Quote of the Day by Sam Harris
Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling....Why don't you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God and Muhammad are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this....The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn't it obvious Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn't it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically?...Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions." Letter to a Christian Nation(pp. 6-7).
62 comments:
So, whats the typical apologetic response to this reasonable argument? Something like, "My God is the only one that sacrificed himself and was raised again".
It's not a very compelling argument. the reason I don't think that an angel visited Muhammad is because so much of Islam contradicts the Bible, yet it admonishes Muslims to submit to the Bible and Qur'an. Two good examples of conflict is that the Qu'ran says satan rebelled against God because he did not want to worship man but God alone but the Bible says satan wanted everyone to worship himself. Islam says that Jesus was not crucified yet the Bible and history says that Jesus was crucified. They both cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. Wither one is right or they both are wrong. I see no reason to reject the Bible and Harris provided none. I don't see how this statement is well "reasoned" at all unless you can equate the evidence for Islam to be just a compelling as for Christianity. It's not.
There was an apologist (forgot his name) trolling us in June. I challenged him to tell me why he wouldn't convert to Islam. After a good deal of stalling, he came up with a response which would boil down to two points:
1. Mohammad did not offer any reason for anyone to take the claim that he was touched by an angel seriously.
2. Christianity spread for 300 years without political power, Islam spread at the point of a sword since day one.
Of course both are bunk. The Koran is supposed to be a gigantic miracle, full of predictions that according to Muslims have come true or are coming true, and there are numerous miracles that are "documented" in the Hadith.
And, according to Muslims, the Arabian society was so fractured and fratricidal for hundreds of years, that unifying it in a mere couple of decades was a great miracle, as was the spread of Islam in less than a century from central Asia to Spain. In other words, the exact things that to our troll undercut the message of Islam are the miracles that bolsters its claim to be truthful in Muslim ideology.
So Marcus, Islam is wrong since it contradicts the bible?
Nice, Muslims say christianity is wrong because it contradicts the Koran.
And no, Muslims do not see a reason to reject the Koran either. Unless you can show evidence for Christianity matches evidence for Islam, which according to Muslims, it doesn't.
3g.nursing, You can't equate Christianity and Islam. I gave two examples of conflict while the Qur'an says that Muslims should respect and follow the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures - showing that the writer(s) and editor(s) did not know what was in the Bible with all the blatant contradictions.
The Koran says nothing of the sort. Chapter and verse please? The Koran calls Jesus a "prophet" and never endorses the Hebrew and Greek bibles.
Koran, Chapter 19 (Mary):
88. They say: "((Allah)) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
89. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious.
92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son."
Mohammad (piss be upon him) knew all too well that he was contradicting the bible. It is preposterous to say he demanded of his followers to submit to the bible as well as the koran. He never did anything like that.
3g.nursing...have you not read:
Sura 5 - Al-Maeda (MADINA) : Verse 68
Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.
Sura 3 - Al-E-Imran (MADINA) : Verse 113
Not all of them are alike: of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.
Translation : Eng-Yusuf Ali
Sura 29 - Al-Ankaboot (MAKKA) : Verse 46
And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation) unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
Translation : Eng-Yusuf Ali
And this is only a start
"People of the book" refer to Jews and Christians. There was no written Qur'an while Muhammad lived.
3g.nursing...could you also explain these passages:
Quran 2:89; 7:157; Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11?
Thank you.
@Marcus - The same contradictory ideology can be found between Jews and Christians, who even share the same scriptures in the Old Testament. Christians insist that they have the correct revelation from God, and say they submit to the Biblical scriptures, and yet the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament in the same flimsy ways that the Qu'ran contradicts the Bible. You should take a more critical look at the Bible, since it has the same problems as the Qu'ran.
So what? Where does it say the bible has to be the truth? "People of the book" refers to Jews and Christians. The koran doesn't deny the bible is of devine origin, but claims it has been tampered with.
Chap 2 "The Cow", v. 75: (speaking of the Jew):
"75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it."
Marcus: can you please show me one passage where it says the bible is true and should be followed. The koran says this only about the koran.
Thank you.
Incidentally, the Koran seems to think the reason there are disputes between Jews, Christians, and Muslims is that it is the will of Allah.
Chapter 2, v. 253
"Those apostles We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If Allah had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but Allah Fulfilleth His plan."
Somehow I don't see how it follows that Mohammad asked the Muslims to be followers of the bible.
@Compassionate Heathen, I think you are mistaken the Bible does not have the same problems as the Qur'an. again. the Qur'an says that Jesus was not crucifies, yet history says he was. I'm not applying different standards at all for the Qur'an than the Bible.
@3g.nursing, i gave whole list of Surahs to validate my claims...look them up. If you need more I'm making the same argument Sam Shamoun wrote:
The dilemma for the Muslim is quite apparent. To accept the Quran is to accept its testimony that the Holy Bible is the preserved Word of God. And yet to accept the Holy Bible is to reject both the Quran and Muhammad. The first Muslims evidently thought that by appealing to the Holy Bible they would be verifying the prophetic claims of Muhammad. Little did they realize that their appeal to the Holy Scriptures for verification purposes actually proves that Muhammad cannot be a true prophet since he contradicts the message of God’s true prophets and messengers, especially the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, God’s beloved Son.
On the flip side, to attack the Holy Bible is to discredit the Quran which confirms the authority, availability, and authenticity of the previous scriptures. Either way, Muslims are in a no win situation. Read his article at:
The Quran Confirms the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 1]
Response to Marcus McElhaney
"It's not a very compelling argument. the reason I don't think that an angel visited Muhammad is because so much of Islam contradicts the Bible..."" ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH!
"I don't see how this statement is well "reasoned" at all unless you can equate the evidence for Islam to be just a compelling as for Christianity. It's not." Yes it is. It is equally compelling.
Marcus
Pull the plug on the quotes will you?
Your quoting from these books is equally matched by 3g. nursing's capacity to counter each of them, again from the exact same books. That must tell you something about the specific messages they are attempting to sell. THERE are NONE. nil. zilch, zero, nada, nein, nyet. God loves children on one page; turn a few pages on, god murders children; all justified according to christian morality and ethics. How do you justify that in your brain. Give us a break
Marcus...Marcus,
You gave me the list of chapters in which Jews and Christian are called "people of the book". But aren't you getting the point? Islamic theology says that those books are tampered with. They no longer represent the whole original truth. Contradictions between the bible and the koran are in no way inconsistent with this.
All the mentions in the Koran and Hadith appealing to "people of the book" to convert to Islam by looking at their own books is in no conflict with this either. Muslims simply thought there were elements in those books that verified their claims (and they had to be the "original" ones), while the other parts were considered corruptions.
You keep saying Mohammad was not aware of what was in the bible, and he said things that contradicted it, thus effectively contradicting himself. Yet, the fingerprints of the bible are all over the Koran.
Did you see the verse I cited above, in which Allah thinks it is "outrageous" that some thought he had a son? That the sky was about to fall as a result of this heresy? Where did Mohammad hear that, if not from Christians?
Just as he knew other things that were in the bible, such as the fictional stories of the "original sin" and the flood. If Mohammad didn't know what was in the bible, how did he quote it? How did he call it an outrage?
Marcus, though, would you really believe that light came out of Muhammad's mother's womb as she gave birth to him? Or that Muhammad foresaw the conquest of certain territories?
The point is that, if you heard these stories for the first time with no knowledge that they pertained to a specific, you would reject these claims outright because they sound legendary and unlikely.
Also something else to think about, if adherents to every faith have experiences which they state confirm their beliefs, how can anyone be certain that they are correct without evidence?
Marcus- Your argument is not a very good one. You say the angel did not visit Muhammad because Islam contradicts the bible. The same can be said about the bible. Two examples are without any foundation. How can you prove that the Qu'ran isn't true? Well that's easy in your mine anything that has to do with the bible is true. What history are you referring to that says Jesus was crucified? There is no evidence whatsoever to prove that Jesus was crucified except of course the bible. There isn't one shred of evidence to show the Qu'ran is truthful except of course the Qu'ran. Both Muslims and Christians claimed they have the truth. It is commonplace for Christians to reject Islam and Muslims to reject Christianity because of this Sam Harris' comment is right on point.
Marcus,
I thought I should give you a few more things to look at.
While the Koran appeals to bible, in no way does it say it is in its original form. It claim that Abraham was not a Jew or Christian, and the "people of book" are obstinately rejecting god'd true revelation. Again, it does confirm parts of bible, but rejects other part vehemently.
Here is an example:
Chap 3.
65 O People of the Scripture! Why will ye argue about Abraham, when the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed till after him ? Have ye then no sense ?
66 Lo! ye are those who argue about that whereof ye have some knowledge: Why then argue ye concerning that whereof ye have no knowledge ? Allah knoweth. Ye know not.
67 Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.
68 Lo! those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who followed him, and this Prophet and those who believe (with him); and Allah is the Protecting Guardian of the believers.
69 A party of the People of the Scripture long to make you go astray; and they make none to go astray except themselves, but they perceive not.
70 O People of the Scripture! Why disbelieve ye in the revelations of Allah, when ye (yourselves) bear witness (to their truth) ?
Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.
As you can see it is accusing (specifically the Jews) of leading others astray; of arguing without knowledge (wonder how that is possible if their arguments were based on their authentic texts); confounding and concealing the truth; and doing that while they were themselves bearing witness to them (in the form of the holy texts, I would assume).
It should be clear that according to the Koran, the "people of scripture" were actively suppressing the truth despite knowing the truth. Again, this is in line with the Islamic doctrine of scriptures other than the Koran having been corrupted.
There are many reasons for not believing Islam. But existence of points of difference between the Koran and the Bible is not one of them.
Every argument Marcus advances has as Premise #1:
"The Bible is true because it's true."
Look here to see a perfect example of Marcus's inability to formulate an argument without referring back to the Bible as evidence of itself.
@rbstunny
How is it equally compelling if you think the evidence for one outweighs the other?
@Papalinton
I think you may not know what book we were quoting from. And how do you explain what the Qur'an is saying verses the Bible if you don't quote the Qur'an. At least 3g.nursing does better than you in this regard. You claim that the Bible says (i'm assuming you are referring to the Bible) God murders/loves children and then you did not explain where you got that from. How do you justify that?
@3g.nursing
Of course that is the point I'm making - Islam indeed claims that the Bible is corrupt Yet you suggest that the Qur'an teaches the same thing. Sam Shoumon rebutted that. I gave you the link, go have at his article if you can. I never tried to argue that there are not contradictions with the Bible only that the writer doesn't seem to know just how many contradictions there really are with Christianity. Explain why Sam is wrong.
The Qur'an translations I have read seems to imply that some of "the people of the book" are rejecting truth - not all.
@TheGodFather
Based on the fact that the Qur'an conflicts with facts that I know are true is why I reject Islam not because it's hard to believe. TRuth is stranger than fiction but truth is truth.
@brosho7
I didn't say that an angel visiting Muhammad contradicts Bible. Name a single credible scholar that rejects Jesus' life and crucifixion. Even unbelievers like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossnan agree that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact. Harris is wrong because he assumes that there are equally valid reason for rejecting both. I don't think he has been paying attention.
I think one leg is Christianity and spiritual place of the Kingdom and the other is Islam physical place of the Kingdom where the Temple was, since neither deny Jesus. Where Islam is occupying the Temple Mount, a sign of Gentile domination by Ishmael of the Jewish Kingdom for a while. While RCC and such are signs of Gentile domination by Isaac:
Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Both religions have their problems, but the Quran does state that the Bible is from God, and much of the problem with divisiveness between the two is not really about a different God, but about bad interpretation of the Quran by Muslims themselves.
Quran 3:3 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.
There is no excuse for ignorance. Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? ... it would be hard since Christians, Jews and Muslims all share the same God.
However Sam Harris is not really know for letting knowledge interfere with his arguments, but perhaps he has never heard or understood the term "Abrahamic religions?"
To base an argument on a known flaw is simply intellectual dishonesty
Sala kahle - peace
Marcus, we are going in circles. You don't seem to be paying attention.
"I never tried to argue that there are not contradictions with the Bible only that the writer doesn't seem to know just how many contradictions there really are with Christianity."
I gave you the verses in the Koran that call god having had a son the gravest heresy. What more do you want? How can you say Mohammad wasn't aware he was contradicting Christianity when he called the crux of Christianity the gravest heresy?
In your quote you said "The first Muslims evidently thought that by appealing to the Holy Bible they would be verifying the prophetic claims of Muhammad." Are you suggesting the verses denying Jesus having been the son of god, or that the Jews were suppressing the truth about the message of god, came "earlier" than the other verses? How can you know which of Koranic verses came first?
Again, Mohammad knew he was contradicting the bible. Your insistence to the contrary just doesn't make sense.
Oh, and there are scholars who do not believe the crucifixion happened. Such as Hector Avalos and Robert Price. Please stop telling me the koran is not historical because it contradicts the gospels, OK? That makes sense only if you have already made your mind which is genuine and which isn't.
Which is exactly the point Sam Harris was making.
Besides, quoting Bart Erhman to affirm the crucifixion happened misses the point on a number of levels.
Ehrman tells you as a historian he cannot confirm that miracles happened because they are the least plausible explanations for what people saw and reported.
The Koran, on the other hand, claim that Jesus not having been crucified was a miracle-that someone else morphed to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place.
In other words if you submit that some miracle happened that day, there is no reason to prefer the biblical narrative to the Koranic. That is, in Ehrman's view.
What if you are atheist to atheism like me? Good old Sam never let ignorance prevent you from giving your opinion or even stop you writing books that are laughable in their naivety or setting up the ironically named Reason Project.
The Jewish, Christian and Muslim God are all the same. Muslim, Jews, Christians interpret the word of God in different ways and in myriad different forms. However, when one gets past the minimal differences between them, (that have been vastly exaggerated not least by their adherents) they are all basically the same. With all due respect to the three religions and I mean no offence to any of them. Some of the main differences are the Jews believe in the redeemer, the Christians think Jesus is the redeemer, the Jews and Muslims don't. Unitarians, Islam and Judaism don't believe in a triune God, the rest of Christianity does. Islam and Judaism are more closely related in that they are basically the same but have evolved from two different origins - Jews claim ascendency from Isaac, Abraham’s son and Muslim from Ishmael, Isaacs’s brother. Everything else is just details. One can see in the modern world how these differences can be exaggerated greatly - but humans are humans.
However, could the same logic, as daft as it is, be applied to atheism? I mean can an atheist prove that there is no god? Oh wait the burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. Hey wait a minute, how come there is something rather than nothing? I mean doesn't the universe contradict the law of cause and effect if there was no creator? An uncaused cause sounds plausible until you think about it – I mean what caused an uncaused cause? - It flies in the face of science and philosophy I mean this is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence doesn't it? I mean isn’t that the same rebuttal as who created the creator? Yes it is so the atheist is as deluded or as undeluded as all the other religions. This is why I am an atheist to Atheism even though the stance makes no sense much like a Christian being atheist to Allah. Hmm I wonder if I could be atheist to Catholicism but not Protestantism.
@GearHedEd
Excuse me, I have said nothing about whether or not the Bible is true. My point has been that the Bible and the Qur'an are mutually exclusive. I have not used this thread to try to prove that the Bible is true or even state that. What I wanna know is why no one will talk about the point I raised about Jesus' Crucifixion which history and the Bible confirm but the Qur'an denies? Again for you, Ed, I just brought up that one bone of contention that no one can say the Bible is wrong about. We can argue about the Resurrection or His miracles or even what Jesus said - fine.
But the point about the crucifixion is undeniable. Again people - scholars - who aren't Christians accept that - with the notable exception of Robert M. Price whom I like. I disagree with him but at least he is being honest and consistent with himself. Price usually don't get debate opponents that take him seriously or even seem to listen to him. This was one of my problems when he debated William Lane Craig. However when he spoke to Habermas and Licona it was different. I am looking for Price's Debate against James White, but White's comments on it can be found here
"it would be hard since Christians, Jews and Muslims all share the same God."
I realize some (mostly liberal) christians believe this. The vast majority of christians I know believe that allah is not identical with yahweh just as they do not regard the hindu brahman as the same as their own god.
Christians have been taught that the n.t. does not contradict the o.t. To most any outsider, it does. Muslims have been taught that the quran does not contradict the jewish or christian scriptures. To most any outsider nonmuslim), it does.
As an outsider to both faiths, I find neither truth claim compelling. I tend to see fundamentalist christianity and fundi islam as twins who insist one is nothing like the other and hate one another because each can see the resemblence. I recently read that Indonesia is banning online pornography. I can easily see the republican party and it's evangelical base doing the same thing here if given the chance. The same with state-sponsored teaching of creationism. Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.
@3g.nursing said...
Marcus: can you please show me one passage where it says the bible is true and should be followed. The koran says this only about the koran.
Thank you.
Nursing can you please provide me a reason why anyone should believe a simple text that says it is true?
If that is your criteria for truth then yhou should believe anything that says its true. I know of NO reason why anyone should think the bible or the quran is a true story.
Rainbow: the Muslims do not have a problem with the bible and Torah having been of divine origin. However they claim these books are corrupted; in other words, affirmations of veracity of those texts does not apply to their current form, rather to some nebulous original form that is no longer available.
I never imagined myself defending Islam, but claim that Mohammad wasn't aware of contradictions between his claims and those of the bible is preposterous. The Koran goes to great length supplying highly implausible details in claiming those who believe in the crucifixion are wrong, as well as those who believe jesus to be the son of god. But who would all those people have been, other than Christians citing the bible? If Mohammad hadn't heard these stories in the first place, how did he get to contradict them? You can't deny a story you have never heard.
Marcus said,
"...@GearHedEd
Excuse me, I have said nothing about whether or not the Bible is true..."
Bullshit.
Marcus quotes limited to THIS thread:
"I see no reason to reject the Bible..."
August 10, 2010 4:23 PM
"I gave two examples of conflict (where the Qu'ran conflicts with the Bible) showing that the writer(s) and editor(s) (of the Qu'ran) did not know what was in the Bible"
August 10, 2010 4:37 PM
"...I think you are mistaken the Bible does not have the same problems as the Qur'an..."
August 10, 2010 5:35 PM
"...I have not used this thread to try to prove that the Bible is true or even state that..."
August 11, 2010 12:13 PM
No, you skip right past that, blithely ASSUMING that the Bible is inerrant without having said it. This does not absolve you from my accusation. Everything you have said in this thread begins with an implied "The Bible is true because it's true--and here's the verses from the Pauline epistles to prove it."
You are not a scholar. You're spouting propaganda.
@GearHedEd
I'm just as much a scholar as you. Everything I have written in this thread is not dependent on the Bible being true. This thread is not about proving that The Bible is true. It's about the idea that you have just as much reason to reject Islam as you do to reject Christianity..and that is stupid. Equally ignorant is the accusation that have no good reasons to be a Christian than to be a Muslim (or vice versa). If you want to argue about if the Bible is inerrant or not that is a different topic. My viewpoint on Biblical inerrancy is immaterial to this discussion. If you want to talk about Biblical inerrancy then bring it.
The only one dealing in propaganda is you
Marcus and the Harmonizers (kiwi and Dan),
Please help me understand how Islam respects either Christianity or Judaism when a stated reality within Islam is the notion of Dimmitude for non-Muslims.
A Dimmi is one who has subordinate status within the caliphate because they are not Muslim.
That to me does not sound like a respectful inter-faith position.
Nice Marcus, the old "my religion is better than your religion" line.
Which is why Sam Harris is right.
As for 3g.nursing. I 5think we have a failure to understand what I am arguing. I am not that the writer(s) of the Qur'an were ignorantly conflicting with the Bible. I'm arguing that they both ignorantly agreed with Bible (not seemingly to realize how much they disagreed) and disagreed with Christian doctrines that aren't what Christians Believe.
I'm amazed that no one has deal with the two examples that I gave where the Qur'an completely disagrees with the Bible. The point about how and why Satan actually rebelled against God disagrees with the Bible and it's not a trivial matter . The Qur'an makes no claim that the Jewish version is wrong. Did they know what the Jewish story was?
The Qur'an says that Ishael was the Child of Promise not Isassc. Did they know what Jewish story was?
And my favorite,
Sura 5 - Al-Maeda (MADINA) : Verse 116
And (remember) when Allâh will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Īsā (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allâh?' " He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden (and unseen).
What? Allah does not know Christians don't think Mary is the third member of the Trinity and that there is only one God? The writer of this Surah did not know what Christians believe but i see no reason to assume that he knew this teaching was not in the Bible.
As Shamoun argued (and no one has interacted with his article yet) No where in the Koran does it say the Hebrew Bible or the Gospels were corrupted. It does attempt to refute Christian teachings however (some things we don't believe and never did). The charge of corruption comes later when later generations actually look at the Bible and have to explain the contradictions.
Chuck I'm not saying that Muslims are require to respect Jews and Christians. They are required to respect their scriptures. Read the Sam Shomoun's article again.
Marcus,
The Jewish and Christian scriptures define the beliefs of those two religions. If the followers of those faiths are considered sub-ordinate to an Islamic Caliphate, QED they are subordinate to Islam. The respect you speak of is relative to atheists who deny any god. Christians and Muslims get to live in a Caliphate with slave status while an infidel like me would be killed.
You need to learn more about Islam before you start acting as if you know of which you speak.
We all know that you are a Christian apologist. Your position is seen as not much more than a spin-doctor for a particular institution and you will bend data to fit to your preconceived conclusions.
Again, please explain Dimmitude to me if Muslims are to "submit to the Bible". The only submission for a Muslim is to that of Islam.
Marcus, your insistence that Mohammad "didn't know" that according to Christian theology Jesus was son of god is baseless. As I have shown to you with examples before, he knew that all too well. How else would he call it a heresy if he hadn't heard about it? And who did he hear that from, other than Christians citing the bible?
And again, look at the verses accusing "people of the book" of hiding the truth about revelations and leading others astray. Look at the charge that they were consciously rejecting the revelations despite knowing better. (References in my last comment). You keep telling me the charge of corruption of scripture came during later generations? No, it is right there is the Koran.
As for virgin Mary, she certainly does have worship status among some Christians. You obviously haven't been to
Mexico. But that is beside the point: the chapter simply says Jesus didn't make that claim, not that is in the bible.
Chuck i haven't spinned anything. Sam Shamoun obviously know more about Islam than you do. Why won't you expalin why he's wrong? You seem to think that what Muslims are saying about Jews and Christians are the same thing they say about their scriptures but that is not how it was a the beginning of things when Muhammad lived in Madina while Muslims were a minority population. You are quick to accuse the Bible of change and growth where attitudes and teaching changed over the 1500 yrs of it's compilation (wrong, but I'll let it slide) yet you seem to ignore that the same is argued of the Qur'an (which Muslims disagree with).However ther parts of the Qur'an thzt is attributed to the times the prophet lived in Medina when Muslims where a persecuted minority is quite different from when Muslims were in power in Mecca. That is when you read of killing infidels and subjugating Jews and Christians. In Medina, Jews and Christians were God's people who either misunderstood the message or outright ignore it.
Eh...you got the Mecca-Medina thing wrong, but that's OK. They had the political power in Medina.
But are you going to tell me you can chronological classify the verses of the Koran? You are right that mohammad got much more aggressive when he came to power. Yet there is no one who can say exactly when he came up with each and every chapter of the Koran. He called belief in divineness of Jesus a heresy in the same breath as he called Jews and Christians the people of the book. He saw no contradiction between the two. Hence the charge that "the scripture before me is coorupted".
3g.nursing...Mary did not have worship status in 600 AD. Mohammad never heard of Mexico. And I'm not arguing that the Muslims from the very beginning did not contradict Jesus divinity but that could have been word of mouth not that Mohammad actually read the Bible itself (he was illiterate remember according to tradition)
But wasn't the whole point of bringing up Mary to say the Koran claimed the bible says she was devine? Except that is not in the Koran.
And haven't you been saying all along Mohammad wasn't aware of the degree he was contradicting the bible? Well it turns out, on that point you are wrong; he knew he was contradicting it. Whether he learned that through reading it, by word of mouth, or devine knowledge (as Muslims claim) is irrelevant. He contradicted the bible KNOWINGLY, IN HIS LIFETIME. He also accused the "people of the book" of hiding reality. It is not a later invention. To say otherwise is ignoring reality, whether it comes from you or some
shamoun or whoever.
@3g.nursing
Mohammad knew he was contradicting Christians but you can't prove that he knew he as contradicting the Bible. I may have mixed up the situations between Mecca and Medina but I'll check that later. I apologize if i did mix them up. It was unintentional. Sura 5 - Al-Maeda: Verse 116 indeed implies that Christians worship Mary as a god. BUT IN 600 AD THEY DIDN'T. And the Bible doesn't say that bout Mary. You are wrong about Shamoun's argument. And have not discussed it. Did you even read it?
Well, if Mohammad didn't know it was in the bible, he still knew it was the Christian belief. And that is what matters: he contradicted it knowingly. Calling Christians people of the book and yet dismissing their ideology as heresy is something Mohammad did himself. It is not a later attribution.
I did read the article you linked to. I didn't think highly of it. It is not hard to string together the verse of Koran and quotes of Hadith that support your view and ignore those that don't. Muslims scholar do it all the time. How else would you have so many different Islamic sects?
As for virgin Mary, you obviously are not understanding Muslim mentality. You tell them that worship of Mary was not part of Christian theology in mohammad's day and so the Koran is wrong on that account. You know what they will say? God knew in his infinite knowledge that some christians would some day worship her, as they do today in Mexico. They'll say Mohammad saw that coming and warned against it.
Which brings me full circle back to Sam Harris. See, you and I can see easily through that spurious argument. Those who believe in truthfulness of Koran can't. It is easy to see the flaws in someone else's religion, but not your own. And that is the whole point.
3g.Nursing said:
Well, if Mohammad didn't know it was in the bible, he still knew it was the Christian belief. And that is what matters: he contradicted it knowingly. Calling Christians people of the book and yet dismissing their ideology as heresy is something Mohammad did himself. It is not a later attribution.
That is exactly what I've been saying all along!!!! That is Shamoun's argument! The Qur'an rejects ideology that is not in the Bible! Yet claims that the Bible is true! Not that Christians are right.
I agree with you when you say
As for virgin Mary, you obviously are not understanding Muslim mentality. You tell them that worship of Mary was not part of Christian theology in Mohammad's day and so the Koran is wrong on that account. You know what they will say? God knew in his infinite knowledge that some Christians would some day worship her, as they do today in Mexico. They'll say Mohammad saw that coming and warned against it.
That truly is the answer many would give! Only problem is the worship of Mary has never been a characteristic of orthodox Historical Biblical Christianity. And if you asked the Roman Catholics who put Mary so high, they will tell you that they do not worship Mary. Your argument falls apart. The flaws are not in what God has said or done but in us.
Marcus,
All I said what that the reality of Dimmitude towards "people of the book" seems to contradict your rather strong statement that Muslims "submit to the Bible".
I asked you to rationalize those two seeming contradictions. That is all.
Your argument seems to be a strawman to favor your preferred conclusion that the bible is true because the koran isn't.
Marcus. Will you ever stop saying "the Koran says the bible is true"?
The saying "we believe in what was revealed to you and prophets before you" doesn't mean the bible is true. Combined with accusations that people of the book were lying about the revelations, it means some hypothetical version that according to Muslim ideology no longer is in circulation.
Now, how does " The Qur'an rejects ideology that is not in the Bible" contradict "claims that the Bible is true"? The Koran doesn't maintain the bible is true. But if it did, it would make perfect sense for Koran to reject nonbiblical ideology. Don't you think?
Back to virgin Mary, the attitude in Mexico is indeed tantamount to worship. Whether that is good or bad is irrelevant. Again, if you don't know this, you haven't been there. And Muslims will call it a Koranic prediction; that you reject that means you are viewing it objectively, unlike your views on christianity.
So 3g.nursing, we agree Islam is inconsistent. Some non biblical ideas are refuted and some Biblical ideas are refuted. Yet the Koran endorses the Torah and the Injeel (Gospel) although it directly contradicts them. I'm saying the reason for the contradictions is because the Qur'an writers did not know what the Bible says on every matter and sometimes went on hearsay and have gotten the teachings wrong as to what Christians and Jews believe. Don't forget Mohammad was illiterate and could not read the Bible even if he wanted to. If he could not read Arabic i doubt that he could read Hebrew or Greek, unless you want to to concede that the Qur'an is a miracle. If you do then you have to allow for all the Bible miracle too.
Well if the Koran has a "take some, leave some" attitude toward the bible it is because the Koran claims the "people of the book" were knowingly hiding the truth. That is not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
As for attributing false beliefs to others, as we have seen, they may be considered "predictions" that some would subscribe to those beliefs in the future. Unless you may want to start with the presupposition that the Koran is not a miracle, in which case I would say the bible is no miracle either.
3g.nursing...are you taking the presupposition that the Koran is a miracle? And agreeing that Muhammad was illiterate?
Marcus,
Do me a favor OK? There ARE contradictions in Koran. Go find them. But the example you are citing is not a valid one.
See...there are many indications that Mohammad knew the bible fairly well. Check out stories on Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jonah, Moses, etc and see how strikingly similar they are between the bible and Koran.
Of course, a Muslim will tell you that is because those stories were corrupted in the bible and were revealed to mahammad in their "original" form. But I do not happen to subscribe to that school of thought.
Remember, there were many Jewish tribes living in Arabia at his time. (In medina they were his neighbors until he kicked them out). He need not have spoken hebrew; bibles in Arabic wouldn't be impossible to obtain. And if he was an illeterate, many of his followers weren't. It would not have been so hard for him to "cheat". As for Christianity, he had traveled to areas under Roman control in his youth, and so he would know a thing or two about the Christian doctrine as well.
As such, he pretty much knew what he was talking about. As for the things that did not match, he claimed that "people of the book" were knowingly suppressing the truth. He said that he was the last prophet, meaning the Koran had to the final word, and any inconsistencies were chucked up to corruptions.
So no, it not like he made embarrassing mistakes that Muslims in subsequent generations had to explain away. The inconsistencies were deliberate. They were meant to show his superiority.
3g.nursing I don't see the inconsistencies in the creation and the fall or in the many differences small. i 'be been stating the problem with satan's rebellion from the start. That is a big difference. Was Adam formed from a blood clot or the dust of the earth? Which is it? Big difference! I know you are right about how Muslims try to reconcile the stories. do you believe them? Genesis predates the Qur'an by more than 1000 years. Regardless if you don't agree with the stories being true you have can choose which one has more weight.
Sorry, you are looking a bit like Mohammad...getting the details wrong. The Koranic stroy says Adam was created from dust...just like genesis. The blood clot comes in a different context. You can look it up.
The differences are important. But so are the similarities. He did get many of the details right. Again, go look them up.
So why did he get some wrong? Granted, in some cases it may have been careless. But when the Koran says that believing Jesus was the son of god was heresy, or Jesus was not crucified but someone looking like him was, he was neither ignorant nor careless. He knew what he was talking about. He was doing that to make the claim he had some information no one else did.
If Mohammad was so unfamiliar with the bible how did he get all those details? Is it you, this time, claiming he had divine knowledge?
Your claim that he made mistakes out of ignorance simply doesn't hold up-at least, not in all cases. Again, he purposely changed those stories. He was the "last prophet". If the stories did not match the bible that was because the "people of the book" were lying, not him.
And frankly it is getting rather boring.
Incidentally, the creation story in genesis carries as much weight as that in the Koran. That is, none. They both contradict 300 years of science.
There never was such a person as "Adam".
And even if there WAS such a person, he was not "created from dust", he was conceived in the usual way, by having a mother and a father.
My proof?
Every picture of this "Adam" I have ever seen depicts him wiith a belly button, which he would only have if he had been living off nutrients passed through a placenta.
Nonotheless, Marcus, every time you comment, there is an underlying implication that the Bible is the standard of TROOTH that you accept.
Who the F&$k cares if the stories about the completely mythological being commonly referred to as "Satan" differ in two equally mythological mythologies?
Get back to me on why the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudians were at war.
...with a belly button, which he would only have if he had been living off nutrients passed through a placenta.
When he was a fetus.
1. Mahomed has never done any wonders.
[There's even a passage in the Qur'an giving a rationale for this!]
2. His followers have never done any wonders.
So as far as positive evidence for Islam is concerned, there's none.
------------------------------
3. All the physical, historical, documentary evidence (whether from NT manuscripts or patristic writings) points into a completely different direction than the one showed by Mohamed.
So as far as his doctrinal attacks on Christianity or Judaism are concerned, they're completely unfounded.
------------------------------
4. To make matters even worse, the Christians not only testify about wonders happening among themselves in their past (which Muslims deny about themselves), but wonders happen even today in their midst (which Muslims lack).
So neither theoretically nor even practically does Islam hold any real ground against Christianity.
@3g.nursing
One more time: ignorance of the Bible does not equal total ignorance of Christianity. I'm not arguing that Muhammad knew absolutely nothing about what Christians think and believe. I'm arguing that he got some of the details of his message wrong because he misrepresented Christian doctrine. How can you argue that he knew what was in the Bible when he was illiterate and could not read. I agree with you that he changed the stories on purpose in many places. But that does not change the points I have already made. Buy and large we agree except that you refuse to understand that I am saying
1. There are places in the Qur'an that are plainly arguing against ideas that are assumed to be what Christians hold but they are not what Christians believe.
2. The Qur'an says that it is saying the same thing as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus yet we know exactly what those texts were like during the time the Qu'ran was first being recited. There is no exact match at all.
You have never explained why you disagree with Sam Shamoun. All I seem to be getting from you is: The argument runs afoul of what I already believe the relationship between Islam and Christianity is, therefore it must be false.
@GearHedEd
That is probably the weakest argument for Adam's nonexistence I ever read. It's almost too weak to laugh at, but I'll laugh any way. Do you really believe that art and pictures can really tell you anything about a person you first claim never existed? Really? How do you even begin to think that the art is accurate? Besides that the argument that if Adam had a belly button presupposing he had to have once been a fetus is really reaching. How do you prove Adam had a belly button? Or how do you know that God would not have given him a Belly button anyway? Try again.
Marcus said,
"That is probably the weakest argument for Adam's nonexistence I ever read."
Do you seriously think that I was NOT making a joke there?
"...Do you really believe that art and pictures can really tell you anything about a person you first claim never existed? Really? How do you even begin to think that the art is accurate?"
How do you think the Bible is accurate, given your argument here?
"...Besides that the argument that if Adam had a belly button presupposing he had to have once been a fetus is really reaching...."
What? Are you conceding that Adam might have had a belly button? For what purpose?
"...How do you prove Adam had a belly button?"
Hoe do you KNOW that Abraham really existed? Or Noah? Or Isaac? Or Jesus? The answer is:
You DON'T. You have a book full of myths and legends. Nothing more. This is why it's stupid to argue about whether the Qur'an has the details "correct" about a mythological event (Satan's Rebellion) when it's a MYTH!
"Or how do you know that God would not have given him a Belly button anyway?"
Oh, I get it... God wants to be tricky and lead us into believing something that's not true... I really DO get it.
I said it before, and I'll say it again, Marcus.
"You can't prove the Bible is truth by referring to the Bible. That's a classic example of the 'Begging the Question' fallacy. So every time you claim something is true because (insert biblical passage or apologetics here), you're committing a fallacy.
@GearHedEd
I didn't think you were making a joke...I mean you've said many other things in total seriousness.
My mistake.
The Bible is a reliable document. I was not attempting in this thread to prove that the Bible is true. My point in this thread is to show why I accept the Bible and not the Qur'an. If you want to discuss why the Bible is objectively true I'm more than willing to discuss that.
Of course Adam could have had a Belly Button. I don't know. The Bible does not say he and it does not say he didn't and I have no evidence either way. A better question is Why do you care either way?
Let me get this straight: Are you joking or really questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus? We can go there if you really wanna go there.
There is historical evidence that expert scholars accept proof that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus really lived. You can claim myth all you want, but that is a huge claim. Where is your proof? I'm not tryi9ng to prove the Bible in this thread. If you want to discuss that fine...but that wasn't the point of my comments on this thread.
Post a Comment