Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Jamzmania]

It's your job to present the arguments, not mine to read some amateur web page.

"Now excuse me as I spam you with links and quotes from amateur web pages"

Yeah. How dare he give things like proofs and citations.

I believe I put in exactly one link and one quote.

Usually a citation involves, well, a citation. A reference to something specific to back up a specific claim being made.

[Jochizyd Republic]

"Now excuse me as I spam you with links and quotes from amateur web pages"

Yeah. How dare he give things like proofs and citations.

I believe I put in exactly one link and one quote.

Usually a citation involves, well, a citation. A reference to something specific to back up a specific claim being made.

Which he gave. Denying he did is just arrogant.

[Jamzmania]

I believe I put in exactly one link and one quote.

Usually a citation involves, well, a citation. A reference to something specific to back up a specific claim being made.

Which he gave. Denying he did is just arrogant.

The web page was massively long, hard to read, and overly broad.

[Camaalbakrius]

לקׅ״י

Hello! How are you?

I am doing well. I going to see a family later today to help comfort them from the loss of one of their family members. Aside from that, generally busy but happy I get to live and enjoy another day, Blessed be G-d.

Indeed. I will make sure to keep that family in my prayers

[Camaalbakrius]

So take your sweet time, goddamn it. Your opinion is answered in the article itself. It is as if everyone here would think bad, or consider you lost if you don't read it quick.

It's your job to present the arguments, not mine to read some amateur web page.

I'm a little short on time, but I'm going to translate my own trusted source once later. For now, I can't.

Alright, then.

Why should it? Quran is not a Gospel. Quran is not a biography of Muhammad (saw), the Sunnah is.

The verses you are referring to do not say that he's unable to perform miracles, Allah says that Muhammad (saw) is only a warner because he can't convert others to Islam, no matter how he wants it, it is Allah's job. One does not rule out the other, the Prophets (peace be upon them) from before weren't able to convert people by themselves, either, especially Jesus. This doesn't mean that they were unable to do any miracles.

Because the Quran is instructing Mohammed on what to say. When people ask Mohammed why he performs no miracles, the best answer would probably be "What are you talking about? I've been performing loads of miracles!" Instead, the Quran tells Mohammed to say, "Well, Allah could send down miracles if he wanted to," or otherwise insinuates that Mohammed has not performed any other miracles that could be pointed to.

Except that they told the Pagans they would crush them once their prophet comes, so it was in fact reasoned. Actually, many Jews did, recognize him as a prophet.

Mohammed tried very hard to get the Jews to accept him as a prophet, but he was overall not very successful. I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as crushing the pagans, but my original point was that Mohammed was not from among Israel's brethren, AKA he was not an Israelite, so he could not have fulfilled the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18.

In the vast majority of the cases of the term "brethren" being used in Deuteronomy, it is referring to fellow Israelites. Only twice it is used to describe the Edomites, and in those cases it is specifically noted who they are with the qualifier "the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir." Your article actually provides a link which describes the context of the word "brethren" quite well. Here's a quote that I think is quite compelling:

In Deut 17:15 a very strong statement is given regarding who "brothers" means in the verses in chapter 18:

"Be sure to appoint over you the King the Lord your God chooses. He must be "FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS". Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a "BROTHER ISRAELITE".


Compare these terms with 18:15 -

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me FROM AMONG YOUR OWN BROTHERS. You must listen to him."


Clearly, this verse has much in common with 17:15. Moses did not add 'brother Israelite', because they understood what he was talking about based upon what he had said just a few moments earlier in Chapter 17. The context is the same for both. The future prophet had to be a fellow Israelite.

Therefore, the weight of the evidence for understanding the context - and who actually the "brethren" were, shows clearly that the future prophet had to be from the 12 tribes. Jesus fulfills that requirement, Muhammad does not.

The author's rebuttal to this statement is to just deny the connection between the two verses.

In short: The Jews were given description of Muhammad (saw) in Torah, and Jesus (pbuh) was sent to confirm this, and with him was his Gospel brought, and then Allah told the People of the Gospel (people who had the Gospel when Jesus told them about it) Who said that it was mentioning the modern Jews, either? It never did, unless by "modern" you mean "lived in the times of Muhammad (saw)", but even so, it is not a proof of the Bible being recognized by Allah, some Christians might have still had the Gospel back then, or they had the opportunity to keep it. Allah's own words decisively speak against the idea of the Biblical Gospels being mentioned here:

47 And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

The Gospel, a single gospel that was revealed by Allah (not the 4 Christian gospels or anything of the apocrypha). We all know what the modern Christian gospels are not a God's relevation, but just books written by humans. Hence, the neither of them is not mentioned in the Quran, thus, the Bible is neither mentioned or recognized.

What we now refer to as "the Gospels," used to be referred to as "the Gospel." It's just a difference in words over time, they are the same thing.

One does not rule out the other, as the bits of truth are still in there, it doesn't mean that the whole of it is corrupted, but that in return doesn't mean that it isn't corrupted.

But how do you know which parts are uncorrupted? Oh, they just happen to be the parts that agree with you, even if they only agree with you if you take them out of context, but then you can just say that the context is corrupted!

It just all looks very suspicious. Mohammed can only be found in the Bible through some twisted interpretations of some Biblical verses that are generally understood to not refer to Mohammed but to someone else. Otherwise he is not there. His revelations and laws are very often contrary to the Bible, except in some cases. All the while, Mohammed is going around telling people to just look at the Bible if you want confirmation of his prophethood.

What is the answer to this dilemma? Just say that the Bible is corrupted, except for those very few parts which might agree with Mohammed. It's a cop out.

The evidence that the Bible is not recognized by the Quran is provided by the Muslim scholars. The problem is, you prefer your own interpretation of Quran to ours.

Well if I agreed with their interpretations I wouldn't be debating the topic.

The Gospel means "The good news." Generally, we refer to each of the four Gospels as, well, Gospels, but overall, all four books come together to make the Gospel (singular) as well.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Yes, I did.

I am still going. The internet is a bad imam.

???
It's an Islamic website showing Qur'anic and Hadith proof.

He got a very big and broad interprentation of certain Quranic verses then.

Nowhere in the Quran it is forbidden to witness a baptism.

[Herskerstad]

???
It's an Islamic website showing Qur'anic and Hadith proof.

He got a very big and broad interprentation of certain Quranic verses then.

Nowhere in the Quran it is forbidden to witness a baptism.

Oh if by witness you mean research, observe, ect then I would by no means pose any argument against it.

By attending and being happy for, or in other words laying weight to the event? I can see how some figures could argue that reaches into greater Shirk territory. The moral issue would be similar if a person for example was invited to go to a gay wedding. Now, there are of course degrees, encouraging which makes one partially responsible, reluctantly going to which only criticism I could pose would be a lack of spine, in a neutral sense attending without celebrating or feeling happy for this to take place I would place into the research/observer category. I think your position as you've announced it is, and correct me freely if I am being inaccurate here. That God works across religions, and while Islam is the best way you know of, you'd see it as workable and even beneficial, for a person to go from say atheism to the RCC and go by their creeds.

Not entirely sure where I'd place that. I doubt any of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence would endorse it. Ill intent was never in question and indeed far from it.

[Camaalbakrius]

What do the different branches of Islam imply? By that I mean, what is the difference between a Qu'ranist and a Sunni?

I have genuinely no idea, i am just wondering because I saw the poll and wanted to ask y'all since, you know, you are Muslims

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

He got a very big and broad interprentation of certain Quranic verses then.

Nowhere in the Quran it is forbidden to witness a baptism.

Oh if by witness you mean research, observe, ect then I would by no means pose any argument against it.

By attending and being happy for, or in other words laying weight to the event? I can see how some figures could argue that reaches into greater Shirk territory. The moral issue would be similar if a person for example was invited to go to a gay wedding. Now, there are of course degrees, encouraging which makes one partially responsible, reluctantly going to which only criticism I could pose would be a lack of spine, in a neutral sense attending without celebrating or feeling happy for this to take place I would place into the research/observer category. I think your position as you've announced it is, and correct me freely if I am being inaccurate here. That God works across religions, and while Islam is the best way you know of, you'd see it as workable and even beneficial, for a person to go from say atheism to the RCC and go by their creeds.

Not entirely sure where I'd place that. I doubt any of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence would endorse it. Ill intent was never in question and indeed far from it.

Point is the intention of a person and how a person believes. Not the dogmatic thinking of a religious institution one joins.

What do the different branches of Islam imply? By that I mean, what is the difference between a Qu'ranist and a Sunni?

I have genuinely no idea, i am just wondering because I saw the poll and wanted to ask y'all since, you know, you are Muslims

A Quranist follows the Quran as sole authority in Shari'a (applying Islam in daily life)
Mainstream Muslims follow both Quran and Sunnah (actions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (saws)) as Shari'a

Sunnis are the mainstream Muslims with 80% of Muslims being Sunni. They see Abu Bakr as the first Caliph.
Shia's are the minority with around 20% of all Muslims. They see Ali ibn Ali Talib as the first Caliph.
Theological difference are, but not limited to, allowing temporary marriage, viewing some of the Ahlulbayt (family of Muhammed) as inaffible.

[Kubumba Tribe]

What do the different branches of Islam imply? By that I mean, what is the difference between a Qu'ranist and a Sunni?

I have genuinely no idea, i am just wondering because I saw the poll and wanted to ask y'all since, you know, you are Muslims

Put what Caliphate of the Netherlands said, and add it to the fact that sects in Al-Islam are forbidden for Muslims to adhere to.

[Camaalbakrius]

What do the different branches of Islam imply? By that I mean, what is the difference between a Qu'ranist and a Sunni?

I have genuinely no idea, i am just wondering because I saw the poll and wanted to ask y'all since, you know, you are Muslims

Put what Caliphate of the Netherlands said, and add it to the fact that sects in Al-Islam are forbidden for Muslims to adhere to.

I see. Ok, thanks

[Kubumba Tribe]

Put what Caliphate of the Netherlands said, and add it to the fact that sects in Al-Islam are forbidden for Muslims to adhere to.

I see. Ok, thanks

Your welcome

[Camaalbakrius]

I see. Ok, thanks

Your welcome

It's quite similar to Christian denominations, which was why I was interested.

[Free Rhenish States]

So take your sweet time, goddamn it. Your opinion is answered in the article itself. It is as if everyone here would think bad, or consider you lost if you don't read it quick.

It's your job to present the arguments, not mine to read some amateur web page.

I presented the arguments, you refusing to read them is just an excuse. Oh, I wouldn't call it "amateur" just by the sheer size of it.

Because the Quran is instructing Mohammed on what to say. When people ask Mohammed why he performs no miracles, the best answer would probably be "What are you talking about? I've been performing loads of miracles!" Instead, the Quran tells Mohammed to say, "Well, Allah could send down miracles if he wanted to," or otherwise insinuates that Mohammed has not performed any other miracles that could be pointed to.

He did perform a miracle that is mentioned in the Quran. Splitting of the moon.

What we now refer to as "the Gospels," used to be referred to as "the Gospel." It's just a difference in words over time, they are the same thing.

The Gospels were written by humans. The Gospel to Jesus wasn't, therefore, the Gospels couldn't be mentioned here as Allah would never mention a human-written book(s) as a holy writing, it is simply not from Allah.

But how do you know which parts are uncorrupted? Oh, they just happen to be the parts that agree with you, even if they only agree with you if you take them out of context, but then you can just say that the context is corrupted!

It just all looks very suspicious. Mohammed can only be found in the Bible through some twisted interpretations of some Biblical verses that are generally understood to not refer to Mohammed but to someone else. Otherwise he is not there. His revelations and laws are very often contrary to the Bible, except in some cases. All the while, Mohammed is going around telling people to just look at the Bible if you want confirmation of his prophethood.

What is the answer to this dilemma? Just say that the Bible is corrupted, except for those very few parts which might agree with Mohammed. It's a cop out.

There is no cop out, what in the Torah does not contradict the Quran is uncorrupted. It's simple. But even if the whole of the Torah contradicted Islam, which it doesn't, or if the Bible didn't exist at all, this would in no way decrease the truthfulness of the Quran. We simply ignore these books because it isn't something we care about.
The Bible is nowhere to be mentioned in the Quran, and thinking that a Gospel sent to Jesus is somehow the modern 4 Gospels included in the Bible here is wishful thinking.

I will concede with your interpretations of the Torah, because I lack the time to argue about this. We will talk about it after I translate my article.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Assalamu 'Alaikum wa RaHmatullahi wa Baraktihuh
Wassup?

[Camaalbakrius]

It's your job to present the arguments, not mine to read some amateur web page.

I presented the arguments, you refusing to read them is just an excuse. Oh, I wouldn't call it "amateur" just by the sheer size of it.

Because the Quran is instructing Mohammed on what to say. When people ask Mohammed why he performs no miracles, the best answer would probably be "What are you talking about? I've been performing loads of miracles!" Instead, the Quran tells Mohammed to say, "Well, Allah could send down miracles if he wanted to," or otherwise insinuates that Mohammed has not performed any other miracles that could be pointed to.

He did perform a miracle that is mentioned in the Quran. Splitting of the moon.

What we now refer to as "the Gospels," used to be referred to as "the Gospel." It's just a difference in words over time, they are the same thing.

The Gospels were written by humans. The Gospel to Jesus wasn't, therefore, the Gospels couldn't be mentioned here as Allah would never mention a human-written book(s) as a holy writing, it is simply not from Allah.

But how do you know which parts are uncorrupted? Oh, they just happen to be the parts that agree with you, even if they only agree with you if you take them out of context, but then you can just say that the context is corrupted!

It just all looks very suspicious. Mohammed can only be found in the Bible through some twisted interpretations of some Biblical verses that are generally understood to not refer to Mohammed but to someone else. Otherwise he is not there. His revelations and laws are very often contrary to the Bible, except in some cases. All the while, Mohammed is going around telling people to just look at the Bible if you want confirmation of his prophethood.

What is the answer to this dilemma? Just say that the Bible is corrupted, except for those very few parts which might agree with Mohammed. It's a cop out.

There is no cop out, what in the Torah does not contradict the Quran is uncorrupted. It's simple. But even if the whole of the Torah contradicted Islam, which it doesn't, or if the Bible didn't exist at all, this would in no way decrease the truthfulness of the Quran. We simply ignore these books because it isn't something we care about.
The Bible is nowhere to be mentioned in the Quran, and thinking that a Gospel sent to Jesus is somehow the modern 4 Gospels included in the Bible here is wishful thinking.

I will concede with your interpretations of the Torah, because I lack the time to argue about this. We will talk about it after I translate my article.

Mohammed split the moon? What does it mean by "split?" (I've never read the Qu'ran, so I am in no way an expert on this)

[Aelex]

The Gospels were written by humans. The Gospel to Jesus wasn't, therefore, the Gospels couldn't be mentioned here as Allah would never mention a human-written book(s) as a holy writing, it is simply not from Allah.

Leaving the rest aside as I don't want to insert myself in this ongoing argument, there never was such a thing as a "Gospel of Jesus" (as I assume the "to" is a typo) and the very idea that there was a falsification of the early christians text is laughable at best.

[Free Rhenish States]

The Gospels were written by humans. The Gospel to Jesus wasn't, therefore, the Gospels couldn't be mentioned here as Allah would never mention a human-written book(s) as a holy writing, it is simply not from Allah.

Leaving the rest aside as I don't want to insert myself in this ongoing argument, there never was such a thing as a "Gospel of Jesus" (as I assume the "to" is a typo) and the very idea that there was a falsification of the early christians text is laughable at best.

There was, according to the Quran, which you have never had read.
And everything the Quran says is right.
Hence, we believe it did exist.

[Aelex]

There was, according to the Quran, which you have never had read.
And everything the Quran says is right.
Hence, we believe it did exist.

I read part of it (of it's translation in French to be more precise so "no true Coran" I guess). Nothing exceptional there.
And apart from the fact that this is contradicted by basically every archaeological and historical proofs we have, do you seriously expect me to accept this argument as a valid one?
"This book say that this other book existed and I hereby declare that this first book is right therefore this second book indeed existed!"
This is circular reasoning at its best.

[Herskerstad]

Point is the intention of a person and how a person believes. Not the dogmatic thinking of a religious institution one joins.

Even with polytheists?

[Camaalbakrius]

Leaving the rest aside as I don't want to insert myself in this ongoing argument, there never was such a thing as a "Gospel of Jesus" (as I assume the "to" is a typo) and the very idea that there was a falsification of the early christians text is laughable at best.

There was, according to the Quran, which you have never had read.
And everything the Quran says is right.
Hence, we believe it did exist.

You believe everything the Qu'ran says is right. I believe that everything the Bible says is right. But one cannot (in a logical conversation) present religious beliefs as logical proven fact and immediately claim that something is factually falsified by the author because your books says it. You can believe that the early christian texts were falsified, but that doesn't make it scientific fact. I believe that the Qu'ran is not correct. I admit, I have never read it, but I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, therefore, according to my beliefs, the Qu'ran is not correct because if Jesus is the Son of God, there would be no need for prophets. I'm not asserting that the Qu'ran is wrong becuse everything the Bible says is scientific truth, (Many can argue otherwise) but because I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I believe the Qu'ran is wrong.

[Free Rhenish States]

There was, according to the Quran, which you have never had read.
And everything the Quran says is right.
Hence, we believe it did exist.

I read part of it (of it's translation in French to be more precise so "no true Coran" I guess). Nothing exceptional there.
And apart from the fact that this is contradicted by basically every archaeological and historical proofs we have, do you seriously expect me to accept this argument as a valid one?
"This book say that this other book existed and I hereby declare that this first book is right therefore this second book indeed existed!"
This is circular reasoning at its best.

Contradicted by basically every archaeological and historical proofs we have? Are you joking? You don't even have the original Jesus´s words in Aramaic, nor do you have any text earlier than from the third sentury. You don´t even know who actually wrote the Gospels, since there's no elementary chain of transmitters, in the Sunnah, we can trace every saying to every person, the Gospels lack anything of the sort. Me? I honestly don't care what do you want to accept as an argument, Aellex, you asked a question and you received an answer for your question. Nothing more, nothing less, and if you don't like it, then there's no point in arguing with us to begin with.

There was, according to the Quran, which you have never had read.
And everything the Quran says is right.
Hence, we believe it did exist.

You believe everything the Qu'ran says is right. I believe that everything the Bible says is right. But one cannot (in a logical conversation) present religious beliefs as logical proven fact and immediately claim that something is factually falsified by the author because your books says it. You can believe that the early christian texts were falsified, but that doesn't make it scientific fact. I believe that the Qu'ran is not correct. I admit, I have never read it, but I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, therefore, according to my beliefs, the Qu'ran is not correct because if Jesus is the Son of God, there would be no need for prophets. I'm not asserting that the Qu'ran is wrong becuse everything the Bible says is scientific truth, (Many can argue otherwise) but because I believe Jesus is the Son of God, I believe the Qu'ran is wrong.

So you have never read a book you are voicing an opinion on.
Great.
If you want my honest opinion, the last time we questioned the Christians, they lost. Salus Maior left half of the questions unanswered and conceded, whereas the Smith Protectorate continued discussion with me, but didn´t present any valuable refution (and left the argument), and left. I can gladly point out every single point that they have not answered, just in case if you are willing to answer them. Personally, I'm arguing with a friend of mine, an Russian Orthodox Christian, for a few days already. He already admitted that the Bible is in no way from God (and that it contradicts itself) and that the Trinity is illogical and is trying to present illogicality as a proof of the biblical truthfulness. He even told me about a concept that says that Mary was a Mother of God (Paganism, a God cannot be born), astagfirullah. Christianity is a dead field for one to back up logically.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Christianity is a dead field for one to back up logically.

Modern Christianity.

[Free Rhenish States]

Christianity is a dead field for one to back up logically.

Modern Christianity.

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

[Herskerstad]

Modern Christianity.

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

Which event extinguished the Islam of Jesus?