@babyosisi

I am not interested in winning any arguement with My brother But to lead him to read the Quran. You will be surprised some of the things I am posting he has no Qutations.

I dont look at him as one that has got logic and I know many years to come he Cross Check the logic of the Quran.  From what I see in the Future ISLAM WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM TO FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST BUT SECULARISM. This is because of the perceived failure of religions of the world to deliver justice and equity among men.


Are you suprised that Iraq was attacked by The USA! I did not like when the USA attacked Iraq. If The USA Can establish SECULAR Rule in Iraq The fire will Catch everywhere My sugestion will be Iran Next.

I have studied alot on Escatology and I know that all that is left is for full scale Secularism to rule the world remember the feet of the Image that Daniel saw was In Iraq is made of IRON (WAR) CLAY( Democracy).

@Olabowale

You have not quted one single Hadith or Quran Why is this so? where is that it is in the Quran or Hadith that they did not the same Suckling parent.

Please help me on this. I attended an Islamic School so I am learning more.

Backslider:

@Olabowale

You have not quted one single Hadith or Quran Why is this so? where is that it is in the Quran or Hadith that they did not the same Suckling parent.

Please help me on this. I attended an Islamic School so I am learning more.

Exactly the reason for my present puzzlement! Virtually all the "peace-loving" muslims on this forum including Belloti have shied away from quoting the quran. Is it no longer from 'god'?
When you point out certain things in the quran, they (especially olabowale) go on a long track of recalling all secular individuals (mischievously lumped as christians) are doing the same thing, they tell us the history of the crusades, they quote copiously from the bible they claim has been corrupted, the cut and paste from other websites. Everything but quote from the book they claim was sent down by their master god

@Backslider: For me some part of Qur'an is clear. others are not clear. it is very complex to understand.

For example, God said He has eyes and ears. Are His eyes and ears like ours, His creations. No, far from it.

But this statement allows you realise that God sees everything and hears everything.

God has already spoken about His complete difference from us. Issues like this, I have no problem with it.

If you think that I will be a secular Muslim, whatever that means to you. It will not happen. At present, I am busy with recitation of the Qur'an. it is time consuming. The time for me to argue is not now. I am not shying away from anything. Except that my time is very limited. I have a lot of things to cram into it.

What is very interesting is that you have not at one time tell me that you have visited the website that I provided.

For me, when an information is provided, I will at least take a look at it. there might be some benefit in it for me.

We are having this conversation and it has helped to strenghten my Iman in Allah and the followership of the Messenger (AS).

When i said that a brotherhood without bloodline is counted as artificial, you did not read it in the light that i presented it. You ran with it, distorting all the while, that i have claimed that islam did not come to foster brotherhood. From that point on, I believed you are disgenuous.

[b]Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.

yet Olabowale look o Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

see the selectiveness

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza?" He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter). "[/b]


please read what i posted read the Quran.

I have tried never to pick out Contradiction from the Quran with any other books.

oh you say you have not read your quran But on the Site you quoted to me you can get an online Al Quran. I do hope that you can do somthing about this matter. I always try to bring the contradiction of the Quran one by one you can answer me one by one.

@Backslider: In the month of Ramadan, people are encouraged to read the Qur'an as much as they can. It is a command, because it is the month of Revelation.

Now to you point about Aisha (RA). Could you please tell me if she was born before Muhammad(AS) began to receive revelation?
If so, how old was she. If not when was she born.
Could you tell me how old was she before her father became a muslim.
How old was she before she died.
Who was the Khalifah when she died. Lastly how long was she a widow before she died.
While you are at it, could you tell us about her parents and her siblings age relative to hers.

Get me answers to these questions and you will tell me that she was more than the 9 years of age that was popularly believed. Even if she was 9, it is okay with me because of the time and space. She was a special woman for a special man (AS).

please why do you help me back them up with Quotation.

So you agree that He was a Pedophile by Choice and it was not the Norm Then?

She was A Special Child not a Women !!!!!!!!!!!!! Her Sexual Reproductiveness was never complete!! dont let us do this can you or will you do this to ay Child?

You want me to quote more Verses or what?

@Backslider; are you going to give the information that I requested from you about when Aisha died? her age and for how long did she live as a widow.

As to my being agreeing with you? No. Not only was it the norm back then, some situation still exists in the West and Africa and others where young women or man is ready for marriage. There is no set age of puberty. I was not even ready to marry at almost 30! Some people it is at the age of 18!

Please do you research about Aisha and i will like to know about your findings.

And I did not say that I have not read the Qur'an. i said that i need to read more Qur'an in this month of Qur'an.

not 9 year olds please my brother, besides i have given you what I know about Aisha in your books please you do your research and back them with Islamic quotes.

@Backslide: Aisha (RA) died inthe caliphate of Muha wiya. This after the murder of Ali bin AbiTalid (RA). This is where shi'a movement began in Islam. Aisha died at the age of 67. She had lived as a widow 40 years. Please deduct 40 from 67. What you have is 27.

Muhammad (AS) died when Aisha was 27. She was married to him , rather the relationship was consumated AH 2. Muhammad died AH 10. When you deduct 2 from 10, you will have 8. When you deduct 8 from 27, you will have 19. This was the age of consention between the prophet and Aisha.

Whats so interesting about this is that Aisha was born before Islam. If you read the history of Abu Bakr, her father, you will know all these. You will know, also that Aisha was already angaged to someone else. She could have been married to that would be bidegroom except that that family caught off the engagement when the family of Abu bakr converted to Islam. So, marrying young, was the norm and not an exception with Aisha and Muhammad. In this case, I have just proven to you that Aisha was born before Islam of Muhammad, infact she was 4 years old, atleast. You are the one who should disprove my statement, by debunking all that I have just writte. Please give me when Aisha was born. Provide her age relative to her siblings. Provide her age when she died and provide how long she live after the death of Prophet Muhammad (AS). I provided a website where you could have easily source out all the relevant information, but no, you will not have anything to do with it. You have to stick to your viewpoint, even if it is wrong.

Hadith is very complicated. You have to have knowledge of its specialization. Infact, the age of Aisha (RA), relative to the Messenger (AS), being to young serve a well of knowledge fot the Muslims. She absorbed much knowledge from her Husband (AS) and she gave the Muslim community much knowledge.

According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Aisha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.

Answer:
Even if we assume this narrative to be accurate, we have no reason to give it more weight than those that are so detailed about Aisha ’s age, describing her playing with her dolls, talking about her girlfriends coming to play with her and hiding when Muhammad entered the room, her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad, her ignorance of what was going on and her “surprise” when Muhammad got into action taking his role as the husband, etc. These events are more likely to be remembered by someone of her childhood than when a particular Surah was revealed. It is more probable that a person confuse one Surah with the other than confuse all those details of her own life.


YOUR DEFENSE
According to a number of narratives, Aisha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha 's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.


Answer:
This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Ohud occurred Aisha was 10 to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warier, like the boys. She went to keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent back, but this did not apply to her.

QUESTION
According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Aisha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Aisha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Aisha 's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Aisha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.


Answer:
There is a failure to provide the references to the hadithes that he quotes. But obviously this is an error. To understand and accept a religion, one must he at least intelligent enough to make such decision. That is about 15 years old. But let us be generous and say that age is about 12. If Aisha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam, she must have been 26 years old when Muhammad married her. (12 + 14) First of all, in those days girls married at much younger age. No one stayed that long to get married. And it is very unlikely that a 26-year-old woman plays with her dolls. It shows that some of the Muslim like olabowale and babs 787 are embarrassed of what the Prophet did and are desperately looking for excuses to exonerate him of his improprieties.



Question
According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Aisha 's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady".


Answer:
This explanation is absolutely incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, just as in English is not age specific. In fact Aisha was the second wife of Muhammad (after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for three years because she was too young. Instead he had to content himself with Umma Salamah, until Aisha matured a little bit more. It would not have made sense to marry a beautiful woman like Aisha and wait for three years to take her home

You tried to use the date of death Aisha (RA ) in your last post

Question
According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Aisha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Aisha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Answer:
Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Aisha was five years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Aisha was only 30 years younger than the Prophet. So at the time of her marriage when the Prophet was 54, Aisha must have been 24 yeas old. This is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it contradicts the Hadith that is quoted about the age of Asma, Aisha ’s sister, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older that Aisha and died in 73 Hijra. So at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 –73 = 27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old.

The discrepancy between these two hadithes quoted, demonstrate their inaccuracy. It all goes to show that in those days numbers did not mean much. It is more likely that people forget the dates. But events are better remembered. The reports of the tender age of Aisha is consistent with the stories of her childhood, playing with her toys, her girlfriends hiding when Muhammad entered the room, the Prophet playing with her, her ignorance and “surprise” in the night of the nuptials, etc. All those hadithes confirm that she was a little girl. Those who deny the facts and try to prove otherwise, demonstrate their embarrassment of the acts of the Prophet. Perhaps they should be credited for having some scruples and realizing that what the Prophet did was wrong but we cannot praise them for their intellectual honesty or lack of it



Please it took me time to reply you please disapprove the Hadith not me

Haha

Never knew there were so many contradictions in this Islam as this.
I have to go get a Quaran tomorrow.

Great work backslider.
Did you backslide into christianity from Islam?

Just curious about the name.

@pataki

there is alot of discrepiancy in the Quran and this Islamist Spend a lot of time on other books than their own. They will run away from Arguements about this and tell you They are not versed to argue with you.

The Quran to me is A fraud. You can disaproove this so please let me hear it.

@ Backslider,
Guess we might have to wait for their religion comparative study lecturer(onikunkewu) to arrive from Mecca so as to address this issues.
I also have some contradictions i just discovered as well.

They will dwell on other things I am happy that they read the scriptures and this is why some Muslims are converting

Eva since d white men av been doin av dey eva discoverd d invisible poles holdin d sky dat is 2 tel u he is all in all nd 4 ur sake confirm anytin b4 u open ya big mouth

Backslider:

They will dwell on other things I am happy that they read the scriptures and this is why some Muslims are converting

Aye. . . some of the Muslims I know who have converted read their own Qur'an again before seeing the Light - Jesus Christ.

this backslider keeps back sliding. Obviously u have nthing of ur on intellect, all these are internet sourced lies. u dont know anything 'bout islam, u only do blind imitation.Islam is not like christianity that would punish Galilleo for his discoveries or fight science cos to them it is against faith.There is no great scientific achievement that the Church didnt stand against.
The respected Prof.Keith Moore.anatomist .Hey, do u know anything 'bout that?oops. testified to the correctness of the physiologica detail in the Qur'aan. I m i n ahurry and just saw ur laughable comment, so i decided to write this.I will be bac to give u a mo detailed lesson later , but for now, live wit this and lets see if ur ignorance and that of the other morons will simmer.(get da middle finger)


The Twin Sisters

Science and Islam's close relationship with it played a tremendous role in strengthening my faith and that of scientists throughout history - even today! This is a fascinating section - do take time to explore it!

"There is indeed no human work prior to modern times that contains statements which were equally in advance of the state of knowledge at the time they appeared and which might be compared to the Quran. It comes as no surprise to learn that Religion and Science have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam and that today, at a time when science has taken such great strides, they still continue to be associated, and furthermore certain scientific data are used for the better understanding of the Quranic text.

"What is more, in a century where, for many, scientific truth has dealt a deathblow to religious belief, it is precisely the discoveries of science that, in an objective examination of the Islamic Revelation, have highlighted the supernatural character of certain aspects of the Revelation.

"The Quran contains infinitely more precise details [than many scientific discoveries today] which are directly related to facts discovered by modern science: these are what exercise a magnetic attraction for today's scientists.

"It is not faith in Islam that first guided my steps, but simple research for the truth. [What led me to this conviction was the fact that it would be unthinkable] for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account of the state of knowledge in his days." ~ Dr. Maurice Bucaille, an eminent medical scientist and a member of the French Academy of Medicine. He is the author of the book entitled "The Bible, The Quran and Science."

Also check http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

FOPPY BRAINED BACKSLIDER,


"When the whitemen came, they had the bible and we had the land, they told us: "close ur eyes 4 prayer, when we opened it, we had the bible and they had the land."
-Bislop Desmond Tutu
when the whitemen came to Africa, they came with chains on their left hand and the bible on the right.They enslaved us and also forced their religion on us.The first ship to take slaves to the Americas, oddly enough had the name "The Good Ship Jesus" .
-Malcolm X

@islampride,

In other words, Malcolm X has become the new Imam that helps your pride? No qualms. Just turn your gaze a bit to this:

The Politically Incorrect Archives of the Real Muhammad.

Ishaq:204
“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to Muhammad we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Ishaq:327
“Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’ ”

Ishaq:510
“We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

Ishaq:588
“When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:576
“Allah and Muhammad humiliated every coward and made our religion victorious. We were glorified and destroyed them all. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle’s squadron advanced into the fray.”

Ishaq:489
“Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”

The hordes of Muhammad may not have come on ships sailing on Arabian sands. But what they left behind shames the sob complaints of Malcolm X.

islampride:

this backslider keeps back sliding. Obviously u have nthing of your on intellect, all these are internet sourced lies. u don't know anything 'bout islam, u only do blind imitation.

First you accuse backslider of using "internet sourced lies" and then go on to promptly "cut and paste" your own internet sourced lies! How hypocritical! Couldnt you say something of your own intellect?

islampride:

I[b] m i n ahurry and just saw your laughable comment, so i decided to write this.I will be bac to give u a mo detailed lesson later ,[/b] but for now, live wit this and lets see if your ignorance and that of the other morons will simmer.

We have heard that line a hundred times from ignorant muslim appologists who know nothing about the religion they purport to follow but must ask the oustass for every response! This plus the ubiquitous "i'm waiting" must top the list as the most used escape strategy!

Lol. . .

davidylan:

This plus the ubiquitous "i'm waiting" must top the list as the most used escape strategy!

Here's an abridged list:

1. "I'm waiting"

2. "My outsass say whenever my prophet is being abused, I must avoid"

3. "I'm in a hurry, so I will be back to reply you" (this one takes ages to materialise)

4. "What have you said? Answer my questions one by one"

5. "That is not what the Qur'an said. . . that is what we have been told!!"

. . . and still counting!

blah blah blah

shahan:

@islampride,

In other words, Malcolm X has become the new Imam that helps your pride? No qualms. Just turn your gaze a bit to this:

The Politically Incorrect Archives of the Real Muhammad.

Ishaq:204
“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to Muhammad we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Ishaq:327

“Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’ ”

Ishaq:510
“We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.”

Ishaq:588
“When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:576
“Allah and Muhammad humiliated every coward and made our religion victorious. We were glorified and destroyed them all. By what our Apostle recites from the Book and by our swift horses, I liked the punishment the infidels received. Killing them was sweeter than drink. We galloped among them panting for the spoil. With our loud-voiced army, the Apostle’s squadron advanced into the fray.”

Ishaq:489
“Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”

The hordes of Muhammad may not have come on ships sailing on Arabian sands. But what they left behind shames the sob complaints of Malcolm X.

And they tell us Allah is same as our Jehovah.
TUFIAKWA!!!

@prideoflslam,

Oh stone hearted men who told you that Christianity came by the White man First? The African Church has been in existence for a long time before the white men came and before Islam. We have the Egyptian Christian as a testimony Against you all. We have the Churches In Ethiopia Against you all.

You all know yourselves and no one will deceive me that the Black man never new anything about the bible before the European! We did not just take it Serious and that is why There is great religious persecution in Africa since we became serious with the God of all Flesh.

There is no need to attack me Please correct me that is all take your time to respond to me about my conception that the Quran is a book of Fraud and Lies.

Let Us Assume that the bible is also False Please for argument sake. Now prove to me that The Fraud and contradictions in the Quran is not true. I will never Insult anyone here and I will be civil here. I will only attack the hate and false hood that the Quran and Islam represent.

there is a difference between lies and facts, i laid the facts , u told the lies.
i got to the internet truly, but it was for brevity and facts, what ur dumbass can also always check, debunk the claims if they r lies, u gotta wake up to reality, christianity is losing, islam is winning. Check ur stats dummies. I M NOT ESCAPING, ND IF I WILL ,FROM WHO?U IGNORAMUSES?I WILL TEACH THE POPE CHRISTIANITY.
I can get materials from the net, but the question is ,if we start now, can u handle it? can u stand to my face and say y'all think u know about islam? if i give u a tran davidylan that thinks eslated Qur'aan , can u show me where all these ur quotes are?
and the dummie david dylan that thinks he knows islam showed his ignorance when he said oustass, like he was writing chinese.lol. it is Ustadh, there is something called tajweed, an integral aspect of the arabic and qraanic science, but u showed u know nohing about it.I will teach u islam, then teach u ur distorted religion also.
and to shahan or wat is the lil brained fool called, where in the world is the reference u call ishaq?lol. u make me laugh at ur ignorance. try learn more,uhn. u know nothing.
baby osi,who is jehovah? oh "jay hova", jigga man jay z?loooooooooolllllllll
and to the backslidind backslider, its on ur silly ass o tell me ur facts without telling me the lies of ur lying websites and other liars.i ve told u what keith moore said if ever u know who that is,also Dr ,Maurice Bucaile , now a muslim whe he saw the facts.
hey, christianity came to africa thru ethiopiafine it was there, but never spread, it was spread thru africa by the whites, i know better thna u do, u stay i ghana and should know better though.
if onlu u guyz stayed on wat jesus came wi, u would have been saved, read below dummies and see how u follow paul and not jesus.

backslider, ur name speaks volume,looooooooooooollllllll,where is ur statistics? muslims becoming christians.where

How did Christianity become mixed with polytheistic beliefs?

Question:
If true Christianity brought the message of the Oneness of God (Tawheed), and stated that He alone is to be worshipped to the exclusion of anyone else in His creation, whether that is ‘Eesa (Jesus) or anyone else, then how did this religion become mixed with polytheistic beliefs (shirk) and how did they take ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) and his mother as gods besides Allaah?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

There can be no doubt that the call to believe in Allaah alone (Tawheed) and to worship Him alone to the exclusion of anyone else, is the basic message that was brought by the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), as it was the basic message brought by all the Prophets. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): ‘Worship Allaah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghoot (all false deities, i.e. do not worship Taghoot besides Allaah).’ Then of them were some whom Allaah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth)”

[al-Nahl 16:36]

“And We did not send any Messenger before you (O Muhammad) but We revealed to him (saying): Laa ilaaha illa Ana [none has the right to be worshipped but I (Allaah)], so worship Me (Alone and none else)”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:25]

‘Eesa will bear witness to this call against his people, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) when Allaah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): 'O ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: “Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allaah?”’ He will say: ‘Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner‑self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly, You, only You, are the All‑Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen).

117. ‘Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allaah) did command me to say: “Worship Allaah, my Lord and your Lord.” And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things’”

[al-Maa'idah 5:117]

With regard to how the followers of this religion deviated after that from pure Tawheed to idolatrous beliefs and the worship of Jesus and his mother besides God, this is something which happened early on in Christian history. We will quote here some evidence to that effect from their own people’s words. Let whoever has ears listen.

It says in the American Encyclopedia:

The belief in the Oneness of God – as a theological movement – began at a very early stage in history, and in fact it preceded the belief in trinity by many decades. Christianity developed from Judaism, and Judaism firmly believes that there is one God.

The path that led from Jerusalem (the home of the first disciples of Christ) to Nicea (where it was decided in 325 CE that Christ was equal to God in essence and eternal nature) can hardly be described as a straight path.

The doctrine of trinity which was affirmed in the fourth century CE bears no resemblance to the original teachings of Christ concerning the nature of God. Au contraire, it is the opposite, a deviation from that teaching. Hence it developed in opposition to the belief in One God… (27/294).

You can refer to the views of some of those Christians who still believe in the Oneness of God in the same American Encyclopedia, 27/300-301

Will Durant says:

When Christianity conquered Rome, the new religion (i.e., Christianity) was infused with the blood of the old idolatrous religion: the title of archbishop, worship for the great mother, and an innumerable number of lords who gave peace of mind and were like who exist in all places and cannot be detected with the senses. All of this came into Christianity as the blood of the mother comes into her child.

The civilized empire handed over power and administration to the papacy and the impact of the word replaced the impact of the sword. The preachers of the church started to assume positions of power.

Christianity did not put an end to idolatry, rather it reinforced it. The Greek mind came back to life in a new form, in the doctrines and rituals of the church. The Greek rituals appeared in the rituals of the monastic saints. From Egypt came the idea of the holy trinity, the day of reckoning, eternal reward and punishment, and man’s eternal life in one of the other. From Egypt also came the worship of the mother and child, the mystical union with God, the union which led to Platonism and agnosticism, and the erasing of Christian doctrine. And from Persia came the belief in the return of the Messiah and his ruling the earth for 1000 years.

Qissat al-Hadaarah, 11/418 (The Story of Civilization)

Despite the element of atheism in the words of Durant, which is something that he is known for, and which is apparent in his claim that the idea of eternal reward or punishment came from the Egyptians, tracing the origins of deviant idolatry in Christianity is no longer a secret, and he is not the only one who has researched them. In his book Christianity and Idolatry, Robertson states that Mithraism, which is a religion of Persian origin, flourished in Persia approximately six centuries before the birth of Christ, and it reached Rome around the year 70 CE, where it spread throughout the Roman lands. Then it reached Britain and spread to a number of British cities. What concerns us here about this religion is that it says:

- That Mithras, after whom it is named, was an intermediary between God and man (for a similar doctrine in Christianity, see Acts 4:12).

- He was born in a cave or in a corner of the earth (cf. Luke 2:

- His birthday was December 25 (which is the day celebrated by the Christians as the day when Jesus was born)

- He had twelve disciples (cf. Matthew 10:1)

- He died to save the world (cf. I Corinthians 15:3)

- He was buried but he came back to life (cf. I Corinthians 15:4)

- He ascended to heaven in front of his disciples (cf. Acts 1:9)

- He was called “Saviour” (cf. Titus 2:13)

- Among his attributes is that he is like a peaceful lamb (cf. John 1:29)

- The “Divine supper” was held in his memory every year (cf. I Corinthians 11:23-25)

- One of his symbols was baptism

- Sunday was sacred to them

The French Orientalist Leon Joteh, in his book “An Introduction to Islamic philosophy” is of the view that the origin of the Christian trinity is to be found in Greek philosophy, specifically in the ideas of modern Platonism, which took the basis of the idea of trinity as a view of the Creator of the universe from Plato, then developed it to a great extent, so that the resemblance between this idea and Christianity became greater. So (in their view) the Creator, the One Who is absolutely perfect, appointed two intermediaries between him and mankind, who emanated from Him, and were also part of Him at the same time, meaning that they are contained in His essence. These two entities are reasoning and divine spirit. Then he said:

The marriage of Jewish belief and Greek philosophy did not only produce philosophy, rather it produced a religion too, namely Christianity which imbibed many ideas from the Greeks. The Christian concept of divinity is taken from the same source as modern Platonism. Hence you see many similarities between the two, although they may vary in some details. They are both based on a belief in trinity, in which the three “persons” are one.

This is what the American writer Draper refers to:

Idolatry and polytheism entered Christianity through the influence of the hypocrites who occupied positions of influence and high positions in the Roman state by pretending to be Christians, but they never cared about religion and were not sincere at all. Similarly Constantine had spent his life in darkness and evil, and he did not follow the commands of the church except for a short while at the end of his life. (p. 337)

Although the followers of Christianity gained some power, to the extent that they managed to have Constantine appointed as ruler, they failed to eradicate idolatry completely. As a result of their struggle, their principles became fused with idolatry, from which point there developed a new religion in which Christianity and idolatry were manifested equally.

Thus the Christians followed the same path of those disbelievers who had come before them, step by step, as their own Book testifies. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And the Jews say: ‘Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!”

[al-Tawbah 9:30]

And Allaah is the Source of strength.





and who is assuming the bible to be false, is there any other name for falsehood ther than it?


Is The Bible Corrupted?

Before I go into any detail, I would very briefly like to tell you that if someone gathers up the courage to ask the same questions about the Bible, that the author has asked about the "Muslim claim" of corruption in the text of the Bible, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to get precise answers to these questions. There is a tremendous difference in the scholars of the Bible, regarding who, precisely, were the authors of most of the books and exactly when and where these books were written. This is also the reason why, as the author says, "No Muslim (or the textual scholars of the Bible) could ever answer these questions. I wonder why??".

Thus, believing in the complete Bible, that we have at hand, to be of a Divine origin, needs a lot of faith. Blind faith - for there exists no other ground for believing so.

For example, let us just consider the authorship of some of the most important books of the Christian faith. C. F. Evans writes in "The Cambridge History of the Bible", Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970:

With the exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous. (p. 233)

He writes further:

, such external evidence on matters of origin, authorship, sources and date as has come down from the second and succeeding centuries is very meager, and, when itself subjected to critical examination, turns out to be of dubious value, if not worthless. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 235)

About the Pauline letters, the author writes:

Further elucidations of the Pauline letters as documents in the Church is faced by three not unconnected problems, their formation into a corpus, their unity and authenticity, and their chronology; and in each case the data are insufficient for a solution. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 239)

The Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Gospel of Mark:

Though the author of Mark is probably unknown, authority is traditionally derived from a supposed connection with the Apostle Peter, who had transmitted the traditions before his martyr death under Nero's persecution (c. 64-65). Papias, a 2nd century bishop in Asia Minor, is quoted as saying that Mark had been Peter's amanuensis (secretary) who wrote as he remembered (after Peter's death), though not in the right order, (harmony of the Gospels). (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, The Gospel According to Mark: Background and overview.)

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, the encyclopedia says:


Although there is a Matthew named among the various lists of Jesus' disciples, more telling is the fact that the name of Levi, the tax collector who in Mark became a follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed to Matthew. It would appear from this that Matthew was claiming apostolic authority for his Gospel through this device but that the writer of Matthew is probably anonymous. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Matthew.)

Regarding the Gospel of Luke, it says:

The author has been identified with Luke, "the beloved physician," Paul's companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late 2nd century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke's Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul's companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul's gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke's medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this gospel remains unknown. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Luke.)

Regarding the Gospel of John, it writes:

From internal evidence the Gospel was written by a beloved disciple whose name is unknown. Because both external and internal evidence are doubtful, a working hypothesis is that John and the Johannine letters were written and edited somewhere in the East (perhaps Ephesus) as the product of a "school," or Johannine circle, at the end of the 1st century. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, THE FOURTH GOSPEL: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, Uniqueness of John.)

Likewise, consider the following statement that appears in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church", regarding the Gospel of John:

The Apostolic origin of the book, however, is contested by a large body of modern scholars whose position vary from a complete rejection of both its authenticity and its historicity to the admission of Apostolic inspiration and a certain historical value. The unity of the book has been disputed esp. by German scholars, e.g. J. Wellhausen, R. Bultmann. Where its unity is admitted, its attribution to John the Presbyter is favoured. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, John The Apostle, 1974, pg. 743)



Again, in "Peakes Commentary on the Bible", the introduction of the Gospel of John starts with the following words:

The origin of this Gospel is veiled in obscurity (Peakes Commentary on the Bible, C. K. Barrett, "John", Nelson 1967)

Knox, (although not ascribing to this view) in his "New Testament Commentary" writes about the authorship of John's Gospel:

The picture which emerges (according to these critics) is that of a profound logical treatise, composed late in the first or more probably early in the second century, by some unknown author who had a thesis to propound, and did so under the (now established) literary form of a "gospel". It was not, evidently, a fisherman from Galilee who had the learning and the culture to leave such a monument behind him. Possibly the author may have been that "John the elder" who is referred to by Papias (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4 and 14) as a valuable source of early tradition. (Knox, New Testament Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xiii)

Knox, further states, regarding the Gospel of John:

In 21.24, and possibly in 19.35, another hand, not that of the author has made its contribution (cf. Rom. 16.22). This raises the question whether we ought to think of John as sitting and writing the gospel with his own hand. It is improbable that one who was regarded as "a simple man, without learning" by his own fellow countrymen (Acts 4.13) would have lived to write Greek as idiomatic as that of the Fourth gospel. (Knox, New Testament Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xv).

In a situation like this, anyone who holds these books to be Divine cannot afford to have the strict criteria, as is mentioned by the author of your quoted article. Yes, he has all the right in the world to ask questions as to what exactly are the discrepancies or corruption in the text of the Bible, and why does one believe them to be discrepancies or corruption, but I am afraid that insisting on the answers of the quoted questions and still believing the Bible to be Divine, can only be done if one is prone to believing and rejecting things by applying absolutely different criteria for the two.

Now, let us see what "Corruption in the Bible" really means.

To fully understand what a Muslim means when he says that the Bible is corrupted, we must first understand what, in the mind of a Muslim, is uncorrupted revealed literature. Briefly stated, the Muslims, for this purpose have basically two criteria.

Firstly, the Muslim mind contrary to (a majority of) the early Christians, at least such Christians as played a major role in the canonization1 of the books of the New Testament, does not believe that God's revelation is accessible to all men without distinction2. On the contrary, it believes that God reveals His words to those He selects from amongst men. Such men are of impeccable character and repute. They, bring with them clear evidences of their Divine authority. These men are called Prophets, or Messengers of God, by the Muslims. Whatever they say, and whatever they do with reference to religious beliefs or actions, gets the status of True Religious Teachings. No one other than the prophets or messengers of God holds this position. The Apostles or Messengers of any prophet, are by their very name, subordinate to the prophets (or messengers of God). They are only to deliver the message of the prophet, as the prophet was to deliver the message of God. Thus, God reveals his words to His prophets or messengers only. Whereas, the apostles and messengers of these prophets do not speak or write with Divine inspiration, they are only to deliver the message of the prophet, which in turn, no doubt, was Divinely Inspired. Thus, due to this belief of the Muslims, they believe that the origin of any Divine literature must lie with some Prophet (and thus God), not with the prophet's Disciples or Apostles.

Secondly, such writings, actions or sayings of the prophet must come down to us in unbroken and absolutely dependable chains of transmission of such tradition. For instance, it should not be so that a compilation of the sayings of a prophet, suddenly is made available to the world, while in the past it is not known to exist. If such be the case, the Muslim mind would not base its religious beliefs3 on such a narrative. This also means that such transmission, is kept clean of any and all kinds of alteration. And is delivered to us, in exactly the same words, as it was, when delivered to the companions of the prophet.

Thus, when a Muslim says that the text of the Bible is corrupted, all that is really implied is
the books that comprise the Bible are not the ones given by the respective prophets to whom they are ascribed,
these books do not meet the criteria of unbroken and dependable chains of transmission, and
a number of intentional and unintentional changes has occurred in the text of these books, which renders them all the more "corrupted", even though the first two criteria were quite adequate, in rejecting these books as "basis" of one's religious beliefs.

For instance, Muslims believe that the Torah (Torat) was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel (Injil) was revealed to Jesus. But, it is pretty obvious from these books, as they appear in the Bible today, that neither of the two books were written by these writers, or even dictated by them. Torah, as well as the Gospels are more of historian's accounts of the lives and teachings of Moses and Jesus respectively, than books revealed to them. Thus, I really don't think that anyone who is aware of the history of the compilation of the Bible really has any problems in accepting the statement of the Muslims that the various books of the Bible, as we have them today are more likely to be a lot different from what was revealed to and then taught by the Prophets to which they are ascribed.

The Bible, that is normally read around the world today, is basically a translation of the (narration of the) original text. The various books that constitute the Bible today were first written in languages other than English or German or Urdu or Arabic. For example, the Genesis is thought to be originally written in Hebrew. So is Exodus and also the other books of the pentateuch.

Let us first consider the Torah (or the Pentateuch). The Torah is believed to be revealed by God to Moses (May Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon him). Thus, it is taken to be revealed somewhere around the 13th century BC. But the books that we have with us today, that constitute Torah, do not date as farther back. Furthermore, experts on the text of the Bible also believe that the Torah, as we have it now, was not written or even dictated by Moses (Peace be upon him) himself. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, "The Bible in the Making" writes:

All you have to do to see that the Old Testament as we know it did not come straight from the pen of its several authors, is to look at the first three chapters of Genesis. There you will find two quite distinct accounts of the creation of man. The account in the first chapter is startling different from the account in the second and third,

, There is no doubt that these two stories of the creation of man which have been set down together in the opening chapters of Genesis belong to very different periods. The second is by far the more primitive one, and between the writings of the two narratives about as much time elapsed, as has elapsed between the day of Christopher Columbus and our own. The disparity is obvious from the character of the stories themselves: you can detect it in reading them alongside each other in an English Bible. If you were reading them in Hebrew you would be struck by the fact that throughout the first account, the word used for "God" is from "Elohim", while in the second the name assigned is that of "Yahweh".

The use of the term "Elohim" goes further back, however, than the date of the passages in Genesis in which it is used. A study of various passages in the Hebrew Bible shows that there must have been originally two documents, of which the author of the more primitive one used the name Yahweh in referring to God, while the author of the other used the name Elohim. Scholars call the first document J, from "Jahveh" ("Yahweh", and the second document E, from "Elohim". (Chapter III, The Writing of the Old Testament, Pg. 23-24, 1961)

The author, has then described briefly how the first six books of the Hebrew Bible have come down to us. A summary of the writer's description follows4:
J was the product of the southern kingdom, while E of the northern kingdom.
Some time after 721 BC, a writer in the southern kingdom put these two documents together with additions of his own. The work of this scholar is called JE by the modern scholars.
In the following century, JE was enlarged by the addition of the discourses of Deuteronomy (these are apparently, addresses delivered by Moses, shortly before his death)5.
Around 500 BC, a school of priests undertook further editorial revision. Finally, in the fifth century BC, this codification was incorporated with JE as revised and expanded by the Deuteronomic editor.

In other words, J and E are the two most primitive narrations of the life and teachings of Moses (though not written or dictated by him), both these narratives are not similar, and differ with each other in many respects. J (written somewhere around 850 BC)6 and E (around 750 BC) were combined and added upon in (around) 650 BC and the resultant document was called JE. In (around) 550 BC, further additions were made from a document called D (dated around 621 BC) and thus, the document now became JED. In (around) 400 BC, priestly ritual laws, (written around 500 - 450 BC) were added to JED - now growing to JEDP. JEDP, as it became in 400 BC, is the Pentateuch (The Torah) as we now know it. Thus, a book considered and believed to be written by and revealed to Moses (around the 13th century) is actually written in the fourth or the fifth century7.

This, then is the reality about the Torah. There is no doubt, at least in my mind after reading the text of these books that they do contain parts of revelations to Moses. But, the situation, as it actually stands does not allow me to stand certain that all the material contained therein is revelation - all revelation. Thus, Geddes MacGregor writes:

There are, indeed, probably echoes in the Old Testament itself of dissatisfaction with the revisions. Jeremiah, for instance, having questioned whether his compatriots are justified in their confidence in possessing the Law of God revealed to Moses, warns them: "Behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely (Jeremiah viii. ".

The position of most of the other books of the Old Testament is not very different.

Now, let us turn towards the New Testament.

The New Testament does not consist of any book that even claims to be written or dictated or even proposed to be written by Jesus (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - the prophet of God (as Muslims believe him to be), to whom, as the Muslims believe, the real Injil was revealed. All the New Testament consists of, besides the book called "Revelation", are four biographies of Jesus (may peace be upon him) claimed to be written by his disciples, and some letters (claimed to be) of his disciples. The case of "Revelation" is just a little bit different, as it is presented completely as a narrative of a dialogue of Jesus with one of his disciples. Recognizing this fact, C. F. Evans writes:

The only New Testament book, which appears to have been written self-consciously as if for canonical status (but only until the imminent end) is Revelation, with its solemn blessing on those who read and hear it and its threat of damnation on anyone who adds to or subtracts from it, but this is because writing had become a solemn and mysterious act in the apocalyptic tradition, and it is significant that Revelation, though a mosaic of Old Testament phrases and allusions, nowhere makes any explicit citation from it. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 234)

In the beginning, it seems, all the writings now included in the New Testament, with many others that were in circulation among Christians, were written only to preserve the life and teachings of Jesus, as was understood or interpreted by their respective writers. Most of these writings, it seems were never meant, initially, to become the basis or canons of a new religion. So, whoever had anything related to the life and teachings of Jesus, which he thought to be important, was written down, so that no part of it was lost in oblivion. This, is quite understandable. Disciples of all great people tend to do so. And no doubt, such writings are of great importance for a student of history. But, placing them at the exalted status of canons or basis of a new religious belief, does not seem to be quite justified. Thus, it seems that initially, no one even thought about collecting and publishing all the writings that were in circulation8 and at that time they were, probably, not even as much revered as they later became. C. F. Evans writes:

So long as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a document as I Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old Testament text. The elevation of Christian writings to the position of a new canon, like those writings themselves, was primarily the work of Gentile Christianity, whose literature also betrays a feeling that the very existence of the Old Testament was now a problem to be solved and that there was need of some new and specifically Christian authority. , what eventually took place was precisely what in the earliest days of the Church could hardly have been conceived, namely, the creation of a further Bible along with that already in existence, which was to turn it into the first of two, and in the end to relegate it to the position of 'old' in a Bible now made up of two testaments. The history of the development of the New Testament Canon is the history of the process by which books written for the most part for other purposes and from other motives came to be given this unique status; and the study of the New Testament is in part an investigation of why there were any such writings to canonize, and of how, and in what circumstances, they came to possess such qualities as fitted them for their new role, and made it impossible for them to continue simply as an expansion of, or supplement to, something else. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 234 - 235)

He further writes:

During the apostolic age the Christian Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 286)

The Muslim mind is simply confused by the fact that if the books that now constitute the New Testament were truly believed to be of Divine origin at the time of their writing, then how can such careless attitude towards such books be seen at that time. It seems quite obvious that this status was given to these books only at a later stage. Initially, they were neither considered as Divine, nor as canons of a new religion, but simply narrations of the teachings of a prophet by such people who were his companions or by those who had been companions of his companions. Nothing more than that. Later on, when it was felt that these narrations were all that existed about this prophet, and if such careless attitude continued towards these narrations, then, in due course of time, nothing would remain existent about the teachings of this prophet. Thus, for this purpose, these writings had to be canonized and made the basis of a new religion, as nothing else existed. Furthermore, to better the attitude towards them, it was claimed that they were Divinely Inspired and not just writings like any other of their age. Geddes MacGregor writes:

Prominent in the measures taken to safeguard the Church against the dangers that beset it was the attempt to provide a body of Scripture that could be set side by side with the Old Testament and have, for Christians, a comparable status. But this movement to limit the Christians Scriptures to a fixed number of books was much stronger among some Christian communities than among others. (Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 39 - 40)

This process of selecting some of the books that were in circulation at that time as more authoritative and making a New Testament on their basis, initiated in the second century. By the end of the second century Churches in the West, especially Rome, accepted some books to be more authoritative and started calling them the New Testament. In this categorization of the books in circulation, Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were considered to be less authoritative.9 While among the Eastern or Greek Fathers, there was considerable disagreement even in the fourth century10.

Now, let us come to the 'corruption' part of the issue.

A few methods have been devised by textual scholars of the Bible to infer which of the text given in the old manuscripts is most likely that of the originally written document. A number of books have been written on the explanation of these methods. One such book is Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration". The author, in the preface of the book has briefly mentioned why it is important to apply textual criticism on the Bible. He states:

The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. (Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964)

This statement, in other words simply means that the oldest of the manuscripts of the New Testament that we have, do not comply with each other. In such a state, a simple mind, is obviously prone to believing that the text of the New Testament, from its oldest of days was not safe from corruption.

C. F. Evans after a detailed analysis of the various reasons that can be ascribed to the variant readings of the New Testament presents his conclusion in the following words:

Thus a study of the history of the text of the New Testament in the earliest and formative period shows a number of different factors at work. In the first place, the New Testament documents have been open to the normal hazards of manuscript transmission. This is evident in some lines of descent, It is still a matter of debate whether any places have been so affected in all lines of transmission: a plausible case for corruption might be made in John 3: 25, I Cor. 6: 5, Col. 2: 18, and Jas. 1: 17, to mention only some striking instances, Another debated factor is the influence of doctrine upon the text. It is understandable that many scholars, conscious of the sensibilities of fellow-churchmen, and often sharing those sensibilities themselves (whether from a consciously conservative standpoint or not), should have denied that any variant had arisen from alteration in the interest of some doctrinal issue. However, we have seen that there are instances where we run in the face of the evidence if we deny the presence of this factor in the development of the text. Many variants which can be traced to the second century bear the mark of the development of doctrine, Many variants of a different kind have sprung from the closely related factor of interpretation, Lastly, we perceive that change has come about as a result of the history of the Greek language, both conscious changes from locutions deemed barbaric to others considered cultured, and unconscious changes such as arose through the disappearance of the dative case or the attenuation of the perfect. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 375 - 376)

Bruce M. Metzger has outlined the causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament, in a separate chapter of his book, "The Text of The New Testament". He has broadly divided such errors into two categories11: (a) Unintentional Changes, and (b) Intentional Changes. In unintentional changes, he mentions the following:
Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight : This maybe of any one of different natures. For example, a scribe with such a problem, found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another, this was especially the case where the previous copyist had not written with care. Then, there can be a problem of jumping from one line to other and thereby omiting a line or a few lines, if both the lines ended or began with similar words.
Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing: Such problem can especially arise when the scribe is making a copy from dictation. A scribe is more prone to this problem in the case of two or more words with the same pronunciation.
Errors of the Mind: This category of errors seem to have arisen during the particular instance when the copyist was holding a sentence or a phrase in his mind, whether after looking at the previous copy, if the copy was made by looking at a previous copy, or after hearing the sentence, if the copy was made from dictation. This error can result in a number of variations in the text. For example, the copyist may unintentionally substitute a word with a synonymous word. The sequence of words may be unintentionally altered. The letters of a word may be so transported that causes a different word to be written in the copy being so made. The passage being so written may be replaced in the mind of the scribe with a similar passage that is better known to the scribe.
Errors of Judgement: Such errors may arise when a scribe mistakes some words written on the margin of a previously written manuscript to be part of the text being written.

While in intentional changes, the following are mentioned:
Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar: The scribe may, with a motive of correction, change or alter the spelling of a word or the sequence of words in a sentence.
Harmonistic Corruptions: Since the monks normally knew portions of the Scriptures by heart, they tended to make changes in the text to harmonize discordant parallels or quotations.
Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts: Where the scribe thought a phrase to be missing a few words that, in his opinion, should have been there, he added such words as he thought were obviously missing and were meant to be there.
Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties: The scribes who were aware of a particular historical or geographical reference being made in the text and found that reference to be incorrect in some way, tended to correct such reference.
Conflation of Readings: When the same passage was given differently in different manuscripts most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy which they were writing.
Alterations made because of Doctrinal Considerations: When the words of the manuscript which was used as a source differed from or negated the doctrine to which the scribe ascribed himself, he was tempted to alter the words in a way that prevented the particular doctrine from losing its ground.
Addition of Miscellaneous Details: Some scribes had the tendency of adding details to some event that was referred to in the text.

The author has given a number of examples under each sub-category of these changes.

This, then, is what confuses the Muslim mind to the extent that is quite well known. The Muslims do not believe that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus (peace be upon him), whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even if these books were ascribed to Jesus (peace be upon him), the Muslims have never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next, till it reaches Jesus (peace be upon him). Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text,

I am afraid, in the situation as it stands, the Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the prophets to whom they are ascribed.



1- Canonization, very simply stated, means the acceptance of some of the writings that were in circulation, in the early period of Christianity, as authoritative, while not giving this position to other such writings

2- As has been stated by C. F. Evans in his article "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", The Cambridge History of the Bible, Cambridge, 1970, p. 286

3- Note that such narratives would not become the "basis" of religious doctrine for the muslims. This does not imply that such narratives would be out rightly rejected.

4- See Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter III, 1961.

5- The author writes:

, indeed they were no doubt based on an oral tradition of a farewell address given by that great leader of the early Hebrews. The writer of Deuteronomy incorporated older materials in his work such as the "Blessing" (Deuteronomy xxxiii); but the ideals and sentiments he expressed are those of his own age, not that of Moses.

6- It must be remembered that the time of Moses is around the 13th century, and the most ancient narrative, and that too only a part of the Torah is not earlier than c. 850 BC.

7- See table in Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter III, 1961, p 26

8- Also see Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making" 1961, Chapter IV, How the New Testament took shape, p. 35

9- see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 40.

10- see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 41.

11- (Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964. p 186 - 206)



and this last question for u all, if u cant answer these questions{here on this post}, then u loose, u fail, u should talk no more, and shhhhhhhhhh, try change ur faith fast, get a life!!


and here are the questions, the 1st round K.O. LOLL

"O worshippers of the Messiah, we have a question, to which we want an answe""r from the one who understands it.

If a god dies because of the actions of people who kill him, what is this god?

Is he pleased with what they did to him? Then they must be lucky for they have earned his pleasure.

If he is displeased with what they did to him, their power has nevertheless overwhelmed his.

Did the universe remain without a god who hears all and answers those who call upon him?

Were the seven heavens left with no god above them when he was buried in the ground?

Was this universe left with no god to look after it when his hands were nailed (to the cross)?

How could this god be forsaken by all his creation when they heard him weep?

How could this wood bear the true god who was tied to it?

How could iron come close to him and penetrate him and wound him?

How could the hands of his enemies reach him when they struck the back of his head?

Was the Messiah brought back to life or is the one who revived him another god?

What a strange grave it is that could contain a god. What is even stranger is that a womb could contain him,

Where he remained for nine months, nourished from blood,

Then he emerged from the vagina as a tiny baby, opening his mouth and seeking the breast,

Eating and drinking, with the inevitable consequences thereof. Is that a god?

Exalted be Allaah above the fabrications of the Christians. He will question them all about the lies they told.

O worshippers of the cross, for what reason is that thing (the cross) venerated?

Rationally speaking, it should be broken and burned.

If god was crucified upon it by force and his hands nailed to it,

Then the thing used for that purpose should be cursed and trampled upon, not kissed when you see it.

How can the Lord of the Worlds be humiliated on it, then you go and worship it?

Then you are the enemies of that god, if you venerate it because the lord of mankind has touched it.

That cross is lost but every time we see something similar it reminds us of that cross.

Then why you do you not venerate the graves, for a grave once contained your lord?

O worshipper of the Messiah, wake up! He has a beginning and he has an end."

All this encyclopedia just to prove that Muhammad was a prophet??

Lol, it's funny how our muslim friends will come up with long tales to prove the Bible wrong, just because it exposes Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer, rapist, child molester with a twisted pedophilic drive, a pirate, murderer and a thieving marauder - all of which we have proven from their own Qur'an and Hadiths.

I Cor. 6:9-10
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Muhammad was all and more of these, that's why he sold Muslims the cheap lie that the Bible is corrupt - he simply dreaded the consequences of his sins and yet did not find respite in his idol at the end of his life.

If you're smart, you ought to know that only the One without sin can save you from your sins - and no one is like Him: Jesus Christ the Son of God.

I av neva seen such a big fool as u are. The greatest ignorant in this world and till jesus comes. 100% sure u'v neva gone tru d Quran & Hadith and all u base ur opinio on was hearsay.
For ur info, while Jesus brought the bible, Mohammed (Peace be upon Him) did not only receive d Quran but greatly supports the Gospel, the bible (d original version & not d stupid various versions that are in town).
Look for facts b4 making conclusns. Fool

@ Muhiz,
Please it would better if you refain from using abusive words here, as we are here to learn the better from eachother.

My question to you is this, how does the Koran support the Gospel, please show us the proof from your book if there is any, i think we can go from there.

Welcome on board anyways. But you should have known better not to engage in written vilify here. See you later.

mrpataki,

My question to you is this, how does the Koran support the Gospel, please show us the proof from your book if there is any, i think we can go from there.

se na dat one be your question. sebi u dey quote verses supporting aceptance of Gospel in order threads, go through one of your posts and give it to us.

cheers

mrpataki,

My question to you is this, how does the Koran support the Gospel, please show us the proof from your book if there is any, i think we can go from there.

se na dat one be your question. sebi u dey quote verses supporting aceptance of Gospel in order threads, go through one of your posts and give it to us.
order "other" (typing error, sorry, hope u no mind)

cheers