How The Qur'an Came To Be

[Dr T]

How The Qur'an Came To Be

by Robert A. Morey
© 1996 Research and Education Foundation

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/quran.asp


Modern scholars using sound principles of literary analysis have determined that the Qur'an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death.

This has come as quite a shock to Muslims. According to the legends, myths, and stories found in the Hadith, the Qur'an was written in heaven by Allah on a large stone tablet. The angel Gabriel brought it down and Muhammad recited it verbally but did not write any of it down. It was Muhammad's companions who wrote down what he recited. After his death, it was gathered together and compiled by the Calif Uthman.

The insurmountable problem that Muslims face is that they do not have any documentary evidence from the 7th and 8th century to back up any of their claims. For example, if Uthman compiled the Qur'an as the Hadith claims (Bukhari I:63; IV:709: VI:507, 510), where is the manuscript evidence for this? Why have no Qur'ans survived from that period? Why do we have to wait over a hundred years before we find even a scrap of the Qur'an?

The Muslims are also guilty of circular reasoning when they document the Qur'an by the Hadith and then document the Hadith by the Qur'an! But there is no documentary evidence to back up the Hadith or the Qur'an! They are both fraudulent as to authorship and dates.

Some Muslims have claimed that 7th century copies of the original Qur'an have been found in museums at Topkapi, Turkey and Tashkent, Russia. But when they were examined by manuscript scholars, they turned out to be 9th or 10th century manuscripts.

The Qur'an was invented in order to give spiritual unity to the vast empire created by Arab conquests. By borrowing liberally from the legends, myths and religious traditions of pagans, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Persians, they created one religion to rule over all its citizens. Thus the Qur'an was the product of multiple authors from different times and places. These authors contributed stories and legends from their own cultural and religious background. The sources of these stories have been well documented by many scholars.

The burden of proof is now clearly on the Muslims. They must supply scholars with the documentary evidence to support their theories on the origins of the Qur'an and the Hadith. Until they do so, we cannot believe in the inspiration of either one.

How different is the situation with the New Testament. The manuscript evidence for it begins twenty years after the death of Christ. There are literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic texts which document the reliability of the New Testament.

The same holds true for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. We have more than enough literary documentation for the life of Jesus from first century Jewish, pagan, and Christian manuscripts. This is in sharp contrast to the life of Muhammad. We find no references to him as a prophet until 150 years after his death. No one has ever found even the smallest fragment of the Qur'an from the 7th century. Thus much of what is said about the life of Muhammad must now be dismissed as fiction.

The truth will triumph in the end. The Qur'an and the Hadith were political tools used to subjugate non-Arab cultures by forcing them to accept a religion with elevated Arabian language, political laws, moral standards, dress codes, penal punishments and other cultural elements to the status of divine law. This is why, to become a Muslim, you must take an Arab name, dress like an Arab, speak Arabic, eat only what Arabs eat, treat your wife as Arabs treat their wives, etc.

The religion of Islam was thus born out of Arab cultural imperialism and is rooted in a racist attitude that all things Arab are good while all things non-Arab are evil. Until this is understood, the true nature of Islam cannot be grasped.

This is why Western dress, food, movies, hairstyles, etc., are zealously denounced by the Mullahs and Imams as Satanic. Such things as blue jeans are not really condemned because they are immoral but because they are not Arab.

The truthfulness of this observation is easily demonstrated by Islam's demand that one bow in prayer in the direction of Arabia (Mecca) and make a pilgrimage to Arabia (Mecca). The religion of Islam is Arabian paganism and culture raised to divine law and imposed upon conquered nations.

Nations such as Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. who had the misfortune of having Islam forced upon them by the sword, need to break free from Arab imperialism in order to regain their own identity and culture. Until they throw off the shackles of Islam, they cannot become free societies where human rights are honored.

How can this be done? The oppressed masses must return to their Christian heritage which was stolen from them by wave after wave of Arab armies. Why would anyone entering the 21st century want to continue to believe in a foreign religion that was forced upon his ancestors many centuries ago by violence, slavery, oppression and unjust taxes? It is time to break free from the darkness and ignorance of Islam and enter into the freedom and light of Christianity.

[Solly]

chick.com = veracity of research?

[Dr T]

Uncomfortable Questions for the Qur'an
Apologetic Paper by Jay Smith - 14th May 1995


http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/uncomfrt.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents
Muslim Claims for the Qur'an

Disturbing Questions

Do we have the Uthmanic Recension?
What do archeology and the external documents tell us?

Qibla
Jews
Mecca
Dome on the Rock
Muhammad
Muslim
Prayer
Hajj

Conclusion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A: Muslim Claims for the Qur'an:


Uthmanic recension unchanged for 1,400 years

Collated in 650. (Muhammad died in 632)
Canonized in 651 by Zaid ibn Thabit
4 copies sent to Medina, Mecca, Kufa and Damascus.



The perfect word of God

No errors
No contradictions
Superior to all other books ("mother of all books" S.43:3)

Literary qualities
Perfect Arabic
Universal application.
Cannot be reproduced. "Produce another Sura like it" (S.2:23).

Direct revelation - no human mediation

Replication of the eternal tablets in paradise. (Sura 85).



The seal of all revelations

The final revelation
Supercedes previous revelations.



Blueprint for every aspect of life

Social agenda
Morality
Political programme
Economics
Education.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B: Disturbing Questions
Whose criteria will I use? Which Court of Appeal?

The experts (Orientalists).

Question of bias
Is there an agenda? YES! We all have an agenda.

What is Orientalism? Who are the Orientalists?

History, Anthropology, Sociology, Philology, Phonology,Etymology.
Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, G. Hawting, A.Jeffery

Orientalists formulated their methodology using the Bible. Christians didn't run away, but defended the Bible using the scholarly criteria. Thus the Bible was strengthened for the Christians because it held up to the most severe criticism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B1: Do We Have Uthmanic Recension?
Where are the copies?
Consider:
Most important book. Foundation of Islam.
THUS, must have been written on durable material.
Durable material existed. Codices... 4th century (Syniaticus, Alexandrinus).

Ubayy Ka'b, Ibn Masud, Abu Musa, and Hafsa codices.
Uthmanic recension. Not a scroll but a codex.
Muslims claim there are two.
(Topkapi and Sammarkand MSS)

How do we date scripts? Ink; medium (Papyrus-4th cent-paper.); script.


Ma'il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.
Mashq 7th century onwards.
Kufic 8th-11th century.
Naskh 11th century till today.
Modern scriptology since the 1950's has discovered the earlier scripts.
Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings all date the Topkapi and Sammarkand to the 9th century. Practical observations: Quraish=Mecca, Kufa=636 A.D.=Persia.

Earliest copy of the Qur'an is the Ma'il in British Library
Date by Lings=790.

Conclusion
We do not have the Uthmanic recension. We have the Qur'an that has existed for only the last 1,200 years.

150 year gap!!! Where are the documents? There are no earlier Qur'ans! WHY!!! Could there have been a change, an evolution up until the Umayyad period? It is likely that the Qur'an was not canonized in the 7th century, but in the 9th century. HOW DO WE KNOW? We use archeology and External sources.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B2: What Do Archaeology and the External Documents Tell Us?
Consider:

B2i. Qibla
Qibla was canonized (finalized) in the Qur'an in 624 towards Mecca (S.2:144, 149-150) Yet, Mosques uncovered between 650-705 do not have Qiblas facing Mecca.

Wasit in Iraq. Qibla points North instead of s.w.
Baladhuri stated that the Qibla in the first Kufan mosque (Iraq) faced West.
Fustat in Egypt. The Qibla points North-East towards Jerusalem instead of s.e.
Jacob of Odessa (Christian bishop) in 705 said Egyptian Muslims (Haggarenes) prayed towards Jerusalem, like Christians.
(Cook) Earliest evidence for direction of prayer (thus their sanctuary) points much further north than Mecca. In fact no mosques have been found from this period which face towards Mecca. Some Jordanian mosques also face north, while there are certain North African mosques (from much later) which face south.
"They didn't know the direction." Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers!
What is happening here? Why are the prayers not towards Mecca?

Possible reasons:

There was still a good relationship with Jews, so no need to change the Qibla
Mecca was not yet well-known.
Consider:


B2ii: Jews
The Qur'an says Muhammad split with Jews in 624, & thus moved the Qibla (S.2:144).
Yet, Greek sources speak of "the Jews who mixed with the Saracens, and of danger of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens."
An Armenian Chronicler in 660 says Jews & Ishmaelites were together upto 640, with common Abrahamic platform. They had set out to conquer Palestine.
The break came immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 640. Thus, documental evidence conflicts with the Qur'an over when Muh. split with Jews.

B2iii: Mecca
Was not yet significant at that time

Muslims say: "Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the center of history"

"The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples" (S.3:96)
Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka'bah there.
Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka'bah there.
Thus this is the 1st and most important city in the world!

Muslims say: "Mecca was the center of the trading routes."

Yet, Mecca was not on the trading route. It's in a valley, no water, not like Taif, 100 miles away (cheaper to ship 1,250 miles than go by camel 50 miles).
Yet, except for a city called "Makoraba" by geographer Ptolomy= 2nd century, no mention of Mecca, or Ka'bah in any document, until late 7th century (Cook-74). Why?
So, what is going on here? If Mecca was not the center of the Muslim world, then what was? The answer is simple. It seems that Jerusalem and not Mecca was the center and sanctuary of the Haggarenes, or Maghrebites upto 700 A.D. Take for instance another fact:


B2iv: Dome on the Rock
Built by Abd al-Malik (governor of Jerusalem) in 691. It is not a mosque, but a sanctuary! Considered the 3rd most holy place, to commemorate the Mi'raj.
Yet nothing is inscribed about the Mi'raj, but polemic verses about Jesus.
Why? Because this was the center of Islam then and not Mecca.
In fact, the inscriptions are supposedly Qur'anic, both at the dome and on coins from this period, yet they don't coincide with the present Qur'an (Cook:74).
Thus, if this is from the Qur'an, how could it have been canonized at this time?
Other Problems which point to a changing revelation:


B2v: Muhammad
Muhammad, a merchant and a conqueror up till the late 7th century, but no mention as prophet until into the 8th century, and then only in Muslim literature (Maghazi?).

B2vi: 'Muslim'
'Muslim' was the name first used in late 7th century.

Athanasius (684) in Syriac used Maghrayes.
Jacob of Odessa (705) mentions them as Haggarenes. (Ishmaelites, Saracen, Muhajirun)

B2vii: Prayer
Umar II (717-720), the pious caliph, didn't know about details of the prayer.
Qur'an in Suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 20:130; 30:17-18 speaks only of 3 prayers. Where do we get 5 prayers? From the Hadith, compiled 200-250 years later (Zoroastrians).


B2viii: Hajj
Suleyman (715-717) went to Mecca to ask about Hajj. Chose to follow Malik.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C: Conclusion
So what can we say about the Uthmanic Recension? Where is it? Why do we not have any copies? Modern scriptology proves that the Topkapi and Sammarkand are 200 years later.
Archaeology shows us that much of what the Qur'an maintains does not coincide with the data which we posess:

The Qibla was not fixed until the next century
the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640
Mecca was unknown until the end of the 7th century
the earliest Qur'anic writings do not coincide with the Qur'an which we have today
the number of prayers as well as the Hajj was not formalized until after 717
Muhammad was not known as a prophet, nor was the word "Muslim" used until the end of the 7th century.
These are what archaeology and external sources say!

They all contradict the Qur'an which we have today, and add to the suspicion that the Qur'an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was collated and canonized in 650 A.D. by Uthman (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur'anic text. Consequently, the only thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D.) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written 160 years after Muhammad's death, & 1,200 yrs. ago

[Dr T]

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm

Gives a more detailed, sourced paper using the notes in the previous post.

[Hodja]

Please give some documentation for the quote below, taken from your post.
Hodja

Modern scholars using sound principles of literary analysis have determined that the Qur'an did not come from Muhammad. He did not recite it and actually never saw a copy of it. It was not put together in its present written form until nearly one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad's death.

[Jin-Roh]

Like Solly, I'm pretty distrustful of the source.

[menj]

If all you people can do is to quote those same, old tired NONSENSE from the likes of Morey and Smith (with regard to the "origin" of the Qur'an) and actually BELIEVE their propaganda, then all I can say is that I feel sorry for you people.

- MENJ



http://www.bismikaallahuma.org

[Andy Bannister]

If all you people can do is to quote those same, old tired NONSENSE from the likes of Morey and Smith (with regard to the "origin" of the Qur'an) and actually BELIEVE their propaganda, then all I can say is that I feel sorry for you people.
Hmm, do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here? "Menj" whinges that Morey and Smith engage in "propaganda" and then posts a link to a Muslim website that appears to be full of, er, propaganda. Perhaps if he decides to give up being an apologist a career in politics might beckon. Let me now raise a few other salient points:

(a) Coupling Morey and Smith in the same clause is a clever piece of rhetoric since they are not really in the same league. Morey is a popular level writer who has a tendency to over-egg his case. Smith is studying for his doctorate in Islamics and operates in the academic arena.

(b) Smith draws heavily on revisionist scholars like Wansbrough and Crone. But this is not a criticism; after all, Muslim writers like Menj draw heavily on Islamic writers to back up their points. The issue is the veracity of the arguments, not who makes them. Too many Muslim apologists are guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

(c) The arguments of Wansbrough and Crone et al have yet to be successfully answered; too often their conclusions are attacked but not their methodology. And in Islamic studies it is all about methodology.

(d) Menj is being a little disingenuous when he talks about and aims to defend "the Qur'an". As anyone who has studied Islam knows full well, "Islam" consists of the Qur'an + tafsir (exegetical literature) + hadith (traditions) + fiqh (legal material). Much of the Qur'an makes no sense at all unless we read it through the lens of the later exegetical literature. Thus one cannot defend the Qur'an in isolation; a Muslim apologist needs to defend the Qur'an + a large, divergent and variegated set of traditions covering 250 years.

(e) Study of the Qur'an has indeed moved on from the likes of Wansbrough and Crone (although has partly built on their work). For example, we now have much better critical tools in areas like orality and folkloristics which can be applied to the Qur'an. Since the Qur'an and the Islamic literature of the first 200 years of the Islamic era show all the signs of having been composed orally, this is a rich area of study. (By "composed orally" I do not simply mean "transmitted orally", rather I mean composed in performance by an oral poet or storyteller (cf. Lord, Singer of Tales).

(f) As well as oral literature studies and folkloristics, I could also mention the literary discipline of intertextuality, which seeks to examine the links between one text and another. Since the Qur'an assumes its readers to be familiar with a wide sweep of biblicist material as well as pre-Islamic pagan myth, the question of the nature of that relationship can be addressed. Earlier studies did indeed tend to be postivistic, assuming a relationship in terms of direct copying. More modern studies show the relationship to be organic: because the Qur'an arose in an oral climate, not a literary one.

My own conclusions from my work in this area (and I have just commenced a doctorate in it) is that:

- Pre-Islamic Arabia was religiously pluralistic and an oral milieu. In such a cultural climate, people swap stories. As stories are swapped and traded, they change, develop and mutate.

- Storytellers thus had access to a deep pool of "shared material" which they could fish from, reshaping as they see fit.

- This explains the Qur'an's referential nature.

- This also explains the shape of the exegetical tradition and the heavy use of biblicist material (isra'illiyat).

In conclusion, Menj is naive and simplistic and his quote above demonstrates a complete lack of critical awareness of the current state of Qur'anic studies. If he wishes to get up to speed, I could recommend reading works by Firestone, Calder and Berg as well as constant perusal of the latest editions of the key journals. Any good academic library should be able to help him there. Only then will he really be fit to assess other people's critical and scholarly efforts.

Warm regards,

Andy

PS: Since Menj posted his URL, I ought to point out that his work is thoroughly rebutted at:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/index.htm

[menj]

Hmm, do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here? "Menj"
There is no need to put the word MENJ in double quotations, as those are my initials. As for where "hypocrisy" is concerned, "Answering (-Attacking) Islam" is full of it. One such example of their hypocrisy will be revealed in an update of bismikaallahuma.org soon.


whinges that Morey and Smith engage in "propaganda" and then posts a link to a Muslim website that appears to be full of, er, propaganda.
We couldn't care less as to what you think of bismikaallahuma.org or that you believe it to be "propaganda". As one can obviously see from ANY of the articles put up, we rely on scholarship material, and not the whims and fancies of closet-minded Christian fascists in the mid-West USA who does not have a clue as to what they are arguing about.


Perhaps if he decides to give up being an apologist a career in politics might beckon.

Off the record, I *have* considered a career in politics, so it shouldn't be surprising why I am also an "apologist", LOL! :lol:

As for where Bannister's "salient points" are concerned, it is clear that the so-called "revisionist material" are simply pure polemic, and not based on any sane or rational analysis of historical Islam. Wansbrough's material and the reliance of it by the Christian missionaries have already been dealt with at Islamic Awareness. I would hardly call their website as "propaganda", despite what Christian missionaries the likes of Bannister wants us to believe :pray:



In conclusion, Menj is naive and simplistic and his quote above demonstrates a complete lack of critical awareness of the current state of Qur'anic studies.
So he actually "surmises" all this from one, single post. How judgemental one can be when he is diseased by hatred, paranoia and xenophobia!

As a testament to my "awareness" of the current state of Qur'anic studies, one need not look any further than to visit here (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Q_Studies). Therefore, as it turns out, I need not listen to the advice of the ignorant as to whether I have in my possession a "library card"...or otherwise.


PS: Since Menj posted his URL, I ought to point out that his work is thoroughly rebutted at:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/index.htm
All the more evidence that Answering Islam considers my "labour of love" for the past six years as a THREAT to their stability and eventual colonisation of the Muslim mind. This certainly bears testament to the fact that the website bismikaallahuma.org can hardly be called an object of "propaganda".

As for where "thoroughly rebutted" is concerned :blush: work is underway to refute the prattle of Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz. They shall be forthcoming, and we shall soon see who are the ones that are "thoroughly rebutted".

(We have works rebutting theirs but "Answering (Attacking-) Islam" simply chooses to IGNORE them. Just goes to show the mental instability of missionary paranoia.)

- MENJ
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org

[apologetics]

All of this brings up a great point. The Qu'ran lacks the manuscript evidence that Christanity enjoys. I would be interested in seeing a thoughtful rebuttal to this claim by a Muslim. If interested in tackling this, please provide the evidence and what the NON-muslim scholars say about the evidence. Surely paleographers and archaeologists of all faiths should have been able to provide you some support for the document you claim was given to Mohammad from Gabriel and how this manuscript has been faithfully transmitted to us today.

[apologetics]

Like Solly, I'm pretty distrustful of the source.

Although I have not had time to read through it all yet, the debate.org paper cited by Dr. T appears to be fully documented. The conclusions being drawn in this paper have been cited by almost every single person I have ever read or heard speaking on this subject. I know nothing about chick.com, but they don't appear to be drawing unwarranted, original conclusions.

[djconklin]

... closet-minded Christian fascists in the mid-West USA who does not have a clue as to what they are arguing about.

I'm a Christian from the mid-west USA and I'm NOT a "closet-minded" fascist! Do I make myself clear?!? You owe all of us an apology.

[CatholicSage]

My my my, I do believe we have found an Islamic JPHolding. Anyone else wanna see that debate? :tongue:

[heisonly1]

All of this brings up a great point. The Qu'ran lacks the manuscript evidence that Christanity enjoys. I would be interested in seeing a thoughtful rebuttal to this claim by a Muslim. If interested in tackling this, please provide the evidence and what the NON-muslim scholars say about the evidence. Surely paleographers and archaeologists of all faiths should have been able to provide you some support for the document you claim was given to Mohammad from Gabriel and how this manuscript has been faithfully transmitted to us today.

Without going into too much detail, with respect to the perfect preservation of the Quran , the primary evidence that supports this argument is manifested by it perfect memorization by prophet Muhummad and his companions and the multitude of generations that orally preserved the Quran until today. The Qur’an (lit. a “reading” or “recitation”) is distinct from the recorded sayings and deeds (Sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad (p), which are instead preserved in a separate set of literature collectively called the “Ahadith” (lit. “news”; “report”; or “narration”).There is a difference between how the Quran was conveyed and utilised by Muhammed(pbuh) and his companions in comparison to the Gospel.The Quran was recited for obligatory dailey prayers and many other occasions daily that made Quran easy to memorize as encouraged by the Prophet (pbuh).Where as the sayings and deeds of jesus would partially resemble the Hadiths that are not necessary structured for oral memorization atleast in the same manner as the Quran. This distinction is significant as it relates to how the Quran was preserved relative to the hadith of the Prophet. Indeed, memorization of the Qur’an emerged into a continuous tradition across the centuries, with centers/schools for memorization being established across the Muslim world. The Qur’an is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorized completely by millions of people Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that

“this phenomenon of Qur'anic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifz (Qur'anic memorization) has made the Qur'an a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone”

These people are known as Hafizun, which means that they are the protectors of the Qur'an. Hafizun are called protectors because if the Qur'an was ever lost, the Hafizun can easily restore it. The number of Hafizun today number in the tens of thousands, possibily millions. I personally know literally dozens of children aged between 9 to 16 that have memorized the Quran by heart. Memorization ensured to protect the Quran by preventing a genuine possibility that the written scripture may loose its purity through unintentional and intentional interpolations due to scribal errors, corruption by the enemies, and these errors would be concurrently incorporated into subsequent texts, ultimately loosing its purity through ages as the Bible has clearly experienced. Some examples of intentional corruption is explained by Professor Bart Ehrman. The preservation of the Quran is not dependent on written texts or manuscripts like the bible is. This is important to understand The Quran was largely dependent on oral transmission since It was a 'oral' society where “writing was scarcely used and memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown”. The Quran was a ‘living oral tradition’ that was and currently still is recited from their memory in all of their five daily prayers. Once a year, during the month of Fasting (Ramadan), Muslims listen to the complete recitation of the Quran by a Hafiz (memorizer of the entire Quran) during this month It's a tradition among Muslims that before any speech or presentation, marriages, sermons, Quran is recited.

I quote a passage from the second chapter of Ahmad von Denffer's book, Ulum al Qur'an shows that the Prophet (pbuh) encourages memorisation.

"There are numerous ahadith, giving account of various efforts made and measures taken by the Prophet to ensure that the revelation was preserved in the memory of his Companions. The following is perhaps the most clear:

'Narrated 'Uthman bin 'Affan: The Prophet said: "The most superior among you (Muslims) are those who learn the Qur'an and teach it".' Bukhari, VI, No. 546.

Unlike the Bible, if all the quotes from Church fathers and manuscripts were destroyed, the Bible would become lost forever. There is not a single Christian or Jewish Hafiz of the Bible that has memorized its scriptures. This fact is one important superiority that the Quran has over the Bible as a means of its reliable preservation until today. The hypothetical theories conjectured by most Christian scholars who try to construct the so called Q sources or the “living tradition’ that were supposedly used as a source for the Christian Gospels are wondering in a maze of error and cannot be compared to the meticulous rules and criteria governing the study of Islamic sources in ensuring their authenticity. I will elaborate on these point in the very near future, God willing.

The clearest evidence that the Quran has remained unchanged as revealed at the time of the prophet is by the mutawatir transmission of the Qur'an. mutawatir is a narration, which is reported by such a large number of people at different locations throughout the world which they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie.There are many authentic narrations that support the fact many Hafizun were also present at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself was a person who had memorized the whole Qur'an, word by word and used to encourage his Companions to memorize as well. The companions were also instructed by the Prophet to preserve the Quran in writing as narrated to us via authentic Hadiths of the Prophet. The ease of memorization was facilitated by the revelations revealed gradually in bits and pieces over 23 years. This allowed his companions to memorize and practically implement the Quranic instruction in their daily life.

Non Muslims have commented on the reliability of Hadith> For example:

Bernard Lewis writes: "But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth." [Bernard Lewis, Islam in History, p.105. Open Court Publishing:1993]

Professor D. S. Margoliouth says: " . . . its value in making for accuracy cannot be questioned, and the Muslims are justified in taking pride in their science of tradition." [Lectures on Arabic Historians, p.20. Calcutta University:1920]


With respect to your erroneous argument that Hadiths are unreliable and forgeries, I urge you to read “Studies in HADITH Methodology and Literature” by M.M.Azami. He has also written another book that refutes orientalist, Schacht, who claims that hadiths are forgeries.These books will remove your misconception about the unreliability of hadith.

Some orientalist critics along with yourself, however, claim that the narrations in Hadith collections cannot be trusted due to their being recorded by “Muslim sources”. You ignore the fact that news and social history have always been uncovered through eye-witness reports, and that early Muslim scholars have developed some of the most rigorous criteria to scrutinize such reports for authenticity. The majority of what we know of the life of the Prophet (p) and his Companions are from mutawaatir reports (reported by many different reliable narrators, who all independently verify the same account). This continuing and dynamic science (now over thirteen centuries old) has produced highly accurate (albeit not perfect) reports of Muslim history. Through this science, thousands of scholars have repeatedly analyzed the Ahadith collections in order to identify and filter out any fabrications. The accusation that most Muslim scholarship has been based on forgery would necessarily implicate that all the geographically scattered scholars of the first four centuries of Hadith collection, who belonged to varied and competing schools of thought, collaborated together in a mutual conspiracy – an idea which neither appeals to reason nor the fact that such scholars were renowned for their piety and integrity of character.

In an excellent attempt at objective analysis of Western criticism of Hadith traditions, Jeffrey Lang concludes that Muslim scholars’ deductions of history hold ground more solidly with the available evidence than their orientalist counterparts’. Orientalist theories are further addressed and refuted in the works of;

Muhammad Mohar Ali, Sirat al-Nabi and the Orientalists, Vol.1A & B, Madina Munawwara: King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an, 1997 (A very comprehensive analysis of the major theories - well worth the read)

Muhammad M. Azami, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, Beirut, 1968
Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, Vol.1: Historic Texts, Chicago, 1957, & Vol.2: Qur'anic Commentary and Tradition, Chicago, 1967

Muhammad Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, 1961

Suhaib H. Abdul Ghafar, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims, IFTA, 1984

Despite such defective theories, many orientalists themselves have admitted like H.A.R. Gibb that “It seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced and that the original form of Mohammed’s discourses were preserved with scrupulous precision”



The basis of evaluation of any hadîth (story or report) in Islam of any text concerned particularly with religion is based on the study of matn (i.e., text) and its isnad (i.e., chain of narration).Memorization of the Quran supplemented and existed parallel to the written text to act as a check and balance for it.The Quran is primarily preserved via mutawatir isnad (i.e., many chain of narrations) and secondary means via matn (i.e., text) .Unlike the Quran, The Christian 'hadîth' is composed of matn (text) but no reliable isnad (chain of narration). Without isnad, as cAbdullah b. al-Mubarak once said, anyone can claim anything saying that it is coming from the authority. The authorities in the case of Christian 'hadîth' are the later day Church Fathers like Papias. But how can one be sure that the Christian 'hadîth' is not mixed with falsehood without the proper isnad and its verification?

Pro Mahlon Smith stated regarding Papias:

“Papias was by his own admission an avid collector of oral opinions who did not put much value on book learning”

“Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels”.

What methods did Papias use to evaluate the reliability and authenticity of
The reports he received??

You stated “The Qu'ran lacks the manuscript evidence that Christanity enjoys"

The manuscripts that support the preservation of the Quran dated between 1st/2nd centry AH are found in the link below. Enjoy

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

[Shaverreturns]

Heisonly1,
Thank you for your post. I am new to this board and have found your post interesting. The website that you referred us all to regarding Quranic manuscripts sorts them into early and late manuscript without giving reasons for their dating in that particular century.

I looked at all the manuscripts that have been dated from the 1st and 2nd century Hijra. They all looked totally different. Not just the script, but the paper as well. Have these been carbon dated? I think they would be far more authoratative if they have been carbon dated. The old argument that the dating technique would destroy the manuscript is no longer applicable because the new techniques require very little. Especially when we look at some manuscripts, such as "Surah al-Isra' (17) Verses number : From 20 to 22 and part of 23 (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem12a.html). where there is plenty of manuscript available without obscuring the script and the old "respect for the text" argument is void considering that they have written large numbers over them.

I think that the Quranic manuscripts will not be taken seriously until they have undergone some carbon dating so that the whole script debate can be settled. In order for the arguments from the orientalists to be silenced, the Islamic community must take it seriously enough to date the manuscripts. Otherwise, it just looks like they have something to hide, i.e. they don't really believe that the manuscripts are that old.



Your argument that nobody memorises the bible is actually wrong. We do memorise the bible but portions at a time. We also have no need to memorise it because the manuscript evidence is so strong that we can rely on the written word. But there are so many stories of Christian who have been imprisoned without their bibles who have still sang or read parts of the bible to keep them going. I even heard of someone who used morse code on a pipe to communicate whole passages of the bible to a nearby prisoner because speaking was forbidden!

So, your argument just doesn't hold water. People only rely on oral transmission arguments if they know that their manuscript evidence is poor. The manuscript evidence can not be refuted but the oral transmission is easily refuted because we all know the game "Chinese Whispers". There is always sufficient doubt to reject such claims.

In summary, the Quranic evidence will not be taken seriously until the Carbon dating or other reliable data is shown for the dating of these manuscripts. Until then, we can honestly say that the Bible has a wealth of manuscript evidence whereas the Quran is seriously lacking.

Yours,
Shaver

[Deutchmann5]

I have read all the posts on this page and subject and, so far, not a shread of HARD evidence has been presented on either side of the ongoing debate. I'm not able to offer any myself, but that is why I have been reading these posts. I am trying to find hard evidence to support claims on either side because I myself am lost. I am well educated as well, but am torn between the two faiths. Though I pray diligently, I have not found an answer from God. Being a student of Philosophy at the university I take pride in the critcal, annalytical, and logical thought process I have been studying. So, information "too good to be true" or so called reliable sources just don't cut it with me. Someone please present any hard evidence supporting either side to help in my personal quest.

Sincerely,
Daniel

[Christianotaku]

We couldn't care less as to what you think of bismikaallahuma.org or that you believe it to be "propaganda". As one can obviously see from ANY of the articles put up, we rely on scholarship material, and not the whims and fancies of closet-minded Christian fascists in the mid-West USA who does not have a clue as to what they are arguing about.

Hahaha that is some of the most funniest lies ive ever heard. You obviously havent spent much time about muslims then to know that they are on of the most cloest minded religions around. They force people to be muslims and they kill those who dont agree with them. the whole religion is savage and crazy. you really think there is a country in the middle east that is prodemantly muslim that allows people to choose there faith? your ignorance astounds me ...

[Dan Zebiri]

FULLY agreed, Christianoku!

You are absolutely spot-on RIGHT in your posted comments on the closeted minds of Muslims - especially in the Muslim majority areas of the world. :smile: Even in so-called "pluralistic" :huh: Malaysia, Muslims are not encouraged to ask questions that may seem to reflect dubiously on Islam. In the rural areas, Students have been variously punished, sent out of class and threatened severely by the Ustaz or ustazahs (muslim religious teachers) :pray: ,who want to keep the 'purity' of the faith.

Indeed, bismika...-Menj's site is a propoganda and dawaganda site in the extreme, the so-called 'scholar's' he quotes are all circular-reasoning self-serving statements, and many times merely argue in an off-tangent, irrelevant fashion, actually!

If imitation is the best form of flattery, then, menj has indeed flattered his nemesis site - www.answering-islam.org/ (http://www.answering-islam.org/) extensively by imitating a lot of the features and style and even pattern of Jochen's excellent mega-site. :cool:

Regads, Dan.

[heisonly1]

Heisonly1,
Thank you for your post. I am new to this board and have found your post interesting. The website that you referred us all to regarding Quranic manuscripts sorts them into early and late manuscript without giving reasons for their dating in that particular century.

I looked at all the manuscripts that have been dated from the 1st and 2nd century Hijra. They all looked totally different. Not just the script, but the paper as well. Have these been carbon dated? I think they would be far more authoratative if they have been carbon dated. The old argument that the dating technique would destroy the manuscript is no longer applicable because the new techniques require very little. Especially when we look at some manuscripts, such as "Surah al-Isra' (17) Verses number : From 20 to 22 and part of 23 (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/yem12a.html). where there is plenty of manuscript available without obscuring the script and the old "respect for the text" argument is void considering that they have written large numbers over them.

I think that the Quranic manuscripts will not be taken seriously until they have undergone some carbon dating so that the whole script debate can be settled. In order for the arguments from the orientalists to be silenced, the Islamic community must take it seriously enough to date the manuscripts. Otherwise, it just looks like they have something to hide, i.e. they don't really believe that the manuscripts are that old.



Your argument that nobody memorises the bible is actually wrong. We do memorise the bible but portions at a time. We also have no need to memorise it because the manuscript evidence is so strong that we can rely on the written word. But there are so many stories of Christian who have been imprisoned without their bibles who have still sang or read parts of the bible to keep them going. I even heard of someone who used morse code on a pipe to communicate whole passages of the bible to a nearby prisoner because speaking was forbidden!

So, your argument just doesn't hold water. People only rely on oral transmission arguments if they know that their manuscript evidence is poor. The manuscript evidence can not be refuted but the oral transmission is easily refuted because we all know the game "Chinese Whispers". There is always sufficient doubt to reject such claims.

In summary, the Quranic evidence will not be taken seriously until the Carbon dating or other reliable data is shown for the dating of these manuscripts. Until then, we can honestly say that the Bible has a wealth of manuscript evidence whereas the Quran is seriously lacking.

Yours,
Shaver


Firstly, thank-you shaver for your comments.
I will also like to apologize about the length and occasional repetition of arguments and quotes taken from my previous post. This was not intentional. However, hopefully some of my previous arguments will make a little more sense this time. Hehehehe. I would like to bring Deutchmann5 attention to the following discussion seeing that he is divided between the two faiths regarding the status of the Quran. May the Most Merciful guide your heart to the truth and to accept it

“The website that you referred us all to regarding Quranic manuscripts sorts them into early and late manuscript without giving reasons for their dating in that particular century”.

Dating of Quranic manuscripts usually involves applying the principals of Paleography.

Along with carbon dating, Paleography is also a useful methodology in
dating historical manuscripts. Paleography involves using a sophisticated
analysis of the handwriting of fragments by;

Paleography is the study of ancient writing. It technically involves the analysis of the handwriting (script) of the ancient manuscripts by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope as a means to read ancient texts with accuracy. The paleographer studies such things as the angles of strokes, density of ink and its composition, and the general style as compared with other handwriting. Such study enables the scholar to detect different handwriting, which in some cases may mean a different person has taken over the task of copying or in other cases it represents the work of a corrector of the text. By comparing handwriting styles and other features of a manuscript, the paleographer with significant confidence is able to date a manuscript. Other aspects of paleography include the material, which was used for writing, the format of those texts, and also the work of those who copied texts preserving the knowledge of antiquity for the sake of posterity.

Paleography also aims to date and localize their handwriting
within a given social/cultural/religious context. The ultimate justification
of paleographical research lies in its power to contribute to the history
of thought, and especially of the long historical process by which all
fragments and manuscripts have been transmitted to the present.

With respect to the evidence for early 1st century dating of the Quranic manuscripts, the application of paleography has established this fact via comparing the Quranic style of writing with 1st century inscriptions.

For example:
Inscriptions Near Madinah Of The Early Years Of Hijra
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hamid2.html#dis

The inscriptions from Mount Salc, Madinah, bearing no date, attracted quite a lot of attention. The presence of the names of Abû Bakr, cUmar, cAlî along with the name of the Prophet(P) is quite interesting.
M. Hamidullah is of the opinion that it may be the handwriting of cUmar himself as cUmar was known for his calligraphic skills.

Non-Muslim, George Miles, asserts that these inscriptions are from 1st century of Hijra but associating them to cUmar's own hand is a bit tenuous.

However, Safadi dates this inscription to c. 4 AH (or c. 625 CE)
The monumental script (i.e., Kûfic) in the above inscriptions is quite fascinating.

Paleographyist, Grohmann compares the script of the inscriptions with those in the early Kûfic Qur'ânic manuscripts. He says that the resemblance is "very striking."

Another brilliant example of early kufic inscriptions dated early 1st century is found at Tombstone Of cAbd al-Rahmân Ibn Khair al-Hajrî Dated 31 AH.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/hajri.html

This is perhaps the most celebrated inscription, quoted often in the references dealing with Arabic inscriptions and paleography. It is the earliest dated Islamic inscription written in early Kufic style that includes a date on the tomb.

These specific examples clearly demonstrate the effective use of paleography that’s used to determine with certainty that the Quranic manuscripts within our possession date early 1st century. The Christian missionaries' arbitrary dating of the origins of Kufic script also contradicts early inscriptions, which have been commented upon by both Western and Muslim writers.

More examples of 1st century Arabic inscriptions are found on the link below:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/

The failure to acknowledge early 1st Arabic inscriptions that are strikingly similar to Quranic inscriptions has led Christian missionaries repeating
claims that the Kufic script originated very late, not earlier than 150
years after hijra, is misleading. This erroneous premise is refuted on
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html

Famous paleographer non-Muslim critic by the name Adolf
Grohmann has also used the method of paleography and informed us that:

“one dated copy (Quranic manuscript) exists from the first century of Hijra
and two exists from the second, seven only from the third century of Hijra”.

The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from Iran
cited in his book: A. Grohmann, "The Problem Of Dating Early Qur'ans", 1958

footnote 17. He also refers to Qur'anic manuscripts dating from dating 102
AH / 720 CE and 107 AH / 725 CE cited in his book: T. W. Arnold & A.
Grohmann, The Islamic Book: A Contribution To Its Art And History From The
VII-XVIII Century.

There is no indication that Grohmann expresses any significant
doubt regarding his research related to early 1st dating of the Quranic
texts.

A point to make is: Is carbon dating necessary, since in the case of
Qur'anic manuscripts, the dating is proficiently and effectively carried
out by studying the nature of the script, papyrus, ornamentation and
illumination??

With respect to your request to carbon date early Quranic manuscripts is a
great idea. I agree to an extent that this would not only establish how
accurate and reliable paleography is, but also end the debate between both
faiths once and for all. (Assuming carbon dating is an accurate and reliable
measure).

However, for argument sake given that the carbon dating does confirm beyondshadow of doubt that the Quranic manuscripts date 150 years after hijra this conclusion still does not influence or discredit the preservation of the Quran as revealed to Muhammad(pbuh).

This fact is supported by you inability to comprehend the importance and
uniqueness of the oral preservation of the Quran as a 'living tradition'
that has been transmitted through mutawatir narrations of hadith.( which
is reported in agreement by such a large number of people at different
locations throughout the world which they cannot be expected to agree upon
alie.).The mutawatir narrations are in itself irrefutable evidence that the
Quran is perfectly preserved and unchanged until the present day.

This misunderstanding is reflected by your comment

"People only rely on oral transmission arguments if they know that their
manuscript evidence is poor"

In relation to the Quran, your statement is false as stated previously, the
Quran was not and is not dependent on written texts or manuscripts like the
bible is. Understanding this significant point is essential to comprehend
the Muslim argument. The Quran was largely dependent on oral
transmission in an 'oral' society where "writing was scarcely used and
memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown". The Quran is a 'living oral tradition’, which is
miraculously recited from our memory. The Quran was revealed in stages that
made memorization and application easy to implement within the Muslims
daily lives. Here is an example of the miraculous memorization of the Quran that the Bible has not and will never enjoy:

An article found on palestine-info.co.uk

Palestine wins award in Quran memorization
By
Nov 23, 2003, 10:53

“Gaza - Palestine won the top award in a Quran memorization competition held

this year in Tunisia, the Palestinian Awkaf ministry announced yesterday.

It noted that the Gaza student Abdullah Marwan Al-Sheikh had won the top
award for memorizing the holy Quran.

The ministry said that Palestine had won similar awards this year in
contests organized in Egypt and Dubai.year organized a ceremony to
celebrate the graduation of 376 students after memorizing the Quran and had thus graduated more than 2,000 students memorizing the holy book over the past few years.

© Copyright 2003 by palestine-info.co.uk

Recently I went to attend our Friday prayers at my local mosque. Whilst our
Imam was reciting the Quran and leading the prayer he either forgot or
misread the verse of the Quran. Immediately almost half a dozen people
standing in the front row corrected the Imam in his recitation. One simply
little mis- pronunciation of a word immediately caused several people to
correct the Imam, which our prophet Muhammad (pbuh) instructed us to do. This is just a glimpse of how the companions of Muhammad (pbuh) reacted when the same situation would arise. I myself have memorized a significant portion of the Quran. Once a year, during the month of Fasting (Ramadan), Muslims aim to recite the whole Quran individually and also listen to the complete recitation of the Quran by a Hafiz (memorizer
of the entire Quran) during this month.

There are many authentic hadiths that encourages memorization of Quran that collects rewards for the believer. It's a tradition among Muslims that before any speech or presentation, marriages,sermons, Quran are recited continuously.

There are many authentic narrations that support the fact many Hafizun were also present at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh) himself was a person who had memorized the whole Qur'an,Word-by-word and used to encourage his Companions to memorize as well. The companions were also instructed by the Prophet to preserve the Quran in writing as narrated to us via authentic Hadiths of the Prophet. The ease of memorization was facilitated by the revelations revealed gradually in bits and pieces over 23 years. This allowed his companions to memorize and
Practically implement the Quranic instruction in their daily life.

There is a significant difference between the Quran and the
Gospels in terms of how they were revealed and applied within a given
context. The Gospels, which are supposed to be the complete reliable records of the deeds and words of Jesus is not a recital required for purposes of compulsory prayers or to be implemented for specific rituals daily as the Quran is. From a Christian perspective the Gospel records resemble the Hadith narrations in terms of form, content and style of the words and deeds of prophet Muhammad. (pbuh)

However, the significant difference is that Islam had developed
Sciences to distinguish between "Chinese whispers" and authentic and
reliable narrations that were attributed to the Prophet. Unlike the
so-called oral or Q traditions that supposedly existed prior to the
Compilations of the Gospels, scholars only conjecture about the
form, content and sources uttered by unknown so-called witnesses that
existed within Jesus' society. I will expand and clarify this point in the near future. God willing.

I’ll allow Orientalists like Bernard Lewis to contrast the difference between how both faiths managed their traditions to ensure accuracy of transmission.

"From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meager, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth".

Lewis continues to explain:

"it would have been easy to invent sayings of Muhammad. Because the cultural background of the Arabs had been oral the evidence that came to be expected was the chain of names of those who had passed on the anecdote containing the saying . . . The study of Traditions rapidly became a distinct branch of the studies of the general religious movement. It was soon realized that false Traditions were in circulation with sayings that Muhammad could not possibly have uttered. The chains of transmitters were therefore carefully scrutinized to make sure that the persons named could in fact have met one another, that they could be trusted to repeat the story accurately, and that they did not hold any heretical views. This implied extensive biographical studies; and many biographical dictionaries have been preserved giving the basic information about a man's teachers and pupils, the views of later scholars (on his reliability as a transmitter) and the date of his death. This biography-based critique of Traditions helped considerably to form a more or less common mind among many men throughout the caliphate about what was to be accepted and what rejected."

“Your argument that nobody memorizes the bible is actually wrong. We do
memorise the bible but portions at a time. We also have no need to memorise
it because the manuscript evidence is so strong that we can rely on the
written word”

Point taken. However my specific point was that if all manuscripts of the Quran and what has been quoted by Islamic theologians over the centuries were destroyed we would still be able to construct word for word, letter by letter the entire Quran.This arguement was specifically directed to apologetics. This is one superiority that the Quran has over the Bible in this regard. My argument simply is that the social and cultural context within which the Quran was revealed. facilitated and sustained the effectual ability of many Muslims to memorize and preserve this unique revelation of God.

Indeed if you took the time to research this phenomenon you will come to realize that the Islamic argument related to reliability of memorization and preservation holds much water.

“Until then, we can honestly say that the Bible has a wealth of
manuscript evidence whereas the Quran is seriously lacking”.

Let us look clearly into the subject of early New Testament manuscripts so that our readers fully understand just what we are talking about.

Church tradition assures us that there exists a large number of early New Testament manuscripts (mss). For the sake of consistency, we'll define "early" as 325 A.D., which is the date used in the quotation below. If this large number of manuscripts existed, it would not prove that the current received text of the New Testament contains the authentic words and teachings of Jesus. However, what we're mainly concerned with here is the outright dishonest claims regarding the number and form of early New Testament manuscripts.

Josh McDowell assures us in Evidence That Demands A Verdict (vol..1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Ostling, Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57) that we have in our possession over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts. Mr. Mcdowell instructs us that we have in our possession 5,300 known New Testament Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence. These, we are told, were mostly written before 325 A.D.

In order to refute this outrageous claim, lets reveal the truth instead of inaccurate tradition.This can be verified by spending a little time browsing the Internet at the Table of Greek manuscripts page, which contains a listing of all known early New Testament manuscripts and fragments. It is important to note, "fragment," since many of the "manuscripts" are just that- small fragments. The footnotes to The Jesus Legend mention some manuscripts by their papyrus identifiers (i.e. p52. p90, p45, and p75) and it is necessary to understand that these correspond to the manuscript numbers "ms. nr." Thus by using this on-line reference, you can personally verify the truth of the claim of Christian propaganda. Not surprisingly, their claims are wholly false and deceptive.

It is interesting to see that a non-Christian scholar, G. A. Wells, tells us the truth by saying that: "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter."

This can be verified by spending a little time at the table of Greek manuscripts page.

Answer for yourself: Did he just tell us that of all these numerous New Testament manuscript fragments that there are ONLY 2 of these that are as long as one chapter in length? He sure did!!!

It's true -ALL of the other pre-fourth century manuscripts contain only a few verses!!! However, don't forget that Christian author and apologist for the Christian faith cited above (Josh McDowell) claimed "24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament" which "were mostly written before 325 A.D"!!!

We need to ask right now a very important question.

Answer for yourself: How old are these "thousands of manuscripts" and how much of the New Testament they contain? Whether ignorance or deception is behind this statement, it's worthless nonetheless.

Another example of the complete deception of Christian writers accepting prior Church Tradition without ever investigating it for themselves is the statement by the Christian author that "Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52)". Unfortunately for him, we all now know what "P52" means!

Answer for yourself: How much?

Exactly five verses of the "Gospel of John" (18:31-33,37-38)!!! However, the author was using it as an example of a "New Testament Manuscript" - never bothering to mention how small a "portion" it really is. A reader who didn't know any better could go away thinking that this St. John papyrus - and the others referred to - are complete New Testament "manuscripts". Need I say more?

Suffice it to say that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts that this dishonest author refers to have no bearing on proving the textual veracity of everything in the current New Testament. All of these manuscripts - regardless of how early - date back to the time when there were already doctrinal and "Christological" debates within the early Church.

The facts are that we do not possess the Greek New Testament, as it first existed in the days of Marcion. What we have is a mass of manuscripts, of which only about three hundred date from before A.D. 800. A mere thirty-four of these are older than A.D. 400, of which only four were at any time complete. All these differ, and all at one time or another had authority as the known text.

Ehrman's recent and thorough discussion of the New Testament text in The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture leads him to conclude that, during the earliest period of its transmission, that the New Testament "was in a state of flux" and "came to be more or less standardized in some regions by the fourth century, and subject to fairly rigid control (by comparison) only in the Byzantine period" (Corruption, p. 28). He adds in a note that this is the view of a wide range of scholars. This is one of the best books you can read to introduce you to the unreliability of the New Testament due to the theological adulteration of it by Rome.

If you read Ehrman, you will find concerning the New Testament that "the text was regularly adjusted in such areas as the birth of Jesus, the agony in the garden, the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus's death, his cry of dereliction, resurrection and ascension. . . . And these adjustments were made NOT by those who were labelled as heretics, but by the 'proto-orthodox', to use Ehrman's term". Again, "Ehrman vividly shows how scribes have preserved or created within the manuscripts they were copying reflections of early Christological debates that helped to shape mainstream Christianity" (Novum Testamentum, 36 [1994], pp. 405-06). In other words the New Testament was changed by Rome repeatedly in chronological succession as their Church Councils hammered out the Roman understanding of "the Christ" over the centuries.

If the most skeptic Christians date the Quranic manuscripts approx 150 after Hijra then this still leaves copies of the Quran at least over a century earlier than any completed New Testament document in our possession today

heisonly1

[heisonly1]

Hahaha that is some of the most funniest lies ive ever heard. You obviously havent spent much time about muslims then to know that they are on of the most cloest minded religions around. They force people to be muslims and they kill those who dont agree with them. the whole religion is savage and crazy. you really think there is a country in the middle east that is prodemantly muslim that allows people to choose there faith? your ignorance astounds me ...


Christianotaku and Dan Zebiri,

it would be worth your while to read a brilliant book by Professor Thomas Arnold who was a linguist and a prolific scholar. His book “ The Spread of Islam in the World offers an unbiased and authoritative history of the expansion of Islam. It exposes the deliberate distortions of some historians and goes directly to the records early sources to examine numerous claims that you unfortunately appear to adhere to

”They force people to be muslims and they kill those who dont agree with them. the whole religion is savage and crazy.”

Nothing can be further from the truth


On the very Introduction page, Thomas Arnold writes:

”Moreover it is not in the cruelties of the persecutor or the fury of the fanatic that we should look for evidences of the missionary spirit of Islam, any more than in the exploits of that mythical personage - the Muslim warrior with sword in one hand and Qur'an in the other, but in the quiet unobtrusive labours of the preacher and the trader who have carried their faith into every quarter of the globe.[p. 5]”


Prof. Arnold commenting on the issue of Islamic campaigns states:

"To give any account of these campaigns is beyond the scope of the present work, but it is important to show that Muhammad, when he found himself at the head of a band of armed followers, was not transformed at once, as some would have us believe, from a peaceful preacher into a fanatic, sword in hand, forcing his religion on whomsoever he could". [p. 34]

Tackling the issue of Jizyah so often raised by anti-Muslim missionaries,

Prof. Arnold writes:

"There is abundant evidence to show that the Christians in the early days of the Muhammadan conquest had little to complain of in the way of religious disabilities. It is true that adherence to their ancient faith rendered them obnoxious to the payment of Jizyah - a word originally denoted tribute of any kind paid by the non-Muslim subjects of the Arab empire, but came later on to be used for the capitation-tax as the fiscal system of the new rulers became fixed [2]; but this Jizyah was too moderate to constitute a burden, seeing that it released them from the compulsory military service that was incumbent on their Muslim fellow- subjects. Conversion to Islam was certainly attended by a certain pecuniary advantage, but his former religion could have had but little hold on a convert who abandoned it merely to gain exemption from the jizyah; and now instead of jizyah, the convert has to pay the legal alms, azakat, annually levied on most kinds of movable and immovable property." [3]

[2] "There is evidence to show that the Arab conquerors left unchanged the fiscal system that they found prevailing in the lands they conquered from the Byzantines, and that the explanation of jizyah as a capitation-tax is an invention of later jusrists, ignorant of the true condition of affairs in the early days of Islam". (Caetani, Vol. IV, p. 610 and Vol. V, p. 449)

[3] Goldziher, Vol. I, pp. 50-7.

”They force people to be muslims and they kill those who dont agree with them. the whole religion is savage and crazy.”

Really!! Christians themselves preferred living under the Musim rule rather than rule of the Church.

Prof. Arnold notes:

..... "the Turkish population and of the number of the renegades who were constantly entering the Sultan's service - the treatment of their christian subjects by the Ottoman emperors - at least for two centuries after their conquest of Greece - exhibits a toleration such as was at that time quite unknown in the rest of Europe. The Calvinists of Hungary and Transylvania, and the Unitarians of the latter country, long preferred to submit to the Turks rather than fall into the hands of the fanatical house of Hapsburg; and the Protestants of Silesia looked with longing eyes towards Turkey, and would gladly have purchased religious freedom at the price of submission to the Muslim rule. It was to Turkey that the persecuted Spanish Jews fled for refuge in enormous numbers at the end of the fifteenth century, and the Cossacks who belonged to the sect of the Old Believers and were persecuted by the Russian State Church, found in the dominions of the Sultan the toleration which their Christian brethren denied them." [p. 156]

Prof. Arnold, himself, has also devoted many pages in explaining the christian missionary activity during Islamic rule.

"Indeed so far from the development of the Christian Church being hampered by the establishment of Muhammadan rule, the history of the Nestorians exhibits a remarkable outburst of religious life and energy from the time of their subject to the Muslims. Alternately petted and persecuted by the Persian kings, in whose dominions by far the majority of the members of this sect were found, it has passed a rather precarious existence and had been subjected to harsh treatment, when war between Persia and Byzantium exposed to it the suspeicion of sympathising with the Christian army. But, under the rule of the Caliphs, the security they enjoyed at home enabled them to vigorously push forward their missionary eneterprises aborad. Missionaries were sent into China and India, both of which were raised to the dignity of metropolitan seas in the eighth century; about the same period they gained a footing in Egypt, and later spread Christian faith right across Asia, and by the eleventh century had gained many converts from among the Tatars."[p. 68]


The evidence given by various historians, including Professor Arnold, who is the leading authority in these matters, shows how wrong these false anti-Islamic lies really are. The true spirit of Islam, that was vibrant during the medieval period, was the epitome of tolerance, equity and justice. History, is the testimony that Islam didn't spread by the sword but by the peaceful preaching carried out throughout the globe of the blessed Muslim missionaries. It is only under their rule, that Eastern christianity flourished.

In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.).


In light of the above, it might be noteworthy to conclude in the words of Professor Edward Montet:

"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically. The definition of rationalism as a system that bases religious beliefs on principles flourished by the reason applies to it exactly. It is true that Muhammad, who was an enthusiast and possessed, too, the ardour of faith and the fire of conviction, that precious quality he transmitted to so many of his disciples, brought forward his reform as a revelation; but this kind of revelation is only one form of exposition and his religion has all the marks of a collection doctrines founded on the data of reason. To believers, the Muhammadan creed is summed up in belief in the unity of God and in the mission of His Prophet, and to ourselves who coldly analyse his doctrines, to belief in God and a future life; these two dogmas, the minimum of religious belief, statements that to the religious man rest on the firm basis of reason, sum up the whole doctrinal teaching of the Qur'an. The simplicity and the clearness of this teaching are certainly among the most obvious forces at work in the religion and the missionary activity of Islam. It cannot be denied that many doctrines and systems of theology and also many superstitions, from the worship of saints to the use rosaries and aumlets, have become grafted on to the main trunk of the Muslim creed. But in spite of the rich development, in every sense of the term, of the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting-point, and the dogma of the unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur, a mjesty, an invariable purity with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find it surpassed outside the pale of Islam. The fidelity to the fundamental dogma of the religion, the elemental simplicity of the formula in which it is enunciated, the proof that it gains from the fervid conviction of the missionaries who propagate it, are so many causes to explain the Muhammadan missionary efforts. A so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to pcreed, so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently possess and does, indeed, possess a marvellous power of winning its way into the consciences of men." (La propagande chretienne et ses adversaires musulmans, pp. 17-18, Paris 1890)

Ask any of the million Muslim reverts alive in the world today whether they were forced to embrace Islam. The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? In the UK and USA, multitudes of people are embracing Islam every year. What sword is forcing them to declare that

"People of the Book(Jews and Christians), go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the Truth". "The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His Messengers, and say not, 'Three'. Refrain. better is it for you. God is only One God. Glory be to Him that He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth, God suffices for a guardian". "The Messiah will not disdain to be a servant of God, neither the angels who are close to Him. ..” Quran 4:171

heisonly1

[Dan Zebiri]

"heisnly1" - You try to question this quote:

<<Hahaha that is some of the most funniest lies ive ever heard. You obviously havent spent much time about muslims then to know that they are on of the most cloest minded religions around. They force people to be muslims and they kill those who dont agree with them. the whole religion is savage and crazy. you really think there is a country in the middle east that is prodemantly muslim that allows people to choose there faith? your ignorance astounds me ...>>

Well, it is also equally, if not MORE UNFORTUNATE, that the adherance to erroneous claims is evidently very much also on your part, and not just ours only :teeth: .

Islam was not spread by the sword?? How ridiculous and laughable can this objection really be! Of course, it WAS! Even in the early years of the first three caliphs it was already enforced. Don't tell me you never heard of the Wars of Apostasy (the Ridda Wars). It happened in the earliest years after Muhamad's unexpected death -particularly caliph Abu Bakar's reign. The Quraish and Arab 'converts' of Islam immediately wanted to disown and give up Islam but were FORCED to remain muslims by the sword of the caliph and his enforcer and war-captain, Khalid al-Walid.

All this was recorded by the following muslim learned men: at-Tabari, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir and as-Suyuti. In more recent days, the al-Azhar
University in Cairo, Egypt had published a Book called: Al-Khulafa Al-Rashidun written by their Islamic Civilisation professor Dr.Abu Zayd Shalabi, of the Arabic Language Department, documenting the entire process of the spread of Islam in the earliest days of the Khalifahs, by the Sword and by force. A full twenty pages, from page 41 - 60; documents how indeed the first years of Islamic expansion was bloody and forceful. Far from the peaceful rosy picture you vainly try to paint over our eyes!

Various tribes were coerced into submitting to Islam under threat of war. Following Muhammad’s death Muslim armies attacked and conquered Persia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and so on. They went west and conquered North Africa, Spain and southern France. They forcefully pushed east and conquered the lands of present Pakistan, Afghanistan, and much of the Indian subcontinent. In fact, spread of Islam by traders was the exception and NOT at all the NORM.

There is much more to Islam besides their five pillars. Islam is a complex religion filled with concepts, rules, and rituals, even militaristic ones. Some are very threatening to non-Muslims. For example Muhammad taught offensive warfare in the Quran -in surah 9:5 and 29.

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given [Christians and Jews] as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand and they be humbled. Quran 9:29

Muhammad did make war upon Christians and Jews. After Muhammad’s death, his followers continued to do. This is evidenced in Indonesia - where islam was supposed to have penetrated by traders, by the attacks of the Laskar Jihad muslim fighters in East Indonesia, Poso and Ambon and of late, the Sulawesi islands.

Your 'missionaries' label cuts BOTH Ways too! You are also equally missionary in your zeal to paint such a rosy picture of Islam that you try to overlook the points I have raised above, and confirmed in Islam's own history, whether in the distant or recent past. You refer selectively to those parts of Islam's history where there were times when Christians had to live peacefully with the muslim overlords. But don't selectively forget, sir, that there is another very real and ugly side to that coin as well!

Now, let me refer you to some research on Christian primary sources and how a non-Christian Professor has himself rejected the liberal scholars' stance about the so-called 'unreliability' of today's Gospels' records and documentation:

Hidden Gospels : How the Search for Jesus (By Liberal, Unbelieving scholars) LOST Its way, by Prof.Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Author of many other books.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195156315/qid=1078732026/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3282090-3973769?v=glance&s=books

BTW, your sweeping statements about the state of the New Testament documents which are also propounded by the likes of the Jesus Seminar propagandists, are seriously questioned by Dr.Jenkins.

Indeed, your cursory 'search of the Internet' for the so-called evidence is hardly a proper study of the primary sources as they actually exist. So I will refer you to the following links that have substantially rebutted and refute much of your presumptious and fallacious views and opinions:

http://tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html

http://tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/r_salisbury.html


Besides, there are also many muslims who have left Islam, and embraced Christianity, if you care to read about them, here :

Called from islam to Christ-Why Muslims Become Christians
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1854244272/qid=1078732120/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3282090-3973769?v=glance&s=books

Here is a former Muslim, brought up in a Muslim family, but gave up up Islam after much mind-searching and heart seeking as well!

Caner-Ex-Muslim who now is a Christian Theology Professor.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0825424011/qid=1078732250/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-3282090-3973769?v=glance&s=books

Of course many have left Islam to become agnostics and atheists, like Ibn Warraq.

Ibn Warraq - Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591020689/qid=1078732364/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3282090-3973769?v=glance&s=books

Ibn Warraq - Why I am NOT a Muslim
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879759844/qid=1078732364/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-3282090-3973769?v=glance&s=books

Indeed, have a real care about how you think about Christianity. It is not so 'weak' or 'assailable' as you wishfully presume! :ahem:

Salam, Dan.

[Christianotaku]

I know real missionaries who work in real closed door muslim nations and know how real christians in those nations are treated killed and punished...I will not accept some book probably filled with islamic lies and propaganda considered to real reports of real loving people who take the gospel to the muslims and facing the cost of losing there own lives...

[CatholicSage]

The initial rises of Christianity and Islam reveal much about the religions themselves in my opinion. On the one hand, Christianity survived using nothing more than passive resistance to the Roman Empire until becoming the official church of Rome several hundred years later-an incredible, some would say miraculous, feat of not only survival, but success. Islam, through any twisting of words, stands in stark contrast to this. The story of Islam's rise is, shall we say, not as inspirational as that of Christianity. Mohammed's religion rose and spread because of conquest. Whatever missionary activity may have come later, Islam was safely entrenched in the Middle East because of Mohammed's military prowess, not his benevolent teachings or inspiring message.

[Dan Zebiri]

Well said, Lutheran sage,

Wonder what happened to "heisonly1", it is now two weeks since he last posted and he never replied my response to him, plus the issues of muslims converting/ 'reverting' to Christianity as a remarkable phenomenon. He has completely disappeared from the radar screen to become "heisonlyzero" it seems! :tongue:

It is quite clear that my post exposed his misleading and false claims that Islam is a rosy, peaceful religion and he has no way to refute the facts of the violent spread of Islam in its first 200-300 years of existence, especially as recorded by Islamic sources themselves.

I just want to add some more facts to the events of Muslims becoming Christians. Here is the Biodata of brother Mark Gabriel, an Egyptian Muslim ulama (scholar) who embraced the Gospel and Christianity recently..:

Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Dr. Mark Gabriel memorized the Quran completely by age twelve and grew up totally immersed in Islamic culture in Cairo, Egypt. A former Islamic teacher and scholar, he graduated from the world-renowned Al-Azhar University in Egypt with both a master¡¦s and doctorate degree in Islamic study. Upon questioning his faith in Islam, Gabriel endured torture as well as personal and professional ostracism. He left Egypt and sought exile in South Africa where he was discipled in Christianity. Currently Dr. Gabriel lives in the United States under religious asylum.

and:

"Mark Gabriel, Ph.D was born into a Muslim family in Egypt and was able to quote the entire Quran by the age of twelve. His childhood education was spent in Muslim schools, and he earned a doctorate degree in Islamic history and culture from Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. As a product of his education and culture, he was a classic anti-Semite, but now his heart has completely changed. This book tells his story and explains the source of Muslim attitudes toward Jews."


Read more about the Book he wrote in Amazon.com here :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0884199568/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-6913024-1080822?v=glance&s=books&st=*

His book, Islam and the Jews, The Unfinished Battle, is a very eye-opening expose` on the violence againts Jewish peoples (since Muhammad's time) that persists until today.

Regarding muslims converting to Jesus Christ, it is remarkable phenomenon because, they do so in the face of the worst counter-reactions from their muslim conterparts. From ostracism and persecution to outright state sponsored punishments, these ex-Muslims are true models of Christian discipleship especially when they endure such persecution and marginalisation with their new-found faith and great patience.

Am I merely jesting? Far from it! We have seen muslims regularly punished, banished and even disowned by their families when they become Christians, in Pakistan, these Christians were regularly thrown into jail and slammed with jail sentences, beaten severely, their families persecuted and victimised - especially under the previous Pakistani regimes.

Of course, in Saudi Arabia, such converts to Christ are given the capital punishment and are decapitated (Killed) for doing so!

Whats beautiful about this is, IN SPITE OF ALL THESE, these ex-Muslims still prefer Christianity above Islam. They are willing to risk and endure such violent and hostile treatment because they know they have discovered the REAL Truth, which was never existent in their former religion at all - Islam.

Muslims typically allege that money and other inducements are used to tempt muslims to leave Islam for Christianity, but all such false accusations actually fall flat apart in the light of the above facts.

Just go browse the Caner brothers stories in the books :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0825424011/qid=1079761186/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6913024-1080822?v=glance&s=books

This Study above analyses the real ministry and role of Jesus Christ - who was more than merely a prophet, from both Christian and Muslim sources.:ahem:
Enjoy, Dan.

[heisonly1]

Well said, Lutheran sage,

Wonder what happened to "heisonly1", it is now two weeks since he last posted and he never replied my response to him, plus the issues of muslims converting/ 'reverting' to Christianity as a remarkable phenomenon. He has completely disappeared from the radar screen to become "heisonlyzero" it seems! :tongue:

It is quite clear that my post exposed his misleading and false claims that Islam is a rosy, peaceful religion and he has no way to refute the facts of the violent spread of Islam in its first 200-300 years of existence, especially as recorded by Islamic sources themselves.

I just want to add some more facts to the events of Muslims becoming Christians. Here is the Biodata of brother Mark Gabriel, an Egyptian Muslim ulama (scholar) who embraced the Gospel and Christianity recently..:

Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Dr. Mark Gabriel memorized the Quran completely by age twelve and grew up totally immersed in Islamic culture in Cairo, Egypt. A former Islamic teacher and scholar, he graduated from the world-renowned Al-Azhar University in Egypt with both a master¡¦s and doctorate degree in Islamic study. Upon questioning his faith in Islam, Gabriel endured torture as well as personal and professional ostracism. He left Egypt and sought exile in South Africa where he was discipled in Christianity. Currently Dr. Gabriel lives in the United States under religious asylum.

and:

"Mark Gabriel, Ph.D was born into a Muslim family in Egypt and was able to quote the entire Quran by the age of twelve. His childhood education was spent in Muslim schools, and he earned a doctorate degree in Islamic history and culture from Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious Islamic university in the world. As a product of his education and culture, he was a classic anti-Semite, but now his heart has completely changed. This book tells his story and explains the source of Muslim attitudes toward Jews."


Read more about the Book he wrote in Amazon.com here :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0884199568/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-6913024-1080822?v=glance&s=books&st=*

His book, Islam and the Jews, The Unfinished Battle, is a very eye-opening expose` on the violence againts Jewish peoples (since Muhammad's time) that persists until today.

Regarding muslims converting to Jesus Christ, it is remarkable phenomenon because, they do so in the face of the worst counter-reactions from their muslim conterparts. From ostracism and persecution to outright state sponsored punishments, these ex-Muslims are true models of Christian discipleship especially when they endure such persecution and marginalisation with their new-found faith and great patience.

Am I merely jesting? Far from it! We have seen muslims regularly punished, banished and even disowned by their families when they become Christians, in Pakistan, these Christians were regularly thrown into jail and slammed with jail sentences, beaten severely, their families persecuted and victimised - especially under the previous Pakistani regimes.

Of course, in Saudi Arabia, such converts to Christ are given the capital punishment and are decapitated (Killed) for doing so!

Whats beautiful about this is, IN SPITE OF ALL THESE, these ex-Muslims still prefer Christianity above Islam. They are willing to risk and endure such violent and hostile treatment because they know they have discovered the REAL Truth, which was never existent in their former religion at all - Islam.

Muslims typically allege that money and other inducements are used to tempt muslims to leave Islam for Christianity, but all such false accusations actually fall flat apart in the light of the above facts.

Just go browse the Caner brothers stories in the books :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0825424011/qid=1079761186/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6913024-1080822?v=glance&s=books

This Study above analyses the real ministry and role of Jesus Christ - who was more than merely a prophet, from both Christian and Muslim sources.:ahem:
Enjoy, Dan.
Not so fast Dan Zebra,

As the One and unique God is a witness, the reason for my delay in responding to your erroneous and flawed arguemnts is due to:

(a) my recent holiday visit inter-state with my family for a week.
(b) my up coming preparation for refuting the Mormon concept of God
(c) im shifting residence in the next couple of days.

However, whilst on holiday i was able to compile a draft responding to your trash you post related to the falsehood you uttered about Islam.

God willing, once my committments are complete, i will have it posted as soon as i am able. It shouldn't take to long. We will let our viewers decide the qualiy of you 'refuting' in the very near future

The post will also include stories of Ex- Christian Priests and Missionaries that left Christianity (polytheism) to embrace Islam (pure monotheism). For evey 1 misguided Muslim that leaves Islam i'll give you 10 ex-Christians that embrace Islam. Im proud to announce that whilst i was away 3 ex- Christians, 1 male, 2 women embraced Islam.We have reverts coming to our humble centre almost everyday declaring that there is only one and unique God and that Muhammad (pbuh) is his final servant and messenger and Jesus (pbuh) is his servant and messenger.

heisonly1

[CatholicSage]

That's another foolish tool that Muslims like to use in promoting Islam: false implications that Westerners are flocking to Islam in droves, and that Islam is practically already the world's largest religion. It's like you are trying to intimidate us into becoming Muslims by throwing numbers around.

Of course, you can't expect too much decent argumentation from a religion that still claims that Christianity is polytheistic. :duh:

[heisonly1]

That's another foolish tool that Muslims like to use in promoting Islam: false implications that Westerners are flocking to Islam in droves, and that Islam is practically already the world's largest religion. It's like you are trying to intimidate us into becoming Muslims by throwing numbers around.

Of course, you can't expect too much decent argumentation from a religion that still claims that Christianity is polytheistic. :duh:

Christianity not Polytheistic!!!?????

Although im exremely occupied at the moment, i could not resist to responding to your comments erroneously defending that you are not a polytheist. Im amazed how Christianity continue to wonder in a maze of eror and confusion and still feeblely attempt to defend that Trinitarianism is monotheism. IT IS NOT.

If each persons is distinct from the other, yet related equally in essence and each has a will and says "I", and "You" when speaking to each other and the Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father and each is divine, THEN YOU WORSHIP 3 GODS THAT COMMUNICATE WITH EACH ANOTHER NOT ONE GOD. THIS IS POLYTHEISM. If there are three persons individual subsistences, that have a real existence and individuality they are self aware, THEN YOU WORSHIP 3 GODS THAT SPEAK AND INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER THAT EACH HAVE THEIR OWN SELF AWARENESS.THIS IS NO MYSTERY AS TRINITARIANS CLAIM. THIS IS POLYTHEISM IN THE HIGHGEST DEGREE.

The Son and the holy spirit are both subordinate in the father functionally however in essence they are eternally equal.The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father sent the Son.The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit.The Father creates, the Son redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

YOU WORSHIP 3 GODS THAT ARE IN ESSENCE IDENTICAL AND ETERNAL AND COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER OF WHICH GOD THE SON AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE SUBORDINATE TO GOD THE FATHER.

Further, even more absurd is the false proclaimation that the word of the supreme God as it was uttered in a manner that befits his majesty, assuming the form and characteristics of a divine being like himself, and taking position as a secondary God and second member of the Trinity then infused his divine essence into a human body to became a man.This is a clear manifestation of idolatry. There is no difference whether the essence or literal presence of God is claimed to dwell in a rock, animal or a human being.This is idolatry and a form of polytheism. The Quran gives the true understanding of the relationship between God's creative Word and the birth of Jesus (pbuh).

In the Quran it proclaims:

3.45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a

Word (BE) from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in

honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

3.46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he

shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

3.47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

3.48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

"The similitude of Jesus before God is that of Adam; He created him from

dust then said to him: 'BE', and he was." (3:59)

This is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. For God to create a Jesus, without a human father, He merely has to will it. If He wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, He merely wills them into existence. He wills everything into being by His word of command "BE" and "It is".No mythical incarnation, just the true conception of Jesus (pbuh).



Equally as absurd is the notion of personifying or attribting to an eternal attribute of God, His Wisdom,as lady of wisdom. Works on heathen mythology show that it was anciently a very prevalent custom to personify ideas, thoughts and words into angels and Gods. Words were first personated, and transformed into men, then into angels, and finally into Gods.

May the Lord of the Worlds protect us from such misguidance.

At least the mormons are sincere and honest enough to admit they worship 3 gods unlike you and your tribe, you continue to wonder in a maze of error and misguidance and continue to attribute falsehood to the One lord of the worlds.

Come to pure monotheism

Say: "He is God the sole One and only,

God the Eternal, The Absolute,

He does not beget, neither is He begotten,

and there is none like unto Him" quran 112

"Of course, you can't expect too much decent argumentation from a religion that still claims that Christianity is polytheistic"

Really, well below are a few of zillions of links presented by non-muslim
anti -Trinitarians sites that have come a few steps closer to Islam (may God guide their hearts to Islam) that present excellent decent arguements refuting the falsehood of Trinitarianism. Although i do not adhere to some of their fundamentals of belief, they still provide a great insight on the erroneous innovated term "trinity" as used to describe the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons. Unity in essence but differentiated in terms of subordination: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
http://www.torahofmessiah.com/trinity_art.html
(great site a must read for all trinitarians)
http://www.intergate.com/%7Ejcordaro/index.html

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=109

http://anthonybuzzard.home.mindspring.com/articles.htm
(must read articles)

http://www.planetkc.com/stm/de-mystified_logos.htm
( discusses John 1;1Trinitarians beware!!!)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/trinityhistory.htm
(non holy origin of the trinity)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html
( a few brief Jewish responses to Trinitarianism)
Dan, im still thinking about you my brother in humanity.As soon as im done with my Mormon presentation and my moving in to my new humble home, I God willing, will have a response to your post.Stay tuned..........

heisonly1


**********************************************************************************

And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him!

they are (but) servants raised to honour. 21.26

**********************************************************************************

They say [the Christians]: "Allah hath begotten a son!"

Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient!

His are all things in heaven and on earth!

No warrant have ye for this! 10:68

******************************************************************************

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs

all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He

decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Sura 2:116-117

******************************************************************************

"Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth;

how can he have a son when He has no consort?

He created all things,and He hath full knowledge of all things. 6:101

[heisonly1]

That's another foolish tool that Muslims like to use in promoting Islam: false implications that Westerners are flocking to Islam in droves, and that Islam is practically already the world's largest religion. It's like you are trying to intimidate us into becoming Muslims by throwing numbers around.

Of course, you can't expect too much decent argumentation from a religion that still claims that Christianity is polytheistic. :duh:
You don't need to look far to find Trinitarians erroneously attempting to show that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet they are not three Gods but one.Because all three characters in which Trinitarians each address as God share the same essence but differentiated in terms of subordination, this does not make them one God. This makes 3 Gods that share the same essence in which all three have their own self awareness of which the Son (which is addressed as God) and Holy Spirit (which is addressed as God) are subordinate to God the Father, which is addressed as God.

This is not what Abraham,Moses, Jesus and Muhummad (pbut) called their people to worship.

Trinitarianism is Polytheism not Monotheism. May the One God guide you to the true understanding of Pure Monotheism, Islammmmmm

http://reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html

(some more non-Muslin anti- Trinitarians articles presenting decent articles about the error of Trinity)
heisonly1

[CatholicSage]

Trinitarianism is a perfectly understandable doctrine, with a little bit of thought. One God, three essences or manifestations; we call these essences the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though each of them is "part"(an inappropriate word, though I can't think of a better one at the moment) of the One God.

As far as I know, the only time one of these members talks to another is when Jesus speaks and prays to the Father, but that is while in human form and therefore not a problem. As a human, Jesus had concerns and fears just like us, and found comfort in God. Once again, not a problem.

Your argument that God manifesting Himself in human form would be idolatrous also seems quite weak. If God is all-powerful, why should he not be able to take on human form? How is this idolatry as long as we do not worship the humanity of Jesus?

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi "heisonly1",

We now get to see you coming out of the wood-work, finally. I can see that much of what you try to say reflects your very shallow thinking indeed, and your true stripes and colors.

"Trash"? What an appropriate word to use! Dr.Mark Gabriel agrees fully with you and that term in describing his former religion that he quitted - Islam! It was something to be discarded and abandoned immediately once he saw through its falsehoods, contradictions and inconsistencies. Mind you, he was a qualified Lecturer at Al-Azhar, the famous Islamic institution of learning, in addition he was also a Hafiz, one who had memorized the whole Quran and could quote it at random accurately.

Why don't you take your complaints to him, and have a nice debate with him and see if you can try to convert him back to Islam?? That will gain you lots of taufik and hidaya, wont it (if you're successful)!

You make boastful claims about 'christians converting to islam', but thats really no big deal AT ALL! In a sense, they're a dime a dozen. From my parts, I have seen Christians joining Islam because of girls (wives), men (getting a new husband/s) money and State patronage, pregnancies (thus leading to forced conversions AND marriages due to fear of repurcussions) etc..! And NOT because these converts can genuinely say that Islam had the truth..:tongue:

Also, the real big factor is simply that Christianity does not place heavy obstructions or punishments upon its adherents from leaving the faith - UNLIKE Islam! There is just no severe repurcussions and/or punishments or consequences like what you find in Islam prescribed for the murtadd (muslim apostate). So of course it is much easier for Christians to join another belief system. Thats really 'no big deal.'

Islam SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES the Death Penalty for apostates of Islam. So see for yourself the verses:

This is surah 4 vs.89 from your qur'an:


"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (from Islam) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them. "
And the Muslim scholars' elaboration on it is as follows:


According to Abu Hanifah, a male apostate is disabled from selling or otherwise disposing of his property. But Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad differ from their master upon this point, and consider a male apostate to be as competent to excercise every right as if he were still in the faith. (Hughes' Dictionary of Islam, p. 16, citing Hamilton, Hidaya, vol. ii, p. 235)

If a boy under age apostatize, he is not to be put to death, but to be imprisoned until he come to full age, when, if he continue in the state of unbelief, he must be put to death. Neither lunatics nor drunkards are held to be responsible for their apostasy from Islam (Hidayah, vol. ii, 246). If a person upon compulsion become an apostate, his wife is not divorced, nor are his lands forfeited. If a person become a musalman upon compulsion, and afterwards apostatize, he is not to be put to death. (Hidayah, vol. iii, 467). The will of a male apostate is not valid, but that of a female apostate is valid. (Hidayah, vol. iv, 537).


Narrated Abu Burda:
.... The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" (Sahih Bukhari 9.58 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.058), also Sahih Bukhari 9.271 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.271))


Caliph Ali burnt them, but Muhammad said to kill him (with the sword).
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari 4.260 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.260))

The hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim, are very clear in their instructions, and they state that "if they (Muslims) change their religion (islam), kill them."

So, when a Muslim leaves Islam and embraces Christianity - it truly is a great and major sacrifice for them to do so! IN SPITE of all the obstructions and blockages the Islamic system puts up to try to keep its followers from apotasizing! And the truly remarkable thing is that they STILL LEAVE ISLAM IN SPITE OF ALL THE 'punishments' threatened on them! Brothers like Dr.Mark Gabriel, Emir Caner and Ergun Caner, Abdul Saleeb made this bold and brave step because in their own words, they have found the real TRUTH in Christianity and are even willing to face the consequences when the time comes.

The above is another factor why many Muslims who leave Islam for Christianity do it secretly and quietly. Many have families and relatives who would also be ostracised and persecuted if they declare their quitting Islam openly. Many of them also would themselves be the subject of severe and harsh persecution and ostracism and attacks from their former muslims for becoming a murtadd.

TAKE AWAY the capital punishment ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD - of Death for apostates - if Islam and Muslims DARE TO DO THAT! Plus all the other attendant persecutions and social punishments for Muslims who quit Islam - THAT would place Islam on a level playing field with Christianity.

I also predict that if ever that happens, we will see Muslims LEAVING ISLAM IN HUGE, HUGE NUMBERS and in Droves! Just like the early arab Muslims who did so immediately after the death of Muhammad. This lead to the Ridda Wars of apostasy, nevertheless.

SO your stories of Chistians becomig muslims are just tame tales, with no real cost nor consequence at all. As contrasted with the Muslims who make great and deep sacrifices when they become Christians, and who pay heavily for their choice and still remain faithful Christians after that. Their Tribe is increasing - slowly but surely! Hallelujah! Alhamdulillah! :ahem:

Regards, Dan.


<<
The post will also include stories of Ex- Christian Priests and Missionaries that left Christianity (polytheism) to embrace Islam (pure monotheism). For evey 1 misguided Muslim that leaves Islam i'll give you 10 ex-Christians that embrace Islam. Im proud to announce that whilst i was away 3 ex- Christians, 1 male, 2 women embraced Islam.We have reverts coming to our humble centre almost everyday declaring that there is only one and unique God and that Muhammad (pbuh) is his final servant and messenger and Jesus (pbuh) is his servant and messenger.

heisonly1
>>

[heisonly1]

Trinitarianism is a perfectly understandable doctrine, with a little bit of thought. One God, three essences or manifestations; we call these essences the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though each of them is "part"(an inappropriate word, though I can't think of a better one at the moment) of the One God.

As far as I know, the only time one of these members talks to another is when Jesus speaks and prays to the Father, but that is while in human form and therefore not a problem. As a human, Jesus had concerns and fears just like us, and found comfort in God. Once again, not a problem.

Your argument that God manifesting Himself in human form would be idolatrous also seems quite weak. If God is all-powerful, why should he not be able to take on human form? How is this idolatry as long as we do not worship the humanity of Jesus?

i have within my 15 minute work break to respond to your Trinity argument that you claim is a perfectly understandable doctrine. hahaha i don't know many defending Christians that claim that the trinity is "perfectly understandable doctrine."

Your illustration, as most Trinitarians feebly try to explain, is totally flawed. The simple fact that these 3 part manifestations are distinct from the other, that comprise of Father who is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father and each is divine and equally in essence and individually are self aware and communicate with each other do not form One God. These 3 parts together form a unity in agreement made of 3 co-equal co-eternal self aware gods.

I am amazed that you cannot comprehend this simple fact.

Your comment regarding the only time one of these members talks to another is when Jesus speaks and prays to the Father while in human form, from a Trinitarian perspective, is entirely false. This fact is evident as Trinitarians claim that prior to Jesus, (as a partial god as you claim) became a man on earth, god the father said to god the Son,
"Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." Palms110.

Is not god the father supposedly speaking to god the Son prior to the Son’s incarnation??? According to Trinitarianism He is.

Furthermore, most Trinitarians falsely argue that the “Us” and “We” in Genesis 1:26 refers to the three partial gods speaking to one another to begin an aspect of creation. Again this “Us” and “We” conversation occurred prior to god the Son’s incarnation. Finally, it clearly states in the Gospel of John that the Holy Spirit will not speak of his own right but that in which he shall HEAR is that what he shall speak. From a Trinitarian perspective, God the father speaks to God the Holy Spirit to convey His revelation to the world. So, the 3 members that are part co-eternal and co-equal DO engage in communication between and with each other.

“As far as I know, the only time one of these members talks to another is when Jesus speaks and prays to the Father, but that is while in human form and therefore not a problem. As a human, Jesus had concerns and fears just like us, and found comfort in God. Once again, not a problem”.

Amazing, Spoken like a polytheist. The Son, a co-eternal part god incarnated and became a human and had fears and concerns just like us.???

Oh Lord of the Worlds, protect us from this misguidance of which the people of the book utter


“Your argument that God manifesting Himself in human form would be idolatrous also seems quite weak. If God is all-powerful, why should he not be able to take on human form?

Wait a minute!!! God taking on a human form!!? You need to be consistent when trying to explain your falsehood. Do you mean that the 3 parts that make One God became a man or only the second part of the One God, The Son, became a man?????? If the One God that comprises of 3 partial gods in One is what became human then please explain to whom was this one God worshipping whilst on earth as a man??? If part god, the Son, became a man in which in his conscious human will prayed to God whilst his conscious divine will was, um, somewhere else, then this illustrates Trinitarianism worships a part god in heaven (father) and another that hovers in the air somewhere (holy spirit) and another that is enclosed with human flesh and bones (son). They may be eternally equal and indivisible in one essence and eternally dependent in sustaining the one unity, however their individual self awareness and the fact that functionally, the Son and Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father is a clear and unambiguous manifestation of 3 gods that are self aware,sharing the same essence, subsisting in unity. This is polytheism not monotheism.


“If God is all-powerful, why should he not be able to take on human form?”

You know why?? Well to put it simply, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? IKing 8:27

I have heard this absurd Trinitarian argument before that is similar to atheists form of reasoning that argue God cannot do anything.( can God lift a rock to heavy to lift.etc)

Can God throw you out of his dominion in a place where God does not know where you are or what you are thinking?? No he cannot. Does that mean that God is limited in his power??? No it does not. God exists and does that which befits his majesty.The Lord of the worlds does not enclose himself or an aspect of himself (his eternal Word) with flesh and bones and walked the earth, for example, to look for the bushes to call for nature as most humans do.

Read the non- Muslim anti-Trinitarian links compiled by Christians I posted which explain intelligently why God cannot be a man and why God is not 3 manifestations, essences or persons in One. Read them and i pray that the Most Gracious shows you the error of the trinity in which you dubiously defend

“Your argument that God manifesting Himself in human form would be idolatrous also seems quite weak”

For a misguided Trinitarian it may appear weak but not for a true Monotheist.

Ask any idol worshipper from India (hindu) or a tribal South African and they will profess to you that the animal, rock,tree, human or statue is not what they actually worship but rather the divine essence that mystically is in union with a deity that is present within the form is what is worshipped.

“How is this idolatry as long as we do not worship the humanity of Jesus?”

Because as the pagans and polytheists, you adhere to the same idea. In Jesus you claim dwells God or the eternal divine essence. Hence you do not worship his humanity rather the divine essence that you false claim resides in him. Trinitarians claim that Jesus is become one with God and as such exist as a manifestation of the Creator within His creation. This is polytheism at its best.


“Trinitarianism is a perfectly understandable doctrine, with a little bit of thought”.

Only for those that wonder in a maze of error and misguidance.

[Dan Zebiri]

Salam 'heisonly1',

Still waiting for you to reply my numerous posts to you, which you merely made lots of empty promises to answer but so far did not.

Meantime, the feebleness and weakness of your mind and thinking is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS as you try to dispute lutheran Sage's posts on the Holy Trinity..!! :hrm:

<<
[QUOTE=heisonly1]i have within my 15 minute work break to respond to your Trinity argument that you claim is a perfectly understandable doctrine. hahaha i don't know many defending Christians that claim that the trinity is "perfectly understandable doctrine."
>>

Hahahaha!! There are quite a number of Christians who can and one (among many) of them is Dr.William Lane Craig, an eminent thinker and Christian philosopher who had many time already debated AND Refuted muslims like Jamal Badawi and Shabby Ali and their poor similicrums, especially on the Holy Trinity. This again shows your bright IGNORANCE about the subject and of the Christian thinkers who are perfectly capable of explaining it, without any confusion. :lol:

Go here to see Dr.Craig's website and his latest debate entitled The Existence of the Christian God: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-curley00.html

<<
Your illustration, as most Trinitarians feebly try to explain, is totally flawed. The simple fact that these 3 part manifestations are distinct from the other, that comprise of Father who is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father and each is divine and equally in essence and individually are self aware and communicate with each other do not form One God. These 3 parts together form a unity in agreement made of 3 co-equal co-eternal self aware gods.

I am amazed that you cannot comprehend this simple fact..etc...etc.
>>

We are amazed at your ignorance and mental shallowness in approaching this subject. See whose thinking is more flawed - yours or ours :tongue: !

One of your own fellow-Muslims, by the name of Denis Giron, who was a former believer in Islam, an Islamophile and Quranic enthusiast, tried very hard to struggle with the concept of the Christian Trinity and he carefully studied the debates Dr.William Lane Craig had - INCLUDING debates with Muslims on this matter.

This was what Denis had to say in conclusion, on Octber 1, 2003:


"As I've stated here and elsewhere, I believe William Lane Craig
basically CLOSED the book on the controversy over the doctrine of the
Trinity when he noted that one has to understand the dichotomy between
a copula of identity and a copula of predication. When Trinitarians
utter the phrase "Jesus is God," it is perfectly compatible with a
Monotheist worldview if we hold that the copula employed (i.e. the
word 'is') is one of predication. Thus to say Jesus (or any other
member of theTrinity) is God is not to say that he is identical with
the Godhead in toto, but rather only that he has the attributes of
deity (that he is consubstantial with the Godhead). This is perfectly
in line with John 1:1. With this sort of clarification (which takes a
page from the philosophy of language), we see that the doctrine
Trinity can no longer be considered logically incoherent. It is
certainly not inconsistent with a Monotheist worldview or the text of
the Bible."
See the rest of his arguments, along with the rebuttals for the 'contradictions of the Bible' here:

http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.religion.christian/msg00896.html&e=7421 (http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.religion.christian/msg00896.html&e=7421)



You should know by now that Denis Giron has ALSO left and given up Islam completely!! So much fof the logical and intellectual consistency of 'Islamic logic'. If a thinking former Muslim like Denis can think through, rationally and open-mindedly understand the explications of Christian philosophers particularly on the Holy Trinity, we can only confirm that your closed mind is incapable of rational thought and surmise that all the Islamic preconceived ideas and prejudices against Christian truths have clouded your mind to almost beyond expansion! Pity indeed :eww: !

Remember 'heisonly1' that in Sunni Islam, the problem of the godhead of Allah is still unresolved. Sunni scholars were unable to simplify the concepts of Allah's attributes and his essences. Here is what an-Nasafi the Islamic
scholar, trying his best - codified in his creed:

"He - Allah, has qualities (sifat) from all eternity (azali) existing in His essence. They are not He nor are they any other than He. They are Knowledge and Power and Life and Strength and Hearing and Seeing and Doing and Creating and Sustaining and Speech (kalam)."

Source: http://www.muhammadanism.org/macdonald/development/p308.htm (http://www.muhammadanism.org/macdonald/development/p308.htm)

What does the blackened phrase above mean in today's common language & understanding? "They are not He nor are they any other than He"

It means : They (Allah's attributes) are not IDENTICAL WITH Allah, NEITHER are they SEPARABLE FROM Him! This sounds very much like Trinitarian language too!



Furthermore, additional confirmation is provided by al-Ghazali, Islam's medieval celebrated imam :

" The 'Ulama of Islam are also dogmatic in their assertions concerning the divine origin of the Qur'an. An-Nasafi, who lived in the sixth century of the Hijra, says, 'The Qur'an is the uncreated Word of God.' Al-Ghazali says, 'The Qur'an ... is subsisting in the essence of God.'"

Source :
http://www.google.com.my/search?q=cache:jYiQ6Fym3UgJ:muhammadanism.org/blair/sources/blair_sources.pdf+nasafi+uncreated+hijra+ghazali&hl=en&start=1&ie=UTF-8 ie. (on page 27)

What do your own Sunni muslim scholars/Ulamas say?? They say that the Quran is eternal (al-Ghazali) and uncreated (an-Nasafi)- see ABOVE! Anything that is eternal and uncreated IS GOD! So, you have a big problem too! Besides Allah in eternity, Islam teaches that there EXISTS ALSO His ETERNAL WORD - THE Quran- CO-EXISTING TOGETHER WITH Allah from eternity, and UNCREATED Just LIKE ALLAH HIMSELF WAS. So Sunni Muslims at least - worship 2 Deities according to the official creeds of Islamic orthodoxy!
You certainly DO NOT HAVE PROPER MONOTHEISM yourselves! It all flies out of the window if you follow the official creeds of Islamic orthodoxy!

No wonder your rival couterparts - THE SHI'A'S reject this creed totally. They do not believe that the Quran was ever eternal NOR was it UNCreated! So there was ever a time, the Shi'as teach, when the Quran NEVER EXISTED and so had to be created by Allah at a point in Time. And never the twain shall meet between the Sunnis and the Shiia on this Islamic doctrine of Allah's Godhead!!

Source for commentary on Shi'a Theology & doctrine:

http://www.google.com.my/search?q=cache:I3SGZ8FzTC4J:www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter9/1.html+quran+not+eternal+shia+&hl=en&start=8&ie=UTF-8

There really is NO consensus whatsoever in Islamic orthodoxy among the 2 largest Muslim groupings since hundreds of years ago! So, don't come to present that Islam's godhead is any better when you cannot agree among yourselves what the REAL CONCEPT OF Allah's godhead should be!

Regards, Dan.

[CatholicSage]

You are coming at this from the wrong direction, heisonly1. In your attempts to refute the Trinity, you are thinking in a mindset of "3 parts combine to form 1 God." In actuality, the Trinity is closer to "1 God manifests Himself in 3 ways." I really don't see the problem with that.

Your argument against God being able to manifest Himself in human form has one fatal error: God manifesting Himself in human form is logically conceivable, whereas all the other arguments (like the boulder one) involve examples that are logically inconceivable. I fully agree that God's omnipotence is not affected by the fact that He cannot commit logically impossible acts, but manifesting Himself in human form does not fall into that category.

[Dan Zebiri]

Actually, Muslims tend to be rather vertical-minded, ie.close minded with a one-track mind to differing explanations of the godhead.

As can be seen from heisonly1's disappearance from here, after I exposed Islam's own problems with their godhead, he failed to even honor his promised reply to an even earlier posting.

We can expect similar kinds of reactions from Muslims like him and even the troll like 'ezraah' - whos proving to be even WORSE By the day! He's the one who just excels in going off topic in one breath...:offtopic:!! So can we expect much sensible discussion from heisonly1 and ezraah?

Regards, Dan.