Bible or Quran - which is true?

This topic came up in another thread , but had little to do with the original topic.

My stance is that the Quran is the more (indeed most) reliable source of information about God (Allah). I came to this conclusion for many reasons, most notably that the Quran does not present information which is clearly in contradiction to the natural world around us, as does the Bible.

Also, the Quran does not contradict itself, as the Bible does.

Finally, the text of the Quran does not show any evidence of having been tampered with, whereas the modern Bible has many verses which do not appear in earlier versions of the text.

As a result, I think the logical conclusion is that the Quran is the more reliable text.

Note, if you want to discuss a religious text other than the Bible or the Quran, please start a new thread, and leave a post here with a link. I would be interested in reading it too.

If you do not believe in God at all, and want to debate that issue, I think there are already plenty of threads about that.

define "true". "less contradictory" does not qualify as "true", in my eyes. and is "truth" covering unspoken (assumed) things as well?

you can debate on the differences between the two books. but not on the "truth", as such thing does not exist in my opinion. there is "logic", "historic fact", "faith", "belief", "wonder", and what not. but the question of what is true and what not leads to nothing. you can debate, for example, on the historic facts of jesus, not on <<"his" "truth">>.

therefor, please define "truth", what it means to you.


PS: you will also have trouble finding people who have read both books completely. i'm still struggeling with the "completion" of the bible..

Neither one of them and the Quran does have contradictions as well actually.

Usually it's a bit more poetic, but that doesn't make it more reliable. Then again, I'm by no means a Quran expert.



Hahaha, yeah, and then there's that and the relevance of the question itself. It's not like people that are convinced of one thing are going to agree with a rival religion because the texts may be more reliable,

Cheers

One of the problems we may get into here is with the actual LANGUAGE of the Qu'ran. Dooley, do you speak/read Arabic? If so, which "flavor" of Arabic? Are you actually able to read the form of Arabic that the Qu'ran is written in? If not, will we then be talking about possible errors/contradictions based on translation into English? If you can read the original Arabic in which the Qu'ran was written, are you able to translate it into English for those of us that cannot?

My understanding is that very few people can actually read, with understanding, the Arabic of the Qu'ran. There is a similar problem with the Old Testament of the Bible. Despite the fact that Hebrew is a spoken language, most people cannot easily understand all that is written therein. The main reason is the language has changed/evolved since the passages were originally penned. My understanding is that this situation is worse with the Qu'ran (understanding the original language) than with the Hebrew of the Old Testament. I might be incorrect about that, but that is what I have been led to understand.

in fact the the Quran has some more signs(like punctation but a bit diffrent) which normal Arabic alphabet doesnt have. The exact meaning of a multi-meaning word can be given with this signs.

And someone who can read Arabic can read/understand Quran. The Quran is one of the most clear texts and the most literary text written in Arabic.
(it's always like that, At the time of Jesus, sorcery was vogue and God gave Him such abilites, At David's time, processing iron was vogue, he could render Iron with bare hands, at Mohammed's time the thing was literature, God send hiö poetic words. )

As for the translation part, it is of course impossible to exactly translate the Quran to English because of the high diffrence between structure of the languages.

The main diffrence between Bible and Quran is the understanding of God and Jesus.
I posted something about that difrences(im no expert though) in "Does bible teaches Jesus is God?" topic.

Thank you for your answer, Quadraxas. I do appreciate it. However, from my understanding (and I have talked to some Arabs in the Middle East about this in the past) the Arabic of the Qur'an is more of a "high" Arabic or a "classical" Arabic which is different from modern Arabic that is commonly spoken and read today. If, for example, I were to find the average Arabic speaker (someone that may not be very religious, for example) I understand that he could most likely read the words (the sounds they make), but not always understand the meaning of all that he reads. I have also heard that because of this, mainly only the priests really have a grasp of the language. If this is the case, then much of what the followers of Qur'an understand from the Qur'an comes from what they are told more so than what they read for themselves.

This is often the case in Christianity as well. The Old Testament was written primarily in two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament, as we have it today, was written in Greek (some believe sections were originally in Hebrew, like the book of Matthew). However, the vast majority of Christians do not read a single bit of any of those languages. As a result, they rely on their pastors and priests to tell them what a passage means (especially if it is confusing). Like the Arabic of the Qur'an, many ancient words have multiple meanings and, as a result, have to be interpreted.

A classic example is the Hebrew word "yom" for "day" (as in the book of Genesis). Like our modern English word "day" it can mean a 24-hour period, the hours of daylight or even an undetermined period of time. I believe the Arabic version in the Qur'an uses a similar word (is it "youm"?) and that this word also has similar meanings. Therefore, the reader of the passage on the creation has to determine which sense fits best. Did god make everything in six 24-hour periods or six "ages" (undetermined periods of time)? Often this puzzle is solved by the context (in the Christian Bible there are quantifiers that led to the 24-hour day conclusion, but not all agree on that). In many cases, the puzzle is solved by what the one reading thinks is best. For example, if someone believes in evolution, then they would see "ages" there for the word "yom" or "youm". If someone believes in a young earth then they would read the word "yom" (Hebrew) or "youm" (Arabic) as being a literal 24-hour period.

By the above example it is easy to see that the understanding of any passage can be interpreted by someone's already preconceived belief. If someone is raised to be a Christian (or trained in that way) or a Muslim, then they will read their holy book with the understanding already given or taught to them.

yeah, it's like, day by day words die. They gets used less then usual,they get forgetten, they get replaced by other words. This happens to all languages.

It's sort of related to this, Quran is more than 1400 years old,it's fortunate that some words would die/lose their meaning.

It's like(but not exactly) there is more than 500k words in English but not every English speaker knows them.

Yes, but that is what I am talking about. I am guessing that there are words and even phrases in the Qur'an that are not easy to understand (perhaps even not known for sure what they mean) because of the change in the language over time. This is true for the Christian Bible as well. And this can present problems, especially in a topic like this when people are discussing "truth".

I have not found any real contradictions in the Quran. Please provide a source for your claim. I have heard this claim before, but I've never seen anything remotely near an actual contradiction. When I say the Bible has contradictions, I'm referring to things which just can't be explained logically.

i.e.
1. 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.(KJV)
2. 2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.(KJV)

This is just one of many. If your interested, I can provide many many more.



But this is a description of me. I used to be Christian, and I became Muslim. I could not believe the Bible was 100% God's word, because God would never make so many mistakes. It was only logicall to assume that the mistakes came through human error, and with so many human errors, the reliability of the text as a whole comes into question.

After many months of research, I discovered the Quran, and found no problems in believing it. That does not mean that I can prove that it is 100% correct, but I'm convinced. Only one's own efforts and personal study and reflection can lead to belief, it can't be taught, or enforced on someone through an argument.

Dooley, I have looked at some of the discrepancies of the Qur'an and the Muslim responses to them. The problem with Muslim apologists is about the same as that of the Christian apologist: their faith blinds their objectivity. In many of the cases, some non-Arabic speaker will point out an error or discrepancy based on an English translation. The Arabic speaking Muslim will point out the error of the English translation and refer back the Arabic, which the English speaker has no way of reading or understanding. Then an Arabic speaker comes along and points out the error or contradiction in the actual Arabic (possibly validating what the English speaker said and the English translation used). The Arabic speaking Muslim will then point to the number of different ways a particular word can be translated and then chose the word that best fits HIS BELIEF and best counters the opposition's argument. In some cases this may be done despite the fact that the word in question was not understood to mean that when the Qur'an was written or despite the fact that the common understanding of the word in question is not typically used that way. This also happens with Bible interpreters that know the Hebrew and the Greek, by the way.

When things are this fluid, it is difficult to pin down anyone on anything. Also, many of the verses in the Qur'an are so vague that they can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Several of the scientific ones that you turned me on to are just like that. I tried to read some of these verses from the Qur'an without knowing the supposed scientific "fact" they pointed to and tried to see if I could even guess what it was supposed to point to. The verses were usually so vague that I had little idea.

Arabic is made up mostly of 3 letter root words (verbs), these are well known and have not changed since the time of the Quran. Arabic as it is spoken has changed and evolved like any language, but the roots of the language as contained in the Quran have been preserved. Anyone who wants to learn the Arabic of the Quran has plenty of resources. I have a dictionary which defines each word of the Quran, and breaks it down by it's 3 letter root.

The word 'Islam' for instance, means 'Surrender'. However, it's 3 letter root is 's l m' which is the same root as the word 'Salam' which means peace. From this we can interprete the word 'Islam' as a peaceful surrender to God, or achieving peace by surrendering to God etc...

That doesn't mean that there's only one interpretation of the Quran. There are plenty of scholars (no priests in Islam) out there with differing positions on various topics. However, the fundamental teachings of Islam are well known and clearly evident in the Quran.

This is exactly the same as Hebrew (and Arabic is related to Hebrew), but this does not change the fact that the ancient languages evolve and diverge from the original. In fact, just because a word has a three letter root (with a root meaning) does not mean that a word derived from it keeps its relation to the root. I can explain this using English (though it is not as clean as using the Hebrew to do it).

Let's look at the word "cool" for a moment. It's original meaning is to be something closes to cold, but not quite cold. It's use would be something like, "This nice breeze feels cool on my face." However, in recent decades, the word took on a new meaning. It can also mean "great" or "awesome". An example would be, "This game is really cool!" In this case, the very same word is used, but its meaning is drastically different. In Arabic the same things have happened, as is the case with any language.

Again, just because we can trace a word to its three letter root does not mean we have found the core of its meaning.

Better look into the history of the Quran a bit more then, because the Islam is largely based on the exact same texts, errors included.

Cheers

The Quran is a completely separate book, written in Arabic. It was revealed to prophet Muhammad in roughly 600 A.D.

The Bible is a collection of 66 - 72 books (depending on your denomination) written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was written and collected over a period of hundreds (if not thousands) of years.

The Quran is not based on the Bible, it asserts that it is a revelation from God (Allah), and that similar revelations have come before.

While the Quran does acknowledge the existence of previously revealed divine books (Torah, Psalms, and Gospels) it also asserts that the Jews and Christians wrote things with their own hands and claimed that they were from God. This accusation is actually written in the Bible too in the Book of Jeremiah

Jeremiah 8:8 “How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

The Law is the 'Torah' in Hebrew, which considered to be the books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The errors and contradictions in the Bible, are therefore likely to be the result of human error and tampering, not inherent in the original revealed text, which is now lost.

The Quran, is free from such accusations, and from statements which clearly contradict reality. Therefore, I maintain that the Quran is the more reliable book.

I can't convince anyone that the Quran is 100% true, although I believe it is. That would require some dedicated self-study on the part of the individual.

Dahâhâ, in Arabic, could mean "egg shaped" (depending on who you talk to). It could also mean to "spread out" (again, depending on who you talk to). Some, who adhere to the "egg shaped" understanding want to associate the word "dahâhâ" with an ostrich egg in particular. So let's look at this a moment.

First, if we examine the shape of the earth, it is not "egg shaped" ... not even ostrich egg shaped. While it is true that the earth is not spherical (it is a bit flatter at the poles than at the equator) it is still not egg shaped. An egg is longer at the poles and narrower at the equator (even an ostrich egg, which may be more spherical than your average egg, but is still not shaped like the earth). Therefore, if the translation of dahâhâ is "egg shaped" then we have a problem between the Qur'an and reality.

However, most scholars of the Qur'an do not seem to agree with the "egg shaped" translation. They contend that the word dahâhâ means "spread out" as in to "flatten". The association with the idea of "egg shaped" (and with an ostrich egg in particular) comes from the idea that an ostrich creates a flattened area in which to place its egg(s). One Islamic web site states it as follows:



If this is the case, then we are left with dahâhâ meaning to "spread out" as in to "flatten". This would agree with other verses from the Qur'an. The result of the understanding of this word is that the earth, according to the Qur'an is flat, having been "spread out" (as in to "flatten") by Allah.

This also does not agree with reality.

But the Quran does not exist in a vacuum. There are mountains of books written about this very thing, and they date back to very early times in Islamic history. These books of commentary on the Quran, known as Tafsir, are about exactly this issue. They are like dictionaries of the Quran, from the time of the Quran's revelation. There are Hadith too, sayings of prophet Muhammad, which have been collected, and which outline in terms of practice, exactly how the Quran is to be interpreted.

Now Hadith and tafsir are not free of errors and contradictions like the Quran is, but they are also a key part of understanding the language, which helps in interpreting the text. The point is that all of this surrounding material has really helped to preserve the Arabic language.

If you read about the development of modern Hebrew, you will see that it was almost completely broken off from it's ancient sources. It is a new language with some passing similarities to ancient Hebrew:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_Hebrew_language

Arabic never underwent such a change. It had never died as a language, so there is a continuous tradition of it's usage dating back to the prophet Muhammad, and even to times before Islam.

Furthermore, the differences of opinion which occur among Muslims ,are not over linguistic issues. They are over interpretation, priorities, and conditions, and are almost entirely rooted in squabbles over hadith literature. The Shi'ah (islam's oldest sect) have the exact same Quran as the Sunni. It is the interpretation of hadith which fuel the differences between the two sects, not linguistic issues with the Quran.

The Hebrew you mention is the modern, spoken Hebrew. However, Hebrew never really stopped being used or spoken. For centuries it was a "religious" language. When Ben Yehuda "revived" the language in the 1800's he was attempting to modernize it.

Like the Qur'an, the Hebrew Bible has many ancient language resources and commentaries. However, like these resources of the Qur'an, they don't always solve problems and, in many cases, introduce problems.

There are disagreements over the understanding of many Arabic words used in the Qur'an. This is evidenced just from reading what is written on Islamic sites and looking at some Islamic resources. I tried very hard not to look at anti-Islamic sites when doing some of this research. What I found was the same thing I saw within Christianity: people would come with an already preconceived belief and then find the interpretations that fit their belief. This included determining which specific word meaning to choose for understanding a verse or passage.

I will agree that people often bring their own pre-concieved ideas to the Quran. No argument there, but that includes the pre-concieved idea that it is a false book, which I believe a lot of non-religious people do. They nit-pick in order to find errors, and as a result, the first thing they find which requires a little reflection, sends them away, assuming that they've disproved the Quran.

My understanding is that Islam is a very simple faith, which people have tried to make very complex. The Quran itself explains how this happens:

"He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations--They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed." (Quran 3:7)

The idea is that some people will try to control others by interpreting the Quran a particular way, and attempting to force that interpretation upon others.
This is obviously against the message of the Quran.

However, your point about the flat earth is one I've never heard before. I will do some research into that.

I did a bit of investigating. Dahaha seems to be a verb, which means 'he spread out'. I'm not sure where the 'egg shaped' thing came from, but you're right, I did find one translation which used the term 'egg shaped'

I also found the following:
"And after that He made the earth shoot out from the Cosmic Nebula and made it spread out egg-shaped." ('Dahaha' entails all the meanings rendered (21:30), (41:11)). Translated by QXP Shabbir Ahemd**

Both translations had the following explanation:
** - Read with caution - These Translations, marked here with **, are considered either incorrect, far-fetched, non-conforming or misleading. Care must be exercised for certain verses or an alternate translation should be considered.

My conclusion, since dahaha is a verb, it probably has nothing to do with eggs, or shapes. The idea that God 'spread out' the earth is not specific enough to conclude that it is defining it as flat (or spherical for that matter).

It's true there are some Muslims who are overly enthusiastic about finding scientific miracles in the Quran, and will 'stretch' or 'spread out' the language in order to do so. To me, I am content with a Quran which does not openly contradict science.

Any language can lend itself to various interpretations. Look at the debates going around the U.S. Constitution.

/sarcasm: Right, that must be why it shares so many stories with the Bible...

Really, it's not a completely separate book. It is however written in a somewhat different manner and sure it's in Arabic, but hey the Bible wasn't originally written in English either.

Cheers

Read my post again, I don't think you payed attention.

I acknowledged that it shared stories, and even many beliefs with the Bible. This does not mean it shares the Bibles inconsistencies.

It also doesn't mean that Muhammad just copied the Bible. That would be like saying Jesus was just copying Moses. The Bible, and the Quran both explain that God sent many messengers with many books to teach us. The fact that they share stories and beliefs is consistent with the whole concept of revelation.

@PHeMoX:
especially since the Quran (from what i've gathered here) teaches that the Bible had been tampered with. as a Bible-believing Christian i don't believe the Quran over the Bible, but i'm just saying that the Quran has reasons for similarity. explicit reasons. describing the similarities as evidence of the Quran being based on the Bible (especially saying "errors included") is a gross generalisation.

julz

It has nothing to do with gross generalizations when stories are this similar. In fact, compared to older religions, there's a lot of similarity in the stories, basically it's possible to track down what story came from which older religion. It really has nothing to do with tampering, it was just copied.

Popular, hence interesting enough to be included.

ok I'm Arabic and Muslim so i know everything (i hope) about Quran.

Christians says that the Bible is true, and Muslims says that the Quran is true .

It's certainly a valid point to bring up, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything. I could argue that because the Quran tells some of the same stories as the Bible - it therefore must be revealed by the same God.

This would be an equally invalid argument, even if the conclusion is true.

Actually, the Muhammad and the Quran are mentioned in the Bible, as a new 'song' which will be sent to the Arabs. Why would the Old Testament mention a revelation being sent to the Arabs? It is a Jewish book, they were not on good terms with Arabs.

This is a long one, so use the bathroom, get some coffee, and have a seat...

The coming of the Prophet Muhammad is foretold in the Bible. This can be demonstrated by going through verses of the Old Testament, that part of the Bible, which the Jewish Religion holds sacred, as well as the New Testament, which along with the Old Testament is held sacred by Christians. Though it may seem petty or unfair to seek to support one’s own religion through the books of others, this is not the case here. In fact, the Quran itself claims that the Torah and the Injeel, Arabic names for the books of Moses and Jesus respectively, contain mention of the coming of a last prophet, who will be known as 'Ahmed', a form of the name Muhammad.

1. Quran 7:157- “Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel- he commands them for good ; and forbids them from evil..."

2. Quran 61:6- And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the 'Ahmed'. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say, “ This is mere magic. “

Where are they then, the verses of the bible which mention Muhammad? This information, if found, would certainly strengthen the claim of the Quran.

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him."
(Deuteronomy 18:18-22)

These verses claim that a prophet was to come from among the "brothers" of the Israelites. It seems like he couldn't be a Jew, and must be from the line of Ishmael who was the brother of Isaac, the father of the Israelites. To add more evidence to this statement, here's a prophecy of Solomon which may point to this coming prophet…

"As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name- for men will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm-when he comes and prays toward this temple, then hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name. (1 Kings 8:41-42)

A foreigner, ie non-jew, who would pray towards the temple in Jerusalem, this sounds a lot like the Prophet Muhammad. According to the earliest Islamic sources, the prophet Muhammad did, in fact pray towards Jerusalem.

Narrated Al Bara (bin Azib) When the Prophet came to Medina, he stayed first with his grandfathers or maternal uncles from Ansar. He offered his prayers facing Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem) for sixteen or seventeen months… (Sahih al-Bukhari vol.1 #39)

Let's continue to see if there are more references to this individual in the Bible. As you'll see in the following verses from the New Testament, this prophet was a distinct person, separate from Christ, and he was not John the Baptist.

Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ." They asked
him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No." (John 1:19-21)

By the time of John the Baptist, this prophet had not yet arrived. He was a distinct individual, separate from Elijah, who was prophesied to return, separate from Christ, who would be Jesus. Even the Pharisees knew about the coming of this individual.

Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" (John 1:24-25)

Again 'the Prophet' is mentioned separately and distinctly from Elijah and Christ. It seems that Jesus himself may have been speaking about the same individual when he said the following…

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. (John 16:12-14)

Notice that he describes the Spirit of truth in similar terms that God described the prophet like Moses in Deuteronomy as "I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him."

But where would this foreigner be from, if he's not a Jew? Here are a few verses, which may indicate his lineage, and possible place of residence.

"Song of Praise to the Lord Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them. Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice." (Isaiah 42:10-11)

These verses are speaking of something to come. A new song could be many things, but here it is associated with the desert, and more specifically, the settlements where Kedar lives. If we knew what Kedar was, that might allow us to understand these verses more clearly.

Ishmael's Sons
This is the account of Abraham's son Ishmael, whom Sarah's maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham. These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, (Genesis 25:12-13)

Kedar was, in fact the second son of the Prophet Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham. As we know, Abraham left Ishmael and his mother Hagar in the desert, and Ishmael’s descendants became the Arabs of Mecca, and the Arabian Peninsula.

The following excerpt from the Biography of the Prophet
Muhammad, explains the Arabian ties to Abraham.
Muhammad was born in Mecca (Makkah), Arabia, on Monday, 12 Rabi' Al-Awal (2 August A.D. 570). His mother, Aminah, was the daughter of Wahb Ibn 'Abdu Manaf of the Zahrah family. His father, Abdullah, was the son of Abdul Muttalib. His genealogy has been traced to the noble house of Ishmael, the son of Prophet Abraham in about the fortieth descent. (Biography of the Prophet Muhammad - Guilliame)

So far we have a lot of references from all over the Bible which may refer to the Prophet Muhammad. They do not mention him by name, nor is it 100% clear that they are even talking about the same individual. However, this is exactly the way the Old Testament described Jesus. It was only after Jesus came and fulfilled those prophecies that people understood who it was.

If Christians object that Muslims are taking these verses out of context and applying them arbitrarily on Muhammad, the Jews accused the Christians of the same thing. The Jews at the time of Jesus accused him of being a blasphemer, according to the Bible, but this never prevented Christians from following Jesus.

This also serves to explain why so many of the stories in the Bible are repeated in the Quran.

First, can you speak arabic?

No. Why?

So okay! if you can't read Arabic so the translation isn't %100 correct, so if you want to put any line from Quran, ask someone knows Arabic, Because %50 of the these translated lines is incorrect.

I only quoted 2 verses of the Quran... which one has a bad translation?

The half of the first line, and all the second line.

Do you mean these verses?

1. Quran 7:157- “Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel- he commands them for good ; and forbids them from evil..."

2. Quran 61:6- And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the 'Ahmed'. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say, “ This is mere magic. “

I didn't include the whole verse in 7:157, that's what "..." at the end means. My point was only that he was mentioned in the Bible. I'm sorry if that confused anyone. Here is a translation of the whole verse:

"Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful. "

For 61:6, I have consulted several translations, and they all say just about the same thing. If you have a better one, please let me know.

Yeah. These lines.

and... i have a better translation.
I'll put it here soon.

Salam Aleykum every buddy. Cowabanga I'm allso Muslim and I speak a little bit arabic, I even studyed in Emirates. Keif halak? I hope OK :-) And for thouse who think that Quran based on Bible, I whant to say, why can't we just say that the Bible based on Talmut??? Islam is the only religion that belives in one God (Allah).

And I'm abselutely sure that is the Quran is true!

I have not been able to participate much in this thread (to many other things going on), but I had to comment on this:



The Bible is not and cannot be based on the Talmud. The Talmud is a commentary (by and large) on the Bible and, as a result, comes after the Bible was written and codified.

If you wanted to say something like, "Why can't we say the Bible is based on other, previous religious concepts?" Then I would agree with you.

As far as the Qur'an being "based" on the Bible: it does not appear to be a complete rip-off of the Bible itself, but it certainly contains some quotes, paraphrases and allusions to what is written in both the Old and New Testaments. The fact that it is claimed that Mohammad said that both the Old Testament and the Gospels were a part of god's revelation to man (though corrupted by men) would seem to indicate that the Qur'an is based, to some degree, on the Bible, would it not?

If you wanted to say something like, "Why can't we say the Bible is based on other, previous religious concepts?"


Thats exacly what I whanted to say, but Talmud was before Bible, it was sent to Maisey, isn't it?

No. The Talmud is a compilation of writings that was compiled (if I remember correctly) in the 3rd century AD. Again, as I said already, it was a COMMENTARY on the Bible. To be a commentary on the Bible means that Bible had to come first. The Talmud did not originate with Moses, but with the rabbis of a much, much later date.

May be so. But Quran is NOT BASED on Bible!!!

Are you saying that there are no quotes, paraphrases or allusions from the Bible within the Qur'an?

Well I just thought to give in my own opinion.
I haven't read all of the posts but just to pitch on to the eralier posts about whetver it's based on one another or not.[Maybe I agree to somebody here just earlier but just an opinion :)]

As far as I'm enlightened about this stuff is that you could say that Christianity (or Bible) is similar to Zarathustra. Both declare monotheism. Contradict good and evil - paradise and heaven. There is a creator and so called devil. I see that every religion has their similarities to it's earlier "predecessors". I mean that, any later religion was probably affected by the exsisted ones due to traveling and trade also probably due to reinin power.

I don't see that any kind of religious book is apodictic. They have their own unice and somewhat right believs or views to life, but to take it as a the only way of describing everything... well thats out of topic I guess.

Anyhow my point is no matter how you intepret these texts, toughts and ideas of different religions, they have their similarities and to say that if one or the other is based on something, is ridiculous. Just as with laws. There are similarities to Hammurapi's laws and Moses's 10 laws.

Are YOU saying that if in Bible was written to do not drink alcohol, as same in Quran, that Quran is based on Bible just becouse in Bible that was written before Quran??? There are may be same things, BUT the meaning of Quran and Bible is different!!! Christian pray to Jesus, and they say that he is the son of God (why we(people) need sons??? becouse after our death there will be some one, who will continue our Family! And then, why does GOD need a son??? What you think HE needs someone to be after HIM???)... In Islam there is only ONE GOD(Allah), and He doesn't need a son. And there are Muhammad the massanger (not a son) of Allah! There were many other massanger from God before Muhammad, but he is the last one.

[Quran]

and yeah Jesus is a messenger of the GOD too. God does not die, GOD is one and eternal ,and is not limited with any human limitations, does not need anything to 'live'.

Jesus is not dead too. When day comes Jesus will come back and defeat antichrist(Deccal).

Allah has no children,no wife, these are some human things that GOD created. He doesnt born, not given birth.[Eternal](With human thinking it's imposibble to 'really' realize eternality.)

Altough i am saying 'HE' GOD, has no gender.

I'm abselutely agree with you man!

No, I am not saying that there are just similar concepts in both the Qur'an and the Bible. I am saying that there are passages in the Bible that are either close to being identical, paraphrased or alluded to in the Qur'an. This is not a majority of verses, but they are there.

Now, when it comes to the Bible, the concepts within seem to draw very heavily on older religions. I would do some research on Mithra and even Horus. It is interesting how many of these ancient gods died for the sins of mankind, were said to have been born of a virgin, were put to death and were resurrected and some were even said to have been born (incarnated) on the winter solstice. The parallels are simply too much to ignore (imo).

Untrue. We can actually understand what it means, we just won't ever be able to experience it ourselves. Looking at scientific progress when it comes to 'immortality' and so on at the moment, at least not any time soon.

The thing I don't understand is that the definition of God can't be predicted, so why do people hold on to their idea of what a God would be? I guess I just do not grasp the motivation behind having faith in something when all that comes up is question marks that in their turn raise even more questions.

Cheers

Hi all,
well most likely that both have some truth and untruths.
But that does not mean much. The people the use one or the other going to say there is the right one. We should stop thinking about 2000years or 1300 years ago and start think about what we are doing now.
renny

No one of theme are true...

Are you kidding??

wa alaykm alsalam, awesome! you are muslim!! how are the emirates? alhamd lellah bkheer. ya im ok

Emirates was good, ain't studyig there any more.






Man you'll know witch of them true, when ur time will come...

I wasn't arguing that the Quran is based on the Bible. I was mentioning that the Quran itself states that Jesus (Isa) foretold of the coming of Muhammad.

Why would Jews and Christians put references to an Arab prophet in their own books? As a former Christian I was very curious about this, because if there were references in the Bible about Muhammad, it would serve as strong evidence that the Quran is true.

It also serves to demonstrate that the Bible was originally written or inspired by someone or something other than Jewish and Christian clergy.

The Islamic perspective on this is that all the prophets were inspired by God (Allah). Any similarities which occur between Islam and older religions, is because they have the same origin - Allah. Any differences which we see, are the result of human tampering with the older texts.

I wrote a bit of a book about this whole study, if anyone is interested in reading it:
http://www.schmidt-gallery.com/Bible_in_islam_v008.pdf

You're right.

Greetings,

i thing more important than the question
"is a religion true" is the question:
What have this religion bought to the poeple ?
How much genocide ? And on the other hand side :
How much better are people who have a bad life by having this religion ?

Imagine you were a poor farmer in medival times, how much better would your life be if you (belive) to know for sure
that sometimes later(after dead) you will be very happy ... ?

In fact, a lot of religions have bought genocide to people,
i don't know much enough about islam,
but our christian religion bought us the crusades,
and it set a lot of people alite who had other believes ...

nowadays, the easiest way to decide might be to look at the people who are religious ...
the ones who are feeling loved by an almighty entity look very calm and happy ... but the ones who feel watched and controlled from a cold god, or even feeling hell,
are feeling like theyare only worthless sinners ... poor people, in my opinion.

I won't propagate for a special religion here,
as i told: everyone should judge for himself,
these are only some ideas ;-)

This seems to be a valid point. However, the history of humanity is one of genocide. This is a human problem, not a religious problem. You don't need religion to have genocide. Look at Stalin's Russia, where millions were murdered in the name of communism, or Hitler's Germany, where Jews were murdered in the name of German nationalism. There are many examples from history if we're open minded enough to look.

It's true many people have used religion as a 'justification' to do very bad things, but we need to look at the teachings of that religion if we want to find the real cause.

This also means not taking things in the religion out of context. Yes there are verses in the Quran about fighting and warfare. However, if you read the whole thing, it becomes apparent that fighting is always in response to aggression. It is not legitimate to go fight, unless there is someone fighting against you already, or some other form of oppression which needs to be overcome.

The Bible is a little different, and this is one of the reasons I think the Quran is more reliable (i.e. true). In Deuteronomy 20, God is allegedly giving instructions to Moses on how to conduct a war. In it, the rule is that in any city in the 'Holy Land', the Israelites are to kill anything that breathes. This is a clear justification for genocide.

I don't think most Christians and Jews would argue that such acts are really part of their belief. They probably would say that they applied at that particular time only.

However, verses like that made me really question who actually wrote the Bible. Again, to sum up the Muslim view of the Bible, we believe it was revealed to prophets Moses, Jesus, David and possibly others, but over time the text was altered, whether deliberately or by scribal errors. The Quran is free of such problems, which makes it more reliable.

Now, what you're saying. Bible, or Quran is true?
Choose one. and "The End".

FOR ME QURAN!!! Religion in a one God!!!

Such as Mohammad attacking and killing those within Mecca because they would not convert to his one, true religion?



URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad



URL: http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/muhammad.htm

These quotes were found from a very quick Google search. None of them were pulled from anti-Muslim sites. However, we see Mohammad, the founder of Islam, attacking and, in some cases, utterly destroying tribes of people. If Mohammad is the founder of Islam and, as some believe, the giver of the Qur'an, then there are certainly problems with the Qur'an. While I personally think (and honest historians believe) Mohammad did NOT write the Qur'an, the Qur'an certainly seems to follow Mohammad's mindset of violence toward those that are not willing to accept Mohammad's message.



There are more than verses about fighting and warfare. There are verses in the Qur'an about killing unbelievers that refuse to convert (including Jews and Christians). There are examples in the Qur'an about giving people a chance to accept and then, if they do not, to kill them with the sword. The concept of these verses is not about warfare (as in one nation defending itself against another) but about a different kind of warfare (attacking the unbeliever).













I could go on and on and, yes, some of these verses (and many others) are in the context of fighting and warfare, but the Qur'an seems to speak of a continual war that is going on between the "true believers" of Islam and the "unbelievers" that are opposed to it. It is clear, from the reading of the Qur'an that even the other monotheistic faiths (Jews and Christians) are not accepted and not to be counted as friends, but are to be treated as unbelievers and no help is to be accepted from them. Instead, the Muslim is to fight against them with whatever power he possesses.

I will agree with you that the Bible is a bloody book and that the Bible speaks of genocide in a positive light (read First Samuel 15 as an example). But the Qur'an seems to be no different and, in fact, may be worse. The Christian Bible at least has the New Testament and there is no real war declared therein (within the New Testament) but, instead, the turning of the other cheek, etc. This section of the Bible tends to tone down the Old Testament's teachings of war against the pagans. However, as we have seen from history, these New Testament teachings often were not enough. We have seen many Christian armies flooding the plains as they marched to war. But the Qur'an seems to be filled with bloodshed between its words of wisdom and peace. The concept of "holy war" (Jihad) seems arise from the Qur'an as a sweet aroma to Allah.

No, the Qur'an is a bloody book and a book of warfare against those that refuse to accept its teachings. This is not based just on the actions of millions of Muslims worldwide, but on the writings found within the Qur'an itself. It is not just the oral traditions of the various Muslim sects either, but within the very pages of the book supposedly written by Mohammad.

Is it really that simple? I can just "choose one" and the choice does not matter? You say the Qur'an is true. Some say the Bible is true. I say neither is true. Are all three of these choices OK with you? Can all three be true? Obviously they cannot. So your statement does not help at all. You cannot just choose one and be done with it. It is not like going to a restaurant and choosing from a menu where your choice is simply a matter of preference. If, somehow, the Bible or the Qur'an were true, then eternity is in the balance! So it would be a good thing for a person to at least know WHY he has accepted or rejected either the Bible or the Qur'an.



Well, that's convincing! If it's good enough for you, then it has to be good enough for everyone else, right? But why is the Qur'an the true holy book for you? Why is Allah the true God for you? Have you examined this to see if it is so or do you just accept whatever you have been told? Just curious.

Oh! And I could say:

FOR ME NEITHER QUR'AN NOR THE BIBLE!!! Religion is false and there is no god!!!

But, because I said that, does that make it true? Does that convince you? No! Then why say it? In other words, your statement let's all of us know what YOU believe, but it does not add to the context of this thread in any way.

OK! So what do you think?! You say there is no God! OK then what will hape with you afther you dead??? CAN YOU ANSWER ME???? I think NO! You know why? There is no one can tell you that!!! You think that you will live 70, ok even 100 years, and afther death nothing will happen??? You know in medicine they found that afther death humans wight be come lighter to 20 gr. you know why??? Becouse his soul lives his body! You can find it in Quran!!! You know one of the most popular sea investigators found that in sea cold and warm waters streaming together and not mixing!!! He be came most popular afther he discoved that! But he was very confused when he found it in Quran! The thing which he just discovered he found in muslims holy book! Afther that he ba came a muslim! There are many of great people be came also muslim, becouse they found things which they didn't know before, which they just discovered which was in Quran! Don't think that if you don't see it, it doesn't exist! There are many things aroung which you don't see but it exist and many of people can say you that(like Qxygen for example)!!! Quran is the only book that gives as may be not all but most of the answers for our questions!!!
If you not agree belive me it's your problem!!!

First of all, I did not say that. I said "I could say". "Could," in that sentence, means that this is something possible that I could say. The point was, just because someone says it does not make it to be true.



No. And neither can you. You have not been beyond death and back to let us know. You are only getting your information from a book (the Qur'an) and from what you are being told. But your book is not reliable. You believe what it says about life after death because you choose to and not because there is any objective proof for it. So, no, you cannot answer your own question. Don't be a hypocrite and demand someone else answers the question that you yourself cannot.



It is certainly a possibility. Are there other possibilities? Yes. We can imagine all sorts of things to happen after we die, but how do we know they are true? We can test some of these ideas to some degree. But why should we simply trust some ancient book that has proven itself to be fallible in so many ways and one that shows a God that is lacking in morals at that?!?



Try again:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp



Interesting ... did you know the same story is told about a man discovering the "currents" in the sea from his reading of the Bible? According to this "Christian" tale, it was the man's faith in the Christian God and his reading of the Christian Bible that caused him to discover these things.

Just because there are stories like this does not automatically make them true. In any case, care to share the man's name and the particular verses from the Qur'an that he supposedly found there that were so convincing? I am willing to bet that, even if they are there, they will be so obscure that about a zillion different theories can be made from them. Just take a look at about any of the "Science and Qur'an" sites out there and watch them take supposed proofs from the Qur'an concerning science. I love how they try to get around all the "flat earth" passages (as an example).



Is this a proof of the authenticity of the Qur'an? If so, then what about the great men (and women) that have become Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish, Atheists and Agnostics? Just because some "great" person decides they want to accept a particular religion does not make it true. This is a "non argument".



I don't. I cannot see individual atoms, but I believe they are there. We can at least test for these types of things. We can test the Qur'an also and it is found to be a fallible document. So I have no need to trust in the things that it describes that I cannot see (such as its God).



Uhm ... no. Even the Bible claims to give the answers to most of our questions. The big questions in life tend to be questions like:

- How did we get here (the creation, etc)?
- Why am I here?
- Do I have a purpose?
- Where do I go after I die?
- Is there a form of eternal justice?

Virtually every "holy" book attempts to pass off an answer to these questions and more. The Qur'an is only ONE out of many, many that try to answer these questions. You simply believe that your book is the right one. Everyone believes that their "holy book" has the right answers. So now you have to go back to the book itself and see if it holds up to what can be tested in order to see if it can be trusted for those things that cannot be tested (eternity, God, etc). The Qur'an fails.



I could say:

If you believe, then that is YOUR problem.

Please understand, I know that you believe the Qur'an and in Allah. Fine. But you have done nothing to provide any proof for your faith. Faith/belief is only as good as the object in which you place it. If that object is not worthy of faith then faith, no matter how devote, will fail in the end. I can have faith that I have 10 billion dollars in my bank account all I want, but if I try to withdraw it then my faith will be proven absolutely wrong. If your faith in the afterlife, as presented in the Qur'an, is wrong, then your faith, no matter how strong, will also likewise fail.

When it comes to religion, it is not really a matter of faith (despite what we are being told by so many preachers and priests). It is really a matter of truth. If the holy books of any religion are not reliable, then they cannot be trusted and especially not for matters of faith.

All that staff that you give it's unoffical, you just found it on some ones sait, why I have to belive you? PROVE! If you what ME to prove that Quran is TRUE you have to learn Arabic and just read it!!!

About a water may be it was in Bible (Bible also came from Allah, but there are too many changes), but that guy I told you about, now is muslim, I know it myself, no matter what you say.

If you are not stupid as you seem to be, you will find answers to your questions! But you problem is that you just don't know were to search...

And about my problem if I belive, I have no problems now (may be you don't have also), but afther death your problems will just begin!!!

I have nothing left to say. All I whanted to say is that there is a God!!! You just have to belive!!!

O ... K ... Where do I find the "official" stuff at? Quoting the Qur'an is not good enough, huh?



I ... see ... So the non-Arabic speaking part of the world is just SCREWED when it comes to learning the "truth". Wow. Some God. Not only does he ask you to place you faith in the words of an ancient "holy book", but you also have to learn another language to even understand it! All non-Arabic versions are "unofficial" and cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.

I wonder if Dooley, the Muslim posting here that does not speak or read Arabic, has any problems with what you are saying. Perhaps he is screwed, too, because he cannot understand the "official" version.

By the way, how do YOU know that you have the "official" version? There are no original copies (only copies of copies) and, despite what you have probably been told, there are differences between copies. So which "official" version is the real one?



Hello? I did not say it was the same guy. I said there is a similar story. I realize that English is not your first language, but try to understand what someone is saying before you just spout off (especially when you go ahead and call someone stupid).



I didn't say that the guy you mentioned is not a Muslim. Again, read what I had said originally. But did you bother to try to answer my questions? What is the man's name? What are the verses he used?



O ... K ... I am stupid and I don't know where to search. You are right, I don't speak Arabic, but I know people that do. I used to live in the Middle East and was a friend with a Bedouin. But I suppose learning from Arabs in the Middle East doesn't count. Perhaps because they had to talk to me in English and, therefore, I could never really understand.



Not true. If you are wrong, then you have dedicated your life (and your mind) to serving something that is not real at all. You have committed yourself and your way of life to something that does not exist. This is a waste of life and of your potential.

Also, your afterlife could be in trouble as well. What if one of the other religions is correct? Then you are in a world of hurt, my friend.



So, belief is what makes God real? We all just have to believe? Did you not read anything that I have already said? Faith/belief is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Just because someone believes in a god does not make that god real.

Listen, MAGA, I know what I am typing here may seem harsh to you, but let's face it, you have not answered any of my questions and you have not presented any proofs for anything you have said. You just said things and demanded that people believe. If anyone refutes the Qur'an you jump back to the Arabic.

If you want to prove a point, then try to prove a point. Telling people to just believe and threatening them with a terrible afterlife is not the way to prove a point.

OK then lets face it! Ain't saying anithing about you similari story about water! But there is only one guy who discovered that! YOU NEED PROVES??? YOU ARE REALY STUPID MOTHERFUCKER IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT GOD IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T NEED ANY PROVES!!! Thats all what I whanted to say! HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Something that cannot be proven doesn't exist. Else there would be a proof for it.

None of these fairy tale books is true.

Ok. Don't answer my questions then. Don't give the name of the man or the verses that talk about what he discovered. No problem. We will just believe you. No need for proof or any such thing. Whatever ...



Yes. The fact that you don't says a lot, actually.



Oh, I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, but I am not stupid, either. Insults really don't help to push forward your position.

If a god wants to have him or herself known and worshiped, then that god would have to have some form of proof to separate themselves from all the other gods that are supposedly out there. For the Christian, the proof is in the book called the Bible. For the Jew, it is the Old Testament portion (the T'nach) of the Bible. For the Muslim it is the Qur'an. Other religions have their holy books and holy men ... all of which serve as a form of "proof" to the existence of their god and their faith. Without these holy writings YOU would have NO IDEA about ALLAH or what he expects from you. Therefore, the Qur'an is your proof. If the book can be proven to be true no matter what valid test is brought against it, then the things that are not provable (such as the existence of Allah, the afterlife, etc) can be accepted more easily. However, the Qur'an does not pass the test. It fails. As such, the untestable things fail as well. Therefore, whether there is a god or gods or not, I do not know for certain, but Allah is not one of them ... at least not the Allah of the Qur'an.



That's probably a good idea. Frankly, you really have not said anything of any real value as it pertains to this discussion. You only asserted your faith, but provided no validation for it. You said some things, but when confronted refused to answer. So, yes, it is good that you have reached the end of what you wanted to say (in my opinion).



I wish the same to you as well (seriously).

To ask for which is true:

Anything and any religion is true... it's not a boolean ;-)

Why?

Imagine you got a sheep which is black on the one side, and white on the other side.

You have two fanatics at each side,
killing each other because the one on the white side
sits there and sees only the white part -
if the other one claims that the whole sheep must be
black, this is what we call blasphemie.

I like the spiritual idea that we are creating our own
stuff - so if 4 example, millions of people believe in
christianity, theiy are creating a realm that cristians
can habit in after death.

It's just an idea ... but i like it.
If it was true, then anyone would know there are black
sheeps AND white sheeps, and so no one of both was
a liar to the other.

Have fun!

Davidus,

Your analogy is not a very good one (in my opinion), though it does seem fairly typical of the crowd that cries out, "Can't we all just get along?"

Let's expand your analogy a little. Instead of two people on either side of the bi-colored sheep, let's add a few people to either side. On the black side of the sheep are three people. One says the sheep is black. Another says the black side is actually pink. The third is blind and cannot see the sheep at all. All the third person can do is rely on what he is told.

The one that states the sheep is black says that the sheep is black because he can see that the sheep is black. He can take wool from the sheep and test it to see if it is black and all tests confirm that it is black. The second man insists that the sheep is pink and comes up with his own arguments no matter how much evidence the first man presents. The blind man will have to evaluate the arguments to see which side, if any, he chooses to fall on.

Then there is the white side of the sheep. There are a few people there. One happens to be curious and crosses over to the other side and sees that the other side is black! Like the first man on the black side of the sheep, he conducts his tests and determines that the sheep is both black and white, depending on which side you are observing. He presents his evidence to the three on the black side. The second man refutes the evidence and continues to insist the sheep is pink (no matter which side it is viewed from). The first man on the black side refuses to believe the additional evidence, pointing to his own tests that "prove" the sheep is black. The blind man listens.

You could create any scenario you wanted to for this sheep. The point is this: with the sheep illustration, the sheep can be tested and observed. If the tests done show that someone's belief concerning the sheep is wrong, then it is wrong. The second man, for example, can say the sheep is pink all he wants. Just because he has "faith" that it is so does not change the reality of it.

When it comes to religion, there are, indeed, some things that can be tested for truth. While no one may be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, the things said in supposed holy writings can indeed be tested. For example, someone can take the Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or any other holy book and test it for its accuracy when it touches on things of science, archaeology, biology and more. If a holy book states that there are four legged birds (as the Bible does) then we can look to see if there are four legged birds. If a holy book says that babies come from a blood clot or originates from a place between the groin and the sternum (possibly the kidneys) as is indicated in the Qur'an, then we can test that as well. If a holy book speaks of an extensive Jewish civilization existing here in the Americas thousands of years ago (as the book of Mormon teaches) then we can look for traces of that ancient civilization. If such things (and many, many others) prove to be false, then does that not bring the holy book itself into question? And if the holy book is then in question, what about the things it says about its God?



The problem with this is that people are not just creating something about the afterlife here. They are creating a way of life that dictates what they do in the here and now. The result has been war and death for thousands of years. Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Muslim wars to conquer the world, the current Jihads and on and on it goes.

Oh, and just because you "like" something, does not make it real or true. Just because someone envisions a life after death in a heavenly place with 72 virgins does not mean that it is real or that his thinking of it creates it as a reality. So while you may "like" it, it does not mean it is true and that does not mean it is good, either.

Hi Dan,
I've missed out a bit due to the birth of my fourth child. She's healthy and things are getting back to normal. I am going to comment on a post of yours from a few days ago, because I don't think any of your questions or concerns have been addressed




This was never the Prophet's goal. The wars he fought were justified because as it points out in the next quote, the Muslims were the ones being persecuted. I will get into more detail on this later, when I discuss the verses of Quran.



This says it all. Instead of allowing Muhammad to preach his religion, the Meccans tried to silence him. They tortured and persecuted anyone who followed him. If they had handled it differently, their fate would have been much different.



Two big issues here. The first issue is that all the facts of the situations are not being mentioned. The Jewish tribes in question all had treaties with the Muslims of Medina, the fact that they broke their treaties and instead of defending Medina against its attackers (the Meccans) they decided to help them attack the Muslims, that is not mentioned here.

Another fact that's not mentioned is that the ruling which was carried out against Banu Qurayza was decided according to Jewish Law.

The second issue is one of evidence. The Quran is considered the primary source of legislation in Islam. Next comes the hadith, and these are scrutinized carefully by scholars, because their authenticity is not always known.

The occasions you mentioned are based on hadith literature. Any ruling derived from them, must be compared to the principals of the Quran. This approach is not held by all Muslims, but there is overwhelming evidence that it was used by the Prophet himself, as well as his companions.

You need to understand that these issues were decided in a time of war. A war which Muslims did not start, to add to that, their allies turned on them halfway through a battle. Think of this happening in a modern context. What is the punishment for desertion? For treason?



I will show you that the Quran states no such thing, and actually sets a very high standard for religious tolerance.



This verse is very general. All it is saying is that the covenant with Allah includes all aspects of one's life, and even requires Muslims to fight and be killed if necessary. It does not define who is to be fought, and under what circumstances. These are defined in other verses.



This verse is one out of a whole chapter. Forget about the historical context, you need to actually read the chapter to understand the situation being described. In most cases, a few verses preceding the verse in question will do.

Let's start with the verse before the one you quoted, who is being discussed?

"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road." (4:89)

The discussion is about the 'hypocrites', people who were Muslims, but then reverted to disbelief. Now we know the context, so let's re-read the verse in question...



The command is to not be friends with them, unless they return to Islam. If they instead, continue on in disbelief, then the ruling different. Most scholars actually stopped here and said that the ruling for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. They did not take the context of a war into consideration, and that the act of leaving was actually desertion. Is this my opinion? Let's read the very next verse...

"Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war
on their own folk. Had Allah willed He could have given them power over you so that assuredly they would have fought you. So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you
and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them."(4:90)

So if these apostates seek refuge with a nation who the Muslims have a peaceful relationship with, they are not considered enemies, or if they choose to remain neutral, then the command changes. These verses are about people who not only leave Islam (in a time of war), but also choose to join the enemy and fight against the Muslims.

If an American soldier chose to leave the army and fight against the American army, what do you think the ruling would be? Replace 'American' with any country. I think it's the same.

It is true that in the early centuries of Islam, the ruling for apostasy (alone without treason) was death. But there is overwhelming evidence that this was not the practice of the prophet himself.



Again, you need context. Which unbelievers are being described?

This chapter is describing the events of a battle, and the very next verse defines more clearly why these people are being threatened...

"That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment." (8:13)

There is a reason for the rule. This is always the case, the Quran never commands Muslims to attack anyone just because of their different beliefs.

Here, since the events described conform to the events at the Battle of Uhud, we know that the Quran is describing the Qureysh (Meccans). When He says they 'opposed' Allah and the Messenger, we know that it is referring to the torture, persecution and murder which the Meccans inflicted on the Muslims.

Again, I ask, what are the modern standards for warfare? Should a community be allowed to fight back against it's oppressors? There were no NATO peace-keeping forces back then, coming in to 'stabilize' the situation. What other options did the Muslims have?



This is a threat from Allah to anyone who disbelieves in Him. This verse does not make any implications on how Muslims should treat non-Muslims. Again, there are very clear verses which do describe how Muslims should conduct themselves...

The verse you mentioned are all about fighting, ie. how to deal with enemies in a war. But where are the verses about 'who' should be fought, or what conditions are placed upon going to war.

"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them.
Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

Allah forbiddeth you only those who warred against you on account of religion and have driven you out from your homes and helped to drive you out, that ye make friends of them.
Whosoever maketh friends of them--(All) such are wrong doers. "(60:8-9)

So the people who did not start attacking Muslims, and did not drive them out of their homes, they are okay. Be nice to them, and just.

I'm not saying Muslims have never started a war, but if they did, they were in clear violation of the Quran.

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors. " (2:190)

Fighting is against people who have already fought against Muslims. Muslims were never commanded to start wars, or kill anyone.

The default rule for Muslims is that killing anyone is forbidden. It is a huge sin.

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if
be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old
with clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty) , but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (5:32)

Even in a war, Muslims are to be careful who they fight against...

"O ye who believe! When ye go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, be careful to discriminate, and say not unto one who offereth you peace: "Thou are not a
believer;" seeking the chance profits of this life (so that ye may despoil him). With Allah are plenteous spoils. Even thus (as he now is) were ye before; but Allah hath
since then been gracious unto you. Therefore take care to discriminate. Allah is ever informed of what ye do."

There are numerous hadith in which the Prophet forbade the killing of women, children the elderly, and anyone not involved in the fighting.

And to add to the point about the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet did not act on the Arab custom of revenge. When he entered Mecca, he gave amnesty to all of it's inhabitants, with (I believe) the exception of 7 war criminals who were executed. Hardly a bloodbath.

Again, this is my understanding of Islam from the sources. There are some Muslims who act contrary to the teachings of the Quran, but the Quran itself will be a witness against them on the day of Judgement.

Hey... Relax man! this is just a topic for discussing! not for insulting!



This is your understanding of Islam? first ask Muslim guy about Islam (im here! and then, talk about Islam.

As-Salamu Alaikum

I recommend that you read this entire thread from the beginning. I am a Muslim, and I've stated it several times. Didn't you read my posts? I'm defending Islam and arguing that the Quran is true. I started this thread, please read the first post again.


Thanks for contributing, and correcting our friend's attitude

Dan Silverman,

i enyojed reading your post because it shows that you have really thought about it, and finished these thoughts,
and that is meant as a compliment.
But let us go to the statements:

The complexity: I just tried to keep it as simply as possible,
and i have to say: This analogy is not from me,
it's a common statement for the crowds, and thats why it sounds like it was one - indeed , it is one.
The fact you mentioned was,if i understood you right:
"The so called holy books contain provable and unprovable statements, and if you test the testable statements, and all of them turn out to be wrong, then the untestable statements are having a very high chance of beeing false, too",
right ?
Yes, thats right, if you read it word by words,
but lets remember that these things are metaphors.
An example is the statement that jesus should have been able to walk over water -
but "water" in these times was a synonym for the existing law, which jesus have broken and made his own ideals and laws.
Because i'm not very interested in these holy books,
that is one of only very few examples i have.

-Proving things
Well, thats a big problem, because:
1. Only the dead can really prove if and which kind of afterlive is there
2. The Not-Existence of things is very hard to prove in science, example: Prove the non-existence of invisible kobolds that no one has ever seen ;-)

Number 1 leads to the conclusion that all the blind people who are not able to see god by themselves need other seeing people to tell them, very good example of yours by the way.
But who sees ? You have priests, medial persons or all that call themselves, you have holy books, and you have people that have been reanimated.
I tend to believe the last ones, only because they have been able to take a little look, perhaps only brain disfunction, but here the propability is the biggest.
Number 2 Leads to absolute tollerance in my opinion,
because i can't reallyprove that ANY religion is wrong.

But , beeing a pragmatist, i prefer to value religions by what they have bought to mankind - genocide in most cases, as you stated - look at my former post a little bit over the one you replied to, i guess we had the same conclusion, even with very different theories.

-The idea i like:
Yeah, i didn't statet that it was true, just that i like it,
and i like it, because any religion has a place in it,
and it leads to some tolerance.
Hey think about it - it may be not very likely in your opinion, but what if for example the christian religion was absoluteley true ? Then, we were the bad guys, because anyone who believed us that religion is unlogic, would burn in hell for that, and the crusades then would have rescued a lot of people from hell - a complete different port of view,
and remember : We cannot prove the opposite for sure ;-)

But where do you get that from? Where is "water" ever equated with "law"? Water, in the Bible as a symbol, often stands in for "people". This can be seen from the various passages where people (and especially armies) are likened to water. And, according to Jesus' words (or, at least those attributed to him) he said he did not come to break the law, but to fulfill it.

If we can start coming up with ANY idea we want ... if we can fill a word with ANY meaning, then there really is NO meaning and this, in my mind, only further proves my point.



Actually, no. Non-existence is the default stance. From there it is up to the person to prove that something exists. This is one reason that Atheists start with the assumption that there is no God. The default position is skepticism.



Though science can examine the claims and can test what was happening in the brain during these experiences.



I don't agree. The only source we have for the Christian God is the Christian holy book, the Bible. This book claims to make sense. It calls for reason. Yet its pages are lacking in both. As a result, the Christian viewpoint can be rejected on the basis of its holy book.

Heh! Its a fun discussion and all, so I hope you don't mind me disagreeing with you a bit.

Wa Alaykm Alsalam.

LOL! i'm sorry, i haven't read it completely.

just you need a better Quran translation

Nobody can speak about islam more than a scholar "since the prophet's death" so why not learning from one?
here's the website of one of our best scholars go there and learn by yourself,you'll find your answers
http://islam-qa.com

"Dooley"

There is ONLY ONE GOD , and his name is YHWH. And our messiah is Yehoshua.
Anything, religion , or person , who contradicts that stated above has been deceived by the devil. So if your god is another god , you are wrong. If Jesus is not your messia , then you are wrong. If your religion doesn't state that YHWH is the Lord of lords and King of kings and Jesus was his son whom he sent to us for salvation , then your religion is FALSE doctrine instituted to the people by satan himself , and you are in turn worshiping satan rather than our Lord.

I hope that clears up some stuff for you Dooley.
Btw , there is archeolical evidence for the events of the Old Testament (The Torah) , which contains many prophecies of Jesus , which were all 100% fulfilled. But in no place is there any prophecy about Quran , or any other prophets after Jesus. The muslims always state that their god allah IS the God of the Torah , so they say allah IS YHWH , however , clearly in the Torah God tells Moses that his name is YHWH , the name which we should always call him by.

From what I understand , allah is supposed to be derived from Elohim , which is also a name for God , but it is not HIS name. His name is YHWH , but Elohim is also used in conjunction with his name , hence in the Bible the Lord God , But his proper name is YHWH , and not Elohim , since elohim from what I understand was also used to say god for other gods , so it is considered more like a word for god rather than his proper name.

I'm leaving here some links for videos that clearly show some evidence for the events of the Old Testament , which is in fact the basis for muslims , as they believe everything in the old testament is true , including Jesus , and what they believe is that Mohammed was another prophet , like Moses , but he was the last prophet sent by God.

So the god of muslims is in fact suppossed to be the god of the Torah and of the Christians , they just believe in an extra prophet , who could in fact be a true prophet of god or someone deceived by the devil, depending on how you interpret things and what you believe. But truth be told , Torah had prophecy for Jesus , which was fulfilled , and Jesus had prophecy for the second coming of Jesus , and the end/renew of the world , it said nothing of mohammed.

Now Dooley , if you wan't to be fully sure of things , do some research of the mahdi , someone the muslims are expecting to appear soon. Read what the prophecy of him is by the muslims , and what he is suppossed to do when he comes. Then read the prophecies of Daniel reguarding the anti-christ , and when he is suppossed to appear and what he is supposed to do. Oh yeah , and REMEMBER , they muslim faith ACCEPTS the Old Testament are truth and divine word inspired by God. So , that itself should really open your eyes.

As for technology , remember , this knowledge is never really given by God to people , as if you read Genesis , Adam and Eve were punished for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There are things which humans were not meant to know , and when you read the scriptures , they are always focused on the message , rather than on technicalities , i.e. the sun and moon are both named lights by the Old Testament , when in fact the moon is a satellite , but that type of information was really useless to the people of such time , it is not what the message is about.

Here is a good vid showing some evidence of the Old Testament.

THE SEARCH FOR THE REAL MOUNT SINAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yavdx8ayPSs

Like a summed up version of the above , watching the whole movie is recommended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkcgLz3U56k

Here is link to info about egyptian papyrus confirming events of plagues in egypt.
http://www.henryzecher.com/ipuwer_papyrus.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/regkeith/linkipuwer.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Hebrews-in-Egypt---Slaves-and-Plagues---Extra-Biblical-Proof!&id=1804275



The events of the Bible DID happen.What you make of such events , well that's personal interpretation , as there is people who dispute them to be just natural events of nature , but one thing we can now know for sure is , they are valid history which did in fact take place , something thats been heavily debated in the past by people claiming the Bible to just be stories or fairy tales and didn't actually happen.

So , in the end you have to make your own proper decision , but remember , the basis for both religions is in fact the Torah, so you have to use that as your base to derive your conclusion. i.e. , without the Torah , there is no Quran , because if the Torah is not real , then the God of the Quran never existed to begin with.