Koran v. Bible

[beerisit]

There are two different kind of people Historians and Hadith scholars, the main purpose of a Historian was collecting all the Hadiths he could this can be (unauthentic or authentic) an Hadith Scholar made the decision with a committee and approval of other Scholars what was Authentic or what wasn't by following the criterias i mentioned.

There are different interpretations of this verse but i belief it was indeed a literally one. It was a crack in the moon not a whole splitting between two sides it was a miracle to the unbelievers in that time i know you don't belief in mircales or god so there is no discussion here?
Actually the Moon has a crack from its whole length so its certainly believable?

Got any evidence? And no the alleged NASA photo isn't. If hadiths can't exist as text unless authenticated then how can non authentic hadiths exist, are they not in text form? Maybe they are just cartoons?

 

[1robin]

Because the Hadith studies show that some Hadiths are not Authentic and therefore not can be trusted you should have read my reply though i didn't even say they were Unauthentic but it was miss-translated by the article he copied/pasted.

A hadith consists of two parts: its text, called matn, and its chain of narrators, called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.


Some little criteria's for the Isnad:

The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:
1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practised peculiar religious beliefs of his own.

Some little criteria's for the matn:

1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practised by others but were not known and practised was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.

Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practiced his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali. Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practiced each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].


More information can be found here

Well this covers the why I think but not the who. I am just looking for a list of excepted texts, so if I quote them I don't get the old "well we don't except that one" reply. I have even heard Deedat say that his criteria for the acceptancle of the bible is that any part that agrees with the quran is authentic and any part that doesn't is corrupted. Now that is scholarship. You appear to be more reasonable but I need the names of the works that I will not get the reply from above if quoted.

Thanks

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have even heard Deedat say that his criteria for the acceptancle of the bible is that any part that agrees with the quran is authentic and any part that doesn't is corrupted.

Do you have a source for this?

I have heard him speak and don't remember that. He used the RSV which is based on older manuscripts. The scholars/theologians of the RSV said that the KJV (based one later codex) had serious defects in it. I happen to agree.

Now that is scholarship.

Yes it really was because it wasn't his own scholarship. It happened to be around 30 or so scholars along with 50 cooperating Christian denominations that rendered the RSV from the earliest known manuscripts. In turn what they discovered was a lot of corruption. They found many verses that were added that did not appear in the earliest manuscripts so they tossed them out.

Case in point:

Mark 10:21

KJV
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

NIV
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Codex Sinaiticus
And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him: One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me.

No mention of "taking up the cross" in the older scripts.

Matthew 25:13

KJV
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes

NIV
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. (?????)

Codex Sinaiticus
Watch therefore, for you know not the day nor the hour. (?????)

No mention of the "son of man comes" in the earliest script.

1John 5:7-8

KJV (5:7)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NIV
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As you can see the one used by the KJV attempts to establish trinity where there is none if you go by earlier manuscripts.

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"

Yet Eusebius of Caesarea made no mention of ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,")

Book III, Chapter 6, 132 (a), p. 152 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,"

Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175 And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

Book I, Chapter 5, 9 (a), p. 24 "Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." What could He mean but the teaching and discipline of the new covenant?

He had a couple more in other books but can't find them right now and this gives the impression he was quoting from a manuscript that didn't contain ("in the name of the father, son and holy spirit") as we see in most bibles....but as you can see there has been some obvious interpolations in various biblical manuscripts. So when one says the bible is corrupted I believe they have some very good reasons why.


:sad:

 

[F0uad]

Well this covers the why I think but not the who. I am just looking for a list of excepted texts, so if I quote them I don't get the old "well we don't except that one" reply. I have even heard Deedat say that his criteria for the acceptancle of the bible is that any part that agrees with the quran is authentic and any part that doesn't is corrupted. Now that is scholarship. You appear to be more reasonable but I need the names of the works that I will not get the reply from above if quoted.

Thanks

Mr Deedat was not a scholar or a scholar on hadith he was a specialist on comparative religion and a good one for that time nothing else he didn't even speak Arabic let alone Classical Arabic.

I am not sure what Hadiths have to do with the Bible they are clearly two different type of scriptures maybe you can clarify what your question is because i don't understand it..

Got any evidence? And no the alleged NASA photo isn't. If hadiths can't exist as text unless authenticated then how can non authentic hadiths exist, are they not in text form? Maybe they are just cartoons?

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
According to the Quran (God's Revelation) and Hadiths (Eye-witnesses) and according to Nasa it happened..

It was shown in BBC a program where there was a debate between three experts.

The discussion was about if the amount of money paid by NASA to send a human to land on the surface of the moon to study the inner structure of the moon was worth it or not?? The American government authorized a budget of $100, 000, 000, 000 (one hundred thousand million dollar) for this project. One of the discoveries of that project was that there is a layer of material that splits the moon into two halves and the only explanation to this discovery that the moon was split at some times in its history and rejoined!

United States: Recent scientific research with the Nasa agreed on the fact that the moon was split once, so are you disagreeing with them? I have no other ''evidence'' to give you.

If you actually took some time to read my previous messages (all of them) you would know that your reply doesn't make sense..

 

[1robin]

Do you have a source for this?

I will look. I have seen at least a dozen dabates by him and hundreds on the subject. I am unsure if I can find that particular one. Especially in writeing. If you have a problem with this I will withdraw it. It was not meant as a point and not part of my position.

I have heard him speak and don't remember that. He used the RSV which is based on older manuscripts. The scholars/theologians of the RSV said that the KJV (based one later codex) had serious defects in it. I happen to agree.




Yes it really was because it wasn't his own scholarship. It happened to be around 30 or so scholars along with 50 cooperating Christian denominations that rendered the RSV from the earliest known manuscripts. In turn what they discovered was a lot of corruption. They found many verses that were added that did not appear in the earliest manuscripts so they tossed them out.

Case in point:

Mark 10:21

KJV
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

NIV
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Codex Sinaiticus
And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him: One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me.

No mention of "taking up the cross" in the older scripts.

Matthew 25:13

KJV
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes

NIV
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. (?????)

Codex Sinaiticus
Watch therefore, for you know not the day nor the hour. (?????)

No mention of the "son of man comes" in the earliest script.

1John 5:7-8

KJV (5:7)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NIV
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As you can see the one used by the KJV attempts to establish trinity where there is none if you go by earlier manuscripts.

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"

Yet Eusebius of Caesarea made no mention of ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,")








He had a couple more in other books but can't find them right now and this gives the impression he was quoting from a manuscript that didn't contain ("in the name of the father, son and holy spirit") as we see in most bibles....but as you can see there has been some obvious interpolations in various biblical manuscripts. So when one says the bible is corrupted I believe they have some very good reasons why.

Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying it is a defendable scholarly position to take, that scriptural differences between the bible and the quran allways results from the bible being wrong and the quran being correct. I will caution you to think a bit if you are thinking of saying yes. I know of differences where it is impossible for the quran to be correct. I have learned that there is little that is so fantastic that it won't be claimed by an Islamic apologist but this is nuts.

 

[1robin]

Mr Deedat was not a scholar or a scholar on hadith he was a specialist on comparative religion and a good one for that time nothing else he didn't even speak Arabic let alone Classical Arabic.

I thought Deedat too willing to ignore context, language, and reason many times. However he seemed like a likeable guy. I enjoyed his debates. The best Islamic debater in my opinion is Shabir Ali. He is a true scholar and gentleman.

I am not sure what Hadiths have to do with the Bible they are clearly two different type of scriptures maybe you can clarify what your question is because i don't understand it..

That's fine. I just need to know what I can quote from that will not be declared out of bounds for some reason. Are you saying the quran alone? The Hadiths may help expand something is why I am asking.

 

[F0uad]

I thought Deedat too willing to ignore context, language, and reason many times. However he seemed like a likeable guy. I enjoyed his debates. The best Islamic debater in my opinion is Shabir Ali. He is a true scholar and gentleman.

That's fine. I just need to know what I can quote from that will not be declared out of bounds for some reason. Are you saying the quran alone? The Hadiths may help expand something is why I am asking.

I did enjoy Deedat's debates and certainly if you think about that most of these debates were hold many years ago i think Shabir Ali has some moments but i am not really into debates any-more i am more into Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Andreas. Nouman Ali Khan is a good speaker about Moral Behaviour (What the Quran is all about) and Hamza is a debater against Atheism/Secularism.

No i belief that the Hadiths are a part of Islam denying Authentic Hadiths is very silly i cannot even understand people denying them because how would you explain on how our prophet lived, what the contexts of verses are, Islamic history and the list continues..

I would say quote Hadiths that are authentic and called Authentic by Hadith scholars and the majority..

Examples: Bukhari and Muslims

 

[1robin]

I did enjoy Deedat's debates and certainly if you think about that most of these debates were hold many years ago i think Shabir Ali has some moments but i am not really into debates any-more i am more into Nouman Ali Khan at the time maybe you can find some interest videos of him as-well.

I will if I can remember.

No i belief that the Hadiths are a part of Islam denying Authentic Hadiths is very silly i cannot even understand people denying them because how would you explain on how our prophet lived, what the contexts of verses are, Islamic history and the list continues..

I would say quote Hadiths that are authentic and called Authentic by Hadith scholars and the majority..

Examples: Bukhari and Muslims

Man I had to go the long route to get here but ok, I am good to go.

 

[F0uad]

I will if I can remember.

Man I had to go the long route to get here but ok, I am good to go.

I re-edited my post..

Hehe you could just ask me what i consider Authentic scripture.. or most Muslims.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I will look. I have seen at least a dozen dabates by him and hundreds on the subject. I am unsure if I can find that particular one. Especially in writeing. If you have a problem with this I will withdraw it. It was not meant as a point and not part of my position.

I'm not that critical. I have seen all of his debates. As a non-believer I found his style of debate against his opponents to be far better and well informed. I even noticed him on many occasions correcting christians after they gave an incorrect quote or incorrectly quoted a particular chapter/verse number...and he did it all verbatim. His ability to memorize most of the bible and all of the Quran was remarkable. With that said I'm still no believer in Islam or Christianity for that matter but I have to give credit where it's due. I don't expect you to find a written quote but a youtube video link to the debate where he may have said it would work.

Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying it is a defendable scholarly position to take, that scriptural differences between the bible and the quran allways results from the bible being wrong and the quran being correct.

What I'm saying is that that their is corruption in the bible and it is not beyond reproach as I have clearly shown. When the charge is made that the bible is "corrupt" it is not a baseless claim seeing as though many scribes had their hands in composing the scrolls and copying them...and as you can see from my previous post there were many interpolations. Many of them stood the test of time before older manuscripts were discovered which shed some light as to how desperate certain christians were.

I will caution you to think a bit if you are thinking of saying yes.

If you think any of what I listed in my previous post was incorrect then take your best shot. But let me caution you.....that was just a snippet of the interpolations found in the bible. Again I must inform you that I'm not a Muslim nor am I a Christian so I have no dog in the fight but what I am is well informed about your scripture.

I know of differences where it is impossible for the quran to be correct.

Such as...?......I'd like to know because I'm very familiar with the Quran.

I have learned that there is little that is so fantastic that it won't be claimed by an Islamic apologist

And Christian apologist are equally as guilty of this...so it should go without saying...

:sad:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I thought Deedat too willing to ignore context, language, and reason many times.

That's not what I gathered at all from his debates. He always seemed to put things into context. As far as language he definitely understood and tried to educate when it came to Arabic. Additionally he dealt with Greek and Aramaic in his debates concerning scripture and translation. This can be seen in the videos dealing with John 8:58.

The best Islamic debater in my opinion is Shabir Ali. He is a true scholar and gentleman.

Shabir is awesome. Deedat was one of the best. Many wanted to debate against him and many seemed to be to scared to.

 

[1robin]

I'm not that critical. I have seen all of his debates. As a non-believer I found his style of debate against his opponents to be far better and well informed. I even noticed him on many occasions correcting christians after they gave an incorrect quote or incorrectly quoted a particular chapter/verse number...and he did it all verbatim. His ability to memorize most of the bible and all of the Quran was remarkable. With that said I'm still no believer in Islam or Christianity for that matter but I have to give credit where it's due. I don't expect you to find a written quote but a youtube video link to the debate where he may have said it would work.

I remeber one in particular Deedat said the sign of Jonah did not apply to Jesus. He would not take into account that in Jewish culture any part of a day/night is a whole day/night. This is found many places in the bible. Is this quote really all that important. I have spent some time at it but you can't search for a sentence spoken verbally in a video.

What I'm saying is that that their is corruption in the bible and it is not beyond reproach as I have clearly shown. When the charge is made that the bible is "corrupt" it is not a baseless claim seeing as though many scribes had their hands in composing the scrolls and copying them...and as you can see from my previous post there were many interpolations. Many of them stood the test of time before older manuscripts were discovered which shed some light as to how desperate certain christians were.

I agree that there is corruption in the bible. That is not the point I made though.

If you think any of what I listed in my previous post was incorrect then take your best shot. But let me caution you.....that was just a snippet of the interpolations found in the bible. Again I must inform you that I'm not a Muslim nor am I a Christian so I have no dog in the fight but what I am is well informed about your scripture.

I believe you implied that in a case where the bible and the quran dissagree that it is the scholarly position that the quran is always correct.

Such as...?......I'd like to know because I'm very familiar with the Quran.

I am currently so bogged down in other threads that I can't spend the time to really get into it. I did not want to leave you hanging so: Since any dissagreement with the bible that only the bible and quran speak on (no external confirmation), about a biblical event, would be between an original source much closer to the event, and many times with multiple eyewitnesses(in the bibles case) vs a book that is from a much later date, and has no witnesses (the quran). In this case it would be impossible to assign the quran the probability of truth.

And Christian apologist are equally as guilty of this...so it should go without saying...

I agree they are guilty but I have not seen equal guilt. I am speaking of the profesional debaters specifically though. When I can spend the time required to discuss these issue we can dig in to them.

 

[1robin]

That's not what I gathered at all from his debates. He always seemed to put things into context. As far as language he definitely understood and tried to educate when it came to Arabic. Additionally he dealt with Greek and Aramaic in his debates concerning scripture and translation. This can be seen in the videos dealing with John 8:58.



Shabir is awesome. Deedat was one of the best. Many wanted to debate against him and many seemed to be to scared to.

Did you see Deedat vs Shorrosh. I think Shorrosh is kind of weird but he beat Deedat bad IMO.

 

[F0uad]

Did you see Deedat vs Shorrosh. I think Shorrosh is kind of weird but he beat Deedat bad IMO.

I did, if you call that a beating i have to slap you :slap:. It was vice-versa since Shorrosh couldn't even pronounce one verse of the Quran right or understand the meaning of a verse only true English translation.

He later made a video where he copied and re-edited the debate lying about that Deedat admitted defeat, he made up verses in the debate that aren't in the quran and i found him going off the subjects more then once also he never rebuttals anything. Shabir Ali also won with 2 hands down i think Shorrosh is a dishonest person and a very bad debater since i have seen 3 debates of him against muslims and all lost.

I remeber one in particular Deedat said the sign of Jonah did not apply to Jesus. He would not take into account that in Jewish culture any part of a day/night is a whole day/night. This is found many places in the bible. Is this quote really all that important. I have spent some time at it but you can't search for a sentence spoken verbally in a video.

He actually said that the Sign of Jonah(p) was about Jesus(p) plenty of times i never heard those words he explained the Jewish way of calculating very good since he knew Hebrew and was familiar with Jewish teachings. The Sign of Jonah(p) is even until now a direct contradiction against Christian teachings.

 

[1robin]

I did, if you call that a beating i have to slap you :slap:. It was vice-versa since Shorrosh couldn't even pronounce one verse of the Quran right or understand the meaning of a verse only true English translation.

Well commense the slapping. I am not claiming anything but what I saw in the debate. He may be a lunitic 99% of the time. I did think he was a little odd. I don't understand the arabic only claim. Even if true and it may be it makes Allah look like he is the God of only the arabs since at least after the 4th century. Of course I know you don't believe that but it sounds like it.

He later made a video where he copied and re-edited the debate lying about that Deedat admitted defeat, he made up verses in the debate that aren't in the quran and i found him going off the subjects more then once also he never rebuttals anything. Shabir Ali also won with 2 hands down i think Shorrosh is a dishonest person and a very bad debater since i have seen 3 debates of him against muslims and all lost.

Ok, I only know what I saw.

He actually said that the Sign of Jonah(p) was about Jesus(p) plenty of times i never heard those words he explained the Jewish way of calculating very good since he knew Hebrew and was familiar with Jewish teachings. The Sign of Jonah(p) is even until now a direct contradiction against Christian teachings.

You just said that Deedat said the sign of Jonah was about Jesus, and then you say that it is contradiction with Christianity. Who is right you or Deedat? I know one thing whatever it might actually be it sure isn't a contradiction. Just to guage your reliablility. Who would you say won one of the best debates I have ever seen from either side. Dr James White vs Shabir Ali On I think biblical reliability.

 

[F0uad]

Well commense the slapping. I am not claiming anything but what I saw in the debate. He may be a lunitic 99% of the time. I did think he was a little odd. I don't understand the arabic only claim. Even if true and it may be it makes Allah look like he is the God of only the arabs since at least after the 4th century. Of course I know you don't believe that but it sounds like it.

No the problem is that he in the debate was trying to quote the quran what he failed, then he made hes own interpretation of those verses. When people are quoting arabic you have to do it in precision (in a debate) when you pronounce a Arabic word wrong or differently it can have a different meaning. Thats why muslims need to pray in Arabic because Arabic cannot be translated to English also ''translations'' are never real translations but interpretations.

You just said that Deedat said the sign of Jonah was about Jesus, and then you say that it is contradiction with Christianity. Who is right you or Deedat? I know one thing whatever it might actually be it sure isn't a contradiction. Just to guage your reliablility. Who would you say won one of the best debates I have ever seen from either side. Dr James White vs Shabir Ali On I think biblical reliability

I didn't fully understand you, Deedat's argument against the crucifixion was the Sign of Jonah(p) and that argument was never refuted even now this is the main argument against the crucifixion. I would say its the worst debates since both speakers went of topic 1000's of times.

 

[OneTwo]

An interesting question, Qur'an vs Bible? As God fearing people we should not concentrate on our differences, but on our similarities. Most people know that Christianity and Islam are quite similar in some aspects, whereas the main difference is the role and nature of Jesus (pbuh).

The Qur'an which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the same today. The prophet was illiterate and an angel revealed the Qur'an to him, also making the prophet memorise it. The prophet then would repeat verses from the Qur'an to others so that they would in turn memorise it and then spread this message from God to different lands of the world. The authenticity of the Qur'an cannot be doubted in the fact that it is the words of God. This can be proven as you can bring a man from China, America, UK and India, and they would all recite the Qur'an together without a single full stop being out of place. You cannot do this with the Bible. The Bible revealed over 2000 years ago, is not the same today.

The Bible unfortunately has been changed and edited. The council of Nicea was a gathering in which it was decided which parts of the original Bible would be in the Bible which we see before us today.

The dead see scrolls were extracts from the original Bible which were taken out and meant to be destroyed.

These facts cannot be debated, and show that the Bible has undoubtedly been changed. You cannot argue against this.

Prophet Jesus (pbuh) in Islam was a blessed man. However, in Christianity he is believed to be the son of God, God himself in human flesh and the holy spirit (the holy trinity), yet even in the Bible we see today, the word 'trinity' is not mentioned. Never has Jesus said that he is God or the begotten son of God.

I have no problem with someone saying Jesus is the son of God, as we are all children of God, the problem arises when the Christians say, that Jesus (pbuh) was the begotten son of God. Why? Well just because his mother was a virgin yet she gave birth, this means that because Jesus (pbuh) did not have a human father that is some way he is the son of God. What is this statement trying to insinuate between Mary and God?

If because Jesus (pbuh) had no father and therefore he is the son of God, then surely Adam was a greater son of God, as he had no father and no mother!

I love Jesus (pbuh) as much as I do Muhammad (pbuh), but I see them as equal human beings who were blessed and chosen by God to send a message, one message; which is believe in God, fulfil your will to God, live the life which God would be pleased to see us do. And in return paradise is waiting for us.

Also Muslims do not believe Jesus (pbuh) was crucified, and he will return near the Day of Judgement.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I remeber one in particular Deedat said the sign of Jonah did not apply to Jesus. He would not take into account that in Jewish culture any part of a day/night is a whole day/night. This is found many places in the bible. Is this quote really all that important. I have spent some time at it but you can't search for a sentence spoken verbally in a video.

Well I kind of disagree with Yeshua being dead in the tomb for three days when you actually look at it from a sun down to sun up perspective it seems more like two or two and a half days. I think there were a few threads here dealing with that.

As far as searching a quote in a video I agree that it would be difficult. I happen to know off the top of my head a video Deedat said that. I believe it was his debate with Jimmy Swaggart (of all people..)

I agree that there is corruption in the bible. That is not the point I made though.

But it is a sticking point in the minds of others when you try and place bible on the same level. So far I have seen no presentation of corruption in the Quran. I'm not talking about hadith because personally (with no offense to any Muslim member here at RF) I could care less about the hadiths. They share some of the same transmission issues as the NT.

I believe you implied that in a case where the bible and the quran dissagree that it is the scholarly position that the quran is always correct.

Nope. I think you have me confused with some one else.

I am currently so bogged down in other threads that I can't spend the time to really get into it. I did not want to leave you hanging so: Since any dissagreement with the bible that only the bible and quran speak on (no external confirmation), about a biblical event, would be between an original source much closer to the event, and many times with multiple eyewitnesses(in the bibles case) vs a book that is from a much later date, and has no witnesses (the quran). In this case it would be impossible to assign the quran the probability of truth.

OK.

I agree they are guilty but I have not seen equal guilt. I am speaking of the profesional debaters specifically though. When I can spend the time required to discuss these issue we can dig in to them.

OK.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Did you see Deedat vs Shorrosh. I think Shorrosh is kind of weird but he beat Deedat bad IMO.

I don't think Shorrosh ever did. There are a couple debates Deedat did with Shorrosh,

"Qur'an or the Bible Which is the word of God"

"Is Jesus God?"

I believe Deedat was the victor in both debates. Remember, I'm neither a Muslim nor am I a Christian...but I felt Deedat was more informative and argued the points better.

 

[1robin]

I don't think Shorrosh ever did. There are a couple debates Deedat did with Shorrosh,

"Qur'an or the Bible Which is the word of God"

"Is Jesus God?"

I believe Deedat was the victor in both debates. Remember, I'm neither a Muslim nor am I a Christian...but I felt Deedat was more informative and argued the points better.

You have a right to be wrong same as me. (just kidding)
I am not sure if you intend to defend the Quran but this is for anyone:
Missing Text


Further in conflict with Von Denffer's position of a divinely inspired book transmitted directly from heaven, is ample evidence that there are numerous passages missing from the current version of the Qur'an. According to Islamic tradition, many of the revelations of Muhammad perished in the battle of Yamama "Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23)."(24) The point here is clear. There were many passages that were lost forever and could not be recovered. It is evident that the revelation in today's Qur'an is not the complete revelation allegedly passed down by the Angle Gabriel.
We find more evidence that support the fact that some of Muhammad's revelations may have been lost from one of the earliest works of the Hadith. In the words of Muhammad's wife Aisha: "Aishah said: A man got up (for prayer) at night, he read the Qur'an and raised his voice in reading. When morning came, the Apostle of Allah (saw) said: May Allah have mercy on so-and-so! Last night he reminded me a number of verses I was about to forget. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p.1114)."(25) How should we expect that the companions of Muhammad would have a flawless memory when the "Apostle" himself was prone to lapses of memory? This is even more interesting considering the fact that according to tradition, Muhammad would have to recite the Qur'an to the Angle Gabriel at least once a year at which time Gabriel would authenticate the word for word revelation.
Gilchrist presents a number of other examples of missing passages from the Qur'an. Abdullah ibn Umar, in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about the fact of missing Qur'anic text:

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).(26)
A further example of missing text from the Qur'an can be found in Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421 where Aisha says: "It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur'an [emphasis added] (and recited by the Muslims)." However, this verse is found nowhere in the Qur'an of today. The evidence is clear that the Qur'an that Muslims have today cannot be an exact replica of the tables in heaven as Von Denffer would have us to believe. There were clearly variant reading which differ from quotes in the hadiths, which itself serves as a witness to the mutability of the Qur'an.
The Qur'an: Heavenly or Human?
If just this is true then the devine inspiration of the quran is unlikely.