Gospel of Barnabas

Originally posted by ahosyney

In general all Muslims agree on basic belives. There is only one GOD, belive in all prophets including the Prophet Muhammed. Belive that the Quran is the Word of GOD, and agree on the five Pillars.

/b]

What about the sixth pillar of Islam?

Also, you question the gospels as being the word of God, making distinctions between mistakes and misinterpretations, assuming that imperfect human beings would be able to write down the Word of God perfectly, without mistakes. Think about it, God is perfect, His Word is perfect, he charges some humans, who are inherently imperfect, to write it down, resulting in mistakes. By suggesting that the Quran is a perfect interpretation of the Word of God, you are placing its authors on the same level as God himself, which is clearly wrong.

Additionally, you are not so much questioning the validity of the gospels, but the validity of Christianity as a whole. In this way, you are not interested in debate, but are mocking Christianity by essentially saying how can you people base your beliefs on these flawed books. You then proselytise about Islam being an infallible religion. And our society in allows you to make such statements without fear of reprisals or punishment. However should I try to visit that glorious kingdom which guards Islam's most holy site, and happen to carry a bible in my suitcase I face punishment.

I could state here, in the same way, that for me the gospels are the Word of God, and that all other religions and the texts they are based on are clearly wrong. I don't necessarily believe this, biut that's the impression I get you are doing.

But hey, Islam is known for being a humble and tolerant tradition 😉

Originally posted by knightwest
What about the sixth pillar of Islam?

Also, you question the gospels as being the word of God, making distinctions between mistakes and misinterpretations, assuming that imperfect human beings would be able to write down the Word of God perfectly, without mistakes. Think about it, God is perfect, His Word is perfect, he charges some humans, who are inh ...[text shortened]... I get you are doing.

But hey, Islam is known for being a humble and tolerant tradition 😉

What about the sixth pillar of Islam?

What is the sixth pillar of Islam. I don't know it, it you know it then tell me.

Also, you question the gospels as being the word of God, making distinctions between mistakes and misinterpretations, assuming that imperfect human beings would be able to write down the Word of God perfectly, without mistakes.

Yes that is what I belive. And that is a major different between me and you. I don't belive that Holy books are interpretations. They should be the word of GOD. If they have mistaks then they are human made.

Think about it, God is perfect, His Word is perfect, he charges some humans, who are inherently imperfect, to write it down, resulting in mistakes.

Don't you think that GOD can give his perfect words. He charged humans (Prophets) to tell us his perfect word. If it has a mistake then it is not the word of GOD. If human change it then it is not the word of GOD.

By suggesting that the Quran is a perfect interpretation of the Word of God, you are placing its authors on the same level as God himself, which is clearly wrong.

1 - I belive that Torah is the perfect word of GOD, but humans changed it. So the Torah exists today is not the one given to Mosses by GOD.
2 - I belive that There is a Gospel contain the perfect word of GOD given to Jesus, but it is lost.
3 - And I belive that Quran is the perfect word of GOD. No human is involved in it. It is not interpretation. If it has a mistake I will not belive in it.

the word of GOD has nothing to do with human, and if humans involved then it will not be the word of GOD.

Additionally, you are not so much questioning the validity of the gospels, but the validity of Christianity as a whole. In this way, you are not interested in debate, but are mocking Christianity by essentially saying how can you people base your beliefs on these flawed books. You then proselytise about Islam being an infallible religion.

I don't think it makes a big difference, questioning the books is the same as questioning christianity. That doesn't mean I don't want to debate, This is not my first time to talk about Christinity, and you are not the first one to talk with me about.

I think if I have a question about Christianity, then I should ask it, and if you have a question about Islam you can ask it. As long as we respect each other. I have answered many questions here about Islam. And I'm excpecting my questions to be answered. You can review my posts to see how many people attacked Islam here in this forumes and you will see I asnwered them all. So you don't have any point here.

And our society in allows you to make such statements without fear of reprisals or punishment. However should I try to visit that glorious kingdom which guards Islam's most holy site, and happen to carry a bible in my suitcase I face punishment.

I don't understand what you mean. No one will punish you if you carry your Bible. It is up to you.

I could state here, in the same way, that for me the gospels are the Word of God, and that all other religions and the texts they are based on are clearly wrong. I don't necessarily believe this, biut that's the impression I get you are doing.

It is up to you. You are free to belive what you want. There is only one life to live, if you choose the wrong way to live it, then you lost.

But hey, Islam is known for being a humble and tolerant tradition 😉

I don't know what you mean with this. Can you explain.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I'm sorry for that long delay: I was busy:

[b]Suppose we took only one of these, say the gospel according to Luke (and note the title even says it is 'according to' ie a witness perspective). Now if there had been no others there, and Luke's writing were all we had to go from, do you think there would be any 'discrepancies'?

The statment "the g ...[text shortened]... of Isnad is applied to them. Besides they are not used as a source of Islamic law.

Sorry I was busy too.....

Let's take your points in turn:

Re the Apostles; none of these was a 'prophet' by your standards, so I suppose even if there was a history of the apostles, written by those around them or in an unbroken chain of living people down to today, it is at best the same as Hadith? Jesus didn't write any of the gospels, in fact maybe (or probably) none of the gospels were actually written by the apostles themselves.

Question; who actually wrote the Quran (wrote, not said, or spoke, but wrote?), and how much of the original Quran is left? (I mean physical material)

Also; How does a person become 'trusted and authenticated'? Is this like we know who the popes were etc? and because they were chosen by God, they are trusted and authenticated?

When do the other books that try to order the events in the Hadith date from, and if they just include these events why are they not valid?

But hey, Islam is known for being a humble and tolerant tradition 😉

I don't know what you mean with this. Can you explain.[/b]

It's called sarcasm.

He is saying that practitioners of Islam tend not to be tolerant, and are not humble (I think).

(We might develop this further, if you wish to look at your own posts.)

Originally posted by snowinscotland
It's called sarcasm.

He is saying that practitioners of Islam tend not to be tolerant, and are not humble (I think).

(We might develop this further, if you wish to look at your own posts.)

🙂 That what I understanded too, I wanted to make sure 🙂, any way he didn't replay back so I don't if he still think soo.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Sorry I was busy too.....

Let's take your points in turn:

Re the Apostles; none of these was a 'prophet' by your standards, so I suppose even if there was a history of the apostles, written by those around them or in an unbroken chain of living people down to today, it is at best the same as Hadith? Jesus didn't write any of the gospels, in fact ...[text shortened]... nts in the Hadith date from, and if they just include these events why are they not valid?

Re the Apostles; none of these was a 'prophet' by your standards, so I suppose even if there was a history of the apostles, written by those around them or in an unbroken chain of living people down to today, it is at best the same as Hadith?

If that exists , my be we could accept it, I'm talking about Muslims, because in Quran we know that the 12 Apostles of Jesus were good, and trusted, and if can find any of their trusted writting it would be accepted, but can we say that aboutt any Gospel exist today.

Jesus didn't write any of the gospels, in fact maybe (or probably) none of the gospels were actually written by the apostles themselves.

I agree, and that is the problem here,

Question; who actually wrote the Quran (wrote, not said, or spoke, but wrote?), and how much of the original Quran is left? (I mean physical material)

There is two important points in your questions:

1- Quran is not the written form, the written form is called Mus'haf. Quran is only memorized. Millions of Muslims memorize the book as it was revealed to the prophet. And that the accepted Quran. So the prophet memorize it, then his companions memorize it from him, and they teach their students who memorize it in turn. So it is like a complex chain that can't be broken and the history of it exists too.

2- For the Mus'haf "the written Quran", it is written by specific companions of the prophet who was able to write, (Because the prophet himself was not able to write), then after the prophet death, the First Khalif Abu Bakr, collected all the papers where Quran was written, and compare it to the memorized version. This happen directly after the prophet death.

Then the third Khalif Osman, copied that into a single book, after comparing to the memorized Quran. That happen approximitly 30 years after the prophet's death. This Mus'haf of Osman, still exist today (Complete), I think in Turky. And I think it is the oldes Mus'haf exists today.

Also; How does a person become 'trusted and authenticated'? Is this like we know who the popes were etc? and because they were chosen by God, they are trusted and authenticated?

Ok, I will try to approximate it to you. I don't have enough knowlage because it is a complete Islamic Science, called "The sience of Men", this science is dedicated to study the history of people shared in transfering Hadith (Their name appear in the Isnad of any Hadith).

Isnad of any hadith always start by the prophet name(The majority), or any of his companions. The prophet and his companions are trusted becaus of the Quran. So as we belive that the Quran exist today is the same as the one revealed to the Prophet Muhammed, then we belive every word in it.

The last companion of the prophet died may be 60 years after the prophets death. In this period no one was able to fraud hadith, because the companions who heard from the prophet was still alive. The companions teached hadith to their students. Those students were known and their history is recorded. So if in the history of that man something that makes him not trusted, his Hadith is rejected. And so on untill 200 years after the prophet death, when hadith collected in books. People collected the hadith in Books, studied the Isnad, and the history of each man, then decide to accept or reject the Hadith, You need to read about this in details if you want to know more, I told you what I know. Islamic scolars studies the science of Men could tell you more about that 🙂

When do the other books that try to order the events in the Hadith date from, and if they just include these events why are they not valid?

Because what they say exists in Hadith Books, and sometimes the authers of these books include some untrusted hadith.

And the order of events is irrelevant to Islamic Law in most cases.

They are usually used to know the prophet life, what we call (Sera),

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Re the Apostles; none of these was a 'prophet' by your standards, so I suppose even if there was a history of the apostles, written by those around them or in an unbroken chain of living people down to today, it is at best the same as Hadith?

If that exists , my be we could accept it, I'm talking about Muslims, because in Quran we know that the 12 cases.

They are usually used to know the prophet life, what we call (Sera),[/b]

The Mus'haf was written in sections immediately after the death of the prophet, and collated 30 years later. The original one still exists in Turkey. Wow!

What would have happened if one spoken version was different from the first written version? Do any of the first written versions exist?

Edit: just found this:
Uthman (or Osman) third Khalif (644-656 AD). He ordered the editing of the Qur'an. Thereafter documents were destroyed to keep unity of text. He was murdered.
In other words, in order to preserve the unity of text (perhaps prevent any typos coming to light?) the original documents were destroyed!

Edit2: It looks as if the early history of Islam was much like the early history of the Christian church; various leaders vying for control, much infighting etc....

Originally posted by snowinscotland
The Mus'haf was written in sections immediately after the death of the prophet, and collated 30 years later. The original one still exists in Turkey. Wow!

What would have happened if one spoken version was different from the first written version? Do any of the first written versions exist?

Edit: just found this:
Uthman (or Osman) third Khalif ...[text shortened]... ly history of the Christian church; various leaders vying for control, much infighting etc....

If you belive it is a lie , why bother yourself !!!!!!

Originally posted by ahosyney
If you belive it is a lie , why bother yourself !!!!!!

If I believe what is a lie? Please indicate where I am wrong or where I have gotten bad information?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Do any of the first written versions exist?

Edit: just found this:
Uthman (or Osman) third Khalif (644-656 AD). He ordered the editing of the Qur'an. Thereafter documents were destroyed to keep unity of text. He was murdered.
...

Is this wrong? What is the lie you are talking about?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Is this wrong? What is the lie you are talking about?

I'm sorry ,

I saw a replay for you in another thread, you talked about religions and said they are all lies.

I should replay to you there. I think it was mistake I put it here.

I apologize for you , but my Question still take place, if you think all religions are lies then why do you bother yourself?

---------------------------------

As I told you Quran is Memorized. And the memorized version is what we care about. And if it happen to be a difference, the memorized version will be used.

Given that the oldest written version exist is collected by the followers who memorize the Quran, and it matchs what exists today. Then there is no question?

Originally posted by ahosyney
I'm sorry ,

I saw a replay for you in another thread, you talked about religions and said they are all lies.

I should replay to you there. I think it was mistake I put it here.

I apologize for you , but my Question still take place, if you think all religions are lies then why do you bother yourself?

---------------------------------

As I tol ...[text shortened]... e followers who memorize the Quran, and it matchs what exists today. Then there is no question?

My friend you need to be careful. As far as I am aware I have never said 'they are all lies' about religions. Perhaps you are referring to the 'The Truth Will set You Free' thread, where I in fact said the opposite. I said that the truth will set us free from delusions, and from 'all lies', in response to icottishinnz who said 'religious lies'.
So what you state is not true. Please be careful. I know English is not your native tongue but please take care....

You must understand that if there was a set of written documents that were written immediately after the prophet died, and later these were collated together, and then the individual documents destroyed, it looks as if someone is trying to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened to the Bible. Documents were destroyed in order to set the course of the church along one line; this was done for all sorts of understandable reasons, but none of them as far as I can see relate to the 'truth'. And surely a set of written documents can be changed less easily than the spoken word?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
My friend you need to be careful. As far as I am aware I have never said 'they are all lies' about religions. Perhaps you are referring to the 'The Truth Will set You Free' thread, where I in fact said the opposite. I said that the truth will set us free from delusions, and from 'all lies', in response to icottishinnz who said 'religious lies'.
So wh ...[text shortened]... And surely a set of written documents can be changed less easily than the spoken word?

I apologized for you ,and I hope you accept it. I know it was a mistake. Sorry again.
-----------------

I have a problem to understand the argument you are tryint to put.

The difference between Quran and the Bible, is Quran is basicly a spoken book. It is transfered from Generation to Generation by narration not writting. And written versions are compared to the spoken one.

So I don't know what is the problem we have here? I need more clearfication? And sorry for my English.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I apologized for you ,and I hope you accept it. I know it was a mistake. Sorry again.
-----------------

I have a problem to understand the argument you are tryint to put.

The difference between Quran and the Bible, is Quran is basicly a spoken book. It is transfered from Generation to Generation by narration not writting. And written versions are com ...[text shortened]... n't know what is the problem we have here? I need more clearfication? And sorry for my English.

Please don't be sorry for your English, I am ashamed that I haven't learnt any other languages well - you do very well.

I understand that you say the Quran is a spoken book. No problem. Quite admirable in many ways, as the individual has to learn many verses and all the wisdom contained, as part of the process.

My point was that documentation is not so easily changed as any spoken book. Why would the original documents be destroyed? They were collated and the original ones destroyed. First - is this true? I understand you say this does not matter, but I think it is important. Why destroy the word of God?

The Christian church tried to collate all the documents it considered relevant, and there were many missed out as you know. In fact, it is this that enables you to point to some (let's exclude Gospel of Barnabus) and say 'Why do these not agree?'. You are right to question this, please do not exclude the same process for Uthman (or Osman) third Khalif. Why did he feel the need to destroy original documents?

Please understand I am asking questions that I feel anyone might rightly ask. I am not attacking, rather clarifying.

Oh and by the way, Happy New Year. Lets hope it brings better than last year.....

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Please don't be sorry for your English, I am ashamed that I haven't learnt any other languages well - you do very well.

I understand that you say the Quran is a spoken book. No problem. Quite admirable in many ways, as the individual has to learn many verses and all the wisdom contained, as part of the process.

My point was that documentation i fying.

Oh and by the way, Happy New Year. Lets hope it brings better than last year.....

Happy New Year for you too. I hope the best for you too.

Please understand I am asking questions that I feel anyone might rightly ask. I am not attacking, rather clarifying.

Sure I understand that, I know you must ask, If you want to know the truth then you must ask about it. That why we all here. Me myself asked the same questions.

As I told you before Quran is spoken and memorized. There is a specific Islamic science to study the recitation of Quran. Because there is very specific way to read each word of the Quran. This sience is to insure that every one read Quran the same way. This way of recitation of Quran is specified by the prophet himself and transfered to his companions. The companions at the time of the prophet death was thousands. The majority of them memorized the Quran (The complete Book) as they learned it from the prophet.

So the Quran (The spoken version) is transfered from Generation to Generation by memorizing. The number of people memorize Quran increased with each generation , and that leave no chance for any one to modify the spoken word.

I used to memorize it all when I was 16, my brother too. I had a specific teacher that was teaching me how to read and memorize the book. I was a lazy student so it took me 6 years to complete memorizing it. But I know other who took a much shorter time.

Not only that, the history of the spoken word is recorded the same way as hadith (I think I told you about that before) so , we know each person that shared in the recitation and transfering of Quran.

Given all of that, can you see that there is a chance that the spoken Quran could be modifed or corrupted by any mean?
---------------------------

Now lets talk about the written Quran (Mushaf), I think you can agree with me that we can say the version we have today is the same as the one collected 30 years after the prophet death. Am I right?

If you agree with me then the problem is to prove that this collected copy is the same is the one exists in the first 30 years.

You agree with me that there was another one that the one exists is copyed from.

So the question is how can we make sure that the copy was correct?

The answer is simple: Who made the copy? The companions who took the Quran from the prophet. Those companions are the same source that we took the Spoken version we memorize today. So if there was a difference it was has been easy to be detected..

Besides , it was not only one person who made the copy. It was a commite of the companions. And they compared the written copy with the memorized version.

So , there could be no chance to add , remove , or modify the written copy to the older one.

Don't you agree with this?

---------------------------------

The other question is : Why the original one destroyed?

May be my information about this part is not clear, but as I know it was to prevent any one to come (After the time of the companions of courcse , becasue at the time of companions it was easy to detect) and say that I had something that is not in the Mushaf.

So that was made to save the book from any attept to corrupt it.

---------------------------------------

There is another question: Why all these procedures are taken?

I don't know if my answer will make sense to you , but Quran say that GOD (Allah) will not allow any corruption to his book. And I see what Muslims did to preserve their book and the insistance to keep these procedures all the time for 1400 , with different Islamic rulers, with different objectives, is a clear sign that there a greater force that worked to save this book.

I hope I answered your question..... the information I gave you may not be accurate too, and my language may not help me too to explain all the ideas I want to give you. If you can do some reading about that, it will help.

There is a book decribe the process of Quran collection but the problem it is written in Arabic.