OMER’S
PERSONAL DEBATES
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE MOST GRACIOUS THE MOST
MERCIFUL
"Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom
and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most
gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who
receive guidance. "
Quran surat Anahl 125
OMER’S
SECOND REPLAY
Hi,thanks for your detailed replay.I will inshaalah try my best to clarify to you your misunderstandings.To be clear I am replaying to your massage point by point.
1-first you said “If you follow a debate in any Islamic chat room you'll ascertain how widespread ignorance is among the Moslems”,yes I don’t deny that there’s a widespread ignorance among muslims but I want to remind you that the same case is with Christians too.
I know most Christians don’t know whether Muslims worship God or Muhammed(PBUH).And I can dare to say that most Christians even don’t know what their Bible says.
2-You said “As for Jesus' divinity, I'd like to ask you what the words "omnipotent" and "almighty" mean to you? If God is omnipotent he must be able to exist in different dimensions or forms at the same time. If he can't then he is not "omnipotent". God may decide to experience the frailty of the human condition and still be God”,I believe that God is omnipotent but it never supports your view of Jesus.You said that God might have decided to experience ………,but look if you want to say due to God’s omnipotence(his enability of existing in different dimensions and forms at the same time) he may have decided to manifest himself in the form of a weak man,then be ready to admit any one who claimed that he is God incarnate.Example,If I claimed as what you think Jesus is(i.e I claimed that I am a God) then according to your “priniciple of omnipotence” you cant deny my claim as for I will urgue that even if I am a faultful human Due to God’s omnipotence he decided to be a faultful man(me) and a perfect God at the same time.I hope you have understood what I said.I can give you second example..look any one can say satan is God by applyng your principle,any one can say that due to God’s omnipotence he decided to be satan and God at the same time(even if their character is opposite due to his mightness & omnipotence he existed in both forms at the same time)!!!!then what can you say for this???In short your argument is very weak.But I appreciate you for using the word “may” in your sentence “God may decide to experience the frailty of the human condition and still be God”.It sounds as if you are not sure whether God decided so or not.
3-You said “The Word (Logos) may incarnate itself, assume a human form
and still exist as god. Jesus, as the Word, didn't drop his divine nature
but went through the hardship and the limitation of the human condition in
human form”,if he didn’t drop his devine nature why he said in Joh
14:28 “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I
go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because
I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”,
can we say some one who has got something greater than him to be God?If he
didn’t drop his devine nature then why he said ; "...
and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,
..." (John 8:28) is this divinity?can any one who can do nothing of
himself be devine?If he was a devine how can he say "But of that day and hour no
one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
alone." Matthew 24:36.. so
sorry I am not so fool that I can accept Jesus as a God as long as he isn’t
omnisent.If you are quite interested I can give you much more ,but I want to
ask you that if you can bring up even a single verse from the bible which can
prove with out difficulty or tafseer that Jesus is a God?
Sure if we read the bible we never see any character which can make Jesus qualified to be devine.All the characters of Jesus stated in the Bible are not so special features.
4- You are right to say “The coexistence of both a human and divine natures in Jesus are explained differently by different Christian sects, yet the beginning of John's Gospel is one for all”,you know its just due to the unclear and confusing statements of John’s gospel and the epistles of Paul.It’s amazing thing to see both the catholic(and protestants too) and the Johhova witness to differ in their view of Jesus while they both refer to the bible as their evidence!Do you think that your bible is clear and needs no tafseer(unlike the “unclear” quran) while producing such many Christian sects differing in the basic teaching of the bible?
5-You seem to have great problem in interpreting the words
at the beginning of John’s gospel.look although many people and many churchs(as
you said) interpreted the words in different ways I see this interpretation of
mine more reliable and consistent with the rest of biblical narrations.Hold
On..the verse says Joh 1:1 “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God”. Here in the beginning Jesus was
word as you and i.First all creatures were words in the mind of God.But I want
to remind you that word isn’t only whats spoken by mouth,but word is any
statement or thought which is thought in minds too.So you have to know that as
God is omnisent all we were in his minds in his thoughts millions &
millions millennium before we were created.I mean God hasn’t got any
microsecond with out having our image in his mind.Its this which is called word
of God.We all are words of God.We all were words of him before we were
created.So was Jesus.Jesus was word in the beginning as John said.Then John
procceded “and the word was with God” he is right we too were with God,as I
explained in above.So if you believe that your God is omnisent and have never
forgot anything done or to be done after timebeing you have to believe too that
you was in his thought before you were created.And it means that you were a
word at beginning.Then also John spoke right ,he said “and the word was
God”..he is right ,but do you think that he assumed that the word was
God(Allah)?not!he said “God” just the same as what Jesus said to the people in
john10:34. the verse reads "Jesus answered them, Is it not written
in your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"
35. "If he called them `gods,'
to whom the word of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"
36. "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" ,these were Jesus’s words while they said to him “"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." .Look Jesus rejected their saying that he claimed to be God!!and clarified them what did he mean when he said that he is God’s son.So John’s saying “and the word was God” is just as Jesus told ,since it was written in the law that whom the word of God came were called “gods”.So why cant John say to the word “God” while those whom the word of God came were called “gods” in the law?Its not something strange!I see my tafseer is so accurate,and consistent with what Jesus said about himself and what he claimed.Jesus was a result of the devine command “be” as what Allah said of Him in the holy quran.He was as all of us word in God’s mind,then at the time God willed him to be born he was born without father by the word “be”…here you have not to be confused that muslims saying “be” is just a spoken word(you may think whether it was in Arabic or Aramaic),but it can be also a thought and decision of God.I hope you will understand these all while you read the bible carefully.
5-And you quoted the saying of john 1:14”The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”, yes he is right the word became flesh by the devine command “BE” at the time Allah willed it to be.
6-You said “We'll be dealing with the Holy Ghost in detail later on in the debate, if you care to.”,I am ready to have debate on any topic which seems to be important.
7-As your saying “And this point
was evident to St. John Damascene who, around 730 AD, wrote:
These [the Arabs, whom John calls Hagarenes and Ishmaelites] , then, were
idolaters and worshippers of the morning star and Aphrodite whom in fact they
called Chabar in their own language, which means "great."
So until the times of Heraclius they were plain idolaters. From that time till
now a false prophet appeared among them, surnamed Muhammad (Mamed), who,
having happened upon the Old and the New Testament and apparently having
conversed, in like manner, with an Arian monk, put together his own
heresy. And after ingratiating himself with the people by a pretence of
piety, he spread rumours of a scripture (graphe) brought down to him from
heaven. So, having drafted some ludicrous doctrines in his book, he handed over
to them [to the Arabs/Hagarenes/Ishmaelites] this form of worship.”
I only want to say that it will be clear to you whether these words are true or
false when we come across our debating on “Muhammed’s prophethood” inshaalah.
8-You said “The synoptic Gospels are biographies and are consistent stories with a beginning and an end”,but I can challenge you that the gospels are not consistent stories.They have many contradictions not only among them selves but also among the same gospel.Do you believe that the bible has many contradictions?
9-You represented the Quran as a scrapbook whose pages have been thrown together and shuffled,but this is only your OPENION not others’.Lack of misunderstandings may push you to make such conclusion.
10-I am amazed of your words ” The tafsir does not work too well with the Gospels”,if your bible is so why you said before “The coexistence of both a human and divine natures in Jesus are explained differently by different Christian sects, yet the beginning of John's Gospel is one for all”,isn’t an explanation a tafseer?and if your bible does’nt need a tafseer whats the need of publishing many “biblical commentary” books?No one believes so!
11-You said “. The Gospels are rather easy to read, but the Qur'ân is not, because of the style in which it is written (or, rather, due to its total lack of any style).”,my replay is that you might be better in understanding Greek than Arabic.
12-After quoting the book written by christoph luxenburg you said “Even if you shouldn't be satisfied with Luxenberg's reconstructions it is a plain fact that the obscure parts of the Qur'ân he is trying to interpret are too many for a book that claims to be clear (Qr 5:15; 6:59; 10:61; 16:103; 27:75; 34:3; 36:12).”,but I want to make this clear that Allah saying “ALKITAB ALMUBIN” or something like that(means which describes that the quran is clear) is applicable for those who understand or people who reflect.But I want to ask you a question,do you think that Allah’s saying the quran clear book refers to mad people or to children too?I don’t think so!so from this you can understand that the verses you quoted don’t refer to all people.Quran is a clear book to those who reflect,who are the true servants of Allah,those who obey Allah!!!I think you have got me.
13-You said “Together with the fact that the Qur'ân has no context whatsoever, its obscurity is the main reason why the Qur'ân is "interpreted" and not "translated": even when you read it in Arabic you still have to interpret it. Tafsir interpretation of the Qur'ân would not exist if the Qur'ân was a comprehensible text. An Arab who reads that book still has to interpret it, too, because no Arab speaks Koranic Arabic and most probably no living soul has ever spoken it.”,I don’t think you could deny that when one sentence is translated from one language to other word by word it would lose its true meaning and its noble style too.And you have to know that there are many Arabic words which hasn’t got any direct meanings in English or some other languages.Lets take as an example “TAGUT”,there is no a direct meaning for “TAGUT” in English so our only alternative will be to interpret it in a sentence which can describe it.And we interpret it as “any diety falsly worshipped beside Allah”.There are many words too which cant be directly translated to other languages.And also there are many statements which can give sense only when they are in their original language but when translated to other language they lost their meaning ans sense.So it will be a must to interpret it rather to translate it cos translating will create a confussion and makes the statement to be something with out sense.I hope you will not deny these facts.If you came to say” Tafsir interpretation of the Qur'ân would not exist if the Qur'ân was a comprehensible text” then why is there many biblical commentaries available?can it be due to the fact that the bible isn’t a comprehensible text?You are right for your words “An Arab who reads that book still has to interpret it, too” but I urgue you that a greek who reads the bible too still has to interpret it either according to his church’s interpretation or of his own view.Think your forefathers havn’t got trinity plainly from the bible but they just made tafseer of some verses(though their interpretation was wrong) and concluded that God can be trinity.Do you think that the book of revelation doesn’t need an interpretation?do you think that some one who can understand greek can understand the book of revelation?Do you think then that tafseer doesn’t work well with the book of revelation?I hope you will admit that with out tafseer your book of revelation is just a script of a horror movie.So I want to tell you that your urguments are baseless and biased,you are missing the facts.
14-You explained john 18:20 as “Jesus was telling his interrogators that he had nothing to hide” ,if this is the truth then why the gospels never narrated saying “Jesus said “I am a God””?do you think that he kept that in secret?
15-You said “As the traditional account goes, there were two charges against Jesus. He was accused of being a seditionist and also a blasphemer.”,then please think for a while if Jesus had claimed that he is God then why they hadn’t charged him for that claim?isn’t claiming divinity much more crime according to them?What we understand from this is that Jesus never claimed to be God and its due to so that the people accused him for his claim to be the mesiah.And its due to this that the people were recognising him as a prophet as narrated in “And the crowds said, ‘This is the prophet Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee.’ ” mathew 21:11, “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.’ ”mark6:4 ,these are only two examples but if you look the gospels its clear that the people were looking Jesus as a prophet and as claiming prophethood or to be a mesiah.
16-You
stated the prophecy in Zechariah i.e. Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just*, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal
of an ass. (King James Version) has been fulfilled by Jesus as quoted in Mathew
Mat 21:2 said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you. At once
you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with it. Untie them, and bring them
to me.” .But why didn’t you quote that of mark,i.e mark 11:1”as they approached
Jerusalem and came to Bethpage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent
two of his disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to the village ahead
of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which
no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 3If anyone asks
you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it
back here shortly.' "
4They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, 5some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" 6They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. 7When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.”instead of the other as referring to whether the prophecy was fulfilled or not ,can we say Jesus here(mark11:1) fulfilling the prophecy while riding upon a colt only?Any way since you brought these verses to clarify that Jesus claimed to me Messiah I don’t reject your proof.But I only want to remind you that either Mark or Mathew or Zechariah had made a little error.
16-You said ” Jesus had declared himself king and had made public display of his royal messianic status, therefore the Jewish priests expected the Roman authorities to condemn him, because he had defied the authority of the Roman Emperor, who was the one who could appoint local governors”,I accept your statement.
17-You said “To the Christians, Jesus' death makes sense theologically
and historically at the same time. What your religion compels you to believe
about Jesus is not only against the Gospels, but also against history.”
But you have to know that both your gospel and history are man made and can
possess an error!no all narrated histories are authentic and no all
narrations in your gospel too are
authentic.Its due to so that Allah revealed in his holy book Quran to remove
all the errors concerinig Jesus saying in quran4: 157”And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed
Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," -
but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa
(Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who
differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they
follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus),
son of Maryam (Mary)]”(interpretation of the meaning).Look Allah exposed the
gosplers and historians who concluded so by saying “and those who differ
therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow
nothing but conjecture”.Think about
this verse and refer to the gospels you will see what Allah said ,i.e the 4
narrators of the gospel differing and contradicting even in important points
concering Jesus’s so said crucification .So how can some one comes to a
conclusion by depending on the bible that Jesus was crucified while getting so
many differences and contradictions among the four narrators.Can they be a real
witness for that act?
18-You tried to urgue saying “Do you think Jesus' Apostles falsified the whole story and invented the crucifixion with all the details about it when nothing of that took place?”,but I think this verse from the gospel of Mathew can be enough for your arguments,i.e. “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.”mathew 26:55!they were not eyewitnesses at all.
19-You said “But the crucifixion of Jesus poses a problem for the
Moslems because it isn't only the Christians who state that Jesus was
crucified: also the Jews claim the selfsame thing”,yes Allah confirmed
what you said.You are right its due to so that Allah revealed the verse quran4: 157”And because of
their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of
Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor
crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man
(and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts.
They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For
surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]”(interpretation of the meaning).Look Allah exposed the
gosplers and historians who concluded so by saying “and those who differ
therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow
nothing but conjecture”,Its not you only who is telling me so but Allah also
told me that Jews thought that they had crucified Jesus.But again he said that
their thought is wrong.Since the act was confusing and mysterious its not
strange for the Jews to think that they had crucified Jesus.
20-I got you here misundersanding what the quran is
supposed to confirm,you said “Moreover, the
Qur'ân is supposed to confirm what is contained in the Gospels and the Old
Testament” but do you have evidence for this?where in the quran does it
say that the quran will confirm whats
contained in the gospels(gospel according to Mathew,..to luke……..etc) and in
the old testament?The quran saysin quran 10: 37”And this Qur'ân is not such as could ever be produced by
other than Allâh (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was
before it [i.e. the Taurât (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full
explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) -
wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamîn (mankind, jinns,and
all that exists)” so its not a
confirmation to the gospels written by Mark or Luke …..etc or the Oldtestament
but it’s a confirmation of the REVELATIONS which were sent down before.I belive
that there can be found traces of words of God in the present bible but its
unbelievable to say that the bible is exactly the same as the revelation
revealed to moses(taurat) and to Jesus(injeel).
21-Quran isn’t as what you think about,you said “the Moslems claim that the Qur'ân should be regarded as a
"miracle" in itself, but this is something that only the Moslems
believe and no others do. The mere fact that it is possible to deny the
heavenly origin of the Qur'ân is enough evidence that it is far from being a
wonder-book. A miracle ought to be such in everyone's eyes, but if it is not,
what kind of miracle is it?”..but your eyes seems to be closed from
looking Quran’s miracleaus nature as what Allah said in quran2: 18.”They are deaf,
dumb, and blind, so they return not (to the Right Path)” I got these words from the gospel as saying that Jesus
said referring to Isaiahs words .Quran was a miracle at the time of the prophet
for its challenge in its literature and challenge of failure of producing a
verse like that and predicting the defeat of Romans.And now too it’s a miracle
for all its scientific facts discovered only recently which no man can guess or
predict to before 1400 years.If you are interested in this topic since its vast
and great I prefer to have a separate debate about it.
22-You said “As for the inimitability of the Qur'ân I've read enough literary works to say that the Qur'ân is hardly better than the worst gothic novel. I do not mean to offend you by saying that: it's my honest opinion. I've read it in many translations and heard it chanted in Arabic on satellite TV, both from Shi'as and Sunnis and I still wonder what is so inimitable about it. If you could point out some of its extraordinary features to me so that I may take back what I've said I'd be even grateful to you. To my mind, although I am not a Moslem, Shah Isma'il Khatai's mystic poems are far superior to the Qur'ân and so are Jalal ud-Din Rűmî's. Dante Alighieri's "Divine Comedy" is a masterpiece both in content and structure. I could mention Milton and Goethe. Even Friedrich Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is more enlightening than the Qur'ân. There is more wisdom in a single line of a Buddhist sutra than in any koranic sura.” , your words sound as if you were raised hating the Quran and inreturn accused Muslims by saying “So what is so special about the Qur'ân? In my opinion what makes that book special is just the belief of the many Moslems like you who think it is God's own Word. When one has heard it said over and over again since childhood, one eventually believes it. Nevertheless, what you are trained to consider true is not necessarily objectively true”….its obvious that you were raised as to believe so.
23-You said “You also quoted two other verses. Very interestingly you quoted from the Passion according to Luke (Luke 22:42, Webster's Bible). If you do not believe that Jesus was crucified, why are you quoting that very verse?”,I want to know why shouldn’t I quote that verse?why shouldn’t I refer that verse while its confirming my belief and is consistent with what I was urguing?This verse is great evidence for the passing of the cup of crucification from Jesus to someother person as what I believe.So why did you hate it?
24-As for your saying “The cup Jesus wants his Father to take away from him is his terrible death, but if you think that he never died what kind of argumentation is yours? If there was no crucifixion there was no agony, no suffering and no Passion” what I want to say is that since Jesus already knew what the Jews were preparing for and what was going on he suffered and prayed a lot!he prayed for the cup to pass from him!it was then as what he said his God did’t left him alone,He passed that cup to other person and saved Jesus as an answer to his prayer.You know if you believe that Jesus was crucified this prayer and suffering of him will be nonsense(use less).
25-You said “Then why quote from a passage which you imply is falsified? The Moslems state the Bible is a corrupted book, but on merely dogmatic grounds, in the effort to preserve the credibility of the Qur'ân. Now, if the story of the crucifixion is a corruption of the original text why do you think that precisely that verse is sound and why do you discard the others?”but know that your bible is corrupted and I will prove this later.And I believe that (since my business is only to prove that your belief is false) I am right to quote verses from that for clarifying your false belief. I have to quote verses from the book which you believe in (inorder to show you that your bible too doesn’t support your faith).
26-You said “The verse that deals with Jesus' cry to God from the cross is another interesting point. If you don't believe that Jesus was crucified why are you using those words spoken from the cross to prove that he was not crucified?”I have used the words to prove that these words give sense while they are applied to someother person who could have been crucified instead of Jesus.They can never give sense if they are to be applied to jesus.
27-You interestingly quoted saying “Don't the four Gospels unanimously agree on Jesus' crucifixion?”,and I ask you are the gospels limited to four(read "many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us." (Luke 1:1-2))?how many gospels who don’t agree with Jesus’s crucification were disqualified in Nicae conference(300AD)?
28-You asked “If you think someone else was on the cross, how do you think you can prove it by basing yourself on those words with no other evidence from the Gospels? Is there any more reliable evidence in the Qur'ân?”,yes there is a clear evidence in the holy Quran.Although many people with out knowledge misinterpreted words and verses of the Quran,the statement of Allah is clear and clearly tells us that Jesus was never killed or crucified.
29-You with out knowledge said “And in any case, the Qur'ân is supposed to have been written over 700 years after Jesus' death and the oldest copy of the book you have now is even more recent (from around the 10th century, may-be later), so what is contained in the Qur'ân hardly matters.” But to see whether there were ancient copies of Quran(written in the first century hijra) visit http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm and http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/quran/quran_index.html and http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ .
30-You said “You are producing a fallacious argument: you are starting from the point that Jesus was not crucified, while that is exactly what you have to prove and you cannot”,its you who is starting from the point that Jesus is God and trying to shift biblical verses to get what you want.But I don’t care about what you want the verses to be I only care about what the verses say.
31-You repeated the word “The Qur'ân is supposed to confirm what is written in the Bible” twice but again I want you to know the quran isn’t supposed to confirm your bible but it’s revealed to confirm the earlier REVELATIONS.
32-You asked “Textual corruption must be proved philologically, NOT dogmatically. Why should non-Moslems accept Islamic dogmas? But here’s some evidences of the corruption of the bible.
I-The bible has got many errors and contradictions.And I don’t think that divinely revealed books can contain errors or contradictions.About this if you are interested please request me as soon as possible so that I can send you a list of many contradictions in the bible in a separate page.
II-The bible usually reduces or adds some verse or changes some thing in its later versions.And this is a clear corruption.look examples.a- I John 5:7 of the King James Version (KJV) reads: 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' This passage, however, has been deleted from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) as a fabrication. In a commentary on the Authorised Version it states: "No comment is made on this verse, as the best authorities do not consider it to be part of the original text." (Commentary on the Authorised Version, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1871, Vol.2)
b- Acts 8:37 of the KJV reads: 'And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is Son of God.' Both the New International Version (NIV) and the RSV omit this passage completely as being inauthentic.
c- John chapter 8 of the RSV and the NIV begins at verse 12, completely omitting verses 1 through to 11. The KJV, however, includes all of these verses without comment
d- The RSV omits verses 44 and 46 of Mark chapter 9. The KJV includes both verses without comment. The NIV relegates these verses to a footnote without any certainty as to their authenticity. Concerning such footnotes, the NIV explains: "Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was."
e- Mark chapter 16 in the KJV ends at verse 20. Whereas the RSV and the NIV end the chapter at verse 8, omitting a complete 12 verses describing the ascension.
f- Luke 9:56 of the KJV states: 'For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' This statement is deleted from the main text of the RSV and NIV and relegated to a footnote without any certainty as to its authenticity.
g- Acts 23:9 of the KJV ends: 'let us not fight against God.' The RSV and NIV both choose to omit these words.
h- The KJV and NIV read at Matthew 12:47: 'Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.' This verse is deleted from the main text of the RSV and relegated to a footnote.
i- The KJV, RSV and NIV all contain Matthew 16 verses 2 and 3, yet these are not found in many ancient manuscripts. The RSV comments: "Many ancient authorities omit the following words to the end of verse 3" and the NIV says: "Some early manuscripts do not have the rest of verse 2 and all of verse 3."
j- Matthew 17:21 of the KJV reads: 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.' The RSV and NIV go from verse 20 straight to verse 22, completely omitting this verse 21.
k- Matthew 18:11 of the KJV reads: 'For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.' This verse is deleted from the main text of the RSV and NIV and relegated to a footnote.
l- Both the KJV and NIV at Matthew 21:44 read: 'And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken...' This verse is deleted in the RSV.
m- Mark 15:28 of the KJV reads: 'And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.' Both the RSV and NIV delete this verse from the main text, relegating it to a footnote.
n- John 3:16 of the KJV states: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...' The word 'begotten' is omitted from the main text of the RSV and NIV
o- John 9:35 of the KJV reads: 'Dost thou believe on the Son of God?' Yet the RSV and NIV read this as: 'Dost thou believe on the Son of Man?'
p- The Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:13 of the KJV reads: 'And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' The RSV and NIV read only 'And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil' omitting the ending 'For thine is the kingdom...'
q- Luke 10:1 of the NIV reads: 'After this the Lord appointed seventy-two.' But the KJV and the RSV say that it was seventy as opposed to seventy-two. This discrepancy is also noticeable at Luke 10:17.
r- Mark 2:17 of the KJV reads: 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners unto repentance.' The RSV and NIV have deleted the words 'unto repentance' as being an addition to the text. The same discrepancy is also found at Matthew 9:13.
The above are some of the corruptions.But for a nice proof from the bible confirming that it was corrupted is in Jermiah,it says "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. (Fromthe RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)".Then it will be you duty to examine them & know what is your bible.
33-You said “The second is the degree of corruption: the Moslems prefer to think the corruption of the Bible is partial, because there are lots of things in the Qur'ân that rely on the Bible as a source of confirmation.”,we believe that the bible can contain traces from the Word of God.I cant say that its 100% corrupted and wrong.It may have got some statements from the revelations.
34-You said “Muhammad declared he was receiving revelations and verses of a heavenly book from Jibril, but he was never able to prove he was a prophet.”,but you are lieing openly.Muhammed proved the people that he was a prophet.Do you think all the millions of Arabs(almost all) who believed in his revelation and fought with him protected him helped him accepted him with out any proof?
35-You further proceded saying” This is why the Jewish tribes rejected him and he had to massacre them”,but I want you to give me an evidence of Jews massacred by Muhammed(PBUH) for not accepting him(for not accepting Islam)?there’s no Jew massacred by Muhammed(PBUH) for not accepting islam.
36-You said “There was no way of proving Muhammad was a prophet in those days as there's none nowadays. Again it is your choice to believe so. Who authored the Qur'ân? Allah? Muhammad? Somebody else? Try to find out and you'll end up realising the third option is the one that can be chosen.”,I want to say that it will be clear to you after reading and understanding all this replay of mine whether there’s a prove or not,
37-You said “The Moslems are instructed to believe the Qur'ân is God's Word. They are trained to think they are the ones to possess the "written" truth, so they also think the rest of the world is wrong, because no-one else has the same truth as they have. But no-one can prove the Qur'ân is God's Word: you choose to believe that, but it's only your own choice. The fact is that whatever you may believe is your personal opinion: it's not the truth, no matter how many people share your views.” My answer is just as your words just converte the “muslims” to “christians” the “quran” to “the bible” .but I strongly recommend you not to be biased and to examine the truth with open mind.
38-I am amazed of your words saying “since you preferred to avoid the topic of God's existence, how do you think you can prove your Qur'ân has a divine origin?”,if its so important for you we can have a debate on God’s existence.My lack of interest in that topic was just due to the fact that we both believe that God exists.
39-You said “Let's consider the Passion once again because you said Jesus' prayers used always to be answered. When in the Gospels he is reported to be asking for the cup to be removed from him, Jesus does not really ask for anything: he does not implore God that his life should be spared, but, rather, that everything should be accomplished according to his Father's will even if it is a heinous torment what is going to befall him. Jesus' prayer is about surrendering to his Father's will although his wish may be different. The glorification of the Son is in his martyrdom and resurrection. In what else should it be?”,what a wonderful tafseer have you made!How can you shift the words of the prayer of Jesus if your bible is plain and doesn’t need a tafseer?if you believe so then you have to admit the exact words “he prayed for the cup to be removed from him”.That’s all!And further more you confirmed the difference b/n God and Jesus by saying that they had different wills.
40-You said “Yet Allah's majesty remains intact despite the fact that he can pick out a hapless fellow from a bunch and have him nailed to the cross instead of Jesus. How just can Allah be setting up a make-believe crucifixion of Jesus?”,You have to know that Allah knows whats better,he substituted Jesus by someother person for purpose and I don’t think that he is unjust.Rather I think your God to be unjust.How can you say that your God is just while killing Jesus for commiting no crime?How do you say that your God is Just while he made us bear a sin commited by Adam?How can you say that your God is just while he left us with no direct evidence in the bible that Jesus is God?How can you think that your God is just while making Muhammed a great tactician in deceiving millions of muslims to a way to hell?I think these could be enough urguments for you to realize your view and your question again.
41-And
you talked about the verse in quran4:157,but I don’t see any problem in it.Its
plain and clear,I don’t want to go through all wrong interpretations.And you
have to know that every body is free to make interpretation of his own.But the
truth is one and its “And because of their saying
(in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the
Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the
resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that
man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain)
knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not
[i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]”(interpretation
of the meaning).And you have to go back to your interpreters who use to differ
in according their church’s view.
42-You said “could go on quoting from translations that do not support Isa's substitution theory just because the Qur'ân is not clear about it and no objective and honest translator would want to support any sectarian confessional view. The wahhabi Qur'âns printed in Saudi Arabia offer a very free interpretation that helps the sect that rules the country to spread their theological views and you are probably sticking to that unawares”,but I don’t think so,the verse is clear.And wahabis are right too.I have already clarified their view.
43-You said “The Qur'ân reads that the Jews did not crucify Jesus and this is again a very interesting point. In fact the verse we have been examining mentions the Jews, who are being targeted as unbelievers from verse 4:150 onwards. All the words in the dialogues are obviously fictional” but I cant recognize whats your problem there.
44-You procceded “say they are fictional because the Jews are supposed to say or have said: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger", but the Jews who wanted him dead never thought for a moment that Jesus was the Messiah and they have never had any god named Allah (such was called the moon-god Hubal in Mecca). They didn't even think he was a prophet and they still don't to this very day!”,but you seem to have forgotten what the jews wrote after they crucified the person(as the bible narrates),look they wrote Mathew 27:37”….. THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS” ,what we understand from this that Jews said to Jesus “the messenger of Allah” as a mockery(mocking him).So Allah has told us their exact words(and their mocking too).I think you too know that it’s a usual act to mock some one what by calling him what he claimed for.And as your saying that the Jews never had a god named “Allah” I don’t think that Allah had to write it in Quran “GOD” in English or hebrew instead of in Arabic.Since the Quran is in Arabic language he has to use Arabic word.
45-You further added “the very problem with the Jews seems to be that they reject some prophets. But they only rejected Muhammad”,but I want to ask you what does denying(rejecting) the prophets mean?denying one prophet means either to deny believing his prophethood or denying to do(hold fast) with what he brought or denying the fulfillment of what was revealed to the prophet.And the Jews denied some prophets by doing either of the three things I described.They denied Jesus by denying his prophethood and they denied Moses by going away from the was he ordered them to keep.So you have to know that denying isn’t limited only in denying some one’s prophethood.
46-Here by saying “The Moslems don't even follow the Qur'ân: the Islamic tradition relies exclusively on other later literature: the tafsir, the ahâdith and the sira. You know of Muhammad only from very late sources: Bukhari, ibn Ishaq, Waqidi and Tabari, just to mention a few. Islam is for the best part non-Koranic, that's to say it's not based on what you believe to be the Word of Allah.” You seems to shift your accuses against the muslims rather than to the quran.But we know Muhammed from the Quran too,and we follow the Quran.I have nothing to say but to ask you if islam is non quranic then who is the quranic?
47-You have made three wonderful interpretations of the verse in the holy quran(4:157),and you first said “The Jews neither killed nor crucified Jesus. In fact it was the Romans who executed him at the instigation of the Sanhedrin. To think that the all Jews killed Jesus is therefore a mistake”.you seems to be confused with the verse that it never says that all the Jews killed Jesus.It rather says that the Jews said that they had killed Jesus,this doesn’t refer to all Jews.
48-You further added as a second alternative to the interpration of the verse “The Jews did not kill Jesus: according to the Islamic dogma of qadar everything is foreordained, so it was in God's plan that Jesus should die and the Jews are only an instrument in his hands. The Jews are therefore not guilty.”,if its due to his QADAR that Allah said that the Jews didn’t killed Jesus why then he didn’t applied his QADAR to that of other prophets too(i.e. why did he say that the Jews were killing prophets)?
49-You then added your third alternative saying “The Jews did not kill Jesus: since Jesus was God's Word and a spirit/soul from him (Qr 4:171) he miraculously appeared (shubbiha) to be fully human, but he was not. His crucifixion was a mirage. Jesus never really hung from the cross, therefore the Jews can accept him as the Messiah (despite Deu 21:22-23) and recognize Muhammad as a prophet who is bringing this "truth" to them”,so sorry you have made a baseless and wrong interpretation.
50-By
your saying “This version of Jesus' crucifixion is
the same as that given by Gnostic, Valentinian and Docetic Christians, so that
whoever wrote the Qur'ân was saying nothing new, but was following an ancient
heretic or esoteric tradition” I confirmed that you are not consistent
with your words you said before i.e “If you think
someone else was on the cross, how do you think you can prove it by basing
yourself on those words with no other evidence from the Gospels? Is there any
more reliable evidence in the Qur'ân? No, there isn't as you'll see below. And
in any case, the Qur'ân is supposed to have been written over 700 years after
Jesus' death and the oldest copy of the book you have now is even more recent
(from around the 10th century, may-be later), so what is contained in the
Qur'ân hardly matters.”.
51-You said “the Jews cannot be called murderers of prophets (Qr 2:87), while Jesus somehow escaped the crucifixion.”,but you missed something quoted in your bible.You seem to have forgotten Jesus saying in mathew23:37"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” ,do you think there had been other people(d/t from Jews) residing in Jerusalem and killing prophets?I see here Jesus himself witnessing that the Jews are murdrers of prophets.(and know that the verse you quoted never refers to Jesus).
52-You talked about “Be” which is said to create Jesus.And you said “Do you really think that Allah's "kun" somehow echoes through the universe in Arabic or in any other language? Can Allah create without uttering "Be!"?”,but as I told you word of God doesn’t refer to the spoken words only but it refers to the thought of God.The quran says that when Allah decrees a matter he but says to it “be” and it will be(eg. Qr 3:47” She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!”(i.e God decided Jesus to “BE”),this means while Allah thinks(decides) the matter to be then it will be!I don’t think there’s much problem in this.It doesn’t sound as if Allah shouts saying “BE”.”BE” is just the description of the decision of Allah.Then Jesus was word of God(I.e since he was in the thoughts or mind of God from the beginning like all of us),then God decided to create him and he thought Jesus to “BE”(to be created with out father) then Jesus got born.In short the word “BE” refers only to the decision and decree of God.
53-After quoting verses from lukes gospel you said “In the Qur'ân once again the power of Allah is exalted: he does whatever he pleases because he may just say "Be!" and what he wants comes into existence. However, there is no connection between this "Be!" and Jesus: Jesus is not Allah's "Be!", rather he is somehow made to come to life by Allah by divine decree or plan: according to the doctrine of qadar everything is foreordained, so Jesus' birth must have been decreed long before he was born. Again there is a deed that has to do with the divine will, not with that peculiar verbal form "Be!".”,I think I have clarified why Jesus is A WORD OF GOD and why we too share in this title.So I think its useless to repeat my arguments again.Its true that Jesus’s birth was predetermined before but at that specific time(the time Jesus born) Allah commanded(decided) Jesus to get born.I think this is quite obvious,so theres a connection between Allah’s “BE” and Jesus.Although Jesus’s birth was predetermined before Allah decided for Jesus to be born at that time(decided=said”BE”).
54-You
said “Qr 16:40 “ For to anything which We
have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is. (A.
Yusuf Ali)
The verse above is again about Allah's power to
resurrect the dead (Qr 16:38) and bestow his mercy (Qr 16:41 onwards). In this
case, as we have seen, Allah's "Be!" resurrects the dead. Are the
resurrected ones Allah's word as well?”,Look every creature had been in
thought of Allah before its creation then it’s a WORD OF GOD.Sure the
resurrected ones are Allah’s words.I think I have clarified every thing about
“BE”.You are WORD OF GOD now and after your ressurection.Just keep in your mind
that every thing which hadn’t been escaped from Allah’s thought before is a
WORD.
55-You said “so also in this case we are dealing with Allah's power, poetically represented by his verbal command "Be!". Please, also notice in this verse(Qr 16:40” For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is”. (A. Yusuf Ali)) how Allah first "wills" and then "speaks", that is "acts". Again we have just Allah's will and the uttering of the word is metaphorical and signifies that no man can create anything just by saying "Be!", while Allah can work great miracles, even without saying anything”,I think if you have read clearly all what I said then this will be clear to you.Hold on!I want to give you example,First Allah intended(willed) to create you before many years(in short before your birthday) then although your time of arrival to this world was known by Allah he says “BE” at that moment of your birth time (meaning he decides and decrees for you to be born at that second and minute).That’s ALL.Don’t interpret the word “BE” as just “saying” or spoken word,it’s a decree or decision of Allah.Look these verses in quran21: 68-69(”They said: "Burn him and help your âliha (gods), if you will be doing." We (Allâh) said: "O fire! Be you coolness and safety for Ibrâhim (Abraham)!") here the saying of Allah ("O fire! Be you coolness and safety for Ibrâhim (Abraham)!") doesn’t mean that Allah shouted(as a spoken word) saying so,but its that Allah ordered the fire to be coolness and safety to Abraham(PBUH).I hope these verses will solve your problem of interpreting the word “said” or “be”. But as I think my English is bad in creating statements I want to touch this topic “BE” in deeply again.
56-You said “That "Be!" again is there to signify the power of Allah, because as it is written in the Qur'ân the creation took place in different stages: Qr 2:29, 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 41:9 onwards (A. Yusuf Ali / M. Pickthall). Do you mean Allah was continuously repating "Be! Be! Be! Be!..." all the time?”,I think this is answered in above.Allah decreed for the creation to be taken place in different time and that was the “BE”.But I see your problem is just in your interpreting the word “BE” as a spoken word(shouting or something like that) but its not like that.The “BE” of Allah is the decision and decree of Allah.
57-You said “Considering the dogma of Islam according to which the world is preserved and created endlessly through and as signs (ayah) to mankind, does that mean that Allah must be uttering "Be!" at every moment? In order to create the world continuously in our human dimension, Allah is subjected to the course of time in this great cosmic process: could you determine the time interval between any of his commands and the following one? Considering that in our human dimension an incalculable number of events takes place at the same time, is one single "Be!" command good for many different things at the same time or not?”,but I am sure that this is also being answered.And you seem to compare Our power with the power of Allah(for your saying Considering that in our human dimension an incalculable number of events takes place at the same time, is one single "Be!" command good for many different things at the same time or not?).A single decision represents for a single action to take place.Its not so difficult for Allah to decide many decisions in a micro second.But I am not amazed for your underestimating God’s power its as a result of your perception God to have power just as that of Jesus(which is weak).
58-You said “How many other things, creatures and events were created when Jesus was born? Were they all equally God's Word?”,yes they are equally God’s word.Allah said “word of God” to Jesus(PBUH) only is just like his calling Abraham(PBUH) “khelilullah” although all prophets are “khellillulah” and the calling of Moses(PBUH) “kelimullah” although Muhammed(PBUH) too is “Kelimullah”.Its his will to call his slaves by what he wants.So I don’t see that so strange.
59-You asked me saying “What about the Qur'ân? Is it Allah's word because it was created by decree? I would like you to answer this last question, please.”,you are so lucky that you have got a great opportunity of getting an answer to your confusion.Quran is not created!Look meaning ,we were in his(God’s) thought before we were created,but then he created us(i.e he made us a physical body and a soul),here it doesn’t mean that he changed the “WORD” to “US” but it means that he created us from nothing,he performed his “THOUGHT” by creating us.But in case of the Quran its physical statue(paper and ink) is created but the words are not created for “The words of Allah hasn’t changed to other thing incontrast to that of other creation).Its too difficult for me to explain it with my poor English but I will try to give you some hints in this example.Eg-One scientist had a thought to invent “Q” ,it means “Q” was a word.Then he invented it(it means he created it) here it doesn’t mean that the words got out of his mind and changed to “Q” but it was created as a result of his “thought”.Lets apply this to God’s case.God(since there isn’t any thing hidden from Allah’s thought at any time) had a “thought” of any creature(that’s the word),then as the case of us(creatures) God made his thought real by creating us from nothing.But in the case of the quran(taurat,zabur and injil too) he revealed the “thought or word” to his messengers(PBU THEM).The divinely inspired books are the “WORDS”. Allah hasn’t made the “Word” to be created from nothing,rather they are in the same state as what they were from eternity.(N.B. the “word” has never escaped from the thought of Allah its due to so that either the quran or other devinly inspired books are eternal and never been created.)..please if these all is not clear to you inform me so that I will send you a detailed and more obvious explanation of the “quran” and of “BE”.
60-You
asked some questions saying “Qr 40:67 “He it is Who created you from dust, then from a drop (of
seed) then from a clot, then bringeth you forth as a child, then (ordaineth)
that ye attain full strength and afterward that ye become old men - though some
among you die before - and that ye reach an appointed term, that haply ye may
understand.”
Qr 40:68” He it is Who
quickeneth and giveth death. When He ordaineth a thing, He saith unto it only:
Be! and it is”. (M. Pickthall)
The verses above make your point problematic. In
fact Allah's command "Be!" would have to be here understood as used
to "create" all men and eventually to take their lives. Does that
mean we are all Allah's Word? Are we Allah's word both when we're alive and
when we're dead? Are we all Jesus-like? Can I say of myself I'm Allah's kalima
and a ruh from him?”,yes every action is taken place as a result of
Allah’s decision and thought(that’s the “BE”),yes you are word when you were
alive or dead.Yes you are Jesus like.Yes you can say that you are Kelimatullah
& Ruhminhu.
61-you quoted the verse quran19: 33. "And Salâm (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" 34. Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute). 35. It befits not (the Majesty of) Allâh that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allâh, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allâh]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is” and you further aded “What I've said above is still valid here. As you can see there is no relationship between Allah's command and Isa, because the verse very simply reads that when Allah makes a decision he immediately acts”,but I think I have answered this in above.Isa(PBUH) is a word of God only since he was in Allah’s thought or mind before he was born and since he was a result of the decree and decision of God.(I used this translation of the holy quran since its detailed and clear).
62-You said “I'd like to point out that according to Western exegesis these very verses are considered a late addition to the Qur'ân, due to their polemical bias and the problem with Jesus' sonship broached here.” In referring to the above verse, but I would like if you can give me an authentic evidence for that.
63-You
said “In few words I think that you have
misunderstood Qr 4:171. Not only does the verse say that Isa is "his
word" (kalimatuhu), namely Allah's, but it also goes on to say Isa
is a spirit/soul from him (rűhun minhu). Jibril is also the ruhu 'l
Qudus "spirit/soul of the Holy (One)". How many souls/spirits does
Allah have? What kind of relationship is there between Isa and Jibril,
considering that both are souls/spirits from him?”,here first you have
to know that “RUH” or soul is a creature.Allah called to Jibril “ruhalamin” or
“ruhna” since he hasn’t got any flesh like us,angles are ruh.And his saying
“RUHNA” means that the “RUH” is owned by him.The same case with Jesus,Allah
called him “RUHUN MINHU”(a spirit from Allah) ,here it doesn’t mean that Allah
has a RUH and Jesus is the RUH but it means that the RUH belongs by Allah
only.Look this eg-say mr “x” is a butcher and has got some meat beside him then
when some one comes and ask on to whom the meat belongs then the replay of mr
“x” will be “this is my meat)!here mr x’s words doesn’t refer to the flesh of
his body but it refers to the meat beside him.Apply the same case to that of
Issa too.Allah’s saying “spirit from Allah” doesn’t sound that Allah has a
spirit and Jesus is that,but it means that the RUH is owned by Allah and it’s a
creature.Infact we all who possess soul has a soul owned by Allah are spirits
from Allah too.Look what Allah said concerning Adam(PBUH) quran 15: 29. "So, when I
have fashioned him completely and breathed into him (Adam) the soul(min ruhi)(from my spirit) which I
created for him, then fall (you) down prostrating yourselves unto him.",from here it can be clear that Adam too is a “RUHUN
MINHU”.Look this hadith, Imam Muslim narrated in his “Sahih” on the
authority of Abdullah Bin Masoud that he said; “Allah's prophet - Mohammad
(PBUH) - the truthful and trustworthy, told us;
"The creation of each one of you
is composed in the mother‘s womb in forty days, in that (creation) it
turns into such a clot, then in that turns into such a mudgha and then
Allah sends an angel and orders him to write four things, i.e., his provision,
his age, and whether he will be of the wretched or the blessed (in the
Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into him. …….” ,so from this hadith since we (as that of
Adam(PBUH)) poccess a soul brethed to us we too are “RUHUN MINHU”.I think
there’s no new thing with that of Jesus(PBUH),look Allah made Adam(PBUH) from
clay and breathed his spirit(a soul owned by him) to him and he made us through
the process explained in the hadith above and breathed into us his spirit and
he made Jesus(PBUH) through mysterious process and breathed his spirit into
him(the furthest thing we know about Jesus is that he hasn’t got any sperm cell
to be made we don’t know whether egg or someother thing was involved),so how
can’t Allah breath his spirit(a spirit awned by him) to any thing and it will
have a life(either the thing is clay or sperm+egg or egg only or something
else)?
I think the above explanation is enough for your comments on the quranic verses 19:16-19:21.
64-You
said “Qr 19:21” He said: So
(it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may
make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing
ordained”. (M. Pickthall)
Jesus is Allah's "revelation" for mankind: a living ayat (âyatan
is the Arabic word in the text) of divine mercy (rahmatan minnâ), his
Word, the kalima and not just the result of the command
"Be!":”,but first I want to correct that interpretation of the
quran.That’s here the word “AYAT” is translated to “revelation” but its quite
wrong,if you know Arabic well its clear that the word for revelation in Arabic
is “WEHI” but the word in the Arabic text is saying “AYATIN” and its meaning is
“A SIGN” not “A REVELATION”.Thus the correct translation is “He said: "So (it will be), your Lord said: 'That is
easy for Me (Allâh): And (We wish) to appoint him as a sign to mankind
and a mercy from Us (Allâh), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allâh)”,And this verse is clear that Jesus was made a sign of
greatness of Allah to BENI ISREAL who hadn’t pleased Allah although he showed
them many great miracles and wonders.So due to their hard heart he showed them
a greater miracle(i.e. the birth of Jesus with out father).As for the statement
“..AND A MERCY FROM US..” is nothing but as what Allah said to Muhammed(PBUH)
too(quran21: 107”And We have sent you (O
Muhammad ) not but as a mercy for the
'Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists)”.As the rest of that your words refer the above answers of
“BE”.
65-As referring to the verse in Rev3:14 you said “I don't know how to identify "the Amen" with Jesus as you do; but since you do, I will base myself on your own interpretation. Yet, whatever your own interpretation of the verse in Revelation may be, it finally contradicts your interpretation of the Qur'ân. Let's see why and use the Greek text” ,first its clear that the word “AMEN “ here is quoted referring to Jesus.Second I don’t care whether it contradicts the Quran or not! I only care whether it contradicts your belief or not.Since I don’t believe the bible to be 100% word of God(specially the epistles of Paul and the revelation) my business of referring them is ONLY TO PROOF THAT YOUR BIBLE TOO IS AGAINST YOUR FAITH.
66-You said “"πρωτοτοκος" is the word that is translated as "firstborn", but overtly contradicts the idea of the creation of Jesus which is exclusively an Islamic dogma: nowhere in the Bible is Jesus spoken of as "created", let alone created by a verbal command. In any case, "πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως" means "firstborn of the whole creation" which would be understood as "born before all things were made" (confirmed by verse Col 1:17)”,Look if the verse means that Jesus was born before all things were made then it clearly confirms that Jesus is a creature.The verse tells that there were other things created after Jesus but Jesus is the first in order.This means(although I don’t believe that Jesus is a first born)(I am telling according to the verse) that Jesus is the same as the others his difference is only in the order of creation.if you honestly want to know the truth then why can you misinterpret the verse while its clear that a “born” thing is a creature.
67-You said “Again, you have misquoted from the New Testament, probably without reading the whole passage in the letter: you would have also noticed that Paul calls Jesus the Son of God in Col 1:13, that redemption is gained through his sacrificial death (Col 1:14), that Jesus is the visible image (εικων) of the invisible God (Col 1:15). The whole passage disconfirms the dogmas of Islam about Jesus and the Qur'ân cannot rely on the New Testament for support in what is written in it.”,I again want to remind you that I don’t care about what paul says against the Quran I only care about what he said against the Christian faith.And about his word “that Jesus is the visible image (εικων) of the invisible God (Col 1:15)” is nothing but as what is said in genesis1:26” Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…..” I see no difference between them.Paul might had said so in reference to that man is an image of God as related in genesis1:26.
68-You said “The Moslems are the ones who think that Jesus' sonship is biological,” and further added “So it is evident that Jesus' sonship must mean something different than the blood relationship that Islam falsely attributes to Christians as their belief”,but I havn’t seen any evidence in the Quran that suppors your claim.
69-You said “the Trinity is fouled up at verse 5:116; the outrageous and false accusation of worship of monks and rabbis as if they were gods is at verse 9:31; the Jewish rabbis (rabbaniyîna) are reported to worship angels and prophets at verses 3:79-80; the Jews are made to claim that Uzayr/Ezra is the son of God at verse 9:30. These verses are enough evidence that the Qur'ân is a fraud”,but have a look at this link please http://www.thewhitemoon.com/mary/trinity.html you will get whether trinity is fouled up at verse 5:116 or not.As for verse 9:31 which says”They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allâh (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allâh), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilâh (God - Allâh) Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) . Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."”(interpretation of the meaning).I think from this interpretation its clear that Allah said that they took their rabbis and monks to be their lords referring to the fact that they obey them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desire.
As for in verses 3:79-80 they says
“It is not (possible) for any human being to whom
Allâh has given the Book and Al-Hukma (the knowledge and understanding of the
laws of religion, etc.) and Prophethood to say to the people: "Be my
worshippers rather than Allâh's." On the contrary (he would say): "Be
you Rabbaniyun (learned men of religion who practise what they know and also
preach others), because you are teaching the Book, and you are studying
it." # Nor would he order you to take angels and Prophets for lords
(gods). Would he order you to disbelieve after you have submitted to Allâh's
Will? (Tafsir At-Tabarî). Here I don’t see any problem its clear enough.All
the words “IBADI” or “ARBABA” refers to the act of worshiping them by obeying
them and elevating them to Allah’s statue.As to the
case of Uzair in verse 9:30 saying “And the
Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is
the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying
of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away
from the truth! “ it is interesting
to note that the Jews in Arabia, during the advent of Islam, were involved in
mystical speculation as well as anthromorphizing and worshipping an angel that
functions as the substitute creator of the universe That angel is usually
identified as Metatron.Look what Ibid, p. 61. says “...we can deduce that the inhabitants of Hijaz during
Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the
Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch
traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones
as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be
applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of
whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God
elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that
among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical
speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions
of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was
equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene
Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one
of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.”.The
Islamic exegetes have mentioned that there existed a community of Jews in Yemen
who considered Ezra as son of God. Hirschberg says in Encyclopaedia Judaica:
“H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words
of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that
'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources,
there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra
was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in
the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah.”( Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ibid., p. 1108.”I think this could be enough.
70-You
said “You say that Allah speaks in the Qur'ân, so
please consider Qr 19:16, where someone wrote "And make mention of Mary in
the Scripture": who is talking to whom? Who is reminding who in the
Scripture that ought to be eternal and preserved in heaven? You think the
Qur'ân is divine even if the text of that book has a very mundane history. I'm
sure you will reject this point, because you consider your sacred book as whole
and immutable, but this is an Islamic mass delusion”,its Allah talking
to Muhammed(PBUH),whats its effect then.I cant understand what you want to
say?could you clarify it?
71-You
said “since it is known that there are different
readings of the Qur'ân and that it was NEVER put together while Muhammad was
alive. Even Islamic historiography is clear about this point: Muhammad's wife
Hafsa had a Qur'ân written on palm-leaves, Aysha had her own and taught the
proper order of suras from it (the order was later changed by 'Uthman), Ali had
his own copy, Abu Bakr his own and they were all destroyed on caliph 'Uthman's
order when he decided to issue a standard Qur'ân. 'Uthman appointed Zayd ibn
Thabit as the compiler of the official redaction and what you can say you have
today is HIS Qur'ân and no-one else's: certainly NOT Allah's Qur'ân. This is a
fact: it is your own historians that say that you had no book before 'Uthman
decided you should have one. As far as I'm concerned your religion could be
named "Uthmanism"”,I want to answer these point by point.Hold
on!
The Qur’an, revered as the Word
of Allah by Muslims the world over, is
the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It was
authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the
roots of the myth which says that Usman had the Qur’an authenticated.
1. Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of
the Qur’an
Whenever the Prophet received a
revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation
and instruct his Companions who would also memorize it. The Prophet would
immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and
he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was an Ummi
who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he
would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he
would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any
mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and
rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the
Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was
written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (PBUH).
2. Order
and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired
The complete Qur’an was revealed
over a period of 22˝ years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The
Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of
revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and
was instructed to the Prophet by Allah through Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation
was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah
(chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit.
Every Ramadhaan all the
portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the
verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel.
During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an
was rechecked and reconfirmed twice.
It is therefore clearly evident
that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during
his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of
his Companions.
3. Qur’an copied on one common material
The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the
verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (PBUH). The verses however,
were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones,
leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet,
Abu Bakr the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the
various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the
shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the
compilation was lost.
4. Usman made copies of the Qur’an from the original
manuscript
Many Companions of the Prophet
used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they
heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not
personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the
verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the
Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an
being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims
regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third
Caliph Usman.
Usman borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was
authorized by the beloved Prophet (PBUH), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased
with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (may Allah be pleased with him.) ordered
four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the
Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit to rewrite the script in several
perfect copies. These were sent by Usman to the main centres of Muslims.
There were other personal
collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These
might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Usman only appealed to the people
to destroy all these copies which did not match the original manuscript of the
Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of
the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present
to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the
other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.
5-Allah him self has
promised to guard the quran by saying “Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the
Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”quran15:9.
72-You quoted much
statements followed by two hadiths I don’t think I could have time to give
replay to all lies.But I want to direct you to get all the answers about that
in detail in http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
73-You said “The four major redactions
of the Qur'ân are those of imams Warsh, Qalun, Duri and Hafs. These are not the
ones: the ancient Gold Koran in the Nuruosmaniye Library in Istanbul, Turkey,
does not follow any of the above redactions. Besides containing different words
here and there, they do not even have the same number of verses. Allah must
have failed to preserve your book and he failed even according to the people
who were closest to Muhammad.”,really
The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the
vowels in Arabic script.The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and
diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their
mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to
recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced
into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph,
Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of
Al-Hajaj in Iraq.
Some people argue that the
present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the
diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the
Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a
recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is
important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it
contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally,
the meaning remains the same too.
74-You said “Apparently the compilers of the Qur'ân even disagreed on
the language that had to be used for the Qur'ân. The plain truth is that the
Qur'ân was not written in the Arabic dialect of Mecca and that the Meccan
pronunciation is not even advised for recitation. The Qur'ân is full of
borrowings from Aramaic, a language which was nowhere spoken in Arabia. The
Qur'ân isn't written in a specific dialect and contains lots of words of
unknown meaning”. It is a well-known fact that there are seven different
ahrűf in which the Qur'an was revealed. In the Islamic tradition, this
basis can be traced back to a number of hadîths concerning the
revelation of the Qur'an in seven ahrűf (singular harf). Some of
the examples of these hadîths are as follows:
From Abű Hurairah:
The Messenger of God(P) said:
"The Qur'an was sent down in seven ahruf. Disputation concerning the
Qur'an is unbelief" - he said this three times - "and you should put
into practice what you know of it, and leave what you do not know of it to
someone who does."
From
Abű Hurairah:
The Messenger of Go said: "An All-knowing,
Wise, Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'an in seven ahruf."
And
in another hadîth cAbdullâh Ibn Mascud said:
The Messenger of God) said: "The
first Book came down from one gate according to one harf, but the Qur'an came
down from seven gates according to seven ahruf: prohibiting and commanding,
lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables. So, allow what it makes
lawful, proscribe what it makes unlawful, do what it commands you to do, forbid
what it prohibits, be warned by its parables, act on its clear passages, trust
in its ambiguous passages." And they said: "We believe in it; it is
all from our Lord."
And
Abű Qilaba narrated:
It has reached me that the Prophet said:
"The Qur'an was sent down according to seven ahruf: command and
prohibition, encouragement of good and discouragement of evil, dialectic,
narrative, and parable."
These
above hadîths serve as evidence that the Qur'an was revealed in seven
ahruf. The defination of the term ahruf has been the subject of much scholarly
discussion and is included in the general works of the Qur'an. The forms
matched the dialects of following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf,
Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen. The revelation of the Qur'an in seven
different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the
various tribes. At the same time the quran challenged them to produce a sura
like it in their own dialect so that
they would not complain about the incomprehensibility.
For example, the phrase 'alayhim (on
them) was read by some 'alayhumoo and the word siraat (path,
bridge) was read as ziraat and mu'min (believer) as moomin.
The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf
until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the
outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had
began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to
develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms
of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies
of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with
the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved
by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed.
Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were
dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an
which is available through out the world today is written and recited only
according to the harf of Quraysh.
I think this could be enough.
75-You
said “There are a few more things that perhaps you
can explain to me: why are adulterers stoned when this punishment is not
mentioned in the Qur'ân? Where is the verse about stoning in the Qur'ân? Why
are apostates from Islam killed when this punishment is not in the Qur'ân? Why
do you pray the way you pray when it is not what is taught in the Qur'ân? Where
is the salat described? Why must you pray only in Arabic when you
perform it, otherwise it is null? Why are you circumcized if that type of
ritual mutilation is not even hinted to in the Qur'ân? What does your religion
stand upon? Allah's Word? I very much doubt that”,but know that the
Quran sometimes give only hint to some topics while we get its interpretation
in hadiths.So we Muslims follow the tradition of our Prophet(PBUH) as what
Allah ordered us to take what our prophet gave us and to forbid what he
prohibited us.
76-You
said “The verse Qr 15:9 only reads that Allah sends
a "warning" a "reminder", which is the meaning of the word
"dhikr", besides others. The "warning" is about the
Final Judgment and in fact in verse 15:8 you can read that if Allah openly sent
angels to mankind there'd be no respite, because the Last Day would have come.
The same concept is repeated in Qr 6:8, where you can read that if Allah should
send angels it would be the end of the world. The verse you quoted only says
Allah gives a warning, or reminds through the prophets, that he will judge
mankind and that Allah is the one who judges and who knows when that day will
be (Qr 16:77)”,but the verse is clear.It reads that the
quran(translating the dhikr to warning doesn’t give sense since its non sense
saying that Allah sent down the warning but the one which gives sense is
translating it to reminder.Since in many places in the Quran it says that the
quran is sent down then the verse clearly refers to the Quran(the “dhikr” is
the “reminder” “the Quran”) is sent down by Allah and that he will guard it.And
gurding it refers to guarding it from any corruption.
77-You
said “Among scholars opinions have varied about the
structure of the Qur'ân. Ubayy ibn Ka’b stated the number of the verses in the
Qur’an was 6210. ‘Ata ibn Yasar said the suras were 114, the verses were 6170,
the words 77439, and the letters 323015. Asim al-Jahdari, said there were 113
suras in the Qur'ân. Yahya ibn al-Harith al-Dhamarisa counted 6226 verses,
while the letters were 321,530. Today the Qur’an has approximately 78090 words.
"Approximately", because it depends on which redaction is
being used”,its due to the fact that some consider that “,The numbers of the
verses of Qur'an are a little more than 6200. All the scholars of Islam are
agreed on the number 6200 but they differ regarding the remaining small
number.Some say 4 verses. Others say fourteen. Others say nineteen. Others say
twenty-five. Others say thirty-five or thirty-six.The reason for this
disagreement is that the Prophet (PBUH) used to stop after reading the verse as
to teach his companions the beginning and end of the verses.Some of them would
consider any stop a beginning of a verse. Others would consider the stop only a
breath and would link what preceded it to what follows it. Another reason for
these differences is the lack of agreement on whether the Basmalah (Bismillahi
Al-Rahmani Al-Rahim) is a verse of every Surah (chapter) or whether it was put
there for its Baraka (blessing). al-Shafia consider
it a verse of every Surah. But this is a simple issue as it does not claim
adding to the Qur'an or reducing from it.And as “Asim al-Jahdari, said there
were 113 suras in the Qur'ân” its his openion he might not counted surat atawba
as a sura.But the truth is there are 114 suras.
78-As
your explanation of the Arabic language I havn’t said that Arabic never changed
what I said is “And I don’t deny that any language In this world borrows
something from other language, no language is static.But look the quran is
still alive with all its unique literature & style.This can be great
challenge to the bible that the biblical original languages are about to perish
& only few persons could understand it.But Arabic is spoken all over the
world & still surviving language.” And this is true.I don’t deny that
every language makes an evolution and change as time changes.
79-You
said “You said the Bible changes always. It is your
duty now to prove it philologically. I also expect you to tell me who is
changing the Bible and why these changes are made. In this reply to you I have
quoted from various translated texts: if the Bible is an ever-changing book my
quotations must needs be wrong and I require you to prove this, too, point by
point. You, too, quoted from the Bible to support your own ideas”,but I
think I have proved it and gave you some NO-32.
80-You
said “if the Bible is an unreliable source then your
quotations are of no use and your arguments are practically invalid. But
because you did quote from the Bible, I also expect you to tell me why you
quoted from it and why you chose that specific translation into English instead
of another.”,How can my quotations be of no use.I quoted just to prove
that your bible isn’t a book qualified to for some one reley on.
81-You
said “I also expect you to tell me why you quoted
from it and why you chose that specific translation into English instead of
another. Do you have a superior degree of knowledge which enables you to choose
the right translation? As for myself, I must be very ignorant, even if I quoted
from Greek and translated it for you word by word... It may be worse: not only
am I ignorant, but I must also be stupid not to realize the changes when I move
through a considerable number of translations of the Bible into several
different modern languages, besides Latin and Greek. Please, enlighten me,
because it seems to me I always read the same book.”,That’s my aim,why
you became worried of my using any specific translation.And my evidences I quoted
in NO-32 are so great and clear that can not be affected by translation.Just
read them carefully and if you can, refer their translations in any language
too.
82-You
said “I have given enough evidence that the Qur'ân is
written in some obscure mixed language that is basically Arabic, but cannot be
identified as a particular Arabic dialect spoken in a specific place: the ahâdith
report that it is written partly in the dialect of the Qurashi (quraysh) tribe,
but no-one can say how much of it is in that language and in any case it was
'Uthman who ordered that particular standardization because no official
integral text had existed before. Some words in the Qur'ân have no meaning at
all. Lots of words and expressions are borrowed from Aramaic and Biblical
Hebrew. The famous formula b' ismi 'llah is a hebraism modelled on the
Hebrew be shem YHWH: this formula, however, only has a meaning in
Hebrew, because it refers to the power of YHWH's shem as a manifestation
of the Godhead (the other manifestations are debar [word], kabod
[glory], paniyim [countenance] and ruach [spirit]). The words qur'ân
and furqan are aramaisms; dîn is a Persian word.”,but its
only your openion!
83-You
said “There is an enormous amount of translations of
the Qur'ân and no two translators interpret it in the same way so that
translations are at variance. Scroll back to where I dealt with the
substitution theory and compare with your own translations. Isn't it miraculous
that even I can offer an interpretation that you cannot refute because it makes
sense? Above I have told you of the differences between the Hafs, Qalun, Duri,
Warsh redactions and between them and older manuscripts that do not follow any
official redaction and are not complete. I'm telling you again that you do not
have Muhammad's Qur'ân: you have a late redaction of 'Uthman's standardized
text, with all the suras mixed up in a weird order so that no-one knows what is
the exact order of their revelation. Some Meccan and Medinese revelations are
combined: Qr 2:281 is said to have been revealed on the day of Muhammad's last
pilgrimage, but the rest of sura 2 is entirely Medinese; Qr 6:20, 23, 91, 93,
114, 141, 151, 152, 153 are Medinese verses in a Meccan sura. Verses 163 to 170
in Meccan sura 7 are Medinese. Many suras have mixed verses: who messed things
up?”,but I see I have answered these all in above.
84-And
you further added “Considering the confusion, can
you decide how many verses were abrogated? I hope we can deal with nasikh
and mansukh on some other occasion, but it is exactly because the Qur'ân
is a jumbled text that there is no consensus on this topic. Moreover, think of
how absurd it is to claim the eternal and uncreated Word of Allah can somehow
be abrogated or "reshuffled"”,please since here’s great
misconceptions I request you if we can dear with naskh and mensukh in detail
other time(in near future).
85-You
said “And now a last word on the light of Islam that
was brought to the pagans of Arabia. I'd wish to know what you exactly mean by
"light". The pagans of the Arabic peninsula are described as a
peaceful people which was wiped off the face of the planet by means of the
sword. Islam was imposed upon the pagans, while the Arabic Jewish tribes were
either massacred or expelled from their homeland: there are no Christians and
no Jews either in Medina or Mecca: why? There are no longer any pagan Arabs:
why? Because Islam destroyed entire civilizations and caused the extinction of
more respectable and peaceful religions. And it all happened through war,
murder, pillage and terror.”,I am amazed about your question “? There
are no longer any pagan Arabs: why?”,oh they embarrassed islam!but as for those
you said had been massacared I want you to give me an evidence.Since its
completely false.
I
think I have clarified almost all what you quoted.But as for somethings which I
said to you to make a separate a debate about them I am expecting to start the
debate in near future.
“Say: “O people of the
Book (Christians and Jews)! Come to a word that is just between us and
you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall associate no
partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords beside
God.” (Quran, 3:64)
Have a
nice time,
Omer M. Omer.