To Muslims: Proof from the Quran that Mohammad/Islam is wrong

pescatarian09 said:

..What Islam vehemently rejects is Jesus' divinity...Islam and Christianity are not so diametrically opposed as some would have you believe.

Click to expand...

Ah, but Christians say Jesus was the son of God, and muslims say "no he wasn't"; and you can't get more diametrically opposed than that, so it's definitely the naughty step for them..
"A liar denies Jesus is the Christ, and is an antichrist" (1 John 2:22/23)

Resistor said:

Very contentious subject, the book itself is likely pseudepigraphical.



Paul's depiction in Acts is also very different from the content of his letters, fundamental issues over some of the same stuff we've already been over. In Acts, Paul claims to follow the Torah, in his letters he claims to be above the Torah and even opposes it.
Either way, Paul is not Jesus and therefore is irrelevant entirely to this thread.

Click to expand...

The problem is that even Jesus testimony of himself is in contradiction with what the Quaran teaches of him. In the Quaran it negates the whole purpose of the cross and that is absolutely everything and of infinite significance in regards to salvation and the new testament.

Tidal said:

Ah, but Christians say Jesus was the son of God, and muslims say "no he wasn't"; and you can't get more diametrically opposed than that

Click to expand...

It helps to know the original Jewish context and meanings of terms like that. All of humanity are children of God as we know, the Bible is very fluid with terminology like that. The Israelites are the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22), even angels were termed "sons of God" in Genesis.
Jesus is obviously the son of Mary.

Lyfe said:

The problem is that even Jesus testimony of himself is in contradiction with what the Quaran teaches of him. In the Quaran it negates the whole purpose of the cross and that is absolutely everything and of infinite significance in regards to salvation and the new testament.

Click to expand...

It isn't, you won't be able to see that until you pay attention to what Jesus says instead of Paul, and looking at what Jesus says through the original Jewish context.

Resistor said:

..Don't generalize Muslims, just don't..

Click to expand...

ALL muslims (men,women,children,terrorists and non-terrorists) are Jesus-rejecters, that's not a generalisation, it's a FACT..

Jesus said- "Whoever's ashamed of me and my words, I'll be ashamed of him" (Mark 8:38 )

Resistor said:

..All of humanity are children of God as we know, the Bible is very fluid with terminology like that. The Israelites are the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22)..

Click to expand...

1- Christianity is quite clear that ONLY CHRISTIANS are children of God-
"What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?..Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters" (2 Cor 6:14-18 )

2- If Jews are the children of God, I'm Mary Poppins!
He may have had their backs in the early days, but after they killed his son I doubt if he's going to cut them any slack at all and they'll go up the spout like all other Jesus-rejecters..

"How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot....it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Bible: Heb 10:29-31)

Resistor said:

It helps to know the original Jewish context and meanings of terms like that. All of humanity are children of God as we know, the Bible is very fluid with terminology like that. The Israelites are the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22), even angels were termed "sons of God" in Genesis.
Jesus is obviously the son of Mary.

Click to expand...

Jesus is referred to as the only begotten son numerous times in the Bible. If it were common then the pharisees wouldnt have laid that as a charge against him and accused him of blasphemy when he confessed to being the son of God. Not only that, but it doesnt make sense to conclude it was common language back then when the Bible always placed so much emphasis on his particular title as the son of God. It was a separate and unique title altogether and the gospels use specific language to illustrate and highlight that.

Is one able to use the epistles of John and Peter here or are they no good too?

What about Jude and James? Or Revelation?

Lyfe said:

Jesus is referred to as the only begotten son numerous times in the Bible. If it were common then the pharisees wouldnt have laid that as a charge against him and accused him of blasphemy when he confessed to being the son of God. Not only that, but it doesnt make sense to conclude it was common language back then when the Bible always placed so much emphasis on his particular title as the son of God.

Click to expand...

You forget that even Luke 3:38 designates Adam (from Genesis 1-3) as being the "son of God" also. It's important to not skip over details like that.

Lyfe said:

Is one able to use the epistles of John and Peter here or are they no good too?

What about Jude and James? Or Revelation?

Click to expand...

They're all just writings people wrote of their opinions. Revelation on the other hand is just a book of Gnosticism.

Lyfe said:

Jesus is referred to as the only begotten son numerous times in the Bible. If it were common then the pharisees wouldnt have laid that as a charge against him and accused him of blasphemy when he confessed to being the son of God. Not only that, but it doesnt make sense to conclude it was common language back then when the Bible always placed so much emphasis on his particular title as the son of God. It was a separate and unique title altogether and the gospels use specific language to illustrate and highlight that.

Click to expand...

Wittingly or not you're a deceiver. Christians make a clown show of Jesus and he'd rebuke you if you lived in his day. You wrongly interpret religious scripture and pronounce distorted eisegeses to fit your (limited) understanding. Those without wisdom should speak less.

Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered;
And in the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,”
It will be said to them,
“You are the sons of the living God.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men."

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6

DavidSon said:

Wittingly or not you're a deceiver. Christians make a clown show of Jesus and he'd rebuke you if you lived in his day. You wrongly interpret religious scripture and pronounce distorted eisegeses to fit your (limited) understanding. Those without wisdom should speak less.

Yet the number of the sons of Israel
Will be like the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered;
And in the place
Where it is said to them,
“You are not My people,”
It will be said to them,
“You are the sons of the living God.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men."

Click to expand...

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Matt 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Matt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

You are deceived if you fail to recognize the special emphasis denoted here on Jesus divinity.

Lyfe said:

Matt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Matt 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Matt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matt 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

You are deceived if you fail to recognize the special emphasis denoted here on Jesus divinity.

Click to expand...

None of that passage even remotely hints at anything to do with divinity. Like he does elsewhere, he is attributing his knowledge to God rather than himself.

As two verses in John 14 explicitly say:

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
John 14:10

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
John 14:28-31


These are Jesus' own words.

This notion of God being in the Prophets and the Prophets being in God is the typical narrative in the Old Testament. They speak not from themselves but God speaks through them. Jesus is no different, he's just the messiah.

Im not going to entertain this thread any longer, because quite plainly in order to deny Jesus divinity you have to throw out the book of acts, hebrews, james, jude, peters epistles, and the book of revelation which is the vast majority of the new testament. The preeminence of Christ is quite plainly laid out in the NT. The purpose of the cross and his death as an offering for sin is quite plainly laid out. We will agree that both the Quaran and the Bible cannot be reconciled.

Lyfe said:

Im not going to entertain this thread any longer, because quite plainly in order to deny Jesus divinity you have to throw out the book of acts, hebrews, james, jude, peters epistles, and the book of revelation which is the vast majority of the new testament.

Click to expand...

The obvious question is why you would give those books more authority than Jesus himself, when he is meant to be your savior. It is as if his words are not important to you, or that you are uncomfortable with what Jesus says.

Lyfe said:

We will agree that both the Quaran and the Bible cannot be reconciled.

Click to expand...

You mean we will disagree?

Regarding who are the "children of god", it'll go something like this when people arrive at the pearlies-

BOUNCER- "Right, all Christians can go straight in, but you Jesus rejecters ain't coming in!"



"Now get on yer bikes and hit that road"

Kung Fu said:

What you're telling me is the Transatlantic Slave Trade had more or similar amount of slaves but in a shorter time period. That makes it worse not better.

It actually doesn't take a lot of research. That's you just deflecting. More slaves and people died from simply transportation. You show me any other slave trade which had as many slaves dying in just transportation alone?

It didn't slow down exactly. What was happening was they were losing power. But as soon as Christians got the power back they enslaved millions in only a few hundred years and killed millions in a few hundred years. Again, show me any other slave trade which killed that many slaves and enslaved that many people in such a short time frame?

"The Atlantic passage (or Middle Passage) was notorious for its brutality and for the overcrowded, unsanitary conditions on slave ships, in which hundreds of Africans were packed tightly into tiers below decks for a voyage of about 5,000 miles (8,000 km). They were typically chained together, and usually the low ceilings did not permit them to sit upright. The heat was intolerable, and the oxygen levels became so low that candles would not burn. Because crews feared insurrection, the Africans were allowed to go outside on the upper decks for only a few hours each day. Historians estimate that between 15 and 25 percent of the African slaves bound for the Americas died aboard slave ships."

Transatlantic slave trade | History & Facts

Transatlantic slave trade, part of the global slave trade that took 10–12 million enslaved Africans to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th century. In the ‘triangular trade,’ arms and textiles went from Europe to Africa, enslaved people from Africa to the Americas, and sugar and coffee from...

www.britannica.com

Click to expand...

It does take a lot of research if you want an honest non biased take on things as opposed to shilling for your religion.

Heres an example: "It didn't slow down exactly. What was happening was they were losing power. But as soon as Christians got the power back they enslaved millions in only a few hundred years and killed millions in a few hundred years."

WHERES YOUR PROOF FOR THIS?

Second, I want to go back to what you said about Byzantines/Persians starting the wars with the Muslims then "crying foul when they lost. You, again, provided zero proof. According to the Muslim sources, Mohammad sent a messenger to the Byzantines, but that messenger was killed by a Christian vassal tribe. However, there was no evidence outside of the Muslim sources, and Im not gonna blindly trust these.

However, we do have historical evidence from Muslim sources on how they expanded outwards. From:


This cites from the book: "The Rightly Guided Caliphs" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi

Abu Bakr presented Khalid with the Hermez’s tiara which was inlaid with gems. Dr. Abu Zayd says the value of the gems amounted to 100,000 dirham (p. 73). After that, the successful, savage invasions continued against other countries which could not repel the forces of Islam. This Azhar scholar tells us that in the battle of Alees which took place on the border of Iraq, Khalid killed 70,000 people! He was so brutal in his attack that the nearby river was mixed with their blood (p. 75).


On p. 77, Dr. Abu Zayd mentions another country which surrendered to Khalid. Khalid demanded that they pay 190,000 dirhams. When he attacked Ayn al-Tamr in Iraq, its people took shelter in one of the fortresses. Khalid laid siege to the fortress and forced them to come out. He killed all of them mercilessly. They had done nothing against him or against the Muslims except that they refused to embrace Islam and to recognize Muhammad as an apostle of God. The Muslims seized all that they found in the fortress along with forty young men who were studying the Gospel. Khalid captured them and divided them among the Muslims (refer to p. 81).


It is well-known that Khalid Ibn al-Walid was a very brutal, vicious man. His relentlessness made ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab ask Abu Bakr to kill him or at least to depose him because he killed another Muslim in order to marry his wife! Abu Bakr did not listen, but when ’Umar became the second caliph, he deposed him immediately This was ’Umar’s opinion about Khalid. Yet, to Muhammad, the prophet of Muslims, Khalid was one of the best among his relatives and warriors.


On page 134, Abu Zayd relates that when Khalid besieged another town called Qinnasrin which belonged to the Byzantine Empire, its people were so afraid that they hid themselves from him. He sent them a message in which he said: "Even if you hide in the cloud, God will lift us up to you or He will lower you down to us." They asked for a peace treaty, but he refused and killed them all. Then he eradicated the town. These are the words of Dr. Abu Zayd which we faithfully relay to you.

Mussies always say that they fought "defensively". Does this sound defensive to you? Does their slaughtering places like Kaibar sound defensive to you? Lol what a joke, I guess conquering all of the Middle East, North Africa, and expanding into central Asia and India was all "defensive".

Kung Fu said:

What you're telling me is the Transatlantic Slave Trade had more or similar amount of slaves but in a shorter time period. That makes it worse not better.

It actually doesn't take a lot of research. That's you just deflecting. More slaves and people died from simply transportation. You show me any other slave trade which had as many slaves dying in just transportation alone?

Click to expand...

Back to the topic of slavery, I got my numbers wrong.

From this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

Author N'Diaye estimates that as many as 17 million people were sold into slavery on the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa, and approximately 5 million African slaves were transported by Muslim slave traders via Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert to other parts of the world between 1500 and 1900.[10] Historian Lodhi challenged N'Diaye's figure saying "17 million? How is that possible if the total population of Africa at that time might not even have been 40 million? These statistics did not exist back then."[11]


The original number I gave from the wiki link was only for Africans: Raymond Mauvy estimates a total of 14 million black slaves were traded in Islam through the 20th Century, including 300,000 for part of the 20th century. (p.57, source: "Les Siecles obsurs de l'Afrique Noire (Paris: Fayard, 1970)]

So the overall numbers should be higher than the Transatlantic. As for treatment:

It was the Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Persians, who originated this infamous practice long before the Europeans began the African slave trade. For one thousand years, they were trading in African people, from the 7th to the 16th centuries. They resumed the practice from the 19th to the 20th centuries, long after the Western nations had abolished this trade.
“The demographic stagnation, the misery, the poverty, and the lack of development in the Dark Continent, are not the only consequences of this commerce, as many people imagine. Actually, the Islamic slave trade in Africa amounted to a planned genocide of Black people. It was a programmed ‘ethnic extinction by castration.’ Thus, the majority of the 17 million Africans who were brought to the Arab-Muslim world and transformed into eunuchs have disappeared, leaving no descendents at all.
“We would like to underline both the early date, and the great dimension of this trans-Saharan traffic that took place in the Eastern world, and to give an account of these forgotten facts. No amount of willful and selective amnesia will ever succeed to cover up the historical fact about the ‘Veiled Genocide.

Click to expand...

the gender ratio of slaves in the Atlantic trade was two males to every female, in the Islamic trade, it was two females to every male," according to Ronald Segal.[38]

Islamic slavery heavily involved sexual domination. The females were forced into sexual relationship a lot of the times, the men were either killed, or the captured ones were genitally mutilated and either died from that. This is why there are so few blacks in Arab countries nowadays, the women interbred, the men were made into eunuchs or killed. This is what masive sexual cukolding looks like.

The last thing you keep ignoring, is the fact that Mohammad's "defensive campaigns" expanded the slave trade massively due to all the captured people they got. This continued up until the the 1900's for a lot of Muslim countries. Some Muslim countries still have had slavery within the past few decades, its still going on in Libya nowadays.