"Read Graham Hancock's book, 'Fingerprints of the Gods' and you will see how similar much of the religious doctrine is between ancient races and nations that predate both Judaism and Islam." I have been making the same point. The old testament suggests that God had a relationship with mankind after creation. Indeed, God talked to Cain and Able. After Cain kills able God drives him away to a city near the garden on Eden. The old testaments says that the city was a sinful place.
After the Torah lists the generation of Shem it says that "The entire Earth had one language wit uniform words. When the people migrated from the East, they found a valley in the land of Shinar[Sumer or the Persian Gulf] and settled there...They said come let us build a city, and a tower whose top shall reach the sky. Let us make ouselves a name so that we will not be scattered all over the face of the earth. God descened to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. God said, " They are a single people, all having one language, and this is the first thing they do! Now nothing they plan to do will be unatainable for them! Come let us descend and confuse their speech...From that place, God scatttered them all over the face of the earth..."
Generations passed until the time of Noah when it is said that God regreted that he created man because of their disobedience, specifically that they turned to other Gods and worshipped them. Mankind knew of God and turned away from HIM. God could find among them only one righteous man left, Noah. He made a covenant with Noah and told him to build an ark. The flood occurred. Generations passed man turned away once again and God made another covenant with Moses.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: truetrini
Originally Posted By: Noel2000
The evil cult that is militant Islam needs to be exposed for all of the free and united world. Militant Islam has been responsible for countless killings and destruction of world treasures. Militant Islam bears no love for secularism, freedom, dignity of women, right to freedom of thought, expression , faith , belief and worship. It is a totalitarian cult that fosters murderous fundamentalism and non tolerance of any other way of life except its own.
Islamist apologists are fooling nobody but themselves, for when the time comes for forceful conversion to Islam or payment of jizya , it will be too late for them. It is time that the free world recognizes militant Islam for the evil that it really is and unites to put down this murderous and deadly philosophy that has brought doom to millions throughout history.
Can you ever say exactly what YOU think? Do you ever get original thoughts in your head? Or do you just have to go around copying and pasting here without giving the original author any form of credit for their thoughts and ideas?
I am yet to see any thing original posted by you. All I ever see is copy and paste, copy and paste!
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
"Almost universally, independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith, have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion." This account is only accepted by Western scholars and Orientalist who have an agenda. The history and authenticity of the Qura'n is well attested by Islamic scholars and its preservation from the first century AH is well documented. The Qur'an came to correct and verify all the myths and stories that were told before it. Those who study the Qur'an and Islam do not find it disorganised, but you have to have the "key" before you can unlock it.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Chapter five Damning confessions Mrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist church, in her Bible commentary vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible." "The Bible we read today is the work of many copyists who have in most instances done their work with marvellous accuracy. But copyists have not been infallible, and God most evidently has not seen fit to preserve them altogether from error in transcribing." In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible" (from what?) "yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition."
Developed sickness “In their hearts is a disease; and ALLAH has increased their disease; and grievous is the penalty they incur, because they are false to themselves.” Qura’an 2:10
The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "truly, the Bible is the infallible word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "it is human, yet divine." do words have any meaning in their language? yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic licence" in their preaching. The witnesses The most vociferous of all the bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "foreword" mentioned earlier, they confess: "in copying the inspired originals by hand the element of human frailty entered in, and so none of the thousands of copies extant today in the original language are perfect duplicates. The result is that no two copies are exactly alike" now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.
Pot-luck Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (see Council of Nicea above). We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged foreword: "The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek scriptures (1) has been tampered with, the same as the text of the lxx the same as the text of the lxx (2) has been," Yet this incorrigible cult has the effrontery to publish 9, 000, 000 (nine million) copies as a first edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible really the word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "appreciably affect the authenticity of the Bible"– this is Christian logic. 1. New Testament. 2. "lxx" meaning seventy, is the Jews alternative title of the Old Testament do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton," meaning seventy.
A patient hearing Dr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:- "and let us be perfectly fair as we pursue the subject (is the Bible the word of God?). Bearing in mind that we are to hear what the Bible has to say about itself. In a court of law we assume that a witness will speak the truth, and must accept what he says unless we have good grounds for suspecting him, or can prove him a liar. Surely the Bible should be given the same opportunity to be heard, and should receive a like patient hearing."
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself. In the first five books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God (SWT) is not the author of these books, but that even Moses (PBUH) himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see: • "and the Lord said unto him. away, get thee down . . ." • "and Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ." • "and the Lord said unto Moses, go on before the people . . ." • "and the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . ." • "and the Lord said unto Moses, get down, charge the . . ." It is manifest and apparent that these are neither the words of God nor of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
Moses writes his own obituary? Could Moses (PBUH) had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . died . . . and He (God Almighty) buried him (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he died ... and there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
Chapter six The book christened "the New Testament" Why "according to?" What about the so-called New Testament? (1) why does every Gospel begin with the introduction — according to ... according to ... Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name. "and as Jesus passed forth thence, he (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he (Jesus) saith unto him (Matthew), follow me, and he (Matthew) arose, and followed him (Jesus)." (Matthew 9:9) (1) the "so-called," because nowhere does the "New Testament" calls itself the New Testament, and nowhere the Old Testament calls itself the Old Testament. And also the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible. God forgot to give a title to "his" books!
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "he's" and the "him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard — a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the word of God?
We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew". Phillips has this to say about its authorship."early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "the author, whom we still can conveniently call Matthew" "conveniently" because otherwise every time we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "the first book of the New Testament" chapter so and so, verse so and so. and again and again "the first book . . ." etc. therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "the author has plainly drawn on the mysterious 'Q' which may have been a collection of oral traditions." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "Quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. and because they saw eye to eye, the first three "gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.
Wholesale cribbing But what about that "inspiration" business? the Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let him spell it out for us. (notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "he (Matthew) has used Mark's gospel freely" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying wholesale from Mark!" yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the word of God? Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus (PBUH) upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.
Plagiarism or literary kidnapping Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common cord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common cord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Qur'an. (1) This 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction" (2) and take pride in it. 1. see "al-Qur’an — the miracles of miracles". 2. see beginning of chapter one for the full quotation.
Perverted standards Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible: "what a book is the Bible in the matter of variety of contents! . . . whole pages are taken up with obscure names, and more is told of a genealogy than of the Day of Judgment. Stories are half told, and the night falls before we can tell where victory lay. Where is there anything" (in the religious literature of the world) "to correspond with this?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole" on Juliet's lip!
Nothing less than 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the head of the department of theology on the subject "is the Bible God's word?" to open their Bibles. Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. at my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, reading slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused — "yeh!", "yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 Kings 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (see website) In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God. Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the book of Kings is "unknown!" These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the right Rev. David j. Fant, litt. d., general secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the most reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "author — unknown!" they are prepared to pay lip service to scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the word of God — heaven forbid!
No verbal inspiration For a complete list of all the books of the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" RSV 'with' its annotations. What have Christian scholars to say about the "book of Isaiah?" they say: "mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others" in view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible" so God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called word of God — the Bible. yet, bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God's word!"
...to be continued insh'allah
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Historical errors are so many in the Qur'an that we cannot cover them all, but we will be content to point out some very obvious examples:
The Crucifixion of Christ
The Qur'an explicitly denies that Jesus was crucified. It claims that the Jews became so confused that they crucified somebody else instead who had the likeness of Christ. It is recorded in the Qur'an 4:15,
"They slew him not nor crucified but it appeared so unto them."
In his commentary on this verse al-Baydawi said (p. 135),
"A group of Jews cursed Christ and his mother. He invoked evil on them and, may He be exalted, turned them into monkeys and swine. The Jews gathered together to kill him, but God, may He be exalted, informed him (Jesus) that He was going to lift him up to heaven. Thus, (Jesus) said to his companions, `Who would like to have my likeness cast on him and be killed and crucified, then enter the paradise?' One of them volunteered (to do so) and God cast on him Christ's likeness. He was then arrested, crucified and killed. It is also said that (the crucified one) was a traitor who went with the mob to guide them to Christ (he meant Judas), thus God cast on him the likeness of Jesus and he was arrested, crucified and killed."
Al- Baydawi is not the only one who records these mystical stories, but all Muslim scholars who attempt to interpret the above verse, plainly state that Jesus was not crucified. The Qur'an has ignored not only the records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the rest of the New Testament, but also all the other chroniclers. It ignores the history of the Roman Empire which documented that a Jewish man by the name of Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate the Pontius, the Roman Governor who gave way to the demands of the chief priests of the Jews.
It is well known that Christ's trial took place in front of the chief priests and the Roman Governor. It is also common knowledge that the arrested man did not remonstrate and say, "I am not Christ, I am Judas who wanted to betray Him and give Him away to you." All Jesus' words on the cross denote that He was Christ, especially His statement, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34).
Jesus Himself told His disciples that He must be delivered to the chief priests and be crucified, then He would rise from the dead on the third day. Christ Himself foretold that and the crucifixion was fulfilled according to the many prophecies recorded in the Old Testament which predicted His crucifixion centuries before. Christ came to accomplish God's plan for man's salvation.
Therefore, it is not reasonable that six hundred years after Christ's crucifixion, a man should appear and declare to the world (ignoring all the historical evidence) that the one who was crucified was not Christ. This is similar to a man who comes hundreds of years from now to tell us that the one who was assassinated in the twentieth century was not Martin Luther King (or John F. Kennedy or Zia al-Haqq) but rather someone else who looked like him. Of course, nobody would believe him, even if he claimed that the angel Gabriel (or the thunder angel) revealed it to him.
The Virgin Mary
In many places, the Qur'an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur'an has confused Jesus' mother with Aaron's sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur'an indicates that Mary (Christ's mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called "the wife of Imran" (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.
Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma. Let us examine these interpretations to see these conflicting views.
In the context of his comment on the Qur'anic statement that Mary is Aaron's sister (which is recorded in chapter 19:28), al-Baydawi (p. 405) said,
"Oh, sister of Aaron (the prophet). And she was an offspring of some of those who were with him who belonged to the same class of brotherhood. It was also said that she was one of Aaron's descendants though there were a thousand years between them. It was said too, that he (Aaron) was a righteous or a wicked man who lived during their time (time of Mary). They likened her to him to ridicule her or to insult her."
Yet Baydawi's statement is repealed by the Qur'an because the Qur'an did not refer to a moral relationship but stressed the literal meaning. If the Qur'an had meant to elevate Mary to the same level of Aaron, the prophet, or to the status of a daughter of Imran, why then did it mention that her mother was the wife of Imran as it is recorded in chapter 3:35? It is very obvious that the matter was either confused in the mind of Muhammad or of Gabriel, the angel! It is not acceptable that the Qur'an intended to say that Mary enjoys the same status as a sister of Aaron and a daughter of Imran. Therefore it is impossible to treat Mary (the mother of Jesus) as if she were the sister of Aaron and Moses.
The contemporary scholar who translated the Qur'an which was authorized by the Saudi authorities said (in the introduction of page 47 of chapter of the Family of Imran),
"Al Imran takes its title from v. 32, where `the family of Imran' (the father of Moses) occurs as a generic name for all the Hebrew prophets from Moses to John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. This with the mention of the mother of Mary as `the wife of Imran' (v. 34) and the words `sister of Aaron' addressed to Mary (XIX.28) have given rise to a charge of anachronism. Some say that the prophet confused Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Mary, the sister of Moses. Most Muslims believe (on the authority of the Qur'an) that the grandfather of Jesus Christ was named `Imran' which may also have been the name of the father of Moses. In Surah XIX 28 where Mary is addressed as `sister of Aaron', they hold the ancestral sense to be the more probable, while denying that there is any reason to suppose that the virgin Mary had not a brother named Aaron."
Thus, they fail to explain to us why the Qur'an said that the mother of Mary was the wife of Imran, especially if the Qur'an intended (as they say) to show the moral relationship only. It is an obvious historical mistake, my dear reader, because Mary had no brother named Aaron.
Alexander the Great
It is amazing to see the Qur'an talking about Alexander the Great as if he were a righteous man and a teacher, though it is well-known that the Greek, Alexander, was idolatrous and claimed to be the son of Amun, the God of Egypt. If the reader wonders where it is recorded in the Qur'an that Alexander was a righteous man, we would refer him to the chapter of the Cave 18:83-98 where we encounter sixteen verses which talk about this military general. These verses explicitly say that God assisted him, guided him and removed all obstacles from his way in order that he could accomplish his plans and fulfill his desires. They indicate that Alexander was the one who reached the place of the sunset and found it set down in a well of water and mud. They claim that he encountered some people and God gave him the option to torment them, to kill them or to take them captive, call them to the faith and to lead them in a straight path.
These comments are expressed by all the scholars without any exception (refer to Baydawi, p. 399, al-Jalalan, p. 251, al-Tabari, p. 339, al-Zamakhshari, part 2 of al-Kash-shaf, p. 743). If we do not refer to these great expounders of the Qur'an to whom, then, shall we refer? The Greek Alexander was not a righteous servant of God as the Qur'an said, but he was a licentious, belligerent, idolatrous man. He did not have any relationship with God and God never asked him to guide people and to teach them the faith.
Other Historical Errors
Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur'an claims that Haman was pharaoh's prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur'an says so. The Qur'an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?
Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur'an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur'an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries!
The Qur'an claims (Chapter 2:125-127) that Abraham and Ishmael, his son, are the ones who built The Ka'ba in Mecca in Saudi Arabia. The late Dr. Taha Husayn (the most famous professor of Arabic literature in Egypt) acknowledges that the information recorded in the Qur'an pertaining to the construction of Ka'ba at the hand of Abraham and Ishmael is not historically documented. He said:
"The case of this episode is very obvious because it is of recent date and came into vogue just before the rise of Islam. Islam exploited it for religious reasons" (quoted in Mizan al-Islam by Anwar al-Jundi, p. 170).
This declaration invoked the rage of the Muslim scholars against him. The former president of Tunisia did the same thing when he stated that the Qur'an contains mythical stories. Muslim scholars revolted against him and threatened to kill him because these are Muhammad's orders - kill anybody who insults the Qur'an. So what could Taha Husayn or Abu Ruqayba [better known in the West as Bourgiba] (or we) do if the Qur'an rejects the most scientifically documented historical stories? Are we supposed to shut up our mouth and close our minds lest we be killed?
By T-MAN: The history and authenticity of the Koran is well attested by Islamic scholars and its preservation from the first century AH is well documented.The Qur'an came to correct and verify all the myths and stories that were told before it.
Nuh wan' sound self righteous, but T-man... so now you can't acknowledge mistranslations or other inaccuracies in the Koran? Although I agree that there are inaccuracies in the Bible, mistranslation and misrepresentation, it seems clear enough that the same can be said about the Koran to one extent or the other espcially if you're not a devout Muslim. Although the criticisms by you and Noel could have been constructive and concillatory, they've been geared to either tear down each others' belief or to express disaproval or anger at those beliefs. Its seems like mere absurd juxtapositioning about whose book or prophet is better or reliable.
Even in as much as our religious beliefs/culture directs us to say our holy books are relatively infallible and perfect, it seems to me that the path to God is not the "holy book" itself or the interpretations we rely on, it is the discerning and sincere quest for God which only the individual can achieve.
I meant to say my idiot brethren Noel, for you my brother here is a verse from the Holy Quran for you. "Woe to the slanderer and defamer, we will brand him on his snout". And we shall hurl truth at false hood until we knock out its brain. The Prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him never ordered no body killed over theological difference, the Holy Quran say's our most effective weapon is our arguement.
Gizmo Islam predates all other Religion, this may sound like a contradiction but Islam even though it is styled as a religion, is realy a way of life it is the nature in wich the creator created you and i to submit to his will, it is in you and i nature, Buddahism is 35,000 years old predates Christianity and Judaism, A Muslim is one who strive to live a life of rightousnes, and one who submits his or her will to the will of God. When a baby is born whether in China or Jamaica it cries out in submission the same way, and when they grow even thouhg they fall out of submission of Allah, when they check out the take their last breath the same way.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Marklon
Happy new year to all the Brethren dem on di forum, even to mi idit brethren Noel, you keep pasting, but you can't even get that right.
Respect marklon, happy new year to you to. You keep on saying that I am wrong, but you yet to prove me wrong.
Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong Marklon.
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Marklon
I meant to say my idiot brethren Noel, for you my brother here is a verse from the Holy Quran for you. "Woe to the slanderer and defamer, we will brand him on his snout". And we shall hurl truth at false hood until we knock out its brain. The Prophet may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him never ordered no body killed over theological difference, the Holy Quran say's our most effective weapon is our arguement.
Marklon, it's very hard to have any consistent chat with you, because you wont step up to the table, you rather stay in the bushes and hurl rocks and run, step up to the table man and lets reason. Why did you become a muslim?
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Gizmo: The Holy Books are the "manuals" for life on this earth. So if you don't have a "manual" without any error you will use the wrong spanner, like my GF Noel who's following a book full of wrong instructions. I also challenge you to find a FACTUAL error in the Qura'an. Noel: You really have to do better than this. Your so-called errors in the Qur’an are a matter of your belief differing from mine on all your topics: the crucifixion of Christ, the virgin Mary, Alexander the great. “Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say.” This is what the Qur’an says and we know the Israelites changed many things in the Torah for political and other purposes. “Do you know that the Qur'an claims that Haman was pharaoh's prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later?” So what was Pharun’s PM name? It could have been Haman. “Concerning the birth of Christ, the Qur'an teaches that the Virgin Mary gave birth to him under the shade of a palm tree and not in a manger of sheep (refer to Mary 19:23). The Qur'an ignores all the documented historical evidence available to all people across the ages and brings us new discoveries!” There is NO historical evidence to prove what you claim. When I talk about error I mean something provable, not belief, like in the Bible where one place it says 10,000 and another it says 1,000 for the same event (see above). Wheel and come again, just not good enough. You have 6,000 odd verses in the Qur’an to find ONE factual error.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Who suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong?
In Sura 34:50, Muhammad is commanded to say the following:
Say: ‘If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss; if I am guided, it is by what my Lord reveals to me. He is All-hearing, Ever-nigh.’ Arberry
Say: "If (even) I go astray, I shall stray only to my own loss. But if I remain guided, it is because of the Inspiration of my Lord to me. Truly, He is AllHearer, Ever Near (to all things)." Hilali & Khan
The error in this verse should be obvious to anyone pondering this statement for a little bit. The issue here is not whether, objectively, Muhammad went astray or was guided; Muslims and non-Muslims will continue to disagree about that. This verse is logically wrong, independent of whether Muhammad was guided or not.
The Error
Who suffered and still suffers loss if Muhammad was wrong?
The first point is somewhat trivial. Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an to take Muhammad as their model, and therefore many Muslims imitate him in the smallest details of life. They dress like Muhammad, they use a miswak to brush their teeth like Muhammad did, etc. If Muhammad was wrong, then this would mean a life of unnecessary inconvenience for millions of Muslims.
There are, however, a lot of not so trivial aspects. If Muhammad's message and regulations were wrong, he has subjected millions of Muslim women to a life of misery (see the various articles on Women in Islam) without any reward in return! Moreover, not only those who followed Muhammad have lost, but millions of the so-called "unbelievers" have suffered because Muslims have either killed them for their lack of faith, or forced Muhammad's regulations on them and subjected them to live as second-class citizens (see the section on Non-Muslims under Islamic Rule).
Ironically, these people have suffered loss even if Muhammad had been a true prophet. Whether Muhammad was astray or guided, many lives have been destroyed by Muslim attacks on unbelievers, so that this statement is not only logically false, but false also in factual history.
Putting aside all the atrocities and suffering in this earthly life that resulted from Muhammad's teachings, the intention of this verse was certainly to make a statement about the loss suffered in eternity, i.e. whether people will be punished or rewarded in the Last Judgement based on their acceptance or rejection of God's message.
Under the assumption that Muhammad was a true messenger, those who were killed as unbelievers because they did not accept his message on the spot have lost not only their lives but also the opportunity to become convinced by the truth of Islam by having the time to study the message of Islam in-depth. [Had Islam restricted its method of expansion to peaceful proclamation and intellectual persuasion instead of using (also and much too quickly) violence and force, the situation would be vastly different.] As it is, these people have lost their lives on earth, and they will suffer eternal punishment because they died in rejection of God's message. Thus, many unbelievers will suffer eternal loss even if Muhammad was right. Though Muslims may argue that in the quranic view this may be justified, it is unquestionable that they did suffer temporal and eternal loss due to the violent nature of Islam.
If, on the other hand, the Bible is true and Muhammad was a false prophet then the number of those who suffer eternal loss increases vastly: (1) The unbelievers (idolaters, atheists, ...) who were killed for rightly rejecting Islam still lost their opportunity to hear, understand and accept the true message of God. (2) Millions and millions of Muslims who have rejected the authentic Gospel of Jesus based on Muhammad's message will be lost forever because they rejected the salvation from sin offered by God through Jesus' death on the Cross.
Thus, an enormous number of people will suffer both earthly and eternal loss if Muhammad was wrong, in stark contradiction to Sura 34:50.
After pondering these facts there can hardly be any doubt that Sura 34:50 is an objectively wrong statement. It is a plain error in the Qur'an.
Does God make errors? Would God inspire a statement as wrong as this one?
This verse exposes the very human nature of the Qur'an. It obviously did not come from God, but from Muhammad himself, and it can easily be explained why Muhammad would add such a statement into his revelation. If time permits, I may later write an appendix to this article dealing with the psychological aspect of this error.
Finally, there is one more crucial observation to be made in this section. Simply looking at how Muhammad dealt with those who propagated a different message than Islam, or voiced critique of Islam (cf. these articles), exposes that Muhammad did not even believe this statement himself. In particular, Muhammad's instruction is: Whoever leaves Islam, kill him (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari 4.260; for detailed discussions on the issue of apostasy in Islam consult the links at the bottom of this page). Obviously, Muhammad considered apostasy, and publically speaking of a belief other than Islam such a grave danger to the Islamic community that the harshest possible measures had to be instituted against it. Nowhere in an Islamic society is open preaching of another religion permitted. Why not, if those who do so will "only go astray to their own loss"? The laws in the Shariah, and the reactions of Muslims towards those who want to publically invite (Muslims) to another faith prove that they do not believe Sura 34:50 to be true.
The Contradiction
Yet, there is more. Sura 34:50 is not only a factual error (i.e. contradicting objective reality) as outlined above, it is also part of an internal contradiction in the Qur'an which will be the topic for the remainder of this article.
Though the statement "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss" is hypothetical (i.e. the assumption is that Muhammad is not astray but on the right path), it stands in obvious tension to a multitude of verses in the Qur'an that demand that believers should obey and follow the messenger (Muhammad), i.e. Muhammad's words and example are supposed to directly impact those who believe in Allah. Some examples:
Say: Obey Allah and the messenger. But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers (in His guidance). S. 3:32 Pickthall
And obey Allah and the messenger, that ye may find mercy. S. 3:132 Pickthall
These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where such will dwell for ever. That will be the great success. S. 4:13 Pickthall
They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers. S. 8:1 Pickthall
It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger has gone astray into manifest error. S. 33:36 Arberry
O believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger, and do not make your own works vain. S. 47:33 Arberry
There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom. S. 48:17 Pickthall
Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, ... S. 4:80 Pickthall
Establish worship and pay the poor-due and obey the messenger, that haply ye may find mercy. S. 24:56 Pickthall
Those who swear fealty to thee [Muhammad] swear fealty in truth to God; God's hand is over their hands. Then whosoever breaks his oath breaks it but to his own hurt; and whoso fulfils his covenant made with God, God will give him a mighty wage. S. 48:10 Arberry
Whatsoever spoils of war God has given to His Messenger from the people of the cities belongs to God, and His Messenger, and the near kinsman, orphans, the needy and the traveller, so that it be not a thing taken in turns among the rich of you. Whatever the Messenger gives you, take; whatever he forbids you, give over. And fear God; surely God is terrible in retribution. S. 59:7 Arberry
And there are many more like these, see S. 4:59, 69; 5:92; 8:20, 24, 46; 9:71; 24:51-52, 54; 33:33, 71; 49:14; 58:13; 64:12, etc.
The Qur'an does not only make it mandatory to obey Muhammad's explicit commands (whether they are verses found in the Qur'an or Muhammad's own words, see S. 24:45, 57:9), it makes everything Muhammad does and says the standard to emulate:
Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one Mighty in Power, ... S. 53:2-5 Yusuf Ali
And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali & Khan
Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S. 33:21 Hilali & Khan
Based on verses like these, Muhammad is considered the perfect and divinely endorsed role model, and he is followed in the minutest details of life. To claim, therefore, that if he goes astray it will still not result in any harm to those who follow him in everything (S. 34:50), is hardly coherent.
As stated above, these verses do not yet posit a clear-cut contradiction to S. 34:50, but they are in considerable tension. The plain contradiction arises when we add the following verses into the equation:
And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Follow our path and we will bear your wrongs. And never shall they be the bearers of any of their wrongs; most surely they are liars. S. 29:12 Shakir
That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear. S. 16:25 Shakir
These verses make it clear that "following those who lead you astray" does not absolve you from your own responsibility. On Judgement Day, those leaders will not bear the punishment (burden) for your going astray. Nobody will be able to excuse himself completely with "but I only followed this or that false prophet or teacher". S. 16:25 seems to indicate that some part of the burdens of those who were led astray may be put on the one who had misled them, but it still shows that the remainder has to be shouldered by the person who followed the false prophet into transgression and disobedience to God. Thus, those who lead astray cause their followers to suffer divine punishment and eternal loss.
Therefore, Sura 34:50 ("If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss"), together with the many verses that command believers to follow and obey Muhammad, strongly and obviously contradicts Sura 16:25 and 29:12.
[ Side remark: This is not a trivial contradiction of whether Allah's day equals 1000 or 50000 years, or whether Allah created the universe in six or eight days. This is a contradiction at the very core of the religion, i.e. what happens to those who follow a false prophet! ]
Suras 16:25 and 29:12 also play a significant role in a somewhat different but closely related contradiction which is discussed in the article Who Suffers the Consequence of Sins according to the Qur'an?
There are a considerable number of additional verses which state that those who follow others who are astray (the reference is usually to the ancestors) are not therefore excused as being only victims, but are condemned by Allah for following them into falshood:
When it is said to them: "Follow what God hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance? S. 2:170; cf. 5:104
They said: "Comest thou to us, that we may worship God alone, and give up the cult of our fathers? bring us what thou threatenest us with, if so be that thou tellest the truth!" He said: "Punishment and wrath have already come upon you from your Lord: dispute ye with me over names which ye have devised - ye and your fathers, - without authority from God? then wait: I am amongst you, also waiting." S. 7:70-71
And when they commit an indecency they say: We found our fathers doing this, and Allah has enjoined it on us. Say: Surely Allah does not enjoin indecency; do you say against Allah what you do not know? S. 7:28
So be not thou in doubt concerning that which these (folk) worship. They worship only as their fathers worshipped aforetime. Lo! we shall pay them their whole due unabated. S. 11:109
We bestowed aforetime on Abraham his rectitude of conduct, and well were We acquainted with him. Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." S. 21:51-54
Lo! We have appointed it a torment for wrong-doers. Lo! it is a tree that springeth in the heart of hell. Its crop is as it were the heads of devils And lo! they verily must eat thereof, and fill (their) bellies therewith. And afterward, lo! thereupon they have a drink of boiling water. And afterward, lo! their return is surely unto hell. They indeed found their fathers astray, But they make haste (to follow) in their footsteps. And verily most of the men of old went astray before them, And verily We sent among them warners. Then see the nature of the consequence for those warned, S. 37:63-73 Pickthall
Here, these people are following the religion taught to them by their fathers, and some even doing shameful acts passed on to them by their forebears, so they have been misled. Yet, Allah still condemns them for these beliefs and practices, and they will still have to bear their full punishment (S. 11:109). It does not even help them to claim that it was Allah who enjoined it on them (S. 7:28), perhaps through some prophet in the past who claimed to bring commands from Allah, but who was actually a false prophet.
People who follow false teachers or prophets will suffer loss and punishment caused at least in part by those who led them astray. This is a common sense principle which is contradicted by Sura 34:50, a severe error and a glaring contradiction in the Qur'an.
Noel you have some nerve, you are realy a world class idiot, every actual facts that a put on the forum you ignore it and choose to slander and defame, no you go back and read what i have posted.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Mr Slippery, trying to baffle us with another cut and paste from Orientalist and not answering the questions. I'm tired of you spouting Western propaganda. The Qur'an says "there is no compulsion in religion" so unlike the Christian missionaries you cant force someone to become a Muslim. Muslims and Jews lived in Andulisia for centuries before the Christians came in 1492 and set up the Inquisition and slaughtered those who would not convert. When it comes to "converting by the sword" Christians stand head and shoulders above the rest, so let us hear your views on that. From the Crusades to the New World (North and South America) to Africa you lot have left a bloody trail. There are churches in Egypt, Dubai, Tunisian and many Islamic countries I have visited. Apart from web sites, which Muslim country have you been to?
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
as promised...continuing the original topic: God or the devil? If god almighty wants us to verify the authenticity of His Book (the Holy Qur-an) with this acid test, why should we not apply the very same test to any other book claiming to be from Him? We do not want to bamboozle anybody with words as the Christians have been doing. It would be readily agreed from the references, I have given from Christian scholars, that they have been proving to us that the Bible is not the word of God, yet making us believe that they have actually convinced us to the contrary. a classic example of this sickness was in evidence again only "yesterday" the Anglican Synod was in session in Grahamstown. The most. rev. Bill Burnett, the archbishop was preaching to his flock. He created confusion in his Anglican community. An eruditea Englishman, addressing a group of learned English priests and bishops, in their own mother-tongue — English, which his learned colleagues drastically misunderstood: to such an extent that Mr. Mcmillan, perhaps also an Anglican, the editor of an English daily — "the Natal Mercury" dated December 11, 1979, had this to say about the confusion the archbishop had created among his own learned clergy: "archbishop Burnetts remarks at the synod were hardly a model of clarity and were widely and dramatically misinterpreted by many of those present." There is nothing wrong with English as a language, but can't you see that the Christian is trained in muddled thinking in all matters religious. The "bread" in his holy communion is not "bread" but "flesh?" the "wine" is "blood?" "three is one?" and "human is divine?" but don't make a mistake, he is not that simple when dealing with the earthly kingdom, he is then most precise. You will have to be doubly careful when entering into a contract with him! He can have you sold out, without you realising it. The examples that I shall furnish in substantiating the points I have raised about the contradictions in the so-called book of God, would be found so easy even for a child to follow and understand. See below. ii samuel 24 the numbering and again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go, number Israel and Judah. while the author of Samuel 24 above, makes God the boss of the situation, the author of Chronicles below gives credit to the devil. 1 chronicles 21 the numbering and satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. Apart from showing allegiance to God as is noted elsewhere, the devil (satan) is also given his due. this dichotomy on the part of the author of Chronicles reminds one of the story of the old woman who lit one candle to St. Michael and another to the devil. St. Michael was trampling underfoot, so that whether she went to heaven or hell, she would have a friend. This Chronicles fellow, made sure that he had a friend at court above, as well as a friend at court below. He wanted to have it both ways, or wanted to have his cake and eat it too. You will observe that the authors of the books of "Chronicles" and of "Samuel" are telling us the same story about David taking a census of the Jews. Where did David get his "inspiration" to do this novel deed? the author of 2 Samuel 24:1 says that it was the "Lord" God who moved (rsv: "incited") David, but the author of 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was "satan" who provoked (rsv: "incited") David to do such a dastardly thing! How could the Almighty God have been the source of these contradictory "inspirations?" is it God or is it satan! in which religion is the devil synonymous with God? I am not talking about "satanism" a recent fungus growth of Christianity, in which ex-christians worship the devil. Christianity has been most prolific of spawning isms: atheism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, Nazism, Mormonism, Moonism, Christian scientism and now satanism. What else will Christianity give birth to? The "Holy Bible" lends itself to all kinds of contradictory interpretations. This is the Christian boast! "some claim and rightly so, that biblical passages have been continuously misused and misappropriated to justify almost every evil known to man" (from: "the Plain Truth" an American-based Christian journal under the heading: "the bible — world's most controversial book." (July 1975).
Who are the real authors? As further evidence will be adduced from "Samuel" and "Chronicles" I deem it advisable first to determine their authors instead of suspecting God of those books' incongruities. The revisers of the RSV say: (a) Samuel: author "unknown" (just one word) (b) Chronicles: author "unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra." We must admire the humility of these bible scholars, but their "possiblys" "probablys" and "likelys" are always construed as actually's by their fleeced sheep. Why make poor Ezra or Isaiah the scapegoats for these anonymous writers?
What did the lord decree 3 years famine or 7 years famine? 11 Samuel 24:13 13.so Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue, thee? I chronicles 21:11 11. so Gad came to David, and said unto him, thus saith the Lord, choose thee 12. either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; If God is the author of every single word, comma and full-stop in the Bible, as the Christians claim, then is He the author of the above arithmetical discrepancy as well?
Three or seven? Compare both the quotations. 2 Samuel 24:13 tells us — "so Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him . . ." these words are repeated word for word in 1 Chronicles 21:11, except the redundant "and told him" is removed! but while trimming the useless phrase, the author also pruned the time factor from "seven" years to "three" years. What did God say to Gad — three or seven years plague — "on both your houses?"
Eight or eighteen? Compare the two quotations. 2 Chronicles 36:9 tells us that Jehoiachin was "eight" years old when he began to reign, while 2 Kings 24:8 says that he was "eighteen" when he began to reign. The "unknown" author of Kings must have reasoned that what possible "evil" could a child of eight do to deserve his abdication, so he generously added ten years to make Jehoiachin mature enough to become liable to God's wrath. However, he had to balance his tampering, so he cut short his reign by 10 days! add ten years to age and deduct ten days from rule? Could God Almighty say two widely differing things on the same subject?
How old was Jehoiachin? 8 or 18? Between eight and eighteen years, there is a gap or difference at a full 10 years. Can we say (God forbid!) that the All-knowing Almighty could not count, and thus did not know the difference between 8 and 18? if we are to believe in the Bible as the word of God, then the dignity and status of the Lord Almighty will hit an all-time low!
Cavalry or infantry?
How many chariot riders did David slay? seven hundred or seven thousand? and further, did he slay 40,000 "horsemen" or 40,000 "footmen?" the implication in the conflicting records between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 is not only that God could not discern the difference between hundreds and thousands, but that he could not even distinguish "cavalry" from "infantry!" it is obvious that blasphemy masquerades in the Christian dictionary as "inspiration!"
700 or 7,000? It is certainly naught for bible-lovers' comfort that a whole nought (0) was either added to 700, or subtracted from 7 000, thus making the confused Biblical mathematics even more confounded!* 11 Samuel 10 18. and the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there. 1 chronicles 19 18. but the Syrians fled before Israel: and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
God confused between "cavalry" and "infantry" ? As for the "inspired writers" of the Bible not knowing the difference between "footmen" and "horsemen," is all the more serious because God himself here stands accused, as a source of that "inspiration" for not knowing the difference between cavalry and infantry. Or is it possible that the Syrians who fled before Israel were centaurs (i.e. a race of creatures with the body and legs of a horse and the torso, head and arms of a man), is it possible that these "creatures" had suddenly stepped out of classical mythology to bemuse the all too gullible authors.
Practical homework Solomon is his glory began building a royal palace for himself which took him thirteen years. We learn this from the 1st book of Kings, chapter 7. You remember dr. Parker's boast (earlier on) about "whole pages being taken up by obscure names?" well, for sheer puerility you cannot beat this chapter 7 and Ezekiel chapter 45. You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will really appreciate the Holy Qur'an! Obtain your own Bible and colour code it for easy reference. You may colour the various references from this essay in your Bible: "yellow" for all contradictions; use "red" for pornographic passages; and "green" for sensible, acceptable quotations as the ones I have mentioned at the beginning of this essay — that is words that you can effortlessly recognize as being those of God and his holy messengers. With just this preparation, you will be ready to confute and confuse any missionary or Bible scholar that comes your way! "if we perspire more in times of peace, we will bleed less in times of war." (Chiang Kai-shek)
God, as builder, engineer and craftsman (if you have patience, read this chapter and complete the rest of the chapter in your Bible) 7 but Solomon took "thirteen years to build his own house; so he finished all his house. 2chr 8:1 2. he also built the "house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was one hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, with four rows of cedar pillars, and cedar beams on the pillars. 2 chr 9:16 • about 150 feet 3. and it was paneled with cedar above the beams that were on forty-five pillars, fifteen to a row. 4. there were windows with beveled frames in three rows, and window was opposite window in three tiers. 5. and all the doorways and doorposts had rectangular frames; and window was opposite window in three tiers. 6. he also made the hall of pillars: its length was fifty cubits, and its width thirty cubits; and in front of them was a portico with pillars, and a canopy was in front of them. 7. then he made a hall for the throne, the hall of judgment. where he might judge; and it was paneled with cedar from floor to ceiling. lit. floor of the upper level 8. and the house where he dwelt had another court inside the hall, of like workmanship. Solomon also made a house like this hall for pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken as wife. 9. all these were of costly stones hewn to size, trimmed with saws. inside and out. from the foundation to the eaves, and also on the outside to the great court. 10. the foundation was of costly stones, large stones, some ten cubits and some eight cubits. 11. and above were costly stones, hewn to size, and cedar wood. 12. the great court was enclosed with three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams. so were the inner court of the house of the Lord "and the vestibule of the temple. 1 kin. 6:36 * john 10:23 13 now king Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre. 14. "he was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, and "his father was a man of Tyre, a bronze worker; he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill in working with all kinds of bronze work. so he came to king Solomon and did all his work. 2 chr. 2:14 • 2 chr. 4:16 15. and he cast "two pillars of bronze, each one eighteen cubits high, and a line of twelve cubits measured the circumference of each. fashioned • jer 52:21 16. then he made two capitals of cast bronze, to set on the tops of the pillars. the height of one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits.
God, as land surveyor and architect (if you have patience, read this chapter and complete the rest of the chapter in your Bible) 45 "moreover, when you "divide the land by lot into inheritance, you shall set apart a district for the lord, a holy portion of the land; its length shall be twenty-five thousand cubits, and the width ten thousand. it shall be holy throughout its territory all around. ezek 47:22 - ezek 48:8,9 2. "of this there shall be a square plot for the sanctuary, "five hundred by five hundred rods, with fifty cubits around it for an open space. ezek. 42.20 3. "so this is the district you shall measure: twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide; in it shall be the sanctuary. the most holy place. 4 "it shall be a holy portion of the land, belonging to the priests, the ministers of the sanctuary, who come near to minister to the lord; it shall be a place for their houses and a holy place for the sanctuary. ezek. 48:10.11 5. "an area twenty-five thousand cubits long and ten thousand wide shall belong to the levites, the ministers of the temple; they shall have twenty chambers as a possession. 6. "you shall appoint as the property of the city an area five thousand cubits wide and twenty-five thousand long, adjacent to the district of the holy portion; it shall belong to the whole house of israel. ezek. 48:25 7. ""the prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal portions, from the west border to the east border. ezek. 48:21 8. "the land shall be his possession in israel; and "my princes shall no more oppress my people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of israel, according to their tribes." ezek 22:27 9. thus says the Lord God: "enough, o princes of Israel! remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing my people." says the lord god. 10. "you shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. lev. 19:36 11. "the ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer. 12. "the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. ex. 30:13 13. "this is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.. ""the prince shall have a portion on one side and the other of the holy district and the city's property; and bordering on the holy district and the city's property, extending westward on the west side and eastward on the east side, the length shall be side by side with one of the tribal portions, from the west border to the east border. ezek. 48:21 8. "the land shall be his possession in Israel; and "my princes shall no more oppress my people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel, according to their tribes." ezek 22:27 9. thus says the Lord God: "enough, o princes of Israel! remove violence and plundering, execute justice and righteousness, and stop dispossessing my people." says the lord god. 10. "you shall have just "balances, a just ephah, and a just bath. lev. 19:36 11. "the ephah and the bath shall be of the same measure, so that the bath contains one-tenth of a homer, and the ephah one-tenth of a homer; their measure shall be according to the homer. 12. "the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty shekels, twenty-five shekels, and fifteen shekels shall be your mina. ex. 30:13 13. "this is the offering which you shall offer: you shall give one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of wheat, and one-sixth of an ephah from a homer of barley.
How hygienic? Now, look below and note that the author of 1 Kings 7:26 has counted 2,000 baths in Solomon's palace, but the author of 2 Chronicles 4:5 increases the kingly count by 50% to 3,000! what extravagance and error in the "book of God?" even if God Almighty had nothing else to do, would He occupy himself "inspiring" such trivial contradictory nonsense to the Jews? Is the Bible God's book? is it the word of God?
1 kings 7 26. and it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.. 2 chronicles 4 5. and the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths. Whether it is witting or unwitting, the "inspired" writer's singular inability to grasp the difference between 2,000 and 3,000 is unforgivable. it is an obvious contradiction. "and no miracle would prove that two and two makes five, or that a circle has four angels; and no miracles, however numerous could remove a contradiction which lies on the surface of the teachings and records of Christianity." — (Albert Schweizer), from his book: "In search of the historical Jesus." page 22.
Piled contradictions Before I conclude this series of contradictions, let me give you just one more example. There are hundreds of others in the Bible. (see website). It is Solomon again. He really does things in a big way. The ex-shah of Iran was a nursery kid by comparison! the author of 2 Chronicles 9:25 gives Solomon one thousand more stalls of horses than the number of baths he had given him. "and Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses ..." but the author of 1 Kings 4:26 had real kingly thoughts about his royal patron. He multiplied Solomon's stalls by 1 000% — from 4,000 to 40,000 stalls of horses! before some glib evangelist draws the wool over your eyes that the difference is only a nought, a zero — "0"; that some scribe or copyist had inadvertently added a zero to 4,000 to make it 40,000, let me tell you that the Jews in the time of Solomon knew nothing about the zero — "o"! it was the Arabs who introduced the zero to the Middle East and to Europe centuries later. the jews spelt out their figures in words in their literary works and did not write them in numerals. Our question is — who was the real author of this staggering discrepency of 36,000? was it God or man? you will find these references and many more allied facts in a very comprehensive book — "the Bible — word of God or word of man?" by A.S.K. Joommal.
I will be back, insh'Allah, (God willing)
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Islam provides only one prime source of information on Muhammad and the formation of Islam written within two centuries of the time he lived and it was conceived. Ishaq's Sira, or Biography, stands alone - a singular and tenuous thread connecting us to a very troubled man and time. Over the next two hundred years, other Hadith Collections were compiled by the likes of Tabari, Bukhari, and Muslim. Their assemblages of oral reports, or Traditions, were said to have been inspired by Allah. They purport to convey Muhammad’s words and example. They also explain the Qur'an - a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers.
Throughout Prophet of Doom, I have been less concerned with the validity of these sources than with what they have to say. Their message is all Muslims have. Together, the Sunnah and Qur'an are Islam. Therefore, I was willing to take them at face value.
But you don't have to dig very deep to find the truth. Even a cursory reading of the Qur'an is sufficient to prove that it is a fraud. There is no way the creator of the universe wrote a book devoid of context, without chronology or intelligent transitions. Such a creative spirit wouldn't need to plagiarize. He would know history and science and thus wouldn't have made such a fool of himself. The God who created man wouldn't deceive him or lead him to hell as Allah does. Nor would he order men to terrorize, mutilate, rob, enslave, and slaughter the followers of other Scriptures he claims he revealed, wiping them out to the last. One doesn't need a scholastic review of the Qur'anic text to disprove its veracity. It destroys itself quite nicely.
While that remains true, I believe that I owe it to readers, especially Muslims, to explore the textual evidence for the Sunnah and Qur'an. I'll start with what the Hadith has to say about the Qur'an's origins, but I'm going to dispense in short order with the circular reasoning Islamic scholars use in that they all quote the Sunnah. While there are Hadiths that say Bakr tried to assemble the Qur'an and others that credit Uthman, Muhammad’s third successor, it's like using the results of Carbon-14 dating to prove the validity of Carbon-14 dating. The source is the same. ------------------------------------------------------------ I will be back.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
You have to remove the scales from your heart before you can begin to understand the Qur'an, its context and chronology and transitions. It is not a Book like any other so a pea-brain like your who relies on cut and paste will not be able to understand it. Show me one mistake from history or science or astrology in in and I will convert to your "religion". I dont mean belief, like Jesus was cricified, I mean what we all accept as history like when the Qura'an says Rome will be defeated by the Persians, before it happened and can be verified. The source of the Qur'an is form Allah, to the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), then to his Companions who wrote it down. After he passed, the different writings were collected in one manuscript and checked against the hundreds of Companions who had memorised it by heart. No other Book has undergone scrutinity to make sure not one dot or T had been left uncrossed . Plus, Allah (SWT) says in more that one place that He will preserver it, but of course you dont want to quote that verse. Now run to "I hate Islam.com" and see what you can cut and paste and come back with.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Tman you're double standard is astonishing. When you attack Noel's point of view, his faith based defense of his views are insufficient. However, when it comes to Islam you either ignore factual allegations or rely on some faith based reason why some factual allegation against the Koran should be summarily dismissed. All these organized religions have tampered with the words of God. Although I have lost my faith in the organized religions, it seems to me that the Torah probably best preserves the word of God. I am not impressed by the attitudes of many of the people who called themselves "Jews" of today, but I am espcially wary of the proselytizing religions and the acts of evil committed by religious zealots in the name of God.
