Islam Converts

[Sister_Amy]

Does this apply to all people, or only to Muslims?

Vickie

Does it say that it applies only to Muslims? No.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Would you explain what you mean by the bolded post? What makes you think that we don’t take our scriptures seriously?

Yes, you do live in a hole. You ignore all the acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims on a daily basis acting on the commands in the Quran. Obviously you approve and condone such actions as long as they’re against the unbelievers, “the worst of creation” according to your “holy” book!

I’d rather be a “child of God” than a slave anyday. There is no worse slavery than that of the mind. And yes, Sister Amy, you are brainwashed because you cannot see the evil in Islam with its primitive, cruel and barbaric teachings. Islam is true to you simply because you want it to be. Not you nor any Muslim here has ever given any real proof of its validity. All you all do, is post a lot of rhetoric based on fuzzy feelings.

You can’t see the truth because you can’t get away from your self-righteous attitude and I feel very sorry for you.

Vickie

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.

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.

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?

 

[Sister_Amy]

And we must remind YOU, Muslim Woman and Mr. Dawud, that you don’t know what the heck you are talking about!

1.) Jesus was not given a book.

2.) He did not write one, either.

3.) The Chaldeans are not Roman Catholics! (This makes me wonder just what the authors of that site thought that Mr. Dawud was converting from…)

4.) Muhammad is NOT in the Bible.

Trying to force Christianity to fit flawed Islamic epistemology does not invalidate the faith one bit. It does, however, prove the poverty of your methods of argumentation.

There are plenty of questions I could likewise ask you about Islam, based on the lines of argumentation regretfully parrotted by Mr. Dawud. If the Bible is not to be considered trustworthy because portions of it were not written in the native tongue of Christ, then what can we make of the Qur’an? Do any among you now speak Qur’anic Arabic as a mother tongue? No. Does that cause you to doubt the authenticity of the Qur’an? Of course not! So why should it be any different for us? On the contrary, it makes more sense that the New Testament would be written in Greek, because that was the common language of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time of the writings. It does not signal any problem for the Bible, since unlike the Qur’an noone believes that the Bible came to one man over the course of 20+ years, but to several who were divinely inspired, over a much greater span of years. This is why Islamic epistemology is absolutely null and void when presenting textual criticism of this kind. (WHICH, BY THE WAY, YOU OUGHT TO TRY ON YOUR OWN BOOK SOMETIME AND LEAVE OURS THE HECK ALONE FOR ONCE.)

Not a literal book, with ink and pages. Revelation, the Injeel. So many ways a thing can be misunderstood, only one way to be understood correctly.

 

[planten]

**Dzhereme, WE Muslims do not believe that Jesus was given a book in written form. However, Jesus was sent. Then the knowledge of the book (Injeel) followed. He was a teacher. He taught to the people. That was the book, whether dictated to be written or not. That was the book given to Jesus. That was the truth. We Muslims believe in whatever was revealed to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad.

That knowledge may be available with the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims. The name of our religion (Islam) is written in the Quran. The name given to us is written in the Quran. That name is Muslims. (Not Muhammadans).

The language of the Quran is written in the Quran. That language is said to be Arabic (Clear Arabic= Arabi un Mubeen).

There is no mention of Trinity, Christianity, Christians in the bible. There is no mention of the original language in which the message was revealed to Jesus. A copy of the bible in the original language is not available.

For some reasons, the Christians deny that Jesus had any book or gave any book. We do not believe that. In as much as he was a prophet of God, he was given the messages. Of course there was nothing about any new law. The message was to strengthen the message and teachings of Moses. Yet a message was there and we believe in that what was given (revealed) to Jesus from God.**

 

[dzheremi]

Not a literal book, with ink and pages. Revelation, the Injeel. So many ways a thing can be misunderstood, only one way to be understood correctly.

Don’t be condescending towards me about not understanding correctly when I responding to this, posted by Muslim Woman:

it is no authority at all, because it was neither seen nor written by Christ himself

This seems to imply that Christ would had to have a hand in writing or approving the books of Holy Bible in order for them to be acceptable. So I was merely reminding Muslims that we do not believe that this is the case. Christ did not write a book, nor was He given a book to approve or preach from. It does not make sense to protest that the New Testament is illegitimate because Christ did not see it or write it if you apparently believe (as you are now claiming) that Christ never wrote or was given a book to begin with. Obviously, someone is arguing from false premises. Either you are doing so now, or Mr. Dawud was doing so in the quoted portion that Muslim Woman posted. Take your pick.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzhereme, WE Muslims do not believe that Jesus was given a book in written form. However, Jesus was sent. Then the knowledge of the book (Injeel) followed.

Interesting idea…

He was a teacher. He taught to the people. That was the book, whether dictated to be written or not. That was the book given to Jesus. That was the truth. We Muslims believe in whatever was revealed to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad.

Let me ask you some questions related to this, if you may indulge me please. You and other Muslims here have advanced the idea that the Bible has become “corrupted” from the original, uncorrupt state in which it conceivably existed before the Christians got ahold of it. This is what I have been told is the hypothetical “Injil”, that is, the uncorrupted Gospels. How can it be that the Bible was corrupted from something that you now claim never existed? Also, why do Muslims use this word “Injil” which comes from the Greek “Evangelion” (Book of the Gospels) if it does not refer to the actual, literal (physical books) Gospels to be found therein, as “Evangelion” does? Maybe Allah forgot the Arabic word for “the good news” (the ‘message’, as it were) in Arabic - “al-Bushra”?

That knowledge may be available with the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims. The name of our religion (Islam) is written in the Quran. The name given to us is written in the Quran. That name is Muslims. (Not Muhammadans).

I agree with you on this point. I do not use this term “Muhammadean” because I think it is outdated, inaccurate, and rude. I understand why others might use it, but I think it’s better not to.

There is no mention of Trinity, Christianity, Christians in the bible.

This is just wrong. There is no use of the WORD “trinity” in the Bible, but the concept is there in Matthew 28:19, and not in any sort of vague way - Jesus Christ Himself orders His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which is the ONLY valid form of baptism in Christianity, today and forever. Others who claim to be Christian but who do not baptize with a proper understanding of the Trinity (like the Mormons) are not considered valid for that reason.

And Christians are mentioned by name in Acts 11:26 (emphasis mine):

and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

There is no mention of the original language in which the message was revealed to Jesus. A copy of the bible in the original language is not available.

This is a silly non-argument that I swear I’ve dealt with at least 100 times so far on this messageboard. Please, please, listen to me this time: The Bible was never written in ONE language to begin with. It does not have a history like the Qur’an that was revealed to one man in just a few years. Because it was written by different people in different places over hundreds of years, it was written in each of the major languages of the Near East during the time of the writing. That is why parts are in Hebrew, parts are in Syriac, and parts are in Greek. THERE WAS NEVER ONE “ORIGINAL” LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE (sorry to yell, but I would like you to remember this fact so that we can all stop reading this silly argument). This is an Islamic fantasy that tries to make every other book into a copy of the Qur’an in its mode of transmission, even when it would have made no sense to do so because the Eastern Roman Empire is not at all comparable to Muhammad’s corner of Arabia.

 

[Sam_777]

**Dzhereme, WE Muslims do not believe that Jesus was given a book in written form. However, Jesus was sent. Then the knowledge of the book (Injeel) followed. **

(Quran 5:46):
“And in their footsteps We sent 'Isa the son of Maryam, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.”

You should have said “WE Ahmadiyya”

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/images1/texas2.jpg

Turning Muslim in Texas

George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an because, for many erstwhile Christians, believe it or not, the church is too liberal.

Eric was a Baptist preacher before he became a Muslim 14 years ago. Now he prays five times a day – even in the middle of watching a football game. His wife, Karen, also a convert, is covered from head to toe in the traditional Muslim burka. Islam, says Eric, ‘is everything I wanted Christianity to be’.

23 min 50 sec - Jan 11, 2006

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069
channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/texas1.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

http://theislampath.com/smf/Smileys/default/salam.gif

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/images1/texas2.jpg

Turning Muslim in Texas

George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an because, for many erstwhile Christians, believe it or not, the church is too liberal.

Eric was a Baptist preacher before he became a Muslim 14 years ago. Now he prays five times a day – even in the middle of watching a football game. His wife, Karen, also a convert, is covered from head to toe in the traditional Muslim burka. Islam, says Eric, ‘is everything I wanted Christianity to be’.

23 min 50 sec - Jan 11, 2006

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9184353144432289069
channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/texas1.html

Do you know many mid-westerners?

 

[Cara_Mia_Tu]

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.

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.

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?

very nice points Sister Amy

 

[Cara_Mia_Tu]

…
.

I dont think Mathew is a valid credible source for Matthew 28:19

Evidence suggests that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek and that he copied material from the Gospel According to St Mark, because, whenever his Gospel contains the same material as Mark’s Gospel, the text is identical in Greek. This could not have happened if they were both relying, separately, on a common oral or written source. We can also establish that Mark’s Gospel was written approximately 70 CE, so Matthew’s Gospel was written some time later.

Antagonism between Jews and Christians gradually emerged late in the first century. Matthew’s Gospel contains much less anti-Jewish sentiment than Luke’s Gospel, which can be dated to the 90’s or very early in the second century, and much less than John’s Gospel, which was somewhat later.

Some scholars consider that Matthew’s Gospel was written in the 80s CE.

According to Wikipedia
“The date of the gospel is not precisely known.The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100.[15][16] The writings of Ignatius show “a strong case … for [his] knowledge of four Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Matthew”[17], which gives a terminus ad quem of c. 110. The author of the Didache (c 100) probably knew it as well.[11] Some significant conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, generally considering the gospel to be written by the apostle Matthew.[18] In December 1994, Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment in Greek of the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds,[19] although Thiede’s re-dating has generally been viewed with skepticism by established Biblical scholars .”

see link “Gospel of Matthew” below

 

[planten]

** dzhereme, your post #126 is a good comprehensive post and needs a careful reading / reply. It may take some time. So please wait out. Thanks.**

 

[Jimzz12]

The Bible isn’t meant to be read. This perhaps why Catholics do not readily READ scripture. Even the most apostate Catholic has reverence for the Bible, acknowledging that there is so much contained therein that beyond normal understanding without the help of Christ Jesus.

The method for observing the Bible is called Lectio Divina. That is the proper “reading” of the Bible. Pray first and read and stop when you feel the urge to stop. Think of the passage and read more when you are ready. You dwell hours on a single sentence or a single word. It is such a treasure.

Let us practice.
“You will show faithfulness to Jacob, and grace to Abraham.” (Micah 7:20)

Jacob the son of Isaac. Islam does not show faithfulness to Jacob because they do not accept Isaac, but rather Ishmael. They do not honor the struggle of Abraham, who put his son Isaac on an altar of sacrifice. What is the difference? Jacob gives us the Twelve Sons, and the Ladder to Heaven. Jacob’s Ladder – Christ Jesus. So now I am faced with the question. If Islam sees Jesus Christ as the purest of all men from what line did he descend if Isaac was not Abraham’s son. This is a contradiction that needs to be addressed. All this from a minor prophet named Micah. And, yes I randomly opened the Bible to it.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_035.jpg/225px-Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_035.jpg

 

[Hypatia]

The Bible isn’t meant to be read. This perhaps why Catholics do not readily READ scripture. Even the most apostate Catholic has reverence for the Bible, acknowledging that there is so much contained therein that beyond normal understanding without the help of Christ Jesus.

The method for observing the Bible is called Lectio Divina. That is the proper “reading” of the Bible. Pray first and read and stop when you feel the urge to stop. Think of the passage and read more when you are ready. You dwell hours on a single sentence or a single word. It is such a treasure.

Let us practice.
“You will show faithfulness to Jacob, and grace to Abraham.” (Micah 7:20)

Jacob the son of Isaac. Islam does not show faithfulness to Jacob because they do not accept Isaac, but rather Ishmael. They do not honor the struggle of Abraham, who put his son Isaac on an altar of sacrifice. What is the difference? Jacob gives us the Twelve Sons, and the Ladder to Heaven. Jacob’s Ladder – Christ Jesus. So now I am faced with the question. If Islam sees Jesus Christ as the purest of all men from what line did he descend if Isaac was not Abraham’s son. This is a contradiction that needs to be addressed. All this from a minor prophet named Micah. And, yes I randomly opened the Bible to it.

I will suspend any judgement on whether or not that was a good reading of the Bible (or non-reading, since apparently the Bible isn’t meant to be read?). But it was a horribly inaccurate reading of Islam. Islam recognizes both Isaac (pbuh) and Jacob (pbuh) as prophets.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Bible isn’t meant to be read.

That’s a very interesting comment. Why do u think so ? If Christians believe Bible is words of God , must not you read it to know what God has told/ ordered u ? Without reading / knowing your holy book , how it’s possible to be a good Christian ??

The method for observing the Bible is called Lectio Divina.

Who introduced this ? Is there any basis in Bible about this ?

Islam does not show faithfulness to Jacob because they do not accept Isaac,

Muslims do respect Isaac ( pbuh) as a Prophet of God Almighty . But we believe he was not the firstborn son of Abraham (pbuh) .

They do not honor the struggle of Abraham,

hey , that’s strange. It’s the Muslims who remember Abraham (pbuh) in their 5 times daily prayers. How many Christians are there who do so ??? Again it’s the Muslims who remember the great sacrifice of Abraham (pbuh) . During the Eid ul Adha / Qurbani , we slaughter animal in the name of God , give one third to friends / relatives/ neighbours , another one third to the poor .

if Isaac was not Abraham’s son.

he is

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’m close enough to Texas, was born in Texas and being from the Bible belt I can tell you that it will be a long long time before anyone I know rush to Islam.

 

[MrDickerson]

Sounds pretty phony! He picks up a Quran and bingo! he instantly accepts what’s in it! Bogus!

Difficult to believe, Booklover, but some people really are that dull minded! Apparently that’s how our “Sister Amy” came to embrace Mohammedanism too, and the way the Mormon cult gains most of its converts (by reading the Book of Mormon and “feeling” that it’s true; there are many parallels between Mohammedanism and Joseph Smithism in the way they were invented and so forth).

 

[planten]

Difficult to believe, Booklover, but some people really are that dull minded! Apparently that’s how our “Sister Amy” came to embrace Mohammedanism too, and the way the Mormon cult gains most of its converts (by reading the Book of Mormon and “feeling” that it’s true; there are many parallels between Mohammedanism and Joseph Smithism in the way they were invented and so forth).

Because of Christ, you are christians. But we Muslims are not Muhammadan… WE are to be called Muslims. Our religion Islam is not related to any person or place. Thanks.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by Booklover

Sounds pretty phony! He picks up a Quran and bingo! he instantly accepts what’s in it! Bogus!

That is the real BOOKLOVER. He picks up a book and the love of that book takes him away from all mythical beliefs.

 

[conflicted1]

WE are to be called Muslims. Our religion Islam is not related to any person or place. Thanks.

YOU are to be called whatever the bloody hell I or anyone else feels like calling you. Just as you feel free to fling around false history lessons, threats, slanders, blasphemies and all manner of MOSLEM hogwash at the gracious people on this board I am free to fling whatever I feel right back at you.

You constantly abuse the graciousness of these good Christians and cry foul whenever you and your little band of merry MOSLEMS feel you have been offended in some way. Here’s some advice: don’t let the door hit you on the way out! You can take your MOSLEM hypocrisy and demands for (unreturned) respect to a MOSLEM board.

Your political ideology is islam. So what? Should we call you ISLAMISTS?