Muslims, I Find This Really Offensive

[Godobeyer]

....Where have Jews and Christians ever done this?

Ever?

Every time I notice that.

I wish I remember which threads .

but I remember Christians always pick verses of Torah to prove to Jews that Jesus (pbuh) is Messiah (pbuh).

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We Musilms take only the verse of Bible which match with Islam belief.

And this is the dictionary definition of confirmation bias.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Every time I notice that.

I wish I remember which threads .

but I remember Christians always pick verses of Torah to prove to Jews that Jesus (pbuh) is Messiah (pbuh).

But do Christians do this while simultaneously claiming the Torah is corrupt? No. That is Rival's point.

 

[Godobeyer]

And this is the dictionary definition of confirmation bias.

bias to what match with my religion,I don't see any problem.

 

[Rival]

but I remember Christians always pick verses of Torah to prove to Jews that Jesus (pbuh) is Messiah (pbuh).

And Muslims think 'The Helper' in John refers to Muhammad

 

[Godobeyer]

But do Christians do this while simultaneously claiming the Torah is corrupt? No. That is Rival's point.

Yes , the Christians interpretation of Torah is corrupted. to most of Jews I think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So WHY use 'corrupted' books to PROVE YOUR RELIGION?

This is not logical.

It's not logical to think that a corrupted text, combined with other corroborating sources, can be used to infer what the original version might have been?

Biblical scholars also agree that the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament have changed over time, too. They disagree with the Muslims about the specific changes, of course, but the fact that the Bible hasn't been handed down unchanged from some original version seems to be taken as a given by anyone who takes the issue seriously.

 

[Godobeyer]

And Muslims think 'The Helper' in John refers to Muhammad

that's in English.
Because it's proved by Greek it's means Muhammad (pbuh) in Arabic.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

bias to what match with my religion,I don't see any problem.

The problem exists because you arrive at that conclusion, then you seek out any evidence supporting it. That's an inherently irrational approach to take. And your position re: the previous scriptures engenders massive cognitive dissonance.

The scriptures are corrupt so they're unreliable but they prophesy Muhammad but they're unreliable so they can't be trusted but then your position falls apart but for Islam to have any legitimacy that has to be true so they must prophesy Muhammad but the scriptures are still unreliable so they can't be trusted...

It requires you to believe said scriptures are unreliable but at the same time trust they're reliable enough to reinforce your claim that Muhammad was prophesied in Jewish & Christian texts.

 

[Rival]

Biblical scholars also agree that the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament have changed over time, too. They disagree with the Muslims about the specific changes, of course, but the fact that the Bible hasn't been handed down unchanged from some original version seems to be taken as a given by anyone who takes the issue seriously.

No, but the issue here is that evolution over time is normal, but that's not corruption. Also the Muslim argument is that the Torah and Gospel have been totally utterly corrupted, which is why they don't agree with Islam. But we have copies of the Gospel from before, during and after the 7th century and it is the same.

 

[Rival]

that's in English.
Because it's proved by Greek it's means Muhammad (pbuh) in Arabic.

It is the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel itself says so.

 

[Tumah]

They do believe in some verses mentionned to Jeuss (pbuh), you reject.

Exactly. Christians come out better than you according to your standard, because they don't reject anything of the previous religions and do not call it corrupted.

it's simple.
It's like take a part of cake or reject at all

This is it. but funny

If it's about polytheism so why you reject islam and other religions (polytheism) ?

So you don't reject polytheism, you only think its been corrupted?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It's not logical to think that a corrupted text, combined with other corroborating sources, can be used to infer what the original version might have been?

What corroborating sources? The Quran was written hundreds of years after the New Testament was compiled, let alone when the individual books were written down, and the validity of its claims rests on the pre-supposed notion that all scripture that came before it has been corrupted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But do Christians do this while simultaneously claiming the Torah is corrupt? No. That is Rival's point.

There are many examples where historians use a corrupted version of a text along with other sources to deduce what the uncorrupted version was.

Whether Muslims are doing this in a valud way with the Bible is a separate question (and I'd agree that they aren't doing this validly), but I take no issue at all with the idea that the corrupted version of some document can be used as a source when trying to deduce the original.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There are many examples where historians use a corrupted version of a text along with other sources to deduce what the uncorrupted version was.

Okay. I assumed you meant those 'other sources' was referencing the Quran. If you didn't then I apologise. What other sources did you mean in your previous post if not the Quran?

 

[Godobeyer]

The problem exists because you arrive at that conclusion, then you seek out any evidence supporting it. That's an inherently irrational approach to take. And your position re: the previous scriptures engenders massive cognitive dissonance.

The scriptures are corrupt so they're unreliable but they prophesy Muhammad but they're unreliable so they can't be trusted but then your position falls apart but for Islam to have any legitimacy that has to be true so they must prophesy Muhammad but the scriptures are still unreliable so they can't be trusted...

It requires you to believe said scriptures are unreliable but at the same time trust they're reliable enough to reinforce your claim that Muhammad was prophesied in Jewish & Christian texts.

We arrive conclusion that Torah and Gospel are corrupted so we just regonise what match with our beliefs and reject which oppose our beliefs.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, this is not a joke thread.

Muslims, I find it really offensive that you dare refer to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as 'corrupted', but not only this, you then proceed to try to tell us that, using the same so-called 'corrupted' Scripture, that Muhammad was prophesied in said Scripture. Not only this but also that all previous prophets were Muslims.

Seriously, make up your damn minds.

You cannot use BOTH arguments.

Also, the Christian and Jewish Scriptures have remained unchanged since before the time of Muhammad; we know this, we have copies from before the 7th century.

Either you believe the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted or you don't.

Goddamn pick one.

I can't speak much about whether Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupted, since I'm not knowledgeable enough about their history. However, I'll try to explain what I know about the mainstream Islamic belief regarding the things you mentioned. Furthermore, I want to clarify up-front that I'm not talking about all Muslims, since I don't think there's any way to be accurate while grouping such a large religious group under the same statements about exactly what they believe on the issues in question.

• The reason Muslims (as I mentioned above, not all) try to use the Bible to prove that Muhammad was mentioned in previous scriptures despite regarding the Bible as corrupted is that the mainstream Islamic belief is that the Bible wasn't entirely corrupted, so it can supposedly still contain some truth, including Muhammad's being a prophet.

• When Muslims say that all previous prophets were Muslims, it doesn't mean they followed the exact same religion known as Islam today, complete with its laws in detail. Instead, what it means is that they all submitted to Allah. The word Islam means "submission" in Arabic, and we can see this in the following verses about Abraham:

And who would be averse to the religion of Abraham except one who makes a fool of himself. And We had chosen him in this world, and indeed he, in the Hereafter, will be among the righteous.

When his Lord said to him, "Submit", he said "I have submitted [in Islam] to the Lord of the worlds."

(Source of translation.)

The words are translated as "submit" and "submitted," and in Arabic, they are aslim (imperative mood; here, it expresses an order from Allah) and aslama (past tense), respectively.

So when Muslims say all previous prophets were Muslims,. it primarily means that they submitted to Allah and didn't disobey him.

• Personally, I think that all Abrahamic religions overall contain a lot of inconsistencies and that many of their followers display religiously inspired double standards. We are talking about religions that contain teachings like forbidding eating shellfish of all things, revering a god who supposedly allowed his son to be crucified and tortured to death, lashing for adultery and eternal hell for non-believers, homophobia, sexism, and attributing vengeful characteristics to a deity that those religions significantly revere. It seems to me that the inconsistency of using the Bible to prove Muhammad was a prophet all the while claiming the Bible was corrupted is but a drop in the ocean of inconsistencies demonstrated by Abrahamic religions and many of their followers.

I also find it interesting when Muslims reject Paul as a saint, for example, while accepting Muhammad as a prophet, and when Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet while accepting Paul as some sort of saint. One person's saint/prophet is another's charlatan and liar. Abrahamic religions in particular seem to me to thrive on this concept, whereby inconsistency and demonization of the other are means to promote oneself. That's hardly exclusive to Muslims... or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[Laika]

So, the adherents of the religions of peace and love want try to destroy each other over their respectively tenous relationships between scripture and the historical events and individuals they describe as a source of divine inspiration?

*grabs front row seat*

Anyone for pop corn? There's only 2500 years of action packed atrocities and counter-atrocities to go through! The special effects on this thread may well be "explosive" and nothing short of "miraculous"! it will be biblical!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, but the issue here is that evolution over time is normal, but that's not corruption.

It is if the original was supposedly handed down by God.

Also the Muslim argument is that the Torah and Gospel have been totally utterly corrupted, which is why they don't agree with Islam. But we have copies of the Gospel from before, during and after the 7th century and it is the same.

Why is that the time frame you're looking at? In the Muslim context, I would think that they're talking about corruption between Moses (or whichever other prophet) and the time of Muhammad.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel itself says so.

It's also pretty obvious from the context of what Jesus says that it's not referring to Muhammad. Why would they need to wait nearly 600 years after Jesus ascended to Heaven for 'The Helper' to appear? That strikes me as rather counter-productive since the human lifespan is only a fraction of that today, and was even shorter at the time.