Question on Islam -- round 5

[Christos]

The man can actully divorce the woman eventhough they still love each other because he feels that he is not good enough for her to give her what she needs in matter of material needs. He has given much effort to try to get enough income, but he eventually fails several times. So let’s assume that they finally split at ur so called 3rd divorce. It;s only ur assumstion that this woman should be already with ]someone else, and it’s case base. This woman might think that she needs time to get married with someone else And when her previous husband become successful, do you think that this woman should marry another man first to be able to get marry to the prev husband? .Obviously this case will make her impossible to get reconciliation with her prev husband because on what base that this marriage can be accepted when she obviously has to lie to another man about the reason of marrying, because she is to divorce him later on, to get married with the prev husband? Ridiculous!

First of all that would be wrong in the case of the husband, he is should not simply divorce her beacuse he thinks he is not good enough for her material needs. (I actually misunderstood it the first time, I thought you meant that the woman left the man. I apologize). He should continue to work his hardest to give the wife what she needs. He should speak to the wife about their issues (obviously this should be done in marriage) and if she is of the opinion that she is content with what she has, why should the man worry, but he should still try his hardest to give her more than what she is currently content with. (Its called gifts). However, if she thinks that this is not enough and demands more from him, what is the man to do. If he still loves her, and she is too selfish to realise that he is trying his hardest, and then they part, then it continues with my previous post. I hope you are content with this answer.

And why is it impossible that they finally want to get back together?
It’s ur islamic teaching that a marriage can be invalid if a husband can;t give a wife his income to support her by at least 3 or perhaps 6 months?

I don’t have the eagerness to discuss the women problems in Islam. Btw I am a woman, I can see clearly as it’s about women that ur religion don’t treat me the same as man 'cos we have discussed it toooo many times here. Never muslim ever convinced me that u’re just . Btw I live in Indonesia, I can see many women were victims of men here because they have to accept the will of their husband of marrying another women. If they stay they will suffer, if they want to get divorce they will loose some rights and be ridiculed.

And about those women converted…poor souls! Indeed some people were gullible.

Can you show me where that teaching is please. I’m interested in a reference not just a statement. Thanks.

Also, remember that because a person does something doesnt mean a religion alows it. I know of the perversion some people in the Muslim countries have done, in keeping their woman under-educated, and taking away their rights that Islam has given them, but Islam has given them the rights.

Furthermore, your bible has taken away your rights to speak in the church

I Corinthians 14: 34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Wow, it is a SHAME for women to speak in the church.

More places in the Bible where women are inferior.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19-24 (Catholic Bible)
All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.
Stumble not at the beauty of a woman, and desire her not for pleasure.
A woman, if she maintain her husband, is full of anger, impudence, and much reproach.
A wicked woman abateth the courage, maketh an heavy countenance and a wounded heart: a woman that will not comfort her husband in distress maketh weak hands and feeble knees.
Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Here it tells how a woman would never treat her husband fairly if she were to be the authorative one. If she was authorative, she is full of anger, impudence and much reproach. She will not comfort her husband when he in distress but would make him weaker. Ending with, with woman came sin and because of her we all die. How much respect the Bible, thus Christianity has for women I can see with my own eyes.

I Timothy 2:9-14
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First point, it tells woman to dress modestly, just as Islam does. However, Islam does not tell the women, do not teach, or learn in silence with all subjection. If women have questions regarding somethings when learning she has the right to ask.

 

[seraphime2008]

First of all that would be wrong in the case of the husband, he is should not simply divorce her beacuse he thinks he is not good enough for her material needs. (I actually misunderstood it the first time, I thought you meant that the woman left the man. I apologize). He should continue to work his hardest to give the wife what she needs. He should speak to the wife about their issues (obviously this should be done in marriage) and if she is of the opinion that she is content with what she has, why should the man worry, but he should still try his hardest to give her more than what she is currently content with. (Its called gifts). However, if she thinks that this is not enough and demands more from him, what is the man to do. If he still loves her, and she is too selfish to realise that he is trying his hardest, and then they part, then it continues with my previous post. I hope you are content with this answer.

what u said is he should…should…but in reality it could always happen. Let’s say that the wife’s parents were meddling in so they became separated finally. In this case ur Koran suggested that the woman performed taqqyiya marriage to be able to get married to the prev husband.

No I am not satisfied, because u’re boasting with the details of Islamic regulation. Then it’s obvious that that verse is suggesting something odd to say the least.

Can you show me where that teaching is please. I’m interested in a reference not just a statement. Thanks.

Now u please enlighten me, because I live in a muslim environment that easily said this:
marriage is not valid (or perhaps this is not the right word) if:

• the man can not provide material needs for the wife for a certain time.
  -the man or woman can not get their physical needs to be fulfilled
  -the woman cannot give an offspring to the husband.

perhaps they learn this from ur hadith or ur Koran, please tell me.

Also, remember that because a person does something doesnt mean a religion alows it. I know of the perversion some people in the Muslim countries have done, in keeping their woman under-educated, and taking away their rights that Islam has given them, but Islam has given them the rights.

Well those men acted on their right given by ur book, that is to have wife as many as 4, to divorce them when they feel like it, to beat their wife if she doesn’t conform to pleasing the husband and so on. In many instances I found, the wives were not even given the right to take the children with them, because somehow the wives have violated the husband’s right to be in a polygamic marriage.
Furthermore, your bible has taken away your rights to speak in the church

I Corinthians 14: 34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Wow, it is a SHAME for women to speak in the church.

What… I don’t have the objection at this at all. We never given the right to give sermon in the mass…so what? But we can always share our experience of religion or spirituality or even knowledge of the bible in other places, in other occasions. We have our own roles in our community. It never became a big issue of not speak in church as giving sermon, at least to me!

By the same standard I ask u question:
why is it only obligatory for men to have the Friday paryer?
Why is it that women cannot be an Imam in ur mosque?
Why is that women cannot marry a Christian man, whilst man can a christian women?

More places in the Bible where women are inferior.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19-24 (Catholic Bible)
All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.
Stumble not at the beauty of a woman, and desire her not for pleasure.
A woman, if she maintain her husband, is full of anger, impudence, and much reproach.
A wicked woman abateth the courage, maketh an heavy countenance and a wounded heart: a woman that will not comfort her husband in distress maketh weak hands and feeble knees.
Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Here it tells how a woman would never treat her husband fairly if she were to be the authorative one. If she was authorative, she is full of anger, impudence and much reproach. She will not comfort her husband when he in distress but would make him weaker. Ending with, with woman came sin and because of her we all die. How much respect the Bible, thus Christianity has for women I can see with my own eyes.

I Timothy 2:9-14
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First point, it tells woman to dress modestly, just as Islam does. However, Islam does not tell the women, do not teach, or learn in silence with all subjection. If women have questions regarding somethings when learning she has the right to ask

If the topic was not the question on Islam I will answer this matter u brought up, but no. It’s about u to explain those verses I found putting women unequal to men in Islam. And don’t tell me u don’t know which verses…/QUOTE]

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’ll just repost what I had before in the other thread.

elwill:

it will be acceptable reason for me , if we had the scriptures which written in his time , actually many verses of OT was very clearly writen after his death by the hand of those jews whom moses (pbuh) predict that they will provoking the God to anger with the work of thier hands
and evil will befall you in the latter days, for you will do that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger with the work of your hands.”
isn’t OT is the work of thier hands !

That is eisegesis, or reading into the scripture. The “works of their hands” merely means their actions in general, not their scripture - reading the full context of the passage makes that clear. Unless you are suggesting that the only thing mankind is capable of doing with their hands is writing.

Furthermore, many of those Jews who wrote after Moses were prophets of God: Jeremiah (whom you’ve quoted), Ezekiel, Micah, Isaiah, etc. I doubt any of them provoked the Lord to anger or corrupted scripture.

elwill:

i think that i decleared my point allrady , quran for muslims is the book which revealed to the prophet we believe in , not the book which later genearations authorised , but the OT contains additions from later generations [emphasis mine]

The Koran which you hold now was the one authorized by Uthman - all the other ones were burned. If you are going to debate with Christians, I urge you to be consistent in your reasoning and judgment of either side. Given that the Koran was revealed gradually over the course of Mohammad’s life up until his death, there is little doubt that they had a full book version of the Koran at that time.

In any case, I reiterate that according to the logic that a prophet saying “You guys are going to get corrupt later on” means scripture will be corrupt, then the Koran is corrupt because Mohammad said later generations would be corrupt.

elwill:

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer…

Appealing to the authority of one single translation, and one that’s not even all that respected among biblical scholars at that? My friend, I say this with respect to your dignity: not only is that a logical fallacy (appealing to a single authority as if it were infallible) but it is grasping for straws. Unless you believe the RSV is somehow an “uncorrupted” Bible.

Furthermore, this is simply repeating an argument I already addressed. If you look at the full context of that passage and understanding what the words within them mean for the time period they were written, Jeremiah is condemning false teachers, not men who corrupted scripture.

elwill:

well , i respect your view . but honesty i read the otherwise

I’m sorry - and again I say this because I care about you - but you’re reading through the lens of the Koran and what Islam wants you to read. This goes as well for the following argument regarding the corruption of scripture. There’s simply no historical evidence of any grand conspiracy to turn Jesus into God or to paganize Christianity. The works of the earliest Church Fathers attack any form of paganization, and all of them confirm the divinity of Christ and the presence of the Trinity.

As I suggested to Hadi, instead of repeating what the imams or Koran tell you, or running to Google or YouTube to find something else to respond with, read early patristics and read about early Church history from the contemporary sources. Read especially the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement I, Justin Martyr, and other early men of God, and I think you will be astounded by what you will find. And then read the works of later men such as John Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, and others. You will find, as I did, that there is a consistent line of Christian thought from the earliest days of the apostles well up to Saint John Damascene in the 8th century.

elwill:

what about Bart Ehrman ?

Bart Ehrman is an atheist, and I always find it ironic when Muslims use him because his denial of the God of Christianity extends to the God of Islam. In fact, to deny the God Jesus believed in, according to Islam, is to deny Allah.

This leads to the grand problem dzheremi hints to:

dzheremi:

Oh, come on now. You may not have written the words “I do not believe in Jesus”, but by claiming that Jesus is the latest incarnation of previous mythical characters (which is what that list of historical “facts” is meant to do), this is in effect what you are doing.

It’s the problem with most Muslim apologetics, as I’ve said. It’s what Christian apologist James White calls the problem of finding the “rare consistent Muslim” who doesn’t have to change hats. When Muslims go to Gnostics, atheists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses for argumentation, they do not seem to realize they are taking advice from the opinions of men who are deemed heretics and are destined for the hellfire according to the words of their own Koran.

 

[Christos]

what u said is he should…should…but in reality it could always happen. Let’s say that the wife’s parents were meddling in so they became separated finally. In this case ur Koran suggested that the woman performed taqqyiya marriage to be able to get married to the prev husband.

No I am not satisfied, because u’re boasting with the details of Islamic regulation. Then it’s obvious that that verse is suggesting something odd to say the least.

If the wifes parents were meddling once, who is to say that wifes parents wont meddle again if she were to get married to the same guy. They would obviously have a reason to meddle (whether right or wrong, good or bad), but they still did, so who is to say they wont do it again. At the end you will never be satisfied, you will always claim there is something the SLIGHTEST ODD about it, even in the LEAST.

First you say he should, he should, (obviously cause thats what Islam tells him to do) then you say but it could happen. Then you jump to a whole different scenario.

Now u please enlighten me, because I live in a muslim environment that easily said this:
marriage is not valid (or perhaps this is not the right word) if:

• the man can not provide material needs for the wife for a certain time.
  -the man or woman can not get their physical needs to be fulfilled
  -the woman cannot give an offspring to the husband.

perhaps they learn this from ur hadith or ur Koran, please tell me.

You’re claiming them so show me where they are written and I will respond to it. You want me to do the reseearch so you can refute it?

Also, remember that because a person does something doesnt mean a religion alows it. I know of the perversion some people in the Muslim countries have done, in keeping their woman under-educated, and taking away their rights that Islam has given them, but Islam has given them the rights.

Well those men acted on their right given by ur book, that is to have wife as many as 4, to divorce them when they feel like it, to beat their wife if she doesn’t conform to pleasing the husband and so on. In many instances I found, the wives were not even given the right to take the children with them, because somehow the wives have violated the husband’s right to be in a polygamic marriage.

There are many people who exploit the Christian religion for their own personal agendas, does it mean it is authorized by the bible. Obviously, they would be using the bible when exploting. Once again, just because people do it, does not mean it is allowed. Otherwise, i should say, Gay Marraige, Homosexuality, Adultery, and many other things are allowed in Christianity because people of high eminence in the Christian American society have done these. Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, and the list can go on. They represented MILLIONS of American Christians.

Once again, just because people do it, does not mean its allowed.

 

[Christos]

What… I don’t have the objection at this at all. We never given the right to give sermon in the mass…so what? But we can always share our experience of religion or spirituality or even knowledge of the bible in other places, in other occasions. We have our own roles in our community. It never became a big issue of not speak in church as giving sermon, at least to me!

(Reposted)
I Corinthians 14: 34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Here, it says that even if they want to learn something, they cant ask, they have to ask at home. The church represents the community, does it not? So then how can you therefore speak up in christian community. Obviously, now adays you can, but before? Here, it does not talk about leading the Churches.

By the same standard I ask u question:
why is it only obligatory for men to have the Friday paryer?
Why is it that women cannot be an Imam in ur mosque?
Why is that women cannot marry a Christian man, whilst man can a christian women?

Women, they are not forbidden to pray in congregation. They are forbidden to pray amongst men. An Imam of a mosque, first, cannot be compared to a priest. Being, that any male Muslim can do the same Job as the Imam. The Imam, speaks and lectures the croud. He leads them in prayer which involves praying out loud. Quran being recited is meant to be recited in a way to beautify it. Women, are told to refrain from using melodious vocies amongst men because it might incite them, and make them lust towards them, which could lead to further sins on the males portion. Therefore, this all revolves around sin. If a woman were to be reciting the Quran in prayer in a melodious method, she would not only be inciting the men towards lusting her, but would also draw their attention from God, which is the reason of the Prayer in the first place. Simple, for this reason, women do not come to the mosque often and thus it is only obligatory for men to pray the Friday prayer, because that prayer is only allowed to be prayed in congregation. It cannot be prayed alone.

Muslims men are allowed to marry women from the People of the Book, or Christians or Jews, because they believe in one God. This being that the marriage may be happy, (no contradiction in the belief of God), and further with the hope of converting the women to Islam. Furthermore, women are not allowed to marry men from the Christians or Jews, because their men remove the faith of Islam from these women. That in out religion is a big sin, as in any religion, therefore, it is not allowed. You may not agree, but these are the reasons why.

If the topic was not the question on Islam I will answer this matter u brought up, but no. It’s about u to explain those verses I found putting women unequal to men in Islam. And don’t tell me u don’t know which verses…/

Even though the topic is Questions on Islam, I would still like you to answer these questions. If you still refuse to answer these questions then i will be glad to create a new thread in which you may answer them if you still please. If then you do not want to, i will get my answer from your silence.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19-24 (Catholic Bible)
All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.
Stumble not at the beauty of a woman, and desire her not for pleasure.
A woman, if she maintain her husband, is full of anger, impudence, and much reproach.
A wicked woman abateth the courage, maketh an heavy countenance and a wounded heart: a woman that will not comfort her husband in distress maketh weak hands and feeble knees.
Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.

Here it tells how a woman would never treat her husband fairly if she were to be the authorative one. If she was authorative, she is full of anger, impudence and much reproach. She will not comfort her husband when he in distress but would make him weaker. Ending with, with woman came sin and because of her we all die. How much respect the Bible, thus Christianity has for women I can see with my own eyes.

I Timothy 2:9-14
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First point, it tells woman to dress modestly, just as Islam does. However, Islam does not tell the women, do not teach, or learn in silence with all subjection. If women have questions regarding somethings when learning she has the right to ask

Note* sub·ject (sŭb’jĭkt)
adj.
Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others: subject to the law.
n.
One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

 

[Christos]

That is eisegesis, or reading into the scripture. The “works of their hands” merely means their actions in general, not their scripture - reading the full context of the passage makes that clear. Unless you are suggesting that the only thing mankind is capable of doing with their hands is writing.

Well, I went and read the chapter, so i can understand that verse more clear, but i came to the same conclusion. Not, just because of that one verse, but because, in the verse earlier it says, to lock up the book in the ark, because he knew of their rebellion. And later he makes clear how far they would go with their rebellion, how they provoked god through the works of their hands. I agree that you can do many things with your hands, which could be a sin, but can you tell me a sin so great which will provoke the anger of God. Obviously, like before when they took the calf as God, and wouldn’t changing God’s words, and attributing other words as God’s word also provoke him. I may be wrong, but these are the reasons why i came to the same conclusion.

Deutronomy 31
25: That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26: Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
27: For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?

The Koran which you hold now was the one authorized by Uthman - all the other ones were burned. If you are going to debate with Christians, I urge you to be consistent in your reasoning and judgment of either side. Given that the Koran was revealed gradually over the course of Mohammad’s life up until his death, there is little doubt that they had a full book version of the Koran at that time. In any case, I reiterate that according to the logic that a prophet saying “You guys are going to get corrupt later on” means scripture will be corrupt, then the Koran is corrupt because Mohammad said later generations would be corrupt.

I explained the Quran in my post to Seraphime i believe, also, i came to a different conclusion about the verse quoted so with your final remark I would not agree.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by Byzantine_Wolf
That is eisegesis, or reading into the scripture. The “works of their hands” merely means their actions in general, not their scripture - reading the full context of the passage makes that clear. Unless you are suggesting that the only thing mankind is capable of doing with their hands is writing.

B W, please try to understand. If the Jews or the christians write the scripture with their own hands and then they say that it is from God, it will not be from God. That would be a great sin to do such thing. That would be the work of their hands.

The other work of their own hands would not disturb any one. But the writing of the sacred scripture with their own hands and mind would mislead many nations. If a person writes some words and says it is from God while it is not from God, that is a great sin. That is like altering the sacred message. That is what was done by earlier people of the books.

That is what our Muslim friends are trying to explain to you. That is what was done with the earlier sacred scripture, And prophet Moses was afraid of such bad things. That is why he told the Levites to strictly look after the book.

 

[Christos]

I just found the post i made earlier explaining the Quran. I explained to seraphime2008 here

Christos:

The prophet revised the original texts which were kept together. Before Uthman, Abu Bakr, had compiled all the texts together binding them in a book. This was later entrusted to Umar, and eventually his daughter Hafsa, the wife of the prophet. When it came time to make copies, Uthman made the copies based on the revised version that Hafsa had. They were written down as each revelation was given. Also, each year, he revised them with the Archangel Gabriel. Therefore, even if he had forgotten a few at the time, they were already written down so it diddnt make much of a difference.

And this to sedonaman here

Christos:

The Quran was immediatly written down as the verses were being revealed. Muhammad ensured they were written correctly by having the scribe read back what they wrote, and he would verify if it was correct. Furthermore, it is most commonly assumed that the Quran was gathered together during Uthman’s time, much later then the Prophet. The Prophet had his own copy of the verses of the quran, but they were written on many different things. Therefore, immediately after the Prophets death, Abu Bakr, got a scribe to write these on a single item(rather than bark, paper, and so on.) Finally, he binded these together. This copy was passed to Umar, and later his daugher Hafsa. Uthman when he decided to unify the Quran in one dialect, he took this copy of the Quran from Hafsa, and got it duplicated to send to the other people.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Well, I went and read the chapter, so i can understand that verse more clear, but i came to the same conclusion. Not, just because of that one verse, but because, in the verse earlier it says, to lock up the book in the ark, because he knew of their rebellion. And later he makes clear how far they would go with their rebellion, how they provoked god through the works of their hands. I agree that you can do many things with your hands, which could be a sin, but can you tell me a sin so great which will provoke the anger of God. Obviously, like before when they took the calf as God, and wouldn’t changing God’s words, and attributing other words as God’s word also provoke him. I may be wrong, but these are the reasons why i came to the same conclusion.

Deutronomy 31
25: That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
26: Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
27: For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?

That will condemn them for breaking the commandments, not for corrupting scripture. Again, when we come to the New Testament, Christ’s Jewish disciples never argue that the Jews corrupted their scripture. No prophet before the apostles ever argued the Jews corrupted their scripture. Even John the Baptist, who had some very nasty things to say about the Jewish leadership of his time, never accused them of corrupting scripture.

And again, this is very imbalanced argumentation. You essentially tell us: the Bible is corrupt…but oh no wait! Here’s a verse that helps our point of view! Where’d we get that verse? From the same book we said just a few moments ago was corrupted so bad that God had to send down two more books before getting it right. And how do we know that verse hasn’t been corrupted? Because it agrees with our point of view. Again, that is eisegesis, not exegesis.

I explained the Quran in my post to Seraphime i believe, also, i came to a different conclusion about the verse quoted so with your final remark I would not agree.

Not agree with what? The authorization of the Koran, or that to argue a verse which says “You people will become corrupt later” equals “Your scripture will become corrupt” is an implausible one?

If the latter, you haven’t responded to it. Again, Moses is accusing the Jewish people of becoming corrupt as a society later on. Mohammad said that the Muslims as a society would become corrupt later. If we are to discern an opinion from one condition, we must discern the same opinion from the exact same condition. To hold double standards is to be intellectually dishonest.

If the former, you do not convince me with your quotes, because you essentially prove that a later generation - or rather, a group of individuals other than Mohammad - approved of the Koran into the final copy that you believe you know today. In fact, there were early critics of Uthman and his allies, even from fellow companions of the prophet - the greatest example of this is Ibn Masud, who claimed certain surats were not in the original revelations of Mohammad. At the time there were many variants of the Koran, leading to some confusion and creating the need to approve of a “true” version. Even to this day the Shi’a Muslims claim that the Sunni changed certain passages within the Koran.

But the last part is getting off topic - if we are going to argue that saying a society being corrupted means scripture handed down by God Himself will be corrupted, then we must accept that both Moses and Mohammad made similar claims and therefore we must assume, by this logic, that they were saying the same warning.

 

[Jay53]

Originally Posted by Jay53
But, considering that St. Peter IS the first Pope of the Catholic Church, I’m obviously more inclined to think that I’m right.

elwill: okey , but i’m talking about paul not peter , or may be there is something i missing ?

I thought we were talking about Peter. He is who Jesus was talking to in the verse I was asking about.

Matthew 16:13-19

Now Jesus Having come into the district of Caesarea Philippi, began to ask his disciples, saying, “Who do men say the Son of Man is?” But they said, “Some say, John the Baptist; and others Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus answered and said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

So, I’ve lost track of our discussion, here.

What do you believe Jesus meant about building His Church and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.? I think I remember you saying something about Jesus’ teachings, not a physical church. Is that correct?

Do you then believe that St. Peter and St. John and the other disciples who became part of the Catholic Church corrupted those teachings of Jesus (to the point that the gates of hell did prevail) so that Jesus was wrong in His assertion?

Quote: Jay53
It’s the Epistles of St. Peter. And there are no differences. You can probably read them at biblegateway.com. They’re not real lengthy.

let us see what the scholars said about Epistles of St. Peter.

First epistleThe authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the Tübingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and instrinsic arguments.

Second epistle
In the present state of the controversy over the authenticity it may be affirmed that it is solidly probable, though it is difficult to prove with certainty.

newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm

may be you inclined that St. Peter IS the first Pope of the Catholic Church , i have no problem with that
but i’m also inclined to not taking such gospel full of doubts about it’s Authenticity as an evidence for the real mssage of jesus (pbuh)

These appear to be doubts by Protestants and Rationalists (whatever that is), so naturally I don’t take any stock in what they have to say. I don’t believe the Vatican has any questions about the authenticity of Peter’s epistles.

Why don’t you have a problem with St. Peter being the first Pope of the Catholic Church? St. Peter was supposed to be one of Jesus’ closest disciples, but then, according to Muslims, turned around and betrayed Jesus’ teachings by being part of the Catholic Church which most definitely acknowledges the divinity of Jesus.

Quote: Jay53
That’s what I don’t understand. Muslims here seem to villify St. Paul, but not the other disciples. St. Peter was the first Pope, so he was obviously in agreement with St. Paul (read his epistles and you’ll see he also calls him “brother”.). Where do Muslims believe all the other disciples of Jesus went? St. Peter, according to Muslims, betrayed Jesus by joining Paul in his “new” religion, St. John wrote the Gospel that confirms what St. Peter and St. Paul were teaching.

elwill: i’m inclined to take the words of jeusus (pbuh) to be superior than any others

Absolutely! What did Jesus say that St. John contradicts in his gospel? The gospel is a recording of the teachings of Jesus.

Quote: Jay53
And Peter, James and John were Jesus’ closest disciples who even witnessed His Transfiguration. Either Muslims believe Jesus did a terrible job of picking disciples or they just might be mistaken in some of their beliefs.

elwill: i have to be fair with the disciples of jesus , personally i believe that they were in truth
but if ask what i think , so i think that we don’t have the original writings for them , we just discuss thw writings which attributed to them . so that we need to make deep study for these writings and verifying them , we can’t take it as to be absolute truth

What do you believe happened to all of Jesus’ disciples? What did they do/where did they go after the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven?

Quote: Jay53
BTW, when did this villification of St. Paul start? Is this something found with Muhammad, or did this start with Muslim apologetics at a later date?

elwill: i think that this is something founded by christians scholars in the first place , not by muslims at all

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Absolutely! What did Jesus say that St. John contradicts in his gospel? The gospel is a recording of the teachings of Jesus.

And the words of Jesus in the Koran are according to another man: Mohammad. Funny how that works out.

 

[wina]

=

Also, remember that because a person does something doesnt mean a religion alows it. I know of the perversion some people in the Muslim countries have done, in keeping their woman under-educated, and taking away their rights that Islam has given them, but Islam has given them the rights.

Once again, just because people do it, does not mean its allowed.

Hi Chirsto, as I agree that what people do it, does not mean its allowed. But I’m sorry to say that I’ve got impression by my friends’ who are muslims ( you can see that I live in the country which muslims are majority) said that its allowed that men can force women to do his will although she doesn’t want to. Is it correct? please give me explanation if it’s not correct then why they told me so? And if men want to marry to someone’s else, he should ask his first wife, right? and how about if his first wife doesn’t agree? is he still allowed to marry? please give me based on your quran or hadith. I would like to know more.Thanks

 

[ZAKI]

And the words of Jesus in the Koran are according to another man: Mohammad. Funny how that works out.

They are according to Allah (swt)

wasalam

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

They are according to Allah (swt)

wasalam

According to Mohammad, but no one else saw Mohammad speaking to Gabriel. They simply took his word for it.

 

[Hadi]

According to Mohammad, but no one else saw Mohammad speaking to Gabriel. They simply took his word for it.

they saw him in a shape of a man , in the famous story where Gabriel asked the prophet in front of the Sahabas some questions about Iman , Islam and Ihsan

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

they saw him in a shape of a man , in the famous story where Gabriel asked the prophet in front of the Sahabas some questions about Iman , Islam and Ihsan

Fascinating, could you quote the relevant hadith?

 

[Hadi]

Fascinating, could you quote the relevant hadith?

“One day as we were sitting in the company of Allah’s Messenger, all of a sudden, there appeared before us, a man dressed in very white clothes with very black hair. There was no sign of fatigue on him because of journey and none amongst us ever knew him. He sat close to the Prophet and placed his knees against the Prophets knees and his palms upon thighs and said:
‘Muhammad inform me about Islam?’
The Prophet said:
‘Al-Islam implies that you testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and that you establish prayer (Salath) and pay Zakat, Observe Fast of Ramadaan(the fasting month) and perform Pilgrimage (Hajj) to the House (Ka-ba in Saudi Arabia) in case you have means.’
The stranger said: ‘you have told the truth.’
It was amazing for us about him that he would ask the question and then he would himself testify the answer to be true.
The Stranger then asked:
‘Inform me about Iman (Faith)?’
The Prophet said that:
‘You affirm your faith in Allah, His Angels, His books, His Messengers, in the Hereafter, in the Divine Decree to good and evil of life.’
Again the Stranger said:
‘You have told the truth.’
He then asked:
‘Inform me about Al-Ihsan?’
Prophet said:
‘You worship God as if you are seeing Him, and if you are not seeing Him (believe that) He is in-fact seeing you.’
Again the Stranger said:
‘You have told the truth.’
Umer bin Khattab said:
‘Then the stranger went away but I stayed with the Prophet for a long time.’
The Prophet asked me:
‘Umer, do you know this stranger?’
I said:
‘Allah and His Messenger know best’.
The Prophet Said:
‘He was Gabriel (Jibril), he came to you, to teach you your RELIGION.’’’

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I mean the hadith source - ie. hadith name, number, citation, etc.

Furthermore, if one man is needed to confirm a revelation, then Islam is a lot more lenient on religious institutions than on adulterers.

 

[Hadi]

Furthermore, if one man is needed to confirm a revelation, then Islam is a lot more lenient on religious institutions than on adulterers.

I don’t quite understand you here,please explain

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m just curious if you have the source of the hadith quotation yet. Some of Mohammad’s other companions also confessed that Mohammad saw things no one else ever saw.

Narrated 'Aisha:

Allah’s Apostle said, “O 'Aisha! This is Gabriel sending his greetings to you.” I said, “Peace, and Allah’s Mercy be on him (Gabriel). You see what we do not see.” (She was addressing Allah’s Apostle). [Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 74, Number 266]

I don’t quite understand you here,please explain

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them… [S. 4:15]

And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations)… [S. 24:4]

And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth. [S. 24:6]

Why did not the believers - men and women - when ye heard of the affair,- put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, “This (charge) is an obvious lie”? Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars! [S.24:12-13]

Four witnesses are required to indict an adulterer, or someone accused of lewdness. And yet, for a revelation from a prophet of God, no witnesses are required. Saint John Damascene, a contemporary of the early Muslims (in fact he worked for Muslims) actually brought this up in the 7th/8th century. In fact, there are probably just as many witnesses to the revelation Joseph Smith had as there are for the revelations Mohammad had.