Interfaith Dialogue - A quick question about the Evidence

Print Page | Close Window

A quick question about the Evidence

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42669
Printed Date: 26 April 2024 at 7:14am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: A quick question about the Evidence

Posted By: phanhuyen345
Subject: A quick question about the Evidence
Date Posted: 17 May 2018 at 11:43pm

Son nhũ óng ánh chính là sự chọn lọc xuất sắc cho những cô nàng bắt mắt trong đêm dạ hội hoặc đi bar. Để đánh kiểu son này, bạn chỉ cần bôi tăng son nhũ màu đỏ lên phần son lì trước đấy, dùng cọ tán đều phần nhũ. Và bạn sẽ mang đôi môi "long lanh, lấp lánh" khôn cùng ấn tư�£ng.
xem thêm: https://phunxam.com/ban-co-dang-thac-mac-phun-moi-gia-bao-nhieu/" rel="nofollow - xăm môi giá bao nhiêu
Để sở hữu đư�£c đôi môi đỏ tươi, căng mọng trong những ngày thu se lanh, bạn gái cần chuẩn bị son đỏ tươi, đỏ sẫm và son bóng. Kẻ 3/4 môi như hình 1, tô kín phần môi đ�£ kẻ bằng bút chì đỏ tươi. Riêng phần khoé môi, dùng màu đỏ sẫm để điểm trang như hình 3. chung cuộc, trâm một tẹo son bóng nên để tạo độ căng mọng cho môi và bạn đ�£ với một bờ môi đỏ như ý.
xem thêm: http://phunmayngocdung.com/phun-xam-moi-o-dau-dep-va-len-mau-tu-nhien-nhat/" rel="nofollow - Phun xăm môi ở đâu đẹp và Lên Màu tự dưng Nhất?
Để sở hữu thể tô son lên màu thật đẹp, bạn ph�£i giữ cho đôi môi luôn mềm mịn. Trong mùa đông, môi dễ trở nên khô ráp, bong vẩy khiến son lên môi ko đư�£c trơn tuột mư�£t. Chính cho nên trước lúc tô son môi, bạn h�£y tẩy da chết cho môi bằng hổ lốn đường + dầu olive để mẫu bỏ các m�£ng da tróc tr�£ lại vẻ mềm mịn cho đôi môi. Sau lúc đ�£ tẩy da chết cho môi, bạn h�£y trâm 1 lớp son dưỡng môi mê say để môi thêm mềm mại.
nguồn: http://phunmoingocdung.com/bang-mau-dep-de-phun-moi-nen-chon-mau-hong-cam-mau-do-hong-baby-hay-do-cherry/" rel="nofollow - phun môi màu đỏ hồng

Replies:

Posted By: MIAW
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 9:08pm

phanhuyen345 wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted.

NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim.

Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.

Islam (and the Qur'an in particular) does not 'try to prove' anything against other faiths and religions... it rather gives us guidance on how to submit to the Will of God our Creator and the Creator of everything seen or unseen... but it also informs us about what has happened in the past (i.e. how other nations and individuals behaved) and what will be in the future (i.e consequences and implications in this life and after death). Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely your choice.

We are not here to prove anything against the Bible. We are here to try and explain Islam to those who wish to find out about it.

Sometimes we respond to hostile 'trolls' who come on here to attack our religion and try to demean our symbols (Allah SWT, Prophet Muhammad PBUH, The Qur'an... etc). However, make no mistake: We respect other people's faiths and convictions.

We know very well that the 'trolls' do not represent the majority out there... but they come on here with an 'attitude' and they must be answered somehow.

We welcome people who come on here with 'genuine' questions about Islam (and there are so many of them), and I am sure most of us will try to help those people find the right answers.

Different people have different convictions, and each person believes that they have the 'Truth'. We appreciate that fact. We obviously believe in what God (Allah SWT) Has Told us in the Qur'an (because He was there, Witnessing everything that other nations did in the past)... but that does not make people of other faiths 'our enemies'. We believe that God Has Shown us the right path to follow, and it will be clear who was right and who was wrong... on the Day of Judgement.

I personally will not go to other people's websites and start provoking animosity or hostility with 'loaded questions'... and I expect the same from others here. However there are some people who are already driven by 'Media-injected hatred' by the time they get here. It's sad.

To sum it up: If you want to know what the Qur'an says about the current bible, then some of us can point you to the relevant verses (they are there for everyone to see and read)... but if you then want evidence and proofs, then you'll have to 'Google it' and pray that God Will Guide you towards the Truth... the whole truth... and nothing but the truth.

Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 2:22am

phanhuyen345 wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted.

NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim.

Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.

Well, the bible has changed a lot;

https://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton" rel="nofollow - https://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton

The history of the Bible is fraught with revisions, wild interpretations, and massive overhauls. Over the course of the last century, changes to the Bible have seen the book expand and retract like a 2,000-year-old accordion.

The Koran was written far more directly from the profet so far less changes have happened;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33631745" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33631745

The Companion codices were highly similar. For example, the sequences of verses within the suras were the same, and so were most of the words within the verses.

Nonetheless, some words and phrases were different.

The differences reflected the partially oral transmission of the text, which is to say they are of the sort we expect to see when an oral text is written down.

These differences sometimes affected the meaning, but they did not change the basic ideas of the Koran.

Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 10:00pm

The Qu'ran and the Bible are completely different genres of literature. Better to compare Bible with hadith.

-------------
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.

Posted By: NABA
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 2:24am

Can anyone explain gospel of Mark ch 16 v 17-18????

Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 20 May 2018 at 2:26pm

There are many opinions on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16" rel="nofollow - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

There are no known original autographs. Some texts contain Mark 16:9-20 and some do not. Several guesses as to why. The earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.

-------------
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.

Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 4:39am

phanhuyen345 wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim. Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.

Not even ONE piece of evidence???

First example from the New Testament:

The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

Second example:

The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 7) has been a source of much controversy for decades. Is it authentic; or is in a later insertion into the text?

The King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such and as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time – as an oral tradition – and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus (witness the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ debacle).

The omission of the ‘pericope adulterae’ from the early manuscripts has been explained as an attempt by early church leaders to prevent scandal; to prevent the impression that adultery is acceptable (for Yeshua is said to have forgiven the woman). Concerned for the moral welfare of their flock these leaders are said to have ordered the story’s removal. If this is true, then they tampered with the Gospel!

The fact remains that the ‘pericope adulterae’ is not supported by early manuscript evidence (and some might say, the best manuscript evidence); there is, therefore, serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible at all.

Third example:

Mark 16: 9-20: ‘Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.’

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Conclusion:

An acknowledged spurious text – justifying the belief in a Trinitarian deity – and still present in at least six current versions of the Bible; the insertion of the ‘pericope adulterae’; and the changes to Mark.

Perhaps now you can understand why scholars (both Christian and Muslim) speak of a corrupted New Testament.

-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 10 June 2018 at 10:43pm

Niblo wrote:

You wouldn't even have this information if it wasn't for the integrity and transparency of Christian scholarship. Take Mark 16 for instance. All my household Bibles contain a note in Mark that Mark 16 is not in many original manuscripts. Obviously no secrets here ! As David C has said it is more accurate to compare the Bible with hadith rather than the Quran.

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 10 June 2018 at 10:49pm

The oldest Quran manuscript in existence found in Sanaa in the 1970s proves it varies considerably with the modern orthodox Quran used today. The Quran is unreliable.

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 11 June 2018 at 12:44am

MIAW wrote:

We are not here to prove anything against the Bible. We are here to try and explain Islam to those who wish to find out about it.

We know very well that the 'trolls' do not represent the majority out there... but they come on here with an 'attitude' and they must be answered somehow.

We welcome people who come on here with 'genuine' questions about Islam (and there are so many of them), and I am sure most of us will try to help those people find the right answers.

Hello MIAW

Muslims are often trying to prove other religions as wrong. Does that make them "Trolls" ? This is an inter faith forum. That means there will be disagreements about truth. Muslims should not be too sensitive if "trolls" offend them. As long as it is not personal. This is what happens with interfaith forums. If Muslims do not like being contradicted or challenged then they should not have inter faith forums on their web sites.

Peace to you.

Posted By: qwertygun
Date Posted: 13 June 2018 at 11:23pm

Hi, some of my Christians have asked me the same question previously and left me pondering hard on this issue.

And I came across a lot of explanations from Ustaz. Some of them are too long and confusing I might say.

I became more confused when some ustaz quote this and that verses from bible which don't make sense because you can't quote from unreliable (corrupt) sources. It is an irony that you accuse XXX document as corrupt, but at the same time, quoting as if it is a fact.

Thus I decided to make a research on this issue with open and neutral point of view (seeking opinion from Christians as well).

After reading and watching a lot of explanations from both sides, I realized that this question can actually be addressed without the need to examine the whole Bible and Quran, and can be explained in respectful and logical ways.

And this hadith, really helped me to understand / define 'corrupt' is Islamic point of view.

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). 'Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.” (Sunnah - Translation of Sahih Al- Bukhari)

Not wanting my knowledge to disappear, I made this video and I hope it may help you.

Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 21 June 2018 at 7:37pm

Well done, Qwertygun. I could quibble about a few things, but you still get an "A"

-------------
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.

Posted By: Faaiz Rosli
Date Posted: 21 June 2018 at 8:35pm

how about the one in Birmingham University?

-------------
Ghulaam

Posted By: MIAW
Date Posted: 22 June 2018 at 3:55am

2Acts wrote:

The oldest Quran manuscript in existence found in Sanaa in the 1970s proves it varies considerably with the modern orthodox Quran used today. The Quran is unreliable.

Hi 2Acts,

Consider these points:

1) Wikipedia and other sources say that the Sanaa manuscript is one of the oldest Quranic texts available today. However you have decided to keep telling us that it is the oldest. Please yourself!

2) To judge the reliability of the Qur'an using the Sanaa manuscript is naive at best, because nowhere does it ever say who wrote it, when or where was it written. (the carbon dating is that of the parchment, not the writing).

3) Most importantly: The only reliable Qur'an is the one committed to the memory of Hundreds of Millions of Muslims from across the world and throughout history. Muslims have always learnt the Qur'an 'by heart'... from day one. and that is how it is preserved. You might find 2 Muslims who speak different languages, adhere to different cultures, originate from different backgrounds or even live at different times in history...etc, but the absolute certainty is: they know and read the same Qur'an... exactly the same.

I would like to give you another bit of information for free if that's ok:

from your previous posts, you seem to have an issue with Uthman RA burning all copies of the Qur'an and keeping just one.

Uthman RA did 2Acts (No Pun Intended! Smile

) that are very relevant here: He collected the Qur'an in one Book, and then ordered the burning of all other copies available at the time.

For your info: This is one of the greatest favours that Uthman RA did for all Muslims throughout history. We will never be grateful enough to him for this act. Why is that?...

The reason for Uthman RA ordering the burning of other copies is not because they were different... it is because they were the same!

How is that?...

Some of the companions RA who were present at the very time of revelation of the Qur'an, wrote their own record of the Qur'an in order to keep it at home (as their own copy)... however THEY only wrote down what THEY witnessed as it was revealed (THEY were not present at the time of EVERY revelation)... so when Uthman RA ordered the (most senior) scribes/companions to collect, check and write ONE COPY of the COMPLETE Qur'an, he then ordered all other copies to be destroyed by burning in order to eliminate all confusion. Reason: It is as if he knew that if other copies were kept in existence, there would be opponents of Islam (many centuries later) saying: "the copy discovered in an attic in Sanaa (or any other copy discovered anywhere... written by any Tom, Dick or Harry at any point in history) must have been written by a companion of Prophet Muhammad upon hearing it directly from the Prophet". [i.e. fake copies would be written left right and centre, and falsely attributed to our Prophet's companions.]

So you see... by doing that act, Uthman RA 'silenced' every opponent of Islam for good.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 22 June 2018 at 5:00am

Miaw

So you see... by doing that act, Uthman RA 'silenced' every opponent of Islam till the end of time.

And this is what it is really all about.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: MIAW
Date Posted: 25 June 2018 at 6:13am

airmano wrote:

Miaw

So you see... by doing that act, Uthman RA 'silenced' every opponent of Islam till the end of time.

And this is what it is really all about.

Airmano

@airmano

This may be hard to understand, or in your case 'to believe', but...

Silencing opponents in this case is a 'defensive' move.

History teaches us that 'Truth' has always had 'opponents' (usually people whose lifestyle and agenda are 'not suited' to this truth).

Just look at the Prophets throughout history: they were exiled, humiliated, beaten up, fought against, accused, killed...etc. Reason: Because they were in possession of something very 'dangerous'... 'The message of Truth' from their Lord Allah (God)!

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 01 July 2018 at 3:44pm

MIAW wrote:

2Acts wrote:

The oldest Quran manuscript in existence found in Sanaa in the 1970s proves it varies considerably with the modern orthodox Quran used today. The Quran is unreliable.

Hi 2Acts,

Consider these points:

I would like to give you another bit of information for free if that's ok:

from your previous posts, you seem to have an issue with Uthman RA burning all copies of the Qur'an and keeping just one.

Uthman RA did 2Acts (No Pun Intended! Smile

) that are very relevant here: He collected the Qur'an in one Book, and then ordered the burning of all other copies available at the time.

For your info: This is one of the greatest favours that Uthman RA did for all Muslims throughout history. We will never be grateful enough to him for this act. Why is that?...

The reason for Uthman RA ordering the burning of other copies is not because they were different... it is because they were the same!

How is that?...

So you see... by doing that act, Uthman RA 'silenced' every opponent of Islam for good.

Hello MIAW

whether the Sanaa manuscript is the oldest or one of the oldest is not the point. Dated between 578 CE and 669 CE it is comparable to the Birmingham Quran which is dated between 568 and 645 CE. The Birmingham Quran however is only two pages while the Sanaa Quran has eighty pages. The real point however is that it is older than Uthmans recension.

In terms of its reliability being related to who wrote it. I don’t see how this is relevant because the Quran is supposed to be a miracle of God recited through the angel Gabriel. as the Quran states about it self -

…”this is a Glorious Quran (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved. S85: 21:22

The manuscript is a palimpsest. This means it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of suras; whereas the lower text contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its suras corresponds to no known quranic order. So because the Quran should be preserved in heaven then there should be absolutely no variances.

Because of Uthman it is impossible for Muslims to know what the Qur’an of Muhammad actually said. Hafiz do not know if they are memorising the correct Quran or not.

It does not make sense to say burning all the copies that were the same was a favour. If they were all the same then why the need to burn them ?

What was Uthman afraid of when he burnt the first copies of the Quran? Because of the differences in the way the Qur'an was being memorized and recited after Muhammad's death and because of the political problems at the time Uthman had to silence all his opponents by destroying all Qurans that were different.

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 01 July 2018 at 3:46pm

Faaiz Rosli wrote:

how about the one in Birmingham University?

The Birmingham and Sanaa Qurans are roughly the same age but the Birmingham one however is only two pages while the Sanaa Quran has eighty eight pages.

Posted By: MIAW
Date Posted: 03 July 2018 at 10:00am

Hi 2Acts,

Don't you ever get dizzy?... you go round and round in circles... I have answered all your questions in the previous post.

2Acts wrote:

... In terms of its reliability being related to who wrote it. I don’t see how this is relevant ...

It is this kind of attitude that has made previous books (e.g. Bible ...etc) lose their reliability.

A written copy of the Qur'an was ALLEGEDLY discovered in an attic here or in a cellar there... Big Deal! Opponents of Islam love to use these 'findings' because it serves their purpose (of attacking the integrity and reliability of Islam)... but when you ask them: Who wrote it? and When exactly?... they say: it's irrelevant.

Thanks to Uthman RA burning all other copies... Any copy found anywhere cannot possibly be from the Prophet's time...

... Because of Uthman it is impossible for Muslims to know what the Qur’an of Muhammad actually said...

Because of Uthman RA it is very easy for Muslims to know what the Qur’an of Muhammad actually said.

It does not make sense to say burning all the copies that were the same was a favour. If they were all the same then why the need to burn them ?

The reason was explained above in my previous post, and I don't want to copy and paste... so I just refer you back to it.

What was Uthman afraid of when he burnt the first copies of the Quran? ...

I have answered it in my previous post... but:

He knew that opponents of Islam would one day say what you are saying... and some weak-minded Muslims (who don't know their religion well) might fall for it and believe them.

There's only ONE Qur'an. It's the Qur'an that I know... along with billions of other Muslims from around the world... and (more importantly) from throughout history all the way to Revelation. Can you say the same about your bible?

Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 14 July 2018 at 7:58pm