Posted on 01/13/2013 5:50:21 PM PST by daniel1212
While many Muslims I have met are nice people, and some have been exceptionally kind, and I have friendly neighbors of commendable morality (in contrast to many of the natives in the the same inner city), who seem to want freedom from Taliban types, the problem is that fundamentally their source of faith exhorts and fosters religious violence. And which many are ignorant of.
There is no "New Covenant" in Islam (and in the OT, unlike in Islam, wars of conquest were preceded by overt supernatural manifestations confirmatory of Divine sanction), and if anything resembled that it was in Muhammad's preMedinic days when he was a minority in Mecca (where he once spoke against religious oppression).
But as in cults, his visions accommodated his needs and desires.
It is also believable that he could not read, which would explain his skewed versions of Biblical stories which he alludes to while at one time affirming the veracity of the Bible. He likely received some beliefs from illiterate Catholic traders. How else could he have the idea that the Trinity was composed of God, Jesus and Mary?
As Islam is supposed to be a successor to Christianity, it depends upon the Bible, and these contradictions required the charge that the Bible was changed in the places where the Qur'an disagrees with it, such as Jesus being the Son of God and who died for our sins and rose from the dead.
However, this would entail far more than a few changes (and if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine then I can think of many more things they could have easily changed in that interest), but essentially requires rewriting of the NT and substantial changes to the Old.
Article from Beggars All on Islam.
Many of the contradictions between the Qur’an and the Bible can be seen here. http://www.peacebyjesus.net/jesus.vs.muhammad.html
See also Bible versus Qur’an: http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Bible_versus_the_Qur%27an
Islam demands that each faithful member of the ummah wage jihad against the infidel. So, the short answer to the title question is: NO.
no. next question.
There IS a "New Covenant" in Islam and those are the Surahs -- they hold to the OT and they hold to the NT while they consider that the NT is corrupted. They also hold to sola scriptura (at least the Sunnah who comprise 80% of Moslems)
Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? your posts are error bound always -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders
There were Syriac missionaries in the region of Mecca and Madinah because there were Jews there -- and because this was outside the Roman Empire, these were also primarily Arian and Gnostic -- the Hejaz and Nejd were not Roman otherwise they would have been in orthodoxy, they were not in the Axumite sphere of influence or they would be Ethiopic/Coptic, and they were not in the Persian lands or they would have been Assyrian
They fel between these 3 empires and were a free for all -- with a lot of the various sects that were banned in these 3 empires -- like Manichaens, Mandaens, Gnostics, Arians etc.
Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? do read a little bit -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders
There were Syriac missionaries in the region of Mecca and Madinah because there were Jews there -- and because this was outside the Roman Empire, these were also primarily Arian and Gnostic -- the Hejaz and Nejd were not Roman otherwise they would have been in orthodoxy, they were not in the Axumite sphere of influence or they would be Ethiopic/Coptic, and they were not in the Persian lands or they would have been Assyrian
They fel between these 3 empires and were a free for all -- with a lot of the various sects that were banned in these 3 empires -- like Manichaens, Mandaens, Gnostics, Arians etc.
Strangely, that is exactly the same accusation made by Moslems -- are you holding to their philosophy now?
As long as folks post things like Daniel “ if the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine “ then there will be these converts to Islam...
Can ANY religion???
Rather than your Muslim-like knee-jerk overeaction to any perceive offense toward the earthly object of your allegiance, try to read carefully and comprehend what is being said before hasty posting your venom based upon your misunderstanding.
Sorry, your post's utter ignorance about Islam is incredible...your posts are error bound always
And Cronos must resort to personalize slander in his knee-jerk reaction against anything that may impugn upon Rome in the slightest? In my extensive correspondence with you, far from my posts even coming close to being characteristically error-bound, it is your many mischaracterizations and sophistry that must be corrected. .
There IS a "New Covenant" in Islam and those are the Surahs
There IS? Then Cronos can all a lot of scholars ignorant as well. Sura or Surah, refers to a division of the Qur'an, and is derived from the Pahlavi word suri meaning red color. Go find your "Surah" sect among the multitude of Islamic schools and branches of Islam. If such does exist, it is so negligible as to make your argument look even more desperate. Perhaps you meant Sunni.
The Sunni, Shi'a, Ja'fari, Ismaili, Zaidi, Sufis, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Ijtihad, Kharijites, Salafi, Ibadism, Wahabi, Quranist, Khariji, Mu'tazila, Batini, qadiani, Alevi, Alawi,Drush, Hanafi, Shafi, Tableegi, Akhbari, Yazidi, Druze, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata, Naqshbandi, Bektashi, Chishti, Ha-Mim, Qadiri, Zaidiyyah, Oveyssi, Suhrawardiyya ,Hanafi Shafi`i, Maliki, Salafi, Ash'ari, Murji'ah, Mu'tazili, Athari, Zahiri, Twelver, Usuli, Akhbari, Shaykhism, Ismailism, Nizari, Mustaali, Dawoodi Bohra, Sulaymani, Alavi Bohra, Hebtiahs, Atba-i-Malak, Druze, Zaidiyyah, Alawi, Alevi, Sufism, Qadiri, Bektashi, Chishti, Oveyssi, Suhrawardiyya, Ahmadiyya, Kharijite, Ibadi, Ahl-e Haqq, Mahdavism etc
As for a New Covenant, your claim is wrong, as what you describe is not such, nor does it correlate to the sense (violence) in which i said, There is no "New Covenant" in Islam .. and if anything resembled that it was in Muhammad's preMedinic days when he was a minority in Mecca (where he once spoke against religious oppression). Even though most Muslims affirm the Injil, they reject this and other New Covenant distinctions therein.
They also hold to sola scriptura (at least the Sunnah who comprise 80% of Moslems)
Usually referred to as Sunni Islam (in English known as Sunni Muslims, Sunnis, Sunnites) as "Sunni" comes from the term Sunnah (Arabic: سنة), which refers to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad as recorded in Hadiths. “The Hadith are found in several collections, and Sunnis view some of these collections to be more holy and authentic than others, especially the Bukhari collection of hadith.” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sunni.html) As apparently in the context of biographical records of Muhammad sunnah often stands as synonymous with hadith, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah#Sunnah_and_hadith) it would be better to refer to them as Sunni. The term Hadeeth has become a synonym for the term Sunnah, though there is some difference in their meanings. Sunnah, as a technical term in the Science of Hadeeth, refers to whatever statements, acts, approvals, physical or character descriptions that are attributable to the Prophet (pbuh) along with his biography before or after the beginning of his prophet hood. Hadith on the other hand are the recordings of Sunnah. (http://scanislam.com/articles/what-are-hadeeth-and-sunnah)
As for Sunnis holding to sola Scriptura and trying to draw a parallel between Islam and Evangelicals via sola Scriptura, that is an overreach (especially with SS as often described by Catholics). We both do eat food, but the Hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Quran and in matters of jurisprudence, although the two largest denominations of Islam, Shiʻa and Sunni, rely upon different sets of hadith collections.
“There are certain Hadith considered by most Sunnis to be trustworthy and these are commonly known as the Authentic Six. Only two of them are actually labeled as authentic (sahih), and they are Bukhari and Muslim. These collections are second only to the Qur'an in authority. The others are from Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah. In strength, Malik's Muwatta' is placed just below the two Sahihs, but is not generally included among the six.”
“In Shi'ite Islam (approx 10-20% of the world's Muslim population) they have their own collections and are more particular in regards to the Hadith narrations they will accept. If a narrator was not a member of the Ahl al-Bayt (Muhammad's household) or one of their supporters, then the narration is typically rejected. For example, they reject narrations from Abu Huraira. Al-Kafi is the most reliable Shi'ite hadith.” (http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Hadith_%28definition%29)
"The two fundamental sources of Islam are the Qur'an (the word of God) and the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet..." “Here, we are concerned with Sunnah in the sense of the recorded sayings (Hadiths) of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In this sense, Hadith is considered to be second to the Qur'an. It is impossible to understand the Qur'an without reference to the Hadith; and it is impossible to explain a hadith without relating it to the Qur'an. The Qur'an is the message, while the Hadith is the verbal translation of the message into pragmatic terms.. (Professor Shahul Hameed, a consultant for IslamOnline.net, previously the Head of the Department of English, Farook College, Calicut University; http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/hadith/hadith-studies/441273.html cf. http://scanislam.com/articles/importance-of-sunnah-hadiths)
Thus if you are desperate for a parallel, then it is with Catholics, as most of Islam holds to an oral tradition as well as to their scripture, if not fully in the same way as Catholics. And yet Rome has also affirmed, if not consistently, that “the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (LUMEN GENTIUM, 16; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html)
He likely received some beliefs from illiterate Catholic traders. How else could he have the idea that the Trinity was composed of God, Jesus and Mary?
Finally, "illiterate Catholic traders"? your posts are error bound always -- the region of Mecca was nearly conquered by Ethiopians and the regions to the south were Jewish kingdoms like the Himyarite kingdom -- while our Ethiopian brethren are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, they are and were not "Catholic" in the sense you want to make of Roman Catholic and they were not traders
You are misrepresenting what i said by restricting “Catholic” to Roman Catholic, which i carefully did not use, while i also said “likely,” and asserting that none of these were traders is unlikely, and disallowing that Muhammad had no interaction with illiterate, poorly catechized Catholic traders is extremely unlikely and another overreach on your part. If it is true that in 615 a group of Muslims were counseled by Muhammad to escape persecution in Mecca and travel to Ethiopia via modern day Eritrea, then there would have been travel between the two then, while Muhammad had contact with other Catholics as well, and my hypothesis does not depend on them being traders. However, Muhammad's aberrations might also be blamed in part (besides his demonic visions) on the influence of the Arian heretic Bahira whom Muhammad is said to have met while traveling as part of a caravan (and in which he certainly could have interacted with Catholic traders).
Cronos: Islam holds to strict monotheism and, just like Daniel, the Moslems too say that the Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine of the Trinity). Lots of similarities around the name Daneel/
As this refers to me, just where did Daniel say that the "Catholic changed the Bible to support doctrine of the Trinity?" I said just the opposite, as the point being made is that Islam's theory is absurd.
If you want to even be considered a compliment to your faith then you need to apologize (not spin what you said) for this - besides your other examples of baseless personal slanderous-type charges ("your posts are error bound always," etc.) which you often seem driven to resort in your overreaction to anything that seems to impugn your church. Go read .
The idea is simple ~ the Arabs who found themselves owning ancient cities filled with scholars of all sorts decided to make themselves look to be at least their equal by inventing Islam.
That's why the Koran appears in Arabic (?) a full 150 years before the next literary work in Arabic ~ BTW, the Koran appeared mostly in Aramaic ~ see the work on pre-dot Arabic, and the earliest Korans. That lends credence to the idea the Arabs pieced it together out of materials they encountered in Damascus, not Mecca.
The claims of Mohammad meeting Ethiopian Christians are simply to throw doubters off the track regarding the true origins of the Christian writings incorporated into the body of the Koran.
I understand from missionaries in muslim lands today, that that is still the case.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
But this isn't posted in the RF so there's no one to keep them in line. So much for Catholics taking the high moral ground.
Luke 6:43-45 43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
Matthew 12:33-37 33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
LOTs of things are incredible these days...
OH?
John 3:18
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.