Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A Superbly Flawed Quran..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
    Actually, NO Christian is making such assumptions that you are talking about (below), siam. Its just you making misplaced presumptions again, about what you assume of the Christians!

    The church councils from Nicea – 325 AD, Ephesus – 431 AD, etc which all predate Muhamed and the invention of 6th century Islam NEVER endorsed, confessed or taught in any measure, Mary-worship. Giving her ‘titles’ is totally something else, and never amounted to praying to her in worship by the orthodox Christian church.

    So sura 5/116 is already wrong in its error to assume that Jesus taught or said to His disciples to “worship me (Jesus) and my mother (Mary) as two gods besides God/Allah..”

    Who are these people that the Koran refers to, other than the followers of Jesus Christ as 5/116 EXPLICITLY addresses? Are they muslims, Jews, Hindus or Zoroastrians??

    But there isn’t any command or injunction taught by the Bible and canonical Gospels to worship Mary, unlike what 5/116 wrongly and falsely assumes!

    The Koran does erroneously and grossly misrepresent Christian and Biblical orthodoxy at THIS point.

    The Holy Trinity is about God “the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit”.


    Your failure and inability to grasp or understand this truth about God does NOT invalidate the Trinity at all!

    As to the worship of Jesus Christ the Son of God, I already showed previously – how the Lord Jesus accepted worship from His followers in John 20 v.28. Like, from Thomas who addressed Jesus as “my Lord and my GOD”. If Jesus was not divine and human in Himself, He would have repudiated such worship from Thomas and scolded or rebuked him for blasphemy and breaching monotheism. But Jesus did no such thing.

    Instead, Jesus willingly accepted, welcomed and endorsed the worship given to Him by Thomas and the other disciples.

    The divine nature of Jesus the Son of God is inherent in the canonical Gospels. All His closest and earliest companions acknowledged it.
    There is no need for researchers to learn anything substantially thematic from the Koran about the authentic Jesus Christ. It came 700 hundred years AFTER the FACT of the historical Jesus Christ.

    The canonical Gospels are far and away much more reliable than the Koran to learn from and discover the real and truly authentic identity and nature of Jesus Christ.

    As the historian and scholar J.J. Saunders said about the Quran:

    “Its pattern and form, doubtful and questionable sources, together with the uncertain and questionable dates of their surahs, make the Quran a most UNRELIABLE source of historical facts.”

    JJ Saunders, A History of Medieval Islam, (London: Routledge, 1972), 18-20.

    So, in terms of facts of history, many objective and intellectual reputable scholars have already rejected the Koran as a historical or reliable source in any measure.
    In surah 5 (as in others) the Quran addresses a diverse audience from the Nasariya (translated as "Christian") to "the people of the Book", to "the Believers" ....etc...etc....

    The Quran is not a history book---it does not claim to be a history book---historians that look to the Quran as a source of history/historical information do so of their own discretion.

    Comment


    • #32
      @ Dan
      According to your interpretation of S5v116 --- the Quran is in error, I see differently....

      According to you---John 20 v28, Thomas is claiming Jesus to be God...(Not something Jesus himself claims).

      26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

      28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

      But a non-Christian could interpret it as an exclamation of surprise by Thomas....?----such as when a person sets off his fire alarm because of a smoking kettle forgotton on a stove ---and he says "OMG!" ---it does not mean he thinks the kettle is God---obviously.

      Comment


      • #33
        You comments once again expose your shallow understanding of the background of scripture, totally.

        Thomas was a Jewish follower and disciple of Jesus. As a Jew, he would never do the absurd idea that you and other muslim propogandists have thoughtlessly suggested! To exclaim something like Oh my God / OMG! This is nothing but a common but useless, red herring deflection of the glaring truth in John 20:28-29.

        Every Jew in Jesus' day knows the Ten Commandments from very young. The Second Commandment declares:

        Exodus 20:7 (ESV) : "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord WILL NOT hold him guiltless who takes HIS NAME IM VAIN."

        No observant and spiritual Jew would ever say "OMG!" Because that is using the divine Name that Judaism venerates and violates the Second Command of the Ten Commandments.

        Thomas was declaring Jesus as His divine master and Lord/God incarnate.

        The context itself also, disallows your thoughtless misinterpretation and misrepresention of an exclamation by Apostle Thomas. Thomas was NOT surprised according to Jesus Christ in the passage. Rather Thomas was expressing his faithful belief and conviction in Jesus Christ as His Lord and God.

        Jesus blessed Thomas and the rest of humanity who would in the future believe in Jesus as God, despite not seeing with their physical eyes that Jesus is so!










        Originally posted by siam View Post
        @ Dan
        According to your interpretation of S5v116 --- the Quran is in error, I see differently....

        According to you---John 20 v28, Thomas is claiming Jesus to be God...(Not something Jesus himself claims).

        26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

        28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

        But a non-Christian could interpret it as an exclamation of surprise by Thomas....?----such as when a person sets off his fire alarm because of a smoking kettle forgotton on a stove ---and he says "OMG!" ---it does not mean he thinks the kettle is God---obviously.

        Comment


        • #34
          And I agree the Koran cannot be a history book. Because it is too full of historical errors and falsehoods to be regarded as a source for factual and reliable history.

          An example of a historical fact the Koran denies and gets wrong, is the Crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago.

          The overwhelming numbers of reputable scholars, historians and scientific researchers, do not hesitate for a moment to acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion, over 2,000 years ago outside Jerusalem.

          Only sura 4/157 is naively and factually blind to say the opposite about Christ's demise 2000 years ago.

          Jesus Christ already foretold His death when he was on earth 2,000 years ago, in Matthew 16:21 onwards.

          Yes the Quran is a historically unreliable and a blind to the facts source.

          Surah al kahf in the koran then makes the stupendous claim of Dhul qarnyn making a "wall of iron in the mountains" to prevent Got and Magog from passing through!

          Until now, No such wall has ever been found despite the Koran saying it's somewhere in the mountains!

          Its just a myth that the Koran promotes, just like the denial of the Crucifixion of Jesus 2000 years ago.

          And yet you have suggested that "researchers can learn something new" about Jesus by studying the Koran..

          I find that quite amusing and laughable.

          They may find new myths and fairy tales about Jesus Christ and many other things. But not facts and historically reliable information that are verifiable by scientific and historical inquiry and critical thinking.

          May God help you, Siam.







          Originally posted by siam View Post
          In surah 5 (as in others) the Quran addresses a diverse audience from the Nasariya (translated as "Christian") to "the people of the Book", to "the Believers" ....etc...etc....

          The Quran is not a history book---it does not claim to be a history book---historians that look to the Quran as a source of history/historical information do so of their own discretion.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
            And I agree the Koran cannot be a history book. Because it is too full of historical errors and falsehoods to be regarded as a source for factual and reliable history.

            An example of a historical fact the Koran denies and gets wrong, is the Crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago.

            The overwhelming numbers of reputable scholars, historians and scientific researchers, do not hesitate for a moment to acknowledge the fact that Jesus Christ died by crucifixion, over 2,000 years ago outside Jerusalem.

            Only sura 4/157 is naively and factually blind to say the opposite about Christ's demise 2000 years ago.

            Jesus Christ already foretold His death when he was on earth 2,000 years ago, in Matthew 16:21 onwards.

            Yes the Quran is a historically unreliable and a blind to the facts source.

            Surah al kahf in the koran then makes the stupendous claim of Dhul qarnyn making a "wall of iron in the mountains" to prevent Got and Magog from passing through!

            Until now, No such wall has ever been found despite the Koran saying it's somewhere in the mountains!

            Its just a myth that the Koran promotes, just like the denial of the Crucifixion of Jesus 2000 years ago.

            And yet you have suggested that "researchers can learn something new" about Jesus by studying the Koran..

            I find that quite amusing and laughable.

            They may find new myths and fairy tales about Jesus Christ and many other things. But not facts and historically reliable information that are verifiable by scientific and historical inquiry and critical thinking.

            May God help you, Siam.
            So you are claiming that your New Testament is a history book and not about theology?
            The Quran is not about history therefore the stories it uses for the purpose of elucidating its message need not be historical or factual. The validity/authenticity of the Quran does not rest upon your claims of historical or scientific "facts".
            For the Quranic/Islamic paradigm---the crucifixion plays no part in its theology. Since God forgives those who ask for forgiveness---neither original sin nor crucifixion is needed. Therefore, to Muslims, it is irrelevant if it happened or not.

            Comment


            • #36
              We do not build Christian theology out of thin air. But based on the words and actions of Christ Himself said and did, for example he foretold His impending death in Matthew 16 - 2000 years ago, and in Matt.20:28 that the "Son of Man came to sacrifice or give his life as a ransom for many." These facts Christ declared and documented 600-700 years before the Koran was produced.

              It's tragically nice for muslims like you Siam, to confirm that you believe in islam & the koran not because of the facts, but in spite of no facts and actual falsehoods mentioned in your scripture. So you can believe the koran talks about embryology, sperm production and the iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn despite these all being falsehoods scientifically and historically! The equivalent of fairy-tales and fables.

              Just because muhamed said the Koran came down from God to him so it must be true and factual...LOL! That's forcing people to believe even though theres no convincing facts to support believing in them - sheer blind faith.

              What a joke really.. tell us about that iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn in some mountains that's taught in surah al-kahf (18)! Is it real? Are there verifiable photos or at least some archaeological evidence to back up the claims? So far there's nothing! Just an imaginary fable taught in sura 18:95-97.

              Dr. William Campbell has already exposed and debunked the many fabulous fairy tales in your Quran, like the ones above, in his book "The Bible, the Quran and Science" :-

              https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html




              Originally posted by siam View Post
              So you are claiming that your New Testament is a history book and not about theology?
              The Quran is not about history therefore the stories it uses for the purpose of elucidating its message need not be historical or factual. The validity/authenticity of the Quran does not rest upon your claims of historical or scientific "facts".
              For the Quranic/Islamic paradigm---the crucifixion plays no part in its theology. Since God forgives those who ask for forgiveness---neither original sin nor crucifixion is needed. Therefore, to Muslims, it is irrelevant if it happened or not.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                We do not build Christian theology out of thin air. But based on the words and actions of Christ Himself said and did, for example he foretold His impending death in Matthew 16 - 2000 years ago, and in Matt.20:28 that the "Son of Man came to sacrifice or give his life as a ransom for many." These facts Christ declared and documented 600-700 years before the Koran was produced.

                It's tragically nice for muslims like you Siam, to confirm that you believe in islam & the koran not because of the facts, but in spite of no facts and actual falsehoods mentioned in your scripture. So you can believe the koran talks about embryology, sperm production and the iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn despite these all being falsehoods scientifically and historically! The equivalent of fairy-tales and fables.

                Just because muhamed said the Koran came down from God to him so it must be true and factual...LOL! That's forcing people to believe even though theres no convincing facts to support believing in them - sheer blind faith.

                What a joke really.. tell us about that iron wall made by Dhulqarnyn in some mountains that's taught in surah al-kahf (18)! Is it real? Are there verifiable photos or at least some archaeological evidence to back up the claims? So far there's nothing! Just an imaginary fable taught in sura 18:95-97.

                Dr. William Campbell has already exposed and debunked the many fabulous fairy tales in your Quran, like the ones above, in his book "The Bible, the Quran and Science" :-

                https://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/contents.html
                "We do not build Christian theology out of thin air. "---that might be a matter of opinion. Foretelling the future may be important for a Christian as a criteria but not for a Non-Christian.
                It is somewhat ignorant and condescending to assume that the criteria Christians use for the validation of their scripture should also be the criteria that Non-Christians must use. Muslims have our own criteria that is used to authenticate/validate Quran.

                So far in the discussion I have indulged the premise that the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) wrote/authored the Quran at a particular point in space/time. However, this is not the starting presumption by Muslim. The Quran is God's words/message and space/time (past, present, future...location...etc) is irrelevant to God. It is only relevant to human beings understanding of the world. Therefore, any insignificant allusions to actual events, locations, names/labels etc....are simply tools to enhance/elucidate the message...and are not the main criteria which Muslims use to validate/authenticate the Quran.

                Any stories used by the Quran to elucidate the message are just that---stories. It would be ignorant to arbitrarily claim these stories as"facts"---they are not "facts" they are stories. The legend of "King Arthur" is a story---it may or may not have been based on an actual character---but that is besides the point. Likewise, Quranic stories are another tool that is used to teach the Message (message=There is only ONE God). In one Quranic story, there are talking ants......ants may or may not have a system of communication---but that is besides the point. Its a story.

                From the Muslim perspective, the audience of the Quran is ALL humanity---- past, present and future and in all geographical locations. This also includes the audience present in Mecca and Medina at the space/time period of revelation.

                Comment


                • #38
                  You also make a false accusation from ignorance and condescension, that these are "Christian" scholars I quoted from.

                  Saunders did not write from a religious perspective when he critiqued the koran. Neither was he writing as a Christian as you wrongly assume. In fact, it is doubtful if he was a Christian at all. Don't assume that just because the scholar, historian or researcher has a western name, they MUST be Christians somehow.

                  They are writing from a purely historical and objective angle. To evaluate the development of the Koran historically and critically in a unbiased an open manner. Why are muslims so scared of open scrutiny of their scripture?

                  If the Koran fails such critical and open examination then many if not most of its tenets are called into question and are dubious bases for faith.

                  Many other NON-Christian historians and reputable research scholars like Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Dr.Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenburg etc, all question the historical and factual value of your koran. They are not scrutinizing the koran from a Christian or any other religious viewpoint at all but purely from factual and critical inquiry.

                  You expect humanity to buy into the closed system of the Koran and islam just based on the polemics and propoganda it peddles in your scriptures? Without being scrutinised factually or objectively? That is just irrational and illogical.

                  In fact, even muslim scholars like Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun have also criticised the Koran for numerous irregularities and inconsistencies. So don't blame the Christians or Jews for a superbly flawed Quran.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                    You also make a false accusation from ignorance and condescension, that these are "Christian" scholars I quoted from.

                    Saunders did not write from a religious perspective when he critiqued the koran. Neither was he writing as a Christian as you wrongly assume. In fact, it is doubtful if he was a Christian at all. Don't assume that just because the scholar, historian or researcher has a western name, they MUST be Christians somehow.

                    They are writing from a purely historical and objective angle. To evaluate the development of the Koran historically and critically in a unbiased an open manner. Why are muslims so scared of open scrutiny of their scripture?

                    If the Koran fails such critical and open examination then many if not most of its tenets are called into question and are dubious bases for faith.

                    Many other NON-Christian historians and reputable research scholars like Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, Dr.Gerd Puin and Christoph Luxenburg etc, all question the historical and factual value of your koran. They are not scrutinizing the koran from a Christian or any other religious viewpoint at all but purely from factual and critical inquiry.

                    You expect humanity to buy into the closed system of the Koran and islam just based on the polemics and propoganda it peddles in your scriptures? Without being scrutinised factually or objectively? That is just irrational and illogical.

                    In fact, even muslim scholars like Ali Dashti and Ibn Khaldun have also criticised the Koran for numerous irregularities and inconsistencies. So don't blame the Christians or Jews for a superbly flawed Quran.
                    What I meant was that Christianity and its value judgements and criterias should not be used as some default blueprint for Non-Christian traditions. Likewise---Western academic "traditions" are not the default blueprint for knowledge production of Non-Western religio-philosophical developments and trajectories. This type of prejudice---often labelled "Orientalism", has created space for some very shoddy "scholarship" in the West.

                    Scholarship such as that of Cook and Crone's "Hagarism"---which these authors themselves eventually rejected as well as the wider academia.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism
                    Hagarism begins with the premise that Western historical scholarship on the beginnings of Islam should be based on contemporary historical, archaeological and philological data, as is done for the study of Judaism and Christianity, rather than Islamic traditions and later Arabic writings. The tradition expresses dogma, and tells historically irreconcilable and anachronistic accounts of the community's past. By relying on contemporary historical, archaeological and philological evidence, stressing non-Muslim sources, the authors attempt to reconstruct and present what they argue is a more historically accurate account of Islam's origins.

                    ...and Luxumberg is ridiculed by scholars/academia

                    Gerd Puin is part of a movement in Western Academia called "Revisionism" in which Muslim/Islamic sources are discarded/ignored and only sources hostile to Islam are looked at to form speculative thesis on the origins of Islam. Such research is not necessarily wrong, if conducted to high standards of scholarship and solid research, and transparent to its biased presumptions. However, it is often based more on speculation than research---which dents its calibre of scholarship.
                    One example is Tom Hollands "Islam: the untold story" based on his book "In the Shadow of the Sword".
                    https://vimeo.com/79051482

                    Shoddy scholarship cannot impress or convince---particularly since it is the Quran itself which advises against blind belief and invites and challenges its audience to scrutinize it. The Islamic understanding of Faith (Iman) = is the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at a heartfelt conviction. Therefore, Muslims have critically studied the Quran from early on.

                    In Islam, there is only one major tenet---God is One. The rest is ethico-moral philosophy on a variety of subjects from international relationships to marital relationships, business, economics, warfare, manners, rights and responsibilities, law and Justice...etc....etc...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The same accusations u alleged about Christianity can very well be levelled upon islam and the Quran with 100% justification, siam.

                      It's quite duplicitous and hypocritical of you to condemn what u label as "Christianity and it's value judgements.." and not to be used as "some default blueprint for non-Christian traditions."

                      You are making rather baseless but fanatical accusations against scholars who are not even Christians and against the Christian faith itself.

                      When it is a lot more worse in Islam, which only emerged 700 years after Christianity, while pre-islamic Christians had no knowledge of muhamad's religion in their times.

                      Through the koran's many polemical attacks and anti-Christian statements, it spews its intolerance and vehement xenophobia against both orthodox and heterodox Christianity at the relevant time.

                      Sura 6/101 - "How can God have a Son when he doesn't have a wife."

                      Sura 18/4 - Muhamed was on a mission in this world to "warn those who say that God has a Son."

                      Sura 72/3 - Allah has not taken " a wife not a son," and that the foolish people say (believe) so. They - are labelled as - are foolish, exaggerators and blasphemors!

                      WHO are the ones who predominantly declare their belief that Jesus is the Son of God in muhamad's time?

                      Christians of course! Even mohd was fully into this and discussed this particular topic with the Christians visiting from Najran - the Son of God. Sura 3: 45 - 65.

                      Then, sura 5/116 - the gross misrepresention of the Holy Trinity. As "Father, Mother and Son" gods.

                      Sura 61/6 - claiming that mohd or "ahmad" was supposedly mentioned in the Bible/Gospel.

                      When muslims or mohd could not prove that, the "People of the Book" - Christians and Jews were blatantly accused of "changing the scriptures" - sura 2/79, like for instance, removing references to muhamed in the Bible!

                      (Actually, there is absolutely nothing in both the OT or the NT that refers to Muhamed either directly or indirectly!)

                      Truth be told, all the above are just some of the polemical value judgments that islam, then Koran and obviously, muslims themselves follow and on many occasions and regularly vilify both Christianity and Christians.

                      Causing muslims to view us, the Bible and the canonical Gospels with prejudice, baseless suspicions and with bad jaundiced eyes.

                      Your claim that so-called Christian scholars adhering to "prejudice, often called Orientalism" towards non-western ideas is disingenuous and is only a red herring.

                      Because common muslims themselves - not just the islamic scholars or muallims, are brainwashed every day by the verses from the quran like the ones above.

                      That is prejudice of the worst kind. Emanating from the grassroots and poisoning the minds of lay muslims from a very early age. And pre-judging Christians and Biblical Christianity from the poisoned source - the Koran.




                      Originally posted by siam View Post
                      What I meant was that Christianity and its value judgements and criterias should not be used as some default blueprint for Non-Christian traditions. Likewise---Western academic "traditions" are not the default blueprint for knowledge production of Non-Western religio-philosophical developments and trajectories. This type of prejudice---often labelled "Orientalism", has created space for some very shoddy "scholarship" in the West.

                      Scholarship such as that of Cook and Crone's "Hagarism"---which these authors themselves eventually rejected as well as the wider academia.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism
                      Hagarism begins with the premise that Western historical scholarship on the beginnings of Islam should be based on contemporary historical, archaeological and philological data, as is done for the study of Judaism and Christianity, rather than Islamic traditions and later Arabic writings. The tradition expresses dogma, and tells historically irreconcilable and anachronistic accounts of the community's past. By relying on contemporary historical, archaeological and philological evidence, stressing non-Muslim sources, the authors attempt to reconstruct and present what they argue is a more historically accurate account of Islam's origins.

                      ...and Luxumberg is ridiculed by scholars/academia

                      Gerd Puin is part of a movement in Western Academia called "Revisionism" in which Muslim/Islamic sources are discarded/ignored and only sources hostile to Islam are looked at to form speculative thesis on the origins of Islam. Such research is not necessarily wrong, if conducted to high standards of scholarship and solid research, and transparent to its biased presumptions. However, it is often based more on speculation than research---which dents its calibre of scholarship.
                      One example is Tom Hollands "Islam: the untold story" based on his book "In the Shadow of the Sword".
                      https://vimeo.com/79051482

                      Shoddy scholarship cannot impress or convince---particularly since it is the Quran itself which advises against blind belief and invites and challenges its audience to scrutinize it. The Islamic understanding of Faith (Iman) = is the use of ones intellect and reason to arrive at a heartfelt conviction. Therefore, Muslims have critically studied the Quran from early on.

                      In Islam, there is only one major tenet---God is One. The rest is ethico-moral philosophy on a variety of subjects from international relationships to marital relationships, business, economics, warfare, manners, rights and responsibilities, law and Justice...etc....etc...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                        The same accusations u alleged about Christianity can very well be levelled upon islam and the Quran with 100% justification, siam.
                        It's quite duplicitous and hypocritical of you to condemn what u label as "Christianity and it's value judgements.." and not to be used as "some default blueprint for non-Christian traditions."
                        You are making rather baseless but fanatical accusations against scholars who are not even Christians and against the Christian faith itself.
                        When it is a lot more worse in Islam, which only emerged 700 years after Christianity, while pre-islamic Christians had no knowledge of muhamad's religion in their times.
                        Through the koran's many polemical attacks and anti-Christian statements, it spews its intolerance and vehement xenophobia against both orthodox and heterodox Christianity at the relevant time.
                        Sura 6/101 - "How can God have a Son when he doesn't have a wife."
                        Sura 18/4 - Muhamed was on a mission in this world to "warn those who say that God has a Son."
                        Sura 72/3 - Allah has not taken " a wife not a son," and that the foolish people say (believe) so. They - are labelled as - are foolish, exaggerators and blasphemors!
                        WHO are the ones who predominantly declare their belief that Jesus is the Son of God in muhamad's time?
                        Christians of course! Even mohd was fully into this and discussed this particular topic with the Christians visiting from Najran - the Son of God. Sura 3: 45 - 65.
                        Then, sura 5/116 - the gross misrepresention of the Holy Trinity. As "Father, Mother and Son" gods.
                        Sura 61/6 - claiming that mohd or "ahmad" was supposedly mentioned in the Bible/Gospel.
                        When muslims or mohd could not prove that, the "People of the Book" - Christians and Jews were blatantly accused of "changing the scriptures" - sura 2/79, like for instance, removing references to muhamed in the Bible!
                        (Actually, there is absolutely nothing in both the OT or the NT that refers to Muhamed either directly or indirectly!)
                        Truth be told, all the above are just some of the polemical value judgments that islam, then Koran and obviously, muslims themselves follow and on many occasions and regularly vilify both Christianity and Christians.
                        Causing muslims to view us, the Bible and the canonical Gospels with prejudice, baseless suspicions and with bad jaundiced eyes.
                        Your claim that so-called Christian scholars adhering to "prejudice, often called Orientalism" towards non-western ideas is disingenuous and is only a red herring.
                        Because common muslims themselves - not just the islamic scholars or muallims, are brainwashed every day by the verses from the quran like the ones above.
                        That is prejudice of the worst kind. Emanating from the grassroots and poisoning the minds of lay muslims from a very early age. And pre-judging Christians and Biblical Christianity from the poisoned source - the Koran.
                        Toxic prejudice is bad and all humanity suffers from it---in our times Religio-Nationalism/patriotism has caused much damage to humanity---for example the Burmese (Buddhist) genocide against the Rohingya peoples.
                        Christianity is also made up of human beings and abuse has occurred---for example the accusation of deicide (killing God) against the Jews....
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
                        ...deicide is a belief held by some Christians that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for the death of Jesus.[1] The antisemitic slur "Christ-killer" was used by mobs to incite violence against Jews and contributed to many centuries of pogroms, the murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.[2]

                        In the catechism produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews.[3] In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[4] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".

                        However, I was not speaking of Toxic prejudice in general---but Christian standards used for the validation of the New Testament such as Foretelling and history---should not be used for other Non-Christian traditions.

                        For the Christian---it might seem that the whole world revolves around them and therefore all Scripture must necessarily speak for or against "the Christian"----but let me explain to you once again---The Quran is about Islam---NOT Christianity.
                        It is explaining the parameters of its main "tenet" ---One God---which to a Muslim means there are no other Gods---including Jesus. That is what One God means.

                        Jews, Christians and other theists were "Protected peoples" under Islamic law and were were not only allowed to follow their own religious beliefs but also allowed to have their own court systems and laws.
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad
                        The Ashtiname of Muhammad, also known as the Covenant or Testament (Testamentum) of Muhammad (the Islamic Prophet), is a document which is a charter or writ ratified by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad granting protection and other privileges to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene, given to the Christian monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery. It is sealed with an imprint representing Muhammad's hand.[1]

                        Āshtīnāmeh (IPA: [ɒʃtinɒme]) is a Persian word meaning "Book of Peace", a Persian term for a treaty and covenant.[2]

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Your continual whining and complaining about the so-called prejudiced western-Christian scholarship standards won't go anywhere, because it is only in your own prejudiced imagination.

                          It is not just about fulfilled prophecy but historical facts that can be objectively verified in the chronology of time, like the crucifixion of Jesus Christ that happened 2,000 years ago. Which the Quran ignominiously denies, proving that the Quran is more fiction than fact.

                          Take your complaints to the proper scholarly and academic forums - not this one, and see if they concur with the preconceptions you hold?

                          One such forum is the QuranGate forum described here:
                          https://youtu.be/cjWfusEwLa4

                          It comprises of both Christian and Muslim academics and scholars. These true academics are not in opposition to each other nor do the muslim scholars accuse their Christian counterparts of "prejudice" but actually collaborate together to critically analyse the Quran!

                          QuranGate's Council of Reference comprises both of credentialed and highly qualified Christian and Muslim scholars who respect, collaborate and develop critical studies of the Quran together - https://info.qurangateway.org/advisory-council/

                          You will do well to learn from them, siam instead of constantly promoting your baseless complaints of so-called "western prejudice"!

                          Remember, such prejudice goes both ways and plenty of it comes from the Quran and islam too, to blind millions of people.

                          Originally posted by siam View Post
                          Toxic prejudice is bad and all humanity suffers from it---in our times Religio-Nationalism/patriotism has caused much damage to humanity---for example the Burmese (Buddhist) genocide against the Rohingya peoples.
                          Christianity is also made up of human beings and abuse has occurred---for example the accusation of deicide (killing God) against the Jews....
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
                          ...deicide is a belief held by some Christians that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for the death of Jesus.[1] The antisemitic slur "Christ-killer" was used by mobs to incite violence against Jews and contributed to many centuries of pogroms, the murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.[2]

                          In the catechism produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews.[3] In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.[4] It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today".

                          However, I was not speaking of Toxic prejudice in general---but Christian standards used for the validation of the New Testament such as Foretelling and history---should not be used for other Non-Christian traditions.

                          For the Christian---it might seem that the whole world revolves around them and therefore all Scripture must necessarily speak for or against "the Christian"----but let me explain to you once again---The Quran is about Islam---NOT Christianity.
                          It is explaining the parameters of its main "tenet" ---One God---which to a Muslim means there are no other Gods---including Jesus. That is what One God means.

                          Jews, Christians and other theists were "Protected peoples" under Islamic law and were were not only allowed to follow their own religious beliefs but also allowed to have their own court systems and laws.
                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad
                          The Ashtiname of Muhammad, also known as the Covenant or Testament (Testamentum) of Muhammad (the Islamic Prophet), is a document which is a charter or writ ratified by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad granting protection and other privileges to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene, given to the Christian monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery. It is sealed with an imprint representing Muhammad's hand.[1]

                          Āshtīnāmeh (IPA: [ɒʃtinɒme]) is a Persian word meaning "Book of Peace", a Persian term for a treaty and covenant.[2]

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                            1)... prejudiced western-Christian scholarship standards won't go anywhere, because it is only in your own prejudiced imagination.

                            2)It is not just about fulfilled prophecy but historical facts that can be objectively verified in the chronology of time, like the crucifixion of Jesus Christ that happened 2,000 years ago. Which the Quran ignominiously denies, proving that the Quran is more fiction than fact.

                            ....

                            One such forum is the QuranGate forum described here:
                            https://youtu.be/cjWfusEwLa4

                            3) It comprises of both Christian and Muslim academics and scholars. These true academics are not in opposition to each other nor do the muslim scholars accuse their Christian counterparts of "prejudice" but actually collaborate together to critically analyse the Quran!

                            1) "Orientalism" as a cultural/academic bias/prejudice was highlighted by Edward Said.
                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
                            As a cultural critic, Said is known for the book Orientalism (1978), a critique of the cultural representations that are the bases of Orientalism—how the Western world perceives the Orient.[5][6][7][8] Said's model of textual analysis transformed the academic discourse of researchers in literary theory, literary criticism, and Middle-Eastern studies—how academics examine, describe, and define the cultures being studied.[9][10] As a foundational text, Orientalism was controversial among scholars of Oriental Studies, philosophy, and literature.[11][4]

                            Orientalism names/defines the cultural bias that underlies Western assumptions of the Non-West
                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_bias
                            Cultural bias is the phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. The phenomenon is sometimes considered a problem central to social and human sciences, such as economics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Some practitioners of the aforementioned fields have attempted to develop methods and theories to compensate for or eliminate cultural bias.

                            Cultural bias occurs when people of a culture make assumptions about conventions, including conventions of language, notation, proof and evidence. They are then accused of mistaking these assumptions for laws of logic or nature. Numerous such biases exist, concerning cultural norms for color, mate selection, concepts of justice, linguistic and logical validity, the acceptability of evidence, and taboos.


                            2) Perceptions are subjective---Should I call you prejudiced because you do not believe in Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)?
                            Theologically, it makes little difference in Islam who was or was not crucified since the event (or lack of) holds no meaning within the Islamic paradigm. The meaning and importance of crucifixion only makes sense within the Christian paradigm with its presumption of original sin...etc.... So the Quran's explanation of the crucifixion is somewhat of a sidenote....for Muslims.


                            3) digitizing the Quran--- I have heard Muslims have already developed this and played with it---but the focus is on Muslim interests which may not be the same as non-Muslim interests so its good another database is made for non-Muslims to play with....

                            Here is another co-operative study by Christians and Muslims---
                            https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...ridges-seminar
                            Last edited by siam; 09-14-2019, 12:07 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Of course I do not believe in ur "prophet" muhamed, I actually consider him a blatant & ruthless false prophet who misled millions of unsuspecting victims away from the truth.

                              If Jesus Christ did instruct His followers to expect muhameds coming and "foretold His coming" 700 years later, that's a different story. That was actually the claim of the koran which you can stupendously find in sura 61/6, and other verses too.

                              But muslims are forced to engage in every kind of scripture twisting and polemics against the Christian Bible to foist the koran's false and desperate theories and biases that Muhamed was so-called "prophesied by Jesus Christ to come after Him"!

                              Such misinterpretation and misrepresention by the ridiculous claims of the Koran does serious violence against the Bible and the original and authentic teachings of Jesus Christ. All based on muhameds and Koranic prejudice, pre-conceived ideas and baseless presuppositions alone.

                              The QuranGate platform is embraced by BOTH Muslims and Christians alike. And the endorsement comes from both Christian AND Muslim scholars. Even though originally mooted and initiated by Christian researchers of the Koran, none of the muslim counterparts ever accused the Christians of Orientalism or prejudice.

                              When in fact the very opposite was true. Both groups collaborate and work together without the suspicions or antagonism you insinuate. In the name of objective, historical and critical analysis of the Koran, unpolluted by either of the Christian or Muslim "interests" that u are disingenuously accusing.

                              This debunks your narrow, prejudiced claim of a 'sinister Christian agenda' or interests in critically analysing the koran u constantly peddle.




                              Originally posted by siam View Post
                              1) "Orientalism" as a cultural/academic bias/prejudice was highlighted by Edward Said.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said
                              As a cultural critic, Said is known for the book Orientalism (1978), a critique of the cultural representations that are the bases of Orientalism—how the Western world perceives the Orient.[5][6][7][8] Said's model of textual analysis transformed the academic discourse of researchers in literary theory, literary criticism, and Middle-Eastern studies—how academics examine, describe, and define the cultures being studied.[9][10] As a foundational text, Orientalism was controversial among scholars of Oriental Studies, philosophy, and literature.[11][4]

                              Orientalism names/defines the cultural bias that underlies Western assumptions of the Non-West
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_bias
                              Cultural bias is the phenomenon of interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. The phenomenon is sometimes considered a problem central to social and human sciences, such as economics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Some practitioners of the aforementioned fields have attempted to develop methods and theories to compensate for or eliminate cultural bias.

                              Cultural bias occurs when people of a culture make assumptions about conventions, including conventions of language, notation, proof and evidence. They are then accused of mistaking these assumptions for laws of logic or nature. Numerous such biases exist, concerning cultural norms for color, mate selection, concepts of justice, linguistic and logical validity, the acceptability of evidence, and taboos.


                              2) Perceptions are subjective---Should I call you prejudiced because you do not believe in Prophet Muhammed (pbuh)?
                              Theologically, it makes little difference in Islam who was or was not crucified since the event (or lack of) holds no meaning within the Islamic paradigm. The meaning and importance of crucifixion only makes sense within the Christian paradigm with its presumption of original sin...etc.... So the Quran's explanation of the crucifixion is somewhat of a sidenote....for Muslims.


                              3) digitizing the Quran--- I have heard Muslims have already developed this and played with it---but the focus is on Muslim interests which may not be the same as non-Muslim interests so its good another database is made for non-Muslims to play with....

                              Here is another co-operative study by Christians and Muslims---
                              https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu...ridges-seminar

                              Comment


                              • #45




                                Cultural bias is an actual phenomenon and for a long time there was a presumption among Western Academia that their methods of knowledge production were "neutral" and their presumptions "universal". But bias effects all human beings---we do not need to "get rid" of bias---because this is an inherent trait---rather, we have to be aware and transparent of our biases.

                                Biases can create diversity of perspectives and when we acknowledge each others biases, yet co-operate in research and knowledge production, then we contribute to a more wholistic/transparent understanding and knowledge production.
                                however, unacknowledged biases can lead to shoddy research and incorrect presumptions---which in turn leads to misinformation. Such contributions damage, not enhance, our understanding and knowledge.

                                Your perspective is one way to look at Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). Another way is (as the Quran explains) he was sent to peoples who had not received the message of One God before. He brought many peoples to monotheism that previously had not understood this concept. Christianity is just too complicated to understand. This can turn away some people such as myself. Compared to the Bible, the Quran is a much thinner book---its theology begins and ends with---(Tawheed) There is One God, and no other God besides it. (Shema = the LORD our God, the LORD is one---Judaism). Apart from the sections about the existence of the resurrection/judgement/heaven and hell...the Quran mostly consists of ethico-moral principles on a variety of subjects.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Christian3, 10-25-2020, 07:17 AM
                                5 responses
                                29 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post siam
                                by siam
                                 
                                Started by Trucker, 10-23-2020, 11:09 AM
                                19 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Trucker
                                by Trucker
                                 
                                Working...
                                X