I have reverted to Islam (Akbarian sufism)There is nothing but the truth ٱللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ
>>18699761I have been wanting to convert for a while. I took my shahada 2 years ago.
>>18699761>revertedAll dark hell-spawned demons should worship the one true God, but that is not the cube that heretic Muslims worship today. You should worship the one true living God, the body of Christ formed of its members, the children of God who form the light of God in Christ. Islam is a choice, death for dark hell-spawned demons or their submission to the one true God. Death or convert. But if I'm being honest, submission is too good for dark hell-spawned demons and Islam is a heresy, the kingdom of heaven should extend to every corner of the earth and cleansed of hell's darkness.
>>18699761Just say you want to marry children you disgusting pedophile
>>18699761Sweet, enjoy Hell.
>>18699776When I took my shahada I felt my heart seemingly being being lifted of something on/in it; it felt very warm and I could also feel it at my back at the area where my heart is
>>18699761Islam is a false religion. Muhammad was a false prophet. Repent.
>>18699816He passes Deuteronomy 18:21-22 so you repent for denying God's final prophet
>>18699776bless you>>18699780If I worship man I only worship a limitation of the divine, if I worship stone I worship a limitation of the divine, if I worship the world I worship a limitation of the divine.For what can I worship if not the world, for where should my heart turn to as it aches for divine. For who is worthy of worship but the one.For the worship of the one in its totality and its unity is what I shall worship. For the worship of the one in its totality and its unity is who I shall worship. worship, worship, oh lord, my lord, precious lord. worship to thee, exulted is he, found in all which may be.>>18699797I wish to see you in paradise>>18699796I wish to see you in paradise>>18699816I wish to see you in paradise
>>18700051>worship manThere is only one God, Christian God, the one true living God formed of its members. The light of God in Christ will never be destroyed. If you deny the Christian God then the body of Christ should seize you and hold you beneath the water for your baptism until you see the light or are no longer an obstacle to the salvation of God's children.
>>18700086I will not betray myself, I will not betray my lord.For no man is my lord,For no man could be my lord.I will not seek a reflection,when I can seek for that which is being reflected.
>>18700096You follow a heretical version of Islam by worshiping a discarnate devil.
>>18700101I follow mercy.
>>18699761Good goy, now pray to the rock in the cube.
>>18700051>I wish to see you in paradiseThen forsake Islam. There is no other way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foRtBHXM16A
>>18700113mercy is for submission to the one true living God, which you refuse to recognize
>>18700086>worship manWhy did you quote this as if you do not agree? You literally worship a human being dude. And he's forever a human being
If anyone itt is a muslim convert, or a religious convert of any kind can you please explain why you did that to me.
>>18700164Did what to you?
>>18700163denying the Spirit is the unforgivable sin
>>18699824Muhammad does not pass the test for genuine prophethood whatsoever for several reasons. Here's two big ones:1. There isn't a hint, not a single iota, anywhere found in scripture about Muhammad. No Jew or Christian in history has ever thought of or conceived that a great final prophet would come out of Arabia with a direct revelation in book form. There's nothing in the Bible which prefigures the life of Muhammad, nothing in the words of Moses, in the Psalms, in the Prophets, or from the mouth of Jesus Christ. There's nothing about Mecca, nothing about a Kaaba which Abraham established, no hint of the Islamic narrative anywhere. Instead, John the Baptist is said to be the great final prophet of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5, Luke 16:16), and Jesus establishes a Church to whom he promises and pours out the Holy Spirit upon forever (John 14:16, Acts 2:16-23 cf. Joel 2:28). The eschaton has already been initiated since Pentecost, the New Covenant established, the Great High Priest seated at the right hand of the Father! For a prophet like Muhammad to come it would be completely redundant to salvation history.
>>186998242. The Qur'an is obviously fallible. I think the single biggest indication of this would be the presence of apocryphal stories contained therein. Unlike the Bible, which Jews and Christians both believe to be human documents (though divinely inspired), Muslims put extra cards down on the Qur'an in that they see it as the literal and direct word of God which naturally lends itself to higher standards but also has more risk. Surely, if the Qur'an was the word of God in the way Muslims think it to be, then I think it's reasonable to expect there to be a lot less cultural, geographical, or period specific features in it than we might expect to be in something like the Bible (unless you're a Biblical literalist which most Jews and Christians are not). Why, then, do we find apocryphal stories composed centuries after the Bible, and with cultural adjacency, in the Quran? Take for instance Surah 19:29-34 where the baby Jesus physically speaks from his cradle. This story is not present in the canonical gospels. There are several other primary sources than the Quran which do mention this story or something similar to it such as the Arabic Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Syriac, 5th or 6th century), the Second Kontakion of St. Romanos (Greek, 6th century) and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Latin, 7th or 8th century). Given that all our primary sources for this story, including the Quran, start appearing around the same time, I'd say this is when the story first began orally circulating, and also given that there appears to be cultural adjacency between at least one of the sources and the Quran (specifically the Syriac/Near Eastern sources to the Christian cultural climate of Arabia which was Syriac). I'd say the story was probably in circulation among Arabs at the time the Quran was composed and had direct influence on the Quran. Simple abduction leads to this conclusion. If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Continued below...
>>18699824This is, of course, not to mention the fact that MOST of the stories the Quran contains about Jesus and Mary are from apocryphal sources (Surah 3:49, 5:110 cf. Infancy Gospel of Thomas II; Surah 19:24-26 cf. Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew Ch. 20;Surah 3:37-43 cf. Protoevangelium of James 5) and, specifically, from infancy gospels, which tells me that whoever wrote the Quran was familiar with the infancy gospel tradition, a popular and ORAL form of Christian midrash expanding on the nativity as found in the canonical gospels of Matthew and Luke. Now, of course, this in and of itself does not disprove each story, and every apocryphal story should be examined on its own terms. Nevertheless, by the standards of the historical method I think it's fair to judge many of them as containing little historical value, ESPECIALLY those that appear in the Quran. With all of this in mind, there's then of course the many Talmudic stories that appear in the Qur'an which I'm not even going to mention but you can read about here (https://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/5b.html). The Quran treats these stories as if they're literal historical narratives, with no awareness of where they came from or how late they actually are. And yet, you say this is the word of God? God can make historical errors?
>>18699761you think the most powerful super intelligence of the universe cares if you pray 5 times a day or if women cover their hair? what retardation is that? i suppose that islam is a feeling and you have to stop using your brain if you want to convert, because there is no way that a person with an iq above 76 would come to the conclusion that islam is the one true religion.
>>18700260Before we deal with your gish gallop full of falsehood I want you to actually address the standard given by your God in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 since that is what we were talking about. Here is a quick recap:>1) The prophet speaks in the name of the Lord>2) What the prophet proclaims must take placeWhich of these has not been met? Give 1 example for each. I'll quickly address the main points you have raised even though I don't have to.>There isn't a hint, not a single iota, anywhere found in scripture Provide your evidence, I'd like to see you attack the proofs the companions used as well as the modern arguments>I think the single biggest indication of this would be the presence of apocryphal storiesBegging the question, your canon could be the one that is fallible here lol. Nothing tells us that your collection of books is somehow better than another. There's nothing magical about what your church has decided to use
>>18700323>an omniscient being wouldn't care about us tiny antswhy? his attention span is not reduced by also including us
>Before we deal with your gish gallop full of falsehoodI don't think you know what gish galloping is.>Which of these has not been met? Give 1 example for each. I'll quickly address the main points you have raised even though I don't have to.First Deuteronomy 18:21-22 isn't a comprehensive list of how to discern a false prophet from a true prophet. Second a false prophet can fulfill either both or one of the conditions anyway (Deuteronomy 13:1-2, Matthew 24:24, 2 Corinthians 11:14), and thirdly for at least the second condition you have no good evidence Muhammad accurately relayed divine revelation apart from circular reasoning, obvious ex eventu prophecies from the notoriously unreliable hadiths, or extremely vague examples from the Quran that anybody could have predicted. There's absolutely nothing extraordinary about what Muhammad did. >Provide your evidence, I'd like to see you attack the proofs the companions used as well as the modern argumentsWell your exegesis of the Paraclete Jesus speaks about during the Farewell Discourse is honestly just laughable since it's so obviously the Holy Spirit and Jesus makes that exact identification (John 14:26). The best mental gymnastics you can do is come up with a bunch of ad hoc nonsense about the corruption of scripture or something lol. It's such a laughably bad argument that you end up pushing people away from Islam than towards it. Anyway, why don't you give examples so I can embarrass you further and body slam your silly little arguments further if I have time tonight. > Begging the question, your canon could be the one that is fallible here lol. Nothing tells us that your collection of books is somehow better than another. There's nothing magical about what your church has decided to useMy argument does not rely on the divine inspiration of the New Testament. I'm not even sola scriptura. I instead made a historical case. Perhaps read what I wrote. Perhaps learn about abduction and the historical method.
>>18700332The hijab only works in some regions. Imagine having to wear one in subsaharan Africa with the heat. If God was real, being the smartest being in the universe, he would prefer that people learn about science than wasting time praying 5x a day and the quran even contains advice not to overstay at muhammads (piss be upon him) house and that he can have like 9 wives but other muslims can only have 4.Seriously how can people believe this? you think the smartest being in existence would think it was essential to include advice not to overstay at the house of a man who would die shortly but the message is eternal and unchanging? well that is now irrelevant.The quran cant even solve basic fractions. Muslims think they are following Gods commands but they are following the whims of some arabian illiterate rapist pedophile retard who died 1400 years ago.
>>18700260
>>18700376>The quran cant even solve basic fractionsAlgebra was invented because of the QuranAnyway here's your retarded book. Please explain to me how a friday night thru sunday morning is 3 days and 3 nights. Go ahead
>>18700523I hope you posted this ironically to make Muslims look dumb. The verse literally has nothing to do with Muhammad and the context of the verse is the bride praising her beloved, which is Solomon (or Israel praising Yahweh and the Church praising Jesus Christ on the analogical level). It's literally nothing more than a descriptive and is used several other times in the Hebrew Bible in entirely other contexts that also literally have absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam whatsoever. If this was a proper name you'd think translations of the text would render is as such but LITERALLY NONE DO. The LXX for example translates it one to one from the Hebrew to the Greek as ἐπιθυμία (literally "desirable"), and the Vulgate too renders it in the Latin as desiderabilis. You are actually either mentally challenged or just plain lying if you think this verse at all has anything to do with Muhammad.>B-B-BUT THEY SHARE THE SAME ROOTOk!? And!? This is how semitic languages work, literally hundreds of different words can be derived from the same root across semitic languages and can mean completely different things. Actually this is literally just how languages work in general. Like you are dumb if you think this is about Muhammad. You are just dumb. Your reasoning basically amounts to nothing but>HUUR DURR IT KINDA LOOKS LIKE MUHAMMAD'S NAME S-SO IT MUST BE HIM HUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIt's just one big association fallacy. >A kinda resembles B therefore A is B! HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWow, splendid reasoning. Fantastic. Muslims have truly demonstrated their incomparable genius. Wow.
>>18700370You don't, you like to throw a million different poorly researched claims you copy pasted from youtube apologists like Shamoun in the hope that they won't get answered. And they won't be because I am not wasting my time with someone that cannot even actually present a point of failure here for each of them. Instead you're complaining about your God having shitty incomplete and contradictory standards while being confused whether you're performing an internal or an external critique. If you asked me these two questions I can instantly answer how NT Jesus gets disqualified despite not believing in the NT. In fact I can do it like the Jews did too when they rejected the supposed Messianic prophecies the NT authors invented or misunderstood. >Well your exegesisWhat's my exegesis? Since you want to go with this one let's focus on this>the corruption of scriptureThis is a fact, only indoctrinated retards disagree>My argument does not rely on the divine inspiration of the New TestamentFirst off I never said anything about you being sola scriptura. But this sill assumes your canon and denomination to be authoritative and any tradition that is not found within it simply cannot have happened. As if we have all forgotten how your Church oppressed any group that disagreed with it lol. Many of which only found refuge in places distant to Rome such as Arabia. You're resorting to conspiracy theories that requires the author of the Quran to have a library of all these random works but somehow not know what the most mainstream versions of these religions were teaching. That's with the prophet being surrounded by Christians and Jews, not just commoners but Rabbis and Monks as well. Many of the claims the Quran makes are also not found in any existing tradition so where did he got it from? Making it up increases the risk that he'd be wrong
>>18700559>saying this while christkeks cope with Netzer and Nazarenelmao
>>18700538The bible is slightly less retarded than the quran but not by a lot. Here is the explanation. The book comes from ancient jews who were not very educated and it is not inspired by God. The religions of Christianity and Judaism are just as false as Islam.
>>18700538Algebra was invented in pagan India
>>18700264>>18700267Also, the Quran copies from several segments of the Talmud because Muhammed was a fucking idiot who apparently couldn’t fucking distinguish it from the Torah. He also thought that the central text of Christianity was a singular gospel from Jesus himself. Muslims of course cope with the lack of evidence for this singular Gospel by claiming the original Gospel was lost even though there’s no evidence this mystery text ever existed. There are no mentions or quotations of it in any text nor have any manuscripts have been found, which blatantly contradicts the Quran’s claim that it was still available and widely known to Christians in the 7th century.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_IslamMuhammed simply had a horrendous understanding of how Jews and Christians actually view their religious texts and this phenomenon continues today hence why so many Muslim apologists have unironically claim “Christian scriptures are in Greek rather than the Aramaic Jesus spoke, therefore it’s corrupted and unreliable”.
>>18700376You haven't answered my question Why should God not care about us ants? You're thinking of this like a human being with a limited attention span who can only do so much>The hijab only works in some regions.It doesn't it works everywhere. I can't believe you'd bring up the heat point as Mecca and Medina weren't surrounded by deserts and suffer from intense heat.>you can only do muh hecking science or pray 5x a dayFalse dichotomy>b-but prophet's had special privilegesand obligations such as mandatory extra prayers, not being able to take charity, etc>advice not to overstay at the house of a manYou seriously can't see how this can be used to teach people to behave towards others? Are you genuinely that stupid?>fractionsAnd here's another idiot who hasn't looked into how the scholars have understood it. Hint it's similar to how debts are split in modern systems
>>18700561>you like to throw a million different poorly researched claimsLike what exactly? >What's my exegesis?Nothing very good, that's for sure. >This is a fact, only indoctrinated retards disagreeI mean Muslims are the ones here throwing around religious polemics developed after the Quran even became standardized and they came into contact with Jews and Christians and began realizing their messages contradicted that of the Qur'an so they had to ad hoc make up a religious polemic about textual corruption (which is an extremely loaded term btw) and had to scapegoat a few figures like Ezra and St. Paul. It's funny because early Muslims exegetes actually had a fairly positive view towards Paul at first (see this article https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/) but only later on did they decide to scapegoat him as a corrupter of the faith to counter orthodox Christianity. Indeed, there's nothing in the Quran which say Paul or anybody corrupted the Bible and there may be a veiled positive reference to Paul in the Quran itself (Surah 36:13-14). Muslims also scapegoated the prophet Ezra as the corrupter of the Torah to polemicize against Jews at one point, but they reversed their position whereas for Paul this didn't get reversed see: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/polemics-muslim-jewish-polemics. Here's an excerpt:
>>18700561>Unlike the Qurʾān, Ibn Ḥazm argues, the Hebrew scriptures are devoid of data on reward and punishment in the life to come. Yet the Qurʾān itself refers to biblical revelation, especially to that of Moses. How is this possible? Because, he claims, there was a true revelation of the divine word to Moses, but it was not preserved. The numerous civil strifes, wars, invasions, and defeats in ancient Israel destroyed not merely the Hebrew kingdoms but also their archives and with them, the scriptures, which went up in flames. There was no continuous tradition of learning. Indeed, there was merely one copy of the scriptures remaining in the hands of the priests, who knew only chapters, fractions of it. In Babylon, Ezra the priest concocted the Hebrew scriptures from remnants of the revelation as it was remembered by other priests and from his own additions.>Here Ezra is denounced as a master of deception lacking reason and conscience (as well as a knowledge of arithmetic). Yet, Ibn Ḥazm points out, it was Ezra who shaped the new religion during the Babylonian captivity by substituting the synagogue service for the ruined Temple of Solomon. Since the days of Moses, he says, Deuteronomy 32 (Haʾazinu, The Song of Moses) is the only chapter of the Hebrew scriptures that has been taught to the people, and even this chapter is replete with passages that cannot be of divine origin, such as verses 20–22: "God is their father." Anyone who knows the Jews, continues our author, knows they are a filthy and witless rabble, repulsive, vile, perfidious, cowardly, despicable. Hence Muslims should seek guidance about the children of Israel not from the Ezra-produced scripture but from the Quran.No modern Muslim would say this about Ezra though, he's a prophet to them. But, as we see, scapegoating random Biblical figures as the corrupter of the "true scriptures" is a common Muslim rhetorical tactic.
>>18700561>But this sill assumes your canon and denomination to be authoritative and any tradition that is not found within it simply cannot have happened.Again I never assumed anything about the inspiration of the NT in my original argument. It's purely historical, please read again here >>18700264 >>18700267>As if we have all forgotten how your Church oppressed any group that disagreed with it lol. Well that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Arians also oppressed orthodox at one point when they had control over the Roman government. Hence why Athanasius was exiled several times. This isn't new. And certainly it's not anything to be proud of. But it's irrelevant. Orthodox Muslims persecute deviant sects of their religion all the time lol. Look at what Sunnis and Shia have done to one another throughout history. >You're resorting to conspiracy theories that requires the author of the Quran to have a library of all these random works but somehow not know what the most mainstream versions of these religions were teaching. I didn't argue that please read my original post. I can tell you didn't actually read it. Anyway you seem very emotionally driven and not logically driven. Typical, Muslims are low IQ.
>>18700605You're doing the exact same thing here where you're dumping every crap argument you've heard from your apologists. wow you're really exited to try them out all at once huh? Still no mention how the prophet fails the standard set by your God. Concession accepted!>makes claims about my exegesis>can't actually provide what he thinks it islmao>I mean Muslims are the onesIf Islam didn't exist people would still know that your books are corrupted and anonymous you massive retard. Do you not know that your own scholars say this? And I am not even talking about modern scholarship here, your church Fathers and writers accused the Jews with tampering of the scripture. But even if they didn't all one has to do is look at the massive gaps sometimes present between your authoritative documents. This has nothing to do with Paul or Ezra, Paul only corrupted Jesus' teachings by claiming he has the one true gospel compared to the actual apostles. But that's about it. Anyway it seems you simply cannot defend your religion without involving muslims.>>18700608>I never didExcept you did that is the literal underlying premise of your whole argument. Any deviation from your canon and tradition = bad>Well that's entirely irrelevant to the discussionIt is because it explains exactly why traditions using different texts were often suppressed and had to find refuge in remote places outside direct influence from your oppressive orthodoxy>I didn't argue that please read my original postYou can keep repeating it to yourself but again it's quite funny how Christians have to come up with secret massive Arabian libraries that somehow contain everything but the most common things Christians were taught.
>>18700692>You're doing the exact same thing here where you're dumping every crap argument you've heard from your apologists.You addressed none of the arguments.>Still no mention how the prophet fails the standard set by your God.1. I've already addressed Deuteronomy 18:21-22 here >>187003702. You haven't provided any evidence that Muhammad meets your own standards. The burden is on you to show that Muhammad is a prophet. I think I've sufficiently met my burden on how Muhammad is not a prophet in that I have demonstrated how he is neither in the scriptures, and I have demonstrated, or at the very least very plausibly shown, how the Quran is a fallible human document.
>>18700692>If Islam didn't exist people would still know that your books are corrupted and anonymous you massive retard. Do you not know that your own scholars say this? And I am not even talking about modern scholarship here, your church Fathers and writers accused the Jews with tampering of the scripture. But even if they didn't all one has to do is look at the massive gaps sometimes present between your authoritative documents. This has nothing to do with Paul or Ezra, Paul only corrupted Jesus' teachings by claiming he has the one true gospel compared to the actual apostles. But that's about it. Anyway it seems you simply cannot defend your religion without involving muslims.You accuse me of a conspiracy and then want to pander your own as if there was this generation wide, concerted effort to take the original form of the scriptures and subvert them. This is problematic for several reasons:1. It misunderstands how Jews and Christians view the scriptures. Nobody thinks the Bible is like the Quran. Nobody thinks there was a hand delivered document given to us by God. The closest you may even get to something like that is maybe the Ten Commandments, but even then it's still apples and oranges. There was no "ur-text" as Muslims like to imagine to corrupt in the first place. The Bible =/= Quran. You're assuming the framework you have for the Quran applies to the Bible. It does not. It's apples and oranges.
>>187006922. Second you are approaching this issue entirely from an Islamic polemical perspective. Not a neutral one. So don't you dare pretend like you have the high ground or anything or that your perspective somehow represents that of academic scholarship. It doesn't. And it certainly doesn't support your claims about the text. Textual criticism has been applied to the Quran as well and it doesn't bode well for Islam. E.g. the examples of the apocryphal stories in the Quran. Do you want me to get the revisionist school of thought in here now too? Pic rel. Your polemic is fundamentally based on a category mistake. The presence of textual variants (the vast VAST majority of which are extremely minor like word order or spelling differences or what have you) do not imply "corruption" on the scale you so desperately want it, no, NEED it to be to make your silly little religion true. All it implies is that different editions of the text existed. And that's okay. Unless you're a Biblical literalist, this doesn't pose a huge problem. There are only a handful, a minuscule amount, of textual variants between editions and manuscripts that pose serious theological or narrative differences. Of these variants, most Bible translations today FOOTNOTE these, or append them, or sometimes simply remove them from the text altogether. Jews and Christians are well aware of them, and actively highlight them to let fellow believers know about them. You're simply lying and being dishonest by accusing us of engaging in fowl play.
>>187006923. I do concede that there have been polemical disputes (and in some instances continue to be polemical disputes) about variations between the texts between Jews and Christians, or even sometimes among Christians. But, once again, and I reiterate: these textual variants that pose significant theological or narrative differences make up a very VERY small minority of textual variants. On top of that, textual criticism has simply revealed that the Biblical text as we know it was fluid FROM THE START, and again... That's perfectly fine. NOBODY THINKS THE BIBLE IS THE QURAN. Only Fundamentalist Protestants and anti-missionary Jews seem to actually have an issue with this. NOBODY ELSE DOES. Any of the early disputes between textual variants were largely between emerging polemical parties. Outside of some more polemically minded individuals today, these disputes have largely ceased as we've gained a greater understanding of how the text of the Bible developed. Yes, the Bible DEVELOPED. There was no "ur-scripture" like your shit for brains prophet thought because he completely misunderstood what the Bible even is. It's not the Qur'an. It didn't fall from the sky. Nobody thinks that and historically nobody thought that, even Biblical literalists do not think this. Your polemic carries zero serious force to it accept maybe against ultra-literalists, and even then it doesn't completely work because your entire framework is still rejected even by them.
>>18700692It's not worth responding to any of your other responses since they have no meaningful content to respond to. You've basically conceded that you have no responses to any of the original arguments I've presented.
>>18700590>Muslims of course cope with the lack of evidence for this singular Gospel by claiming the original Gospel was lostthat's so last year. the new cope is that Tatian's Diatessaron was *the* gospel in Syria until the beginning of the fifth century when it was suppressed by the byzantines, and that Muhammad refers to this state of affairs.
>>18700692The burden of proof is on you to:1. Show me anywhere in the history of Christianity or Judaism that it was believed a prophet like Muhammad would arise or that the narratives Muslims give about the Abrahamic connection to Mecca are present.2. Show me how Muhammad or the Quran demonstrate genuine divine inspiration that isn't question begging or reliant on shitty e-Muslim apologetics.3. Show me a massive, organized, centuries wide conspiracy to corrupt an original ur-text that was originally believed to be handed down from God directly to a prophet in the way Muslims believe that the Quran was given to Muhammad and which the Quran claims is also the case for the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel without relying on petty, cherry picked, minor variants of the text that imply nothing about your framework. Prove that your framework of scripture is correct in the first place, basically, since this is the assumption Muslims are working off of. 4. Show me where the Quran even claims the Bible is corrupted in the first place or that someone like Paul or Ezra corrupted the Bible and/or original revelation of God. Oh wait... you can't.
>>18699761Mashallah brother. May god guide you towards jannah
>>18700753>6 fucking replies and he still admits that he's not respondingGish gallop king, no wonder members of your cult popularized this dishonest tactic. You want me to address your ramblings when you can't even provide an example for the two criteria according to your God? Don't forget you were the one who made the original unjustified claim here >>18699816 and I made a counter claim asking for evidence in the pic and post text. I just don't get it if Islam is such a false religion you surely can provide 1 thing but you can't lol. Ask me the same question and it's easy to invalidate your religion according to biblical standards. I'll go briefly over your nonsense>I've addressedYou just ignored the question making your God look like a fool for giving you that standard>I have demonstratedNope you just made irrelevant claims about some muslims and presupposed the authority of your specific set of traditions. None of this is what the bible even uses as a criteria. It can't meet it anyway>generation wide concerted effort to take the original form of the scriptures and subvert themThat's not even what I said. Your own people believe it was intentionally corrupted at certain times though>1Yes I am aware you believe that it's just the writings of random men and not to the same level as the Quran, it's obvious that it cannot be defended on the same level so you're forced to do this>2Everything I am using is backed by mainstream secular scholarship. Which has absolutely decimated your random collection of text and even your tradition>3Great so if even Christians and Jews make the claim that your texts are corrupted why are you buttmad that Muslims make the same claim? Especially so when we can clearly see that independent of any religious claim it's absolute fact that not only has it changed, but it has done so to support theological positions>you can'tI can once you provide the two requested criteria you believe were revealed to a prophet of God.
>>18699761Congrats on your reversion brother I'll pray Allah continues guiding you into rightneousness amin
>>18699761>I converted to Islam>instant seethe
>>18701006>Gish gallop king, no wonder members of your cult popularized this dishonest tacticStill using words you don't know, Ahmed. >You want me to address your ramblings when you can't even provide an example for the two criteria according to your God?You haven't provided a single example where Muhammad meets the criteria of Deuteronomy 18 anyway lol. What, do you want me to give you an example of a failed prophecy by Mo the pedophile? I have better things to do than spend hours researching retarded things your pedophile did but if you're so adamant on proof that your pedophile warlord prophet didn't meet your criteria then here (https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/false_prophecies.htm). Address the things in the article (you won't lol). I've already explained that Deuteronomy 18:21-22 doesn't give a comprehensive list of how to tell a true prophet from a false prophet lol. Jesus says we will know prophets by their fruits (Matthew 7:15). What are the fruits of Muhammad? Well one of them is lying since clearly he lifted obviously late and non-historical apocrypha and talmudic stories and inserted them into the Quran as if they were historical. No, I'm not relying on the inspiration of the NT here. That's irrelevant. We're looking at the accuracy and inspiration of the Quran on its own terms apart from the veracity of Judaism and Christianity and, as I demonstrated here through a simple abductive historical argument, >>18700264>>18700267, that the Quran appears to be a fallible human document and not divine in origin. Prove the divine inspiration of the Quran. Give me one single reason to believe the Quran is inspired.
>>18701006>Yes I am aware you believe that it's just the writings of random men and not to the same level as the Quran, it's obvious that it cannot be defended on the same level so you're forced to do thisTo the contrary it's evident you cannot defend Quranic claims about the nature of Jewish and Christian revelation because your pedophile prophet was dumb as hell and he had no understanding of our respective religions. Your religion is objectively a giant misunderstanding of ours. >Everything I am using is backed by mainstream secular scholarship.LMAO! You haven't provided a single piece of evidence for this. I've already exposed how your unstated assumptions of the nature of scripture have zero support at all. You will not find a single scholar or historian or Jew or Christian or document or tradition anywhere of a proto-Quranic version of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. >corruptAgain that's a loaded word and in the way you use it carries the baggage of your framework of scripture which I completely reject. >I can once you provide the two requested criteria you believe were revealed to a prophet of God.LMFAO! You can't give a single example! That's because the Quran doesn't teach the Bible is corrupted or that the original revelation of the Jews and Christian is corrupted, it teaches the exact opposite (Surah 5:44-47, Surah 4:163). Your entire religion gets completely ass fisted by the Islamic Dilemma which not a single Muslim has ever been able to give a good response to. I love humiliating Muslims. You are just so dumb. All Muslims have low IQs. All. No exception.
>>18700264Many Christians also view the Bible as the literal and direct word of God.
>>18701170Christians do not believe the Bible is the direct hand delivered verbatim speech of God like Muslims believe the Quran to be. Not even literalists think this. I reject literalism anyhow so arguments against literalism do not refute my position.
>>18701006Uh oh Ahmed, looks like your narrative of the Quran doesn't stand up to scholarly scrutiny: >By now I hope it is sufficiently clear that the pretense of unanimity regarding ʿUthmān’s collection of the Qur’an is not only deceptive but false. The Islamic tradition instead reports a tangle of conflicting and disjointed memories about the origins of the Qur’an rather than anything remotely approaching unanimity. In effect, the Qur’an’s production is seemingly assigned, almost at random, to one of the first three caliphs. The purpose of such attributions, in the Islamic collective memory, is to validate the Qur’an as an accurate record of Muhammad’s revelation, as preserved and authorized by a close follower and early authority in the community. It is particularly important, in this regard, that the collection should have been accomplished by such a figure as close in time to Muhammad’s death as possible, in order to offer a guarantee of the written text’s verbal fidelity to what Muhammad taught. Thus Burton rightly concludes of the data from the Islamic tradition, "The reports are a mass of confusions, contradictions and inconsistencies. By their nature, they represent the product of a lengthy process of evolution, accretion and 'improvement.' They were framed in response to a wide variety of progressing needs... The existence of such reports makes it clear that the Muslims were confused. The earliest stage of the traditions on the collection of the Qur'an did consist in incompatible attributions of the first collection to Abū Bakr, to Umar, to Uthman."
>>18701006>Likewise, de Prémare similarly judges that the information coming from the Islamic tradition exhibits “such variation among the reports that each one seems to reflect later circumstances rather than the fact that it is alleged to relate." What we find, then, in the reigning Nöldekean-Schwallian paradigm ultimately amounts to nothing more than the endorsement of one particular Sunni view of the Qur’an’sorigins from the ninth century, at the expense of these other traditions and without sufficient critical engagement with the complexity and contradictions of these reports. Thus, we can only agree with Claude Gilliot’s sound assessment that because the misadventures detailed about the transmission and codification of the Quran-as both orally delivered and transmitted in writing-are so great,the ancient Muslim narratives on these subjects offer no real clarity about what "Uthmanic codex" means. Secondly, even if Muslims believe that the Quran we have now is the "Uthmanic codex" our analysis of Muslim narratives on the matter does not leave us with the same certainty. Therefore, despite the easy consensus on these issues imagined by most scholars of early Islam, the traditional Sunni version of the Qur’an’s origins does not merit the scholarly assent it has habitually garnered.(Shoemaker Stephen, Creating the Quran, pg. 31-32)
>>18701162>pedophile prophetEnough about the nailed zionist KIKE you deem as as zombie mangod, creep loved diddling little boys as seen by the loathsome bible
>>18701219You literally believe your own prophet touched a kid.
>>18701224Wrong Judeochristian mangod was a transvestite homosexual who diddled little boys as seen by the books of matthew, judeochristian holiest apostle (Paul) also enjoyed BDSM sessions with demons using barbed dildos
>>18699761Notice how as soon as this thread was posted, Islamic hate threads, I left Islam threads, instantly pick up.so pathetic
>>18701155No Pablo I am using words you don't understand. You simply can't help yourself but to bring up everything under the sun. So much so you have started spamming the board with your own threads because OP's conversion made you so buttmad >confirms he doesn't have anything so he points me to more retarded Shamounian nonsenseNotice how you cannot even pick one thing and instead you're pointing me to your wife beating rapist retard. As if his idiocy hasn't been responded to https://web.archive.org/web/20250613071049/https://answering-christianity.com/rebuttal_false_prophecies.htm>I've already explainedNothing other than the fact that you disagree with the standard of your God. Even the supporting verses you used didn't work to prove it's not sufficient>I'm not relying on the inspiration of the NT hereSaying that right after using a verse from the NT? Anyway yes you are, your criteria for establishing whether a report is reliable is just whether it agree with the tradition of your particular flavor of Christianity at the end of the day.>b-but the Apocrypha and the Oral Torah don't agree with my texts bro!lmao your own books cite other works that don't exist in your canon including pagan philosophy and poetry. Jesus himself makes talmudic arguments
>>18701162>black stoneRight like the one your book used to forgive sins with? And there you go you're literally following your christard apologist script. Dumping everything you think you have against Islam no matter how irrelevant it is. What a sad and pathetic individual. All of this to avoid answering according to the standard set by Deuteronomy>the nature of Jewish and Christian revelation You people cannot even agree with this among yourselves.>Rabbinic tradition's understanding is that all of the teachings found in the Torah (both written and oral) were given by God through the prophet Moses, some at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah that exists today. According to the Midrash, the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation.[4] Do you believe this? Yes or No>proto-Quranic version of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel.What the fuck does that even mean lol? If you think the Quran was speaking about 4 biographies of Jesus as the Gospel you're completely mistaken, it's more like how Jesus was using the word in the bible."But there is nothing in Islam to tell us whether this Gospel was written and compiled at the time of ‘Isa (peace be upon him) or who wrote it, or who preserved it and disseminated it, or whether the Messiah taught it to the people orally or whether the disciples transmitted it and who believed in it, or whether some of it was written down and some was not. These are questions that we cannot answer for certain nowadays, rather some researchers deny that there was even a true Gospel that was compiled in the form of a book; rather it was just words that were transmitted" - https://islamqa.info/en/answers/85280/does-the-original-gospel-exist-today>loaded word Nope! It's very simple to understand the concept of corruption you require no particular religious framework
>>18701162>muh christarded dilemmaNobody cares about the Shamounian tafsir of those verses. It's absolute fact that early Muslims believed your book was corrupted. Granted it's not all of them but the overwhelming majority did believe this. The Quran itself tells you Christians to follow its rules making it authoritative even legalistically over your scriptures. Scriptures which were only meant for a specific group of people instead of all humanity like the Quran. And if we apply the exact same logic to you and the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-3) you are forced to assume that Jesus was affirming even their corrupted teachings here. You could be charitable and not require an absolute confirmation of course or remain retarded and shoot yourself in the foot. It's way worse for you since your godman requires you to follow EVERYTHING they teach you.>humiliatingYou're only doing that to yourself. Imagine thinking you are superior when you worship a man with cock and balls. And he will have them forever as per your idol's words in the video here >>18700163>rest of the revisionist orientalist nonsenseYes it's a nice attempt to try and shift the conversation away from the fact that your bible is corrupted according to your own people. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Don't forget "Until the early 1970s, non-Muslim Islamic scholars generally accepted the traditional narrative—excluding the divine source—in its entirety.[81][41]" and that retard even in his own book admits he is still the minority fighting "the ossified credence in the canonical Sunni narrative of the Qur’an’s composition—particularly as rearticulated by Nöldeke and Schwally—that has stultified progress in the academic study of the Qur’an’s origins for over a century now". Essentially you have to resort to fringe retards while everything I say about your bible is the mainstream position and it's even approved by Christian scholars.
>>18701224Nope she said she was a woman and you as a critic of our tradition should reject the reports completely https://islamicorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LITTLE-The-Hadith-of-Aishahs-Marital-Age.pdf However you believe your godman decided to enter a 12yo, the same godman who ordered the raping of children and even took 32 for himself as per Numbers 31:40 This is the same godman who forcefully marries raped girls forever to their rapist.
>>18701697>So much so you have started spamming the board with your own threads because OP's conversion made you so buttmadUh oh Ahmed, you're getting quite emotional there. lol>As if his idiocy hasn't been responded toAnd responses to Sam have responses lol (https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/failedprophecies1.htm https://www.answeringislam.org/Responses/Azmy/failedprophecies3.htm). What makes anything Mo did different from someone like Joseph Smith, who Mormons also argue made prophecies just like your prophet, and that they came true? This is where Islam, like all false religions, falls down the shitter. You cannot give a single good case for Islam that cannot also be made for any other false religion. Did Muhammad rise from the dead? Did Muhammad conquer death and hell and reign supreme as Lord over the cosmos. Give me the case for your religion, because a few cherry picked supposed "prophecies" that are vague as shit don't prove anything whatsoever. What makes your religion unique? >You people cannot even agree with this among yourselves.Well neither can Mudshits, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranic_createdness>Do you believe this? Yes or NoI'm not opposed to the idea that there was an oral Torah. It's not an inherently mutually exclusive thing with Christianity it's literally just irrelevant. Do I believe the Orthodox Jewish understanding of the oral Torah wholesale? No, not necessarily. Do I believe the oral Torah was infallible? Absolutely not. It lacks the sacramental character present in the teachings of the Church. It's qualitatively different.
>>18701697>>18701710>>18701749>https://islamqa.info/en/answers/85280/does-the-original-gospel-exist-todayLMAO! Nice reversal of the orthodox Mudshit position: https://countercurrents.org/2025/05/the-authenticity-of-the-injeel-gospel-in-the-quranic-portrayal/Of course the only reason you have to do this is because you KNOW that there is a contradiction between current orthodox Pisslamic accounts of Judeo-Christian scripture and what the Quran (shit be upon it) actually says about Jewish-Christian scripture. The Quran is clear in how it views the Torah, Psalms, and Gospel. You can only cope.
>>18701697>>18701710>>18701749>It's absolute fact that early Muslims believed your book was corrupted. Lol nope! Caught in your lies again and shit e-Mudshit Pisslamic apologetics Ibn Abbas says:>"By the Mount and an Inscribed Book" (52:1-2): Qatada said that "mastur" means "written". "Yasturun" (68:1) means "they inscribe", and the Umm al-Kitab (43:4) is the whole of the Qur'an and its source. [He said that] "ma talfizu" (50:18) means: "He does not say anything but that it is written against him." Ibn 'Abbas said, "Both good and evil are recorded," and "yuharrufuna" (4:46) means "they remove". No one removes the words of the books of Allah, but they twist them, interpreting them improperly. "Dirasatihim: (6:156) means "their recitation" "Wa'iyya" (69:12) is preserving, "ta'iha" (69:12) means to "preserve it". "This Qur'an has been revealed to me by inspiration that I may warn you," meaning the people of Makka, "and all whom it reaches"(6:19) meaning this Qur'an, so he is its warner. (Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, 100. Book of Tawhid)Ibn Kathir, comments: >Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can removed the words of God from their books, they alter and distort their meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil remains as God revealed them and no letter in them is removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves." Then, As for Allah’s books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147)
>>18701697>>18701710>>18701749>Essentially you have to resort to fringe retards while everything I say about your bible is the mainstream position and it's even approved by Christian scholars.LOL! You want to talk about the mainstream position of scholars? Let's talk about the mainstream position of scholars on what the Quran (shit be upon it) says about the Jewish and Christian scriptures: "I don’t think that the Quran supports this later post-Qur'anic Islamic idea of textual corruption in the deep past. So, I mean, I think there are some verses in the Quran - like in Surah al-Baqarah, I think 75-79 - here the ahl al-kitāb, probably the local Israelites or Jews, are accused of writing things with their own hands and then claiming that to be God’s word. So that could be read as a form of, I guess, textual falsification. But clearly the Quran doesn’t assume that the original authoritative version of these scriptures is irretrievable - that the damage was done centuries ago and is basically unrecoverable now. I think there’s a lot in the Quran that contradicts that. So in Surah 5, when the ahl al-injīl are asked to judge by what’s in the injīl, I mean, it wouldn’t make sense if the injīl were incorrigibly corrupted."- Sinai, Oasis of Wisdom interview, 17:54-18:49>"I mean, there’s a very nice article by my friend and esteemed colleague Gabriel Reynolds about taḥrīf in the Quran. And he’s basically trying to argue - I think he's successful, mostly - in arguing that what the Quran understands by "shifting words from their places," your taḥrīf, is not, or not primarily, textual corruption - it's misunderstanding." - Sinai, Oasis of Wisdom interview, 22:42-23:04
>>18701697>>18701710>>18701749Verse 5:41 begins with a strong polemical tone, linking the Jews (here referred to as alladhīna hādū) with al-kufr, disbelief: "Messenger, do not be grieved by those who race to surpass one another in disbelief (al-kufr) – those who say with their mouths, ‘We believe’, but have no faith in their hearts, and the Jews who listen eagerly to lies and listen to another group (qawm ākharīn) who has not even met you, who distort (yuḥarrifūna) the meanings of words (al-kalām)." This and similar verses were later interpreted in Islamic exegesis as evidence that the Jews and Christians have distorted or forged their scriptures. This is unlikely to have been the original import of the text: the Qurʾān says nothing of the falsification of Jewish and Christian scriptures, only that the Jews and Christians distorted their interpretation. Besides, 5:41 does not necessarily say that the Jews were the ones who ‘distort (yuḥarrifūna) the meanings of words’ but that the Jews listen to another group (qawm ākharīn) who does that, as the text could also be interpreted. Who comprised this qawm ākharīn is unclear, but the most probable interpretation is that they were not Jewish (if they were, why would they be mentioned as ‘another group’ beside the Jews?). Moreover, it should be asked whether the phrase yuḥarrifūna al-kalām in this verse actually refers to divine discourse (and, hence, scripture) or whether a more mundane form of speech is meant.Ilkka Lindstedt, "Surah 5 of the Qurʾān: The Parting of the Ways?"
>>18701697>>18701710>>18701749>In order to understand what the Qur'an means by yuḥarrifūna l-kalima ʿan mawādiʿihi, one might begin with the literal sense of mawāḍiʿ (sing, mawdi') 'places' (and not 'meanings', which might represent mawāḍiʿ [sing, mawḍūʿ]) and the primary meaning of the root ḥ-r-f 'to move; to turn'.16 In classical Arabic the noun ḥarf means 'letter', a meaning that undoubtedly suggested to medieval Muslim scholars that with yuḥarrifūna the Qur'an is concerned with an alteration of the very words of revelation. But 'letter' seems to be a secondary meaning of ḥarf, the primary meaning being 'extremity, verge, border, margin, brink, brow, side, or edge'.'17 The only occurrence of ḥarf in the Qur'an (22:11: man yaʿbudu llāha ʿalā ḥarfin) '18 evidently matches this primary meaning. In other words, there is no compelling reason to associate Qur'anic taḥrīf with an alteration of letters. Instead, the phrase yuḥarrifūna l-kalima ʿan mawādiʿihi seems to involve turning or shifting words out of their places or contexts. In other words, the Qur'an intends scriptural falsification that involves reading or explaining scripture out of context, not erasing words and rewriting them. Thus we might agree with the point Ignazio di Matteo made in response to Ignaz Goldziher some time ago, that there is no compelling reason to think the Qur'anic idea of taḥrīf involves textual alteration.Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam, 2nd ed (2023), pp. 123–124Gonna 9/11 yourself now, Ahmed? Maybe fuck a goat? OH I KNOW! You're gonna molest a little girl, just like your wonderful and virtuous prophet did, huh!?
>>18701749>You're only doing that to yourself. Imagine thinking you are superior when you worship a man with cock and balls.I'm not the one who thinks God has a literal body, Ahmed. Lmao. Polytheism, much?
>>18699761If you're a shitskin no one caresIf you're white you're a race traitor and will be killed alongside the enemy
>>18700523>>18699824Islam proclaims that the bible and torah are corrupted, therefore invalid. So why do you bring biblical and scriptures from the torah as "evidence" for your pedo prophets schizophrenic episodes being true?
>>18700538>t. stole numbers from the IndiansWhy did allah not teach Arabs the superior numerical system?
>>18700538Jesus died on a Thursday, shitskin. You're confusing real Christianity with the shitskinned perversion of Christianity known as Catholicism. Oh, and your skin is the same color as shit, in case you've forgotten.
>>18701009>>18701030>>18701446
>>18701749>you are forced to assume that Jesus was affirming Brother he's not a christian. He's a histrionic hindu jeet, who pretends to be christian so you won't polemicize his religion.He's a frequent poster on this board. you should save your breath. At some point, it's better admitting you're above interacting with people of this stature.
>>18702121Ah I see now. That explains the unnecessary seethe and chest-thumping, no wonder he doesn't give a damn about the standard set by Deuteronomy for testing prophets since he just believes in his weird cow shit penis idol homosexual rapist demons instead. I'll take your advice there's no substance here anyway and he cannot defend any point. All he's good for is spamming the thread with orientalist nonsense including from known shills like Reynolds (appointed to the Vatican's Dicastery of Interreligious Dialogue by Pope Leo XIV) lol. Thanks for telling me that jazak Allahu khayran
>>18702051A literal harmless hadith expressing punjabis and sindhis praying alongside the prophet that no one interpreted in such a disgusting way until judeochristian perverts learned about it a few months agoJudeochristianity is infested with homosexual degeneracy to the point of Paul enjoying being raped by satanic entities wielding barbed dildosI understand judeochristians are freakish homo perverts (as seen by the current loathsome state of the west) but stop projecting your fetishes onto the ummah
>>18702034>Jesus died on a Thursday... depending on which evangelist you believe, of course.
what I do not understand is this: if muslims think a number of past revelations happened, got codified as scripture and then got corrupted,why do they think this won't happen to islam? (especially how they have a tradition of the quran being changed, parts forgotten, edited and the variants discarded etc.) what is different this time?
>>18702256>The books of the Bible represent the culmination of intricate literary processes spanning multiple generations, with numerous unnamed scribes, compilers, and revisers contributing layers of material over extended periods, contrasting sharply with traditional attributions to singular prophetic or apostolic figures.[1]>Contemporary biblical studies reveals how these texts evolved from communal oral performance through sophisticated scribal workshops of the Second Temple era, subsequently transmitted via manuscript copying networks, transformed by print technology, and refined through modern scholarly editions.>Archaeological discoveries including the Dead Sea Scrolls together with extensive evidence of textual variation across manuscript collections worldwide, provide insight into the complex history of biblical composition and transmission. This evidence suggests that the biblical texts developed through processes of compilation, revision, and transmission, with diverse literary traditions and textual forms contributing to the formation of the biblical books as they were preserved.>The rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud state in a midrash (homiletical interpretation) that God wrote the Torah in heaven in letters of black fire on parchment of white fire before the world was created, and that Moses received it by divine dictation.[2] The early Church Fathers agreed that the scriptures were inspired or dictated by God, but not on which writings were scriptural: as a result, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches treat some books (the Deuterocanonical books or Apocrypha) as inspired, but the Protestant tradition does not.[3]>In the 20th century, the vast majority of Catholic and Protestant theologians moved away from the divine dictation model and emphasized the role of the human authors.[4] Many conservative scholars now accept, for example, that the Book of Isaiah has multiple authors and that 2 Corinthians is two letters joined.[5]
>>18702256So as we can see it's not about what Muslims think, everyone thinks this. The heavenly Torah of the Rabbis which existed before the world began is no longer what the majority of Christians believe in themselves. And speaking of Rabbis they absolutely hated the fuck out of Ezekiel because it contradicts the Pentateuch so much so that they didn't even want it included in their canon. See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-discrepancies-between-the-sacrifices-in-ezekiel-and-the-torah Once you admit to that we can go over why we believe that we differ to them
>>18702256Because uthman destroyed all other variants less than 20 years after mohammad died, and a sizable minority of muslims have memorized the quran
>>18702204>Judeochristianity is infested with homosexual degeneracyUh huh
>>18702750Yes!
>>18702418It is funny when Dawahists or some militant Muslim try to claim that the Quran has been the way it is since day 1. For all we know, Uthman may have thrashed the actual and true Quran along with everyone else's to legitimize his own version of it.
>>18702802"Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa"
>>18702855If the hadiths said so, then it must be true.
>>18702945Right so you use the hadith when it's convenient for you but suddenly when you find out about a detail you don't like then you want to throw that bit out.
>>18699761Larp
>>18699761>sufism>There is nothing but the truthYes :)
>>18699761You should choose the correct flavor of IslamQuranism + Tashayyu + MutazillahCome again
>>18702284>>18702293re-read the question. WHAT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME? I did not ask why do you think the other scriptures were distorted, for all of them were, quran included. I am interested in what must either be a colossal cope or a blind spot of muslims: what did allah remember to do this time to make sure the quran is preserved that he failed to do for previous revelations? (and surely a lot of changes must have happened to the previous revelations to transform the quran as delivered through moses into the torah, or the one by jesus into the mythical single gospel, right?)>>18702418isn't the claim that the distortions happened over time and not just at the beginning?
>>18703735Yes I know that is what you're asking but why are you framing it as just a Muslim claim? That's the odd part. It shows me that you're approaching this from a judeochristian apologist perspective.>isn't the claim that the distortions happened over time and not just at the beginning?nta but yes, and we have very early manuscripts https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/ which have been used to prove our claims
>>18703782>why are you framing it as just a Muslim claim?because it is. it's only muslims who claim that moses, jesus etc. were muslims and established islam but then people distorted their teachings and the scriptures, so allah has sent (gabriel to) muhammad to establish it once again and this time it shall stay. once again you are not answering the question, because the question was NOT why muslims claim older revelations were distorted. the question is how do they explain their belief that this time it will last? what did allah neglect to do the previous times to preserve those previous revelations?
>>18703801See now you are asking a different thing. Originally it was purely about textual corruption and as I have shown you modern Christians no longer believe in the heavenly Torah of the rabbis which they believe was given to Moses. Yes we believe all prophets followed the same religion and we are not unique to this. Jews believe Abraham was not only a Jew but he followed all the 613 mitzvot and the oral Torah. I also answered the question. Extremely early manuscript evidence with the fact that analysis of the text shows "no persuasive evidence of later tampering" should be enough for you. Nothing here assumes our tradition at all. But if you want to get theological then none of the other revelations were meant for all time and they weren't revealed through prophets that were meant for all of humanity. Jesus himself abrogates aspects of the Torah after all. This is not the case with the Quran and the final prophet
>>18703809>Originally it was purely about textual corruptionthis was my original question: >>18702256 I haven't posted in this thread before that. read it and observe that I insist on the exact same thing: WHAT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME? DID ALLAH FINALLY LEARN HIS LESSON?note also that I am an atheist. muslims, christians, jews, all are wrong. trying to counterattack by bringing up christian retardation does not work on me.
>>18703819Okay and I explained to you that observation alone is enough to prove that it is a different situation and that none of the other scriptures were ever meant to survive. The Quran makes it clear that it was the job of human beings to guard the previous scripture while Quran 15:9 God says he will preserve it himself. And we know that they have failed according to the statements of the prophet and companions as well as observed reality. We also know that we have succeeded because again this is simply what the evidence points to>I am an atheist.Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit so you will never be forgiven according to the bible. And tell me what do you think about Hinduism and Buddhism. It's very suspect that an atheist would care about the preservation of judeochristian scripture
>>18703828but there are consequences of that position. did allah not know people will fail to preserve the previous revelations? is he fallible?>Blaspheme against the Holy Spiritfuck the holy spirit with a splintery rake handle>And tell me what do you think about Hinduism and Buddhism.hinduism is shit, always was so. we have lost buddhism, the current versions are retarded animisms; the original might or might not have been shit. happy now? you are just trying to derail the topic with these questions.>It's very suspect that an atheist would care about the preservation of judeochristian scriptureI do not care about it at all. you are being delusional here. I just wanted to see what the muslim cope was, and you delivered the 'allah did not do it right the first N-1 times' version. so tell me, was allah in error all those times or did he intentionally let people lose the revelation he has sent in all seriousness? (for some inscrutable reason, of course.)
نيك الله ونيك امك ونيك كسخت رسولك العرص يا مسلم يا ابن كوم المنايك
>>18699761What made you think it's true that a guy spoke to an angel in a cave 1416 years ago?
>>18704215>hurr did an omniscient being not know>but if bad thing why God no intervene?!?Yes he knew it would happen and it was intentional to entrust them despite that, and?>Ibn Zayd (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The phrase ‘[they] used to hear the Word of Allah (the Tawrah), then they used to change it’ refers to the Tawrah which Allah revealed to them; they changed it, making what it permitted forbidden, and what was forbidden allowed, changing the truth to falsehood and falsehood to truth…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)>Allah also said (interpretation of the meaning): {Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: ‘We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,’ and ‘Hear and let you (Muhammad) hear nothing.’ And Ra’ina [in Arabic this means, ‘Be careful, listen to us and we listen to you,’ whereas in Hebrew it means ‘an insult.’] with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam). And if only they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Do make us understand,’ it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except for a few.} [An-Nisa’ 4:46]It was a test for them and they failed which got them punished. They refused to pray for guidance instead only seeking to mock and insult. They got what they deserved >I don't care about it that's why I keep coming back bro>oh yeah the original buddhism could have been actually super coollmao and as suspected you're some dharmic retard.
>>18704503>It was a test for themwhy does omniscient allah need to test anything? he knows already, doesn't he?
>>18704585That is the definition of omniscience yes. There are many reasons mentioned in the Quran such as>[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allāh after the messengers. And ever is Allāh Exalted in Might and Wise. - Quran 4:165>Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allāh will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars. - Quran 29:2-3Also see: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/123973/why-did-allah-create-us-if-he-knows-everything Do you not realize that your implied proposal to simply skip the test would just be injustice?
What made you think it's true that a guy spoke to an angel in a cave 1416 years ago?What changed when you were not a Muslim?
>>18704787repeating the claim that allah needs to test us does not explain the why. you guys do not actually seem to believe allah is omniscient and omnipotent. when you bring up stuff like 'it would be injustice to ...', you do not realize your own religion implies it's allah who decided what would and what would not be injustice.
Can the knowledgeable islam anon itt explain akbarian sufism to me?
>>18703801>this time it will lastBecause millions of people have memorized the quran in its original arabic, meaning that if someone changed it it would be noticed immediately
>>18705265why did allah not make this happen the first time?
>>18705240Multiple reasons were given you're just a blatant liar, so much so that even you attempted to reply to one of them making your reply nonsensical.>your own religion impliesThis is not what I believe no. It would be a negation of his attributes. But even if you were to claim otherwise then Ibn Taymiyyah explains how it will still not happen
>>18705302>Multiple reasons were given you're just a blatant liar, so much so that even you attempted to reply to one of them making your reply nonsensical.try this again, but with grammar.>This is not what I believe noso allah did not decide what is and isn't injustice? where did the notion come from, then?>ibn Taymiyyahstop arguing by proxy. argue in your own name, with your own words. hint: you cannot.
>>18705306>hurr I hate the way you said it because it ruins my positionI am not going to play games with you. I know you're a dishonest person so no I will back up everything I believe with the words of theologians. Don't like it? Not my problem.>where did the notion come from, then?It's an eternal attribute of God
>>18705290For the same reason God didn't "make it happen" now. It is man's responsibility to remember and adhere to Allah's revelation, not Allah's
