circular reasoning?

[ibnleroy]

Apple Pie, let me remind you that I was a Christian apologist. And no, a side-by-side comparison of the Bible and the Qur'an is not a good way to determine which one is true. In fact, it is an awful way. And unless you have a healthy knowledge of Arabic linguistics and can appreciate the three-dimensional qualities of the language, then you don't have a grasp on the Qur'an, and you surely don't fully understand Islam. Also, I never said I believed the Qur'an simply because the Qur'an tells me so. I'm way too intellectual for that nonsense. I'm not going to start a new topic again to tell you all the reasons why I believe in Islam and the Qur'an, but you can e-mail me at michael_branion@hotmail.com, and I'll be glad to send you some of my essays on both Islam and Christianity. I assure you that my acceptance of Islam was not a caprice. Also, notice how I have refrained from qouting the Qur'an at length. I have refrained from doing so because I know you don't take it as being authoritative. You should follow suit.

[saffiyya]

Peace Apple Pie (why is it always lunch time when I read this?)-
I used to be a Christian as well. Although I never got into the nitty gritty theological arguments for Christianity, I read the Bible quite a few times and eventually quit the religion because of it, and started looking for a religion that had some logic to it.
The Quran makes sense, the Bible does not.
All the circular reasoning in the world will not change my mind on that, and probably not anyone else's mind on here. Reading that type of argument just frustrates me.
Those of us who used to be Christian have been-there done-that and completed our research already.
I don't think anyone wants to hash out the details of our individual research all over again, because the big picture speaks for itself.
You could always read Deedat, since he has done some of this type of work already.
I am fine with discussing similarities, but you are not going to be able to prove that the Quran was "borrowed" from the Bible. Because it wasn't. I tried to prove the same thing, and failed. I am not going to participate in the argument because watching someone try to prove that which cannot be proven makes me tired and feeling sorry for you.
On a brighter note, you can always prove the Bahai religion is an offshoot of Islam, that is pretty easy and fun to do. And the same with the NOI.
You have your religion, I have mine.
Peace
saffiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Helper,

I appreciate your honest post.

Yes, indeed, I am interested in why you converted. I will be in touch with you.

If I had to guess I would say that you are male. Am I correct? The Islamic concept of paradise is exceedingly appealing to the male, as I’m sure that you already know.

Perhaps you did not understand what I meant by, side-by-side comparison. This means more than comparing the English translations against each other. It means utilizing Literal Interlinear Versions of BOTH Holy Books, as I already posted to Ronnie, complete with the original languages of each, Lexicons, Concordances, etc.

If you are indeed reading my posts you will see that I give every possible benefit to the Arabic renderings.

Actually, the Koran is very authorative. It has complete authority over its followers.

Thanks…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[Apple Pie]

Greetings saffiyya,

Yes, you are making me hungry just talking about food. Stop it! Hehehe…

I respect your decision.

I also respect your decision not to participate in these discussions. Please feel free to assert your comments at any time.

Thanks…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[ibnleroy]

Of course the Qur'an has authority to Muslims. I just wanted you to understand that quoting our respective scriptures to one another gets us nowhere because 1)the Bible has no authority to me, and 2)the Qur'an has no authority to you. If scripture reference is the basis of our arguments, then we'll just remain at a stalemate. The proper way for us to go about this would be for me to close my Qur'an and you close your Bible, both of us think as objectively as possible, and then compare are beliefs to see which is more far-fetched. I promise you that Islam is the truth. I can make this promise because you sound just like me back when I was a Christian. But praise be to God, He opened my mind and more importantly opened my heart so that I could be a helper for those like yourself. I don't have to hide behind dogmatic speciousness, nor do I have to go into any scripture-quoting frenzies. Islam is simple and sensible. God willing, we will keep in touch.

By the way, I am a man, and once again you are showing me your distorted view of Islam by your comments about Paradise. But that's okay for now, I'm a little more patient than saffiyya. =)

And that little quote from John 3: 12? Direct that to yourself and then we'll being getting somewhere. =)

[saffiyya]

Peace ApplePie
Women are not excluded from the rewards of Paradise. If I am so blessed as to make my way into Heaven by God's Permission, I too would have the same company as any man would be given in reward.
Peace
Saffiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings saffiyya,

I am sorry to hear that you can NEVER be sure of going to heaven.

I already have my assurance.

Take care...

If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Helper,

How did I know that you were a man? You understand, don't you?

It appears that you are into philosophy, am I correct, as well? Most freethinkers don’t want to rely on what scripture says when intellect can do just as well. Right?

John 3:12 is how I came to the truth.

Take care…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[ibnleroy]

I am into philosophy, but it doesn't take any deep philosophical wherewithal to understand Islam. Like I said before, it is simple and sensible.

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Helper,

I think you hit the nail directly on the head.

Islam is easy to understand. The god of Islam is also easily understood.

The god of the Koran fits nice and neatly into the finite minds of his creation. That, in itself, should be a hint that the faith is not true. How can mankind possibly understand a God that is transcendent; that created all matter, energy, space and time?

Only a faith that is manmade in origin can put the creator in a can.

Think about it, if God truly created the universe, and all that is in it, how would he manifest himself to his creation?

The Bible is the only Holy book of the world’s faiths to accurately describe the creation sequence, and manifest himself through His word.


Take care…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[vector]

Of course the Qur'an has authority to Muslims. I just wanted you to understand that quoting our respective scriptures to one another gets us nowhere because 1)the Bible has no authority to me, and 2)the Qur'an has no authority to you. If scripture reference is the basis of our arguments, then we'll just remain at a stalemate. The proper way for us to go about this would be for me to close my Qur'an and you close your Bible, both of us think as objectively as possible, and then compare are beliefs to see which is more far-fetched.


You are right in this matter. We should always take note of things from a neutral critical point of view. Quran doesnt appeal me just because I am a born muslim. I read it with my mind as an empty bowl, and objectively came across the answer to my questions, that yes this is what I was looking for. The point is that rest assure GOD has not promissed that only the "muslims" ( by definition of religion ) would go to heaven. His decisions would be based on justice and truth, that how much a man was willing to find the guidance and how much effort did he put in to take the right path, and if one is looking for the light, he will get it

[ibnleroy]

Apple Pie, there is no such thing as a "god of Islam". "Islam" means submission, so it doesn't make sense to say "the god of submission to God." And we are far from believing that God is easy to understand. I said that Islam (submission to God) is simple and sensible.

[Porky]

Am I to understand that this thread is a debate over which is right, Islam or Christianity?

At the risk of being hung in effigy, I must say something from a non-either religion point of view:

Forget this debate! Both religions have their followers, every relgion does and every religion claims to be the right one. I have yet to meet anyone who says that what they believe is not right. If that was so, why would they believe in that one?

Let me introduce Zoraster, who lived in 1700 B.C., and who was resposible for much of what became Christianity. And didn't Islam take much from the Bible and further its religion? So, who was right?

It is an old argument which will have no winners. People like to believe something, if you were born in Pakistan, to Muslim parents, you probably are Islamic. If you were born in Salt Lake City, U.S.A, it is fairly likely that your parents were Mormon Christians. And therefore so would you be Mormon.

And since you've heard that viewpoint all of your life and told that you would get to heaven by accepting it, and all of your family is the same...how many people would change to something else? Some would but most would stay in the same religion.

This debate is a waste of time.

But good luck and best regards,

Porky

[Porky]

I am reminded of the times when there is a loud knock at my door and upon opening it I am confronted with someone who is "witnessing."

There are a few things which really make me mad, that is one of the top ten. Do I go out banging on doors, bothering people who are simply relaxing in their own castle? No. And I do not appreciate it when Christians do that to me.

And it is always Christains, usually Jehovah's Witnesses. they somehow think it is their job to bother people.

What it does is make me think they are a buch of nosey busy-bodies and I always wish I knew where they lived, so I could go bang on their door and tell them all about what I think.

As Ronnie said, this forum is not for the debate of Islam. It is for followers and curious people like me to learn more about it.

As the world is unfortunately about to be plunged into another war, may I suggest to the Christian witnesser here that you would do yourself and the world more good by trying to learn what the Muslim people believe, since through understanding comes fellowship. And how can people who like/appreciate/respect others have problems with each other?

Remember, we already had the Crusades. And it didn't work.

You can't force Christianity on anyone, or any other religion either, and expect for those people to embrace you or your ideas.

But, maybe you are out there right now, looking for my house so you can bang on my door when I am having my morning coffee. I look forward to the time I can bang on your door. Well, not really. I'm getting mellow in my old age. Now I just like to find reasons to get along.

Best regards,

Porky

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Porky,

Thanks for your comments.

Firstly, I would like to say that if you feel that this discussion is a waste of time, then feel free to not participate.

If you have some information on Zoraster, then also feel free to bring forth some evidence for us to consider.

I hear you on the door knockers. These are usually the Mormons and the JW’s. I like to take it as an opportunity to learn what they are about and what they have to say.

Again, who said that you had to answer the door?


Thanks for your comments…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[Porky]

Apple Pie,

Who says I have to answer the door when they knock? Well, I'll tell you. One morning long, long ago, I had a serious headache. Yes, I had partied way too much, which is my prerogative and my right. I had slept in front of the tv which put me very close to the door.

About 9 a.m., someone started beating very loudly on the door. I thought someone was kicking the door. Thats how loud it was. Not knowing what was trying to kick down my door, I reached under the sofa cushion and pulled out my Smith & Wesson .357 (also my right to own and use for protection). I was reaching for the door with my left hand, gun in my right hand, and the person outside started banging on the door again. Yanking it open, the gun was shoved toward him and I said, "what the...are you kicking my door for?"

He said, "Oh, I'm a Jehavah's Witness, I have a magazine for you."

I told him to get away from my door and don't come back, or else. He then said, take the magazine for free. I said I didn't want it, he insisted he wanted to give it to me. I took the rag and then he asked for a quarter. I said no so he asked for a nickle. I was just getting madder all the time so I tossed the magazine back at him and told him to get the...out of here, then I slammed the door.

Think that was just a case of, "oh, I just won't answer the door?"

I can't stand those people.

I am not going to bring any info about Zoraster. I am not going to debate Christianity or Islam with you at all. I have already pointed out to you that this board is not for debate of Islam. So I will not waste the board's space by granting you a request which you have already been told is not what the forum is about.

Since you have been clued in about this, then for you to continue is the same as attacking the forum.

Best regards,

Porky

[Apple Pie]

Thanks Porky,

I'll be sure and stay away from your home.

Thanks for the warning...

If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[Porky]

Apple Pie,

I am sorry if that was the message I sent. It was not meant as a warning. As I said, that was many years ago when I was young and, hungover.

I still don't like those people coming to my door. But I just tell them I can't find the key.

I'm really sorry to have given you that message.

Porky

[Apple Pie]

Hi Porky,


Yeah, I was just fun'n with ya, anyway..hehehe


Have a good one...


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[nr]

Zorastra is where the 3 magi came from.
Intrestingly King Cyrus freed the Jews after a
dream of the hebrew god.

[armiyya]

Greetings Helper,

How did I know that you were a man? You understand, don't you?



Well, the name Michael Branion is a pretty strong clue, I'd say. :)

I think I would have to agree with Safiyya on this one. I too, am a convert, and comparing the two books side by side is noy fruitful.

I would like to remind you all that The prophets of Allah began with Adam, though we only have a scripture which comes down from Musa (Moshe) and the prophets after him. In the Quran, we are reminded to believe in
1. "what we have sent down to you (O Muhammad and the followers of Muhammad ie: this Quran) confirming
2. "that which is with you (O followers of Isa and Musa - ie: The Torah, Neve'in, Psalms and Gospel)
and be not the first to disbelieve therein (that which has been sent down)
and buy not with My Verses (don't twist my verses to get)
a small price (advantage in the worldly life)
but fear ME and ME ALONE (worship God and follow his ordinances only).

A Muslim knows how to ponder on these words because they refer to the fact that we are all from the same religion (the religion of Abraham) and therefore our scriptures tell us to do the same thing (Worship God Alone). Hence the comment, let us close the books and compare our beliefs and which make more sense.

If we compare books (what was said in the Quran v. The gospels v. The Psalms v. Neve'in v. the Torah) we are bound to cover much of the same ground, and even the same stories of the prophets on which the claim of plagiarization is made. With one important difference. In the previous four books mentioned there is direct, word for word, plagiarization ... betraying the hand of (human) copyists ... while in the Qur'an much of what is said in the former scriptures is recast from the perspective of ELOH, rather than the historical view of men.

That is to say, the Bible has been processed and manipulated to traditionally serve the interests of the few elite within the religion, at least until the until the advent of protestantism. Since then the Protestant movement has been a battleground of unitarian versus trinitarian, puritan versus libral philosophy. In the interstices of which men with personality and strong messages make of the religion a business - each milking his followers for whatever they're worth. [This is far too general a summation, but it points to the idea I am trying to get across.]

In other words - the verses of the Bible have been used to get a small price.

In the process the focus of your religion has drifted away from the Worship of ELOH to the worship of or through things, personalities, human beings dead and alive. This type of Worship is called SHIRK in Islam, which is the antithesis of TAUHEED and, according to our knowledge and what has been handed down to us, is the UNFORGIVABLE SIN. He says in the Quran, "Verily, Allah does not forgive [that [partners be set up in worship] with him] (an yushraka bihi), but he forgives whom he pleases anything except that." And whoever [sets up partners with Allah in worship] (wa man [yushrik billah]) has indeed invented a tremendous sin."

You can find reflections of this in many places in the biblical scriptures, but the two indicated ones must be "The first Commandment" and "The foremost Commandment" (respectively in the Torah and Gospels). And just to re-inforce this notion, take a look at the end of "The sermon on the mount". In fact, look at the whole of Matthew, chapter 7, for some good advice.

Nitty picking word by word comparison is bound to produce a lot of parallelisms, particularly since all are from the same religion, but it is the BIG PICTURE that somehow fails to gel because the actual words of revelation (to 'Eisa, Da'awud and Musa) have been lost and interfered with and unguided belief systems have taken over.

Indeed, Allah warns them (the unguided false muslims, Christians and Jews)"Have you seen those who claim they believe in what has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement to [false judges] (taghoot) when they have been ordered to reject them. But Satan wishes to lead them far astray." The false judges are precisely those priests and teachers who have used the verses for their own gain, or the unguided 'man made' philosophies (such as the principles of democracy or national constitutional law) to make their judgements by.

May we be guided

Armiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings armiyya,

Thanks for your thoughts.

You said:
“If we compare books (what was said in the Quran v. The gospels v. The Psalms v. Neve'in v. the Torah) we are bound to cover much of the same ground, and even the same stories of the prophets on which the claim of plagiarization is made. With one important difference. In the previous four books mentioned there is direct, word for word, plagiarization ... betraying the hand of (human) copyists ... while in the Qur'an much of what is said in the former scriptures is recast from the perspective of ELOH, rather than the historical view of men.”

If both books are covering much of the same ground, then could you please tell me what parts of the Holy Bible you believe in? Thanks…
So…the Bible plagiarizes itself?! This is a most interesting comment. Please elaborate. Also, this line of argument can be used against the Koran as well. Numerous Suras repeat themselves, over and over, same identical material, word for word, over and over; did each Sura plagiarize the other?

If you feel that the “Bible has been processed and manipulated to traditionally serve the interests of the few elite within the religion”, feel free to elaborate.

I would say that you have committed SHIRK by denying the extent of the origins of the Koran. Why do you deny that 75% of the Koran has come from the Holy Bible?

With all due respect, if you could responsd directly to the “nit picky” Themes in Revelation, we would all be better off. Your generalizations are just that.

Thanks for your time…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[armiyya]

Peace, Apple pie,

You said:

"If both books are covering much of the same ground, then could you please tell me what parts of the Holy Bible you believe in? "

Willingly. Any part that is supported and confirmed by the Quran. Examples will come later as we exchange comparisons.

You said:
"So…the Bible plagiarizes itself?! This is a most interesting comment. Please elaborate."

Well. One of the things i noticed is that, with minor differences, the synoptic gospels are almost word for word the same in some of their chapters or parts of chapters. An example is Mark 5 and luke 8.

Also Matthew 13 until verse 32 and Mark 4 until verse 32, with one or two changes in the order and numbering of the verses.

Another example is Samuel 22:6-52 and Psalms 18:5-50. Although there are minor differences in wording for some of the verses from about verse 24, the majority of the verses are identicle. Yet Samuel is supposed to have been written by Samuel Before the reign of King David and the Revelation of the Psalms which the Prophet/King David is supposed to have written at the height of Israel's powerful rise.

You said:
"Also, this line of argument can be used against the Koran as well. Numerous Suras repeat themselves, over and over, same identical material, word for word, over and over."

I would like to see some examples of surahs identicle to one another. For that matter, how about verses identicle to one another? And further more, just give me one example of a verse in the Quran that exactly reproduces one from the Bible, if you think it uses the Bible as its "source" or "inspiration". Just one.

You said
"I would say that you have committed SHIRK by denying the extent of the origins of the Koran. Why do you deny that 75% of the Koran has come from the Holy Bible?"

Do you know the meaning of SHIRK?

Here is a couple of verses that ALMOST repeat themselves word for word (just to help you in your search for identicle surahs or verses) in the Quran:

Inna_llaha laa yagfiru @n yushraka bihi, wa yagfiru maa doona dhalika liman yashaa@, wa man yushrik billahi faqadi ftaraaa 1thman@ azhiymaa.

Which means "indeed Allah doesn't forgive that 'a partner is ascribed' (yushraka) to Him, and He forgives other than (literally 'what other') that for whom He wills, and who(ever) 'associates anyone/anything' (yushrik) with Allah surely has devised a sin monstrous (a terrible sin)." (4:48)

Inna_llaha laa yagfiru @n yushraka bihi, wa yagfiru maa doona dhalika liman yashaa@, wa man yushrik billahi faqad dholla dholaalam ba1ydaa.

Which means "indeed Allah doesn't forgive that 'a partner is ascribed' (yushraka) to Him, and He forgives other than (literally 'what other') that for whom He wills, and who(ever) 'associates anyone/anything' (yushrik) with Allah surely is misled, straying far away (very far astray)." (4:116)

You said
"With all due respect, if you could responsd directly to the “nit picky” Themes in Revelation, we would all be better off. Your generalizations are just that."

That was not my purpose - though I am willing to do so when discussing comparative texts. Ive gone through all that on another forum, but in that case the Christians confronting me were bent to demonstrate a difference in perception (concerning the symbology associated with "the lamb" - which you will find has no comparison in the Quran). But the purpose of my post was not to make comparisons but to put down the books and discuss beliefs.


Now, if you wish to be dismissive and hide behind your myopic comparison of texts - well, that is up to you

Thankyou for your time

Armiyya



Edited by - armiyya on 03/13/2003 18:44:28

Edited by - armiyya on 03/13/2003 18:50:50

[Ronnie]

Salam,

Armiyya welcome to the forum. Your posts have been wonderful. I am just writing to tell you how appreciative I am of your writings. I hope to read more, insha'Allah. May God bless you with the greatest of rewards.

Wassalam

[armiyya]

Salam,

Armiyya welcome to the forum. Your posts have been wonderful. I am just writing to tell you how appreciative I am of your writings. I hope to read more, insha'Allah. May God bless you with the greatest of rewards.

Wassalam

Wa alaykum salam,

Jazakallah kheir for the welcome

Please visit us at

http://www.ummahforums.co.uk/forum/index.php?s=

and talk to baba (The techie administrator) he'll give you a lot of ideas, inshallah, on how to technically improve this forum. (smile)

Fi amani Allah

Armiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Armiyya,

I appreciate your comments. Thank You.

Thank you for recognizing the similarities between the Gospels. Yes indeed, there are many similarities and replicated wording between the gospels. This is clearly evident to anyone willing to take the time to look for themselves.

In fact, the linkage between them is not only from one book to another, but the linkage from the OT to the NT is absolutely remarkable.

I recommend this site if you are interested in just how much they are dovetailed:

http://www.theomatics.com/theomatics/home.html

You said:
“I would like to see some examples of surahs identicle to one another. For that matter, how about verses identicle to one another? “

No problem. How about this:

By God's Name, the Merciful, the Merciful/Most Merciful. Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi This is repeated 114X, once for each Sura.

Here is another one:
And those who believed and did/made the correct/righteous deeds, We will enter them treed gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it, (they are) immortally/eternally in it, for them in it (are) purified spouses, and We enter them (in) shade, continuous/permanent shade. (4:57)
Waallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati sanudkhiluhum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha abadan lahum feeha azwajun mutahharatun wanudkhiluhum thillan thaleelan

And those who believed and did the correct/righteous deeds, We will enter them treed gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it, immortally/eternally in it forever, Allah's promise truthfully , and who (is) more truthful from (than) Allah (in) a saying? (4:122)
Waallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati sanudkhiluhum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha abadan waAAda Allahi haqqan waman asdaqu mina Allahi qeelan

And those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds were made to enter treed gardens/paradises, the rivers/waterways flow from beneath it immortally/eternally in it, with their Lord's permission , their greeting in it (is): "A security/peace ." (14:23)
Waodkhila allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha bi-ithni rabbihim tahiyyatuhum feeha salamun

You really need to read my Book of Revelation Post. It lists 75 plus verses from the Koran that repeatedly claims a paradise of "Treed Gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it". Can you say repetitive? This is also the case with Resurrection, Hell, Fire, etc, etc. –extremely repetitious. The Koran is constantly recycling the same material over and over, and over.

You said:
“And further more, just give me one example of a verse in the Quran that exactly reproduces one from the Bible, if you think it uses the Bible as its "source" or "inspiration". Just one.”

Ok. Here is one from my Book of Revelation Post. As I’m sure you’ll find, my Book of Revelation Post leaves no reasonable doubt that the Koran used the Book of Revelation not only for Koranic Eschatology, Heaven, and Hell, but as a structure for the entire Koran as well:

A day/time We FOLD/COIL THE SKY/SPACE AS/LIKE THE RECORD/REGISTER BOOK'S FOLDING/COILING TO THE BOOKS/SCRIPTURES (PRINT); as/like We began/initiated (the) first/beginning creation, We repeat/return it, a promise on Us, We were making/doing (it). (21:104)


This passage is more commonly translated like this:

On the day when WE WILL ROLL UP HEAVEN LIKE THE ROLLING UP OF THE SCROLL for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about. (Shakir)

OR

THE DAY THAT WE ROLL UP THE HEAVENS LIKE A SCROLL rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfill it. (Yusuf Ali)

Biblical account

AND THE HEAVEN DEPARTED LIKE A SCROLL BEING ROLLED UP. And every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (Rev 6:14)

Since the Scroll Theme is interlocked with the Mountain Theme, here is another one:

And when/if the sky/space opened/split open. AND WHEN/IF THE MOUNTAINS WERE UPROOTED AND DISPERSED/EXPLODED. (77:9-10)


Biblical account

And the heaven departed like a scroll being rolled up. AND EVERY MOUNTAIN AND ISLAND WERE MOVED OUT OF THEIR PLACES. (Rev 6:14)


Do I know the meaning of shirk? I think I do. This is what Webster’s has to say for Shirk:

“To evade the performance of an obligation. Avoid, Evade. As in to Shirk one’s duty”

It appears that you may not have understood my usage of the word.

Have a great day…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[armiyya]

Peace, Apple pie

http://www.theomatics.com/theomatics/home.html

Thankyou for the link. I haven't used this before, but I will, inshallah. As for whole-scale plagiarisation by scribes between different books of the New Testament and slavishly copying the passages they refer to in the old, I have seen a lot of evidence for that. I am glad you appreciate the way the compilers of the bible have done it.

*****
By God's Name, the Merciful, the Merciful/Most Merciful. Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi This is repeated 114X, once for each Sura.
******

This is not a sura, it is the invocation of God's name before reading a sura. And there are 113, not 114. Surat al Taubah omits the invocation because of the content of the sura (it's all about God's punishment unless you repent) SHIRK.

*****
Here is another one:
And those who believed and did/made the correct/righteous deeds, We will enter them treed gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it, (they are) immortally/eternally in it,

for them in it (are) purified spouses, and We enter them (in) shade, continuous/permanent shade. (4:57)

Waallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati sanudkhiluhum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha abadan

lahum feeha azwajun mutahharatun wanudkhiluhum thillan thaleelan

And those who believed and did the correct/righteous deeds, We will enter them treed gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it, immortally/eternally in it forever,

Allah's promise truthfully , and who (is) more truthful from (than) Allah (in) a saying? (4:122)

Waallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati sanudkhiluhum jannatin tajree min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha abadan

waAAda Allahi haqqan waman asdaqu mina Allahi qeelan

And those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds were made to enter treed gardens/paradises,

the rivers/waterways flow from beneath it immortally/eternally in it,
with their Lord's permission , their greeting in it (is): "A security/peace ." (14:23)

Waodkhila allatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati jannatin tajree

min tahtiha al-anharu khalideena feeha bi-ithni rabbihim tahiyyatuhum feeha salamun

***** *

Well, I see you have identified a repeated phrase. No Surah fully repeated, however, nor Ayat (No full chapter repeated, not even a full verse).

******

You really need to read my Book of Revelation Post. It lists 75 plus verses from the Koran that repeatedly claims a paradise of "Treed Gardens, the rivers flow from beneath it". Can you say repetitive? This is also the case with Resurrection, Hell, Fire, etc, etc. –extremely repetitious. The Koran is constantly recycling the same material over and over, and over.

******

As I said before, there will be many instances of similar material because the ultimate source of the verses in the Bible is based on God's word, and the Qur'an is the word of God. And yes, the Quran does recycle material over and over again, as you say. It is the first thing I noticed when I read it through for the first time. Every Surah seemed like a mini self contained Quran on its own, Surat Al Baqara being the Queen of surahs in that respect.

******

You said:
“And further more, just give me one example of a verse in the Quran that exactly reproduces one from the Bible, if you think it uses the Bible as its "source" or "inspiration". Just one.”

Ok. Here is one from my Book of Revelation Post. As I’m sure you’ll find, my Book of Revelation Post leaves no reasonable doubt that the Koran used the Book of Revelation not only for Koranic Eschatology, Heaven, and Hell, but as a structure for the entire Koran as well:

A day/time We FOLD/COIL THE SKY/SPACE AS/LIKE THE RECORD/REGISTER BOOK'S FOLDING/COILING TO THE BOOKS/SCRIPTURES (PRINT); as/like We began/initiated (the) first/beginning creation, We repeat/return it, a promise on Us, We were making/doing (it). (21:104)


This passage is more commonly translated like this:

On the day when WE WILL ROLL UP HEAVEN LIKE THE ROLLING UP OF THE SCROLL for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about. (Shakir)

OR

THE DAY THAT WE ROLL UP THE HEAVENS LIKE A SCROLL rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfill it. (Yusuf Ali)

Biblical account

AND THE HEAVEN DEPARTED LIKE A SCROLL BEING ROLLED UP. And every mountain and island were moved out of their places. (Rev 6:14)

*****

Near. But not exact. The meaning is clearly the same (except for the fact that it doesn't say who rolled it up and where). In another verse in the Quran, Allah says he will roll up the heaven in his right hand and the earth will be grasped. (39:67-69)

******

Since the Scroll Theme is interlocked with the Mountain Theme, here is another one:

And when/if the sky/space opened/split open. AND WHEN/IF THE MOUNTAINS WERE UPROOTED AND DISPERSED/EXPLODED. (77:9-10)

"Then When the stars lose their light, And when the heaven/sky is cleft assunder, and the mountains blown away, and when the messengers are gathered together for there time appointed."

are uprooted and disperse/exploded/are blown away/scattered (as dust).

*******

That 'exploded' doesn't fit, somehow ... the word refers to shimmering out of existence; 'dissolving and being blown' away like candied cotton in the wind. But yes, there are strong parallels. Have I said there wouldn't be. For example, some other parallels here are: The 'elders/saints' were gathered together (before the lamb), and the sky opened for the descent of the throne, etc. Yes, the perallels are there. But the message in context is a lot different. So why don't we put away the toy soldiers and talk about beliefs?

******

The Biblical account

And the heaven departed like a scroll being rolled up. AND EVERY MOUNTAIN AND ISLAND WERE MOVED OUT OF THEIR PLACES. (Rev 6:14)

******

Again, the words are not an exact reproduction. Revelations omits how they are moved and what happened to the mountain (and Islands) so moved.

*******

Do I know the meaning of shirk? I think I do. This is what Webster’s has to say for Shirk:

“To evade the performance of an obligation. Avoid, Evade. As in to Shirk one’s duty”

It appears that you may not have understood my usage of the word.

*******

Now you are being utterly facetious: The wording you used was:

"You are COMMITTING shirk ....." eg: shirk is a noun in the sentence, writing SHIRK in capital letters.

You had obviously picked up the word from Muslims or Islamic material without grasping its meaning (perhaps you thought it merely mean "a sin"). In my Websters no such noun exists.

So instead of inventing an excuse for your lack of knowledge, it would be more beneficial to you just to ask what it means.

{*smile*}
By the way. One's duty is to worship God alone, *without partner*. So, in a sense, you could say that the evasion of one's duty is half way to shirk (it is KUFR). To actively believe and submit to anything other than that duty - that is SHIRK.

May Allah guide you

Armiyya

[armiyya]

Peace, Apple Pie:

A couple of things:

Firstly,
In Revelations 'the mountains moving and the heaven rolled up are linked in one verse as if the same event.

The Heaven rolled up and the earth grasped, and the sky splitting assunder and the mountains fading are two separate events.

The first is the second blowing of the trumpet, after all living souls have died (when the trumpet is blown for the first time)
The second is the day of Judgement, of Resurrection, heralded by the blowing of the horn for the third time.

Somehow Revelations has conflated the events.

Secondly - you point out there are repeated discriptions of Jannah and Jahannam in the in the Qur'an, whereas I can only find a few verses in the Bible describing Gehennan (greek for Hell) as a "lake of fire" and Gennah (Greek for Paradise) appears to be a sumptuous city with definite limited measurements. Perhaps you can point me to more comprehensive discription of these two places?

Or is your reference to repeated discriptions of them in the Bible pie in the sky?

May Allah guide you?

Armiyya



Edited by - armiyya on 03/14/2003 14:01:09

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Armiyya,


Thanks for your comments.

I indeed hope that you will use Theomatics in your research efforts.

As I’m sure you already know, the “original” Koran did not contain verse markings. The segregation into verse markings is artificial, and was set in place after the Koran was written. The same is the case for the Bible. Therefore, your argument for me to reproduce a single replicated “verse” from the Koran, is invalid.

The point should be for us to look at long stretches of similar or identical word lengths. As we both know, BOTH books do this extensively. That was the intention of my original question on your “biblical plagiarism” comments earlier. It is a silly argument, and more importantly, it can easily be used against the Koran itself.

You said:
“As I said before, there will be many instances of similar material because the ultimate source of the verses in the Bible is based on God's word, and the Qur'an is the word of God. And yes, the Quran does recycle material over and over again, as you say. It is the first thing I noticed when I read it through for the first time. Every Surah seemed like a mini self contained Quran on its own, Surat Al Baqara being the Queen of surahs in that respect.”

Thank you for acknowledging that the Holy Bible is the word of God. Thank you also for acknowledging that the Koran repeats itself over and over. This fits in with the “plagiarism” argument from above.

You said:
“That 'exploded' doesn't fit, somehow ... the word refers to shimmering out of existence; 'dissolving and being blown' away like candied cotton in the wind. But yes, there are strong parallels. Have I said there wouldn't be. For example, some other parallels here are: The 'elders/saints' were gathered together (before the lamb), and the sky opened for the descent of the throne, etc. Yes, the perallels are there. But the message in context is a lot different. So why don't we put away the toy soldiers and talk about beliefs?”

Strong parallels? It is more like massive, absolutely, undeniable, unimpeachable, self evident parallels. Again, why do you attempt to skirt the issue at hand? Can you tell me why the Koran relied so heavily upon the Holy Bible? Which parts do you believe in? Shall I show you?

Regarding my usage of the word SHIRK. I used it properly, just admit it. My usage is just as valid as yours. Come on.

Let’s take a look at YOUR attempt to reconcile the self-evidence truth that the Koran has borrowed from the Book of Revelation.

You said:
“Firstly, in Revelations 'the mountains moving and the heaven rolled up are linked in one verse as if the same event.”
“The Heaven rolled up and the earth grasped, and the sky splitting assunder and the mountains fading are two separate events.”
“The first is the second blowing of the trumpet, after all living souls have died (when the trumpet is blown for the first time) The second is the day of Judgement, of Resurrection, heralded by the blowing of the horn for the third time.”
“Somehow Revelations has conflated the events.”

Talk about a major Red Herring! You cannot see the forest for the trees. Let’s look at what you just admitted to as truth:

1) The Heavens will be rolled up like a scroll.
2) The Mountains will be moved.
3) The Trumpet will be blown, multiple times.
4) There is a day of Judgment.

Is it safe to conclude that these four items listed above are things that YOU as a Muslim believe in? I mean, especially since they are explicitly mentioned in BOTH books? Since the Koran obviously borrowed this material from the Holy Bible is it also safe to say that these are examples of parts of the Bible that you believe in?

You said:

“Secondly - you point out there are repeated discriptions of Jannah and Jahannam in the in the Qur'an, whereas I can only find a few verses in the Bible describing Gehennan (greek for Hell) as a "lake of fire" and Gennah (Greek for Paradise) appears to be a sumptuous city with definite limited measurements. Perhaps you can point me to more comprehensive discription of these two places?”

This point will become excruciatingly clear as you read my Book of Rev. Postings.

In closing, I would like to directly challenge YOU or any Muslim to refute my Book of Revelation Post, and come clean with the portions of the Bible that YOU believe in. Why do you keep evading the issue? Why are you in denial of the self evident truth? My very first post in this forum was titled “What part(s) of the Bible do Muslims believe in?” Since then, the side-stepping, dancing around, and complete avoidance of the posed question has been absolutely astounding!

This leads me to the conclusion that either Muslims DO NOT know what parts of the Holy Bible they indeed believe in, OR, they do, and they are reluctant to admit the Koran’s astronomically large dependence upon it. Which is it?

Have a great day…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[armiyya]

Peace Apple pie

*******
Thanks for your comments.

I indeed hope that you will use Theomatics in your research efforts.

As I’m sure you already know, the “original” Koran did not contain verse markings.
*******

Here, without diacretic markings, are two of the verses reproduced in simplified Arabic script:

ÄÇáÐíä ÁÇãäÄÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕáÍÊ ÓäÏÌáåã ÌäÊ íÌÑì ãäÊÍÊÍÇ ÇáÇäÍÑ ÎáÏíä ÝíÍÇ ÇÈÏÇ áåã ÝíÍÇ ÇÒæÌ ãØåÑÉ æäÏÎáåã ÙáÇ ØáíáÇ
(4:57)

ÄÇáÐíä ÁÇãäÄÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕáÍÊ ÓäÏÌáåã ÌäÊ íÌÑì ãäÊÍÊÍÇ ÇáÇäÍÑ ÎáÏíä ÝíÍÇ ÇÈÏÇ æãä ÇÕÏÞ ãä Çááå ÞíáÇ
(4:122)

These two verse wer the most similar. The first twelve words are exactly the same. Then the first verse has 7 more words different from the second verse 5 words more. The other verse you quoted have even more differences.
The repetitive formulation of certain word phrases does not point to plagiarism, especially since the completion of the verses is different. Further more, the Quran was composed over a period of 23 years, and an official 'canon', if that is the right word (which it isn't - since it included all all the known and memorised revelation) produced and disseminated 20 years after the Prophet's death. This precludes the notion of copying from one set of verses to another. What would be the point?

The case of the Bible is different. One, it depended not upon the memorized scripture distributed among the disciples, but on the careful gathering of manuscripts and the analysis of scholars to peice it all together. That still goes on today. Two, the 'final scripture agreed on by comittee for the New Testament occured almost 300 years after the "death" of Christ. Three, the scriptures actually quoted (sometimes misquoted) from earlier books in the Jewish scriptures (the Tanach). The tanach itself does a lot of internal borrowing. So much so that some of the books appear to run backwards in time, rather than forwards (the books of Ezra and Esdras come to mind). The verses from the gospel I pointed out to you contained some which were word for word exact copies of each other, even to the extent of the incidents occurring in exactly the same order. Further more, there are examples (particularly between Mark and Matthew) of "spliced chapters". That is two halves of separate chapter in one book being put together as one chapter in the other. The example of the old testament showed that 75% of the verses (approximately 30 of the 45 verses) were exact word for word replicas of each other, and the remaining 15 or so showing only a minor variation (perhaps a slip of the copyist's pen). This is not "bringing in repetitition" evenly throughout the book.

On the other hand, phrases like "Son of man" at the beginning of every chapter of Ezekiel, as God addresses him, and its repetition within some of the chapters (a total of 89 times) is an example of pattern repetition, NOT plagiarizing. And I wouldn't dream of saying the 81 times Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man" to be a mere copy of Ezekial's title. For this kind of repetition does not lend itself to the charge of plagiarism.

So you can try and use the argument against the "Quran" or "Q ran" ([Qaf ra alif noon] NOT [Kaff wau ra noon] as you have transliterated it) that the it plagiarizes itself, but you'll end up the creek without a paddle.

Of course I acknowledge the Bible is based on the word of God. Allah Himself told us he sent down the Torah, Zabor and Injeel and admonishes the people of the book to follow what is in their scriptures without misapplying it or changing it to suit themselves. Even the books of the prophets have some validity, as the quran mentions some of them. He warned you, and us, that you are only fooling yourself when you change what was written for your own interpretation. This has happened to such an extent that no two translations of what has been assessed as "the original" text (which isn't original in many cases, being in Greek) are exactly the same. Each builds in preconceived bias into the meanings of the original verses.

This is also true of the Old Testament, where the Christian interpretation of many of the verse therein differs from the jewish interpretation (which differs, in turn, from someone reading the text 'literally', or with a bias towards Islamic belief).

******
Regarding my usage of the word SHIRK. I used it properly, just admit it. My usage is just as valid as yours. Come on.
******

You used it properly? Please pull the other leg. If you cannot bear to acknowledge a small mistake you made, which is easily resolvable, then you are not worth debating with.

"You have committed SHIRK ...."
is not the correct usage of the word in websters Dictionary. Trust me. My field is English language. You have used it as a noun, the object of the verb "commit". There is no such noun in English. There is such a noun (transliterated) in Arabic often used by Muslims. You are using the word on a muslim forum, after debating with Muslims. The rest is plain common sense ....

*******
Let’s take a look at YOUR attempt to reconcile the self-evidence truth that the Koran has borrowed from the Book of Revelation.

1) The Heavens will be rolled up like a scroll.
agreed
2) The Mountains will be moved.
dissolved and blown away

3) The Trumpet will be blown, multiple times.
How many times does it say in the Bible?

4) There is a day of Judgment.
I am glad you acknowledge it

Is it safe to conclude that these four items listed above are things that YOU as a Muslim believe in? I mean, especially since they are explicitly mentioned in BOTH books?
********

Generally speaking, yes. In the details mentioned concerning these events, I'm afraid it is dangerous to assume any such thing. That is what we have the Quran for - too correct the little inaccuracies that have crept into the bible's account of things.

********
Since the Koran obviously borrowed this material from the Holy Bible is it also safe to say that these are examples of parts of the Bible that you believe in?
********

I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick. The Quran borrowed nothing from the Bible. It was revealed to Muhammad, solla Allahu alayhi wassalam, by God. What you can be assured is that we accept whatever in the Bible agrees with the Quran, and rely upon the Quran only if we are confronted with something which contradicts it. As for those parts which are neither confirmed by the Quran nor contradicted by it, we remain neutral. This is as much of an answer you will get about "which parts" of the Bible a Muslim is prepared to believe.

Let me list a few things we mutually believe:
Adam and Eve were the first human beings, created by God.
They both ate from a tree in Paradise.

Muslims, however, don't believe God had to search for Adam and Eve in order to find them, nor that they heard God "walking" in the garden and "hid themselves" from his sight. Nor that Eve was tempted first and ate first. Nor that God was angry with either of them and cursed them (in fact God taught them how to pray for forgiveness and show repentence). Nor that Satan was a serpent. Nor that Satan was a fallen Angel (He was an exhalted Djinni who fell from that exhalted position). Nor the reason for his fall, which in the Bible appears to be because he advised Eve to disobey God in regard to the tree. In the Quran it is because he refused a direct order from God to prostrate to Adam out of pride in himself.

To sum up. Three basic things we agree on.
1.Adam and Eve were created directly by God as the first human beings.
2.Satan defied the directive of God.
3.Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree.
In addition, Adam and Eve were removed from Paradise and placed on earth.

Yet the details cause a fundimental difference of belief.
A. Because the Christians believe eve was the first to be tempted and then corrupted man, they believe that God cursed all of mankind for thet original sin (The travials he curse them with remain the same trials all humans face to this day).

B. Muslims believe human beings are born without sins and natural Muslims (in fitra) and are made unbelievers by social conditioning. they also believe that they are exempt in the eyes of God from the consequences of sin until they reach puberty.

********
Perhaps you can point me to more comprehensive discription of these two places?”

This point will become excruciatingly clear as you read my Book of Rev. Postings.
*******

Thank you

********
In closing, I would like to directly challenge YOU or any Muslim to refute my Book of Revelation Post, and come clean with the portions of the Bible that YOU believe in. Why do you keep evading the issue?
********

We haven't evaded the issue. we have to repeat it every post, and still you don't get it. There is no physical pages or books as a whole that are acceptable to Muslims. Some details and many broad themes are because they coincide with Quranic or Sunnah teachings. Other parts we do not accept because they contradict Tauheed and/or the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. Anything that neither is confirmed or negated by these Muslim sources (in particular, the Quran) we neither believe or disbelieve. We remain neutral to them. That is the second time this post I have tried to make the Islamic position clear. What we agree on in the Bible totally relies upon what is in the Quran, not vice versa.

So there is very little point in going through your pedantic delusions. In a story as simple as the creation, there is fundemental disagreement. How do you expect a Muslim to agree that the Quran is based on when both you and I know the fundemental message of the two are so dissimilar? Indeed, as I have argued in another forum with a Christian whose aim was exactly opposite to yours (while my aim was actually similar to yours in that I was trying to prove Revelations might actually have some relation to true revelation from God) I was soundly defeated in my attempt. Not that they argued Revelations was not revelation (they claimed it was), but that its message was not similar to that of the Quran.

Enjoy your toy soldiers.

and may Allah guide you

Armiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Armiyya,

I appreciate your prompt reply.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis on the verses that I mentioned. As I’m sure that you’ll agree, the “self-plagiarism” attack on either the Bible or the Koran has NO bearing on the truth that each book may contain.

You said:
“The repetitive formulation of certain word phrases does not point to plagiarism, especially since the completion of the verses is different. Further more, the Quran was composed over a period of 23 years, and an official 'canon', if that is the right word (which it isn't - since it included all all the known and memorised revelation) produced and disseminated 20 years after the Prophet's death. This precludes the notion of copying from one set of verses to another. What would be the point?”

Well, since the oldest extant Korans date hundreds of years AFTER the life and times of Muhammad; it would be pure speculation that we indeed have the original Koran, complete with the original material. Isn’t this correct?

You said:
“The case of the Bible is different. One, it depended not upon the memorized scripture distributed among the disciples, but on the careful gathering of manuscripts and the analysis of scholars to peice it all together. That still goes on today. Two, the 'final scripture agreed on by comittee for the New Testament occured almost 300 years after the "death" of Christ. Three, the scriptures actually quoted (sometimes misquoted) from earlier books in the Jewish scriptures (the Tanach). The tanach itself does a lot of internal borrowing. So much so that some of the books appear to run backwards in time, rather than forwards (the books of Ezra and Esdras come to mind).”

So, you are in agreement that the Bible was fully canonized centuries BEFORE the Koran was ever pieced together, right?

You said:
“Of course I acknowledge the Bible is based on the word of God. Allah Himself told us he sent down the Torah, Zabor and Injeel and admonishes the people of the book to follow what is in their scriptures without misapplying it or changing it to suit themselves. Even the books of the prophets have some validity, as the quran mentions some of them. He warned you, and us, that you are only fooling yourself when you change what was written for your own interpretation.”

Great. Another blanket statement.

You said:
“This has happened to such an extent that no two translations of what has been assessed as "the original" text (which isn't original in many cases, being in Greek) are exactly the same. Each builds in preconceived bias into the meanings of the original verses."

Do we have the original Biblical autographs? No. Do we have the original Koranic autographs? No. We have to utilize what is in our possession.

You said:
“Trust me. My field is English language. You have used it as a noun, the object of the verb "commit". There is no such noun in English. There is such a noun (transliterated) in Arabic often used by Muslims. You are using the word on a muslim forum, after debating with Muslims. The rest is plain common sense ....”

Rather than pursue the proper definition and usage of the word SHIRK with you; I will raise the white flag on this one. However, have you ever heard of spell check? I mean, I can’t even begin to count all of your mis-spelled words, un-capitalized words, double words, incorrect verbiage, etc, etc, that have come from your posts. Are you sure that your field is the English language? I understand that you were probably in a hurry during many of your posts, right?

You said:
“Generally speaking, yes. In the details mentioned concerning these events, I'm afraid it is dangerous to assume any such thing. That is what we have the Quran for - too correct the little inaccuracies that have crept into the bible's account of things.”
This is classic Muslim rhetoric that you speak. The Koran corrects nothing. The Koran borrows everything. Perhaps you can expound upon this in future discourse.

You said:
“I'm afraid you have got the wrong end of the stick. The Quran borrowed nothing from the Bible. It was revealed to Muhammad, solla Allahu alayhi wassalam, by God. What you can be assured is that we accept whatever in the Bible agrees with the Quran, and rely upon the Quran only if we are confronted with something which contradicts it. As for those parts which are neither confirmed by the Quran nor contradicted by it, we remain neutral. This is as much of an answer you will get about "which parts" of the Bible a Muslim is prepared to believe.”

If indeed the “The Quran borrowed nothing from the Bible” , then you should have no problem countering a few themes in my Book of Rev post. Am I correct?

The average Muslim has no idea what parts of the Holy Bible he does believe in.

You said:
“To sum up. Three basic things we agree on.
1.Adam and Eve were created directly by God as the first human beings.
2.Satan defied the directive of God.
3.Adam and Eve ate from a forbidden tree.
In addition, Adam and Eve were removed from Paradise and placed on earth.”

I count THREE things that you trust as correct from the Holy Bible. Continue…

I am interested in your view of where Adam and Eve lived BEFORE being “placed on earth”.



You said:
“We haven't evaded the issue. we have to repeat it every post, and still you don't get it. There is no physical pages or books as a whole that are acceptable to Muslims. Some details and many broad themes are because they coincide with Quranic or Sunnah teachings. Other parts we do not accept because they contradict Tauheed and/or the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. Anything that neither is confirmed or negated by these Muslim sources (in particular, the Quran) we neither believe or disbelieve. We remain neutral to them. That is the second time this post I have tried to make the Islamic position clear. What we agree on in the Bible totally relies upon what is in the Quran, not vice versa.”

Broad Themes? I have posted ~40 Themes in my Revelation Post that are specific and to the point, right down to, and including, the multi-colored horses mentioned In Revelation. You won’t get down to the details, just admit it.

You said:
“What we agree on in the Bible totally relies upon what is in the Quran, not vice versa.”

Classic Muslim response. Muslims are constantly attempting to judge the old by the new. It is most unfortunate that Muslims are locked into this line of thinking.

You said:
“So there is very little point in going through your pedantic delusions. In a story as simple as the creation, there is fundemental disagreement. How do you expect a Muslim to agree that the Quran is based on when both you and I know the fundemental message of the two are so dissimilar?”

I agree totally with you that there are major disagreements between the Koranic Creation Account, and the Biblical Creation Account(s). Also, there are many areas of the Koranic creation Account that were obviously borrowed from the Bible (6 “days” for example). I would like to get your interpretation of creation from both the Bible as well as the Koran, and I will do likewise.

You said:
“Indeed, as I have argued in another forum with a Christian whose aim was exactly opposite to yours (while my aim was actually similar to yours in that I was trying to prove Revelations might actually have some relation to true revelation from God) I was soundly defeated in my attempt. Not that they argued Revelations was not revelation (they claimed it was), but that its message was not similar to that of the Quran.”

Well, that is all well and dandy, but that you still have not rebutted a single theme from my Book of Rev post. I guess you never will…

Take care.


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[armiyya]

Peace, Apple Pie,

*****
I appreciate your prompt reply.

Thanks for the in-depth analysis on the verses that I mentioned. As I’m sure that you’ll agree, the “self-plagiarism” attack on either the Bible or the Koran has NO bearing on the truth that each book may contain.
*****

Not in depth, just a rebuttal to your irrelevant focus on diacretics as being the source (or not) of "differences".

*****
Well, since the oldest extant Korans date hundreds of years AFTER the life and times of Muhammad; it would be pure speculation that we indeed have the original Koran, complete with the original material. Isn’t this correct?
*****

Not really. You don't even work from the original language. Even the Old Testament scriptures the Church based their Canon on was the Greek Translation of the Hebrew and armaic Texts. With the advent of the Dead Sea scrolls, these language originals have at last been reconsidered. The Quran does, and it is word for word the same as the original 7 aruf. (Each aruf is separate and, as far as I know, never mixed in a single a musahaf).

Also, according to western scholars, the extanct complete Quran kept in Cairo dates from abot 140 hijjra.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/enl2a.html

The papyrus recently discovered in Sa'ana dates from even earlier than that, and may hold most of the Qu'ran (Western Scholars in Germany are eagerly going over it with a fine toothcombe to try and prove the Qur'an was 'developed' over time, like the Bible). The Quranic copy which was kept in Tashkent is imported to be one of the Originals which Uthman sent out, or a copy of it.

However, I am not competent to talk about this subject, so I'll give you a reference where you can read about it to your heart's content (not that you will, since your design is to try and prove the Quran is not of devine origin - or, that if it is, it is filtered devine origin, just like your own).

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

******
So, you are in agreement that the Bible was fully canonized centuries BEFORE the Koran was ever pieced together, right?
******

Yes. What of it? If you are thinking that the Quran, having "borrowed" from the Bible is that much further away from the original revelation to Musa or Eisa, I am sorry, but it wont wash. Your copies date from further away from revelation (Eisa's revelation) where as our copies date from the same century as the revelation (Muhammad's revelation).
As for the canonisation of the Bible, there is clear record that it was canonised in 325 or thereabouts, setting aside many epistles and gospels as not suitable and establishing the shape of the Bible today. Furthermore, the Jews established their 'canon' for the Tenach 250 years earlier. Going by your standards (the earlier the canonisation the "closer" to Gods ultimate word, that should be your religious book, not the one canonised by the synod of Bishops in Nicea).

However, the space between the revelation and canonisation is immense, and half the New testament was written by people who never met Jesus.

Examples: Luke, Mark (at least as a grown man), Paul (Saul), Possibly St. John the Devine, just for starters.

What is more, the New Testament contains at least 2 revelations other than what Jesus taught.

1. Saul/Paul's Revelation referred to in Acts 26: 12-23, Galatians 1:11 and 1 Timothy 1:11. (See also Romans 2:16, 16:25, Timothy 2:8).
2. The Book of Revelations itself by (supposedly) St. John the DEVINE (yet another God to add to your 'trinity' sheaf) is claimed as a revelation in The Revelation Ch1: 9-19 in Patmos.

******
Great. Another blanket statement.
******

You're welcome. It is about all you'll get concerning your loaded question.

*****
Do we have the original Biblical autographs? No. Do we have the original Koranic autographs? No. We have to utilize what is in our possession.
*****

True. We can trace our Book back to the Sahaba and the Prophet in clear and authentic sayings, carefully collected and checked for reliability. What abou yours?

******
Rather than pursue the proper definition and usage of the word SHIRK with you; I will raise the white flag on this one. However, have you ever heard of spell check? I mean, I can’t even begin to count all of your mis-spelled words, un-capitalized words, double words, incorrect verbiage, etc, etc, that have come from your posts. Are you sure that your field is the English language? I understand that you were probably in a hurry during many of your posts, right?
******

Thank-you for your condescension. If this site has a spell checker, I don't know how to use it. I write 'live' and, as you said, quite rapidly. Getting the thing to post can be a pain, and I do notice all the slips of the finger - sometimes whole words I think I have written do not appear in the final text, usually after I have posted. Getting into the site and struggling with editing is too much of a long process when you keep falling off the line. So, yes. I do make a lot of errors.

You, however, seem to write carefully and clearly. But then, you are trying to sell the camel, not I.

******
This is classic Muslim rhetoric that you speak.
******

Of course it is. What do you expect?

*****
The Koran corrects nothing. The Koran borrows everything. Perhaps you can expound upon this in future discourse.
*****

This is pure Orientalist and Christian Rhetoric that you speak.

******
If indeed the “The Quran borrowed nothing from the Bible” , then you should have no problem countering a few themes in my Book of Rev post. Am I correct?
******

I haven't actually looked at any of the thread you are referring to. I am responding to what you have written on this thread. But I will look in, inshallah, and have a laugh.

*****
I count THREE things that you trust as correct from the Holy Bible. Continue…
*****

You miscounted. I added an extra, so that is 4. Notice how you avoid the differences in order to try and prove your point?


******
I am interested in your view of where Adam and Eve lived BEFORE being “placed on earth”.
*****

Ahh! I see why you miscounted, since the fourth point addresses this very question.

*****
Broad Themes? I have posted ~40 Themes in my Revelation Post that are specific and to the point, right down to, and including, the multi-colored horses mentioned In Revelation. You won’t get down to the details, just admit it.
******

Multi coloured horses??! I must be missing something. I really must go and see what kind of comparison you have cooked up?

********
Classic Muslim response. Muslims are constantly attempting to judge the old by the new. It is most unfortunate that Muslims are locked into this line of thinking.
********

Classically Christian rebuttal. It's unfortunate the Christians are locked into the myopic Shirk viewpoint which colors their 'rational' (irrational) argument.

*******
I agree totally with you that there are major disagreements between the Koranic Creation Account, and the Biblical Creation Account(s).
*******

Explore that thought a little more.

******
Also, there are many areas of the Koranic creation Account that were obviously borrowed from the Bible (6 “days” for example). I would like to get your interpretation of creation from both the Bible as well as the Koran, and I will do likewise.
*******

Remember revelation comes from a common source

******
Well, that is all well and dandy, but that you still have not rebutted a single theme from my Book of Rev post. I guess you never will…
******

Why rebut similarities? The more the merrier! If any need rebuttal because of SHIRK, then you will definitely see me post, inshallah, eventually. This forum is quite difficult to work after the more sophisticated ones I am used to.

We will both be before the very same God on Judgement day. And I know which one of us (if we remain locked into our present practice and belief) will be rejected.

May Allah guide you

Armiyya


Edited by - armiyya on 03/15/2003 17:41:33

[armiyya]

Peace, Apple Pie,

I was searching through the site I have been using for reference

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Bibindex.html

(concerning matters my knowledge is weak on) and found these questions which I thought were pretty interesting. What would be your answers to them? Please try and make your assertions believable and cite evidence if you have any.

The assertion of Judeo-Christian borrowing raises a number of questions. Jamal Badawi puts forward the following six questions:

1. Why is it in spite of the abundance of historical material on Muhammad(P)'s life, and in spite of the extensive research on his life for centuries by his severe critics, that it was not possible to discover the mysterious teacher(s) through whom Muhammad(P) might have learned all that?

3. It is known that Muhammad(P) was opposed, ridiculed and persecuted for nearly 13 years by his own contemporaries. With this magnitude of severe enemies, was it not possible for them to prove to the masses that Muhammad(P)'s claim of revelation was sheer fabrication? Was it not possible for them to reveal and name the person whom they alleged to be the human source or sources of his teachings? Even some of his adversaries who had made this assertion, changed their minds later on and accused him, instead, of magic or being possessed by evil... etc.

4. Muhammad(P) was raised among his people and every aspect of his life was exposed to them, especially by the openness that characterises tribal life in the desert. How could the multitudes of his contemporaries, including many of his close relatives who knew him so well, how could they believe in his truthfulness if they had any doubt that he was claiming credit for ideas taught to him by some other teachers without bothering to give them credit ?

5. What kind of teacher might have taught Muhammad(P) a coherent and complete religion that changed the face of history? Why didn't he or they (if any) speak against the alleged student who continued learning from them, while ignoring them and claiming some other divine source for his teachings?

6. How could many Jews and Christians amongst his contemporaries become Muslims and believe in his truthfulness if they knew he was copying from their scriptures or learning from their priests or rabbis?

7. It is known that some of the Qur'ânic revelations to Muhammad(P) in the presence of people. The Qur'ân was revealed over the span of 23 years, where then that was mysterious, perhaps invisible teacher of Muhammad(P)? How could he have hidden himself for so long? Or how could Muhammad(P) who was constantly surrounded by companions, how was he able to make frequent secret (or open) visits to that mysterious teacher or teachers for 23 years without even being caught (without it ever being reported) once?

(My additions in brackets)

May Allah Guide you

Armiyya

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Armiyya,

You said:

“Not really. You don't even work from the original language. Even the Old Testament scriptures the Church based their Canon on was the Greek Translation of the Hebrew and armaic Texts. With the advent of the Dead Sea scrolls, these language originals have at last been reconsidered. The Quran does, and it is word for word the same as the original 7 aruf. (Each aruf is separate and, as far as I know, never mixed in a single a musahaf).”

“Also, according to western scholars, the extanct complete Quran kept in Cairo dates from abot 140 hijjra.”

“The papyrus recently discovered in Sa'ana dates from even earlier than that, and may hold most of the Qu'ran (Western Scholars in Germany are eagerly going over it with a fine toothcombe to try and prove the Qur'an was 'developed' over time, like the Bible). The Quranic copy which was kept in Tashkent is imported to be one of the Originals which Uthman sent out, or a copy of it.”

“However, I am not competent to talk about this subject, so I'll give you a reference where you can read about it to your heart's content (not that you will, since your design is to try and prove the Quran is not of devine origin - or, that if it is, it is filtered devine origin, just like your own).”

Thanks for the admission that we DO NOT HAVE the original Koran in our possession. Even the scholars that you linked to, admit this. Again, to think that you hold in your hands the original Koran is a pipe dream, and you know it. If you could refute this simple request, you would have done so by now. Show me ANY credible reference that has the original; dated to the life and times of Muhammad.

You said:

“Yes. What of it? If you are thinking that the Quran, having "borrowed" from the Bible is that much further away from the original revelation to musa or Eisa, I am sorry, but it wont wash. Your copies date from further away from revelation (Eisa's revelation) where as our copies date from the same century as the revelation."

"As for the canonisation of the Bible, there is clear record that it was canonised in 325 or thereabouts, setting aside many epistles and Gospels as not suitable and establishing the shape of the Bible today. Furthermore, the Jews established their 'canon' for the Tenach 250 years earlier. Going by your standards (the earlier the canonisation the "closer" to Gods ultimate word, that should be your religious book, not the one canonised by the synod of Bishops in Nicea).”

My point is clear. The Bible was established BEFORE the Koran. Thanks for confirming this.

You said:
“You're welcome. It is about all you'll get concerning your loaded question.”

So simple, and yet so complex, isn’t it?


You said:

”True. We can trace our Book back to the Sahaba and the Prophet in clear and authentic sayings, carefully collected and checked for reliability. What abou yours?”

It is a cold hard fact of life that you cannot trace back the Koran to the original. As for the Holy Bible, you have already confirmed for me that it was in place centuries BEFORE the Koran was even dreamed of.

You said:

“Thank-you for your condescension. If this site has a spell checker, I don't know how to use it. I write 'live' and, as you said, quite rapidly. Getting the thing to post can be a pain, and I do notice all the slips of the finger - sometimes whole words I think I have written do not appear in the final text, usually after I have posted. Getting into the site and struggling with editing is too much of a long process when you keep falling off the line. So, yes. I do make a lot of errors.”

Thanks for the admission that you do indeed “make a lot of errors.” Besides, one good turn deserves another, right?


You said:

“You, however, seem to write carefully and clearly. But then, you are trying to sell the camel, not I.”

I would hope that your careless attitude has not carried over into your faith, but obviously it has.


You said:

“I haven't actually looked at any of the thread you are referring to. I am responding to what you have written on this thread. But I will look in, inshallah, and have a laugh.”

I am getting the biggest kick out of your total avoidance of the issue.


You said:

“Ahh! I see why you miscounted, since the fourth point addresses this very question.”

Can you say major Red Herring? Lol…



You said:

“Multi coloured horses??! I must be missing something. I really must go and see what kind of comparison you have cooked up?”

Don’t get my hopes up. I am really kind of getting used to your “beating around the bush” technique. Why do you want to go and mess that up now?

You said:

“Remember revelation comes from a common source.”

Exactly, and that “common source” is the Holy Bible. Thanks for the admission.


You said:

“We will both be before the very same God on Judgement day. And I know which one of us (if we remain locked into our present practice and belief) will be rejected.”

Apparently, you are under the false assumption that the god of the Koran is the same as the GOD of the Bible. Wrong. The god of the Koran came from the mind of one man who could not even come up with his own material.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for COMPLETELY ignoring my request to compare Koranic and Biblical Creation accounts. If I were you, I would avoid the issue as well; but, you were the first to bring it up.

I eagerly await your reply…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[Ronnie]

Salam,

Armiyya, this was directed to you:

"Thanks for the admission that you do indeed “make a lot of errors.” Besides, one good turn deserves another, right?"

This coming from a condescending and obstinate person who, by the way, questioned the 24 hour day:

"Who says three days have to be 72hrs?"

My God, all the spelling mistakes you ever make couldn't amount to this absurd question. Jesus tells us there are 24 hours a day (12 day + 12 night = 24). Let's see what Jesus has to say:

"Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light." (John 11:9-10 NIV)

Sorry to sidetrack the conversation but it should be pointed out that we are all humans, hence we all err. If spelling errors and the process of correcting them is a step towards the "right" direction then I can't imagine how far off the "right" direction a person is who is not aware of the 24 hour day.

Wassalam

[armiyya]

Actually, the source of Revelation is God.

If you don't believe that, then why are you here discussing religion.

I am not here to try and score points off you, nor put words into your mouth. You have ascribed words and notions to me that I do not subscribe to.

The position is as stated pretty concisely below (if you followed the links you would have read this already.

1. Does Similarities Imply Borrowing?

2. Let's start with an example. Prophet Noah(P) was given certain commandments. So was Prophet Moses(P) after him. If we were to see that the followers of Prophet Noah(P) accusing of the followers of Prophet Moses(P), how do we expect the followers of Prophet Moses(P) to respond? We might hear a response like this:

3. The Law has come from the same source (from the one and only God),

4. Of course we would expect similar teachings and not such as God is a twin or has a daughter from eternity etc.,

5. Any differences from absolute similarities would mean correction of the message that got corrupted,

6. Any other differences would mean additional Law with the newer revelation,

The new revelation from the same source comes with its own proof and evidences, otherwise anyone can attempt to invent 'revelation' (while not coming from that same source - God) and mislead many thereby. If there were no proofs or evidences then how can someone verify its truthfulness and authenticity, believe in it and accept it?
We will thus see that the emphasis shifts to verifying the inherent proofs or evidences of the fresh revelation when older (or traces of the older) revelation still exists. Therefore, similarity between two revelations can even imply that the later revelation is from God.

From another part of the site we see a section on "transmission of hadith", the transmission of which is far less important than that of the Quran - but the meticulous checking of hadith also speaks of the meticulous checking checking of the Quran.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/exisnad.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

Now, if you are done with scoffing, apply yourself to open hearted debate. If you differ, be honest in your differing and stop playing the "you agree with me then" game in things I do not agree with you about.

John 3:21
"But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

Honesty is close to Godliness. Lies and misrepresentation is close to the fire. And if you are an unbeliever,











I am not interested in speaking to a dedicated Athiest.



Armiyya


John 8:32
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free



Edited by - armiyya on 03/15/2003 20:14:46

[Apple Pie]

Greetings Armiyya,

Demonstrating Mohammed to be either obtuse or a genius is irrelevant to the point at hand.

This is a tactic that the Mormons also use to promote their “prophet” Joseph Smith. They claim Smith’s education level was not sufficient to have possibly composed the Book of Mormon. Smith’s life also closely paralleled Muhammad’s life in many areas such as “divine revelation” from an angel, “public” revelation, illiteracy, polygamy, love for young girls, claiming to have written a Book of Abraham, etc, etc.

All of these points, whether true or false, are irrelevant.

What matters is what is in the text of the two Holy Books. Who cares how it got there. Let the text speak for itself.

Question: Which book came first? Answer: the Book of Revelation.

Question: Is there identical material between the two texts. Answer: Yes.

How it got there is irrelevant. It is there. Period.


Once it is acknowledged that similar or identical material from both books exists; the question for the Muslim is this: Which part(s) of the holy Bible do you believe in?

It just does not get any simpler than this.

Whether or not you chose to believe in my posts is up to you. The fact still remains that the material is present in BOTH Holy books. This much is absolutely unimpeachable fact.


Thanks for you posts, I appreciate them…


If I tell you earthly things, and you do not believe; how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (John 3: 12).

[armiyya]

Apple Pie

[quote]
Greetings Armiyya,

All of these points, whether true or false, are irrelevant.
****************

I have no idea what you are talking about! How is this relevant to the discussion in hand?




*********
Question: Is there identical material between the two texts. Answer: Yes.

How it got there is irrelevant. It is there. Period.
*****************

OK! OK! I'll take a look at the comparison game you are playing!

***********
Which part(s) of the holy Bible do you believe in?
***********

You've had the answers to this question ad nauseum. Let me reflect it on you.

=> Which parts of the Qu'ran do you believe in?

I'm sure your answer will be the obverse of our answer to you ...



Armiyya



Edited by - armiyya on 03/15/2003 20:46:01

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,

i do enjoy a circular argument :)

question:

let's say that you and i have a debate and you win the debate, does that mean that you are actually right and i am actually wrong? let's say that i win the debate, does that mean that i'm actually right and you are actually wrong?

from my traditions point of view, if the only method that you have to defend your faith is reliance upon Scripture you simply reveal your lack of foundation.

porky has the right of it when he posted earlier saying that simply quoting bits of text from Holy Books at each other is not going to make any difference.

~regards~