Why do muslims think Bible is corrupted and Islamic texts are well preserved?

[firedragon]

let’s start with who ibn ishaq,born in Medina during the Islamic golden age,medina being conquered by Muhammad collected oral traditions of the life of Muhammad,ok so Far?,he was a Muslim and I put it to you again,why would he as a follower of Islam write such a story.

How sure are you that Ibn Ishaq wrote this story? Can you provide evidence?

Now we been to rewind a bit in history,the Arabs old gods were al Nat al uzza and manat,I’ve probably made a mess of the spelling on those but you get my drift but this makes ibn Ishaqs bIography of Muhammad more compelling,let’s face it,Muhammad was desperate to bring the people to him hence these verses:Ta'rīkh (Vol. VI)(circa 915 CE.

First, provide evidence. Just asserting is invalid.

 

[Shakeel]

Irrelevant.

If I wrote a book that threatened to get me killed, I can't think of any more relevant question to ask then than, was it any good?

 

[England my lionheart]

How sure are you that Ibn Ishaq wrote this story? Can you provide evidence?

can you provide evidence that your god authored the Quran?,if others copied ishaq I think it’s a good bet he did which you said in your own words.



First, provide evidence. Just asserting is invalid.[/QUOTe

I gave the evidence which you refuted,I’m not disappointed by this as this is the standard reposte.

 

[firedragon]

I think you typed inside the quotes so your text cannot be seen.

No. You have not given any evidence. Zilch. And you just deviated into a red herring fallacy bringing in the authorship of the Quran simply because you pretending to know ibn ishaq intimately is false and you cant show anything since you dont know anything about it but what you had read some where on the internet.

See, that's why you should do a bit more research and not worship hearsay like God.

Ibn Ishaqs seerah is not even accepted by muslims as absolute but you seem to believe it. Why would you believe something that even Muslims dont? Is not that hilarious?

Now please try another red herring. Or you can maybe refer to the thread I will link below because it is absolutely relevant to people like you.

Non-Muslim, Hadith believers are stauncher than Muslims themselves

 

[England my lionheart]

I think you typed inside the quotes so your text cannot be seen.

No. You have not given any evidence. Zilch. And you just deviated into a red herring fallacy bringing in the authorship of the Quran simply because you pretending to know ibn ishaq intimately is false and you cant show anything since you dont know anything about it but what you had read some where on the internet.

See, that's why you should do a bit more research and not worship hearsay like God.

Ibn Ishaqs seerah is not even accepted by muslims as absolute but you seem to believe it. Why would you believe something that even Muslims dont? Is not that hilarious?

Now please try another red herring. Or you can maybe refer to the thread I will link below because it is absolutely relevant to people like you.

Non-Muslim, Hadith believers are stauncher than Muslims themselves

 

[England my lionheart]

I very much doubt you speak for all Muslims,some do some don’t and some don’t want to regardless,it’s always the same with proselytising religions followers sadly.

 

[Augustus]

he was a Muslim and I put it to you again,why would he as a follower of Islam write such a story.

Ironically, Ibn Taymiyya who is revered by many extremist Muslims thought the 'satanic verses' event was historical.

Although it must be noted that he did see it as testament to Muhammad's honesty and trustworthiness because he identified and acknowledged his error. So it's not as straightforward as 'No True Muslim' could believe such a story.

If you want to read a scholarly article about it: Shahab Ahmed (1998). Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses. Studia Islamica,

While the criterion of embarrassment can be a legitimate argument in favour of historicity, what may of may not have been 'embarrassing' can change over time so it often isn't a reliable argument for something actually happening.

 

[England my lionheart]

Ironically, Ibn Taymiyya who is revered by many extremist Muslims thought the 'satanic verses' event was historical.

Although it must be noted that he did see it as testament to Muhammad's honesty and trustworthiness because he identified and acknowledged his error. So it's not as straightforward as 'No True Muslim' could believe such a story.

If you want to read a scholarly article about it: Shahab Ahmed (1998). Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses. Studia Islamica,

While the criterion of embarrassment can be a legitimate argument in favour of historicity, what may of may not have been 'embarrassing' can change over time so it often isn't a

Thanks for the sources,it is interesting and see the point

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists go one step further, they think all religious texts are at best dubious.

No...surely not true!!
Just the ones that refer to supernatural entities and forces.

I mean...to be sure, that does kinda limit things...lol
And of course, they might find some of the non-supernatural ones dubious as well, for other reasons.

Still. I'm confident I could fill a library with religious texts I don't find dubious. I just make no commitments as to the size of the library.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does it?

Yes.

I've got nothing.

I consider that disturbing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it suggests a medieval mind-set, reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Death to heretics!

And intolerance in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whats the relevance to the topic?

Your attempt at trying to avoid answering the question, is noted. And telling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I wrote a book that threatened to get me killed, I can't think of any more relevant question to ask then than, was it any good?

Which is extremely disturbing.

The fact that you describe it as "writing a book that threatened to get me killed" says it all.
No, it's not writing the book that is the threat.

The threat comes from intolerant folks. It doesn't matter if the book is good or bad or accurate or non-sensical. Just like it doesn't matter if the danish cartoon or the charlie hebdo cartoons were funny or in poor taste or accurate or non-sensical.

What matters is the intolerance exhibited from a culture that has no problems with issuing, and carrying out, death warrants for writing a book or drawing a cartoon.

What also matters is the fact that people like you avoid talking about this at all cost and instead try to redirect attention to irrelevant matters.

The only right answer here, is to condemn the death threats.
Anything else is besides the point at best and agreement with the death fatwa's at worst.


So, let's have an unambiguous answer here...
Do you or do you not support the death warrant fatwa against Rushdie because he wrote a book?

 

[Shakeel]

Which is extremely disturbing.

The fact that you describe it as "writing a book that threatened to get me killed" says it all.
No, it's not writing the book that is the threat.

The threat comes from intolerant folks. It doesn't matter if the book is good or bad or accurate or non-sensical. Just like it doesn't matter if the danish cartoon or the charlie hebdo cartoons were funny or in poor taste or accurate or non-sensical.

What matters is the intolerance exhibited from a culture that has no problems with issuing, and carrying out, death warrants for writing a book or drawing a cartoon.

What also matters is the fact that people like you avoid talking about this at all cost and instead try to redirect attention to irrelevant matters.

The only right answer here, is to condemn the death threats.
Anything else is besides the point at best and agreement with the death fatwa's at worst.


So, let's have an unambiguous answer here...
Do you or do you not support the death warrant fatwa against Rushdie because he wrote a book?

I'm sorry if you don't care what you die for.

No, I don't support it. It was a Fatwa by a Shiite. Now if Rushdie had been in an Islamic country he might have been punished according to Islamic law, but killing him in a country that is not Islamic is a crime.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry if you don't care what you die for.

More despicable comments.

No, I don't support it. It was a Fatwa by a Shiite.

Ha. So the "wrong kind of muslim" then?

Good that you don't support it. The reason why is somehow not satisfying though.

Now if Rushdie had been in an Islamic country he might have been punished according to Islamic law, but killing him in a country that is not Islamic is a crime.

Killing him, or punishing him, in any country for writing a book, is morally reprehensible.
So if Islamic law calls for punishment for writing a book (or drawing a cartoon), then islamic law is morally reprehensible.

 

[BrightShadow]

It doesn't matter what Muslims or Christians think about Bible or Quran. The best way to judge a book - is not by its cover but by its contents. Furthermore to judge if the content is from the same source (in this case from "God)" - one must compare it line by line and chapter by chapter. It is expected that God wouldn't contradict himself (gender unspecific)!
So, if contradictions are found between different chapters of the same book then that book should lose its authenticity test. It's that simple!
No need to question followers of a certain religion - just by putting the book to the test - one can find himself if a book is corrupted or not.
By Googling one can try to find contradictions already found by other scholars/critics. If any contradictions are found via any source then double checking the verses in question is not a hard job and it can easily confirmed.
The result of which book is corrupted is at the other end this simple "contradiction test"!