Hamzi423:


He's not bringing any new message... I dunno what's difficult to understand.... He has already fulfilled his prophethood.

I think you are contradicting urself. Read your posts on this logically.

Hamzi423:

Answer...
It is u Christians that are comparing the 2 mighty men of GOD. Muslims will never.
I've said this a million times here.. Jesus Christ pbuh was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel as he clearly said... We Muslims respect & revere him because we acknowledge the fact & adore him as a messenger of GOD.
But Muhammad pbuh was sent to the whole world & he is the last & final messenger, that's the reason why we honor him & send peace, blessings & salutations upon him... Plus we also honour other messengers of GOD by sending peace, blessings and salutations upon mentioning their names.. So i don't see anything wrong there.

You want to “explain” the quran and refer to “historical context”. When I do the same for the Bible you query it: What do you call that?
Picking one single verse without reference to others in the SAME gospel is not just a show of lack of scholarship but deceit when taken in disregard of all other portions of the same text.

At his dedication as a baby this was said of Jesus: “… a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel” Luke 2:32
John 1: 4 states – “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind”
John 1:9 – “The true light that gives light to EVERYONE was coming into the world”
John 1:29 – “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
John3:16 – “For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his uniquely born Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”
In John 8:12 Jesus said – “I am the light of the WORLD … …”

I have shown you:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.
Why are you ignoring all these?

I can go on and on but the issue is simply this: If you insist on using a verse you’ve not properly understood in the context of all these other portions and equally ignore historical setting and antecedents, the only conclusion we can come to is that you just want to FIT that verse into your Islamic worldview no matter what it takes.

Jesus, during his first coming, ministered in Israel. When he finished his work he commissioned those he had trained to “Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, ……….” Matthew 28:19. He also said: “and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached IN HIS NAME TO ALL NATIONS, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM. Luke 24:47.

So, to what conclusion can anybody come in the light of all these? Just one: that Jesus’ ministry and message started in Israel but was meant for the entire world.

Hamzi423:


I dunno what's difficult to understand here.... Languages grow, they evolve... The only thing the writers did was make it easier for the modern day readers...
The diacritical marks & vowel marks didn't change the meanings.... They only make it easier for the modern day readers... And if u believe otherwise, then bring fort the two & let's differentiate...

...

There's no single way that out 33,000 people would agree on a single book if they all have different views in it... This undoubtedly proves that for 33,000 people to unanimously agree with every chapter recorded, it proves that it's not their words at all...... It proves that it was accurate.

Not some portions of the Quran sir... The whole Quran in its entirety was memorized by sahabas...... It was when they agreed on compiling it to a book they referred to the written verses on animal skins & bones etc for confirmation...

Yes all of them were involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation & compilation of the book we now use today..

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" – Walter Scott

Does the quran that claim to be CLEAR now need so much reinterpreting and explanations? That should be left to you Moslems to chew on.
Are the hadiths wrong in what they have given about the life of Mohamed? Again, you may wish to ponder on this.
Were the early Islamic historians like Ibn Hisham that I quoted mistaken in what they put down about Mohamed and Islam’s earliest years? You may wish to tell us your clear response to this.

The truth of the matter is as follows:
1. The quran was not written as a bound book during Mohamed’s lifetime. If it were so it would not take 33,000 “companions [to agree] that every letter of the Quran was in the right place” years later, like you claim. If others after Mohamed were the ones who collated the quran into one bound volume, can we not say then that they were EQUALLY messengers of Allah as much as Mohamed was? Otherwise if Allah did not commission them to do what they did can we trust the quran they came up with?

2. On the setting of the sun: The quran and the hadith are clear on what they mean yet you 21st century Moslems think you can better explain things. If the hadiths are to make things clearer in a book – the quran – that claims to be CLEAR then when a further clarification becomes necessary don’t you think something is wrong somewhere?

Your claim:

“If a person among ourselves stands at the shore (sea-side) at sun set, he will see the sun as if it is falling into the sea, or setting into the sea.
But the reality is otherwise, when the sun sets in one place, it is still rising on another place
Therefore, what is meant by the verse “he found the sun setting in a muddy water” means when someone looks at it, that is what he/she would think and see.
Perhaps, Dhul-Qarnain arrived to a place where a river in deluge meets with the sea. The water of the river may contain mud, and when the sun sets, it would appear to a person looking at it as if it sets in a muddy water.”

These are the two sources we’re looking at:
Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Is there anything in these two places that gives room for your “If”, “It is as if”, “he/she would think and see”, “Perhaps”? Absolutely none!
In the hadith who asked a question and later answered it?
Is there ANY mention of sea or river meeting the sea in those narratives? None!
So, where are your interpretations coming from?
Tell us; did the quran say it was meant to be a difficult book to be understood by you guys or a was it meant to be a clear book?

3. There are different variants of the quran. You mentioned somewhere in your posts the Topkapi version. An Islamic scholar, Dr. Tayyar Altikulac, noted that there are “2,270 instances where there is a difference between this version of the quran and the popular 1924 Cairo quran (Fahd Mushaf). Here are some differences:
Sura 14:38
Topkapi: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what he revealed”
Cairene Text: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what we reveal”
Sura 3:158
Topkapi: Sura 3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, you shall not be gathered”
Cairene Text: Sura3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, before Him you shall undoubtedly be gathered”

These are major contradiction! So, which is which.

4. You said:

“ No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself... And Muhammad further affirms that in how he handles all his affairs during his lifetime... Muhammad never took anybody's wife.... All these fabrications from story tellers are lies........”

but you are shifting your position to

“Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others.”

How on earth can you reconcile these two positions. How do you people live with all these contradictory reasoning and logic? “No verse infers violence” then “Islam has designated war as …….” Come on!
Do I show you where Mohamed even FOUGHT during the ‘Holy Month’?
The Quran (2:216) says - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
But you (Hamzi) are now telling us that it should read “Self-defence is good for you … …” Please, how come the book that is supposed to be CLEAR now requires all these reinterpretations? Why didn’t it simply say “Fighting in self-defence ONLY is good for you” or similar wordings?

5. I gave you one very clear instance of UNPROVOKED ATTACK on a community by none other than Mohamed himself – Khaybar. Please show us how this was in self-defence. I do hope you know what ‘self-defence’ means unless Islam has its own definition of that word. I am eager to see you prove me wrong on this! Please provide your answer.

plainbibletruth:


“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" – Walter Scott

Does the quran that claim to be CLEAR now need so much reinterpreting and explanations? That should be left to you Moslems to chew on.
Are the hadiths wrong in what they have given about the life of Mohamed? Again, you may wish to ponder on this.
Were the early Islamic historians like Ibn Hisham that I quoted mistaken in what they put down about Mohamed and Islam’s earliest years? You may wish to tell us your clear response to this.

The truth of the matter is as follows:
1. The quran was not written as a bound book during Mohamed’s lifetime. If it were so it would not take 33,000 “companions [to agree] that every letter of the Quran was in the right place” years later, like you claim. If others after Mohamed were the ones who collated the quran into one bound volume, can we not say then that they were EQUALLY messengers of Allah as much as Mohamed was? Otherwise if Allah did not commission them to do what they did can we trust the quran they came up with?

2. On the setting of the sun: The quran and the hadith are clear on what they mean yet you 21st century Moslems think you can better explain things. If the hadiths are to make things clearer in a book – the quran – that claims to be CLEAR then when a further clarification becomes necessary don’t you think something is wrong somewhere?

Your claim:

These are the two sources we’re looking at:
Qur’an 18:83-86—And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Is there anything in these two places that gives room for your “If”, “It is as if”, “he/she would think and see”, “Perhaps”? Absolutely none!
In the hadith who asked a question and later answered it?
Is there ANY mention of sea or river meeting the sea in those narratives? None!
So, where are your interpretations coming from?
Tell us; did the quran say it was meant to be a difficult book to be understood by you guys or a was it meant to be a clear book?

3. There are different variants of the quran. You mentioned somewhere in your posts the Topkapi version. An Islamic scholar, Dr. Tayyar Altikulac, noted that there are “2,270 instances where there is a difference between this version of the quran and the popular 1924 Cairo quran (Fahd Mushaf). Here are some differences:
Sura 14:38
Topkapi: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what he revealed”
Cairene Text: Sura 14:38 – “You know what we conceal and what we reveal”
Sura 3:158
Topkapi: Sura 3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, you shall not be gathered”
Cairene Text: Sura3:158 – “If you should die or be slain, before Him you shall undoubtedly be gathered”

These are major contradiction! So, which is which.

4. You said:

but you are shifting your position to

How on earth can you reconcile these two positions. How do you people live with all these contradictory reasoning and logic? “No verse infers violence” then “Islam has designated war as …….” Come on!
Do I show you where Mohamed even FOUGHT during the ‘Holy Month’?
The Quran (2:216) says - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
But you (Hamzi) are now telling us that it should read “Self-defence is good for you … …” Please, how come the book that is supposed to be CLEAR now requires all these reinterpretations? Why didn’t it simply say “Fighting in self-defence ONLY is good for you” or similar wordings?

5. I gave you one very clear instance of UNPROVOKED ATTACK on a community by none other than Mohamed himself – Khaybar. Please show us how this was in self-defence. I do hope you know what ‘self-defence’ means unless Islam has its own definition of that word. I am eager to see you prove me wrong on this! Please provide your answer.

Does the quran that claim to be CLEAR now need so much reinterpreting and explanations? That should be left to you Moslems to chew on...

Answer.
The Quran is clear yes.... But as every other book, it is open to different interpretations from different people.. Just like if u give a book to 2 people to read & report what they have learned from it, they'll both come with different ways of explaining that same book.. Because we humans are different we have different ways of understanding things.... That's why even Christians will tell you before they read the Bible, they kneel down & pray to beg GOD for understanding... It is that simple.

Are the hadiths wrong in what they have given about the life of Mohamed? Again, you may wish to ponder on this.
Were the early Islamic historians like Ibn Hisham that I quoted mistaken in what they put down about Mohamed and Islam’s earliest years? You may wish to tell us your clear response to this.

Response..

First of all.. The Quran is the ultimate book of authority for the Muslims & the authentic hadiths are their to further help explain the Quran through the actions of Muhammad i.e how he lived his life, the things he did, how he reacted to situations & so only all these attributes as recorded in any hadiths must go in line with what the Quran preaches... If any hadiths contradicts the Quran even by the smallest of margin then that hadiths is not authentic & therefore it is false... If u study Islam as u claim u would have known that....
Muhammad is Saadiqul waad Al'amin.. He's the most trustworthy man in Mecca even the pagan Arabs couldn't dispute that fact... There's absolutely no way Muhammad will preach something & do the opposite because He said that not even him is allowed to create or invent anything in this religion except what GOD has asked of him... So there's absolutely no way Muhammad will go against the words of GOD..
Concerning ibn hisham... He is Egyptian & he didn't live with the prophet, am not disregarding his works but a man that never lived with the prophet can never actually give an accurate account of how the prophet lived his life... So he's entitled to his words...

Hamzi423:


Answer.
The Quran is clear yes.... But as every other book, it is open to different interpretations from different people.. Just like if u give a book to 2 people to read & report what they have learned from it, they'll both come with different ways of explaining that same book.. Because we humans are different we have different ways of understanding things....


Response..

First of all.. The Quran is the ultimate book of authority for the Muslims & the authentic hadiths are their to further help explain the Quran
....
Muhammad is Saadiqul waad Al'amin.. He's the most trustworthy man in Mecca even the pagan Arabs couldn't dispute that fact...
There's absolutely no way Muhammad will preach something & do the opposite because He said that not even him is allowed to create or invent anything in this religion except what GOD has asked of him... So there's absolutely no way Muhammad will go against the words of GOD..
Concerning ibn hisham... He is Egyptian & he didn't live with the prophet, am not disregarding his works but a man that never lived with the prophet can never actually give an accurate account of how the prophet lived his life... So he's entitled to his words...

When you say: " The Quran is clear yes.... But as every other book, it is open to different interpretations" the use of the word "BUT" alters everything the first part of your sentence stood for.
So, clear to who? Clear how? Why the "but"?
With your "but" you're actually admitting that the quran is NOT as clear as it claims to be. If a book from Allah CLAIMS TO BE CLEAR but we see that the book is NOT CLEAR, to what conclusion can we come?

Unlike what you claimed, the quran IS NOT the ultimate book of authority for the Moslems. IN PRACTISE, the truth be told, Islam relies more on the hadiths than the quran. For example, how many times is daily prayer recommended in the quran? And how many times do majority of Moslems pray daily: And based on what?
Where in the quran is all the covering up Islam force women to do?
You need to just look at your practices and try and match them with the quran and only then come up with your answers.

Again, your claim that " There's absolutely no way Muhammad will preach something & do the opposite" is also NOT CORRECT. For example, what is the maximum number of wives a Moslem can have? What was the number of wives Mohamed had at one point in time?

How the quran was compiled ought to be of grave concern to the Moslem.
Why?
Because since Mohamed NEITHER compiled it nor supervised the compilation the accuracy of the final material is questionable.
Human memory fail. The early followers of Islam understood and admitted this. No matter how subtle it may be, even language change, unless a standardized system was in place right from start. And so the additions of markings, for example, even when initially made to aid pronunciation can end up changing the meaning of words.

A critical question is: How did Allah want the quran to be? Was it for it to remain as RECITATIONS or was it to be written down in book form. If recitations why did the followers of Mohamed change it into a book? If it was to be in book form why didn't Allah enable Mohamed the ability to miraculously write the book himself?

So, again who was INSPIRED? Was it the person who gave the message or those who DECIDED on their own to write it down and eventually collate the writings into a book?

***********
I have shown you that:
We can't be sure that those who compiled the quran, unless they were INSPIRED by Allah, accurately recorded what Mohamed recited.

I have shown you that:
The quran has many factual ERRORS such as that of the setting of the sun.

I've shown you that:
There are different variants of the quran with MAJOR differences.

I've shown you that:
The quran prescribed fighting others as a legitimate thing for Moslems.

I've shown you that:
Mohamed himself led an UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Khaybar to prove to you that Islam's war were hardly in self-defence.

If you've been fed with something different then you've been fed with a lie.

“Those who can make you believe
absurdities can make you commit atrocities”. - Voltaire