What's new

What do the Quran and Hadith predict about the end of the Apartheid state of Israel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it is the word of Allah. A Miracle. No human can create such a thing. And because it was is testifies to its own claim that it can never be changed or erased (it is the same since its revelation). Now, do not act like a retard.
Why is not the Old Testament and New Testament a Miracle and the Qur'an is?

You guys started this thread,I'm just trying to tell you,that in the same way you believe your faith is the true one,others believe theirs is the true one.

First bible wasn’t even written until 100 years after Jesus. Which means no one who saw Jesus was even alive when bible was being written. Rest you can guess how authentic is the book and it’s traditions.
So you deny the gospels of Mark,Luke,John and Matthew? The Acts of the Apostles? Along with the Epistoles and the Revelation,that is the New Testament.

And together with the Old Testament,that is the Bible.
 
It is a bit long, let me try to be as brief.
The Messenger SAW said، Indeed Isa son of Mary shall come as a just ruler.
Christian has other meaning of Messiah. Messiah actually meant to anoint, which Jesus used to do with water or oil. Word is now used allegorically in political sense also.

When jews worked with Roman govt to kill Jesus, they took him and crucified.
In Bible, the person denied to be Jesus and people laughed at him, but at one point that person, possibly Judas Iscariot, just shut up. Possibly his physygnomy changed and he just realized that!

Quran says for sure they did not kill him nor crucify him, matter made doubtful.

Jews await a great military leader as Messiah who can from their massive kingdom.

Muslim faith, near end time Mehdi will lead Muslims, then Anti Christ shall come, jewish Messiah, then Jesus son or Mary.

Yes, I know they can give different meanings of the same person, that's the reason I described him as son of Joseph and Mary, because his name and his parents names is likely the only common thing of both religion about the same man.

But in short, Christians and Muslims think that Jesus/Isa will come back as Messiah in the end of times. That's a common point too then.
 
Does not answer the Question of why the Bible has so many different versions.
Muslims may have more cests than you but each and everyone has one single set of Quran down to the one single word.
It's not about different "Bibles",but different translations. Some Churches,which are heretics of course,count some books as canonical and some as non-canonical. But these "Churches" are heresies,like the Lutherans,Calvinists,Anglicans,Evangelicals and others.

Still,you say the Quran is the word of Allah.

How do you know that MD didn't write it on his own after his interactions with Christians and specifically Nestorian heretics?

See,that's why religious discussions aren't allowed on the forum. Because we're all going to end up fighting.
 
Why is not the Old Testament and New Testament a Miracle and the Qur'an is?

You guys started this thread,I'm just trying to tell you,that in the same way you believe your faith is the true one,others believe theirs is the true one.


So you deny the gospels of Mark,Luke,John and Matthew? The Acts of the Apostles? Along with the Epistoles and the Revelation,that is the New Testament.

And together with the Old Testament,that is the Bible.

Obviously they can not deny whole Christian Bible, because Bible and Quran have things in common.
But obviously they can not accept whole Christian books, because Bible and Quran have things in contradiction, even the Bible has things in contradiction with itself.

I think the most common muslim opinion about Christian/Jewish books is: we can't know what part is real and what is false, so we can't trust in those books.
 
Why is not the Old Testament and New Testament a Miracle and the Qur'an is?

You guys started this thread,I'm just trying to tell you,that in the same way you believe your faith is the true one,others believe theirs is the true one.
You yourself told that Bible has changed ..... Old Testament & New testament .... aren't these two versions.
So who were Mark, Luke, John and Matthew? From where did they put forward the Bible? From burnt pages. Isn't it clear that there should have been changes while re-writing from incomplete remains?
Quran on the other hand was written and memorized word by word by hundreds and thousands (current Huffaz are more than 120 Million) of Muslims and that is why it never was changed.
If somehow there is any change (deliberately by someone or indeliberately) it was caught immediately and rectified.
Well, Bible................ Muslims are not against or in denial of the Bible. Bible along Torah and all other Holy books is an essential part of our faith. A Muslim cannot be a true Muslim if does not believe that Bible in its original form was a true book and word of God.
Now aren't Christians changed it themselves so now there are around 12+ versions of the same and none of any versions can be verified as 100% according to the original true Bible.
Our Faith is that Bible in its true form was a Word of Allah and a word of truth. Allah sent many Prophets and the last one was Muhammad (PBUH) who was sent with the holy book of the Quran. With Islam and Quran, all old religions and all old holy books were nullified and Islam was declared as the final religion for all humankind, Muhammad (PBUH) as the final messenger, and Quran as the final holy book.
 
But what makes you think that the Quran is the truth?

The same that make you think that Bible is the truth, because all people around you think is the truth.

When all people around think X is real, then X becomes real for you, although you never see X.

Like children believing Santa Claus.

And because is hard living thinking that death is the end of everything you know, that's the common root of all humans beliefs, the fear about death, the greatest fear of all.
 
It's not about different "Bibles",but different translations. Some Churches,which are heretics of course,count some books as canonical and some as non-canonical. But these "Churches" are heresies,like the Lutherans,Calvinists,Anglicans,Evangelicals and others.

Still,you say the Quran is the word of Allah.

How do you know that MD didn't write it on his own after his interactions with Christians and specifically Nestorian heretics?

See,that's why religious discussions aren't allowed on the forum. Because we're all going to end up fighting.
My point is very simple but you are not understanding.
Translation in different languages is different than narration and context.
Quran has one single language......Arabic. If it is translated in different languages that is something else. As Muslims, we can only recite in Arabic (all Muslims know how to read arabic) but not all Muslims understand Arabic so they take the help of translations. So basically Qiran has one single version, a single sort of narration and commands one single language, no controversies, and many translations.
Bible on the other hand has many different versions, different narrations, many controversies, and many translations. end of discussion.
 
Because it is the word of Allah. A Miracle. No human can create such a thing. And because it was is testifies to its own claim that it can never be changed or erased (it is the same since its revelation). Now, do not act like a retard.

Out of everyone in theology, I like Jesus the most. If there is anyone that would have been a representative of God, it would be him.
 
The same that make you think that Bible is the truth, because all people around you think is the truth.

When all people around think X is real, then X becomes real for you, although you never see X.

Like children believing Santa Claus.

And because is hard living thinking that death is the end of everything you know, that's the common root of all humans beliefs, the fear about death, the greatest fear of all.
Now a Zio is back to troll both Christians and Muslims.

Out of everyone in theology, I like Jesus the most. If there is anyone that would have been a representative of God, it would be him.
No Muslim can deny the actual ideology of Jesus. But aren't Christians putting things on Jesus that he never said himself?

Obviously they can not deny whole Christian Bible, because Bible and Quran have things in common.
But obviously they can not accept whole Christian books, because Bible and Quran have things in contradiction, even the Bible has things in contradiction with itself.

I think the most common muslim opinion about Christian/Jewish books is: we can't know what part is real and what is false, so we can't trust in those books.
What the heck forced you to speak sensibly this time?
 
No Muslim can deny the actual ideology of Jesus. But aren't Christians putting things on Jesus that he never said himself?

Hadith allowed scholars to introduce their own methods into Islam. I am sure it is the same with all other religions. The original message always gets lost in translation.

However one thing we know is during that time, in that part of the world where Jesus lived, they were excellent record keepers. He also had his friends observe him and keep a record.


Also gnostics had a very interesting insight

 
Last edited:
You yourself told that Bible has changed ..... Old Testament & New testament .... aren't these two versions.
So who were Mark, Luke, John and Matthew? From where did they put forward the Bible? From burnt pages. Isn't it clear that there should have been changes while re-writing from incomplete remains?
What burnt pages?

Mark,Luke,John and Matthew were disciples of Christ.

I just told you that some "Churches" consider some books as canonical and some as non-canonical. That's the difference. And that there are also many translations of the Bible.

Allah sent many Prophets and the last one was Muhammad (PBUH) who was sent with the holy book of the Quran. With Islam and Quran, all old religions and all old holy books were nullified and Islam was declared as the final religion for all humankind, Muhammad (PBUH) as the final messenger, and Quran as the final holy book.
Who said that Muhammad is a prophet? Only Muhammad said it.

Screenshot_2023-02-16 Bible Gateway passage Matthew 7 15-20 - King James Version.png


Now aren't Christians changed it themselves so now there are around 12+ versions of the same and none of any versions can be verified as 100% according to the original true Bible.
Our Faith is that Bible in its true form was a Word of Allah and a word of truth. Allah sent many Prophets and the last one was Muhammad (PBUH) who was sent with the holy book of the Quran. With Islam and Quran, all old religions and all old holy books were nullified and Islam was declared as the final religion for all humankind, Muhammad (PBUH) as the final messenger, and Quran as the final holy book.
Do you know what a Bible is? Simple question.

So basically Qiran has one single version, a single sort of narration and commands one single language, no controversies, and many translations.
Bible on the other hand has many different versions, different narrations, many controversies, and many translations. end of discussion.
Just like the New Testament was translated from Greek,in the same way the Quran was translated from Arabic to many other languages. Unless of course,you consider that there were changes in the Quran because of the translation as well....
 
Who said that Muhammad is a prophet? Only Muhammad said it.
Now that is a denial like the Zios do. I thought you were a Christian.
You act like "Abu Jahil" who was a close relative of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and always asking for signs of truth even after seeing with his own times. It happened countless times until he met his end was among the people whom got wrath of God.
No need to waste my time on you.
End of discussion.
 
Now that is a denial like the Zios do. I thought you were a Christian.
You act like "Abu Jahil" who was a close relative of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and always asking for signs of truth even after seeing with his own times. It happened countless times until he met his end was among the people whom got wrath of God.
No need to waste my time on you.
End of discussion.
Let me quote Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos

c. "So your law cannot properly be called a "Law" any more, nor ranged with those which are established by a number of legislators. And that because the most significant articles of this new Law are older even than the legislation of Moses. Because they have an ancient origin, and it is not Mahomet who instituted them. Indeed, to demolish the making of idols, to flee polytheism, to believe in only one creator God, to receive circumcision as a sign of faith, and other similar points, Abraham established these without writing. Moses then put them in writing and promulgated them, adding to it what God, in his discussions with him, had ordered. So this more recent Law, coming later than the old one, borrowed it - this is obvious - its basis and its principles; and certainly not the older from it. How indeed the could the older one be derived from the more recent? However so much does such a condition give pre-eminence, that there is no need of a discourse to show it. And what need I say about the basis and the principles, when what appears most perfect of all and, we might say, all of what your Law seems to consist is obviously taken from the old Law? So there is nothing new there, but the same things have been said again; or rather they have been impudently plundered. For show me anything that Mohammed instituted new: you will only find what is bad or inhuman, such as when he orders in decreeing that the belief that he preached should be advanced by the sword.



3.a. "But it is necessary, I think, to explain this point more clearly. Men on earth must experience one of three things [according to Mohammed]:

-- they must place themselves under this law

-- or pay tribute and, more, be reduced into slavery

-- or, in the absence of either, be struck without hesitation with iron.

b. "But this is extremely absurd! Why? Because God is not pleased with blood, and to act unreasonably is foreign to God. What you say thus has stepped over the border of insanity, or almost so.

Firstly indeed, is it not very absurd to pay money and to thus buy the opportunity to lead an impious life and one contrary to the Law?

c. "Next, faith is a fruit of the heart, not of the body. So he who intends to bring somebody to faith needs skilful language and correct thinking, not violence or threats, nor some instrument of wounding or intimidation. Because just as, when it is necessary to compel a non-reasonable nature, one would not have recourse to persuasion, in the same way to persuade a reasonable soul, one does not need to resort to force, or a whip, or any other threat of death.

d. "No one can ever claim that, if he uses violence, it is in spite of himself, because it is an order from God. Because if it was good to attack with the sword those which are complete unbelievers and that this was a law of God given from heaven -- as Mohammed claims -- it would undoubtedly be necessary to kill all those who would not embrace this Law and this preaching. He is indeed quite impious to buy piety with money. Do you think differently about this? I do not think so. How would you do it? However if that is not good, to kill is yet much worse.

e. "However if it is found that Mohammed added something to the Law of Moses, at once you call that the Law. And you are not satisfied that we allow you to talk like that, but you require that we prefer this Law to those which preceded it. In virtue of what? -- and something which it is not right even to call the Law!

f. "In fact the very thing which makes us consider it as Law, is the same thing which places this kind of Law on the opposite side (from the real law). One of the properties of the Law is that it can lay down new regulations which are agreeable to God. Yours boasts that it has borrowed regulations. If we pruned out the older articles from it, it would be just like the jay in the fable: He borrowed feathers of every kind, then they were removed from him, and there he was, once again just a jay.

g. "If so, everyone will consider your Law — we'll call it the Law, in the meantime, to make you happy — inferior to that of the Jews. And if it is inferior to that, it is far more so to the Law of Christ, which, with your consent and the consent of all, superabundantly prevails over that of the Jews."
 
Let me quote Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos

c. "So your law cannot properly be called a "Law" any more, nor ranged with those which are established by a number of legislators. And that because the most significant articles of this new Law are older even than the legislation of Moses. Because they have an ancient origin, and it is not Mahomet who instituted them. Indeed, to demolish the making of idols, to flee polytheism, to believe in only one creator God, to receive circumcision as a sign of faith, and other similar points, Abraham established these without writing. Moses then put them in writing and promulgated them, adding to it what God, in his discussions with him, had ordered. So this more recent Law, coming later than the old one, borrowed it - this is obvious - its basis and its principles; and certainly not the older from it. How indeed the could the older one be derived from the more recent? However so much does such a condition give pre-eminence, that there is no need of a discourse to show it. And what need I say about the basis and the principles, when what appears most perfect of all and, we might say, all of what your Law seems to consist is obviously taken from the old Law? So there is nothing new there, but the same things have been said again; or rather they have been impudently plundered. For show me anything that Mohammed instituted new: you will only find what is bad or inhuman, such as when he orders in decreeing that the belief that he preached should be advanced by the sword.



3.a. "But it is necessary, I think, to explain this point more clearly. Men on earth must experience one of three things [according to Mohammed]:

-- they must place themselves under this law

-- or pay tribute and, more, be reduced into slavery

-- or, in the absence of either, be struck without hesitation with iron.

b. "But this is extremely absurd! Why? Because God is not pleased with blood, and to act unreasonably is foreign to God. What you say thus has stepped over the border of insanity, or almost so.

Firstly indeed, is it not very absurd to pay money and to thus buy the opportunity to lead an impious life and one contrary to the Law?

c. "Next, faith is a fruit of the heart, not of the body. So he who intends to bring somebody to faith needs skilful language and correct thinking, not violence or threats, nor some instrument of wounding or intimidation. Because just as, when it is necessary to compel a non-reasonable nature, one would not have recourse to persuasion, in the same way to persuade a reasonable soul, one does not need to resort to force, or a whip, or any other threat of death.

d. "No one can ever claim that, if he uses violence, it is in spite of himself, because it is an order from God. Because if it was good to attack with the sword those which are complete unbelievers and that this was a law of God given from heaven -- as Mohammed claims -- it would undoubtedly be necessary to kill all those who would not embrace this Law and this preaching. He is indeed quite impious to buy piety with money. Do you think differently about this? I do not think so. How would you do it? However if that is not good, to kill is yet much worse.

e. "However if it is found that Mohammed added something to the Law of Moses, at once you call that the Law. And you are not satisfied that we allow you to talk like that, but you require that we prefer this Law to those which preceded it. In virtue of what? -- and something which it is not right even to call the Law!

f. "In fact the very thing which makes us consider it as Law, is the same thing which places this kind of Law on the opposite side (from the real law). One of the properties of the Law is that it can lay down new regulations which are agreeable to God. Yours boasts that it has borrowed regulations. If we pruned out the older articles from it, it would be just like the jay in the fable: He borrowed feathers of every kind, then they were removed from him, and there he was, once again just a jay.

g. "If so, everyone will consider your Law — we'll call it the Law, in the meantime, to make you happy — inferior to that of the Jews. And if it is inferior to that, it is far more so to the Law of Christ, which, with your consent and the consent of all, superabundantly prevails over that of the Jews."
The quotes you are copy pasting here I can paste more authentic ones (From unchanged Quran) but I will waste my time and energy on you.
And about false prophets you mention above we have same thing. More than 40 major false prophets will be there.
Your problem is you believe 2000 old history is accurate while 1400 is false.
As know I got your type I will try my best to not waster my precious time on you.
 
It is a bit long, let me try to be as brief.
The Messenger SAW said، Indeed Isa son of Mary shall come as a just ruler.
Christian has other meaning of Messiah. Messiah actually meant to anoint, which Jesus used to do with water or oil. Word is now used allegorically in political sense also.

When jews worked with Roman govt to kill Jesus, they took him and crucified.
In Bible, the person denied to be Jesus and people laughed at him, but at one point that person, possibly Judas Iscariot, just shut up. Possibly his physygnomy changed and he just realized that!

Quran says for sure they did not kill him nor crucify him, matter made doubtful.

Jews await a great military leader as Messiah who can from their massive kingdom.

Muslim faith, near end time Mehdi will lead Muslims, then Anti Christ shall come, jewish Messiah, then Jesus son or Mary.
rafiki.....

as my prior post. you put so much effort into this.... why not spend this effort replacing and getting muslim countries especially Pakistan.

Saddam like messiah is needed to clean up Pakistan first; forget about the coming of Messiah.

It is this narrow mindedness which is what the politicians have exploited to keep the muslim people all stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom