If the Gospels are lies, why did 'Allah' tell Muslims to read and believe them?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.alim.org/library/quran/ayah/compare/2/87/advent-of-the-prophet-isa-%28jesus%29


Surah 2. Al-Baqara, Ayah 87

To Musa (Moses) We gave the Book (Torah) and sent after him other Rasools in succession; then We gave Isa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear Signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit (Gabriel). Why is it that whenever there came to you a Rasool with a message which did not suit your desires, you became so arrogant that some you called impostors and others you killed!

So, 'Allah' gave Jesus strength through the Holy Spirit (capitalization denotes an entity in keeping with the Christian Holy Trinity), and yet people like Jafar here, who claim to be good little Muslims, deny them, call them imposters and try to kill them.



http://quran.com/5/46



Surah 5:46

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.
So, again, 'Allah' gave Jesus the Gospel, said it contained guidance and light, yet 'good Muslims' like Jafar call the Gospels corrupt and lies.

Since 'Allah' gave the Gospels, that would mean Jafar just called Allah a liar.


http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch5.html

Surah 5:68


Say, "O people of the scripture, you have no basis until you uphold the Torah, and the Gospel, and what is sent down to you herein from your Lord." For sure, these revelations from your Lord will cause many of them to plunge deeper into transgression and disbelief. Therefore, do not feel sorry for the disbelieving people.
Another example of Islamic teaching saying the Torah and Bible were from 'Allah' and should be upheld and believed. Yet, 'good little Muslims' like Jafar, continue to call 'Allah' a liar, by claiming the Gospel was corrupted and a lie.

And the biggie...

http://www.bibleprobe.com/archive/messages/631.html

Now the biggie. Something your lying imams and mullahs think they can slide by you.

Subtract 632 AD when Muhammd died like a normal man after being poisoned --from 350 AD when the two copies of the Christian Gospels, one located in the Vatican (Codex Vaticanus 325-350 AD) and the other located in the British Museum (Codex Siniaticus 350 AD) date to. AD indicates After Christ. Guess what that is these Gospels date to 282 years before Muhammad died. AND WE CAN STILL READ THEM TODAY.

"They" could not have changed the Christian Gospels after Muhammad, since there are around 5,300 manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek text of the New Testament (Injeel) pre-dating Muhammad still in existence. Worldwide, there are 24,800 copies of these original manuscripts.

The Christian Gospels were written between 20-45 years after Jesus ascended bodily into heaven in front of many, many witnesses.

So if Muhammad said they were correct in 632 A.D., and what are in the Museums have not changed. Then it is impossible for the Christian Gospels to have been changed/corrupted.

Your dilemma then dear Muslim is this. If you say the Christian Gospels have changed/been corrupted. Then you just called Muhammad a liar.

Muslims should note that nowhere in the Qur'an there is there even a suggestion that the Biblical text has been altered or corrupted. The word "tahrif" is never used with reference to the Bible itself.
Really just destroys Jafar's claims that the Gospels were somehow 'corrupted' somewhere along the line after Mohammad.


:mooning:

[aboutime]

Marcus. Isn't this fun? Jafar is like an old time Burlesque comedian from the late 1800's Westerns, telling jokes, but never quite able to provide the PUNCH LINE.

Remember, when talking to jafar. If it wasn't for his ability to lie so well. He'd have to tell the truth. And that would ruin everything he says.

[abso]

http://www.alim.org/library/quran/ayah/compare/2/87/advent-of-the-prophet-isa-%28jesus%29




http://quran.com/5/46




http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch5.html


And the biggie...

http://www.bibleprobe.com/archive/messages/631.html

Really just destroys Jafar's claims that the Gospels were somehow 'corrupted' somewhere along the line after Mohammad.


:mooning:

Muhammed (PBUH) never said that the gospel around his time were correct, the Quran ordered us to believe in Jesus, Moses and their holy religions, the christianity and judaism, and their holy books, bible and torah, but the Quran didn't say that the christian gospel is correct at all, all the verses you are quoting are merely mentioning the gospel, it proves that we believe in it and of course we do, but it does not prove that the gospel was not corrupted at the time of Muhammad (PBUH).

[aboutime]

Muhammed (PBUH) never said that the gospel around his time were correct, the Quran ordered us to believe in Jesus, Moses and their holy religions, the christianity and judaism, and their holy books, bible and torah, but the Quran didn't say that the christian gospel is correct at all, all the verses you are quoting are merely mentioning the gospel, it proves that we believe in it and of course we do, but it does not prove that the gospel was not corrupted at the time of Muhammad (PBUH).


abso. Take time to read what I said earlier to jafar. It applies to you as well.

And. If you can't bring yourself to read it. You should feel honored that I bothered, or wasted time talking with jafar's twin-minded twin.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Muhammed (PBUH) never said that the gospel around his time were correct, the Quran ordered us to believe in Jesus, Moses and their holy religions, the christianity and judaism, and their holy books, bible and torah, but the Quran didn't say that the christian gospel is correct at all, all the verses you are quoting are merely mentioning the gospel, it proves that we believe in it and of course we do, but it does not prove that the gospel was not corrupted at the time of Muhammad (PBUH).

so, 'Allah' tells Muslims to believe in a corrupt Gospel? Why would he do that?

[gabosaurus]

This entire line of thought is totally unprovable and thus should be classified as a conspiracy theory.

[Marcus Aurelius]

This entire line of thought is totally unprovable and thus should be classified as a conspiracy theory.

Jafar claimed the Gospels were corrupt and should not be believed... yet multiple verses in the Quar'an says Allah wanted people to believe the Gospels.

How is that a conspiracy theory, you nutjob???

[aboutime]

This entire line of thought is totally unprovable and thus should be classified as a conspiracy theory.



So, tell us Gabby. What Line of Thought would that be? And explain why it should be classified as a conspiracy theory???

On the other hand. I already know. You will never answer any questions I ask. So. Your silence will prove....you have no answers.

[jafar00]

It's quite simple really. The Injil mentioned in the Qur'aan is not the Gospels of the New Testament. It is what Jesus (as) actually taught.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's quite simple really. The Injil mentioned in the Qur'aan is not the Gospels of the New Testament. It is what Jesus (as) actually taught.

The Gospels ARE what Jesus actually taught.

[aboutime]

The Gospels ARE what Jesus actually taught.


Marcus. Imagine that! jafar has finally, and actually admitted to the teachings of Jesus.

It must be SUNDAY.

[Kathianne]

This entire line of thought is totally unprovable and thus should be classified as a conspiracy theory.

A suggestion. Use the quote feature, it makes the conversation more likely to stay relevant.

[jafar00]

The Gospels ARE what Jesus actually taught.

No. What you are reading is something cobbled together 100+ years AFTER Jesus (as) ascended by people who never met him which has many revisions, additions and subtractions.

[Kathianne]

No. What you are reading is something cobbled together 100+ years AFTER Jesus (as) ascended by people who never met him which has many revisions, additions and subtractions.

No, that would be the New Testament in general. Not the gospels.

[jimnyc]

No. What you are reading is something cobbled together 100+ years AFTER Jesus (as) ascended by people who never met him which has many revisions, additions and subtractions.

Like the edits in the Quran, as already proven? Maybe someone should have revised the Quran, and removed the parts about beating ones wife and Muhammad being a kid toucher.

[jimnyc]

No, that would be the New Testament in general. Not the gospels.

Yeppers, but he won't even admit to the FACTS about muhammad and other crap in the quran, he's certainly not going to acknowledge anything about another religion. Regardless of what is in a religions text - there is still ONLY ONE religion out there today en mass using their holy book and writings to wage war and so much violence against others and women.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No. What you are reading is something cobbled together 100+ years AFTER Jesus (as) ascended by people who never met him which has many revisions, additions and subtractions.

You have zero proof that the Gospels are not the teachings of Jesus. Again, you are calling translational differences 'corruption'. I've already pointed out the Quar'an has different versions, revisions, etc., DISCOVERED BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS. Yet you ignore this.

[jafar00]

You have zero proof that the Gospels are not the teachings of Jesus. Again, you are calling translational differences 'corruption'. I've already pointed out the Quar'an has different versions, revisions, etc., DISCOVERED BY ISLAMIC SCHOLARS. Yet you ignore this.

Wrong. There is only one Qur'aan. Maybe you are confusing the Arabic original with foreign language interpretations?

[gabosaurus]

Does anyone think Allah would approve of someone rapping about his glories?
I am surprised that there hasn't been rioting over this yet.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1Fw5dj9n39Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wrong. There is only one Qur'aan. Maybe you are confusing the Arabic original with foreign language interpretations?

go re read the other thread. You're hiding from the truth again.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Does anyone think Allah would approve of someone rapping about his glories?
I am surprised that there hasn't been rioting over this yet.

<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1Fw5dj9n39Y" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Now we can see what rot your brain. Some fool rapping shat. The God the muslim fear, worship blindly and seek to murder for is not a God. I do believe its either Satan himself or one of his top demons. Its certainly very evil and teaches evil to its followers! -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wrong. There is only one Qur'aan. Maybe you are confusing the Arabic original with foreign language interpretations?

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html

educate yourself, Jafar.

Myth #1: The Qur‘an is Preserved and Unchanged Revelation from Allah


Textual and archaeological evidences do not support the traditional views about the formation and preservation of the quranic text. All of the ancient manuscriptual evidence that has been found post-dates Uthman by at least a century, and differs from the present “standard” version of the Arabic Qur’an at a number of points. This divergence is true even for those manuscripts and other evidences that are dated closer to the time of Uthman’s life.



Further, and most importantly, there are several differences in reading that exist between the Samarkand codex and the “standard” quranic text as it exists today. A prominent example is found in Surah 37:103. In the Samarkand manuscript, the relevant portion of this ayah reads wa ma 'aslamaa, which translated means “and they did not submit” (i.e. become Muslims). Yet, the present Arabic “standard” Qur’an reads Falammaa 'aslamaa, which when translated means “when they submitted”7 (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html#ch1-ref07). Thus, the change of one word alters the meaning of the passage to one that is exactly the opposite! Numerous additional differences between the Samarkand codex and the present Arabic version had been noted by the Sherif and Elhennawy, who show that the quranic text has undergone a number of alterations. They amount to the same sort of changes in consonantal readings (the Samarkand is without vowel pointings) and even the changing of whole words, in Suwar 2:15, 2:57, 2:284, 5:99, 6:11, 7:27, 7:69, 18:83, 19:72, 20:3, 20:79, 20:108, 36:20-21, 38:26, as well as other ayat8 (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html#ch1-ref08). This shows us that, despite the claims made by many Muslim scholars and theologians (those quoted above, for instance) that no changes were ever introduced into the quranic manuscript history and that the Arabic Qur'an has always remained the same, there were indeed alterations in quranic manuscripts during the early years of Islam and that the original Arabic readings have not been preserved intact in each daughter manuscript.


We should note here that some of Jeffrey's Arabic sources actually suggest that al-Hajjaj went beyond merely adding diacritical marks and the like to the quranic text - they assert that al-Hajjaj actually changed the text itself, and that some readings which appear in the present Arabic Qur'an are the result of al-Hajjaj's creativity. This is interesting in light of the textual history which has been demonstrated above for the Qur'an through the manuscripts, and which will be seen below in further detail. Included in this history are traditions which actually affirm readings now appearing in the Qur'an as not being the originals.


As was mentioned before, many Muslims will claim that the Qur'an was handed down in its present and complete form to Mohammed and has remained unchanged since. However, if such were the case, there would have been no need for the collection of the texts and recitations that Zaid performed for Abu Bakr as indicated in the most well-known of the hadith traditions (a collection and collation which other close companions of Mohammed had also been doing, independently). Why send out a man to make the compilation if you already have the complete and perfect text before you? If nothing else, this affirms the notion, articulated by Cook above, that the body of early Muslim traditions, usually set down in writing over a century and a half after the events that they purport to chronicle, are very untrustworthy as sources for drawing up an historical reconstruction of the early Muslim era. It shows that these traditions can portray events or storylines that may be completely at odds with other sources within the body of historiographic material.


In addition to losing parts of the Qur'an due to battle losses, the traditions report that both Mohammed and his Companions would simply forget various of the revealed recitations. Mohammed would forget recitations from the Qur'an,



"Allah's Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur'an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget."45 (http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html#ch1-ref45) Similar lapses of memory are recorded for Companions as well, such as the case of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari, who confessed to forgetting practically an entire surah of recitations.

How could Mohammad 'forget' a verse from the Quar'an???



The early evolution of Muslim doctrine and practice suggests that present quranic and hadithic statements were not always viewed as inspired or received from Allah. Additionally, they do not all seem to have existed in Uthman's compilation. Instead, this phenomenon suggests the constant addition to and taking away from the Muslim holy books, and the end result is likely that several different authors over at least two centuries were responsible for the production of the Qur'an. This is entirely within the realm of possibility, given that the first verifiable full texts of the Qur'an conformable to the reading of one of today's transmissions dates at its earliest back to the 10th century, while earlier available manuscripts (such as the Yemeni) contain variant readings and omissions. In short, the Qur'an appears to be a work which was authored and edited by the Arabs in Syria and/or Iraq which had several variant readings that were destroyed, and which took several centuries to appear in the final form available today.

Spin away, Jafar.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an


We can prove that the Qur'an was corrupted through many sources, but what is most striking is the evidence from the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an tells us "There were some among the Jews who pervert words from their proper places..."[3] (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an#cite_note-2)

The word "pervert" in Arabic (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Arabic) is Yoharefoon, which means "corrupt". Therefore, according to the Qur'an, al-Tahreef (corruption) is achieved through changing words from their proper places.

Has the Qur'an been subjected to such changes? Beyond a shadow of doubt, it has. If we read surah (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Surah) 5:3, it says "This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion."[4] (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an#cite_note-3)

This was quoted from chapter 5, and the Qur'an contains 114 chapters in total. How can the religion of Islam be completed by chapter 5, when there are 109 chapters yet to come? If it was completed in chapter 5, then there is no need for the 109 chapters ahead.



Some Muslims argue that this verse was the last verse revealed. If that is so, why then is it not placed at the conclusion? This proves that Muslims have changed the words from their right places, and according to the Qur'an, that is Tahreef (Corruption).


The first surah to be revealed was al-Alak, yet it is surah al-Fatiha (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Al-Fatiha) which we find at the beginning of the Qur'an. Instead, Muslims have placed the first chapter to be revealed (al-Alaq), as chapter 96, towards the end of the Qur'an.[5] (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an#cite_note-4)
How is this not the changing of words from their right places? This is indeed 'Tahreef'. Muslims have not arranged the surahs chronologically. They have took it upon themselves to organize the revelations (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Revelations) instead of Allah completing this task himself.

[jafar00]

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html

educate yourself, Jafar.

Myth #1: The Qur‘an is Preserved and Unchanged Revelation from Allah









How could Mohammad 'forget' a verse from the Quar'an???




Spin away, Jafar.

Sure. A Christian polemicist is a great authority on Islam to follow.


http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Corruption_of_the_Qur%27an

Likewise. You keep posting links from extremist websites set up with great effort just to try and spread baseless lies about Islam.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Sure. A Christian polemicist is a great authority on Islam to follow.



Likewise. You keep posting links from extremist websites set up with great effort just to try and spread baseless lies about Islam.

baseless lies my left nut. You are shown material verified by multiple sources, multiple Islamic scholars, and you call it lies. You are shown multiple instances in the Quar'an of lies condones by Muhammad, and you call it lies.

Think about that... YOU called something in the Quar'an a lie.

[jafar00]

baseless lies my left nut. You are shown material verified by multiple sources, multiple Islamic scholars, and you call it lies. You are shown multiple instances in the Quar'an of lies condones by Muhammad, and you call it lies.

Think about that... YOU called something in the Quar'an a lie.

What scholars? Random bloggers and Christians and Jews with the sole purpose of insulting Islam are not scholars.

[jimnyc]

What scholars? Random bloggers and Christians and Jews with the sole purpose of insulting Islam are not scholars.

You yourself scoffed at these men with the same crap when you refused to acknowledge the truth. These men are all Muslim scholars and I think I'll take their words about Islam before yours.

Ibn Kathir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir

Tabari - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579654/al-Tabari

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

Suyuti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Suyuti

Ibn Abbas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas

Al Qurtubi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qurtubi

Al Nawawi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nawawi

[aboutime]

You yourself scoffed at these men with the same crap when you refused to acknowledge the truth. These men are all Muslim scholars and I think I'll take their words about Islam before yours.

Ibn Kathir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir

Tabari - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579654/al-Tabari

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

Suyuti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Suyuti

Ibn Abbas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas

Al Qurtubi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qurtubi

Al Nawawi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nawawi


jimnyc: Has jafar ever appeared on DANCING WITH THE STARS?

His Gene Kelly, Sammy Davis Jr., Fred Astair dancing around prowess in avoiding honesty is AWARD WINNING trash.

[Marcus Aurelius]

What scholars? Random bloggers and Christians and Jews with the sole purpose of insulting Islam are not scholars.

see post 27, dumb ass.

[jafar00]

You yourself scoffed at these men with the same crap when you refused to acknowledge the truth. These men are all Muslim scholars and I think I'll take their words about Islam before yours.

Ibn Kathir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir

Tabari - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579654/al-Tabari

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

Suyuti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Suyuti

Ibn Abbas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas

Al Qurtubi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qurtubi

Al Nawawi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nawawi

When unlearned people try to interpret and twist the works of scholars, you tend to get some of the nonsense posted on Anti Islam sites.

[avatar4321]

The Gospels ARE what Jesus actually taught.

If you want to be technical, they are the Apostle's testimony of what Jesus taught.

Be nice if people actually lived what He taught.

[avatar4321]

Why are you guys so concerned with what Muslims believe?

I think it's important to understand their beliefs to help better understand them. Makes it easier to love them and help them come to the Gospel.

But my focus isn't ever what is wrong with their teachings, But what is true in the Gospel. I want to make the Gospel a part of my life and make my life a living testimony to Jesus Christ.

Needless to say, I need a bit more work.

[jimnyc]

When unlearned people try to interpret and twist the works of scholars, you tend to get some of the nonsense posted on Anti Islam sites.

Yeah, nice try, too bad it was THEIR writing and THEIR interpretations. You're like debating with a child who just denies and ignores everything.

[gabosaurus]

Why are you guys so concerned with what Muslims believe?

I think it's important to understand their beliefs to help better understand them. Makes it easier to love them and help them come to the Gospel.

But my focus isn't ever what is wrong with their teachings, But what is true in the Gospel. I want to make the Gospel a part of my life and make my life a living testimony to Jesus Christ.

Needless to say, I need a bit more work.

I shudder to think about what my life would be like now had I not found Christ and accepted Him as my Lord and Saviour.
I have learn to accept all people for who they are and not judge them for who they aren't.
Once passage that guides my life and helps me accept others is "I am the God of all people."
I don't recall God listing any exceptions or qualifications.

Those who openly profess hatred for others are not following the teachings of God. How can they call themselves Christians?

Thanks avatar. You have totally nailed it with this post.

[aboutime]

I shudder to think about what my life would be like now had I not found Christ and accepted Him as my Lord and Saviour.
I have learn to accept all people for who they are and not judge them for who they aren't.
Once passage that guides my life and helps me accept others is "I am the God of all people."
I don't recall God listing any exceptions or qualifications.

Those who openly profess hatred for others are not following the teachings of God. How can they call themselves Christians?

Thanks avatar. You have totally nailed it with this post.


The second FALSE PROPHET...Gabby has just checked in. Pretending to be one of the SAVED, Reborn terrorist supporters. Gabby and Jafar appear to be related.

[avatar4321]

I shudder to think about what my life would be like now had I not found Christ and accepted Him as my Lord and Saviour.
I have learn to accept all people for who they are and not judge them for who they aren't.
Once passage that guides my life and helps me accept others is "I am the God of all people."
I don't recall God listing any exceptions or qualifications.

Those who openly profess hatred for others are not following the teachings of God. How can they call themselves Christians?

Thanks avatar. You have totally nailed it with this post.

While I appreciate the praise, I have to ask. What passsage does God state that "I am the God of all people." I am not familiar with that scripture.

[avatar4321]

The second FALSE PROPHET...Gabby has just checked in. Pretending to be one of the SAVED, Reborn terrorist supporters. Gabby and Jafar appear to be related.

She never actually claimed to be reborn in that post. But perhaps she has been. That's between her and God.

[Marcus Aurelius]

While I appreciate the praise, I have to ask. What passsage does God state that "I am the God of all people." I am not familiar with that scripture.

She slightly paraphrased it.

http://bible.cc/jeremiah/32-27.htm

[avatar4321]

She slightly paraphrased it.

http://bible.cc/jeremiah/32-27.htm

That would explain why I cant find it:)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I shudder to think about what my life would be like now had I not found Christ and accepted Him as my Lord and Saviour.
I have learn to accept all people for who they are and not judge them for who they aren't.
Once passage that guides my life and helps me accept others is "I am the God of all people."
I don't recall God listing any exceptions or qualifications.

Those who openly profess hatred for others are not following the teachings of God. How can they call themselves Christians?

Thanks avatar. You have totally nailed it with this post.

HA, you praise and try to defend murdering muslim terrorists too much for that to be true IMHO. For true Christians will not enbrace and defend evil as you have done!

You dont recall God listing any qualification!!??? I guess accepting CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOUR WASNT A QUALIFICATION!! I guess according to you repenting of your sins wasnt a qualification!! Now we know something smells funny about your supposed salvation. Are you sure you didnt just buy a prayer rug , sit your butt down facing east and chant Allah Akbar a few times?? And then with your fiuzzy little brain decide Allah is God so whats the difference?

[jafar00]

HA, you praise and try to defend murdering muslim terrorists too much for that to be true IMHO. For true Christians will not enbrace and defend evil as you have done!

You dont recall God listing any qualification!!??? I guess accepting CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOUR WASNT A QUALIFICATION!! I guess according to you repenting of your sins wasnt a qualification!! Now we know something smells funny about your supposed salvation. Are you sure you didnt just buy a prayer rug , sit your butt down facing east and chant Allah Akbar a few times?? And then with your fiuzzy little brain decide Allah is God so whats the difference?

Who are you to judge someone's faith? And with such hate and vitriol. Please seek help before you hurt someone or yourself.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=595536#post595536)
You yourself scoffed at these men with the same crap when you refused to acknowledge the truth. These men are all Muslim scholars and I think I'll take their words about Islam before yours.

Ibn Kathir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir

Tabari - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...9654/al-Tabari (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/579654/al-Tabari)

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

Suyuti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Suyuti

Ibn Abbas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas

Al Qurtubi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qurtubi

Al Nawawi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nawawi



When unlearned people try to interpret and twist the works of scholars, you tend to get some of the nonsense posted on Anti Islam sites.

In other words, you cannot counter what the Islamic scholars said, so you'll just claim we don't understand what they 'really' mean, and claim victory.

Pathetic.