to alhamdliyesu

[Arshad]

Alhamdliyesu,

I have come across some postings of yours in which you say, you are sixteen, "its the sixteen year old again", "the kid" and some other postings on "how it feels like to discuss with muslims" in a taunting manner, and about your justification on "preaching Christianity".

First of all, no one cares if you are sixteen years old, over here, the only things we are, are the words that we type. And for your information, I am seventeen years old, and Brother Asif is sixteen too.

There is no need to make useless postings like these, and emphasising your age so that people may admire you, or whatever motive you have for emphasising it.

Postings that taunt the other users of this site, such as the one you addressed to Jared and FireFly about "how it feels like to discuss with muslims", will not be tolerated. I dont want this nonsense being instigated by you so that some annoyed Muslim participant argues with you and a whole thread of nonsense erupts.

Plus, this site was made to provide knowledge on Islam and to help solve problems in an Islamic way. We have no use for people who preach Christianity. It is just an unnecessary disruption of normality and it breaks the site's rules.

Now dont go on and say why am I posting this after so long, I have been busy in exams.

Cheerio...

Sameer Arshad

[Indian Man]

go on, why don't you start a war - or occupy a neighbouring country, or blow up a plane, or start riots?

Thats what you all keep doing!!! There are other religions you know! Allah isn't the only god - the sooner you all come to realise this, the sooner the world can have peace and be rid of islamic violence.

Do you understand this? Are you man or genuine enough to discuss with me? Or are you going to do what most Muslims do: Fight and Kill and Hate.

Please accept people who are not Muslims or beleive in other religions. Please the whole world begs Islam to co-exist !!

Please, I am not saying there is no Allah, all other religions, believe that their own god is not the only god.

Islam beleives that if you do not preach Islam, you are a rebel. This is surely not right - the sooner you all realise this, the better you will be and you will move forward.

Islam is not a succesfull religion, it is a failure, and it gives hooligans and the un-educated a reason to be destructive.

I rest my case - argue if you want, or will you chicken out and ban me??? Prove me wrong and I will take back my claim.

[Nzingha]

maybe you should come back when your not so confused.

you call on us "muslims" to co exist.. to accept the existence of other religions.. ect ect

you than say that you don't deny Allah.. but you dont' deny other gods either.

you than go on to say how we are full of hate and commite violence

than go on to tell us how islam is false and a religino for hoolagans.

you appear very confused.. you want "US" to co exist and "ACCEPT" however you don't want to do the same

You don't want us to "HATE" however you have shown nothing but hate in your post

either your confused are a bltanat hyprocrit i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your confused

Nzingha

[Arshad]

LAST EDITED ON 01-08-01 AT 09:29 AM (GMT)[p]hello Indian Man

My my, such a great example of "co-existence" you have shown in all your posts in this forum. I wish I could practice what I preach, just like you.

For your information, most of my neighbours are Hindu, most of the teachers in my school are Hindu, in fact many people we deal with here in Dubai are Hindu. Yet you dont see any "riots" here. Even though this is a Muslim country, and with such a multinational population, there are still no conflicts whatsoever. Does that shock you? Aren't you suprised that peace and Islam are co-existing? Well, guess what, if you had to write one line about every single place where Muslims are living at peace with other people, and in a separate document, one line about a place where peace was not possible, then indeed, the first document would exceed the other by many multiples.

Just because you notice the second document more than the first, does not mean the second document is sooth and representative of Islam.

Plus, your alter-ego's on this site have mentioned about places having war because of Islam. I do beseech you to check your facts about each, perhaps read a few eye-witness accounts and papers by experts with more knowledge about these conflicts. You have clearly shown that you have not done your homework about these places and it would be useless to explain all of them to you right now.

Human common-sense dictates that one need not waste time explaining to each and every wayward individual who comes to this site with nothing but a bunch of obscenities in his or her head and no valid argumentative points whatsoever.

In reply to your posting that I have deleted because it contains abusive language:

As for your "assumptions" about Islam such as allowing of "incest"? I do not know WHERE you got that weird idea from. Your ignorance of the facts about our religion humor me too much. What DO you know about Islam ANYWAY? You tell me that? Is it just word-of-mouth from some talking head somewhere on a television? Or from gossip? Have YOU even TRIED to RESEARCH ANYTHING? Or is RESEARCH too demanding of your intellect?

Keep your filthy language out of my forum from now on. Muslims are people of honour and dignity. Muslims respect any person who wishes to make noble arguments or who wishes to learn more about Islam. Take a chill pill, do some homework, and come back here later.

You have not achieved anything with your silly postings. No one thinks differently about Islam because of them. All you did was waste our time. I hope you're happy, because I sure am enjoying this.

Sameer Arshad

[Dr.Qaisar]

As-salaamu-alaikum, to all Muslims.


>go on, why don't you start
>a war - or occupy
>a neighbouring country, or blow
>up a plane, or start
>riots?

It is immensenly difficult to pursue a meaningful discussion with those non-mulsims who harbour pre-conceived notions of prejudice against Islam and its followers, Muslims. Perhaps, partly it is due to their upbringing where animosity towards Islam & Muslims is ingrained into their psyche and partly to their ignorance of the Religion prescribed for all mankind by their Creator, the one and only one true God (Allah). Maybe, they should reflect on the meaning of the word, Salaam, which means "Peace", whereby all Muslims greet each other, to understand that Islam does advocate peace and tolerance to others, including non-Muslims; but at the same time allows (rather, exhorts) recourse to lawful struggle against oppresion and even war.
Regarding your ill-advised statement "go on, why don't you start a war", it is once again symptomatic of the bias and prejudice against Muslims, because History is testimony to the fact that almost all the wars since time immemorial, have been waged by non-Muslims! It's not possible to present a catalogue of wars here, but right from the ancient Roman conquests (to cite an example), the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition to the 20th century most wars, if not all, were waged by non-Muslims! Here for the sake of brevity, I shall restrict myself to the last century with only a few major illustrations:

1) Between 1914-1945, the two World Wars consumed more than 55 million human lives, courtesy the "peaceful" Christian Europe.

2) The exploits of the Japanese Imperialists between 1930-45 in Manchuria and Korea are legend, consistimg of murders, torture and human sex-slaves; the victims of the Japanese sex-slaves are to this date demanding apology & compensation from the present day Japanese government, but alas, to no avail. No Muslim was responsible!

3) Since 1945 upto the end of the Cold War, many more millions of human beings perished throughout the world due to the "war" between the so-called "defender of world-freedom" and the "evil" empire (Soviet Union). Sample the following:

a) 3 million killed in the 1950-53 Korean war. No Muslim was resposible!

b) Another 3 million innocent humans were killed and bombed in the Vietnam war, mainly by the "leader of the free world"! though, they only glorify their own 59,000 veterans killed. No Muslim was responsible!

c) Millions of their own citizens were killed by the Communists, Stalin in Russia and Mao in the "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s. No Muslim was responsible!

d) Another 3 million Cambodians were butchered by the Khmer Rouge from 1975-79; you can still see their skeletons even today! No Muslim here, too!

e) Innumerable innocent human beings lost their lives in their struggle against European (read "Christian") Colonialism in Africa, in the 1950s, 60s & 70s. No Muslim was responsible!

f) In April-May 1994, more than 750,000 (some say, a million) Rwandans were massacred by their fellow Rwandans, while the "civilsed" world just looked on. Was any Muslim responsible??!!

g) The atrocities by the Apartheid regime of the White rule (incidently, believing Christians, may I add humbly) in South Africa against the poor Blacks; aided and abetted, economically by who else, but the "rightly-guided" successive European & American governments. One wonders why the thought of economic sanctions & embargo was never considered against the then Apartheid regime, though such "generosity" is lavishly bestowed on Muslim countries (Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, the effect of which is borne by the innocent population, rather than rulers) by the same dispensation.

The list is endless. Mass extermination of humankind commited by hordes of non-Muslims throughout history, past and present!! But is anyone complaining, may I ask
non-Muslims? But what do they see with their myopic eyes? Only aggresion and wars commited by Muslims? Why are they Blind to the rest of history? But, yes, they do come up with present day examples of Muslim violence!!
Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechenya, East Timor!! Have they studied the reasons for the violence in these regions? Were the Muslims the initiators and instigators of the violence? Were they (Muslims) the perpetrators of the worst kind of oppresion imaginable or were they the victims?


>Thats what you all keep doing!!!
> There are other religions
>you know! Allah isn't
>the only god - the
>sooner you all come to
>realise this, the sooner the
>world can have peace and
>be rid of islamic violence.


No, that's what the non-Muslims have been doing to the Muslims, oppressing and suppressing their fundamental right to a peaceful and honourable life, a way of life Commanded by their Lord and Creator (Allah). Is it because we Muslims have chosen to worship the one and only one true God, that the non-Muslims commit all sorts of crimes against humanity? Yes, there are other religions in the world, but there is only one God who is your Lord, our Lord and the Lord of all that exists in the entire Universe!! The sooner YOU come to realise this, the sooner YOU will achieve eternal peace, Insha-Allah (By the Will of Allah), and YOU will fight in the Way of and in the Cause of YOUR Lord, Allah.


>Do you understand this? Are
>you man or genuine enough
>to discuss with me? Or
>are you going to do
>what most Muslims do: Fight
>and Kill and Hate.

It is YOU (and other non-Muslims) who are in need of understanding and guidance. If you choose to remain in the path of ignorance and deliberate rejection of the Eternal Truth ( the Oneness of God), then you are free to do so, but you must be then responsible and prepared for your actions; for it is the Eternal Truth that mankind will surely be raised up from death on the Day of Judgement by the Command of their Lord (Allah); many among the Jews and Christians know about this fact as it is mentioned in their own Scriptures! As for others, let them, then, ask those who know the Truth!


>Please accept people who are not
>Muslims or beleive in other
>religions. Please the whole
>world begs Islam to co-exist
>!!

Why don't the non-Muslims accept Muslims for their belief in the Oneness of God? Why don't they, in the first place, agree to co-exist with Islam? How is it that they feel threatened by Islam and it's followers, the Muslims, who mean no harm to them? Their (Muslims) duty is only to convey the Truth and the Message to others, but not to force it down their throats! If you do not choose to accept the Message, to you your way and to us our way! What can be fairer than this?


>Islam beleives that if you do
>not preach Islam, you are
>a rebel. This is
>surely not right - the
>sooner you all realise this,
>the better you will be
>and you will move forward.

Where have you learnt this? Is it once again a product of your ignorance or prejudice? The only way, Allah forbid, that a person can be a rebel from Islam is by his/her renunciation of his/her belief in the oneness of God. We Muslims have already moved forward from the depths of darkness to light! and our journey will end by the meeting with our Lord, Insha-Allah, in a state of eternal peace and bliss. As for you non-Muslims, I leave it to the sublime Judgement of your Lord (Allah), whom today you have all chosen to forget, but do not be in despair on the Day when your Lord (Allah) will forget you!! Once again, what can be fairer than this bargain?


>Islam is not a succesfull
>religion, it is a failure,
>and it gives hooligans and
>the un-educated a reason to
>be destructive.

How can Islam be a failure when it has more than one billion followers the world over, Alhamdulillah? It is the only Religion whose followers (Muslims) are increasing in strength and numbers every where in the world, in all continents. Or you blind to this fact? Do you not know that in some continents it is the fastest growing Religion? Has this then been achieved by force? And that too against all odds! Which other religion is flourishing or has adherents in all continents? Catholicism? Why then does the Honourable Pope have to travel every where pleading to his flock to remain togther? They come to see him and then forget him!


>I rest my case - argue
>if you want, or will
>you chicken out and ban
>me??? Prove me wrong and
>I will take back my
>claim.

I too now rest my case. I have chosen not to argue with you or any other non-Muslim, but to only state the truth and facts. If there is any mistake on my part, I only ask Allah to forgive me and increase my limited knowledge. I believe I have presented enough facts for you to take back your claim. Even after this, if you & others like you persist in your prejudice against Islam and Muslims, it will not make any difference to us. But how, may I ask, are you deluded away from the Truth?


Was-salaam, to all Muslims.
Dr.Qaisar

[Jared]

On the one hand I'm glad that you took the time to post such an articulate response to such an inarticulate posting. On the other hand you are stalking your isolated and easy prey as if it were the whole herd. The primary issue between Christians and Muslims does not rest in the history of warfare, or the question : "When is war justifiable?" Violence has occured on both sides of any fence. Closer to the fundamental issue is this question: "Is Jesus who the Bible says he is or is Jesus who the Koran says he is?"

But, regarding warfare, my question to you is this: In your estimation, is there a war being waged today that pleases God?

Sincerely,

Jared

[Arshad]

hello Jared

War is a tragedy on its own, it is when humans have shown themselves to be un-coperative and unloving. Be it on both sides, or on one side only.

Who are we to judge whether Allah likes someting or not? If I do a good deed today, it is not for me to assume that Allah has approved of it, or is happy about it. We humans cannot predict what Allah feels, and we have no right to assume such things. All we can do is keep performing good deeds, and try to acquire inner and spiritual peace. Even the most pious man on Earth cannot assume that he will go to heaven and that Allah is pleased with him. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself said that he is not sure whether he will go to heaven or not.

Whatever Allah wanted to tell us, He has told it to us in Quran and in the example of the Prophet's life. (Peace be upon him).

Sameer Arshad

[Jared]

Arshad,

God reveals information as to what He desires of us. God reveals information as to what pleases Him and what does not please Him. The question that I posed to Dr. Qaisar isn't a matter of judging what God likes or not. It is a question of what God has or has not disclosed concerning His own judgements, and to what degree we are aware of what He has disclosed.

God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Yet, He leaves us with more than this for He has shown us very clearly how we must receive the certainty of His mercy and of eternal life.

You say that all we can do is perservere in good works, but that this brings no certainty of attaining Heaven. I'm trying to understand: Do you believe that God requires you to do good works or that He is indifferent? What would you call a 'good work'? If you say that God requires his followers to do good works, then in your estimation, has He revealed why we should do good works?

Sincerely,
Jared

[Dr.Qaisar]

As-salaamu-alaikum, to all Muslims.


>On the one hand I'm glad
>that you took the time
>to post such an articulate
>response to such an inarticulate
>posting.
Thanks for your appreciation. Before I continue further, a little humble advice to my fellow Muslim participants in these fora. One does, indeed, come across certain non-muslims whose sole purpose it seems is to incite anger & retribution among Muslims here by their use of highly objectionnable and intemperate language and have no intention of seeking knowledge about Islam. Though the counter-reaction of Muslims here would seem reasonable, yet, I feel that muslims readers must restain themselves from responding in kind, simply to distinguish our noble & gentle Islamic manners from their "uncultured" ways, inspite of the high degree of provocation. Though the moderators are well within their rights to ban some participants to maintain decorum & decency, perhaps, deletion of the offensive posts would be more appropriate, yet responding in a tit for tat fashion would not serve the primary purpose of dissemination of the Message of Islam to non-Muslims, as we have been instructed by Allah in V.16:125

" Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; And argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."



>On the other hand
>you are stalking your
>isolated and easy prey as
>if it were the whole
>herd.

Forgive me, but I have failed to understand what you mean by this, perhaps, you would care to elaborate.


>The primary issue
>between Christians and Muslims
>does not rest in the
>history of warfare, or the
>question : "When is war
>justifiable?" Violence has occured
>on both sides of any
>fence.

You seem to have missed the whole point of my post; it was not meant, as I have mentioned earlier, to be an elucidation of the history of warfare, but rather, a counter to the oft-repeated and prejudiced and hypocritical depiction of violence that we see around the world in terms of calling it as "Islamic violence", "Islamic militancy/terrorism" etc. by the the Western media (on TV & in print) and having picked it up from these sources, by non-Muslim participants here and in general. Thus , I had asked all non-Muslims that the only violence that they "see" with their tunnel-vision today is that perpetrated by only Muslims! whereas in truth most of the violence has & is being done by non-Muslims, but in those cases their religion or beliefs are not vilified at all in terms of being callled as "Christian, Jewish, Hindu etc. terrorism". None will care to respond!


>Closer to the
>fundamental issue is this question:
>"Is Jesus who the Bible
>says he is or is
>Jesus who the Koran says
>he is?"

Fundamentally, this boils down to faith. If you have been raised up to believe that Jesus (Prophet Isa, PBUH) is the son of God, there's not much we can do about that. But if you were to be non-judgemental about this cardinal belief of Christianity, then I would like
to present briefly the history of the early compilation of the Bible, especially the 4 Canonical Gospels as it exists today in various languages. Remember, these are not figments of one's imagination! The original Revelation given to Jesus (Isa, PBUH) by the one and only one true God of Mankind must have been in the language spoken during Jesus's lifetime; scholars & historians say that this would have been either Aramaic or Ancient Hebrew (though, Allah knows best). Yet no Gospel exists today in these ancient original languages, unlike the next Revelation to Mankind, the Holy Qur'an. After the ascension of Jesus (Isa, PBUH), there were no less 300 Gospels, including the 4 Canonical Gospels, written by his followers
in the first 3 centuries after Prophet Isa (Jesus, PBUH)!! Have you or other ordinary Christians ever thought what happened to these other 300 Gospels??!! Allow me to continue. When the Council of Nice in 318 AD was held, it lead to the establishmnet of the official Christian Church and to the institution of Papacy. A remarkable edict was decreed by the Church (of course at the behest of the Pope himself) to destroy, burn or confiscate all the other Gospels, except the 4 Canonical Gospels. Ostensibly, to remove any confusion in the minds of ordinary "faithfuls" that these other Gospels would create as some were contrary to the official Pauline Church belief & doctrine. Well, the Church did not stop only at this step; it went a "little" further to ensure the proper "Salvation" of Jesus's flock: indeed, the Church decreed that anyone found in possession of these "heretical" Gospels would be either killed, burnt or hung at the stakes!!
And so survived that 4 Canonical, Catholic Gospels; even so the Book of God is not a single Book, but 27 books of the New Testament in the Protestant Bible. And the Roman Catholic Bible contains 7 more books in the Book of God, which not surprisingly the Protestant world condemns as the "Apocrypha" ie. of Doubtful Authority. Who gave, may I ask, the latter day "faithfuls" the divine authority to add or delete "books" from the Book of God?? Even going to the extent of violating the Divine warning:

"....if any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelations 22:18-19)

The obvious question that comes to mind is that if this could happen to the individual "books", then what is the guarantee that changes, additions or deletions could not have occurred to individual verses of the Bible?? Thus, it casts serious doubts on the assumption that God took a son for Himself, even if such a verse explicitly exists in the present day Gospels. Also that the Gospels are referred as "the Gospel according to Mark, Luke, John" etc. If the Bible as it exists today is the word of God, it should be addressed only as such. And not according to the authors of the Gospels. The official Christian explanation is that God Himself inspired Mark, Luke, John etc. to write the Gospels; if so what did God Reveal to Jesus (PBUH) in the first place? It is an accepted fact among all (Muslims, Jews, Christians) that the Revelation of God are given only to His Prophets and not to ordinary men. Therefore, the written accounts of men many years after Jesus (PBUH) cannot be considered as the actual Word of God.


>But, regarding warfare, my question to
>you is this: In
>your estimation, is there a
>war being waged today that
>pleases God?

It is your misunderstanding that wars are for God and thus, would be acts pleasing to God. The wars that are justified are waged by men and meant for the benefit of people ie. to end oppresion, tyranny, for self-defence etc. When people face oppresion, torture, killing, unlawful dispossession of land, property etc., then, accordingly fighting oppression becomes an obligation upon all. This struggle for the sake of God is a duty placed on everyone and may take various forms ie. either by peaceful means initially and later by means of armed struggle or full-scale war, if required. In this respect, the Prophet Mohammad (SAW, PBUH) during the first 13 years of his struggle against the Pagans of Mecca did not fight them physically, even though faced with extreme oppresion by the pagans, but after being Commanded by God (ALLah) to do so, he himself led his followers in many wars against the oppressors. The Revelations concerning fighting are contained in Verses 2:190-193

"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits; For Allah loves not transgressors."

"And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; For persesution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith."

"But if they cease, Allah is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

" And fight them on untill there is no more persecution and the Religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression."


Therefore, the fighting which are justified against the oppressors are a duty & a Command by God and not meant to please God as you mentioned. I hope this clarifies.


Was-salaam, to all Muslims.
Dr.Qaisar.

[Arshad]

Salam Dr. Qaisar,

Your suggestions on avoiding responses in tit-for-tat fashion to disruptors has been welcomed.

Indeed, the high degree of annoyance caused by a provocation can cause such an undesirable war of words, and I am one of them who was provoked, I agree.

Lets hope we are more patient next time, InshaAllah.

Sameer Arshad

[Jared]

Hello Dr.Qaisar,

Thank-you for your response. What I meant by saying:

“On the other hand
you are stalking your
isolated and easy prey as
if it were the whole
herd. “

is that you have used the force of your reply to a single, volatile post, as if that post itself were expressing the sentiments of a whole group of people. Perhaps there is a whole group of people with similar sentiments but this is not their post. By doing this you make the implication that all those who may criticize or vocalize disagreement with present day examples of Muslim violence are of the same mind as the person who’s post you are responding to.

You said:

‘I have chosen not to argue with you or any other non-Muslim, but to only state the truth and facts.’

Please, I say this humbly and respectfully, but, you have done more than state the truth and facts, for you have asked questions and made allegations:

‘Mass extermination of humankind commited by hordes of non-Muslims throughout history, past and present!! But is anyone complaining, may I ask
non-Muslims?’

‘Why don't the non-Muslims accept Muslims for their belief in the Oneness of God? Why don't they, in the first place, agree to co-exist with Islam?’

‘But what do they see with their myopic eyes? Only aggresion and wars commited by Muslims? Why are they Blind to the rest of history?’

I am a non-Muslim. More specifically, I am a Christian and in no way am I prepared to gloss over, to ignore, the destructive wars and violence done presently or throughout history by non-Muslims.

I am a non-Muslim and I am not disagreeing to co-exist with Muslims.

I am a non-Muslim and my eyes are not myopic, so as to be blind to the rest of history.

I also believe that it is a worthy cause to shed light upon any violence or injustice that may be done in the name of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc.

In shedding light upon such things one must, I believe, ask a few key questions: “Is it the teaching and the living out of the religion itself that has provided a basis for the violence?” or “ Is it the perversion of the religion and the teachings of the religion, that has been used to justify injustices?” or “ Is the violence the result of some elements that are totally unrelated to the religion?”


Sincerely,

Jared

[AlHamdLiYeshua!]

It's kinda fun to know that you guys have been educated in these matters, but I haven't been.

The reason I stated my age was because you should know that I'm just a kid. I can't think. I can't reason. All I can do is repeat the Truth. All I can do is what Yahweh tells me.


You love to build yourself up and try to defeat me.
I really don't care if you try.

I'm a worm, the lowest of the low. The only way that I can live is by the grace of Yahweh.

Everything doesn't have to be a war, but I get frustrated that you cannot stop thinking and rationalizing.

Yahweh's beauty isn't knowledge, it's love.


I love you and I pray peace upon you, even though you say that you don't need my prayers.



as to the attacking Islam,
I really don't care what you tell me to do
You aren't my Lord.

The truth destroys false lies. It "attacks", if you will.


It's so nice to know that you don't need me or my view.
I'm here on the Truth's behalf.

[Arshad]

LAST EDITED ON 27-07-01 AT 08:47 PM (GMT)[p]Hello Alhamdliyeshua

You said:
>
>The reason I stated my age
>was because you should know
>that I'm just a kid.
>I can't think. I can't
>reason. All I can do
>is repeat the Truth. All
>I can do is what
>Yahweh tells me.

According to Islam, 16 year olds are not "kids". As long as they have entered puberty, they are regarded as having a proper sense of reasoning and conscience. I am a year older than you, and I agree to this. I am very sure that you can think and reason, so this excuse of yours to do mischeif here will not be taken.

Stop your foolish childish acts, no one is amused here by them.

>
>
>Everything doesn't have to be a
>war, but I get frustrated
>that you cannot stop thinking
>and rationalizing.
>



Indeed, everything doesn't have to be a war. Including here. This is just debate, but when limits are transgressed, we must take action accordingly.

You get frustrated by our "thinking"? What's wrong with thinking something over?

You get frustrated by out "rationalising"? Please be a bit more specific on what you are trying to say here. Are you frustrated that we are figuring things out that you are too scared to figure out? Are you frustrated that we have somehow demeaned God some way? Are you frustrated that Islam has an answer to everything? Please be specific.

>Yahweh's beauty isn't knowledge, it's love.
>
>
>
>as to the attacking Islam,
>I really don't care what you
>tell me to do
>You aren't my Lord.
>

To you your religion and to me mine.

Still, I don't think Yeshua ever told you to convert other people by annoying them.


Replying to your mail with the subject: "hahaha i got a new handle" which I have deleted to conform to the matureness of other postings:

You said:
>
>RATIONALIZATION OF DIVINE THINGS BY HUMAN
>MINDS IS ABSURD
>
>
>I'm not saying that YOU are
>absurd. I'm saying that you
>cannot contemplate Yahweh!!!!!!!

Um, I'm not sure when I ever implied that I could contemplate God . I believe I have never said anything as such.


And indeed, I agree to your statement that: RATIONALIZATION OF DIVINE THINGS BY HUMAN MINDS IS ABSURD.
But whatever God has told us in the Quran, and what He has told us through the words of Muhammad (peace be upon him), I believe that. That knowledge is enough for us humans to work with. Indeed, there is a saying of the Prophet (peace be upon Him), that when he saw a small sparrow drinking water from a huge lake, he told a companion, that the ratio of the water being drunk by the sparrow in relation to the water in the lake, is the same as the knowledge of mankind in relation to God's knowledge. Perhaps a more learned Muslim here can give you the exact wordings and the references.

But indeed, Muslims are well aware of the Unseen and the knowledge that only Allah knows. We cannot fathom Allah's Greatness in our puny little minds. But, all we need to know is in the Quran and Hadith, and that is enough.




Sameer Arshad

[AlHamdLiYeshua (Guest)]

Why are you always deleting others' posts in a Comparative Religion column?

All I see is Muslim posts?
Is that really comparing religions?


The best way to deceive is to never let the truth be known.
It seems that you are filtering Christian views out.

Your rationalization- works will earn me the grace of God, or works come before acts of love

I cannot express love over the internet, and that is God's glory-love,grace. I'm stopping regular postings on this propaganda site.

[Arshad]

Hello Alhamdliyeshua


>Why are you always deleting others'
>posts in a Comparative Religion
>column?
>
>All I see is Muslim posts?
>
>Is that really comparing religions?
>
>
>The best way to deceive is
>to never let the truth
>be known.
>It seems that you are filtering
>Christian views out.

Haha! You know, I really feel like laughing when you make postings and allegations like these.

For your information, if you have looked closely at the Comparitive Religion forum and the history of its deleted messages, you will find a whole thread which starts by a cut-paste posting made by FireFly about contradictions in the Quran which have been refuted beautifully by tons of proof and facts, as well as a refutation by me on the credibility of Moorey, the author of the allegations.

If I was indeed as you say I am, that I filter out Christian views, then I would have deleted the whole thread anyhow. People will say why am I letting such views remain on the site? I reply that these points are false and have been proved so further down in the thread.

The postings made by Anne Marie Habibi state views that are not Islamic, yet I have not deleted them, because I respect her views as a human being. If I was indeed as you say I am, you would not read such postings made by her.

The postings made by Indian Man are indeed downright offensive, but I have kept them all, except for one, which included abusive language.

Your own posting about "haha i changed my handle" has no reason to be in a forum of "comparitive religion". If we had a forum of "Mindless Mischeif" then I would have moved your message there. Alas, we don't have such a forum (to your dismay?) and so I had to delete it. I don't want this forum turning into a circus, and I want all the postings to be mature.

Postings by Bob Haklem on all the forums of the site include allegations agaisnt Islam, but they have not been deleted because we know they are false allegations and have proved them as false.

Postings by luque66 are being treated with respect, because Allah has told us to debate with others with beautiful preaching. Even though luque66 has expressed questionable thoughts (that even Christians would find improper), we have replied to him with respect and consideration, since he seems confused about the concept of God and His Power.

You said:

>All I see is Muslim posts?

Well, please read more messages on the site. Apparently you have just read a handful of them and have not noticed others (about which I have mentioned above). If you just notice a handful of messages and make generalisations on the WHOLE SITE, then that shows you as a very impatient person, which I know you aren't.


>
>Your rationalization- works will earn me
>the grace of God, or
>works come before acts of
>love
>
>I cannot express love over the
>internet, and that is God's
>glory-love,grace. I'm stopping regular postings
>on this propaganda site.

I really don't think this is a propaganda site. The aim of this site was to show the truth of Islam to the whole world, so that the negative propaganda against it made in the western world can be shown as false. If you think of our site in the way you have said, then that is purely your opinion. We are not forcing you to participate here, and neither are we shoving false ideas down your throat (as are the anti-Islam propaganda media).

Please have a mature open-mind when approaching this site, for it has been made for such people. And please read more postings before GENERALISING the whole site.

Just because you are upset that we have moderators here, does not mean this is a propaganda site. You are free to make whatever allegations you want about our religion, and we will refute them accordingly, as we have done so with all the others before you.

And don't think we are worried that you are planning to leave here. You are not the first person who has become upset that we have proved them wrong and left the site in humiliation as a result. No one is humiliated here, we come here to learn. If someone has lost an argument, let it be a learning experience for him. If he feels humiliated, then his intentions were not to learn or to debate, but to assert his own ego.

Best regards,

Sameer Arshad

[Om_Mohammed]

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Hello and good day to all others.

Such immature reactions from an immature person. Regardless of the age. For anyone looking here to aliasoft...they can see from the history of the site, and records of the messages posted and kept, that there is no bias or prejudice shown against non-muslims. However, all posts are at the disgretion of the moderators, for allowing it's presence to remain, or deleting. That is in accordance to the regulations of the site. We have made it quite clear from the beginning, if all would please refer to the 'help' icon which guides you to the FAQ's and guidelines of the site, that any preaching of any religion other than Islam will not be tolerated, as well as any damaging remarks against Islam, Allah, the prophet, his companions, or anything thereof related will also not be accepted. Otherwise, the discussions are more or less free and allowed to carry on.

About a previous remark made...about not thinking...and only accepting and feeling. Well, that is the option that christians have chosen to follow. That is not the way of Islam. Islam appeals to the senses, asks for the person to think, question, and to ponder on what is written in the Quran of directives, guidance, comfort, warnings, etc. If that is offending, then that is your problem, and not ours here. If you find it appealing to attend to logic and your senses, then do search the Quran.

As for those who have been 'fed up' with our responses here, well, then...no one forced you to come here in the first place, and no one is forcing you to stay, either. However, please be aware...that future such disturbances will be less tolerated.

Om Mohammed.

[Arshad]

Hello Jared, sorry for this late reply, but I'd like to make a few points...

You said:

>is that you have used the
>force of your reply to
>a single, volatile post, as
>if that post itself were
>expressing the sentiments of a
>whole group of people. Perhaps
>there is a whole group
>of people with similar sentiments
>but this is not their
>post. By doing this you
>make the implication that all
>those who may criticize or
>vocalize disagreement with present day
>examples of Muslim violence are
>of the same mind as
>the person who’s post you
>are responding to.
>

The fact of the matter is, that MANY people share the same views as Indian Man. You may not be aware of this, but us being Muslims, we feel the anti-Muslim sentiments first-hand. And we notice it in the tones of people's voices, in the looks that we get, in the body language of people we meet, in the words used when they speak, that they hate us. And why? It is because certain Judeo-Christian organisations have taken it upon themselves to spread false information about our religion, in an attempt to reduce the growth and popularity of our religion. Be it jealousy, or an evil way to destroy the truth... This site has been made to counteract these actions, by showing everyone the truth about Islam and answering the questions about Islam in everyone's minds, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

If you are prepared to dismiss and not acknowledge the existence of the mass anti-Muslim propaganda, then you are at a loss, and will become part of the large number of ignorant people who either haven't seen, or don't wish to accept the truth.

You said:
>“ Is it the perversion
>of the religion and the
>teachings of the religion, that
>has been used to justify
>injustices?” or “ Is the
>violence the result of some
>elements that are totally unrelated
>to the religion?”
>

You seemed to have answered your own question, you begin to understand more. This is good.


Best regards,
Sameer Arshad

[jcecil3]

Dr. Quasir -- As a Christian, I do not deny that Christians have been as guilty as Muslims or others for instigating violence in the past. Furthermore, I did come to this site after Srptember 11, 2001 in order to gain some better understanding of Islam from a non-Western perspective. In the past, I have tried to read the Koran and read on my own, but I find myself bewildered by Islam through simply reading, and I hope that a more interactive discussion will shed some light on my questions.

I have written some responses to some of the Muslim points of view regarding the Trinity and the Bible elsewhere on this site. I do hope that these responses will not be deleted as preaching, and my intent is honestly to try to build understanding between Muslims and Christians. Where I question Islam, or try to clarify a Christian doctrine, it is not meant as an attack on Islam. It is my own struggle to understand.

To that end, I have two questions for you intended in the true spirit of seeking: Where do you get the information that there were 300 gospels at the time of Nicea? and, What assurance is there that Koran was not tampered with?

Regarding the first question: Elsewhere on the site, I admit that there were "Gnostic gospels", but I am only aware of the Proto-Evangelium of James, the gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Barnabas, and some apacolypsis. I have not found anywhere near 300 such writings, and I have read nothing indicating that such a number was destroyed. I was exposed to these writings in a Roman Catholic seminary, and I have found copies sold in bookstores, including Barnes and Nobles, Amazon.com, and Walden's (no attempt to hide them in the modern West). My own research indicates that these writings were late in origin, which can demonstarted through linguistic analysis and through quotations of the texts in other writings. Furthermore, the content of these writings is very different from the writings considered canonical, and shows evidence of borrowing from Zoarastrianism, Manichism, and other movements that would have been foreign to Jesus of Nazareth.

The canonical gospels, on the other hand, can be demonstrated by the same techniques to have been the earliest writings refering to Christ, were composed within 3-80 years of Jesus crucifixtion, were quoted by other authors that can be dated accurately, and consistently reflect thought patterns, content and language common within first century Judaism.

As to the Koran, Western scholars seem to find the same difficulties Islam finds with Chritianity in that some Muslim groups accept some Suras, while others don't....there seem to be contradictory passages...the earliest extant manuscripts seem to be dated several years after the prophet....ordering of Suras is different...and Islam has differing traditions and schools of thought even today. Maybe the sources I am reading are biased. On the other hand, maybe Muslim scholars admit this, as Christian scholars do about the Bible. My responses elsewhere deal with how I interpret these issues in light of my Christian faith. What is the Muslim answer to variant texts and late dating of the Koran? (i.e.-- do you deny it, or hold a more nuanced view)?

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 15-11-01 AT 05:33 PM (GMT)[p]Jared -- As a Christian, I find your approach to discussing your views uncharitable and unbiblical. I Peter 3:15-16 clearly tells us to be prepared to give an answer for our faith and a reason for our hope with gentleness and respect.

Regardless of your age, we commit sin against Christ by spouting off anything that can be perceived as virulent attacks against others and not being willing to reason through our statements.

When I was 16, I had already attempted to read the Bible through once, and was trying to understand the thoughts of Saint Thomas Aquinas. While I admit that my thinking at that age was immature, I knew that study and critical thinking about Christian faith were important to any meaningful discussion that might change another person's mind or heart about us. The greatest commandment is to love God with your whole heart, with your whole MIND, and with all your soul and being.

You are not doing Yahweh's will until you do your homework. If you don't know how to respond to an issue, humbly admit that you don't know the answer, and go seek an answer from the Bible, your pastor, or some good scholarly reading and prayer. Read some of my own responses to other issues. Don't just spout off what can be perceived as hateful speach about others based on what someone who knows nothing of Islam told you.

Christ would not write the virulant stuff some Christians are writing on this site. Christ often held the pagans as an example to his followers, because they acted better than the desciples sometimes (see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5-7, how many times Christ says "Don't the pagans do as much" or similar statements). And Islam is not pagan, since they worship one God as we do! You should feel nothing but respect from Islam that has given you a forum here for expressing anything at all on THEIR site!

I don't mean to beat you up, but we Christians need to reach others, rather than repelling. What we do and say should be motivated by love, mercy, honest truth seeking, and compassion, even when we feel someone is in error. That does not mean that we never challenge others. However, there is a charitable way to challenge others, and there is an uncharitable way. In today's context, your way of expressing your views is not coming across as charitable, whether you intend it or not.

Peace and blessings in Christ!

jcecil3

[Dr Qaisar]

Greetings, jcecil.


>Where I
>question Islam, or try to
>clarify a Christian doctrine, it
>is not meant as an
>attack on Islam. It is
>my own struggle to understand.
>
>
>To that end, I have two
>questions for you intended in
>the true spirit of seeking:
>Where do you get the
>information that there were 300
>gospels at the time of
>Nicea? and, What assurance is
>there that Koran was not
>tampered with?
>
>I have not found anywhere near
>300 such writings, and I
>have read nothing indicating that
>such a number was destroyed.

It is heartening to learn that you are trying to understand the religion prescribed for mankind by God ie., Islam. Allow me to begin by stating my experise does not lie in the field of Christian Theology or exegesis. In answer to your first question regarding the source of the claim that there were 300 gospels at the time of Nicea, I had previously stated that there were "about" 300 gospels around that time and sources were from both Muslim and Christian. One is a Muslim historian & scholar and author of the Book "Jesus Proppeht of Islam" but I shall not quote him as being a Muslim, he may be accused of bias against Christianity. Therefore, the more definitive source is from authoritative Christian sources. The fact that there about 300 different gospels around the time of Council of Nicea (318 AD) or before that is borne out by the observations contained in THE ECUMENICAL TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, NEW TESTAMENT 1972 and according to it, "250 other known parchments (gospels) existed during the early period of Christianity, the last of these being from the 11th century AD". Thus, not all of these gospels were destroyed and some survive to this date under the dubious category of "Apocypha". BUT initially some these (Apocryphal) gospels figured in the official gospels of the Church while others works contained in today's New Testament were excluded from the list, up until the Councils of Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397.
Another source is from Father Boismard of the Biblical School of Jerusalem who notes in his "Synopsis of the Four Gospels" 1972-73 that, perhaps, a 100 gospels were suppressed and these books existed in libraries near the end the 4th century AD but later disappeared! Now the above 2 are Christian sources that I have quoted unlike your nameless Christian "Western Scholars" attempting to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Qur'an. As to the Church's ability to destroy it's own collected gospels, evidence can be judged by the tragic fate of William Tyndale who was publicly executed and burnt at the stake in Oct. 1536 in England merely for having dared to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew & Greek into English!!..... this is taken from the preface to the RSV, 1971.


>The canonical gospels, on the other
>hand, can be demonstrated by
>the same techniques to have
>been the earliest writings refering
>to Christ, were composed within
>3-80 years of Jesus crucifixtion,
>were quoted by other authors
>that can be dated accurately,
>and consistently reflect thought patterns,
>content and language common within
>first century Judaism.

Unfortunately your claim that the canonical gospels "were composed within 3-80 years of Jesus crucifixion" is both factually wrong and misleading. Because according to the same Ecumenical Translation, it notes that "From 70 AD to a period sometime before 110 AD the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were produced." And it goes on to date Matthew's gospel at 80-90 AD, Mark's between 65-70 AD, Luke's at circa 80-90 AD and John's around the end of the 1st century AD, based on the opinion of modern Christian scholars. So as you can see none of the present day gospels have origins very close to Jesus, after 3 AD (3-80 AD) as you have stated.
More importantly, the 4 canonical gospels do not "reflect the thought patterns, content & languge common within first century Judaism" as you have stated. The languge of Jesus (Prophet Isa, PBUH) and his people is thought to have been Aramaic but the none of the present day gospels are in the original Aramaic but they exist only as translated works. During the first century AD, Cardinal Danielou of Paris informs us that, "It is to the early Judeo-Christians that one must ascribe the oldest writings of Christian literature", and not the present day gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. These earliest writings are contained in the Gospels of the Hebrews, writings of Clement, the Second Apocalypse of James and the Gospel of Thomas. And the early Judeo-Christians were separate from and in conflict with Paul over the practise of circumcision, Sabbath and the formal worship in the Temple who denounced these practices.


>As to the Koran, Western scholars
>seem to find the same
>difficulties Islam finds with Chritianity
>in that some Muslim groups
>accept some Suras, while others
>don't....there seem to be contradictory
>passages...the earliest extant manuscripts seem
>to be dated several years
>after the prophet....ordering of Suras
>is different...and Islam has differing
>traditions and schools of thought
>even today. Maybe the sources
>I am reading are biased.
>On the other hand, maybe
>Muslim scholars admit this, as
>Christian scholars do about the
>Bible. My responses elsewhere deal
>with how I interpret these
>issues in light of my
>Christian faith. What is the
>Muslim answer to variant texts
>and late dating of the
>Koran? (i.e.-- do you deny
>it, or hold a more
>nuanced view)?


Now to answer your 2nd question of what is the evidence that the Qur'an has not been tampered with. But before that, let me clarify for you and your "Western Scholars" that there is absolutely no question at all of any Muslim or group, whatever be his or it's denomination, believing in some revealed ‘sura‘ and not in others. To do so would invalidate his/her belief in Islam and God-forbid, he/she would not remain a Muslim anymore. Perhaps, this is due to the bias of your sources. This fact has been testified to by Allah (God)
Himself in His Book, the Qur'an in verse 3:7 below (part of it)

..... "And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it, the whole of it is from our Lord:"

Also there are no contradictory passages in the Qur'an and none whatsoever have been found till date. Again this has been vouched for by Allah Himself in verse 4:82

"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

The ordering of the ‘sura‘ does not follow a chronlogical sequence and the reason for this cannot be explained here in detail, perhaps you would find the explanation in a good Commentary to the Qur'an (eg. Abdullah Yusuf Ali). The presence of different schools of thought in Islam have nothing to do with Qur'anic revelation per se; they differ among themselves on minor issues of jurisprudence and textual interpretation and are accepted part of Islamic theology.
It is totally absurd and preposterous to claim that "the earliest extant manuscripts seem to be dated several years after the Prophet" ie. late dating of the Qur'an. All revelations by God (Allah) have been given only to His Chosen servants like the previous revelations, the Taurat to Prophet Moses, the Zaboor to Prophet David, the Injeel (Gospel) to Prophet Isa(Jesus) and finally, the last revelation, Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad, May peace be upon all of them. The first verses to be revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are contained in the sura 96 ("Iqra" or Read), V.96:1-5 when the Prophet was 40 years of age and the last verse revealed is contained in verse 5:3 (‘sura‘ Maa'ida or The table Spread; incidently this sura ahs references to Jesus's Last Supper!) revealed sometime before the Prophet's death, wherein is stated:

..... "This day have I perfected your religion for you, Completed my favour upon you, And have chosen for you Islam as your religion"

The entire revelation lasted about 23 years; during this time the revelations as it came were memorised By the Prophet himself and his numerous followers and were subsequently written down by his scribes, most well known among them was Zaid ibn Thabit, one of the Prophet's companion. This brings us to the question of the writing and compilation of the Qur'an and subject of possible tampering of it. Diverse materials were used in writng of the record: parchment (leaves), leather, wooden tablets, bones, soft stones etc. The manner of recording was very strict; the Prophet used to call one of his lieterate companions and dictated a revelation to him indicating also it's position. And then he would ask the scribe to reread it to him to correct any possible deficiency. Many companions had memorised the entire Qur'an in their lifetime, called Hafizun, and were and continue to be recited in the 5 daily prayers and the month of Ramadan, then and now. The 3rd caliph Uthman entrusted a commission of experts to complete the compilation of the Qur'an based on the copy in possession of the Prophet's wife, Hazrat Hafsa (the caliph's daughter). Caliph Uthman sent copies of the Qur'an to different parts of the emerging empire and such copies exist till date in Tashkent and Istanbul!! Thus, the oldest copies of Qur'an dating back to the Prophet's time and those existing today are exactly the same, word for word!!!.. Nothing has changed in 1400 years, a fact testified to by western scholars themselves. The present copies of the Qur'an remain the most faithful and original document known to mankind! The fact of the Qur'an having been written down in the time of the Prophet himself is recorded in the Qur'an itself in ‘sura‘ 80 ("Abasa" or He Frowned) verse 11-16, unlike the Gospels,:

"By no means! Indeed it is a message of instruction, therefore whoever wills, keep it in rememberance. (It is) in books held (greatly) in honour, Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy, (Written) by the hands of scribes- Honourable and Pious and Just."


I hope my attempts will be successful in removing some of the misconceptions you & other "Western scholars" may harbour against the religion of your Lord and Creator, Allah.


Dr.Qaisar

[jcecil3]

Thank you for such detailed answers to my questions.

I do wish to clarify a few of my statements that I have made several times on this site. In your above quotes from the commentaries on the RSV, you state that Christian scholars place the composition of portions of the New Testament at 110 A.D., while I have said numerous times that the New Testament was composed by 80 years after the crucifixion. The apparent discrepency is that the Western calendar begins with the supposed birth of Christ, but the crucifixtion occurred when Jesus was in his early thirties (about 33 years old according to tradition). Thus, the year 110 A.D. is approximately 80 years after the crucifixtion, accounting for the fact that the Western calendar may be off on the birth date of Christ by a few years. As to the placement of some of the New Testament within 3 years of the crucifixtion, I agree that the final form of the earlier texts that we have today was not composed until around 50 A.D., which would be about 17 to 21 years after the crucifixtion. However, Paul quotes hymns and credal formulas that scholars agree can be placed much earlier, with strong arguments for 3 years after the crucifixtion, which would be about 32 or 33 A.D. on the modern Western calendar.

The other clarification is that no Western scholar that I am aware of claims that the New Testament was originally composed in Aramaic and translated to Greek. We believe that the original language of Jesus was Aramaic, but that the entire New Testament was composed in Koine Greek, because it was written for Greek speeking Jews and Greek speeking converts to Chritianity.

Thank you for the clarification on what Islam believes about the Koran. I will need to ponder this a bit, and I'll let you know if I have further questions.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 13-10-01 AT 02:04 PM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 12-10-01 AT 06:10*PM (GMT)

Thanks again Dr. Quasir. I have had some time to ponder what you wrote.

I have some additional questions and clarifications below. You do not have to answer any of my questions on this site if you can just point me to good article or book that answers the questions.



>
> It
>is heartening to learn that
>you are trying to understand
>the religion prescribed for mankind
>by God ie., Islam. Allow
>me to begin by stating
>my experise does not lie
>in the field of Christian
>Theology or exegesis. In answer
>to your first question regarding
>the source of the claim
>that there were 300 gospels
>at the time of Nicea,
>I had previously stated that
>there were "about" 300 gospels
>around that time and sources
>were from both Muslim and
>Christian. One is a Muslim
>historian & scholar and author
>of the Book "Jesus Proppeht
>of Islam" but I shall
>not quote him as being
>a Muslim, he may be
>accused of bias against Christianity.
>Therefore, the more definitive source
>is from authoritative Christian sources.
>The fact that there about
>300 different gospels around the
>time of Council of Nicea
>(318 AD) or before that
>is borne out by the
>observations contained in THE ECUMENICAL
>TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, NEW
>TESTAMENT 1972 and according to
>it, "250 other known parchments
>(gospels) existed during the early
>period of Christianity, the last
>of these being from the
>11th century AD".

I do not have a copy of the Bible you reference, so I may be mistaken here. However, I think you completely misunderstand what the author is trying to say here. Again, I apologize if I'm incorrect, and I will find a copy of what you are reading to verify what follows. It seems to me that the author is not refering to there being 250 different gospels in the sense of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Thomas, James, Hebrews, etc....up to 250 different names of different gospels. Rather, he is saying that there are 300 copies of the four canonical gospels in existence from the Nicene period, and 250 additional full copies based on the original Greek in existence up to the eleventh century. The point here being that we have wide manuscript evidence of the originals to compare with the Latin versions that came to prevail after the third century. In other words, if I interpret the author's statement correctly (which would be what I learned while I was doing graduate studies in Koine Greek), he is strongly AFFIRMING how we Christians know that our Bible's were not tampered with, where you are reading the exact opposite into his commentary. I do not deny variant readings of these various manuscripts, by the way. Nor do I deny the existence of gnostic gospels. I do question that there 300 such gospels -- but I'll keep reading. If you are correct in your interpreation of the statement in the RSV, than I would have an argument with this scholar based on my own study so far -- my argument would not be with you. I would need to know his source. You do not need to respond further, since the argument is with the commentary in question. I will find a copy of the commentary and check his sources.

>Thus, not
>all of these gospels were
>destroyed and some survive to
>this date under the dubious
>category of "Apocypha". BUT initially
>some these (Apocryphal) gospels figured
>in the official gospels of
>the Church while others works
>contained in today's New Testament
>were excluded from the list,
>up until the Councils of
>Hippo Regius in 393 and
>Carthage in 397.
> Another
>source is from Father Boismard
>of the Biblical School of
>Jerusalem who notes in his
>"Synopsis of the Four Gospels"
>1972-73 that, perhaps, a 100
>gospels were suppressed and these
>books existed in libraries near
>the end the 4th century
>AD but later disappeared! Now
>the above 2 are Christian
>sources that I have quoted
>unlike your nameless Christian "Western
>Scholars" attempting to cast doubt
>on the authenticity of the
>Qur'an. As to the Church's
>ability to destroy it's own
>collected gospels, evidence can be
>judged by the tragic fate
>of William Tyndale who was
>publicly executed and burnt at
>the stake in Oct. 1536
>in England merely for having
>dared to translate the Scriptures
>from the original Hebrew &
>Greek into English!!..... this is
>taken from the preface to
>the RSV, 1971.
>
>
William Tyndale was NOT burned at the stake solely for translating the Scriptures into English. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church canonized the Venerable Bede as a saint for translating the Bible into English 736 years earlier. The Douay Rheims English Bible (authorized by the Roman Catholic Church)was a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English in 1589, and the King James Version (authorized by the Protestants) was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew in 1611. There were other translations of the Bible or parts of the Bible in English prior to Tyndale, and between Tyndale and the Douay Rheims. Tyndale WAS probably the first to translate from the Greek, rather than the Latin Vulgate, but this alone did not get him burned at the stake. Erasmus was doing this already within the Catholic Church, and all Protestants were doing this. The Protestants have historically pointed to the burning of Tyndale as proof that Roman Catholics do not want lay people to read the Bible, but this was not the real issue with Tyndale. Tyndale was burned at the stake because he denied Church authority. It is important to remember at this time that there was no separation of Church and state. Thus, to deny the authority of the Church was treason. Personally, as a Roman Catholic, I am ashamed of what my Church did to Tyndale. However, we must not be confused about the real reasons he was killed. It had nothing to do with translating the Bible into English per se, accept as that act was part of an overall denial of the authority of the Church-state which had not authorized him to do so. If the Roman Catholic Church did not really want the Bible translated into English, the Douay Rheims version would not have been published in the same general time period.

>
> Unfortunately
>your claim that the canonical
>gospels "were composed within 3-80
>years of Jesus crucifixion" is
>both factually wrong and misleading.
>Because according to the same
>Ecumenical Translation, it notes that
>"From 70 AD to a
>period sometime before 110 AD
>the Gospels of Mark, Matthew,
>Luke and John were produced."
>And it goes on to
>date Matthew's gospel at 80-90
>AD, Mark's between 65-70 AD,
>Luke's at circa 80-90 AD
>and John's around the end
>of the 1st century AD,
>based on the opinion of
>modern Christian scholars. So as
>you can see none of
>the present day gospels have
>origins very close to Jesus,
>after 3 AD (3-80 AD)
>as you have stated.

I have answered this already. I hope my clarification that 80 years after the crucifixtion is the same year as 110 A.D. made sense, since the Western calendar is based on the year Jesus was supposedly born. Again, I point out that when I stated the canonical New Testament was written by 80 years after the crucifixtion, I am in agreement with your sources who say that it was composed by 110 years after Jesus' birth. Jesus lived into his early to mid thirties, but the calandar may be off by about 4 years. These dates are approximations, but 110 A.D. and 80 years after crucifixtion mean the same thing within about 5 years either way. My statement that some of the New Testament was composed by 3 years after the crucifixtion is meant to be about the year 34 A.D. This statement is is little harder to prove with certainty, but is based on the language used in the hymns and credal formulas used by Saint Paul, who wrote between 50 and 70 A.D. (which was between 17 to 37 years after the crucifixtion).


> More importantly,
>the 4 canonical gospels do
>not "reflect the thought patterns,
>content & languge common within
>first century Judaism" as you
>have stated. The languge of
>Jesus (Prophet Isa, PBUH) and
>his people is thought to
>have been Aramaic but the
>none of the present day
>gospels are in the original
>Aramaic but they exist only
>as translated works. During the
>first century AD, Cardinal Danielou
>of Paris informs us that,
>"It is to the early
>Judeo-Christians that one must ascribe
>the oldest writings of Christian
>literature", and not the present
>day gospels of Matthew, Mark,
>Luke & John. These earliest
>writings are contained in the
>Gospels of the Hebrews, writings
>of Clement, the Second Apocalypse
>of James and the Gospel
>of Thomas. And the early
>Judeo-Christians were separate from and
>in conflict with Paul over
>the practise of circumcision, Sabbath
>and the formal worship in
>the Temple who denounced these
>practices.
>

I have read the writings of Clement, the Second Apocalypse of James (and the Proto-evengelium of James), and the gospel of Thomas. I have not read the Gospel of the Hebrews, which I believe is also called the Gospel of the Ebionites, but I may be mistaken on that point.

Regarding the language of the canonical gospels, the original canonical gospels were written in Greek to Greek speeking converts. Other gospels written in Aramaic, or other languages have not been discovered that can be conclusively dated to the first century. If they were discovered 2,000 years after the fact, the Church would likely reject them as inspired works for the sole reason that they have not stood the test of time. However, we would certianly use them to aid interpretation of the canon, and there would be plenty of Christians who would love to read them.

Regarding the differences between the Church at Jerusalem, and the conflict with Paul, you are absolutely correct that there was disagreement over circumcision, Sabbath day, formal worship at the temple, as well as whether to eat kosher foods and other issues. However, it is my understanding that there were no differences of opinion regarding the divinity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the authority of Peter, and other issues that Islam would find troublesome. In the New Testament in use by modern Christians, it is clear that Peter and James originally took the side of the Church at Jerusalem. However, Peter had a vision that changed his mind, and the first Church council, presided over by James, decided that Paul was ultimately correct. The details regarding these decisions are outlined in the Acts of the Apostles, and are refered to throughout the epistles of both Paul and James. Historically, there was tension over these issues for another 200 years or so in the church in Palestine. However, when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D., and Jewsish Christians dispersed, the church at Jeusalem lost much of it's "political" clout in the Church. Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. His successors exercised greater influence in the early Church than Palestine because of the role of primacy he held among the apostles. Catholics believe this is the origin of the modern papacy. Protestants admit the church at Rome had considerable influence in the early Church, but believe that the modern papacy has far exagerrated the claims the early Roman bishops would make regarding the authority of this position.

Regarding the writings attributed to James, the Christian church does not believe that these writings were written in the first century. However, if they were, it does not serve Muslims well to state these were the original gospels. The reason I state that is that they are more explicitly Trinitarian than the cononical gosples, support that Roman Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary by asserting that Joseph had children in a prior marriage, and assert that Mary was a nun, who only married Joseph legally in order to protect her reputation. In fact, one of the reason Western scholars reject first century authorship of these writings is that the writings are too explicit in what Catholics consider orthodox doctrinal statements that even the Catholic Church acknowledges had not developed so early.

Regarding the gospel of Thomas, there is some disagreement regarding dating of this material. On the one hand, it is mostly a short compilation of sayings of Jesus with little narrative. As a general rule of thumb, Western scholars usually argue that a shorter work pre-dates longer, because the later author will attempt to clarify misunderstood sayings in the original. The majority of the sayings are found in the canonical gospels. Thus, some Western scholars DO argue that the gospel of Thomas is earlier than the canonical gospels. Furthermore, James is clearly the leader of the Church in the gospel of Thomas, which would support your theory that this gospel came form the church in Jerusalem (James lead the Jerusalem church until his martyrdom). However, the oldest known copies are written in Greek. There is strong Gnostic language in this texts. It refers to hidden knowledge that will allow the soul to be freed from the body, and transform women into males. Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, not the freedom the soul from the body. Indeed, such a notion is more Greek than Jewish. These theological opinions did not develop in the first century, unless they originated with the author of the gospel of Thomas, himself. The last saying in the gospel refers to women literally becoming male in Christ. Not only is this saying sexist by contemporary standards, but it is inconsistent with Genesis and Paul that state that male and female both image God as male and female in their own unique way. Again, the demolition of the differences between the sexes is more akin to Gnostic beliefs that became popular in the second and third century than to first century Palestinian thought. The Gnostics believed strongly in androgeny, and often tried to force celibacy on all believers. There are also pantheistic strains in some of the sayings. Thus, even if it the gospel of Thomas was considered an original, it would not serve Muslims well, since it advocates a pantheistic or polytheistic view of reality.

Regarding the writings of Clement, he is considered a saint and "Father of the Church" by every branch of Christianity. Thus, while we do not consider his writings to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, we do consider his writings to be an orthodox summary of Christian faith. He quotes from gospel sources considered canonical by Christians, and gives early testimony to the existence of either the gospel of Matthew or Matthew's source.

>
>
>
> Now to
>answer your 2nd question of
>what is the evidence that
>the Qur'an has not been
>tampered with. But before that,
>let me clarify for you
>and your "Western Scholars" that
>there is absolutely no question
>at all of any Muslim
>or group, whatever be his
>or it's denomination, believing in
>some revealed ‘sura‘ and not
>in others. To do so
>would invalidate his/her belief in
>Islam and God-forbid, he/she would
>not remain a Muslim anymore.
>Perhaps, this is due to
>the bias of your sources.
>This fact has been testified
>to by Allah (God)
>Himself in His Book, the Qur'an
>in verse 3:7 below (part
>of it)
>
> ..... "And those who
>are firmly grounded in knowledge
>say: "We believe in it,
>the whole of it is
>from our Lord:"
>
> Also there
>are no contradictory passages in
>the Qur'an and none whatsoever
>have been found till date.
>Again this has been vouched
>for by Allah Himself in
>verse 4:82
>
> "Do they
>not consider the Qur'an (with
>care)? Had it been from
>any other than Allah, they
>would surely have found therein
>much discrepancy."
>

As I read through the statements written by Om Mohammed and Lulua on this site, I am somewhat frustrated by the bombardment of apperent contradictions in the Bible. The frustration stems from the fact that there are explainations for all these apparent contradictions, and even if many Christians haven't thought about them, the scholars and theologians have worked out answers that are accessible in any public library or book store if you really want to look. So, I realize that the contradictions I find in the Koran, or that some other Western scholar finds, probably have an explanaition. It is not my intent to attempt to discredit the Koran or attack your religion by siting such an apparent contradiction. I will also avoid the sensitive topic of apparently contradictory verses regarding Jews and Christians in light of the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

However, in order to address the issue of whether the Koran contains contradictions, I only need to provide even one trivial example to make the point that it is a false statement that "none whatsoever" have been found. Sura 96:1 translated by N. J. Dawood states "Recite in the name of your Lord who created, created man from clots of blood." However, Sura 32:7 of the same translation states "He first created man from clay, then bred his offspring from a drop of paltry fluid." Was man made from clay, or clots of blood? There is an apparent contradiction here.

It is my assertion from my own reading of the Koran, that the Koran is just AS baffling, beffudling, and contradictory to those of us who were not raised in Islamic culture and who do not speak Arabic as the Bible is to those who were not raised in Christian culture.

Regarding the notion that there is argument over which suras belong in the Koran, I honestly cannot remember where I read that. So, maybe I'm just plain wrong, and I apologize for that assertion if I am. However, though I cannot remember where I read it, it seems to me that the article I am referring to said that this argument about which suras belong in the Koran is one of the principle differences between Sh'ite Muslims and others. Again, if I'm wrong on this, I apologize. Can you tell me whether there is any truth to this?

Along the same lines, what is a good English resource for exploring the differences between Sh'ite, Suni, Sufi, Nation of Islam, etc....Again, you don't need to try to answer these questions here if you can point me to a good book or article that Muslims respect.


> The ordering of
>the ‘sura‘ does not follow
>a chronlogical sequence and the
>reason for this cannot be
>explained here in detail, perhaps
>you would find the explanation
>in a good Commentary to
>the Qur'an (eg. Abdullah Yusuf
>Ali). The presence of different
>schools of thought in Islam
>have nothing to do with
>Qur'anic revelation per se; they
>differ among themselves on minor
>issues of jurisprudence and textual
>interpretation and are accepted part
>of Islamic theology.
> It
>is totally absurd and preposterous
>to claim that "the earliest
>extant manuscripts seem to be
>dated several years after the
>Prophet" ie. late dating of
>the Qur'an. All revelations by
>God (Allah) have been given
>only to His Chosen servants
>like the previous revelations, the
>Taurat to Prophet Moses, the
>Zaboor to Prophet David, the
>Injeel (Gospel) to Prophet Isa(Jesus)
>and finally, the last revelation,
>Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad, May
>peace be upon all of
>them. The first verses to
>be revealed to Prophet Muhammad
>(PBUH) are contained in the
>sura 96 ("Iqra" or Read),
>V.96:1-5 when the Prophet was
>40 years of age and
>the last verse revealed is
>contained in verse 5:3 (‘sura‘
>Maa'ida or The table Spread;
>incidently this sura ahs references
>to Jesus's Last Supper!) revealed
>sometime before the Prophet's death,
>wherein is stated:
>
> ..... "This day
>have I perfected your religion
>for you, Completed my favour
>upon you, And have chosen
>for you Islam as your
>religion"
>
> The entire
>revelation lasted about 23 years;
>during this time the revelations
>as it came were memorised
>By the Prophet himself and
>his numerous followers and were
>subsequently written down by his
>scribes, most well known among
>them was Zaid ibn Thabit,
>one of the Prophet's companion.
>This brings us to the
>question of the writing and
>compilation of the Qur'an and
>subject of possible tampering of
>it. Diverse materials were used
>in writng of the record:
>parchment (leaves), leather, wooden tablets,
>bones, soft stones etc. The
>manner of recording was very
>strict; the Prophet used to
>call one of his lieterate
>companions and dictated a revelation
>to him indicating also it's
>position. And then he would
>ask the scribe to reread
>it to him to correct
>any possible deficiency. Many companions
>had memorised the entire Qur'an
>in their lifetime, called Hafizun,
>and were and continue to
>be recited in the 5
>daily prayers and the month
>of Ramadan, then and now.
>The 3rd caliph Uthman entrusted
>a commission of experts to
>complete the compilation of the
>Qur'an based on the copy
>in possession of the Prophet's
>wife, Hazrat Hafsa (the caliph's
>daughter). Caliph Uthman sent copies
>of the Qur'an to different
>parts of the emerging empire
>and such copies exist till
>date in Tashkent and Istanbul!!
>Thus, the oldest copies of
>Qur'an dating back to the
>Prophet's time and those existing
>today are exactly the same,
>word for word!!!.. Nothing
>has changed in 1400 years,
>a fact testified to by
>western scholars themselves. The present
>copies of the Qur'an remain
>the most faithful and original
>document known to mankind! The
>fact of the Qur'an having
>been written down in the
>time of the Prophet himself
>is recorded in the Qur'an
>itself in ‘sura‘ 80 ("Abasa"
>or He Frowned) verse 11-16,
>unlike the Gospels,:
>
The question I am addressing here is that if the Uthman translation was written under the third caliphate, wouldn't that be sometime AFTER 644 A.D. on the Western calendar? If Mohammed died in 632 A.D., there is at least 12 years between Mohammed's death and the first compilation of his teachings. Taking into account that the revelations started 23 years prior to his death, there is a minimum of 35 years between the first revelation and the first attempt to compile his works. Now, there are other questions that are raised by the entire scenario you describe. You do not have to answer any of these questions on this site if you can just point me to good article or book that answers these questions.

First, the dates I provided above are based on earliest possbile dates. However, the caliphate of Uthman ended around 656 A.D. If we use the later date, we could have 47 years between the first revelation and the first compilation. If the caliphate of Uthman version cannot be verified to be the period when the authorized version came into existence, we would have still later dates. Which leads to the next question:

Have the Tashket and Istanbul copies at least been verified as dating form the caliphate of Uthman, and by what means did this verification take place (i.e. -- linguistic analysis, verified quotation in extra-koranic texts that can be accurately dated, examination of content against extra-koranic sources, archeological-scientific evidence, etc...)? I don't ask this fecitiously. Christian scholars have asked themselves the same questions about their own Scripture, and it is considered a religious duty and intellectual responsibility to honestly let the facts lead where they may, even if we don't like the truth. Thus, when we place the Book of Revelations at 110 A.D. (80 years after the crucifixtion), it makes the novice scholar a bit uncomfortable, but we consider it dishonest to say otherwise without some proof a non-believer can accept. What is the Islamic evidence that these texts DO in fact date to the caliphate of Uthman, and that the caliphate of Uthman occurred when Islam says it did?

Third, what certainty is there that those who memorized his revelations, or wrote it on leaves and stones, etc...got it right? Theologically, if it were discovered that a verified fragment written on a leaf differed form the authorized version, which would be correct? Was it Mohammed who was inspired, or the scribe who wrote the authorized text? Are copies considered inspired if they contain a variant? All leading to the next question....

What guarentee is there that the final authorized version contained all that was memorized, written on stones, etc....in the exact same words that were written on the stones, leaves, etc....

Fifth, according N.J. Dawood in the introduction to my English copy of the Koran, the oldest versions contained no diacritial marks or punctuation (neither did the Greek New Testament). How many varinat readings are there today as these diacritical marks and punctuation is added? How significant is the meaning changed between variant readings?

You do not have to answer any of these questions on this site if you can just point me to good article or book that answers these questions.



> "By no means!
>Indeed it is a message
>of instruction, therefore whoever wills,
>keep it in rememberance. (It
>is) in books held (greatly)
>in honour, Exalted (in dignity),
>kept pure and holy, (Written)
>by the hands of scribes-
>Honourable and Pious and Just."
>
>
>
> I hope my
>attempts will be successful in
>removing some of the misconceptions
>you & other "Western scholars"
>may harbour against the religion
>of your Lord and Creator,
>Allah.

I am not sure why you put "Western scholars" in quotation marks. If you mean who are they, I am referring primarily to majority opinions of Scripture scholars you would find named in the fronts of our Bibles, particularly, The New American Bible. Secondarily, I refer to some other Ph.D level writers in theology and the humanities. I have completed graduate studies in theology myself, though I never went as far as a Ph.D (yet). I have done primary research, though I have not been published. I do make assertions sometimes from memory of an article I may have read years ago, so feel free to challenge me on a particular point. Most of what I am writing would be of such common opionion, that I believe some of it can even be verified in an encyclopedia, or some simple reference like that. I am intentionally trying to make "safe" statements that I know there are defensible, so that if I am challenged, I can quickly find a answer. But I'm human, and I'm sure there's a mistake here or there -- and I'm not afraid when I was wrong.

In regard to the response I expect from you, I repeat, you do not have to answer any of these questions I am asking on this site if you do not want to (unless you want to educate Muslims). However, can you point me to good article or book that answers these questions?

>
>
>Dr.Qaisar

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[Dr Qaisar]

Greetings, jcecil3.


>Thanks again Dr. Quasir. I have
>had some time to ponder
>what you wrote.

Allow me to begin by requesting you that, perhaps, we should carry on with this discussion in a new or different thread as our discussion here has nothing to do with the original title of this message ("to alhamduliyesu").


>I do not have a copy
>of the Bible you reference,
>so I may be mistaken
>here. However, I think you
>completely misunderstand what the author
>is trying to say here.
>Again, I apologize if I'm
>incorrect, and I will find
>a copy of what you
>are reading to verify what
>follows. It seems to me
>that the author is not
>refering to there being 250
>different gospels in the sense
>of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
>Peter, Thomas, James, Hebrews, etc....up
>to 250 different names of
>different gospels. Rather, he is
>saying that there are 300
>copies of the four canonical
>gospels in existence from the
>Nicene period, and 250 additional
>full copies based on the
>original Greek in existence up
>to the eleventh century.

> In other words, if
>I interpret the author's statement
>correctly (which would be what
>I learned while I was
>doing graduate studies in Koine
>Greek), he is strongly AFFIRMING
>how we Christians know that
>our Bible's were not tampered
>with, where you are reading
>the exact opposite into his
>commentary.

> I do
>question that there 300 such
>gospels -- but I'll keep
>reading. If you are correct
>in your interpreation of the
>statement in the RSV, than
>I would have an argument
>with this scholar based on
>my own study so far
>-- my argument would not
>be with you. I would
>need to know his source.


I may be inclined towards your interpretation contained in the Ecumenical Translation but the point here is not about the possibilty that these numerous gospels were either completely different from one another or that they were copies of similar gospels with significant variations, rather, they reaffirm the indisputable notion that there were in circulation innumerable gospels (similar or not) during the 1st 3 centuries of early Christianity instead of the 4 canonised gospels. And the opinion of Father Boismard remains that about a 100 gospels were suppressed. As to the question of tampering of the Bible, this is rather debatable, and God-willing, I shall take up this subject with some conviction in another or different thread.

>> Another
>>source is from Father Boismard
>>of the Biblical School of
>>Jerusalem who notes in his
>>"Synopsis of the Four Gospels"
>>1972-73 that, perhaps, a 100
>>gospels were suppressed and these
>>books existed in libraries near
>>the end of the 4th century
>>AD but later disappeared! Now
>>the above 2 are Christian
>>sources that I have quoted
>>unlike your nameless Christian "Western
>>Scholars" attempting to cast doubt
>>on the authenticity of the
>>Qur'an. As to the Church's
>>ability to destroy it's own
>>collected gospels, evidence can be
>>judged by the tragic fate
>>of William Tyndale who was
>>publicly executed and burnt at
>>the stake in Oct. 1536
>>in England merely for having
>>dared to translate the Scriptures
>>from the original Hebrew &
>>Greek into English!!..... this is
>>taken from the preface to
>>the RSV, 1971.
>>
>>
>William Tyndale was NOT burned at
>the stake solely for translating
>the Scriptures into English. In
>fact, the Roman Catholic Church
>canonized the Venerable Bede as
>a saint for translating the
>Bible into English 736 years
>earlier.

> Tyndale
>was burned at the stake
>because he denied Church authority.

> Thus, to deny
>the authority of the Church
>was treason. Personally, as a
>Roman Catholic, I am ashamed
>of what my Church did
>to Tyndale. However, we must
>not be confused about the
>real reasons he was killed.
>It had nothing to do
>with translating the Bible into
>English per se,

According to the preface to the RSV, 1971 the only reason given for his execution was his attepmt to translate the Bible into English and no other reason is offered by the publishers (Collins). But in all probability & fairness, it just might be plausible that Tyndale was disposed off summarily for "denying Church authority" as you have stated. But this only serves to prove the point that if the Church could execute a human being ostensibly for defying Church authority, then it could have (and did) destroyed numerous gospels in it's possession for fear of discrediting and eroding Church authority. In fact, this facet of the Church was repeated later during the persecution of the famous astronomer, Copernicus who exposed the falsehood of the Church-endorsed geocentric theory of the Universe!


>The Christian church does not
>believe that these writings were
>written in the first century.
>However, if they were, it
>does not serve Muslims well
>to state these were the
>original gospels.

Muslims do not believe that either the 4 canonised gospels or any other apocryphal gospel (or variations) were the original gospels, but the gospel revealed to Jesus (Prophet Isa, PBUH) by God is called "Injeel" in Arabic and that this was the true & original gospel testifying to the eternal oneness of God.


>However, in order to address the
>issue of whether the Koran
>contains contradictions, I only need
>to provide even one trivial
>example to make the point
>that it is a false
>statement that "none whatsoever" have
>been found. Sura 96:1 translated
>by N. J. Dawood states
>"Recite in the name of
>your Lord who created, created
>man from clots of blood."
>However, Sura 32:7 of the
>same translation states "He first
>created man from clay, then
>bred his offspring from a
>drop of paltry fluid."
>Was man made from clay,
>or clots of blood? There
>is an apparent contradiction here.
>

There is no contradiction in the above passages and I shall explain, Insha-Allah, (God-willing) in detail elsewhere (in reply to similar points raised by you in another thread, "The Language of Jesus") the description regarding the creation of man & Adam. Suffice here to state that one verse refers to the creation of human beings in general by the use of the expression "clots of blood" and the other refers to the creation of the 1st man, Adam, from "clay & a drop of paltry fluid". I will elaborate on this in the other thread, Insha-Allah.


>it seems to me that
>the article I am referring
>to said that this argument
>about which suras belong in
>the Koran is one of
>the principle differences between Sh'ite
>Muslims and others. Again, if
>I'm wrong on this, I
>apologize. Can you tell me
>whether there is any truth
>to this?

The principle difference between Shi'ite Muslims and others (Sunnis) stems from the question of the succession of the Caliph, Shias holding the view that Ali (RA) should have been the 1st caliph after the death of the Prophet instead of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and thus, the later hierarchical organisation of the clergy embodied in their line of Imams (leaders).


>Along the same lines, what is
>a good English resource for
>exploring the differences between Sh'ite,
>Suni, Sufi, Nation of Islam,
>etc....Again, you don't need to
>try to answer these questions
>here if you can point
>me to a good book
>or article that Muslims respect.

Instead of pointing to a book regarding these questions, it might be easier for you if you were to do an internet search on these topics if you have access to the internet. Anyway, you may find a fairly detailed & comprehensive information at the following URL under the title "Internet Islamic History Sourcebook":

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html


>>The entire
>>revelation lasted about 23 years;
>>during this time the revelations
>>as it came were memorised
>>By the Prophet himself and
>>his numerous followers and were
>>subsequently written down by his
>>scribes, most well known among
>>them was Zaid ibn Thabit,
>>one of the Prophet's companion.
>>This brings us to the
>>question of the writing and
>>compilation of the Qur'an and
>>subject of possible tampering of
>>it. Diverse materials were used
>>in writng of the record:
>>parchment (leaves), leather, wooden tablets,
>>bones, soft stones etc. The
>>manner of recording was very
>>strict; the Prophet used to
>>call one of his literate
>>companions and dictated a revelation
>>to him indicating also it's
>>position. And then he would
>>ask the scribe to reread
>>it to him to correct
>>any possible deficiency. Many companions
>>had memorised the entire Qur'an
>>in their lifetime, called Hafizun,
>>and were and continue to
>>be recited in the 5
>>daily prayers and the month
>>of Ramadan, then and now.
>>The 3rd caliph Uthman entrusted
>>a commission of experts to
>>complete the compilation of the
>>Qur'an based on the copy
>>in possession of the Prophet's
>>wife, Hazrat Hafsa (the caliph's
>>daughter). Caliph Uthman sent copies
>>of the Qur'an to different
>>parts of the emerging empire
>>and such copies exist till
>>date in Tashkent and Istanbul!!
>>Thus, the oldest copies of
>>Qur'an dating back to the
>>Prophet's time and those existing
>>today are exactly the same,
>>word for word!!!.. Nothing
>>has changed in 1400 years,
>>a fact testified to by
>>western scholars themselves. The present
>>copies of the Qur'an remain
>>the most faithful and original
>>document known to mankind! The
>>fact of the Qur'an having
>>been written down in the
>>time of the Prophet himself
>>is recorded in the Qur'an
>>itself in ‘sura‘ 80 ("Abasa"
>>or He Frowned) verse 11-16,
>>unlike the Gospels,:



>The question I am addressing here
>is that if the Uthman
>translation was written under the
>third caliphate, wouldn't that be
>sometime AFTER 644 A.D. on
>the Western calendar? If Mohammed
>died in 632 A.D., there
>is at least 12 years
>between Mohammed's death and the
>first compilation of his teachings.
>Taking into account that the
>revelations started 23 years prior
>to his death, there is
>a minimum of 35 years
>between the first revelation and
>the first attempt to compile
>his works.

Please read once again my earlier post above to understand clearly that Hazrat Uthman's (RA) compilation was not the first compilation of the Qur'an because this work was actually based upon the copy in the possession of Hazrat Hafsa having being passed from Hazrat Abu Bakr & Umar (the 1st & 2nd caliphs) to her and that this copy was made under the instructions left behind by the Prophet himself. Also the entire Qur'an had already been written done during the lifetime of the Prophet and many of his Companions had memorised the entire Qur'an. Therefore, there were 2 sources of record and testimony; one from written records during the lifetime of the Prophet himself and later, and the other from the memory of the Companions. Thus, was establshed a system of checks and cross-checks in the compilation of the Qur'an, both during the lifetime of the Prophet himself and later at the time of hazrat Uthman's reign.

>First, the dates I provided above
>are based on earliest possbile
>dates. However, the caliphate of
>Uthman ended around 656 A.D.
>If we use the later
>date, we could have 47
>years between the first revelation
>and the first compilation. If
>the caliphate of Uthman version
>cannot be verified to be
>the period when the authorized
>version came into existence, we
>would have still later dates.
>Which leads to the next
>question:

This has been explained above.

>Have the Tashket and Istanbul copies
>at least been verified as
>dating form the caliphate of
>Uthman, and by what means
>did this verification take place
>(i.e. -- linguistic analysis, verified
>quotation in extra-koranic texts that
>can be accurately dated, examination
>of content against extra-koranic sources,
>archeological-scientific evidence, etc...)?


If you do not believe, you can do so yourself even today by visiting the mosque/musuem in Istanbul and as to the verification of the Qur'an, if you pick any copy of the Qur'an from any period and check it with those available today, you will find not a single word has been displaced or altered in the least. Once again, this is not even disputed by western scholars.


>Third, what certainty is there that
>those who memorized his revelations,
>or wrote it on leaves
>and stones, etc...got it right?
>Theologically, if it were discovered
>that a verified fragment written
>on a leaf differed form
>the authorized version, which would
>be correct? Was it Mohammed
>who was inspired, or the
>scribe who wrote the authorized
>text? Are copies considered inspired
>if they contain a variant?
>All leading to the next
>question....

As mentioned before, the Prophet himself dictated a portion of the revelation as it came to him, to his literate scribes and then asked him or them to reread it to him to check for any possible deficiency. So where is the question of them not getting it right? The 2nd question is a purely hypothetical one as now no fragment exists to give rise to such a situation. You must understand clearly that the revelation came only to the Prophet and not to any of the scribes in anyway and thus, the scribe was not "inspired" at all to write anything. Please do not extrapolate your Christian concepts into the manner of recording of the Qur'an!!


>What guarentee is there that the
>final authorized version contained all
>that was memorized, written on
>stones, etc....in the exact same
>words that were written on
>the stones, leaves, etc....

The testimony of the original copy prepared under the instructions of the Prophet himself and those of the numerous Companions who had memorised the entire Qur'an served to verify the final compilation during the reign of Hazrat Uthman.


>Fifth, according N.J. Dawood in the
>introduction to my English copy
>of the Koran, the oldest
>versions contained no diacritial marks
>or punctuation (neither did the
>Greek New Testament). How many
>varinat readings are there today
>as these diacritical marks and
>punctuation is added? How significant
>is the meaning changed between
>variant readings?


There are differences in the pronunciation of some Arabic words in the Qur'an but they do not alter the meanings at all. The diacrital & punctuation marks may at times give rise to some variant readings but once again, the meanings of the words or verses are not at all altered or changed but one must observe the rules of recitation correctly. It has been said that there were 7 variant readings of the Qur'an but presently the dialect of the Quraish predominates but, nevertheless, they did not change the meanings in any way.

I hope once again your querries have been replied to satisfactorily and that you have improved your understanding of God's religion, Islam, the religion of Abraham, Moses and Jesus (May peace be upon them all).


Dr.Qaisar

[JBJ]

To everyone,

As a Christian, I'm also offended by AlHamdLiYeshua's comments. Age makes no difference. I have two friends. One was a Christian and became Muslim when he was sixteen. The other was Muslim and became Christian when he was sixteen. No joke. AlHamdLiYeshua may think she's noble for trying to represent the Christian view of God, but fails miserably. :-(

I've experienced a passionate relationship with God. I find it insulting that she claim to have something similar, as if to mean that whenever a Christian claims to have a close relationship with God they're simply repeating mindless jargon. God has personally shaken my life by his love, something totally unlike what this girl has. (And it started when I was sixteen!)

In the Bible God's beauty is love, but she hasn't seen it. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude or self-seeking, it is not easily angered . . . when I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." I Corinthians 13.4,5,10

With her exception, I've been impressed by the maturity of everyone speaking here. I hope you all keep it up. However, I still pray that AlHamdLiYeshua too will grow up and actually find what she claims to have already.