Islam's Plagiarized Christian Origins

[sedonaman]

Islam doomed itself:

The 1972 discovery of the earliest surviving Qur’anic manuscripts in the Great Mosque of Sana’a conclusively shows that the present Qur’an is different from the early manuscripts. …

Muslims generally believe, thanks to Qur’anic assertions, that both the Old and New Testaments are corrupted and seriously changed. They say, for a Holy Scripture to be authoritative, it has to be preserved without any changes at all, and point to the Qur’an, which, they claim, has been preserved word by word and letter by letter, as was revealed to Muhammad by Allah. The Qur’an itself claims: ‘no change there can be in the words of God’ (10:64) and, ‘there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of God’ (6:34). …

The devastating truth is that a large number of ancient Qur’anic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qur’ans are not forged one by religious rivalries. Moreover, these Qur’ans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels. …

islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:ancient-Qur’anic-manuscripts-of-sanaa-spell-downfall-of-islam&catid=18:sujit

 

[ZAKI]

Nope! Christianity is a Jewish religion. Jesus was a Jew, all the early disciples were Jews and most of the New Testament writers were Jews. Chrisitanity cant plagiarize Judaism because it is a Jewish religion. Its not the same as Islam and Christianity. Islam emerged outside Christianity but it still had many Christian influences as I have proven conclusively. I have systematically exposed the blatant plagiarism of the Koran now try and formulate a response to it.

i thought you were smart but anyway earth to deus.
Islam is a follow up of christianity that is why all three are known as the abrahamic religions

wasalam

 

[Hadi]

YUSUFALI: Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad, to mankind): Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah’s leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers;
SHAKIR: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and guidance and good news for the believers.

you said there are three different versions for the verse,but now you showed me translations to English versions…of course they will be different ,the Quran was not revealed in English

 

[sedonaman]

you said there are three different versions for the verse,but now you showed me translations to English versions…of course they will be different ,the Quran was not revealed in English

In what language was it revealed?

 

[swariffin]

the website has nothing to do with Islam…just my response to your question…

please answer me ,why is that several passages were not found in the original manuscripts (as stated in that website)

Depends on what was called by original, off course. Now, which one is the original?
Has nothing to do with Islam? Come on, my friend. Mohammad never even know which “bible” are the valid bible as decided by the councils in 351AD, due to so many fabrications written by the heresies. Instead of looking for the true Christian authority, he simply take for granted what Waraqa said about Christianity. Things he does not understand? He simply dismissed it as corrupted without even know which one for sure. Is it not the same as not understanding the law of relativity, but declaring that Einstein was wrong? Now, my friend. Which verses of the bible that Muhammad (not from any other source) think that was corrupted?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Homoiousios was proposed by Eusebius and others to reach a compromise between heteroousios (the Arians) and homoousios (the orthodox). Arians believed Jesus was divine, but not to the level Christians did. Islam, on the other hand, denounces that Christ had anything to do with the essence of God.

But Eusebius was at the very least an Arian sympathizer if not an all out Arian. The Arians came up with a whole host of heretical notions and compromises in as much effort to be reconciled with the Niceneans as to politically maneuver into favorable status with the Emperor. It really is hard to, therefore, p(name removed by moderator)oint a consistent teaching of this heresy (not to mention how it later became a generic word to encompass all heresy).

Again, most acknowledge modern day Arians to be Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I can see that.

I wouldn’t say they emphasized the divine aspect, since they believed the divine side of Jesus didn’t even belong to Jesus. Nestorius, in his letter sent to the council, even argued that Jesus told His disciples “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” and not “Destroy my godhead and in three days it will be raised up.”

Again, they called Him the Christ (hence the Virgin Mary was the Christotokos), but not a divine being (or she would be the Theotokos). The anathema given at the Third Ecumenical council was “if anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh).”

The Nestorians believed in the full divinity of the divine Logos (therefore the Trinity). They held that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus and that this Anointed One (Christ) was chosen to be a human host for the Logos – but the man Jesus and the divine Logos remained two separate persons. How this happened – was Jesus’ soul extinguished and replaced with the Logos’; was Jesus like a robot controlled by the Logos; etc. – were all variations on a theme with Nestorianism.

You don’t understand how Muslims define “the Word.” To quote Saint John Damascene:

And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

I don’t see the connection.

I can’t deny that Mohammad conglomerated a whole host of the various thoughts of his Persian homeland, from Christianity to Christian heresies to the pagan religions. Orthodoxwiki places Islam as a compound Christian heresy with Arian, Nestorian, and other heretical elements. But, I still see them closest to being the most influenced by Arianism. Saint John Damascene states:
From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. (Fountain of Knowledge, Book II: On the Ishmaelites)

It also should be noted that my original quote came from an Eastern Christian lecturer at a Catholic-Orthodox dialogue meeting (though I honestly can’t remember his name or the topic of discussion accurately).

And also, despite whether we disagree on what Islam is closer to, it still remains that Islam is essentially a Christian heresy.

 

[Hadi]

Depends on what was called by original, off course. Now, which one is the original?
Has nothing to do with Islam? Come on, my friend. Mohammad never even know which “bible” are the valid bible as decided by the councils in 351AD, due to so many fabrications written by the heresies. Instead of looking for the true Christian authority, he simply take for granted what Waraqa said about Christianity. Things he does not understand? He simply dismissed it as corrupted without even know which one for sure. Is it not the same as not understanding the law of relativity, but declaring that Einstein was wrong? Now, my friend. Which verses of the bible that Muhammad (not from any other source) think that was corrupted?

why are some passages not found in the original manuscripts (I am talking about manuscripts that were found but they do not include these passages)…for example the adulteress story

please answer…

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

But Eusebius was at the very least an Arian sympathizer if not an all out Arian. The Arians came up with a whole host of heretical notions and compromises in as much effort to be reconciled with the Niceneans as to politically maneuver into favorable status with the Emperor. It really is hard to, therefore, p(name removed by moderator)oint a consistent teaching of this heresy (not to mention how it later became a generic word to encompass all heresy).

Do you have any evidence he was an Arian sympathizer? Just curious, I’ve never heard that before, only that he and others attempted to find some middle ground.

The Nestorians believed in the full divinity of the divine Logos (therefore the Trinity). They held that Mary gave birth to the human Jesus and that this Anointed One (Christ) was chosen to be a human host for the Logos – but the man Jesus and the divine Logos remained two separate persons. How this happened – was Jesus’ soul extinguished and replaced with the Logos’; was Jesus like a robot controlled by the Logos; etc. – were all variations on a theme with Nestorianism.

That is my point, however. Muslims believe in God, they believe in His Word, and they believe in His Spirit - however, they see this in a unitarian sense. I realize to you and I, who are Christians, this may seem strange, but this is how they see it. Jesus, in the meantime, is that separate being.

Hence why I argue that Islamic Christology is inherently Nestorian. As others pointed out elsewhere in this thread, even Mohammad’s in-laws were Nestorian.

I don’t see the connection.

Saint John Damascene is discussing what I explained in my previous response: Muslims believe in God, they believe in His Word, and they believe in His Spirit, which to a Christian looks like the Trinity, but to a Muslim is merely part of the power of the One Person/One Being of God. They believe God granted His Word to Christ (which, again, is very Nestorian) which Saint John points out is essentially like cutting God apart

There’s a historical document detailing a dinner held between a well known monk and a Muslim ruler, which leads into a debate regarding Christianity and Islam between the monk and the ruler’s advisers. It’s somewhat spurious since there is no real way to tell if it really comes from the time period it claims to, nevertheless it is a fine example of Muslim theology regarding Christ and the Word. There is a part of the dialogue, near the end, where the monk asks one of the Muslim advisers if he believes in God. The Muslim agrees. The monk asks if the Muslim believes in the Word of God. The Muslim agrees. The monk asks if the Muslim believes in the Spirit of God. The Muslim again agrees. The monk then declares that the Muslim is a Christian, since he believes in the Father, Word, and Spirit!

I can’t deny that Mohammad conglomerated a whole host of the various thoughts of his Persian homeland, from Christianity to Christian heresies to the pagan religions. Orthodoxwiki places Islam as a compound Christian heresy with Arian, Nestorian, and other heretical elements. But, I still see them closest to being the most influenced by Arianism. Saint John Damascene states:
From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. (Fountain of Knowledge, Book II: On the Ishmaelites)

Yes, Mohammad met Arians, however the Christology of Islam - again, as I pointed out before - is closer to Nestorianism. It is also legitimate to say, as others in this thread pointed out, that he was influenced by Nestorianism, since his in-laws (keep in mind he married around 15, IIRC) were made up largely of Nestorian Christians.

And also, despite whether we disagree on what Islam is closer to, it still remains that Islam is essentially a Christian heresy.

Islam is a heresy - I don’t know if I would call it “Christian,” since Christ takes second place to Mohammad, and it did not originate from inside the Church like Arianism and Nestorianism did…but still, yes I agree, it is a heresy nonetheless

 

[JMJ_coder]

Do you have any evidence he was an Arian sympathizer? Just curious, I’ve never heard that before, only that he and others attempted to find some middle ground.

It depends on which Eusebius you are referring to – there were two on opposite sides during that time period. Eusebius of Caesaria was a good bishop who is famous for his History of the Church. Eusebius of Nicomedia is who I am referring to and is, in the words of OrthodoxWiki, “a heretic, a supporter of Arius, who used his influence among the members of the family of Constantine the Great to further the Arian position as well as his personal esteem.”

Jesus, in the meantime, is that separate being.

I understand what you’re saying here, but I will urge extreme caution to you – be very precious in your language of doctrine in these fora.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It depends on which Eusebius you are referring to – there were two on opposite sides during that time period. Eusebius of Caesaria was a good bishop who is famous for his History of the Church. Eusebius of Nicomedia is who I am referring to and is, in the words of OrthodoxWiki, “a heretic, a supporter of Arius, who used his influence among the members of the family of Constantine the Great to further the Arian position as well as his personal esteem.”

D’oh, I got confused.

I never realized there were so many Eusebiuses…Eusebiai…Eus…whatever.

I understand what you’re saying here, but I will urge extreme caution to you – be very precious in your language of doctrine in these fora.

Um…I mean…not being like God but…OK I meant person…no human being…no…drat never mind. walks home in shame

 

[DeusVult09]

I am not a scholar ,nor eloquent in English

but the Sanna ms is very interesting,has any scholar recovered the underneath text ??

Dr Gerd Puin an expert on the Quran, Arabic calligraphy and a quranic historical orthography at the university of Saarland in Germany was the first scholar to examine the manuscripts and discovered when they used a special forensic light thing that it revealed the original text as having a startlingly different form with the text of entire surahs being reorganized and edited.

. Not suprisingly the yemenite authorities wont let anyone else study them because they are so damning.

I suggest you watch the video i posted on the subject which has Dr Puin talking about it. its From National Geographic’s special on the Koran

youtube.com/watch?v=-x1JsyFrpKg&feature=related

 

[DeusVult09]

I watched the video ,and at 2:47 it says “although the hidden text revealed no contradictory meanings,words have been changed,verses and whole chapters rearranged”

Ignore my last post since you have already seen it. Yes there is no contradictory meaning but the very fact that the structure of the seraphs has been altered and edited
undermines the muslim doctrine that not 1 word has ever been changed by anyone.
Also the use of a script which has up to 30 different meanings for each word also makes the original meaning far more ambiguous.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Ignore my last post since you have already seen it. Yes there is no contradictory meaning but the very fact that the structure of the seraphs has been altered and edited
undermines the muslim doctrine that not 1 word has ever been changed by anyone.
Also the use of a script which has up to 30 different meanings for each word also makes the original meaning far more ambiguous.

Some Muslims on this forum have argued that the Bible is corrupt because, even though there are no contradictory meanings, there are textual variances. Now it seems some are arguing that the Koran is not corrupt because, even though there are textual variances, there are no contradictory meanings.

Needless to say, I’m thoroughly confused.

 

[DeusVult09]

i thought you were smart but anyway earth to deus.
Islam is a follow up of christianity that is why all three are known as the abrahamic religions

wasalam

That’s what Muslims say. My point was that you cant accuse Christianity of plagiarizing Judaism because Jesus was a jew, all the early disciples were jews, the NT was written mainly by Jews , the early church fathers were Jews and all the early Christians were initially Jews.

Christianity grew out of Judaism as it was a Jewish messianic movement. The early Christians did not think of themselves as Christian. They didn’t think they were following a different religion from the rest of Judaism, they just saw themselves as messianic Jews which was a continuation of the religion.

This is why The NT constantly quotes the OT. It is not the same as Christianity and Islam. Islam Did not Grow out of Christianity and Judaism the same way (though there a re considerable influences) That’s what i was getting at. I know Muslims say we are all Abrahamic faiths in a sense that’s true but I was talking about your argument of
Christianity plagiarizing Judaism and how that is an illogical argument because Christianity is a Jewish religion. But the same cannot be said for isalm in relation to the other Abrahamic faiths. Whether or not i believe Islam is a continuation of Christianity and Judaism is a different issue.

Now do you get my point that Christianity directly grew out of Judaism so plagiarism is not an issue.but Islam did not directly grow out of Christianity in the same way which is why I accused Islam of Plagiarizing Christian texts.

And as I do not believe that in Islam’s pre-existence or that Ibrahim ever went to Mecca and built the kaba that is what i am left with.

 

[DeusVult09]

In what language was it revealed?

the Koran was revealed in 7 different arabic dialects

 

[Hadi]

Ignore my last post since you have already seen it. Yes there is no contradictory meaning but the very fact that the structure of the seraphs has been altered and edited
undermines the muslim doctrine that not 1 word has ever been changed by anyone.
Also the use of a script which has up to 30 different meanings for each word also makes the original meaning far more ambiguous.

Arabic like Hebrew, started without dots and then developed to include dots. Remember it was the oral culture that was dominate and the Quran was primarily meant to be recited… it then developed to many writing style influenced by the region such as (Kufi, Farsi …etc) …there is also the Qiraat like (Malk vs Mlik ) both meanings are acceptable since they are very related to each other and serve a close meaning…derived from the same root (M.L.K) which means to possess…

I have lived with the Bedouin in the desert who don’t read or write…yet they memorized dozens of Surahs to recite in the daily 5 prayers…the point is , writing and development of the Arabic language started after the interaction with people who speak different languages…it was then necessary to put the Eiraab and Tajweed sciences of the Quran…but many of the people of Arabia were able to memorize the entire Quran and recite it to others…such memorization were recorded in books of Sunnah and the stories of the Companions and the their Tabieeens…

but for the NT,there are manuscripts that include passages not found in some earlier manuscripts…why is that

 

[DeusVult09]

Some Muslims on this forum have argued that the Bible is corrupt because, even though there are no contradictory meanings, there are textual variances. Now it seems some are arguing that the Koran is not corrupt because, even though there are textual variances, there are no contradictory meanings.

Needless to say, I’m thoroughly confused.

Yes I know it makes no sense does it ? There are some 200,000 textual variants in the 5000 NT manuscripts but almost all of them are minor scribal errors , (mispelt words, grammatical mistakes etc) which is common with mass reproductions of texts in the ancient world. only 3% of the Variants change then meaning of the text in any way and not 1 single variant damages any Christian doctrine. Muslims always go on about these and use them to incriminate Christianity.

but when it is found that there entire Koran has been altered and re-edited with text of Mohammad’s revelations in various surahs being reorganized creating doubt over their original form it seems that ok to muslims. And when its discovered that the text used a quffic script without vowel making giving each word 30 different meanings it seems that ok too. Even between the two other early Kroan’s the Samarqand and Topkapi Korans there are 1300 variations but I guess this is all ok. Bit of a double standard

 

[DeusVult09]

Arabic like Hebrew, started without dots and then developed to include dots. Remember it was the oral culture that was dominate and the Quran was primarily meant to be recited… it then developed to many writing style influenced by the region such as (Kufi, Farsi …etc) …there is also the Qiraat like (Malk vs Mlik ) both meanings are acceptable since they are very related to each other and serve a close meaning…derived from the same root (M.L.K) which means to possess…

I have lived with the Bedouin in the desert who don’t read or write…yet they memorized dozens of Surahs to recite in the daily 5 prayers…the point is , writing and development of the Arabic language started after the interaction with people who speak different languages…it was then necessary to put the Eiraab and Tajweed sciences of the Quran…but many of the people of Arabia were able to memorize the entire Quran and recite it to others…such memorization were recorded in books of Sunnah and the stories of the Companions and the their Tabieeens…

but for the NT,there are manuscripts that include passages not found in some earlier manuscripts…why is that

The aded passages were believed by some scholars to be apocryphal stories collected and added in the margins of the text then the next copyist came along and copied it, inserting them into the text, thinking they were part of the text.

what you are forgetting is that mohamamd himself forgot the koran

Sahih Bukhari i Volume 6, Book 61, Number 562:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet heard a reciter reciting, the Qur’an in the mosque at night. The Prophet said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has remind ed me of such-and-such Verses of such and-such Suras, which I missed!”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 558:
Narrated Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 550:
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “It is a bad thing that some of you say, ‘I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur’an,’ for indeed, he has been caused (by Allah) to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than camel do.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 552:
Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet said, “Keep on reciting the Qur’an, for, by Him in Whose Hand my life is, Quran runs away (is forgotten) faster than camels that are released from their tying ropes.”

and that the koran was revealed in 7 different dialects whcih caused animostity between the muslims. There was no 1 memorised koran and variant readings already existed.

Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1787:
Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’in) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). and there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 41, Number 601:
Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah’s Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.” The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way.” He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, “It was revealed in this way. The Qur’an has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easier for you.”

 

[DeusVult09]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 442:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
Allah’s Apostle said, "Gabriel read the Qur’an to me in one way (i.e. dialect) and I continued asking him to read it in different ways till he read it in seven different ways

Tirmidhi HadithHadith 2215 Narrated byUbayy ibn Ka’b
Ubayy told of Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) meeting Gabriel and saying, “I have been sent, Gabriel, to a people who are unlettered, among whom are old women and old men, boys and girls, and men who have never read a book.” He replied, “The Qur’an, Muhammad, has been sent down in seven modes.”

Furthermore some verses of the koran were lost.

Sahih Bukhari volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” 'Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected." I said to 'Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized.”

Hadith Ibn-e-Maja. “Narrated by Hazrat Ā’ishah that ayat-e-Rajm and ayat Raza’at were revealed, they were written on something. I kept them under the cart, meanwhile the holy prophet died and we became busy and one GOAT came and ATE those ayyat”

al Tabari (p.1821) / Ibn Ishaq quoted Umar saying (1015), “Part of what he sent was the passage on stoning; we read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it.”-

 

[ZAKI]

That’s what Muslims say.

No that’s what everybody says (except for a few irrational people)

wasalam