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

Why should I believe in Muhammad over others?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 420
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a convert to Shiism from Sunnism, but my conversion took place about 9 years ago, and so it is difficult for me to get back into the mindset of what initially brought me over, as I have matured a

Dear brother @Christianity I could (we could) answer this question of yours in so many ways that I’m afraid we may overwhelm you with the variety and the depth of the dimensions in which we could

Know that Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, created creation and placed intellect in them as a proof for or against them. He placed it in them and demonstrated it in them by means of the effects of His

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

@andres, Quick question. Why do you call yourself a Christian? You are not espousing biblical views.

  • Luke and Matthew do not disagree, they are simply discussing different aspects of the birth story.
  • Why assert the virgin birth is a myth? We're talking about GOD, he can do whatever he wants to do

Muslim friends, Andres claims to be a Christian, but you need to know that he isn't espousing a biblical view. Sure there are scribal errors here and there in the ancient manuscripts and there are a short passage or two in the New Testament which may have been added later (this is noted in the printed text, by the way, not kept secret). But at its core the Bible is trustworthy.  

Seemingly being a person that does not recognise there are contradictions between the Gospels, I am not surprised you do not regard me as a Christian. Fundamentalist often do. There are very many Christians like me. 

Of course God could have had Jesus born by a Virgin. (but why?) However Mathew and Luke clearly were told two different birth stories. Not anybodys fault, and it has no impact on Jesus message.  For example: did Josef and Mary live in Nasareth before Jesus was born, or did they first settle there later? This is not a copy error.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

Sure there are scribal errors here and there in the ancient manuscripts and there are a short passage or two in the New Testament which may have been added later (this is noted in the printed text, by the way, not kept secret). But at its core the Bible is trustworthy.  

سبحان الله

“And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.”

Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem,

Surah al-Ma’ida,

Verse 14

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, andres said:

Seemingly being a person that does not recognise there are contradictions between the Gospels, I am not surprised you do not regard me as a Christian. Fundamentalist often do. There are very many Christians like me. 

Of course God could have had Jesus born by a Virgin. (but why?) However Mathew and Luke clearly were told two different birth stories. Not anybodys fault, and it has no impact on Jesus message.  For example: did Josef and Mary live in Nasareth before Jesus was born, or did they first settle there later? This is not a copy error.

It's not a copy error, no, but there also is no contradiction there. Just because Matthew said they moved there without specifying it as a return doesn't mean that they didn't live there before going to Bethlehem and onto Egypt. 

I agree that there are apparent contradictions but virtually all have a reasonable, perspectival explanation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

It's not a copy error, no, but there also is no contradiction there. Just because Matthew said they moved there without specifying it as a return doesn't mean that they didn't live there before going to Bethlehem and onto Egypt. 

I agree that there are apparent contradictions but virtually all have a reasonable, perspectival explanation. 

After having been refugees in Egypt, Josef decides to go home. When Josef hears that Archelaus was the new king in Judea, (Judea is home!) he decides to settle in Galilea. In Nazareth.

 

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, and said,
20 "Get up, take the Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for those who sought the Child's life are dead."
21 So Joseph got up, took the Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel.
22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee,
23

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/14/2017 at 5:50 AM, Christianity said:

Many people have claimed some kind of divine revelation throughout history, so in that respect Muhammad is no unique. I want to know your reasons for choosing Islam over any other religion, and why I should chose it. Why should we believe in Muhammad over Zoroaster, or Buddha, or Mani, or Joseph Smith, or Ellen G. White? How is Muhammad superior to these other "prophets"? How did he prove himself? What makes him unique? 

Why not? 

What do you need to believe in his prophethood, from a unique book to miracles to excellent organization and morals, ask what do you need :) 

Dead sea scrolls:

22627698_1135745876556919_522732951_n.png

Edited by M.IB
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

I agree that there are apparent contradictions but virtually all have a reasonable, perspectival explanation. 

The historical contradictions between the two Birth narratives cannot be explained away, but Lukes story is by far the most plausible story. Luke reports:

The Roman Emperor had decided a sensus of all people under his rule to be made. Because Josef was a decendant of King David  Mary and Josef had to go to  Bethlehem in Judea to be registered. During this stayJesus was born. Even Luke has problems:

Luke says the sensus tok place when Quirinius was in charge of Roman Syrian and Herod the Great was King of Judea (part of Roman Syria). We know that  Archelaus was fired and Quirinius appointed 6AD. We also know that Herod died 4BC. According to Mathew, Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, which means no later than 4BC.  If Lukes info that the sensus was made under Quirinius rule is correct, Jesus was born after 6AD

Jesus was born in a Barn, because all lodging in small Bethlehem was occupied. David had of course many descendants. Was it really necessary for them at all to go to Bethlehem? We have no indications this was ever so. Instead agents travelled to wherever people lived, making the registration on spot. 

Matthews story, the three astrologers and the Star , the killing of all children in Rama and escape to Egypt, Luke does not mention. Nor does any of the other NT Books. Or contemporary records. Luke and Mathew were 1st century humans. There was no internet to look up when the sensus took place, when Quirinius started his job, or if there was a bright new Star on heaven 80 years before they wrote their Gospels. But does this invalidate both entire Gospels? Of course not. It really does not matter if Jesus was born before or after year zero. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, andres said:

The historical contradictions between the two Birth narratives cannot be explained away (I don't see why not, given how shaky dating is for all events in the ancient world), ......
But does this invalidate both entire Gospels? Of course not. It really does not matter if Jesus was born before or after year zero. 

@andresI'm glad to see you don't write the Gospels off entirely. I'm glad you agree that the minute details such as what year Jesus was born don't affect any doctrine. But why would you go so far as to presume that the miracles reported were mythical? The miracles throughout the Bible do affect the core truth of Christianity. How do you, as a confessing Christian, justify throwing out the miraculous intervention of God throughout human history? 

Please don't read that in an angry tone, I am genuinely perplexed at how or why one would be a Christian without believing the Bible at face value regarding miracles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Also, @andres, because I don't want you to think I'm ignoring what you said earlier, I agree that at first glance it would seem there is a factual discrepancy between the two accounts.

If you dig just a little deeper, you will see there is a very reasonable potential scenario that explains all of this, without any great acrobatics of the imagination. It is very possible that Quirinius was in charge of Syria at two different times. Scholars don't even know for certain who was governing Syria from approximately 4 - 1 BCE. Quirinius was already active in politics at that time (in fact, serving as a duumviri a "joint legate," apparently stationed in Pisidian Antioch (in modern day Turkey). From this position it is not a stretch to speculate that Quirinius was serving in a provisional gubernatorial role [possibly even a shared role] over Syria while simultaneously leading a lengthy campaign against the Homonadenses as legate of Galatia (also in Turkey). He served in this role from about 5 BC to 3 BC. Keeping in mind that ancient dates are all approximate, this makes it very plausible that he did indeed govern Syria in some capacity while Herod was still alive, even if he did not make it onto history's list of officially appointed Governors.

As a brother in Christ, I urge you not to be so quick to jump to the conclusions that the Bible is in error. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, after all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, notme said:

Most of us who have been around for a while are aware that @andres has a fairly liberal interpretation of Christianity. We allow for diversity of opinion here, so long as all are respectful and follow the site rules and guidelines. 

Okay, as long as you are aware! Obviously I'm new here, and I suppose it's obvious now that I have a much more conservative view. In fact, my view is much closer to what the Qur'an espouses in 5:47. Namely, that the Injeel is trustworthy enough that it should be the basis by which Christians make their judgements and decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

As a brother in Christ, I urge you not to be so quick to jump to the conclusions that the Bible is in error. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, after all. 

سبحان الله

“Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.”

Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem,

Surah al-Ma’idah,

Verse 73

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, M.IB said:

Why not? 

What do you need to believe in his prophethood, from a unique book to miracles to excellent organization and morals, ask what do you need :) 

Dead sea scrolls:

@M.IB, can you please provide a verse reference for the quotation in the image you put up? I've read the whole Bible several times, haven't seen Ahmad in there yet! So naturally I'm skeptical about that translation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

Okay, as long as you are aware! Obviously I'm new here, and I suppose it's obvious now that I have a much more conservative view. In fact, my view is much closer to what the Qur'an espouses in 5:47. Namely, that the Injeel is trustworthy enough that it should be the basis by which Christians make their judgements and decisions.

سبحان الله

Quote

Surah al-Ma’idah, Verse 47

وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فِيهِ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ 

47. "So the people of the Evangel should judge by what Allah has sent down in it, and those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, those are they that are the evil-doers."

Those Who Do not Judge on the Divine Law

After referring to the revelation of Evangel in the former verses, in this verse the Qur'an says:

"So the people of the Evangel should judge by what Allah has sent down in it...."

The objective meaning of this statement is that: after the revelation of Evangel to Jesus (as), Allah ordered the followers of it to act accordingly and judge by what He had sent down in it.

Then, at the end of the verse, it emphasizes again and says:

"... and those who do not judge by what Allah has sent down, those are they that are the evil-doers."

Source: https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-4/surah-al-maidah-chapter-5-introduction

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Kazemi, @Kazemi, what is your point? 

If you read Sura 5, verses 43-47, it is very clear that Muhammad is saying the Jews should judge by their own scripture, and the Christians should judge by their own scripture. It is clear from the orderly flow of ideas. 

I am glad that the Qur'an claims to be a clear revelation. This means we can take it at face value, and should not have to seek explanation. Kazemi my friend, you should read the Bible and seek within it the guidance and light that you have been promised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Qa'im said:

I am a convert to Shiism from Sunnism, but my conversion took place about 9 years ago, and so it is difficult for me to get back into the mindset of what initially brought me over, as I have matured and developed so much throughout the years. In Islam in general, I liked that it was a sophisticated, full-circle, holistic, and comprehensive worldview and way of life. It never leaves one without guidance, on nearly every aspect of one's life, from the mundane to the complex. How to make the best out of life and society is all delineated in a relatively clear and consistent way.  Some may find that constricting, but I think order is the highest function of human life, in that our minds incline towards Order (categorization, systematization, theorization, discipline, cleanliness, organization, language, and logic). These are some of man's highest expressions, and we feel dissatisfied with confusion, disorganization, and laziness. Ethics is but a branch of aesthetics, and in order and symmetry we find beauty and peace. Despite its vast complexity, Islam appealed to every part of the world, and was practiced closely and consistently for many centuries, which suggests that the regimen it brings is constructed to fit human nature and human convention. It is a robust tradition in a world that is constantly changing to the whims of the masses and the market. I can't fathom something like that being fabricated by one man or a group of men, because that would require superhuman foresight and clairvoyance. There is also an insistence on preserving the teachings as they are, so this was not a religion that was founded by accident over a long period of time by many different influences, this was truly (in its essence) the teaching of one man, who saw the completion of his religion in his lifetime, over a 23 year period.

In Shiism I found myself drawn to the men and women who were able to manifest those highest principles of Islam in their wisdom, nobility, chivalry, modesty, eloquence, discipline, mercy, justice, bravery, devotion, self-reflection, and countless other qualities. They truly were the Speaking Quran. But they were not only teachers who talked the talk, but actually walked the walk. They suffered in indescribable ways, by murder, imprisonment, exile, robbery, the loss of friends and relatives; but in the midst of that suffering, they maintained their composure and their humanity, and kept to the virtues that they espoused. Most of us just give up and retire if we are insulted or mildly threatened, but they encountered incredible hardship and remained moving forward until their martyrdoms. Their lives were not recorded by anonymous authors decades or centuries after the fact; they were surrounded by thousands of students that documented their lives and were dazzled by their character. They taught me that love is paired with suffering, that intelligence is paired with humility, that words are paired with beauty (in calligraphy, in eloquence, in poetry, in scripture), that justice is paired with mercy, that hardship is paired with purification, that hope is paired with fear; and you see these tropes consistently throughout all of our books and the lives of the ma`sumeen.

Outside of the overstated scientific miracles of the Quran, I found that it was a very precise and mathematical work with incredible depth. Every stroke carries meaning, and the smallest change of vowels or words can ruin the entire structure of the book. Maybe Arabic is not your mother tongue, but if you understand Arabic, I suggest you take a chapter of the Quran, then compare it to a chapter from the Arabic Bible, or an Arabic newspaper article. I have tested this with non-Arabic non-Muslim speakers and even they can distinguish the Quran from these other writings just by listening to them all read plainly. Sunni speakers like Nouman Ali Khan have a lot of interesting videos in English on the Quran's literary structure, but one simple example that I am very impressed by is the chiastic ring-composition of Surat al-Baqara, or the amount of times certain words are used:

 

Beyond that, the Quran's focus on ethical lessons through rhyming stories makes it very memorable, practical, and appealing to our minds (Jungian psychology and Joseph Campbell's monomyth), and this is often more effective than the Bible's structure, which focuses much more on detail, names and places, genealogy, and chronology. The Quran has a timeless element to it.

The prophecy that Muhammad (s) claimed for himself was that he was the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:18 - that is to say, he was the Prophet Like Unto Moses - and there were many uncontrollable circumstances in his life that made him similar to Moses. They were both raised in aristocratic homes rather than their parental home, they both attained prophethood at 40, they were both forced to flee from their homeland, they were both law-givers, they both took part in combat against polytheists, they were both were accepted by their respective peoples, they both achieved victory in this world, and they both had an "Aaron" - who was their eloquent, blood-related vizier, and the father of their descendants. There are many other biblical prophecies that came long before the Prophet which seem to indicate the events of his life, Isaiah 42 is a prominent one, which speaks of the coming of a man who will guide Arabia from polytheism.

The Prophet described the signs of the End Times with a spooky level of precision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8JQqXf-Jv8

Our books were written during the times of the Imams, often under their approval and supervision, and so there are strong historiographical arguments that our sources truly reflect what the Imams espoused. This includes the many miracles attributed to them. This is in contrast to many other religions, where myth develops long after the historical figures have perished.

The qualities of the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt are often in stark contrast to them. While the Imams walked the walk, they had foes that were, even according to neutral sources, conceited, gluttonous, cunning, selfish, corrupt, degenerate, and scared of everything. A good exercise is to look at the life of Imam Ali, and then look at the lives of those who fought them - look at any sources you'd like on either, and you'll still see what true belief and true hypocrisy does to a person. If Imam Ali was the chief student of Muhammad (s), who was with him from the beginning of the message till the end, then I too want to follow Muhammad (s), because Ali (as) had all of the characteristics that I want in myself, and even his detractors could not find a single aspect of his personality to criticize.

Salam Alaikum.

What is the significance of the Quran mentioning the word 'day' 365 times? The Hijri calendar only has 360 days, right? So why did the Quran use the Christian calendar?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

Kazemi, @Kazemi, what is your point? 

If you read Sura 5, verses 43-47, it is very clear that Muhammad is saying the Jews should judge by their own scripture, and the Christians should judge by their own scripture. It is clear from the orderly flow of ideas. 

I am glad that the Qur'an claims to be a clear revelation. This means we can take it at face value, and should not have to seek explanation. Kazemi my friend, you should read the Bible and seek within it the guidance and light that you have been promised. 

سبحان الله

By Allah,

He who created the Qur’an,

Clear and Wise,

The verses are an indication,

An indication of the original Light of the Injeel and Torah,

Before it’s destruction by desire of wealth by people,

An eye for an eye,

Isa held the truth of the Torah,

Before it was altered by desire of wealth by people,

Indeed,

Oh you who believe,

In the crucified theory,

Which by my life and the spheres,

Is false and wrong,

The Holy verses,

By the Messenger to the Prophets,

Jibraeel,

Does not mention the Christians and the Jews,

As judges by their own scriptures,

But indeed,

Allah is the judge for all creations,

For He sent the Holy Books,

As a reminder to the Ummah,

Of Musa and Isa,

And after their mission has passed,

The Prophets and the saints have accepted,

The Holy Books,

By the Merciful Lord,

Every Messenger and Prophet has not been sent,

But as a reminder to their Ummah,

They are in submission to their Lord,

Indeed,

I submit myself to The God,

Allah,

al-Rahman ar-Raheem,

Who has made Makkah,

The Mother of the Cities,

And I shall ask forgiveness to Him,

Until He knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

@andresI'm glad to see you don't write the Gospels off entirely. I'm glad you agree that the minute details such as what year Jesus was born don't affect any doctrine. But why would you go so far as to presume that the miracles reported were mythical? The miracles throughout the Bible do affect the core truth of Christianity. How do you, as a confessing Christian, justify throwing out the miraculous intervention of God throughout human history? 

Please don't read that in an angry tone, I am genuinely perplexed at how or why one would be a Christian without believing the Bible at face value regarding miracles. 

I am not saying the miracles all were myths. Just saying that the birth stories are myths. There are many good reasons for this conclusion, I mentioned some. You do not have to agree. Fundamentalists dont.  When Mathew writes:

"But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene.""

...liberal Christiand understand this to mean Josef did not live in Nazareth before. But never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Kazemi, so you are saying that God's words can be changed by mere humans?????? I thought you were a Muslim! Allah's words cannot be corrupted. You know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/20/2017 at 10:31 AM, thegoodman81 said:

Okay, as long as you are aware! Obviously I'm new here, and I suppose it's obvious now that I have a much more conservative view. In fact, my view is much closer to what the Qur'an espouses in 5:47. Namely, that the Injeel is trustworthy enough that it should be the basis by which Christians make their judgements and decisions.

The Quran never say, but Muslims believe all Israeli prophets  preached the same religion as Muhammed did. The Bible obviously dont, so the conclusion that it is corrupted is logical. The injeel is the original message of Jesus. It is now lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/20/2017 at 4:53 PM, thegoodman81 said:

@Kazemi, so you are saying that God's words can be changed by mere humans?????? I thought you were a Muslim! Allah's words cannot be corrupted. You know that. 

سبحان الله

Qaf,

By the Severe and the Forgiving,

Severe in punishment,

Forgiving in repentance,

By the time,

Which shall stop by His command,

The Ummah of Musa and Isa,

Have corrupted the Injeel and Torah,

For wealth which they desire,

And by the time,

Which shall stop by His command,

The Ummah have forgotten the original Divine message.

“And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do”

Al-Qur’an Al-Kareem,

Surah al-Ma’idah,

Verse 66

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
26 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

@Kazemi, so you are saying that God's words can be changed by mere humans?????? I thought you were a Muslim! Allah's words cannot be corrupted. You know that. 

Wrong. All Muslims believe the Bible is the corrupted word of God. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
On 10/18/2017 at 9:29 PM, just a muslim said:

why do you believe that the christ was raised? or rather died and then raised?

Well, I refer you to what is known as the 'strong case for the resurrection', and there is indeed a rather strong case from a purely historical perspective. Though yes, technically history cannot affirm or deny Christ rose from the dead, it does however provide strong evidence for it in my opinion, evidence that cannot simply be overlooked. 

I understand one of the persons in this video has been notably hostile towards Islam, but it is not about him, here he is speaking to a notable and well respected New Testament scholar and historian. This video really just scratches the surface of the whole subject at hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

@Kazemi, so you are saying that God's words can be changed by mere humans?????? I thought you were a Muslim! Allah's words cannot be corrupted. You know that. 

His words itself cannot change, but the book can. Men in the past took the holy books, and rearranged the words, placed in new words to fit their needs and desires, and now, the books are almost completely different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/20/2017 at 5:07 PM, andres said:

The Quran never say, but Muslims believe all Israeli prophets  preached the same religion as Muhammed did. The Bible obviously dont, so the conclusion that it is corrupted is logical. The injeel is the original message of Jesus. It is now lost.

Then by what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian??? I don't understand you at all, friend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, thegoodman81 said:

Then by what basis do you consider yourself to be a Christian??? I don't understand you at all, friend. 

No, he's not saying he believes that, he's explaining to you what Muslims believe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/20/2017 at 7:57 PM, Hussaini624 said:

His words itself cannot change, but the book can. Men in the past took the holy books, and rearranged the words, placed in new words to fit their needs and desires, and now, the books are almost completely different.

The words are contained only within the books. That's where the words were stored. The Muslim claim is that God revealed the Injeel... and then it was immediately corrupted or lost (by accident or intentionally). If the words of God are made unavailable to mankind, that is a change to the words, friend! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, notme said:

No, he's not saying he believes that, he's explaining to you what Muslims believe. 

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying!! My apologies, @andres. Sorry I didn't read carefully enough, I'm sick and a bit groggy this evening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, thegoodman81 said:

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying!! My apologies, @andres. Sorry I didn't read carefully enough, I'm sick and a bit groggy this evening. 

It`s OK. 

I think he greatest fundamental difference between the Bible and the Quran may be that while the Quran say all Jewish Prophets were Muslims bringing the same message as did Muhammed, the Christian Bible tell a 1.000 year long story of a religion developing from Paganism through Judaism ending in Christianity. That God in this way has changed the rules may be troubblesome to some of us. The Quranic view in many ways seem more safe and simple, and if you believe the Quran is the infallible word of God, which most Muslims do, you can easily disregard all Biblical, archeological and historical evidences. I dont, but I do not expect those sources to be infallible either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 10/20/2017 at 10:34 AM, thegoodman81 said:

@M.IB, can you please provide a verse reference for the quotation in the image you put up? I've read the whole Bible several times, haven't seen Ahmad in there yet! So naturally I'm skeptical about that translation. 

Those were in Isaiah 42 dead sea scrolls. In Hebrew:

Translate this אחמד

Name Ahmed was found here:  

ahmed_in_dead_sea_scrolls.jpg

Download the video here if you are interested :) 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmad_in_dead_sea_scrolls.wmv

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
20 hours ago, Hussaini624 said:

Salam Alaikum.

What is the significance of the Quran mentioning the word 'day' 365 times? The Hijri calendar only has 360 days, right? So why did the Quran use the Christian calendar?

Thanks

Allah knows best. The Quran subtly uses both calendars in Surat al-Kahf verse 25 when it says that the Sleepers of the Cave slept for "300 years plus 9" instead of just "309 years". This may be because 300 solar years = 309 lunar years. It's noteworthy that the Persians also used a solar calendar where there were 365 days in a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@M.IB, I looked into it. You've been mislead. The Hebrew word there is "אתמך," not "אחמד." Notice the subtle differences in the third character (namely, the serifs). The word Ahmed is not found there in the Bible. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...