Kalam
Senior Member
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,866
- 785
- 48
You make references to anecdotal evidence, but not to anything that actually demonstrates the existence of this force that supposedly ensured that the New Testament accounts were recorded accurately.
Yes.
The Biblical story of Hagar? In my opinion, it should be rejected as false. The Qur'anic story of Hagar seems fine as it is.
The passages in the Qur'an refer to the prophet's vision of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, not to any physical transportation there.
Glory to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Remote Mosque, whose precincts We blessed, that We might show him of Our signs! Surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing. - 17:1
The "Sacred Mosque" meaning al-Masjid al-Haraam in Makkah and the "Remote Mosque" meaning al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem.
It should be thought of as a vision seen by Muhammad ﷺ :
And when We said to you: Surely your Lord encompasses men; and We did not make the vision which We showed you but a trial for men and the cursed tree in the Quran as well; and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy. - 17:60
5:1 makes a reference to food. 5:3, 5:4, and 5:5 deal with food, but 5:2 deals with ethics.
O you who believe, violate not the signs of Allah, nor the Sacred Month, nor the offerings, nor the victims with garlands, nor those repairing to the Sacred House seeking the grace and pleasure of their Lord. And when you are free from pilgrimage obligations, then hunt. And let not hatred of a people -- because they hindered you from the Sacred Mosque -- incite you to transgress. And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is severe in requiting.
We were discussing a question of ethics, not of governance.
Ideological divisions have existed since the early days of the religion, and new interpretations are continuously being put forth. Moreover, political unrest in the region tends to manifest itself in the form of sectarian violence even when it's mostly unconnected to religious issues.
No, not for several reasons:
A. The Qur'an is, word-for-word, the exact message recited by Muhammad ﷺ. It did not have authors who injected their own beliefs and opinions into it; only those who had memorized it and sought to preserve it faithfully. The New Testament is a series of accounts written by different men, not the word-for-word teachings of Jesus. At best, it is an approximation of what he said.
B. Because it was written in this different format, The NT was apparently not memorized by a number of people who could rely on each other to remember its message accurately. Even the different gospels contradict each other in some places.
C. The Gospels were written long after the events had actually taken place.
Genocide and mass rape are not "great things" by any standard except the Bible's.
One can only wonder why...
I'm afraid this is incorrect. In the Bible, Musa (AS) explicitly tells his followers to slaughter all of the male children and non-virgin women from among the Midianites. The virgin women were graciously spared... so that they could be raped by the soldiers.
They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds who returned from the battle. Have you allowed all the women to live? he asked them. They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. - Numbers 31:7-18 (NIV)
I'm asking you. As a Christian, do believe that Moses' (AS) commands - according to your holy book - were morally upright and godly? Is the slaughter of women and children permissible under any circumstances? Is the mass rape of girls permissible under any circumstances?
Why do believe that Allah (SWT) is racist? Why should I be impressed that, according to Christian tradition, he did something in spite of His racism?
That does not seem to be specified in the Bible.
How do you figure that?
This is a reference to the Saudi Wahhabis. They're misguided. I won't get into the reasons for this unless you want me to do so.
Jews and Christians. Christians used their religion to justify the racially-based enslavement of tens of millions of innocent people, many of whom were forcibly converted to Christianity themselves. Israel is easily one of the most racist nations on the planet - it was founded upon racism and has a government that continues to enact discriminatory apartheid-like policies today! Fortunately, many Christians have distanced themselves from scripture as far as racism is concerned, though racists and racist groups continue to exist in significant numbers throughout the United States and Europe. A significant number of Jews have done so as well, though they seem to be more affected by racism than many western Christians. They probably don't even see it as racism. Listen to what some of our own (presumably Jewish) countrymen have to say:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBpnryJBads]YouTube - Pro Israel Rally With Racist Chants[/ame]
Nope.
He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive -- they are the basis of the Book -- and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. And none knows its interpretation save Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none mind except men of understanding. - 3:7
I've read the Bible in its entirety two or three times. While I recognize its literary value, I find it to be wholly unfit as a source of moral guidance and do not feel inclined to follow its teachings or believe that they're correct.
The Jesus of the Qur'an is strictly a monotheist. The Jesus of Christianity (from corrupted Biblical accounts as well as later innovations) is a self-proclaimed deity that would have no place in the religion of Islam.
They do it and it's recorded in your holy book.
The goal of Islam is to eliminate oppression in all of its forms and to end the subjugation of man by man. This does not involve forcing people to convert; they're free to make their own choice.
Clear references are made to destroying entire nations. In light of these passages, do you believe that:
a. Disbelief in your religion warrants a punishment like death;
b. This punishment should be carried out collectively against entire nations, in the form of genocide, with no attention paid toward avoiding the injury of those who are innocent of the supposed crime (such as children)?
In the context of the rest of this chapter, "hate" seems to involve little more than following a different religion.
Deuteronomy 13 begins by telling the reader to disregard and kill any "prophet or dreamer of dreams" that tells them to worship other gods (vv 1-5.) It goes on to tell them to kill (by stoning) their own family members who do the same (vv. 6-10.) The next passage, vv. 12-16, instructs the reader to slay the inhabitants of any town where men are attempting to spread a different religion, utterly destroying the town, burning it, and ensuring that it is never rebuilt.
Which nations do you believe perfectly exemplify the Islamic religion or come close to doing so?
Why do Jews and Christians maintain that Allah (SWT) selected a favorite race?
Muhammad had followers that remained with him throughout the period in which he delivered the recitation. As I said, it was memorized by all of those who listened, and recorded. It was compiled and standardized very soon after his death; he reportedly began to oversee this compilation while he still lived. There is no room in this method of preservation for inaccuracies.
Most Muslims don't. I believe that a few hadith collections are generally reliable, such as those of Bukhari and Muslim, but even they contain discrepancies with the Qur'an and with other historical accounts. Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, which was and to some extent is still considered an authoritative source on the life of the Messenger ﷺ, is now known to contain egregious inaccuracies. The standard by which all of these histories must be judged, the only acceptable final authority on all matters that pertain to Islam, is the Qur'an.
I'm still not entirely sure of which distortion you're referring to.
The most accurate and well-preserved account of the words of Allah (SWT) is the Qur'an.
Certain details about the lives of prophets and messengers are rejected as human corruptions and innovations.
We do - the discrepancies are attributed to the distortion of the Books by mankind over the course of history.
The idolatrous Quraysh were the first aggressors. If you study the history of Islam, you'll note that Makkah was taken from them by the Muslims only after the Quraysh had attacked a tribe allied with the Muslims and had decided to dissolve their treaty with us. The Battle of Hunayn was fought after pagan tribes began preparing for an assault on Muhammad's forces when they learned of his intention to take Makkah. The Battle of Khaybar was fought after the Jews living at the oasis of Khaybar had dissolved their treaty with the Muslims - they'd been plotting against the Muslims and attempting to create political alliances in opposition to them for some time as well. All wars fought by Muhammad directly or indirectly involved the preservation of Islam and the defense of its followers from those who sought to destroy them.
Muhammad took control of the Arabian peninsula through war waged against hostile tribes and because many non-Muslim Arabians flocked to Islam after learning of his triumph at Makkah.
Aggression in warfare took place after Muhammad had died. In its early days, Islam was without a doubt oppressed.
We can see through Muhammad's example that the injunctions for warfare only applied in specific circumstances, or else he would not have continuously formed new alliances with pagans, Jews, and Christians. Moreover, this passage tells Muslims to extract a tax (the jizyah - paid in exchange for draft exemption) only from those non-Muslims who wanted to remain autonomous and did not want to live under Islamic law (..."nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden")
It was the framework for a system of autonomy.
NP
