The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: No slandering

Re: No slandering
Posted by AssyrianMuslim (Guest) - Friday, May 16 2008, 9:44:49 (CEST)
from 74.128.146.151 - 74-128-146-151.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Windows Codename Longhorn - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Some of these prejudice Christians love to accuse Muhammad(pbuh) of having copied from their pornography book, but let's see who has been plagiarizing all along and as always they accuse others of what they are guilty of. The first example is in the Bible's Old Testament. Compare Isaiah 37 to the book of "2 Kings 19" and see 100% word by word, comma by comma, period by period plagiarism. In other words, someone is copying from someone because we have two different books which were supposedly written by two different authors and centuries apart, yet they are identical not just word by word but it is 100% plagiarism. The scholars of the Bible confirmed that the authors of most of the books of the Bible are unknown. The author of the book of "kings" is unknown and the book of Isaiah is believed to have been written partially by Isaiah and partially by "likely" Ezra. One must love these Christians with their "likely" "probably" and other terms.

Then we have the Gospels of the New Testament and let's see what Christian Bible scholars tell us about them. J.B. Phillips the Christian Anglican Bible scholar tells us in his book "The Gospels" the following about Matthew:

"Early traditions ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view. The author, whom we still can conveniently call Matthew, has plainly drawn on the mysterious Q, which may have been a collection of oral traditions. he has used Mark's Gospel freely, though he has rearranged the order of events and has in several instances used different words for what is plainly the same story. The style is lucid, calm and tidy. Matthew writes with certain judiciousness as though he himself had carefully digested his material and is convinced not only of its truth but of the divine pattern that lies behind the historic facts. If Matthew wrote, as is now generally supposed, somewhere between 85 and 90, this Gospel's value as a Christian document is enormous. It is, so to speak, a second generation view of Jesus Christ...."(J.B. Phillips, "The Gospels").

If words have any meanings, they are saying that the author of the Gospel of Matthew has copied from Mark. scholars call the three Gospels, Luke, Mark and Matthew as "Synoptics" which means "one eyed". They have copied from one common source which is known as the "Q" document. While Christians accuse the Quran of being copied, this applies to their own books but they like to pawn off on others without proof. Here are confessions of Christian scholars of the Bible who have no reasons to go against their own church but they are telling us this. No honest Bible scholar believes that these Gospels were even written by the men they are named after. That is why their names appear in inverted commas "Gospel according to...". Why the "According to"? Because they are telling us that this is what the church claims. The above scholar said "The author, whom we still can conveniently call Matthew..." which means that it is easier to say "Matthew" rather than having to say "The first Gospel in the New Testament" every time we speak on it. "Matthew" is a cool name I suppose just like "Tom" "Dick" "Harry" or "Steve" are today in the English language.

So before the Christians start flying away with their prejudices and hatred, they should take a step back, relax and take a look at their own books unless they don't really care in first place about "Gospel truth" because it's only good for business purposes. Again, I am not slandering Christianity nor did I get my stuff from Muslim scholars of the Bible but rather from Christian Bible scholars who are telling us the truth. The only reason I am even engaged in this subject is because I was dragged into it. Therefore, it be fair for me as a Muslim to challenge the slanders against my scripture and to refute the allegations.

As for the Quran, I am not here to attempt to prove that it is the revealed word of God to Muhammad(pbuh) via Gabriel, but I will show the authenticity of it, its purity, and how it is different from the Bible as a whole. I am going to show how Muslims only have 1 Quran and have always had one since its origin. Ones again, I am not going to use Muslim scholars to prove my point because I will be termed as unfair and biased for that. I will use the works of Christians and Atheists, secular and religious and in many cases open enemies of Islam, yet they are scholars and historians who are educated and spent years studying and reviewing the Quran.

I begin with Arthur J. Arberry the Christian professor of Arabic at Cambridge University who is known for his translation of the Quran. Here is what he has to say:

"Apart from certain orthographical modifications originally somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambigious and easy the task of reading the recitation, the Quran as printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Quran from 1,300 years ago".("The Quran interpreted").

Dr Laura Vaglieri the Italian, has the following to say:

"we have still another proof of the divine origin of the Quran in the fact that its text has remained pure and unaltered through the centuries from the day of its delivery until today...". (Dr Vaglieri "Interpretation of Islam").

Here is Adrian Brockett:

"The transmission of the Quran after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This applied even to the early caliphs.... The transmission of The Quran has always been oral, just as it has always been written".(Clarenndon Press P 44-45).

Here is Sir William Muir the big enemy of Muhammad:

The recension of Othman has been handed down to us unaltered.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure text".("The life of Mohammad").

Don't forget one of the biggest slanderers "Hartwig Hirshfeld":

"What remains now of epileptic or hysterical influence on the origin of Islam? Absolutely nothing. Never has a man pronounced a sentence with more circumspection and consciousness than Muhammad did in the Iqra. Should he have proclaimed it with nothing but prophetic enthusiasm, he must have been the greatest genius that ever lived". ("New researches into the composition and exegesis of the Quran" p32).

Last but not least, F.F. Arbuthnot writes:

"It will be thus seen from above, that a final and complete text of the Koran was prepared within twenty years after the death(A.D 632) of Muhammad, and that this has remained the same, without any change or alteration by enthusiasts, translators, or interpolators,, up to the present time. It is to be regretted that the same cannot be said of all of the books of the old and New Testaments."( 240 Arbuthnot, F.F. P5_6).

I could go on forever providing evidence from Christian and western scholars who have done much work on researching the authenticity of the Quran. Keep in mind that one does not have to be a Muslim nor is it to prove that it is from God. But it is to show that as far as suffering from alteration, corruption or any other problems we have with the Bible, such does not apply to the Quran.

The Quran and the Bible are two different books with two different histories. The Quran is 1 book while the Bible is collection of many books. Christians have never agreed on what is the Bible as the Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and others have different versions. Furthermore, the Bible was "property of the church" while the Quran was always available from the start because it is a "recitation" therefore it has to be available. While millions were killed over the Bible, Muslims never killed each other over Quran or authenticity while they fought over power, caliphs, etc but the Quran was never the subject.

The Quran is also written in a live language and that is Arabic. The Bible was written in dead languages and only a handful of scholars know these languages. But what good is it to even learn the dead languages when nothing remains of the originals. The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew, that is not modern Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Syriac but ancient Hebrew spoken during the time of Moses. The books were translated into Greek because the Jews weren't able to comprehend their old language anymore. They translated it into koine Greek which is another dead language. One can't even understand English from 5 centuries ago yet imagine translating from dead languages corrupt manuscripts and get it right.

That would be impossible and as Dr Bart Ehrman says, it is impossible to know what the originals said because we no longer have them. All we have is "copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, of copies which are far removed from the originals by centuries. Some of the oldest manuscripts are totally different from the ones from a 700 years later. Entire chapters, verses and important words are missing. So I think I proved my case at this point. I did not slander Christianity but only wrote what the truth is about their scriptures while they are always accusing others of lies which they are guilty of. Now I can go on forever disproving the myth that Muhammad copied from others. One youth minister from my sister's church went as far as to say that "the Quran must be the work of the devil because it can't be the word of God. The Bible is the only word of God and that's why the quran is from the devil" He rejected the idea that it was copied because apparently he is familiar with the Quran and he didn't believe it could have been authored by one man or even many. Therefore, he was forced to charge it with the work of the devil as he said "The devil can shine and do the unbelievable".

This is a common opinion among Christians and perhaps most of those who are just prejudice, bigots and racists who hate Muslims will never realize their foolishness but the honest will be able to recognize that these Christians will forever argue and slander with only opinion and conjecture. They take their opinions as "solid facts" and really they can only operate in a room full of these Assyrian Nationals and of course those Coptics which I almost forgot about with their notorious slanders and propaganda against the Prophet Muhammad. One thing they all have in common is that they only take their opinions and views as "facts". As the old Arab saying goes "If such are the priests, God bless the congregation". Anyways, I am done proving my point and I did not lie, or slander Christianity as promised. I used only historians and scholars of the Bible whom were almost all Christians or secularists for the Quran and only Christians for the Bible.

Peace



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


The full topic:



Content-length: 11611
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Connection: keep-alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Keep-alive: 300
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_No_slandering-BJht.04KT.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9