Question about 28:4 to Muslim posters

[Smart_Guy]

Have you read the Annals of Tacitus and the passage in Josephus which states he was the brother of James?

No, I haven't (as of yet, maybe), but there is a keyword in bold above. Digging the grave of the Prophet Muhammad is a practical seeing not reading. If seeing is the only way to confirm an existence of someone, I don't think reading would be so.

But at any rate, I'm not really arguing the existence of Jesus. Sorry if I gave such impression.

By the way, are you Christian? If yes, what kind?
(please forgive my English, dunno what word should I use instead of "kind")

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Salaam Alaikum.

This is a question to Muslim posters, preferably Arabic speakers.

Can you please tell me is what exists below is a correct translation of the ayah? I am particularly interested in the part in red.

Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.

If the translation is incorrect, can you provide a better one?

If it is a correct one, can you please explain what it means?

Thanks so much!

The answer is in the verse there.
Read down.

Also other sign of factions is:
The sorcerers in the battle against Musa aleyhi salaam were from Bani Israel.
Some from Bani Israel worked for Fir'aun.

So he did divide Bani Israel in factions. Some he kept as workers, others he slaughterd and the girls were spared.

 

[FearGod]

It doesn't say he was the first one to make people factions, and I didn't make that argument.

The verse does say though he made them into factions. He could only have done that if, prior to him coming, they were not in factions already.

If we say "Mubarak made the Egyptian people into an oppressed nation" and before him was a dictator who oppressed them also, the statement would be false.

Imagine if someone wrote "ISIS made the people of Iraq into victims of war". Wouldn't that be false? Weren't they victims of war before ISIS came along?

For the sake of argument i'll assume that the quran says he was the first to make his people in factions, then my question is

If he wasn't the first then who was the first and what tangible evidence you have that supports your claim ?

 

[TG123456]

No, I haven't (as of yet, maybe), but there is a keyword in bold above. Digging the grave of the Prophet Muhammad is a practical seeing not reading. If seeing is the only way to confirm an existence of someone, I don't think reading would be so.

But at any rate, I'm not really arguing the existence of Jesus. Sorry if I gave such impression.

By the way, are you Christian? If yes, what kind?
(please forgive my English, dunno what word should I use instead of "kind")

Salaam Aaikum.

I am not saying we should dig up Muhammad's grave to prove he existed, but said it after TashaN stated his body is still fresh. I meant it only jokingly, of course. To do so would be very rude and insulting to Muslims and I am not suggesting this. I am pretty sure his body has decomposed like the body of most other people, and that there is a good chance his tailbone is included. I don't need to dig up his grave to know this. I am very sorry if I gave you the impression I would actually be advocating such an insensitive and cruel act. I wouldn't ever do or support doing such a thing.

We can prove whether or not Muhammad decomposed if we really wanted to, yet the only proof we can have of Jesus is records of Him, since we both believe He ascended to heaven.

Yes, I am a Christian. What kind of a Christian am I? LOL I don't know. Just a Christian. If you want to attach a denominational label I guess you could say evangelical. I am questioning a lot of what the Bible teaches, unlike most evangelicals.

What kind of a Muslim are you?

 

[TG123456]

The answer is in the verse there.
Read down.

Also other sign of factions is:
The sorcerers in the battle against Musa aleyhi salaam were from Bani Israel.
Some from Bani Israel worked for Fir'aun.

So he did divide Bani Israel in factions. Some he kept as workers, others he slaughterd and the girls were spared.

Are you saying that the Ancient Egyptians used Ancient Israelites as their sorcerers? Do you mean priests? I am unaware of Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs ever relying on sorcerers, can you please show me any evidence they did?

 

[TG123456]

For the sake of argument i'll assume that the quran says he was the first to make his people in factions,

Why would you make that assumption for? I am not saying the Quran claims he was the first to make his people into factions.

I am claiming it says he made its people into factions... that would mean that prior to him becoming Pharaoh, they were not in factions. You can't "make" something that is already there.

There could have been Pharaohs long before Ramses II who made their people into factions and that would not have been in conflict with the verse.

then my question is

If he wasn't the first then who was the first and what tangible evidence you have that supports your claim ?

I don't know if he was the first, but I do know that there was already a class system in place before Pharaohs even existed. A society divided between rich and poor, where the rich have immense riches and the poor struggle to survive, is a society that exists in factions.

Ancient Egyptian society was highly polarized. The chasm between rich and poor appears to date back to pre-dynastic times [2] and grew more pronounced with the passage of the centuries [4]. Juan José Castillos of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology in Montevideo bases his conclusions on the disparity between the numbers of large, sumptuous tombs and of simple graves during the Naqada I period and later: Except for occasional local discontinuities that occur due to ecological, economic, or political events, Pre-dynastic Egypt evolved steadily into a more stratified society without great disruption. [1].
From the unification of the country onward, a diminutive rich upper class ruled with the help of a small scribal administration over the masses of Egyptian workers and peasants living barely above subsistence level, soaking up most of the surplus the labour of the workers produced. This development reached an apex during the beginning of the pyramid age, when the building of the royal tombs and mortuary temples required the effort of the whole nation, setting the pharaoh apart from the other members of the upper class. It was followed by a decline in the wealth and power of the pharaohs and their families and by the rise of the local nobility during the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. After the 12th dynasty monarchs gained power over the country, they relied heavily on the services of the scribal class which remained the mainstay of authority throughout pharaonic history.


Labour
... manual labor is little elevated; the inaction of the hands is honorable.
Precepts of the prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep
This largest part of the population consisted mostly of peasants and farm labourers, generally despised by their superiors. How free they were throughout history is unknown, but there are documents which seem to imply that many of them lived in a state similar to that of the serfdom known in the European Middle Ages. Slaves, not as utterly without rights as they often were in other slave-owning societies, were relatively few in numbers, and it is debatable whether they should be looked on as a different social class.
Other commoners, be they farmers or artisans, were their own masters, possessing homes and land, buying and selling belongings and produce as they saw fit. They employed servants and workers and were at times even masters of slaves, but most people worked at least to a certain extent under some kind of supervision by scribal officials belonging to some estate, temple, or state administration.

Literacy marked the dividing line between the proletariat and the upper classes, but it was seemingly less rare among members of the working class than had been assumed in the past. Certain groups needed knowledge of hieroglyphs, e.g. artists who had to copy sacred texts correctly onto tomb walls and coffins [8]. Hieratic was also known. Quite a number of inscribed ostraka were found at the New Kingdom village of Deir el Medina dealing with everyday matters. The study of reading and writing became easier and probably more widespread with the introduction of the Greek alphabet by Hellenistic settlers in the last centuries of the first millennium BCE and its adaptation for the writing of Late Egyptian, Coptic.
The differences in wealth and status among these commoners were considerable, even if they dwindle into insignificance when comparisons with the upper classes are made: At Kahun (Hotep Senusret) built during the Middle Kingdom flat sizes in the workers' quarter were between 50 and 80 m², at the New Kingdom settlement Deir el Medina the average flat covered 80 m², the smallest flats measured about 50 m², and the largest, probably those belonging to the foremen and village administrators, 160 m².

The social classes in ancient Egypt

 

[FearGod]

Why would you make that assumption for? I am not saying the Quran claims he was the first to make his people into factions.

I am claiming it says he made its people into factions... that would mean that prior to him becoming Pharaoh, they were not in factions. You can't "make" something that is already there.

There could have been Pharaohs long before Ramses II who made their people into factions and that would not have been in conflict with the verse.


I don't know if he was the first, but I do know that there was already a class system in place before Pharaohs even existed. A society divided between rich and poor, where the rich have immense riches and the poor struggle to survive, is a society that exists in factions.

Ancient Egyptian society was highly polarized. The chasm between rich and poor appears to date back to pre-dynastic times [2] and grew more pronounced with the passage of the centuries [4]. Juan José Castillos of the Uruguayan Institute of Egyptology in Montevideo bases his conclusions on the disparity between the numbers of large, sumptuous tombs and of simple graves during the Naqada I period and later: Except for occasional local discontinuities that occur due to ecological, economic, or political events, Pre-dynastic Egypt evolved steadily into a more stratified society without great disruption. [1].
From the unification of the country onward, a diminutive rich upper class ruled with the help of a small scribal administration over the masses of Egyptian workers and peasants living barely above subsistence level, soaking up most of the surplus the labour of the workers produced. This development reached an apex during the beginning of the pyramid age, when the building of the royal tombs and mortuary temples required the effort of the whole nation, setting the pharaoh apart from the other members of the upper class. It was followed by a decline in the wealth and power of the pharaohs and their families and by the rise of the local nobility during the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. After the 12th dynasty monarchs gained power over the country, they relied heavily on the services of the scribal class which remained the mainstay of authority throughout pharaonic history.


Labour
... manual labor is little elevated; the inaction of the hands is honorable.
Precepts of the prefect, the lord Ptah-hotep
This largest part of the population consisted mostly of peasants and farm labourers, generally despised by their superiors. How free they were throughout history is unknown, but there are documents which seem to imply that many of them lived in a state similar to that of the serfdom known in the European Middle Ages. Slaves, not as utterly without rights as they often were in other slave-owning societies, were relatively few in numbers, and it is debatable whether they should be looked on as a different social class.
Other commoners, be they farmers or artisans, were their own masters, possessing homes and land, buying and selling belongings and produce as they saw fit. They employed servants and workers and were at times even masters of slaves, but most people worked at least to a certain extent under some kind of supervision by scribal officials belonging to some estate, temple, or state administration.

Literacy marked the dividing line between the proletariat and the upper classes, but it was seemingly less rare among members of the working class than had been assumed in the past. Certain groups needed knowledge of hieroglyphs, e.g. artists who had to copy sacred texts correctly onto tomb walls and coffins [8]. Hieratic was also known. Quite a number of inscribed ostraka were found at the New Kingdom village of Deir el Medina dealing with everyday matters. The study of reading and writing became easier and probably more widespread with the introduction of the Greek alphabet by Hellenistic settlers in the last centuries of the first millennium BCE and its adaptation for the writing of Late Egyptian, Coptic.
The differences in wealth and status among these commoners were considerable, even if they dwindle into insignificance when comparisons with the upper classes are made: At Kahun (Hotep Senusret) built during the Middle Kingdom flat sizes in the workers' quarter were between 50 and 80 m², at the New Kingdom settlement Deir el Medina the average flat covered 80 m², the smallest flats measured about 50 m², and the largest, probably those belonging to the foremen and village administrators, 160 m².

The social classes in ancient Egypt

People being rich and poor ,masters and slaves isn't factions according to Islam, so if you think that division was according to their financial and social states then your argument is absolutely wrong.

Factions is to treat people according to their race, for example like treating the Jews badly in German for their race and the Muslims in Europe nowadays ...etc

 

[Smart_Guy]

Salaam Aaikum.

I am not saying we should dig up Muhammad's grave to prove he existed, but said it after TashaN stated his body is still fresh. I meant it only jokingly, of course. To do so would be very rude and insulting to Muslims and I am not suggesting this. I am pretty sure his body has decomposed like the body of most other people, and that there is a good chance his tailbone is included. I don't need to dig up his grave to know this. I am very sorry if I gave you the impression I would actually be advocating such an insensitive and cruel act. I wouldn't ever do or support doing such a thing.

We can prove whether or not Muhammad decomposed if we really wanted to, yet the only proof we can have of Jesus is records of Him, since we both believe He ascended to heaven.

Yes, I am a Christian. What kind of a Christian am I? LOL I don't know. Just a Christian. If you want to attach a denominational label I guess you could say evangelical. I am questioning a lot of what the Bible teaches, unlike most evangelicals.

What kind of a Muslim are you?

Oops, sorry! I spoke out of place and context

So "kind" was the right word? Cool

Some Christians say Jesus is God, some others say He's 1/3rd of God with the Holy Spirit and the Father, and some others believe in the same God of the Jews and Muslims but Jesus being His Son. That was what I mean . I'm not really familiar with different Christian names.

I always thought Muslims are Muslims with their own possible beliefs and they all accept each others as Muslims. This is the kinda Muslims I am. But now, with all the propaganda, I believe I fit mostly to what they call Sunni Muslim. I think this is a weird naming made up either by haters against some group of Muslims, or by a group of Muslims to flatter themselves of just distinguish themselves for some reason, dunno! I mean, Accepting Sunnah is generally following Muhammad. If a Muslim says he's not Sunni, this means they don't follow Muhammad. How come? I think this "Sunni" naming is redundant for Muslims. That's why I call my self Muslim only.

Sorry, I got off-topic

 

[TG123456]

People being rich and poor ,masters and slaves isn't factions according to Islam, so if you think that division was according to their financial and social states then your argument is absolutely wrong.

Factions is to treat people according to their race, for example like treating the Jews badly in German for their race and the Muslims in Europe nowadays ...etc

What evidence do you have of any Egyptian Pharaoh at any point in history treating people badly on account of their race?

It is true that most slaves in Ancient Egypt were foreigners, but they were not the people of Egypt but POWs brought in from overseas. They couldn't have been "the people" described in 28:4.

 

[TG123456]

Oops, sorry! I spoke out of place and context

It happens to me all the time. It's most embarrassing when I am teaching grammar, and then the kids laugh at me. I tell them I was "testing" them by making a mistake on purpose.

So "kind" was the right word? Cool

Alhamdullilah! Let's move on.

Some Christians say Jesus is God, some others say He's 1/3rd of God with the Holy Spirit and the Father, and some others believe in the same God of the Jews and Muslims but Jesus being His Son. That was what I mean . I'm not really familiar with different Christian names.

Smart_Guy, every Christian who believes Jesus is God also believes He is "one third of God with the Holy Spirit and the Father", that is more or less what the Trinity is. The Trinitarian God is the same God that Muslims and Jews believe in. We see Him differently than you do, but that does not make Him a different God.

I always thought Muslims are Muslims with their own possible beliefs and they all accept each others as Muslims. This is the kinda Muslims I am. But now, with all the propaganda, I believe I fit mostly to what they call Sunni Muslim. I think this is a weird naming made up either by haters against some group of Muslims, or by a group of Muslims to flatter themselves of just distinguish themselves for some reason, dunno! I mean, Accepting Sunnah is generally following Muhammad. If a Muslim says he's not Sunni, this means they don't follow Muhammad. How come? I think this "Sunni" naming is redundant for Muslims. That's why I call my self Muslim only.

Cool, thanks for sharing. I agree that divisions are stupid, and Muslims are not the only ones who have this problem.

Although Christian churches no longer slaughter adherents of other denominations, we still have a bad habit of bickering a lot. The most sad thing is that the theological differences are so small when you really look at them. I think the divisions are more about what you described, people wanting to be special and "unique" and act like they are better than others.

Sorry, I got off-topic

Terrible, Smart_Guy, just terrible! I never do that...to quote Borat... "NOT!!!!!!!"

Nice discussing with you as always, my friend.

 

[FearGod]

What evidence do you have of any Egyptian Pharaoh at any point in history treating people badly on account of their race?

It is true that most slaves in Ancient Egypt were foreigners, but they were not the people of Egypt but POWs brought in from overseas. They couldn't have been "the people" described in 28:4.

Evidence for the mistreatment of Jews in Egypt during the rule of one pharaoh.
It is easier to prove the mistreatment of Jews in Germany but an evidence of mistreatment in Egypt thousands of years ago is impossible.

 

[TG123456]

Evidence for the mistreatment of Jews in Egypt during the rule of one pharaoh.
It is easier to prove the mistreatment of Jews in Germany but an evidence of mistreatment in Egypt thousands of years ago is impossible.

You are correct, it is impossible to prove.

fact, all evidence at our disposal suggests that it in fact did not happen.

Ancient Egypt was a society that conquered people abroad and brought them in as slaves, but not one that turned on its citizens, even the foreigners living among them.

I would encourage you to read the paper below about the interactions beetween Ancient Egyptians and foreigners. You will see easily that people outside of Egypt were ruthlessly conquered and enslaved, while those inside the country were made part of the society.
http://www.charlottesegypt.com/Publications/Ethnicity in Egypt.pdf

According to at least one contemporary Egyptologist, Thomas Schneider. Professor of Egyptology and New Eastern Studies at the University of British Columbia, it would appear that the ancient Egyptians were more tolerant of and less prejudiced toward immigrants than present day Americans are. In his book Ancient Egypt In 101 Questions and Answers, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 2013 - Original German edition, Munich, 2010), Professor Schneider writes:

"According to widespread opinion, in ancient Egypt there was no evidence of explicit discrimination or persecution of persons of non-Egyptian ethnic or religious affiliations. Immanuel Geiss, an expert in the history of racism, has gone so far as to call Pharaonic Egypt 'the most ancient and impressive example for refuting racist theories'."

Professor Schneider continues:

"When Egyptian sources depict foreigners as representatives of barbarism and chaos, these are always persons outside Egypt, not immigrants into Egypt, who quickly became acculturated...In the New Kingdom, if not earlier, ethnicity was even a positive trait that a person could vaunt, and which did not entail professional or social disadvantage."

He also writes:

"Such generalization do not mean that there were never tensions between established residents and immigrants, but we have so far no evidence of discrimination or persecution by the state, the priesthood, or ordinary people prior to the first millennium BCE".

(All the above quotations are from page 233 of this book.)

Were Ancient Egyptians Friendlier to Immigrants Than Americans are? By Roger Algase - Blogs - ILW.COM Discussion Board

 

[TashaN]

Anything is possible. It is also possible for someone to be accidentally dead when he is actually alive and people who were still living have actually been mistakenly buried. Does that mean that Muhammad wasn't really dead when people thought he was? We can play speculation games all day.

Since you acknowledged that there is a possibility that one might not die on the cross just after couple of hours then there is a possibility that Jesus might not have been dead.

How do we know that he in fact really died on the cross or not? is there a way to verify this?

 

[TG123456]

Since you acknowledged that there is a possibility that one might not die on the cross just after couple of hours then there is a possibility that Jesus might not have been dead.

Sure. There is also the possibility that Muhammad might not have been dead also and that he accidentally was buried while he was still alive, and suffocated in his tomb.

I don't see any evidence for either of these things, but we can speculate if we want.

I don't see how Jesus not dying on the cross would prove the Quran correct, since it states He was neither crucified nor killed.

How do we know that he in fact really died on the cross or not? is there a way to verify this?

The Gospels sat He breathed His last. The soldiers made the statement He died, which is why they stuck a spear into His body. People like them were hired to make sure that people died on the cross. That is the reason they broke the knees of the others, but not Christ's.

How do you know for a fact that Muhammad really died when he did? Is there a way to verify this?

Is there also a way to verify that the Jews killed their prophets, like the Quran alleges? Or that the Ramses II drowned in the Dead Sea?

 

[TashaN]

Sure. There is also the possibility that Muhammad might not have been dead also and that he accidentally was buried while he was still alive, and suffocated in his tomb.

We don't know. Since he is not God so anything is possible.

I don't see any evidence for either of these things, but we can speculate if we want.

So Jesus dying on the cross is a speculation you mean?

I don't see how Jesus not dying on the cross would prove the Quran correct, since it states He was neither crucified nor killed.

Read the whole verse.

The Gospels sat He breathed His last.

Who said that? Jesus himself said he breathed his last? oh wait, that couldn't be since he can't die and write about his death at the same time, so who did?

The soldiers made the statement He died, which is why they stuck a spear into His body. People like them were hired to make sure that people died on the cross. That is the reason they broke the knees of the others, but not Christ's.

Why they didn't break his legs?

How do you know for a fact that Muhammad really died when he did? Is there a way to verify this?

Is there also a way to verify that the Jews killed their prophets, like the Quran alleges? Or that the Ramses II drowned in the Dead Sea?

No, we don't know, and it's not important in our religion, unlike Christianity which their whole belief system depend on Jesus dying on the cross.

 

[FearGod]

You are correct, it is impossible to prove.

fact, all evidence at our disposal suggests that it in fact did not happen.

Ancient Egypt was a society that conquered people abroad and brought them in as slaves, but not one that turned on its citizens, even the foreigners living among them.

I would encourage you to read the paper below about the interactions beetween Ancient Egyptians and foreigners. You will see easily that people outside of Egypt were ruthlessly conquered and enslaved, while those inside the country were made part of the society.
http://www.charlottesegypt.com/Publications/Ethnicity in Egypt.pdf

According to at least one contemporary Egyptologist, Thomas Schneider. Professor of Egyptology and New Eastern Studies at the University of British Columbia, it would appear that the ancient Egyptians were more tolerant of and less prejudiced toward immigrants than present day Americans are. In his book Ancient Egypt In 101 Questions and Answers, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY, 2013 - Original German edition, Munich, 2010), Professor Schneider writes:

"According to widespread opinion, in ancient Egypt there was no evidence of explicit discrimination or persecution of persons of non-Egyptian ethnic or religious affiliations. Immanuel Geiss, an expert in the history of racism, has gone so far as to call Pharaonic Egypt 'the most ancient and impressive example for refuting racist theories'."

Professor Schneider continues:

"When Egyptian sources depict foreigners as representatives of barbarism and chaos, these are always persons outside Egypt, not immigrants into Egypt, who quickly became acculturated...In the New Kingdom, if not earlier, ethnicity was even a positive trait that a person could vaunt, and which did not entail professional or social disadvantage."

He also writes:

"Such generalization do not mean that there were never tensions between established residents and immigrants, but we have so far no evidence of discrimination or persecution by the state, the priesthood, or ordinary people prior to the first millennium BCE".

(All the above quotations are from page 233 of this book.)

Were Ancient Egyptians Friendlier to Immigrants Than Americans are? By Roger Algase - Blogs - ILW.COM Discussion Board

Let us first know who are the Jews and what they do follow.

Do you agree that Muslims follow Muhammed and Christians follow Jesus and Jews follow Moses ?
Muhammed message was the quran, Jesus the Gospel and Jews the Torah.

Am i right.

 

[TG123456]

We don't know. Since he is not God so anything is possible.

So his last words may not have been his last ones. Or maybe his death was staged and it was a trick.

So Jesus dying on the cross is a speculation you mean?

I would say that Him NOT dying on the cross is speculation. We have historical accounts, from the Bible and outside of the Bible, that He died. Stating that He did not die is speculating that something different happened then what the records say.

Read the whole verse.

4:157
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

The Quran denies that Jesus was put on the cross.

Who said that? Jesus himself said he breathed his last? oh wait, that couldn't be since he can't die and write about his death at the same time, so who did?

No one here is claiming that Jesus wrote the Gospels.

Why they didn't break his legs?

They already believed Him to be dead.

No, we don't know, and it's not important in our religion, unlike Christianity which their whole belief system depend on Jesus dying on the cross.

Does your not religion rely on the Quran being correct and without error? If it states that the Jews killed their prophets but they didn't or that Ramses II drowned but he didn't. your belief system also falls apart.

 

[TG123456]

Let us first know who are the Jews and what they do follow.

Do you agree that Muslims follow Muhammed and Christians follow Jesus and Jews follow Moses ?
Muhammed message was the quran, Jesus the Gospel and Jews the Torah.

Am i right.

Correct.

 

[TashaN]

So his last words may not have been his last ones. Or maybe his death was staged and it was a trick.

lol, you can claim whatever you want. Prophet Mohamed already fulfilled his message to us. The rest is not important.

I would say that Him NOT dying on the cross is speculation. We have historical accounts, from the Bible and outside of the Bible, that He died. Stating that He did not die is speculating that something different happened then what the records say.

But we already have established that there is a reasonable doubt on whether he died or not since they didn't break his legs and they had to take him down from the cross quickly before sunset.

4:157

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it exceptthe following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

The Quran denies that Jesus was put on the cross.

That's not what the verse says, that's just one of the interpretations. Ask any Arabic speaker to read the verse for you. It says "it was made to appear to them", it doesn't say another replaced him.

{157} وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا
That they said (in boast), "We killed Al-Masih 'Isa the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah"; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

No one here is claiming that Jesus wrote the Gospels.

Thank you for acknowledging that. It means they will just judge with what they "saw", meaning what "it was made to appeared to them", not what actually happened. Why don't we ask Jesus himself what happened then? you think there is a way to do that?

They already believed Him to be dead.

It's just a belief, not a fact, and as you admitted before, people can appear to be dead but they might not be dead in reality. Like when you mentioned that Prophet Mohamed might not have died before putting him in the grave, lol.

Does your not religion rely on the Quran being correct and without error? If it states that the Jews killed their prophets but they didn't or that Ramses II drowned but he didn't. your belief system also falls apart.

Hmmm, i have encountered many Evangelical Christians and i thought you were more sincere than them. Are you here on a mission to prove that Islam is wrong or you want to know the truth?

There are many threads which discuss Islam in this forum. I don't reply to all of them despite what is being said in these threads because they can't harm Islam one bit. Islam is very solid and clear as you know. We don't differ on who is God, who is the Messenger, etc like Christians do. Look at the thread your Christian brothers and sisters make in this forum. Please go and have a look. It all ask about the identity of God, doubting of the Trinity, and doubting many other things.

Therefore, if you are really here because you think you are smart enough to cause some doubts, then you are mistaken because you are farrrr farrr away from achieving that, and i would be really really disappointed if that's why you came here.

I was mainly interested because i thought you were sincere and that you were just asking to know more about Islam since you appeared to be intelligent and reasonable enough.

Now, if you are going to use that intelligence which God gave you to try to bring imaginary argument which you think will make Islam fall apart, so you will fail miserably.

You couldn't pass through me and i'm just a layman, imagine if you were dealing with a Muslim scholar, lol. I felt from the beginning what you were trying to do but i thought to give you the benefit of the doubt till you just admitted through your statement above.

So your next answer to me will determine whether i'll continue with you or not. If you are in a mission to make Islam fall apart as you have imagined you could do so, then sorry, i'm not interested, go and make all the threads you wish to make and i won't even blink or waste time on them. Many before you have tried and failed miserably. Nevertheless, if you want to have an adult genuine sincere discussion then i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt again and continue with you.

 

[FearGod]

Correct.

Perfect.

Humans are basically one, that what they should be,unity and brotherhood.

Adam was a human, you can say he was a believer,IOW not an Arab , not Chinese ..etc ,just a human.

Humans created factions and that do separated them, now what makes the French a french and the German a German,
going back some hundreds of years would you find a french man and an English man ..etc.

Prophet Muhammed came to his people, the Arabs, and they were ignorant and in continues wars, some of them follow the message and became Muslims, but they were originally Arabs and hence the prophet declared that Humans are one, no one is better than the other, so religion should unites us again as humans.

When prophet Moses delivered his message to the Egyptians, some follow him and some others rejected his message, the ones who followed him were called later on the Jews but originally they were the Egyptians.

The same problem of today, the French Muslim even though he is a french he'll be regarded as a Muslim and will be treated badly because of his conversion.

Pharaoh did the same as what the ruler of today do, he treated those who follow Moses badly and make the factions in the one society and hence God ordered Moses to move with his believers to Palestine and started from there, the same story with Muhammed , God ordered him to Move with his believers to Al Madina, they were called later on the Muslims.

We created factions, the Jew is a human, the Muslim is a human, the Christian is a human..etc