation of the word it means gentile.  It is used when comparing Believers versus Non Believers.  It wouldnt make sense IMO if it compared a Believer with someone who couldnt read or write.  Also Muhammad was a trader so he had to know how to write especially since that area was booming with trading.  A lot of the Qu'ran pertains to that time or era as well as this time.  For example when it mentions the Pagans it does work for today, but mainly it is speaking about the people of that time that persecuted Muhammad and his believers because of their beliefs.
Ooo forgot to put this in.  I believe they made it say Illiterate in the translations because the Muslims wanted to make it look like a miracle for Muhammad.  They question what was his miracle and the only thing it was was to bring the Quran.  They want to make things look so big so that they can win people.  Thats just my opinion.  Also my opinion is that Jesus did more miracles because the QUran talks about how he could talk from birth, create life, and more through permission of G-d.  
Macgre >>>As for the "verse like it" challenge who is the judge?  What are the rules?  I have read quantum physics text books that are more comprehensible than parts of the Quran; likewise I have read graceful poetry that makes the Quran seem silly and awkward
You say that no one can write, speak, or speech in another&#8217;s style. Every one has different style of writing like Shakespeare, Iqbal>they both have different and unique styles and no one can follow that but that doesn&#8217;t mean Quran when it challenges that no one can write a book like Quran actually it means that no one have or write a book with the same dignity and importance. Quran is actually a miracle on the basis of its language importance and its topic.
ITS LANGUAGE: -
Quran is a supreme piece of literature in its language (Arabic) since 14 centuries still there is no other book as polished as it is .In Quran on several places the same topic is repeated but every time it is different in style without repetition of words. It is a fact that since 14 centuries Arabic language is same. There is no word, which is forsaken and abolished on the contrary we know that language changes, it form, it alphabets, proverb, grammer, vocabulary.  But it is the power of Quran that keeps the Arabic language as it was before 14 centuries. It keeps this language unshaken. Tell me is there another book found n the world as eloquent and polished as Quran.
ITS TOPIC: -
It covers a vast topic and effective on culture, civilization, ethics, thoughts, political and economical and social body of a society first it changes the people of Arabia then it changes the perspectives of a great number of people in all over the world. This book is not only written on the papers but also learned by heart by the thousands so people. And also it is in the form of practice. People spend their lives according to The Quran&#8217;s words, it built a constant civilization and constructs the thoughts and this is in process since 14 centuries. Quran talks from the beginning of the world till its end. It talks about the reality of universe, how universe starts and how it will end, it&#8217;s laws and regulations. It tells us that who is the creator and administrator of this universe and His authority. Then discusses about the origin of life and the creation of man. Why man is created? What are his responsibilities and then tells that which way leads him toward the heaven and which way leads him towards hell? And what is man&#8217;s actual destination? It also points out that what temptations lead the man towards evil? Quran also guides towards the right path It actually introduces the whole system of life. It is actually the manual of life which includes believes, ethics, worships, social values, civilization, economic, politic, law and justice etc.
It tells us about the life hereafter where man has to answer the God about his deeds and acts .All these information&#8217;s given by Quran are based on reality they r not just false theories. Writer knows about this and watching us from the beginning whole world is like a board of chess to Him.
Now another point, as u knows that there are so many theories of science in Quran. Quran says those theories before 14 centuries but now modern science proves it. It told the whole process of child&#8217;s birth  (no ultra sound and x ray was invented) and now science proves that. Quran told that earth revolves around the sun and sun is also moving (there were no microscope) Today Science accepts the same theory. Quran gives the detail of big bang and scientists give this theory now. What Quran said before 14 centuries is now work as a base of modern science and philosophy. Don&#8217;t compare the information given by Quran to the Bible. The people who never saw Jesus and never saw his companions also write Bible r not the words of God it is written after the 2 centuries of Jesus even not by his companion&#8217;s .it. Isn&#8217;t it a joke? On the contrary this is absolutely wrong to say that Quran is written after the death of Holy Prophet (PBUH) it was in written form on the leaves of palm on the pieces of wood etc and also learned by heart by the thousands of people and if u have some knowledge about the Arabs then u should also know that Arabs had the extra ordinary quality to keep the things in their memory.
 This is that&#8217;s all now if u still have any confusion then there is a verse of God for the people like u. As Allah says in Quran,
&#8220;16. And among them are men who listen to thee, but in the end, when they go out from thee, they say to those who have received Knowledge, "What is it he said just then?" Such are men whose hearts Allah has sealed, and who follow their own lusts.
17. But to those who receive Guidance, He increases the (light of) Guidance, and bestows on them their Piety and Restraint (from evil).
18. Do they then only wait for the Hour,- that it should come on them of a sudden? But already have come some tokens thereof, and when it (actually) is on them, how can they benefit then by their admonition?
19. Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and for the men and women who believe: for Allah knows how ye move about and how ye dwell in your homes.
20. Those who believe say, "Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?" But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
21. Were it to obey and say what is just, and when a matter is resolved on, it were best for them if they were true to Allah.
22. Then, is it to be expected of you, if ye were put in authority, that ye will do mischief in the land, and break your ties of kith and kin?
23. Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for He has made them deaf and blinded their sight.
24. Do they not then earnestly seek to understand the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up by them?
25. Those who turn back as apostates after Guidance was clearly shown to them,- the Evil One has instigated them and busied them up with false hopes.
26. This, because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter"; but Allah knows their (inner) secrets.
27. But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?
28. This because they followed that which called forth the Wrath of Allah, and they hated Allah.s good pleasure; so He made their deeds of no effect.
29. Or do those in whose hearts is a disease, think that Allah will not bring to light all their rancour?
30. Had We so wiled, We could have shown them up to thee, and thou shouldst have known them by their marks: but surely thou wilt know them by the tone of their speech! And Allah knows all that ye do.
Surah Muhammad (PBUM)

At another place Allah says the same thing in surah kahaif

And We do not send messengers but as givers of good news and warning, and those who disbelieve make a false contention that they may render null thereby the truth, and they take My communications and that with which they are warned for a mockery. And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them and forgets what his two hands have sent before? Surely We have placed veils over their hearts lest they should understand it and a heaviness in their ears; and if you call them to the guidance, they will not ever follow the right course in that case.
 Again in surah  Qasas
Say: Then bring some (other) book from Allah which is a better guide than both of them, (that) I may follow it, if you are truthful. But if they do not answer you, then know that they only follow their low desires; and who is more erring than he who follows his low desires without any guidance from Allah? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

In the end I know and I m 100% sure that u still don&#8217;t accept that Quran is flawless because if u accept this then on the second step u r afraid that whether u have to follow that also any way this was the last reply to u from me .  the answers by Hao were excellent but I think u r in those people to whom Allah placed veils over their heartsand in those for whom Allah says that he does not guide the unjust people.
Regards
Leo online