Been a Muslim for 23 years, I would like to clear misconceptions you have

[TarkanAttila]

Since many people are asking this.

Qur’an is from God directly through revelation to the prophet & recited by others. Where as the bible is not like this.

Not to be rude, but while I concede your point that the Bible was not a direct revelation the way the Koran was to your prophet, I don’t see why I should trust your prophet Mohammed. It basically looks like him, alone, versus the dozens of writers and translators of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.

And before you say it was a direct revelation, and that’s why we should trust him, I would ask you whether you believe Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard or Zoroaster had direct revelations as to the nature of God. And I would ask why you don’t believe them, and what differentiates them from your prophet Mohammed.

In other words, don’t criticise your religion. Criticise theirs, and compare it to your own. Just a thought.

We also think there was interpolation also. There are many many different bibles. Some are 60 books some are 70 books, some say different chapters in different places. There are clear man made influences.

Personally, that doesn’t bother me so much. Here’s why. Christianity and Judaism are not dependent upon a book. They’re dependent upon God’s revelation, not merely to one man, but to a People. That revelation has been spread through the Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. But it has also been spread through philosophers, theologians, bishops, priests, deacons, and common, ordinary people, without a Bible.

If we lost the entire Bible, every single copy, tomorrow, Christianity could still exist without it. While the Bible is very important to us, is not absolutely necessary for salvation. All that’s necessary is to know, love, and serve God, who we know through Jesus.

We say Jesus was a Muslim. We believe Jesus lived like a Muslim today. We believe he spoke in Aramaic & he also used the word Allah. The bible was written a long time after Jesus and we think it is not accurate. We believe the followers of Jesus practiced Islam and only after the bible was written did Christianity/Catholicism become widespread particularly with Constantine.

Ah… we have fragments of the New Testament that go back to the 100s. And it’s been atheists and agnostics ratifying these are that old. Not only Christians. You may believe what you like. Even contrary to the evidence.

But that only makes me ask, again, how do you guys think God sees human reason? Does He try to work with it? Or does He think we’re smart enough to fly over reason? Or what?

'Cos the things you’re telling me… they, they don’t jive with the evidence, or with reason.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Maybe Jakubb needs a break. He answered a lot of questions yesterday.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Get off the Isis and beheading questions, this is not WN.
Stick to the OPs subject of religious issues.
Since nobody bothers to read stickies:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=791722
Here are the guidelines for inter-faith dialogue:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These rules for posting are not open for debate.

Are we to understand then that this also applies to comments by non-Catholics who are constantly bringing up the Galileo affair, the Crusades, the inquisition, clerical misconduct as proof that the Catholic faith is false or corrupt are also forbidden? .

Linus2nd

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since many people are asking this.

Let me try to address the point. First we say the bible is corrupted, now when we say corrupted we do not just mean interpolation. But corrupted by the writers of the bible. The Qur’an is from God directly through revelation to the prophet & recited by others. Where as the bible is not like this.

Do you have some proof of this? Or is this just a convenient way of dismissing the Bible?

Couldn’t Christians or Jews challenge the Qur’an on the same basis?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

We do not believe Paul is a prophet. We say between Jesus & Muhammad there were no other prophets in between. So we reject everything that comes from Paul.

We agree. Paul was not a prophet. He was an Apostle, and apostles were sent by Jesus. But since Paul was also an inspired author of the New Testament books, what he wrote was “whatever he [God] wanted written, and no more”.

Simply dismissing Paul is convenient for you, but in the end, you have to admit that this is just your opinion.

We also think there was interpolation also. There are many many different bibles. Some are 60 books some are 70 books, some say different chapters in different places. There are clear man made influences.

This is true.

First, as a Catholic, I happen to think that there are 73 books and that other Christians have subtracted from the OT erroneously. But that is a completely separate issue concerning the authority of the Church, and it has nothing to do with the books of the Bible itself. More importantly for the purposes of Christianity, EVERY Christian accepts that there are 27 books in the New Testament.

How will you deal with that agreement? You are forced to admit that regarding the the unique teachings of Jesus, Christians are in COMPLETE agreement as to which books are inspired texts.

Regarding translations, it is true that the Bible is available in many languages and translations. However, it is possible for anyone who has the skills and knowledge to refer directly to the original Greek of the New Testament and either Hebrew or Greek for the Old Testament. And, of course, it is possible for someone to read multiple translations in their own language to get a richer understanding of what the texts actually say.

Muslims have similar problems in that non-Arabs must learn Arabic or rely on translations in their own language, also. If they attempt to learn Arabic, it is always possible that because that is not their first language, they, too, will not appreciate the full meaning of the text because their understanding of a foreign language is insufficient to enable them to appreciate what the Allah was actually saying.

We say Jesus was a Muslim.

Jesus was a Jew.

We believe Jesus lived like a Muslim today.

I did not realize that Muslims live according the the Laws of Moses given to the Jews. Clearly, Jesus did.

We believe he spoke in Aramaic & he also used the word Allah.

Since Allah is not God’s name, anyone who wishes to refer to God may use that word.

The bible was written a long time after Jesus and we think it is not accurate.

The first books of the New Testament were written within 30 years of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, and the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to record accurately what they had seen.

We believe the followers of Jesus practiced Islam and only after the bible was written did Christianity/Catholicism become widespread particularly with Constantine.

The last books of the New Testament were completed before the end of the first century. The early Church practiced a combination of Judaism and Christianity which gradually lost its Jewish characteristics as the Church became overwhelmingly populated by non-Jewish believers.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Are we to understand then that this also applies to comments by non-Catholics who are constantly bringing up the Galileo affair, the Crusades, the inquisition, clerical misconduct as proof that the Catholic faith is false or corrupt are also forbidden? .

Linus2nd

1. The moderator said the rules are not up for debate.
2. Even if they were, this is a Catholic forum. If there’s no response to any of the things you brought up, the faith is in serious trouble. However, Jakubb here is a Moslem, on a Catholic forum. I have not seen many Moslems around here. So we’ve kind of got to remember, he’s outnumbered, and how we would feel if we were always being asked by atheists or Protestants about the issues they have with Catholics.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jakubb-

Now, I want to address another common misunderstanding held by many people.

Question: How can we be certain that the Bible we have today is accurate when the originals no longer exist.

Answer: We can know that the text we have today is accurate by comparing multiple copies. Here’s how that works:

Each author of a NT book wrote an original manuscript which I’ll call “M”. Using M, copies were made and sent to various Churches in the NT era. I’ll call these second-generation copies, C1, C2 & C3. The number of copies is not important for this illustration. Now, imagine that copies of the copies were made as the Christian Church expanded since every local congregation wanted to have a copy of these important texts. I’ll call the copies of C1, C1a, C1b & C1c. There would also be C2a, C2b, and so forth. With me so far? I sure hope the following diagram reproduces well…think of each column as a generation. The copies which have not been lost are in bold.

M—C1—C1a—C1a1
-------------C1b—C1b1
----------------------C1b2
-------------C1c—C1c1
----------------------C1c2
------C2—C2a—C2a1
-------------C2b—C2b1
------C3—C3a—C3a1
----------------------C3a2
-------------C3b—C3b1
-------------C3c—C3c1
----------------------C3c2
----------------------C3c3

Now, imagine further that M, C1, C2 & C3 along with C1a, C2a, C3a & C3b have all been lost, but that C1b, C1c, C2b & C3c are all in museums scattered around the world - Moscow, London, the Vatican, etc. Additionally, all of the copies of those copies still exist (I’m simplifying, of course).

We know that M must have existed, and logic dictates that C1, C2 & C3 must have existed (though we may be unsure of the number of first-generation copies). We can learn that both C1 & C2 must have existed by comparing the extant copies C1b & C2b and discovering subtle variations in the texts - copyists glosses or “typos”, if you will. If C1 was slightly different from C2, then those differences will be reflected in C1a and C2a along with all of the subsequent copies of those copies. Variations were passed on from generation to generation. Make sense?

So, how can we know with certainty what the Bible actually said if we don’t have the original autograph (M) or if errors (variations) crept into the text? By comparing the existing texts, scholars can work backwards to determine what M actually said. This process can never be perfect since humans are involved, but we can have a high degree of confidence that the Bible we have to day contains the message that the original authors intended to convey.

Thus, the argument made by Muslims that the Bible is somehow defective as a result of being copied from one generation to the next is simply a poor excuse to deny something that you don’t want to deal with.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Thus, the argument made by Muslims that the Bible is somehow defective as a result of being copied from one generation to the next is simply a poor excuse to deny something that you don’t want to deal with.

One thing that has always bothered me about the Christian and Jewish holy texts somehow being corrupted is that it invalidates the argument that the Quran is somehow not or can not become corrupted. God somehow forgot to provide the same protections to His previous two revelations that He gave to His final revelation?

 

[meltzerboy]

One thing that has always bothered me about the Christian and Jewish holy texts somehow being corrupted is that it invalidates the argument that the Quran is somehow not or can not become corrupted. God somehow forgot to provide the same protections to His previous two revelations that He gave to His final revelation?

Moreover, as you and I noted previously, the Torah has been meticulously transcribed and verified. And it was also revealed to Moses, the greatest prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures, with the accompaniment of thousands of Jewish eyewitnesses at Mt.Sinai.

 

[Converted1]

Question:

It is claimed that Allah had created the Quran, in the heavens, from the beginning of time, therefore it had existed before creation.

Why did Allah wait thousand upon thousands of years to reveal it to a nomad in the Arabian peninsula and not issue it from the beginning of Hebrew scripture time and would have avoided all of these “corrupted” holy books?

Why did Allah send 124,000 prophets on earth to spread the message of Islam and they all failed? Why didn’t he just send Mohammad right from the beginning?

Since Allah is all-knowing, all-seeing and his Quran was heaven before creation, why did he need to “abrogate” the Quran muslims have today? Did he not know the future of events to come?

Well the same argument can be made with Judaism and with Christianity in general. Why did god wait until Moses to actually establish the law? Why did he arbitrarily pick a tiny little middle eastern country as his “chosen people” instead of revealing his law simultaneously to the entire world? Why did God wait for thousands and thousands of years to send Jesus to redeem us? Could he not have just done it right after the Fall, or maybe before the flood at least?
It is not quite fair to use questions like this that essentially apply to almost all “Revealed Religions.”

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Moreover, as you and I noted previously, the Torah has been meticulously transcribed and verified. And it was also revealed to Moses, the greatest prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures, with the accompaniment of thousands of Jewish eyewitnesses at Mt.Sinai.

I think Islam would have an actual leg to stand on if it claimed that the Jewish and Christian holy texts weren’t corrupted, but were being misinterpreted. Well at least for its interactions with Christians. Jews would probably do a /facepalm “Seriously, more of these people?!? Apparently we are the only ones who can’t properly interpret our own holy texts.”

 

[dronald]

I think Islam would have an actual leg to stand on if it claimed that the Jewish and Christian holy texts weren’t corrupted, but were being misinterpreted. Well at least for its interactions with Christians. Jews would probably do a /facepalm “Seriously, more of these people?!? Apparently we are the only ones who can’t properly interpret our own holy texts.”

Yeah, that’s even what the JW’s and Mormons do. Except even they believe in the death and resurrection of our Savior.

It can’t work in Islam because they can’t believe Jesus both died and didn’t die at the same time; so they have to make up conspiracy theories that ignore history.

 

[Converted1]

Yeah, that’s even what the JW’s and Mormons do. Except even they believe in the death and resurrection of our Savior.

It can’t work in Islam because they can’t believe Jesus both died and didn’t die at the same time; so they have to make up conspiracy theories that ignore history.

They are not saying that he died and did not die at the same time. They essentially say that he was assumed into heaven like Ezikiel and like the Virgin Mary.

 

[jakasaki]

Well the same argument can be made with Judaism and with Christianity in general. Why did god wait until Moses to actually establish the law? Why did he arbitrarily pick a tiny little middle eastern country as his “chosen people” instead of revealing his law simultaneously to the entire world? Why did God wait for thousands and thousands of years to send Jesus to redeem us? Could he not have just done it right after the Fall, or maybe before the flood at least?
It is not quite fair to use questions like this that essentially apply to almost all “Revealed Religions.”

This is an Islamic/Muslim thread/topic.

Your inquiry is a derailment of such. If you wish to ask questions from your above reply then start a new thread to discuss your concerns.

 

[Converted1]

This is an Islamic/Muslim thread/topic.

Your inquiry is a derailment of such. If you wish to ask questions from your above reply then start a new thread to discuss your concerns.

I actually am in agreement with your questions and admit the validity of the question as their position hardly seems to make any sense, but then again, when I acknowledge my beliefs, I also realize that they also do not make much sense either. The idea of a specially revealed Monotheism to a particular person or a particular people is essentially an illogical position. It has God playing favorites. I am not attempting to derail a thread, it just is not a fair question as you are applying a double standard. This is exactly the same line of argumentation used by agnostics and atheist against Christians and so I think it is a bit unfair of you that you apply them to Islam but consider these apparently to be non-issues in Catholicism.

 

[TarkanAttila]

They are not saying that he died and did not die at the same time. They essentially say that he was assumed into heaven like Ezikiel and like the Virgin Mary.

And as the OP pointed out, there is contention among Moslem scholars as to whether Jesus had a pretender who went and died on the cross instead of him, or not. In other words, some Moslems do not even believe there was a crucifixion.

 

[jakasaki]

I actually am in agreement with your questions and admit the validity of the question as their position hardly seems to make any sense, but then again, when I acknowledge my beliefs, I also realize that they also do not make much sense either. The idea of a specially revealed Monotheism to a particular person or a particular people is essentially an illogical position. It has God playing favorites. I am not attempting to derail a thread, it just is not a fair question as you are applying a double standard. This is exactly the same line of argumentation used by agnostics and atheist against Christians and so I think it is a bit unfair of you that you apply them to Islam but consider these apparently to be non-issues in Catholicism.

Last reply to you for now!

I noticed you are new to the forum. ** Please read the forum rules. **

We are to stick to the topic at hand. If you have any concerns which might derail the thread, then you must start a new one.

Otherwise, if derailment happens, the mod, Mr. Eric, will come in and shut the discussion down and lock the thread.

 

[dronald]

And as the OP pointed out, there is contention among Moslem scholars as to whether Jesus had a pretender who went and died on the cross instead of him, or not. In other words, some Moslems do not even believe there was a crucifixion.

Too bad they can’t appeal to history…

Regardless, the Qur’an says “nor was he crucified” so that rules that out.

 

[Jakubb]

If Islam empowers women why can’t women in Saudi Arabia drive?

They can drive everywhere else. If you look in Pakistan Bhutto became the leader of the country and she is a woman. Saudi is Salafi. Salafi and Wahhabi sects are a little more strict on how they view dress, how women should behave, what women can do. They believe that women should always be accompanied by a man if they go out and they shouldn’t reveal much flesh to the opposite sex unless family member or husband.

Groups like ISIS are Salafi. Salafi makes up a very small number of Muslims. Less than 10%.

So Saudi being salafi means you will get very different rules than in other countries.

Sorry guys if I miss your post, but there is so many questions.

 

[joe371]

Since many people are asking this.

Let me try to address the point. First we say the bible is corrupted, now when we say corrupted we do not just mean interpolation. But corrupted by the writers of the bible. The Qur’an is from God directly through revelation to the prophet & recited by others. Where as the bible is not like this.

We do not believe Paul is a prophet. We say between Jesus & Muhammad there were no other prophets in between. So we reject everything that comes from Paul.

We also think there was interpolation also. There are many many different bibles. Some are 60 books some are 70 books, some say different chapters in different places. There are clear man made influences.

We say Jesus was a Muslim. We believe Jesus lived like a Muslim today. We believe he spoke in Aramaic & he also used the word Allah. The bible was written a long time after Jesus and we think it is not accurate. We believe the followers of Jesus practiced Islam and only after the bible was written did Christianity/Catholicism become widespread particularly with Constantine.

Trying to keep it short, due to the many posts: These of course are certainly the beliefs of those members of the Islam religion. However, until you provide sustainable proof for you assertions, from vetted sources, why would anyone, Muslim or Christian, view what you said as an accurate assessment? Say it, but prove it too! Or, is it a faith-based assertion to claim that the Quran is the only accurate source of divine guidance?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

They can drive everywhere else. If you look in Pakistan Bhutto became the leader of the country and she is a woman. Saudi is Salafi. Salafi and Wahhabi sects are a little more strict on how they view dress, how women should behave, what women can do. They believe that women should always be accompanied by a man if they go out and they shouldn’t reveal much flesh to the opposite sex unless family member or husband.

Groups like ISIS are Salafi. Salafi makes up a very small number of Muslims. Less than 10%.

So Saudi being salafi means you will get very different rules than in other countries.

Sorry guys if I miss your post, but there is so many questions.

Just a little more strict?
Not allowing women to have any independence seems quite extreme.