Jesus Led me to Islam

[Gurrato Alaien]

This email has been sent to me by Christian sister who embraced Islam recently may God bless her and increase her faith, she sent me this email by PM in another forums, so I would like to post it here to get the benefit for Bro/Sis Christians, she clarify how Jesus (pbuh) led her to Islam:



"I would be happy to. While I was born and raised Irish (Roman) Catholic, I always (always) felt there was something contextually "wrong" or incorrect about what I was being taught. I read the scriptures and sometimes read them over and over trying to reconcile them with what I felt in me heart to be true. The trinity concept (3 in one God) made no logical sense. The idea that Jesus was God made no logical sense. The idea that the Christ died for the sins of mankind made no logical sense. I do not know if you have ever read the Bible but if you had, you will find numerous contradictions within it. You will find one verse is often in direct conflict with another. It does take a genious to find the contradictive material within it. I began to ask myself - why would God need a son? Why would God be so cruel as to send a son to save mankind form it's sinful state? When asking our local preist questions such as this he only became annoyed and accused me of not having enough "faith." He was correct. I obviously did not have enough faith. I wanted to know the truth. I wanted to know why I was asked to believe that Jesus was "God" when Jesus himself denied any such thing again and again. First I should mention that many are called "sons" of God in the Bible. And likewise many are called "Father" in the Bible also. The term, "Father" in the Bible is referred to one in high authority. I am convinced that when (and if) Jesus Christ referred to his "Father" in heaven, he was only trying to connect with the people living in that time-frame. He spoke of God as the Father as one might refer to another in highest authority. But what concerned me most was that I was being told (taught) that Jesus WAS God but here we have the words of the Christ and he clearly speaks of God as a completely seperate and much higher entity than himself:



Peace.

[miss tenderness]

waw just amazing story,loved it so
thank u dear sis

[Gurrato Alaien]

waw just amazing story,loved it so
thank u dear sis

Thank u sister, may God bless u, but I am a brother not sister

Salam

[miss tenderness]

oh so srry 4 dat, I took the story an spread it to ma contacts hope this is k wed u akhi?

[bhekti]

It's an interesting experience. But, I wonder. I had exactly the same experience, the same questions, doubts, and received such terrible responses. But it apparently ends in different result. I was an atheist, now I am a Christian. I just wonder now, how could that happen? I mean the different results. How could the same experience produce different results (e.g. different faiths)?

[Gurrato Alaien]

You can see the statistics you will find that many Christians converted to Islam after they found the truth

ISLAAM IS THE FASTEST GROWING RELIGION IN THE WORLD
[


oh so srry 4 dat, I took the story an spread it to ma contacts hope this is k wed u akhi?

well did sister, may God bless u.

[dark_182_88]

the relative growth rates of Islam to Christianity are compiled from data that ended the very year before the great terrorist attacks of 911 against the world trade towers in 2001 and the train bomb in Spain in 2004. Statisticians are predicting that Islamic motivated terrorism will last the decade and bring Islam into great disrepute with the world population. This will have a very strong dampening effect on the long term predicted Islamic growth rates for the years 2025 and 2050.

[Dan Trenner]

This email has been sent to me by Christian sister who embraced Islam recently may God bless her and increase her faith, she sent me this email by PM in another forums, so I would like to post it here to get the benefit for Bro/Sis Christians, she clarify how Jesus (pbuh) led her to Islam:


There is simply too much here to deal with in many a post. However, there is a web site that would answer 99% of the questions raised. If you care to discover real answers or formulate better arguments for the way you feel, go here. itl.org.uk
I have no affiliation to it, but check out all the issues. You should see that two wrongs don't make a right. If you have further questions, write me. I can help.

Dan

[Stanislaw]

Well, I noticed in the first post that he said, the sacrafice of christ did not make sense (paraphrased)... look to Hebrews
9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

(found at http://www.online-literature.com/bible/Hebrews/ )

Maybe there are more answers to your questions.

[`aroundhere_]

i guess religion is just not to be understood by human logic?
if God truly made everything, He's obviously more knowledgable than our puny human brain... is it not?

and about the trinity... you can check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

and there's differences between Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant... who are all called Christians.

[[unaffected]]

At dark_182_88 ... Dude, do you even have a brain of your own at all? All you're doing in here is cutting and pasting form other websites. I mean no offence when I say this, it's just that I'm disappointed. When I first read the stuff you had to say about Islam (I think it was in the "What Muslims think about Jesus" thread), I was genuinely impressed, even though you were debating against Islam. Because, you see, my defiition of 'debate' is not to bad-mouth or degrade the opponent, but merely to enlighten him/her, and while doing so, to be respectful of the other person's believes or viewpoint. So, regardless of your viewpoint, I still respected what you said, and I admired your intelligence... or what I thought at the time was intelligence... I was sadly mistaken. And what's more is that the websites you are copying all your information from are websites that are blatantly anti-Islamislam.com - the statistics about the religions; answering-islam.org.uk- used in "What Muslims think about Jesus" thread, about Muhammad and Idolatry). Sam Shamoun, athour of answering-islam website, ridicules, mocks and degrades Muslims. If, in future, you wish to post anything against the Islamic beliefs, kindly copy them from a reliable and honest source that is unbiased and objective and that does not so obviously dislike the Islamic religion. The source from which you copy does not have to be an Islamic source, but merely one that does not harbour any hatred against Muslims and has not set out to disgrace them. I am sure that there are a few websites you can find that are there for the mere purpose of educating, enlightening, and not ridiculing and mocking.

Thank you.

[kilted exile]

It also would be quite nice to source the websites at the end of each of your posts (I'm quite sure the original authors would appreciate it)

[dark_182_88]

[unaffected], they asked for proof, I gave them proof (as simple as that). None was refuted, so I do not see the problem.

[Jannah]

This story affected me deeply... what affected me even more, to tears- the verses of the bible that are so similar to those in the Quraan. So similar, as if translated!



Then Jesus said, "...I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me,
I speak these things.
[John 8:28]

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,
nor the Son, but only the Father." [Mark 13:32]


"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will,
but the will of him that sent me."
[John 6:38]

"I ascend to My Father and to your Father, My God and to your God."
[John 20:17]

All those are in the Holy Quraan my dear friends. When I finish my exams I will get the verses from the Quraan for you to read them.

What saddens me most, is that my christian friends here in my country, do not read the bible... if only they read it from cover to cover, they would have questions like many did. The problem is that they receive their religious education ONLY from the priest, he's their only source of knowledge, even the Bible verses that they read, he's the one that gives it to them from the bible. When they ask questions to their priest, he simply tells them, this is religion, you are to accept it as it is... you must have faith and not ask. It is true what he says, but in some aspects, one must understand... our only treasure is our human MIND and I believe we must satisfy it or else we may go crazy from all those unanswered questions. Another treasure we possess is our SOUL, and only when the mind understands will the soul be at peace and find rest.

The woman who told her story mentioned the word 'reverted'... I do not know how she realized it, honestly, I only did when I heard it from a person, telling his story too. He said that if you asked a child who hasn't been taught anything about ANY religion, if you asked him: is GOD one?, he would say YES... if you told him: GOD is three, that's when he will ask HOW? and you will have to explain to him what you have learned. The child then will believe that GOD is three, but his true self, when once was pure, knew that GOD is one. So she reverted, she went back to her pure nature, before getting affected by anyone or anything.

bhekti, you asked how could the same experience produce the same results? I'd tell you that the experience of religion never ends, the continous search of truth stays all along. Like she said in her story: I am not however, new to the truth found in the teachings of Islam. It was there all along. I just had no name for it before. I had no name for the truth. The name for the truth is Islam.

Even after reverting to Islam, she will continue her search of truth 'within' the teachings of Islam. It never ends, bhekti. from your words, I think you are satisfied where you are. I mean you think that you've found it and might stay there. but I, even as a Muslim, would tell you, that I am always searching for more truth- within my religion. It's like a sea that never empties... this feeling is so deep, I'm not quite sure I have the ability to portray them to you, but what I mean is, bhekti, keep going... continue your search. You were an athiest, then you became a Christian. Christianity is a religion with a prophet, with it's own teachings. Being devoted to a religion, alone, is an amazing progress when in the 1st place you believed in NO GOD. Satisfy your mind, and your soul, and continue your search for the peace, start with your religion, search deep inside it... ask everything and anything... read other religions that you know nothing about, and see, which is very similar to our human nature, and very similar to the truth in Christianity (that has been covered with contradictions as she said in her story).

Peace to you all my friends.

[bhekti]

Jannah, you are very wise. And, honest. Yes, I am now on a search for something that can quench the thirst of my heart and mind. Religion is "only" a method.

[Jannah]

Bhekti, it is you that I believe is honest. I will remember you in my prayers. Always.

[Jewels83]

hi Jannah..you said: "what affected me even more, to tears- the verses of the bible that are so similar to those in the Quraan. So similar, as if translated!" ok give it some thought and ask yoursef which of these two books came first?which could be copying from which??you know what i mean..the Quraan is not different from the bible but that doesnt necessarily make it truer..you need to look for the original..bible manuscripts go back to almost 250 B.C[thanks Stanislaw; i just edited my silly mistake]..and they keep on discovering manuscripts and all texts found are matching..i think everyone needs to do the proper research before making any major decision such as changing religions..
P.S: don't go for statistics when converting; it's not necessarily relevant
Peace

[Stanislaw]

hi Jannah..you said: "what affected me even more, to tears- the verses of the bible that are so similar to those in the Quraan. So similar, as if translated!" ok give it some thought and ask yoursef which of these two books came first?which could be copying from which??you know what i mean..the Quraan is not different from the bible but that doesnt necessarily make it truer..you need to look for the original..bible manuscripts go back to almost 250 A.D..and they keep on discovering manuscripts and all texts found are matching..i think everyone needs to do the proper research before making any major decision such as changing religions..
P.S: don't go for statistics when converting; it's not necessarily relevant
Peace

The oldest parts of the bible date back well into BC.
The quraan is a more modern text, I fully agree with your statement.

[Jannah]

hi Jannah..you said: "what affected me even more, to tears- the verses of the bible that are so similar to those in the Quraan. So similar, as if translated!" ok give it some thought and ask yoursef which of these two books came first?which could be copying from which??you know what i mean..the Quraan is not different from the bible but that doesnt necessarily make it truer..you need to look for the original..bible manuscripts go back to almost 250 B.C[thanks Stanislaw; i just edited my silly mistake]..and they keep on discovering manuscripts and all texts found are matching..i think everyone needs to do the proper research before making any major decision such as changing religions..
P.S: don't go for statistics when converting; it's not necessarily relevant
Peace

You compare between the Bible and the Quraan by which was there first. Then ask yourself, which was there first? The Bible or the Book of Moses? And why Christianity not Jewism? If you have the correct answer for that Question, then I assure you, it will be the same answer for why Quraan, not the Bible.

[Jewels83]

You compare between the Bible and the Quraan by which was there first. Then ask yourself, which was there first? The Bible or the Book of Moses? And why Christianity not Jewism? If you have the correct answer for that Question, then I assure you, it will be the same answer for why Quraan, not the Bible.
Look ya Jannah, i dont really get what your tryin to say here; but when i say the Bible manuscripts date back to almost 250 B.C i'm talkin about the whole Bible (New and Old testament i.e the book of Moses is included in Christianity and Christians beleive in it)..Fa i'm not comparing between Bible and Book of Moses (Torah); christians beleive in it as well..In the end Both Bible and Torah go back to hundreds of years B.C..
Peace

[Stanislaw]

Look ya Jannah, i dont really get what your tryin to say here; but when i say the Bible manuscripts date back to almost 250 B.C i'm talkin about the whole Bible (New and Old testament i.e the book of Moses is included in Christianity and Christians beleive in it)..Fa i'm not comparing between Bible and Book of Moses (Torah); christians beleive in it as well..In the end Both Bible and Torah go back to hundreds of years B.C..
Peace
the new testament is dated about 100-200AD, with the final say happening in 300AD under Constantine The Roman Empereror, and corrupter of christianity.

[Jewels83]

the new testament is dated about 100-200AD, with the final say happening in 300AD under Constantine The Roman Empereror, and corrupter of christianity.
All i'm saying guys is that we should always go back to manuscripts..see how old scientists think they are...and see different manuscripts, find if they are matching. If there are things in the Quran exactly like those in the Bible then these very words should then be attributed to the older text and not the one written let's say between 660 A.D and 700 A.D (Long long after the Christ came i mean)..lets just be a little bit more objective and make it a peaceful conversation

[Stanislaw]

All i'm saying guys is that we should always go back to manuscripts..see how old scientists think they are...and see different manuscripts, find if they are matching. If there are things in the Quran exactly like those in the Bible then these very words should then be attributed to the older text and not the one written let's say between 660 A.D and 700 A.D (Long long after the Christ came i mean)..lets just be a little bit more objective and make it a peaceful conversation

Oh I quite agree. That there is some common text (most likely the early books of the Torah) But if you begin to explore other religeous beliefs, and belief systems that were in place before judaism, then it is clear that more contempory religions are influenced by these ideas. Religion is after all a human invention (an invention inspired by God, but an invention none the less). Instead of squabling amongst eachother, and debating as to who has the superior belief system, we should focus on the similarities and working together...after all we are all children of God, created by God, and placed on this planet.

[Jewels83]

Oh I quite agree. That there is some common text (most likely the early books of the Torah) But if you begin to explore other religeous beliefs, and belief systems that were in place before judaism, then it is clear that more contempory religions are influenced by these ideas. Religion is after all a human invention (an invention inspired by God, but an invention none the less). Instead of squabling amongst eachother, and debating as to who has the superior belief system, we should focus on the similarities and working together...after all we are all children of God, created by God, and placed on this planet.
I beleive that God didnt send us "religions"; God is consistent and his message is one..and could only be found in one place because i do not think that he would want his own creation gathering bits and peices here and there to get to God. I'm sure that he left one book, one message for us all (and that the book He left is flawless)..Be it the Quran, Bible, whatever..Budhism is different i think; i dont know much about it but i dont think that they beleive there is one Creator up there..(correct me guys) anyhow..i just beleive there is one and only one answer as to where God is and how He wants us to see Him...There are similarities among religions but there are contradictions as well (sever ones too)..for instance Islam acknowledges the sanctity of Jesus; that He was a prophet; born from the Virgin Mary; could bring life to the dead (But completely refuses the fact that He was God)..u see what i mean? there are similarities between religions when it comes to moralities,behaviours, what's wrong whats right..but The core of the beleif is what differs and this is what we should all look for..To know the truth..God doesnt want to hide it from us..He wants us to find Him..

[Jannah]

"there are similarities between religions when it comes to moralities,behaviours, what's wrong whats right..but The core of the beleif is what differs and this is what we should all look for..To know the truth..God doesnt want to hide it from us..He wants us to find Him.."

Thank you Jewels, your words helped alot, really. I hope Allah would lead us all to the truth. as you said, it is not hidden, but it's us who need to search deep inside us, and outside- the manuscripts and evidences present throughout history, and words of scientists as well. Hopefully, reaching the right path in the end. In Islam, when someone says (or does) something as pure as what you said, we say: Jazaka Allahu Khayran which means : May Allah reward you what's good. :)


Look ya Jannah, i dont really get what your tryin to say here; but when i say the Bible manuscripts date back to almost 250 B.C i'm talkin about the whole Bible (New and Old testament i.e the book of Moses is included in Christianity and Christians beleive in it)..Fa i'm not comparing between Bible and Book of Moses (Torah); christians beleive in it as well..In the end Both Bible and Torah go back to hundreds of years B.C..
Peace

I apologize for the misunderstanding, or if anyone understood it as an offensive debate. We are all here for peaceful reasons, asking for help or trying to give it.

What I meant in that post was, Christians do believe in Moses and the Torah. but Jewism does not believe in the Bible or the Quraan. It's the same with the Quraan, where Muslims believe in the Bible and the Torah, while Christians do not believe in Islam. Meaning, believing in what came before, but not in what came after, get it?
I was just clearing my question. as for the answer, it does need- like you said- research.

By the way, what's Torah in English?

[Whifflingpin]

"By the way, what's Torah in English?"

Christians call the pre-Christian Hebrew/Judaic scriptures (Genesis to Malachi) "the Old Testament" and the Christian Scriptures (Matthew's Gospel to Revelation of St John) "the New Testament." Together, these testaments make up "the Bible." So you may be causing a little confusion, as you seem to be using the word "Bible" to mean just the New Testament.

"Testament" (or sometimes "Covenant") means, in this case, an agreement or contract. The "Old Testament" is writing relevant to the agreement of God with Abraham and his descendants. The "New Testament" is writing about the agreement mediated between God and all people through Jesus. Or so Christians believe.

Torah is (I think) a word that means "Teaching" and is used as a name for the first five books of the Old Testament (Christians tend to use the Greek word "Pentateuch" for these books.)

I do not know if the Jews have a collective name for what the Christians call the Old Testament - or even if the Jews include within their sacred writings material written after the Christian era. I see no reason why they should not, because the Old Testament was a developing collection of writings, including history, pre-history, prophesy and poetry. It was still being added to in the first century BC, (the account of the Maccabees.) The idea of a definitive set of sacred writings may not be a part of Judaism - I do not know.

.

[dark_182_88]

I apologize for the misunderstanding, or if anyone understood it as an offensive debate. We are all here for peaceful reasons, asking for help or trying to give it.

What I meant in that post was, Christians do believe in Moses and the Torah. but Jewism does not believe in the Bible or the Quraan. It's the same with the Quraan, where Muslims believe in the Bible and the Torah, while Christians do not believe in Islam. Meaning, believing in what came before, but not in what came after, get it?
I was just clearing my question. as for the answer, it does need- like you said- research.

By the way, what's Torah in English?

I think you've made another mistake as well :$.

Christians believe in Moses and the Old Testament (torah), but jews believe in the old testament found in the christian bible but don't believe neither in the new testament nor the Qur'an (correct me anyone if im wrong here).

It's not the same with muslims, who don't believe in the Bible or the Torah, but who instead believe they were both corrupted by mankind, and that the Qur'an is the true word of God.

[Jannah]

Muslims DO believe in the Bible and the Torah and that they WERE the true word of God... The fact that humans have interfered in these Holy Books and changed many facts is reason for why the Quraan came with the last prophet (pbuh).
Peace my friends

[Stanislaw]

I believe that there are elements of truth in the earthly religions.

I believe that the split between Islam, and the Jewish based religions is in the tale of Abraham: If I remember correctly Muslims believed Abraham travelled to Mecca with Ishmael and his mother, where as the Jewish traditions believed that Abraham stayed with Isaac and his mother.

[Jewels83]

Hey Jannah, You say that Muslims beleive that the current versions of the Bible and the Old testament are fake right "people interfered in these Holy Books"??ok..so, Where are the original texts then??the ones that weren't changed..Did the whole world come together (including christains and Jews which are not on good terms) and decided to burn the original copies and kept the false ones??And if these books (Bible and Torah) are really Holy as you say, then God who is far greater than anyone, couldve thus protected His books from any human interference instead of leaving us all bewildered and making people such as "Chrstians" and "Jews" go astray..You know what i mean???
Peace

[falling*moon]

hello,

am new here but i wanted to say this..

from my readings i know that all the prophets carried one message which is to worship the Lord.. the true God..

Moses was not a fake,, Jesus was not a fake or a God...Mohammed was not a fake coz he was mentiond in the Bible itself..



please search and talk wisely :thumbs_up





bliss u all

[falling*moon]

Tell you something dear friends,

Christianity came after Judaism, can I say that Judaism is the original and Christianity is a copy or a fake????

No indeed not… the same thing with the Quran. From my readings, I never thought it would be a copy of any book but rather a summery and correction to the wrongs of the old books.





Come think with me a bit :confused: :

in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus taught us to pray to God as follows:

“Our father in heaven , hallowed by your name, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”

( Luke 11:2 / Matthew 6:9 – 10 )


would someone tell me please who is his father, since I know that he is the son of Virgin Mary ??


and how could a man creates another man ?? does it mean I, the complicated soul and blood, was created by a man like me ????

hay ,,, some sense dude…!!


Actually , if you read the Bible carefully , you will find the new Prophet named “Ahmed” is mentioned !!!


So, would there be a mentioned prophet of a religion we did not hear about??? And if we heard about him, why the hell we didn’t follow him ??
And let me give you a tip , that Mohamed was illiterate ,would someone tell me how could he make up such book as the Quran if it was not from God himself ???


I say that coz I had an English copy which I read carefully with wonder and found that though Quran is not a book of science. However, many scientific facts that are expressed in an extremely concise and profound manner in its verses have only been discovered with the technology of the 20th century !!!!.


These facts could not have been known at the time of the Quran's revelation in the 7th century, and this is still more proof that the Quran is the word of God .




.. by the way ,I love reading .. Do like me..and read different GOOD books before giving an opinion … !

[kilted exile]

Mohammed.......was mentiond in the Bible itself..


I didnt know this, where is he mentioned? and in which version King James/ International/ Good News etc. I tried searching the KIng James version available on the main site and it came up with no results.

[Jewels83]

Ok "Falling moon" if you say:

Actually , if you read the Bible carefully , you will find the new Prophet named “Ahmed” is mentioned !!!

Then you have to back up your statement with some proof dont you??same way you did when u mentioned the following

in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus taught us to pray to God as follows:
“Our father in heaven , hallowed by your name, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” ( Luke 11:2 / Matthew 6:9 – 10 )

Well if the word and the name "Ahmed" is truly truly mentioned in each and every copy of the Bible then i would say all Christians and Jews would be absolutely-in the sweetest sense-"unwise" and "idiotic" not to convert.
But then if you read carefully which i doubt you have, you will not find the mention of the coming of anyone else but the Christ. That you will find in the Old testament in dozens of examples (almost 300 prophecies about the coming of Christ)

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [d] will call him Immanuel."
Immanuel means Immanuel means "God with us"
Matthew 1:18(New testament)
"This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
Luke 1:26-35 (New testament)
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
I think this is something acknowledged by Islam as well..

There is another prophecy about the location of the Christ's birth (Bethlehem)
Micah 5:2(Old Testament)
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times."
Mathew 2:1 -new testament says:
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem"

These are a few examples..Prophecies were fulfilled..i dont know guys..comment!every one has the right to think and search..
Please give me that chapter and verse that mentions the coming of a prophet called Ahmed..
Peace
Keep up the participation!!

[kashifalikamil]

mmmmmmmmmll

[Amra]

"Christians believe in Moses and the Old Testament (torah), but jews believe in the old testament found in the christian bible but don't believe neither in the new testament nor the Qur'an (correct me anyone if im wrong here)."

If Christians believe in Moses and the Old Testament, why do some Christians say that the New TEstament and the coming of Jesus erased what was before? Why do they claim that Jesus overruled the Law of Moses? If you say they do not, why is it then that Christians do not circumsize their sons when that is a requirement that God imposed on Moses and it is in the Old Testament? This is just one example, but there are many many more.

[Jewels83]

No no dear Amra; it is totally the opposite of what you're saying. Whoever tells you that Jesus "overruled or erased" the law is mistaken and hasn't read the Bible carefully; if not at all..
In Matthew 5:17 [The Fulfillment of the Law]
Jesus says:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Also in the famous Parable of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25-27
It is written
"25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Jesus is telling people to apply the continuation to the laws of Moses stated in Deuteronomy 6:5:
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
and also
Leviticus 19:18
" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

Tell your friends then..
What's different about the new testament is that God no longer needs to teach people like babies (man had grown in spirituality and can now comprehend); back at the time of Moses God was still teaching people.He took humanity step by step. So He started off with those laws and whoever breaks them was punished. But now after Jesus came, and men have become face to face with God, known Him; man was taught to love and from here, naturally all laws of Moses will be kept and no one would want to break them. NOt because they fear punishment but because they love God and they've seen Him.
P.S: sort of wishful thinking, we end breaking the laws but if we really love God we regret making mistakes, we repent and try harder not to fall the next time
Peace..

[Jewels83]

and oh! circumcision is not part of the law of Moses (The ten commandments stated in Deut 5)...The first people who beleived in the existence of God were the Jews, God then always gave them signs and prophets to reassure them that He is with them; to keep them standing firm in their faith.
He wanted them to see themselves as seperate from other people. To set the difference between beleivers and non beleivers and to show them the significance of that. He thus asked the people of Israel to circumcise every born male. It is a contract God signed with His people; a way to remind them that they should keep their faith and that in Him they beleive.

It is written:
Passage Genesis 17:10:
10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

Passage Genesis 17:14:
14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

This is a sort of diobedience; it is also a test He'd put His people through..

Muslims have inherited this tradition. Because They also beleive in Moses and his book (although they do not beleive in the current version of the Torah).

[Amra]

I don't know if it is me, but your post seems contradictory. If Christians accept the Old Testament, why don't they circumsize their sons? That is a simple question. Unless acceptance means something else. Does acceptance mean just accepting the Old Testament as truth, but something that is outdated? Or does it mean that Jesus brought something new that replaced the Old Testament?

Thank you

[Whifflingpin]

Amra, you will find the answer in chapters ten and eleven of the Acts of the Apostles.

Simply, Christians believe that Christ is the saviour of the world, and that it is more important to accept and proclaim this than to adhere to any ritual or formality.

In effect, this means that certain Hebrew/Jewish practices are (to Christians) superseded. For instance - in Leviticus there are several chapters on animal sacrifices. All these are obsolete, to Christians, because Jesus is himself the sacrifice that replaces all others, for ever.

Another example is that Leviticus forbids wine or similar drink from being brought into the tabernacle of the congregation. (Quite right of course, as a prohibition on being drunk in a holy place.) For most Christians, however, wine is taken (in a symbolic quantity only) in the main Christian ritual, because Jesus commanded its use.

Circumcision, as Jewels83 quoted, was/is a sign of the covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham. To Christians, however, Jesus remedies the separation between mankind and God that was caused by Adam - that is the whole of mankind, not just the descendants of Abraham - so circumcision or uncircumcision is not relevant to Christians.

[Amra]

Well then, Jesus did replace the Old Testament, and because of his coming you state that some or all of the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. Am I right or wrong in this? However, this is where my confusion starts. If Jesus himself said that he didn't come to change the Law, why did people then find it necessary to do just that? If you say you accept the Old Testament, how is that acceptance manifested?

[Whifflingpin]

Amra, I think that you are correct if you say that some or all of the Old Testament is superseded by the New. Christian belief stands or falls by what is written in the New Testament, and the Old Testament provides the historical, moral and theological background out of which Christianity emerges.

However, the more complex view is the the books of the Law, and the teaching of the Prophets of the Old Testament are only superseded in the sense that they are fulfilled in Jesus.

In one sense, Jesus did not change the Law at all, because a person following the Law as strictly as any Jew does today could still be a Christian. Christianity, however, is not defined by the Law. If Jesus said that he did not come to change the Law, he also showed that the Law should be interpreted in the light of God's love. "The Sabbath," he reminded us, "was made for man." When faced with a crowd about to carry out the Law of stoning an adulteress, he said "The man who has never done wrong can throw the first stone."

I gave the example that animal sacrifice is no longer necessary. It could be argued that prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, animal sacrifices were a means of atoning for sin, or a valid symbol of repentance, or a practical statement that evil must be paid for in suffering. Maybe they are still, but they are not a requirement because Jesus' sacrifice is the one complete sacrifice for all sins, past and future.

St Paul writes, more or less, that following the law may keep a person from doing wrong, but it will not ensure that a person does right. Understanding the meaning of Christ's sacrifice (crucifixion) and triumph (resurrection) will, on the other hand, compel a person to act rightly and lovingly towards God and man.

The most brutal way of putting it is that Christians accept as much of the Old Testament as seems useful or relevant, and, for practical purposes, ignore the rest. For most Christians, the Old Testament is accepted only in the light of the New. Most of Christian teaching is grounded in the ideas and mythology of the Old Testament, and can most easily be explained in those terms.

Actually, the important part of Christian teaching can be explained in three or four sentences. From the very beginning, mankind set the barrier of sin between man and God. The books of Law list lots of sins, and describe ways in which individuals can try to reduce the barrier caused by each sin. Jesus destroys the barrier completely. Because the barrier of sin has been destroyed, we can, and must, all get on with loving each other and God.

Concentrate on living righteously. Study texts as long as they help you to do that, but do not let them distress you.

[Jewels83]

Well then, Jesus did replace the Old Testament, and because of his coming you state that some or all of the Old Testament is superseded by the New Testament. Am I right or wrong in this? However, this is where my confusion starts. If Jesus himself said that he didn't come to change the Law, why did people then find it necessary to do just that? If you say you accept the Old Testament, how is that acceptance manifested?

The "law" that Jesus has been mentioning is the 10 commandements (or so i've been told by a couple of priests but i see Whifflingpin pointing at something else when talks about "law"). circumcision was not part of those commandements, but it was a "contract" or sort of a "request" God has asked His people to do at that time. And i guess i explained its significance more thoroughly in the previous post.

Plus the main reason why the Old testament is accepted and acknowledged and is even a part of Christian beleif, is that The Old testament is the beginning of the "story" of God with man. Christians can not overrule that from history; the History of their religion. It's the History of God's people.

As for the old practices and traditions, they were simply guidelines God had provided His people with. Jews back then were quite primitive and ignorant about many matters such as hygiene, the way they should eat etc.and so God showed them the way to have a cleaner, healthier lifestyle that's all but they were not laws (not part of the 10 commandements which are timeless); they were just the right way of doing things back then..
plus as i said, it was God testing their obedience; they had failed God many times before (when Moses when up the mountain, after he came back he found the people worshiping cows and forgetting about God);

God as i said before,had treated His very first people like we do babies (we do it the hard way at first; like when a child wants to touch the hot cup of tea, we keep on telling them 'NO!! it is hot', but the kid doent have any idea what hot is, the kid ends up touching the cup, getting a little burnt and then never again does he touch it).. You kow what i mean?i dont know if you get it..tell me..

I don't know if the Jews are still practicing other traditons apart from the circumcision. But i think that as a people whose beleive has stopped before the new testament,i think that they might be applying their religion word by word; just the way God had taught them in the Old testament. their faith tells them that God's story with man stops here; they are thus stuck in phase one. I remember reading aboutthe Pharisees who were present at the time of Jesus and who were very strict about applying their book meticulously[correct me if i'm wrong in that part].
Amra I hope i dont sound as confusing as before...

[Jewels83]

Ok, all i can see now is how we all differ in explaining the Bible or any other book for that matter. I guess it is quite relative, the way we view "religion". I dontthink there is one and only one reason why in the world Christians do not practice the Old testament traditions, although you quite make sense Whifflingpin...

[dark_182_88]

How is circumcision spiritual? If you circumcise your child then that means that you believe in God? Circumcision was more of a traditional thing rather than a spiritual thing, or atleast that is how I percieve it. As Whifflingpin said, it is just like the animal sacrifice, it is not necesary certainly not in our days anymore.

Another thing is, that the gentiles (non-jews) who wanted to believe in Christianity didn't have to get circumsized to become christians and truly believe in God. It is not restricted to circumcision to show your belief in God after all. The circumcision was more of a jewish thing (jewish as in religion but more as a people).

[Amra]

What I have a problem with is that Christians claim two things at the same time. First, they say that Jesus didn’t come to change the Law (which he himself states), but then when we take the different regulations that were imposed by God to the Jews, they say that those are outdated. Do you believe that the Bible (the whole Bible) is God’s word or not? If it is, then you must accept ALL of it, not just parts that agree with the ever changing society norms that we live by. God’s word should be timeless and God’s commandments as well. His regulations and laws should not be changed as time goes by, and adapted to whatever the society requires from it. That is where the problem arises. Christians claim that the holy Qur’an is violent, that it oppresses women, that it teaches hatred, and so on, but when you read the Old Testament, you will find verses that are far more violent, verses that are far more oppressive to women. Don’t you think that it is ironic that you condemn us for following EVERYTHING that is in our Holy Book, and at the same time believe that you are better because you have chosen not to follow those commandments that God has imposed on human beings? Muslims believe that the whole Qur’an, each letter of it, is the Word of God, and that none of it can be changed or adapted to fit whatever seems modern at a point in time in a certain society. God’s word is timeless, it cannot be changed nor adapted, nor can it be ignored. \

”The most brutal way of putting it is that Christians accept as much of the Old Testament as seems useful or relevant, and, for practical purposes, ignore the rest. For most Christians, the Old Testament is accepted only in the light of the New. Most of Christian teaching is grounded in the ideas and mythology of the Old Testament, and can most easily be explained in those terms.”

Here is the most important difference between Muslims and Christians, because we do not dare to change God’s word, nor do we believe that human beings are able to pick and choose which law or requirement they will follow and which they will not be accept. Where are you instructed to do so? Did Jesus say that some laws and regulations seize to be valid with his coming? Did he instruct his followers to abandon certain practices from the Old Testament? I am not sure if you are aware how dangerous it is to modify God’s word and how humans can go astray by doing so. Society norms change constantly, that which is unacceptable at one point will become acceptable some other time, or in some other culture, and if you allow God’s word to follow this trend, then you have allowed it to become a mockery; something that can go either way. I believe that precisely because of this tendency, Christians have come across problems where certain groups such as homosexuals believe that they can interpret the Bible to fit and justify their lifestyle. (I.e. gay marriages and priests who actually allow this) Where is the limit? What if it becomes trendy that (here I have trouble finding something that has not already been somehow accepted and justified by one or the other Christian group)…but, my point is that you cannot keep adapting God’s word to whatever the society decides to follow and accept as normal. God is above that, and his Word and commandments are above that as well.
Also, I have never heard that Jesus’ verse about him not coming to change the Law is only to be applied to the 10 commandments. Have you any proof for this statement?

”God as i said before, had treated His very first people like we do babies (we do it the hard way first; like when a child wants to touch the hot cup of tea, we keep on telling them 'NO!! it is hot', but the kid doent have any idea what hot is, the kid ends up touching the cup, getting a little burnt and then never again does he touch it).. You kow what i mean?i dont know if you get it..tell me..”

Jews were not the first people on Earth, nor the first people God created, nor was Moses the first Prophet. So, your theory that God included those commandments/laws/regulations because He thought those people primitive is not valid, since there were many prophets before Moses who would have taught the people how to behave, if they needed it. \


P.S I do not mean to offend anyone, and if my tone indicates otherwise, I apologize...

[Amra]

"How is circumcision spiritual? If you circumcise your child then that means that you believe in God? Circumcision was more of a traditional thing rather than a spiritual thing, or atleast that is how I percieve it. As Whifflingpin said, it is just like the animal sacrifice, it is not necesary certainly not in our days anymore."

I did not claim that it was spiritual. It is not for us to decide why God commanded certain things, and whether or not they are spiritual or merely a matter of practice/ritual. The point is that we should accept God's word for what it is, not for what we want it to be, or what we think it should be. As muslims, we say that we hear and submit. That is the ultimate proof of faith.
If you would try to categorize and prioritize all the commandments, what criteria would you use? Don't you think that someone else might use a different criteria? If everyone would be able to sit down and decide what commendments God thinks most important, and which ones are less important, how many different interpretations would you have? That would lead to total chaos. So, if you believe Jesus to be your God, then you should use his teachings and regulations fully, and follow what he said, and if he didn't state that you should abandon certain practices, then who gives you the right to do so? Why do you put priests above the word of God?

[Whifflingpin]

Amra said "If you would try to categorize and prioritize all the commandments, what criteria would you use? Don't you think that someone else might use a different criteria?"

Exactly so. Jannah said "Muslims believe in the Bible and the Torah" I assume that Jannah is a Moslem, and that you are too, and that Jannah is correct in saying that Moslems accept the Torah as God's words. However, Muslims also pick and choose want they want from the Torah.

For example:
"Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." I do not think that Moslems follow the Jewish rules concerning the last day of the week.
"An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice theron thy burnt offerings." I have been in a number of mosques, but not seen any altars of earth in them, nor, if they were hidden away, have I smelt the smell of burnt offerings that would surely have remained. I do not think that even the Jews have altars for burnt offerings in their holy places.
There is a rule (Exodus XXI) that says you may hold a Hebrew slave for six years, but then on the seventh let him go. If he wants to stay, then you may keep him, but you must make a hole in his ear. Do Muslims still practice this rule?
Do Moslem priests wear two onyx stones, with the names of the tribes of Israel enscribed on them?
Would you, Amra, stone a man to death for picking up sticks on a Saturday?
Do Moslems accept the statement, repeated time and time again, that the land of Israel was given by God to the descendants of Israel for ever?

Clearly, rules contained in the Torah are of different kinds. Whole chapters describe rituals that are no longer followed by anyone. Many of the rules relate to physical hygiene suitable for nomadic tribes. Many of the rules govern relationships between people.

Unlike the Quraan, the Bible was written by a great variety of people over hundreds of years. Much that is in it is not, in my view, the word of God. You may throw up your hands in horror at my impiety, but I do not think that God and his Word can be contained in any book.

Even the words, or actions, ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament may not be exactly accurate. For Christians this does not matter, because Jesus is not to them just another prophet, or a teacher. He is not one to whom God's truth is revealed. To Christians, he is God's truth revealed. He is not the messenger, but the Message.
If you are a Moslem, you will be able to understand that, and may recoil at the blasphemy of it. What is hard to convey is the sense that the knowledge of God's love, revealed through the Resurrection, makes books, laws, rituals and all into something that is, after all, trivial.

[Jewels83]

"Unlike the Quraan, the Bible was written by a great variety of people over hundreds of years. Much that is in it is not, in my view, the word of God. You may throw up your hands in horror at my impiety, but I do not think that God and his Word can be contained in any book."

May i ask why do you think so?

[Amra]

"Exactly so. Jannah said "Muslims believe in the Bible and the Torah" I assume that Jannah is a Moslem, and that you are too, and that Jannah is correct in saying that Moslems accept the Torah as God's words. However, Muslims also pick and choose want they want from the Torah."

You are mistaken. Muslims do not accept the Torah and the Bible, as we know it today, as God's word. We believe that Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them) were Prophets who came with God's word and came with His message, but that their original teachings were corrupted. Muslims believe that the original Torah and Indzil (Bible) are not available to us anymore in their true form. God has sent many Prophets to human kind and all came with the same message; to submit and believe in only One God. However, over time those revelations were changed, adapted, corrupted and lost. Because of that, God s.v.t sent his last Prophet Mohammed a.s with the holy Qur'an as the last revelation to human kind(and promised that it will be saved from any changes until the Judgment Day), and only the Qur'an is accepted by muslims as the true word of God. However, some parts of the Qur'an agree with todays Bible and Torah because some parts of God's teachings have still been saved from corruption and change. Muslims only accept what is in the Qur'an, and if that agrees with the Bible or the Torah, then that is fine, if not, than that is not accepted as it is believed to have been changed by human beings over the history of time. I hope this clears up the confusion.

[Amra]

"Unlike the Quraan, the Bible was written by a great variety of people over hundreds of years. Much that is in it is not, in my view, the word of God. You may throw up your hands in horror at my impiety, but I do not think that God and his Word can be contained in any book."

Forgive me for saying so, but if I believed that the Word of God has been corrupted somehow, and that my holy Book has been written by different people where it is impossible to differentiate which is God's word and which people's, I would seriously consider the validity of that which I believe in altogether.

[Whifflingpin]

"May i ask why do you think so?"

Why do I think the Bible was written by many people? Even if I ignored what scholars tell about linguistic styles, use of names such Elohim and Yhwh, etc., many of the writers give their names at the start of the books.

Why do I think that much is not the word of God? Because there are contradictions within it; because some of it disagrees with what I "know" to be true.

Why do I think that God cannot be contained in any book? We can only understand what is in this world, but God is not contained in this world so nothing meant for our understanding could describe Him fully.

I do not believe that even humans can be contained in any book, so how could God? If you read a biography of someone, the best that you can get is what the author could comprehend about that person. Even autobiographies cannot tell the whole truth. The argument in Christian belief is that Jesus is still alive, and can be known in the way that we can know other people with whom we have contact, that is directly through a personal relationship. A book may give us insight or understanding, but it is not equal to or a replacement for the personal relationship. Similarly, a deep relationship with a person entitles you to say that something written in a book about that person is only partial truth, or a view of the truth, or even an untruth.

A religion limited to a set of writings seems to me a futile sterile thing. Amra rejects the idea that God's will may be interpreted differently by different people and in different ages. I think that if you put together every human's knowledge of God in every age you would still scarcely have begun to understand Him.

[Amra]

Here is the verse from the Qur'an that substantiates what I have been saying previously:

15-9 15:9 We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

15:10 We did send apostles before thee amongst the religious sects of old:

15:11 But never came an apostle to them but they mocked him.

[Jewels83]

Well Amra you say that the Quran was dictated word for word, letter for letter by the Angel Gabriel sent from God (That is what Muslims beleive in). Do you also know that the Quran is written and saved with God above (in Arabic, in a loh mahfouz); The Quran as a book. You say its unchanging till judgement day "and promised that it will be saved from any changes until the Judgment Day" so you said. But i'm sure since you're a muslim, you also know that there is such thing as "The Abrogator and Abrogated Quranic verses", whereby God changes the verse (invalidates it) in one of three ways:
1) invalidates a law as a practice but keeps it written in the Book to be recited.
2) Invalidates a law and removes it from the Book after it has been sent down to Mohamed (pbuh)
3) Removes a law from the Book but keeps it as a practice (the provisions are retained but recitation is not)
In chapter 2:106 God says:
"such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better or the like thereof."
God changing his mind like we humans do?God want to find something better to say even though He is perfection itself?And if we say that circustances changed and that God wanted to change His ordinances as time and circumstances do, doesnt that negate the fact that God Allmighty knows the future (Al Ghayb) and that His words should then be "timeless" that you put it sevel times?
ANd finanlly what is then exactly written in the copy of the Quran above God (the Loh Mahfouz)?

[Amra]

"such of our revelation as we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring or the like thereof.""

I guess you take your references from the (in)famous answering islam site? :D

The verse goes like this:

105. It is never the wish of those without Faith among the People of the Book, nor of the Pagans, that anything good should come down to you from your Lord. But Allah will choose for His special Mercy whom He will - for Allah is Lord of grace abounding.

106. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

107. Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth? And besides Him ye have neither patron nor helper.

This clearly states that the verses are all in the Qur'an and nothing has been omitted in any way. I have never heard of the Abrogated Quranic verse, but I guess that is one of the inventions of the answering islam site. :D Some of the regulations in the Qur'an came step by step. The revelation lasted 23 years altogether, and Prophet Mohammed a.s had to teach the Qur'an to the people, to show them how to practice Islam fully, and to make them understand why the regulations are good for them. Before Islam, the pagan societies used to practice many horrible things, they were very oppresive to women not even granting them the basic rights and treating them as animals. The promiscuity dominated the society and people used to drink excessively. Because of that, God revealed some regulations gradually. For example, the prohibition not to drink alcohol came in three stages. First, the verse revealed was: "And from the fruits of date-palm and grapes you derive sakaraa(intoxicating liquor) as well as wholesome sustenance. LO! Therein is indeed a sign for people who have wisdom." (Q16:67)
he second verse was then revealed: "They ask you (O Muhammad) about khamr (alcoholic drink) and gambling. Say: ‘In them is a great sin, and some benefit for men, but the sin is greater than the benefit.’…" (Q2:219)
The pious Muslims started staying away from khamr but because it was not banned the majority of Muslims still continued to drink it. The third order came when one of the companions made salaah while intoxicated making serious mistakes in reciting Quran: "O you who believe! Do not approach salaah when you are drunk until know what you say…" (Q4:43)
The last verse was: "O you who believe! Khamr (alcoholic drinks), gambling, al-ansaab (stones set up as altars or idols) and al-azlaam (arrows for seeking luck) are loathsome evils of Shaytan’s work. So avoid them in order that you may be successful. Shaytan only wants to excite enmity and hatred between you with khamr (alcoholic drinks) and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah and from salaah. Will you not then abstain?" (Q5:90-1)

So, this shows what the verse: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things." means. It doesn't mean that God chaned His mind or omitted certain verse, but only that certain regulations came in stages, as was needed and as the message was revealed. The Qur'an is the Word of God dictated by angel Gabriel to Mohammed a.s. It was memorized by his companions and then written down. All of the verses revealed are in the Qur'an, and they are all believed to be the true word of God.

[Jewels83]

Now the reason why Muslims say that the current versions of te Bible and Torah are "corrupted" was not something thought of before this verse was sent down:
[4:46] Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places..."
[2:75] "Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it..."
I suppose these are the verses you're talking about when you say "corruption".

But these replaced (were abrogators for) verses like:
[5:43]"But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?..." God said that to Mohamed pbuh when Jews came up to him asking him about laws.
and many more examples 5:43-48 and 40:54

About the way Muslims should treat Christians and Jews.
[2:62] "Those who believe (in the Qur-an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. "
These were replaced by:
3:85 "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)..."

Also:
[2:256] "Let there be no compulsion in religion..."
[3:20] So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message;
But we find it replaced with:
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.."

Some people call that contradictions, But this is just becasue of the Abrogator and Abrogatedverses. Is this how God changes His mind??Is not God far sighted enough to let people know in advance not to read the Bible and Torah, i mean we see in the verses mentioned above that God tells Mohamed that the Jews should go back to their books. Why did God then gavethe chance for people to go astray; people such as myself. Clear that up please Amra..
Peace..

[Jewels83]

Hey relax why do you keep on mentioning "the answering islam site", i guess you're very much into it..No, i'm not really into biased websites like these..As i'm an Arabic speaking person, so i read the old Muslim scholars and contemporary ones as well books, "The Abrogator and Abrogated" for al Wahedi is one of the many books discussing that very subject. Al-Suyuti another vert well known Muslim scholar. We have nice librarues in Egypt and I can access all kinds of old books and seriously i don't think its wise you reading the stuff in the "infamous" website (islam online or whatever its called)...So you may also check the Zamakh-shari's "Al-Khash-shaf"..
Keep it up!!

[Amra]

"But these replaced (were abrogators for) verses like:
[5:43]"But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?..." God said that to Mohamed pbuh when Jews came up to him asking him about laws.
and many more examples 5:43-48 and 40:54"

Here is the full text so that you can see the verses in the context they were revealed in.

43. But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah. yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

44. It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah.s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah.s book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

45. We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah. it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

These verses are very clear and beautifully explain what I have been trying to prove here. Namely, Allah s.v.t says in these verses that He has revealed the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus, but that the Jews and Christians have diverted from those truths, and chose not to be guided by them. He calls upon them to go back to their original books and judge by them, not by their desires. Why have they gone astray? Why have they abandoned the Word that was given to them? That is basically what God is asking in these verses. He is asking Jews and Christinas to go back to their original books, to the original revelation (which is the belief in one God and the full submissioin to Him) and judge and be judged by those laws. Because they have corrupted their books, and no one knows what the originals are, the only thing they can do is accept Islam, because Islam is the one and only revelation God has sent to all of His prophets. The same religon that was revealed to Jews and to Christians. Why did Jews refuse to accept Jesus when they knew there would be another Prophet? Why did Christians make Jesus God when he never claimed that of himself? As far as I know, early Christians didn't think of Jesus as God, but as a Prophet, then he evolved to be the Son of God, and then God himself. Here we can see how people went astray when they started changing God's word.

[Amra]

"About the way Muslims should treat Christians and Jews.
[2:62] "Those who believe (in the Qur-an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. "
These were replaced by:
3:85 "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)..." "

I don't know how you see any contradictions in these or why you think that the first verses were replaced? In both verses it says that jews and Christians should follow Islam and submit to God, because Islam is the only religion. When it says those who follow the Jewish scripture (Torah), it doesn't mean today's Torah that is corrupted, but the original Law that was revealed to Moses. Also, it refers to those Jews who did follow the original Law Moses came with. For them Allah s.v.t says that they were on the right path and that they should not fear. However, after Qur'an was revealed as the only accepted religion by God, no other religion will be accepted, because they are considered corruped and not from God.

[Amra]

"Also:
[2:256] "Let there be no compulsion in religion..."
[3:20] So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, thy duty is to convey the Message;
But we find it replaced with:
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them..""

Here you take verses out of context, because the first two verses refer to the times of peace, when muslims are not being attacked, oppresed or in war with any nation. For those nations that live in peace with muslims, God states how we should treat their people. The last verse you cite refers to the time of the war. Here is the context in which the verse is revealed:

89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).

91. Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.


It clearly shows that the verse referred to times of war when a nation is fighting muslims. When that happens, Allah s.v.t tells us to accept a treaty it if is offered, and if not, then it is allowed to fight. So, there is no contradiction nor abrogated verses :D ; you simply took the verses out of context.

[Amra]

"Why did God then gavethe chance for people to go astray; people such as myself. Clear that up please Amra.."

I am a little surprised by this question from a believer. If an atheist would ask this, it wouldn't surprise me, but as a believer you should know that God gave as free will, and we are able to save ourselves and chose the right path. He gave us, out of His mercy, Prophets, and revelations, so that we may not go astray, but as human beings are, we don't want to believe. Is it God's fault that you are not a muslim? Surely not. You have the Qur'an available to you, and the more you know about it, the more responsible you will be held, if you do not accept it. God gave you the reason to think and decide and chose, so use it for your own good, so that you may not go astray. For God is most Merciful, and He will accept your repentence. Islam erases previous sins, because you cannot be held responsible for something you didn't know.

[falling*moon]

hi..

pleaese read what is written in this and tell me what you think ..

[Jewels83]

"Here is the full text so that you can see the verses in the context they were revealed in."
I dont know why you get the impression that i do not have the full verses? i got these example off Wahdi's Abrogator and Abrogated book (The muslim scholar i told you about)

"You then interpret those verse by saying that God calls upon them to go back to their original books and judge by them, not by their desires. Why have they gone astray? Why have they abandoned the Word that was given to them? That is basically what God is asking in these verses. He is asking Jews and Christinas to go back to their original books, to the original revelation (which is the belief in one God and the full submissioin to Him) and judge and be judged by those laws."

So God, knowing that the original books are not there anymore, still tells the Jews and Christians to go back to their original books? Is that what your tryin to say? Isnt that derouting? Was God trying to do that? I dont think so..
So basically all these verses God was asking the people to go to look for books they werent to find and at the same time, telling them to adopt Islam??
You mean God couldnt just say "Do not look for other books, Do not look for original copies, you wont find them" wasnt He able to save the people from going astray instead of causing all the "bewilderment" Jews and Christians are experiencing today.

"As far as I know, early Christians didn't think of Jesus as God, but as a Prophet, then he evolved to be the Son of God, and then God himself. Here we can see how people went astray when they started changing God's word."

WHere did you get that?what about the apostles (who Muslims by the way beleive in) when in the Bible (the fake copy as you say) many apostles confessions about Jesus being God; the coming Messiah; the one that talked about in the Old testament; when more than 1500 prophecies were fulfiled about the coming of the Messiah. Jesus Himself said it that He and God are one, that whooever saw Him, have seen GOd himself and such as "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

One more thnig, christians do beleive in the "current version" of the Bible because whenever a manuscript is found, either for the Old testament that goes back to almost 250 BC or new testament going back to 200 AD...Long before Mohamed came, and till this day you can access those manuscripts. ANd you'll find that they're all maching, no such thing as "A prophet named Ahmed" is written. So such thing as "Jesus is not God"..I wonder if God had really wanted people to see the truth. then where is the "original copy"???the one God is referring to as you said, when God said to the Jews go back to your books?
And if there is no original copy, why would God tell the muslims themselves to go back to the older books (Kotob al awaleen) whenevr they're doubtful about anything.
[10:94] "thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt."

"For God is most Merciful, and He will accept your repentence. Islam erases previous sins, because you cannot be held responsible for something you didn't know."
I dont think that this is a forum for conversion and preaching purposes as much as it is for debate; you still think that "i'm taking verses out of the context" whereas i only get them out off Muslim books of very famous scholars such as the people i mentioned earlier. Now these scholars and sheikhs in their books, namely (The abrogator and Abrogated) for Al wahdi exaplsin each and every verse and states their replacement or abrogators. So everything mentioned in my previous post, is not how i interpret things and verses, its how Muslim scholars do. May be my command of English is not afterall perfect, so i may refer you to those books i read, they might be of more use to you.

In the end i thnk each of us is trying so hard to get a point accross, and that is good exercise for our faiths, it gives you further chance to dig deeper in your religion, there is never too much or enough of it.. :-)
Peace

[Amra]

"
I dont know why you get the impression that i do not have the full verses? i got these example off Wahdi's Abrogator and Abrogated book (The muslim scholar i told you about)
"

I have never heard of that person, nor of that book. I am citing directly from the holy Qur'an.


"So God, knowing that the original books are not there anymore, still tells the Jews and Christians to go back to their original books? Is that what your tryin to say? Is that derouting? Ws God trying to do that? I dont think so..
So basically all these verses God was asking the people to go to look for book sthey werent to find and at the same time, telling them to adopt Islam??
You mean God couldnt just say "Do not look for other books, Do not look for original copies, you find them" wasnt He able to save the people from going astray instead of causing all the "bewilderment" Jews and Christians are experiencing today."

It is not to be taken literary. God basically asks them why they have not followed their original book given to them. Why they do not go back to the original revelation. In essence, He is telling them to go back to Qur'an, becase Qur'an has the truth in it; the truth that is revealed to jews and Christians, and all the people before.

"WHere did you get that?what about the apostles (who Muslims by the way beleive in) when in the Bible (the fake copy as you say) many apostles confessions about Jesus being God; the coming Messiah; the one that talked about in the Old testament; when more than 1500 prophecies were fulfiled about the coming of the Messiah. Jesus Himself said it that He and God are one, that whooever saw Him, have seen GOd himself and such as "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)"

We believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but that doesn't mean he is God. Jesus never said himself that he is God. In fact, many times he claims that he doesn't have many of the attributes that God himself has. However, since I do not accept the current Bible as the word of God (by the way, many Christians admit that it has been changed by humans), I wouldn't really be able to argue with you on various specific issues, because I only accept it as much as it agrees to the holy Qur'an. Nothing more, nothing less. However, the so called proof of Jesus divinity, even in the current Bible, are really not enough to proove that he really thought of himself as divine in any way. How would you explain so many verses when jesus claimed that he didn't know about Judgment Day, that he wasn't AllKnowing, that he couldn't do anything by himself but relied on God to give him power? What about the verse when he reprimands one of the apostels for calling him good? He says that only God is the good...and so on. It just doesn't add up. You talk about confusion, well, if God came to the Earth (estagfirullah), why didn't he simply say I am God, worship me? Why make people so confused that they don't know if he is God,son of God, or prophet? How can God be in hell? How can God be killed by human beings? This all just doesn't make sense to me. If Jesus said in the verse if you have seen me, you have seen God, this could be interpreted to mean that by following Jesus, you are following what God said. In Islam, you are not a muslim unless you follow Prophet MOhammed a.s and his teachings. The same thing Jesus claims. So, I don't really see how that proves he is God.

"One more thnig, christians do beleive in the "current version" of the Bible because whenever a manuscript is found, either for the Old testament that goes back to almost 250 BC or new testament going back to 200 AD...Long before Mohamed came, and till this day you can access those manuscripts. ANd you'll find that they're all maching, no such thing as "A prophet named Ahmed" is written. So such thing as "Jesus is not God"..I wonder if God had really wanted people to see the truth, then where is the "original copy"???the one God is referring to as you said, when God said to the Jews go back to your books? "

The original, uncorrupted book is the holy Qur'an. God himself says that, so there shouldn't be any confusion. ;) However, there are many inconsistencies about the Bible, and you very well know that. If there is only one Bible, which is the correct one? The protestant bible?The king James version?The updated King James version? The Rome Catholic Bible? The list is long... but tell me, which Bible is the true Bible? Why are there so many names for the Bible if they are all the same?

[falling*moon]

(The abrogator and Abrogated) for Al wahdi

me too..would you tell me what is his nationality and how i can get his book..?


something else please ,

altough i was born as Christian,
i still doubt what you say .. and i have the same Questions here :

'If there is only one Bible, which is the correct one? The protestant bible?The king James version?The updated King James version? The Rome Catholic Bible? The list is long... but tell me, which Bible is the true Bible? Why are there so many names for the Bible if they are all the same?'

thanx...both of u..

[Amra]

Is this God speaking?

Jesus) said: "I can of mine own self do nothing."
(John, 5:30)

Jesus said: "But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father." (Mark, 13:32)

God was tempted by Satan?

"And immediately the spirit driveth him
into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted
of Satan." (Mark, 1:12-13)

"God cannot be tempted with evil,
neither tempteth he any man." (James,
1:13)

contradiction?

[Whifflingpin]

Amra, when I read your quotation of Sura 15 verse 9, I noticed that you had put the words "from corruption" in brackets. I thought perhaps that meant that these words were not in the Arabic, that is they were not really to be found in the Qur'an.

When I made a quick search, I found that there were many translations of this verse. I found all of the following within a few minutes, all on Islamic websites, that anyone could check by doing a search for "Qur'an 15:9" using Google.

"We have, Without doubt, sent down the message: and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
"Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Dhikr and surely, We will guard it from corruption."
"Verily! It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an and surely, We will guard it"
"Lo! We, even We, reveal this book of warning, and lo! We are its Guardian."
"Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it."

These translations do not all have exactly the same meaning, although they are approximately the same. Some of then have made a specific meaning, where the original Arabic actually said something slightly different. All harmless enough if you are searching for truth, but quite devastating if you are trying to prove that the original words have to be interpreted exactly the same way by all believers.

I assume that the word "Dhikr" is the original. This does not mean exactly the same as "Qur'an?" "Message," "book of warning" and "reminder" certainly do not mean the same thing, but convey, presumably, some meaning approximating to "Dhikr," possibly biassed to some view that each translator wanted to put across.
I think I am justified in saying that the words "from corruption" do not occur in 15:8 of the Qur'an. They were added in your translation by someone imposing a particular meaning on the original words - a meaning that may or may not be valid, but which should certainly not be inserted by any translator following your statement that no Muslim would dare to add or change anything in the Qur'an.

The versions of the Bible that you mention, in so far as they exist at all, are translations of writings that were written in Hebrew or Greek, and written by many people over centuries. Muslims cannot agree on one translation of the Koran into English, so how can you criticize that there are many translations of the Old and New Testaments into English.

[Amra]

"These translations do not all have exactly the same meaning, although they are approximately the same. Some of then have made a specific meaning, where the original Arabic actually said something slightly different. All harmless enough if you are searching for truth, but quite devastating if you are trying to prove that the original words have to be interpreted exactly the same way by all believers."

Qur'an was revealed in the arabic language, and we still have that original version. So, when scholars interpret the Qur'an, they go from the original arabic versioin. That version, in arabic, is considered the Word of God,the way it was given to MOhammed a.s. What we have in different languages are the translation. The translation is not the word of God, because God revealed the Qur'an in arabic. Because of that, the translation could be a little different, depending on the person who translated it, and his or her ability and knowledge of the arabic language. However, when you buy the Qur'an anywhere in the world, it will have both the arabic version, and next to it the translation. Anyone who wants to interpret the Qur'an has to know the arabic language. What I have offered here as interpretations of it comes from scholars who know the language. I cannot interpert the Qur'an from its translation, because the translation is not the Word of God. However, the Bible does not exist in its original form, nor do I refer to different translation when I speak of the different version. A translation is not the same as a version, because a version is something totally different, that gives a totally different meaning, whereas a translation is merely a difference in use of a specific word. Hope you understand me better now.

[Amra]

We have, Without doubt, sent down the message: and we will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."
"Verily, We, it is We who have sent down the Dhikr and surely, We will guard it from corruption."
"Verily! It is We Who have sent down the Qur'an and surely, We will guard it"
"Lo! We, even We, reveal this book of warning, and lo! We are its Guardian."
"Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it."

All of these are translations from different people from arabic into the english language. They are not considered Word of God, only the arabic version is the Word of God, because that is how the Qur'an was revealed to Prophet Mohammed a.s. That Qur'an in arabic is same letter by letter anywhere you buy it. However, we cannot expect the translations to be the same, as they are human attempts to convey the meaning of the Qur'an into different languages. However, the translation do not change the meaning! Different version do. The Bible is not simply different in translation, but there are whole chapters omitted from one version and included in the other. That is not a matter of translation.

[Shield&Sword]

Salam

BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

I just want to give a little notice about John (10:30) which jewels83 wrote (and it say:I and the father are one) i think u use it to show that Jesus is God. To understand this verse we must read verses before it and after it, coz this verse was part of speach or talk that happened between Jews and Jesus pbuh.
The speach begin from John (10:22) in this dialogue the Jews ask Jesus pbuh r u the Christ and he answered them in John (10:25) with these words:"I told you, and ye believed not: THE WORKS THAT I DO IN MY FATHER’s NAME, they bear witness of me". And he then say in John (10:29): "MY FATHER, which gave them me, IS GREATER THAN ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand". And he finish his answer by saying I and the Father r one. We see that he was talking about the acts he did and from where he got them, he showed in his words that the father is greater and his WORKS R IN HIS FATHER's NAME, and he finish his answer by saying that he and Father is one, mean one by the goal by the massage not by being same God as he was talking about his works and he did in name of his God that he and God (father) r one in goal and massage (as all prophets r one with God , r one in acts and path. Its like u say we r one hand, this not mean we all have one phisical hand its mean we have same goal and same path) u not by the nature of them that they r same nature.
If we continue from John (10:31) untle John (10:38) u will see that the verse John (10:30) have nothing to do with nature of God and that Jesus pbuh is same God.
We see begining from John (10:31) that Jews came to stone him, he (Jesus pbuh) asked why u want to stone me, they say we stone u for blasphemy, "Last part of john (10:33): and because THAT THOU, BEING A MAN, MAKEST THYSELF God." NOW PAY ATTENTION FOR JESUS PBUH ANSWER, he answered them ISNT WRITTEN IN UR LAW THAT GOD SAID U R gods, and he say also John(10:35-36): If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
We see here that Jesus pbuh talked to Jews according to thier language and he said to them that no wrong in wht he said coz its the language that use these terms and he gave them an example from wht they said in thier books , lets look at Exodus (4:16) God refered to Moses as god, but we cant understand here that he claimed to be GOD, same thing for Jesus when he said I and God r one , he didnt ment in nature as he explained to Jews that his words about saying I AM SON OF GOD was to refair that he was close to God and was one who Got inspirationg from God , as Jews called those who got inspirations from God gods but didnt ment god by nature. Then in John (10:37-38) he talk again about his works and if he dont do his Father's then they should not believe him, and in last verse he say that if he do works of father then they should believe him and u will know by his behaiving that Father in him and he in father, mean that his works show that he is one with father in goal and massage and that he sent by Father and he dont do against him.
So we say here in thses verses that he was talking all time about his work and that he do as father want coz he was sent by Father, we cant understand that he talk about being God or one in nature with God, even when Jews asked him about his words he didnt say yes i am , he explained to them wht he mean.
These verses show facts about Father:
John (1:18):" No man hath seen God at any time;"
John (5:37):"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."
John1 (4:20):"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"
We understand from these verses that God no one saw him, and there r other verses with same meaning, so if God no one saw him then how we claim that Jesus is God, even Jesus pbuh by him self didnt say i am God or worship me, we even see him in bible was worshiping God.
In King James version if u open the verse John1 (5:7) u will see these words: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This verses is the basic of christianity which show so clear that Father and Holy Ghost and Word r one. But in new versions of bibles that we have at home we dont find this verse, the last part of it is canceled by the writers of bible, they discovered that this verse is fabricated, in my italian bible its written in this way: "Poichè tre sono quelli che rendono testimonianza:" and the verse is finished with mentioning the trinity and without saying they r one, this verse was chainged and the normal christians didnt notice this, but isnt written in bible that no one is allowed to add or cancel verses, and wht about ppl who was going according to King James version did they mistake, or the now adays christians who mistake,, we see the fabrication in the sntence that show the base of christianity.

[Jewels83]

Talking about versions of a Holy Book, i'd first like to ask you whether you know about the history of the collection of the Quran verses. I'm sure you do.
You know that many parts were lost during the collection (first and second collection), that people would fight over the different readings and which are correct. Al Suyuti one of the most celebrated Muslim scholars gave us a very detailed account on the collection of the Quran and its history (You may check, in case you heard of him, i dont know if they translate these very old books to English.)
The Quran was never collected at the tiime of the Prophet, bits and peices were written here and there. But people had memorized them by heart...But after the prophets death and people turning to heresy and when alot of the reciters died in the wars of apostasies (namely the Yamama battle), Umar told abu Bakr to collect the Quran from fear of its loss..Abu Bakr thus appointed Zayd to do the task.
So it was collected and given to the Care of Hafsa one of the prophet's wives. But the Quran as a book was not yet proclaimed among the people; not until the reign of Uthman the third caliph.
But then at his times many other copies were present, many were fihting over the right recitation and over which verses were ever said by the prophet.

There were actually a number of copies for the Quran (Aisha's copy, Ibn Masu'd's copy and of course the famous Othman copy which is the one we now have between our hands). I'm sure you'll find a book about the history of the Quran.
The second collection took place during Uthman era was becasue of such fights and the presence of many copies.He then appointed Zayd Ibn Thabet to collect the copies. The day of the collection, Uthman gathered all copies of Aisha's copy, Ibn Masu'd's copy and Ibn Abbas and even Hafsa's copy (collected previously) and simply burned them even though the copies were different.Uthman kept his and only his copy.Many verses were lost..

Suyuty quotes the following in his book:
"Hamida the daughter of Abi Younis said, 'when my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of Aisha,"God and His angels bless the prophet. Oh ye beleive, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." then she said "that was before Uthman changed the Quranic copies""

Suyuti then continues:
"Umar said to Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf, 'Didnt you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it anymore.' Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf told him, this verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Quran.'"
Note that Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf was among the people who were noominated for the caliphate.

ANother example:
"MAslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhamed. 'Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Quranwhich Uthman collected'. Thhey failed to do so. Maslama said, 'Oh, ye who beleived and immigrated and fought for the cause of GOdby sacrificing your porperties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (Revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as reward for what they did ''"

Also:
I checked in Many websites for the online version of Saheeh muslim, Masnad Ahmed and other Books of Hadith but not all ahadith are translated..
But i can tell you in "Masnad Ahmed" (Book of Ahmed) that (i will not translate it might not be a perfectly right translation) but i'll tell you the content and that is that Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab one of the companions of Muhamed pbuh, said that the chapter of "Parties" (Chapter 33) used to be two hundred verses, like the Chapter Cow when read at the time of the prophet but after Uthman's collection only the current verses exist (73). These "original verses" including the verse of stoning of old people if commited adultery.
This you will also find in the Suyuti book (Itqan in the sciences of the Quran) and Al Kashaf and the book of Ibn Hazm (Al Muhallah or the Sweetest in English)

These are all verses which we do not find in today's copy. comment??
These verses were recited by very important authorities and sources and whose witness used to be highly regarded by people like Ali,Abu Bakr and the Prophet himself (If you've read the history of Islam a bit you'd know the names)

Uthman burned the copies of very knowlegable people like Masu'd who was close to Mohamed: Saheeh Bukhary (One of the main books for Hadith)part 6 page 229 confirms this on the tongue of Mohamed himself when Mohamed said that we should learn the Quran from four people; Masud was one of them.
Zayd the person who was appointed by Uthman to collect it was however not mentioned.


So the question is, if Uthman burned those copies; copies of very knowledgable accredited people, and that there are many missing verses. Then how did Allah say in [15:9] "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it."
And you say there are many copies of the Bible? at least they're there!!

[Amra]

Everything you just stated is simply not true. I don't know what kind of references you are using or who these people are that you are citing, but surely they do not know what they are talking about. The Qur'an was memorized by thousands of people, and when it was written down, the greatest care was taken that every ayat is recorded as it was revealed. For that matter, many hafiz (people who had memorized the Qur'an) were called to recite each ayat and then it was written down. It was not possible for anyone to omit or add anything when there were so many people who had memorized it. There were different copies of the Qur'an in the way it was written, because the arabic language has 7 dialects, and certain things are pronaunced differently because of that. The versions did not differ in their meaning, number of ayats or anything like that. They differed only in the pronaunciation. The original Qur'an was revealed in the Quraish dialect, which was the one most prevelant and used today. When Uthman saw that some versioin of the Qur'an were written in different dialects, he ordered them to be burnt so that there is only one way to write and pronaunce it...the way it was meant to be.
Other things that you cite, I cannot verify because you use hadiths that are not sahih. You need to use valid sources if you want to discuss something fairly, not merely copy and past from the answering.islam site. When I copy and past parts of your text into google, guess what site it refers me to? :nod: :D

P.S You haven't answered any of my questions regarding the Bible.

[Amra]

BUKHARI ON THE COLLECTION OF THE QUR’AN

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 507:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Caliph 'Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Quran in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them. "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, for the Quran was revealed in this dialect." So they did it.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

[Shield&Sword]

Only one last thing i would like to say, the term Son of God.
The term son of God wasnt gived only to Jesus we can see it in old test. and new test. said to other ppl.
Genesis (6:4):" There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
davide was called in such name also.
in the christian prayer they say Mathew (6:9):" After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." We see that also normal ppl say our Father, mean they r son of God.
And here we see so abvious who is called son of God Romans (8:14):" For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
And there is the famous words said by Jesus pbuh in John (20:17):" Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Here we see so clear that Jesus pbuh say his father and ppl father nothing more, and then he say my God and ur God and here its clear that Jesus is not God, coz as logic say God has no God, and he put him in same group with ppl by saying my and urs.
The term of son of father refer to the level of person according to his faith, Good ppl r sons of God, and Jesus as he is the most with faith then his position is more close and nothing more, son of God is term was said not to Jesus pbuh only, and as we see in verses above that ppl who believe r sons of God, and even in old test. the term was mentioned, even for Davide pbuh as he was more close to God coz he was prophet, same thing for Jesus pbuh, and nothing more, its the hebrew language, as the term god was given to these who got messages from God as we saw before when they wanted to stone Jesus.
Lets look at King James version John (3:16):"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." We see the word BEGOTTEN.
In new versions of bible we have in house we dont find the word BEGOTTEN, the writers canceled it, i dont know from where they got thier authoroty to cancel, and wht about ppl who believed in this word. They canceled because this word refer to an animal action which need the lowest level of action made between animals which is sex and the term is not suitable fot God and God does not go low to this level to have begotten son, as his creatures do (animals), so they canceled it, so Jesus is not Begotten son, he is son but as all like other sons who entered this group coz of thier faith, and Jesus pbuh
is the closest son to God coz of his fiath in God who sent him as massenger nothing more, but ppl got this word wrong, and said Son of God equal to God, but hebrew langugae is not like that, coz as i mentioned before some ppl in old test. were called even gods, not only son of god, but its level depend on faith nothing more.
May ALLAH guide us all to right path and give us the right logic and to open our minds so we can know turth, scuse me ppl if my language is not so good, my english need alot of work, please forgive me any mistake, and sorry if i interfered in ur talk, only wanted to give this info.

Alhamdo LILLAH, Thank GOD
Salam all

[Jewels83]

I can sympathize with you for not being able to access such books, but if you have any Arabic Muslim tutors where you live and ask them about those scholars or simple type their names as you do very well on google, you'll be able to access at least some of their works, go to "official website" such as Al-azhar, even Saudi ARabia's minitry of Islamic affairs site and you'll probably have some access in English that is. There isnt only ONE book of ahadith (or Saheeh) i can list you some, we Arabs use and scholars use them as well when studying Islam (Saheed Bukhari, aheeh Moslem, Sonan Tormozi, Abi Dawood, Masnad ahmed, Malek etc) these are the ones we use. you can find them at l-islam.com (The Saudi Site) if you access the arabic version, get An arabic speaker/reader and click on "hadith" you'll find these Books (Saheehs) on the right hand side of the page. I may not be that credible for you after all..But there must be someone speaking Arabic to guide you through your faith. Arabic is essential to comprehend the Quran properly as Whifflingpin pointed out earlier when he talked abou tthe different translations. About your "favorite" website :-)) if who ever writes in it has read the books i'm quoting from, then that doent make them "useless", at least they've done some research..good for them...

When you tell me that what i'm saying about the collection of the Quran "that is not true" and you simply write down the whole history of the collection in 4-5 lines (sorry missed your last post, you gavea thorough account on the first collection), but whatever you wrote and quoted from the Saheeh doesnt negate my statements and the account i said (you just said teh quotations, i just said the history in words)..But then what about the time of Uthman, there is more that happened..and more was lost..your quotations match exactly to the bok of Suyuti and the rest, but there are quotations you're not mentioning...

whatever you told me about Christianity and all the points raised in this forum are useful to me, give me more clues as to where to find my aanswers and do my research..so your questions about the Bible are still to be answered..the thing is i dont always have all the arguments set right away..because i dont log on some search engine and look fr the answers, i go for the scholars and interpreters' books, may be i'll go to preists..but i'd better read some books..

But you just cant erase such an important part of your religion and erase the words of the people and companions of your own prophet (when they talked about the missing verses), that is just degrading for them.. dont yo think? Look up historians..those scholars i cited are beleivers of Islam, very fanatic as well, and thats why theyre quite loved by those who read them and quite known in Al-Azhar here for people who study Islam and want to be Sheikhs and Imams..

[Amra]

I gave you answers to all the issues you raised. The hadith I quoted from Bukhair state exactly what I have been saying,namely that only the version that differed in dialect were burnt. My posts don't have to be mile long to give them validity. The truth is sometimes very clear and plain. Only those who think that by just naming a ton of arabic names will give them more validity need 10 paragraphs to state something. :D

"Suyuty quotes the following in his book:
"Hamida the daughter of Abi Younis said, 'when my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of Aisha,"God and His angels bless the prophet. Oh ye beleive, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." then she said "that was before Uthman changed the Quranic copies""

Where is this hadith to be found? Tell me where I can look it up from the valid sources of hadith.

"Suyuti then continues:
"Umar said to Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf, 'Didnt you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it anymore.' Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf told him, this verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Quran.'"
Note that Abdul Rahman Ibn Oaf was among the people who were noominated for the caliphate. "

Where is this hadith? What book is it in?

"ANother example:
"MAslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhamed. 'Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Quranwhich Uthman collected'. Thhey failed to do so. Maslama said, 'Oh, ye who beleived and immigrated and fought for the cause of GOdby sacrificing your porperties and yourselves, you received the glad tidings, for you are prosperous. Also those who sheltered them, aided them and defended them, against whom God (Revealed) His wrath, no soul knows what is awaiting them as reward for what they did ''""

Where is this hadith to be found??

"Also:
I checked in Many websites for the online version of Saheeh muslim, Masnad Ahmed and other Books of Hadith but not all ahadith are translated..
But i can tell you in "Masnad Ahmed" (Book of Ahmed) that (i will not translate it might not be a perfectly right translation) but i'll tell you the content and that is that Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab one of the companions of Muhamed pbuh, said that the chapter of "Parties" (Chapter 33) used to be two hundred verses, like the Chapter Cow when read at the time of the prophet but after Uthman's collection only the current verses exist (73). These "original verses" including the verse of stoning of old people if commited adultery.
This you will also find in the Suyuti book (Itqan in the sciences of the Quran) and Al Kashaf and the book of Ibn Hazm (Al Muhallah or the Sweetest in English) "

There is no chapter in the Holy Quran called "parties", and the Surah Al BAqare (the cow) is 286 verses long, not 200. The Suyuti book is not a valid source of Islam. If you are bringing proof, you need to either cite from the holy Qur'an, or from accepted hadiths sources. You can use scholars that will interpret those, but you cannot simply say Suyuit writes this, and think that this is a valid argument.

[Amra]

Here is a great link with all the clarifications to many issues raised in our discussion.
iie.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html

[Amra]

"the thing is i dont always have all the arguments set right away..because i dont log on some search engine and look fr the answers, i go for the scholars and interpreters' books, may be i'll go to preists..but i'd better read some books"

Did the scholars tell you about the chapter "parties" in the Qur'an? :D

[Amra]

Also, could you tell me the full name of this Suyuti that you are citing. I don't know which one you are referring to if you don't tell me his whole name. So, I need his full name, and if possible the time he lived. Thank you.

[Jewels83]

Ok dear Amra seems that you havent read carefully the Quran, i mean you dont even understand the names of the Sura's, such as Al BAkarah (which means The Cow: chapter 2), Al Niisah (The Women chapter 4).I mean thats the least you need to know about your religion; Surat Al-Ahzab in that case means "Parties" (chapter 33)..so its really kind of shameful to simply say: "There is no chapter in the Holy Quran called "parties""...

One more thing about Al Bakarah, i said explicitly that i wont be quoting "from Masnad Ahmed" (Book of Ahmed); that (i will not translate it because it might not be a perfectly right translation) but i'll tell you the content" (all i meant is that "Al Ahzab" or "the Parties" used to be at least 200 verses, almost eaual to the number of the verses in the Bakarah or "The Cow")

But then you took it literaly..and at other times in your posts you refuse that i take things literally (when we talked about God telling Mohamed to refer the Jews back to their books)..

And you say "If you are bringing proof, you need to either cite from the holy Qur'an, or from accepted hadiths sources"
When you dont know about a book or a scholar, that doesnt necesarily mean that they are unexistent; it doesnt mean there any less accredited; that they are any less known (among those who want to seek their books that is)...

If you know your religion well enough, you'd find God leaving room for "Ijtihad" (making effort in knowing and interpreting ISlam)..ANnd that is why we find books of interpretations, of History, and manyy many "accepted" hadiths sources..i.e sources other than Quran to be cited from..other books by sheikhs to be read..What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book...

"Did the scholars tell you about the chapter "parties" in the Qur'an?"
So its a shame your making fun of a non-Muslim who knows The names (The titles) of the Suras (and their meanings) in your Holy Book better :-)))

Suyuti's (1445-1505)full name is : Jalal El Din ABd-El-Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr Al-Suyuti
His Famous books (pro-Islam of course) it talks about the sciences of the Quran, the verses, their history, the collection, the occassion in which the verses were said.
- Al Itqan Fi Ulum Al Quran (Dont know about the spelling) but it translates to The Right in Koran's Sciences/ including the book of i'jaz Al Quran on the margin(It's like two books in one; thats was the way they used to do it)
- Asbab Al Nozoul or The reasons for the verses of the Quran.

In case you read my posts carefully i have cited a few other sources which i'd be glad to re-cite..
-Author's name: taṣnīf Abī al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (Wahdy in Egyptian dialect)
His Book: "Asbāb al-nuzūl" or The Reasons of the Quranic Verses including the Abrogator and Abrogated verses on the margin

- Author's name: Zamakhsharī, Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar(1075-1144)
his book is called
"Al-Kashshāf ‘an Ḥaqā'iq Ghawāmiḍ al-tanzīl wa-‘uyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-ta'wīl"
Its basically a commentary on the Quran..Its so valuable that we cant take it out of the library... ;-))
mmm what else??oh!!
- Author:Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik, d. 834
His Book "al-Sīrah al-Nabawīyah" or the "Life of the Prophet" known as "Siret Ibn Hisham" and its interpretation, a book called "al-Rawḍ al-unuf fī sharḥ al-Sīrah al-Nabawīyah li-Ibn Hishām" for the author (Suhaylī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd Allāh, 1114 or 15-1185)...
Peace...I really hope you find good translations..

[Amra]

Jewels,

Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy)

So, you have to go in this order. You cannot simply come and cite some scholar without referencing the first two preceding sources. If the scholars you are citing are using these sources, they must have referenced them in their work as well, so the reader can go back and check them. I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith. Furthermore, the hadith cannot negate the Qur'an and it must be a saheeh hadith. Saheeh meens that it has been proven to be valid (there is a whole science behind proving which hadiths are valid and which not; there are four classification but we don't have to go into detail about this). Suyuti could be an excellent scholar, but his book cannot be used by itself as a proof for anything. You need to provide valid references, and tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite (or where Suyuti has found those hadiths). As for Surah Al-Ahzab (33), I have never seen it translated as "parties", that is why the confusion. However, you still need to provide proof of what you are citing when you state that it used to be longer than it is.

"When you dont know about a book or a scholar, that doesnt necesarily mean that they are unexistent; it doesnt mean there any less accredited; that they are any less known (among those who want to seek their books that is)..."

I didn't say they were nonexistent, I simply stated that they have to be an authority in Islam, and that they have to cite from acceptable sources of Islam, such as the Qur'an or hadith to support their argument. Because in your citations you never state where the hadiths come from, I am asking you to provide me that information.

"If you know your religion well enough, you'd find God leaving room for "Ijtihad" (making effort in knowing and interpreting ISlam)..ANnd that is why we find books of interpretations, of History, and manyy many "accepted" hadiths sources..i.e sources other than Quran to be cited from..other books by sheikhs to be read..What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Ijtihad cannot be done by everyone. ;) Also, those who do ijtihad have to support their reasonings with Qur'an and hadiths.

"In case you read my posts carefully i have cited a few other sources which i'd be glad to re-cite..
-Author's name: taṣnīf Abī al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Aḥmad al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (Wahdy in Egyptian dialect)
His Book: "Asbāb al-nuzūl" or The Reasons of the Quranic Verses including the Abrogator and Abrogated verses on the margin"

That is all good and nice, but these are not valid sources of Islam. If you cite these people and their books, then if they are valid and truthful, they have to provide references to whatever verse or hadith they are using in their books. If they cannot do that, then we cannot accept their argument as valid.

"What i'm doing here is part of the "Ijtihad" you should be doing if you wanna know more about God and His Book..."

Maybe you should start doing that for your own religion and provide us with some answers. ;) I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam? Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right? Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand? :confused:

[Jewels83]

"Islam has four sources of reference. In their order, they are:

1. The Holy Qur'an
2. hadith
3. Ijma (concensus among scholars)
4. Qiyas(analogy"

First of all when you say Quran you dont mean that i or you should go and interpret it our way for it is quite complicated and God's words are not be understood by common people such as ourselves, unless we've studied for years and years..So i also assume that some interpreters guide you. i.e you read the verses and their interpretation (by muslim scholars, people who've studied; such as)
Al JAlalayn
Al Zamakhshari
Ibn Kathiir
Al Tabary...

I assume that you're also aware that the books of ahadith do not quote dierctly from Mohamed pbuh but its like companions, who quote companions, who quote companions who finally quote the prophet. The books of ahadith do not only contain the sayings and doings of Mohamed pbuh but also the sayings and the historic accounts of his companions and MOhamed's wives as well as they give the Moslems a better and more complete idea of Mohamed whether in war, with his wives, at home etc... You can thus find campanions, quoting companions and stop at that..and find Mohamad's wives sayings; such as Aisha's sayings..You knwo that right??

Secondly you say
"I have asked you to tell me where you have found those hadiths that you cite, and you tell me in the Suyuti book. However, as you can see above, the Suyuti book is not an acceptable source of Islam, so the hadith must be found in the acceptable books of hadith."

But then i remember stating Musnad Ahmed (about the lost verses of the "Parties" or chp 33 which i told you'd find in Suyuti's book); i even translated it for you. Musnad AHmed, is a book and guess what? there are ahadith in it and they are "Saheeh" (right/ official, "acceptable") and its not i who made that up..
The books of Hadith or Sunnah are mainly 9 (9 accredited and official and "Saheeh").. Any other books than these are called Isra'elyyat (books that had Jewish intervention)and thus neither acceptable nor reliable..

The 9 acceptable Books i'm talkin about, you can find in ARabic countries. in your case you can look them up on the net..
The Saudi ARabia ministry of Islamic affairs has them all (mentioned it hadith.al-islam.com
In that page you will find the writing كتب السنة التسعةits the list of the 9 books...
i can list them anyways:
"Saheeh Muslim", "SAheeh Bukhari", "Sunnan Ibn Majeh", "Sunnan el Tormozi", "Musnad Ahmed", "Sunnan al NIsa'i", "Sunnan Abi Dawood", "Mawta' Malek", "Sunnan Drami"
Note that the word "Saheeh" here is the name of the Book.

Bring someone to read tehm out for you..One of those books is called Musnad Ahmed; which is one of the Books of ahadith Suyuti has been quoting from..
So i'll give you the exact quote conserning the missing verses in ("The Parties" or Chapter 33)..That is the link..
hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=6&Rec=212

You have to be aware of the person saying the statement; Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab (may God Bless him) was one of the Prophets companions (i explained to you above, that you could find some companions sayings and Aisha's sayings in ahadith books or Sunna books)

So click on it and make an Arabic reader read it out for you and explain it (you must know someone; you can give to a translator) because you see, the English version of this website and even Al-Azhar website are poor and not all ahadith are translated and when a hadith is translated,the translators do not mention the book it is taken from..

there is another one; that gives the same meaning..(that verses were lost after Uthman burned the copies that is)the missing verses talk about the law of of stoning an old couple commiting adultery..

Another missing verse i forgot to mention...
Apart from the stoning verse, is the one that talks about the "Breast feeding of the old"..The story starts as follows (first i'll point to a hadith):
It talks about Mohamed telling a woman to breast feed her older adopted son becasue her husband has grown jealous after her adopted son has become a man..
In the Hadith Book i use at home (Saheeh Moslem; thast its name; one of the 9 books im telling you about) i found the story..
But i managed to locate it for you on the Saudi website:

Aisha thus tells us the same story in Saheeh Moslem, Musnad Ahmed, Sonn EL Nisa'i, Tormozi, Sonnan Ibn Majeh, Mawta' Malek..

The verse for "Breast Feeding of the Old" was supposed to be present in today's Quran had not Uthman burnt it. We find Aisha's testimony for that in a HAdith Book (Sunan Ibn Majeh); again one of the 9 Hadith Books accredited among muslims.
It is written here:
Aisha says it:
From (Sunnan Ibn Majeh):
From Musnad Ahmed:
It basically reads that Aisha had the verses for the law of "stoning of the old" and "breast Feeding of the old" written on a paper under her bed and when the Prophet died, they got busy and a came in "Dadjen" in the other books "Dowayba" (i.e Domestic animal) and ate the papers...

let a friend translate it for you...

So i dont understand where do u read your hadiths??(is it from one condensed book called "Saheeh"??) ANyhow the rest of th ahadith you want to know, you look for them yourself..they're all there...i gave you the websites, i cited the books..
so i'll let you Do your Ijtehad..and let me do mine as you said ;-)

You say "I mean, why is it that every time I ask a Christian about their religion, they start talking about Islam?"
But then why is it every time i ask a muslim about the Abrogator and Abrogated verses, they start askin me to quote them books and books instead of doin their own research, why do they simply say "its not true"!!sounds familiar???

In many of the posts i wrote i discussed christianity..and people were participating such as Wiffl..(sorry i'll re-check your name) and dark..But i mean you cant just say "i answered all the points you raised"..

You say: "Do you think that by proving Islam wrong, you will make your religion right?"

As i told u b4 i'm not trying to convert people here..you attempetd to do that first and i told that here is not the place..this is just a debate..its like we're debating any topic..we're arguing..i told you b4 such arguments help me more understand both of our religions and it helps me read more and research better "more or less" more objectively because all the questions about christianity that you and Shield&Sword have brought up, i wrote them down and i'm looking for the answers; i didnt say "Its not true" because they might be true..

you finally say "Why don't you talk to me about something you know, rather than copy and paste things that you don't fully understand?"
You keep on mentioning how impotant are ahadith and you dont even know the different books of Hadiths..You didnt even "understand" the meanings of the title to the Surahs and you simply said "there's no such thing as the chapter of Parties" i assume u havent checked b4 u made such a statement...

Neither you or me are know-it all people, thast the point of the forum..At least i have
to admit it myself...As much as it uses up my energy and time; it has been a very benefitial experience ;-)
I first registered in this website to talk about Peter Pan, never thought i'd end up spending days in continuous research..

Peace to you Amra..And thanks :-))

[Shield&Sword]

Salam
BISm ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

I just want to give a little notice,,i noticed that some ppl use books of history to judge islam.. I want to say that some of these books contian hadeeth that is not valid and they wrote it (the writers of histroy) without controling them, coz they r not from hadeeth scholars , they r history writers if they write history books, and they write all they find in thier hands and leave the work to other scholars to decide if this is a valid hadeeth or story or not.
Even in bukhari book there is part contain ahadeeth with isnad and all islamic world agreed they all r saheeh (valid), but in part of his book called Balaghat the hadeeth that located there is not all valid, and the work of scholars to control them according to hadeeth rules and decide which is valid, but Bukhari wrote them for something called in arabic "alamana alilmia" mean the honesty of the science (i guess). If u read hadeeth of this part (part of balaghat) u see the word balaghany min ( reached me (i guess)), this mean that this hadeeth reached him like news, like he hear this news from some one, even they r called Akhbar (news) not called hadeeth with sanad (the ppl who narraited it) and matn(the containing of the hadeeth and he didnt control if they r right or wrong, but wrote them for the honesty. In islam there r 2 books called Saheh, Saheh Albukhari, Saheh Muslim. The other 6 books of hadeeth r called Sunan and they can contain not valid hadeeth and they must be controled by scholars.
Lets go back to the history books, every muslim writer write for honesty and some times he write not valid hadeeth and then he give his own opinin as its not valid hadeeth , and some times not. The question how we know the valid and not valid hadeeth in history books? when u look at hadeeth wrote in the book u see before it a few names , this is called Roah-raoi (narraiters). In islam there is part of hadeeth science called "Jarh oa ta'deel", this part control the ppl who narraited the hadeeth (there r alot of conditions to be a valid narraiter), and decide according it if sanad (goup of narraiters of hadeeth) is valid or not valid. So when u write something here and say its hadeeth u must write the names before it, if hadeeth doesnt have the group who narraited it then its not accepted, and when u write the names we can say if this is valid or not according to the validity of naraiters decided by scolars.
Hadeeth science is so big in islam, and need alot of study, and even the history writers didnt check if this hadeeth is valid or not , but for honesty they wrote it and wrote the names of narraiters to let this job to scolars. So as we see all islam things is relaited to each other, no one can write from his own mind alone and other write other thing, all must be controled, if a history man write hadeeth he leave the work of validity to hadeeth scholar if other write some thing others control, all r well comtroled and well made.

i hope u got the idea.
Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
salam.

[Amra]

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,

[Shield&Sword]

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

Jazak ALLAH khair amra,
قيل لأحمد بن حنبل : ابن اسحاق إذا تفرد بحديث تقبله ؟ قال : (( لا ، والله إني رأيته يحدث عن جماعة بالحديث الواحد ، ولا يفصل كلام ذا من ذا )) ( تهذيب الكمال ( 24 : 422
I wanted to begin my answer to jewels with this scentence its mean: They asked Ihmad Ibn Hanbal(big scholar) (the one who narrated the hadeeth that u posted in jewels previuos answer): "Ibn Ishaq (one of the ppl that narrated this hadeeth and u can see his name in the chain of narraters before the hadeeth) if he narrated hadeeth do u accept him? he said (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal): no, i swear i saw him narrating from a group in one hadeeth, and he dont separate the talk of ppl ( i think he mean he make the talk of ppl one talk and dont separate ppl talk)". Book "tahtheeb alkamal"
If u watch the chain of narraters of this hadeeth u see 2 names between Ibn Ishq and Aisha; i mean the chain is putten in this way begining from Ibn Ishaq(where the prob is located): Muhammed Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ALLAH Ibn Abi Bakr from Amra from Aisha, in the second chain is putted: Muhammad Ibn Ishaq narrated from Abd ARRAHMAN Ibn Alqasem from his father from Aisha. we see that Ibn Ishaq when he narrated the hadeeth one time he said it from one and some times from other, he gathered the same hadeeth from a different narraters and this is his prob, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is not a lier but its known about him that he mix ahadeeth (as scholars of hadeeth decided).
وقال عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل قيل لأبي يحتج به-يعني ابن اسحاق-قال(لم يكن يحتج به في السنن)
This sentence mean that Abd ALLAH Ibn Ahmad Ibn Hanbal say that his father was asked do we take his ahadeeth-mean Ibn Ishaq-he said (Ahma Ibn Hanbal) we dont accept his ahadeeth in sunan (in laws of islam).

وقال الذهبي في السير(7/41)[وأما في أحاديث الأحكام فينحط حديثه فيها عن رتبة الصحة إلى رتبة الحسن إلا فيما شذ فيه،فإنه يعد منكراً]
Athahaby (scholar) said in his book assiar: in laws his hadeeth(Ibn Ishaq) go down from saheeh to good (hasan) (levels of hadeeth-as scholars gave), only the unusual of them they r ignored (not accepted).
The accepted hadeeth of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq r these about Alaghazy (dont know in english) and seera, but his hadeeth about laws in islam is not accepted, then how if the hadeeth about Holy Quran its for sure not accepted, and the hadeeth that he narrate alone is not accepted, the prob of this man is not that he is lier but he mix things, u see him once narrate hadeeth and cancel some one from the chain of naraters.
قال السرخسي: "حديث عائشة لا يكاد يصحّ ؛ لاَنّ بهذا لا ينعدم حفظه من القلوب، ولا يتعذّر عليهم به إثباته في صحيفة أُخرى، فعرفنا أنّه لاأصل لهذا الحديث .
Assarkhasy said words above i explain them with these words:
Another prob of this hadeeth is in matn(the contain of hadeeth), coz as its known that when prophet pbuh recite the verses that He pbuh get from ALLAH not only one write them but a group of sahaba every one of them on his own paper (saheefa), and also ppl put them in thier minds (keep verses in mind and untle now we can see this in all islamic words, that they put whole Holy Quran in mind), not only papers, and if the animal ate one paper then for sure we will find the verse in other paper not only in that eaten one, so no logic here, and not valid this hadeeth.
As i posted above even Ahmad Ibn Hanbal didnt accept Ibn Ishaq always and said wht is his prob also other scholas of hadeeth especially in Jarh oa ta'deel.
As i posted in my previous answeres, i wrote that there r 2 saheeh in islam(in which all hadeeth r valid) which is saheeh Albukhari and saheeh Muslim, and all other 6 books of hadeeth is called sunan (and one from them is sunan Ibn Majeh, where this hadeeth is located) and they contain the valid and not valid hadeeth and the work of hadeeth scholars is to decide which hadeeth is right and which hadeeth is wrong.
There is hadeeth that talk about breast feeding but its in group of nasekh oa mansookh (canceling a law by other) and its talk about other thing, and perhaps Ibn Ishaq mixed things and narrated it in this form, but as he got prob we leave his hadeeth about laws, even we can see his prob so clear because of his mixing in narraters before him.
I hope i answered ur question.

Jewels i hope u read my answer that i poested before about hadeeth, and also the one before this about John (10:30) and wht happened to King James version, and the canceling is so clear u can find it by reading now adays bible and King James version.

Alhamdo LILLAH, thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom oa rahmato ALLAH oa barakatihi

[Shield&Sword]

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom

[thevintagepiper]

Muslims do not believe in the Bible....whatever they you may say....the big difference between what they believe and what the Bible says is that Jesus is the son of God and that He died for our sins. That difference is everything.

As has been said before, the Bible was not tampered with by humans. It is a much more reliable documents (historically and otherwise) than the Qur'an. The Bible says nothing of Mohammad and Islam. The Qur'an was written much later than the Bible.

Make any sense?

I don't want to get involved in this debate but just wanted to put my two cents in.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Assalamo alaikom
BISM ALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHEEM

the smily that u see in my previous talk i didnt post it , i think it was because od puttin points and these things, only wanted to make u know this, i dont like to post them in a dialogue,

alhamdo LILLAH , thank ALLAH
Assalamo alaikom
Hey, great smiley! :brow:

[Mililalil XXIV]

Assalamu aleikum Shield and Sword,

Jazzak Allah hairen for this explanation. Many people do not understand how complex Islamic law is, and how certain regulations are derived. Even though a hadith may be in those books, it may not be saheeh. A hadith cannot be interpreted on its own. It has to be interpreted within the context and it has to have the full sanad (chain of narrators), all of which have to be confirmed to have been truthful, honest people. Also, a hadith cannot negate the Qur'an. It is absurd to believe that there is a saheeh hadith stating that the Qur'an has been changed, when Allah s.v.t says Himself that the holy Qur'an will be guarded and protected. A hadith like that would be dismissed just based on this issue that it negates a Qur'anic verse. Hadiths are simply there to help us understand the Qur'an, to learn about the Prophet's life, to show us how to practice Islam. However, it can never be taken above the Qur'an, nor can any hadith negate an ayat. It is a very serious claim to state that Aisha r.a would claim that the holy Qur'an was changed, and to believe that a hadith stating just that would be considered saheeh is not logical to say the least. May Allah s.v.t save us from inventing lies on those honorable people. Amin.

Assalamu aleikum,
Just because the quran says it has a certain quality does not disprove a hadith reflecting its production.

[cuppajoe_9]

Mohammad led me to Christianity. Funny old world, isn't it?

[Mililalil XXIV]

Mohammad led me to Christianity. Funny old world, isn't it?
And you haven't opened a thread yet!?

There is oil to be had from such untapped resources!

[Shield&Sword]

The one who liked smily i pasted, If you want another smiley you can look in the mirror (but i cant guarantee you will smile).

I will respond last post in this thread which is putten by thevintagepiper.

If bible is older than Holy Quran it doesnt mean Holy Bible is right. By this meaning we should search for bible from Jesus pbuh time but they dont exist, bibles were written 20 years after Jesus (if we want to consider time, then we should look at time of the scriptures writings, for example old test. is written long time before new test. but it doesnt mean according you that we refuse new test.), and 4 of them were accepted at years 300 in nicea council and even book of Luke wasnt accepted first and then they accepted it. For example book of Mathew were written in hebrew, but the hebrew scriptures dont exist, we find only greek scripture, mean we find translations but not the original one original one. If all these things happened to Holy Quran believe me alot of critics will be made. But all what we find is that Muhammed was raised as jew and then became christians and all these lies, no one can ever try to talk about holy quran accuracy, because its same Holy Quran in all world word by word, and equal to the original scriptures, so they only try to attack prophet by saying lies without any proof.
They are ways to know if the book is accurate and came from God or not, are there verses contraddict between verses in bible? are there verses added canceled? what teachings there are in bible, and which language is used?
For 1400 years the Holy Quran is the only book in world that challenged people to bring one verse like it, and no other writer in world dare to write such thing, and then challenge people to find 1 MISTAKE in it, but no answer untle now. DO you think that enemys of islam didnt try, we know who are first enemys, no one ever came and said " i have Surah like holy quran its not a broblem to bring one verse like it", but they couldnt so they are using now the media to give bad image about the only man that gave Jesus pbuh his right as prophet, and gave a witness about his mother, and gave witness about raising of Jesus, prophet Muhammed that made 1300000000 believe in Jesus and honor him and believe that his mother is vergion who gave a child by a miracle without using any bible but by the holy quran which praised all other prophets that no other book did. Even Ali Bin Abi Taleb the 4th calipha said "if i hear someone say about prophet David what the bible believers say about him then i will slash him the punishment of liers..." (bible believers say that David made adultery with wife of chef of his soldiers. This is the teachings of Muhammed pbuh that put in minds of his believers, a man who ate fruits of coca (as a lier in this forum said about our prophet and his post wasnt canceled but was closed and left people to see it) doesnt say such thing about prophets, and doesnt mention Marry pbuh in this way, and doesnt call to worship the only God, God of honest prophets, pure prophets Abraham, Jesus Moses and all others peace be upon him.

[Shield&Sword]

thevintagepiper Will ask you a question about something i see it a historical mistake, perhaps i got it wrong and you can clear it for me, because you said bible is realable historicaly:

Lets begin with Daniel 1:1-2 "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,"
We see that Jerusalem was sorrounded by king of Babylon in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. King of Babylon sorrounded Jerusalem in the year 596 B.C or 567, and the third year of the reign ot Jehoiakim was at 606 B.B
Lets take a look at Kings2 24- 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7 And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt. 8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done. 10 At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.
The story contraddict with what Daniel book say. In kings2 we see that Jehoiachin was the king of not Jehoiachim when king of Babylon attacked, and it was a short period of 3 months, and a writer of history cant mistake such a mistake by non knowing the king in his time and what heppened in that time especially when it heppen such a big thing like war, such a mistake happen when the writer didnt live in same time, when the write write long time after things happened, especially when its so short time, the writer cant notice it. In knigs2 the writer lived at that time and knew who was the king and gave so specific information that only who live at that time can know it or a short time after it happened.
There is another problem, the age of Jehoiachin in kings2 is 18 years, while it contraddict with what written in Chronicales2 36:9 "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: ", difference of 10 years in age, and 10 days more than what is written in knigs2 (the period he was king). The age was changed in now adays copies, it became 18 years, difference was so big, perhaps 10 days not so big. Another problem. In Jeremiah 22:18-19 "Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! 19 He shall be buried with the burial of an ***, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem." It contraddict with Kings2 the end of Jehoiakim according Jeremiah was that he buried with the burial of an *** out of Jerusalem. A wrong prophecy, or Kings2 is wrong.

[caesar]

I just want to know what the hell is going on here? This thread is alien to this
web-site. The story, this thread begins with, is so obnoxious and nauseating that I almost...........

I'm a student of Human Rights and have done extensive research on Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddism and Hinduism and have objectively analysed the concept of religion. The stories in all sacred texts are little more than hog-wash. They were contrived in order to infuse morality into barbarians. Just like Aesop's fables, which were written to infuse wisdom into children. So, it is not the logicality or the varacity of the story which one must concern himself with, but the message which the story conveys.

I am a muslim turned agnostic. I don't understand why people are fighting for their Gods if they sincerely believe in his omnipotence? Is God so helpless that he wants his followers to fight for him?

[Shield&Sword]

There is nothing called Mohammedanism, it is called ISLAM, if you are not familiar with this word, well you are now. Or you give words thier right now or leave it.
No fight here its normal discussion, I dont know why always non believers when they see religious people talk they say fighting, if you consider this discussion fight, well forum is full with other threads.

[caesar]

There is nothing called Mohammedanism, it is called ISLAM, if you are not familiar with this word, well you are now. Or you give words thier right now or leave it.

I don't know, which planet you come from and I don't care. Whether you like it or not, we humans, use the words Islam and Mohammedanism interchangeably.


No fight here its normal discussion, I dont know why always non believers when they see religious people talk they say fighting, if you consider this discussion fight, well forum is full with other threads.

1) I never said I'm a non-believer.

2) I've confined my commets, on the discussions happening here, to the first two paragraphs..........


I just want to know what the hell is going on here? This thread is alien to this web-site. The story, this thread begins with, is so obnoxious and nauseating that I almost...........

I'm a student of Human Rights and have done extensive research on Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddism and Hinduism and have objectively analysed the concept of religion. The stories in all sacred texts are little more than hog-wash. They were contrived in order to infuse morality into barbarians. Just like Aesop's fables, which were written to infuse wisdom into children. So, it is not the logicality or the varacity of the story which one must concern himself with, but the message which the story conveys.

..........and the third is a general comment on religious extremism.


I don't understand why people are fighting for their Gods if they sincerely believe in his omnipotence? Is God so helpless that he wants his followers to fight for him?

I have expressed my contempt for both - religious extremism as well as this malicious propoganda which you call discussion.

I can see you are a Mohammedan. Look how Ahmaidiyyas are being persecuted in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Kurds in former Iraq and Syria and Turkey. Religious extremism begins by scandulous preaching and ends by mindless killing.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your comments and/or discuss current politics.

Since this thread has outlived its purpose, it will now be closed.