Not true islamic scholars agree that sura 5 was the third to the last revealed, they were still 2 more chapters to reveal, how can allah have perfected the religion in sura 5 when sura 9 and 110 had not yet been revealed. You can verify for yourself on the chronology of the koran.

The last verse to be revealed after which no further verses containing new rules and regulations were revealed was,
"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion." [al-Maa`idah (5):4]
The last verse to be revealed was,
"And fear the Day when you shall be brought back to Allaah. Then every soul shall be paid what it earned and none shall be dealt with unjustly." [al-Baqarah (2):281]

Gladly:

"It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: 'Let none of you say "I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an". How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say "I have acquired what has survived."'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524)

"According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad's wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab [33] had 200 verses in Muhammad's time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses." This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay Kabb. (1.61, citing As-Suyuti's al-Itqan fii ulum al-Quran on nasikh wa mansukh; Darwaza's al-Quran Al-Majid)

"During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two
hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73). (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an)

thanks, stay tuned as I review the book and take it to some scholars.

"
"God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, 'We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of

stoning in God's book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery."

This is what Umar says with the stoning verse included in the book above:

""As for old men and women, stone them for the pleasure they have indulged in." Umar al-Khattab stated, "But for people who may say that Umar adds to the Book of Allah, I would have written the verse on stoning." (p.61)"

This is the same verse that was abrogated by a goat, would you like the sahih hadith for that too?

But that's not true, stoning IS prescribed by God, but it does not have a verse in the Qur'an, it was abrogated but the previous verse remains in the Qur'an, the ruling remains in the Prophetic tradition:

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Ques ... 02095.aspx

No but since you mention it I shall have a look, the kharijites accused Uthmann of 'innovation' and yes I would call them muslims fundamentalist muslims, if they invented hadiths or not I do not know why would they invent hadiths and have a problem with Uthmann for 'innovation', isn't "allah the best of deceivers"?

Heh, yes please read more about the Kharijites. They invented some 14,400 fabricated hadiths, the majority of which you rely on to disbelieve Islam.

If someone gave a narration to a group of people who died a year later and I go to a scribe and tell them make a book out of what the narrator said or "much of it will be lost" does it not imply some of it has already been lost? focus on the quantifying adjective.

What are you joking or something, whether it was one verse or a whole chunk to be lost, losing ANYTHING is a big deal. Much of it will be lost AT ONE TIME is what he's saying, because it's not like every person memorized and was responsible for a verse, if the people who had memorized the entire Qur'an dwindled, it would be lost in chunks, which is worse than parts, but ANY loss would have been devastating. That's the nature of the warning.

Go ahead it is a much more cordial form of debate than pasting a tafsir and saying "go read", but don't forget relevance, in order to show relevance you would have to read what you paste, no point copying and pasting a 20 page tafsir when I ask you a simple question about a sura verse.

Listen man, that whole page was a tafsir on that one verse and incident. You get mad because you don't even read what I post because you automatically assume it has nothing to do with anything.

Well the christian and jews see God as doing things that are logical to His creation, not eating pigs 5,000 years ago makes logical sense considering the bacteria they carry no pressure cookers or fridges to store cooked meats 5,000 yrs ago so simply do not eat it makes logical sense, what is the logical sense of bowing down to a black stone? and circumnavigating it?

Good question. One thing you have to understand is that when you believe in God, truly, you submit to His Will. If God was to materialize in front of you and command you to do something, anything, would you first do it then ask "why?" or would you refuse to do it until God Almighty gave YOU a "logical reason". Circumnavigating the Kaaba is an act of pure obedience, it was a command of God. After all, man's only purpose is to worship God.

I find it unelievable you would chose to believe the prophet had read the copy of the koran uthmann made, when your INTERNAL evidence contradicts this and all logic.

Look bro, I would MUCH rather you reject the message of the Qur'an because you disbelieve in its divinity than to reject it because you feel it wasn't pristinely transmitted. No academic on earth disagrees that the Qur'an of today is the same as Uthman's which was the same at the end of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It's what distinguishes Islam from any other faith.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... _books.htm

http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Maj ... quran.html\

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/ ... vation.htm

Apply some logic to what you say good deeds are accountable and the bad deeds are also accountable by default, then what is the point of asking for forgiveness from allah since allah will still hold your bad deeds in his scale against you when you walk across that zoroastrian bridge into eternal fornication and wine in jannah.

Bad deeds can always be forgiven by the Mercy of God. Some bad deeds like associative worship, however, are not forgiven.

Did you come to this from a sura, a hadith or a tafsir, or you just thought it out yourself?

http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/alamal_bilniyyat.htm

It's a basic fact in Islam that belief supercedes intentions and intentions supercede acts of worship. That's why one is rewarded for one's intentions. It's the reason why Heaven and Hell are eternal. Some disbelievers, even if you gave them an eternity, they would never move an inch towards change or finding God, they would stubbornly and arrogantly stick to their ways. Thus, for an eternity of intending to disbelief, one earns his above in the Hellfire.

is it adorned with a decoration of any kind?, if anything it is treated more like how christians would treat a church, it is full of prayer requests in holes in the wall, compare that with the ka'ba you see infidels or people of other faiths walking around the ka'ba taking holiday photos?

The Kaaba just has a black cloth with golden writing. Also, you don't see non-believers or tourists in the entire city of Meccah, not just around the Kaabaa.

I don't think so we believe islam is demonic inspired while you believe we have corrupted our religion, in other words your religion is spurned from satan himself while you think we have simply altered our text, who breaches who the most?

It doesn't matter where you THINK the religion came from, we're evaluating each's beliefs and actions from the point of view of the other. Otherwise, fine, the persons who changed Jesus' teachings were ALSO influenced by Satan. That doesn't add or detract from the argument.

[font color=red] And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess (Q. 4:24 ) [/font]

What do you think this verse means?
Are you aware of how Mohammed had sex with safiyah one of his jewish wives within hours of killing her husband her father her uncle several relatives when the muslims attacked khaiber?

That verse you quoted is accurate, yes:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10803

http://anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_safiyya.htm

The hadith that shows they were being killed in mecca pls

http://www.ymofmd.com/books/aram/ch2s2. ... rsecutions

Read under "persecution"

http://www.prophetmuhammed.org/Biography.asp

Part of the reason for the Hijra from Mecca to Medina was the persecution and boycott the Muslims faced.

Hadith that shows they were being killed en mass and starved pls

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rela ... n&qid=2498

Hadith 84:9/84/57 (Dealing With Apostates) "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).'
I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's apostle, 'Whoever changed his islamic religion, then kill him.'"" Notice the inability to distinguish between those of another religion and those who have none.

What was their crime?, their faith was non belief in any god, so Ali 4th caliph and Shia saint burnt them

I'm pretty sure the zanadiq were killed, but they had also organized against the Muslims as a result of their disbelief. Usually when you find historical killing, it involved political upheaval, take the Kharijites for example.

peace be upon him, when in fact it means " allah prays for mohammed and greets him"

why does your answering-christianity interpret salem as 'safety'?

sala allah aleihi wa salem = God bestowed his peace and blessings upon him

alayhee salam = peace be upon him

so sala = bestowed?

wa salem = blessings/safety/peace?

why not just alayhee salam as all the other prophets since they are all equal why the extra greetings for the prophet?

That's a good question actually. The only reason for the difference is that there is a verse in the Qur'an about it:

God and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. (Qur'an 33:56)

No I am certainly not jealous of your prophet, he was a sick individual mentally and physically and was being spiritually deceived, topple that with obsessive compulsive disorders such as not facing the ka'a when urinating why on earth would I be jealous of someone like that?

I don't know, every time you talk about him you get really bitter and sound envious. Also, one shouldn't defecate in the direction of the Qiblah.

A sexually obsessed individual who has his god 'inspire' eternal and alledgedly divine orders to bless his adultery and fornication has a vetted interest in his carnal well being and so does his alledged god.

I'm surprised people still use the "carnal desire" argument. If the Prophet was as you allege, why on Earth do you think someone would invent a religion to marry more than one woman when they lived in a society where people could have intercourse with anyone and anything, whenever they wanted? Pre-Islamic Arabia didn't even have marriage, women were fornicated with and they chose their infant's father. Also, people who are following carnal desires don't marry elderly widows, nor do they wait until near their death to marry a younger woman the wisdom behind with was that this woman happens to outlive the rest and to whom many authentic narrations trace back.

I suggest you go read it, I already have, it in no way addresses any of my points, honey smells bad and the prophet was going to divorce all his wives because he ate honey, give your audience some credit!

Maybe you should read it again, then. It wasn't because the honey stinks, the wives were bickering and growing jealous of each other, verging on backbiting and animosity.

The wives of the prophet were getting jealous of each other (why?) and so he was going to divorce them all? where on earth do you get such a conclusion from that sura?

He wasn't GOING to divorce them, the rumor was he had, the verse mentions that even if he HAD…

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=66&tid=54321

Specifics please.Since you feel you have all the answers.Please enlighten us as to what specifically HE did that was contrary to Jewish law/Torah or Talmud?

I don't have any details besides that fact, that some Jewish laws had deviated from the Mosaic laws.

The slander was probably along the lines of showing turth from true Scripture to the ridiculous copied and changed stories of the Quran!

…was probably? It wouldn't surprise me if you would have helped sing along back then.

The Bible is far more authenticated than the Quran.

Maybe you aren't sure what authenticated means. The Bible of today is in no way related back to Jesus (pbuh). A weak hadith has a better chance of relating back to Muhammad (pbuh) than any sentence in the Bible.

They knew when someone was dead, and when someone was not.It simply goes against your false belief that Muhammad was a true prophet, so keep denying HIM crucified, dead, and buried, and ressurected on the third day as HE spoke, HE would, and the previous Scriptures as well.
We'll continue to tell HIS truth to the world….None of which are fullfillment of the former.Unlike Jesus' fulfilling previous Scriptures.

In which revealed text do you find this? In which text, either authored by a Prophet of God or revealed by him and compiled in his lifetime and preserved in pristine form since before he disappeared from earth, do you find these prophecies.

Also, in which texts do you read that the prophecies were fulfilled?

I have seen how on other sites I participate, Muslims hacked our site, Muslims, repeatedly attempted to crash the server on our site!!!

And this somehow reflects on me? Christians desecrate mosques where I live, that doesn't say anything about you.

Ah so, then we can conclude that when Muhammad says he was told to check these previous Scripures, they were true and correct, and his cannot hold up against them.When are you alledging they were "corrupted?"

Scroll back to the first page of this thread and read that book.

It is certainly not an unfair assessment that when someone is found out to be Christian in S.A. and they are attacked, etc...it sure isn't done by other Christians in S.A., and since must are Muslims there that have heads anyway, we conclude they are Muslims!!I hear from people who left S.A. and have seen people murdered for converting so you can deny whatever you wish, but it happens frequenty!

I lived there for nearly 20 years by the way. Nobody gave Christians or Jews any trouble where I was.

Wow I see you are THE official spokeman for everything Islamic huh?Have you been to Saudia? Can someone openly wear a cross, without fear?

Yes, and yes, my school became a Sunday school on Fridays.

Hmmm a contradiction my friend.Let's see what you said before
Quote:

True, it is not lawful to build a place of worship besides a Mosque on Muslim land unless it is purchased by a non-Muslim and then they can do what they want with it.

Which is it?

There's no contradiction. Nobody can build any place of worship but a Mosque on Muslim land unless they PURCHASE the land from the Muslims then they can build a Church or whatever they want.

Only Muslims believe they hold absolute truth.So you agree if you open a Bible shop you should be killed?!I agree we both can't be right, and certainly one searches in vain to find truth of the Quran in the our Scriptures.

No I don't think they should be killed. Also, you're not going to have look finding prophecies of a divine revelation in inauthentic books. People have to accept Islam based on the Qur'an, rarely do Jews and Christians tip-toe their way up from the OT to the NT and land on the Qur'an.

There agin goes that freedom of the press/speech etc...we wouldn't know what he or any of those had done, but they willingly show her being shot.Which was murder, so the tape convicts him!

For private conversion? Not a Shariah law.

If the person had committed adultery and was witnessed by four persons in the act of adultery, he wasn't committing murder he was dealing the execution.

Nor doesn't it invalidate them either.It certainly gives more credibilty the closer to the events, rather than coming after another and claiming this is what those really meant, when there are existant texts that show otherwise!

You're still thinking from the perspective that the Qu'ran is some new book. As divine revelation it most certainly supercedes texts like the Bible. It doesn't tell you what the Bible meant, it speaks only of Truth.

Let's see some say it was 19 yrs. after Muhammad's death, some say 35 yrs. etc...yet in that short span, legends and false truths had developed that required other versions to be burned, in sich a short time? No it would have no bearing on thos that no not HIS voice, but plenty on those who do.Since you try to toss the truth aside, why try to argue Muhammad is found in them?Other than false prophet verses?

Wow man, legends and false truths? How about ensuring that no scribal errors existed?

They were holy men and patriarchs, but I would hesitate to say prophets.
How is Adam a prophet? A prophet to what people? He is the forst man!
Is Eve a prophetess?

"A prophet (nabi) or messenger (rasul) of God is a human being to whom God gives His guidance and whom He charges with the task of conveying that guidance to the people, so that they may do good and avoid evil."

The definition isn't limited to a prognosticator:

"A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. "

prophet

\Proph"et\, n. [F. proph[`e]te, L. propheta, fr. Gr. ?, literally, one who speaks for another, especially, one who speaks for a god an interprets his will to man, fr. ? to say beforehand; ? for, before + ? to say or speak. See Fame. ] 1. One who prophesies, or foretells events; a predicter; a foreteller.

2. One inspired or instructed by God to speak in his name, or announce future events, as, Moses, Elijah, etc.

3. An interpreter; a spokesman. [R.] --Ex. vii. 1.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prophet

Pork is not an unclean food, and it will not upset God if you eat pork.
Never will a man go to hell because he ate pork.

Eating pork is a sin though, it's not a "plus" on your record. If Jesus (pbuh) didn't do it, why on earth do you want to do it?

How do you KNOW that Jeuss didn't die??
That goes against what many of the prophets have seen.
David and Isaiah did write what you see in the Psalms and Isaiah because such are consistent with the writings of the other prophets.
To ignore this foreknowledge is a serious mistake.

As I said before:

In which revealed text do you find this? In which text, either authored by a Prophet of God or revealed by him and compiled in his lifetime and preserved in pristine form since before he disappeared from earth, do you find these prophecies.

Also, in which texts do you read that the prophecies were fulfilled?

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed. (The Qur'an 61:14)


This is interesting, what does this mean?

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=61&tid=53699

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=61&tid=53709

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=61&tid=53713

It should not matter at all if some of the Prophets were pagan polytheists before God came to them.
They were born-again in spirit.

Certainly they were "awakened" spiritually, but they were born righteous and died righteous.

Such a minor disparity does not mean they two stories are "coincidence", that is what I want you to understand.

Ok, but where the Qur'an is similar to these stories, you have to understand that you should prove them to be historically false, not just call them "flaky"

Well, there is NO proof in the very least that the Gospels were ever changed or altered.

Of course there is, bro. Read the book at the top of this thread.

Man, you are VERY wrong.
But I could not expect less from a misguided person.

well pray for me and I'll pray for you.

What is the #1 reason that so convinces you tha tthe Quran is true and from God?

Good question. You can eliminate ALL the books that don't even claim to be from God. Then you can eliminate all the Scriptures from them that can't be 100% traced back to a Messenger of God. That's how you know to start looking at the Qur'an. Then when you read it and realize how it was revealed, to whom it was revealed, and the comfort it brings and the Truth it reveals, you'll hopefully be guided.

Could not God make Himself a perfect human vessel?

A "perfect" human <<<< God, who is perfect in every way

So if God can exist a million places st once, would it matter if He is standing by your side as a man and sitting on His throne in power?

No, because being everywhere at once is PART of God's ubiquitousness, it doesn't make Him less perfect.

And scholars all believe that prophet Baruch, who was a scribe to Prophet Jeremiah, authored alot of the OT writings. You can't accept this?

I accept all the Prophets of God, but this happened near and around the time of Ezra anyway.

Where did he say "let him who has never sinned throw the first stone"
Where did Muhammed display such wisdom?

Jesus and Muhammad (pbut) did not have the same laws revealed to them. Christians believe in always turning the other cheek, but Muslims are commanded to resist when they or another weak person are being oppressed.

What pure goodness from the heart is displayed in slaying an adulteress, or in beating one's wife?

You can't beat your wife man, get real. What's stopping your wife from divorcing you the minute you lay your hand on her?

Then why do we see THE MAJORITY of Muslim converts to Christianity that isn't given death threats and disowned by their families, or throewn in jail for an unfair period of time?

Majority?

AllI know for certain is that Christians made Jews wear special clothes and segregated them because they despised them and mistreated them. I think they were copycatting Muslims.

Let's not even get started on the Crusades and the inquisition, alright.

True. But the crescent must have some meaning, and if you see some guy stepping on a crescent, people will say "That guy hates Islam, he's defaming their symbol"
But you're right that the cross does have more meaning than what probably little meaning athe moon has.

No trust me, the crescent is meaningless. You can burn a flag of the crescent and it means nothing. I don't even think Muslims invented the symbol for Islam. It has nothing to do with Islam since Islam is against symbols and idols. I think a lunar calendar is a weak connection to put on a flag, I like the idea of words better.

I mean it doesn't specify about loud wailing at funerals, or just singing and prayers.

The law isn't going to be different from Muslim tradition.

Praying in a loud voice is ok, screaming and ripping your hair out like you see some fanatics doing is not ok.

Abraham had a large family in the Levant and He did end his son Ishmael into the wilderness, he DID NOT follow him there,and Ishmael would not have gon past Paran in the Sinai.
It would be impossible and irreasonable to say that Abraham and Ishmael went deep into the great Arabian Desert surrounded with dangerous Sabeans and construct some shrine when He would very well had build a shrine in the Levant.

Man, when Abraham was alive that place was deserted.

Because these were common, moreso than you'll accept.
See today, the Muslim world is in the Dark Ages.

Yeah but it's rising up, you'll see.

Then God indeed must be at least as complex if not moreso than Water with three forms, Ice, liquid water, and steam.
Surely our God cannot be less complex than water!!!

Obviously He is, that goes without saying, but I don't see why you want to compare Him to His own creations.

Actually there are mountain of evidence.
We share most of our DNA with chimps and there are a great many anatomical similiarities between apes, hominids, and us humans.

www.darwinismrefuted.com you'll love it, join us creationists!

There is a great lack of evidence that people magically appeared from dust.
And surely we did not all derive from Adam and Eve, or we would all be inbred and of one race.
Where did Seth find his wife?

Adam and Eve and daughters and sons who interwed. The incest was neither sinful nor damaging because they were the first humans and there were no "homozygous recessive" traits existent in their perfect dna to cause any mutations.

Peace bro