Christian/Muslim ThreadsLucifers Pride!A blind man with green cheese on his head, and a pinkish color jeans on, with absoltely stylish Versace shoes on said that he had heard Ibn Abbas say that “Allah is One and none is equal to Him …” who attribute this to Muhammed Rasool-Allah. Right after quoting “As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED.” Ibn Kathir writes “Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, THEN HE SHOULD STATE THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY ALTERED, DISTORTED, ADDED TO AND DELETED FROM THEM. . . . If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.” Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir of Quran quotes Ibn Abi Hatim, who is quoting what Ibn Wahb said, and it is well known that Ibn Wahb was well known for quoting Israeliyat hadith, which means traditions that are held by Jews and Christians, he didn’t quote them because he was forging any Hadith, but he quoted the Israeliyat traditions so there beleifes can be recorded and passed on to the generations coming, who will then be able to analyze the beleife of the Jews Christians from historical perspective, having a accurate account of Christian and Jewish believes will allow the commming generations to pin point the evolution of the Christian and Jewish religious believes. And these Israeliyat Traditions are always rejected to be fabrications or atleast not considered to be used for evidence against anything.. The statement “As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED.” explains it self, if Ibn Hatim was reffering to the books of the Jews and Christians then he would have explicitly says the books of Jews and Christians, but he says, “As for Allah’s books” clearly reffering to the books that where given to Jesus, and no honest Christian can argue that when the Muslims reffer to the Injil, they are reffering to the books that Christian have in there hands today, infact the Quran explicitly says Gospel of Jesus, not gospel of Matthew, Mark … Ibn Abi Hatim was a scholar didn’t he knew that Quran says no trinity, no crucifiction or death of Jesus, Quran denys the original sin, yet he still says that they are perserved, when clearly Quran quotes Jesus saying, I worship Allah who is my lord and your lord, Quran says Allah doesn’t have a son, didn’t Ibn Hatim Knew that! Ofcourse he did, if I know it he knew it better then me. His innocent statement about the original books that are with Allah, are still perserved and can not BE CHANGED is obscured by your cruny sam shamoun. Lets even assume that Ibn Hatim did mean the Gosple of Matthew, Mark, John, or Luke and all the Bible, what does it prove, nothing, absolutely nothing, we have many reliable Hadith of Ibn Abbas who was Uncle of Muhammed (pbuh), reports by Abu Huraira, which confirm that the Bible has been corrupted, out of generosity even if we allow what Sam twisted it to mean, one thing still can be said Ibn Hatim was wrong, and Ibn Abbas who CLEARLY in his narations explains that Bible has been altered, not only that even the modern research has verified that Ibn Abbas was right and Ibn Hatim was wrong (that’s only if we allow the Christain interpretation of the Hadith). Further more his this statement is in directly in contradiction with Quran therefore we reject it out right even if it is proven that this Hadith is authentic, because this is only a lone opinion while the majority 99.99% beliefe is in corruption of Bible. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but God hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe. Surah an-Nisa (4:46) I think you are reffering to the above verse of the Quran or hadith which reffer to this verse, Allah knows better, if you have anything different please present it, I will explain it to you. Any way, this ayah is reffering to the Quran not to the Gospel of Jesus or Torah of Moses. "Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him [Muhammad] and said: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?" He(Mohammed) replied, "Certainly, ..." The full quote is: "Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him and said: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham AND BEIEVE IN THE TORAH WHICH WE HAVE AND TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUTH FROM GOD?" He replied, "CERTAINLY, but you have sinned and broken the covenant contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to man, and I disassociate myself from your sin." They said, "We hold by what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you." So God sent down concerning them: "Say O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people." (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, p. 268) I have traced this quotation to Silas (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/bible.htm) who infact quotes it from Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), first of all if a missionary says that Ibn Ishaq’s biography is most authentic, then its entirely likely its not. Ibn Ishaq’s biography is not most authentic but is the earliest written. And no Muslim scholar or even orientalist will say that its most authentic because its authenticity is checked by how much it aggrees with the authentic sources known to us today, has Sahih Al-bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, and other well respected books of Hadith, yet the statement being quoted is not found in any of the six/seven authentic books of Hadith, and further much of the material used by Ibn Ishaq is fabricated, his biography is source of all the propoganda against Islam, the murder of 800 jews, prophet Muhammed wanting to marry his adopted son’s wife, and now this, one of the greatest scholar Imam Abu Hanifah was so anoyed with Ibn Ishaq that he was at the verg of declaring him a apostate, he openly said that this man was a devil, much of his biography is without any authentic data, he just wrote what he heard from others, not doing any research on the authencticity of the reports given to him. A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Imam Malik, the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar" and "an impostor” just for transmitting such stories. Like I said to you earlier in similar words, that it does make a difference, Horse will only give birth to horse, cow to cow, donkey to donkey, and if the mother was god then her son born would be god, for the son to be god the father also had to be god, can you imagen a male donkey mate with a female cow and what will be the result of the cow getting pregnant, half donkey and half cow will be born, that assuming that two different species can wrok togather to procreate. Can you imagen how God had used the holy spirit to get his begotten son, even lets say the father was god, then the mother was a woman, then we will have a half man and half god jesus, neither fully god neither fully human, if he is not fully god then he is not god at all, and if he is not fully human then he is a freak. Let me give you another example, if a black man and a white woman have a child will the child be fully white or fully black, both parents will contribute the genes to the child, therefore he will be half black half white, now you will have to confess that the mother was god in the literal sense for the son to be god. No where in the Quran, Quran eloborates on the doctrine of Trinity in the matter of what consitutes in the Trinity, its your personel hillucination. You simply are restating your allegations for the second time and I have answered them in full in the first time, but what I will address in this is the issue of three gods, the Quran doesn’t say three Gods it says worship of mary has gods, but any way I will side step this issue becuae I have already written on it, which neither you answered nor attempted to answer, much of my debate you didn’t bather answering at all, yu just picked up and ignored the evidences given. Christians believe: Father is God, Son is God’ Holy Spirit is God Son is not Father Father is not Spirit Spirit is not Son Father is alknowing Son is alknowing Spirit is alknowing Father is Alpha & Omega Son is Alpha & Omega Spirit is Alpha & Omega Basicly all of these three persons share absolutely same attributes has the other except their Personalities, Father is Father but it he is not the Son, all are individuals sharing same charateristics but not there Titles, there titles are unique to each one. Thus its easily seen that Christians believe in three gods who share all the attributes with each other in absolute terms, only logical way of explaining this would be that Father is the holy Spirit, spirit is the son, and the son is the Father, but this too will raise problems, because if the father is same has the son, that will mean when the son died the rest two died with him, and if you say they didn’t die, then you don’t have salvation, and if you say they died then … Before I discuss your assumptions in detail I would like to lay down the RULES on which a contradiction is to be analyzed and what will consitute a contradiction. Do's when looking for Contradictions in the scriptures: 1) Compare A and D of the scripture 2) Read the context. 3) Stay silent on matters which your scripture, and your opponants scripture is silent. (eg did marry have blood brothers and sisters, or how was Jesus born without father or how hot will be hell, or how deep will it be?) Dont's when looking for the Contradiction in the Scriptures: Dont impose your scripture on your opponents scripture Dont interpolate words in the text which are not there ( eg Sister of Moses) Dont comment on which you dont know (the answer could be anything) Can you disagree on the fairness of this criteria, if you do, you put a fair one. if you do choose to lay down a criteria make sure these rules are not part of it, cause it would be unfair one. Former Scripture is the criteria to judge the New scripture: So then the Baghvad Gita the oldest known Hindu scripture will be the criteria to judge the Old Testament, and it would prove that OT is wrong and therefore any religion based on OT will be wrong. New Scripture is the Criteria to judge the Previous Scripture: so Quran being the newest would mean that anything scriptures disagreeing with it are wrong. Giving a scripture authenticity over the other Scripture because it aggrees with what you beleive: That will lead to a candy fight, remember mine is sweeter then yours or my Holy book is True-er then yours. I suppose you are using you pre-conceived knowledge of the Bible to criticise the Quran, before you criticise the Quran first you need to establish the authenticity of the biblical geneologies, about which paul says quit writing endless geneologies. Matthew and Luke are the only two people in the 27 gospels who give geaneologies both are conflicting with each other, but that’s not the point we need to know the source of their geaneologies, where did they learn about these geaneologies who told them about these. What you need to do is to verify your own source once you have enough external evidence not biblical but other documents which are proving the geaneologies has authentic. Secondly Quran does not say Mary was sister of Moses it says Mary was sister of Haroon, It says “ya okhta Haroona” oh sister of Haroon, not “Ya okhta Haroona wa Musa” oh sister of Haroon and Moses, again this was your preconceived notion from the Bible that Haroon reffered in here is the brother of Moses. Why cant Mary the Mother of Jesus have a brother called Haroon? You saying your Bible doesn’t mention about her brother called Haroon therefore she cant have a brother? In the cultures of the world there is a tendancy to name the child according to a famous person, a film actor, in the semetic cultures epecially Arab and Jewish cultures they had a tradition of name there children after the names of pious and righteous people, so could it be that when Mary brother was born his parents named him Haroon in the memory of Moses? Ok let me explain to you this in a different way, if a poet writes a book of poetry and in it he states that this Book of poetry has some fundamental and some allegorical verses will you then go and tell that person you in your book of Poetry wrote that “Zulkhurnain saw the sun was setting in muddy water, does your brain work, don’t you know the science doesn’t confirm your statement” wouldn’t you think that after the author has already written in the Book of Poetry that in this book are verses allegorical and fundamental, you still have the intellectual cheek to criticise this persons verse of poetry, on top of that the author is not saying “the sun sets in muddy water” but “Zulkhurnain saw the sun sets in muddy water” is there a fault in his Book of Poetry, will you count that has a mistake or obsurdity? And the Quran states in Surah Al Imran (3) verse 7: “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.” Allah in the Holy Quran has stated that this book has verses which are allegorical and fundamental, by fundamental can mean literal or foundational. Now the verse in question about Mary being called the sister of Haroon by her Family, where they trying to remind her of her spiritual heritage which she had inherited from being a priestly family. Same time saying that look Mary you was from such a noble family from the family of Haroon and Musa and you have brought this child to us without a legal sexual intercourse with a man that you was married to. But has I see it literal and both allegorical meaning are fitting perfectly, that’s she had a brother called Haroon, and she was being reminded that she has a righteous heritage of Haroon the companion of Musa. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame