Can everyone say, “We are NOT oppressed?”
Fundamentalist Fun
This one’s called Sexy Burqa Girls. NOT.
Breast-Feeding a Man in Islam in order to be in the same room with him legally.
Is it acceptable in Islam for a woman to breast-feed a man then stay with him legally in one room?
Muslim women frequently work with men in the same offices, with the inevitable possibility that a woman may find herself sitting alone in the same room with one or more of her male colleagues, which, in Islam, is a grave sin. Some of these women are deeply religious, but they need to work. Both the state and the society are forcing these women to sin without doing anything about i
The issue of breast-feeding men is currently a hot topic in Egypt and has been the focus of the media in many Middle Eastern countries. It all started when Dr. Izzat Attya who is the head of the department of Hadith in Al-Azhar, which is the world’s most prestigious Islamic University, issued a fatwa, or religious opinion. The fatwa declared that, it is legitimate for a working Muslim woman to breast-feed her male colleague to avoid the sin of ‘khulwa’ (staying with a stranger in one room). Similar fatwas had been issued in the past by many sheikhs in many Middle-Eastern countries, but this is the first time it comes from a high level academic of Al-Azhar. ISLAM-WATCH.ORG
“My sister and I sometimes ask my mom, ‘Why didn’t you breast-feed our boy cousins, too?’ ” Shaden continued.
She was referring to a practice called milk kinship that predates Islam and is still common in the Persian Gulf countries. A woman does not have to veil herself in front of a man she nursed as an infant, and neither do her biological children. The woman’s biological children and the children she has nursed are considered “milk siblings” and are prohibited from marrying.
“If my mom had breast-fed my cousins, we could sit with them, and it would all be much easier,.” NY TIMES
SEX AND THE SAUDI

The separation between the sexes in Saudi Arabia is so extreme that it is difficult to overstate. Saudi women may not drive, and they must wear black abayas and head coverings in public at all times. They are spirited around the city in cars with tinted windows, attend girls-only schools and university departments, and eat in special “family” sections of cafes and restaurants, which are carefully partitioned from the sections used by single male diners.
Well-brought-up unmarried young women here are so isolated from boys and men that when they talk about them, it sometimes sounds as if they are discussing a different species.
At Prince Sultan University, where Atheer Jassem al-Othman, 18, is a first-year law student, a pair of second-year students recently spent a mid-morning break between classes showing off photographs of themselves dressed as boys.
In the pictures, the girls wore thobes, the ankle-length white garments traditionally worn by Saudi men, and had covered their hair with the male headdresses called shmaghs. One of the girls had used an eyeliner pencil to give herself a grayish, stubble-like mist along her jaw line. Displayed on the screens of the two girls’ cellphones, the photographs evoked little exclamations of congratulation as they were passed around.
“A lot of girls do it,” said an 18-year-old named Sara al-Tukhaifi who explained that a girl and her friends might cross-dress, sneaking thobes out of a brother’s closet, then challenge each other to enter the Saudi male sphere in various ways, by walking nonchalantly up to the men-only counter in a McDonalds, say, or even by driving.

H/T http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
“It’s just a game,” Ms. Tukhaifi said, although detention by the religious police is always a possibility. “I haven’t done it myself, but those two are really good at it. They went into a store and pretended to be looking at another girl — they even got her to turn her face away.”

H/T http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
Grinning, Ms. Tukhaifi mimicked the gesture, pressing her face into the corner of her hijab with exaggerated pretend modesty while her classmate Shaden giggled. Saudi newspapers often lament the rise of rebellious behavior among young Saudis. There are reports of a recent spate of ugly confrontations between youths and the religious police, and of a supposed increase in same-sex love affairs among young people frustrated at the strict division between the genders.
Related Videos: women
237 Comments

Yes thats true that milk kinship is allowed in Islam but it is allowed till the baby is 24 months old and the picture shown above is not of a baby!!! milk kinship could not be achieved or gained once the baby turns 24 month or max 30 months old, the above picture is either fake or being wrongly related to ISLAM since Islam forbids and prohibis all these illegal relationships. there are bad people in all the faiths then why only Islam is being victimised or termed a bad religion. only Islam is the religion which gives extreme respect to the women.
SALMAN LAKHANI,,YOU’RE THE BIGGEST IDIOT I’VE RAN ACROSS IN THE LONGEST TIME,,” ISLAM GIVES EXTREME RESPECT TO WOMEN? ?? ARE YOU SMOKING SOME OF YOUR OWN POPPYS OR ARE YOU JUST AN IDIOT NATURALLY ? ISLAM IS A DISGRACE TO WOMEN AND TREATS WOMEN AS ANIMALS,,NO,I’M WRONG,,MUSLIM MEN TREAT THEIR ANIMALS “BETTER” THAN THEY TREAT THEIR WOMEN.YOU ARE SUCH A WASTE OF A HUMAN BEING IT ISN’T EVEN FUNNY !!
Jeremiah, are you on active duty now? In any case, thanks for your service and your comment to Salman.
YES SIR / Ma’am,,, I AM RETIRED MILITARY, HOWEVER,MY SON AND DAUGHTER ARE ACTIVE DUTY AND HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND LITTLE GIRLS AND EVEN LITTLE BOYS COMMITED BY PEOPLE SUCH AS THAT “SALMAN LAKHANI “HADJI’ MORON. ITS EXTREMELY “OBVIOUS” HE IS AS EVIL , IGNORANT AND DISGUSTING AS HIS FALSE PHOPHET MOHAMMAD. I SERVED IN VIETNAM-4 TOURS,NOV.1969 THRU NOV 1973.THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS SERVICE TO “EDUCATE REAL AMERICANS THAT DO CARE” AND WOULD OTHERWISE NEVER KNOW OF THE HORRIFIC CRIMES COMMITED AGAINST “INNOCENTS” IN THE NAME OF “THEIR EVIL,DASTARDLY AND DISGUSTING FALSE PHOPHET-”ALLAH”,,SINCERELY,,JEREMIAH
P.S. SORRY IF MY LANGUAGE SOMETIMES GETS “ROUGH”,I JUST GO “ASIATIC” WHEN I SEE WHAT SOME IDIOTS PRINT AND EXPECT ‘RATIONAL,EDUCATED AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE TO THINK IS TRUE.ESPECIALLY “US” THAT HAVE SEEN THE HORRORS OF WAR FIRSTHAND.THANK YOU AGAIN FOR PROVIDING THIS SERVICE !!
Jeremiah aka AmericanSoldier, thank you and your family so much for the great sacrifice that so many other Americans take for granted. My husband served in Vietnam too, as a US Marine, and he told me how he was spat on and called babykiller when he returned to the States wearing his uniform. I’m sure you experienced similar. I pray that your children never have to witness that.
I don’t hate all Muslims, but I do hate the fact that over a billion non-violent Muslims refuse to speak out en masse and condemn the terrorists. When was the last time you saw huge demonstrations in the streets of the US or Europe by Muslims denouncing their terrorist brothers? NEVER. All we see are Muslims condemning Israel and the US.
Jeremiah, feel free to say anything you want here, without reservation. I allow Muslim to call me names and criticize what I’m doing here. So you certainly shouldn’t hesitate to vent your feelings.
Jeremiah, Jeremiah aka american solidier !! this for sure that Islam is the only religion which do gives extreme respect to women, remember before saying anything false against ALLAH SWT, that the GOD of Jesus is ALLAH also, for reference see
A) “Prefer using name ‘Allah’ rather than the word ‘God’ as the word ‘God’ can be played around with. Allah in the Bible – Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani
i) Mark 15:34
ii)Mathew 27:46.”
B) Jesus (pbuh) not God. He never claimed Divinity
i) Al-Qur’an 5:72
ii) John 14:28
iii) John 10:29
iv) Mathew 12:28
v) Luke 11:20
vi) John 5:30
vii) Acts 2:21
C) Abstaining from alcohol
i) Al-Qur’an 5:90
ii) Proverbs 20:1
iii) Ephesians 5:18
D) Pork is prohibited
i) Leviticus 11:7-8
ii) Deuteronomy 14:8
iii) Isaiah 65:2-5
E) Dressing Modestly
i) Al-Qur’an 24:30
ii) Al-Qur’an 24:31
iii) Mathew 5:27-28
F) There are Six Criteria for Hijab in Islam which can also be verified through following references of bible
i) Deuteronomy 22:5
II) Timothy 2:9 e.g. of Mary
iii) Corinthians 11:5-6
G) Circumcision
i) Acts 7:8
ii) John 7:22
iii) Luke 2:21
Now the question is that if christianity or judaism gives extreme respect to women that what about the american or western solidiers who abused women in Iraq and Afghanistan, they treated the women even worse than they treat their animals!!! united states of america is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the world. it also has one of the highest rates of rape in any part of the world. according to a FBI report every day on an average more than 1900 cases of rape are being committed in USA alone!!!
Islam gave the right to the women to inherit, centuries ago.
If you read the Qur’an – in several verses, in Surah Nisa, in Surah Baqarah and in Surah Maidah, it is mentioned that a woman irrespective, she is a wife or she is a mother, or a sister, or a daughter, she has a right to inherit – And it has been fixed by Allah (SWT) in the Qur’an.
Let us go further and analyze the social rights of a women in Islam.
Broadly it can be categorized into four sub-headings… Social rights given to a daughter, to a wife, to a mother and to a sister.
Coming to the social rights given in Islam, to a daughter – Islam prohibits, female infanticide – The killing of female children is forbidden in Islam
It is mentioned in Surah Taqveem, Ch. 81, Verse No. 8 and 9, ‘when the female child is buried alive and when she questions you, for what crime was she killed’.
Not only female infanticide has been prohibited, all sorts of infanticides has been prohibited in Islam, whether it be a male child or a female child.
It is mention in the Qur’an in Surah A’nam Ch.6, Verse No.151 that, ‘Kill not your children for want of sustenance for it is Allah that will provide sustenance for you and for children’
A similar thing is mentioned in Surah Isra, Ch.17 Verse No.31 which says… ‘Kill not your children for want of sustenance, for it is Allah that will provide sustenance to you and your children, for killing of children is a major sin’.
In the pre-Islamic Arabia, whenever a female child was born mostly she was buried alive.
Alhamdullillah, after the spread of Islam this evil practice has been discontinued.
But unfortunately it still continues in country like India which is a non Islamic state- According to a BBC report, in the programe assignment the title of which was ‘Let Her Die’, there was a British reporter by the name of Emily Beckenen, who came all the way from Britain to India to give the statistics of the female infanticide.
In that programe, it gives the statistics, that every day more than 3,000 fetuses are being aborted on being identified that they are females
If you multiply this figure by the number of days, that is multiplied by 365, you get a figure of more than one million female fetuses are being aborted every year in our country.
Let us analyze, the rights of a wife in Islam.
All the previous civilizations, they have considered the women to be an ‘instrument of the devil’.
The Qur’an refers to the women as ‘Mohsana’, that is a ‘fortress against the devil’.
And if a woman, who’s good, marries a man, she prevents him from going on the wrong path and keeps him on the ‘Siratulmustakeem’ – that is the correct path.
When the Prophet said that… ‘When you marry you complete half your deen’ – It means that when you marry it shields you from promiscuity, it shields you from fornication, it shields you from homosexuality, which lead to half the sin in this world
Only when you marry, do you have opportunity to become husband or a wife – Only when you marry do you have opportunity to become a father or a mother. and see what the people in west are doing they are living without being married with each other committing adultery which is also forbidden in christianity see reference;
Abstaining from Adultery
Al-Qur’an 17:32
So Jeremiah better not to call urself a fool and an idiot which u truly are, and see the quoted references above from bible.
JEREMIAH: YOU’RE THE BIGGEST IDIOT & ISLAM GIVES EXTREME RESPECT TO WOMEN OK & YOU SMOKING SOME OF YOUR OWN POPPYS OR ARE YOU JUST AN IDIOT NATURALLY. ISLAM IS A RESPECT TO WOMEN OK.
Listen Jeremiah!
If you are not fool,as a rational person read all religions first then go to judgement,and I as a Muslim Invite you to realize and then come to the religion of Justice,peace and salvation which is Islam and beleive by abusing against Islam you cant do anything,wish one day see you as a muslim.
Title of play: Islam
Actor: Sexy Allah
Producer, Editor and Director: Peadophile Muhammad
Theme: To abuse women and chid
Salman,
Perhaps you’re right about milk-kinship but that’s more a matter between you and Dr. Izzat Attya isn’t it? If you are looking for a serious debate you should look for someone besides Jeremiah and if you want to complain that Islam is being ridiculed you’ve come to the wrong place as well. If you want you can find places where Islam is faulted without the vulgarity, or is it that Islam is questioned at all that disturbs you? Now let me comment on your theological points in the order you gave them:
A) There is no problem letting God and Allah be synonyms (one English one Arabic for the same meaning,)
as long as it’s agreed upon that they may serve that purpose.
B) The example that you gave of John 10:29 is followed by verse 30 which reads” “I and my father are one.” When this was heard they wanted to stone him and Jesus then asked them for what good work of his did they wish to stone him, to which they replied (verse 33) “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” In the chapter before at 9:37 Jesus asks a man if he believes in the Son of God. When the man asks who that would be, Jesus replies: “Thou has both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.” Later on when Jesus is on trial it is the very same claim that gets him convicted of blasphemy only he goes further. They ask if he is the Christ and he answers. “I am: and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Muslims may think that is no claim to divinity but the Jews of the time who knew the Scriptures Jesus was quoting understood very well that he was unmistakably claiming divinity.
C) There is no objection to abstaining from alcohol. Nevertheless, there are too many references to drinking wine being permitted in the Bible (The wedding at Cana just to name one,) to not conclude that modest and temperate imbibing of wine was allowed. Intoxication, especially habitually is another matter.
D) You need to read further and find Acts 10:9-16. Peter a Jew, was shown he was no longer under obligation to Jewish dietary laws. Gentiles were never instructed to keep those dietary laws.
E) There is nothing modest about a woman being dressed in a uniform designed to disguise her entirely. It in fact looks rather conspicuous and ostentatious. Modest dress means not making a spectacle of oneself.
F) Whatever “Hajib” may in some way comply with the Bible, Islam is on the whole not compatible with what the Bible teaches. That stands out rather more clearly, as my next example demonstrates:
E) Again you need to read further in the Book of Acts to chapter 15.
As you go on you lament that there is a lot of immorality in the ‘West’. It is a bit confusing however because you appeal to Christianity as what the West is failing to abide by. Its true, however I don’t see how that is some kind of recommendation for Islam. Or do you think that even if people live as proper Christians they are still in need of becoming Muslims? Your cohort Sadat evidently thinks so. He wrote: “…Invite you to realize and then come to the religion of Justice,peace and salvation which is Islam..” How do you expect people to believe Islam is about justice and peace? Because Muslims say it is? Haven’t you heard the expression actions speak louder than words? As for salvation I can only wonder what the word means to Muslims. Since you are capable of citing the Bible you ought to be able to find the parts in it that explain what salvation means to Christians and how they receive it. What does a Muslim claim is needed to receive salvation and why should anyone believe it over contrary explanation of how salvation is received? Because of a man name Muhammad? Who was he that anyone should take his word on anything?
Ernest
Its nice to see someone like you who talks with reference to bible rather than abusing Islam for nothing. Izzat Attiya is not an authority in Islam this should be clear in everyone’s mind nor do any of the Muslims follow her verdicts. now as far as debate is concerned it was Jeremiah who abused Islam, secondly whosoever and wherever anyone fabricate things about Islam and would falsely present the teachings of Islam Allah willing i will come forward to raise my voice with due responsibility. now i would like to answer some of the theological questions raised by you point wise and with due references;
I further like to elaborate what do Islam teaches us about the Prophets in particular Jesus peace be upon him (pbuh)
I
Position of Jesus (pbuh) in Islam:
(i)
Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh).
AL QURAN chapter # 2 verse # 285
(ii)
We believe that he was amongst one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).
(iii)
We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.
(iv)
We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).
(v)
We believe that he gave life to the dead with Allah’s permission.
(iv)
We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with Allah’s permission.
Now concept of GOD in Christianity;
1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity
One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, “I am God” or where he says, “worship me”. In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh):
(i) “My Father is greater than I.”
[The Bible, John 14:28]
(ii) “My Father is greater than all.”
[The Bible, John 10:29]
(iii) “…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God….”
[The Bible, Mathew 12:28]
(iv) “…I with the finger of God cast out devils….”
[The Bible, Luke 11:20]
(v) “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”
[The Bible, John 5:30]
2.
The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) – to Fulfill the Law
Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by ALLAH to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
[The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]
3.
ALLAH Sent Jesus’ (pbuh)
The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:
(i)
“… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.”
[The Bible, John 14:24]
(ii)
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.”
[The Bible, John 17:3]
4.
Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity
Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:
“And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’
And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ ”
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]
Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty ALLAH or worship him as ALLAH, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).
5.
Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth – a Man Approved of ALLAH
The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of ALLAH.
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.”
[The Bible, Acts 2:22]
6.
The First Commandment is that ALLAH is One
The Bible does not support the Christian belief in trinity at all. One of the scribes once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:
“Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad.”
This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:
“Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.”
[The Bible, Mark 12:29]
It is striking that the basic teachings of the Church such as Trinity and vicarious atonement find no mention in the Bible. In fact, various verses of the Bible point to Jesus’ (pbuh) actual mission, which was to fulfill the law revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh). Indeed Jesus (pbuh) rejected any suggestions that attributed divinity to him, and explained his miracles as the power of the One True God.
Jesus (pbuh) thus reiterated the message of monotheism that was given by all earlier prophets of Almighty God.
NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.
III
CONCEPT OF GOD IN OLD TESTAMENT:
1.
ALLAH (God) is One
The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):
“Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad”.
It is a Hebrew quotation which means:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]
2.
Unity of God in the Book of Isaiah
The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:
(i)
“I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.”
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]
(ii)
“I am Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me.”
[The Bible, Isaiah 45:5]
(iii)
“I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.”
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]
3.
Old Testament condemns idol worship
(i)
Old Testament condemns idol worship in the following verses:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]
(ii)
A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:
“Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”
“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth.”
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.”
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]
Next time Insha Allah (ALLAH WILLING) i will submit a wrtie up with some references about adultery, abstaining from alcohol and six criterias of Hijab. look forward to have your reply soon.
Salman:
I’ll concede your point on why you comment here, and apologize for asking. I shouldn’t have wondered as I could just as well wonder why I would bother replying to you. Could I change your mind even a little? I suspect you would say to yourself no. The point being if you are unwilling to doubt your beliefs, just imagine your opponent with the same disposition. You think he should believe you, but if he thinks it is you who should believe him you have a stalemate. You may not think your opponent is as convinced as you are, but if you think about it that hardly matters. The confidence you have that you are right is no indication that you are right. It isn’t how deeply convinced anyone is that matters. The TRUTH is what matters. Being deeply convinced of a lie is worse than believing the truth far less confidently.
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If you had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”
–John 14:6-11
The “works” spoken of are the miracles including those you say Muslims agree took place. That much we have no dispute about, but what of the passage overall? Is it one Muslims accept? This raises the question of what in the Bible Muslims do accept and don’t accept. I presume the passages you cite are ones that are accepted, but Christians must reconcile ALL the Bible — every passage to every other.
I asked you who is Muhammad that anyone should follow him. You did not answer that question. You also didn’t answer what salvation means to Muslims. I left it for you to learn for yourself from your own Bible reading what salvation means to Christians. The word for “salvation” in Hebrew is “yeshua”.Yeshua is also his name. Jesus is a Greek version of Yeshua. So you see, salvation/yeshua is the very core issue of Christianity. In the first chapter of Matthew beginning at the 21st verse it’s told an angel came to Joseph in a dream telling him this: “And she shall bring forth a son,. and thou shalt call his name Jesus (Yeshua) for he shall save his people from their sins.” Immediately in verses 22 and 23 Matthew adds this: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying (23) Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us.” The prophet was Isaiah and you can find the passage in Isaiah 7:14.
You claim nowhere in the Bible does Jesus unequivocally say he is God, which is really just another way of saying what is said that points to it isn’t good enough for you. You demand an unequivocal declaration. Lets suppose words in the Bible could be shown that you could not wiggle past; words that were absolutely unequivocal. Would you believe it? No. You would want to conclude those words were put in the Bible falsely because you, being a Muslim, are told such a thing can never be true. (Meanwhile you will not question what likewise might not be true in the Koran.) You would be forced to say that part of the Bible isn’t holy and is actually a lie — and in fact that is just how the Bible is treated by Muslims is it not? You are taught not to believe in the Bible itself, but rather to believe what Islam says about it. Therefore you claim also that nowhere does Jesus ask unequivocally to be worshipped. Again, you are only saying what he DID say and do to that effect isn’t plain enough in your opinion. Read, if you will though, John 6:47-59 and cross-reference it to Matthew 26:28. Can any honest person read that and conclude anything else but that the Christian communion rite is an act of worship that was, according to the Bible, instituted by Jesus Christ himself?
Now I will try to address directly some of your points, again following your own numbered headings:
I
Position of Jesus?
(i) Muslims believe in Jesus to a degree that many other, albeit smaller, religions do. For example, the belief in Jesus is identical to what Baha’is believe. All of them rely on some latter day prophet to tell you how you should think of Jesus. You trust the Koran not the full record of Jesus as his disciples gave us in the New Testament. Most of the writers of the New Testament knew Jesus; were Jews just as was he. The rest were companions of ones who knew Jesus. But you put your faith in a man from Arabia over 600 years after them to tell you about Jesus.
(ii) Among the mightiest Messengers? Is that all? Not quite. I’m aware of the things Muslims attribute to Jesus and I find them most interesting as compared to what is attributed to Muhammad. Which of the two men do those things point to being mightier than the other?
(iii) Christians who do not believe Jesus was born as told in the Bible are no different than any Muslims who might somehow not believe some basic part of the Koran. You might tell me no real Muslim wouldn’t believe in something so basic, which would be you making my point for me. Jesus’ birth is also interesting for being another thing that points toward reasons to follow Jesus over Muhammad. Jesus has a pedigree as outlined in the first chapter of the book of Matthew. The first verse says he is the son of David, the son of Abraham.
(iv) You say Muslims believe Jesus was the Messiah. (Christ is the Greek word for Messiah; like Jesus is Greek for Yeshua.) Do you know what Messiah means? Are you going to leave it to an Arabian named Muhammad to tell you about the Jewish Messiah? Very well, Muslims believe Jesus was the Messiah. What does that mean to them and what do they do about it? Any Jew, no matter what he thinks of Jesus, will attest that no prophet can supercede the Messiah; that all prophets are immeasurably subordinate to the Messiah. How then can anyone believe Jesus is the Messiah and yet follow not Jesus but Muhammad claiming Muhammad superceded Jesus?
(v) He gave life to the dead with Allah’s permission — and healed those born blind and lepers. Lovely. Again fine that you believe it but what does it impose upon you regarding your outlook on Jesus? What Muhammad dictated? Do you think it makes it better that you acknowledge these superior things about Jesus? It makes it worse that despite that you are instead devoted to Muhammad thinking he surpasses Jesus.
CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY
1.
Jesus never claimed Divinity?
You took five verses that do not show Jesus denying divinity. You need to read the whole New Testament at least, to see who Jesus is revealed to be. At the start you are offended by the Christian view of Jesus and you cite what you think debunks it. That shows your disregard for the Bible in its entirety. It’s a clever ploy to scavenge from the Bible, but it’s not legitimate, certainly not if you do not tell why you highlight a very few verses, ignore others entirely, and show no respect for the complexity of the whole Bible.
2
THE MISSION OF JESUS CHRIST TO FULFILL THE LAW
You left out the PROPHETS. Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law AND THE PROPHETS. But you cannot say how he fulfilled either. You said that Jesus was to confirm the Law but there is a big difference between confirming and fulfilling. Do you know what the prophets foretold that Jesus fulfills? Do you know what it means to fulfill the Law?
3.
Allah sent Jesus
No argument that Jesus was sent by God. If you accept his manner of birth that alone proves it. What proves that Muhammad was sent by God?
4.
Did you miss the quandary presented? Jesus was either confessing to not being good or to being God. Here again you did not present the complete passage. Let’s review it:
In the 19th chapter of Matthew beginning at verse 16 a man comes to Jesus, calling him “Good Master” and asking what good thing he must do to have eternal life. Then Jesus says to him what you quoted, “Why do you call me good? there is none good but one, that is God.” He then instructs the man to keep the commandments to which the man replies he has always done that and asks what else he lacks. Jesus then tells him (verse 22) to sell all he has and give the money to the poor to have riches in heaven and to come follow Jesus. The man was not willing to do that. Then near the end of the chapter, at verses 28&29 Jesus says a remarkable thing to his disciples who did give up their lives to follow him:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life”
Notice that here Jesus says that by following him and sacrificing “for my name’s sake” they “shall inherit everlasting life.” How could he make such a bold assertion that aside from keeping the commandments by following him they obtain everlasting life? If he were not “good” by what authority could he say such things? What man can give to another man eternal life, much less thrones in Heaven?
5
Again you err by not reading the WHOLE second chapter of the book of Acts. You may do that for yourself (I’m presuming you have a Bible to read,) but I will give just one verse as one example of what you left out: Verse 38: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.”
6
Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheynu Adonai Echad
This is a deceptively simple passage that, as it turns out, allows for a lot of contemplation. For example the word “echad” means one, just as in English, but just as in English (for example Jesus saying “I and my Father are one”,) it can mean unity as well. The Hebrew word for ABSOLUTE singularity is “yachid”. This does not make the ‘Shema’ support a Trinitarian concept of God. It only means it does not necessarily preclude it. The point I mean to make to you Salman is this: If you believe this is a very simple matter that even Christian theologians and scholars obviously prefer to remain ignorant about, you must not have delved into it very deeply. You can do an internet search keywords “Trinity” “Shema” or phrases like “Do Christians believe in three gods?” and so forth, and learn quickly that the issue isn’t nearly so simple as you have tried to make it seem. If you’d like a place to start, here’s one:
http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology/godofabraham
CONCEPT OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The passages you quote are not incompatible with Christian belief in Jesus. Christians believe in the whole Bible, both Testaments. That you do not see how is an entirely different matter apart from that they do.
To give you some idea how, lets look at one example you gave, Isaiah 43:11. It says “I even I am the Lord and beside me their is no Savior.” Clearly this does not say there is no savior but that the only savior is God. Now lets skip forward to verse 15. It reads: “I am the Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.”
Now let’s skip way back to chapter 9 verses 6&7. It reads: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the might God, The everlasting father, the Prince of Peace. (7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
Now anyone who knows the first thing about what role the Messiah fills will admit that the Messiah is to inherit the throne of David to rule Israel and indeed the whole world in perfection. But according to Isaiah 43:15 God is Israel’s King. So is Isaiah 9:6&7 talking about that King and if so what’s the part about a son being born saying and what about it being the throne of David? If God is Israel’s King, how can the Messiah be King also? How can God and the Messiah share David’s throne both as King forever?
Finally, let’s look at just one more such passage in Isaiah. (There are many and I hasten to suggest chapter 53 for your edification. The extensive study Isaiah deserves cannot be presented here.)
Chapter 48 beginning at verse 12 reads: “Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I am also the last.” You will find this expression repeated at the end of the Bible, in Revelation 22:13. It is Jesus speaking and at verse 16 he says: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright and morning star.”
Back to Isaiah 48: the next verses, 13 &14, read: “Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth and my right hand hath spanned the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him; he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.”
Who is speaking? Only the last sentence might be Isaiah, but the rest is God and really the last sentence could be God not Isaiah as well. With that thought in mind we come to the next verses, 15&16, which read:
“I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God and his spirit, hath sent me.”
Who is speaking? In context with the previous verses it continues to be God speaking, such that “from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I,” corresponds with, “I am he; I am the first, I am also the last.” Both express God’s presence from the beginning of all creation. Who then is it that “the Lord God and his spirit hath sent”? It says “me” but who is “me”? In context it is the speaker which is God. How can that confusion be fixed? Again, if you take the Bible in it’s entirety, that question is answered in the passages from Revelation I mentioned previously. It does not resolve the mysterious nature of God, but rather pays mind to the idea that God’s nature is indeed mysterious. For instance, human understanding does not comprehend being enthroned in Heaven and yet present in affairs on earth at the same time. Incidentally, this point is also expressed in the book of Isaiah in Chapter 55 verses 8&9 which read: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Think of modern astronomy; the astoundingly immeasurable expanse of space that the heavens are beyond the earth. Think of the basic hydrogen atom. It is an “echad” — a nucleus, proton and neutron: one atom. These are complex matters in God’s creation that we can somewhat comprehend. We may comprehend in part what things of God’s nature are revealed to us, but even that we can expect to be quite paradoxical to us. Ultimately the totality of God’s nature is inconceivably beyond our grasp.
oops … meant to write nucleus proton and ELECTRON.
Ernest
If we go through the write up which we both have written one can easily make a judgment without prejudice that, as you claimed that Christians do follow bible in its entirety is not true. Now let me explain how; firstly I have given you many references in which it is very much clear that Jesus never claimed Divinity, now if Christians do follow bible in its entirety then why is that they follow only those verses in which according to (modern day) Christians belief, Jesus have claimed divinity and made it a basis of their faith and deny those verses in which it is clear that the Divinity have never been claimed by Jesus?
Why is there a denial for those verses in which it is clear that Jesus never claimed Divinity? Why the Christians do not make these verses in which Jesus said Divinity is for ALLAH only the basis of their faith/belief? Secondly if we go further according to your statement you are contradicting with the true essence and teachings of bible, by making it an article of faith that Jesus claimed Divinity and denying altogether in which Jesus not actually claimed Divinity. It is clear that the verses quoted about Jesus never claimed Divinity are from bible, and Jews do follow that Divinity is for ALLAH only.
(i) “I am Lord, and there is none else There is no God besides me.”
[The Bible, Isaiah 45 : 5]
1.Moreover, you admitted yourself that ;
“3.Allah sent Jesus
No argument that Jesus was sent by God. If you accept his manner of birth that alone proves it. What proves that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was sent by God?”
Now when you accept that Jesus was sent by ALLAH then how come a man who was sent by ALLAH can be equal to ALLAH Who had sent him (Jesus). Apart from all the debate only this sentence is more than enough to prove and to make a point that ALLAH and Jesus can not be equal neither the Divinity could be shared.
a) You want to say and prove that GOD sent a GOD? (Astagfirullah, Ma’az ALLAH,( Naqle kufar kufar na bashat))
b) Who created universe? Allah or Jesus? Obviously ALLAH
c) Who created Jesus? Allah
Even if more references would be quoted regarding the Divinity which Jesus never claimed actually, you won’t accept it as the fundamental truth nor make it the basis of your faith.
Salvation in Islam or What Salvation means to Muslims;
In general terms, there are two methods of salvation in most of the religions: grace and works. Christianity is a religion of salvation by grace alone: “For by grace through faith you have been saved, not of works.” (Eph. 2:8-9). All other systems rely totally or in part on the works of the believer to merit salvation. Mormons for example, say that you are saved by grace through faith after all you can do. In Roman Catholicism, God’s grace is infused into a believer that enables him to do good works by which he is judged for salvation.
In Islam, forgiveness is based on Allah’s grace and then comes Muslim’s works but work has a secondary importance the basis of salvation or forgiveness would solely be granted with the grace of ALLAH to those who are faithful and died with a slightest of EMAAN (faith) in there heart even if they have no works to support, there EMAAN would be enough for eternal salvation provided they died faithful or with Emaan on Islam. Since the works or good deeds are also to be accepted by ALLAH and that also rely totally on ALLAH’s grace as without HIS will one cannot even do good works.
Some references from AL-QURAN are appended below;
He said, ‘O my people. Tell me fairly, if I am on a clear proof from my Lord, and He gave me good provision
from Himself. And I do not desire that I myself begin to do against that which I forbid you to do. I only desire
to return as for as I can. And my succor is from Allah only. I relied only upon Him and I turn towards Him only.
(AL-QURAN 11:88)
“ To Allah belongs whatever is in the heaven and whatever is in the earth; and if you disclose whatever is in
your heart or keep it hidden, Allah will call you to account for it; then He will forgive whomsoever He pleases
and punish whomsoever He pleases, and Allah is Potent over every thing.” (AL QURAN 2:84)
‘O beloved! Say you, ‘O people! If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive your sins and
Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (AL-QURAN 3:31)
And to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. He Forgives whomsoever and
torments whomsoever He pleases; and Allah is For giving Merciful. (AL-QURAN 3:129)
If you keep away from major sins that are forbidden to you, then We will forgive your other sins and make you
enter a place of honour.
And covet not that whereby Allah has made one of you excel over the other. For men there is share from their
earning, and for women there is share from their earning. And ask Allah for His Grace. Undoubtedly, Allah
knows every thing. (AL-QURAN 4:31,32)
Now you asked about our beloved Prophet Hazrat Muhammad Peace be upon him, that who was he and why one should follow him and how our beloved Prophet superceded Jesus and even other all Prophets and what proves that Beloved Prophet was sent by ALLAH.
As a matter of fact our beloved Prophet was the last of all Prophets. He hailed from the Arab tribe of Quraish and according to the references below and from bible i.e Deuteronomy 18:18″I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”; ALLAH says our beloved Prophet would speak whatever HE (ALLAH) commands him,
SURAH AL-NAJM CHAPTER 53 VERSE 1-18 AL QURAN
1. By the lovely shining star Muhammad, when he descended from the Ascension (Meraj).
2. Your companion neither went astray nor misled.
3. And he speaks not of his own desire. (Beloved Prophet speaks whatever is being commanded to him from ALLAH)
4. That is not but the revelation that is revealed to him.
5. He was taught by one possessing mighty powers.
6. Possessor of strength. Then that splendid sight proceeded.
7. And he was on the highest horizon. (Beloved Prophet was on the highest of horizons which was not bestowed to any other Prophet)
8. Then that splendid sight drew nearer, then he came close well.
9. So there was a distance of two hands between the Splendid sight and the beloved (Prophet) but rather less
than that. (Beloved Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him came as close to ALLAH as there was a distance between two hands or even less, this highest distinction wasn’t bestowed to any Prophets before him, being so close to ALLAH, still we (Muslims) never say that Beloved Muhammad pbuh have any kind of Divinity nor he (beloved prophet) claimed Divinity, since Divinity is for ALLAH only)
10. Now He revealed to His bondman whatever He revealed.
11. The heart lied not in what he saw.
12. Do you then dispute with him concerning what he has seen?
13. And indeed, he saw that Splendid sight twice.
14. Near the farthest Lote-tree.
15. Near which is the Garden of Eternity.
16. When that was covering the Lote-Tree, which was covering.
17. The eye deviated not, nor crossed the limit.
18. Certainly, he saw very big signs of his Lord.
Allah said Beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is a shining star, Allah taught him, and Muhammad peace be upon him was on the highest of horizons, thus superseded all the prophets came prior to him.
Now what does Beloved Prophet said and what Allah commanded him to say?
SURAH AL- IKHLAS CHAPTER 12 VERSE 1-4
1. Say you, He is Allah, the one.
2. Allah the Independent, Care free.
3. He begot none’ nor was He begotten.
4. And nor anyone is equal to Him.
ALLAH SENT BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD PEACE BE UPON HIM AND HE WAS THE MESSANGER OF ALLAH
Mohammed is not the father of any of your men; yes He is the Messenger of Allah and the last one among all
the prophets. And Allah knows all things. (AL –QURAN 33:40)
And remember when Issa son of Maryam, said, ‘O children of Israel, I am Allah’s Messenger to you, confirming
the previous Book Tourat before me and conveying the glad news of the Messenger who will come after me,
his name is Ahmad! ‘ But when Ahmed came to them with bright signs, they said, ‘this is an open magic.’(AL –QURAN 61:6)
It is He Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth that he may cause it to
prevail over all religions, though the associates may take it bad. (AL-QURAN 61:9)
Our beloved Prophet MUHAMMAD peace be upon him, IN JEWISH SCRIPTURES (THE OLD TESTAMENT):
1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:
a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
c) Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ismail and Isaac. The Arabs are the descendants of Ismail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).
d) Words in the mouth:
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from God Almighty he repeated it verbatim.
Deuteronomy (18:18):
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
2) Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:
It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:
“And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’.
“When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied “I am not learned”.
Recite with the name of your Lord Who created, (AL-QURAN 96:1)
3) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon
chapter 5 verse 16:
“Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehrace Bayna Jerusalem.”
“His mouth is most sweet: ye, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughter of Jerusalem.”
All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians (H Q. 61:6).
Now if we go on and get into another debate just to prove ourselves to be on the right path, obviously it is now very much clear that what the right path is, but still if one does not agrees with it and insist that a pack of lies is what the truth is, this cannot even slightly harm or derail the followers of the true religion Islam.
repeated only the following reference, it was turned into a smiley as 8 was written with the brakcet
He said, ‘O my people. Tell me fairly, if I am on a clear proof from my Lord, and He gave me good provision
from Himself. And I do not desire that I myself begin to do against that which I forbid you to do. I only desire
to return as for as I can. And my succor is from Allah only. I relied only upon Him and I turn towards Him only.
(AL-QURAN 11:88 )
two things I want to say:
sorry for my poor english
1. If you (muslims) admit that God is most powerfull and nothing is impossible for Him, then WHY is it so hard for you people to also admit that He can take a human body or do anything else that seems impossibile for our logics??? Why do you even bother to call Him most powerfull, Allmighty, if you censore His acts by/after your understandings???
2. How can you pray to a pedofil??? this is what really blocks my mind. What kind a prophet or a MAN is this??? And you give him not only respect, but praise!!!!!!
PS: Jesus was humble in His words/statements… but Muhammad was very proud. The peacefull verses from Quoran are untill he made some followers (copy from The New Testament, nothing that is kind in Quran is original. It exist in the first place 600 years before in the words of Jesus), after that, once gaining power, the verses become violent and he proclame himself a Godsent, a prophet. What a demonic vanity/arrogance!!!!
IF you really search the TRUTH, watch this and think freely:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
I did not read all the posts….. However, I would like to respond to the 1900 rapes per day and high violence rate in US. I am not making a claim as to the accuracy of the numbers, just sharing a few thoughts regarding the statement.
Not all Americans are Christians so the high rape and violence occurrences do not necessarily reflect on Christianity. In the US there is religious freedom so one can be a Christian, atheist, Muslim, nothing, whatever. I dare speculate that the majority of the rapes are committed by non-religious people. I have read that rapes / violent crimes, etc. are largely the result of repeat offenders (I don’t remember the actual numbers but I am thinking around 2/3). Criminals are not really punished in the US due to liberals. The same liberals that seemingly want to rid our country of all remnants of Christianity.
Also, in the US you are not punished for being raped as one would be under Muslim law. What fool would report being raped if it meant them getting blamed for it and whipped with a cane or stoned to death while the actual perpetrator(s) of the crime is viewed as a victim of the whore who seduced them (sarcasm)? (like in Saudi Arabia) Is there such a thing as rape in the eyes of a person who sees women as property?
drlmg
quite right america is a multi ethnic country, that is why i used the word america and not christians or jews or hindus etc u see. as far as the figures of 1900 rapes a day is concerned u can verify it by the website of fbi. now for correction of ur information and knowledge about islam pl note that a victim of rape is not being stoned to death or punished in islam yes the one who had comitted this heinous crime is subject to severe punishment including capital punishment of death.
Salman:
That was quite a breathtaking final paragraph you wrote to me. It was helpful to read how sure you are that to not accept Islam is to be obstinate but not so for defending it, even as you declared it in the most plainly obstinate words and in no uncertain terms.
Sir, if that disposition is one you wish to keep and is what a Muslim is supposed to have, that alone should dissuade a reasonable person from your so-called “true” religion. The rest who want to follow it anyway are welcome to do so as far as I’m concerned. I’ve certainly no desire to ever harm them because of it. I’d like to hope they feel the same way about me and what I choose to believe, but frankly your “true” religion doesn’t teach much to offer any reason for that hope now does it?
Salman, there is so much you misconstrue about the Bible that I scarcely know where to begin. It doesn’t matter though, because you’re not even curious to know. Afterall, since you are certain it is all just a “pack of lies” why should you be curious? The very tiny fraction of the Bible you reference is then plenty enough for you and how you interpret it needn’t jibe with the rest of the Bible as the rest is surely only going to be used to support a “pack of lies” in your estimation. The little you use (abuse actually,) and your meager understanding of it is enough to serve your purposes. It is enough to make you absolutely certain of yourself.
So it is useless of me to point out, for example, that Deuteronomy 18:18 does not foretell Muhammad but rather Jesus, according to Acts 3:20-26 and just as unmistakably there tells that the prophet would be a Jew as was Jesus, not an Arab. That is also an example of what I meant by Christians being obligated to reconcile the WHOLE Bible with itself, and so you were also wrong in another accusation, for here is an example that clearly shows Christians at least do try to reconcile the Bible to itself. How can you fault them on that if you Muslims do not even try? All you do with the Bible is misinterpret it, as you do with Deuteronomy 18:18, citing it while ignoring Act 3:20-26. If I did that with the Qu’ran you would cry foul would you not? I suppose it is just as useless of me to point that out as well. All such points are just pesky attempts to beguile you aren’t they. Since they question the “true” religion, they must be.
I do not believe these matters are ever much resolved by debate, because debate is a matter of the mind not the heart. Nevertheless debate does have its place and there are helpful points for how to go about it. A primary one is to try to avoid logical fallacies. Here are some cites on that topic which I hope you will enjoy. I offer them apart from our disagreement as something anyone, a Muslim, Christian or whomever, might find helpful.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm
http://www.featherlessbiped.com/6696/logic.htm
A clarification on Acts 3:20-26:
Peter’s sermon begins earlier at verse 11. That he is a Jew speaking to Jews is made clear by the location (the porch that is called Solomon’s,) and by whom he says in his opening words he is addressing, namely, “Ye men of Israel.” And also by saying in verse 13: “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus…” If that weren’t enough, he says in verse 14: “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.” Having mentioned Pilate also, there is absolutely no question who this audience is.
Therefore, when at verse 25 he reiterates that his audience is his fellow Jews by saying, “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers …” it leaves no room for any doubt that in verse 22 where he refers to Deuteronomy 18:18, that the brethren Moses spoke of from which the prophet would come, were according to Peter, the very fellow Jews to whom he was speaking. It is also important to realize Peter was not correcting them, but merely saying what they both already believed, for there was never a time that the Jews believed Moses meant anything other than that the prophet would come out from among them, and that hasn’t been revised among the Jews to this very day.
Incidentally Salman, you may cross-reference the title “Holy One” with your reading of the book of Isaiah. Remember that Isaiah said God is Israel’s King? When Jesus was on trial Pilate asked him, “Art thou King of the Jews?” Jesus replied, “Sayest thou this thing yourself, or did others tell it thee of me?” Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?” Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Pilate replied, “Art thou a king then?” Jesus answered, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”
Plainly Pilate believed Jesus was brought to him for claiming to be King of the Jews. Jesus did not deny he was King of the Jews. He merely said that for “now” his kingdom is “not of this world.” Of course as Messiah he would have to eventually have a kingdom on earth too, because that is part of the role of the Messiah according to the prophets, and remember Jesus claimed it was his business to fulfill the prophets. It is to be an everlasting kingdom, and according to the book of Daniel the Messiah will “make an end of sin” so clearly it will be a most magnificent kingdom indeed when it finally comes, when as Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven,” reaches complete fulfillment and there no longer is any sin.
At the end of the passage (from John 18:28-40,) at verse 39 Pilate says to the people: “But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” The crowd said, “Not this man, but Barabbas.”
John then mentions that Barabbas was a robber, and you may quibble that Peter calls him a murderer, but there is no reason he couldn’t have been both. The crowd however, did not look upon him as being either, but more something like what today is called a guerrilla, or in some people’s vocabulary, “freedom fighter.” This comes from Mark 15:7 which explains that Barabbas was jailed for “insurrection”. Since he’d killed in that insurrection (the text says “murdered”,) he would be due to be crucified. He was therefore in some sense a warrior, and in that sense at least perhaps not unlike your Muhammad. In fact, the “insurrection” was people of one God fighting against their pagan overlords, which in that sense would be rather like jihad would it not?
Another of your assertions Salman, that I hope you’ll reconsider, is the notion that Muhammad is mentioned in the book Song of Songs. If you will bother reading this discussion, you will see that isn’t quite so undeniable as you might think:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-98943.html
That a word in one language sounds the same as another word in another language yet with entirely different meaning, occurs naturally with languages by sheer coincidence. For example the name “Mindy” is not too unusual in English. In modern Assyrian (a dialect of Aramaic,)
“mindy” means “thing” but there is absolutely no correspondence between that and the English name Mindy. It is entirely coincidental. This cannot be said of the name Jesus, for it is a true transliteration of the name “Yeshua” which is Hebrew for “salvation” quite literally.
By all accounts I’ve seen, the name Muhammad in Arabic means “praise” or “praised” or something along those lines. The name “Judah” (and thus it’s variants such as Jude and Judas,) means “praise God” or something along those lines. However, if the occurrences of that name in the Bible are related to Muhammad all kinds of confusions will follow. For one thing, Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus, could then be said to have a name that corresponds with the name Muhammad.
We might add too that there have been many people named Muhammad or for that matter Jesus or Judah and so not all of them can be meant when the words “praised” or “salvation” are found in the Bible. We needn’t be that picky as in context it can be figured who could rightly or wrongly possibly apply. However if one wishes to be that picky there is room for making the argument. One think we can say quite fairly. There is more than a lot of room to doubt your assertion that your Muhammad is mentioned in Song of Songs.
This “what’s-in-a-name” issue brings us back to one of your earliest points Salman. You said that it was better to use “Allah” than “God” because it created fewer problems. Although I said I don’t mind if for the sake of convenience they’re treated as synonyms, still the question remains why in writing in English you wouldn’t just be consistent by also using the English word God. Actually, I think by not doing that you create more problems not fewer. The English word “God” is not really a name but more a term. (Which makes its use in translating the names and terms of Hebrew not without its difficulties.) It is capitalized to distinguish it from the word god which means “a” god, implying among other gods which God is not. But etymologically, it only derives from the word “good”. From all that I’ve been able to find, there was never a pagan deity named ‘God’. The “proper name” of the Bible is YHWH the pronunciation of which is not certain. For the most part Christians avoid saying it, not as strictly as many Jews who avoid it altogether, (and will even spell God as G-d indicating they wouldn’t speak even that word,) but out of acknowledging the reverence that the Bible indicates is due it. Personally I think doing our best to keep it away from everyday speech is wise.
There was once a pagan deity of the pagan Arabs named “Allah” was there not? Isn’t that agreed upon nearly unanimously by scholars? And if I’m not mistaken that includes Muslim scholars. Even if it is well understood that is not who or what Muslims mean by Allah, (you tell me whether it is or isn’t,) why the two names are the same requires some explaining, while the English word “God” has no such problem simply because it is not God’s name nor is there any historical god/deity/idol in the English language who went by that name. I might add neither was there a Greek pagan god named “Theo” nor a Roman one named “Deo”.
Unlike the universal usage of “Allah” among Muslims no matter what their native tongue, the word “God” is English, and is translated from the original Bible language differently depending upon the language used. That is why it is allowed to be translated as “Allah” in Arabic. The presumption is that it is the Arabic word with the same meaning. Perhaps that’s not a safe presumption and is actually an error, but I don’t wish to be too critical of those who innocently make it if it is an error. At least it does seem to me that as it is done, it is done innocently.
Ernest
Firstly I appreciate that u accepted the fact that jesus was sent by Allah, no argument, u commented. Okay we both agree to it, now as a matter of fact if we go into further details u didn’t actually answered my several questions what I asked : “ you want to prove that God sent a god? U skipped this question since there is no answer obviously. Why is there a need to send a second god (Ma’az Allah). What proves that universe should have or should need two gods? Secondly God with Divine powers doesn’t needs to be prophesized, and that’s an accepted fact that jesus was prophesised? It is against the norm again that God could marry and jesus was married to mary Magdalene and had a son named Judah (though there are many other versions also, whether they were married or not).
U didn’t actually answered: Who created the universe? If jesus was with the Divine powers then why is that he was sent reiterate that he was sent after thousands of years after the creation of universe? and most interestingly to my utter surprise he was sent by God this is what which even modern day Christians believe, but still insists that jesus was god with divine powers? If god then why he (jesus) was born to a woman like other humans apart from how Virgin Mary conceived jesus, but jesus came into being by birth, means Christians do withstand with it that god can be given birth, amazing, what proves that god with divine power can be given birth and could stay in a womb for several months? Amazing isn’t it?
Most interestingly he was made of a flesh like other human beings, Can a God be like that? U mean God with divine powers could eat, drink, walk, and most interestingly have all the characteristics of a normal human being as jesus? What proves the universe needs two gods and that means you want to prove that Almighty Allah wasn’t Powerful enough to control and to run the matters of the universe which He (Allah) created in six days and there was a need for a second god which Allah Himself sent. (Astagfirullah, Ma’az Allah, Naqle Kufar, kufar na bashad)).
Is this what the Christians believe that, God can be like that?
Salman
Here are two responses to the claim that Isaiah 29:12 is a prophecy foretelling Muhammad:
http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/is29-12.html
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4778
The views are either it refers to a false prophet or none at all. I incline to the latter view. Context isn’t everything. Sometimes outside ideas being interjected is the only sensible explanation, but whenever in doubt, the context is the safest guide. In context it very much does seem to me that the person who can’t read the scroll because it’s sealed, and the one who can’t read it because he can’t read, are both a “for instance” by which I mean, hypothetical characters for demonstration purposes, not individuals to be named later (as Muhammad or anyone else in particular by name,) in fulfillment of the passage.
Isaiah 29:12 added to the examples from Deuteronomy and Song of Solomon, now completes the three examples you provided. I imagine you could offer more, but before you do, in another discussion a Muslim said something that is worth turning to first. He said that Muslims don’t, or at least ought not, use Bible passages as proof texts. If I may put that in my own words, I took it he meant anything from the Bible used to point to Muhammad may or may not truly point to him. If they do, all the better. If they don’t that’s fine as well as it is merely speculation in the first place. He next pointed out that the only proof text for the Muslim is the Quran.
I don’t want to put his words in your mouth, especially since you did call them “prophesies” not possible prophesies, but it seems like a fair response he gave, or at least one on which to help find where we have common ground and where we don’t. The essential point is that if there aren’t any genuine prophesies of the coming of Muhammad in the Bible, then unless you have some other source besides the Bible to point to, you then have no prophesies foretelling Muhammad. Moreover, if the only truly Holy book reliable as proof text is the Qu’ran, then the only words to verify Muhammad are his own. In other words, Muhammad is who he claimed to be because he said so. If that is wrong and there are more reasons to believe him than only taking him at his own word, please tell what they are.
By contrast, Jesus is foretold in the Tenach (Old Testament) in some 60 different prophesies with over 300 references of the coming Messiah. Take a look here: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm
I will just point to one here because it is one Jesus pointed to himself. It is from Matthew 22: 41-46 and reads: While the Phariseees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. ”
There’s no use guessing that might be a corrupted passage because the words Jesus quotes are exactly as found in Psalm 110. Or would you claim the Jews also corrupted the words of David to try to make them seem to be describing two Lords, or as you might like to say, another god with God?
If all you mean to tell me is what Christians believe about God doesn’t make sense to you, I accept that and even understand why you would think it. However, if you mean to insist that Christians believe in more than one God, then I will have to insist that you do not understand what Christians believe about God. Moreover, I dare say that in a sense Christians don’t understand themselves what they believe about God in every last explainable detail. No man can explain God completely. It is enough to pray to grasp him adequately. As I tried to express to you before, all that is contained in the oneness of God must be boundlessly beyond human comprehension. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world makes him our Savior and if besides God there is no Savior then that makes Jesus Christ our God as well — one with the Father as he described himself.
“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, WHOEVER BELIEVES IN GOD AND THE LAST DAY AND DOES GOOD, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”{Holy Quran 2:62}
Is that a true and sure word from you prophet? If so, how could he have minded very much what Christians believe? It certainly appears as if he thought how Christians believe in God is perfectly fine.
http://www.oasisoutreach.org/
Just in case you’d like to read the New Testament in Arabic.
Salman:
So that you don’t think I’m avoiding all your inquiries, let me respond to one that seems to especially trouble you.
You wrote:
“Firstly I appreciate that u accepted the fact that jesus was sent by Allah, no argument, u commented. Okay we both agree to it, now as a matter of fact if we go into further details u didn’t actually answered my several questions what I asked : “ you want to prove that God sent a god? U skipped this question since there is no answer obviously.”
If this was mentioned several times I trust it’s important to you so I will try to answer it.
I need to stipulate that neither of us can prove to the other the precepts of a faith. We can only make pleadings about it. The person must decide for himself whether they are sensible or convincing or perhaps more importantly, appealing, and most importantly of all, what is the TRUTH irrespective of how sensible, convincing or appealing any argument may seem to be. If this is all ultimately a matter of the heart, (and I believe it is,) not debate, we are still not out of difficulty yet, because according to the prophet Jeremiah, “The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things: Who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9) If our very hearts are crooked, what hope have we? The book of Proverbs gives a clue saying, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding.” It goes on like that (Prov. 3:5-8) and at verse 7 says “Be not wise in thine own eyes; fear the Lord and depart from evil.” This reflects Prov. 1:7 which says “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” So it says to have knowledge, we must yield our hearts to the Lord, and to pay no heed to the preferences, prejudices and so forth, in our hearts nor trust more in our own powers of reason; fearing the power of the Lord to know all about us infinitely better than we know ourselves. We can have no secret thoughts from God. (Recalling also Isaiah’s warning that God’s ways are not our ways.)
Deuteronomy 6:5 reads: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” It follows immediately after the “Shema” given in verse 4 and is equally deceptively simple, for how can anyone turn ALL the heart that way? Yet Jesus in Matt. 22:37 quotes it saying: “And this is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is worth noting that the verses directly following this are the ones I quoted before about Jesus asking if David call the Messiah his Lord how then is he his son?
Bear in mind Salman, he is not saying love your brethren. Your fellow Muslims are your brethren. I’m your neighbor. (And you probably know Jesus went further saying we must love even our enemies.) Who loves their neighbor as much as themselves? Whose heart is ALL devoted to loving the Lord completely? Now here is a question for you Salman: Do you think the commandments were given that they would be perfectly obeyed? The Bible would seem to indicate the answer is yes. It doesn’t say, “You should try hard to do these things.” That’s not a commandment but more like strong advice of what to strive to do, but the Bible doesn’t say STRIVE to do this. It says DO IT. Yet if we don’t do them perfectly, and indeed are evidently incapable of it, or at least are never sure even how close we have even come, we have come short of obeying the Lord. The man in Matt 19:16 (remember we discussed this before,) boasted to Jesus that he had kept the commandments his whole life. Jesus could’ve asked, “How are you so sure?” and have had the man left to boast some more. Instead Jesus told him it still wasn’t enough. Jesus told him he needed to give up all his treasures and follow him. The man obviously respected Jesus even as an authority evidently, but not enough to follow him if it was quite that difficult. He wanted to hear that his trying hard would earn him a passing grade and a passing grade,(and not a perfect score,) was sufficient to earn his way into Heaven. But if God is holy he cannot permit in Heaven that which is not holy — and there is no such thing as being almost holy or even mostly holy. Purity does not mean more clean than not. It means being without any filth whatsoever.
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the lght, we have fellowship onw with another, and the blood of of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. ” 1st John 7-10
To be cleansed from all unrighteousness is to be pure. According to that verse, it is the blood of Jesus that accomplishes it.
Is the Lord so demanding as to require so much more than how we ever behave fully and consistently? Evidently yes, which puts every one of us in a precarious spot wouldn’t you say? As far as I can tell Muslims do not bother much with that problem, but I dare say it is quite a central issue among Christians, or at least among those who take their faith seriously. Paul devotes nearly the whole book of Romans to addressing it.
Now finally to your question. You wrote: “ you want to prove that God sent a god? U skipped this question since there is no answer obviously.”
I neither want to prove that nor even to say it. If I skipped it, that wasn’t because the answer is no obviously, (which it is,) but rather because it didn’t strike me as a serious question. Frankly, even now it sounds more snide to me than sincere, but I want to give you every benefit of a doubt.
According to the Bible, God didn’t send a god but rather Himself as the Son. He couldn’t very well have come as the Father and still be “sent”, and I might add God wouldn’t leave his Heavenly Throne unoccupied. If you choose not to entertain those kinds of concepts because they’re just too esoteric for you, that’s up to you. I’m not demanding it of you. I’m only saying if you want to understand what Christians believe rather than assigning to them what you say they believe, you will need to know the Bible. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s all in there. And if you choose not to believe even one word of it is true, I am still, according to the Bible, obligated to love you as I love myself and to love even my enemies. Tell me whether that is easier to do than accepting any other doctrine of Christianity. It’s hard to imagine how to even begin to love an enemy isn’t it?
By not leaning to your own understanding, all of it becomes not so very hard. Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and my burden light” Matt 11:30
By the way Salman, Jesus did claim divinity, He never claimed to be Jehovah god, but he did claim to be the only begotten son of God, which made him the foremost Prince and a Mighty God in his own right.
Isaiah 9:6 prophesied about his divinity and I quote, “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us, and the princely rule will come to be on his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor , Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
When he was resurrected, he was placed at the right hand of his Father as this Mighty God.
Even Satan is called the god of this world.
Also, Islam does not treat women with dignity.
Maybe the Quran does preach this, but reality we know better
Ernest
First I apologize for writing a little late as I was on the go I mean traveling. Now let me start from the verse you quoted from Holy Quran, im glad atleast this conversation have made you take out or quote references from Holy Quran, nothing like it. Your quoted reference of Holy Quran is;
1. “Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, WHOEVER BELIEVES IN GOD AND THE LAST DAY AND DOES GOOD, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”{Holy Quran 2:62}
Is that a true and sure word from you prophet? If so, how could he have minded very much what Christians believe? It certainly appears as if he thought how Christians believe in God is perfectly fine. “
Yes the quoted reference is from Holy Quran and its translation is like this;
AL QURAN 2:62. Surely, those who believe, and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians, whoever have faith with true hearts in Allah and in the Last-day and do good deeds, their reward is with their Lord, and there shall he no fear for them nor any grief.
If you read this verse it clearly states that faith in ALLAH with true hearts, which means with true spirit and the way it is being commanded by ALLAH HIMSELF in Holy Quran
SURAH AL- IKHLAS CHAPTER 12 VERSE 1-4
1. Say you, He is Allah, the one.
2. Allah the Independent, Care free.
3. He begot none’ nor was He begotten.
4. And nor anyone is equal to Him.
Now the question is why jews, christians and sabians (here sabians are meant for those who were the disciples of any prophet sent by Allah prior to our Beloved Prophet or may be Moses and Jesus) are specifically pointed out here, and not hindus, the reason is that they were the followers of prophet sent by Allah and their teachings, and the same are the teachings mentioned in the original testament of The Bible and Torah and that is faith in ALLAH in accordance with the teachings of Holy Quran (chapter 12 verse 1-4). Secondly it refers to those who died before our Beloved Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him was sent and followed their respective religions in true spirit, see the Holy Quran says “ WHOEVER HAVE FAITH WITH TRUE HEARTS IN ALLAH AND IN THE LAST DAY…” and that basis of true faith have already been mentioned in Holy Quran Chapter 12 verse 1-4.
1).PREFER USING WORD ALLAH
I reiterate what I mentioned in my write up posted earlier;
1. A) “Prefer using name ‘Allah’ rather than the word ‘God’ as the word ‘God’ can be played around with. Allah in the Bible – Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani
i) Mark 15:34
ii)Mathew 27:46.”
I never mentioned that using the word God is prohibited or forbidden, if we go into the details one can easily understand that the word ALLAH is used for the Creator of the universe the true God only and it could not be played around, whereas, the hindus use the english word god for their false gods, for their sculptures, you see I used the word god with small “g” the word ALLAH only refers to true GOD (ALLAH). Even if someone uses the word Allah with small “a” in that case as well it is clear that the word ALLAH is used for true GOD only. For instance I intentionally used word God in my last write up about Divinity many a times with small and capital caps just to distinguish that where the word God refers to the Creator it is with capital G and where it is used for false god it is with small g, incase if someone mistakenly skips and used capital G for false god, it can merely create confusion but that’s not the case with word Allah, since it is used for Allah Subhanaho Wa Ta’ala (SWT) only. Even in your last write up you used the word God in capital and small caps just to distinguish, means the word God is used for false gods as well. (Your quotes have also been pasted below under the header of Divinity) Moreover, the word ALLAH is used in bible as well ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI. Why the word God was not used there if there wasn’t a problem with that word?
Secondly as u said that “there was once a pagan deity of the pagan Arabs named “Allah” was there not?” Excellent you clarified yourself that “pagans and that too pagan arabs (you referred)” used the word ALLAH! I ask you when actually the pagan arabs existed? Do they still exist (pagan arabs which you referred to)? Pagan arabs actually existed before Jesus or our Beloved Prophet, and you are mingling it up with the present scenario. you see you admitted yourself that they were pagans so Ernest we are not actually discussing pagans here, pagans are pagans and have no religion. Further I have not been through or couldn’t get hold of the decree or a handout that Muslims scholars do agree that this word was being used by pagans, pl provide reference if you have any.
2).DIVINITY
You explained that God didn’t actually sent god lemme paste what u actually quoted;
“According to the Bible, God didn’t send a god but rather Himself as the Son. He couldn’t very well have come as the Father and still be “sent”, and I might add God wouldn’t leave his Heavenly Throne unoccupied”
So here you want to prove that God came into being by birth and was conceived to a woman, stayed in the womb for a certain period and then gained adolescence and past through the various stages of life from infancy to adolescence? And in that sense Virgin Mary was not only the mother of jesus she was the mother of actual God (Ma’az Allah) since your wordings clearly indicates incarnation of God into jesus??. Is this you actually want to prove? May I please ask what proves that there was a need for Him to come Himself in the universe after such a long time I mean after thousands of years of creation of the universe and that too by birth. Amazing isnt it? that God stayed in a womb and past through various stages of life? And your statement reflects that Jesus was God Himself (Ma’az Allah, Naqle kuffar, kuffar na bashad) and He Himself came as a son? This also negates the concurrent faith of christians as they asseverate jesus as the son of God, so he was not the son actually but God Himself, so why christians asseverate jesus as the son then?
It seems that now there is no difference between the faiths of hinduism and christianity since hinduism also predicate there various saints and there “so called prophets” there lords and gods, and they too made it an article of their faith that God was incarnated into their various saints or prophets or whatever they call them. Well everyone has a right to do whatever they like or to embrace and follow the religion they wish too, but it seems like the concurrent believe of christianity has no big difference from the faith and believe of hinduism , so much so atleast it must be discerned to so many people after reading our discussions the actual faith and believe of christianity about God, as some or may be most of the innocent people still think that christian’s faith and believe about God is different from hindus.
Ernest
You counter explained the verses the other way, I quoted from The Bible foretelling about our Beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be Upon Him. You gave counter reference of Acts 3:20-26, wonderful now let’s go into a little detail what actually Isaiah and John foretold about Beloved Prophet;
Here is some other prophecies about the coming of the holy prophet of God , Muhammad(SAW), and pilgrimage in Bible.
Isaiah
60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
60:4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.
60:5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.
60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.
60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.
In Isaiah 60:1-7, A prophecy about a Holy man (prophet) bringing the light of God to the world. This holy man would appear in a time of darkness filling the world and covering the earth, He would appear to eliminate the darkness and spread the light of God and his praises.
In Isaiah 60:3 we read “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light “, and that means this Holy Prophet would arise among the Gentiles and his Light would fill his place where the nations would come and visit.
In Isaiah 60:4, we find the people would come from far, the sons and daughters, all would come together for the Light.
In Isaiah 60:5-6 it keeps telling us about the coming of the people from all over the world to the Light.
In Isaiah 60:7, is the clear meaning, it’s Kedar (Mekka) , Where its flocks and tribes would be gathered together under the light of God, “they would come up with acceptance on mine altar” (Note: Muslims during the Hajj “pilgrimage” they slaughter the sacrifices as one of the ceremonies and Muslims all over the world share that from their places which is called Eid Al Adha).
“And I Will glorify the house of my glory”, and it refers to the Ka’ba in Mekka , the Sacred House for God’s glory.”
And this prophecy is mentioned in Qur’an :
Surah Al Hajj (the pilgrimage) 22,
26. Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): “Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).
27. “And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways; ”
(Holy Quran, 22:26-27)
About “Prophet like unto Moses”:
In Deuteronomy 18:18 We find God said to Moses the following:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”
This verse Christians used to interpret it as a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah, and Christian missionaries used to invent so many things to prove the similarity between Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them),but it’s self-refuting claim, as it can be refuted by a single verse from Deuteronomy, let’s read..
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
So this verse from Deuteronomy refutes the claim of “Prophet like unto Moses” to be Jesus (peace be upon them) as Jesus was one of the Prophets of Israel.
Muhammad was predicted to come in the Gospel of John:
Just a quick note, the Arabic word “Muhammad” is an expression which means “The honorable one” or “The glorified one” or “The admirable”. Prophet Muhammad was the first in the Middle East to be named “Muhammad”. Below, you will see how Jesus in today’s Gospel of John had called this human Prophet which he predicted his coming “The honorable one”.
Jesus in the Greek Bible used the Greek word “Periklytos” which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that predicted human prophet “Periklytos”. This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word “Muhammad” which also means the “admired one” or “glorified one.” In other words, “Periklytos” is “Muhammad” in Greek.
Let us start…
In the Bible we can find the following four passages wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) predicts a great event:
John 14:16 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever”
John 15:26 “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”
John 14:26 “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 16:7-14 “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.”
In these four verses, the word “comforter” is translated from the word “Paraclete” (“Ho Parakletos” in Greek). Parakletos in Greek is interpreted as “an advocate”, one who pleads the cause of another, one who councils or advises another from deep concern for the other’s welfare (Beacon Bible commentary volume VII, p.168). In these verses we are told that once Jesus (peace be upon him) departs, a Paraclete will come. He will glorify Jesus (peace be upon him), and he will guide mankind into all truth. This “Paraclete” is identified in John 14:26 as the Holy Ghost.
It must be pointed out that the original Greek manuscripts speak of a “Holy pneuma.” The word pneuma {pnyoo’-mah} is the Greek root word for “spirit.” There is no separate word for “Ghost” in the Greek manuscripts, of which there are claimed to be over 24,000 today. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible translate this word as “Ghost” to convey their own personal understanding of the text. However, a more accurate translation is “Holy Spirit.” More faithful and recent translations of the Bible, such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), do indeed now translate it as “Holy Spirit.” This is significant, and will be expounded upon shortly.
All Bibles in existence today are compiled from “ancient manuscripts,” the most ancient of which being those of the fourth century C.E. Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical. All Bibles in our possession today are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference.
What the translators of the Bible have done when presented with such discrepancies is to do their best to choose the correct version. In other words, since they can not know which “ancient manuscript” is the correct one, they must do a little detective work on the text in order to decide which “version” of a given verse to accept. John 14:26 is just such an example of such selection techniques.
John 14:26 is the only verse of the Bible which associates the Parakletos with the Holy Spirit. But if we were to go back to the “ancient manuscripts” themselves, we would find that they are not all in agreement that the “Parakletos” is the Holy Spirit. For instance, in the famous the Codex Syriacus, written around the fifth century C.E., and discovered in 1812 on Mount Sinai by Mrs.Agnes S. Lewis (and Mrs. Bensley), the text of 14:26 reads; “Paraclete, the Spirit”; and not “Paraclete, the Holy Spirit.”.
Ernest
Further to add with what have been written above about our Beloved Prophet let me expand this discussion a little further into detail, the coming of beloved Prophet was not only foretold but his beautiful name Muhammad is also mentioned in the Gospel of Barnabas.
The Gospel of Barnabas;
Chapter 39 to Chapter 44
The horses aroused themselves and impetuously set themselves to run over that piece of earth which lay among lilies and roses;. Whereupon God gave spirit to that unclean portion of earth upon which lay the spittle of Satan, which Gabriel had taken up from the mass; and raised up the dog, who, barking, filled the horses with fear, and they fled. Then God gave his soul to man, while all the holy angels sang: “Blessed be your holy name, O God our Lord.” “Adam, having sprung upon his feet, saw in the air a writing that shone like the sun;, which said: “There is only one God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”
Whereupon Adam opened his mouth and said: “I thank you, O Lord my God, that you have deigned to create me; but tell me. I pray you, what means the message of these words: “Muhammad is Messenger of God. Have there been other men before me?” ‘Then said God: “Be you welcome, O my servant Adam
Adam besought God, saying: “Lord, grant me this writing upon the nails of the fingers of my hands.” Then God gave to the first man upon his thumbs that writing; upon the thumb-nail of the right hand it said: “There is only one God;,” and upon the thumb-nail of the left it said: “Muhammad is Messenger ;of God.” Then with fatherly affection the first man kissed those words, and rubbed his eyes, and said: “Blessed be that day when you shall come to the world
God hid himself [from Adam and Eve], and the angel Michael drove them forth from paradise. Then, Adam, turning around, saw written above the gate, There is only one God, and Muhammad is Messenger of God. Weeping, he said: ‘May it be pleasing to God, O my son, that you come quickly and draw us out of misery.’ And thus,” said Jesus, “Satan and Adam sinned through pride, the one by despising man, the other by wishing to make himself equal with God.”
O blessed time, when he shall come to the world! Believe me that I have seen him and have done. him reverence, even as every prophet has seen him: seeing that of his spirit God gives to them prophecy. And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying: “O Muhammad;, God be with you, and may he make me worthy to untie, your shoelatchet;, for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God.” And having said this, Jesus rendered his thanks to God.
Saint Barnabas is mentioned in the New Testament and he is very well admired too: “For God who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me [Paul] and Barnabas the right hand to fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we [Paul and Barnabas] should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (The New Testament from the N.I.V Bible, Galatians 2:8-9)”
Saint Barnabas’s story in the New Testament begins in Acts 4:36. People often don’t know the name of this great Saint. The reason for that is because he lived and dedicated his life to serve others. His real name was Joseph, but the Christians gave him a nickname of “Barnabas” because it meant the “son of encouragement”. Barnabas came alongside people in times of challenge and helped them; see Acts 9:10-28 and Acts 15:36-39 for more details.
So in other words, we really should take his Gospel very seriously and consider it too the inspired word of GOD. Since Christians believe in Paul, John, Mark and Matthew as Prophets of GOD, then they should also consider Barnabas as a Prophet too.
Muhammad in the Bible; Standing upon Mount Arafat
Here is another Prophecy from the Bible,
Micah
4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.
4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
In Micah 4:1-2, We find a prophecy would come to pass in the last days, It’s a prophecy about a Mountain of the House of the Lord, The people would flow unto it, And Nations would come to it, It’s the Mountain of God.
Where is the House of God?; Where is the Mountain of God?, And Who are the people who would flow unto it?
The answer is only one; It’s a prophecy about the Hajj (Pilgrimage) and one of its ceremonies, Standing upon Arafat, which is the main ceremony of the pilgrimage, as the Prophet (SAW) said: “Al Hajj (Pilgrimage) is Arafat”.
The House of God is Al Ka’ba, The mountain of God is Arafat, and the people who would flow unto it are the Muslims.
Allah says in Qur’an , Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2;
198. It is no crime in you if ye seek of the bounty of your Lord (during pilgrimage). Then when ye pour down from (Mount) Arafat, celebrate the praises of Allah at the Sacred Monument, and celebrate His praises as He has directed you, even though, before this, ye went astray.
(Holy Quran, 2:198 )
Salman:
I will respond denoting your words by using >> <>Moreover, the word ALLAH is used in bible as well ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI. Why the word God was not used there if there wasn’t a problem with that word?<> May I please ask what proves that there was a need for Him to come Himself in the universe after such a long time I mean after thousands of years of creation of the universe and that too by birth. Amazing isnt it?<>And your statement reflects that Jesus was God Himself [ ] and He Himself came as a son? This also negates the concurrent faith of christians as they asseverate jesus as the son of God, so he was not the son actually but God Himself, so why christians asseverate jesus as the son then?<<
Because as Jesus said of himself, "I and my Father are one." Remember my sharing with you the passage of Jesus speaking to Philip? Please review it. The Father and the Son together with the Holy Ghost are One God. When the Father is spoken of he is ever with his Son and their Spirit as God. They are together as one and in complete harmony. The Bible says when a man and wife join they become "one flesh". The word for "one there is "echad" same as in the "Shema’ as before we discussed. Yet try as they might, man and wife are never in complete harmony. God is always in complete harmony with himself.
I would however implore you that concentrating on that is putting the cart before the horse. What I spoke to you before about the blood of Jesus is the critical first matter for us. And this is a place that we can both rejoice. We both believe in God. We both believe he hears our voices as we pray. Then he hears us as we ask what should we think of all that stuff about blood being necessary for the remission of sins. Do I, as a sinner need my sins covered by blood? Does the blood of Jesus cover my sins? Is that a pleasing thing for me to accept in the eyes of God? All those questions you and I Salman have ready access to receiving answers to through prayer. Isn’t that a delightful thought amidst the confusion of our discussions? Psalm 51 says: "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, oh God, thou wilt not despise."
That Jesus was broken in spirit on the cross is apparent by your quote: Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani. This in us too the psalmist suggests pleases God. If we are broken in spirit wondering what to think, in giving that to God we sacrifice our pride and the psalmist tells us that God will not despise. And so we can be confident that if we ask God in that spirit what to believe, he will lead us.
The last issue you raised in your first entry on Jan. 30 was an accusation that Christianity resembles Hinduism. I won’t try to address that in detail because I feel addressing it at all is unwarranted as it frankly has less than no merit. However, because you may take it seriously let me try to explain briefly why I don’t.
To defend Christianity to the Hindu, the Hindu must be asked to understand why Christianity rejects idolatry.
In explaining Christianity to you, I must ask you to understand that Christians are not idolaters. Ironic to say the least, but beyond that, hopefully sufficient to get the point across.
Salman:
You wrote:
Moreover, the word ALLAH is used in bible as well ELI ELI LAMA SABACHTHANI. Why the word God was not used there if there wasn’t a problem with that word?
My reply:
Those words are Aramaic. Its a curious question why they’re used when the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek. Since that’s not really a point of contention between us I’ll leave it alone, except to say that “Eli” must be another spelling of the Aramaic “Elah”. Assyrian/Chaldean Christians today, who speak a dialect of Aramaic, pronounce it “Elaha” and is their word for God. So you see there’s no difficulty accepting it. It is related (in fact more closely than the German “Gott” for “God”,) to the Hebrew “eloah” except there’s a curious thing about that word as it shows up in the Scriptures. The plural form “elohim” (the suffix ‘im’ designates plural in Hebrew,) is common. Now you might expect it would be found in places that should be translated as the English plural “gods”, but it is not because that is not how it is used nor it’s meaning. Elohim, despite the plural form, means God; at least in very many places. (More about that in a moment.)
It is also not so simple with the Arabic. I presume you reject the idea that “Allah” is a contraction of “al ilah” meaning “the” god, (“al” ilah). Nevertheless, “ilah” is still Arabic for “god” and “ilah” sounds as close if not closer to “Eli” or “Elah” or “Eleha” or “Eloah”. They all sound a lot alike, with the exception of Elohim because of its suffix “im” indicating the plural form. Although I must again emphasize despite the plural form, it does mean God in many parts of the Bible as any Hebraist will verify.
A quote from http://www.muslim.org/islam/allah.htm :
“The word Allah is unique among the names of God in all the languages of mankind, in that it was never applied to any being other than God. The pre-Islamic Arabs used it to refer to the Supreme Being, and never applied it to any of the other things they worshipped. Other names of God used by mankind, such as “lord”, “god”, “khuda”, etc. have all also been used for beings other than God. They have meanings which refer to some particular attribute of God, but “Allah” is the name which refers to the Being Himself as His personal name.”
The claim that the name Allah is unique doesn’t stand up considering how closely it resembles those other Semitic words for God I gave above. I would also take exception to the notion that ANY of those forms, especially Allah, are his “personal name”. To make that point I’ll extensively quote from two other sources.
An article by J.A. Moyer, from Eerdman’s Handbook to the Bible:
[QUOTE]
Two Hebrew words are translated ‘God’:
EL The Deity’, God in the power and distinctiveness of his divine nature.
ELOHIM Plural in form signifying not ‘gods’ but the One who completely possesses all the divine attributes.
There is also a third word used for God:
ADON Describes God as ‘Sovereign’ or ‘Lord’ pointing to his divine authority and executive of rules.
In distinction from these nouns, there is also a personal name Yaweh. To avoid using this divine name itself (out of supposed reverence) a word meaning ‘Lord’ was substituted in public reading. English Bibles unfortunately perpetuated the same scruple, representing Yaweh by ‘Lord’, or when it is uses in connection with Adonai (a form of Adon), as ‘Lord God’. Much is lost in Bible reading if we forget to look beyond the substitute word to the personal, intimate name of God himself.” [END QUOTE]
I wish I could include all the article because it adds a lot, but on that point about “Yaweh” I need to comment that what he says is true, except there’s also a problem in the pronunciation. It’s a moot point because by now it’s been lost. No one can say for sure how YHVH should be pronounced except that the common way “Jehovah” is almost certainly incorrect and “Yaweh” isn’t too much less in doubt. Why I raise the issue to you Salman, is to let you know that there is a “personal name” of God in the Bible and it is not Allah. Allah is very clearly etymologically unrelated to the personal name YHVH but rather related to other Hebrew and Aramaic nouns for God, all starting with “al” or “el”. And the relationship isn’t mysterious as Arabic too is a Semitic language. All of this is evidence that appears to me quite irrefutable. “Allah”, like “God”, is a term not a personal name. At least it originated that way. Evidently it’s become the personal name to Muslims as they use it. However, if Muslims argue that God has from everlasting had Allah as his personal name; that it is in fact his name like yours is Salman, that requires pretending and ignores scholarship.
Next let me list several Hebrew words from the Bible without commenting, so as to let you arrive at your own conclusions. I think what they show speaks for itself. These are all taken from Strongs Concordance of the Bible, a standard reference. In the text the Hebrew lettering is included, but I trust you don’t need it. I’ve left out the grammatical indications also, abbreviating it to just the definitions:
[QUOTES]
ALAH: invocation; to bewail — lament. Also, to adjure, i.e. (usually in a bad sense) imprecate; –curse, swear. Also, an imprecation, curse, cursing, execration, oath.
(my note: This is all suggestive of sorrow expressed as anger. Also important: Its a verb not a noun.)
ELAH: an oak or other strong tree. Feminine form of AYIL, signifying the oak or anything strong.
ALLAH: variation of ELAH
ELOHIYM: Plural of ELOWAHH. gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural, thus especially with the article,) of the supreme God; occasionally used by way of deference to magistrates, and sometimes a superlative: — angels X exceeding. God (gods) (dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges X mighty.
(my note: Again I must stress this word frequently means “God” in the Hebrew Scriptures.)
ELOWAHH/ ELOAHH a deity or the deity: –God.
ADON sovereign, i.e. controller (human or divine): — lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with Adonai.
[END QUOTES]
Now if willing, you may take things further by reading this:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html
It is probably way more information than you want, but it will make very clear that words in the two related Semitic languages to Arabic, namely Aramaic and especially Hebrew, have names for God that can be associated with Allah, but aren’t the personal name of God. That name is YHVH, the so-called ‘unutterable’ name, although it may be more accurate to say it became the unuttered name .
You wrote:
May I please ask what proves that there was a need for Him to come Himself in the universe after such a long time I mean after thousands of years of creation of the universe and that too by birth. Amazing isnt it
My reply:
Yes it is amazing, but do you expect something less of God than to be amazing? I do not mind your bewilderment, but only that you would expect not to be bewildered. That’s the sort of thing I expect from an unbeliever. Where do you draw the line in your skepticism? Can you believe Muhammad rode to Jerusalem on Buraq because that’s Muslim, but not that God could visit earth as a man because that’s Christian? Do you know of a miniature painting that shows the part horse/part woman Baraq with not just the woman’s head but her breasts as well? They’re not fully exposed but still rather sultry one could say. How is it a painting like that even could survive given the prudishness we are expected to believe Islam enforces? It was painted by a Muslim long ago, not a decadent Westerner recently. I’m sorry to digress on that but it is a good example both of believing a quite bizarre story and also contradicting the sanctity of a woman’s body according to Islam and in of all ways, illustrating a story that is supposed to have even greater sanctity for being about the life of Muhammad.
Amazing or incomprehensible are one thing. Total nonsense and fables are another. We must want to tell them apart.
In the account from Matthew I gave you of why at his birth Yeshua ( Isa,/Jesus) was given that name, the reason was that, “he shall save his people from their sins.” If we set that aside for the moment and just begin with the idea that you quoted from Isaiah, [Isaiah 43:11: “I even I am the Lord and beside me their is no Savior.”] might we ask savior of whom? Anyone saying he saves himself makes himself a savior beside God which is to call God a liar. Ergo, if there is no savior beside God, then there is no way to be saved but by God. So God is the savior of the truly saved and the rest are those who plan to try to save themselves
somehow — presumably doing things they imagine God will agree has saved them.
In the 4th Chapter of the Gospel of John Jesus meets a Samaritan woman alone at a well. The story is very apropos to the issues raised on this website because it involves both religious and cultural differences, and the place of women. Jesus should not have been with her at all because she was a Samaritan (nor she with him a Jew,) and even more he shouldn’t have been alone with her because she was a woman and worse, a none too upstanding woman at that. I won’t spoil the story. You need to read it for yourself to appreciate it, but suffice to say at the point that things get a bit too personal — as the woman later describes it in verse 29: “Come see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: Is this not the Christ? — she abruptly changes the subject to religion. From there the conversation goes like this, starting at verse 19:
“The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. 21 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. ”
That’s rather flattering of the Jews wouldn’t you say, or was Jesus, as a Jew, just flattering himself? Either way he told her she (and the Samaritans) didn’t know what they worshipped. It’s interesting that he said “what” and not “who”. He seemed to accept that they worshipped God, but “what” seems to suggest they didn’t know the things about God, such as “the Father”.
Samaritans worshipped God, but they offered their sacrifices on location, not in Jerusalem by priests descended from Levi and Aaron as the Law of Moses required. The blood of animals was required to cover sins. That was the Law. It had to be done as the Law required but the Samaritans blood sacrifices were not according to the Law.
Now please don’t be too offended by this because if Jesus cared for that Samaritan woman (and he did,) then I want to mean no more harm to you; but Muslims are in no better position than Samaritans were. Muslims too worship God in ignorance of salvation as God ordained it through the Jews.
“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats with water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: and without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin.” — Hebrews 9:19-22
That is in the New Testament, but you may cross-reference it in the Torah at Exodus 24 and 29 and Leviticus 8 and 14 and 17. Just one for example: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.” — Leviticus 17:11
If you put the two concepts together Salman; that only God is savior, and the requirement of the shedding of blood as the means of salvation; it explains why God would have to come to earth and shed his own blood. No other blood would do. If a mere man were to make the sacrifice his blood too would be tainted by sin, but Jesus was no mere man. Even Muhammad realized that up to a point, for he lavished many compliments on Jesus he didn’t reserve for himself: Born of a virgin, raising the dead, and so forth. One of the outstanding things about Jesus is he repeatedly challenged anyone to find any sin in him but no one could. How then can a man totally without sin be other than divine, no matter how reluctant we may be to call any man that?
Do you suppose that the blood of animals could be anything but a shadow of the ultimate final sacrifice; that even the spotless lamb of passover, symbolic of perfection in innocence could serve any purpose but to temporarily stand in place of the True Lamb of God? When John the Baptist said “Behold, the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) did Jesus object? No, he gladly received John, for Jesus is indeed the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. That’s why God the Father sent the Son.
Your wrote:
And your statement reflects that Jesus was God Himself [ ] and He Himself came as a son? This also negates the concurrent faith of christians as they asseverate jesus as the son of God, so he was not the son actually but God Himself, so why christians asseverate jesus as the son then?
My reply:
Because as Jesus said of himself, “I and my Father are one.” Remember my sharing with you the passage of Jesus speaking to Philip? Please review it. The Father and the Son together with the Holy Ghost are One God. When the Father is spoken of he is ever with his Son and their Spirit as God. They are together as one and in complete harmony. The Bible says when a man and wife join they become “one flesh”. The word for “one there is “echad” same as in the “Shema’ as before we discussed. Yet try as they might, man and wife are never in complete harmony. God is always in complete harmony with himself.
I would however implore you that concentrating on that is putting the cart before the horse. What I spoke to you before about the blood of Jesus is the critical first matter for us. And this is a place that we can both rejoice. We both believe in God. We both believe he hears our voices as we pray. Then he hears us as we ask what should we think of all that stuff about blood being necessary for the remission of sins. Do I, as a sinner need my sins covered by blood? Does the blood of Jesus cover my sins? Is that a pleasing thing for me to accept in the eyes of God? All those questions you and I Salman have ready access to receiving answers to through prayer. Isn’t that a delightful thought amidst the confusion of our discussions? Psalm 51 says: “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, oh God, thou wilt not despise.” That Jesus was broken in spirit on the cross is apparent by your quote: Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani. This in us too the psalmist suggests pleases God. If we are broken in spirit wondering what to think, in giving that to God we sacrifice our pride and the psalmist tells us that God will not despise. And so we can be confident that if we ask God in that spirit what to believe, he will lead us.
The last issue you raised in your first entry on Jan. 30 was an accusation that Christianity resembles Hinduism. I won’t try to address that in detail because I feel addressing it at all is unwarranted as it frankly has less than no merit. However, because you may take it seriously let me try to explain briefly why I don’t. To defend Christianity to the Hindu, the Hindu must be asked to understand why Christianity rejects idolatry. In explaining Christianity to you, I must ask you to understand that Christians are not idolaters. Ironic to say the least, but beyond that, hopefully sufficient to get the point across.
Salman:
I’m sorry for the first of my last two entries. It got garbled somehow so I submitted it again. The second is correct.
I’ve glanced at your second entry; the one with all the claims of the Bible referring to Muhammad. Parts look familiar: others not. I can only go so far in indulging in every supposed reference before deciding it’s a fools game to go on debunking them all, but I’ll try to answer to the extent that you know I’ve tried to be fair with you.
I can’t do that just now but I can answer your third entry right away. The Gospel of Barnabas is, in case you don’t know, not in the Bible. It’s not in it for a very good reason. It’s bogus. You can’t very well expect me to defend a document unanimously denounced by every Christian scholar as completely spurious and unworthy of any serious treatment. I promise not to use any documents supposedly of genuine Muslim authority that are unanimously denounced by every authoritative Muslim scholar. I would appreciate it if you would abide by the same standard in your assessment of Christianity.
Salman:
More responses to your claims about the Bible:
The record still holds today that more Gentiles are Christian than Muslim. So the reference to “Gentiles coming to thy light” if it refers to a prophet, could easily mean Jesus.
Isaiah 60 is a prophesy of the restoration of Israel and specifically at some final reckoning which we still await today. For example verses 19-22 read: “The sun shall be no more thy light by day: neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. 20 Thy sun shall no more go down: neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.”
Does the sun no more go down during the Haj?
“21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. 22 A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in his time.”
We know that Israel is meant as Isaiah had no other preoccupation. Verse 9 reads: “Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.”
Since when has the Haj brought sons from afar unto the Holy One of Israel? Any question of what place is meant is cleared up in the next chapter at 61:3 which reads: “To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.” This reflects back to chapter 60 verse 21 “they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting.”
In the next chapter, 62, the first verse reads: “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.”
The “thereof” refers to all Isaiah has been describing in the previous two chapters and so this verse makes it abundantly plain that the place in question is Zion, not Mecca. It is about the people being “planted” –as in putting down roots — in Zion. The gentiles will be drawn to Zion as well, but it doesn’t mention them putting down roots.
http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/Jordan.html#Kedar
Here you see who was meant by Kedar. They were nomads between what is now Syria and Jordan, not a city in the south of Arabia. So to substitute Mecca for Kedar is playing with the text, and moreover you might not want to do that if you read in Psalm 120 where it says: “Woe is me that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar.” If that is Mecca, it doesn’t sound like visiting there is being recommended, but it’s not Mecca. Its a people much farther north who evidently had a hard life, not the least in facing Assyria. http://www.answers.com/topic/kedar
Before getting to Isaiah 60 it pays to start at chapter 21 and review the claims made about that by some Muslims. That is covered extensively here: http://answeringislam.net/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r06.05.html
I think that well exposes the contriving that goes on with Muslims treating these passages. As for a prophet told in chapter 60, if there is one who it would be is better revealed by backing up two verses before the start of the 60th chapter, to 59:20.
“And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. 21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord, My spirit is upon thee, and my words which I put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.”
Who is “them”? Jacob, the one the Lord’s covenant was with who would pass the Lords words on to Jacob’s seed from generation to generation. Where would the Redeemer come to them? In Zion.
Deuteronomy 34:10-12
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face. 11 all the signs and the wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharoah, and to all his servants, and to all his land, 12 And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great terror which Moses showed in the sight of Israel.”
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend ..”. — Exodus 33:11
Did Muhammad claim to speak face to face to the Lord as to a friend? I thought he only got messages from Allah by way of an angel. What “signs and wonders” did Muhammad do like Moses did “in the land of Egypt to Pharoah”?
The book of Deuteronomy is said to have been written by Moses, but the last chapter describes his death, so that part he did not likely write. Whoever did write it could’ve been saying that since Moses death to the time of the writing, Israel had no prophet like Moses. If I say, “not since yesterday have I eaten” I am not implying that I will never eat again. But let’s accept “since” means “never again”. That only means there would never again be a prophet like Moses in the ways named. Its true also that no other prophet ever did the miracles Moses did in Egypt, but then neither did Muhammad. Jesus did some that arguably rival the ones Moses did. (Some might say exceeded them.) Muhammad did not.
The crux of your argument is that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 would have to be a gentile, because of what’s said at the end of the book. But verse 18 reiterates verse 15. It reads: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken.”
At verse 18 it says “among” the brethren but verse 15 uses the phrase “from the midst of thee.” Now firstly an Arab would be at best among their cousins not “brethren” really, but moreover Muhammad came “from the midst” of the Arabs and even if we want to stretch and call Arabs “brethren”, “from the midst” of the Arabs and “from the midst of thee.” are incompatible. “Thee” were the Hebrews Moses was speaking to. From amidst the Arabs and from amidst the Hebrews obviously do not mean the same thing.
Since by reason it must be conceded that Hebrews not Arabs are meant, that causes the verses at chapter 34 to not imply the prophet would have to be a gentile. (Unless you want the two passages to contradict each other.) The sensible way to resolve that is by understanding that there would be a prophet “like unto Moses” but not like unto him as told in Chapter 34 in seeing the Lord face to face or in doing all that Moses did in Egypt to Pharoah. And that is really necessary even if you want that prophet to be Muhammad because he did none of the things Moses did “in the land of Egypt to Pharoah.” In fact since the principle role of Pharoah in the story was his oppression of Israel, it would be fair to say Muhammad was in that way more like Pharoah than like Moses.
As for your dissertation on the “paraclete” it is a boilerplate Muslim assertion and so one I’m a bit tired of hearing I must confess. So rather than respond myself I’m going to pass along someone else’s answer to it. It is a bit blunt in parts which you may hold the author accountably for not me. If you view Barenakedislam, I assume you’re able to tolerate it. Without further ado, here’s the article for your edification:
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/141912
As for Micah, you once again take a verse about Jerusalem and try to switch it to mean Mecca. What is quite a consternation is that you even include the proof verse in what you wrote. It’s the second verse as follows:
“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths, for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
What part of “Jacob” and “Zion” and “Jerusalem” is so hard for you to accept that you could miss it even as it stares you right in the face?
Ernest
Let us start with your question did our Beloved Prophet had a face to face conversation with Allah;
Your quotes
1. “And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend ..”. — Exodus 33:11
Did Muhammad peace be upon him claim to speak face to face to the Lord as to a friend? I thought he only got messages from Allah by way of an angel. What “signs and wonders” did Muhammad do like Moses did “in the land of Egypt to Pharoah”? –
Yes Beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was the only messenger who had spoken to Allah face to face on Meraj, Holy Quran describes it as follows;
SURAH AL-NAJM CHAPTER 53 VERSE 1-18 AL QURAN
1. By the lovely shining star Muhammad, when he descended from the Ascension (Meraj).
2. Your companion neither went astray nor misled.
3. And he speaks not of his own desire. (Beloved Prophet speaks whatever is being commanded to him from ALLAH)
4. That is not but the revelation that is revealed to him.
5. He was taught by one possessing mighty powers. (Beloved Prophet was taught directly by Allah Who possess Mighty Powers)
6. Possessor of strength. Then that splendid sight proceeded.
7. And he was on the highest horizon. (Beloved Prophet was on the highest of horizons which was not bestowed to any other Prophet)
8. Then that splendid sight drew nearer, then he came close well.
9. So there was a distance of two hands between the Splendid sight and the beloved (Prophet) but rather less
than that. (Beloved Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him came as close to ALLAH as there was a distance between two hands or even less, this highest distinction wasn’t bestowed to any Prophets before him. This clearly indicates that Beloved Prophet saw Allah on Meraj)
10. Now He revealed to His bondman whatever He revealed.
11. The heart lied not in what he saw.
12. Do you then dispute with him concerning what he has seen? (now people who disputes the claim are being lamented and it was again cleared in the next verse the Beloved Prophet saw that Splendid Light twice)
13. And indeed, he saw that Splendid sight twice.
14. Near the farthest Lote-tree.
15. Near which is the Garden of Eternity.
16. When that was covering the Lote-Tree, which was covering.
17. The eye deviated not, nor crossed the limit.
18. Certainly, he saw very big signs of his Lord.
This distinction hasn’t been bestowed to any other Prophet, so it negates your self-proclaimed version that Beloved Prophet wasn’t foretold in the Bible. As you said that I ignored the version of Jacob and Zion which starred literally right in front of my face, I hope that you would not ignore this example which is staring at your face, being a clear reply that Beloved Prophet spoke to Allah face to face.
KEADAR THE HOLY KA’ABA IN MAKKAH FORETOLD IN SONGS OF SONGS (SONG OF SOLOMON)
1:5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon
The tents of Kedar (Makkah) is still in black colour!!! Do u still rebut that Kedar was not Makkah/ Ka’aba
1- Jesus said he had no Divine Will:
Let us look at the following from the Bible:
Matthew 26:36-44
36. Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”
37. He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.
38. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”
39. Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
40. Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter.
41. “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”
42. He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
43. When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.
44. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
Very Important Note: The liars from the English translators should’ve wrote “…Yet not as I WISH, but as you WILL…”. This would’ve been the most proper and accurate translation by the polytheist trinitarian pagans who are dying to prove the lie about Jesus being the Creator of the Universe by any cost, even through lying and deceiving.
Ernest
Here are some facts about the Gospel of Barnabas
1- How the Gospel survived?
The following information was taken from the Book:
The Gospel of Barnabas
Iman Muhammad Armiya Nu’man
Publishers Group
ISBN: 1-881316-15-7
You can buy it from http://www.amazon.com.
I will try to add more references to beef up this article in the near future, insha’Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing).
________________________________________
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 A.D.
Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
In 325 A.D., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that anyone in possession of these Gospels will be put to death.
In 383 A.D., the Pope secured a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas and kept it in his private library.
In the fourth year of Emperor Zeno (478 A.D.), the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand. (Acia Sanctorum Boland Junii Tom II, Pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698). The famous Vulgate Bible appears to be based on this Gospel.
Pope Sixtus (1585-90) had a friend, Fra Marino. He found the Gospel of Barnabas in the private library of the Pope. Fra Marino was interested because he had read the writings of Iranaeus where Barnabas had been profusely quoted. The Italian manuscript passed through different hands till it reached “a person of great name and authority” in Amsterdam, “who during his life time was often heard to put a high value to this piece”. After his death it came in the possession of J.E. Cramer, a Councilor of the King of Prussia. In 1713 Cramer presented this manuscript to the famous connoisseur of books, Prince Eugene of Savoy. In 1738 along with the library of the Prince it found its way into Hofbibliothek in Vienna. There it now rests.
Toland, in his “Miscellaneous Works” (published posthumously in 1747), in Vol. I, page 380, mentions that the Gospel of Barnabas was still extant. In Chapter XV he refers to the Glasian Decree of 496 A.D. where “Evangelium Barnabe” is included in the list of forbidden books. Prior to that it had been forbidden by Pope Innocent in 465 A.D. and by the Decree of the Western Churches in 382 A.D.
Barnabas is also mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus Serial No. 3, Epistle of Barnabas…Lines 1, 300. Then again in the list of sixty Books
• Serial No. 17. Travels and teaching of the Apostles.
• Serial No. 18. Epistle of Barnabas.
• Serial No. 24. Gospel According to Barnabas.
A Greek version of the Gospel of Barnabas is also found in a solitary fragment. The rest is burnt. A photo of the fragment is given below.
The Latin text was translated into English by Mr. and Mrs. Ragg and was printed at the Clarendon Press in Oxford. It was published by the Oxford University Press in 1907. This English translation mysteriously disappeared from the market. Two copies of this translation are known to exist, one in the British Museum and the other in the Library of the Congress, Washington. The first edition was from a micro-film copy of the book in the Library of the Congress, Washington, which was received through the courtesy of a friend in U.S.A.
2- More additions from brother Adeel Khan:
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church asserts:
Gospel of Barnabas was declared a rejected book in the Decretum Gelasianum by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96]. According to E. Von Dobschutz, it is a private compilation which was composed in Italy (but not at Rome) in the early sixth century.
Mr. Sale in his preface “To the Reader” of his translation of the meanings of the verses of the noble Qur’an says:
“… the discoverer of the original M.S., who was a Christian monk called Fra Marino, tells us that having accidentally met with a writing of Irenaeus (among others), wherein Irenaeus spoke against Paul, alleging, for his authority, the Gospel of St. Barnabas, he became exceedingly desirous of finding an existing copy of this Gospel, and that God of His mercy, having made Fra Marino an intimate friend of Pope Sixtus V, (pope 1585-1590), one day, as they were together in the Pope’s library, his holiness fell asleep, and the monk, to occupy himself, reaching down for a book to read, the very first he laid his hand on proved to be the very Gospel history that he was seeking. Overjoyed at the discovery, he scrupled not to hide his prize discovery in his sleeve; and, on the Pope’s awakening, took to leave of him carrying with him that celestial treasure, by reading of which he became a convert to Muhammedanism”
In 478AD, the fourth year of Emperor Zeno, the remains of Barnabas were discovered and there was found on his breast a copy of the Gospel of Barnabas written by his own hand.
Acia Sanctorum Borland Junii Tom II, pages 422 and 450. Antwerp 1698
Salman:
The description in your 18 ‘meraj’ points do not strike me as corresponding with this description:
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend .” — Exodus 33:11
Nor is it like what is told in Exodus of Moses’ encounters with God. It doesn’t say quite what the Bible says about seeing God: http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/mat5v8.html
However, you may have it serve that purpose for you if you wish. It still depends upon trusting in the Qu’ran as a reliable source and that what is described is not a fanciful tale rather than a genuine encounter with God. With that in mind let me quote something you wrote:
“This distinction hasn’t been bestowed to any other Prophet, so it negates your self-proclaimed version that Beloved Prophet wasn’t foretold in the Bible. As you said that I ignored the version of Jacob and Zion which starred literally right in front of my face, I hope that you would not ignore this example which is staring at your face, being a clear reply that Beloved Prophet spoke to Allah face to face.”
You have been quoting from the Bible as if it contains accounts of words and events and prophetic truths we can rely upon. By contrast I’ve not given any credence to the Qu’ran whatsoever. Since I believe your beloved prophet was a false prophet, any claims he makes for himself in the Qu’ran I don’t believe. Therefore, I do not believe his claim (if it is a claim,) to have seen God face to face. I don’t even find his claims the least bit compelling, which would be a first step toward softening my natural skepticism of the man. Now you are welcome to say you neither believe Moses ever spoke to God face to face if you like. You could say you believe Moses was a false prophet and the Bible the work of false prophets, but you haven’t taken that stand which is why we can be quibbling over the proper way of interpreting this or that verse in the Bible.
Therefore when you quote a book yourself from the Bible as if it is for you a binding truth, you ought not ignore what it so clearly contains. I am not similarly regarding the Qu’ran at all, not just in any supposed claims of your prophet speaking to God face to face as to a friend, but any of the Qu’ran. Not a word of it, from the first page to the last. When I quote something from the Qu’ran as if it were a binding truth for me, then you may call upon me to take note of what is staring me right in the face about it as having to be true.
You also wrote:
“The liars from the English translators should’ve wrote “…Yet not as I WISH, but as you WILL…”. This would’ve been the most proper and accurate translation by the polytheist trinitarian pagans who are dying to prove the lie about Jesus being the Creator of the Universe by any cost, even through lying and deceiving.”
Here we find that you are as skeptical of “English translators” of the Bible as I am of whomever compiled the Qu’ran later or originally. Would you also accuse those who wrote the original Greek version of the N.T. of being “polytheistic trinitarian pagans”? If you mean to be consistent you should because the doctrine of the Trinity was established by them. If you doubt that, try telling a Greek Orthodox priest that Englishmen invented the Trinity and when he is finished laughing he might be kind enough to explain to you the origins of the Church and its doctrines. Or a Syriac or Coptic priest for that matter. Or do you imagine Muslims know the history of the Church better than any of them do?
There is a historical lineage in Christianity to its founder Jesus reflected in its doctrines. You I trust would as legitimately make the same claim for Islam and its founder. The difference is I will not try to tell you that the faith you practice as the Qu’ran directs is not what your beloved prophet intended. I will not try to tell you that a verse from the Qu’ran you follow must be a corruption; a lie added, and not what Muhammad intended. That is precisely the accusation you hurl at Christians regarding Jesus and the Bible. How should I know what Muhammad intended? And indeed how should you, as a Muslim know better what Jesus intended than the people who have been every bit as devoted to Jesus as anyone has ever been devoted to Muhammad?
Salman, you may throw around taunts accusing Christians of lies and deceits all you want but who do you expect to impress that way? Even of the Muslims who have been following our correspondence closely, I’m quite confident that some of them will recognize that as nothing but invective. I’ve tried first and foremost to bring to you attention the difference between what Muslims are told Christians believe and what it is that Christians believe from a Christian perspective not a Muslim one. I have endeavored not to attack Islam but to counter accusations made against Christianity. As those come from you they are made in support of Islam. As you raise the specter of Islam against Christianity I must address Islam, but otherwise it would suit me fine to leave Islam aside.
That is not to say I believe fault cannot be found with Islam. Very far from it. As I’ve told you, I believe your beloved prophet was a false prophet. I could say that Islam is full of lies and deceits but what would that gain me? Even if it is as true as any truth could ever be, my purpose isn’t to show Islam is false but rather that Christianity is true, or at the very least could be true. My purpose is to point to the saving power of the blood of Jesus to wash away our sin. That is the crux of Christianity. It saddens me that people are led away from that but I don’t care by whom or by what. Do you want your sin washed away? You may tell me how (or if) that happens through Muhammad and I will kindly listen. If I tell you it happens through Jesus by his death on the cross does that annoy you?
We have examined whether the Bible foretells Muhammad and the names for God and such, but otherwise our correspondences have basically been you saying here is why Christianity is ludicrous and me answering by trying to show you how it isn’t. You haven’t yet said why the blood is ludicrous but I’m not going to press you to get to that before you are ready. I trust you have an answer for it like the other answers you have given which makes me in no hurry to get it to it.
Along those lines, perhaps the most clearly preposterous argument you have made was regarding a so-called ‘gospel of Barnabas’. I tried to discourage you from making it an issue but I’m afraid that might have only emboldened you on the matter. It wasn’t, but it could’ve been a clever ploy on my part to lead you into a trap. In fact, I wanted to spare us both a pointless discussion. And it is pointless except to offer an embarrassment for certain Muslims who have grasped onto a document with great enthusiasm that has been unequivocally and beyond a shadow of a doubt proven to be a forgery. As I said, I wanted to spare you the bother, but if you read what is given in these articles, you will have the proof. Sorry, but it does take some time to do the reading. I have saved you some bother by excerpting parts that spell out why even you as a Muslim should reject it, and some others that specifically debunk the claims made by your Muhammad Armiya Nu’man:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Barnabas/
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/barnabas.html
“The Gospel of Barnabas was obviously written as an ideal “Islamic” Gospel, setting forth a life of Christ in which he is made to be the Isa of the Qur’an rather than the Lord Jesus Christ of the Christian Gospels. But as it so hopelessly contradicts both the Qur’an and the Bible on the fact that Jesus was the Messiah and does this so often and so consistently, it must be rejected as a forgery by Christian and Muslim alike. There is no room here for apologetics or efforts to reconcile this book with the Qur’an or the Bible. It is a counterfeit.”
http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap6.html
“Muslim: Among the books discredited by the Gelasian Decree in the sixth century after Christ was the Gospel of Barnabas. This proves that it existed at that time. It was only rejected because it told the truth about Jesus’ life and teaching.”
“There were numerous apocryphal Gospels, Epistles and other forgeries similar in style to the authentic New Testament scriptures that were rejected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and in the subsequent Decretum Gelasianum of which one was titled the Gospel of Barnabas. No historical record whatsoever exists to show what sort of book it was or what it taught. From a study of the contents of this Islamic Gospel so strongly promoted in the Muslim world, however, it soon becomes obvious that these two cannot possibly be the same works. There are many proofs that the latter is a 16th century forgery.”
(My comment: The Council of Nicaea was merely a formal confirmation of the canonical books. The leaders meeting there were well aware of which had all along been held as being authentically apostolic and which were not, and met only to make an official proclamation of it.)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Nehls/Answer/barnabas.html
Muslims who refer to the forged ‘gospel of Barnabas’ (G.o.B.) claim:
” A copy of the G.o.B. was found in the arms of Barnabas when his tomb was discovered in Cyprus A.D. 478. A legend has it, that Barnabas appeared in a vision to the Bishop of Salanus (Cyprus) and said: “You will find a cave and a coffin, because there my whole body has been preserved and a Gospel written in my own hand.”
Unfortunately, the above quotation ends only halfway through the sentence, which continues in the original:
“Which I received from the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew.”
So he was supposed to have held in his arms a Gospel according to Matthew written by himself. Besides all this we find it strange that the republishers of the G.o.B. reprinted the book without the permission of the translators (plagiarism) and omitted the explanatory notes, which were the outcome of their research work.
We note that Irenaeus never mentioned a G.o.B., nor spoke against Paul. He recognized Paul’s writings as inspired and claimed that our known four Gospel narratives were the only ones ever given by God (Gairdner, page 12). ”
So you see Salman, you are relying on information that you gain from sources that have plagiarized a scholarly edition of a forged document; sources who also distort other material to serve their purpose, even chopping off the whole end of a sentence that changes a meaning entirely. And who also flat out lie about Irenaeus and what comprised approved canon of New Testament scripture.
What is worse for you is the forgery contains parts that are quite in conflict with certain Muslim beliefs as you will discover if you read all the material thoroughly. On the other hand there are parts that unmistakably favor a Muslim view of Jesus which is of course why the other parts are overlooked by those too eager to have anything from a Christian source that points to Muhammad and his teachings. Unfortunately for them the so-called ‘gospel of Barnabas’ isn’t what they so badly want. It is definitely not a Christian document. It is a forgery made by nobody knows whom. It’s not at all unique in that regard. There are quite a number of such spurious documents claiming to offer insight into the supposed truth of Jesus — stories of him having married Mary Magdalene, or visiting India and things such as that. It is a subculture of Western literature. There are in fact countless such strange books of a ’spiritual’ nature of one kind or another which are the stock and trade of occult booksellers. The books are found in their stores on the same shelves that carry books about Lucifer and Satanism. I doubt that is news you like hearing, but I did try to warn you. If you’d like an example you can look here: http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit-christianity.asp It frankly does a much better job of mocking Christianity but is nevertheless, every bit as much anti-Christian tripe as is the gospel of Barnabas forgery.
Fortunately for you, Muhammad never mentions a gospel of Barnabas or even the man Barnabas so you can dismiss the use that forgery by some Muslims as an error of a few misguided souls if you like. I doubt Muhammad ever heard of Barnabas and maybe not even Peter or Paul or Mathew or the rest. He never mentioned them. He was aware of Jesus evidently from what the Qu’ran tells, but it doesn’t tell a fraction of what the New Testament tells. If you want a robust understanding of Jesus you need the New Testament. You won’t get it from the Qu’ran.
REMARK : I AM A MOSLEM.
COMENT : I AM NOT AGREE WITH THIS SITE, DONT MAKE PROBLEM WITH IT.ISLAM NOT AS BAD AS YOU WRITE, YOU JUST DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND.
About Matthew 26:36-44
Before addressing whether this passage negates Jesus having a divine will, let us begin by first asking if it shows that he had a human will. This is practically a silly question as, unless he wasn’t actually human (a contention sometimes made oddly enough,) of course he had a human will. As a simple illustration, if he had an itch he would have desired to scratch it. Just four verses earlier at 25:32 Jesus says: “But after I am risen again I will go before you into Galilee.” This is something he said he “will” do. A human will could decide to go to Galilee but it could not decide to rise from the dead first — not and actually carry out that will by mere human action. Before that glorious event it would be quite humanly natural to wish not to suffer crucifixion, certainly before being sure it was absolutely necessary according to God, and even afterwards.
What Jesus was saying was his desire was that his Father’s will be done not his own. Another way of saying that would be it was his will that not his own will but his Father’s be done. That is inescapably paradoxical. It is explained only by allowing that he had two desires; one not to be crucified and the other to be crucified if that was what his Father deemed was necessary. It could be argued that both desires were examples of human will. That does not negate Jesus having a divine will as well. It only means it wasn’t being shown there, just as when he desired to scratch an itch no divine will was involved. Another Christology I’d imagine (I must guess as I’m not a theologian,) is that in desiring that his Father’s will be fulfilled he was expressing his divine nature and his hoping not to have to be crucified expressed his human nature.
The issue you raise does come under the heading of CHRISTOLOGY.
http://www.prayerbook.ca/crouse/writings/christology.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
As you can see the whole story of Christology takes in the entire history of Christianity and is therefore quite a vast undertaking to study. One of the things that will come from such a study is the discovery that brutal suppression of dissenters and even heretics is greatly exaggerated. The history of Christianity would be much simpler if opposition had actually been routinely abolished but since mostly it has not been, there has ended up being plenty of dissent of all kinds that has been tolerated and that creates a complicated story.
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/983_what_is_the_hypostatic_union/
http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html
“The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as finite human beings, should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God.”
I dare say that few people ever go very deeply into Christology first and then decide to be a Christian. It would be somewhat ridiculous if they had to. Christianity is after all, a faith not a science and a faith for common folks not just scholars. It would be a backward approach to try to arrive at faith by building upon it. One cannot build upon something that one hasn’t yet got. Even when someone does go ahead to study Christology in depth (and there is almost no other way to study it,) it would be a reckless thing to try to do without first having read the entire New Testament thoroughly enough to be quite familiar with it and to be in the habit of studying it as a matter of routine — daily preferably.
And that is why you Salman, are not equipped to get very much out of Christology that will help you properly understand Christianity. You do not yet know the Bible well enough to do more than quote random passages from it — passages I strongly suspect you have not found by your own reading of the Bible, but rather by reading critics of Christianity quoting those passages. Is my suspicion wrong? Do you have a Bible that you read for yourself? I’m not saying you need to be thoroughly grounded in it, but you should at least read it for yourself instead of relying entirely on passages someone else has plucked out for you.
More debunking of Barnabas gospels for your reading pleasure:
http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/chapter_2.htm
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html
Conclusion: Truth varies to different seekers. Basic differences; Muslim believes in monotheism ( oneness of god), while christian believes in polytheism (many gods). Some commentaries here are indeed a reflection of learned and intelligent people who had spent time studying different religions. However devoid of any guidance by Allah the most Merciful these people remains servants of the devil who wants to lead people astray by spreading polytheism. On the contrary those who had received guidance from Allah become muslim and servant of Allah the one and only god.
From the evidences i’ve read from this discussions… this is nothing but a TKO.. well done ernest… congratulations. For our friend salman.. well… next time… get a good Bible… and make sure to read….by YOURSELF… don’t rely on anybody else… if you have questions ask ernest he will help you.
U r all saying that ISLAM degrading women and west upgrading the women…..? i think u r the greatest stupid i have come across… the west see the women as a lust thing in the name of upgrading… any honest women or honest men who respect the womens there can understand that if they read qur’an…all womens can u answer me why they dont organize a boxing or athletics mixed with mens and womens if they consider men and women are equal…..why the west using the women to publish their markets by exposing the women as a lust thing to woo others..why they keeping 105+kg for men weight lifting and 75+ for women’s weight lifting……why the america has high rate of rape,women molestation,crime against women……..also why 2/3 of those reverting to islam are womens..is there any honest one to answer these…….any one who have knowledge about science and have commen sense can answer these…..
The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam
1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust
The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:
Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.
Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.
Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.
Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.
Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was burried alive…
Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.
Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.
Hijaab for men
People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:
“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.”
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.
Hijaab for women.
The next verse of Surah Noor, says:
” And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons…”
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
3. Six criteria for Hijaab.
According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:
1.
Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
2.
The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
3.
The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
4.
The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
5.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
6.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.
4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things
Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.
5. Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:
“O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.
6. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?
8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.
9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?
10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
you all will understand one day , the value of islam.that is only i can say to u all.
jaleel
hijaab…that’s got to be the answer to all the evils in this world….wear a hijaab and all the immoralities will be gone………..is that fantasy or what.
Ernest
I am posting my reply a little late, well lets explore the topic of Gospel of Barnabas first, then we would delve in to further details about other topics, its bit easy to quote the websites as u have done in your earlier quotes, nevertheless the Saint Barnabas was also a Christian, since you have denied altogether the coming of Beloved Prophet foretold in bible which I have already discussed in detail. The rebuttal of Christians about the Gospel of Barnabas is appended below with my earnest thanks to brothers Osama Abdullah and Shamsuddin for there wonderful insights about the Gospel;
1) Gospel of Barnabas: Language and History.
Introductory remarks:
No serious student of the gospel of Barnaba will claim that the modified translation of a translation of a translation we have in hand and which is known as the vienna MS is equal in all respects to the gospel of Barnaba of whose existence the decretum of pope Gelasius from the 5. Century amongst others bears witness. The question about to discuss on a scolary level is the one which was stated by the summa cum laude thesis of Prof. Luigi Cirillo in 1975. (Cirillo at present is professor of religious studies at University of Cosenza and a world leading expert on Manicheism and Jewish christianity). His brilliant study on the gospel of Barnaba, unfortunately in french, which contains the whole vienna MS in facsimile, and a french translation even of the arabic comments, was honoured by a detailed introduction of Prof. Henry Corbin, one of the leading orientalists of his time. Prof. Cirillo provided evidence for a jewish christian gospel underlying the vienna text which suffered several metamorphosis during its long history. A history which can be shown to have begun before the advent of Islam.
In basical agreement with Cirillo also the jewish religious scolar Prof. Shlomo Pineés recognizes ancient jewish christian material, like for instance the story from Abrahams childhood which finds ist parallel only in the apocalypse of Abraham, a rare apokryphe from the 1. Century C. E. which was unknown for centuries until rediscovered in churchslavonic translation. The most recent editions of this text is quoting the gospel of barnabas in its apparatus which means that it is not considered a forgery by serious scolars. Other traditions in the G. of B. are not known from any other source like the true phariseés by whom Jesus obviously means the Esseans and whom he compares to the hippocritical phariseés he has to deal with.
Some muslim interpolations like the anouncement of the holy prophet by the name Mahomet and numerous redundant remarks are of a late and ignorant muslim hand, yet there is a underlying which proves by is true or apparant contradictions to Qurán and isslamic tradition that it was written by jewish christians.
a) Green is right! … But no serious person ever claimed that the title of the vienna MS is genuin. This would be actually surprising because even the titles of many new testament books can not claim for being written by the author.
b) For the true phariseés/ Esseans see our Introduction above.
c) The wrong date fo pilates reign are obvious signs of an late and ignorant redactor who probably put the material into the form nowadays known as gospel of Barnabas.
The gospel of Barnaba and Islam
a) Messiah:
Sam Green is correct if he says that muslims never claimed Muhammed to be a Messiah. The holy Qur´an mentions only Jesus under this title. But maybe it will be surprising for him to hear that some kind of early jewish christians did exactly this. They called every big prophet in the sequence Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and finally the Prophet from 5 Mose 18,15 a Messiah. because anointing is a sign of royality. In Islam the same illustrous names are known as ahl ul-azam. The jewish christian source in the first book of Clements recognitions (English text see the collection: Ante nicean fathers) according to the leading scolar F. Stanley Jones goes back at least to second century jewish christian apostle acts. The source attributes also another name to the abovementioned Messiahs. It calls them Prophets of truth or true prophet (two possible renderings of the latin text).
We like to draw here attention to the fact that also the title of the Barnabas gospel Vienna speaks of “Jesus Christ a new profet.” From the Lentulus letter we learn that prophet of truth was used as a name for the Messiah Jesus especially by non Jewish christians and it might well be that this expression sheds a light on the mysterious spirit of truth in St. Johns gospel, even more as in the apocalypse the same John speaks of the spirit of prophetic speech. It seems that prophet of truth, spirit of truth, spirit of prophetic speech, are all different expressions for one and the same spiritual reality which was also called the paraclet or periclyt by early christians who did not identify him with the holy spirit who descended on Jesus during his baptism.
The transitio Mariae (5th cent. C. E. counts them as separate beings):
The question of the phariseé in chap 97 refers to 5 Mose 18,15 and in the spanish version, which is less corrupt on a textual basis, Jesus answers that he is not that Messiah [mentioned in 5 Mose 18.15], thus not denying that he may be another one, as for instance the davidic Messiah of Gen 49 and the Emmanuel of the Jesajabook. Chap 42 does not belong to the nazarean parts of the text but seems to be unskilled rework of Johns gospel chap. 1 .
This example shows an aquaintance with the intricacies of biblical prophecy that can hardly be attributed even to a spanish morisco.
b) No serious person has ever claimed that Islam and the religion of Jesus here called nazareism were excactly the same. Based on a polygamia principally allowed by the Torah he commended to his followers to remain with one wife. Monogamia was also recommended by the holy prophet peace be upon him and is practised by the vast mjority of contemporary muslims.
c,d/ shows that the doctrins of G of B and Islam are not identical. Their sometimes striking similarity goes back to the similarities between jewish christianity and Islam well known to scolars at least since 50 years. (c.f. Schoeps: Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums)
Gospel of Barnaba and the 14th century
a) Every text has his history and traces of 14. Century do not show at all that the text in question can not be basically older. The new testament gospels for instance were written in the 1. Century but show traces of later redactors up to the 4. Century. Traces of later redactions have been removed in modern times by textcritical scolars. The fact that our Manuscripts of Barnaba are only 4-500 years old have no significance. Also imporatant early christian texts like for example St. Justins Dialogos has been preserved in a single 14. Century MS.
It is not easy at all to prove dependance of one text like Dantes Divina comedia one another because Dante himself did not follow his phantasy but used sources like the Apocalypse of Peter a jewish christian scripture of the 2. Century still considered canonical by the etiopic church. To a knower of ancient literature 9 it is a familiar fact that already in prechristian times some philosophers were speaking of 7 and others of 9 heavens and planets. The 9 planets represent often the more hidden variant. It is confirmed by astronomy because Pluto is very small and to be considered a planetoid.
b) The jubilee year proves what we know already that the book suffered a redaction by ignorant hand, probably in the 14 century. What makers the gospel of barnabas so valuable for the history of early jewish christianity are not its easy to find defects but the beautiful, unique and doutlessly ancient parts preserved by it.
The gospel of Barnaba and the bible
a) We dealed with the problem already above. I like to add that qumran, amongst others has strenghtened evidence already provided by the gospel of John that Jews in the time of Jesu expected at least 2 or even 3 Messiahs to come before the end of time. Jesus is denying here only to be that Messiah, precisely the one which in John 1,21and 25 is called the prophet by the pharisees.
b) The gospel of barnabs stands not alone in denying the actual death of Jesus on the cross. Each of the jewish christian seects had his own way to claim that he did not actiually die on the cross. The kerinthians and most likely also the ebionites which might be identic with them said that it was Simon of Cyrene who was cruxified instead of Jesus. Others taugth that Jesus soul left his body during the cruxifictin and returned later into the body. (Adoptionistic christology). The actual death of Jesus on the cross would have meant acording to the torah, (5 Mose 21, 23) which was considered the unfailable word of god, that Jesus would have been a cursed person which is far from him. Therefore no jewish christian party whatsoever accepted his literal death on the cross because it meant unresolvable contradictions to the holy book. For the same reason Pauls theories could sound logical only to haidens. A jew had to refuse them by neccessity.
The gospel of barnaba has nothing to do with the death sea scrolls as the scrolls in general have no link to Jesus or christianity at all, although this is sometimes claimed. Their greatest value lies in the reconstruction of the ancient text of the old testament and of jewish thougt in the last 2 centuries before Christ.
Although the spanish and vienna MS are medioeval, there is evidence through the decree of pope Gelasius and other dokuments that a gospel under this name existed in the first 5 centuries C. E. If we realise the fact that Barnabas and Matthias are one and the same person we have evidence for such a gospel according to Matthias by Clement of Alexandria (about 200 C.E.), who gives a few quotations. Matthia was held in high esteem by earliest alexandrian christians. For instance the famous gospel of Thomas the highlight of the Nag Hammadi library writes in its title to have been transmitted by Matthias ! Our brother M. A. Rahim, – not really expert in early christianity as we have to admit -, when he wrote Jesus prophet of Islam, was not always scientifically correct in his statements. Our only hint that Ireneous might have quoted from the ancient gospel of Barnaba, which can not simply be declared identical to the Vienna MS, is Fra Marino´s preface to the spanish MS. Most of the numerous works of St. Ireneus are lost and the only one remaining, – Adversus haeresiam – has survived only as latin translation, which is not always reliable. Until the complete works of Ireneous reappear the question if Fra Marino is right remains undecidable.
Conclusion:
The careful reader of these pages will now have some information making him able to see by himself that anyone claiming this gospel to be simply a forgery is not yet on the level where scientific dialog of its merits and faults should begin. Such a dialog could become fruitful, not only for Christians but also for Islam. As soon as we find partners on the christian side who are willing to dive into their own complex early history, we will be able to show that the Gospel of Barnaba in spite of being a block to islamic-christian dialog, it will be the yeast of a development leading to a peaceful exchange on religion which was in the mind of Prof. Henry Corbin when he titled the preface of his introduction to the gospel of Barnaba “Harmonia abrahamica”.
———————————————————————————————-
Some clarifications about the “scientific works” of Jan Slomp and Christine Schirrmacher.
Being aquainted with the writings of Jan Slomp and Christine Schirrmacher I am still waiting for valid arguments which disprove the claim of an origin of Barnabas gospel prior to Islam. Looking at the logical weakness and circular conclusions of Mr. Slomp, or the incorrect quranic quotations of Mrs. Schirrmacher together with her complete ignorance about the textual history of the biblical quotations she gives as “proof“ against the gospel of B., one gets the impression that neither of the two missionaries would have the capacity to persue a study on a scientific level equal to that of Prof. Cirillo.
It would be unfair to the reader if I would abstain from giving examples for such a seemingly hard judgement.
Jan Slomp and the gold dinar
Jan Slomp a christian Missionary in Pakistan in his 1982 study on the gospel of B. drew attention on a gold-dinar mentioned in chapter 54 of the italian MS Vienna. The gold-dinar is there divided into 60 “minuti” instead of a usual decimal division. Now Prof. D. Mac Dowell a renowned numismatical expert declared to Slomp, that such coins are known from the westgotic period in spain. That period finished with the conquest of Andalusia by the muslims in 711 C. E. At this point Slomps absurd idea of a muslim jew falsifying a gospel as a revenge to the inquisition should have gladly expired. Was this marrano-author also an archeologist, specialised on the numismatics of a period more than 800 years anterior to him ? Jan Slomp claims such, by saying that the author chose this coins consciously, because they seemed to him “right old enough”, to use them for his gospel lie. Anyone who has less missionary zeal, to save the superstitions of his church from the corrosive sunrays of truth, will recognise that we have here indeed a missing link, for tracing back this complex and fascinating scripture to its origins. The westgotic kingdom of Andalusia remained for centurys one of the last bastions of arian christianity, a happy island to which the destructive arm of the nicean decree, determined to destroy all “heretical” scriptures, could not reach. Whoever studies the scarce remnants of its architecture and art will recognize a highly developed christian culture on whose fundaments the muslims later were determined to build the singular and worldwide admired, islamic civilisation of Andalusia.
If we take Slomps discovery of the Golddinar serious, it provides an indication, that the gospel has been translated, – most probably into the standard scolary language latin -, during the west-gotic period, (6th-7th century C. E.) of Andalusia. Strange enough Slomps more recent pamphlets have stopped to make any mention of this coin although it is probably Slomps most valuable contribution to research on the gospel mystery of Barnaba or whosoever wrote it in his name.
Slomps gold-dinar and thus the 6th-7th century is so far the earliest landmark on our way back to the origins of the gospel. Beyond it we can only speculate that a gospel of nazarean doctrin could have well been preserved in north africa and spain, a surounding which was little influenced by the catholic church at that time because its christianity was basically arian and partly even jewish-christian. We know positivly, that a gospel according to Barnaba did exist in primitive christianity, as it is mentioned in the Decretum Gelasianum (478 C. E.), and even earlier lists of christian writings. The internal evidence provided by the fully jewish doctrine and christology of the gospel point strongly to a nazarean origin, which would be also in plain accordance with Barnaba the lordsbrother as the basical author. The nazareans which trace back to the Jerusalem community of James the brother of the Lord, are known to subsist in Syria, Palestine and Cyprus until about 400 C.E. All those countries have been visited by Barnaba and there is evidence for the existence of a gospel of Barnaba in this region either. The marronite Kitab al-Huda from Libanon, (10th century) mentions it, of course as apocryphal. The reported discovery of an aramaic gospel of Barnaba at Uludere near Hakkari in the homeland of later nazarenism (Tuerkye from 25.7. 1986), has of course no power as an argument until it is published, but it could be expected to be found in such a core region of nazarenism.
Christine Schirrmacher
Autor of the 2 volume opus “Der Islam” which should be correctly entitled as “Her Islam” as it shows Islam according to the authors bizzare phantasy.
Christine Schirrmacher, well known amongst german muslims for her bible fundamentalism and unfair attitude in christian-islamic dialog, has dedicated chapter 20 in Vol 2 of her book “Der Islam” to Barnabas gospel, making alos brief mention of the most important muslim writers on the topic. Essentially she repeats the ideas of christian writers before her, without giving any proof that the gospel could not have ist roots in ancient nazarean christanity. That´s because all of her superficial arguments even if correct, bear witness only to what is well known: That this gospel like any other gospel including the 4 canonical ones has not come to us in its original form and that in the case of the gospel of barnaba there have been several revisers, the last of them obviously an uneducated muslim.
We now like to comment on the 10 arguments presented on page 278f of “Der Islam” Vol.2 most of which were put forward already in the Raggs editon of 1907.
__________________________________________________________________
Extract from:
Christine Schirrmacher: Der Islam Bd2 Lektion 20 ( S278): Das Barnabasevangelium
8. Anhaltspunkte für eine mittelalterliche Abfassungszeit ?
…. Abgesehen von den Anklängen an islamische Dogmen * im Text des Barnabasevangeliums, den mit der Geschichte und Geographie Palästinas unvereinbaren Behauptungen * und dem Fehlen einer verläßlichen Quelle *, die vor dem Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts von dem Inhalt eines Bamabasevangeliums berichtet, sprechen etliche Anhaltspunkte aus dem Text selbst für ein spätmittelalterliches oder frühneuzeitliches Abfassungsdatum zwischen dem 14. und 16. Jahrhundert. So machen etwa folgende Beispiele eine Datierung in die ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte unwahrscheinlich:
[Alle folgenden Argumente basieren auf L&L Raggs Einleitung zur Editio princeps von 1907] * Das Christentum ist voll von Anklängen an islamische “Dogmen” .
** und *** entsprechen nicth den Tatsachen.]
1) Die Herausgeber der ersten Edition des Bamabasevangeliums Lonsdale und Laura Ragg wiesen bereits auf auffällige Parallelen zwischen dem Bamabasevangelium und den Werken des größten italienischen Dichters Dante (Alighieri) (1265-1321), wie etwa La divina commedia hin, und zwar insbesondere hinsichtlich Dantes Darstellungen von Himmel, Hölle und Paradies. So stimmt etwa die Zahl von neun, bzw. einschließlich des Paradieses von zehn Himmeln aus dem Bamabasevangelium (s. o.) ebenso wie die Unterteilung der Hölle in sieben Zentren mit Dantes Schilderung der zehn Himmel überein. Was die unmittelbare Beziehung beider Texte zueinander betrifft, so hat Lonsdale Ragg die Vermutung geäußert, daß das Bamabasevangelium und Dantes Göttliche Komödie zwar unabhängig voneinander, aber hinsichtlich ihres Umfeldes in enger Beziehung zueinander entstanden sind. Die wahrscheinlichste Abfassungszeit des Bamabasevangeliums liegt für Lonsdale Ragg zwischen 1300 und 1350. Nachfolgende Untersuchungen haben diesen Zeitraum bis etwa zum 16. Jahrhundert erweitert.
2) Nach der Beschreibung des Bamabasevangeliums wird das Jubeljahr im Abstand von 100 Jahren gefeiert, während das Alte Testament einen 50jährigen Zeitraum nennt. Im Jahr 1300 n. Chr. wie das Bamabasevangelium betont die Bedeutung der Almosen, des setzte Papst Bonifatius VIII die Jubeljahrfeier auf einen lOOjährigen Turnus fest. Aber schon im Jahr 1343 verkürzte Clemens VI die Zeit auf 50 Jahre und kündigte das nächste Jubeljahr für das Jahr 1350. an. So war die Frist für die Feier des Jubeljahres nur zwischen 1300 und 1343 auf einen lOOjährigen Abstand festgelegt, wie das Bamabasevangelium beschreibt. Urban VI verkürzte 1389 die Frist auf einen 33jährigen und Paul II im Jahr 1470 auf einen 25jährigen Abstand, der bis zur Gegenwart beibehalten wurde.
3) Das Bamabasevangelium tritt für Verhaltensweisen ein, die stark an die mittelalterliche Mönchsaskese erinnern. So wird an etlichen Stellen Lachen als Sünde verurteilt, Weinen gilt jedoch als Zeichen geistlichen Lebens.
4) Das Barnabasevangelium zitiert Bibelverse nach der lateinischen Vulgataübersetzung, die erst Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts entstand und zur offiziellen katholischen Bibel wurde.
5) Das Bamabasevangelium berichtet, Jesus und seine Jünger hätten die 40 Tage gehalten. Die vierzigtägige Fastenzeit vor Ostern wurde jedoch erst im vierten Jahrhundert n. Chr. eingeführt und sollte an das Leiden und Sterben Jesu erinnern, was vor seinem Tod unmöglich war.
6) Das Bamabasevangelium erwähnt eine Goldmünze, den Dinar zu 60 minuti. Diese Münze wurde nur kurze Zeit im Mittelalter in Spanien verwendet; ein Argument, das die These von der Entstehung des Bamabasevangeliums in Spanien zu stützen schien.
7) Im Bamabasevangelium werden Holzfässer zur Weinaufbewahrung erwähnt, im Nahen Osten waren jedoch Lederschläuche üblich.
9) Das Barnabasevangelium betont die Bedeutung der Almosen, des Fastens, der Wallfahrt und des fünfmaligen Gebetes, das auch Jesus ausführt, womit der Text auf einen Zeitraum nach der Entstehung des Islam hinweist.
10) Im Bamabasevangelium wird die verbotene Frucht im Paradies, die das Alte Testament nicht näher bestimmt, als Apfel bezeichnet; ebenfalls eine Entwicklung der späteren Kirchengeschichte.
Lit:
Ragg. Gospel. Introduction, S. Xlii
Ragg. Gospel. CXXXV/310ff
So Asin. Islam.S.88
Ragg. Dante and ‘The Gospel ofBamabas’.
Ragg. Dante and ‘The Gospel of Bamabas. S. 164
Ragg. Gospel. LXXXII/190 Aufgrund dieser Festlegungen der Jubeljahrfeiem vermutete man als Abfassungszeit des Bamabasevangeliums vorzugsweise das 14. Jahrhundert.
Ragg. Gospel. CII/234
Ragg. Gospel. CII/236
Ragg. Gospel. XCII/212
Ragg. Gospel. LIV/128 81
Ragg. Gospel. XLII/354
Ragg. Gospel. III/8 83
Ragg. Gospel. LXXXIX/206
Ragg. Gospel. XXXIX/90
__________________________________________________________
Answers:
1) Schirrmacher, quoting the Raggs, refers to similarities between Gospel of Barnaba and Dantes ideas about heavens and hells. For her this is a proof that the autor of “barnaba has copied from Dante and thus the whole of the text must be of late origin.
She may nnot know that Dante experts have long ago pointed to the origins of those ideas in the apocalypse of Peter from the 2. Century C.E. which was held canonical by the early church.
2 The Jubeljahr of 100 years instead of the 50 year cycle in the old testament could be easily a mistake of the italien translator who living in catholic italy was aquainted to 100 years.
3 The ascetisism of our gospel finds ist parallels not in medioeval monasticism but in the strict observance of early christians which has ist root in the ascetisism of the Esseans or as they are called in baranabas gospel the “true phariseans.”
4 Our not very accurate italian translation of an older gospel quotes according to the vulgate of Jerome (ca. 400 C.E.). That´s a feature it shares with lots of early christian literature, because the copists were not simply copying but correcting their text according to the bibleversion they knew. Textual science calls this phenomen Vulgatisation.
5 Fasting for 40 days. This argument shows how little Schirrmacher or the Raggs knew about Judaism, a knowledge that is essential for evaluating a jewish christian gospel. As a matter of fact, not only christians have kept a 40 day fast but also the jews as a remembrance of Moses 40 days on the mountain of Sinai.
Muslims instead are fasting only 29-30 days during ramadan.
6 Repeats Slomps discovery of the gold Dinar, although incomplete, because the coin is not medioeval as Schirrmacher writes but belongs to the westgotic Kingdom of Andalusia which was taken over by muslims in 711 C. E.
7 I would like to ask, if there is any archaelogic proof that palestine was not using wooden vessels for wine at least if it was for big quantities.
8 Mary delivers her child without pains. This is a very hollow argument, as we don´t have any idea about how many versions of the birth of the blessed Mary have been in course in early christendom. Maybe the versions were as numerous as the early christian sects. Anyway islamic traditions doesn´t know that she delievered without pains, although it would not be surprising as we are talking about the birth of isa a.s one of the most honoured men in all times.
9 The gospel of Barnaba stresses the importance of regular prayers, fasting, pilgrimage and almsgiving just as it was stressed by judaism and likewise by early christians. Tertullian, (around 200 C. E.),wrote treatises about fasting, almsgiving and prayer, recommending 3 regular daily prayers at the 3d, 6th, and 9th hour of the day. Early christians prayed with prostration towards Jerusalem, a practise that was upheld by earliest Islam until revelation commanded to change the direction towards Mecca and to pray 5 times daily insted of 3.
10 Finally about the forbidden fruit which in the vienna MS of the gospel of B. Is discribed as an apple, one should ad that there are various traditional interpretations some mentioning wheat , others mentioning pomegranate
(Granatapfel), which was often confused with the ordinary apple. As in all the other cases such scribal errors are no argument for kor against antiquity of a text.
For instance ancient manuscripts of the biblical gospels contain lots of such errors and no one would claim that they cannot go back to ancient Autograph.
If such “argumentation” has any value, it is to show, that such kind of people are unwilling to engage themselfes in honest research on the subject. They repeat uncritically the superficial arguments of almost 100 years ago. And try to avoid the fascinating questions raised by the existence of such a complex text, which for sure is not simply a gospel of islam as it is not simply a fraud. It rather is a carpet made of patches some of which are very old and unparalled in other early christian literature. As our basis of information concerning earliest christianity is very poor one should welcome a text like the gospel of barnaba as unique and valuable document for research on early jewish-christianity as it was done for instance by the catholic Prof. Luigi Cirillo, (specialist on Manicheism and jewish christianity), by the jewish religious scolar Prof. Shlomo Pinés and by the famous Sorbonne orientalist Prof. Henry Corbin.
C. Schirrmacher: Comparing Islam and Paulinism
(instead of Islam and the Gospel)
The preceding chapter 19, a summary of her comparison of the two big religions sheds light on the scientific methods of Christine Schirrmacher.
Schirrmacher tries to show by 16 points of disagreement that “the god of christianity is not the god of Islam.“ (sic).
That the fictive trinitarian god of later christianity, which was not even invented by Paul himself but through a foul compromise between rivaling christian sects during the 3. Century, is not the one and only creator of a 15 billion lightyear universe, is wellknown to any muslim reading the holy Qur´an. Not one of the 16 points of Schirrmacher tells us anything about a different concept of god in the teaching of Jesus the Christ and Mohammed, peace be upon both of them. Instead she is comparing Islam and paulinic theology. From 16 points 7 are based on quotations from Paul, Pauls disciple Luke, and a paulinic interpolation in 1 Peter. For 4 points (13-16) which may have been taken from some sort of catechism she provides no quotation at all. Everyone knows that Pauls doctrin and Islam have little in common, but it would be interesting to compare non-pauline christian concepts of which existed at least 3 within early orthodoxy: the nazarean, the johannean and the petrinic school the later of which is represented by St. Peters teachings as they are conserved in St. Clements Recognitions. There remain 5 points, based on Quotations of gospels.
In point 1 she has misunderstood Islam, by beliving that Allah is only transcendent without connection to the world. In reality there is the concept of transcendance as well as of immanence (arab. tanzih and tasbih). On the christian side of the colume there is hardly anything which could not be confirmed by a muslim and therefore a disagreement in this point has not been demonstrated at all.
Point 6 Schirrmacher gives a statement on trinity, quoting John 1.1. My bible failed to show me anything the like of what she is refering. As a matter of fact the oldest texts of the famous john-prologue do not support the idea that it is refering to Jesus at all. It is rather a christianised quotation from a jewish comment about creation, which is talking about the Chokmah/Sophia which in christian circles was known as the word or the spirit of god. (Gen 1 shows this – in semitic language female – spirit hovering upon the water). According to early christologies this ruach descended on Jesus, (“Took flesh”), on account of his baptism. Also in the holy Qur´an we find Jesus a.s. called word and spirit of god, yet without claiming any sort of trinity.
In point 7 she is poving trinity from the baptism formula in Matthew 28, 19. Apart from the doubts expressed by christian scolars if this verse was part of the genuin greek Matthew, it does not prove any trinity. Rather this formula of baptism meant an oat calling upon the father, the son and the spirit as 3 witnesses for the persons entering into the religion of Jesus a.s. In this form it was used also by arians and other christians who were not of the trinitarian party.
Point 8 is dedicated at John 14.6 where Jesus anounces the paraclete, anachronistically interpreted by Schirrmacher as the holy ghost. Christian scolars are wonder since almost one century what this crux interpretorum really means. We should add, that the form periclytos (= arab. Achmad = the most praised one) claimed by muslim scolars since centuries is confirmed by aramic gospels going back to the seconed century.
Point 10 now she quotes the concept of John of Damaskus (8.century) that “Muhammed is a false prophet”. We would only like to ask if there was any real one then. Even the vatican has abandoned this rediculous dogma of medioeval crusaders ignoring 14 centuries of Islam each confirming the reality, stability and excellence of the holy prophets message. If the “false prophet” and his pious followers would not have protected europe from the mongol invaders, to give only one instance, God knows if there would be any christian fundamentalists left to defend the nicean doctrin against its unavoidable death.
Finally in point 11 we are confronted with Apocalypse verse 22,18 cursing anyone who would dare to change that scripture. Unfortunately the textual evidence shows that early trinitarian corruptors of the new Testament did not even hesitate in the face of such heavy warnings. Who ever wants to know about the changes in dogmatically important passages of the new testament should look for a copy of Prof. Bart Ehrmans “The orthodox corruption of scripture”(Oxford 1993) This excellent book, -appraised by leading publications like Journal of theological studies, Journal of early christian studies and Theology Today – , provides sufficient answer to Schirrmachers 20th chapter of “Der Islam“ entitled: “The muslim dogma of the corruption of the bibel.”
If this is a dogma, it is obiously a very true one.
In light of evidence for textual manipulations provided by the oldest extant manuscripts of the scripture, the whining claim of Christine Schirrmacher that the Bible “is corrected by nothing and remains in eternity the word of god ” is somehow moving our heart. Indeed she seems so happy with her earth to be flat that we almost feel ashamed to tell her: Sorry girl, but in Truth it is a ball.
Ernest
Jesus didn’t claimed Divinity , lets explore the extracts taken from website http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/mark13_32.htm which is a clear indication of how Christians lie about the Divnity which Jesus doesn’t claimed nor did he had any Divine powers since divinity is for ALLAH only. The addresses of websites have been quoted for better understanding only;
The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13, verse 32 states this…
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
This verse clearly shows that Jesus is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God.
Christians believe that the Father is different from the Son and different from the Holy Spirit and the Son is different from the Holy Spirit. They are all different from each other. Christians believe that there is one God manifested in three DIFFERENT persons. They are three different persons but have one essence. This is their belief.
Now, Mark 13:32 says that ONLY THE FATHER knows when the hour is.
Christians tend to argue that Jesus gave up his divine powers and therefore did not know because he limited himself to a human being. However, that does not answer the fact that ONLY THE FATHER knows. That also excludes the divine part of Jesus. That also excludes the Holy Spirit who is suppose to know all things (1 Corinthians 2:10-12)
Some Christians might tend to argue that since the Father knows the hour, then that automatically assumes that the Son and Holy Spirit know as well. But notice this, Jesus did not say that ONLY GOD knows, he said that ONLY THE FATHER knows. You can’t go and say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same because that goes against the Trinity. Because if you believe that the Son was crucified then that would also mean that the Father and Holy Spirit were also crucified, but Christians do not believe that. So that argument won’t work.
Matt Slick of http://www.carm.org said in his article http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark13_32.htm that Jesus became omniscient after the resurrection. That his divine capabilities came after the resurrection. But then that would mean that Jesus was completely a man before that. That means that Jesus was not fully god, fully man before the resurrection. That means that when Jesus was crucified, he was completely a man and you have to stop saying that God died for your sins! So that argument does not work.
Sam Shamoun tried answering this paradox here http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_jesus_changing.htm but he does not even directly answer the question appropriately. Either way his article has been refuted here http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun8.htm
Sam Shamoun also tried coming up with another explanation in his article here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_spirit_omniscient.htm. Please read it first and then see my response.
Sam contradicts himself, he says
Thus, Christ’s statement regarding angels and the Son not knowing demonstrates that Jesus was referring to a specific class of individuals, namely human beings, when he said that no one knows. In other words, Jesus was saying that no human being knows the day he would come to bring judgment upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem for rejecting him, neither the angels, not even himself.
So basically this means that ‘no man’ knows. No human being knows. But then Sam goes on to say
The Ethiopic version adds here, “nor the son”, and so the Cambridge copy of Beza’s; which seems to be transcribed from (Mark 13:32) where that phrase stands; and must be understood of Christ as the son of man, and not as the Son of God; for as such, he lay in the bosom of the Father, and
However, this argument does not work. If the Son being referred to as in the verse was referring to the human part of Jesus then Jesus didn’t have to repeat himself because he already included himself in the ‘no man knows’ part. But if he was referring to the Son of God part of him self then that would make more sense because the divine part of Jesus should not be included in the ‘no man knows’ part. However, that wouldn’t work either because then the God part of Jesus would not be omniscient and we all know that God is supposed to be omniscient.
Plus Christians use John 21:17 to try and show that Jesus was omniscient. However, Jesus himself said that he does not know the hour. So why did the apostle say that to him? Now Christians are going to say that Jesus was talking as Son of God at that time. But why this confusion? Why doesn’t Jesus explicitly state that the man part of him is not omniscient but the divine part of him is? Plus how can someone be All Knowing and not All Knowing at the same time? Its not logical. Some people might even go to argue that Jesus was a schizophrenic because of the confusing and contradicting behavior we see when his deity is being developed throughout the gospels.
Also notice the deception that Shamoun tries to pull out on the readers. Shamoun tries to use the KJV translation of Mark 13:32 to show that ‘no one’ really means ‘no man’ and therefore is not inclusive of everything. However, he then uses the RSV translation for Revelations 19:12 to show the translation as ‘no one’ and therefore show that it doesn’t mean that it is inclusive of everything.
This is outright deception because the KJV translation has Revelations 19:12 saying ‘no man’ and if Shamoun used that he knew that he could not use it to make the point he was trying to make. Because if Shamoun used the KJV translation then that would clearly show that God was excluded because it only said ‘no man’ and therefore cannot try to use it as a figure of speech.
Plus the word for the ‘no man’ is the same in both verses. So why didn’t Sam use the same translation?
Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1138456828-5567.html and http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1138460153-7043.html
Sam indeed at the end of the article did say that he used all translations from the RSV unless stated otherwise. However, now we know why he did what he did.
Plus Sam is forgetting that the verse says, ONLY the Father. There is no condition on the word ‘only’. (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1138460990-9261.html)
There is no condition on ‘only’ unless it is put forth.
Sam tries to get rid of this argument by trying to use Matthew 11:27 as an example where obviously the term is not inclusive.
However, Matthew 11:27 shows that people could know the father but not because the word ‘except’ is not inclusive of everyone but later on in the verse Jesus makes exceptions by saying….
and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him
However, there is no condition of this sort in Mark 13:32. The verse does not say, ‘only the Father except those whom he chooses to let them know’.
Sam goes on to state Corinthians 2:10-12 to try and show the omniscience of the Holy Spirit. However, this proves nothing except the fact that Paul’s statement contradicts Mark 13:32 in which it states that ONLY the Father knows.
Christians clearly know that this is a problem. Even the early Christians. Notice the footnote in the NIV Bible regarding Matthew 24:36
The Day and Hour Unknown
36″No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
It seems to me that people over time tried to take off the phrase ‘nor the Son’ so that it would not lower Jesus’ status or his deity.
If I don’t receive any explanation then we would have to conclude that Jesus is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God.
dix…of course the hijab is the only solution to save women from some human animals and immoralities happening to women all over the world..if u say western thing to women is the solution then why these are all….
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
U r all saying that ISLAM degrading women and west upgrading the women…..? i think u r the greatest stupid i have come across… the west see the women as a lust thing in the name of upgrading… any honest women or honest men who respect the womens there can understand that if they read qur’an…all womens can u answer me why they dont organize a boxing or athletics mixed with mens and womens if they consider men and women are equal…..why the west using the women to publish their markets by exposing the women as a lust thing to woo others..why they keeping 105+kg for men weight lifting and 75+ for women’s weight lifting……why the america has high rate of rape,women molestation,crime against women……..also why 2/3 of those reverting to islam are womens..is there any honest one to answer these…….any one who have knowledge about science and have commen sense can answer these…..
ahamed
the hijaab is the only solution? cut the crap…. you don’t get it do you.
you should be ashamed of yourself…you have no originality…i have read this argument before…. this argument is being recycled time and time again… what are you afraid about women being equal or even ahead in stature to you… tell you what i will put you in the ring with one of our women boxing champs and i’ll bet ya she will whip your ass in an instant…
salman
what took you so long…………
first of all you just wasted your time copying all that just to prove that GOB is not a fake… well sorry….it is still BOGUS… A FAKE and you know that…. i can’t even figure out which one is your opinion… i guess you can say.. i got lost in translation.
salman
on the divinity of Christ…… even your so called expert still can’t prove that Jesus ever denied His divinity… and besides you can’t just focus on one verse and prove that Jesus is not divine…. christians do reconcile everything in the Bible….. and i think that’s the most responsible way to do it.
It is a nice convenience that Ahamad, like Salman, numbers his points. Let’s look at #6, the Twin Sisters.
By his reasoning rapes should be rare in northern cities in the winter months when women are bundled up against the cold, but common in the summer, and most especially there should be a strong correlation between rape and swimming pools and beaches. Crime of all kinds goes up in warmer weather, but rape no more than any other. Rapes do not happen more around pools or beaches.
His “twin sisters” scheme is base on the notion that rape occurs because the rapist is not just tempted but enticed; even seduced. That has been proven over and over to be false. If we consider that the rapist actually does not want to be seduced but quite the opposite, wants to force himself on the unwilling, we may expect a rapist might actually prefer the twin whose appearance is hidden. After all, she would seem to be the one who would be most humiliated and defiled by being raped.
Rapists are predators. Most commonly they are friends or relatives. The rest are stalkers. They follow the same behavior as thieves. How the victim happens to be dressed does not motivate rapists. The fact that it is not even unusual for old women and children to be raped proves that a normal sexual appetite is not what causes rape. Rapists are sexual perverts. Even if a woman is quite attractive and totally naked, lusting to have sex with her and lusting to force her into it against her will, are two entirely separate urges –one normal; the other demented. Biblically the ‘normal’ urge is still sin unless the woman is the man’s wife. The demented urge is sin always. A man should never force sex on even his wife. That too is sin. (And according to U.S. Department of Justice, counts as a crime.)
His scheme also falls apart statistically. For example rape is higher in the U.S. than in Europe (four times the rate of Germany for example.) Yet European women are by no means more modest in their dress or more modest in their views on sex than American women. There have been other cultures, in Polynesia for instance, where one would expect rape should have been a chronic problem if women’s ‘immodesty’ causes rape, but no such correlation is found in those cases either.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm
This chart shows that between 1973 to 2003 the incidence of rape in the U.S. declined dramatically. Exactly why is difficult to determine but it surely wasn’t because women steadily dressed more and more modestly over those years. It is definitely not because women became more cloistered away from men because precisely the opposite occurred during those years. Over that period more and more women left home for college and women in the workforce increased dramatically. Possibly the drop was due to more rapists sent to prison due to better law enforcement with the help of things like DNA evidence. Evidently removing the rapist from society is more effective than trying to have women not tempt men because rape in fact is not caused at all by women acting seductively.
A good Biblical example to follow is found in Genesis 39 where Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph. It is interesting that Joseph knew this was wrong without a Shariah law to tell him and indeed without even having the Law of Moses yet. She was quite persistent on several occasions but Joseph never gave in to temptation and was rewarded by being put in prison. That is how a godly man should behave of his own volition. He does not need to demand that society create for him no possibility of him ever being tempted. Indeed, requiring to never be tempted in order to behave properly is something of an admission of not being godly.
with regards to the issue of wearing a hijaab…i truly think that the issue is much deeper than that… ahamad’s accusation that the secular media painted islam of subjugating women is just touching the surface of a much deeper problem among muslim men with regards to the role of women in a modern society. He failed to understand the point of the argument… that in an overall sense the treatment of women in islam is basically unfair and one sided. I myself does not object to a woman wearing a hijaab if she truly desires to wear one without compulsion.
Salman
You wrote:
“Schirrmacher, quoting the Raggs, refers to similarities between Gospel of Barnaba and Dantes ideas about heavens and hells. For her this is a proof that the autor of “barnaba has copied from Dante and thus the whole of the text must be of late origin.”
My reply:
Was it for her a proof, or evidence to go along with other evidence?
You wrote:
“Schirrmacher gives a statement on trinity, quoting John 1.1. My bible failed to show me anything the like of what she is referring. As a matter of fact the oldest texts of the famous john-prologue do not support the idea that it is referring to Jesus at all. It is rather a christianised quotation from a jewish comment about creation, which is talking about the Chokmah/Sophia which in christian circles was known as the word or the spirit of god.”
My reply:
It isn’t “famous” among Muslims. I dare say most of them are quite ignorant of it as they are of the Bible altogether; not by choice but because their superiors frown upon them considering Christianity except as you do to belittle it. Lord help any one of them who actually decides to become a Christian. “Frown upon” is too polite. As you well know it is much worse than that. That’s not a jab at you Salman. More a note of regret. St. Paul belittled it too at one time. He attended the stoning of Stephen. Among the very greatest of Saints are people who changed their minds. In a manner of speaking, every Christian must have a moment of changing his mind from hearing about Jesus to adoring him. Paul was blessed by having his mind changed for him by Jesus visiting him when before Paul (as Saul) was convinced that false Messiah was dead. (Who didn’t know Jesus had died on the cross?) He realized his blessing and lived out the rest of his life serving Jesus in gratitude.
Let’s have a look at the text, shall we? Here are verses from the first chapter of the Gospel of John:
1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) The same was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5) And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” — verses 1-5
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” — verse 14
I don’t know what is possibly meant in your statement by “my bible” if that “bible” reads differently from that significantly. What are those “oldest texts” in your statement? Here you can learn what the oldest texts are:
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
QUOTE: “The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have. ”
That papyrus is the oldest known manuscript. If you do not like the old KJV I quoted that was translated without the aid of the most recent scholarship, here is the much newer NIV which was translated with it:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201
(Personally, I fear the NIV, despite being easier to read, has as many gaffs as improvements but for this particular citation that doesn’t come into play. For our purposes it shows either translation of the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John is sufficiently accurate and true to the earliest extant texts.)
If you find a significant difference between the KJV and NIV of the first 14 verses of John’s Gospel, I’d be happy to read your critique, or if you can translate it directly from the papyrus that would be fine too. As for your critique of whether the first chapter of John refers to Jesus, that was total sophistry. Your entire long tiresome diatribe of critiques is filled with similar sophistries of which I will not waste my time exposing as I did this one. Rather I will summarize the basic facts of the matter on a Barnabas gospel in a simple to follow statement:
A brief mention or two of a document, especially if only on a list without comment, does not prove its existence. It shows only a supposition of it existing by whomever listed it. Repeated mention from multiple sources with quotations and comments is considerably more forceful evidence of it having existed, but there is a total absence of any of that for a possible pre-Mediaeval gospel supposedly by Barnabas. Scant listing of it (negative listing I might add,) in the complete absence of any other evidence of it existing is not much better than the mention of a unicorn. It is more believable than believing unicorns existed only because we know books do and have existed — just not that one.
No matter really, because even if there ever was such a thing as a Gospel supposedly by Barnabas at some original point before at the earliest possible date being the Mediaeval period, no copies of it are known to exist or to ever have existed. Something which is totally hypothetical cannot be even examined much less critiqued and so only the known Mediaeval book is germane as it its all that exists. (If any of it is germane to anything.) Most researchers are confident it is a forgery, but even if that weren’t so, the fact alone that no book of such a late date or anywhere near that late, (by a millennium!) is accepted into Christian canon of Scripture, means it is farcical to treat it as Christian holy writ. It doesn’t even qualify as apocrypha, even by the most liberal reckoning. It isn’t even Christian mythology, of which unfortunately there is too much. It is totally outside the bounds of all Christian literature and traditions of any kind, holy or otherwise.
Of course that cannot keep Muslims from making of it what they will, but from a Christian perspective it is total dross. That is a fact and that Muslims try to claim it was ever something more than dross to Christians is the most irksome claim. Few Christians even know of it. How could they? It’s not known to exist before the time it was created in the Middle Ages and from that time forward no mention of it is found to speak of that any Christian would be aware of it. It is utterly of no consequence to the Christian which is as it should be. It is only in encountering the benighted Muslim that it ever becomes an issue.
That is plenty enough but the coup de grace is that it contradicts the New Testament. It would appear the Muslim would have us ignore the fully established holy writ of the New Testament in favor of deferring to an unreliable and spurious so-called ‘gospel of Barnabas’. That is a ridiculously unreasonable expectation. I would like to see how Christians would be met by Muslims if Christians had the unmitigated gall to say they knew better how to arrange the canon of the Qu’ran; to tell Muslims, “Here’s a book of no consequence to you that we Christians have decided belongs in your Qu’ran and despite contradicting all the rest of the Qu’ran, really ought to be what you heed rather than the rest of the Qu’ran. Sounds a bit absurd doesn’t it?
Are you now finally ready to see why I abhor this subject? Since you figure I’m a liar anyway, I guess you naturally figured I was lying in telling you it is of no benefit to either of us. Let me drive the point home just a bit more of how you are only tightening a noose around your own neck:
You wrote:
“Manuscripts of Barnaba are only 4-500 years old have no significance.”
In saying that, you demonstrate a complete disregard for holding to principles of scholarship. Not only is it significant, it is HIGHLY significant! Out of one side of your mouth you say the oldest manuscripts of John’s Gospel are significant and out of the other side of your mouth say the age of ‘Barnaba’ is insignificant. Even though the oldest may in theory actually have transmitted more errors in copying than a newer version, unless there are mitigating factors explaining that, the older manuscript is given more weight. There are no such mitigating factors with the G-o-B. There are no older versions of it! It is an anachronism! Hence, it is given no weight whatsoever vis a vis previous versions since no previous versions exist! Get it? Try Salman. If you don’t get it, I trust other open-minded (or better said, kind-hearted,) people reading this will.
You wrote:
“Saint Barnabas’s story in the New Testament begins in Acts 4:36. People often don’t know the name of this great Saint. The reason for that is because he lived and dedicated his life to serve others. His real name was Joseph, but the Christians gave him a nickname of “Barnabas” because it meant the “son of encouragement”. Barnabas came alongside people in times of challenge and helped them; see Acts 9:10-28 and Acts 15:36-39 for more details.So in other words, we really should take his Gospel very seriously and consider it too the inspired word of GOD. Since Christians believe in Paul, John, Mark and Matthew as Prophets of GOD, then they should also consider Barnabas as a Prophet too.”
My reply:
Well, I’m glad you know that about Barnabas . I only wish I knew you had actually picked up a Bible and read for yourself those verses you cited. You’ve yet to confirm you even have access to a Bible much less bother reading it for yourself.
The reason you gave is not the reason people don’t know about Barnabas. The real reason is he is only briefly mentioned in the New Testament. Even so, I dare say most Christians would recognize the name even if they don’t know offhand where in the Bible he is mentioned. We know why you are preoccupied with him, which is exactly the same reason Christians mostly aren’t. You make much of a document few of them even know exists, and I might add Muslims were just as blissfully unaware of it until in recent times a concerted effort has been made to bring it to their attention. That said, there are now and have ever been exemplary Christians who know everything the New Testament has to say about Barnabas because they devoutly read their Bibles. That means for ages there have been Christians who knew who Barnabas was. Muslims were for all that time clueless about Barnabas, as they remain today unless they are indoctrinated with the same modern Muslim bilge you have accepted.
Can you name the twelve disciples who lived with Jesus? Paul wasn’t one but Bartholomew was. Where is his Gospel? Or Andrew’s or Thomas’ or even an epistle by them? Perhaps they were martyred before settling down to write which could’ve been the fate of Barnabas for that matter. It was a common fate of followers of Jesus at the time. He was more an assistant of Paul than a leader which is another mitigating factor. We know for certain Paul was well educated and writing would’ve come naturally to him. We’re not as certain about that with Barnabas. So a supposed gospel supposedly by a Barnabas should NOT be taken seriously merely on the basis of someone by that name – the genuine Barnabas — being an honored Saint of the New Testament. The real Barnabas of the New Testament is honored as are all the Saints according to what is known about them. That he ever wrote a gospel (or even an epistle which is more likely,) is not one of the things that is known about him.
In the rest of you writing you continue to go on about questions of Christology that expect the same kind of logic the atheist demands when he asks, “If God exists why do all things go on the same as if there is no God?” Or more poignantly, “Why would a loving God allow good people to suffer awfully?” I trust you have answers to that but could you have them make sense to the atheist? Try it sometime and see if you can.
I will just again remind you that the place to start with Jesus is in the things he did, (soteriology is the fancy theological term for that if I recall correctly.) That means reading the New Testament. Of course one will run into issues about who Jesus was from that too, as right away in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. If those are troubling they can be set aside while trying to learn first just what it was Jesus did. With that in mind I am going to now turn to something said here by one of your fellow Mohammedans:
yohen wrote:
“Truth varies to different seekers.”
That opening remark fairly contradicts his closing one in which he declared that only who has “received guidance from Allah” arrives at the invariable truth. It contradicts it because he evidently really meant the guidance of Muhammad, as he equates it with becoming a Muslim and being a Muslim with having arrived at the truth. (Remember Allah needn’t mean more than God, except that followers of Muhammad like to have the name Allah reserved exclusively to teachings according to Muhammad.)
Judaism and Bah’ism and Unitarianism, and Jehovah Witness, to name but a few, adhere to the same basic concept of monotheism as Islam. If you’ll excuse the expression, ‘the devil is in the details’ of each of those religions and is what separates them; not the rudimentary concept of monotheism each accepts. Christianity by contrast holds to a monotheism that extends beyond the rudimentary concept; endeavoring to take into account all that is written in the Bible; in the Old Testament and especially the New Testament.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” –James 2:19
That of course is hardly the only passage in the New Testament that affirms monotheism, but it is the passage that points out dramatically that simply believing in one God is nothing too remarkable. If the devils believe it, for humans to believe it too obviously doesn’t by itself do them a whole lot of good.
To the extent that Moab worshipped Chemosh as their god, or Ammon and Canaan worshipped Meloch or that both Chemosh and Meloch represented the same god collectively called Baal, the exclusivity of their devotion to that one god was in its way a kind of monotheism; at least a kind of ‘proto-monotheism’ as it were. (Vis a vis the elaborate polytheism of the Greco-Roman pantheon for example.) As Meloch is a word for “king” and Baal a word for “lord” they, as far as that goes, were assigned the same singular authority as the Hebrews’ god. The objection to the god of Moab, Ammon and Canaan was not that he had partners or shared his ‘glory’ with anyone. It would be hard to object on that basis since he seemed not to share anything. He was THE god of those people we are told. The chief objection was that his worshippers believed he required wicked things of them; for instance sacrificing their children. What good is following one god (or God) if he makes you wicked? People not being holy, it is understandable that they might want their one and only god to not be holy either, but the TRUE one and only God is and must be holy. There can be no wickedness about God and likewise he must require the same of us. Therefore our most pressing problem regarding God isn’t that we can’t quite rightly conceptualize God.(Is he a king or a lord? Is he a father? A spirit? A son? All of those? None of them?) Our pressing problem is we are all sinners and our sin puts us at odds with a holy God. http://www.bible-infonet.org/bin/short_articles/living/sin1.htm
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls to swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn against and rend you.” — Matthew 7:6
[Note: It is of interest that verse 7 that follows immediately, reads: "Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you." A quizzical juxtaposing.]
“And behold a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus said unto her. O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” –Matthew 15:22-28
Was Jesus in the second passage violating the code of conduct he gave in the first passage? Was he giving that which is holy to a dog? And why did he not rebuke her for worshipping him? Peter rebuked Cornelius (Acts 10:25,26) when Cornelius did the same to him, saying “Stand up, I too myself also am a man.”
Indeed, why did Jesus waste his time on that woman? This is reminiscent of the encounter with the Samaritan woman who Jesus should also have stood aloof from but didn’t. Jesus knew every lurid detail of the Samaritan woman’s misdeeds. Surely he also knew as much about the Canaanite woman. He knew she wasn’t of the house of Israel of course and stated firmly that was enough reason to overlook her. But she was likely just as much a “lost sheep”. Jesus ends up complimenting this Canaanite woman on her great faith and rewarding her by healing her daughter.
That event was similar to what was already told by Matthew about the centurion back in chapter eight of his Gospel. That man too was a “dog” and yet Jesus ends up saying of him that greater faith was found in him than he had found in Israel, and he likewise healed the centurion’s servant. The centurion told Jesus he didn’t want to trouble him with going to his house. He said in his capacity as a centurion he could order his men here and there, so Jesus with so much more authority could also order something done without needing to travel. This evidently wasn’t found in Israel yet; the idea that Jesus could act without being present.
What faith did these “dogs” demonstrate? Nothing but a deep faith that Jesus could miraculously heal and a faith that if they humbly submitted to his authority he would reward them for it. The Canaanite women submitted to the point of bowing down to him desperately just as one does in crying out to God for help; as if he had the authority to hold in his hands whether her daughter would be healed or not. Without knowing of Jesus being renowned for having such power, what other hope had she for a miracle? To bow before Jesus in total submission was a small price to pay for the reward she gained.
That is the difference between a Christian and a Mohammedan. Every true Christian humbly submits to the authority of Christ just like those “dogs”. A Mohammedan proudly submits to the authority of Muhammad.
Ernest
Christians do believe in trinity, normally the reference from Gospel of John is being quoted to prove the Trinitarian believe, it is evident from below discussion again that the verses of John doesn’t actually reflects Trinitarian believe, it is also evident that the word god is being used in various terms thus the word ALLAH should preferably be used as it doesn’t have any ambiguity in terms of meaning and usage.
Does John 1:1 prove Trinity?
Before we start, I’d like to quote the verse from Isaiah:
The “God” title in the Bible was given to others in the OT and NT. Answering Isaiah 9:6. The “El” (God) title that was given to Jesus in the Old Testament, and the “HOTHEOS” (God) title in the New Testament, were given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible itself.
Having said that, let us now continue :
Let us look at John 1:1 “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” This is often presented from the Gospel of John to prove that Jesus was God. There are however several problems with this claim: By this verse it is assumed that Jesus was the “word” and since the word was God and became flesh, Jesus is God. The statement that John reproduced in his gospel however was uttered not by John but by A Philo of Alexandria, years before Jesus or John were born. It is therefore completely unlikely that Philo was even remotely referring to Jesus.
There is also another reason for not capitalizing the “G” in John 1:1, considering the Greek of the above verse which disproves the assertion that Jesus is referred to as God in the verse. In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is “TON THEON”, which means “a god”. However, the stronger Greek word “HO THEOS” or “O THEOS” which means “Divine God” was used for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV Bible Author wrote “god” for Satan instead of “God”, which the word itself literally means The God. The second time the word God is used,”….and the word was God,” the word for God is also TON THEON, which also means “a god”.
Europeans have evolved a system of capital and small letters non-existent in Greek. The God, HOTHEOS is translated as God with a capital G, whereas Tontheos, which means A or ANY God is translated with a small g, god. In this case however, we see the unlawful translators trying to prove Jesus being God by putting capital G for both whereas it doesn’t belong in the case of the “word”.
The word ALLAH should preferably be used as it cannot be played around, since the word god is used for creatures’ aswell in the bible and not for the Creator (ALLAH) only;
As mentioned above The “God” title in the Bible was given to others in the OT and NT. Answering Isaiah 9:6. The “El” (God) title that was given to Jesus in the Old Testament, and the “HOTHEOS” (God) title in the New Testament, were given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible itself.
So can we trust the current English Translations? Given that facts above about verse John 1:1, how can we expect from an ordinary English speaking Christian who wants to spread his religion with all his heart honestly and faithfully to understand this lie of capitalizing the small “g” in John 1:1 and other verses, and not capitalizing the the MANY “g”s in the same exact words used for Jesus throughout the Old and New Testaments? Must we allow our faith to be all based on what other authors decide to insert from their own personal views into the Bible?
Let us further go into the details whether the word meant God for Jesus or it is actually a ploy from the so called Christian theologians.
The verse quoted in defense of the “Trinity” is from Gospel of John 1:1 :
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Firstly when we lean into the depth of this verse it appears that this is infact a denial of the Christians faith itself. However, after substantial research into Christian theological literature, It was learnt that this verse too can not be interpreted to justify a “triune” God. This verse is the bases of Trinitarian believe amongst Christians and one of the most popularly and strongly quoted by Christians in defense of the Trinity.
it is quite obvious from simply reading the above verse that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a “Duality” not a “Trinity.” Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a “merging” of a Holy Ghost with God and “the Word.” So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a “Duality” and not a “Trinity.” But let us see if this verse does in fact even command us to believe in a “Duality.” To do this we need to notice the following points:
1) Mistranslation of the text:
In the “original” Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), “The Word” is only described as being “ton theos”(divine/a god) and not as being “ho theos” (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine” (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in “The New Testament, An American Translation” this verse is honestly presented as
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of “God” we read
“Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see “The Authentic New Testament” by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
“the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as “The God” with a capital “G.” If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is “The God” translated as simply “the god” when referring to the devil, while “divine” is translated as the almighty “God” when referring to “The Word”? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the “translation” of the Bible took place?
Well, what is the difference between saying “the word was God,” and between saying “the word was a god (divine)”? Are they not the same? Far from it! Let us read the bible:
“I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High”
Psalms 82:6:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh”
Exodus 7:1
“the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
2 Corinthians 4:4
What does all of this mean? Let me explain.
In the West, it is common when one wishes to praise someone to say “You are a prince,” or “You are an angel” ..etc. When someone says this do they mean that that person is the son of the King of England, or a divine spiritual being? There is a very slight grammatical difference between saying “You are a prince” and between saying “You are THE prince,” however, the difference in meaning is quite dramatic.
Further, it is necessary when translating a verse to also take into account the meaning as understood by the people of that age who spoke that language. One of the biggest problems with the Bible as it stands today is that it forces us to look at ancient Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures through Greek and Latin glasses as seen by people who are neither Jews, Greeks, nor Romans. All of the so called “original” manuscripts of the NT available today are written in Greek or Latin. The Jews had no trouble reading such verses as Psalms 82:6, and Exodus 7:1, while still affirming that there is only one God in existence and vehemently denying the divinity of all but God Almighty. It is the continuous filtration of these manuscripts through different languages and cultures as well as the Roman Catholic church’s extensive efforts to completely destroy all of the original Hebrew Gospels (see last quarter of this chapter) which has led to this misunderstanding of the verses.
The Americans have a saying: “Hit the road men.” It means “It is time for you to leave.” However, if a non-American were to receive this command without any explanation then it is quite possible that we would find him beating the road with a stick. Did he understand the words? Yes! Did he understand the meaning? No!
In the Christian church we would be hard pressed to find a single priest or nun who does not address their followers as “my children.” They would say: “Come here my children”, or “Be wary of evil my children” … etc. What do they mean?
A fact that many people do not realize is that around 200AD spoken Hebrew had virtually disappeared from everyday use as a spoken language. It was not until the 1880s that a conscious effort was made by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah to revive the dead language. Only about a third of current spoken Hebrew and basic grammatical structures come from biblical and Mishnaic sources. The rest was introduced in the revival and includes elements of other languages and cultures including the Greek and Arabic languages.
Even worse than these two examples are cases when translation into a different languages can result in a reversal of the meaning. For example, in the West, when someone loves something they say “It warmed my heart.” In the Middle East, the same expression of joy would be conveyed with the words: “It froze my heart.” If an Mideasterner were to greet a Westerner with the words: “It froze my heart to see you,” then obviously this statement would not be greeted with a whole lot of enthusiasm from that Westerner, and vice versa. This is indeed one of the major reasons why the Muslims have been so much more successful in the preservation of their holy text than the Christians or the Jews; because the language of the Qur’an has remained from the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to the present day a living language, the book itself has always been in the hands of the people (and not the “elite”), and the text of the book remains in the original language of Muhammad (pbuh). For this reason, a translator must not and should not “translate” in a vacuum while disregarding the culture and traditions of the people who wrote these words. As we have just seen, it was indeed quite common among the Jews to use the word “god” (divine) to convey a sense of supreme power or authority to human beings. This system, however, was never popularly adopted by them to mean that these individuals were in any way omnipotent, superhuman, or equal to the Almighty.
2) Basic message of John:
Now that we have seen the correct translation of the verse of John 1:1, let us go a little further in our study of the intended meaning of this verse. This verse was taken from the “Gospel of John.” The very best person to ask to explain what is meant by a given statement is the author of that statement himself. So let us ask “John” what is his mental picture of God and Jesus (pbuh) which he wishes to convey to us:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.”
John 13:16.
So the author of John tells us that God is greater than Jesus. If the author of this Gospel did indeed wish us to understand that Jesus and God are “one and the same,” then can someone be greater than himself? Similarly,
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”
John 14:28.
Can someone “go” to himself? Can someone be “greater” than himself?
“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:”
John 17:1.
If John meant to tell us that “Jesus and God are one and the same” then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself “Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself”? Does this sound like this is the message of John?
“While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy (God’s) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
John 17:12.
If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself “Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept …”? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his writings?
“Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”
John 17:24.
Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as “Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the world”?
So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).
3) Who wrote the “Gospel of John”?:
The “Gospel of John” is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity’s more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from the case. These scholars draw our attention to the fact that internal evidence provides serious doubt as to whether the apostle John the son of Zebedee wrote this Gospel himself. In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read
“A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely.”
Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:
“This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.”?
Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The “disciple who Jesus loved” according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different person.
Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era by this, or these, unknown author(s). According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost “inspire” the apostle John’s ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? . In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote this gospel.
“Since the beginning of the period of modern critical study, however, there has been much controversy about [the Gospel of John's] authorship, place of origin, theological affiliations and background, and historical value”
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Abingdon Press, p. 932
4) Who “inspired” the author of this gospel to write this verse?:
The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian scholar of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the “gospel of John” was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading “Logos”(“the word”):
“Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ……In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John’s conception to Greek origins–perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria.”
T. W. Doane says:
“The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God” is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian……..We see then that the title “Word” or “Logos,” being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was ‘First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit’. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital – that of Jupiter Capitolinus – was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship.”
From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.
6) What was “The Word”?
“O people of the book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not “Three,” desist! It will be better for you, for Allah is one God. Glory be to him. Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.”
The noble Qur’an, Al-Nissa(4):171
In the Qur’an we are told that when God Almighty wills something he merely says to it “Be” and it is.
“Verily! Our (Allah’s) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it “Be!” – and it is”
The noble Qur’an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)
This is the Islamic viewpoint of “The Word.” “The Word” is literally God’s utterance “Be.” This is held out by the Bible where thirteen verses later in John 1:14 we read:
“And the Word was made flesh”.
In the Qur’an, we read:
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be.’ And he was.”
The noble Qur’an, Aal-Umran(3):59.
Regarding what is meant by Allah by “a spirit preceding from him” I shall simply let Allah Himself explain:
“And [remember] when Allah said to the angles: ‘I shall create a human (Adam) from sounding clay, from altered mud. So when I have fashioned him and have breathed into him of my spirit, then fall down in prostration before him’”
The noble Qur’an, Al-Hijr(15):29
Salman:
I am coming to the conclusion that you either don’t read what I write except to glance at it; or you read it but don’t retain what you’ve read; or you read, understand, and retain it fully well, but go along your merry way as if you didn’t. Either way it leads to a lot of needless tedium in trying to read your responses. If you would leave out the repetition, (often nearly word-for-word as you said it before,) reading your writing would still be a grueling experience, but at least it would make it a shorter one.
Two examples will suffice to demonstrate. You begin your last post with an exposition trying to show that the English translation of John chapter one is all wrong and misleading. We’ve been over that before when I explained to you that if you consult a Greek Orthodox priest you will get the same interpretation of it from someone for whom the language of the N.T. is his native tongue; someone who rarely reads the N.T. except in Greek and who can probably read it in the most original Greek with only a little more difficulty than an updated version in Modern Greek. He can tell you what he believes about John chapter one and trace that belief for you to as far back as the Gospel of John was known to exist. There are seminary professors of New Testament Greek and New Testament History usually having their doctorates in the field. All of them are fully aware of the original texts, some being extremely fluent in them. Some speak English as their native tongue but others do not. The doctrine of the Church on this passage of John long predates even the establishment of Christianity in what is now the British Isles. It is NOT based on an English rendering of the texts. The doctrines of Christianity were NOT settled upon by English speaking people.
Next you repeat your claim that the name “Allah” is the only legitimate term to use. You claim the word “God” is somehow hopelessly flawed and that any words other than “Allah” will surely lead to error. I will not repeat a rebuttal but rather simple refer you back to my post on January 31 at 5:18 a.m. where I gave a very thorough one — or at least as thorough as is practical to do in this forum and in the time I have to put things together in my own words.
That is another annoying thing about your writing. Very little of it shows any sign of having even an original thought much less a personal touch to it. A great deal of it appears pre-prepared and ‘packaged’ something like what the American media call “talking points” if you are familiar with that term. Another term for that kind of writing is “boilerplate” which you may look up in a dictionary if you are not familiar with it.
Altogether Salman, I don’t get the sense that you are very much actually participating in a discussion. You seem to me to be mostly serving up (transferring to this forum one could say,) whatever certain researchers have been able to take from Christian scholarship with the purpose of finding ways to use it to discredit Christianity — in this case in order to aggrandize Islam. Many others do it for the sake of other religions or for atheism but it is all very much the same kind of ’scholarly’ criticism that can sound quite impressive to the naif. Most of the time I do not see you citing a source for the material you are using. When you do name a source it appears to be a source within a source, meaning a source mentioned in the material you are borrowing without citing it.
Salman:
What is your opinion of this article?
http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
That wasn’t a trick question. You don’t really have to know N.T. Greek to get through the article but it would sure help as would being a grammarian. I found it difficult to follow but not impossible, which is to say I was able to read it to the end without becoming totally baffled. If you cannot get through it I’ll understand. It’s not light reading. I hope you will be able to at least get the basic point by glancing over it.
It is divided into two sections, Commentary and Grammatical Analysis. The first includes a brief part explaining that recent scholarship tends to find an influence from the Jewish Wisdom tradition rather than from Philo. (Philo would still be Jewish thought although adapted to the language of Greek philosophy.) Of course neither is a provable point. It’s speculation.
The second section is considerably more difficult but it is the part I most especially mean to point out to you. It is given to help you understand how the translation from the original Greek into English can be conducted by a quite scrupulous examination of the text aiming for the most precise meaning of the original Greek and then from that into English. That’s not to say in a few disputed passages ulterior motives can’t creep in or haven’t in some translations into English (I believe there are five or more versions in English,) but that doesn’t apply regarding what you dislike about the first chapter of the Gospel of John. The most scrupulous and advanced scholarship in this area agrees with the conclusions reached in the article.
Some of it I don’t think could even matter to you. I say that because from the things you have said, I don’t think you would, for example, make a distinction between the doctrine of the Trinity and the heresy of Modalism. That sort of thing does matter to Christians which is why Christian scholars in this area take so much care to understand every jot and tittle correctly.
Salman:
One of the sources named in your last post was a book called “Bible Myths and Parallels in Other Religions” by Thomas W. Doane. Little can be found about the author except he wrote that book. It’s said he was a member of the “Free Thinker Movement”. Knowing what I know about that movement, I surmise he did not believe in God. Written in 1882, the book obviously doesn’t represent up-to-date scholarship, nor very good scholarship for that matter even for its time, but neither is it a complete fabrication. Despite its many errors, the factual information it contains raises serious questions that cannot be just ignored as long as they continue to be raised.
Consulting Google, mostly booksellers, some not surprisingly, of the occult sort, list the book. The rest are articles and mentions of the book which are, almost without exception, enthusiastic endorsements. They may be roughly categorized as coming from an atheist, pagan, or Muslim point of view as follows: 70% are from an atheist view; 25% pagan; and 5% Muslim. The extremely scarce exceptions are some Jewish comment (favorable) and Christian (unfavorable.) So as you can see, objection to the book is (as far as I’ve found,) exclusively from a Christian point of view, and that being a droplet in the bucket.
The reason a few Muslims (and even fewer Jews) might approve of the book is because of its denigration of Christianity. Disdain for Christianity is an area where certain monotheists agree with atheists and pagans. It is handy for that purpose as the author hardly had anything else in mind to fault. In his time and place,
religion meant Christianity. He would’ve been barely aware of, and never have confronted, any other religion. (With the possible exceptions of Unitarianism or Mormonism which he would have likely consider Christian anyway.)
However, the overall implications the book carries are that religion is in all of its forms either a concoction (favoring atheists,) or an amalgamation of spirituality (favoring pagans,) which in either case puts the lie to any claims of exclusive revelation from God in either Islam or Judaism. Hence, the Muslim and Jew would do well to curb his enthusiasm for the book, even if it is handy for faulting Christianity. (Recall, that was one of the problems with the G-o-B. It contradicts not just Christian orthodoxy, but Muslim orthodoxy as well.) One last note about the widespread enthusiasm for the book: One site quotes from it to argue that Christianity is no more than a plot by Jews to eviscerate gentiles; which makes it ironic that any Jew would quote from it to argue just the opposite.
Still, the book’s basic theme (but not its thesis,) cannot be simply dismissed and still maintain intellectual honesty. Baha’ism, which you and I might agree is a Shi’ite heresy, ( a “false Mahdi” if you will,) has a grain of truth in it when it declares a commonality to all religion. Doane simply extends the concept in his book to include every manner of ancient and minor religions. This cannot be ignored especially today, because it is a very popular concept that is growing ever more popular. If it were not that it’s an informal belief it might count as the faith growing quicker and wider than any other.
The growing popularity of it presents a challenge to Islamic orthodoxy as well as to Christian. However, it is of course, not my place to adress it from the perspective of a Muslim. Moreover, the charge is much more frequently made that Christianity is nothing more than another version of many religions that came before it. I suspect the Muslim would more need to contend with the accusation that it is no more than a variation on Judaism, (ironic since Christianity was first a Jewish sect and is generally far more closely linked to Judaism,) but the same accusers will draw parallels to say Judaism is itself a variation. The claim that it is the first institution of monotheism has its detractors too and their arguments are more clever than you might think.
With all that as background let me recommend an article about it. It is admittedly totally a Christian defense, but as I’ve said before, my greater interest is that you understand Christianity better. I can tell that is difficult for you. I’m not unsympathetic. It can be difficult for anyone, but more for some than for others.
The content, style, and tone of the article is quite good I think which might make up for it being very long.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156
I regret it is too long by double. You have to hit the “to be continued” tab for the second half, but if you get that far you will discover why so many of T.W. Doane’s modern disciples have concluded that they logically must also deny the historical aspect of Jesus. Many of them will even deny Jesus ever existed. You could go along with that too, except Muhammad said otherwise. I could direct you to the ’scholars’ who make the claim and their ‘evidence’ of it, but that would be pointless as we already both agree it’s nonsense. Many of them are the same ones who supply you with the information you use to argue a pagan origin for the doctrines of Christianity.
dix.. i don know boxing,so u r right…first thing u should not judge a religion by peoples following that…hitler killed thosands of jews in the name of chritianity..can i blame christianity for that?..go to the authentic sources……..islam in no way doin unfair to the womens..may be some blacksheeps are… in the name of islam……
ernest..6th point is not meant for raping……..it is for molestation against the women…
if u say covering do unjustice to women…..then y chritian nuns r doin that…is that due to their respect for their god..the y don’t muslim womens should not have that respet for ther god all the time…….
what is ur comment on these verses from the bible
1 corinthians 11:3-6
11:3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.
5 But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head.
6 For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head.
now will u say jesus & christianity like islam degrade the womens…
i also ask dix …if u say i am afraid of women becoming equal….now is jesus afraid of that also
ahamed
you ask …is jesus afraid of women becoming equal….(to men) i assume it is to men since you are the one asking and i would assume that you are a man… the answer to that is NO.. he is not afraid.. the answer is very obvious since he is God and he loves his creation… he wants a man and a woman to have an interdependent and equal relationship…. ahamed… why you quoted 1corinthians 11:3-6 is a puzzle to me since that chapter is about the propriety of worship… is it because you just want to justify the wearing of hijaab? or is it because you want the superiority of men to women be justified?
since you qouted 1 corinthians 11:3-6.. let me just go ahead explain the verses as best i can… Christ as head of every man…. what do we mean by head.. some say authority.. in terms of human relationship… or source/origin…in some cases. ………
obviously as christians we affirm the authority of Christ and the souce of our salvation to Him…
man as head of woman… what we are talking about here is the relationship between a man and a woman….just as the next clause will point out…God is the head of Christ… is the relationship of Christ inferior to that of God the father….NO He is not…and just as this clause parallel ’s the previous one, so does the relationship between a man and a woman does not involve inferiority… submission of a woman to the authority of a man does not mean she is being inferior to him…it only means that she is committed to their relationship….since Christ is not inferior to God the father. and both are equally divine… men and women on the other hand are created as equal beings….. they just have different roles according to God’s plan…
Should women wear head coverings when they worship? in my culture women still do wear head coverings when they go to church to worship but it is not mandatory..
i myself have no objection to that… since in my definition of worship physical appearance has little to do with it… it is what is in the heart that counts the most…however, to answer the question…we will have to go back to the FIRST CENTURY.. in Paul’s time (just in case you don’t know who Paul is…he is the person responsible for writing 1 corinthians) in Paul’s jewish culture… it is considered inappropriate for a woman to uncover her head in public….. in other words Paul’s message was for a woman to cover her head during public worship as a form of respect to her husband…but how does this practice affect us today? It does not… women may cover their head during worship as long as it does not become objects of attention or attraction…
Ahamed
Let me correct you on this one…Hitler killed not thousands but MILLIONS of jews….and it was NOT in the name of christianity….. everybody knows that… so you are right you can not blame christianity for his actions. But let me ask you this question did you ever felt sorry for those jews? You probably think it’s their fault too. ….i am amazed because most muslims i know deny the holocaust ever happened. Just like you deny subjugating your women… or to put it mildly treating them unfairly…
ahamed:
I like how Dix put it, but here’s my own to add to it.
You were talking in #6 about how women should cover their BODIES (not just heads,) in PUBLIC and I was addressing your contention that the totally covered girl you described is safer. Yes I did mistakenly apply it to rape, but if you like, let it take in your point #9 to correct that.
Even if it is just a “hooligan” as you described, not a rapist, I would still say we are talking about a sinful act on the part of the hooligan. He wants to tease the girl, but why? Shouldn’t he rather want to charm her so as to perhaps have a chance with her, if he finds her looks are attracting him sexually? If his interest is only to tease, then he could just as well pick on the girl who is covered, especially if being covered is unusual to him. Then she would appear to be odd. Odd people are typically victims of teasing. If it is perfectly normal for all girls to wear miniskirts, why would anyone tease a girl for wearing a miniskirt? It makes no sense. She might be teased for having odd looking knees or something like that, but that kind of thing cannot be eliminated by coverings. There will always be something odd that can be noticed past heavy clothing — a limp for example.
In sum, a woman can be modest in her dress without being confined to a uniform that robs her of being an individual by trying to hide the fact that she is one. Also a woman does not need (nor want) to be kept away from every danger at the cost of keeping her totally cloistered. It’s a bit like putting people in cages with the excuse that it protects them from being attacked by animals. Isn’t it the animal that belongs in the cage?
Now you’ve jumped from PUBLIC appearance to PRIVATE appearance of Christian women at prayer. The Biblical exegesis you Muhammadans are and are not interested in is rather telling. This relatively trivial one within the overall scheme of Christianity interests you but not something quite profound written four chapters later. If you will agree that what is said in Chapter 15 is a profound truth, then I will agree that what is told in chapter 11 is an important truth as well. Deal?
You should bear in mind that your Shariah law has no counterpart in Christianity. Attire is a matter of custom in the Church not law — even for nuns. Further, most of the people you argue with don’t feel much more bound by the Bible than you do, so you are appealing to an authority that neither of you recognizes. That’s rather silly. I consider the Bible authoritative, but I might well be in the minority of readers here.
There are two verses, one before the verses you quoted and another after it, that need consideration:
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” 1 Cor. 10:23
This can be coupled with Paul saying elsewhere that to a Jew he will be as a Jew and to a Greek as a Greek. From this the argument is made that it was the culture of Corinith that expected certain behavior of men and women that should be maintained by the Church there too. The church couldn’t grow if it developed a bad reputation in the community. I’m not defending that view, only repeating it.
“Judge yourselves; is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN TO HER FOR A COVERING. 1 Cor. 11: 13-15 [emphasis added]
How long is long? Over the ears? Nape of the neck? Does it include beards? Or pe’ot? (the sidelocks worn to abide by Lev. 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your head.”.) Also the story of Samson and the Nazarite tradition. By that it would seem this would have to refer to VERY long hair, say well down past the shoulders at least. It really doesn’t make sense otherwise that Paul would argue this. (Another perhaps, but not Paul the former student of Gamaliel.) If a woman’s hair is given to her for a covering, by what justification do we surmise that the earlier verses are speaking of some added covering such as a hat or kerchief?
The word “comely” in the passage is curious as well. It means “attractive” not “proper”. This would be just the opposite of the idea of a women trying to hide her appearance. On the contrary, this seems to be saying that a woman being covered in hair identifies her as a woman; that it is a feminine trait (even “pretty”,) and that men keeping short (or rather shorter) hair is a masculine trait since men shouldn’t be “pretty”. Then it is as if Paul is saying a woman might as well shave all her hair off as to wear it too short. Perhaps too, he was suggesting men should not cover even their baldness, as balding is natural to men. Maybe that’s all part of the meaning. Maybe not. It isn’t the way any paraphrased Bible arranges it but such Bibles are really a cross between an authorized version and commentary. I suppose the writers of them speculate better than I but they still do speculate in order to paraphrase. One such version is the “New Living Bible”. It gives the next and final verse on the subject thusly:
“But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it.” –1 Cor. 11:16
The King James reads:
“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
– 1 Cor. 11:16
An interesting difference. The K.J.V. could be taken as saying “If anyone makes an issue of this, understand we are just going along with the ways here in Corinth to fit in as best we can, but we ourselves don’t actually have the same custom, nor any other church.” Or alternatively, ” We have no custom of arguing over things as this, nor do churches that are of God have any such petty disagreements.”
More than likely it means little or none of any of that, but rather what it appears to mean at first glance — that woman should wear a head covering in church and men should not. Even at that it is a custom and, as Paul says in the previous chapter, a custom because it is expedient; not because it isn’t lawful to have any other.
Salman:
More for you, this time answering some of your claims point by point:
You wrote:
” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Firstly when we lean into the depth of this verse it appears that this is infact a denial of the Christians faith itself. ”
Reply:
I beg your pardon? Who do you mean by “we”?
You wrote:
“Even the most resolute conservative Christian will never claim to find in this verse any mention whatsoever of a “merging” of a Holy Ghost with God and “the Word.” So even if we were to accept this verse at face value and just have faith, even then, we find ourselves commanded to believe in a “Duality” and not a “Trinity.” ”
Reply:
If anyone might use the passage as PART of an argument for the Trinity, reading the passage does not require it serving that purpose. What it does require is understanding John’s purpose in writing it. The clear purpose of his book is to give an account of the ministry of Jesus Christ and that begins from the very start of the book. If the prologue counts as neglecting the Holy Spirit, then we might as well accuse John of neglecting it in most of the entire book, but in fact he comes to it by the 32nd verse of the same first chapter:
“And John [Baptist] bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.”
Matthew’s (3:16) account adds a voice from heaven saying. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not mentioning the Holy Ghost in the prologue the subject of which is the Word which “became flesh and dwelt amongst us” (verse 14,) does not indicate the Holy Spirit was absent but rather just not pertinent to the point being made, that point reaching a crescendo at verse 14. The Holy Ghost was another point he would get to at verse 32.
You wrote:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine” (If you read the New World Translation of the Bible you will find exactly this wording).
Similarly, in “The New Testament, An American Translation” this verse is honestly presented as
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173
And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of “God” we read
“Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317
In yet another Bible we read:
“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt
Please also see “The Authentic New Testament” by Hugh J. Schonfield and many others.
Reply:
Not one of those is an authorized version with the exception of the “New World Translation” which is authorized by the Watchtower Society; meaning it is the bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses — a cult best known for prohibiting blood transfusion but which also predicted the world would end in 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1941, and again in 1975 — all in accordance with the same careful scholarship they used to create their Bible translation you cite as being a better one.
Each of them is from a quite unorthodox (to say the least) point of view. I encourage you Salman, to investigate what these people believe in total and I assure you that as a Muslim you would be forced to reject many if not all of them. So if you would find that certain things they say must be lies as they contradict your faith, why are you so eager to believe other things they say are true? One author you recommended, Hugh J. Schonfield, wrote a book titled “The Passover Plot” the theme of which is that Jesus enacted a plot to make it seem as if he was the Messiah. In other word’s Schonfield claims Jesus was a fraud. But your Muhammad tells you Jesus was no fraud but rather the real Messiah. So how can you cite Schonfield among your superior authorities when he flatly contradicts your beloved prophet’s testimony about Jesus?
You wrote:
“Who wrote the “Gospel of John”?:
The “Gospel of John” is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. However, when consulting Christianity’s more learned scholars of Church history, we find that this is far from the case.
Reply:
That depends upon who you count as “more learned” and why. Are you referring to more of the same like Schoenfield?
Tell me if this doesn’t seem learned:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm
You wrote:
According to R. H. Charles, Alfred Loisy, Robert Eisler, and other scholars of Christian history, John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written.
Reply:
Yet another unorthodox minority view. You name three and “others” which means what? Three more?
Church tradition has it that John is unusual among the Apostles for not being martyred and living a long life — by some accounts as old as 100 years. By what is known that may be close to true. That he lived well past 44 AD is not much doubted.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/11/mary-and-john-as-examples-of-sources.html
(see third paragraph.)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/apostle-johns-long-lifespan.html
As you can see some will go to great lengths to concoct an early death for John for the purpose of being able to claim someone else wrote his Gospel. And as I’ve explained to you before these “authorities” are as wont to skew everything about Christianity including that Jesus ever lived.
At any rate, John certainly lived long enough to write his Gospel.
In some other place you questioned whether John knew Greek. Read this article, then decide:
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/jesuslanguage.html
please tell me how is respect given to women ins ISLAM…
the great allah in the book says women are weak and cannot be intelligent and u can beat them whenever u want and Women exist just serve his man and his sexual desires….
but women like “Salman Lakhani ” are blind to these kind of verses and the plight of many muslim women …..
..oh prophet(piss be upon him) what a fool of the them have you made…. you are greatest of all.. you have written all the bullshit you want …and these people are still ………
a proud kafir
“I believe what i see and what you say”
http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/why_I_left_Islam.htm
Islam honors women, Mahahahahahaha, what a joke.
Yeah, Islam honors women by sexualising them. Islam honors women by covering them up, essentially making them into one big sexual object.
God Muslim men must be SOO stupid.
Yep, Islam sure respects women..
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/islam-loves-women/
Yes only Islam honors women!!!!!!!
Discover Islam
The Status of Women in Islam
Sheikh Salih Al-Munajjid
Islam honours women greatly. It honours women as mothers who must be respected, obeyed and treated with kindness. Pleasing one’s mother is regarded as part of pleasing Allaah. Islam tells us that Paradise lies at the mother’s feet, i.e. that the best way to reach Paradise is through one’s mother. And Islam forbids disobeying one’s mother or making her angry, even by saying a mild word of disrespect. The mother’s rights are greater than those of the father, and the duty to take care of her grows greater as the mother grows older and weaker. All of that is mentioned in many texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
For example, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We have enjoined on man to be dutiful and kind to his parents” [al-Ahqaaf 46:15]
“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.
And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young’” [al-Isra’ 17:23, 24]
Ibn Maajah (2781) narrated that Mu’aawiyah ibn Jaahimiah al-Sulami (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her.” Then I approached him from the other side and said: O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her.” Then I approached him from in front and said, O Messenger of Allaah, I want to go for jihad with you, seeking thereby the Face of Allaah and the Hereafter. He said, “Woe to you! Is your mother still alive?” I said, Yes. He said, “Go back and honour her (lit. stay by her feet), for there is Paradise.”
Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah. It was also narrated by al-Nasaa’i with the words: “Stay with her for Paradise is beneath her feet.”
Al-Bukhaari (5971) and Muslim (2548) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allaah, who is most deserving of my good company?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Your mother.” He said: “Then who?” He said: “Then your father.” And there are other texts which we do not have room to mention here.
One of the rights which Islam gives to the mother is that her son should spend on her if she needs that support, so long as he is able and can afford it. Hence for many centuries it was unheard of among the people of Islam for a mother to be left in an old-people’s home or for a son to kick her out of the house, or for her sons to refuse to spend on her, or for her to need to work in order to eat and drink if her sons were present.
Islam also honours women as wives. Islam urges the husband to treat his wife in a good and kind manner, and says that the wife has rights over the husband like his rights over her, except that he has a degree over her, because of his responsibility of spending and taking care of the family’s affairs. Islam states that the best of the Muslim men is the one who treats his wife in the best manner, and the man is forbidden to take his wife’s money without her consent. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “and live with them honourably” [al-Nisa’ 4:19]
“And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise” [al-Baqarah 2:228]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I urge you to treat women well.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 331; Muslim, 1468.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The best of you is the one who is best to his wife, and I am the best of you to my wives.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3895; Ibn Maajah, 1977; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.
And Islam honours women as daughters, and encourages us to raise them well and educate them. Islam states that raising daughters will bring a great reward. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever takes care of two girls until they reach adulthood, he and I will come like this on the Day of Resurrection,” and he held his fingers together. Narrated by Muslim, 2631.
Ibn Maajah (3669) narrated that ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever has three daughters and is patient towards them, and feeds them, gives them to drink and clothes them from his riches, they will be a shield for him from the Fire on the Day of Resurrection.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Islam honours woman as sisters and as aunts. Islam enjoins upholding the ties of kinship and forbids severing those ties in many texts. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O people! Spread (the greeting of) salaam, offer food (to the needy), uphold the ties of kinship, and pray at night when people are sleeping, and you will enter Paradise in peace.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 3251; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.
Al-Bukhaari (5988) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said to the ties of kinship: ‘Whoever upholds you, I will support him, and whoever breaks you, I will cut him off.’”
All of these qualities may co-exist in a single woman: she may be a wife, a daughter, a mother, a sister, an aunt, so she may be honoured in all these ways.
To conclude: Islam raised the status of women, and made them equal with men in most rulings. So women, like men, are commanded to believe in Allaah and to worship Him. And women are made equal to men in terms of reward in the Hereafter. Women have the right to express themselves, to give sincere advice, to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, and to call people to Allaah. Women have the right to own property, to buy and sell, to inherit, to give charity and to give gifts. It is not permissible for anyone to take a woman’s wealth without her consent. Women have the right to a decent life, without facing aggression or being wronged. Women have the right to be educated; in fact it is obligatory to teach them what they need to know about their religion.
Anyone who compares the rights of women in Islam with their situation during the Jaahiliyyah or in other civilizations will understand that what we are saying is true. In fact we are certain that women are given the greatest honour in Islam.
There is no need for us to mention the situation of women in Greek, Persian or Jewish society, but even Christian societies had a bad attitude towards women. The theologians even gathered at the Council of Macon to discuss whether woman was merely a body or a body with a soul. They thought it most likely that women did not have a soul that could be saved, and they made an exception only in the case of Mary (Maryam – peace be upon her).
The French held a conference in 586 CE to discuss whether women had souls or not, and if they had souls, were these souls animal or human? In the end, they decided that they were human! But they were created to serve men only.
During the time of Henry VIII, the English Parliament issued a decree forbidding women to read the New Testament because they were regarded as impure.
Until 1805, English law allowed a man to sell his wife, and set a wife’s price at six pennies.
In the modern age, women were kicked out of the house at the age of eighteen so that they could start working to earn a bite to eat. If a woman wanted to stay in the house, she had to pay her parents rent for her room and pay for her food and laundry.
See ‘Awdat al-Hijaab, 2/47-56.
How can this compare to Islam which enjoins honouring and kind treatment of women, and spending on them?
Secondly: With regard to the changes in these rights throughout the ages, the basic principles have not changed, but with regard to the application of these principles, there can be no doubt that during the golden age of Islam, the Muslims applied the sharee’ah of their Lord more, and the rulings of this sharee’ah include honouring one’s mother and treating one’s wife, daughter, sister and women in general in a kind manner. The weaker religious commitment grew, the more these rights were neglected, but until the Day of Resurrection there will continue to be a group who adheres to their religion and applies the sharee’ah of their Lord. These are the people who honour women the most and grant them their rights.
Despite the weakness of religious commitment among many Muslims nowadays, women still enjoy a high status, whether as daughters, wives or sisters, whilst we acknowledge that there are shortcomings, wrongdoing and neglect of women’s rights among some people, but each one will be answerable for himself.
Bullshit.
ahkter, your delusional!
Everything that you posted is irrelevant, when we take a look at the evidence, let the pictures speak for themselves.
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/islam-loves-women/
I could find many, many more pictures, if these aren’t evidence enough for you.
try to slove the problem of human being if u can…..rather showing this, if i want i can find manny inhumanity in u culture , but its not my job to find out some one fales . ALLAH knows every think those are good those are bad
one day it will be discover , that day people never get the time even look one another
Don’t sugarcoat it BNI. Tell him what you really think. Ha.
AKHTER…. HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE YET???
AKHTER……… HAVE STOPPED BEATING YOUR MOTHER YET?????
AKHTER…… HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR SISTER YET?????
AKHTER…… HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR DAUGHTER YET????
HEHEHEHEHHEEHEHEHEHEHEHHE she must breat-feed him to avoid khulwa.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA man do u believe the words you are typing, if this is a fact im pretty sure 90% of the western world would have been muslims by now…. and yeah being alone in a room with a man is khulwa and this impermissible, but breast feeding isnt the solution, one must leave the room, thats the only way to solve the problem.
hehehehehhee this breast feeding thing is funny though..
Islam does not let a woman breast feed a man, and people in this blog acts like some Christian women don’t breast feed their men. I wonder how many pornstars are out there who consider themselves christian and have crosses tattooed on their body…
Islam is a joke not a religion. Its the most MORONIC cult I have ever come across. These characters in burkhas and kaftans look like jokers from a movie. Most Muslims( well… all of them) are liars. Jesus was never a prophet for them. They are such prudes to the point of being moronic and sickening. They believe in suffering and enjoy it.
How many muzlims does it take to change a light bulb ? None ! They prefer to sit in the dark and blame israel. More ? Mohammed gets home after a day collecting his ‘giro’ unemplyed cheque, when he sees one of his wives with a suitcase about to leave . He aks “What are you doing ?” She replies, I am leaving you because the other wives tell me that you are a pedophile !” And Mohammed replied “Wow ! that is a big word for a six year old !” …
The other day I saw a cartoon in the local newspaper. Forunately I am a Westerner and took no offence over it at all,.. That’s right ! I did not “GO MUZLIM” over it; or go ‘postal’ as some may say. I simply took little notice or regard and stayed calm and mature. Mosques have phallic turrets and breast shapes for domes. Something very Freudian slippy about it methinks. Little wonder the camels are nervous and, needless to say, safe sex for a muzlim means finding a camel that doesn’t kick back.
Too late to dole out the “Milk of Human Kindness” to any muslim. When allah was issuing brains the muslims thought he said ‘trains’ and stood on the wrong platform.
I’m sticking to Lager myself..
So if a muslim “man” or half-man, enters a room, a muslim woman has to leave that room, basically. Well what kind of a moronic bullschittzen idea is that ? Why ? Are you that scared they might end up shaggin’? is that it ? It is ! well OK then. With an attitude like that so effed by “islam” programming and mind conditioning, mozzies need some serious ‘professional’ help don’t they. Muslim kunce.
hahahaha..geez, who cooked up this man breast feeding thing. its ridiculous. why does a MAN need to breast feed anyway, it makes no sense. only uneducated morons believe this trash article. and i thought americans were highly educated.
the picture is poorly superimposed..what amatures work.
Frst of all if you ask a kid then he will tell you that this pic is made in photoshop and secondly in your religion it happen that when your father need milk and if it is not there then your mother tell your father that should i feed you ..and islamic brothers tell me one thing this are all the villans of islam y u all guys giving comment as you know that in our holy book it is written that they will try to keep muslims image down but dont you do any thing just wait for the judgement day and i will see them all and you will be in the front and you will see that what i have done who misbehaves with islam …
so my request to all my islamic brothers that this are all who not respect islam are dogs let them bark……..to all the islamic brothers Allahhafiz may Allah bless us all Ameen.
Oh btw, in one of the very first comments, you say over a billion muslims choose to do nothing, yet, you do not hate all muslims. There are only a little over a billion muslims. So where’s the margin? That proves you pull all this bull out of your butt.
That last comment is in support of muslims. It sounds a bit cryptic. Im talking to this author here.
oh my lord! islam is a religion against women’s equality!!!! check this out
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015618
The exchange between Ernest and Salman was interesting, thoughtful and civilized(unlike some of the posts here). Thank you. I don’t have a lot of respect for the Muslim religion but I have know some lovely people who are Muslims so my feelings are tempered by that. I think that the Muslim community in the West does itself a grave disservice by not speaking out loudly against things like honor killings, genital mutilation, etc., especially when these things take place in the West. The fact that they don’t speak out about it makes the rest of us think there are no “moderates” out there and that this is approved by all. So if any Muslims are reading I would suggest that you speak out as a community against these practises which are abhorant to us in the West. This will engender less suspicion and more respect.
That silence is deafening from the “moderate” muslims, who attend the same grave mosques as their extremist brethren and – as far as I can tell- raise no voice of protest for the extremists when they rant at friday “prayers”. This then, is Passive Support, commonly referred to as ‘ your part of the problem then if your not part of the solution”. Period. It is nice to know in many cases, of muslims that are so nice that the nicety floods out the nasty that islam can inculcate with its cult-programming of minds from cradle to grave. A survey revealed, 27% of US muslims have no comment, on support or not to support Al Qaida. 13% do not support or thumbs up, Al Qaida in any way. This gives the survey’s guesstimate for muslims in the USA as being 60% in support of AQ. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to have a hot dog with a pork sausage, wine and a tug-o-war with my dog and his rope, at my poolside patio, listen to some opera.
All religion sucks, especially Islam.
I will never, NEVER, submit to Islam and its shameful treatment of women, it’s disgusting.
And by the way, both the Quaran and the Bible are a total load bullshit. Why don’t you all get a life and stop trying to live according to a stupid book with little or no relevance to the real world, you brain dead morons.
Have a lovely day.
Ha Ha ! Grr Grr ! go for it Tyga ! The “Book Religions” tend to be similar..Judeaism, Chritianity and questionable and pathological, islam. The “book” is the be all and end all., and is the “revealed” word of..( pointing skywards..) whatever. And, “woe betide ye who doeth cacky pants and wee wee against walls in public, for ye shall roast baked beans in el-inferno. Yes, it is crap, quite. Now, there are other systems, with entirely different feels to them. Take Zen Buddhism/or Buddhism in general, which “does not depend on words and letters”…Neither does it go on about any ‘God’ in the sky above, for it is “Non-Theistic”..doesn’t even think of going “there”. There is a stable and consistent philosophy of wise reasoning. Hinduism..a word of Western coinage, “spreads ‘god’ out into everything, all and everything..( mistakenly called “pan-theistic, but this is not accurate.) “God is spread out so far, it er..umm..thins ‘him’/her out so thinly into the expanse of the universe, that ‘he’/she’ disappears. That way, no fanatics are born / borne in these systems. The founders already knew that “islamofascist types were around, and took no chances with these nutters. “Mohammed of course did the veryb opposite..a genocidal madman. I do appreciate the refreshing talks of Pat Condell, “atheist’ if you will..he has some excellent and relevant, points…so that’s good and important. It is not what islam is: it is what it does, that makes it so vile.
Islam is a malignant tumour of the mind, a pathologically egotistical vampire, a disease ridden ideology of oppression, hatred and subjugation. I’d personally prefer to inject spongiform encephalitis directly into my own cranium than submit to a barbaric ideology as abhorrent as Islam.
The levels of sheer stupidity that exist within the collective unconsciousness of the religiously inclined, is probably equal to, or greater than, the density of a super massive black hole.
And you are correct Drew, the eastern philosophies have a direct route to enlightenment which involves no god figure what so ever, except for maybe the ubiquitous realisation that ones own conscious awareness is the key to understanding the nature of consciousness itself. This bypasses any need to find anything else apart from oneself, as oneself in this way, IS the messiah, IS god, so to speak.
There is no need here then for any philosophy at all in fact, as everything I need to know, everything I need to understand and everything I will be, I already AM.
regards,
tyga
tyga said: “Islam is a malignant tumour of the mind, a pathologically egotistical vampire, a disease ridden ideology of oppression, hatred and subjugation. I’d personally prefer to inject spongiform encephalitis directly into my own cranium than submit to a barbaric ideology as abhorrent as Islam.”
Oh my, tyga, you do have a way with words! Come more often!
Beautifully put tyga..excellently said ! A Free Thinker for sure, Liberated, and may those levels of freedom elevate. May you be well. May you be happy. Grand Kaffir of Infidelistan.
A theme for Christian thought. and others:- Women needlessly die around causes pertaining to childbirth in islamic 3rd world circumstances. The baby may live and she will die ( around one in seventy women die this way in Pakistan sadly ) or vice versa. Upon such deaths, the midwifery staff will say..”Tis’ Allah’s Will”. This is blasphemy. Ponder for a moment/s, this awful blasphemy. The Christian perspective would never blame God for the medical lacking, in places like Pakistan, causing this needless suffering. It is human indifference, and not “God’ that is responsible for this. God, in fact, has medical solutions for much and many things. Islamic indifference to life and limb in this typical respect, is what this site portrays and here is another example of cruel and selfish extremes.
Tyga Tyga burning bright, In the forests of the night. What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry. William Blake, English Sage.
look, if islam is so bad and so wrong then why is it the fastest frowing religion ever???
christians,jews people from evry religion are converting to islam becuase it is true and real so for all of you who have no life and just hate on islam is yourself those question are Are you just stupid and can’t stand islam beacusse your a racist scum or is it that deep inside you know islam is true and you just dont want to believe in it
UZ, Here ya go, skippy, here’s why Islam is the fastest growing death cult: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/want-to-know-why-islam-is-the-fastest-growing-religion-in-the-world/
UZ, your a fuck’n genius mate, a god damned fuck’n genius.
The only reason we all think Islam is a massive pile of stinking dog shit, wrapped in bacon, is because we have no life, are stupid racist scum, but deep inside we all know Islam is true but don’t want to admit it.
Yep, that’s exactly the reasons.
Yes sir, you are a fuck’n genius.
Why can’t we just live in peace, we can’t control the actions of others but we can control our own. I am a British born muslim woman and whilst at university I dressed in the Western way, tight jeans and the like and men looked at me inappropriatly and I thought that I did not care that I was liberated. I now dress more modestly and have realised the true liberation that Islam gives us. Why would we want men to look at us with lust. If every man can see my beauty then what is special about my beauty, so I want to keep it special for the person that I will 1-day marry. Why would you want another man to leer over you if you are a female, surely you value yourself more then that and if you are a man if the whole world can see the body of you wife, daughter or sister then please tell me exactly what is special about her? NOTHING
I wish I were a better muslim, what Islam teaches us is the correct path but we have lost our way. Decades ago christians were dressed modestly, did not have pre-marital relations. The religion has not changed, the people have become corrupt. Look back to the roots then look at christian women, how unchaste they are. It is different to make a mistake and repent as Allah is forgiving but it is different to let the sin be a way of life which is more often the case
It seems that people on here are intent on hating Islam regardless of the truth and facts, that makes them ignorant and maybe even rascist.
There are corrupt people who follow all religions so do not blame a relgion for the actions of a few. BNI what is your problem? Are you rascist?
Hamster, since when is Islam a race? My problem is with millions of Muslims who want to kill me and my people (Americans and Jews) I will stop hating Muslims when they stop hating me.
Who in their NORMAL mind wants anything to do or with the loveless, hate-filled schit out of ffukking islam ? Muslims are secretly converting in their thousands to Christianity and Hinduism. “Secretly” becaause the Death Cult of islam, typically, wants everything dead and decpitated if it does not agree with the Fruit & Nutcases of islamoNazism. Period.
Muslims think they’re “holier than thou” just because they ill-fit with Western liberties. Muslim girls in jeans are too closeted to feel at ease in Western clothes and from this insecurity and their culture’s lack of respect for women, they tend to shrink back into the burqa jails they are “institutionalised into. Liberty is a tough thing for muslim women who cannot assert themselves due to the denial of this liberty, to say what one means and mean what one says. Muslim women are shy and terribly inhibited sadly. Unlike American educated women who fast stand their ground, culturally. However, on their own in a quiet place, I have ventured to unveil muslim women, and made much love with them there in the Mid East, when she fully divested her burqa. Wonderful woman she was..too good for any muslim male assoles. She swam in my pool with all the freedom she never saw before…Praise the Lord..Amen.
You know when a muslim cries “racist !” he or she is actually shouting at the mirror they are looking at. “Infidel” is a reknown ‘racist’ epithet allowed use of by racist muslims in the West. If I was to call THEM a bunch of camel-jockeys…I’d be thrown into a burqa or fined.
Uz the fastest growing religion in JAIL is Islam, in gangs is Islam. Islam gives them the rigth to kill, rob, and screw babies for allah (smile) Islam is not the fastest growing religion anywhere. you all dont allow other religions in your lands and then claim Islam is the fastest growing in the West. Well in the West we are what we want to be and dont have to convert. Let us go to your world and tell you the truth and all of you will convert. I bet we will be the fastest growing in the Muslim world when we tell you that Islam has never invented a thing, medicine, planes, cars, nothing. We will tell your women that men go to jail in infidelville when they hit women. Let’s see who wins then.
Hamster,
The solution to a problem, is not another problem.
Sure, you probably feel less vulnerable dressed more modestly, but what is the ultimate price this illusion of modesty is reaping upon your sisters?
The content of this post is an example of the cruelty inflicted upon Islamic women in the name of Allah. Where then is modesty when women are being raped, flogged and imprisoned?
And you forget one more important fact my dear, that the women in the west faught hard to win the right to be free to wear whatever they wish, regardless whether men lust or not.
And why the hell do you think its a woman’s responsibility to cover up? If men can’t control their own filthy minds and behaviours, covering yourself won’t change that.
Muhammad made women cover after a peeping tom saw his wives naked using the outside toilet. He asked Prophet Mo to make women cover up. Mo all of a sudden had a visiion after Abu begged him to make his wives cover. Mo’s wives excited Abu. Allah sent Mo another vision (smile) Aisha said allah always sent Mo visions when he wanted something. Even a baby saw threw this crap.
whatever sense I say you will just come out with filth and stupidity, I can argue with rational people who present rational arguments but I cannot argue with plain stupidity. Your embiciles, you can say what you want and you will know one day what you will get for it, you reap what you sow and you will reap on the day of judgement for your lies and filth. You sprout uneducated, foolish lies. I have relaised that I you can not rationalise and I have deduced this from a number of nonsense replys to my postings
Hamster be your self allah was. I can handle anything you dish out just prove it. I can show you anything that I say, I ask for you to prove what you say. Lies comes from the heart as allah said he was in the quran a book he wrote in quran 3:54. Now call allah a liar.
Ham Count Dracula defeated Muslims once, drank Muslim blood and flew away.LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
hamster..hmm ? so brainless and thoroughly inarticulate. and awkwardly making a bigger fool of itself. At first, as I am given to filthy talk, according to mr purity hamster, I thought hamster was an idiot, and then he wrote garbage which confirmed the fact. My suspicion here is that his brains were once in his foreskin. Alas ! no brain either now. hamster is likely a crossdresser – not that I mind, but..he wears a burqa and so nobody notices..Dang ! another excuse for wearing a cloth-jail-cell called a ‘burqa. I was joining the West Australian Police, and had to have an “attitude test” in order to get in. Part of which, they slid a pistol to me, for the “attitude test”. Puzzled look on my face, the Recruiting Sgt said, I want you to shoot an immigrant, a drug dealer a muslim and a rabbit !”. I replied “..a rabbit ?..why a rabbit ?” and the recruiting Sgt said, “Great attitude ! When can you start ?”
thank you for your info
fortunately your articles have led me to do more research
and i am converting from christianity to
islam, mohomadism
thank you
especially to the ones who wrote out against this religion
and thanks you once again if in the future besides my wife (who has converted as well)
if any of my friend or family are looking for the truth i will definately rfer them to your site as well
bye
jASON
Your choice, Isnt it great you have a choice. Under islam you hAve no CHOICE. Allah said kill all who leave Islam. Either you stay and kill us or die.
Someone asked, How many Muslims does it take to turn out a light bulb–none
you will blame Jews. looooooooooooooooooooool
In Islam you too have a choice,either the way of kuffars or the way to God and an eternal life in the company of God in heaven for ever, that is why i and all the Muslims submit to the Creator and not to the one created , There is no verse in the Glorious Quran which says what you are suggesting, so stop lying, it is no wonder when people come across to websites like these they look into Islam and with grace of Allah people like Jason do revert to the mighty Islam, the purpose of this site was to humiliate Islam but these people do not know the plan of almighty, falsehood will always perish against truth and the truth is Islam . You owe it to yourself and your children i beg you to not read the Quran here , but get a copy and compare it yourself . Wish you all the best,and may Allah guide us all to the truth including you my friend BTILLY.
burqa is good is youer sister and yuer mother motherfuck kafarr
Akter]
I haVE 5 qURANS AND HADITHS and all said kill non-muslims and said allah created blacks to be slaves to whites Tabari 11. Quran 3:106 said black faces aRE CURSED AND WHITE FACES ARE BLESSED. wHAT about red faces. American Indians have red faces.
I am Allah (peace be upon me) and I never once said that anyone ought to convert to Islam, its a nasty lie. In fact, I thought I had made it abundantly clear that any form of worship, especially worshipping books and dead authors of books, is against my will.
I hereby make the commandment, that nobody, and especially Muslims, are not permitted to worship books or long dead authors of books.
Now stop being silly little humans and live your lives in love and peace.
BTILLY, yet again you are misquoting ,lying and putting your own words and NOT of the Quran into the peoples mouth, then again what else can we expect from you, maybe you should read just one Quran,the verse you are referring to has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE,as it refers to the expressions of the souls or people when they will get to know their fate, a brightly lit face will be the blessed one and a dark gloomy face will be the looser,there is no race or color difference in the sight of God,so a black, pale[white],red or yellow is creation of God so it is easier for us to know and recognize each other and not discriminate, like you are doing on this filthy website..Maybe now you will check the verses below and understand it, may Allah guide you.
104. Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.
105. Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,-
106. On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will be black, (will be said): “Did ye reject Faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith.”
107. But those whose faces will be (lit with) white,- they will be in (the light of) Allah.s mercy: therein to dwell (for ever).
108. These are thte Signs of Allah. We rehearse them to thee in Truth: And Allah means no injustice to any of His creatures.
109. To Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: To Him do all questions go back (for decision)
Akter
If I am alreaDY BLACK HOW CAN i BE OME BLACK. sLICK IS AS SLICK DOES. yOU CANNOT USE THAT OLD LIE. tHE HADITHS SAY BLACK PEOPLE. iSHAQ SAYS BLACK MAN IS LESS THAN A DONKEY’S PENIS.
I didnt write this mess allah and Muhammad did. This evil racist crap. Muhammad did it and allah the greatest deceiver did it. sura 3:54. Now say that I made those ones up. Lie on me like allah the devil lied to you.
You forgot to write your name in capital letters,must be getting confused like your answers,here is what the last prophet said in his final sermon,never mind what Ishaq who ever he is says.
THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LAST SERMON
(This Sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H in the Uranah Valley of mount Arafat ) Note: Found on the Net, but without source or copyright information. Please contact halsall@muray.fordham.edu if you have information
“O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I don’t know whether, after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you carefully and TAKE THIS WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.
O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (Interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived…
Beware of Satan, for your safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.
O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have right over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and comitted helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to commit adultery.
O People, listen to me in earnest, whorship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION.
Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.
O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand my words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QUR’AN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.
All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me direcly. BE MY WITNESS O ALLAH THAT I HAVE CONVEYED YOUR MESSAGE TO YOUR PEOPLE.”
This text is not copyright. The specific electronic form, and any notes and questions are copyright. Permission is granted to copy the text, and to print out copies for personal and educational use. No permission is granted for commercial use.
This is what the Quran says for your information Mr BITLLY,
Islam’s manifesto of Universal brotherhood of human beings
by Abdul Malik Mujahid
From the Quran
“O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you” (Quran 49:13).
Explanation: There are several principles, which this verse presents:
1. This message is not just for Muslims only because God is addressing all of humanity. While Muslims are one brotherhood, this is part of a larger brotherhood of humanity.
2. God is telling us that He has created us. Therefore He knows the best about us.
3. He says that He created us from one man and one woman meaning then that we are all the same.
4. It also means that all human beings are created through the same process, not in a manner in which some are created with a better mechanism than others.
5. God is the One who made human beings into different groups and people.
6. These differences are not wrong, rather a sign from God (“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Verily, in that are indeed signs for those who know” [Quran 30:22]).
7. Note that no word equivalent to race is used in this ayah or any other verse of the Quran.
8. Islam, however, limits the purpose of these distinctions to differentiation and knowing each other. This is not meant to be a source of beating each other down with an attitude of ‘my group is better than your group’ or false pride as is the case with tribalism, nationalism, colonialism, and racism.
9. The only source of preference or greatness among human beings is not on a national or group level, but it is at the individual level.
10. One individual who is (higher in Taqwa), more conscious of his Creator and is staying away from the bad and doing the good is better, no matter what nation, country or caste he is part of. Individual piety is the only thing that makes a person better and greater than the other one.
11. However, the only criterion of preference, Taqwa, is not measurable by human beings. Indeed God is the One Who knows and is aware of everything so we should leave even this criterion to God to decide instead of human beings judging each other.
Are you now CLEAR!!!
Muhammad didnt write any speech. He was dying in aisha bed from poisoning after he killed a Jewish girls family. That speech was added later and so was the sura 10:90 after Muslims invaded Egypt and stole it from Copt Christians. There was no last sermon. That was added by Caliph Uthman to get followers of Islam. Muslims lied about everything. THERE WAS NO LAST SERMON! MUSLIMS LIED AGAIN.
aLLAH IS NOT THE cREATOR OF THE WORLD . iF HE WAS WHY DID HE WAIT UNTIL THE 7TH CENTURY TO TELL PEOPLE. jEWS KNEW ABOUT THE WORLD AND FOR 4000 YRS TOLD US. THE ARAB MAN NAME MUHAMMAD CAME ALONG AND LIED AND CLAIMED THE MOON GOD OF THE ARABS WAS THE CREATOR. HOW INSANE.
IF ALLAH WAS THE CREATOR DIDNT HE KNOW THE EARTH WAS ROUND. ALLAH SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT LIKE A CARPET. ONLY INSANE PEOPLE WOULD BUY THAT LIE.
I see no proof in your comment, it is like a yo yo we are at loggerhead , who is right and wrong the readers decide, i see also you are loosing cool and seem very angry,you are so confused and in darkness , one who refrain from anger ,also refrains him/herself from the Satan. come again Mr BTILLY [remember capital letters]
bye.
qURAN 15:19 SAYS EARTH IS FLAT. bIBLE IN ISAIAH 40:22 SAID ROUND. THOUSAND OF YEARS BEFORE MO WAS BORN
Me Dam Mad Ho is a divine insight sent to me by allah in regards to mohammed. Indeed allah revealed to me that an anagram for ‘mohammed’ reads as Me Dam Mad Ho !.. as was the fact of mohammed’s actual true “profession.as.a male Ho into twelve year-old babies. sincerely, The Grand Kaffir of Infidelistan, Luton, Bedfordshire, England.
Like i said you are confused , so Allah is not the creator of the world then who is ? Allah is the God of everything he created,the first man created by him Adam he was his God and will be of the last man before the day of judgement day,Jews knew because he sent thousands of prophets to them and Allah was their God also and the people before them.
As far the joke about we worshipping the Moon god, well what can i say how desperate can one get? check this out BTILLY!!!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3204074/the_moon_god_lie_refuted/
The last point is also so daft, look when you spread carpet on a flat surface it stays flat, and when you spread it on a round surface it again spreads and stays round , the Quran ,the last testament of Allah is the only book which infect says the earth to be NOT ROUND but like an egg shape which it is Mr BTILLY!!
Here is the proof and stay on the subject!
And now for some logic that counters the stupidity of islam. I am a body borne from the nature of the universe. I therefore have that nature. I therefore “made” myself. I am therefore not answerable to any silly fuccking god or allah and other goddy sons of bitches. sincerely, Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Luton, UK.
tHE ASTRONAUTS SAW THE ROUND EARTH AND HANGING ON NOTHING. ALLAH SAID IT WAS FLAT LIKE A CARPET 15:19
tHE EGG SHAPE IS A MADE UP VERSION OF THE iSLAM. aMERICANS WENT TO THE MOON AND SAW THE EARTH AND jEWS SAID CIRCLE LONG BEFORE mUHAMMAD SAID SPREAD OUT LIKE A CARPET. CAN YOU SPREAD AN EGG. EGGS BREAK.
There is no such thing as “nothing” just ‘no thing’. Space is what holds the planets in place. No up, no down, no space, no motion. ( A Flute doesn’t really have holes-(selah ). Here endeth the lesson, sincerely, the Grand Kaffir of Infidelistan, rag & bone merchant for the sado princes of the UAE. “Their victims get runneth over..’ sahm 23.
Btilly wrong again
The quran
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB254GB254&q=earth%20egg%20shaped%20by%20zakir%20niak&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=
the Bible
LYING IS ISLAMC. YOU ADMIT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS ROUND THEN YOU SAY FLAT. U LYING SONS OF ALLAH THE DEVIL SURA 3:54.
Watch the video again you are what the mighty Quran says
Verse No. 25 in the Noble Quran says: (the hypocrites are) deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path).
hahah!! Alll anti-islamic persons says that it´s opressing that women (and men for that matter) have to cover themselves but no you all of a sudden think it´s allowed for a woman tho show her breast to men????? Please do you really think it´s true that muslim women are allowed to show their breast?
AchmedLinn, the muslim ‘Linn’ here, goes on about tiities. You’d think there was something ”wrong” with titties the way muslims harp on in all their islam-conditioned, mental-jailhouse, GUILT of and over, the human body. Muslim men act as if they have a problem such as, they have a 24/7/365 hard-on that desperately needs resolution, hence the goats and camels jokes that stereotypify them in all cartoon manner. In all insanity, muslims regard the human -naked-body ( except the dead and tortured bodies they revel over in the videos they so kindly send to the West..and then have the gall to tell us “this is not ‘islam’ !)..THEN what the ffukk is it then ? morons ! answer:- It Is Ffukkin Islam ! is, is, is. get it ?? despite your well earned & deserved guilt & shame and “West-hating, you circumcized bunch of bastards. over these tortured and dead bodies..IT IS ISLAM..the disease itself..the disease of islam ) Little wonder you all cover up in burqas and nightshirts..to try and cover that ridiculous and endless shame you all suffer from…troggs. Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Bradford & Luton.
allah says 72 big breasted women. allah is consumed with the breast of women, and he says so.looooool. why is allah concerned about the size of a woman’s breast. he promises 72 so he can look while the martyrs are having sex with 72 big breasted women and 28 white boys. wow allah made women for men why didnt he make women for himself.
Kafirs have breast. we dont care if your women wear an arab-do rag or not. just leave us alone. if you muslim men cannot contain your sex when you see us in our bikinis or short skirts and you get excited that’s your problem. go home. in hot weather we show off our bodies. eve was not created in a burqua. Burquas were only for muhammad’s wives not all of your stupid women as allah called all of your women including your mother. tabari 1:280.
A funny thing happened to me the other day. I was walking past a bar in Nairobi when I came across a Bui-bui ( muslim ) woman holding a parachute. “Why are you holding a parachute ?” I asked. She said “It’s a way to make money and I need it.” “How much have you made so far ?” I then enquired. “Nothing”, she replied. “Look,” I said, “What you mean is that you’re trying to earn money as a ‘prostitute’ and that you mis-heard the word as ‘parachute’. “Oh !” she said, thanking me, “For that kind information, you may spend “all-night-in” with me for free !” I said ooh ! thankyou very much my little Bui-Bui, adding humorously, “One cannot have a parachute as a substitute for a destitute prostitute now, can we ?” and we laughed all the way past the mosque and onwards to our hotel suite, champagne, bbq pork ribs, the jacuzzi and a wonderful night. So much so, that she converted to Christianity spontaneously and later married an American Roman catholic. Ah..life ! Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Judge Ito’s mosquito.
This question of Isaiah 40:22 rests on the meaning of a word. It is not a scientific question then but rather a question of the intricacies of ancient Hebrew grammar … as shown in this article among many:
http://www.bible-infonet.org/Challenge/topics/miscellaneous/01_01_03.htm (Note the rebuttal.)
Yet, rather than quibble over (to put it in English terms) when round means circle or means sphere, why not wonder how God “sits” or for that matter in what sense we are like grasshoppers, which are two more aspects of the passage? From the whole context we would be wise to suppose the passage does not affirm either that the earth is flat nor that it is spherical, but only that the earth is in some sense round.
Moreover, we might wonder why any Muslim would be so eager to find fault where his beloved prophet was evidently not at all inclined to do the same, making for an example of a fool rushing in where the one he deems the wisest man, feared to tread. Or does he have examples of Muhammad demeaning the Book of Isaiah that guide him to do the same? I’ve found plenty of examples from atheists, but none from Muhammad.
How did Muhammad view the sacred Scriptures of Jews and Christians? Look here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_abraham_ur.htm
There are two points, from that article, which may be put in the form of two simple syllogisms:
ONE
A) The Koran affirms that the Torah was not corrupted at least up to the time of Jesus.
B) Scholarship (Dead Sea Scrolls in particular) affirm that the Torah as it is known today is the same as it was at the time of Jesus.
C) Ergo, the Koran affirms that the Torah as it is known today is not corrupted.
TWO
A) A first century rabbi mistranslated a passage from the Torah (in Genesis 15.) That error became a widespread myth.
B) That myth/error is repeated in the Koran.
C) Ergo………………?
Apparently the Koran also affirms that the entire Holy Scriptures of Jews and Christians (The Bible) were not corrupted up to the time the Koran was written nearly 700 years after the time of Jesus, but that needn’t be addressed (nor even admitted,) in order to grasp the simple points illustrated in those two syllogisms.
(A comparison of New Testament and Koran origins: http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/hit.htm# )
Who cares about what some old 7th century Goat-shagger named Moe(three stooges)hammed thinks of ? We all think ( I think ?) So who cares about some 7th century pedophile, long dead, Goat-shagger named Mohammed ? what gives here ? Does a bear schittz in the woods ? Did Mohammed have schittie underwear ? How did mohammed live in the days before Y-fronts and Delsea two-ply ? sincerely, the Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, and Grand Scythan of LLanerchymedd.
Earnest ,you need to look at this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDrObm8aotM
and also here!
http://www.answering-christianity.com/barnabas.htm
http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b7800.html
The Quran confirms that it is Satanic written by demons called men for Satan the greatest allah as he said in quran 3:54
Earnest and the pussy cats, dum dum dum dum, ( tunefully ) Ha ha read this and read that..it is The Endless Argument, the classic,” I’ll yap on and on and not convince you of anything, while you yap on and on not convincing the other. The endless mindless madness of argumentative and dischordant Jesusists vs Kilslamists. It’s good fun if you can get a “conversion” one way or the other. ha ha ha..pathetic isn’t it. And it all goes on and on and is known as “The Endless Round” of those gone plain bonkers over the pedophile and the paranoid schizophrenic, ( Rationalist’s argument ) Jesus. . Sic Transit Gloria. signed The Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Grand Scythan of LLanerchymedd.
Akhter:
You say I need to look at a book by Mohamed Ghounem, to which I reply you need to look at this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Ghounem/index.htm
(It won’t cost either of us $15 to review his claims that way.)
If that is too much, just this one review from it, (written by someone who states he is not a Christian) might suffice:
http://groups.google.de/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/fd3528287d07c2fc
Your link to an article about Barnabas yielded “page not found” but no matter. I can guess what it would contain. I addressed that topic here with Salman ago (Jan. 31; Feb. 7, 9, &14) but you may just look here:
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/3/2/3.php
” The Gospel of Barnabas says Jesus stated “I am not the Messiah” (sec. 42,48) which contradicts both the Bible (Matthew 16) and Quran (Sura 5).”
Why would you, a Muslim, tell me I need to look at a writing that contradicts your Qu’ran?
Now, as for the Youtube video:
In it there are two men arguing the case, the narrator and one other, neither of which is named. Who are they? We don’t know and so cannot, by the video, find any way in which to further examine their claims. Yet this is enough for all (as far as I could find,) 236 comments to take the video for amounting to some kind of proof of something. Here are two of the few pertinent comments:
1″So you have many manuscripts hinting at the divinity of Jesus, and then on the other hand there are several manuscripts denouncing this claim of divinity. Yet these few manuscripts come from more legitimate sources, closer to Jesus than the others.”
2 “There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! [Qur'an 3:78] ”
That second commenter wants to assume that verse somehow supports the claim that the New Testament is a distortion and other writings are “the Book” that was meant instead. Look here:
http://www.word.org.uk/Articles/the-bible-is-changed-really
(This is basically the same issue I was addressing in my last post.)
As you can see, it may just as well, from the verse, be claimed that it is not the New Testament, but rather the other writings that is meant by “but it is not from Allah.”
The first commenter wants to believe that the other writings “come from more legitimate sources, closer to Jesus than the others”. Let’s see how true that actually is:
http://www.toddtyszka.com/fulllist.html
Here we have a long list of such writings. Any one of them can be, and many have been, used in support of any number of Christian heresies.
Now let’s look at one on that list in particular; the one named in the video. (Which incidentally, not a single commenter addressed directly, I suspect because not one of them could even spell it.)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
“The scribe who copied those seven texts signed the last leaf as “Lean, notary and sinner,” and dated that completion to June 11, 1056. . . The Didache, then, was a small text, fifth among others mostly larger than itself, lost in a small library in the Fener section of Istanbul, halfway up the west side of the Golden Horn. Now known as Codex Hierosolymitanus 54, that volume was removed to the Patriarchate at Jerusalem in 1887, where it remains.”
That is the book being marveled over in the video. And no wonder it is so highly prized. Except for two “tiny scraps, about two inches by two inches apiece” used to confirm that a fourth century version existed, it is all there is of it. (Compare that the complete New Testament of which there are numerous copies from around the year 1056 and earlier.)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/didache.html
” ..it seems on many accounts improbable that the work, in its present form, was written earlier than the beginning of the second century..”
“All attempts to discover the author are, with our present lack of data, necessarily futile. Even the region in and for which it was composed cannot be determined.”
“As regards the doctrine, polity, usages, and ethics expressed and implied in the Teaching, the reader can judge for himself. The writer is of the opinion that the work represents, on many of these points, only a very small fraction of the Christians during the second century, and that, while it casts some light upon usages of that period, it cannot be regarded as an authoritative witness concerning the universal faith and practice of believers at the date usually assigned to it. The few notices of it, and its early disappearance, confirm this position. The theory of a composite origin also accords with this estimate of the document as a whole.”
Now again, let’s compare that to what is known of the New Testament:
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
“The papyrus manuscript P75 was the latest to be published, but it showed a virtually identical text to manuscript B. This settled the vexed question whether we have in the parchment manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries a safe guide to the original text of the New Testament. We have.”
So clearly the New Testament manuscripts are more “legitimate” on the basis of far better documentation and the commenter on the video claiming that the writer(s) of the Didache were “closer to Jesus than the others” (“others” meaning the New Testament books presumably,) is also clearly wrong since who wrote the Didache isn’t even known or where, or to whom. Obviously it cannot be surmised that they were “closer to Jesus” if we don’t even know who they were!
Also see this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12%3A46-50&version=NIV
Further, if we suppose that relatives are the ones who must surely be the closest followers, then doesn’t that lead us to conclude that Ali is the only legitimate original Caliph and Shiism the only true Islamic path?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/07/history.highereducation
“Those of us who study the period know how exceedingly difficult it is to extract kernels of fact from the muddled and often contradictory historical sources at our disposal. As Rogerson himself notes, ancient Arab historians often presented two or three versions of the same event so as to allow the reader to choose which one was correct, with the caveat that only God knows the truth of the matter.”
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
salma may allaha give u more knowledg and u r doing a gud job luk all i am a muslim man and salma is a women and i respect salma coz she is women .in islam it has given equaly right to both but in different manner but its true that wesren culture is destroying womens right
syed
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Women in western countries have more rights than any other place on earth. Get educated and get your facts right.
TYGA
TELL THIS HOLY TERRORIST. WHERE IS AN OPRAH IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD? WHERE DO WOMEN VOTE IN ISLAM WITHOUT us HELP. KUWAITI ARE NOW DECIDEING WHETHER WOMEN CAN VOTE.
SYED WE DONT WANT ISLAM OR SHARIA. WE WANT FREEDOM AND THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLD MADE AMERICA, NOT SOME 7TH CENTURY RACIST ARABS.
The problem here btilly, is that you cannot mount a convincing argument to change the mind of the deliberately ignorant.
Anyone, that firstly believes in a God, and then proceeds to live their life according to presumed divine knowledge from that God, is suffering from a form of mental illness.
Being mentally ill, we can safely assume in this case, that the person/s are highly irrational and beyond sensible, logical and reasonable argument.
Arguing with people that are insane, is another form of insanity.
Absolutely ! This is what I’ve been saying about these psychopaths we find endemic within Islam and the disease it infects into the human psyche. Throughout islam we find muslims pathologically blaming all but themselves, their innocuous imams, homicidally patholgical bents, suicidal delusions, and general contempt for those free of islamic infections..Like us, who are free to have a beer, have girls in bikinis, put up with yobs drunk on lager, indulge a pork chop, have a dog to walk & love, not have to bow to the sky 5 times a day and, generally pretend to a ‘holier’ than thou deluded, 7th century throwback in desert garbs in Europe ! Homicidal/suicidal psychopaths are a special breed in islam to deal with all that they hate, notably women, gays, pigs, dogs, and are at large to rape, commit pedophile crimes like their moron Prophet Mohammed who had carnal-knowledge of a 9 and 12 years old child. This scumbag is their icon..a megalomaniacal pedophile into serial homicide and manipulation. Mohammed would be locked up in Rampton or Broadmoor had he lived in the 20th century. sincerely, the Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Birmingham and Luton, Supreme Scythan of LLanerchymedd.
FBI..CNN..??-are they really2 exposing the truth..?all are biased..everything is not towards the truth..but just to insult and humiliate for nothing..it’s all coz of hatred and revenge..if u really2 see the truth, u’ll see who’s the one to be victimised..but most of u choose not to see the truth..are all of these news, vid, can be used as the most ‘representative’ evidence..?why must u guys exaggerate those things..c’mon..wake up..
When Muslims are caught blowing us up, they are called insane. The quraN SAID DO IT AND THAT MAKES ISLAM INSANE. 1.5 BILLION INSANE PEOPLE. oR IS IT A TRICK CALLED TAKKIA PRETENDING TO BE CRAZY/INSANE. I SAY ALL ARE INSANE TO ACCEPT ISLAM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Tyga:
Believing that everyone who believes in a God is insane, is awfully close to being paranoid — a certifiable form of insanity. It also would mean 90% of Americans and over half the world’s population are insane.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359
If instead it is not belief in a God but rather “[proceeding] to live their life according to presumed divine knowledge from that God” that is insane, we’re not yet out of difficulty. The Judeo-Christian foundation of America btilly wants preserved would then be insane as well because that set of beliefs is also predicated on “divine knowledge”. The only way past that difficulty is to assert that the divine knowledge in that case is not “presumed”. Otherwise, we’re back to supposing everyone who is not an atheist (or deist at most) is insane.
You wrote:
“The problem here btilly, is that you cannot mount a convincing argument to change the mind of the deliberately ignorant.”
You could have just left it there. That much can hardly be doubted.
I might add that it is only a little less problematic to be contentedly ignorant; even being ignorant of one’s ignorance, as it is to be ignorant deliberately. However, every person should be careful of hurling that accusation too liberally, since what any mere mortal ever knows is always far exceeded by what he does not know. That is, all people are as ignorant of some things as they are knowledgeable of others and still plenty ignorant regardless of how much they know about anything.
As the saying goes, Knowledge is worth much; Wisdom is priceless.
Mostly you were spot on that syed doesn’t know what he is talking about. Who is his “salma”? There are no comments here by any “women” by that name. There has been a Salman, but as far as I know that is not a woman’s name. At least in every instance I’ve seen, it has been a man’s name.
That would seem to indicate that syed reads no better than he writes, which presents yet another great obstacle to convincing him of anything by way of arguments written here.
Btilly you are entitled to your opinion and SO ARE YOUR THESE!!!
MUHAMMAD
570-632
From the 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History
by Michael H. Hart
My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.
Of humble origins, Muhammad founded and promulgated one of the world’s great religions, and became an immensely effective political leader. Today, thirteen centuries after his death, his influence is still powerful and pervasive.
The majority of the persons in this book had the advantage of being born and raised in centers of civilization, highly cultured or politically pivotal nations. Muhammad, however, was born in the year 570, in the city of Mecca, in southern Arabia, at that time a backward area of the world, far from the centers of trade, art, and learning. Orphaned at age six, he was reared in modest surroundings. Islamic tradition tells us that he was illiterate. His economic position improved when, at age twenty-five, he married a wealthy widow. Nevertheless, as he approached forty, there was little outward indication that he was a remarkable person.
Most Arabs at that time were pagans, who believed in many gods. There were, however, in Mecca, a small number of Jews and Christians; it was from them no doubt that Muhammad first learned of a single, omnipotent God who ruled the entire universe. When he was forty years old, Muhammad became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him, and had chosen him to spread the true faith.
For three years, Muhammad preached only to close friends and associates. Then, about 613, he began preaching in public. As he slowly gained converts, the Meccan authorities came to consider him a dangerous nuisance. In 622, fearing for his safety, Muhammad fled to Medina (a city some 200 miles north of Mecca), where he had been offered a position of considerable political power.
This flight, called the Hegira, was the turning point of the Prophet’s life. In Mecca, he had had few followers. In Medina, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence that made him a virtual dictator. During the next few years, while Muhammad s following grew rapidly, a series of battles were fought between Medina and Mecca. This was ended in 630 with Muhammad’s triumphant return to Mecca as conqueror. The remaining two and one-half years of his life witnessed the rapid conversion of the Arab tribes to the new religion. When Muhammad died, in 632, he was the effective ruler of all of southern Arabia.
The Bedouin tribesmen of Arabia had a reputation as fierce warriors. But their number was small; and plagued by disunity and internecine warfare, they had been no match for the larger armies of the kingdoms in the settled agricultural areas to the north. However, unified by Muhammad for the first time in history, and inspired by their fervent belief in the one true God, these small Arab armies now embarked upon one of the most astonishing series of conquests in human history. To the northeast of Arabia lay the large Neo-Persian Empire of the Sassanids; to the northwest lay the Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, centered in Constantinople. Numerically, the Arabs were no match for their opponents. On the field of battle, though, the inspired Arabs rapidly conquered all of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. By 642, Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire, while the Persian armies had been crushed at the key battles of Qadisiya in 637, and Nehavend in 642.
But even these enormous conquests-which were made under the leadership of Muhammad’s close friends and immediate successors, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab -did not mark the end of the Arab advance. By 711, the Arab armies had swept completely across North Africa to the Atlantic Ocean There they turned north and, crossing the Strait of Gibraltar, overwhelmed the Visigothic kingdom in Spain.
For a while, it must have seemed that the Moslems would overwhelm all of Christian Europe. However, in 732, at the famous Battle of Tours, a Moslem army, which had advanced into the center of France, was at last defeated by the Franks. Nevertheless, in a scant century of fighting, these Bedouin tribesmen, inspired by the word of the Prophet, had carved out an empire stretching from the borders of India to the Atlantic Ocean-the largest empire that the world had yet seen. And everywhere that the armies conquered, large-scale conversion to the new faith eventually followed.
Now, not all of these conquests proved permanent. The Persians, though they have remained faithful to the religion of the Prophet, have since regained their independence from the Arabs. And in Spain, more than seven centuries of warfare 5 finally resulted in the Christians reconquering the entire peninsula. However, Mesopotamia and Egypt, the two cradles of ancient civilization, have remained Arab, as has the entire coast of North Africa. The new religion, of course, continued to spread, in the intervening centuries, far beyond the borders of the original Moslem conquests. Currently it has tens of millions of adherents in Africa and Central Asia and even more in Pakistan and northern India, and in Indonesia. In Indonesia, the new faith has been a unifying factor. In the Indian subcontinent, however, the conflict between Moslems and Hindus is still a major obstacle to unity.
How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world’s great religions all figure prominently in this book . Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.
Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad’s insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.
Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time.
“Believing that everyone who believes in a God is insane, is awfully close to being paranoid — a certifiable form of insanity.”
I’m certainly not paranoid, I am merely making an objective observation of the facts. If for example, a subject believed with conviction, in the absolute existence a flying spaghetti monster, that subject would be diagnosed as being insane. This fact has absolutely nothing at all to do with my state of being, its only relevance is that of the person suffering from delusional beliefs.
“It also would mean 90% of Americans and over half the world’s population are insane.”
Correct.
“If instead it is not belief in a God but rather “[proceeding] to live their life according to presumed divine knowledge from that God” that is insane, we’re not yet out of difficulty.”
The insanity stems from the delusional “belief” in a God. This sort of belief is not rational, as any belief in a god is always going to be false conception. A belief is a cognitive conceptualization formed by the mind, which can never, be a replacement for an actual divine presence.
The idea of a flower for example, is not the flower. The flower is an entity which exists as a distinct discrete individual presence in existence, while the idea of a flower is a cognitive conceptualisation invented by the mind.
For argument sake, if we suppose that God is ALL, then any idea or belief of God is always going to be a false belief, as that belief is an idea about God, which can never be God. That belief is a cognitive conceptualization of ones idea of God.
In this regard, anyone that has a belief in God, is entertaining their idea of God as God, which is insane.
“The Judeo-Christian foundation of America btilly wants preserved would then be insane as well because that set of beliefs is also predicated on “divine knowledge”. The only way past that difficulty is to assert that the divine knowledge in that case is not “presumed”. Otherwise, we’re back to supposing everyone who is not an atheist (or deist at most) is insane.”
Correct
“I might add that it is only a little less problematic to be contentedly ignorant; even being ignorant of one’s ignorance, as it is to be ignorant deliberately. However, every person should be careful of hurling that accusation too liberally, since what any mere mortal ever knows is always far exceeded by what he does not know. That is, all people are as ignorant of some things as they are knowledgeable of others and still plenty ignorant regardless of how much they know about anything.
As the saying goes, Knowledge is worth much; Wisdom is priceless. ”
I’m not about to argue with that, I agree.
This supports my argument though, that if it is not possible for the human mind to comprehend ALL that IS, then a conceptualisation of ALL that IS ( an idea or belief in God) is always going to be what God is not. Therefore holding firm to this conviction, is a form of self induced insanity, in my opinion.
kind regards
When you mentioned conquest, why? Does allah need swords to conquer? Jesus was a Jew whose message was to be s;pread with peace not by the Roman swords.
Muhammad was a killer and that is why he is known as a pedophile, the greatest pedo as allah gave him the right to be a holy pedo.
Muhammad got allah permission to sex his dau in law, his best friend’s little girl, etc.
I know Muhammad life story, a racist Arab who said Arab elitist, were the best of Allah boys and they were his family tribe. Man mo was slick.
Tyga, do you have much of a problem with Muslims in Australia?
” Tyga, do you have much of a problem with Muslims in Australia?”
Increasingly so, yes.
In Australia, we currently have an unsustainable immigration agenda, which is seeing millions of immigrants coming here from 3rd world countries, predominantly Indians, Africans, Asians and Arabs. Apparently, 1 in 5 immigrants are currently Muslim.
The problem with this immigration agenda, is that Australia is a western democracy, which has been built upon the ethically moral values delivered to us from our European ancestors.
The current immigration invasion is from countries where the moral and ethical values are incompatible with our own indigenous morals and values. Not to forget to mention as well, that Australia is a predominantly White nation, which makes the current immigration invasion incompatible with own White culture and heritage.
The levels of Muslims in Australia seems to be growing almost exponentially, from my experience, and over all, I am beginning to feel as though I am becoming a minority in my own city, which ought to be extremely alarming, but in general it isn’t, unfortunately.
I attribute this apathetic sense of national protectionism to a well planned and orchestrated agenda which started in the late 80’s, which cunningly demonized anyone that even remotely suggested that we ought protect our own culture and heritage, as a racism, discrimination and bigotry. This apologetic political correctness, is what is enabling the current invasion of our culture and society by peoples that are more or less undersirable for the health and benefit of our Australian way of life, which under any other rational or intelligent state of affairs would have been considered holey objectionable to say the least.
kind regards
Tyga, it sounds as if you may be going the way of England and I am sorry to hear that. I have posted some stories about Muslim problems in Australia as follows:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/australian-muslims-attack-police-after-raid/
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/aussie-grand-mufti-al-hilali-says-australia-is-a-muslim-country/
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/australia-is-a-new-breeding-ground-for-radical-islamists/
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/australians-are-racist-says-muslim-street-thug/
If you find any good stories you think would be of interest to my readers about Islam in Australia, I will be happy to post them for you.
Australia has changed alot in the last 20 years, and actually its probably an understatement to say “changed”. It has actually been forciblly transformed into a “diverse” nation where diversity is enforced into every suburb and every enclave including country towns. Our Prime Minister has made it his policy that “multiculturalism” will work, even if he has to FORCE it to – and his main strategy for this is to ensure a mix of different peoples in ALL suburbs. What this has meant is that there are no longer “muslim areas”, “chinese areas” or “african areas” nor are there middle class, working class or affluent areas. Every suburb is changing to this new vision of diversity in every suburb which actually translates into “nowhere to hide”. If you want to live in a jewish area or a white area forget it. They no longer exist in Australia.
Oh I see. The English part of your immigrants to Aussie are in power there too ! Little wonder you are now getting filled with low-life from the 3rd worlds. esp the Middle East ! What in the fukkin hell is going on here ?? Oh well, get yourselves bombed then by the imported terrorists you let out the ‘welcome mats ‘ for…More ‘do nothings’..just a bunch of fukkin whiners like their Anglo other parts… Go fill up now with the 7th century pieces of shit…imagine a muslim family playing tennis, eating watercress sandwiches, drinking clarte on the lawn during a picnic..oops sorry wrong ‘culture !…Anyone for “Camel Pollo ?? ” or Badminton tossing a dead goat ?? MMM all that “enrichment” is bringing you more and more fruit and veg vendors from the arab places ..
http://www.dlmark.net/hundred.htm
Examine that list carefully. Notice that by a wide margin most of the names on it are products of a culture that has been as certainly influenced by Jesus as it has certainly not been influenced by Muhammad. In fact, I could find only one on the list who was influenced by Muhammad: Muhammad’s associate Umar.
In light of that, it is hard to take seriously Mr. Hart’s explanation for why he topped his list with Muhammad. It appears more likely he did it to be provocative, drawing attention to his otherwise unremarkable book. Indeed, he could hardly afford to be so conventional as to put Jesus first and risk being mocked for having such a keen sense of the obvious.
However, there’s an argument for not including Jesus at all on any such list of mere mortals.
Dear Tyga:
I would love to read St. Anselm, Rene Descarte, or Kurt Godel explain why the FSM ontological argument fails, but unfortunately they all died before the FSM spoof got started. Even if they were alive to defend themselves, I suspect they would deem FSM too patently absurd and beneath their dignity to even bother addressing. Here’s someone who is alive and willing to oblige:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible.html
Now, that may not strike you as a convincing argument but that is not your challenge. Your challenge is to show that it is an insane one.
You wrote:
“This supports my argument though, that if it is not possible for the human mind to comprehend ALL that IS, then a conceptualisation of ALL that IS ( an idea or belief in God) is always going to be what God is not. Therefore holding firm to this conviction, is a form of self induced insanity, in my opinion.”
Allowing that to comprehend (a dictionary definition,) means the capacity for understanding FULLY (not merely adequately,) then we may ask whether we can conceptualize anything we do not also comprehend. I think we can and the example I’ll use is irrational numbers. We grasp the concept but we haven’t the capacity to fully understand it because of the infinity factor. Because the concept of infinity does not allow for anything beyond infinity, we can and do conceptualize infinity within that other concept of “ALL that IS”.
That is not offered to counter your opinion; only to ponder it a bit. I confess that I never reach any point of resolution along these lines of reasoning. I do hope however, that is no indication that I must be insane.
“Sure I’m crazy. But that used to mean something. Now everybody’s crazy.”
– Charlie Manson
And simply being the most influential is an indication of what exactly? What was the influence? Was it positive, negative, what were/are the consequences? Would the world have been better off without this influence?
Also, the list of the most influential, is one persons opinion, an opinion by Michael H. Hart.
Mr Hart is certainly entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is in no way a representation of the opinions of all of us.
Ernest,
The FSM is a joke, it isn’t suppose to be taken seriously. In the regard though, neither is religion.
I wasn’t making an argument about the validity of the FSM argument though neither, I was only using it as an example of what might be conceived as insanity.
I think though, nearly all of us are well aware that the FSM is fictional and address that fiction appropriately, I know I do. If however, I was to vehemently contest that the FSM is an actual and real entity, and that I had divine revelation from the FSM which ought be adhered to with complete conviction, then my mental health could definitely be called into question. Granted, the diagnosis of insanity is probably best left to the professionals, but in my opinion, this is definitely insane.
And for clarity, I am not making the argument that there is not God, that would be an absurd argument, no, instead I am making the argument that one cannot conceive of God, therefore making it an insane proposition to hold a particular belief in God, because that belief would be a conceptualization of what God is not, not what God is.
If it is a conceptulaization of what God is not, then you are not believing in God, you are believing in what God isn’t. This, in my opinion, is insane.
It seemed to me you meant belief in God is delusional for the same reason belief in the FSM is. If you read again what you first wrote about it, I think you will see how I might’ve gotten that impression.
FSM was not concocted as a means to ridicule belief in God but it has served that purpose. My point was to show the joke is on the people who use it that way because their assumption that the two are alike is wrong. The purpose for which FSM was created doesn’t work either, by which I mean not as a satirical attempt to show Intelligent Design theory is religion, although as a faulty satire it has more than served its original purpose. http://extremestan.blogspot.com/2009/01/criticism-of-fsm-fad.html
As long as something isn’t carefully scrutinized it can still serve its purpose even if it can’t withstand scrutiny.
You wrote:
“The FSM is a joke, it isn’t suppose to be taken seriously. In the regard though, neither is religion.”
Yes, but it’s a rather tasteless joke that only certain people will find amusing. I don’t mind the joke, only the people who think it makes an especially clever point. The Persians have a saying: “The unbeliever thinks everyone is an unbeliever.” What you wrote appears to be a perfect demonstration of its meaning.
As for your point of clarity, I’m sorry but if clarity was your intention it did not have the desired effect. Let me try to explain why I’m confused by what you said.
God is defined by certain attributes God is said to have. One of those is omniscience. God is a being who knows everything. From that it follows that God is not a being who only knows some things. Believing in the latter point would fit with your description of “believing in what God isn’t” but I fail to see the point of distinction between the two except that the latter is considerably more clumsy. Whatever anything is may imply a host of things it is not, but it would be preposterous to try to conceptualize anything by bringing to mind all the many things it is not rather than the few specific things it is, and I do not find that the concept of God is any exception. All of that is as it is regardless of whether God exists or not (other than as a concept,) or whether God is believed in or not.
Mind you, none of this is meant to correct what you said, but only to try to show why it didn’t make sense to me.
Forgive me for not taking more care in my replies, I see now that I need to be a little more focussed than I have been so far.
“FSM was not concocted as a means to ridicule belief in God but it has served that purpose. My point was to show the joke is on the people who use it that way because their assumption that the two are alike is wrong. The purpose for which FSM was created doesn’t work either, by which I mean not as a satirical attempt to show Intelligent Design theory is religion, although as a faulty satire it has more than served its original purpose. http://extremestan.blogspot.com/2009/01/criticism-of-fsm-fad.html”
I see what you mean. I prefer Bertrand Russell’s example anyway, that of the orbiting celestial teapot.
“As long as something isn’t carefully scrutinized it can still serve its purpose even if it can’t withstand scrutiny.”
Indeed, if you don’t have a hammer, use a brick.
You wrote:
“The FSM is a joke, it isn’t suppose to be taken seriously. In the regard though, neither is religion.”
Yes, but it’s a rather tasteless joke that only certain people will find amusing. I don’t mind the joke, only the people who think it makes an especially clever point. The Persians have a saying: “The unbeliever thinks everyone is an unbeliever.” What you wrote appears to be a perfect demonstration of its meaning.
Yes well, I only used it as an attempt to illustrate my own point, which I am now finding bothersome, as the conversation is straying somewhat away into another territory. And on that note, I’ll try to make my point again below.
“As for your point of clarity, I’m sorry but if clarity was your intention it did not have the desired effect. Let me try to explain why I’m confused by what you said.
God is defined by certain attributes God is said to have. One of those is omniscience. God is a being who knows everything. From that it follows that God is not a being who only knows some things. Believing in the latter point would fit with your description of “believing in what God isn’t” but I fail to see the point of distinction between the two except that the latter is considerably more clumsy. Whatever anything is may imply a host of things it is not, but it would be preposterous to try to conceptualize anything by bringing to mind all the many things it is not rather than the few specific things it is, and I do not find that the concept of God is any exception. All of that is as it is regardless of whether God exists or not (other than as a concept,) or whether God is believed in or not.
Mind you, none of this is meant to correct what you said, but only to try to show why it didn’t make sense to me.”
That’s ok, I probably wasn’t making a great deal of sense anyway, I was being a little lackadaisical with my replies.
If you may permit me, let us forget the recent examples and focus only my reasoning here. A fresh start might make communication somewhat more fortuitous for the both of us.
Lets us start by presuming that God is infinite, or more accurately, let us presume the infinite as a characteristic of God. We also need to assume then, that the infinite emerged out of God as a characteristic. In this context, God displays a characteristic of being infinite, while the infinite is limited to the displaying of characteristic only. We can say then that we can see an aspect of God in the infinite but we cannot presume then that we can see God in that characteristic. We can only say that we can see a characteristic of which is infinite, nothing more.
But where does this characteristic emerge from? Who is witnessing this characteristic? If this characteristic is witnessed by myself, then this characteristic must be emerging within my own consciousness as well. If it is emerging within my own consciousness, then that makes my consciousness greater than the emerging infinite.
If we are responsible for the witnessing of all that emerges within our own consciousness, the emergences of infinite and the emergence of forms within that infinite, then the God with which we witness emerging through our own conceptualization, cannot be God, but instead a projection of our own clever imagination as a form within the infinite. If we project an imagined image of God to be witnessed out into our own consciousness, into the infinite, then we are creating an illusion of God which exists only in our own imagination.
This is insanity, in my opinion.
Yeah.. I didn’t say “God does not exist”. I said “God does not arise in my conciousness”.. Sayeth the Ultra Wise sage. aka the Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Purveyor of Scotch Whisky and Romanian Blondes to the House of Saud. hic !
Here we go again..! PAY ATTENTION ! at the back there. “Believing and Not-Believing are the very very very SAME THING. Identical in nature. How so ? Sample A is a person who simply “believes” -because they cannot see it. Sample B is a person who does “Not believe” and for the very same reason, that is, they cannot see it. If by ‘belief’ we are saying ‘theory’ fine ! But no ‘belief’ exists once a thing becomes ‘known’. Belief is therefore an admission that one “does not know”. Disbelief likewise. Grand Kuffar of Infidelistan, Purveyor of torture devices to the Kuwaiti Royal Family ( cattle prods, Landrovers ) and Lusty Literature for the House of Saud, Whisky distiller for Waziristan. Goat & Camel lingerie bespoke on request..arf ! arf !
look christians..
we are fine that we are muslims…and our girls and women are so fine …stop attacking islam…..also why you don’t attack israeli people…as they say always that the christ(peace be upon him) is a dirty man and as they say they killed him…. so attack sionisme which kill always the innocents palestinians.and attack hidous because they kill innocents in kachmir…and attack bush because he was the cause of all pains in 21 st century……see the truth in islam by respect because the christ is a saint man in Islam not as the jewish ……
you have your religion and we have ours……
we never attack you as the prophet mohamed advice us to respect christian and take care of them…”i advice you to take care about christians”
peace for all………
a muslim
You’re full of crap, Proud to be a Muzscum. Stay the hell off this website. Your ilk is not wanted here.
Proud to be muslim
Why are you in America. Islamic lands are so much better for you to be proud. We wish you all would go home and honor kill, screw kids, behead, no music, chess, and you dont have to respect christians you can beat them over there. You all know if you even as much try you will get your holy butts beaten so bad your allah akbar will not be heard.
Proud
I’m not a member of Christendom. Unlike Islam they said they followed Christianity, but lied. Christiasn were told to have one wife and one husband, but Islam said 4 wives and as many temp wives as they can pay for,
PTBM,
I am not Christian, and have never once claimed to be Christian.
I do support Israel though, as Israel is a Western democracy, an ally and the front line on the war against the brutal and ethically immoral totalitarian ideology of Islam.
As far as I am concerned, Jesus Christ is a fictional character, as is Muhamhead. The difference though between the life of Muhamhead and Jesus, is that Jesus message was essentially one of love and forgiveness, while Muhamhead’s message was one of fear, oppression, suppression, rape, murder and hatred.
If I reject Islam then, it is because I find it ethically and morally reprehensible.
I am far far more inclined to learn my ethics and morals from stories that offer me at least some sense of rationality, logic, intelligence and wisdom, like for example, most of the great philosophical arguments and debates through out the European history, which continues today as the scientific disciplines.
Does science have all the answers? No, of course it does not. It would be exceptional arrogant and quite delusional to claim that it does have all the answers. But given the choice between ancient middle eastern superstition (which offers essentially nothing but insanity), and the choice of a logical and rational scientific process, I think the intelligent decision is quite apparently obvious.
“we never attack you as the prophet mohamed advice us to respect christian and take care of them…”
Never?
Apparently Mr. Proud read the comments here as carefully as Mr. sayed did.
We can see the respect paid in the comments made here about Christianity by Muslims .. and in countless other evidences. We know how Christians are “taken care of” by Muslims. The very idea that the Muslim’s place is to “take care of them” is condescending, not respectful. Proud indeed.
Christians need hardly say a word about the honor Muhammad paid Jesus. It may be left to the Jews to tell how honored Jesus should be that a man both declared him the Messiah (Christ) and claimed to supercede him.
Tyga:
What answers does science lack? I mean, insofar as what can be learned about morals and ethics from it. And we might as well throw in answering “the meaning of life” along with that. (Just curious.)
http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/Osman9.htm
Being of a scientific mind, you might enjoy reading that entire article but just it case it is too much, let me extract the main theme here:
” …to present two arguments: first, that deceptive communication can be taken as an example of rationality, and second, all communication can be construed as deceptive.”
The author perhaps did not consider, but in any case does not address, the paradox that communicating that all communication is deceptive is then itself deceptive.
Paradox: an apparently self-contradictory assertion which is nonetheless made on the ground that to eliminate the apparent contradiction would allegedly involve denying some truth.” — from the glossary of “A Concise Introduction to Philosophy” by William H. Halverson.
I’m not aware of how various rationalists have ever coped with the problem of paradox but offhand I’d guess they might focus on the words “apparently” and “allegedly” to argue that paradox is a phantom.
If we accept the article as science, (and it being from a Human Sciences department of a university, why shouldn’t we?) from it we might scientifically conclude that “thou shalt not lie” is tantamount to saying “thou shalt not communicate”. If not that, we may at least sensibly suppose that there must be a great deal more to the commandment than meets the eye if all communication is construed as deception and if deception is construed as a form of lying.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception
Deception: the act of deceiving.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceive
The only offering for “deceive” that is not archaic or obsolete is this one:
“to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.”
It’s an intriguing thought that science might show that, to the extent it depends upon communication (which I should think would be an awful lot,) science is itself deceptive. But I suppose we would have to also say that very thought itself becomes deceptive also, by the mere act of communicating it.
That, I fear, is the kind of dangerous waters entered when we try to derive our morals and ethics from science rather than the other way around. Isn’t it better to begin from the premise that lying is wrong, bad, and (dare I say it?) evil, rather than running the risk of ’scientifically’ arriving at the conclusion that it is not?
I’d like to add in passing, that Israel exists more as a homeland for Jews than as an island of Western Democracy in the Middle East. To wit, a Jew with all his “middle eastern superstition” is eligible for citizenship well ahead of any Gentile with all his enlightened ideas about democracy and such. That is not meant as a criticism of Israel. On the contrary, I believe it is an equal if not better defense of it.
“How d’you stop a muzlim from drowning ?” (( take ya foot off his head. ))
hE SAID THEY NEVER ATTACK cHRISTIANS. i’M NOT A CHRISTIAN SO WILL i GET ATTACKED. uNDER iSLAM cHRISTIANS ARE NOT TO HAVE GUNS, ONLY mUSLIMS.
MUSLIMS CAN MARRY ANY WOMAN, AND THEY ARE TOLD TO MARRY WHITE WOMEN ONLY AND SEX BLACK WOMEN AS SLAVES. SHARIA LAW SAID SO. aMERICAN MASTERS FOLLOWED SHARIA LAW FROM THE mUSLIMS WHO SOLD THEM TO eUROPEANS. i BLAME BLACK aMERICANS FOR JOINING THIS EVIL CRAP.
Some random inarticulate Muzzie : “we never attack you as the prophet mohamed advice us to respect christian and take care of them…”
Ernest: Never?
Apparently Mr. Proud read the comments here as carefully as Mr. sayed did.
We can see the respect paid in the comments made here about Christianity by Muslims .. and in countless other evidences. We know how Christians are “taken care of” by Muslims. The very idea that the Muslim’s place is to “take care of them” is condescending, not respectful. Proud indeed.
Christians need hardly say a word about the honor Muhammad paid Jesus. It may be left to the Jews to tell how honored Jesus should be that a man both declared him the Messiah (Christ) and claimed to supercede him.
Tyga: And let’s not forget, by all accounts, Jesus was himself also a Jew. There were no Christians, nor any Muslims for that matter, until long after he had died.
But Jesus and Muhammad do not even belong in the same category. Jesus, was a spiritual teacher, who taught above all else, the love of God and the love of your fellow man, which involved a great deal of forgiveness, while on the other hand, Muhammad was a politician that utilised religion to motivate people to conduct all manner of atrocities for his own personal gain, displaying anything but forgiveness.
Jesus’ message was one of spiritual liberation
Muhammad’s message was one of political oppression
Ernest: What answers does science lack? I mean, insofar as what can be learned about morals and ethics from it. And we might as well throw in answering “the meaning of life” along with that. (Just curious.)
Tyga: Science is a method with which we might investigate the observable truths of the physical universe and the human condition in that universe. Science is not designed to either find nor even demonstrate any sort of meaning for life, only the mechanisms by which life might function. If you want meaning, then you can decide that for yourself.
Ernest: http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue3/Osman9.htm
Being of a scientific mind, you might enjoy reading that entire article but just it case it is too much, let me extract the main theme here:
” …to present two arguments: first, that deceptive communication can be taken as an example of rationality, and second, all communication can be construed as deceptive.”
Tyga: Yes indeed, I think we could see this sort of deception played out in any court house on a daily basis.
Ernest: The author perhaps did not consider, but in any case does not address, the paradox that communicating that all communication is deceptive is then itself deceptive.
Paradox: an apparently self-contradictory assertion which is nonetheless made on the ground that to eliminate the apparent contradiction would allegedly involve denying some truth.” — from the glossary of “A Concise Introduction to Philosophy” by William H. Halverson.
I’m not aware of how various rationalists have ever coped with the problem of paradox but offhand I’d guess they might focus on the words “apparently” and “allegedly” to argue that paradox is a phantom.
Tyga: I’ll go out on a limb here and make this statement, that there are no paradoxes, only the inability for the human mind to comprehend. The paradox then, is an invention of a mind which is incapable of comprehending the unity of the whole, thereby perceiving a gap or flaw in intelligence where there really is none. This is re-emphasising my previous argument though, that the projection of conceptualisation into the awareness of consciousness, is only ever going to produce a deception or at the very least, an abstraction.
Ernest: If we accept the article as science, (and it being from a Human Sciences department of a university, why shouldn’t we?) from it we might scientifically conclude that “thou shalt not lie” is tantamount to saying “thou shalt not communicate”. If not that, we may at least sensibly suppose that there must be a great deal more to the commandment than meets the eye if all communication is construed as deception and if deception is construed as a form of lying.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception
Deception: the act of deceiving.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deceive
The only offering for “deceive” that is not archaic or obsolete is this one:
“to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.”
It’s an intriguing thought that science might show that, to the extent it depends upon communication (which I should think would be an awful lot,) science is itself deceptive. But I suppose we would have to also say that very thought itself becomes deceptive also, by the mere act of communicating it.
Tyga: Indeed, so the very act of experience on any level then, is always ultimately an illusion. Even this conversation, but as I alread