Study the Qur’an?

[SyroMalankara]

SyroMalankara,

I’m confused. Those are examples of Mr. Shamoun’s dishonesty or something else?

No, of taqiya or deliberate concealment.

Shamoun is a self promoting self proclaimed evangelical. I wonder about his type, like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham, they can’t possibly believe their own bs… Can they?

 

[IdiNaPut]

That they make a lot of poor arguments I don’t doubt. If you want me to believe a charge of deliberate lying I’d need more specific examples with documentation. Of course you are under no obligation to provide this–it’s not of huge importance to me. A person can deny saying something they said without deliberately lying. I’ve done this myself on occasion–genuinely forgotten that I said something I said, or carelessly expressed myself in one context in a way that I wanted to repudiate in another, and been embarrassed when someone pointed out my inconsistency, which I genuinely hadn’t noticed.

I’ll have to see if the original sources are up- much of what I can remember is from Skype-style chat rooms such as Paltalk, and the MP3s of these were then posted to the Internet.

When people’s words and writings are driven by an overwhelming polemical or apologetic agenda, they tend to fall into this more often. And at some point a line is crossed into dishonesty when people choose not to be self-critical and choose to justify themselves and try to deny the embarrassing facts instead of admitting them.

I do note with regard to Mr. Shamoun that Catholics find his arguments with regard to Catholicism to be hugely flawed and unworthy of (what some of them take to be) his good reputation as an apologist against Islam. I always find that sort of statement suspicious. If someone is clearly unreliable and unfair when dealing with your religion, it’s likely that he’s equally unreliable when dealing with the religion you both disagree with, and you just don’t see it. So I’m not surprised by your negative appraisal of Mr. Shamoun’s work, having heard the same appraisal from Catholics about his statements concerning Catholicism.

Edwin

for me Sam Shamoun is little better than a soapboxer- he seems to have little interest in true debate where his positions may be challenged and therefore change said opinion where necessary, but to merely voice off his own standpoints. True debate means having an opinion, but also being willing to neutrally examine the viewpoints of the opposing side and where, necessary, amend your position to the new evidences presented.

Plus I would question, if Sam Shamoun is willing to make deeply logically and evidentially flawed arguments regarding one religion, why should his arguments regarding any other religion should be taken seriously.

Fact is that there exist better apologetics- I’d rather read something like CAF’s own Ask An Apologist.

 

[Reuben_J]

for me Sam Shamoun is little better than a soapboxer- he seems to have little interest in true debate where his positions may be challenged and therefore change said opinion where necessary, but to merely voice off his own standpoints. True debate means having an opinion, but also being willing to neutrally examine the viewpoints of the opposing side and where, necessary, amend your position to the new evidences presented.

Plus I would question, if Sam Shamoun is willing to make deeply logically and evidentially flawed arguments regarding one religion, why should his arguments regarding any other religion should be taken seriously.

Fact is that there exist better apologetics- I’d rather read something like CAF’s own Ask An Apologist.

Perhaps because there are some good argument by Shamoun against Islam which are reasonable enough that we can use. I admit that I sometimes went to AI website to get fast information or the relevant Quranic verses.

The reason I do that is because I believe there is always that fair amount of apologetic in any website which often influence their argument and that applies to almost everyone. A purely Islamic website would naturally try to make apology for their belief and I am often put off by their deliberate attempt at twisting of Christian belief.

We can use their materials but we have to discern as to whether they are credible enough. Using others’ argument would naturally reflect on our own credibility as well.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I

I converted to Islam after reading a French translation of Islam’s holy book, thought I had it all figured out, and it wasn’t until after I learned enough Arabic to delve into books of exegesis and jurisprudence that I started to discover some very unsettling truths.

What was it about Islam’s holy book that made you convert–made you decide it was the true faith? Did you have another faith before that? If so what made you believe it was false and that Islam was true?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Mount_Carmel]

This statement requires context.

Muhammad and his followers were driven out of Mecca by oppression, murder and violence and their properties confiscated by the Meccan polytheist idolators who sold them.

Muhammad and his followers recovered some of the stolen wealth from Meccan caravans owned by the idolators who had driven them out of Mecca and killed Muslims because of their beliefs.

If you care to do a study of the comments and records, not by his enemies, but his followers, you will find that Muhammad brought his expulsion from Mecca upon himself. He contrived a hostile treaty against the people of Mecca first. His followers were not persecuted or killed, in fact, according to some of his closest followers the Meccans showed great tolerance at times.

Muhammad, after tiring of Meccan resistance to his ideas, eventually made an alliance with another town, Medina, that included provisions of war against the Meccans. The parties to the treaty were asked “Do you realize to what you are committing yourselves in pledging your support to this man? It is to war against all and sundry” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 299). The pledge to war is further confirmed in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 305.

Therefore, it was only after Muhammad committed himself to armed revolution against the Meccans that the town’s leaders sought to have him either killed or evicted.

The historical account also flatly contradicts the popular view that all Muslims had to flee Mecca following Muhammad’s declaration of war. In fact, it was only Muhammad himself whom the Meccans were interested in seizing. This is proven by the episode recounted in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham (326-328) in which Muhammad’s own son-in-law, Ali, sleeps in his bed to trick his enemies into thinking that they had cornered him on the night they came to seize him.

Not only did the Meccans do no harm to Ali, even after finding out that he had fooled them, but he remained in the city for several days thereafter with Muhammad’s daughter Fatima in order to arrange the transfer of the family business to Medina.

BUT, Islam likes to picture itself as always the martyr, hard done by and always being the oppressed, don’t-cha knows?

 

[IdiNaPut]

Perhaps because there are some good argument by Shamoun against Islam which are reasonable enough that we can use. I admit that I sometimes went to AI website to get fast information or the relevant Quranic verses.

The reason I do that is because I believe there is always that fair amount of apologetic in any website which often influence their argument and that applies to almost everyone. A purely Islamic website would naturally try to make apology for their belief and I am often put off by their deliberate attempt at twisting of Christian belief.

We can use their materials but we have to discern as to whether they are credible enough. Using others’ argument would naturally reflect on our own credibility as well.

I think this is where there exists a division between dawah and the scholarly side of Islam, or indeed any religion. The likes of my Quran’s commentary (tafsir) or a reputable work of classical Islamic thought such as the Sealed Nectar isn’t going to try and convert people, but merely be a work of reference for a subject. I would prefer in any instance to consult these should I wish to understand an Islamic topic, rather than a dawah site which has its biases.

I would also deeply question the extent to which a non-participant in any one religion can make any judgement regarding the religion, especially one such as Shamoun who is deeply entrenched in his own side. It would be, to my mind, like someone with no medical training trying to disprove the arguments of a fully trained doctor.

 

[Matthew_Light]

If you care to do a study of the comments and records, not by his enemies, but his followers, you will find that Muhammad brought his expulsion from Mecca upon himself. He contrived a hostile treaty against the people of Mecca first. His followers were not persecuted or killed, in fact, according to some of his closest followers the Meccans showed great tolerance at times.

Can you tell me which histories of Islam you’ve read that claim that Muhammad and his followers were not persecuted by the Meccans?

 

[Contarini]

I think this is where there exists a division between dawah and the scholarly side of Islam, or indeed any religion. The likes of my Quran’s commentary (tafsir) or a reputable work of classical Islamic thought such as the Sealed Nectar isn’t going to try and convert people, but merely be a work of reference for a subject. I would prefer in any instance to consult these should I wish to understand an Islamic topic, rather than a dawah site which has its biases.

Exactly. Would that more of my fellow Christians understood this principle.

Too many folks here seem to know the Church Fathers only as selected catenas of quotations taken from Catholic Answers Tracts. Granted, that’s better than not knowing them at all, which is the state of most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Edwin

 

[IdiNaPut]

Exactly. Would that more of my fellow Christians understood this principle.

Too many folks here seem to know the Church Fathers only as selected catenas of quotations taken from Catholic Answers Tracts. Granted, that’s better than not knowing them at all, which is the state of most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike.

Edwin

To be honest I think this is a problem you’ll find in any religion- I call it ‘soundbite religion’ where people will know a reduced version of their religion or the barest essentials of their respective holy books but when it comes to serious engagement with their faith, it is not there.

 

[arte]

I am joining this thread a bit late but I know that one of my Christmas presents will be a Quran so this is the ideal forum for me.

I have read through most of the posts and thought those by “mamlukman” were very informative. I am coming at this from an anti Islam direction. I thought it best to make that clear. Although I have read up on Islam, it would be fair to say that I have concentrated mainly on the affects of Islam. I do not know how I became involved in Islam but I have been debating Islam for about 2 years or longer. I debate in the comments after YouTube videos about Islam. The videos are professionally made such as the BBC Big Questions programmes and other similar television or special events programmes.

You can now see the connection to my receiving a Quran as a Christmas present. Whilst I use internet versions, I thought it best to have my own copy readily available. I am also contemplating buying a Hadith for the same reason.

I have amassed a wealth of information on Islam. I have links to many anti Islam sites. For balance, I have also used some Muslim sites. Mamlukman has already listed some excellent sites. I would add one other that I have found to have a lot of information. It is called: “The Religion of Peace”.
thereligionofpeace.com/
They have a handy list of surveys and polls that have been done on Muslims all over the World. I have found this list to be very helpful when challenging “the tiny minority of Muslims are involved” argument. They also list the number of deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. There have been 27,304 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. I have found that some anti Islam sites are way over the top and their hatred and heavy bias becomes clear after a short read.

I have noticed of late something that “mamlukman” mentions and that is the increased educational level and debating skills of some of the Muslims. They write in perfect English with excellent writing skills. I believe they are all 2nd generation Muslims; born in English speaking countries. It appears as if they have been specially trained for the role.

On the anti Islam side, the following are excellent: Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali David Woods (already mentioned), Maryam Namazie and Sam Harris. I would like to single out Douglas Murray. He is an excellent debater and writer. Maajid Nawaz was mentioned by “mamlukman”. Maajid Nawaz is a moderate Muslim who is trying to change Muslims to become tolerant and he deserves all the help we can give him. Maajid Nawaz and Sam Harris have written a book recently titled: “Islam and the future of tolerance”. I have not read the book.

I thoroughly recommend the following:

This is an article written by Douglas Murray after the recent Paris attacks for the New Spectator.
blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/will-politicians-finally-admit-that-the-paris-attacks-had-something-to-do-with-islam/

This is an article written by Nicolai Sennels a Danish psychologist titled: “How Islam creates sociopaths”.
israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17646#.VlF2j79TKuK

This is an Intelligence Squared Debate titled: “Islam is a religion of peace”. For the motion are: Maajid Nawaz and Zeba Khan and against are: Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It runs for about 1 hour 45 minutes.
youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A

 

[TonyBS]

I am joining this thread a bit late but I know that one of my Christmas presents will be a Quran so this is the ideal forum for me.

I am coming at this from an anti Islam direction. I thought it best to make that clear. Although I have read up on Islam, it would be fair to say that I have concentrated mainly on the affects of Islam.

I hope that your new Koran helps you then to Focus on God

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[mamlukman]

I have read through most of the posts and thought those by “mamlukman” were very informative.

Thanks! Perhaps this thread can revive a bit after 7 months. In any case, the Danish psychologist you list also is interviewed in a youtube video, where he says the same thing, although I can’t remember the title. The debate about “Islam is a religion of peace,” is very good–I watched it and made comments back in April–they’re still on p. 1 of the comments section. Zeba Khan has gone on to be a journalist, and she writes very good articles, although they show the naiveté she shows in the debate. (By “naiveté” I mean she does what a lot of Muslims do in the West–she has her own individualistic idea of what “Islam” is and dismisses any other interpretation–see next paragraph.)

I’m also fascinated to see that Myriam Francois-Cerrah seems to have adopted a new style of hijab. In a short–4 minute–interview in July (and in other recent videos), she has a new look! youtube.com/watch?v=34-3paxFCFY I’ve made a comprehensive comment there that covers her lapses from logic and common sense, but perhaps the most important thing I noticed was her statement that “I’ve no idea what true Islam is…” I think Myriam is finally getting it. Others in the comment section also noticed her evolving fashions…

This is a good web site on Islamic extremists run by Westernized Muslims in DC–The Clarion Project. It’s mostly academics. They also have all the issues of “Dabiq,” the monthly magazine of Dash, or ISIS. They are big PDF files, 60+ mb (It’s a 60+ page magazine with all the news a good Jihadist needs to know. And fantastic production values–it makes Time look like a high school project).
clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq
Anyone who says Dash is a criminal organization and not a religious one needs to read of few pages of Dabiq. It seems to be a current fashion to call the terrorists “criminals.” Of course they are, in a sense, but I have never heard of a criminal who intentionally kills himself or goes on a suicide mission. Only religious fanatics do that.

As for the refugee debate, go to a poll taken by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar. This is from Nov. 2014. See particularly figure 11 towards the end of the report. english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

 

[arte]

Thanks! Perhaps this thread can revive a bit after 7 months. In any case, the Danish psychologist you list also is interviewed in a youtube video, where he says the same thing, although I can’t remember the title. The debate about “Islam is a religion of peace,” is very good–I watched it and made comments back in April–they’re still on p. 1 of the comments section. Zeba Khan has gone on to be a journalist, and she writes very good articles, although they show the naiveté she shows in the debate. (By “naiveté” I mean she does what a lot of Muslims do in the West–she has her own individualistic idea of what “Islam” is and dismisses any other interpretation–see next paragraph.)

I found a youtube video with Nicolai Sennels being interviewed by Robert Spencer but have not watched it yet. I did find a more detailed report by Nicolai Sennels and it makes excellent reading. He compares the psychology of Western people with that of Muslims.
newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/
Zeba Khan has had lots of revealing photographs done where she wears flimsy underwear. I wonder what “real” Muslims would think about that.

I’m also fascinated to see that Myriam Francois-Cerrah seems to have adopted a new style of hijab. In a short–4 minute–interview in July (and in other recent videos), she has a new look! youtube.com/watch?v=34-3paxFCFY I’ve made a comprehensive comment there that covers her lapses from logic and common sense, but perhaps the most important thing I noticed was her statement that “I’ve no idea what true Islam is…” I think Myriam is finally getting it. Others in the comment section also noticed her evolving fashions…

I have come across Myriam Francois-Cerrah many times. I understand what you mean by their own brand of Islam which is a “fairy tale” version. I had not thought of that angle. Muslims like Zeba Khan and Myriam Francois-Cerrah can entice people into Islam believing that it is a very liberal religion. Myriam Francois-Cerrah is an ex actor. She is an attractive looking woman so Muslim organisations put her on centre stage. The BBC does likewise because the BBC has been more or less taken over by the liberal left wing. On her first debates, Myriam Francois-Cerrah sounded like a little girl in the background so the BBC “elevated” her literally so she sits with a panel of so called experts on a raised podium during some of the BBC Big Questions debates.

I saw your comment; it is excellent. You covered all the main points. These are very important:
1.Moderates become radicalised. I was not completely aware of this – it’s frightening.
2.You have to earn trust. It is a 2 way street and not one way. This has come up in another CAF debate and this will help. See:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13433748. "Sweden checks trains for migrants in first border controls in 20 years’.
3.“Allowing people to devise their own conception and practice of religion”. Therefore FGM, polygamy, forced marriages, honour killings, beating your wife etc is OK now according to Myriam.

This is a good web site on Islamic extremists run by Westernized Muslims in DC–The Clarion Project. It’s mostly academics. They also have all the issues of “Dabiq,” the monthly magazine of Dash, or ISIS. They are big PDF files, 60+ mb (It’s a 60+ page magazine with all the news a good Jihadist needs to know. And fantastic production values–it makes Time look like a high school project).
clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

Many thanks for this information. The web site is excellent. I haven’t downloaded one of the ISIS journals yet but will do.

Anyone who says Dash is a criminal organization and not a religious one needs to read of few pages of Dabiq. It seems to be a current fashion to call the terrorists “criminals.” Of course they are, in a sense, but I have never heard of a criminal who intentionally kills himself or goes on a suicide mission. Only religious fanatics do that.

The word “criminal” has started to creep in instead of calling them terrorists.

As for the refugee debate, go to a poll taken by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Qatar. This is from Nov. 2014. See particularly figure 11 towards the end of the report. english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

Wow, that poll is frightening. 4% of Syrian refugees expressed a positive attitude towards ISIS and 9% expressed a positive to some extent attitude towards ISIS. That’s 13% of Syrian refugees expressed a positive view towards ISIS. Of course the pollsters emphasised that about 85% of Arab Muslims overall expressed a negative attitude towards ISIS but what about the other 15%! Europe will take in at least 1 million of the Syrian refugees which means about 130,000 of them have a positive attitude towards ISIS. Are we crazy? I have read that before the current civil war in Syria, the majority of Syrians supported Al Qaeda, Al Nursa Front and Hamas. I have always said that we should help the refugees but we should help them in the refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan – Muslim countries. We should only take into Europe the most persecuted groups; Christians and Yazidis. The pluses for taking in Christians and Yazidis: fully integrate with host society, no terrorist threat (this is an enormous massive plus), they will like you, no special privileges required like Sharia councils etc, not over representative in welfare and 2nd generation will be completely host country nationals.

 

[arte]

Fatwas are pronouncements by the Muslim clergy. Muhammad is not more responsible for them than Jesus is responsible for the official pronouncements of Christian religious leaders written centuries or millenia later.

The Hadiths are things Muhammad supposedly said, as passed on through oral accounts for generations before being written down. Only many of them contradict one another, as you might expect. So they are obviously unreliable, and many of them probably invented out of whole cloth.

The Sirah are like the Hadith, only referencing Muhammad’s actions. So they have all the same problems as the Hadith.

That leaves the Qur’an, which is largely accurate, but must be understood in the context of when each verse was revealed, and the cultural background of the society in which Muhammad lived. For example, some of the Quranic Surih that people feel upset about were in the context of a defensive war against particular Christian soldiers or Jewish tribes who were trying to destroy the Muslim Ummah (community). So, yes, those people who had sought to extirpate the followers of Muhammad were to be subdued and pacified. Not a surprise.

You do not build an empire by fighting defensive wars; you build an empire by attacking another nation and its people. The Muslim Empire was massive and stretched from Europe through N Africa to India so there was a huge amount of attacking done by the followers of Mohamed. If Mohamed only fought in self defence **then his immediate successor Abu Bakr and successors after Abu Bakr did not follow Mohamed or did they?
**

For example, some of the Quranic Surih that people feel upset about **were in the context of a defensive war against particular **Christian soldiers or Jewish tribes (my emphasis).

You are painting a picture here that the verses in the Quran concerning violence against Christians and Jews are no longer extant. They are historical just like all of the violent verses in the Old Testament against certain tribes like the Hittites, Amorites, etc. Can you please explain quoting these verses and others where required to show that they only apply to a particular group (or nation) of Christian soldiers and Jewish tribes. There are other violent verses in the Quran. Could you please explain whether these violent verses are extant or not.

Fast forward to today. Muslim terrorists firmly believe that the violence they do is in the name of God, Islam and with it – Mohamed. There must be violent verses in the Quran, Hadith and Sirah that supports their firmly held beliefs and these violent verses must therefore be extant.

 

[JimmyDFG]

I am not against muslims… I am against islam. I find it funny when muslims say the Bible is corrupt. Its as if to say they have a “Bible” from the time of Christ that hasn’t been “corrupt”. Compared to the Holy Bible we Catholics and Christians have today.
We see that the quran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the quran since the quran says that the Word of God cannot be altered

 

[arte]

I am not against muslims… I am against islam. I find it funny when muslims say the Bible is corrupt. Its as if to say they have a “Bible” from the time of Christ that hasn’t been “corrupt”. Compared to the Holy Bible we Catholics and Christians have today.
We see that the quran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the quran since the quran says that the Word of God cannot be altered

From my personal experience, the vast majority of people who are anti Islam are not anti Muslims. Muslims by definition are followers of Islam so obviously if we criticise Islam, we will at times criticise Muslims but any criticism of Islam or Muslims must be done with respect. I could be wrong but I don’t think religions ever change; it’s the followers that change. Most Muslims interpret their religious scripture literally and I believe that is one of the main problems that should be addressed. I believe most Jews are reform/progressive Jews and have a very modern outlook regarding Judaism. They believe in gender equality and all other modern day civil rights. But the Torah is still the 5 books of the Old Testament and the Tanakh is still all of the Old Testament. The death penalty for: apostasy from Judaism (joining what was considered a pagan religion), adultery, being gay is still in the Old Testament but Christians and Jews no longer interpret these scriptures literally. However, we know that in Islam the death penalty or another form of extreme punishment for the above offences is still followed by Muslims under Sharia Law. Another major problem area to overcome is the personal life of Mohamed as portrayed in Islamic scripture. Similar life events concerning for example Moses as portrayed in the Old Testament have been overcome by Christians and Jews so this area concerning Mohamed’s life can be overcome.

There is far too much political correctness (PC) surrounding criticising Islam and the behaviour/following of a very significant percentage of Muslims. I watched the BBC, CNN and other media news coverage after the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. After nearly 2 hours of coverage I did not hear the word “Islam” being mentioned. The words terrorists, extremists and radicals were used but not “Islamic”. Our politicians, law enforcement agencies and media are strangled by PC so the truth concerning Islam does not come out. In order to fix a problem you have to say what the problem is. We are also helping the majority of Muslims if we help them fix the problem of Islam. Like us, they want to live in peace.

There is an excellent article on Islam here at Catholic Answers titled: “Endless Jihad the Truth about Islam and Violence”:
catholic.com/documents/endless-jihad-the-truth-about-islam-and-violence

I also recommend the following article written by Douglas Murray titled: “Will politicians finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam?”
blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/will-politicians-finally-admit-that-the-paris-attacks-had-something-to-do-with-islam/

 

[arte]

I am not against muslims… I am against islam. I find it funny when muslims say the Bible is corrupt. Its as if to say they have a “Bible” from the time of Christ that hasn’t been “corrupt”. Compared to the Holy Bible we Catholics and Christians have today.
We see that the quran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the quran since the quran says that the Word of God cannot be altered

Sorry JimmyDFG, I have just realised that my earlier reply does not address your concern. I have come across similar issues that you identify when debating with Muslims concerning the Bible and the Quran. My reply does not address your post directly but does give an overall background to the difficulties that Islam does present. If my reply is not helpful, please inform me and I will try my best to research your main concern.

 

[arte]

I am not against muslims… I am against islam. I find it funny when muslims say the Bible is corrupt. Its as if to say they have a “Bible” from the time of Christ that hasn’t been “corrupt”. Compared to the Holy Bible we Catholics and Christians have today.
We see that the quran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the quran since the quran says that the Word of God cannot be altered

I felt bad about not helping you so I have done some research which will help you when debating Muslims concerning the Bible being the word of God. I also learnt something very important myself so many thanks for that.

From your post, I believe you have already checked this site:
answering-islam.org/Silas/bible.htm

I searched this site and it appears that Muslims only disagree that the Bible is not the word of God where the Bible contradicts itself. This is the final comment on the site below:
Final comment from Yusuf Estes:
“I would like to state that after years of studying the Bible and then learning the Arabic language to read the Quran as it was originally recited to Muhammad, peace be upon him, by the angel Gabriel, I have come to an amazing conclusion. It seems to me that the Bible and the Quran are most definitely from the exact same source and they compliment each other very nicely. In fact, it appears that the Bible does not contradict the Quran, except in the very same places where the Bible contradicts itself”.
islamtomorrow.com/articles/Bible_vs_Quran.asp

**If Muslims do not accept the parts of the Bible that have contradictions as being the word of God then the same rule must apply to the Quran
**
This site is useful for numerical contradictions and compulsion in religion contradictions only. The rest are contradictions with modern science. Muslims also claim there is modern science in the Quran so these contradictions are useful to disprove this claim. **The compulsion in religion contradictions are very important because many Muslims quote this from the Quran: “There is no compulsion in religion”. **
faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/contradictions.htm

This site appears to have a lot more contradictions in the Quran.
beholdthebeast.com/contradictions_in_the_koran.htm

 

[JimmyDFG]

“I searched this site and it appears that Muslims only disagree that the Bible is not the word of God where the Bible contradicts itself.”

Thank you for your help!!!
If you take a look at what Gabriel said to the prophets and to Mary … Its seems so out of character to what he said and did to muhammad.

After looking into the quran and the hadith I’ve found some alarming things ( for me it was alarming ) I’ll point out two.

Revelation 19:16
On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords.

Revelation 17:14
and they will go to war against the Lamb; but because the Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings, he will defeat them, he and his followers, the called, the chosen, the trustworthy’

In the hadith (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224) Mohammed said, “The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings).

The other is …

Book 14, Number 2478:
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.

The more I looked in the quran ,the more I felt is was wrong. The more I see islam and the quran…the more I seek Jesus and the Holy Bible and my Catholic faith

 

[arte]

“I searched this site and it appears that Muslims only disagree that the Bible is not the word of God where the Bible contradicts itself.”

Thank you for your help!!!
If you take a look at what Gabriel said to the prophets and to Mary … Its seems so out of character to what he said and did to muhammad.

The angel Gabriel appears to 3 people in the Bible: first to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8:16); next to the priest Zechariah to foretell and announce the miraculous birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19); and finally to the virgin Mary to tell her that she would conceive and bear a son (Luke 1:26–38). Gabriel is also the angel of the annunciation because he is the one who revealed that the Saviour was to be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:31). In the 3 appearances, Gabriel was met with fear which would be normal for anyone who suddenly sees an angel. Gabriel said to Daniel: “Fear not Daniel”. Gabriel said to Zechariah and Mary: **“Do not be afraid”. ** Daniel was sick for days after his experience with Gabriel and the vision (Daniel 8:27). Zechariah did not believe that his wife Elizabeth could have a baby because they were both too old and Elizabeth was barren. For doubting him, Gabriel made Zechariah dumb until John the Baptist’s circumcision (Luke 1:20, 59–64).

When Mohamed is visited by Gabriel the first time, he does not say anything calming to Mohamed like: “Fear not Mohamed” or **“Do not be afraid”. ** Gabriel just says “read” to Mohamed which he cannot do because Mohamed could not read. Because Mohamed basically refuses to read, ‘Gabriel holds Mohamed so forcefully that it feels to Mohamed that he cannot bear it any more”. Gabriel does this 3 times to Mohamed until he reads: "Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood. Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-Who taught (the use of) the pen. Taught man that which he knew not” (Quran 96:1-5). The event of the first revelation of Mohamed is recorded in the Hadith via his wife Aisha: "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more”.
After his experience with Gabriel, Mohamed returns to his family but he is extremely frightened (Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 1, Hadith 3). Mohamed believes he is possessed by a demon and says: “I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest”. Before he can commit suicide, Gabriel visits Mohammed on the mountain and says: “Mohamed, you are the apostle of God and I am Gabriel.” Even after this 2nd visit, Mohammed still thought he was possessed by a demon and so did some of his followers (Quran Surah 44:14 (Yusuf Ali), Quran Surah 37:36 (Yusuf Ali), Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Mohamed). However, in other verses in the Quran it is claimed that Mohamed is not mad or demon possessed and had a revelation from God (Quran Surah 81:22-25, Quran Surah 69:41- 42).

It would be good if a Muslim could comment on the above. I have done a lot of research but my quotes could be wrong. I am trying to be objective. Unlike the biblical accounts, Mohamed is not calmed by Gabriel and Mohamed is physically attacked. Gabriel makes Zechariah temporarily dumb but does not physically attack him. None of the three people in the Bible believe they have been demon possessed. Although the Quran states Mohamed was not demon possessed or mad, it is contradicting earlier statements in the Quran and other Islamic scripture including statements by Bukhari and Aisha in the Hadith. ** Looking at the above evidence, I do not believe Mohamed was visited by the angel Gabriel.**

Btw, we are all familiar with the phrase “Allahu akbar”(“God is great”) being said by Muslims. Unfortunately it is also used when Islamic terrorists do violent acts. It’s strange that “God is great” is also the meaning of the name “Gabriel”. I wonder if this is the reason why Muslims often use the phrase “Allahu akbar” - God is great?

After looking into the quran and the hadith I’ve found some alarming things ( for me it was alarming ) I’ll point out two.

Revelation 19:16
On his cloak and on his thigh a name was written: King of kings and Lord of lords.

Revelation 17:14
and they will go to war against the Lamb; but because the Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings, he will defeat them, he and his followers, the called, the chosen, the trustworthy’

In the hadith (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Bk 73; Num 224) Mohammed said, “The most awful name in Allah’s sight on the Day of Resurrection, will be (that of) a man calling himself Malik Al-Amlak (the King of kings).

The other is …

Book 14, Number 2478:
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.

Yes, I can see a definite correlation with your first alarming point. I can’t see any correlation with your 2nd alarming point. You will have to help me on that one. To a certain degree, I was not a great believer in Revelation but the way I see the World going today, it does give me course for concern.

CONT’D