Christians and Jews Will receive a Double Reward

TG12345 wrote: Wa alaikum salaam! I am, thanks! Sorry for the delay in response!

786SalamKhan wrote: It's okay, due to time off I found some useful material for us both.

Sweet

TG12345 wrote: Making a connection between circumcision and homosexuality is like connecting circumcision with pedophilia and sadism, since the person who does it looks at a naked boys genitals and then cuts them. Clearly Paul had no erotic feelings for Timothy or any other man for that matter.

786SalamKhan wrote: Forgive me, I read some statement that Paul put the penis in his mouth to suck the blood out. When I looked back I realized it was not in the Bible!

No problem, we all make mistakes. I'm sure I've also made mistakes like that about Islam. Let's move on,
 

TG12345 wrote: OK, so do we agree that the Sunna is Muhammad's words that are recorded in the sahih hadiths?

786SalamKhan wrote: If you want.......

Does that mean yes or no?

TG12345 wrote: So you are absolutely certain that he said this? (4) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me. 1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. 3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. 4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). 5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.  (Book #7, Hadith #331) http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=mankind&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0 Would this be considered part of the Sunnah?

786SalamKhan wrote: "And We have not sent you but to all the men as a bearer of good news and as a warner, but most men do not know." (Saba' 34:28)

Thanks for the Surah quotation but I can't say it answered my question. Did Muhammad say the words attributed to him in Bukhari Book #8, #429?

Can you answer please with a "yes" or a "no"?

TG12345 wrote: Did he indicate anywhere it was meant to be taken metaphorically? What would you say of this statement: "An intelligent person uses all seven of his heads but a fool uses only two of them" See any problems with it? If so, what would they be?

786SalaamKhan wrote: Muhammad(SAW) knows that all mankind are descended from Adam(PBUH), why would else would he say this?

I also know that all mankind is descended from Adam and Eve.

If I made such a statement:

"An intelligent person uses all seven of his heads but a fool uses only two of them"

what would you think of it? Would it make sense? Would it be correct?

Why or why not?

786SalaamKhan wrote: There were some other hadith where he said the Black Stone is the hand of Allah, Metaphorical.

Can you please show it to me? Is it sahih?

TG12345 wrote: If that is the case, it is not true that the game of the sea and its flesh is halal. This is only true of game in the sea and flesh that is not poisonous. Muhammad could just have easily said "Most of the game of the sea and its flesh are halal for most of you." Did Muhammad say that liquids are halal for people? Why not? Could it be because a liquid can be alcohol or poison as well as water or grape juice?

786SalaamKhan wrote: There are various Hadith and rulings of Madhabs that state consumption of harmful things is prohibited.

If there are things in the ocean that are haraam (prohibited, if I understand the word correctly) because they are poisonous, then how can it be true that the game of the sea and its flesh are halal? Clearly, some of it is, and some of it isn't.

That would be like Muhammad saying that liquids are halal. According to your faith, some of them (like juice and water) are halal and others (like wine or gasoline... on the second we both agree) are not.

786SalaamKhan wrote: If you are not satisfied with Muwatta then go back to Bukhari and Muslim, Simple. I won't hold a grudge.

LOL, thanks for not holding grudges against me. If I am not mistaken, you referred me to Muwatta so I could read the Sunnah. Are you saying that Muhammad's words in Bukhari and Muslim are Sunnah also?

TG12345 wrote: No one who has seen God's face and lived. When God presented Himself to Jacob, He presented Himself as a man. http://www.gotquestions.org/seen-God.html Jacob did not see God in His full glory.

786SalaamKhan wrote: This was apparently an Angel of G-d.

No, he saw and wrestled with God. God allowed Him to win.

TG12345 wrote: Not changing His nature, but revealing Himself more and more. He did not change His method of salvation either, but also gradually revealed it to people. As a Muslim I don't see why you have a problem with this. Did God reveal the Quran right away to the first messenger? Does this mean that because He allegedly used different books (most of which were corrupted or lost as you believe), He kept changing what was in them?

786SalaamKhan wrote: Ah, I no longer believe the Bible is corrupted. I apologize, you were right when you posted hadith about Waraqa proving the existence of the Injil; I was just too stiff-necked. It was Salafi scholars like Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik that borrowed the ideas from the Qadianis.   http://unchangingword.com/ While I do not 100% agree with the above website, I agree with most and I'm sure you will as well so please your time and read through it.

Well, I have to admit I am shocked. Pleasantly, I have to add.

 You are the very first Muslim I know who does not believe the Bible is not corrupted. Prior to reading this website, I did not believe there were Muslims who believe it has not been corrupted.

I checked out the website and there is quite a bit on it with which I agree, other parts on which I disagree with it.

It is quite interesting though, thank you for sharing it.

786SalaamKhan wrote: However I believe that anything in the Bible that differs from the Quran is because of the long passage of time where it was mistransmitted, mistranslated, misinterpreted but maybe a few deliberate/accidental changes. That is why there are many versions and I do not mean translations like King James but I mean Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Greek etc.

I would challenge you to read different Bibles... the ones used by Catholics, by Protestants, by Greeks, by Jews. If you want to read the Bible that people in the middle east were reading during the time of Muhammad, I would encourage you to check out the Peshitta.

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm

The Catholic Bible does contain a few more books than the Protestant Bible, and you will see differences in wording between Catholic and Protestant Bibles... as a former Catholic, I can attest to this. You will see some differences in wording between most Bible translations.

Having said this, on the issues where the Quran differs with the Bible, the Bibles all say the same thing.

They all teach Jesus was crucified. They all teach He is the Son of God. They all teach He is God.

None of them say anything about Muhammad being prophesied by Him.

Doctrinally, all Christians agree on the nature of Jesus and about what He did for us on the cross. There are some sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and others who hold to some unBiblical beliefs, but they are no different from the Ismaili or NOI sects in Islam.

786SalaamKhan wrote:   Similar to how there is a Shia Quran.

Hold on... now I am confused. Are you saying that the Shias use a different Quran than Sunni Muslims do?

Can you show me any evidence for such a claim? I have to admit I am blown away by this allegation. I am curious to see any proof of such a statement. Thanks.

TG12345 wrote: John 20:27-29 27 Then he said to Thomas, �Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.� 28 Thomas answered him, �My Lord and my God!� 29 Jesus said to him, �Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.� Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God". Thomas was praised for believing in Jesus. Barnes' Notes on the Bible My Lord and my God - In this passage the name God is expressly given to Christ, in his own presence and by one of his own apostles. This declaration has been considered as a clear proof of the divinity of Christ, for the following reasons: 1. There is no evidence that this was a mere expression, as some have supposed, of surprise or astonishment. 2. The language was addressed to Jesus himself - "Thomas ...said unto him." 3. The Saviour did not reprove him or check him as using any improper language. If he had not been divine, it is impossible to reconcile it with his honesty that he did not rebuke the disciple. No pious man would have allowed such language to be addressed to him. Compare Acts 14:13-15; Revelation 22:8-9. 4. The Saviour proceeds immediately to commend Thomas for believing; but what was the evidence of his believing? It was this declaration, and this only. If this was a mere exclamation of surprise, what proof was it that Thomas believed? Before this he doubted. Now he believed, and gave utterance to his belief, that Jesus was his Lord and his God. 5. If this was not the meaning of Thomas, then his exclamation was a mere act of profaneness, and the Saviour would not have commended him for taking the name of the Lord his God in vain. The passage proves, therefore, that it is proper to apply to Christ the name Lord and God, and thus accords with what John affirmed in John 1:1, and which is established throughout this gospel. http://bible.cc/john/20-28.htm

786SalaamKhan wrote:   http://bibleq.net/answer/1360/

I read the article and it is interesting, but I have to say I disagree. I think that when Thomas said "my Lord and my God" to Jesus, he was referring to Jesus as both Lord and God.

I think if "my God" was an exclamation and Jesus was not God, Jesus would have rebuked him since we are not to take God's name in vain.

Additionally, John 1 states that the Word of God was with God and was God, and that it became flesh as Jesus Christ.

TG12345 wrote: Why not?

786SalaamKhan wrote:   Well the Quran teaches that Adam and Eve were forgiven so there should be no original sin?

Would you agree that all human beings who have free will and know right from wrong and have the ability to act on their free will, do sin at one point or another during their lives?

TG12345 wrote: Jesus was not saying that He should not be worshiped in this passage. Of course I believe the Trinity. The Bible teaches it plainly.

786SalaamKhan wrote:    http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/BlasphemousRumors/news/?a=5690 http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3957 http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3938 http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3956 http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3939 Addressing other issues: http://www.anusha.com/isaac.htm http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53815-Does-the-Quran-say-that-Ishmael-was-sacrificed-instead-of-Issac/#10 http://www.anusha.com/jesuspaul.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k94n1GfBbcw&list=LLCTZqIQFXzgBrH8RHH5q1tA http://arabicpaper.tripod.com/prophecy.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2N2Iz5ExM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQI http://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death#Substitution_interpretation

These links are interesting, and I am looking through some of them. I hope you are OK with the fact I don't have time to respond to every single claim made on each of these sites. That is why I think it would be best for you to do what you are doing now, and post specific things about the Bible and Christianity that you want to challenge or debate or discuss... as I do with Islam and the Quran and hadiths.

786SalaamKhan wrote:   And Finally: So  in conclusion to the topic, the hadith does say that a Jew and/or Christian who believes in the Previous Scriptures and then accepts fully Islam will receive a double reward.

If you accept that Previous Scripture means the Bible, then we have come to more of an understanding and I don't have the same questions to ask of you as I did of Abu Loren... not that I am comparing you to each other. I appreciate you actually taking the time to debate and discuss with me and your honesty and the fact that you are open about your faith and not afraid to speak your mind when you disagree with me... and manage to do it all without being insulting or disrespectful.

However, having said this... if you believe that Previous Scripture means the Bible, then I'm afraid there are problems with this too.

Much of what the Bible teaches contradicts Islam.

The Bible teaches Jesus was crucified. Islam denies this... at least most Muslims do, and I have to say I disagree with the site "unchanging word" where it states the Quran does not deny His crucifixion... it does.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that He is the Son of God. Islam denies both of these things.

The Bible does not contain descriptions of Muhammad, as Islam claims it does. We are assuming that the Injil and Torah according to Islam = the Bible.

There are some other differences too.

According to the Bible, Jesus taught that those who forgive will be forgiven by God, and those who do not forgive will not be forgiven by God. Islam teaches that forgiveness is the better thing to do, but that it is a choice and retribution is also an acceptable response.

According to the Bible, Jesus instructed people to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek. Islam instructs Muslims to not be aggressors and when war is waged that it is forbidden to kill women and children, plunder, rape, murder prisoners... but it does teach that in self-defence, violence is acceptable. Jesus taught that the response to enemies is love and non-violence. This does not mean submission- turning the other cheek was an act that was subversive and forced the attacker to treat his victim as an equal, and carrying an extra mile for a soldier who forced you to carry his pack actually got him into trouble with the same imperialist system that allowed him to mistreat others, and there are other examples. However, Jesus never allowed for violence to be used. Muhammad did.

Of course, contrary to the *****ic and ignorant rants of some Islamophobes, he did not order Muslims to go out and kill every non-Muslim they saw.

786SalaamKhan wrote:   And Allah knows best.

This is something we can both agree on.

Blessed be His Name.


It was awesome to be able to respond! Like with Rational, please forgive me for how long it takes me to get back to you and for the fact that my responses will probably take more time in the future.


Allahma3k.


Edited by TG12345 - 30 January 2013 at 8:35pm

786SalamKhan wrote: Wa Alaikum,

Peace unto you as well.

TG12345 wrote: Does that mean yes or no? Thanks for the Surah quotation but I can't say it answered my question. Did Muhammad say the words attributed to him in Bukhari Book #8, #429? Can you answer please with a "yes" or a "no"? LOL, thanks for not holding grudges against me. If I am not mistaken, you referred me to Muwatta so I could read the Sunnah. Are you saying that Muhammad's words in Bukhari and Muslim are Sunnah also?

786SalamKhan wrote:   Ah so you misunderstood the Sunnah. I said before that the Sunnah are the established Acts, Hadith are oral traditions or narrations that attribute to different things such as the Quran, the Sunnah, Aqidah(theology), the Sahaba, The Prophet(SAWS) etc. The Sunnah was around before any hadith was written such as the Five Pillars, Hijab, Beard etc. and proof of this is in the (Early)Fiqh scholars books and Madhabs(Schools of thought). I myself do not follow the Maliki Madhab which is based on Imam Malik's Muwatta but the Hanafi one, although no madhab is wrong; you would have to be a muslim to understand fully. I recommended Muwatta to you because it is more available and has many hadith as well. But you seem to criticise it and had no problem using Bukhari and Muslim. Oh and the Salafis like Zakir Naik do use Bukhari and Muslim as their source for the Sunnah. But Hadiths really are just good references.

All of the passages in Muwatta I looked at were about Muhammad saying something. They consisted of his words, not actions. I think I am really misunderstanding something here, are you saying that the hadiths are a record of Muhammad's words and the Sunnah a record of his actions? Can you provide me some examples then of the Sunnah?

Does the Quran say anything about the hadiths? If someone rejects the hadiths completely, can they still be saved as a Muslim or are they then non-Muslims? Thanks.

TG12345 wrote: I also know that all mankind is descended from Adam and Eve. If I made such a statement: "An intelligent person uses all seven of his heads but a fool uses only two of them" what would you think of it? Would it make sense? Would it be correct? Why or why not? Can you please show it to me? Is it sahih?

786SalamKhan wrote:   I don't know what to make of that statement.

What if I told you I got it from God?

786SalamKhan wrote:   Also: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/45643 Sorry I found that the hadith about Allah's hand is not Sahih and is fabricated.

No problems. Which leads us back to the passage we are looking for. What did Muhammad mean when he said that a Muslim eats with one intestine and a non-Muslim with seven?

TG12345 wrote: Having said this, on the issues where the Quran differs with the Bible, the Bibles all say the same thing. They all teach Jesus was crucified. They all teach He is the Son of God. They all teach He is God. None of them say anything about Muhammad being prophesied by Him.

786SalamKhan wrote:   It's not whether to consider is the Bible is corrupted or not(which it isn't) but to consider which parts are G-d's word or the words of his Prophets. There are verses in the Bible that conflict with each other such as Jesus being Son of God(which can be interpreted as close servant of God), God himself(which can maybe be interpreted if you check all my links) or just man and also Jesus' geneology.

Jesus being the Son of God does not conflict with Him being God and that does not conflict with Him being man. As the New Testament points out, Jesus was both God and man... the Word of God made flesh.

If you believe that parts of the Bible are parts of God's word and his prophets are others are not, then obviously you must believe it is corrupted.

786SalamKhan wrote:   Biblical scholars are agreed that most of these texts agree with one another in about ninety-five per cent of their content. That seems quite a lot. However, five per cent of a book is still a considerable number of words, especially when you consider that the Old Testament is made up of 39 different books and a total of 593,493 words, and that the New Testament is made up of 27 books and 181,253 words. That means that nearly thirty thousand words differ in the Old Testament and nearly nine thousand words are different from one another in the New Testament.

I have a NIV Bible at home, as well as an NIV. When I used to be a Catholic Christian, I would read the NRSV. The differences are so minor in most cases one can barely notice them. Theologically, they make no real difference.

786SalamKhan wrote:   As for Muhammad "not" being in the Bible, I already posted a link in my last reply(which I don't know if you have read yet) with a hadith that describes Muhammad in the "Tawrat"; it suggests that the Tawrat actually refers to the Torah AND the Nevi'im(Prophets) sections of the Tanakh. As for Muhammad in the Injil the Quran already gives us a hint: And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."(61:6) This cannot refer to "Another Comforter" or "Least in the Kingdom of Heaven" in the Gospel as those comments are directed to his disciples. Look at the response by the Jews above, we must find something in the Gospels(or New Testament?) to match this.

I am reading through the links you posted in your last reply, I have to admit I haven't seen the one you are referring to yet.

Where do you think Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah or Prophets?

Where do you think he is mentioned in the Gospels or New Testament? I am glad you realize He is not the Comforter.

TG12345 wrote: Hold on... now I am confused. Are you saying that the Shias use a different Quran than Sunni Muslims do? Can you show me any evidence for such a claim? I have to admit I am blown away by this allegation. I am curious to see any proof of such a statement. Thanks.

786SalamKhan wrote:   Some Sunnis suggest that they use a different Quran but this is unlikely so they use the same Quran but have a different opinion. The truth is that Shias deny that Uthman compiled the Quran and believe that the Quran was actually compiled by Muhammad(SAW) during his lifetime. Some suggest that the Shias believe that Muhammad(SAW) gave the True Quran to Ali and it is actually three times longer and that a future Imam(Mahdi?) will return this Quran but this view is apparently a misconception to discredit them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Quran

I asked because previously you wrote that there is a Shia Quran. So you do not believe this to be the case?

TG12345 wrote: Would you agree that all human beings who have free will and know right from wrong and have the ability to act on their free will, do sin at one point or another during their lives?

786SalamKhan wrote:   I agree but I thought the Crucifixion and Atonement doctrine points to the Original Sin?

Not necessarily. Jesus died on the cross for us because we are all sinners and are in need of God's grace.

TG12345 wrote: However, having said this... if you believe that Previous Scripture means the Bible, then I'm afraid there are problems with this too. Much of what the Bible teaches contradicts Islam. The Bible teaches Jesus was crucified. Islam denies this... at least most Muslims do, and I have to say I disagree with the site "unchanging word" where it states the Quran does not deny His crucifixion... it does. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that He is the Son of God. Islam denies both of these things. The Bible does not contain descriptions of Muhammad, as Islam claims it does. We are assuming that the Injil and Torah according to Islam = the Bible.

786SalamKhan wrote:    Like I said before, it's not whether the Bible is corrupt or not(which it isn't) but to determine which parts are from G-d or his Prophets.

If some parts are and other parts are not, then wouldn't that imply that it is corrupted?

786SalamKhan wrote:   If we use the Quran it says that the Injil was given to Jesus so the Injil is almost everything in the Gospels that took place before the Betrayal and alleged Crucifixion as Jesus probably wouldn't have preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God during these times. A hadith states that the youngest of Jesus' disciples volunteered to be matyred in his place and Jesus escaped the house when them men came over, the hadith is in one of the links in my previous post.

Yet if the Gospel = New Testament, it clearly states that Jesus was crucified. Can you please show me the hadith you are referring to? I guess I haven't gotten to it yet.

If you believe that the Bible is not corrupted, then the Quran and the Bible conflict since the Bible does state clearly that Jesus was crucified. Interestingly, the authors of "unchanging word" also believe He was crucified, though not that He is God.

786SalamKhan wrote:   The Quran may state that it came to confirm the Bible but is also criticizes the Jews and Christians for misinterpreting verses and criticizes Christians for equating Jesus(PBUH) to Son of God and God himself.

In the Bible, Jesus said many things that He would not say unless He was claiming divinity. Some of the links you presented so far have tried to address this and state He was saying He and God are one in purpose when He said that He and the Father are one. If this was true, however, then why was He the only prophet on record as saying this? Also, other parts of the Bible, like John 1, clearly state He is God.

786SalamKhan wrote:   There may be verses in the Old Testament which prophecies the suffering of the Messiah but there are others that say G-d will not let harm to him which the Gospels confirm: Luke 4:10-12 10 For the Scriptures say, �He will order his angels to protect and guard you. 11 And they will hold you up with their hands so you won�t even hurt your foot on a stone.�� 12 Jesus responded, �The Scriptures also say, �You must not test the Lord your God.�� Matthew 4:5-10 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, 6 and said, �If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, �He will order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won�t even hurt your foot on a stone.�� 7 Jesus responded, �The Scriptures also say, �You must not test the Lord your God.�� 8 Next the devil took him to the peak of a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 �I will give it all to you,� he said, �if you will kneel down and worship me.� 10 �Get out of here, Satan,� Jesus told him. �For the Scriptures say, �You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him.��

These passages do not contradict the crucifixion. The angels would have protected Jesus from falling if He jumped, it doesn't say He would be protected from the crucifixion.

Jesus could have called on angels to have protected Him from crucifixion.

Matthew 26:53

⁵³ Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Instead, He chose to suffer. He could have escaped from all this, but chose not to.

786SalamKhan wrote:   Although both the Bible and Quran are not science books they do contain aspects of science before man had discovered them, the Quran even more so and it is a much smaller book and doesn't really conflict with itself, is this not proof to you that the Quran is G-d's word? The Quran is right about many things so I don't see why it wouldn't be right about what it differs from the Bible. [/QUOTE] Please show me some of the science claims, let's look at them together. 786SalamKhan wrote:   Also, may I ask which sect or denomination are you a part of? I am an evangelical Christian who used to be a Catholic Christian. TG12345 wrote: There are some other differences too. According to the Bible, Jesus taught that those who forgive will be forgiven by God, and those who do not forgive will not be forgiven by God. Islam teaches that forgiveness is the better thing to do, but that it is a choice and retribution is also an acceptable response. According to the Bible, Jesus instructed people to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek. Islam instructs Muslims to not be aggressors and when war is waged that it is forbidden to kill women and children, plunder, rape, murder prisoners... but it does teach that in self-defence, violence is acceptable. Jesus taught that the response to enemies is love and non-violence. This does not mean submission- turning the other cheek was an act that was subversive and forced the attacker to treat his victim as an equal, and carrying an extra mile for a soldier who forced you to carry his pack actually got him into trouble with the same imperialist system that allowed him to mistreat others, and there are other examples. However, Jesus never allowed for violence to be used. Muhammad did. 786SalamKhan wrote:   Jesus(PBUH) is corfirmed by the Quran as also a messenger. The Quran does say that different messengers and nations had different laws. But would one messenger allow his people to do things that another did not? 786SalamKhan wrote:   Jesus(PBUH) wasn't always about non-violence: Matthew 10:34 �Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Notice that this was Jesus talking about Himself. When He returns, He will judge the world and send many people to hell. This is in no way a permission for His disciples to attack others. This is how Christians are to respond to violence against us: Luke 6:27-36 27 �But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunicb]">[b] either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. 32 �If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Muhammad did not teach love for enemies, even if he taught to show them mercy when they surrendered (usually). 786SalamKhan wrote:   Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them�bring them here and kill them in front of me.�� This was a parable describing what will happen to those who reject God. It was not Jesus giving His disciples permission to fight their enemies. By allowing and ordering his men to judge and execute and flog people who committed crimes as well as giving permission to either forgive or punish someone who has committed you harm, Muhammad was contradicting the teachings of Jesus who said: Luke 6:37-38 37 �Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.� TG12345 wrote:   Of course, contrary to the *****ic and ignorant rants of some Islamophobes, he did not order Muslims to go out and kill every non-Muslim they saw. 786SalamKhan wrote:   This may be wrong for me to say or do but I'm trying to figure out which curse/insult word has "ic" at the end. LOL. The word was m-o-r-o-n-i-c. It may or may not exist in the proper grammar and spelling of the English language. TG12345 wrote: This is something we can both agree on. Blessed be His Name. It was awesome to be able to respond! Like with Rational, please forgive me for how long it takes me to get back to you and for the fact that my responses will probably take more time in the future. Allahma3k. [QUOTE=786SalamKhan]  Indeed, Allahu Akbar. It does not matter if you take your time, I enjoy our relaxed discussion where we can agree on things instead fall into heavy debate, argument and dispute because that could possibly fall into Ilm al Kalam which is Haram. So I'm glad but since this is gone off topic our discussion should really be PMs. Oh well, maybe others might want to input or see our discussion. And please take your time to look at all the links I posted in my last reply. And Again, Allah knows best.

LOL maybe it would be best to keep it on the forum. I am engaged in a very long discussion with another Muslim friend via email (we debate, and our debates have ran into hundreds of pages on MS Word) and am not sure if I can keep up with more than one like that.

I am looking through your links, though slowly as I am also involved in other things.

What is Ilm al Kalam?

Allah Akhbar!

<>

Salaam to all!

Brothers can you see this guy is a pro. You nee a pro to deal with his game!

  Now, THE FACT: First of all when the scripture mentioned God reveal a book to some one it not literally a book that you can hold but rather a MESSAGE and later on people people memorise it or wrote it down; so when when the Quran mentioned names of books it is the message that was given to the respective Prophet and it was then put in a form of a  literal book.

    As of the Injil, It was a message given to Jesus (S) and he convayed it to his disciples which was later on put in writhing with additional history of Jesus (S) and some opinions of others, that is why the qur�an conforms the message but point out the additional imformation:

�                 �There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, �That is from Allah,� But it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! (Q.3:78)

�               Ye People of the Book! Why do you mix truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge. (Q.3:71)

�                O People of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that you used to hide in your Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a light [Muhamed (pbuh)] and a perspicuous Book.� (Q.5:15)

�                ye People of the Book! Believe in what We have (now) revealed, conforming what was (already) with you� (Q.4: 47)

�                None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not Allah hath power over all things?  (Q.2:106) 

�                Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favors which I bestowed upon you, and I preferred you to all others (of your time period, in the past). (Q.2:47)

�                �in that they (Jews) broke the Covenant; that they reject the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right�Allah hath set the seal on their heart for their blasphemy�that they REJECTED FAITH� (Q.4:155-156)

�                Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) place, and say �We hear and disobey,��and but few of them will believe. (Q.4:46)

From those, too, who called themselves Christians We did take a Covenant, But they forgot a good part of the message that was sent down: So We stirred up enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Q.5:14)

�and the disciples were called Christians first in An-ti-och. (Act.11:26)

 

�Those who conceal the clear (Signs) We have sent down, and the Guidance, after We have made it clear for the people in the Book,-on them shall be Allah's curse, and the curse of those entitled to curse,�

�Truth has (now) come, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish. (Q.17:81)

Edited by truthnowcome - 03 February 2013 at 4:00am

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

TG12345 wrote: Jesus died on the cross for us because we are all sinners and are in need of God's grace.

Even a new born baby has sins?

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته