Debate with a Christian: Jesus is the servant of God and His Messenger

Question:
Why is it so difficult for the Muslims to believe that Jesus is the only son of God, when it says in the gospel that he is the son of God and he says of God “My Father”?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

We have previously explained that the Gospel in which we believe, and no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it, is not the gospels that are in the hands of the Christians nowadays. Rather the Gospel in which we believe is that which was brought by ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) from Allaah. As for that which is in the hands of the Christians today, it is something else, and they themselves do not claim that Jesus is the one who brought it or wrote it. See question no. 47516.

As that is the case, what the Christians claim about the Gospels stating that Jesus is the son of God and that God is his father –exalted be Allaah above having a son or a wife – does not count as any kind of proof against us, because we believe that that is something that was fabricated by human beings, and it is not part of the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) or the religion of any other Messenger.

We believe that the Gospels that are in people’s hands today, in which the Christians believe, have been tampered with and changed, and are still being tampered with from time to time, so that there is nothing left in the form in which the Gospel was revealed from Allaah. Here we would point out that the Gospel which speaks most of the belief in the trinity and the divinity of the Messiah (peace be upon him), so that it has become a reference-point for the Christians in their arguments in support of this falsehood, is the Gospel of John. This Gospel is subject to doubts about its authorship even among some Christian scholars themselves, as is not the case with the other Gospels in which they believe. This is an ancient doubt which goes back to the second century CE according to their own history.

Professor Stadlin says: The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John.

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew.

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance.

Quoted from Muhaaraat fi’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah.

It is strange indeed that they cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which they affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least. Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels.

(op.cit., p. 64)

Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning):

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]

The Bible in which it says that the Messiah is the son of God is the same Bible in which the lineage of the Messiah ends with Adam (peace be upon him), and he too is described as a son of God.

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli … the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”

[Luke 3:23-38]

This is the same Bible that describes Israel in the same terms:

“Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son”

[Exodus 4:22]

Something similar appears in the Book of Hosea:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”

[Hosea 11:1]

The same is said of Soloman (peace be upon him):

“He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father”

[I Chronicles 28:6]

Were Adam, Israel and Soloman all other sons of God, before the Messiah (peace be upon him)? Exalted be Allaah far above what they say!

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”

[John 1:3]

Something similar appears in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”

[Matthew 5:8-9]

This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says:

“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”

[1 John 3:1]

For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that.

There remains the issue of Eesa (peace be upon him) being described as a son of God, and what they fabricated about the Lord of the Worlds, saying that He was the father of the Messiah (peace be upon him). This too is not unique in the language of the Gospels:

“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”

[John 20:17]

In one text he says that God is a father to them too, and that God is the God of them all.

So let them say if they wish that we are all the children and the beloved of God, as God said of their forefathers. In that case there is nothing special about the Messiah so that they should worship him instead of Allaah. Or let them be stubborn and follow something other than true guidance, with no clear Book. This is something that anyone could do.

Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the heavens and the Lord of the earth, the Lord of the Worlds, for the blessing of Islam that He has bestowed upon us.

O Allaah, guide us to Your straight path, The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger, nor of those who went astray.

now seems backslider bad as he is is even better than all of u put together,
dummies, o ma se o. what a pity.
i m ibadan ,not proud of itthe way you fool swill expect but i ll say it to anyones face.
and this havila or what do u call ur name,
u r nothing but a slowpoke, i mean , dont u know what u just did? u did just what u accused me of. while i rage at u fools, i agree, still i bring out facts and challenge you all to debunk me. but all u can do is rage, curse and shout
now to ur lies, hey , do u remeber u r getting cursed? did noah get drunk in there or not?did david do adultery or not? as u fools claim, but we muslims reject those lies.
CHRISTIANITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN BLESSED WITH GREAT LIARS STARTING FROM PAUL DOWN TO MOSHAY AND THE PEOPLE GETTING CURSED IN HERE TOO.
where is ur reference for the deleted vere u quoted?i will never attack jesus , but u go on, do what u feel like doing. i m not apologetic andnever will i be.
that i made a mistake only shows we r all humans and we dont believe in infallibility of man like u guys do, even though ur priests are more dangerous with boys than Elton John.fucking crazy gays.

and what is the dog of the game, baby - o- silly saying? ur we theory developed by the liar moshay is already debunked by me in the post ,mumu. it is the royal We that is found in virtually every language.
now, u all, dont run away, stay posted but hey, where are the answers to my last questions?
have u called the pope?
have u mailed the gay bishop?
go on , i m waiting , lets see what you all can put together , if u cant answer those questions, shame on uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

BACKSLIDER,
What do u mean emotional?
its not all about arabic, dont get it twisted, all i m saying is write out the verses u quoted, is that what u seein the quraan?
and the nes u quoted as i said only showed ur ignorance, it said there will be no contradictions in the quraan. thats just it,uhn, try to learn. and i say again, the eloquence was preserved bynot bringing in tha copied phrase. uhn.

SHAHAN,
everybody can now see who the loser is,
she has left the facts and now starts attacking personalitiies. i m not saying u shouldnt attack me, (at least online for ur info), but why wont u respond to the posers raised?
Paul is ur god cuz he inovated a new religion for u, not what jesus brought.
heheh, do u think at all? u know the council of nicea? u know the unitarian church? arius? those stake burnings?
lil gurl, ty and learn . uhn while typing away ur time on nairaland, try and do some google search on all these and try and know the truth so it sets u free, wooow.

ode(fool) , who said WE cantbe used in matters of creation and worship?
debunk it, bring ur proofs. u ve seen ur supposedly strong arguments crumble while u stare, so u dont know where to hide again. All u can now do is try and bring false aguments.Again, who said it cant be used in worship and creation.

U KNOW WAT, "i made u look, u a slave to a page in ma IQ, LIL BRAINED , ur time is up".
definitely u dont know what that means.

baby o silly,
u be like the tony blair of shahan, the dog of Bush.lol


and the 5/12, lol. only fools like moshay raise such lies that make no sense at all. a simple lok at the verses shows that what to be disrtibuted is indicated for each person ,all u fools did was add up the fractions. . heh, pity fools.
if u have a lil sense, u ll see that the fractions are relative to some conditons , like there r 1 or 2 brothers etc and that is why a standard addition is impossible.

hey, keep searching, u wont find errors in the quraan, thank God, islam has no paul.Moshay can never show his face for a debate, cos he knows he is nothing but a liar, let him come out, in full security , and sya all he wrote. Of cousre nairaland is enough evidence that some christian bigots can just cook up something and start shouting around.
and hey, see o, me i go talk o!!
have u eve thought of a book, followed by 2 billion dogmatic people , that its bigger part is written by 4 people with only first names? people who look to me as if they r yahoo boys,ouch. or how could they not have had surnames?
plus they didnt see the prophet that brought that book o, they only compliled it years after his death,uhn.
imagine, u r on th eroad and the cops stop u for overspeeding, they ask u whats ur name, u ll say john or luke or mark or matthew? no second name?God, save us.
ladies and gentlemen, join me in welcoming to the show, the most dangerous and lying book on earth,that book is none other than, :the bible (book of stories), owwwwwwwwww.owwwwwwwwwwww.clapppppppppppppppp, clapppppppp

back @ y'all

Why British Women Are Turning To Islam

Lucy Berrington finds the Muslim Faith is winning Western admirers despite hostile media coverage. The Times (London) - Tuesday, 9th November 1993

Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions within the Anglican and Catholic churches.

The rate of conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly become an important religious force in this country. "Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that brought the faith here", says Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: "Islam is as much a world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality claims it as its own". Islam is also spreading fast on the continent and in America.

The surge in conversions to Islam has taken place despite the negative image of the faith in the Western press. Indeed, the pace of conversions has accelerated since publicity over the Salman Rushdie affair, the Gulf War and the plight of the Muslims in Bosnia. It is even more ironic that most British converts should be women, given the widespread view in the west that Islam treats women poorly. In the United States, women converts outnumber men by four to one, and in Britain make up the bulk of the estimated 10, 000 to 20, 000 converts, forming part of a Muslim community of 1 to 1.5 million. Many of Britain's "New Muslims" are from middle-class backgrounds. They include Matthew Wilkinson, a former head boy of Eton who went on to Cambridge, and a son and daughter of Lord Justice Scott, the judge heading the arms-to-Iraq enquiry.

A small-scale survey by the Islamic Foundation in Leicester suggests that most converts are aged 30 to 50. Younger Muslims point to many conversions among students and highlight the intellectual thrust of Islam. "Muhammad" said, "The light of Islam will rise in the West" and I think that is what is happening in our day" says Aliya Haeri, an American-born psychologist who converted 15 years ago. She is a consultant to the Zahra Trust, a charity publishing spiritual literature and is one of Britain's prominent Islamic speakers. She adds: "Western converts are coming to Islam with fresh eyes, without all the habits of the East, avoiding much of what is culturally wrong. The purest tradition is finding itself strongest in the West."

Some say the conversions are prompted by the rise of comparative religious education. The British media, offering what Muslims describe as a relentless bad press on all things Islamic, is also said to have helped. Westerners despairing of their own society - rising in crime, family breakdown, drugs and alcoholism - have come to admire the discipline and security of Islam. Many converts are former Christians disillusioned by the uncertainty of the church and unhappy with the concept of the Trinity and deification of Jesus.

Quest of the Convert - Why Change?

Other converts describe a search for a religious identity. Many had previously been practicing Christians but found intellectual satisfaction in Islam. "I was a theology student and it was the academic argument that led to my conversion." Rose Kendrick, a religious education teacher and author, said she objected to the concept of the original sin: "Under Islam, the sins of the fathers aren't visited on the sons. The idea that God is not always forgiving is blasphemous to Muslims."

Maimuna, 39, was raised as a High Anglican and confirmed at 15 at the peak of her religious devotion. "I was entranced by the ritual of the High Church and thought about taking the veil." Her crisis came when a prayer was not answered. She slammed the door on visiting vicars but traveled to convents for discussions with nuns. "My belief came back stronger, but not for the Church, the institution or the dogma." She researched every Christian denomination, plus Judaism, Buddhism and Krishna Consciousness, before turning to Islam.

Many converts from Christianity reject the ecclesiastical hierarchy emphasizing Muslims' direct relationship with God. They sense a lack of leadership in the Church of England and are suspicious of its apparent flexibility. "Muslims don't keep shifting their goal-posts," says Huda Khattab, 28, author of The Muslim Woman's Handbook, published this year by Ta-Ha. She converted ten years ago while studying Arabic at university. "Christianity changes, like the way some have said pre-marital sex is okay if it’s with the person you're going to marry. It seems so wishy-washy. Islam was constant about sex, about praying five times a day. The prayer makes you conscious of God all the time. You're continually touching base."

Author : Lucy Berrington
Source : The London Times

i m fed up with every crazy christian in here telling me they have an islamic background. liars, prove it.\stop lying pls
it's all luies and even if true, who taught u islam? a pastor?lol.
get a life shahan.

reverend, why u say ass licker, oh u mean the priests and nuns?

jesu couldnt have used cannabis, he was holy and pure,just like other prophets but his lying so called followers do more than use cannabis, they even do homosexual stuffs and rituals. nigeria is a typical example of ritualistic churches and homo thiong in usa and europe.

so thats why the priest fagged those little boys,i see. and Bush kills iraqis.

uhmm, devils deception of the christians.

THE BESTLINE I VE EVER SEEN FROM U TRINI, U CAN NOW TRY AND GROW UP.
OK, lets go again, ur dad is a freemason, so his sin has nothing to do with u?how come we have to suffer for what someone else did?like jeus dying on the cross for our sins? isnt that god that did that an unjust god?
a word they say is enough for the wise.
hey go on ignore me, i ll stil be on ur neck till u stop ur lies against islam.

and see the fool didnt atack another's faith.
bikini totting "burn again" , get a life,


finishingggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg,lol,lol,lol,lol,lol.

shahan, thanks, i made a mistake fool, it was noah and not abraham, when he got down from the ark,see the american version of the film, the bible, and also the bible itself. or u doubt that of david too? and the false accusation against him that he sent his general to war so he could marry the wife?
now backslider,
true to his name,
u shot urself in the foot, u ve expalained the issue of mary urself, he couldnt have known, unless Allaah told him, and that is it.
u know why the quraan will not come as usaid, cos muslims wontalter it like u people altered the book of stories, bible. and u have to understnd the arabic language before u cansay anything on this.
the eloquence of the quraan attested to even by oreintalists is preserved by not bringing in that phrase the peson u copied that from introduced.

and the verses u quoted, , dont u think at all?
are those not against u again? and many thanks to my sister muske for exposing this guy's folly.
backslider, u dont have to keep back sliding with christianity, u need to move forward.

baby-0 -silly,
the curses over and over again. my God stop the liarfrom posting here again, may God detroy him like he did pharaoh.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
if u think the jujus in the churches r ur strength, u don lose.

i m confused,
i dont know who is the ultimate fool, trini girl or shahan? but some girls in here are intelligent, abi?!!!please can u help me to ask shahan, what sense she made with that comment?
she couldnt put up anything positive and she rambled off, and she will be the first person to say she didnt, o ga o.

alexmakay.

is a son made or born?
when tupac said he is a made nigga, people raised eyebrows, buthe was a rapper so it was understandable.but we r now talkin on what the salvation of about 2billion people in the world and the hereafter depend, so we shouldnt take chances. i think u have to really think about it. falsehood has no two names, it is always falsehood.
thanks.

plus u need to go down some history lane to really understand what the divinity of jesus means.it wasnt something that came when he was alive or some few yrs after him,but many years after. we know how many meetings were held, how many protests wee held, how many people were burnt just to establsih the deity of a noble and pious man.

so let me leave it like this, i hope shahan learns somethings about herfaith here. wowwwww.

@ baby -o -silly,

[/quote]Jesus is Lord,this Islam pride is still going around cursing himself and his household
A word is enough for the wise[quote]

i still invoke that curse,even reloaded over and over again, and the favour i want from everyone is that they say amen to it if they are sincere.

@ shahan,
what else will show ur ignorance if not ur last post here?
u know what? u will never know islam, if those that teach u r christians,(G.j.o Moshay and other fanatics). i learnt christianity from christians.
now to the concept we!
i dont know if u r a yoruba. if u are, when the oba seizes the property of a subject, he ays ' a gbe ese le', meaning we have confiscated it.
when the queen of england addresses the populace, she says 'we have decided to,' 'we shall' etc.
so dumb ass, shahan, WE as found in the Quran is nothig other than the royal WE. UHMN.
And this is even seen in the english language now(y.k.yussuf prof, OAU inaugural lecture,2006)
So u need to grow up.See another lie from u so another heap of curses on u,lol ,lol,lol.
and this ur ishaq reference, what does it mean? i cant understand, nothing like that exists in islam.

haha, shahan, do u go to church at all?
firstly, nothing of ur lying ishaq reference exists in islam.
2. we know that the person that encouraged lying is none other than ur god,paul who said u why wont he lie to propagate the work of the lord.

and after bringing all ur arguments to dust, when will u learn simple arithmetic?

1+1+1=3,dummie.
another curse on ur wretched soul. lol,lol,lol

"O worshippers of the Messiah, we have a question, to which we want an answer 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."

wa alaykum salam ikhwaan wa akhawatt,
ibraaheem from nigeria, 20, salafee.+2348051043712,heblazing213@yahoo.com.
wa salam alaykum wa rahmatullaah.

shahan,
facts pls and not fallacies plsssssssss.
he said he was a sinner, ehn ehn? like every other prophet and messenger was.
dummie doesnt ur bible book of stories claim that david did adultery,what about abraham's drunkeness and other casesof incest by pious people?muhammad (peace be upon him) didnt do all these when he said he sins, he said it out o humility to his Lord.
So u got a lot to learn. owwwwwwww

i ll teach the pope christianity.God, destroy the liar.

HOPIN THIS DOESNT TURN INTO SHAHAN vs ME BEEF.
I PRAY IT DOESNT CUZ U ONLY HAVE BEEF WIT UR CONTEMPORARIES AND NOT LOWER ANIMALS.

TO LIE IS NOT WHAT WE WANT, WHAT WE NEED ARE THE PROOFS.WHERE IN THE QUR'AN OR HADITH IS THE JINN STORY U MUMBLING?WHERE?
MAY GOD DESTROY THE LIAR BETWEEN ME AND U.MAY THE LIAR NEVER BE SUCCESSFUL , AND MAY HE LIVE A LIFE OF MISERY.amen.
So now,1+1+1=1, a little 3 yr old even know its a ll lies.
u claim that a religion that worships three god heads is monotheistic and the one that articulates the unique unity of God as poytheistic?

sorry, have u ever been to school?
what is polytheism, what is monotheism?

like i always say: u need to grow.


i say again: Oh All Mighty God, destroy the liar between me and shahan.dont let him live long to enjoy th egoodnessof this world and in the hereafter , make hima loser.

ALEXMAKAY,
SOMEONE HAS A DAD. DOESNT IT BEHOVE THE INTELLECT THAT THERE IS A TIME THAT THE SON WOULD NOT EXIST?
REASON WITH ME!SEEMS U R SOME HOW COOL UNLIKE THE OTHER FANATICS IN HERE.PLS THINK ABOUT THAT. THE FATHERT PRECEDES THE SON, OBVIOUSLY. SO IT SHOWS HE HAS A BEGINNING THAT IS DETERMINED BY WHEN HE WAS CONCEIVED.


ESCAPIST SHAHAN.
U DONT HAVE TO RUN AWAY. ANSWER HERE. ANYWAY I VE SEEN UR ANSWERS BUT THEY R NOT PLAUSIBLE.I VE REPLIED TO THE BABBLES ANY WAY.SO U CAN ALWAYS REPLY AGAIN OR ESCAPE.

DOES REVELATIUON HAVE TO TELL U THAT BEFORE U KNOW?(THAT HE HAS A BEGINNING) AND FORUR INFO IN MANY PLACES IN THE QURAN, THERE IS PROOF THAT HE HAS A BEGINNING.
SEE THE STORY OF HIS CREATION.
I WONT TALK ABOUT THE BIBLE, A BOOK THATS AS CORRUPT AS KURRUPT. OOUCH

trini. i can now understand why ur life is taking such a dangerous dimension

BACKSLIDER.
PITY . THERE R MORE FANATICAL CHRISTIANS IN NIGERIA IF U KNOW, THEY PEDDLE THIS CRAZY BOOK AROUND, AL I TELL THEM IS OPEN IT, READ OUT A QURAANIC VERSE FROM IT. NOW OPEN THE TRANSLATION OF THE QURAAN READ IT OUT. ARE THEY THE SAME?
OR WHEN THEY READ IT, OK READ, HEY DONT STP THERE , THE NEXT VERSE , AND WHAT HAPPENS?
HEN ,HEN, BUTLETS GO TO SOMETHING ELSE,

SO NOW. ITS TIME FOR SERIOUS BUSINESS, IT IS NOT ABOUT INSULTING, I WOULD HAVE LOVED THAT U NSULT ME RATHER THAN INSULT MY FAITH WITH LIES.

SO NOW, WE WILL INVOKE A CURSE ON THE LIAR, ANYONE WHO IS A LIAR ON THIS ISSUE, THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TOP THIS THREAD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,MAY THE GOD WHO CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH NEVER LET HIM SUCCEED IN THIS LIFE AND THE HEREAFTER,MAY HE WATCH AS HIS VALUABLES PERISH AND MAY GOD GIVE HIM A LONG LIFE, FULL OF MISERY AND TRIBULATIONS AND IN THE LONG RUN ,DIE A VIOLENT DEATH AND FIND HIMSELF IN THE ABYSS OF THE HELL FIRE.

AMEN.

SO NOW TO PROVE U WRONG,
QUOTE THE QURANIC VERSES SUPPORTING UR CLAIMS,THEN TELL US THE TRANSLATION YOU ARE USING. IF IT IS AN INTERNET LINK, PASTE IT AND LET EVERYBODY SEE IT.
I CAN HELP U OUT WITH LINKS IF U WISH, BUT SINCE U THINK U KNOW, GO BRING UR CLAIMS. I M WAITINMG WHILE HAVING THE CURSES AT THE BACK OF UR MIND.

I AM WAITING FOR UR RESPONSES, AND MY QUESTIONS ARE STILL HANGING, BUNCH OF ESCAPISTS. WAOOOOOOOOOO

,
ITS REAL FUN IN HERE.SHAHAN,HAHAHA, IS THAT ALL U HAVE FOR ANSWERS?
HOW MANY QUESTIONS DID I ASK?AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE, HOW DID HE DIE IN FLESH AND NOT IN SPIRIT DUMMIE?IF HE KNEW HE WAS DYING??!! IN FLESH AND NOT N SPIRIT, WHY DID HE CRY OUT ON THE CROSS? WHY DID HE FOUND IT AGONISING TO DIE,SUCH THAT HE CRIED OUT TO THE SOLE CRAETOR OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH,THE MASTER OF THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT, THE ONE WHO WILL JUDGE ADAM,MOSES,ABRAHAM,JESUS, MUHAMMAD(MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON THEM ALL)
OUT U PEOPLES FOLLY, U ABUSE MUHAMMAD,WHILE I WILL NEVER ABUSE JESUS.ISLAM IS THE BALNCED STATE AS REGARDS JESUS, WE DONT ELEVATE HIM INTO GOD,AS THE CHRISTIANS DO, AND DO NOT CALL HIMA BASTARD AND HIS NUM A PROSTITUTE AS THE JEWS DO.BUT WE CALL HIMA NOBLE MESSENGER AND SLAVE OF THE ALL MIGHTY GOD WHO CREATED HIM IN A MIRACULOUS WAY, OR WHO CREATED JESUS?JESUS? .\
SO JESUS IS THE "MIGHTY GOD?" OH MY!! HOW THE HELL? DONT U THINK?SO WHO IS GOD HIMSELF?THAT MAKES 2 GODS?UHN. THAT MEANS CHRISTIANITY IS NOT MONOTHEISTIC BUT CLEARLY PLYTHEISTIC. 1+1=1 ABI ODE.(FOOL)
FOR U TO THINK THAT JESUS WHO WALKED THIS EARTH LIKE ME, WHO TALKED LIKE U , SMILED ,CRIED AND EVEN SLEPT LIKE US IS GOD SHOWS THAT U PEOPLE FOLLOW NOTHING BUT BLIND DOGMAS.SPARE A THOUGHT, THINK ABOUT WHAT U BELIEVE IN, ITS NEVER TOO LATE TO LEAVE THIS PATH OF DESTRUCTION.

AND DADID DIE NOW. I SAY AGAIN, DIE NOW. I AM NOT AFRAID OF UR CURSE COS I KNOW THE DEVIL IS WEAK. OH U WANNA RUN TO THE MAGICIAN ,T.B JOSHUA FOR SOME JUJU? OR GO TO ADEBOYE FOR SOME HOLY??!! WATER? OR REV. KING ? OR MATTHEW AJIMOLOWO(thief)?.OH SORRY. ASHIMOLOWO. OR THE BIGGEST FRAUDSTER IN GERMANY, REINHARRD BONNKE?
HEY , BABY, DIE -NOW. DIE- SLOW. LOL

BABY-OSI(WASTED BABY), AN AREA BIY AS I SAID IS STILL BETTER THAN U, DONT U THINK?U SAID U I N USA RIGHT?IS THAT ANYTHING?U LL BE DOING URSELF A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THINK U LIVE A BETTER LIFE, I CAN ALWAYS INVTE U TO COME SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE TO LIVE A GOOD LIFE, BUT OBVIOUSLY U WONT COME, U R TOO DEPRIVED TO SHOW UR UGLY FACE!WHO KNOW WAT U R UP TO THERE?
PROBABLY U NEED A REHABILITATION BY TITI ABUBAKAR.
AND THAT WE GON ENJOY VIRGINS IN PARADISE, YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. WE GON WHILE U BURN IN HELL. LOL. EVERYTHING OF PLEASURE IS IN PARADISE. EVEN MORE THAN BEAUTIFUL WOMEN. AND THAT IS NOT THE CASTRATED PRIES FAGGIN LIL INNOCENT BOYS AND GIRLS. IT IS LEGITIMATE HUSBAND -WIFE RELATIONSHIP. WHILE CHRISTIANITY PRETENDS TO BE INNOCENT ABOUT SEX, WE ALL KNOW THE SCANDALS THAT COME OUT EVERYDAY FROM THE CHURCHES AND THE WOMEN GOING TO BEACHES.OUCH SORRY CHURCHES IN BIKINI AN DTHE PASTOR LOVES IT THAT WAY TOO. NO WONDER YUSSUF OBAJE, THE FORMER ASO ROCK CHAPLAIN WAS STAMMERING IN FRONT OF CONTESTANTS FOR THE MISS WORLD PAEGENT IN ABUJA.DID U SEE ANY IMAM CONDUCT A MOSQUE SERVICE? EVEN GURU MARHAJI DIDNT, BUT IT WAS THE CHRISTIANS, UMMMMMMMMMMMM. SHAME ON U
DUMMIES,
CAN U EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE CHRISTIAN PARADISE?
HEAVEN ON EARTH, LIL KIDS PLAYING WITH LIONS?
LOL.BUNCH OF SAMBOS.

STAY TUNED. I M RIGHT HERE 4 Y'ALL AND I AINT GOIN ANYWHERE.

A CLUE: END THESE QUESTIONS TO UR POPE, LETS SEE WHAT HE SAYS.MAYBE HE WIL USE THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THEBIBLE OR THE RSV,OR THE ASV,OR JJK,LLM,BSC OR ANY OF THE MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK ON EARTH THAT SHOULD BE LOCKED UP ACCORDING TO MARK TWAIN.
HOW U GON QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE? A BOOK THAT ITS EDITORS,THE RSV ATTEST TO ITS CORRUPTION? A BOOK THAT THERE IS NO ORIGINAL SCRIPT AVAILABLE EXCEPT THE TINY DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS?

IF U THINK U CAN BASH, THE AREA BOY CAN DO IT BETTER.

TO ME , ITS



I S L A M P R I D E.

trini girl is the silliest dumb ass in here, leave religion out of this cos obviously those that massacred muslims and jews in jerusalem during the crusades were not muslims, those that burnt down the civilisations of spain and kiled its inhabitants were not muslims, thise that did and supported the jenin massacre were not muslims either.they are the people u took ur religion from./ those that made u today a "slave to the game" by being in trinidad are not muslims but bloody religious christians, the slave master wasnt muslim, the slave breaker wasnt. the hiroshima bombers werent and we know how Bush blowed down the towers, thanks to KRS one, Paris and the rest. also farheneiitt 9-11.
now lwts face it dummie, why would i have to come to trini when i m kool in nigeria? what wil i come for? stare at the naked women on the beaches, ok, just like the priests do to their wards in the confines of their rooms.lol or come drink some liquor just as the anglican bishop of cardiff. .
if all u know about life is wear some bikini and look like a bitch even while going to church so the pastor too like sto get down, try and look for something else, like i ll alwayssay:GET A LIFE.

mr backslider, u r the bibbest liar of all times, ur lies r now exposed.
where r ur proofs, if u r truthful?

again this is what i said:

moshay's book?God, Ithought as much. lol. the greatest lies and fraud of all times. more than anything, it tells me how foolish u are. u don't have a mind of your on, i ve spoken to many christians, still christians o, they havent become muslims o, and they confirm to me that that book is full of lies about islam. there is this beautiful rejoinder from a nigerian brother hassan mabera. "Allaah is the creator". For objectivity sake, go get that book.
moshay was challenged to an open debate on the book, he never showed up, if he was sure of his anonymous lying self , he would have come out.
all the quraanic quotes were distorted,and at times he leaves out entire passages.
i tell u , i know your antics, u all. and i say again, i ll teach the pope christianity.



crop of gays, gay bishops, gay priests, gay this , gay that, how the hell is the religion not going to be gay too?

shahan,
come here and learn some sense. is it that u have to just ramble anytime i post things here? why is it that u never respond to questions but just play around till its all over?
the reality of christianityis that it is nothing other thna misguidance,full of lies and contaraadictions, the only place in the world where 1+1+1=1. .
wanting to deceive people with islam doesntnecessarily mean on this site or thread, i mean universally. think, dummie, think, if at all u can. nation of islam,5 %ers, the moorish temple etc. those r what i mean. since they know islam is the real inclination of man, and the black man was muslim before ur christian european slave masters came to africa, and the black man always wants to get back to his roots. cuz, deeper roots, stronger branches.

shahhan or whateva,
u the dumbest clown i ever seen, how would the son of god create man, where was God?
was He on vac?
face facts , thats a reasonable question for u again, stop running away. answer how will he be God when he has a dad, tha preceded him, and how will he be eterenal when there was a time that he was not alive?
he has a beginnign so definitely he will have an end, so how would that be God?

stop running answer, call the pope, text ur bishop, i need answers pls. stop insulting , no side talking, straight forward answers pls.

moshay's book?God, Ithought as much. lol. the greatest lies and fraud of all times. more than anything, it tells me how foolish u are. u dont have a mind of ur on, i ve spoken to many christians, still christians o, they havent become muslims o, and they confirm to me that that book is full of lies about islam. there is this beautiful rejoinder from a nigerian brother hassan mabera. "Allaah is the creator". For objectivity sake, go get that book.
moshay was challenged to an open debate on the book, he never showed up, if he was sure of his anonymous lying self , he would have come out.
all the quraanic quotes were distorted,and at times he leaves out entire passages.
i tell u , i know ur antics, u all. and i say again, i ll teach the pope christianity.



crop of gays, gay bishops, gay priests, gay this , gay that, how the hell is the religion not gonna be gay too?

can anyone be as foolish as babyosi?from the way u write it doesnt take time to know u r nothing but a crap of unintelligent shit.i mean how do u run away from my answering my questions and start a barrage of abuse? u need to grow up, u seem cracked up, smoked up.To me, i think an ibadan area boy wit a lil sense is better that u an american.lol!!! gurl wit nothing up there.CANT U JUST SPARE A MINUTE AND LEARN A LIL SENSE FROM UR ELDERS?U seem uncultured.But anyway,just wat i expected when i said all i have for u on this thread no is answer my quests, if u can't, then u should stop being christian.simple questions. hey dummie!can u get the quests to ur gay priest and bishops, maybe after they see it they will be able to answer?i say again, i ll teach ur pope christianity. U need to learn.
and u call a muslim an idol worshipper. lol. u the greatest dumb ass of all times.
i woship the creator of jesus , u worship jesus. tell me the difference between u and the ogun worshipper or the osun worshipper?
u worship a created being just a s they do, and u claim those that worship the creator r  idol worshippers.
u need to grow up, take ur bible , read it objectively and see the folly of all u been doing.

davidylan,

uhm, david -die -now, lol, the my biggest fool of the year, all u have to offer is "escapist strategy". if u r sincere , u have to answer my questions and not run away from the truth.even if i give u long posts so that u r saved from ur abject darkness and ignorance, shouldnt u spare some time and read it just as i read ur own crappy stuffs?

backslider,
can u spare me the agony of referring to me as ur brother?
all i have to say to u is answer my questions, anyone who cant answer those questions, is not worth living a  christian life, GET A LIFE.
u went to an arabic school, so wat?
what were u thought there?
the orientalists did more than this, stilll, they know islam is the real thing.
David Comwan, author of one of the best arabic books in english , knew and confirmed the superiroity of islam.Lets leave all these sidetalks, lets face issues.Obviously u are now sure that your plagiarised item on the Qur'aan has been defeated, now answer my questions.


"O worshippers of the Messiah, we have a question, to which we want an answer 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."

I WILL NOT LIKE TO RESPOND TO CRAPS LIKE U PEOPLE IF U DO NOT RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS, SORRY, I CAN'T BE WASTING MY TIME IN HERE.

"OH ALLAAH, THE SAVIOUR OF JESUS,SAVE ME"

if he was a boy before he was man, or was a word before he was man,all the same it means there was a time he didnt exist, so how the hell is he gon be God?
if indeed he is a son of God, there should have been a time that he was not alive, cos the dad precedes the son,  showing that he is not eternal, so how the hell is he gon be God?
THINK, REFLECT O CHRISTIANS.

like minds they say think alike, who in this damned world doesnt know the reality of christianity? but who again doesnt know the falsehood of these cult like groups tryna claim islam to deceive black people ?
u r all the same, the questioner and the questioned.

TRINI, U SO LILY LIVERED THAT U CONSIDER HIS NON SUBMISSION TO THE INVADING CRUSADERS THAT NURTURE U ALL AS NOT BEING REPENTANT.and for God sake what did he do that ur born again methodist peace man, Bush hasnt done worse?
he crushed a rebellion, what any real leader that s worth his stuff will do.
u wait and see. the worst believers r always better than the best disbelievers

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."