Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[barnasha]

I don't see Muhammad as specifically targeting jews or arabs. The advent of Islam even let black slaves be equal to arabs, and rich equal to poor. It was very forward thinking for its time in terms of its openness to all races....

Were there slaves that were christian back in those days? If so were they given equal status as the europeans?

[smaneck]

I don't see Muhammad as specifically targeting jews or arabs. The advent of Islam even let black slaves be equal to arabs, and rich equal to poor. It was very forward thinking for its time in terms of its openness to all races....

Dear Barmasha,

I'm not suggesting that Jews or anyone else weren't welcome to become Muslims if they wished to, but Muhammad took a different attitude towards people who had alredy received a revelation from God and initially at least other Muslims followed. For instance, during the Arab invasions Christian and Muslim Arabs fought side by side and were treated equally. After the conquest there really wasn't that much encouragement for non-Arabs to become Muslims. When they did so they had to attach themselves in a client relationship with an Arab tribe. It is not until Umar II that conversion among People of the Book is encouraged.

warmest, Susan

[Dan Zebiri]

The verse below states the PURPOSE Muhd had in following the Qiblah of the Jews.

Sura 2 al baqara v.143 says;

"Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed (IE.towards Jerusalem) [B]only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels.[/B]

"In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.

THEN, when Muhd FAILED miserably to win these jews over to islam, came down the following TWO verses

V 144 :

"We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship, and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

V.145 :

"And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah, nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah; nor are some of them followers of the qiblah of others. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers.

Why, the jews would never follow muhd's WRONG teachings ! So, after 17-18 months Muhd wanted to change from this old qiblah!

so, verse 144 - 145 MAKES THIS VERY PLAIN! :-

"..they - these stubborn jews - would not follow thy qiblah, (SO) nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah; nor are some of them followers of the qiblah of others.."

They jews rejected Muhd's teachings, so here, he is explicitly instructed to also reject their qiblah.

Thus, subesquently came down the 'wahy' / "revelation" to him to forget about jerusalem as his qiblah, and to change that to Makkah - toward the kaaba - the 'inviolable place of worship'!

EVEN THOUGH, UP to and even AFTER that time, that kaaba was still the PAGAN TEMPLE FILLED WITH 360 IDOLS worshipped by the pagan quraish.

This is the very place where muslims MUST also face to worship and to pray1

Isn't that PLAIN hypocritical - praying towards the 300-plus pagan idols while still pretending to preach in only one god!

But it's all only what is convenient to muhammad & to suit his expediencyl.

Dan.

[smaneck]

Sorry Dan, but you have completely misunderstood those Qur'anic passages.

When it speaks of 'those who turn on their heels' the reference isn't to Jews but rather to former Muslims who left Islam when Muhammad changed the qiblih. The reason is that like a lot of rigid Christians they believed that God's will could never change.

[Dan Zebiri]

Too bad, but we all feel the sorry FOR YOU....;-))))!!

Because that wasnt the verse I was highlighting!

Verse that you should take note of is :

verse 145 of al-baqara :
"And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah, nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah;.."

Remember, muhd told his muslims to face towards Jerusalem, and then he also preached islam very hard to them - to convert them into this new religion!

But his failure to win them to islam, caused the verse to change that original earlier qiblah away!

Any way - you have still failed to explain why Muhd forced his followers to turn to face and worship towards the kaaba in Makaah when the kaaba was still a PAGAN TEMPLE for the Arabs, and filled with hundreds of pagan idols of worship!

A 'very strict' monotheist telling his followers to kneel and bow towards 360 idols is the epitome of muslim pious hypocriisy indeed!

Must have been a very enjoyable experience for them and for Muhd.indeed.

Think carefully on that, before knee-jerking again, sue!! ;-))))!

Dan.

[smaneck]

Too bad, but we all feel the sorry FOR YOU....;-))))!!

Because that wasnt the verse I was highlighting!

Verse that you should take note of is :

verse 145 of al-baqara :
"And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah, nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah;..

That passage does not say Muhammad adopted Jerusalem as the Qiblih in order to get Muslims to follow Him. What it *does* say is that there is nothing to be gained from monotheists all facing the same direction.

Remember, muhd told his muslims to face towards Jerusalem, and then he also preached islam very hard to them - to convert them into this new religion!

Muslims were already converted. There is no evidence Muhammad expended a lot of energy preaching to Jews. He did answer their attacks, however, because they were casting seeds of doubts into the hearts of Muslims.

[Any way - you have still failed to explain why Muhd forced his followers to turn to face and worship towards the kaaba in Makaah when the kaaba was still a PAGAN TEMPLE for the Arabs, and filled with hundreds of pagan idols of worship!

It was also established by the Abraham for the worship of the one true God. Adopting the Kaaba as the Qiblih was a way of acknowledging God's revelation to ARABS apart from any dependence on the Jews.

[Dan Zebiri]

Answering with typical islamic/bahai POLEMICS and propoganda / dawaganda never helps your case AT ALL, Sue!

The verse I quoted you immediately before your response states that 'Muhamad CANNOT be a follower of the Qiblah of the People of the Book, since THEY WOULD NOT follow THY - ie. Muhamad's, qiblah' That is Muhamads teachings of islam - since Muhamad's qiblah was THE SAME as the Jews up until THAT TIME.

So, WHAT was it that the JEWS would NOT FOLLOW after all?? It was Muhd's teachings - and especially those stories that he re-told ABOUT THE JEWs and their historical figures - Moses, Aaron, David, Abraham, Lot Etc, that were all wrong in their factual details.

Secondly, Abraham 'going to Mecca to re-build.repair the Kaaba' is merely a myth and a legend. The Jews also never agreed with Muhamad on this piece of islamic polemic.

It is not proven AT ALL, THAT Such an episode ever occurred!

There are no corroborative archaelogical, historical and valid documentary evidence that Abraham EVER went from Canaan into Makkah in Arabia.

The Kaaba was a PAGAN TEMPLE from the first to last.

Dan.

[smaneck]

Answering with typical islamic/bahai POLEMICS and propoganda / dawaganda never helps your case AT ALL, Sue!

Sorry Dan, but Muslims exegeting their own scriptures does not constitute polemics. What constitutes polemics are the kind of anit-Islamic webstites you get your stuff from.

[Secondly, Abraham 'going to Mecca to re-build.repair the Kaaba' is merely a myth and a legend.

In any case, this is a legend which predates Islam.

It is not proven AT ALL, THAT Such an episode ever occurred!
There are no corroborative archaelogical, historical and valid documentary evidence that Abraham EVER went from Canaan into Makkah in Arabia.

There is no corrobative archaelological, historical and valid documentarry evidence he ever lived for that matter. The Bible constitutes no better documentation than the Qur'an in this respect. Genesis was still written a thousand years after Abraham supposedly lived.

Susan

[Dan Zebiri]

This 'explanation' does not help you explain away the fact that Muslims in that time (Sura al-baqara) bowed towards and worshiped towards a pagan temple FIILLED with 300-plus IDOLS - AT THE INSTRUCTION OF MUHAMMAD himself, who at the same time preached a one-god only story to them.

Dan.

[barnasha]

This 'explanation' does not help you explain away the fact that Muslims in that time (Sura al-baqara) bowed towards and worshiped towards a pagan temple FIILLED with 300-plus IDOLS - AT THE INSTRUCTION OF MUHAMMAD himself, who at the same time preached a one-god only story to them.

Dan.

When Muhammad conquered Mecca, he destroyed the 360 idols around Kaaba which the Meccan pagans possessed. [28][29] There was one god for each day of the year. [28] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says "Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish." [28][29]


- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba

[smaneck]

I am not surprised you would turn this into some sort of personal attack, again

since you have nothing of substance to talk about, your game is to post some purposefully slanderous and abrasive material so you can get someone to call it into question. Then you can turn it into an attack on them


do you know anything else but calling names and making things look bad?

the bible i read teaches people to behave otherwise

Isn't it amazing how Christians will try and establish the superiority of their own religion by being more hateful?

[RCNicholas]

do you know anything else but calling names and making things look bad?

the bible i read teaches people to behave otherwise

It also teaches people to believe solely in Jesus Christ for salvation and to obey apostolic teaching, but you don't seem particularly keen on those commands...

[barnasha]

It also teaches people to believe solely in Jesus Christ for salvation and to obey apostolic teaching, but you don't seem particularly keen on those commands...

You're probably referring to Paul's letters. Paul is frequently misunderstood and you seem to only understand his teachings through the lens of your particular doctrinal institution. Otherwise feel free to present your argument as to why your assertion should be considered in any way valid.

Neither Jesus nor Paul taught a shallow, dogmatic "belief in Jesus", they taught faith.

I am not too keen on many of the Christian institutions belief systems which are orthogonal to the teachings of both Jesus and Paul as found in the scriptures (without this particular dogma "read in between the lines", of course).

But what I am keen on is irrelevant. What Jesus and Paul teach is the only thing that matters, their teachings stand on their own, and we have the books of the "new testament" available to read and consider.

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE]

You're probably referring to Paul's letters. Paul is frequently misunderstood and you seem to only understand his teachings through the lens of your particular doctrinal institution. Otherwise feel free to present your argument as to why your assertion should be considered in any way valid.

Neither Jesus nor Paul taught a shallow, dogmatic "belief in Jesus", they taught faith.

It is not an argument against my statements to say that I interpret Scripture in keeping with the teachings of my Church. You interpret Scripture in keeping with the teachings of Baha'i and the interpretations of Baha'u'llah. That's entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. More to the point, you're demonstrably incorrect:

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe." John 5:37-38

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.' " John 11:25

"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me." John 14:1

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:31

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.' " Romans 10:9-11


Shall I go on?

Also, the words "believe" and "faith" in Greek are the same word as far as I know, pisteuo. One is the verb, the other the noun.

I am not too keen on many of the Christian institutions belief systems which are orthogonal to the teachings of both Jesus and Paul as found in the scriptures (without this particular dogma "read in between the lines", of course).

You don't have to read "believe in Christ" between the lines...it's right there in black and white.

But what I am keen on is irrelevant. What Jesus and Paul teach is the only thing that matters, their teachings stand on their own, and we have the books of the "new testament" available to read and consider.

Absolutely. I have presented what the New Testament has to say on the issue...if you'd like more quotes, I can of course oblige.

[barnasha]

[quote=RCNicholas;2380910]

It is not an argument against my statements to say that I interpret Scripture in keeping with the teachings of my Church. You interpret Scripture in keeping with the teachings of Baha'i and the interpretations of Baha'u'llah.

I interpret scriptures the same way I interpret anything, as a scientist and a thinker, as a historian.

I do so without preconceived conclusions, judgements, etc.

This is something C R I T I C A L to a proper analysis of ANYTHING, especially the exegesis of a theological text.

And I know very little about Baha'ullah.

That's entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. More to the point, you're demonstrably incorrect:

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe." John 5:37-38

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.' " John 11:25

"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me." John 14:1

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:31

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.' " Romans 10:9-11


Shall I go on?

How does any of this make me wrong?

Also, the words "believe" and "faith" in Greek are the same word as far as I know, pisteuo. One is the verb, the other the noun.

You don't have to read "believe in Christ" between the lines...it's right there in black and white.

right.

so in greek, and in the context of Paul's writings and the gospels, "believe" means have faith in -- not the dogmatic proclamation that "I believe in Jesus" (i.e. the affirmation of the acceptance of a belief system as opposed to faith in a man and his teachings).

such dogmatism would have fit in better with the mainstream Judaism of which Jesus and Paul were heretics.

Absolutely. I have presented what the New Testament has to say on the issue...if you'd like more quotes, I can of course oblige.