Debate with a Christian: Jesus is the servant of God and His Messenger

Question:
Why is it so difficult for the Muslims to believe that Jesus is the only son of God, when it says in the gospel that he is the son of God and he says of God “My Father”?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

We have previously explained that the Gospel in which we believe, and no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it, is not the gospels that are in the hands of the Christians nowadays. Rather the Gospel in which we believe is that which was brought by ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) from Allaah. As for that which is in the hands of the Christians today, it is something else, and they themselves do not claim that Jesus is the one who brought it or wrote it. See question no. 47516.

As that is the case, what the Christians claim about the Gospels stating that Jesus is the son of God and that God is his father –exalted be Allaah above having a son or a wife – does not count as any kind of proof against us, because we believe that that is something that was fabricated by human beings, and it is not part of the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) or the religion of any other Messenger.

We believe that the Gospels that are in people’s hands today, in which the Christians believe, have been tampered with and changed, and are still being tampered with from time to time, so that there is nothing left in the form in which the Gospel was revealed from Allaah. Here we would point out that the Gospel which speaks most of the belief in the trinity and the divinity of the Messiah (peace be upon him), so that it has become a reference-point for the Christians in their arguments in support of this falsehood, is the Gospel of John. This Gospel is subject to doubts about its authorship even among some Christian scholars themselves, as is not the case with the other Gospels in which they believe. This is an ancient doubt which goes back to the second century CE according to their own history.

Professor Stadlin says: The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John.

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew.

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance.

Quoted from Muhaaraat fi’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah.

It is strange indeed that they cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which they affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least. Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels.

(op.cit., p. 64)

Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning):

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]

The Bible in which it says that the Messiah is the son of God is the same Bible in which the lineage of the Messiah ends with Adam (peace be upon him), and he too is described as a son of God.

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli … the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”

[Luke 3:23-38]

This is the same Bible that describes Israel in the same terms:

“Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son”

[Exodus 4:22]

Something similar appears in the Book of Hosea:

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”

[Hosea 11:1]

The same is said of Soloman (peace be upon him):

“He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father”

[I Chronicles 28:6]

Were Adam, Israel and Soloman all other sons of God, before the Messiah (peace be upon him)? Exalted be Allaah far above what they say!

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”

[John 1:3]

Something similar appears in the Gospel of Matthew:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”

[Matthew 5:8-9]

This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says:

“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”

[1 John 3:1]

For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that.

There remains the issue of Eesa (peace be upon him) being described as a son of God, and what they fabricated about the Lord of the Worlds, saying that He was the father of the Messiah (peace be upon him). This too is not unique in the language of the Gospels:

“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”

[John 20:17]

In one text he says that God is a father to them too, and that God is the God of them all.

So let them say if they wish that we are all the children and the beloved of God, as God said of their forefathers. In that case there is nothing special about the Messiah so that they should worship him instead of Allaah. Or let them be stubborn and follow something other than true guidance, with no clear Book. This is something that anyone could do.

Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the heavens and the Lord of the earth, the Lord of the Worlds, for the blessing of Islam that He has bestowed upon us.

O Allaah, guide us to Your straight path, The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger, nor of those who went astray.

The Perversion of Qur’an and

the Loss of Many Parts of It

On page 131 of his book, "El-Sheaa and Correction", the contemporary Muslim scholar, Dr. Mosa-El-Mosawy, makes this frank confession,

"Those who adopt the notion of the perversion of the Qur’an are present among all different Islamic groups, but the majority of them come from the El-Sheaa scholars."

Perversion of Qur’an is an unimaginable notion to the lay Muslim because the Scholars of Islam are hiding this truth from being published or becoming known.

Of course, we weren’t just satisfied with what Dr. El-Mosawy has already mentioned, but we went back to the most popular ancient scholars and to Muhammad’s relatives and companions to investigate this notion concerning the perversion and loss of several parts of the Qur’an because those are the trustworthy people regarding the history and development of Islam.

Upon examining the testimonies of these great companions, the answer was positive. They clearly stated that perversion and loss of large fragments of the Qur’an did occur. Let us scrutinize their testimony in order to present to deluded Muslims the truth as it is proclaimed by their trusted spiritual leaders and scholars. The deceptive veil must be removed so people can see the true face of the Qur’an.

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).

A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

This same story and same dialogue which took place between the companion and one of the Muslims is recorded by Ibn Hazm (volume 8, part 11, pages 234 and 235). Then Ibn Hazm said,

"’Ali Ibn Abi Talib said this has a reliable chain of authority (The Sweetest [Al Mohalla] vol. 8.)."

The Zamakh-shari also cited it in his book, "al-Kash-Shaf’ (part 3, page 518).

These are unquestionable statements made by the pillars of the Islamic religion who transmitted Muhammad’s sayings and biography, "The Tradition", and who interpreted the Qur’an— among them Ibn ’Umar, A’isha, Ubay Ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ibn ’Umar states that a large part of the Qur’an was missed. A’isha and Ubay Ibn Ka’b assert that dozens of verses from the "Chapter of the Parties" have been lost. ’Ali confirms that, too. In regard to this particular verse, the following incident is recorded in "The Itqan" by Suyuti (part 1, page 168),

"During the collection of the Qur’an, people used to come to Zayd Ibn Thabit (with the verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witnesses attested to it. The last verse of chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ ’Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it."

One can only wonder and ask, "Does ’Umar need another witness to agree with him? Would he lie to God and the Qur’an? Because of that, ’Umar said after that, "If it were not that people would say, "Umar has added to the book of God’, I would have recorded the verse of the stoning" (part 3, page 75 of the Itqan). Refer also to skiek Kishk’s book (part 3, page 64). Another confession by A’isha:

"Among the (verses) which were sent down, (the verse) of the ten breast feedings was abrogated by (a verse which calls for five breast feedings. The apostle of God died and this verse was still read as part of the Qur’an. This was related by Abu Bakr and ’Umar" (refer to Suyuti’s qan, part 3, pages 62 and 63).



Events Which Led To The Loss Of Some Verses

A Domesticated Animal Eats Qur’anic Verses

In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly,

"The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Qur’anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it."

A’isha herself declared that and she knew exactly what she possessed. Also, Mustafa Husayn, who edited and reorganized the book, "al-Kash-shaf" by the Zamakh-Shari, asserts this fact in page 518 of part 3. He says that the ones who related this incident and said that a domesticated animal ate the verses were reliable persons among them ’Abdulla Ibn Abi Bakr and A’isha herself. This same story has been mentioned also by Dar-al-Qutni, al-Bazzar and al Tabarani, on the authority of Muhammad Ibn Ishaq who heard it from ’Abdulla who himself heard it from A’isha.

Professor Mustafa indicates that this does not negate that the abrogation of these verses may have occurred before the domesticated animal ate them. Why then did ’Umar want to record the verse of the stoning in the Qur’an if its recitation was abrogated? And why did people used to read the verses of the breast-feeding? And, if Muhammad died while these verses were still recited who abrogated them? Did the domesticated animal abrogate them? It is evident that this really did occur according to the witness of the companions, Muslim scholars, and A’isha herself.



Other Matters Which Were Lost, Not Recorded And Altered

In part 3, page 73, the Suyuti said,

"Hamida, the daughter of Abi Yunis, said, ‘When my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of A’isha, "God and His angels bless (literally pray for) the prophet Oh ye who believe, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." Then she said, "That was before ’Uthman changed the Qur’anic copies.""’

On page 74, we read,

"Umar said to ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf, ‘Didn’t you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it (any more).’ ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf told him, ‘This verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Qur’an."’

It is well known that ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf was one of the great companions and was among those who were nominated for the caliphate.

Also, on the same page (74, of part 3) of "The Itqan", we read,

"Maslama al-Ansar said to the companions of Muhammad, ‘Tell me about two verses which have not been recorded in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected.’ They failed to do so. Maslama said, ‘Oh, ye who believed and immigrated and fought for the cause of God by (sacrificing) your properties 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 a reward for what they did."’

Throughout pages 73 and 74 of part 3, the Suyuti records for us all the remarks made by Muhammad’s companions in regard to the unpreserved Qur’anic verses which the readers failed to find in the Qur’an which ’Uthman collected and which is currently in vogue. It is worthwhile to notice that we only quote the testimonies of the most reliable authorities whose witness is highly regarded and cited by all the scholars and students of the Qur’an such as ’Ali, ’Uthman, Abu Bakr, A’isha (Muhammad’s wife), Ibn Mas’ud, and Ibn ’Abbas. In the context of expounding the Qur’an, these scholars are always quoted to shed light on the events which took place during the time of Muhammad. No one could interpret the tenets of Islam better than these scholars could.

If we ponder the first part of "The Itqan", by the Suyuti, we read (page 184),

"Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow."

This means that this chapter has lost 157 verses. Also (page 184), the Suyuti tells us that the words, "In the name of God the compassionate, the merciful" were found in the chapter of Repentance in the Qur’anic copy which belonged to Ibn Mas’ud which ’Uthman confiscated and burned when the current Qur’an was edited.

Not only verses have been dropped, but also entire chapters have been abolished from the ’Uthmanic copy which is in the hands of all Muslims today. The Suyuti and other scholars testify that the Qur’anic copies of both Ubay and Ibn Mas’ud include two chapters called "The Hafad" and "the Khal"’. They both are located after the chapter of "the ’Asr" (103) (refer to pp. 182 and 183 of part one of the gn).

He also indicates that the Qur’anic copy of ’Abdulla-Ibn Mas’ud does not contain the chapter of "The Hamd" and "The Mu’withatan" (Surah 113, 114). On page 184, the Suyuti tells us that Ubay ibn Abi Ka’b recorded in his Qur’anic copy two chapters that start with, "Oh God, we ask for your assistance," and "Oh God, you whom we worship." These are the two chapters of "The Hafad" and "The Khal’. " On page 185, the Suyuti assures us on the authority of the most famous companions of the prophet that ’Ali ibn Abi Talib was aware of these two chapters. ’Umar ibn al-Khattab was accustomed to read them after his prostration. The Suyuti records them in their entirety on page 185. They are available to any Arab who wishes to read them. Then, the Suyuti adds that the two chapters are found in the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas also. What more we should say after we heard the testimonies of ibn ’Abbas, ’Umar, ’Ali, ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b Talib? It is evident that the Qur’an once included these two chapters.

If the reader asks, "What do you mean by saying ‘, the Qur’anic copy of ibn ’Abbas’, or ‘, the copy of ibn Mas’ud , A’isha’, etc.? Were there many different Qur’anic copies?’ I will not supply the answer, but I leave that to the Muslim scholars and chroniclers as we examine how the Qur’anic copies were burned and only one universal copy was kept.



The Collection Of The Qur’an And The Fierce Dispute Among The Scholars And The Companions

Among the greatest events which took place during the reign of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan, third caliph after Muhammad, is the collection of the Qur’an. It is appropriate here to record briefly the story of the first collection of the Qur’an which occurred during the time of Abu Bakr after the death of Muhammad. All chroniclers, without exception, have never questioned the authenticity of the incident (refer to "The Itqan" of Suyuti, part 1, page 165, Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, pp. 37 and 38, al-Bukhari, part 6, page 477). What did the Bukhari say in this regard?

"’Umar said to Abu Bakr, ‘I suggest you order that the Qur’an be collected.’ Abu Bakr said to him, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s messenger did not do.’ Then Abu Bakr accepted his proposal and came to Zayd and said to him, ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any doubts about you. So you should search for the fragments of the Qur’an and collect it.’ Zayd said, ‘By Allah if they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains it wouldn’t have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an."’

The question which presents itself is, why did not Muhammad give orders to collect the Qur’an? Why did not the angel Gabriel suggest to him to do such an important task to avoid the disagreement, dispute, and the fight which spread among the people? He could have avoided the debate about the chapters and the verses of the Qur’an which raged among the great scholars.

Secondly, why did Zayd consider the task of collecting the verses of the Qur’an more difficult than removing a mountain? There is no answer for the first question. Of course, Gabriel was supposed to order Muhammad to collect the Qur’an while he was still alive in order to save his people from the disputes and fights. The answer for the second question is evident because a great number of the reciters and the memorizers of the Qur’an had already been killed in the wars of the apostasies, especially in the battle of Yamama. So, how could Zayd collect the Qur’an thoroughly? Removing a mountain is much easier, as he said.

Now what happened during the time of ’Uthman? In his book "The History of Islamic Law" (page 38), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi says,

"The Qur’an was collected and entrusted to Hafsa. It was not proclaimed among people until the era of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan. Huthayfa, one of Muhammad’s companions who fought in Armenia and Adharbijan, said to ’Uthman, ‘The Muslims disagree on the (correct) reading of the Qur’an and they fight among themselves.’ ’Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit and the other three to collect the Qur’an in one copy. After they accomplished that, ’Uthman gave the order to bum the rest of the Qur’anic copies which were in the hands of Muhammad’s companions. That was in the year 25 H."

All Muslim scholars concur—such as Al-Bukhari (part 6, page 225), Suyuti in "The Itqan" (part 1, page 170), and Ibn Kathir in "The Beginning and the End" (part 7, page 218) in which he remarks,

"’Uthman burned the rest of the copies which were in the hands of the people because they disagreed on the (correct) reading and they fought among themselves. When they came to take ibn Mas’ud’s copy to bum it, he told them, ‘I know more than Zayd ibn Thabit (whom ’Uthman ordered to collect the copies of the Qur’an).’ ’Uthman wrote to ibn Mas’ud asking him to submit his copy for burning."

When ibn Mas’ud said that he was more knowledgeable than Zayd, his claim was not questioned because he was a very reliable person. In part 7, page 162 of his book, "The Beginning and the End", ibn Kathir said about him that he used to teach people the Qur’an and the traditions. Some even thought that he was a member of Muhammad’s family because he had easy access to Muhammad’s assembly while Zayd was still young. The Bukhari comments (part 6, page 229) that Muhammad prompted his adherent to learn the Qur’an from four people, among them ibn Mas’ud Zayd was not mentioned among them. Yet, when ’Uthman asked Zayd to collect the Qur’an, he did not add ibn Mas’ud to the committee. A contemporary scholar, Sheikh Kishk, remarks in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, page 102),

"The four most important commentators are ibn ’Abbas, ibn Mas’ud, ’Ali ibn Abi Talib and ’Ubay ibn Ka’bal-Ansari."

So ibn Mas’ud is one of the four great expounders of the Qur’an and Zayd ibn Thabit did not enjoy the same prestige of ibn Mas’ud.

It was common knowledge that both ibn Mas’ud and ibn Ali Ka’b were accustomed to write the two chapters of the Hafad and the Khal’ which are now eliminated from the current Qur’an which Zayd collected. Ibn Mas’ud asserts that the chapter of the praise and the Mu’withatan are not part of the Qur’an (refer to "The Itqan" by Suyuti, part 1, pp. 221, 222). Despite that, Zayd recorded them.

It was a strange thing, ’Uthman’s order to burn the companions’ copies. If we question that, we will be inclined to believe that these copies differed from the Qur’anic copy which Zayd edited and compiled, otherwise ’Uthman would not have burned them. This is not the conclusion of the author, but it is the opinion of many great contemporary Muslim scholars, among them Ibrahim al-Abyari, who expressed his view in his book, "The History of the Qur’an" (3rd print, 1982, page 107). He plainly says,

"There were also other copies of the Qur’an such as the copy of Abi Musa al-Ash’ari, al-Maqdad ibn al-Aswad, and Salim the client of Abi Huthayfa. There were differences between those copies, differences which Huthayka attested to it. That frightened ’Uthman, thus he issued an order to collect the Qur’an because the Kufis followed the copy of ibn Mas’ud; the Syrians the copy of ibn Abi Ka’b; the people of Basra, the copy of Musa al-Ash’ari; the Damascenes, the copy of ibn Maqdad."

On page 41, he adds:

"Ibn Qutayba says that the differences between the recitations of the various Qur’anic copies may include the meaning also."

Also on page 109, he says:

"When Abu Bakr and ’Umar assigned Zayd ibn Thabit to compile the Qur’an, there was a previous compilation of the Qur’an made by a group of the greatest companions such as ’Ali ibn Abi Talib, ibn Mas’ud and ibn ’Abbas and others."

The Muslim has the right to wonder and to ask why Abu Bakr and ’Umar took the trouble to do that when ibn Mas’ud and ibn ’Abbas who were (according to Muhammad) the most knowledgeable people in the Qur’an, had already accomplished it? Why did they not at least add them to the committee or solicit their opinions?

In regard to the copy of ’Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Imam Khu’i tells us in his book, "al-Bayan" (page 222), the following:

"The existence of Imam ’Ali’s copy is an unquestionable matter. All scholars admit it and say that it contains additions which are not found in the current Qur’an. These additions are under the title of ‘The Revelation of God for the Explanation of the Intended’ (purpose)."

The Imam Khu’i is one of the greatest scholars among the Shi’ites. He drew his information from what the Imam al-Tabari had recorded in his book, "’al-Ihtijaj"’ ("Apology" (refer to Dr. Musa, The Shi’ites and the Reformation, pp. 132,133).

Dr. Musa also indicates:

"Our scholars and legists infer from an episode recorded by the Tabari in the book of al-Ihtijaj about the existence of a Qur’anic copy compiled by the Imam ’Ali. This episode tells that ’Ali said to Talha (one of Muhammad’s relatives and companions) that every verse God bestowed upon Muhammad is in my possession, dictated to me by the apostle of God and written by the script of my hand, along with exposition of every verse and all the lawful and unlawful (issues)."

Dr. Musa tells us, that despite the fact that he studied Islam and jurisprudence under the direction of the Imam al-Khu’i, he was involved in a fierce argument in regard to this serious matter. But we will tell Dr. Musa that all the Shi’ites and their scholars (whose total number is more than one hundred fifty million Muslims scattered all over the Islamic countries) believe this. Even Sheikh Kishk who was one of the Sunnis’ scholars, repeats similar statements in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, page 103). He says,

"’Ali remarked, ‘Ask me about the book of God. I swear to God that there is no verse which I do not know whether it was sent down at night or during time, or on a plain or on a mountain."’

He also states similar words about ibn Mas’ud. In spite of that, ’Ali ibn Mas’ud and ibn Abi Ka’b had been disqualified from contributing to the compilation of the Qur’an and their copies were neglected, though they were the most important expounders of the Qur’an along with ibn ’Abbas.

It is ’Ali’s copy which contains additional material lacked in the current Qur’an and includes revelations from God for explaining the intended purposes. This is what happened in the course of the compilation of the Qur’an during the time of ’Uthman ibn ’Affan. Thus, it is no wonder that ibn Kathir explicitly mentions that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the righteous, and the brother of A’isha, Muhammad’s wife had participated with ’Ammar ibn Yasir, one of the famous companions, in the assassination of ’Uthman, reiterating, "You have altered God’s book" (refer to the Bidaya and The Nihaya, part 7, page 185). On page 166, ibn Kathir records that a large number of the reciters of the Qur’an used to curse ’Uthman and encouraged people to revolt against him.

The question is, "Why do the reciters of the Qur’an do that and why does ibn Kathir vow that ibn Abi Bakr said that to ’Uthman? Did ’Uthman really change the copies of the Qur’an as Hamida daughter of Abi Yunis testified along with the rest of the great companions whom we mentioned? Yes indeed!



The Dispute Among The Companions And The Seven Readings Of The Qur’an

On the authority of all the scholars, the Suyuti tells us that the most eminent companions disagreed on the number of chapters of the Qur’an and their verses. They disagreed on the order of the chapters. He listed for us the order of the chapters in ’Ali’s and ibn Mas’ud’s copies (refer to the Itqan, part 1, pp. 176 and 189). He tells us that the multitude of scholars said that the order of the chapters was the outcome of the companions’ opinion and they disagreed about that among themselves. The Suyuti admits on this page that both ’Ali and ibn Mas’ud each owned his own copy. Also Ubay ibn Ka’b possessed his own, too.

He regarded the dispute over the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate and Merciful", a striking example about the dispute between the most eminent companions and the scholars. Some said that it is not one of the Qur’anic verses, so ibn ’Abbas told them that they eliminated 114 verses from the Qur’an because it was repeated 114 times. The Zamakh-shari, who recorded this incident in the Kash-shaf (part 1, pp. 24-26) states that those who denied these verses were ibn Mas’ud himself, Abu Hanifa, Malik and all the reciters and legists of Medina, Basra and Syria.

Imam Malik used to say, "This verse should not be read aloud or privately because it is not part of the Qur’an. Sheikh Kishk agrees with the Zamakh-shari in this matter and confirms that a dispute has resulted among the greatest scholars because of this verse. Some famous scholars such as the Qurtubi and ibn ’Arabi are of the same opinion as Malik that this verse is not of the Qur’an (refer to "Legal Opinions" of the contemporary Egyptian scholar Sheikh Kishk, part 9, pp. 41-47).

Of course, this verse is included in all the chapters of the Qur’an except the chapter of the Repentance. The reason for that is a very significant story which reveals that the compilation of the Qur’an and the order of the chapters are the product of human effort in compliance with the order of ’Uthman. In his "Itqan" (part 1, pp. 172,173), the Suyuti tells us:

"Ibn ’Abbas said to ’Uthman, ‘What made you combine the chapter of the Anfal and the chapter of Tawba (repentance) without separating them by the verse, "In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful"? (And why) did you put them among the seven long (chapters)?’ ’Uthman said, ‘The chapters used to be bestowed upon the apostle of God. The chapter of Anfal was among the early ones which were revealed in Medina and the chapter of Repentance was among the last revealed. Its story was similar to the early story (of the Anfal), so I thought that it was part of it. Then the apostle of God died without showing us that it was part of the (Anfal); thus, I combined them and did not write between them the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful", and it is among the long ones."’

The order and organization of the Qur’an depended on ’Uthman’s view as he admitted himself to ibn ’Abbas. This time ’Uthman’s opinion was wrong. The Suyuti tells us in "The Itqan" (part 1, page 195) that a dispute broke out among the scholars because of this verse which was revealed in some of the seven readings but not in all of them.

You may wonder what "the seven readings" are, and what we mean when we say that the Qur’an was sent down in "seven letters" (readings). We would briefly answer this question before we move to the last subject in this chapter which is the religious teachings, the mythical episodes and the meaning of the chapters included in the contents of the Qur’an.



The Seven Letters (Readings) Of The Qur’an

Both former and latter Muslim scholars agree on this issue. They all relied on Muhammad’s famous statements which Bukhari and others recorded, as well as an incident which is frequently quoted by most of these scholars. The incident took place between ’Umar ibn al-Khattab and one of the great companions by the name of Hisham ibn al-Hakam in which Muhammad was the arbitrator.

Muhammad’s Statements

Muhammad said:

"Gabriel made me read in (one dialect), I consulted with him again and continued asking for more (dialectical reading) and he continued to add to that until I finished with seven readings" (refer to Bukhari, part 6, page 227, and "The Itqan", part 1, page 131).

The Suyuti tells us that this admission is quoted in al-Bukhari, and Sahih of Muslim on the authority of ibn ’Abbas. Also, ibn ’Abbas indicated to us (part 1, page 132) that Muhammad said,

"My Lord told me to read the Qur’an in one dialect. I sent back and asked Him to make it easy for my people. He answered me (saying), ‘Read it in two dialects.’ I requested of him again, thus he sent to me (saying), ‘Read it in seven dialects."’

"Gabriel and Michael visited me. Gabriel sat at my right side and Michael at my left side. Gabriel said (to me), ‘Read the Qur’an in one dialect.’ Michael said, ‘Add (more dialects)’ until he reached seven dialects."

These are Muhammad’s statements, but before we allude to the meaning of the seven letters (readings) as they were recorded by Muslim scholars, let us look at the incident which took place between ’Umar and Hisham (part 6, page 482 of al-Bukhari).

Umar ibn Al-Khattab said, "I heard Hisham ibn Hakim reciting Al-Furqan and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s messenger had not taught me. I was about to jump on him during his prayer and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, ‘Who taught you this Surah which I heard you reciting?’ He replied, ‘Allah’s Messenger taught it to me.’ I said, ‘You have lied for Allah’s Messenger has taught it to me in a different way.’ So I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger and said to him, ‘I heard this person reciting Surah Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me.’ Allah’s Messenger said, ‘It was revealed in both ways. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite out of it whichever way is easier for you."’

Refer also to Dr. Shalabi’s book (page 40) along with other major sources, for all of them have recorded this story. It is very interesting to notice that Muhammad, the prophet, approved the readings of both of them in spite of the obvious differences between them which provoked ’Umar and forced him to treat Hisham brutally and pull him by his clothes.

The Meaning Of The Seven Letters (Readings)

The Suyuti says in "The Itqan" (part 1, pp. 131-140), scholars have argued among themselves about the meaning of the seven letters Some like ibn Qutayba said that there is a difference in the meaning and not only in the usage of the vocabulary or the dialect. For some words, the meaning may change according to the vocalization of the word. The verb may be in the past tense or imperative as we find in chapter Saba’: 19; or it depends on the word’s diacritical points which incur a change in the meaning; or whether a phrase was added or deleted from the verse; or if a word is replaced by another. These are the views of ibn Qutayba who is one of the most famous scholars of his time.

Ibn al-Jazri agrees with him and admits that the meaning changes from one reading to another. The Suyuti states that Muslim scholars have said so because of the incident which occurred between ’Umar and Hisham ibn Hakeem, because both of them belonged to the same tribe of Quraysh and used the same dialect. It is impossible to say that ’Umar disapproved Hisham’s dialect. This denotes that the Seven Letters do not mean mere difference in the dialect of the Arab tribes, otherwise ’Umar would not have objected to Hisham’s reading (refer to Suyuti, part 1, page 136). Yet some other scholars such as al-Tabari argue that the difference is only in the vocabulary. One scholar agrees with the Tabari who said that ibn Mas’ud used to read:

"‘Every time the (lightning) shines, they walk therein’ (chapter 2:20). Yet other times, he may read, ‘Passed through or went forward’; that is, stating the same meaning but using different vocabularies."

It is obvious to the reader that the differences between the seven readings include the meaning and the vocabulary because both ’Umar and Hisham belonged to the same tribe which speaks the same dialect. Yet they differed in their reading of the verses because the Qur’an was given without any vocalization or diacritical points, as the scholars indicated. In this case, it is inevitable that the meaning be exposed to change and disruption as ibn Qutayba, ibn al-Jazri and others mentioned and demonstrated by definite examples.

It is evident then that there are seven different dialects in the Qur’anic text. That created a dilemma for Muslim scholars. Even Suyuti himself alluded (page 136) to the fact that this issue has created a doubt in the minds of the scholars because the seven dialects required Gabriel to deliver each verse seven times.

Scholars’ Admission Of A Strange Thing

In his "Itqan" (paragraph 1, page 137), the Suyuti remarks,

"A great scholar, that is the Mawardi, said that Muhammad had permitted the reading (of the Qur’an) on the basis of any of the Seven Letters as it happened in the episodes of ’Umar. He also allowed replacing a letter with another letter."

The Suyuti also says on (pages 141,142),

"The multitude of the scholars and the legists said that the ’Uthmanic Qur’an was (written) in accordance to one letter (dialect) only."

On pages 170 and 171, the Suyuti adds:

"When the lads and their teachers fought against each other during the era of ’Uthman due to the difference in reading (the Qur’anic text), he (’Uthman) standardized the reading and made people recite it accordingly because he was afraid of riots since the Iraqis and the Damascenes disagreed on the dialect. But before that, the Qur’anic copies (used to be read) on the basis of the Seven Letters in which the Qur’an was given."

Let us now examine what Dr. Shalabi said in this regard. In his book, "The History of Islamic Law" (pp. 40-41), he remarks:

"’Uthman wanted to have a standardized text read by all Muslims, but, after the era of ’Uthman, Muslims began again to read the Qur’an based on the Seven Letters as they used to do before. Each country followed the dialect of a famous reciter whom it trusted. Then public opinion settled on the Seven Readings taken from the most eminent reciters who were Nafi’, Ibn Khathir, Abu ’Umar, Ibn ’Amir, ’Asim, Hamza and the Kisa’i. Egypt, for instance, followed the reading of Hafas who learned it from ’Asim."

Such circumstances created a problem for many Muslims who were seeking a solution. One of the inquirers asked Sheikh Kishk a question which this scholar attempted to answer in his book, "Legal Opinions" (part 1, pp. 113 and 114). The question was, "I heard a reciter reading the Qur’anic text, ‘O ye who would believe even if a godless messenger brought you news, be cautious.’ He read it, ‘Investigate’ instead of, ‘Be cautious’. I ask for a clarification for this reading and other similar verses."

Sheikh Kishk answers:

"The reading of the reciter, ‘Investigate’, is a correct famous reading which has been handed down (to people). Hamza, Kasa’i and Khalaf followed it. These three were among the ten on whom the Muslims relied that their reading is correct. The Qur’anic copies to which the inquirer referred, do not contain this reading. Thus, the reading is correct because the Qur’anic copies with which (the inquirer) is acquainted have the diacritical points based on the recitation of Hafas. If the Qur’an, in our time was written according to the recitation of Hamza or the reading of any of those who were with him, the diacritical points would be congruent with the reading of (Hafas).

"Maybe, there are Qur’anic copies which are written in the same pattern as this reading, yet the point to be taken into account is the authenticity of the chain of authority and its uninterrupted succession. All these readings proved to be correct and they were handed down uninterrupted. If the noble inquirer had pondered a little, he would have found that the formation of the word lends itself to be read in two ways based on the difference in the diacritical points. This is one of the secrets of the ’Uthmanic copy because during the era of the caliph ’Uthman ibn ’Affan, there was no vocalization or diacritical points."

Despite this answer, the question which is still without explanation is, "In which dialect was the Qur’an given to Muhammad? In which dialect were the tablets when it was still with God? Was there one Qur’an or seven Qur’ans with seven dialects? What did Sheikh Kishk (and his prophet Muhammad) mean when he said all the dialects and all the meanings are correct?"

another re run

_{*** yawns and leaves thread ***}

This is serious.

@backslider,

I disagree with you in totality.

Lets leave hearsay and apply a simple logic

You claimed that some parts are lost. Good.Now, let me have the original Manuscript where we have the complete chapters and verses and do compare with the present one we are having.

Better still, If you do no understand what am trying to pass across to you, I will break it down.

Muslims have been saying that there are omitted verses, additional books and some books missing in the bible which clearly shows that the bible is incomplete.

Eg. we have mark 11v26, act of apostles, mathew 17v21 etc not present in some bibles.

So lets apply the above to the Quran too.

So let me now tell you about of the Holy Quran

The Holy Quran

The Holy Quran is a book revealed from Allah (swt) to his messenger, Prophet Muhammed (saw) when he was forty years of age. First verses were revealed on the 610 A.D. equivalent to 27th Ramadhan.

First five verses revealed on the 27th of Ramadhan were the part of Suratul-alaq

Quran 96v1-5:
1. Read in the name of your Lord, who created
2. He created man from a clot
3. Read and your Lord is Most Honourable
4. Who taught (to write) with pen.
5. Taught man wha he knew not

Quran after the death of the Prophet (saw)

Quran was not in a book form in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed (saw) because:

1. All the Sahaba (Companions) memorised it and they thought that every muslim must memorise it like them.

2. There are 9 days interval between the last verse of the Quran and the death of the receiver (Prophet Muhammed saw)

3. The scrolls of the Quran were not in the same place because the chapters were not revealed at the same time.

Quran in the time of Abubakr

After the death of the Prophet (saw), Abu Bakr became the successor and became the leader and commander of the muslim world. He reigned for 2 years (632 A.D-634 A.D). During his time, Umar advised him to make the Quran in a book form because a large number of men who knew the Quran by heart had fallen as matyrs in the Battle of Yamama. This was fought against Musaylma al-Kazzab, who had denounced Islam and claimed to be a prophet after Prophet Muhammed (saw).

So, Umar went to see Abu Bakr and they both agreed and called Zayd bin Thabit who used to write the revelations down for the prophet (saw).

Zayd first disagreed but later agreed later and Abu Bakr called all memorizers (Huffaz) of the Quran to come and read by heart and at the same time, he sent for the materials (skin, slabs of stones etc) on which Qurian verses were written.

For those who had memorised it, they tried to write the Quran down by heart, out of fifteen of them, Abdullahi bin Mash'ud's own was ost perfect, others had forgotten parts of the Quran.

A panel was set up with Abu Bakr himself as the chairman and the writers were

1. Zayd bin Thabit (Leader)
2. Abdul-Rahamn bin Harith
3. Saad bin Al-as
4. Abdullahi bin Zubayr

When the finished, they called the best reader and memorizer of the Quran, Abdullahi Mash'uud to come and recite the Quran while the remaining writers and memorizers looked through the one they wrote. Suprisingly, nothing was different.

This is how the Quran was collected in one place without any mistake.

The exit of the Holy Quran to other lands

In the lifetime of Abu Bakr, the Quran was collected and kept with Hafsah. Whoever feel like benefitting from the reading of the Quran from the compiled copy must come to the Sahaba in Mecca, but in the time of another Caliph of Islam, things changed for the better.

Quran in the time of Uthman (R.A.T)

Uthman was the successor to Umar.He became the commander after the death of Umar who reigned after Abu Bakr. His tenure of office was 644 A.D-656 A.D.

During his time, differences in reading the Quran became obvious, because ISLAM had spread to many states.

Then Uthman called for the copy of the original Quran collected at the time of Abu Bakr and ordered
1. Zayd bin Thabit
2. Abdullahi bin Zubair
3. Sa'ad bin Al'aas
4. Abdul Rahman bin Harith bin Hishaam
to re-write the manuscripts of the Quran in a very neat, decent and readable way. The writers did their work perfectly and successfully without a single error.

They wrote five copies of the Quran and Uthman sent a copy each to Islamic States namely:

One copy to Damascus.
One to Kuffa
One to Basra
One to Medina (Yathrib)
last copy remained in Mecca including the former one.

Journey of the Quran to the press

Quran was forst printed in Block print form, that was around the tenth century (1,000A.D). The system was to make the wooden blocks, then stamp it on materials like paper.

In 1143 A.D, the holy Quran was first translated from Arabic to Latin by the instructions of a man called PETER THE VENERABLE in Europe and that was the first translation of the Quran from Arabic to any other language.

With that translation, bothj muslims and non-muslims especially those Latin speakers startd to know the words of the Quran, they (christians among them) even knew the facts about the many doubts that they discovered from the bible and they tried using the Quran in correcting them.

System of printing press with movable type started in many parts of the world and that was around sixteenth century (1,600 A.D)

In Hamburg (Germany), the Quran was printed in 1694. The Quran was printed by Christians but carefully monitored by the muslims.

Malay Uthman edition of the Quran was published in Petersburg (Russia) in 1787 A.D.

1828 A.D., Kazan printed the Quran
1833 A.D, Persia also printed the Quran
1877 A.D., Istanbul joined them in the printing of the Quran
1858 A.D, The so-called "Fluegel edition" of the Quran was printed by the German Orientalist
1925 A.D, The so-called 'Egyptian edition' of the Quran was printed in Cairo with the financial aid of King Fa'ad of Saudi Arabia and it was distributed free of charge.

Evidence that the Quran is a complete book of Allah

Quran 41v42: No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it, it is sent down by one full of wisdom, worthy of all praise

Quran 15v9: We have sent dwn the message without doubt, and we will surely guard it (from corruption)

Also read Quran 10v37-38, 2v23-24

More evidence that all the parts of the Quran were collected completely

1. The written down was during the time of the Prophet
2. The collection was in the presence of Hiffaz.
3.All parts of the revelation are available in written form.
4. The material on which the revelation was written were loose writing materials, making it easy to arrange them in good order.
5. Quran was revealed in simple and pure Arabic Language and it is very understandable to all companions of the prophet (saw).
6.Allah (swt) himself sent Jubril (Angel Gabriel) to go through all the revelation with prophet Muhammed (saw) in Ramadhan. This was done twice in the year the prophet died.
7. The Quran was well guarded by the Sahaba ,they did not betray what they loved.

Based on the above, if you still say, its not complete, I will advise you give me a verse in a quran that is not present in another just like the bible.

Nothing as simple as that.

@islampride,

islampride:

We have previously explained that the Gospel in which we believe, and no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it, is not the gospels that are in the hands of the Christians nowadays. Rather the Gospel in which we believe is that which was brought by ‘Eesa (Jesus – peace be upon him) from Allaah. As for that which is in the hands of the Christians today, it is something else, and they themselves do not claim that Jesus is the one who brought it or wrote it. See question no. 47516.

I guess this is a reposting from another Islamic website. But then, its flaw is evident in the opening paragraph above. Even so,  the author did not once discuss the details of the Gospel which Muslims believe was "brought by Eesa (Jesus - peace be upon him) from Allaah." Where is that very Gospel, and what exactly does it say?

When Muslims claim that "no one's Islam is valid unless he believes in it", we have once and again asked what that Gospel contained - the exact words; exact deeds; the Personality and claims of Jesus Himself; His doctrine about heaven, hell, God, man, righteousness and the Church; the prophetic connection of that Gospel with the Old Testament (including the Law of Moses [Torah] and the Psalms of David - both mentioned in the Qur'an); His life with the disciples/apostles; and the prophecies He gave critical to our age.

All that has been offered by Muslims to the above do not add up to a fraction, other than tales told by Muhammad in order to appeal to the Jews and Christians of his day to lend credence to his self-acclaimed prophethood. What is more remarkable is that, the Qur'an claims Allah "revealed" and "confirmed" the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (Injil); and yet, Muhammad failed to articulate the very elements of the of those Scriptures. Pertinent of all, there is no Holy Spirit in Muhammad's religion (he misconstrues Him for the angel Gabriel/Jibril), despite the fact that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures articulate and distinguish the Personality of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, there can be no revelation from God as to the Person, work and deeds of Jesus Christ - and that is what Muhammad fundamentally leaves out in his religion.

Something is very suspect in the claim to believe in an Injil that Muslims have no clue where it is today, and what exactly it says.

islampride:

. . .
Professor Stadlin says: The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John.

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew.
. . .

Quoted from Muhaaraat fi’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah.

It is strange indeed that they cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which they affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least. Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels.
(op.cit., p. 64)

Again we have asked such "researchers" as Professor Stadlin and the author of the text in Encyclopaedia Britannica a salient question: If the deity of Jesus Christ in John's Gospel is a fabrication, what then did Isaiah call the Messiah in Isa.9:6? Who in Isaiah's prophecy is called "the mighty God" - or is that a fabrication of the nameless student of the Alexandrian school as well?

How do Professor Stadlin and Encyclopaedia Britannica explain the Psalm of David (centuries earlier than Christ's birth) that speaks of the deity of "the Son" in Psa. 2:12 as One in whom people are blessed who put their trust in Him? And how blind could these so-called "professor" answer to Zachariah 12:10 that clearly enunciates the deity of the Saviour who was pierced - the very same One who pours out the Spirit of grace and supplications?

When Yoosuf al-Khoori denies that the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke mentioned the deity of Jesus Christ, he most certainly had not read those Gospels and was being dishonest. What then did these other Gospels mean when they wrote about Jesus being "the Son of God"?? Let's review:

Matthew: 'Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God . . . He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.' (ch. 14:33 & 27:43).

Mark:  'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God . . .And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.' (ch. 1:1; 3:11 & 15:39).

Luke: 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' (ch. 1:35).

So then, if he had ever read those Gospels at all, what dishonest claims was Yoosuf al-Khoori propounding about "that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels" about the deity of Jesus Christ??

So, what was meant by 'the Son of God' in the New Testament as used in reference to Jesus Christ if not His deity? This is the very confession that Muslims deny about Christ. They feel He could be called anything else - prophet and slave of "Allah"; but not "Son of God" - because, just as the Jews did, Muslims understand that to be none other than deity.

The problem with denying the deity of Jesus Christ is in many respects a matter of disregarding the prophecies of the Old Testament about the promised Messiah. Those Scriptures affirm in clear terms that the expected Saviour and Redeemer of man was none less than Deity Himself. When such theorists as Professor Stadlin and Yoosuf al-Khoori propound their denials, they only prove that they have not read the very Scriptures they deny.

What is even more startling is that the author of the post does not really know what to believe. Who was the nameless student of the Alexandrian school? And how does Professor Stadlin's interpretation agree with Yoosuf al-Khoori's theory? On the one hand, he quotes Professor Stadlin who denied the author of John's Gospel on the premise that it "was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school"; then he next quotes Yoosuf al-Khoori who affirms that "John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia".

Who is telling what here?? Why do Muslim apologists have to be so knavish in their posts? When people banter to dilated and discordant tales in order to deny the Gospels, something is seriously awry.

@islampride,

islampride:

Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning):

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41]

What the author does not really know is his lazy attitude to investigative thinking that keeps him busy spinning the spider webs of his researchers - Professor Stadlin and Yoosuf al-Khoori. Does the author realise indeed that Sura 29:41 is a contradiction to the very core of the disguised polytheism in Islam? While forbidding the worship of false deities, the Qur'an itself establishes the very same pretentious polytheism that Muhammad offered his followers. Anyone reading the plural pronouns (WE, US, and OUR) of the *Allah* in the Qur'an will recognize that Muslims unwittingly worship several deities in Islam.

islampride:

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard.

The author in his linear thinking fails to see the contexts of the texts he quotes. In the entire Bible, only Jesus Christ is particularly called "the only begotten Son" of God - and no other writer than John used that term for Christ (John 1:14 & 18; 3:16 & 18; and I John 4:9). That is what sets Him apart from all other expressions of seemingly akin terms used for Adam, Israel, Solomon or any other.

The "only begotten" points simply to "exact or vey same in essence". As used of Jesus Christ, the expression "only begotten Son" indicates One who alone exists in the very, exact essence as God Himself. That was what John was pointing out in John 1:1 - the Word was God.

What is remarkable in this double standard by the author of that post is his bureaucratic assumption that "in the Gospel of John itself" being a son "includes all the righteous servants of God." However, he fails to quote a single verse for that assumption (which was nowhere meant by John at all); nor does he apply the term to Muhammad as a "righteous servant of God" if he believed that Muhammad fits that description.

On the whole, while the author of that post made pretentious claims of believing in a Gospel which Jesus Christ received from "Allah", he made no effort whatsoever to discuss the contents of that same "Gospel" or Injil. Neither Muhammad nor any Muslim has seen that Injil, let alone pretend that there actually was one.

Second, Muhammad had no revelation at all from God; and all claims in the Qur'an that "Allah" sent down, revealed and confirmed the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are simply false. Muhammad seriously confused the Holy Spirit for the angel Gabriel; and the result was his disguised polytheistic religion, Islam.

Thirdly, when Muslim apologists ferret so-called researches to deny the authenticity of the Bible, they often come up with very divergent views as to what exactly occured. Instead, they make some weathered appeal to professors who theorize about some "student" who has no name in "the Alexandrian school"; and some other Muslim "scholar" will cook up a contradictory tale that has no evidence whatsoever.

The "invitation to think" (as the title suggests) certainly does not exist in the linear mindset of the author of the original article

This is getting more serious

@mrpataki,

I know. And in the next few days it will become even more serious, especially because Muslim apologists always appeal to conflicting theories (as in the case of "Professor Stadlin" and "Yoosuf al-Khoori").

@ Shahan,
I have no clue as to all those jargons really. But whichever the case, I will be most willing to learn the more. Where is my mail sef?

You get am tomorrow.

another long winded exhibition of a severe lack of wisdom and islamically impaired reasoning.

@babs

Did you not read the post It is in the tommy or Feaces of some animal. I dont have the original if you have may you can borrow me.

Any way my brother read below what people close are saying not me.

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).

A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

If the QURAN WAS SO CORRECT WHY DO WE HAVE THE HADITH?

@backslider,

Posted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
@babs

Did you not read the post It is in the tommy or Feaces of some animal. I don't have the original if you have may you can borrow me.

Lets forget the issue Faeces of animal.

[b]Posted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
@babs

Any way my brother read below what people close are saying not me.

Sir, likeI said in my above post, you cant quote the sayings of people here and expect me to accept just like that. Let me have the proof and I accept wholeheartedly.

In my earlier post. I told you what to be done to verify the completion of the book (Holy Quran).

If you are claiming that its incomplete based on your post above, bring out a verse which you find in any of the authors and not present in another.

It is a well known fact that the bible is an incomplete book. So lets apply the same standard and if you can bring me a verse like that I will accept that Holy Quran is incomplete.

[b]Posted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
@babs

If the QURAN WAS SO CORRECT WHY DO WE HAVE THE HADITH?
Now about

The Holy Quran is the word of Allah sent through his Angel Jibril to Prophet Muhammed (saw).

The Hadith comprises the sayings of the Holy Prophet . Note that the Hadith is just like the Gospel. The bible can never be said to be word of God because you find the word of God, word of Prophets and word of ordinary men whereas in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things. The Hadith is the sayings of the Prophet.

While the Sunnah is the doing of the Holy Prophet.

Thank you.

Lets forget the issue Faeces of animal.

Mr blabs787, this is highly ridiculous of you. No issue here should be ignored! Address that issue here. If you don't know it say so. Another hidden lie of Islam here again.

Yet he chooses to ignore an issue here and keeps shouting his questions are been ignored!

Dear Brother,

Thank you very much you have said it The same mind you use to Judge your Quran you cannot use it to Judge the bible. The bible is tried seven times and it is pure.

Your book of lies is incomplete and please I am not trying to offend you but there is falsehood in the Quran.

You when telling me that The bible is false the poster quoted some professor and I am quoting Aisha tell me aisha is wrong?

Anyway look at the scripture for yourself.

regards

XXXXXX

@backslider,

Posted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
Dear Brother,

Thank you very much you have said it The same mind you use to Judge your Quran you cannot use it to Judge the bible. The bible is tried seven times and it is pure.

No, dont twist what I said. I told you that the same measure should be used for the two books.

Now if you are saying that the bible has been tried 7 times, let me ask you these
1. If the bible is a complete book, why are some sects having 73 books and another 66.

2. Why are verses like mathew 17v21, luke 9v56, john 5v4 etc missing in some versions?

3. Lastly, what happened to Paul's first letter to the corinthians? Is the 1st Corinthians we are having now, the real 1st Letter to the Corinthians?

[b]Posted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
Your book of lies is incomplete and please I am not trying to offend you but there is falsehood in the Quran.

You are not offending me.Let me have one of the falsehood pls and I will show you lots of falsehood in the bible sir.

You when telling me that The bible is false the poster quoted some professor and I am quoting Aisha tell me aisha is wrong?

Lets put the issue of quoting from people aside. Give me a verse that you think is not present in another version. Simple as that

Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy (Q.4:82)

Sura 34:50 commands Muhammad to say, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," which is a severe factual error in the Qur'an as well as contradicting the teaching of the Qur'an in a number of other verses.


Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?

@babs787,

babs787:

The Hadith comprises the sayings of the Holy Prophet . Note that the Hadith is just like the Gospel. The bible can never be said to be word of God because you find the word of God, word of Prophets and word of ordinary men whereas in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things.

Three questions, please:

#1. Since you believe that the Bible can never be the word of God, how come in the same breath you still believe that it contains the Word of God as well?

#2. Can you enunciate the texts in the Bible that you believe to be the Word of God?

#3. Since in the Qur'an, "you can never see such things" (such things including "the word of God" in your statement), does that not conclude then that the Qur'an is not the Word of God?

We know that Muslim sources themselves have questioned the Qur'an as the Word of God by indicating that some of it was lost and other verses were abrogated. Maybe that's why we can agree with you that "in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things" when it comes to what is called "the word of God".

babs787:

The Hadith is the sayings of the Prophet.

While the Sunnah is the doing of the Holy Prophet.

Both the Hadith and the Sunna contradict the Qur'an in several instances.

my Brother babs will not tell me which of the Hadith he accepts as Authentic and that AGREES WITH THE QURAN. If he did I would have read it out loud.

HADITH AND SUNNAH DEEDS OF PROPHET MUHAMED

QURAN WORDS OF ALLAH

These 2 don't agree

Posted on: February 16, 2007, 12:55 PMPosted by: Backslider
Insert Quote
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy (Q.4:82)

Sura 34:50 commands Muhammad to say, "If I go astray, I go astray only to my own loss," which is a severe factual error in the Qur'an as well as contradicting the teaching of the Qur'an in a number of other verses.

You dont understand the quran and you may never understand by giving the verses your own meaning.

The above is saying that even if Muhammed (saw) go astray, it will only be at his own peril and if he remain guided, it is because of the revelation he receives from Allah.

The above means that if anyone does good, it will be for his own soul. This is another verse buttressing my saying above

Quran 17v7: (And we say): "if you do good, you do good for your ownselves and if you do evil (you do it) against yourselves,

Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah

Please always bring the verse out for people to see

What you dont understand is that all the prophets were sent to their people except prophet muhammed (saw).

So if moses says, "I am the first to bow as muslims", it means he is the first among his people to be a muslim likewise abraham.

There is no contradictionin the above. Adam was indeed the first Muslim, the first Muslim among mankind. Muhammad is commanded to be the first Muslim among his people.

Let me lay emphasis on the verses referring to Muhammed (saw)

Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. Quran 6:14

Say, verily my Lord hath directed me into a right way, a true religion, the sect of Abraham the orthodox; and he was no idolater. Say, verily my prayers, and my worship, and my life, and my death are dedicated unto God, the Lord of all creatures: He hath no companion. This have I been commanded: I am the first Moslem (Wa 'Ana 'Awwalu Al-Muslimin). Quran 6:161-163

He hath no associate. This am I commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims. Quran 6:163

Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only). And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims (surrender unto Him). Quran 39:11-12

The above means that that Muhammad is commanded to be the first Muslim among his people.It does not contradict the other verses, Muhammad was not the first Muslim on the planet, it just means the first Muslim among his people. Read one of the verses that says:

Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. Quran 6:14

It tells Muhammad to be not of the idolaters. The idolaters were the Quraysh, they were Muhammad's people, so hence it is crystal clear when it is said for Muhammad to be the first Muslim it just basically means among his people.

Conclusively, the verses you quoted never contradicted each other. All prophets were sent to their people and as such were the first to be muslims among their people.

@babs

I am amazed at your Qoutes and interpretation

Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163],

006.014
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I take for my protector any other than Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He it is that feedeth but is not fed." Say: "Nay! but I am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (in Islam), and be not thou of the company of those who join gods with Allah."

PICKTHAL: Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters.

SHAKIR: Say: Shall I take a guardian besides Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and He feeds (others) and is not (Himself) fed. Say: I am commanded to be the first who submits himself, and you should not be of the polytheists

006.163
YUSUFALI: No partner hath He: this am I commanded, and[b] I am the first of those who bow to His will[/b].  

PICKTHAL: He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and[b] I am first of those who surrender (unto Him).[/b]

SHAKIR: No associate has He; and this am I commanded, and[b] I am the first of those who submit.[/b]


You can read for yourself I have done you the Honors.


Moses?  [7:143]  

YUSUFALI: When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe."

PICKTHAL: And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

SHAKIR: And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.


, some Egyptians [26:51]

YUSUFALI: "Only, our desire is that our Lord will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the believers!"

PICKTHAL: Lo! we ardently hope that our Lord will forgive us our sins because we are the first of the believers.

SHAKIR: Surely we hope that our Lord will forgive us our wrongs because we are the first of the believers.



, or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67]

002.127
YUSUFALI: And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.

PICKTHAL: And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the[b] foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed):[/b] Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.

SHAKIR: And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House: Our Lord! accept from us; surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing:

003.067
YUSUFALI: Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

PICKTHAL: Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

SHAKIR: Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.



or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah


You are not Applying Nasuukh and Mansuukh Principle in these Quotes. I have quoted Quran Nothing else. There is no where in the Quran that you qouted said

"So if moses says, "I am the first to bow as muslims", it means he is the first among his people to be a muslim likewise abraham."

If I agree with you for the sake of Arguement, it means that If moses says he was the first bow as muslim Among his people, What About Abraham? Abraham is the father of Moses.

You need to know that the Quran is filled with Disrepiancies.


Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy (Q.4:82)

Your defense of the above Surat misses the target. Let us consider what it means.

The first part of this Surat is a question and the next part is an answer.

Do they not Consider the Quran (with care)? , Question( Dont they Think with care)

Had it been from other Than Allah, Authorship (if it was not from Allah)

they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy , Result ( The "They" would have seen Mistakes)


GOD Bless you My brother Spend time to Show your self versed in what you have beleived in. I have learnt to always read every Qoute that any one gives me because if I Accept it stays in as a recorded message in my memory and I could be a Fanatic.

Look at another contradiction below

Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

@4get

Three questions, please:

#1. Since you believe that the Bible can never be the word of God, how come in the same breath you still believe that it contains the Word of God as well?

#2. Can you enunciate the texts in the Bible that you believe to be the Word of God?

I will give you just two examples to answer your questions above

2nd Timothy 4v9: , do your diligence to come shortly unto me. The cloak that I left at Tro-as with Cyprus, when you comem bring with you, and the books, but especially THE APARCHMENTS.

Is the above word of God?

secondly

Luke 1v1; for as much as many have taken in order a declaration of these things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very forst to write unto you in order, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS.

Do you call the above word of God?

#3. Since in the Qur'an, "you can never see such things" (such things including "the word of God" in your statement), does that not conclude then that the Qur'an is not the Word of God?

You can never see irrelevant words like the above in the Quran.It consist only the words of Allah. You will only find the words of the prophet making up the hadith whereas we have words of prophets making up your bible that is supposed to be word of God.

Also letters written by prophet to many leaders were not included in the Quran but in your so called holy book, we have letters of luke, paul, james making up the gospel of jesus (very funny) etc.

We know that Muslim sources themselves have questioned the Qur'an as the Word of God by indicating that some of it was lost and other verses were abrogated. Maybe that's why we can agree with you that "in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things" when it comes to what is called "the word of God".


Note: coming soon absurdities in the bible


Just the same question that was asked backslider: we all know that the bible is an incomplete book based on missing verses, bring out just only missing verse from the Quran and I will believe you.

Cheers

6days

Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days
                                       


                                      VERSUS

8days
Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

@babs787,

babs787:

I will give you just two examples to answer your questions above

2nd Timothy 4v9: , do your diligence to come shortly unto me. The cloak that I left at Tro-as with Cyprus, when you comem bring with you, and the books, but especially THE APARCHMENTS.

Is the above word of God?

Yep. And what is your problem with that?

babs787:

Luke 1v1; for as much as many have taken in order a declaration of these things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very forst to write unto you in order, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS.

Do you call the above word of God?

Yes. That is part of what Muhammad first referred to as the Injil, and then later denied without a shred of truth in his claims.

babs787:

You can never see irrelevant words like the above in the Quran.It consist only the words of Allah. You will only find the words of the prophet making up the hadith whereas we have words of prophets making up your bible that is supposed to be word of God.

First, you forget that Muhammad initially embraced the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. It was later on that he accused the Bible of having been corrupted - after initially having received "revelation" from the same "Allah" that he sent down, revealed and confirmed what Muhammad was denying.

The words and behaviour of the prophet Muhammad contradict the Qur'an, apart from the Qur'an contradicting itself with "strong" (and weak) "abrogated verses". That is why when certain words and acitivities of Muhammad are pointed out in the Hadith, Muslim quickly deny them (as they fear denying the Qur'an), and then make excuses that Muhammad was a man like anyone else; or that, such and such an Hadith is a false one and no one can really know which one is a true hadith.

babs787:

Also letters written by prophet to many leaders were not included in the Quran but in your so called holy book, we have letters of luke, paul, james making up the gospel of jesus (very funny) etc.

The Qur'an you have today was written by men - most of whom confirmed that certain verses of the Qur'an have been lost; and others editted and compiled them to make up the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman. I don't see why a Muslim would want to burn the word of "Allah" if there were no descripancies between what he had produced and and the original copy.

Meanwhile, there were frequent fights between early Muslims about the differences in reading of the revealed words of the Qur'an: no one was agreed as to which was which - and today, Sunnis and Shiites are at each others' throats over the age-old controversies.

babs787:

Note: coming soon absurdities in the bible

It won't be new - there have been attacks on the Bible from all corners; and yet, it has confirmed its promises true in the lives of those who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. When people have no defences for their accusations against Christ, they employ so-called "absurdities in the bible" against CHRISTIANITY. My simple question is: are Muslims willing to subject Muhammad to the same test of "absurdities"?? It's all a question of CHRIST and MUHAMMAD, not so?

babs787:

Just the same question that was asked backslider: we all know that the bible is an incomplete book based on missing verses, bring out just only missing verse from the Quran and I will believe you.

And what has happened to the "abrogated verses" of the Qur'an - or you don't understand the simple English meaning of "abrogate"??

Brother bab787

I hope you have read  my 2 other post.

Love from Christ

@backslider

Dear brother,

I saw your 2 posts.

I am amazed at your Qoutes and interpretation

brother, you dont need to be amazed but just read and concentrate

Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163],

006.014
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I take for my protector any other than Allah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He it is that feedeth but is not fed." Say: "Nay! but I am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (in Islam), and be not thou of the company of those who join gods with Allah."

PICKTHAL: Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters.

SHAKIR: Say: Shall I take a guardian besides Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and He feeds (others) and is not (Himself) fed. Say: I am commanded to be the first who submits himself, and you should not be of the polytheists

Brother, I have explained to you, I will still re-explain

he is not saying that he was the first muslim on earth but that the first to be muslim among his Ummah.

Now for your understanding, note the word "and be not thou of the company of those who join gods with Allah."

During his time, people never believed in Allah they rather resorted to worshipping of idol.

He was the first to submit among his Ummah as a muslim

006.163
YUSUFALI: No partner hath He: this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who bow to His will.  

PICKTHAL: He hath no partner. This am I commanded, and I am first of those who surrender (unto Him).

SHAKIR: No associate has He; and this am I commanded, and I am the first of those who submit.

Still the same thing. He was the first among his people to accept Islam and bow as a muslim.

Did you see "first among all muslims"? there

[b] Moses?  [7:143]  

YUSUFALI: When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe."

PICKTHAL: And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

SHAKIR: And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers. [/b]

Just like the above. Moses he was the first to believe. Mind you, the above incident happened during moses' time. He wasa being mocked by his people. He told God that he wanted to see his but when God showed him just little of his supernatural power, he fell down and said " I am the first of those who believe". Not that the first of all muslims to believe. Afterall Adam came before him, Abraham came before him, so also Noah etc.

All prophets were sent to their people and they were the first to be muslims (believers) during their time

some Egyptians [26:51]

YUSUFALI: "Only, our desire is that our Lord will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the believers!"

PICKTHAL: Lo! we ardently hope that our Lord will forgive us our sins because we are the first of the believers.

SHAKIR: Surely we hope that our Lord will forgive us our wrongs because we are the first of the believers.

Like i said, always endeavour to read and understand the meaning of the chapter and not lifting a verse.

Moses went to Pharaoh to liberate the Isrealite. He went with two convicing miracles so that Pharaoh will allow the israelite go. The first miracle was the whittening of his hand while the second is the throwing down of his staff to the ground.

Pharaoh assembled all the egyptian sorcerers at the appointed time and place and they first threw their ropes which turned to snakes while moses threw his too and it turned to a big snake and swallowed the rest.

Now I continue with the verse in order for youto understand

26v46: and the sorcerers fell down prostrate
47: saying. :WE BELIEVE IN THE LORD OF THE ALAMIN.
48; THE LORD OF MOSES AND AARON

When pahraoh saw these happening. He said

quran 26v49: , you have believed in him before I give you leave, surely, he indeed is your chief who has taught you magic, verily I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and iwill crucify you all.

THE REASON FOR THE ABOVE IS THAT PHARAOH DECIDED TO PUNISH THEM WHEN THEY DECIDED TO ABANDON HIM FOR THE FAITH OF MOSES.

Mind you, the sorcerers were not  believers but became believers as a result of the miracle of moses. When pharaoh uttered the above, they now said

Q26v50: they said: no harm1 surely, to our Lord (Allah) we are to return.

AND SAID THIS

QURAN 26V51: WE REALLY HOPE THAT OUR LORD WILL FORGIVE US OUR SINS, AS WE ARE THE FIRST OF THE BELIEVERS (IN MOSES) AND IN THE MONOTHEISM WHICH HE HAS BROUGHT FROM ALLAH)

Did you get that? They were the first to be believers among the egyptian during Moses time.


, or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67]

002.127
YUSUFALI: And remember Abraham and Isma'il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.

PICKTHAL: And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (Abraham prayed): Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.

SHAKIR: And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House: Our Lord! accept from us; surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing:

Here, it wasnt mentioned whether Abraham was the first muslim or not.

003.067
YUSUFALI: Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

PICKTHAL: Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

SHAKIR: Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.

The verse never said he was the first muslim but that he was a muslim.

The above verse is in response to christians and jews that do say that Abraham was a christian or a jew.

"So if moses says, "I am the first to bow as muslims", it means he is the first among his people to be a muslim likewise abraham."

If I agree with you for the sake of Arguement, it means that If moses says he was the first bow as muslim Among his people, What About Abraham? Abraham is the father of Moses.

My brother, what you dont know is that the coming  and going of the prophets is like a relay race in which one collects the baton from another. All prophets came with the same teachings and religion. God never gives his prophets different religions. We have verses supporting this claim.

In every community, every prophets accept Islam before other people in the same community and thats the reason for the above verses you quoted. They are in no way contradictions


Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

My brother, the first verse talks on the creation of the EARTH ALONE.
The second verse talks about the creation of mountain and bestowing of blessings i.e. creation of other things on the earth
While the third verse is on the creation of heavens and not EARTH.

Hope u have seen the difference?

Thanks and God bless.

Looking forward to hearing from you


Salam

@4get me


Quote from: babs787 on Today at 02:35:20 PM
I will give you just two examples to answer your questions above

2nd Timothy 4v9: , do your diligence to come shortly unto me. The cloak that I left at Tro-as with Cyprus, when you comem bring with you, and the books, but especially THE APARCHMENTS.

Yep. And what is your problem with that?

So the above is the word of God (hmmm)

Since you said it is the word, applying 2nd timothy 3v16, under what heading do we put the above

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 02:35:20 PM
Luke 1v1; for as much as many have taken in order a declaration of these things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto you in order, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS.


Yes. That is part of what Muhammad first referred to as the Injil, and then later denied without a shred of truth in his claims.

My friend, this is not what is referred to as injil. The above is one of the letters written then and shouldnt be part of the bible. It was written to THEOPHILUS or are you THEOPHILUS?

Since the above is also word of God as said by 4get me, apllying 2nd timothy 3v16, what heading do we put the above and what is the teaching of the above verse?

First, you forget that Muhammad initially embraced the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. It was later on that he accused the Bible of having been corrupted - after initially having received "revelation" from the same "Allah" that he sent down, revealed and confirmed what Muhammad was denying.

Not accused but the the truth. The bible has been corrupted. Hey, lest I forget, create a thread for your questions which you asked in other thread and we sort them out and the questions will lead us to the origin, authors and authenticity of the bible

The words and behaviour of the prophet Muhammad contradict the Qur'an, apart from the Qur'an contradicting itself with "strong" (and weak) "abrogated verses". That is why when certain words and acitivities of Muhammad are pointed out in the Hadith, Muslim quickly deny them (as they fear denying the Qur'an), and then make excuses that Muhammad was a man like anyone else; or that, such and such an Hadith is a false one and no one can really know which one is a true hadith.

Your argument holds no water brother.

The Qur'an you have today was written by men - most of whom confirmed that certain verses of the Qur'an have been lost; and others editted and compiled them to make up the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman. I don't see why a Muslim would want to burn the word of "Allah" if there were no descripancies between what he had produced and and the original copy.

Hello brother. I have been quoting missing verses for you from your bible. If you are truthful that the quran is incomplete, bring out a verse that is missing and if you cant, it will be better for you to let the matter rest. (baseless argument)

Meanwhile, there were frequent fights between early Muslims about the differences in reading of the revealed words of the Qur'an: no one was agreed as to which was which - and today, Sunnis and Shiites are at each others' throats over the age-old controversies.

My brother, there are different ways of reciting the holy quran just like you have different ways of singing "On the mountain, In the valley,

You may give it baritone voice etc depending on the way you prefer.


Quote from: babs787 on Today at 02:35:20 PM
Note: coming soon absurdities in the bible

It won't be new - there have been attacks on the Bible from all corners; and yet, it has confirmed its promises true in the lives of those who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. When people have no defences for their accusations against Christ, they employ so-called "absurdities in the bible" against CHRISTIANITY. My simple question is: are Muslims willing to subject Muhammad to the same test of "absurdities"?? It's all a question of CHRIST and MUHAMMAD, not so?

No no no. Jesus was never a christian but a muslim likewise his disciples.

Quote from: babs787 on Today at 02:35:20 PM
Just the same question that was asked backslider: we all know that the bible is an incomplete book based on missing verses, bring out just only missing verse from the Quran and I will believe you.

And what has happened to the "abrogated verses" of the Qur'an - or you don't understand the simple English meaning of "abrogate"??

Knowledgeable brother. To you, abrogation means missing abi. Are the abrogated verses missing from the Quran? Are they not there? Na wa o.

Never mind, I will shed more light on abrogation very soon.

@brother babs

I have spent my time to Quote your own Quran that you did not even quote and You just pick and Chose. You said Abraham was not a first Muslim Oh. But he was a Muslim Abi According to your books. Was he be fore Abraham or After Abraham?

They were both of the same people.

You said "and be not thou of the company of those who join gods with Allah." means "Amongst his people", Was paganism only practiced amongst the quarish people did we not have Jew persians and even Xtians those times.

Ah My brother be Honest in your Submission Did this "Amongst his people" apply to the Other In The Surat I quoted?

You have not done anything but Used The First One to About Muhamed to Explain the Other where it was NEVER STATED In the verse that "Amongst his people", This I think is Dishonesty.  

Ok see

You did not apply the Nasuukh here, Why The Double Standard?

The Verse of moses comes After the verse of Muhamed 6 and 7.

If you read the next post you will see

Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that God created the heaven and Allah created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below stated-

Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

Now do the math: 2(for earth) + 4(for nourishment) + 2 (for heavens) = 8 days; and not 6 days

The small maths I know I can say this is a Contradiction

*yawn*

nothing but more and more BS. . .

correction of my last post on this thread

I have spent my time to Quote your own Quran that you did not even quote and You just pick and Chose. You said Abraham was not a first Muslim Oh. But he was a Muslim Abi According to your books. Was he be fore Abraham or After Abraham?

**I have spent my time to Quote your own Quran that you did not even quote and You just pick and Chose. You said Abraham was not a first Muslim Oh. But he was a Muslim Abi According to your books. Was he be fore MOSES or After MOSES?

Please take of this correction