a letter to the muslims

[chuck010342]

Actually it isn't Jesus (pbuh), it's the Gospel of Jesus (pbuh) ACCORDING to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John recored there respective gospels correctly.

 

[chuck010342]

Chuck, try to think of it this way. How many different virsions of the bible are there? Dozens all based on different translations. There is one koran. If you want to know what the koran really says you learn to read Arabic. Devotion and keeping with the origional source, not a bad combo really.

wa:do

but what you fail to understand is that the bible is not perfect.

 

[chuck010342]

Any other questions or things you would like to discuss Chuck?

yes

Does God Forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?



1. Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
2. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

I started to put the verses with the numbers to save you some trouble.

 

[chuck010342]

He may be busy writing a letter to the relativists. :jiggy:

Or perhaps I was feeling so depressed latley. I don't think this type of writing belongs in the debate forums.

 

[chuck010342]

And the Bible doesn`t?

The bible is not perfect because it was written by men, however we can trust it because of the Holy Spirit.

 

[_salam_]

You just countradicted yourself.

Ok, let me specify. What I meant was, as verse 3:7 says the basics and the fundamentals of the Qur'an are understandable to us, and this proves to be true because they have been since they were revealed and they still are today. However, there are certain verses that may not be understandable to us and that Allah knows there meaning.

yeah I know that the ( ) are not in the Koran so why are they there now? because the koran was translated into english. The Koran does not speak fully to everybody because it was revealed in Arabic, therefore it is not perfect because it shows paticularity to a specific language.

Translations aren't perfect, however, the Qur'an is.

 

[chuck010342]

Any other questions or things you would like to discuss Chuck?

You still have not answered my other question here it is agian


Do you think that only those three possibilities are true? You said the the Koran is true but do you believe that only these three possiblities are true?

A. The bible is true hence the koran is wrong

B. The Koran is true hence the bible is wrong

C. They are borh wrong.

 

[chuck010342]

So you admit a contradiction in the given lineage? Because they can't both be correct lineages, can they chuck?

I did not admit to a countradiction. Do you know what a countradiction is?

 

[chuck010342]

Simply because that's the language that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) spoke. It would make no sense for God to reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad (pbuh) in any other language.

yeah.

I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you believe the Bible is a perfect book, but the whole of the Bible wasn't even revealed, or originally written, in the same language.

The bible was written in three lanugages Herbrew, Aramaic and Greek. I do not see the bible as a perfect book. So I must correct you.

 

[_salam_]

yes

Does God Forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?



1. Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
2. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

I started to put the verses with the numbers to save you some trouble.

Actually I was just listening to a lecture today given by Ali Al-Tamimi and he adressed this exact situation. What he had to say was that if a person dies in a state of shirk (that is associating partners with Allah) he will not be forgiven for that sin. However, if somebody were to commit shirk and then realise that they had done wrong and repent then Allah can forgive them. This obviously applies to the above case with the Isrealites worshipping the calf, because Moses (pbuh) showed them how they were wrong and then they repented.

In Islam we believe that if you truly feel sorry for something you have done and ask for forgivness and try and not do it again then Allah will forgive you for that sin (ex. the Isrealites and the golden calf). However, for the sins that we don't repent for we will be responsible for those sins on the Day of Judgement. At this time Allah can choose to forgive us (or overlook) our sins if He wants to or not, but what is being said in verse 4:48 is that if we have commited shirk, and haven't repented for it before the Day of Judgement, this will be the only sin Allah will not be willing to forgive (or overlook) at this time.

 

[_salam_]

You still have not answered my other question here it is agian


Do you think that only those three possibilities are true? You said the the Koran is true but do you believe that only these three possiblities are true?

A. The bible is true hence the koran is wrong

B. The Koran is true hence the bible is wrong

C. They are borh wrong.

Well I don't think I agree with any of these exactly. I believe the Qur'an to be the Word of God and to be true. I also believe the Bible to based on revealations from God and sayings of God's Prophets. I believe there are some truths in the Bible but I also recognise that it does contain errors.

 

[_salam_]

Mathew, Mark, Luke and John recored there respective gospels correctly.

Well I have to dissagree with you here, one reason being that they (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) can't even agree perfectly on the Gospels.

 

[chuck010342]

can we go back to the first countradiction I supposed? What about this?

"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).

# "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).

How can you create something out of nothing?. God Just created by using non exsistant materals Right? Thats what out of nothing means. Then how can you say that God used Mud.

Also where did this WE come from I thought that God was one?

 

[_salam_]

can we go back to the first countradiction I supposed? What about this?

"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).

# "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).

How can you create something out of nothing?. God Just created by using non exsistant materals Right? Thats what out of nothing means. Then how can you say that God used Mud.

Also where did this WE come from I thought that God was one?

With regards to verse 19:67 it would appear that what we are dealing with is a bad interpretation of the verse. Moiz Amjad has translated it (in an article dealing with this exact subject, which you might want to read for further clarification on this): "Does not man call to mind that We created him [while] before that he was nothing." Meaning that doesn't man call to mind that before there was no man and God then created him, not that man was created from nothing. When we look at the precedeeding verse it becomes more apparent that this is what the verse means.

"And says man: When I am dead, shall I truly be brought forth alive?" Qur'an 19:66

This verse shows that man is questioning whether or not the ressurection will take place. The next verse, 19:67, is God's reply to man, in which God affirms that He had the power to create man before when there was no exsiting man, and so why shouldn't God have the power to bring man back to life. Let me provide some more translations of this verse that are a little more clear as to what it means.

"Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?" (Maulana Muhammad Ali)

"Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?" (Pickthal)
Again we can see from these translations that the verse says that God created man (not specifying what from) when there was no man before.

Now, regarding verse 52:35 which states:

"Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?"

Firstly, this verse doesn't state that God created man out of nothing, in fact it's asking the disbelievers if they were created out of nothing. So it doesn't support your idea. Second, there is a greater meaning to it as can be seen if one reads the commentary provided by Yusuf Ali, which says:

"Three possible alternative meanings are suggested by the Commentators, according to the meaning we give to the Arabic preposition min = of, by, with, for. (1) Were they created by nothing? Did they come into existence of themselves? Was it a mere chance that they came into being? (2) Were they created as men out of nothing? Was there not a wonderful seed, from which their material growth can be traced, as the handiwork of a wise and wonderful Creator? Must they not then seek His Will? (3) Were they created for nothing, to no purpose? If they were created for a purpose, must they not try to learn that purpose by understanding God's Revelation?"

It seems to me that (3) is probably the most likely meaning because Maulana Muhammad Ali has stated the same thing.

His translation of the verse:
"Or were they created without a (creative) agency? Or are they the creators?"

His commentary says:
"Or without a cause, or without a purpose."

As for the "We" that is used throughout the Qur'an, this has been discussed a number of times on this site. It is merely a "Royal We" refering to one entity and not a number of entities. For more clarification go here, and remember that the same type of thing exsists in the Old Testament as discussed here (my post on page two discusses it with regards to the Qur'an).

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Or perhaps I was feeling so depressed latley. I don't think this type of writing belongs in the debate forums.

I'm sorry if you were feeling depressed, especially since I've been there. Do remember that there's plenty of other things to chat about, that don't have to concern comparative religion. I usually find those are a lot more uplifting in spirit.

 

[Peace]

With regards to verse 19:67 it would appear that what we are dealing with is a bad interpretation of the verse. Moiz Amjad has translated it (in an article dealing with this exact subject, which you might want to read for further clarification on this): "Does not man call to mind that We created him [while] before that he was nothing." Meaning that doesn't man call to mind that before there was no man and God then created him, not that man was created from nothing. When we look at the precedeeding verse it becomes more apparent that this is what the verse means.

"And says man: When I am dead, shall I truly be brought forth alive?" Qur'an 19:66

This verse shows that man is questioning whether or not the ressurection will take place. The next verse, 19:67, is God's reply to man, in which God affirms that He had the power to create man before when there was no exsiting man, and so why shouldn't God have the power to bring man back to life. Let me provide some more translations of this verse that are a little more clear as to what it means.

"Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?" (Maulana Muhammad Ali)

"Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?" (Pickthal)
Again we can see from these translations that the verse says that God created man (not specifying what from) when there was no man before.

Now, regarding verse 52:35 which states:

"Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators?"

Firstly, this verse doesn't state that God created man out of nothing, in fact it's asking the disbelievers if they were created out of nothing. So it doesn't support your idea. Second, there is a greater meaning to it as can be seen if one reads the commentary provided by Yusuf Ali, which says:

"Three possible alternative meanings are suggested by the Commentators, according to the meaning we give to the Arabic preposition min = of, by, with, for. (1) Were they created by nothing? Did they come into existence of themselves? Was it a mere chance that they came into being? (2) Were they created as men out of nothing? Was there not a wonderful seed, from which their material growth can be traced, as the handiwork of a wise and wonderful Creator? Must they not then seek His Will? (3) Were they created for nothing, to no purpose? If they were created for a purpose, must they not try to learn that purpose by understanding God's Revelation?"

It seems to me that (3) is probably the most likely meaning because Maulana Muhammad Ali has stated the same thing.

His translation of the verse:
"Or were they created without a (creative) agency? Or are they the creators?"

His commentary says:
"Or without a cause, or without a purpose."

Well said and explained Salam

Peace

 

[jewscout]

I did not admit to a countradiction. Do you know what a countradiction is?

Main Entry: con·tra·dic·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

soooooo the lineage in the gospels is a contradiction

 

[anders]

"Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?" (Maulana Muhammad Ali)
"Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?" (Pickthal)

In most cases, I agree more readily with A. Yusuf Ali than with for example Pickthall. In this case I think it is esaier to understand the meaning in the versions of Pickthall and the Maulana. I find the "min qablu" strange. It may be my ignorance, but I would have expected "min qabli". Any way, I find a paraphrase like "Doesn't man remember that there was no man before We created him?" to be fully consistent with the text (and I accept the approximation mud = nothing).

As salam has remarked, the plural "We" is no problem. It used to be a regular feature in royal decrees all over Europe. "We, (name), by God's Grace, King of ..."

 

[_salam_]

Any way, I find a paraphrase like "Doesn't man remember that there was no man before We created him?"

Exactly! Thats exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you.

 

[chuck010342]

I'm sorry if you were feeling depressed, especially since I've been there. Do remember that there's plenty of other things to chat about, that don't have to concern comparative religion. I usually find those are a lot more uplifting in spirit.

No I wasn't depressed, I was just using that as an example as to why I have not posted in a while. The truth is I really don't care about anybody on this earth and nobody cares about me. So I say screw em all but I get bored so I post stuff agian. neverending cycle.