Would this be a fair statement about the legitimacy of Islam?...

  • Thread starter Thread starter MH84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MH84

Guest
I got the idea for this question after reading something from another website:

Is it fair to say that whether Islam is the true religion from God or not, is dependant on its claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted?

If so, has there been any evidence that this is true?

Instead, isn’t it true to say that the discoveries of the dead sea scrolls are some evidence AGAINST biblical corruption?
 
MH84 said:
Is it fair to say that whether Islam is the true religion from God or not, is dependant on its claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted?
Click to expand...
I think that is fair.

Islam can only be possible as long as christian & jewish texts are falsified.
 
MH84 said:
I got the idea for this question after reading something from another website:

Is it fair to say that whether Islam is the true religion from God or not, is dependant on its claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted?

If so, has there been any evidence that this is true?

Instead, isn’t it true to say that the discoveries of the dead sea scrolls are some evidence AGAINST biblical corruption?
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm… not to make your analysis unnecessarily hairy… but it depends on what you mean by “corrupted.” According to the meaning which I think you have, the answer to the question would be “no.”

The Qur’an was sent to an Arab, who wasn’t Jewish or Christian. His people weren’t Jews or Christians. And on top of that there weren’t Jewish or Christian scriptures in the Arabic language, neverminding that Muhammad himself was illiterate.

So I wouldn’t say Islam really depends on anything except God.
 
Sister_Amy said:
So I wouldn’t say Islam really depends on anything except God.
Click to expand...
You’re wrong, there was many agnostic sects in Arabic Peninsula,

Muhammad as a nomad traveling along in all that deserts, had contacts with that gnostic early church believes and he was attracted with them

Ebionites, heretic judaizers, as Waraqa ibn Naufal, was one of the tutors of Muhammad

Learn about Ebionites

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

KEYWORDS that you must see :

Paul of Tarsus

Ebionites and Galatians were LEGALISTS just as Pharisees

You can find all of that in the Islam habits : all that rituals, etc…

All that stories in the Quran you can find in gnostic gospels that were rejected as heretic, and from Judaism fables also

You can trace the Pope back to Nero ( Roman Emperor ), all the teachings were preserved inside the church and the Fathers of The Church ( patristic era )

=======

You even have a entire chapter in the bible dedicated to the Heretic Arabs of that time

Read Galatians epistle of Paul

it is entirely dedicated to them : all the laws and all the rituals, just slaves of the law…slaves

A question :

Do you know that Arabs despise Paul ? ask them and you will see…

I wonder why
 
Waraqa bin Nawfal was no Ebionite, he was a Nestorian. There’s no evidence whatsoever of any Ebionite presence in the 7th Century Hejaz.
 
How come Muslim sources never describe Waraqa bin Nawfal as being a tutor for Muhammad?
 
Sister_Amy said:
How come Muslim sources never describe Waraqa bin Nawfal as being a tutor for Muhammad?
Click to expand...
Because they don’t like to teach the origins of Islam

Muhammad’s first wife was the daughter of the Ebionite Elder of Mecca, and he had himself been taught by the Nestorian Monks who had been banished from the Byzantine Empire because they being Gnostic

Thus, the foundation of Islam prior to it becoming institutionalized, is actually a synthesis of Ebionite and Christian Gnostic teachings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_and_Christianity

That’s why you have stories like the legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the QuRan

It is full of that gnostic heresies and legends
 
MH84 said:
Is it fair to say that whether Islam is the true religion from God or not, is dependant on its claim that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were corrupted?

If so, has there been any evidence that this is true?

Instead, isn’t it true to say that the discoveries of the dead sea scrolls are some evidence AGAINST biblical corruption?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if Islam is correct, then that certainly implies that the Christian and Jewish scriptures had become incorrectly scribed. Isn’t this a claim of Islam?

No, none whatsoever. We have over 24,000 fragments and larger of the Bible, spread over the middle east and europe, HANDWRITTEN, right up to the time of the printing press. within these fragments (many of which are entire books of the Bible), there is a 99.5% agreement rate. Quite simply, the Bible is the most literally faithful work of antiquity.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Hmmmmm… not to make your analysis unnecessarily hairy… but it depends on what you mean by “corrupted.” According to the meaning which I think you have, the answer to the question would be “no.”

The Qur’an was sent to an Arab, who wasn’t Jewish or Christian. His people weren’t Jews or Christians. And on top of that there weren’t Jewish or Christian scriptures in the Arabic language, neverminding that Muhammad himself was illiterate.

So I wouldn’t say Islam really depends on anything except God.
Click to expand...
With respect, I think it is pretty clear that the version of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures as they stand now, make it rather hard to reconcile them with the claims of Islam. In particular, the New Testament makes several claims about Jesus that cannot be reconciled with Islamic belief.
  1. Jesus was crucified and died on the cross and that he rose again from the dead.
  2. That Jesus is God. The Gospel of John and the Epistles of Paul in particular state that Jesus was God.
Since both of these statements contradict the Koran’s teaching of Jesus; that he was a prophet, but not in anyway divine and that he did not really die on the cross, either the Koran or the Bible has to be wrong. If we take the position that the Koran is the reliable source, and since the Koran reveres the Jewish and Christian scripture as it was given to Man by God, the only conclusion is that those scriptures must have been corrupted at a later date.

–
Bill
 
Delta2 said:
That’s why you have stories like the legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the QuRan

It is full of that gnostic heresies and legends
Click to expand...
Koran (5:32) to further prove his point: “Whoever kills a human being – for other than murder or spreading mischief in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

this was plagiarized from talmud

You can see that legend in List of Shindler movie
 
Delta2 said:
Koran (5:32) to further prove his point: “Whoever kills a human being – for other than murder or spreading mischief in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

this was plagiarized from talmud

You can see that legend in List of Shindler movie
Click to expand...
Plagiarized from Talmud? Please read the whole verse. This verse comes after a description of the murder of one of Adam’s sons by his other son. And then the Qur’an says: **On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel **that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

It even describes the relevance of it for the Children of Israel. And you say it’s plagiarized? Sheesh.
 
Delta2 said:
Because they don’t like to teach the origins of Islam

Muhammad’s first wife was the daughter of the Ebionite Elder of Mecca, and he had himself been taught by the Nestorian Monks who had been banished from the Byzantine Empire because they being Gnostic

Thus, the foundation of Islam prior to it becoming institutionalized, is actually a synthesis of Ebionite and Christian Gnostic teachings.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_and_Christianity

That’s why you have stories like the legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the QuRan

It is full of that gnostic heresies and legends
Click to expand...
I asked why your claim didn’t exist in Islamic sources. And the answer is because it’s made up. There aren’t any OTHER sources about Islam, and there is NO SOURCE which I’m aware of that makes your claim. Not even your wikipedia article, as if that would count–but wiki is not a source, and neither does it provide sources for your claim, as I said.

If what you were saying were true, there would be evidence of it. There’s not, so I conclude (as should everyone else) that you’re just making it up. If you have proof, then show it, and I’ll take you seriously.

But some Christians, in trying to explain away Islam, have theories that Muhammad was intimately familiar with “gnostic legends” and “heresies” in addition to Jewish legends and scriptures. Honestly, that’s even harder to believe than the fact that he was sent by God. 🤷
 
Sister_Amy said:
…And you say it’s plagiarized? Sheesh.
Click to expand...
This sentence :

whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind

was plagiarized, not the whole verse per si

That appears in different Talmud books, the first quote

“He who saves a single life, saves the entire world.” apparently comes from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:9)

whilst the statement “Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world” comes from the Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 11a)

and elsewhere).
 
Hi Delta,

I think Sister Amy’s point was that the revelation as recorded gives credit to Jewish scholars.

Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire…
-Talmud

I can quote a good idea from someone else, and give the original author’s name or a reference to the circumstances in which I first heard it. That wouldn’t be plagiarism. Plagiarism is pretending that the idea was original to me.

Even then you’d have to make a convincing case for plagiarism. Good ideas are in short supply, and are generally based upon common sense, so people often come up with the same idea independently.

Best,

LaMar
Delta2 said:
This sentence :

whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind

was plagiarized, not the whole verse per si

That appears in different Talmud books, the first quote

“He who saves a single life, saves the entire world.” apparently comes from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:9)

whilst the statement “Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world” comes from the Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 11a)

and elsewhere).
Click to expand...
 
Sister_Amy said:
If what you were saying were true, there would be evidence of it.

There’s not, so I conclude (as should everyone else) that you’re just making it up. If you have proof, then show it, and I’ll take you seriously.
Click to expand...
I can’t prove you anything, but for me there so much coincidences that I can’t ignore. I don’t believe in coincidences

More examples,

Surah 4:157 was influenced by the heresy known as Docetism

Muhammad did not know the chronology in which the scriptural prophets appeared: he seems, for example, to have thought that Mariam, the mother of Jesus, was the same as Mariam, the sister of Moses in the Jewish scriptures.

see here :

Mary, the Mother of JEsus and Sister of Aaron

The list can go on and on
 
Delta2 said:
Muhammad did not know the chronology in which the scriptural prophets appeared: he seems, for example, to have thought that Mariam, the mother of Jesus, was the same as Mariam, the sister of Moses in the Jewish scriptures.
Click to expand...
Though muslims can easily explain that away, they had to rely on the bible to know that the Mariam of Jesus was completely different person from the Mariam of Moses. The Quran alone will give everyone the wrong idea.
 
The Qur’an is pretty clear… except for people who want to see something that isn’t there. The whole Mary/Aaron reference has been thoroughly explained here.

Delta has just admitted that she isn’t relying on evidence, but on mere speculation.

Agnos–the Qur’an is clear that Maryam mother of Jesus was not the same as the sister of Moses. For one thing, the mother of Mary is described, and the birth of Mary, her position in the Temple and Zachariah. The reference to Aaron is the sort of thing the Qur’an does which to me proves that people like yourself haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. It’s just so much more sophisticated than you can even imagine.
 
Sister_Amy said:
The Qur’an is pretty clear… except for people who want to see something that isn’t there. The whole Mary/Aaron reference has been thoroughly explained here.
Click to expand...
from your link:

*It turns out that Christians in Najran during the time of the Prophet(P) raised a similar objection and it was answered by the Prophet(P). In Sahih Muslim, the hadith related by Mughirah ibn Shu`bah [5326] says:

When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read “O sister of Harun” (i.e. Maryam) in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger(P) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.*

This claim of contradiction is apparently mistaken because it disregards both the Arabic idiom and the context of the verse. In Arabic the word akhun or ukhtun (Underlined with Red colour in the images) carries two meanings.
  1. The Apologist forgot the fact that the Christians of Najran spoke Arabic. So its silly accusing them of disregarding Arabic idiom.
  2. Mohammad’s answer did not refute the issue. Like what does copying an ancient name have to do with anything?
Sister_Amy said:
Agnos–the Qur’an is clear that Maryam mother of Jesus was not the same as the sister of Moses. For one thing, the mother of Mary is described, and the birth of Mary, her position in the Temple and Zachariah. The reference to Aaron is the sort of thing the Qur’an does which to me proves that people like yourself haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. It’s just so much more sophisticated than you can even imagine.
Click to expand...
Please give us the verses. Thanks. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top