H
Hadi
Guest
I couldn’t find the source of that Hadith ,…
- Status
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
Citing quotations is always good for the sake of scholarly comparison and research, hence why I’m a bit of a stickler for it.
It gives credence.
P
planten
Guest
** B W, you wanted reference for that Hadith posted by Hadi. Here is the reference:
- Bukhari page 12/1 and uslim Kitab al Eimaan.
- Tirmizi Kitab al Eimaan chapter about attributes of Gabriel…
They must have been getting messages from God. Did you ever think how they used to get messages from God? Please tell. Then we will discuss how our prophet got the messages from God.**
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
You refuse to acknowledge any Christian using the hadith with the blanket excuse, “That’s the hadith, don’t trust hadith, use the Koran,” now you quote the hadith?
Your argumentation is, as always, inconsistent.
H
Hadi
Guest
Muslims believe every Islamic books contains errors,except the Quran…for me, I deal with the Hadiths as I deal with the NT,I reject any passage that contradicts the Quran…that’s does not mean everything in the NT or Hadiths is false…You refuse to acknowledge any Christian using the hadith with the blanket excuse, “That’s the hadith, don’t trust hadith, use the Koran,” now you quote the hadith?
D
dzheremi
Guest
I find the continued comparison of the New Testament to the Hadith by Muslims here to be quite offensive and very much off the mark. I’d like to see it stopped, especially by those who you’d think would know better such as Hadi.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
As I’ve stated before, that is the fundamental flaw in Islamic exegesis: it is in fact not exegesis at all, but eisegesis. You accept a revelation that came later and hold everything by that standard. The explanation “I think it’s true because it agrees with my position” is circular argumentation.
Furthermore, I have shown you and other Muslims before that this is not how God ever revealed His commands to mankind - everything was always confirmed by what came before. The NT was confirmed by the OT, and the apostles and early Christians never accused the Jews of changing scripture to prevent the coming of Jesus. Suddenly, with the advent of the Koran, God supposedly changes strategies, and not only are no OT or NT passages quoted to a full degree, but many companions of the prophet even told the early Muslims to just ignore the previous revelations. Again, no one before, in Judaism nor Christianity, ever argued this way - in fact the apostles ENCOURAGED people to read what came before. I have yet to really hear a Muslim explanation on the reason for this.
H
Hadi
Guest
just to be clear ,that was my personal opinion ,it does not represent other Muslims ,and I might change it If proven wrong…
I don’t believe the *Torah *was corrupted, and that is the same with the original NT, (unless I see a complete manuscript dating before 200AD, I still consider NT (that we have today) to contain modified and added passages)
Christians Scholars have admitted that the NT contains forgeries.
Muslims Scholars have admitted that the Hadiths contains forgeries.
Again , this is my personal opinion…
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
We have literally hundreds (if not thousands) of manuscripts from that time period, all of which are theologically similar and do not branch away from any orthodox Christian thought. If there was some grand conspiracy to change every single manuscript in the world (and remember these manuscripts were spread out across the Middle East) so that the original teachings of Jesus, or the teachings of the original manuscripts, were drastically altered, then it has to be explained who had the power to do this, and evidence needs to be shown of this occurring. As it stands, there is no such evidence of this outside of bluster and conspiracy, and early Patristics testify to the legitimacy of what we now know as the New Testament.
Incidentally, did you take my advice and read early Patristics? Because, as I said, you’ll find the earliest Church Fathers (Ignatius, Clement I, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc) confirm Christian doctrine. Many of them (Ignatius, Clement I, and Polycarp especially) were disciples of the original apostles, and, again, they confirm what Christians today believe.
Name a few and cite their beliefs.
Yes…and they have scholarly ways of demonstrating why certain hadiths can’t be trusted. The problem is many amateur internet Muslim apologists (such as planten) don’t engage in that level of scholarly debate. If a Christian presents a hadith source that contradicts the Muslim’s point, instead of responding with, “You can’t trust that hadith because of fact A, and fact B, and what this scholar says here, etc,” they just make the blanket statement, “Oh, well you can’t trust hadiths!” without demonstrating why those specific hadiths can’t be trusted. But suddenly, if they find a hadith that supports their case, they quote it freely. Again, that’s inconsistency.
C
Christos
Guest
Here is a single verse that I have shown, that teaches to treat women with equity and kindness, but if you would like to search much further click here. As to why they have told you so, is because they themselves do not know the truth, but most likely, because they have been living or from an area (example some countries in the middle east) which do not allow education for women, and are quite often not able to learn these truths about Islam. This, is completely wrong of them to subjugate their women, and to beat and abuse them.
Quran 4:19
O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
In Islam, the man does not need to ask the permission of the first wife to marry again, but out of respect he should. Furthermore, he has to tell his first wife though that he got married, because he would have to give both wives, their respected equal share of him, in a sense. If he is not able to, or willing to treat his wives equally then he is forbidden to get married again. Click here to read more. He is still allowed to get married even if the first wife does not agree, but reasonably a man would not want his wife to be upset with him. Obviously, there are many possible “ifs”, but in a loving relationship a man would consult his wife. If it isn’t a loving relationship, then why are they still together?
C
Christos
Guest
I apologize I myself havnt read the early Patristics, but it is widely accepted that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest authority to Christian Scriptures, and that many corrections were taken from them.
This is an excerpt from the book “The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls” (I am not on my laptop as I have given it in for repair, and I have a short time on this, you might have to find the author for that, if needed.)
“Taken together, the biblical manuscripts from Qumran illustrate several
crucial features of scriptural development. First, the phenomenon of textual
plurality prevailed at Qumran. **Th ose who preserved the Scrolls kept copies of
a number of diff erent manuscript traditions.**12 Th is suggests that there was no
“standard” version of the Scriptures in this period but rather a plurality of different
textual traditions with thousands of diff erent readings in circulation at
the same time. Second, amid Qumran’s textual plurality, the proto-Masoretic
tradition is the most widely attested tradition at Qumran. Th e widespread transmission
that would make the Masoretic tradition Judaism’s most authoritative
text was, therefore, already underway at Qumran prior to the Common Era.
Finally, if some manuscripts represent the work of a Qumran scribal school,
then one may speculate that the Community was genuinely dedicated to the
production of its own editions of biblical texts.”
I have highlighted a few major points.
- It shows that the Bible had many different developmental stages, after which it has reached it current form. They had many different copies of the same manuscript, therfore it is assumed that there was no standard version as there is today. There were thousands of different readings of manuscripts that were available at the same time.
- That if you are not willing to accept that the bible had many different developmental stages and many different forms then it can be said that the Qumran Community were producing editions of their own. Thus they were changing the Bible already from that early a time period.
Please refer to that post and read further for more excerpts.
F
Fayle
Guest
Muslims; is it alright to:
Beat your wife?
Have sex with a 9 year old?
Have more than one wife?
Beat your wife?
Have sex with a 9 year old?
Have more than one wife?
S
seraphime2008
Guest
Hadi…i find it amusing that u take this as a reliable source to confirm Muhammad’s message since:
-only Muhammad reckoned that man as Gabriel. Who knows that it could be someone else or totally something else? Couldn’t it? Evil can also come in disguise!
-As other have said, u take same source of Hadith to restore ur faith and others that doesn’t support ur faith to be untrue. Are u saying that all those people who collected it had done a very bad job for the sake of their own prophet whom they were afraid would told Allah to punish them in hell to create lies upon him?
- And btw, that man doens’t seem to be teaching u religion, but asked questions…? Was he infact learning?
S
seraphime2008
Guest
So what Christos? U didn’t answer my question yet! R u saying that they should be eternally separated eventhough that they still love each other? R u saying that when their parent’s can’t have reason anymore to separate them, they still can’t get married? Then u’re in problems because ur Koran said they can get remarried in the condition that the woman marry another man first! What I am asking is: why the Koran said that they can get remarried if the woman should at first marry another man. If ur Koran says: no remarry after all because it is obvious that they were not meant to be together, that will be a different case! Or if ur Koran says: they may remarry after they have tried to be separated at certain length of time, then I can understand. But this one of the oddest thing that ur Koran says. I am not saying that the odd situation was the couple with their parents. This situation could always happen. The oddest thing I found is the regulation u find in Koran about this matter.
I find that ur post is full of the way of escaping, go beating around the bush, but u can’t actually answer the problem.
Who is jumping to a whole different scenario. U just can’t answer my problems above? And btw can u show me in ur Koran that says: a man cannot divorce a wife eventhough he has failed to support her materially?
Well…I will say that it was my conclusion after so many times seeing the obvious many many cases in Indonesia as a muslim majority country. Anyway…what does Koran say then that makes divorce lawfully accepted? Is it just the husband privilege to say : I divorce u 3 times, then it’s done? What should be the men’s case here and if there’s any, what would the the women’s case to ask for divorce?
Yeah…easy to say from a place u live where that is not the case. The problem is still arise when ur Koran says this:
-Sura 2:228 states, "Women have such honorable rights as obligations, but their men have a degree above them.
Men have a degree above women? is this equality is Islam?
-“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them.” (Sura 4:34)
So this is why in Saudi women can’t even permitted to drive car?
I am a woman who earn my own money and manage my own live and business, so should I stop doing this and give this business of mine to my father or my future husband?
Should I just give in to what my husband want me to do even something that I dislike?
SO much for the right of women u claim given by Islam!
-“two men should witness, but if not two men, then one man, and two women so that if one of the two women should err, the other will remind her.” (Sura 2:282)
So this is giving so much credit for man, but accusing woman of only able to gossip?
How this will help woman to escape her from or help her from violance in household?
-If you fear that you will not act justly toward the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four." (Sura 4:3)
Now woman is only regarded as property by men becasue they can get 2, 3 even 4! That’s almost like buying cars or houses!
-If a woman is guilty of “indecency” or “whoredom” and four witnesses can be produced against them, they are to be detained in their houses until “death take them or God appoints for them a way.” (Sura 4:15)
How is God ever merciful here? These women are not supposed to regret and repent but be condemned to death!
- four witnesses are important for charging someone with adultery. If someone charged another with adultery without four witnesses, they are not to be believed, and should be scourged with eighty stripes. (Sura 24:4)
Whattttt? R u saying that those people doing homosexuality, adultery and many other things (what exactly?) in the name of Christianity? That They based their wrongdoing from the teaching of the Bible? I can say that u;re delusional, u’re charging something that u can’t back up. Please give me reference to what u accused they are christians doing what Jesus taught! Have they ever said that they represented Christianity with what they’re doing? And btw, I am not faimiliar with those names u said!
Anyway…if we don;t kill them because they are homosexual, it’s because we know that to judge their soul is God’s authority. We could condemn them, we could try the best we could to lead them back to God, but not to kill them. R u insinuating that they shoud be killed, because their soul will not worthy anything?
Tell those Taliban and SA and many other countries u suspect were not being just to their women according to Islam. It;s ur duty as fellow muslim, don’t u think? Or perhaps u would say like another muslim posters ever said: They are not responsible for other people. Lazy, or unable to refute anything?
S
seraphime2008
Guest
No, the speak up Paul said was regarding the community gathering that obviously was the gathering we keep as the “mass”. Now would it be rather unacceptable by early Christian women if they couldn’t speak up during communal usual gathering when many women constituted the early church even became the most reliable supporter of the apostles by sharing their wealths? They were the witness of Jesus teachings, they were able to come and talked and discussed things with Jesus, why would they be treat differently to be silent all the time? Doens;t make sense to me and of course to them!
This is hilarious but at the same time a contempt to women! Any time u listen to woman singing, will that giving a lusting effect to U? My Gosh…I can’t even comprehend this. Indeed islam can only make sense to a barbaric society where men cannot even control themselves and keep thinking that any part of women’s body, even her voice are legitimate reason for them to be damn because they incite men’s desire!
Tell me why women is not under obligation to pray the Friday prayer? This hasn’t been addressed. Then why women can’t give sermon in Friday prayer? Why?
Yes…this is the reason why Islam is not just to women as also is not just to other religion. This is just an insinuation that women are considered weak, physically and mentally.
You’re making ur own interpretation if this verse, so there goes the mistake! There’s a bible with common English, why use this very old version, i find it rather difficult to understand.
My interpretation of this versle leads to the big “role” and responsiblity of woman to keep the marriage in a good situation.
Just as i said above, Paul was addressing certain people with certain cultural background that put women to be silent. But He was saying this only to give them “order”, but he indeed kept saying that “this is not the tradition of the Church”, that indeed women are equal to men.
At least he didn’t say “beat ur wife” if they can not agree with u!
W
wina
Guest
First sorry that I’m not able to read more about your link today.
And the questions about your statement “If it isn’t loving relationship then why are they still together?” so you mean that for the first time they married was not loving relationship? hm…makes me wonder. So everytime, men feel that his marriage is not loving relationship then he can divorce his wife?
and another questions “he has to tell his first wife though that he got married, because he would have to give both wives, their respected equal share of him, in a sense. If he is not able to, or willing to treat his wives equally then he is forbidden to get married again”
in what standard then it will be said equal? because what I think that human can’t give equal to anybody, they will give some one more than the others.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
(Part 1/2)
For all involved: if you haven’t studied Christian apologetics for various topics such as the Trinity, if you haven’t studied early Patristics, or researched Christianity outside of what the imams and Koran tell you, then please do not engage in dialogue with Christians. Again, you may score points among your fellow Muslims, but you’ll only be wasting bandwidth here.
Now, no one denies in different readings in the sense that there are textual variances. What is the essence of those variances? In the New Testament, for example, the vast majority of those variances are grammatical in nature, and do not influence Christian thought in any way. Some simply leave one word out (often an adverb or preposition) that, again, does not affect the meaning of the passage in any way. If you want evidence of this, read the KJV translation and then read the NASB (both of which were based off of two different manuscript traditions), and please tell me any major theological differences between the two.
Humorously enough, many Muslims on this forum have said because of textual variances the Bible can’t be trusted, despite the statement from Christians that all the manuscripts were theologically the same. And yet, when Christians pointed out that there were textual variances in the development of the Koran, the Muslims immediately said that the Koran was still valid because all the manuscripts of the Koran were theologically the same. Again, inconsistency in apologetics. If you hold Christianity up to a certain standard, you must hold Islam up to the same standard.
This, combined with planten’s blatant admittance that he never studied the Trinity, is truly frustrating for myself and other Christians. Many Christians on this forum have studied the Koran, the hadith, and listened to popular Muslim apologists…and then when we enter into discussion we find Muslims admitting that they haven’t done their research.
For all involved: if you haven’t studied Christian apologetics for various topics such as the Trinity, if you haven’t studied early Patristics, or researched Christianity outside of what the imams and Koran tell you, then please do not engage in dialogue with Christians. Again, you may score points among your fellow Muslims, but you’ll only be wasting bandwidth here.
To the Jewish scriptures, ie. of the Old Testament, yes. They are irrelevant to the topic of the Gospels and NT, which I was discussing with Hadi.
I found it myself through a bit of research: it was the version written by Casey Deryl Elledge.
Now, no one denies in different readings in the sense that there are textual variances. What is the essence of those variances? In the New Testament, for example, the vast majority of those variances are grammatical in nature, and do not influence Christian thought in any way. Some simply leave one word out (often an adverb or preposition) that, again, does not affect the meaning of the passage in any way. If you want evidence of this, read the KJV translation and then read the NASB (both of which were based off of two different manuscript traditions), and please tell me any major theological differences between the two.
Humorously enough, many Muslims on this forum have said because of textual variances the Bible can’t be trusted, despite the statement from Christians that all the manuscripts were theologically the same. And yet, when Christians pointed out that there were textual variances in the development of the Koran, the Muslims immediately said that the Koran was still valid because all the manuscripts of the Koran were theologically the same. Again, inconsistency in apologetics. If you hold Christianity up to a certain standard, you must hold Islam up to the same standard.
B
Byzantine_Wolf
Guest
(Part 2/2)
And again, the essence of those “different readings” is important. Can you demonstrate to me that these different readings had significant theological implications on the Jewish faith?
In fact, if anything, they were attempting to preserve the text by consulting and comparing various copies. To quote from the same book you did:
One important feature of Great Isaiah is the amount of textual correction it exhibits. Just as we often make mistakes when copying or typing information, ancient scribes made mistakes when copying manuscripts. Given the phenomenon of textual plurality during this time, it was also possible for scribes to correct readings in one manuscript by consulting those of another. Thus, one is not surprised to find hundreds of corrections in Great Isaiah. Methods of correction in the scroll include supralinear corrections (added “above the line”), numerous strike-throughs, overwriting, and the use of small dots (“cancellation dots”) above, and often below, incorrect letters…
Despite these corrections, Great Isaiah was apparently not viewed as a “vulgar” or “corrupt” manuscript…Great Isaiah not only provides our most impressive biblical manuscript from the Qumran; it also visibly attests to how faithful hands studied, corrected, repaired, and transmitted this document for an entire century after it was originally copied. [pg 90]
Again, from the same source, discussing the “alterations” found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
In addition to copies of biblical writings, there are important “biblical” finds at Qumran. These include writings that take the biblical text as their point of departure, yet alter it in significant ways. At least three forms of alteration are common. First, several writings gather scriptural passages together from different contexts, forming anthologies that highlight selected themes. Other works illustrate the practice of rewriting continuous sections of biblical text. Third, Qumran also preserves scriptural translations from Hebrew into Aramaic that resemble the later Jewish Targums. [pg. 90]
Many of the “alterations” in the Dead Sea Scrolls are not true “alterations” in the same that someone is maliciously changing the text, but rather they are using it in different creative ways that do not delineate from the original meaning of the passage.
And Christians, in fact, are willing to admit that, due to human error in transcribing, there are textual variances. What they have demonstrated, however, is that those textual variances in the vast majority of manuscripts bear nothing on the theological meaning of the passages specifically or Christian theology in general. If you pick up a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which grades the authenticity of every single passage, you’ll find an alarming number of A’s and B’s.
The only people not willing to admit textual variance or history within their sacred scripture are Muslims, who ignore the historical and archeological evidence of this, and again play double standards when it comes to dealing with Christian or Muslim texts. They also fail to accurately address how any supposed theological changes in the texts came about. Again, if the Christian texts were changed, then it needs to be addressed who had the power to take all the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of manuscripts in the early days of Christianity, add in what they wanted, redistribute them, and force Christians everywhere - including the early Church Fathers who were the disciples of the apostles - to believe what they wanted (in fact the Church Fathers quote NT scripture extensively, revealing the authenticity of various passages). Furthermore, evidence needs to be shown of this occurring. As it stands, there is no evidence of this. There is only bluster, conjecture and empty rhetoric.
Again, it doesn’t discuss “the Bible” (since the Bible, as we know it today, did not exist when the Dead Sea Scrolls were collected) but elements of Jewish scripture.
And again, the essence of those “different readings” is important. Can you demonstrate to me that these different readings had significant theological implications on the Jewish faith?
Again, it wasn’t “the Bible,” but elements of Jewish scripture found in the Old Testament. You cannot say they were “changing the Bible” when: 1) there was no “Bible” back then; 2) you haven’t demonstrated how those changes are significant, therefore accusing them of “changing it” as if they were creating an entirely different religion.
In fact, if anything, they were attempting to preserve the text by consulting and comparing various copies. To quote from the same book you did:
One important feature of Great Isaiah is the amount of textual correction it exhibits. Just as we often make mistakes when copying or typing information, ancient scribes made mistakes when copying manuscripts. Given the phenomenon of textual plurality during this time, it was also possible for scribes to correct readings in one manuscript by consulting those of another. Thus, one is not surprised to find hundreds of corrections in Great Isaiah. Methods of correction in the scroll include supralinear corrections (added “above the line”), numerous strike-throughs, overwriting, and the use of small dots (“cancellation dots”) above, and often below, incorrect letters…
Despite these corrections, Great Isaiah was apparently not viewed as a “vulgar” or “corrupt” manuscript…Great Isaiah not only provides our most impressive biblical manuscript from the Qumran; it also visibly attests to how faithful hands studied, corrected, repaired, and transmitted this document for an entire century after it was originally copied. [pg 90]
Again, from the same source, discussing the “alterations” found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
In addition to copies of biblical writings, there are important “biblical” finds at Qumran. These include writings that take the biblical text as their point of departure, yet alter it in significant ways. At least three forms of alteration are common. First, several writings gather scriptural passages together from different contexts, forming anthologies that highlight selected themes. Other works illustrate the practice of rewriting continuous sections of biblical text. Third, Qumran also preserves scriptural translations from Hebrew into Aramaic that resemble the later Jewish Targums. [pg. 90]
Many of the “alterations” in the Dead Sea Scrolls are not true “alterations” in the same that someone is maliciously changing the text, but rather they are using it in different creative ways that do not delineate from the original meaning of the passage.
And Christians, in fact, are willing to admit that, due to human error in transcribing, there are textual variances. What they have demonstrated, however, is that those textual variances in the vast majority of manuscripts bear nothing on the theological meaning of the passages specifically or Christian theology in general. If you pick up a copy of the UBS Greek New Testament, which grades the authenticity of every single passage, you’ll find an alarming number of A’s and B’s.
The only people not willing to admit textual variance or history within their sacred scripture are Muslims, who ignore the historical and archeological evidence of this, and again play double standards when it comes to dealing with Christian or Muslim texts. They also fail to accurately address how any supposed theological changes in the texts came about. Again, if the Christian texts were changed, then it needs to be addressed who had the power to take all the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of manuscripts in the early days of Christianity, add in what they wanted, redistribute them, and force Christians everywhere - including the early Church Fathers who were the disciples of the apostles - to believe what they wanted (in fact the Church Fathers quote NT scripture extensively, revealing the authenticity of various passages). Furthermore, evidence needs to be shown of this occurring. As it stands, there is no evidence of this. There is only bluster, conjecture and empty rhetoric.
P
planten
Guest
**B W, We Muslims do not have any double standards. I can feel some double standard in your beliefs, such as:
Now look, when it is said that there were Brothers and sisters of Jesus, you deny that. You say that they were not real brothers. They were cousins.
There are so many other such examples of double standard in your system. You make maximum use of the coming of the angel to Mary. That is to authenticate the pure birth of Jesus. Then you use angel visiting Joseph the Carpentar, not to go near Mary. That is also for some good purpose. You make use of them angels in your bibleNT. But when it comes to an angel visiting the messenger Muhammad, you suddenly apply the brakes as if it is something impossible.
We do not mind that. But then you accuse us Muslims of double standard. How come?**
- You people believe that Jesus was the son of God. That was because Jesus used to call the God as his father. You took it literally and said that Jesus was real son of God. Then you proceeded further to complicate the matters that Jesus was the begotten son of God (you forgot the word begotten used in general sense and also in bible about Abraham begat Issac… Issac begat Jacob… Mathew ch.1)
Now look, when it is said that there were Brothers and sisters of Jesus, you deny that. You say that they were not real brothers. They were cousins.
There are so many other such examples of double standard in your system. You make maximum use of the coming of the angel to Mary. That is to authenticate the pure birth of Jesus. Then you use angel visiting Joseph the Carpentar, not to go near Mary. That is also for some good purpose. You make use of them angels in your bibleNT. But when it comes to an angel visiting the messenger Muhammad, you suddenly apply the brakes as if it is something impossible.
We do not mind that. But then you accuse us Muslims of double standard. How come?**
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
It’s fine to say you don’t have double standards but is it true. Do you admit that the text of the Quran has changes from the original, and that there are indeed textual variations in Arabic? Or don’t you?
If you don’t, you believe a common myth, taught and believed by many Muslims.
It would be the equivalent of the King James Only Christians who believe the King James translation is perfect, indeed better than the manuscripts in the original language.
So do you agree there are textual variations in the Quran?
If you don’t, you believe a common myth, taught and believed by many Muslims.
It would be the equivalent of the King James Only Christians who believe the King James translation is perfect, indeed better than the manuscripts in the original language.
So do you agree there are textual variations in the Quran?
- Status