Why is Islam wrong?

[AbeOman]

I am not Vickie, but your post strikes my attention.

Which part of the article that is problematic with you?

I know that we can label certain sites as anti something or anti someone. But as to the facts that they are anti Islam … Is it because that these sites do not agree with you or what?

There are things that you can get from such sites that may be informative and even factual. Are you going to ingnore them just because they differ from you? And moreover, which sites are true spokemen for Islam? I understand that Islam does not have any official spokepersons unlike, for example Catholicism. As for Catholic you can be more or less sure you are quoting reliable sources if you quote from Catholic sites, such as here. Or better still, the Vatican.

Maybe discuss those problematic issues first, regardless of where they come from. Otherwise discussion with regards to Islam can be very limited.

Hope I am not offending, and if I do, my sincere apology.

God bless your heart, you never offend me but it’s a simple fact that there are so many sites on the net that use pseudonym names (sounding Arabic or Islamic) with real hate towards all that is Islam.

Similarly, there are ones with Jewish or Muslims who basically are Antichrist, so my question is can we hold these to be honest, factual and unbiased sources when debating on the same subject or faith. Not because someone offers a different opinion and for your info no two Muslims will disagree the basic tenants of Islam, the Quran, Aqeedah (Cannons) etc. we have who lots of differences but the we are matters of juristprudance and applications of certain Hatidhs, etc.

Thanks, I’m glad my note to Vickie got your attention but I bet you are not as good looking as her.

Keep talking and god bless, please don’t forget to mention me in your prayers…“among the no so bad”

 

[Booklover]

Hello Vickie, I have not been around for the last few days and did not post anything, but just read your reference to a person called Anwar Sheikh, who is this guy…? where is he come from what is his background…? why is it so important to you that you make references to anti Islamic site…?

The best thing you can do is to review the Quran yourself and not use biased sources as a fact, it does not do any good to your post.

Let’s try again…shall we…!

Anwar Sheikh is an ex-jihadist who became an apostate from Islam!

Since Muslims are allowed to lie to us unbelievers about their real goals of world domination, I believe that “anti-Islamic” sites as you call them, are the only place we’ll get the real truth about Islam!

Vickie

 

[DLC]

Any religion that thiks it can earn its way to heaven is wrong. They also do not understand the nature of sin, God, Christ, redemption, the cross, peace, and just about every thing else.

 

[bogoljub]

God bless u all !

What I missed a bit in this discssion is that we should look to the great Saints and what they are saying about Islam.

One of the oldest and a very important one is the critique of St. John of Damaskos (749+), his right hand was cut by the Kalif but in the following night the Theotokos appeared to him and healed it and all were amazed by this great miracle !

From the Fount of Knowledge, part two entiteled Heresies in Epitome:

The Heresy of the Ishmaelites:

There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘**Sara hath **sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great.

From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after **having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments **and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, **devised his own heresy. **Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron ???

And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this.

There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. **And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. **Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams.)

As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way.

-…

And many other things St. John mentioned.

IN CHRIST

 

[AbeOman]

Anwar Sheikh is an ex-jihadist who became an apostate from Islam!

Since Muslims are allowed to lie to us unbelievers about their real goals of world domination, I believe that “anti-Islamic” sites as you call them, are the only place we’ll get the real truth about Islam!

Vickie

Proof to me he is so, where is he from…? what is his original country of birth…? what is his real name? has anyone ever known him before or after? who are his family…? why what he says is so credible and what I say is mere justifications and lies as some of you think and since when and where was he in Jihad? were did he fought…?, this is not so important to the topic but for my own curiosity.

Finlay, that last statement of Muslims being allowed to lie to none Muslims is a red herring and extreme form of fabrication due to lack of knowledge or basically…just bashing Islam because it feels good to do so.

One last thing, why some Christian brothers and sisters are so happily boasting to show their dislike for Islam and Muslims should not that be bad thing to do or the Bible teaches so.

Well, I do know the Bible well and it does not allow to just dislike some folks and boast about it.

Human nature, I guess.

 

[Reuben_J]

Proof to me he is so, where is he from…? what is his original country of birth…? what is his real name? has anyone ever known him before or after? who are his family…? why what he says is so credible and what I say is mere justifications and lies as some of you think and since when and where was he in Jihad? were did he fought…?, this is not so important to the topic but for my own curiosity.

I suppose if he is an apostate of Islam, for security reason it would be unwise to disclose details of his family and background. You know what Muslims do to apostates, more so one who actively tells his reasons why he left the faith.

Look like it’s a catch 22. Tell, he risks his life, keep mum, he loses his credibility. It is a win-win situation for Islam and a lose-lose one for the apostate.

Anyway, you’ve got another side of opinions of Islam that you may not care to admit or maybe actually not aware of. Well we have lots of ex-Catholics who have told their side of the story, and they ain’t pretty either, if this make you feel better.

God bless.

 

[Booklover]

Finlay, that last statement of Muslims being allowed to lie to none Muslims is a red herring and extreme form of fabrication due to lack of knowledge or basically…just bashing Islam because it feels good to do so.

One last thing, why some Christian brothers and sisters are so happily boasting to show their dislike for Islam and Muslims should not that be bad thing to do or the Bible teaches so.

Well, I do know the Bible well and it does not allow to just dislike some folks and boast about it.

Human nature, I guess.

Lying in Islam
**The principle of Al-Takeyya **

The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
*“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28 *
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.
  **The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya **

Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.
The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers **In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts." **

Vickie

 

[Gara3987]

If you believe Jesus to be the Son of God, the Word spoken by the Father (see the beginning of John’s gospel), then you cannot be Muslim.

If you believe Islam, then you must reject Jesus, who said “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you believe Islam, then you must reject Jesus, who said “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

Hi

I think the above is not correct. If one believes in Islam, then one would only reject divinity of Jesus, but one would affirm that Jesus was a true Prophet/Messenger of GodAllahYHWH. The quote “Before Abraham was, I AM.” is from OTBible, and Quran does not mention it.

A Muslim only believes those concepts of Bible which are ratified by Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

GodAllahYHWH himself witnesses in Quran:
[4:172] O People of the Book! Exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and a fulfilment of His word which He had sent down to Mary, and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not, ‘They are three.’ Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, Allah is the only One God. Holy is He, far above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a guardian.
[4:173] Surely, the Messiah disdains not to be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoso disdains to worship Him and is proud, He will gather them all to Himself.
[4:174] Then, as for those who believe and do good works, He will give them their rewards in full and will give them more out of His grace; but as for those who disdain and are proud, He will punish them with a painful punishment. And they shall find for themselves beside Allah no friend, nor helper.
Unquote
I respect your religion.

Thanks

 

[XPICTIANOC]

Laudetur Iesus Christus

Hi everybody, it is my first post
first of all I’d like underline my english isnt good

The problem with Islam is deeper as we think. The first question which sould be asked is
“why God did not allow to safe Torah (Tanah in generaly) and Gospel (New Testament) from corruption and had to reveal the Quran?”

the secound is

“If Torah and Gospel were really corrupted so where is the reason why God has not allowed to adulterate the Quran?”

If muslims will answer on those question then I can ask next.

sorry for mistakes

Let peace of Christ be with you!

**Pax Domini sit vobiscum! **

 

[AbeOman]

Lying in Islam
**The principle of Al-Takeyya **

The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28
According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.
Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.
  **The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya **

Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.

Hold on, before you commit an ignorance sin and make millions and millions of Muslims as punch of liars.
See the mistake you have committed is simple, you are trying to explain one specific concept…“Takiya” that is not unique to Islam but if you read the Torah you can see it’s applications in similar ways and then you turn around and applied to all times, all places and to all Muslims and make us all liers.

That is is dishonesty, you don’t like Islam or Muslims, taught but don’t make up things that are not true and don’t misrepresent it either.

Get your facts and knowledge straight.

In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.

Name one Muslims country that is a signatory of an International treaty and does not uphold it, look at your own US and the travesties you have made of the international laws and treaties…!

Common sense dictates, those who live in glass house should not be throwing stones at their neighbors.

The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.
An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts."

That is blatant insult and I will deal with it as such so learn better instead of copying from hate sites and you know too well the net is full of them.

Vickie

 

[Valke2]

I agree that the Torah permits one to lie in order to save life. More specifically, it permits one to ignore a mitzvot/commandment in order to save life. With a few exceptions.

 

[AbeOman]

Ok, let me put my two cents worth in here, first, I will start with this verse from the Bible “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6-7
To make a clear definition, “O Lord, thou shalt preserve them”, refers directly to People and not the words themselves, so personally, won’t speak of the Bible being CHANGED, per se, but it definitely HAS been mistranslated.

Now, two thirds of the Bible (the Old Testament) does not mention Hell at all. (“Sheol,” the Old Testament word that is sometimes translated as Hell, only means “grave” by definition, and it is where everyone in the Old Testament went when they died–good or evil, Jew or Gentile). Thus the Old Testament does not contain the concept of Hell (as we currently understand it)!

The apocryphal books of the intertestimental period had a tremendous impact on the Jews in the time of Christ. It is from these books, especially the book of Enoch, that many of the Jewish myths and fables concerning Hell, heaven, demons and angels and many other fables first became a part of Judaism and from there became a part of Christianity. The myths and fables of these books came from Pagan influences (namely Zoroastrianism), during and after the Babylonian captivity of Israel . In fact, Zoroastrianism looks more like modern Christianity in many ways than ancient Judiasm does.

If Hell as we now understand it is real, why did Paul warn Timothy repeatedly to stay away from Jewish myths and fables, the likes of which were influencing many in the early church? Rather than affirming such doctrines, Paul declares them to be profane fables. (1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:14)

The understanding and translation that the modern Christian has stems largely from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD taught universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage, Africa, again were Latin was the teaching language, not Greek.

If Hell was real and found in the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, why is it that it was primarily those church leaders who either couldn’t read Greek (For example, Minucius Felix and Tertullian), or hated Greek as in the case of Augustine, that the doctrine of Hell was advocated? Those early church leaders familiar with the Greek and Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible) saw universal salvation in those texts. Those who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, not from the original Greek and Hebrew. Who would more likely be correct–those who could read the original languages of the Bible or those who read a Latin translation made by one man (Jerome)?

To honestly answer such question as the originality of the Bible in our hands today, we must answer these questions, Is the Bible written in it’s original language as it was revealed to Jesus…? When was it written and after how many years after Jesus? Was it directly quoted from Jesus and who did the quoting? Is there a chain of revelations in the Bible? In other words do we know for a fact which chapters were revealed first? Who are the real writers of the Bible? and why according to so and so but not according to Jesus…? And so on and so forth…!

So, it is apparent that at the VERY LEAST, the Bible has been mistranslated.

 

[De_Maria]

Ok, let me put my two cents worth in here, first, I will start with this verse from the Bible “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6-7
To make a clear definition, “O Lord, thou shalt preserve them”, refers directly to People and not the words themselves, so personally, won’t speak of the Bible being CHANGED, per se, but it definitely HAS been mistranslated.

Yeah. It was just mistranslated by you.

To preserve the Words of God means to pass them on to each generation. This has been done from the beginning of our faith:

continue: keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last; “preserve the peace in the family”; "continue the family tradition …
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Deuteronomy 11
19 Teach your children that they meditate on them, when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest on the way, and when thou liest down and risest up.

Now, two thirds of the Bible (the Old Testament) does not mention Hell at all. (“Sheol,” the Old Testament word that is sometimes translated as Hell, only means “grave” by definition, and it is where everyone in the Old Testament went when they died–good or evil, Jew or Gentile). Thus the Old Testament does not contain the concept of Hell (as we currently understand it)!

Yes, it does. But it is difficult for unbelievers to understand or to accept.

Isaias 5
11 Woe to you that rise up early in the morning to follow drunkenness, and to drink till the evening, to be inflamed with wine. …20 Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter…**24 Therefore as the tongue of the fire devoureth the stubble, and the heat of the dame consumeth it: so shall their root be as ashes, and their bud shall go up as dust: **for they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and have blasphemed the word of the Holy One of Israel.

And this is why the Catholic Church is here to teach the absolute truths of God. Because people who don’t want to understand, won’t understand:

2 Peter 3
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

The apocryphal books of the intertestimental period had a tremendous impact on the Jews in the time of Christ. It is from these books, especially the book of Enoch, that many of the Jewish myths and fables concerning Hell, heaven, demons and angels and many other fables first became a part of Judaism and from there became a part of Christianity. The myths and fables of these books came from Pagan influences (namely Zoroastrianism), during and after the Babylonian captivity of Israel . In fact, Zoroastrianism looks more like modern Christianity in many ways than ancient Judiasm does.

Worship of the Kaaba looks lie pagan worship to me and it is one of your pillars.

If Hell as we now understand it is real, why did Paul warn Timothy repeatedly to stay away from Jewish myths and fables, the likes of which were influencing many in the early church? Rather than affirming such doctrines, Paul declares them to be profane fables. (1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:14)

As I said, you don’t know the Bible very well.

2 Thessalonians 1
8 In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10
27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.

The understanding and translation that the modern Christian has stems largely from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD taught universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage, Africa, again were Latin was the teaching language, not Greek.

If Hell was real and found in the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, why is it that it was primarily those church leaders who either couldn’t read Greek (For example, Minucius Felix and Tertullian), or hated Greek as in the case of Augustine, that the doctrine of Hell was advocated? Those early church leaders familiar with the Greek and Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible) saw universal salvation in those texts. Those who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, not from the original Greek and Hebrew. Who would more likely be correct–those who could read the original languages of the Bible or those who read a Latin translation made by one man (Jerome)?

If what you are saying is true, then it is because they weren’t Catholic.

To honestly answer such question as the originality of the Bible in our hands today, we must answer these questions, Is the Bible written in it’s original language as it was revealed to Jesus…? When was it written and after how many years after Jesus? Was it directly quoted from Jesus and who did the quoting? Is there a chain of revelations in the Bible? In other words do we know for a fact which chapters were revealed first? Who are the real writers of the Bible? and why according to so and so but not according to Jesus…? And so on and so forth…!

The Bible has been preserved by the Catholic Church. You must think you are in a Protestant forum.

Understand this:

1. Jesus established a Church.
2. The Church taught what Jesus commanded.
3. The Church wrote about Jesus’ life and teachings in the New Testament.
4. The Church also taught about the Apostles and the early Christians in the New Testament.

We are not a people of the Book but a people of the Wrod of God which is passed on in Scrpture and Tradition and only taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Any other claimaints to the Word of God are frauds, such as the Quran which has no evidence to substantiate Mohammed’s claims.

So, it is apparent that at the VERY LEAST, the Bible has been mistranslated.

Yes, by you, just now,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Trajik]

Asalam Alaykum De Maria,

I would like to make a small interjection if I may.

We worship GOD Almighty in His Grand Temple/House. We never worship the House itself!

We do not worship the Kaaba.

Have a blessed day.

kind regards,

Ali “Trajik”

 

[De_Maria]

Asalam Alaykum De Maria,

I would like to make a small interjection if I may.

We worship GOD Almighty in His Grand Temple/House. We never worship the House itself!

We do not worship the Kaaba.

Have a blessed day.

kind regards,

Ali “Trajik”

I’m just making an observation. Even though Catholics explain that we only venerate the Saints, Muslims insist that we worship Mary and the Saints because we kneel before their statues.

As we say in America. Turn around is fair play. Since you bow to the Ka’aba everytime you pray facing east and you make a pilgrimmage to the stone and walk around it and you kiss it and rub on it, then you must adore it.

Even your Mohammed gave you the example of adoring the stone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m just making an observation. Even though Catholics explain that we only venerate the Saints, Muslims insist that we worship Mary and the Saints because we kneel before their statues.

As we say in America. Turn around is fair play. Since you bow to the Ka’aba everytime you pray facing east and you make a pilgrimmage to the stone and walk around it and you kiss it and rub on it, then you must adore it.

Even your Mohammed gave you the example of adoring the stone.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi

The black stone is not even mentioned in Quran, so there is no question of worshipping it. There is not a single Muslim who would say that he worships this black stone, it is just for marking purposes from centuries.

Thanks

 

[Trajik]

Asalam Alaykum De Maria,

Thanks for the choice of phrase. Turn around is fair play. I haven’t heard this much in my corner of the US. Maybe it’s a regional thing. Any how I know quite well the objections that Muslims and Protestants have in regards to the Catholic veneration of saints as I at one time was a Catholic for many years. I was a cradle Catholic. I too at one time prayed your Rosary, etc. So I can see from both your point and the Muslim point. I do admit though when I was a Catholic I never once made the statement that Muslims worship the Kabaa or anything other than Allah “God” alone. Have a blessed day De Maria.

Ali

 

[Reuben_J]

To honestly answer such question as the originality of the Bible in our hands today, we must answer these questions, Is the Bible written in it’s original language as it was revealed to Jesus…? When was it written and after how many years after Jesus? Was it directly quoted from Jesus and who did the quoting? Is there a chain of revelations in the Bible? In other words do we know for a fact which chapters were revealed first? Who are the real writers of the Bible? and why according to so and so but not according to Jesus…? And so on and so forth…!

So, it is apparent that at the VERY LEAST, the Bible has been mistranslated.

Mistranslation will not fatally change the message of the Bible, which must be read as a whole. So that’s settled it. And I think you agree with that.

I guess what you really want to assert here, but shy to say it openly, is that the Bible is corrupted. Corrupted in the sense that it is rewritten for a specific purpose or agenda. This assertion cannot stand, let alone be proven.

So your comment is hollow and unbelievable.

One major aspect of the New Testament is the passion and death of Jesus. You cannot mistranslate this. And if this is being corrupted, then the ‘original’ New Testament should say that Jesus did not die. This is impossible because the whole New Testament speaks about the impending, the actual and the post death of Jesus. If you leave out the story of Jesus’ death, you would practically have to rewrite a completely new Bible.

But the reality is: you are judging the Bible by the standards you impose on the Quran. However you unconsciously forget the effectiveness of ancient people oral tradition. If this can apply to the Quran, which I am sure you agree 100%, then why can’t it applies to the Bible?

Point no. 2. You cannot simply just change the words of Holy Scripture. They are not private properties. You change them and believe in the changed version, you start a new religion. You see that today, both in Islam and Christianity. You change the concept, there you go, and you got a new religion!

Granted, since you are a Muslim, you judge the Bible by the criteria you judge the Quran. However, I have seen this topic being argued many times before. When we start to apply the standard you set on the Bible to the Quran, you would find that the Quran won’t stand the test as well. You must be prepared to apply the same standard to the Quran too.

WE can easily apply the Christian criteria for words of God OR for prophet, and find that the Quran and Mohammad are found to be wanting indeed!

Peace.