Who is Ibrahims Lord?

[backspace]

I'm perplexed why you want to tackle the fact that your Bible disagrees with Jude's Bible on the fundamental issue of whether Hindus got to Hell - by referring to the Quran? I mean - where's the logic in that??

Uhm, maybe to show your conclusion is illogical.

Is being consistent with how you think really that perplexing?

Are you saying that the Bible is as unreliable as you imagine the Quran to be?

No, I'm asking if you believe the Koran to be as unreliable as you claim the Bible is.

I guarantee 99 out of 100 readers would understand this point.

As for the core beliefs of Muslims - I've stated them. If you choose to believe Muslims have other core beliefs or that Muslims don't believe these core beliefs - it is for you to show your proof to back up your beliefs about Islam.

So the issue of hell is not a core belief in the Koran but is in the Bible? Strange, how did you come to that conclusion?

[Shafique]

I've listed what the core beliefs of all Muslims are - as I said if you choose to believe otherwise, it is up to you to provide the proof.

But on the Bible being unreliable on the point of who goes to Hell- you don't seem to disagree. Interesting that.

Cheers,
Shafique

[shaad_lko]

So all Muslims agree, based on the Koran, Hindus go to hell or that Muhammad is the final prophet/messenger of Allah?

Do all Muslims believe hell is eternal? Do all Muslims believe "people of the book" go to hell?

If there are Muslims with different beliefs, doesn't this mean there are problems with the Koran being clear on key fundamental issues?

These are four fundamental theological issues I've listed I would like to know if there is complete consensus amongst Muslims.

Although this thread has turned pointless, I'll just add that the only fundamental issue here is about Muhammad (sws) being the Final Prophet - this is the reason Ahmadis/Qadiyanis are not counted as Muslims by any Muslim sect save themselves and/or non-Muslims.

[backspace]

Although this thread has turned pointless, I'll just add that the only fundamental issue here is about Muhammad (sws) being the Final Prophet - this is the reason Ahmadis/Qadiyanis are not counted as Muslims by any Muslim sect save themselves and/or non-Muslims.

My actions are explained in my response to you on the other thread.

The evolution of discussion was shafique was claiming "Hindus going to hell" is a fundamental issue in Christianity - and claiming differing interpretations means the Bible is unreliable on this issue.

I responded with the same argument but changed "Bible" for "Koran" and later added some more issues to show how shafique's argument was faulty - otherwise, all these "fundamental issues" would mean the Koran is really unreliable.

The point wasn't understood.

[jude3]

Shafique, I think the problem here is that you've decided what's a fundamental issue for the Christian/Bible...as well as deciding the fundamental issue for Muslims/Koran.

When we question that, you get defensive.

[Shafique]

Interesting interpretation.

I've just stated what the core beliefs of Muslims are - and these are based on the clear revelations of God in the Quran that all Muslims agree with.

There are other issues where Muslims have theological differences, but the core beliefs all are in the clear verses of God's revelation. God does say there are metaphorical verses open to interpretation, therefore some discussion is to be expected.

You asked about the core beliefs, I stated them. I'm fascinated how you seem to wish to see this as being defensive.

Cheers,
Shafique

[backspace]

I'm amazed by shafique's paradoxes in his posts.

He's arguing that Hindus going to hell is not a fundamental issue in Islam but can't figure out it isn't in Christianity, either.

He apparently also can't understand or accept the fact there are differing interpretations in Islam whether non-Muslims go to hell and thus, based on his argument for the Bible, the Koran would be unreliable on this issue.

I've come across posters incapable of rational thinking, but this is really overkill.

[jude3]

Interesting interpretation.

I've just stated what the core beliefs of Muslims are - and these are based on the clear revelations of God in the Quran that all Muslims agree with.

There are other issues where Muslims have theological differences, but the core beliefs all are in the clear verses of God's revelation. God does say there are metaphorical verses open to interpretation, therefore some discussion is to be expected.

You asked about the core beliefs, I stated them. I'm fascinated how you seem to wish to see this as being defensive.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm hardly defensive about your beliefs...you're entitled to them. I'm defending the silly claim by you that youre' making re theological issues and who decides what's core or not.

Because Christians debate matters in the bible, as do Muslims, this means we are both on the same playing field.

Because backspace has chosen not to answer a question of yours re salvation, you can hardly build some fantastic case to say the bible cannot be relied upon. I think that just shows the foolish lengths you are going to do debate.

What's really ironic, is that we're discussing a matter of salvation...where I hold we can know 100% assurance...but this can never be known by the Muslim!!

[ihsan]

The verses are odd,they dont fit the interpritations we are "meant" to believe.

There are two versions of this account in the OT, one based upon the Yahwist tradition, the other based upon the Elohist tradition. The version quoted in Chapter 18 of Genesis is from the Yahwist, while the ELohist tends to be more 'sensitive' often replacing the 'anthromorphic' tendencies of the Yahwist with a more transcendent version.

These types of passages are evidence of varying traditions within Israel, as most modern Biblical commentators, whether secular or religious contend..

At the same time, it should be kept in mind, there are stylistic issues in Semitic literature that may seem anthromorphic, but are just figurative and have rhetorical purposes, infusing meaning into certain facts the scriptures draw attention to. For example, the OT speaks about the prophesy of the Lord descending from Paran, after rising from Sinai and Seir. In the Quran, there are numerous pictures of God 'seizing' a people and tossing them, with other verses of the Quran explaining what was the actual method of destruction that a particular nation was struck by.

There are times, per the Muslim view, that the OT tradition had gotten corrupted with improper understanding, which led to scriptural corruption. For example, the picture the OT paints of God walking in the garden in the OT, not knowing where Adam is would be a clear example of this corruption. This couldn't be explained away by simply 'figurtaive usage. Muslims themselves have followed a similar route in their understandings as well, taking anthromoprhic tendencies, although the scripture has been preserved by God himself.