Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
zainabamy

How to respond to 'The Islamic Dilemma'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

^ I think you should watch it all. I'd like to hear the response then. It's an interesting video, although I'm not much for judging the religion of others. The " corrupt book" argument is just an easy out in many discussions. But so is the " false prophets" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to begin by agreeing with Leftcoast on the "corrupt book" thing.  It is too easy of an "out" given the circumstances.

 

Regardless though, in my opinion, this dilemma is only a dilemma for people who take scripture as literal, straight forward reality and have a limited imagination. The dilemma is dependent on X interpretation.

One thing we know about all scripture, is that everyone, you, me, your grandma, everyone, as an opinion. Everyone has an interpretation.  Once sentence in scripture can mean 100 different things to different people across the globe.

So, given the array of options that are fathomable by the human mind, the dilemma is only a dilemma for people with a limited imagination. So, let us watch now as people "fathom" solutions for this alleged dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoples ability to manipulate scripture both empowers scripture and weakens it.  Scripture is strengthened in that anyone and everyone can take it as truth in various interpretations. So much that 2 different kinds of muslims or 2 different kinds of christians may have widely different interpretations, both still muslim or christian.  It is weakened though, in that a large portion of interpretations are not demonstrable. The differences between those two kinds of muslims or christians, are things that they will likely not agree on, because neither can actually demonstrate truth in their own interpretation.  It remains in their own minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

I might just be even more tired than i feel, but i didnt spot a dilemma in this video. I watched to 7 mins and made some notes as i went. Im sorry if its sloppy, im very, very tired.

 

Believing in 'what was revealed' is believing in revelation. The words of men/women arent revelation.

 

 The Bible clearly contradicts the Quran in places, in others it agrees. As a mixture of truth and falsehood it is 'unreliable'.

 

The projection is false and/or the language used to describe God is problematic. The language used to describe God in Quran is also found in the Bible. Christian theologians like David Bentley Hart seem to be very clear that God being pointed to in the Bible is the same as God being pointed to in Quran. The point of contention is rather the nature of Jesus(as).

 

The original Torah was the Torah, the original Message of Jesus(as) was the Gospel. Who says God 'couldnt' protect the Torah? i dont remember ever reading/seeing/hearing a Muslim of any sect claiming that.

 

 

What God sent misguided people? or what God sent guided people, what people added to it misguided people? did God Allow for misguidance? yes, but you can say the same to Christians with regard to behaviour and beliefs of Christians sects over the centuries that theyve justified with scripture (and are still doing). So i guess God is still allowing people to be misguided by their scriptures to this day. Is that a problem?

 

 

 

The most apparent context of 18:27 (if you read the verses after) is prophet Mohammad(saw) being instructed about the Quran whilst the Torah and the Gospel are at best a mix of original revelation and other.

 

 

He seems to not be making a distinction between something being changed and something being mixed? you can have a mixture of truth and falsehood, the falsehood mixed with the truth doesnt make the true bit not true. The Quran says Mohammad came to confirm what was in the previous revelations and that the Quran is a reminder. Clearly, the Quran does not confirm everything the Torah and Gospels say; some of it is contradicted and some not referred to.

 

The Quran explicitly mentions the paraclete bible verse in 61:6

 

If the there is a Gospel verse that can easily be understood to be predicting prophet Mohammads(saw) appearance then the recognition of that in someone's awareness can act as confirmation, even if their tradition has taken to understanding it a different way prior to his appearance.

 

With regards to judging by Torah and Gospel, remember that the revelation of the Quran had not been completed when these verses were revealed and people were coming to the prophet(saw) for advice and judgements. Also, if youre a Jew rejecting Mohammads prophethood, why would you come to him for judgements that are your rabis jurisdiction? this could be a way of encouraging people who were already recognising the prophets(saw) authority, in some sense, to have the courage to take the next step and formerly attest to his prophethood and become Muslim.

 

Jews and Christians are believers, they are 'People of the Book' (even if the 'book's they inherited are a mixture of truth and falsehood). Theyre living next to and amongst the polytheists of Arabia. If they arent people of the book who accept prophet Mohammad(saw) it is surely best that they remain monotheists non the less?

 

God does tell them to believe in the Quran, but He also knows peoples hearts and destiny.

 

The verse before 94:10 talks about how the Children of Israel argued amongst themselves after revelation had come to them and that God will judge regarding what they differ about (presumably interpretation). So it would seem that the Quran is saying that the Quran will agree with parts of the Torah and this should 'confirm'. I dont know the tafseer of this verse but if the prophet(saw) was being given information that he knew he didnt previously know, he could check the previous scriptures and know that this information was of devine origin because it was found in them. Imagine if one day you knew a load of historical details about prophets or events that you know you didnt previously know; what would you do? i'd start Googling to check to see if they matched up, or go to a library. 7th century Arabia didnt have libraris as far as i'm aware, so i guess people had to go and visit those in the know. So maybe this verse was for prophet Mohammads(saw) personal confirmation. This would seem an obvious explanation, but, like i say, i dont know the tafseer so someone else will have to comment about that.

 

Edited by Ruq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam, Sister

Actually this argument raised by Christian missionaries is answered by a website I believe the website was either Answering Christianity or Islamic Awareness.

Realistically speaking the Christians of the Prophet(pbuh)'s time had an oral tradition and not a codified Bible so that would have been the Injeel, however, the original Injeel has been lost to time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismillaah ir Rahmaan ir Rahiim.  As salaamu alaykum.  This video appears to be the work of the cia. They seem to have nothing better to do with their time. It's foolishness to be truthful. The Elite, of the New World Order,  want the elimination of all religion, yet they deem to have one world religion. Their one world religion is Communism.  The point is to cause confusion.  And just who is the author of confusion?  Satan, their god.

And here is the latest (part 15) of NWO: communism by the back door ~ 

 

Edited by Faithfully999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video comes from David Wood. I guess he's slowed down on picking the Bible apart and started on the Quran. 

Problem is he's talking Bible and Quran, but speaking Islam and Christianity. 

Christianity states trinity, but the Bible doesn't exactly. Quran does not say all those things did not happen to Jesus, Islam does.

Let's not forget Christianity, as well as Islam has set up barriers (not mentioned in any scriptures) to maintain a division. This is why it's impossible to see how the Bible and Quran align. Everybody is certain they don't.

God didn't do that to us. Rather than read in an unbias manner we tend to listen to what other people tell us our books say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the logic in the Video indiscussible. Having said this I find the premiss wrong. We should not demand the Bible and the Quran as perfect divine books. The Video elegantly show the Quran isn't , but demonstrating the bible isn't perfect either is just as easy. Sorry for being offensive, just being honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, andres said:

I find the logic in the Video indiscussible. Having said this I find the premiss wrong. We should not demand the Bible and the Quran as perfect divine books. The Video elegantly show the Quran isn't , but demonstrating the bible isn't perfect either is just as easy. Sorry for being offensive, just being honest. 

Not quite David Wood assumes the same Injil and Tawrat of our time are the same as we have now there was no codified book known as the New Testament version among the Christians nor among the Jews of Arabia. They were known however to have consulted oral traditions of which have been lost to time this was likely referring  to the religious traditions they possessed i.e. Tawrat and Injil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 17, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Enlightened Follower said:

Salaam, Sister

Actually this argument raised by Christian missionaries is answered by a website I believe the website was either Answering Christianity or Islamic Awareness.

Realistically speaking the Christians of the Prophet(pbuh)'s time had an oral tradition and not a codified Bible so that would have been the Injeel, however, the original Injeel has been lost to time.

 

The Christian scriptures were codified long before Mohammed was born. By the time of the North African Councils in the late 300's early 400's CE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:

The Christian scriptures were codified long before Mohammed was born. By the time of the North African Councils in the late 300's early 400's CE. 

The Quran confirms these past scriptures and does not say they were corrupted yet those that teach "Islam" say so. I see it as a specific agenda to keep Muslims from reading past scriptures. Hey...It worked. But that in itself is the corruption everyone is looking elsewhere for. From what I have seen of Mr. Deedat, he is one of those who corrupt.

I noticed that in one of his speeches having to do with the Christian Jesus. 20 minutes of speech were debunked two verses earlier in the chapter that he sited. I see this as reading the truth and teaching different. That IS mentioned in the Quran, but is always used as Christians corrupting the Bible, never Muslims. 

Also, to say, "We don't believe what it says because God would never allow it, so it must be corrupted" is like saying God would never allow a child to starve to death, therefore no child has ever starved to death, and anyone who says so is a liar.

If we apply this twisted logic, we should be able to come up with which ever conclusion we want. 

If some skips are scaps, and some scaps are scops, then some skips must be scops.

true/false?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the reason for this threads dilemma simply be that the author of the Quran was not fully aware of the content in the Bible? It probably did not take long until Muslims discovered differences. Corruption of the Bible became the explanation. 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2016 at 8:13 PM, LeftCoastMom said:

The Christian scriptures were codified long before Mohammed was born. By the time of the North African Councils in the late 300's early 400's CE. 

Yes but there countless different  gospels we don't have with this today and the  Christians of Arabia had an oral tradition dating from the Israelites the first Arabic Bible wasn't  codified by the Christians until the written circulation  of the Quran. 

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2016 at 5:32 AM, andres said:
On 2/21/2016 at 2:49 PM, Son of Placid said:

The Quran confirms these past scriptures and does not say they were corrupted yet those that teach "Islam" say so. I see it as a specific agenda to keep Muslims from reading past scriptures. Hey...It worked. But that in itself is the corruption everyone is looking elsewhere for. From what I have seen of Mr. Deedat, he is one of those who corrupt.

I noticed that in one of his speeches having to do with the Christian Jesus. 20 minutes of speech were debunked two verses earlier in the chapter that he sited. I see this as reading the truth and teaching different. That IS mentioned in the Quran, but is always used as Christians corrupting the Bible, never Muslims. 

Also, to say, "We don't believe what it says because God would never allow it, so it must be corrupted" is like saying God would never allow a child to starve to death, therefore no child has ever starved to death, and anyone who says so is a liar.

If we apply this twisted logic, we should be able to come up with which ever conclusion we want. 

If some skips are scaps, and some scaps are scops, then some skips must be scops.

 

Sorry no cigar the KJV is very new additionally there are to this day different scriptures amongst the Christians of Ethiopia  the Greek Orthodox Church and there are gospels which have been lost to time. Also the Christians had an oral tradition distinct from that established under the Council of Nicea.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2016 at 8:13 PM, LeftCoastMom said:

The Christian scriptures were codified long before Mohammed was born. By the time of the North African Councils in the late 300's early 400's CE. 

We don't have any evidence  North African gospels were amongst the Christians of Arabia additionally  many Gospels were suppressed by the early churches i.e Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Thomas and lost to time and who knows how many others were lost as well.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lol...there were Councils in Arabia, too, before the North African ones. There were no " North African gospels". These meetings were to set the entire canon of the Christian Scriptures common to all. The Arab Churches were some of the first Christians and were part of this development. That they had a form of the Scriptures is simply common sense, but you can take that up with the Arab Christians. Pretty sure they will agree with me. 

Even if you think they had "gospels" that were suppressed, that is still not reliance on " oral tradition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, lol...there were Councils in Arabia, too, before the North African ones. There were no " North African gospels". These meetings were to set the entire canon of the Christian Scriptures common to all. The Arab Churches were some of the first Christians and were part of this development. That they had a form of the Scriptures is simply common sense, but you can take that up with the Arab Christians. Pretty sure they will agree with me. 

Even if you think they had "gospels" that were suppressed, that is still not reliance on " oral tradition".

There are valid hadiths showing they did have an oral tradition

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeftCoastMom said:

Well, lol...there were Councils in Arabia, too, before the North African ones. There were no " North African gospels". These meetings were to set the entire canon of the Christian Scriptures common to all. The Arab Churches were some of the first Christians and were part of this development. That they had a form of the Scriptures is simply common sense, but you can take that up with the Arab Christians. Pretty sure they will agree with me. 

Even if you think they had "gospels" that were suppressed, that is still not reliance on " oral tradition".

Additionally Jews and Christians of Arabia had different  beliefs than main stream sects of Judaism and Christianity for instance the Jews of Arabia thought Ezra was the son of God therefore this indicates they had different sources which they drew their beliefs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islamic literature shouldn't be a primary source over Christian literature on the topic of Christian history.  It's like asking a doctor how to do dental work over a dentist.

Islamic literature may be used to cross check Christian literature, but it couldn't reasonably outweight it on this topic.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

There are valid hadiths showing they did have an oral tradition

Showing or saying?

The trouble with hadith...Somebody said that somebody said somebody said that somebody was sitting beside somebody who said their uncle told them that somebody said. Who are these somebodies? In many cases they are Imams, in other cases they are men who can be trusted because somebody said.

The KJV was a translation into English as was the Douay Rheims. The KJV was translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic while the DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Put the KJV and the DR side by side and you will notice they are still almost word for word, Just like the English translations of the Quran are very close. 

14 hours ago, Enlightened Follower said:

Sorry no cigar the KJV is very new additionally there are to this day different scriptures amongst the Christians of Ethiopia  the Greek Orthodox Church and there are gospels which have been lost to time. Also the Christians had an oral tradition distinct from that established under the Council of Nicea.

That doesn't really mean a lot because there are also versions to this day of the Quran that differ being used in parts of the world mostly between Ethiopia and Greece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, iCambrian said:

Islamic literature shouldn't be a primary source over Christian literature on the topic of Christian history.  It's like asking a doctor how to do dental work over a dentist.

Islamic literature may be used to cross check Christian literature, but it couldn't reasonably outweight it on this topic.

Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

 

The KJV was a translation into English as was the Douay Rheims. The KJV was translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic while the DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Put the KJV and the DR side by side and you will notice they are still almost word for word, Just like the English translations of the Quran are very close. 

The later Challoner was even closer, supposedly, using the original languages and not the Vulgate...and there was cross-pollination in the usage of English with the KJV.

But even by my grandparents time there was the Confraternity and by my time American Catholics could use pretty much what they wanted, showing preference for the NAS ( Catholic study), Jerusalem, New International, etc. The Church has faith that God's message is intact. The important thing was that we read and understand it. Trying to catch up with Protestants on that...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2016 at 1:28 PM, iCambrian said:

Islamic literature shouldn't be a primary source over Christian literature on the topic of Christian history.  It's like asking a doctor how to do dental work over a dentist.

Islamic literature may be used to cross check Christian literature, but it couldn't reasonably outweight it on this topic.

And I don't mean to argue with all three of you guys just want to clear misconceptions, but there were well established oral religious traditions in Arabian society among Jews and Christians both.

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Enlightened Follower,

 

Quote: Additionally Jews and Christians of Arabia had different beliefs than main stream sects of Judaism and Christianity for instance the Jews of Arabia thought Ezra was the son of God therefore this indicates they had different sources which they drew their beliefs

 

Response: --- While you may think it was a new source for the belief of Exra being a son of God, we can find it in the OT.

In the Quran it also mentions that some called Ezra the son of God, in Surah 9:

30 "The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God. They say this (only) with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times."

 

When they speak of those in 'former times,' that usually refers to the OT.

--- Nebuchadnezzar invaded Israel in 600 BC and took many captives to Babylon. They were there for some 70 years. --- It was during these years that Daniel interpreted dreams for Nebuchadnezzar and gave the Prophecy of the Great Image. The head of Gold, (Nebuchadnezzar), the breast and arms of Silver (Medio-Persia) the midriff and thighs of bronze (Alexander the Great), the legs of iron, (the divided kingdom of the Romans), --- the feet and toes, partly of iron and partly of clay (the divided nations of the Roman Empire), and the 'ten toes' are 'ten kings.' --- The 'mixture' of iron and clay means 'stong and brittle,' because these two materials don't mix. --- This is the period we are in presently, and we are waiting for the next part of the prophecy to be fulfilled.

 

In the days of King Cyrus of Persia, God had instructed him through a prophecy of Jeremiah, to releast all the Jews and give them every assistance to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple This is all in Ezra 1-6. --- Ezra was a Priest and Scribe and was the leader of the return to Jerusalem, along with Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah.

It says in Ezra 7:

9 and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him.

10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

--- (From this dedication alone, Ezra would have been called a 'son of God.') --- In the NT it says, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, [as Ezra was] they are the sons of God. --- Jesus said in Matthew 5:

9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

 

--- (Back to Ezra: --- A litle later, under King Artaxerxes, Ezra, who was both a Priest and Scribe, took the leadership in restoring the Worship of God, and he read to the people the cammandments of Moses. --- As it says in Nehemiah 8:

2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday,

4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for that purpose.

 

Exra was considered a 'savior' or 'messiah' in the human sence, becuase he was God's voice to the people of his generation.

--- Sorry, long answer to a short comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Enlightened Follower,

 

I would just like to add something about that verse in Surah 9:

30 "The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God. They say this (only) with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times."

 

It is common in the OT that Prophets, Priests and some kings, like David and Solomon were called sons of God, --- and considering Ezra's dedication, and this statement, "He (Ezra) came to Jerusalem, according to the good hand of his God upon him." --- Ezra is credited with restoring worship of God among his own people in the new Temple in their own city of Jerusalem.

 

So the difference between what the Scripture says and what the Quran says, seems to be contradictory. --- Now do you think that God contradicts Himself?

 

There were some 360 idols in the Kabah, the House of Prayer in Mecca, when God instructed Muhammad to go and preach in Mecca that there is only ONE GOD.

--- The idolaters had to be converted, and the teaching of One God was the contention with the idolaters. --- Also some of the idols were 'sons and daughters, of gods,' --- so in rejecring other gods they rejected that anyone could be CALLED the 'son of God,' --- as both Ezra, and Jesus were.

Before it speaks of the virgin birth it says in Surah 3:

45 Remember when the angel said: O Mary, God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is Christ Jesus, son of Mary;

 

The corresponding verse which was written some 600 years earlier is Luke 1:

35 "That Holy one to be born, will be CALLED the Son of God."

 

With Muslims, being convinced that God could not have anyone CALLED His son, they rejected the teaching of the OT, saying of those:

"They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times."

--- However, the statement is true, --- Ezra was called the 'son of God' in the OT, and Jesus was called the Son of God in the NT.

--- And in the Quran it says, God sent a son to Mary. --- Also it says in Surah 19:

35 It is not befitting (out of the ordinary) for God to have a son, Glory be to Him. When He decrees a matter, He says to it only "Be!" and it is.

 

Supposng we split the verse in two statements,

"The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God."

("They say this only with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times.")

 

Could it have been that since the strong teaching against God having anyone called 'His son' would be wrong to them, --- that they wanted to correct it?

The Original Quran was with Ali. --- When he presented it to Abu Bakr, and Umar, who became the first two Caliphs, they rejected it.

However, the many copies of Surahs that they had, were distributed among the people, and then, --- they were kept in somebody's house for some 20 years, before the third Caliph Uthman brought them all together. --- He had three scholars to assist him (but Ali was not one of them, though he was there all of the time).

--- It could have been that, not knowing the OT, when the four were studying and came across a statement that to them was wrong, they might have added their own correction.

--- Mr Uthman was not an Imam, and he had lied to his countrymen, and was murdered was he not?

 

I think this may have happened in a few cases where there seem to be some contradiction from God's word.

--- And if you rely more on hadiths than the Quran, then there is that much more influence from the opinions of men.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...