Islam Converts

[Pater_Familias]

Comment’s like these and attacks from other members towards Islam or other christian or non-christian faiths is what draws me away from Christianity as a religion. Don’t get me wrong for I know other religions do attack Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs but there seems to be such hatred lately from Christians that I do not seem to see from Muslims at least here in the US or from other religious forums. I would not call myself a convert for I have not yet recited its declaration of faith but have been studying Islam more extensively then I ever did Christianity. Plus I do not consider Jesus as a God. I have always considered (even having received a Christian religious education) that Jesus was only a man and never divine. A prophet is what I consider of Jesus. A very spiritually influential man touched by God that preached a new form and mindset of religion that was different from the Jews. To me this is no different from Islam but for me Islam brings a more realistic overtone of faith in conjunction with Judaism and Christianity that I feel Catholicism could not provide.

I look upon all major religions and their denominations as a test from God. A way to teach diversity, equality and harmony within our existence. We may call God by different names, we may celebrate God’s teachings in different fashions but to me it does not matter to how we as humans look upon God but how we look upon ourselves. For I believe no matter our religion we shall all be judged upon our deaths and what we did in life with ring out an eternity. Did we love, listen and abide to God’s law? Did we love ourselves? Did we love our fellow brothers and sisters? Did we learn diversity, equality and harmony? These are just many questions and each of us will seek out our own way to follow God (or prepare for the afterlife) no matter if is Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism or even just using Science to explain it.

For me I choose to seek Islam and Science to provide those answers.

Well if you only considered Jesus a man you were never really a christian

While it might at first glance seem perfectly fine to see the good in all faiths and argue that GOD speaks differently to different people at different times further study will show that such an approach is at best a spiritual cul de sac.

What is then the truth? Is the truth subjective ? Is there an objective truth if so what is that truth ?

There has to be an objective truth as in the natural world there are laws of physics that operate which cannot be changed or altered so in the spiritual world there are objective truths and one such truth is that GOD sent his son to die for our sins.

Why do you doubt that ?. I challenge you to convince me otherwise.

 

[Pater_Familias]

What I meant by the section in bold is that many Christians do not read all of their scriptures. The Bible contains many books which are hardly ever opened by the vast majority of Christians. Even among the ones who read the Bible, they pretty much stick to the New Testament and a few selections in the Old rather than reading the whole thing. And therefore there are major parts of their “tradition” in the Bible of which the average Christian is completely ignorant. Whereas Muslims read the whole Qur’an, at the very least, once every year.

Catholics read the entire bible in the mass readings for the year as well. Nothing new here.

Secondly, I do not live in a hole, nor do I “ignore” acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims or others. I seek to attribute them to the correct source, which is sometimes political, sometimes social, and practically NEVER religious. Imagine if the G20 protesters were Muslim, or if it were in some Muslim country. People would go on again about how violent Muslims were. But in Western countries when non-Muslims are protesting, even with violence, even with riots, it’s okay? Whatever.

Practically never religious ! Surely you cannot be serious ! When Al Queda or whatever loony fringe group declares a Jihad ,what are they declaring a social or holy war ? If a holy war is declared is that not based on religon !

Lastly there is something in the Qur’an about those who call themselves Children of God. In some sense, children are enslaved to their parents. At young ages they are utterly dependent on their parents. Don’t you see that?

 

[planten]

Well if you only considered Jesus a man you were never really a christian

While it might at first glance seem perfectly fine to see the good in all faiths and argue that GOD speaks differently to different people at different times further study will show that such an approach is at best a spiritual cul de sac.

What is then the truth? Is the truth subjective ? Is there an objective truth if so what is that truth ?

There has to be an objective truth as in the natural world there are laws of physics that operate which cannot be changed or altered so in the spiritual world there are objective truths and one such truth is that GOD sent his son to die for our sins.

Why do you doubt that ?. I challenge you to convince me otherwise.

**Pater Familias, please know that God did not have any son (really). But it could be symbolically, spiritually. So please talk in real terms only that we use in daily life.

There is no proof that God sent his innocent son to get punished for the sins of others. You say that. There is no reason and no need and no proof of what you say.

I reproduce a part of the post of Iwesshome below:

Plus I do not consider Jesus as a God. I have always considered (even having received a Christian religious education) that Jesus was only a man and never divine. A prophet is what I consider of Jesus. A very spiritually influential man touched by God that preached a new form and mindset of religion that was different from the Jews.**

That is the truth, 100%. Jesus was a man and a son of man and man of God only. Man is enough for all of us. And the prophets are all men. That is the highest that man can be. But Catholics are not satisfied with prophethood. They do not believe it is very high degree of status for any man. But we Muslims believe that to be the highest that any man can be granted by God.

To make a God of any one beside the Only One God is considered a sin of the highest order. I feel that would be the teaching of the Torah too. So we Muslims are not alone in our belief. I know some one (Catholic) will come up to tell me that they also believe in One God only. But that is a very complicated theory, theology. You have a Father God and a son God and a holy spirit God and still all three are One God. You may try to convince us that you believe in One God only but it will be upto us to agree to you or not.

While you do not believe in the very natural normal beliefs of the Muslims and you downplay our prophet Muhammad at all levels, yet you would like that we believe your complicated formulas of three=one. I have written all of the above for Pater Familias.

I fully agree with the Catholic Iwesshome. May Allah bless him and guide him/her all the more in the way to truth and may Allah (God) bring him/her close to Himself. Amen.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

**Pater Familias, please know that God did not have any son (really). But it could be symbolically, spiritually. So please talk in real terms only that we use in daily life.

There is no proof that God sent his innocent son to get punished for the sins of others. You say that. There is no reason and no need and no proof of what you say.

I reproduce a part of the post of Iwesshome below:

Plus I do not consider Jesus as a God. I have always considered (even having received a Christian religious education) that Jesus was only a man and never divine. A prophet is what I consider of Jesus. A very spiritually influential man touched by God that preached a new form and mindset of religion that was different from the Jews.**

That is the truth, 100%. Jesus was a man and a son of man and man of God only. Man is enough for all of us. And the prophets are all men. That is the highest that man can be. But Catholics are not satisfied with prophethood. They do not believe it is very high degree of status for any man. But we Muslims believe that to be the highest that any man can be granted by God.

To make a God of any one beside the Only One God is considered a sin of the highest order. I feel that would be the teaching of the Torah too. So we Muslims are not alone in our belief. I know some one (Catholic) will come up to tell me that they also believe in One God only. But that is a very complicated theory, theology. You have a Father God and a son God and a holy spirit God and still all three are One God. You may try to convince us that you believe in One God only but it will be upto us to agree to you or not.

While you do not believe in the very natural normal beliefs of the Muslims and you downplay our prophet Muhammad at all levels, yet you would like that we believe your complicated formulas of three=one. I have written all of the above for Pater Familias.

I fully agree with the Catholic Iwesshome. May Allah bless him and guide him/her all the more in the way to truth and may Allah (God) bring him/her close to Himself. Amen.

You fail to prove that Islam didnt even existe before Mohammed. So saying Jesus is not God and is only a man is a common belief that arose from heresies throughout the ages AFTER Jesus Christ. Reading an encylcopedia and educating yourself with an open mind will open more windoes for you. Dont take this as me attacking you, I just want to help you out here.

May God Bless you!

 

[Iwesshome]

I fully agree with the Catholic Iwesshome. May Allah bless him and guide him/her all the more in the way to truth and may Allah (God) bring him/her close to Himself. Amen.

Although I appreciate in you agreeing to my mindset I just don’t want to be represented as something I am not. I am not Catholic for I was raised with a Christian background (Protestant) and had contemplated becoming Catholic in the past. At the moment I am neither and am currently researching Islam.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Do you think I live in a hole?

I grow weary of such lame attacks on my faith. Watered down interpretations? There’s only one Qur’an, it’s in Arabic. I don’t think I’d ever pick up a book called the ‘Noble Koran’ which is something clearly written for Westerners, the editors of which couldn’t even be bothered to faithfully transliterate the word Qur’an.

I do have a translation called ‘The meaning of the Holy Qur’an’ by Yusuf Ali but I don’t like it very much personally. I have one called ‘The interpretation of the meaning of The Noble Qur’an in the English Language’ by Dr. Hilali & Muhsin Khan which has been my favorite english rendition lately, and then another called simply 'The Qur’an: Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meanings" which is published by Saheeh International. Notice how none of them even presume to actually be the Qur’an but humbly own up to what they are: an attempt to render the meaning of the Qur’an into the english language.

I doubt you’d be able to surprise me with something in the Qur’an that I haven’t seen–though you might smack the translations of the Qur’an that Muslims actually read. I guess you figure Muslims are as unconcerned as Christians as regarding the contexts of their scripture.

And then you say I haven’t been educated. But I say, I haven’t been duped into believing lies and myths propagated by Daniel Pipes and his ilk. I am constantly seeking to improve and increase my knowledge about Islam. But is it so hard for you to believe that I’ve been studying it for four years and every day I only love it more?

And as regards being a slave, I don’t think there is a nobler position to be in the sight of God–his slave. For He created me, and He sustains me. He is my Lord, and He deserves my worship. And worshiping God–that makes me a slave, something I’m honored to be.

But I guess you do think I live in a hole. That I’ve never watched the news, never read the Qur’an, never interacted with other Muslims.

I guess you win the contest, since dzheremi was only joking.

How much time do you spend reading the Bible ???

 

[dzheremi]

I didn’t expect you to agree.

Not true–only the first two criteria are the reason for believing in a book. The last is to make it relevant today, for all mankind.

I see. I misread your previous statement. Sorry.

The originals are preserved on a Tablet with God, according to Islam. But there is a final version for mankind–and that’s the only one that needs to be preserved. Isn’t it?

I guess I would agree with you here if I agreed with the idea that the previous scriptures had been corrupted (since that’s the only thing that makes any newer scripture or tablet necessary), but since I don’t…no. You are right that there is a final message for mankind, but it’s no more to be found in the Qur’an than it is in the Book of Mormon or the Kitab al-Iqan.

Luke 20:1 One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him.

What Gospel was “Luke” talking about? The book he was writing? I think not.

Acts 8:25 When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages. Same phrase, same author, different book.

Sister Amy, did you miss the part where I wrote that “Evangelion” can be used to mean “the Gospel” as well as collection of Gospels? Only one of the two verses you quoted uses the term “Evangelion” anyway; the term used in Acts is “ton logos tou Kurios” (“the word of God”).

What gospel were they preaching? The same Gospel Jesus was preaching is what I reckon.

Indeed, Jesus’ message is recorded in Luke. Take a look at the message therein:
2:49:

And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”

“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

24:44-47:

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,

46and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,

and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Which the Qur’an mysteriously calls “Injeel.” Why? I don’t know. Why it bothers you is more an interesting question to me. What was the Greek word used, I wonder?

Huh? Are you asking what Greek word is the ultimate source of “Injil”? I went over that already. As to why it bothers me…well, for one thing, I would not say it bothers me (because I don’t believe the Qur’an is an authentic book to begin with), but I do find it curious that when there is a perfectly good Arabic word available (“al-Bushra”) to describe the good news, the Qur’an instead uses a word rooted in one that refers to not only the gospel as a message, but also as a literal book. You would think that if the idea was to emphasize that this was somehow not a book, it would not use this word. Also, why is it using a Greek word to begin with when there are perfectly good Arabic words that could be used instead? That is strange for a book that is said to be in the most clear/pure Arabic EVER, being of course the preferred tongue of the Islamic Allah. Did Allah screw up for a minute and reveal a bit too much of Islam’s Christian antecedents?

That’s my point…it may be “mysterious” to you why the Qur’an calls this supposedly corrupted gospel of Jesus the “Injil”, but it isn’t to anyone else. It may be out of a desire to preserve Islam’s uniqueness and the sense of its finality (God’s last message or what have you) that you ignore such connections with that which you must claim is corrupt (or else the Qur’an is nothing to follow), but for non-Muslims it is more proof of Emperor Manuel II Paleologos’ now infamous statement: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new…”

I think your understanding is flawed, actually. Since you assume the message Jesus was preaching was about death and resurrection. But I find him teaching many other things, but not Trinity, not worship of himself, nor what else you claim, exactly. So…

Well, alright then. I mean, there ARE the passages that I quoted from Luke above, and many, many others throughout all the Gospels that I am sure you will likewise reject (together with everything else I have written in this post), but that’s fine. The message of eternal life through Jesus Christ is not up for debate, though. You are free to believe whatever you want about anything, but to say that there is no evidence in the Gospels for the message of eternal life is just willful ignorance in service to your false idea that Jesus is a Muslim prophet subordinate to Muhammad. I will not even get into that idea…the last thing I would want to do during these three most holy days of our calendar is engage in that type of talk.

Peace.

 

[dzheremi]

Not really. Islam is the truth. But theoretically, if God sends you the truth and you decide to do something else, why should you expect him to expect your decision to follow falsehood?

Don’t ask me. It was not my point to begin with. I posted that in response to user Iwesshome’s assertion that all major religions are somehow tests from God of diversity, equality, etc. I don’t believe that, and moreover, I certainly do not believe that the Qur’an, nor those that follow it, believe that.

You seem to agree with me, no?

 

[Sister_Amy]

josie_L:
No, I don’t, kids are not enslaved to their parents (no matter how dependent or in whatever sense you concoct), they are gifts of God (therefore must be looked after diligently lest they lose or destroy that gift), not possessions they own (like a slave that has been bought). Dependency does not in this case, in any sense, mean enslavement.

P.S. If anyones a slave it is the parent who diligently looks after his/her child. Just ask any mother with an infant who gets up multiple times during the night, at the crying demand of a hungry or sick child.

Quite the opposite, is anyone forcing her to care for the child? Or does she do it out of love? She is not enslaved to the child, but cares for it willingly.

On the other hand, the child exists completely at the whim of the parent, really. Child wants to chew this, touch that, and mom or dad says no, no, no, and takes it away.

 

[Sister_Amy]

How much time do you spend reading the Bible ???

Less than 5 minutes a week on average, which is probably 5 minutes more than necessary.

Whereas the Qur’an I will read far more often, because the Qur’an (unlike the Bible) is the revealed Word of God, eternally and perfectly preserved. I want to know it, cover to cover, every surah, every ayah, every last letter by memory. How much time do you spend reading the Qur’an?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Quite the opposite, is anyone forcing her to care for the child? Or does she do it out of love? She is not enslaved to the child, but cares for it willingly.

On the other hand, the child exists completely at the whim of the parent, really. Child wants to chew this, touch that, and mom or dad says no, no, no, and takes it away.

The child exists because of God. Does your religion not teach that you are here because of your God?

Umm, because they shouldnt chew it or touch it there is a reason. It’s more of a teacher/student relationship than it will ever be a master/slave relationship. Some parents however do treat their children like slaves, but generally any normal parent does not look at a child and think “Hmm, I own him, I’m going to force him to work for me.”

I let my children explore and learn, when they come across something they should stay away from, I tell him no. He’s only one so he barely understands that.

 

[workingman]

Less than 5 minutes a week on average, which is probably 5 minutes more than necessary.

Whereas the Qur’an I will read far more often, because the Qur’an (unlike the Bible) is the revealed Word of God, eternally and perfectly preserved. I want to know it, cover to cover, every surah, every ayah, every last letter by memory. How much time do you spend reading the Qur’an?

I know this was not directed at me, but I would not spend my time reading the Qor’an as more than a fiction novel. It is not the inspired word of God.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I guess I would agree with you here if I agreed with the idea that the previous scriptures had been corrupted (since that’s the only thing that makes any newer scripture or tablet necessary), but since I don’t…no. You are right that there is a final message for mankind, but it’s no more to be found in the Qur’an than it is in the Book of Mormon or the Kitab al-Iqan.

If there is no “corruption” in previous scriptures, then why was the Torah not enough for the Jews? Is your answer because nobody could live by the law in the first place? Then what kind of God sends mankind a law that they cannot fulfill in the first place? Moses came with a scripture, and then Jesus came with something different. Why? I think you must ask yourself this.

Sister Amy, did you miss the part where I wrote that “Evangelion” can be used to mean “the Gospel” as well as collection of Gospels? Only one of the two verses you quoted uses the term “Evangelion” anyway; the term used in Acts is “ton logos tou Kurios” (“the word of God”).

That’s my mistake. Let’s look at just the term in Luke–there were other options to choose from but I was hasty in my “research.” The point is that the Greek equivalent of “Gospel” was used to refer to what Jesus was actually preaching, before such books which came to be called “Gospels.” I actually cleared this with a Greek atheist once, he checked the Greek for me, and he understood my meaning. Which is, basically, that the term “Gospel” means first of all the message that Jesus was preaching. That’s what Muslims consider to be “Injeel.” That term is consistent in NT literature. If you look at his teachings, pretty much anything before the alleged crucifixion and resurrection, that’s what I’m talking about.

The fact that people use the word to mean other things is kind of irrelevant to my point, actually.

Huh? Are you asking what Greek word is the ultimate source of “Injil”? I went over that already. As to why it bothers me…well, for one thing, I would not say it bothers me (because I don’t believe the Qur’an is an authentic book to begin with), but I do find it curious that when there is a perfectly good Arabic word available (“al-Bushra”) to describe the good news, the Qur’an instead uses a word rooted in one that refers to not only the gospel as a message, but also as a literal book.

I find it rather odd how presumptuous you are to explain things in the Qur’an. Just because you think the word “Bushra” is equivalent to Gospel, you think Muhammad should have selected instead, is that what you think? Since you reject that the Qur’an came from God? Because frankly it’s a problem for your theory. My belief, rather, is that everything in the Qur’an has divine wisdom. It happens often that the Qur’an uses one word for a very particular reason–I think I’ve brought this up on the forum before. Three different words for heart, for instance. Why one at times, and why a different one? Three different words for path, all appear in the Qur’an. There is always a relevance to it. And for me, your desire to weaken the Qur’an only strengthens it in my view, makes it more beautiful and more amazing, precisely because it doesn’t do what modern-day Arab speakers would like it to do.

You would think that if the idea was to emphasize that this was somehow not a book, it would not use this word. Also, why is it using a Greek word to begin with when there are perfectly good Arabic words that could be used instead? That is strange for a book that is said to be in the most clear/pure Arabic EVER, being of course the preferred tongue of the Islamic Allah. Did Allah screw up for a minute and reveal a bit too much of Islam’s Christian antecedents?

I thought the Greek word was Evangelion? Evangelion and Injeel are not the same word. It’s odd yet again that you’re insisting that your own word is “perfectly good Arabic.” How come the early Arabs, whose Arabic was far superior to yours, did not make such claims? There are lots of words and names in the Qur’an which are unusual for one reason or another. Did you know, by the way, that Jesus was not preaching in Greek?

That’s my point…it may be “mysterious” to you why the Qur’an calls this supposedly corrupted gospel of Jesus the “Injil”, but it isn’t to anyone else. It may be out of a desire to preserve Islam’s uniqueness and the sense of its finality (God’s last message or what have you) that you ignore such connections with that which you must claim is corrupt (or else the Qur’an is nothing to follow), but for non-Muslims it is more proof of Emperor Manuel II Paleologos’ now infamous statement: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new…”

That’s rather offensive. Afraid of the Qur’an, are you?

Well, alright then. I mean, there ARE the passages that I quoted from Luke above, and many, many others throughout all the Gospels that I am sure you will likewise reject (together with everything else I have written in this post), but that’s fine. The message of eternal life through Jesus Christ is not up for debate, though.

As a matter of fact, your decision to worship Jesus Christ is up for debate. And that is a very important debate, seeing as how God revealed proof against you.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Don’t ask me. It was not my point to begin with. I posted that in response to user Iwesshome’s assertion that all major religions are somehow tests from God of diversity, equality, etc. I don’t believe that, and moreover, I certainly do not believe that the Qur’an, nor those that follow it, believe that.

You seem to agree with me, no?

I’m not sure if I agree with you.

Because here is something that the Qur’an does say: O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. 49:13

 

[josie_L]

Quite the opposite, is anyone forcing her to care for the child? Or does she do it out of love? She is not enslaved to the child, but cares for it willingly.

On the other hand, the child exists completely at the whim of the parent, really. Child wants to chew this, touch that, and mom or dad says no, no, no, and takes it away.

As I said I do not agree.

 

[josie_L]

Quite the opposite, is anyone forcing her to care for the child? Or does she do it out of love? She is not enslaved to the child, but cares for it willingly.

On the other hand, the child exists completely at the whim of the parent, really. Child wants to chew this, touch that, and mom or dad says no, no, no, and takes it away.

enslave
Verb
-slaving, -slaved] **to make a slave of **(someone)
enslavement n

Dependent (adj.)
3. Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support: dependent children.

You cannot state that the child is enslaved in any manner to the parent as this would imply that the child was a possession rather than a gift. Hence my contention with your analogy.

These are synonyms for the word enslave:

verb subjugate, bind, dominate, trap, suppress, enthral, yoke, tyrannize, sell into slavery, reduce to slavery, enchain

None of these words could come close to describing the relationship that a parent has with it’s child.

 

[josie_L]

The child exists because of God. Does your religion not teach that you are here because of your God?

Umm, because they shouldnt chew it or touch it there is a reason. It’s more of a teacher/student relationship than it will ever be a master/slave relationship. Some parents however do treat their children like slaves, but generally any normal parent does not look at a child and think “Hmm, I own him, I’m going to force him to work for me.”

I let my children explore and learn, when they come across something they should stay away from, I tell him no. He’s only one so he barely understands that.

:thumbsup:

 

[dzheremi]

If there is no “corruption” in previous scriptures, then why was the Torah not enough for the Jews? Is your answer because nobody could live by the law in the first place? Then what kind of God sends mankind a law that they cannot fulfill in the first place? Moses came with a scripture, and then Jesus came with something different. Why? I think you must ask yourself this.

Why not ask Jews about the Torah? I ask you questions about the Qur’an. Anyway, I’m not convinced that they would say that the Torah is not “enough” for them. That seems like an Islamic understanding of scripture and its role in a religion.

That’s my mistake. …] The fact that people use the word to mean other things is kind of irrelevant to my point, actually.

That’s fine. My point isn’t that it “proves” this or that, but that the presence of the word that is clearly derived from a Greek word for the same concept (and more concepts that “Injil” apparently does not admit) is strange. It doesn’t fit with the view that the Qur’an is a completely unique and “pure Arabic” document. That’s it.

I find it rather odd how presumptuous you are to explain things in the Qur’an. Just because you think the word “Bushra” is equivalent to Gospel, you think Muhammad should have selected instead, is that what you think?

I am saying that “al-Bushra” is the word I have been told means “the good news”, so I would think that this would be a more appropriate word since it does not come from the Greek “evangelion” which has additional meanings that are apparently not appropriate for the concept that “Injil” is supposed to signify. That’s all. But maybe there is some reason why a Greek cognate is used instead. The fact that you attribute it to some “mystery” of the Qur’an seems silly to me, but then I don’t believe in the Qur’an to begin with, so that’s neither here nor there.

Since you reject that the Qur’an came from God? Because frankly it’s a problem for your theory.

Not really. I would reject the Qur’an if it were written entirely in Greek, Spanish, Aramaic, Russian, whatever…doesn’t matter. I just find it strange because MUSLIMS are the ones who like to talk about the purity of its language, and that every word is so precise and all this. So it is not a problem for my theory at all. I don’t actually have a theory. Just a question.

My belief, rather, is that everything in the Qur’an has divine wisdom. It happens often that the Qur’an uses one word for a very particular reason–I think I’ve brought this up on the forum before. Three different words for heart, for instance. Why one at times, and why a different one? Three different words for path, all appear in the Qur’an. There is always a relevance to it. And for me, your desire to weaken the Qur’an only strengthens it in my view, makes it more beautiful and more amazing, precisely because it doesn’t do what modern-day Arab speakers would like it to do.

So now it has gone from “mysterious” to “amazing” that the Qur’an has used a Greek cognate…?

I thought the Greek word was Evangelion? Evangelion and Injeel are not the same word.

I know they’re not…I think you’ve misunderstood my reason for bringing this up.

It’s odd yet again that you’re insisting that your own word is “perfectly good Arabic.” How come the early Arabs, whose Arabic was far superior to yours, did not make such claims?

I do not know. Again, “al-bushra” is the word that I am told is used for “the good news”. That’s why I wonder about this.

Did you know, by the way, that Jesus was not preaching in Greek?

Okay, now you’re just being silly…

Afraid of the Qur’an, are you?

Hardly. I’m simply asking questions. There’s no crime in that. If you are offended that I agree with Emperor Paleologos, there’s not really much I can do about that. I am likewise very offended by many things that Muslims say and believe, but it is not anything that will keep me from dialogue with those who can handle not being pandered to. I am fairly sure that you are one such person, but if not we can stop this exchange at any time, as I am not deliberately trying to offend you.

As a matter of fact, your decision to worship Jesus Christ is up for debate. And that is a very important debate, seeing as how God revealed proof against you.

You are not replying to what I actually said here. I said that it is not up for debate that the Gospels contain messages of eternal life through Christ, because they most certainly do. This would be true even if I were not a Christian, so I don’t know where you get the idea that I am talking about myself and my own decisions.

“God revealed proof against” me? Hmmm…according to the Qur’an, maybe. As with most things, I’ll agree to disagree on this.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not sure if I agree with you.

Because here is something that the Qur’an does say: O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. 49:13

Okay. This clearly must not apply to different religions though, right? Or else why would you have written “if God sends you the truth and you decide to do something else, why should you expect him to expect your decision to follow falsehood?”?

Knowing each other, fine. Being friends on some level, fine. That is not the same as allowing the free expression of religion other than Islam, which is something that is NOT allowed in most Islamic societies, and when it is so disallowed it is under the pretext of following verses such as the one I posted earlier.

 

[planten]

**
dzhereme, please know that it would not be fair to name your book (injeel) as Bushra because it it means good news in Arabic. The name of the book in the Quran would have to be whatever that book was being called. That as you said had Greek connotation and not original Araimic name. No problem.

Your religion had shifted to Greece. See the word Christ and Christianity etc. So Quran is right in calling the bible as Injeel.

Also, you had raised a point why the christians are called nasaara. You felt that it was due to the place name Nazarath or because of Jesus being Nazarene. That is not the case. The christians are called nasaara because they were the the helpers of the man of God i.e. Jesus.

When Jesus was in much trouble, he called his disciples for help. He said, “Who is my helper in the way of Allah??.” The disciples replied “We are the helpers of Allah.” Please see below:

Chapter 61 verse 14.

[61:14] يٰۤاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا كُوْنُوْۤا اَنْصَارَ اللّٰهِ كَمَا قَالَ عِيْسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ لِلْحَوارِيّٖنَ مَنْ اَنْصَارِىْۤ اِلَى اللّٰهِ‌ؕ قَالَ الْحَـوَارِيُّوْنَ نَحْنُ اَنْصَارُ اللّٰهِ‌ؕ فَاٰمَنَتْ طَّآٮِٕفَةٌ مِّنْۢ بَنِىْۤ اِسْرآءِيْلَ وَكَفَرَتْ طَّآٮِٕفَةٌ ۚ فَاَيَّدْنَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْا عَلٰى عَدُوِّهِمْ فَاَصْبَحُوْا ظٰهِرِيْنَ‏
[61:15] يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُوٓاْ أَنصَارَ ٱللَّهِ كَمَا قَالَ عِيسَى ٱبۡنُ مَرۡيَمَ لِلۡحَوَارِيِّـۧنَ مَنۡ أَنصَارِىٓ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ قَالَ ٱلۡحَوَارِيُّونَ نَحۡنُ أَنصَارُ ٱللَّهِ‌ۖ فَـَٔامَنَت طَّآٮِٕفَةٌ۬ مِّنۢ بَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٲٓءِيلَ وَكَفَرَت طَّآٮِٕفَةٌ۬‌ۖ فَأَيَّدۡنَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ عَلَىٰ عَدُوِّهِمۡ فَأَصۡبَحُواْ ظَـٰهِرِينَ

[61:14] O ye who believe! be helpers of Allah, as said Jesus, son of Mary, to his disciples, ‘Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah.**’ The disciples said, ‘We are helpers of Allah.’ So a party of the children of Israel believed, while a party strictly opposed and disbelieved (in Jesus). Then We gave power to those who believed against their enemy, and they became victorious.

The name Nasaara is nothing to do with Nazarene. Ansaar in Arabic means helpers.