Jesus told us all about Himself and the Father that He alone know becaue He is God, and He procceded from thr Father, All that Jesus told us came directly from God, literally.

You believe this because you find it in the Bible, which is not traceable back to Jesus (pbuh). The whole point of Scripture is to be 100% traceable back to the Messenger who's Message was conveyed in that Scripture so that it can be authentically from God.

God has a Message so important to us that He came down and gave it to us.
He didn't do it secretly in a cave with a man, rather He showed us His face as Christ and taught us His way.

Muhammad and Jesus (pbut) both preached openly, and the Qur'an was revealed in front of people as well.

Yeah, and they were two Jews!!! Not surprised.
Can't say Muhammed loved the Jews.

Well they wanted to be ruled by the laws of God, just like everyone else, and that's called Justice, and here's the hadith:

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 413:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar :
The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 829:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones."

If you stone an adulteress, you are saying "I am perfect and sinless so I can kill her for being sinful"

Not at all. What I'm saying is "God has ordained that the punishment for adultery, as witnessed by four, is stoning" It doesn't mean I'm sinless at all, you don't have to be sinless to obey God.

I agree with you, but you can't foce people to do that.
Personally I believe adulteresses should be imprisoned for a time to reflect on their actions. but unfortunately Western society is too liberal.

Haha, wow I can't believe I'm reading this, nice bro. "That's so intolerant!" as they say. AT least you stand up for what you believe in.

Amen! You are correct!
So why does Islam add those corruptions back to the Law???

Islam didn't add those corruptions back, the Jews at the time of Jesus did NOT practice the same laws as Muslims do, that's very obvious. They remained Jews and kept their laws because they didn’t listen to Jesus (pbuh), and they kept their laws which differ from Muslim laws because they didn't listen to Muhammad (pbuh) either.

Not if you believe adulderesses and apostates should be stoned and this holy war concept. Can't say Muhammed and Omae loved their neibors, Persia and Byzantine, as they incited their followers to wage battle against them.
No sir, that is not acceptable.

Here's a quote about this concept, you should read it all to finally rid yourself of this notion of "Holy War". This is a Muslim Q & A, not any Muslim apologetic discourse, not slogans like "Islam is peace":

Jihad and the Middle Way

Anyone who makes the claim that he wants to serve the Deen yet is not thinking about jihad in the way of Allah, either has no understanding or he is not a truthful and sincere person. However, concerning the issue of jihad, people have gone to two extremes, both of which are mistaken. One group understood from the concept of jihad that it is necessary to view all the kuffar as those whom we must raise the sword or rifle to kill. The other group understands from the concept of jihad that we must be gentle, affectionate, and love all of them, and by doing such we would be “struggling” (i.e. making “jihad”) with them to bring them back to Allah and His Deen. Obviously, both groups have fallen into error. In reality, we are not a people whose mission is to kill the kuffar, nor are we a people who love the kuffar unrestrictedly. When it is time for fighting, we do not fight except those who, by doing so, we would be serving Allah alone (not our passions or personal agendas).

Sayyidina Ali (may Allah honor his face) was fighting a kafir in one of the battles. During the battle Sayyidna Ali knocked him down and raised his sword to kill him. As soon as the kafir knew that he was going to be killed he spat in Sayyidna Ali’s face, so immediately Sayyidna Ali left him and went on his way. He was later asked, “Why did you leave him when Allah clearly gave you power over him?!” Sayyidna Ali replied, “I was fighting him for the sake of Allah, and when he spat in my face I feared that if I killed him it would have been out of personal revenge and spite.”

From this we understand that it is obligatory that we differentiate between fighting people who are our own personal enemies and others whom we fight because they are the enemies of Allah. If a believer is forced to fight a kafir, he fights him not because the kafir hates him, because the kafir is conspiring against him, because the kafir wants to overcome him, rather, he fights him only because he is an enemy to Allah, the time to fight has come, and the command from Allah has been given.

On the other hand, we have those who say, “We must love the kuffar, be kind with them, and esteem them. They are nice people and they have a lot of good in them.” People who say this have mixed truth with falsehood, just as those who say they want to kill all the kuffar, without understanding or differentiation, have also mixed truth with falsehood.

It is impossible for a true believer to love a kafir: “You will not find people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having love for anyone who opposes Allah and His Messenger” (Qur’an 58-21). With this said, we do love goodness for them. There is a clear difference between loving them and loving goodness for them. If you say you love them then you are claiming that you love their essence (thaat) that you interact with in front of you, yet the believer doesn’t love any essence except the essence of Allah (Thaatul-llah), the Mighty and Majestic. If you love the good qualities in them while desiring that the possessor of these qualities is saved from the fire, and uses them in the service of Allah, while looking at them with the eye of mercy and the eye of desiring salvation for them, because you know that this pleases Allah, then in this case you have understood how to interact with them.

So we view all the kuffar as being, firstly, the creation of Allah. And as Muslims, we love Allah’s creation. Therefore, we do not love the kafir, rather, we love Allah’s creation (suna’ Allah). We view them as being a means for our spiritual transaction with Allah; a means for our drawing nearer to Allah. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “For Allah to guide one person (to Islam) through you is greater than the whole world and all that is in it.”

Hence, through this balance do we interact with them upon the foundation of having mercy for them, compassion for them, and a desire to try to save them from the fire. This is the only way we should view our interaction with them. We do not esteem the influential one amongst them because he can benefit us in our da’wah (as a kafir), nor are we generous with the needy amongst them because we love them in themselves, rather, we deal with the influential, the poor, the sick, and the young amongst them with mercy, and through mercy, because this is the way that Allah loves.

The way we enter discourse with them should be in ways that their intellects can understand, using means that they like and are familiar with, as long as it is not prohibited in the Sacred Law. This is not because those means are the only means, but rather, because they are means that Allah loves. So if the time comes that it is more pleasing to Allah that we use another type of means, with some of them, then we do not hesitate for even one second to abandon the old method and to use the new method. The principle is that we are expansive and inclusive of everyone, merciful with everyone, loving and wanting goodness for everyone, from societies to leaders, from Muslims to kafirs. Then if a situation arose that calls us to deal with sternness, even if it reached the level of fighting, then we do not allow our previous ways of mercy and gentleness to delay that which Allah has commanded.

One of the sons of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, did not become a Muslim while they were in Mecca, and as you know, the affection of a father to his son is much greater then the affection of a son to his father. In Mecca, Sayyidina Abu Bakr tried with love and gentleness to convince his son as to the veracity of Islam. He used the best and loftiest means to try to bring him over to Islam, yet Allah had not decreed for him to become a Muslim just yet. Sayyidina Abu Bakr made Hijrah and later went to fight in the battle of Badr. This son of his also went out on the day of Badr, yet he was with the kuffar. The son was trying his best to avoid his father so they would not have to fight each other. Later, when his son accepted Islam, he said to his father, “Oh my father, on the day of Badr (when I was a kafir) I was avoiding you so we wouldn’t have to fight.” Sayyidina Abu Bakr replied to him, “As for me, if I met you on that day I would have killed you.”

What is the reason behind this? This intricate point is necessary for us to understand. When the action of the son wasn’t based on servitude to Allah, but rather, was based on compassion (for his father), and his going out to battle was only for glory, honor, and nationalistic goals, this was how he acted. His actions were a slave to his emotions. On the other hand, the actions of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (in Mecca) and his love and compassion were not for himself, but for the sake of his Lord. So when the time came that he had to serve Allah by fighting against his son, he didn’t waiver, even if it meant his own son’s death. We are in need of this criterion in establishing the correct concept of jihad with the kuffar.

Therefore, the understanding of jihad is to establish the means for the guidance and salvation of the kuffar, not merely to just fight them. Fighting them happens in a few cases, and the goal behind it is to save others from the oppression of the ones who are preventing the guidance from spreading. We do not fight out of revenge and spite. The Muslim doesn’t fight because the kafir is my (personal) enemy, because the kafir is conspiring against me, because the kafir has killed and slaughtered other Muslims. The Muslim fights the kafir because he has prevented and has become a barrier for the guidance to reach others. Again, the Muslim doesn’t fight out of revenge and only because the enemy has killed other Muslims. Think about what is being said deeply!

The Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, when he entered Mecca, didn’t avenge for the killings of the Muslims on the day of Uhud., even though Allah established him over the kuffar on that day of the great Conquest (the Fath). These disbelievers in Mecca were the same ones who killed his companions and members of his own family! These were the same people who barred the guidance from reaching others. These were the same people who ripped open the chest and stomach of Sayyidina Hamza (the uncle and companion of the Blessed Prophet, peace be upon him). These were the same people who ate from the liver of Sayyidina Hamza, may Allah be blessed with him. And what is more amazing is that those who actually conspired to kill Hamza (Hind and Wahshi), their Islam was accepted by the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, and he didn’t kill either of them even after their accepting of the faith.

If we were to understand that the purpose of fighting against the kuffar is to avenge for spilt Muslim blood then it would have been befitting for the Prophet, peace be upon him, to command the killing of Wahshi and Hind right when he entered Mecca. But the issue with the Muslims is not one of revenge, it is an issue of guidance and the spreading of its light. The Muslim is the “letter of guidance” sent to humanity from Allah (al-Muslim bareed hidayat-illah ila al-khalq). So when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saw that there was hope in them being guided he said, “Go, for verily you are free.” And this is how our interaction must be. The day I meet with an enemy soldier off the battle field, who killed Muslims in Afghanistan, and I sense that he may want guidance, then I will treat him with the utmost of mercy. This is what we MUST understand. So our ultimate and primary mission in jihad is their guidance, even while we might be (physically) fighting them!

All this is clearly understood in the beautiful story where our Blessed Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, got upset with Usamah ibn Zaid, the beloved, the son of the beloved (he was named this because the Prophet, peace be upon him, loved him greatly). Usamah was out on the battle field fighting the enemy. During the heat of the battle one of the enemies slipped and fell, so Usamah lifted his sword to strike him. Immediately the enemy shouted out “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul-lullah,” yet, Usamah struck and killed the man anyway. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, heard of this and began to greatly blame and censure Usamah saying, “Did you kill him after he said it (the Shahadah)!?” Usamah replied, “Oh Messenger of Allah, he only said it our of fear of the sword.” “Did you look into his heart?! Oh Usamah,” replied the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him.

This same kafir may have killed many Muslims on that day, and he was in the act of fighting against the Muslims, yet, as soon as he said the Shahadah, even if it was in hypocrisy, and Usamah didn’t refrain himself and killed him, the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, became very upset. The Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, continued to blame Usamah about what he did for the rest of the day, until Usamah said, “I wish that I became a Muslim after this day” (meaning that he wished that the event never even happened and that he could have a fresh start in Islam).

This incident is not mentioned to put blame on Sayyidina Usamah, may Allah be pleased with him. Rather, there is an important principle that we must understand here. The mishaps of the individual companion of the Prophet, peace be upon him, are looked at as a further perfection in the society of the companions. This is so because the goal behind the community of the companions is that we may emulate them, so if no mishaps occurred by individual companions, then we would not know how to deal with a person who falls into error in our time and the times to come. Therefore, the mishap of one of the companions is in reality a perfection on the societal level. All this was so that the realities of what it really means to learn may fully manifest themselves for us.

In this incident, the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, made firm in our hearts the understanding that even while fighting, our goal is their guidance. So if the enemy shows the signs of being guided, then the fighting between us and them ceases, even if it was an outward form without any true reality. That is why the meaning of the statement, “Did you kill him after he said it, Oh Usamah?!” is that we should not let our drive to fight blind us from the real cause of fighting, which is their guidance.

This is why they mention about our master Al-Hussein, the son of Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), when his army met the army of the mistaken and fugitive Muslims who wanted to kill him, he looked at them and began to weep. The number of Al-Hussein’s men, including the women (non-combatants), did not exceed 80, while the number of the opposition was greater then 3,000. Remember, Al-Hussein is the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessing be upon him, the beautiful scent of the Messenger (rayhanat Rasulillah, a title given to him by the Messenger himself, peace be upon him), the master of the youth of paradise, the one whom the Messenger made supplication to Allah for saying, “Oh Allah, love the one who loves him (Al-Hussein).”

The army had risen against Al-Hussein after pledging allegiance to him. They gathered 17,000 signatures from the people of their land and called Al-Hussein out to them saying “come and lead us to goodness.” So when he went to them they met him with an army of 3,000 men wanting to kill him, most of them being from amongst those who signed the allegiance. These were people who wanted to commit one of the greatest crimes on the face of the earth: killing a member of the family of the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him!

As Al-Hussein stood looking at his deceptive opponents he began to weep. His sister, Zaiynab, saw him weeping so she asked him, “What is it that makes you weep, Oh Hussein? Are you afraid of death? For verily you are heading for your martyred brother Al-Hasan, your martyred father Ali, your mother Fatima, and your grandfather the Messenger of Allah!” Al-Hussein turned to her and said “Woe to you, Oh Zaynab! Al-Hussein is not one to be afraid of death!” “Then what is this that I see upon your face?” she asked. He replied, “Oh Zaynab, I looked at these men who were treacherous to the covenant of Allah that we made, and I see that they will kill me and enter the fire if they have no right for doing so, while I wish that they will go to paradise instead.”

This is the meaning that is incumbent upon you to understand concerning jihad. If you understand this while removing from your hearts the delusional power of “physical means,” and “people of means” (ahlul-asbab), while adding to this the realities of da’wah and seeking sacred knowledge, and you take these as means to the foundational purpose of your creation, which is your worship of Allah, you will be from amongst those chosen and elevated by Allah, to the levels of closeness, in this age that we live in. And this is the mission that you came for, if you but understood. This is what you must ask Allah for in these days that end Ramadan, and for the rest of your lives.

From http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Ques ... 00798.aspx

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

It's not a matter of differences in opinion. Revelation does NOT say that the Messiah is the last Prophet sent by God, but he is the last man sent by God who dies on Earth. Why speculate on what God has said? Why assume that he is the last Prophet of God when God never said this?

Seems to me Muhammed and Omar wanted the great treasures and bounty of two of the greatest empires in existence.

Religion is not something to impose on anyone, whether it be an entire nation or a single person.

Read the above long section on "Jihad". Religion is NEVER imposed on people, people can always choose to disbelieve and nobody bothers them for this. Also Muhammad (pbuh) and Umar were both poorer by their deaths than when revelation began. You have a wrong idea that this wealth was horded and spent by Muslims, when it was actually redistributed to the poor, including the non-Muslims who became part of the state. In fact, Umar is quoted to have forbidden any Muslim to build a house larger than anyone else, that just shows you how no money was supposed to be spent frivolously.

One difference between Jesus and Muhammed. Jesus wasn't a killer.

Many of the Prophets of God killed by the command of God, you know this.

God just gave him the Ten Commandments, but the Israelites were so rebellious and hard to control that Moses wrote a strict code of laws for them.

And all of these laws would gain the approval of God. Moses (pbuh) doesn't write laws that are rebellious to the rule of God.

Jesus never gave us rankings for commandments, only two commandments did He give us, "Love God above all things and love our neighbors likewise."

I have a general question. When you see someone cursing Jesus, hating him, defaming Christianity, wanting to hurt believers just because he is hateful, do you love him like you love a person who meets with other believers in order to strive in the way of God? Do you love a sinful act as much as an act of worship?

Then their proof s are no more legitamite than Muhammed's.
What Biblical references you use to justify Muhammed are used very incorrectly, another reason why I am not a Muslim.
To force myself into such a level of ignorance is not possible.

Because the Bible is not divine revelation. People who accept Islam have to examine the Qur'an as a divine revelation apart from any other man-made Scripture, not judge it by a Scripture that isn't direct revelation. For example, when a Hindu accepts Islam, he doesn't search for Islam in his Hindu texts, he has to critically examine Islam for what it is.

Well, I mean t the Quran has exact stories as found in some apocryphal writings except for a few minor disparities.
The story about Jesus under a datepalm commanding it to bring forth water and dates is the same exact story found in a 400 AD infancy gospel, except in that story Jesus was born in a cave as opposed to under the datepalm. That is too small of a disparity to be considered a coincidence.

The closeness of the story has no bearing on whether a) the story is true and b) whether or not it was forged. It goes right back to the example I gave here: if both students' answers are correct, and there's no proof they cheated, then that's legitimate. If one student has a slightly different answer, but they still are similar, that STILL doesn't mean they copied off one another, it means they both had the same "Truth" from their textbook, except one of them added a detail that wasn't in the textbook.

A story is either True or it isn't. I say that the accounts of the Qur'an are Absolute Truth. Now if another account kind of matches this, then they are "kind of" true only where they match the Qur'an. Think of it this way. You have a classroom of students writing an exam. Two students, one sitting behind the other, wrote very similar answers to a certain question. Can the teacher accuse one of them of cheating just because she sees their answers are similar? No, because the fact that the answers are similar only means that they both convene to the correct answer written in the Class Text Book. The fact that they have similar answers alone doesn't mean that one can accuse the other of having copied anything, because they could both be correct WHEN they match the correct answer in the Text Book. The teacher would be bearing false witness if she made an accusation without proof of cheating.

Jesus said He is not from thos world but came from the Father and his one with Him.
Everyone called Jesus "Lord", and Peter called Him the Son of God, and people worshipped Him. He never stopped them because He knew they understood who He was.

But you only know this from the Bible, which is not the word of God nor is it traceable back to Jesus (pbuh), there's a broken link to Jesus (pbuh).

Three enitire chapters of pure OT prophecy is about Jesus's Crucifixion, and Jesus told his disciples three times about His passion, death, and ressurection.
These astonishing prophecies and the word of Jesus in the Gospels are not taken into account in the Quran.

Well Jews would disagree about the Prophecy of crucifixion, but that doesn't change the fact that the crucifixion is how it appeared to them, when in fact Jesus had ascended to God.

How Jews view Ezra and how Christians view the Messiah are totally different. These two different things are botched together in this Surah showing serious ignorance.

The connotations may be different, but that doesn't change the fact that both at one point claimed either were the "son of God," which is precisely what the verse says.

The purple portion is incorrect because in Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7:13-14 God Himself tells us the Messiah is His Son.
The underlined portion just doesn't make sense.
The red portion is a nasty inappropriate comment that I doubt came from God.

But the verse is saying that the Jews called Ezra the son of God, which they did, it doesn't say what the Jews call the Messiah.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Peace bro