Messages

NP Paola! I think sleeping or OBEs are a taste of death as well.

Paola technically yes. The Holy Quran makes references to people during dreams where he lifts there souls out of there bodies as many OBE people have actually experienced. Our dreams take place in another "plane" the plane in which our souls will taste death. Allah describes this as a temporary death! I don't astral project btw for I don't need this sort of spiritual enlightenment but I dont disordain it!

Andon, I agree with you! Religion is not the problem nowadays its the interpretation of religion. Islam is not a problem in society but I view it as a solution! I mean, you need to understand the political effort being thrown on the middle east to fully understand why people are doing this. Christianity has run into the same dangers!!!  I can easily claim that Christians in America are misunderstanding the literal interpretation of the bible which preaches to return the Jews back to the chosen land! Then argue that is the reason for occupation in Palestine! BUT ITS NOT Nor do I blame it! Also Andon, In Islam it is a fulfillment to spread the message of truth and divine interpretation but if one refuses then we are entitled to say lakoo denakom waliya deeni(it is your path not ours). Hope that explains it bette r^^

Sorry for not crediting the source. Btw Isam is a friend of mine as well! He was preaching peaceful unitation of all religions in an Islam conference but according to you hes "brainwashing" me. My brother, I have absolutely nothing against Christians. My religions main principality is to respect ahli kitab(people of the book) YOU are among the people of the book! Muhammad Pbuh sent his early Muslim brother into the nation of Abyssinia owned by a Christian king BECAUSE THE KING WAS A NICE AND RESPECTFUL MAN! Please do not interpret my words as hateful preaching against Jews and Christians. I am just trying to tell you that theres more to terrorism then just religious motivation but I will not argue that it doesn't exist! For it exists in all religions equally!


loool Wafa sultan! She was an Irani who disagreed with her Irani government system because of the degrading of women so shes going on a rant disclaiming Islam! Really this proves absolutely nothing! I really don't care what some person who goes on CNN claiming ISLAM PREACHES TERRORISM I assure you I can pull out the same tricks. Again, I ask her to possibly provide proof of her words according to the rasuls sunna? According to the holy Quran? IT is not my religions fault that people are misunderstanding its principality! I disagree with an Irani government System! You must understand MustardSeed POLITICS AND RELIGION HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT WING WITH EACHOTHER! Again Mustard Lets bring this debate on an intellectual level instead of simply claiming "TERRORISTS." 

What a bold bold bold statement you have just made. It is also rather funny how speechless you are when it comes to discussing or even explaining your own religion. If I am lost in the lights of ignorance then why not enlighten me with Christianity? For it is a missionary religion? And if your SOOOO learned in your own practice then why not clear up such misconceptions? Do you want me to put my words in your own mouth? The answer which I am looking for is you simply cannot argue logic.  You always try to make claims of how "brain washed" I am but still you fail to realize that in the mosques I visit, THEY PROMOTE US TO READ THE BIBLE! In fact, I have taken my time and efforts to research many world religions before coming to my conclusion of la elaha ila lah muhammad al rasul allah! Are you foolish? Islam is considered the fastest growing religion in the world, not by nativity but rather by reversions/ People are converting to Islam at a rapid rate, even white americans such as yourself! Don't tell me there all falling for so called "sheikhs" brainwashing them. Don't tell me there all "brainwashed." They are simply people seeking truth in there life. simply people wanting to exit the age of materialism projected by Christianity.

"Like so many young people you need a religion you an touch and feel and inwhich you can appear powerful and strong."

What a great statement. Because I completely agree! I do not believe faith alone is key for that is blind. Logic and faith must intermingle within a religious or spiritual belief. Why believe in something that argues science? Logic?Nature?Mathematics? Why argue something which can easily be proven false? Your calling me a child? Claim that I cannot understand such things because of my age? But yet I've disproven what you cannot defend? I've explained what you do not know of!  How about you prove your statement to me by at least showing courage to defend yourself? Jihad? lol WOW You are so brainwashed by western media. How about you go back it watching the idiot box, religion is no place for a person such as yourself. How about you go fulfill your own "patriotic" duties and come rape, kill slaughter Iraqi children.

lol sorry:P But I got this article from an email on myspace so I really had no idea whom the other was!

How ridiculous is that! You are a Christian but yet do not believe in the bible literally? Doesn't that seem a little absurd? If Christianity is truth then surely Gods true scripture(the bible) would also have been truth! God wouldn't let his word be altered! The truth comes into the final form, the form of Islam. Where God commands YOU to worship God alone. The God of the Jews Christians and Muslims, The God of Abraham(pbuh). For the translation of the verses... where did you pull that out of... Astral planes.. CLEARLY Jesus was talking about turning worship to God. CLEARLY Jesus was saying that GOD IS ONE. Where does Jesus say that he is the manifestation of God? See, this is a concept that was MADE UP! Jesus is a man, Jesus is indeed a loving man whom holds attributes of piety. Why is it so hard for you to accept the words of your own book? Of your own law and gospel? The word of your OWN GOSPEL agrees with Islam! The only thing which disagrees with my words is Christianity(not the bible)! 


The difference between the Quran and the bible is that the Quran is a book of logic. All aspects of it seems logical in modern traditions laws and even logical in the eyes of modern science. Although it was brought down to Muhammad 1400 years ago, it still remains valid and unchanged AND uncontradictory until this day.  The difference between the Quran and the bible is that the biblical question ares and errors which I have posed still remain unsolved and typical Christians usually say " i have no idea..... I think Jesus knows though." Every so called "error" you shall or might propose is explained thoroughly and simply taken out of context. This is why I am a profound and loyal Muslim my brother. This is Why people are turning to Islam my brother.I could never deny a scripture which gives out wisdom logic and knowledge. I ask you my brother please! Open up the holy Quran and read it. Your contradictions and claims are nothing more then lies if you can't even explain it!

Peace be with you

The truth about Christianity and Jesus from the Noble Quran:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

I replied to almost 50 of your so called Quran injunctions at least show effort to comment on some shall you? Answer some if you can!

1-  Mark 10:18 Jesus said "And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

2-  John 14:28 Jesus said "My Father (GOD) is greater than I"

3-  John 8:28 Jesus said "I do nothing of myself"

4-  Matthew 24:36 Jesus said "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."


The Above verses clearly show that JESUS WAS NOT GOD BUT RATHER he was a human being like you and I. The bible teaches you to worship God alone, NOT JESUS! This mentality of the trinity and even the divinity of Jesus was a myth created by the Christian church and no such thing of this is in the bible. Tell me, where does Jesus ever say I AM GOD WORSHIP ME? You may claim that "son of god" would refer to Jesus as the literal divine son? But in Hebrew the word for son is translated as pias or piadas which can also mean "servant" or "servants." So in retrospect the Hebrew translation for "Son" is servant claiming that Jesus indeed was A SERVANT OF GOD a CREATURE OF GOD! Not only that but in various passages we bear witness the mortality of Jesus as a human! He ate slept drank taught LIKE A HUMAN! He had errors LIKE A HUMAN! IF he was God then surely the bible would have projected him as a  perfect being for Gods knowledge is perfect and unsustainable! MY BIGGEST problem with the bible is it has shown corruption within history!! History tells us that the bible was not compiled until hundreds of years after the Death of Jesus Christ.  How can you expect man to remember such a word? Especially when the romans at the time persecuted "Christians" !! Also, through historical documents it shows that even early Christians rejected the trinity! Many of these lies were created by THE CHURCH as a way to rule people.  On the topic of the OT, did you know that during the decent of the injeel(bible) early Christians actually considered themselves among the Jews whom worshiped and believed in Yahwh! Believed in the OT fully!!! The Churches council later on realized the countless brutality and the denial of moral concepts that they had to "selectively choose" what they believed or not!


Abrogation in the bible?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm

    MISCONCEPTION #1:
Muslims are violent, terrorists and/or extremists.


This is the biggest misconception in Islam, no doubt resulting from
the constant stereotyping and bashing the media gives Islam. When a
gunman attacks a mosque in the name of Judaism, a Catholic IRA
guerrilla sets off a bomb in an urban area, or Serbian Orthodox
militiamen rape and kill innocent Muslim civilians, these acts are not
used to stereotype an entire faith. Never are these acts attributed
to the religion of the perpetrators. Yet how many times have we heard
the words 'Islamic, Muslim fundamentalist. etc.' linked with violence.

Politics in so called "Muslim countries" may or may not have any
Islamic basis. Often dictators and politicians will use the name of
Islam for their own purposes. One should remember to go to the source
of Islam and separate what the true religion of Islam says from what
is portrayed in the media. Islam literally means 'submission to God'
and is derived from a root word meaning 'peace'.

Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps
this is because religion doesn't dominate everyday life in the West,
whereas Islam is considered a 'way of life' for Muslims and they make
no division between secular and sacred in their lives. Like
Christianity, Islam permits fighting in self-defense, in defense of
religion, or on the part of those who have been expelled forcibly
from their homes. It lays down strict rules of combat which include
prohibitions against harming civilians and against destroying crops,
trees and livestock.

NOWHERE DOES ISLAM ENJOIN THE KILLING OF INNOCENTS.. The Quran says:
"Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not
transgress limits. God does not love transgressors." (Quran 2:190)
"If they seek peace, then seek you peace. And trust in God for He is
the One that heareth and knoweth all things." (Quran 8:61) War,
therefore, is the last resort, and is subject to the rigorous
conditions laid down by the sacred law. The term 'jihad' literally
means 'struggle'. Muslims believe that there are two kinds of jihad.
The other 'jihad' is the inner struggle of the soul which everyone
wages against egotistic desires for the sake of attaining inner
peace.



MISCONCEPTION #2:
Islam oppresses women.

The image of the typical Muslim woman wearing the veil and forced to
stay home and forbidden to drive is all too common in most peoples
thoughts. Although some Muslim countries may have laws that oppress
women, this should not be seen as coming from Islam. Many of these
countries do not rule by any kind of Shari'ah (Islamic law) and
introduce their own cultural standpoints on the issue of gender
equity.

Islam on the other hand gives men and women different roles and equity
between the two is laid down in the Quran and the example of the
Prophet (peace be upon him). Islam sees a woman, whether single or
married, as an individual in her own right, with the right to own and
dispose of her property and earnings. A marriage gift is given by
the groom to the bride for her own personal use, and she keeps her
own family name rather than taking her husband's. Both men and women
are expected to dress in a way that is modest and dignified. The
Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "The most perfect in faith
amongst believers is he who is best in manner and kindest to his
wife."

Violence of any kind towards women and forcing them against their
will for anything is not allowed. A Muslim marriage is a simple, legal
agreement in which either partner is free to include conditions.
Marriage customs thus vary widely from country to country. Divorce is
not common, although it is acceptable as a last resort. According to
Islam, a Muslim girl cannot be forced to marry against her will: her
parents simply suggest young men they think may be suitable.



MISCONCEPTION #3:
Muslims worship a different God.

Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Allah for Muslims is the
greatest and most inclusive of the Names of God, it is an Arabic word
of rich meaning, denoting the one and only God and ascribing no
partners to Him. It is exactly the same word which the Jews, in
Hebrew, use for God (eloh), the word which Jesus Christ used in
Aramaic when he prayed to God. God has an identical name in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam; Allah is the same God worshiped by Muslims,
Christians and Jews. Muslims believe that Allah's sovereignty is to
be acknowledged in worship and in the pledge to obey His teaching and
commandments, conveyed through His messengers and prophets who were
sent at various times and in many places throughout history.
However, it should be noted that God in Islam is One and Only. He,
the Exalted, does not get tired, does not have a son ie Jesus or
have associates, nor does He have human-like attributions as found in
other faiths.


MISCONCEPTION #4:
Islam was spread by the sword and intolerant of other faiths.


Many social studies textbooks for students show the image of an Arab
horseman carrying a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other
conquering and forcibly converting. This, though, is not a correct
portrayal of history. Islam has always given respect and freedom of
religion to all faiths. The Quran says: "God forbids you not, with
regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out
of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God
loveth those who are just. 60:

Freedom of religion is laid down in the Quran itself: "There is no
compulsion (or coercion) in the religion (Islam). The right
direction is distinctly clear from error". (2:256) Christian
missionary, T.W. Arnold had this opinion on his study of the question
of the spread of Islam: ".. of any organized attempt to force the
acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any
systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion,
we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of
action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as
Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made
Protestanism ..."

It is a function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of
minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have
flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many
examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph
Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of
worship to all religious communities in the city. Proclaiming to the
inhabitants that their lives, and property were safe, and that their
places of worship would never be taken from them, he asked the
Christian patriarch Sophronius to accompany him on a visit to all the
holy places. Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up
their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the
minorities themselves. The life and property of all citizens in an
Islamic state are considered sacred whether the person is Muslim or
not.

Racism is not a part of Islam, the Quran speaks only of human equality
and how all peoples are equal in the sight of God. "O mankind! We
created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into
nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly,
the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in
piety. God is All-Knowing, All- Aware. (49:13)
And also the US has the fastest growing population of muslims in the entire world ...who is forcing them to convert??



MISCONCEPTION #5:
All Muslims are Arabs


The Muslim population of the world is around 1.2 billion. 1 out of 5
people in the world is a Muslim. They are a vast range of races,
nationalities, and cultures from around the globe--from the
Phillipines to Nigeria--they are united by their common Islamic faith.
Only about 18% live in the Arab world and the largest Muslim
community is in Indonesia. Most Muslims live east of Pakistan. 30%
of Muslims live in the Indian subcontinent, 20% in Sub-Saharan Africa,
17% in Southeast Asia, 18% in the Arab world, and 10% in the Soviet
Union and China. Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan make up 10% of the
non-Arab Middle East. Although there are Muslim minorities in almost
every area, including Latin America and Australia, they are most
numerous in Russia and its newly independent states, India and
central Africa. There are about 6 million Muslims in the United
States



MISCONCEPTION #6:
The Nation of Islam is a Muslim group.


Islam and the so called "Nation of Islam'" are two different
religions. NOI is more of a political organization since its members
are not limited to a single faith. Muslims consider this group to be
just one of many cults using the name of Islam for their own gain.
The only thing common between them is the jargon, the language used
by both. "The Nation of Islam" is a misnomer; this religion should be
called Farrakhanism, after the name of its propogator, Louis Farrakhan.

Islam and Farakhanism differ in many fundamental ways. For example,
Farakhan followers believe in racism and that the 'black man' was the
original man and therefore superior, while in Islam there is no
racism and everyone is considered equal in the sight of God, the only
difference being in one's piety. There are many other theological
examples that show the 'Nation's teachings have little to do with
true Islam. There are many groups in America who claim to represent
Islam and call their adherents Muslims.

Any serious student of Islam has a duty to investigate and find the
true Islam. The only two authentic sources which bind every Muslim
are 1. the Quran and 2. authentic or sound Hadith. Any teachings under
the label of "Islam" which contradict or at variance with the direct
understanding of fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam form the
Quran and authentic Hadith should be rejected and such a religion
should be considered a Pseudo-Islamic Cult. In America there are many
pseudo-Islamic cults, Farrakhanism being one of them. An honest
attitude on the part of such cults should be not to call themselves
Muslims and their religion Islam. such an example of honesty is
Bahaism which is an off-shoot of Islam but Bahais do not call
themselves Muslims nor their religion, Islam. In fact Bahaism is not
Islam just as Farrakhanism is not Islam.



MISCONCEPTION #7:
All Muslim men marry four wives.


The religion of Islam was revealed for all societies and all times and
so accommodates widely differing social requirements. Circumstances
may warrant the taking of another wife but the right is granted,
according to the Quran, only on condition that the husband is
scrupulously fair. No woman can be forced into this kind of marriage
if they do not wish it, and they also have the right to exclude it in
their marriage contract.

Polygamy is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted.
Images of "sheikhs with harems" are not consistent with Islam, as a
man is only allowed at most four wives only if he can fulfill the
stringent conditions of treating each fairly and providing each with
separate housing etc. Permission to practice polygamy is not
associated with mere satisfaction of passion. It is rather
associated with compassion toward widows and orphans. It was the
Quran that limited and put conditions on the practice of polygamy
among the Arabs, who had as many as ten or more wives and considered
them "property".

It is both honest and accurate to say that it is Islam that regulated
this practice, limited it, made it more humane, and instituted equal
rights and status for all wives. What the Qur'anic decrees amount to,
taken together is discouragement of polygamy unless necessity for it
exists. It is also evident that the general rule in Islam is monogamy
and not polygamy. It is a very tiny percentage of Muslims that
practice it over the world. However, permission to practice limited
polygamy is only consistent with Islam's realistic view of the nature
of man and woman and of various social needs, problems and cultural
variations.

The question is, however far more than the inherent flexibility of
Islam; it also is the frank and straightforward approach of Islam in
dealing with practical problems. Rather than requiring hypocritical
and superficial compliance, Islam delves deeper into the problems of
individuals and societies, and provides for legitimate and clean
solutions which are far more beneficial than would be the case if they
were ignored. There is no doubt that the second wife legally married
and treated kindly is better off than a mistress without any legal
rights or expermanence.



MISCONCEPTION #8:
Muslims are a barbaric, backward people.


Among the reasons for the rapid and peaceful spread of Islam was the
simplicity of its doctrine-Islam calls for faith in only one God
worthy of worship. It also repeatedly instructs man to use his
powers of intelligence and observation. Within a few years, great
civilizations and universities were flourishing, for according to the
Prophet (pbuh), 'seeking knowledge is an obligation for every Muslim
man and woman'.

The synthesis of Eastern and Western ideas and of new thought with
old, brought about great advances in medicine, mathematics, physics,
astronomy, geography, architecture, art, literature, and history.
Many crucial systems such as algebra, the Arabic numerals, and also
the concept of the zero (vital to the advancement of mathematics),
were transmitted to medieval Europe from Islam. Sophisticated
instruments which were to make possible the European voyages of
discovery were developed, including the astrolabe, the quadrant and
good navigational maps.



MISCONCEPTION #9:
Muhammad was the founder of Islam and Muslims worship him.


Muhammad(pbuh) was born in Mecca in the year 570. Since his father
died before his birth, and his mother shortly afterwards, he was
raised by his uncle from the respected tribe of Quraysh. As he grew
up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so
that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes.
The historians describe him as calm and meditative. Muhammad (pbuh)
was of a deeply religious nature, and had long detested the decadence
of his society.

It became his habit to meditate from time to time in the Cave of Hira
near Mecca. At the age of 40, while engaged in a meditative retreat,
Muhammad(pbuh) received his first revelation from God through the
Angel Gabriel. This revelation, which continued for 23 years is
known as the Quran. As soon as he began to recite the words he heard
from Gabriel, and to preach the truth which God had revealed to him,
he and his small group of followers suffered bitter persecution,
which grew so fierce that in the year 622 God gave them the command to
emigrate.

This event, the Hijra 'migration', in which they left Mecca for the
city of Medina, marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. After
several years, the Prophet and his followers were able to return to
Mecca, where they forgave their enemies and established Islam
definitively. Before the Prophet saw dies at the age of 63, the
greater part of Arabia was Muslim, and within a century of his death
Islam had spread to Spain in the West and as far East as China. He
died with less than 5 possessions to his name.

While Muhammad (pbuh) was chosen to deliver the message, he is not
considered the "founder" of Islam, since Muslims consider Islam to be
the same divine guidance sent to all peoples before. Muslims believe
all the prophets from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus etc. were all sent
with divine guidance for their peoples. Every prophet was sent to his
own people, but Muhammad(pbuh) was sent to all of mankind. Muhammad
is the last and final messenger sent to deliver the message of Islam.
Muslims revere and honor him (pbuh) for all he went through and his
dedication, but they do not worship him. "O Prophet, verily We have
sent you as a witness and a bearer of glad tidings and a warner and
as one who invites unto God by His leave and as an illuminating
lamp."(33:45-6)



MISCONCEPTION #10:
Muslims don't believe in Jesus or any other prophets.


Muslims respect and revere Jesus, upon him be peace, and await his
Second Coming. They consider him one of the greatest of God's
messengers to mankind. A Muslim never refers to him simply as
'Jesus', but always adds the phrase 'upon him be peace' (abbreviated
as (u) here). The Quran confirms his virgin birth (a chapter of the
Quran is entitled 'Mary'), and Mary is considered the purest woman in
all creation. The Quran describes the Annunciation as follows:

"Behold!" the Angel said, "God has chosen you, and purified you, and
chosen you above the women of all nations. O Mary, God gives you
good news of a word from Him whose name shall be the Messiah, Jesus
son of Mary, honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those
brought near to God. He shall speak to the people from his cradle and
in maturity, and shall be of the righteous." She said: "O my Lord!
How shall I have a son when no man has touched me?" He said: "Even
so; God creates what He will. When He decrees a thing, He says to it,
"Be!" and it is" (Quran 3:42-47)

Jesus (u) was born miraculously through the same power, which had
brought Adam (u) into being without a father: "Truly, the likeness of
Jesus with God is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust,
and then said to him, 'Be!' and he was." (3:59) During his prophetic
mission Jesus (u) performed many miracles. The Quran tells us that he
said: " I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I make for you
out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breath into it
and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind, and the
lepers, and I raise the dead by God's leave." (3:49) Neither Muhammad
(pbuh) not Jesus (u) came to change the basic doctrine of the brief in
One God brought by earlier prophets, but to confirm and renew it.

In the Quran Jesus (u) is reported as saying that he came: "To attest
the law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what
was forbidden you; I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so
fear God and obey Me. (3:50) The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:
"Whoever believes there is no god but God, alone without partner,
that Muhammad (pbuh) is His messenger, that Jesus is the servant and
messenger of God, His word breathed into Mary and a spirit emanating
from Him, and that Paradise and Hell are true, shall be received by
God into Heaven. "(Hadith related by Bukhari).

Well that is then what we could consider "the springing point". If this Sura (9:5)is only  interpreted to mean "the polytheists who Muhammed was encountering at that time", it would appear that violence is not condoned today, but the facts of reality speaks loud Jeehad. We know that it is an established fact that Muhammed is seen as the sample of Islam, a sample to be followed, and Jihad is condoned and even commanded by various religious leaders in the Muslim world. It would stand to reason that if he (Muhammed) acted or reacted like he did in his day, Muslims are as a body expected to do the same, in THEIR day. You yourself have written in great detail, of the injustice done to the Muslims in the Mideast, and you have explained and justified armed struggle. The fact is that Jihad is as integral a part of Islam today, as it ever was. Using the sample of the great example Muhammed himself, if Muslims perceive themselves as victims, they are justified in taking up arms, and wage Jihad. Even in Muhameds day Jihad was waged on innocent victims. He killed people who spoke against him as well as innocent traders.





Consider the following statement by Hugh Fitzgerald:

The Sira, or life of Muhammad, the man regarded by Muslims as the perfect model, al-insan al-kamil, simply cannot be rewritten to omit those unpleasant parts, in which he, as a successful military leader leading his troops against non-Muslims, behaved in a manner that would cause modern Infidels concern. Muhammad participated in 78 battles, he approved of the beheading of the prisoners taken among the Bani Qurayza, he ordered an attack on inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis in order to seize booty, he ordered the assassination of those who offended him, including a woman (Asma bint Marwan), and a 90-year-old man, he married Aisha, a 6-year-old girl, and consummated that marriage when she became 9. His behavior inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine. .........

As for using the Crusades to justify Jihad consider the following statement by the same author:
The Crusades are presented by Muslim apologists as a defining moment in Muslim-Christian relations, a moment in which the peaceful and inoffensive Muslims were attacked, without cause. In this version, not a word is uttered about the centuries of Muslim Jihad-conquest that preceded the Crusades – nearly 400 years of seizing lands formerly occupied by Christians in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North Africa (where, among other Fathers of the Church, Tertullian and St. Augustine were born and lived).

As far as I can see Jihad is condoned and encouraged in the Muslim world today. This includes the killing of innocent people if they happen to get in the way. Jihad is the epitome of obedience to Sura 9:5.

Aside from these issues that I address Jeehad, please do yourself and everyone else a favor. When you copy and paste these enormous amounts of texts and expect me to answer and read it all, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. No one has the time for these large posts Jeehad. Besides the fact that you neglect to clearly separate your own statements, from the statements of the ones you quote, it appears that you are barraging me (us) with research maybe hoping that the sheer volume will overwhelm me. By doing so you make posters and people who are interested in the subject, ignore you. Try to keep your posts a bit shorter and pertinent and our discussion will be easier on everyone, and lets try to be at least decent in our addressing of each other. I understand that the very nature of our discussion offends you, but if you are not able to discuss it without getting emotional lets just call it quits. It is not my goal to anger you.

Regards Mustardseed

Well I only have 5 mins so im a make this short and sweet. First of all, Lets say America went into an agreemant with Iran that they cannot design any nuclear weapons. And lets just say that Iran BUILDS ONE opposing the agreement. THE USA has a right under Un resolutions to attack Irans facilities! During the rasuls time, the prophet made peace treaties WITH THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY!! To let them perform hajj in peace! The Meccans broke this promise so Allah sbwt sent a revelation to Muhammad telling him that if they break this promise and attack you THEN FIGHT THEM BACK! Muhammad's definition of Jihad was an inner struggle! A constant battle of the soul or the nafs which is the inner desire , the inner evils of ones soul. Now I will tell you yes indeed Muslims did fight some battles!

Secondly, you just posted an article..... that someone who was opposed to Islam wrote so what makes that as any proof? Why should I believe such a thing?  Jihad isn't the central principality in ?Islam. In Islam we have doctrines for fighting. The prophet taught us that before an enemy comes to attack WE MUST MAKE PEACE FIRST, The Quran says " If they incline towards peace then so do you for god is all knoweth all heareth." Muhammad then stats that if enemies were to attack then FIGHT THEM WITH CLEAR AUTHORITY! The law of fighting in Islam states that we cannot harm ANYTHING INNOCENT whether it be a tree, animal, or human!


I am sorry about the large posts but as you might know brother I am in exam weeks currently. I've been extremely busy lately! I apologize for the short responses, also do me a favor and quit ignoring the answering Christianity thread. You seem to avoid my Christian ethical answers about the bible.

Peace and blessinsg

Well my problem is not with Jeehad. What appears to have happened is a progression of frustration on the part of Muslims, culminating today. Islam was clearly a force to be reckoned with back then and the leaders of the religion and possibly Mohammed himself saw themselves as successful. Islam then capitalized on the line of oppression and force. It worked. In this day and age however they are not a world force, and instead try to negate the evolution of the Koran and appear peaceful as it suits the moment.

Jeehad and millions of others are decent good people and reject violence, however since the doctrine of Naskh is by now accepted, they must twist things to appear nonviolent but the suras have evolved, by their own hand and it it is not possible to take back what was said and taught without rejecting Naskh in its entirety.

This is a problem. Unless Muslims like Jeehad seriously decides to research their own doctrine, they will continue to flounder and flail. They might think that they (moderates) have the truth and that Islam teaches peace etc but if they take the time to look closer they are shaken and most revert to a sort of denial where they keep repeating the suras thet speak of peace, not having the guts to face the fact of what Islam has become.

It is very hard indeed and my heart goes out to these folks. I myself have had to do some in debth studies of secular scholars, to find my place in Christianity. Fundamentalists by definition must believe in the foundation and in the Koran, the foundation rests on the doctrine of Naskh Abrogation. It is not something that can not be discussed, as it is "revealed truth".

The only alternative is to reject the foundation and that would mean a monumental break with their world. Everything they have been taught and believe, friends family and previously held beliefs. Most do not want to even attempt this as the personal expense are too high, so they just settle for being peaceful themselves and in a way live a sort of modified Islam you could say, settling into the silent majority. Apostasy is then another very pertinent doctrine and is for most not acceptable.

I don't know what the answer is. I am thinking about it a lot and my prayers goes out to those who are caught in this fix.

Regards Mustardseed 

MustardSeed.... Why are you trying to teach me my own religion? You claim Islam was built, upon the basis of "oppression" but yet fail to provide any proof at all!! Look at the crusaders! Wern't they oen of the oppressors whom oppressed many Muslims in Palestine? Since your soo "learnt" in history why don't you show me hand in hand proofs of How Muslims in the Islamic era "conquered" and "killed" innocent lives because it was justified in the doctrine of "nashk"?? First of all, you are completely misunderstanding this "doctrine" for not a single reliable hadith source actually agrees upon such an idea. Where does the Prophet Muhammad command injustice from a reliable hadith? Where does the holy Quran tell man to kill(read the entire sura then give this judgment) I can show you HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of verses from the OT which seem absolutely absurd and gruesome in the way the prophets act. You claim  Jesus narrated the OT, and that "Christians do not believe in the testament at full hand." Isn't that a little absurd? Isn't that selective worship? Where you simply agree on certain passages of the text? Didn't MANY of the biblical stories originate from the OT? See this mentality was created recently when the churches realized that the OT completely destroyed moral values. EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE OT FULLY!


Let us examine Christians and the OT for a moment shall we?Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament's laws:  "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"  It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.  So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'  (Matthew 23:1-3)"

We clearly see in these verses that Jesus peace be upon him did not prohibit for the Old Testament to be followed, but only warned his followers to not follow it the way the current religious leaders of the Law (the Jewish Rabies) were following it.

On the basis of abrogation again please read:

http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html

http://www.mostmerciful.com/abrogation-and-substitution.htm


To further your learning about Muhammad:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4540

I beg of you to read and understand these links before coming onto here and ranting about things you do not have knowledge of. If you only read the life of Muhammad I shall guarantee your views would be completely altered. He was a man of peace, a man who played many different roles int he society. His life would lead you to believe that surely he was a prophet of God. Not only was Muhammad a great man but also he was historically accurate according to historians.

So..... Jeehad how does Abrogation apply to Sura 9:5

Sorry for not crediting my sources!! MustardSeed, instead of picking surahs from the Quran and taking them out of context how about you actually read the thing first? Here is an article explaining your so called "abrogation" written by Sheikh ahmed Zaid


I would very briefly try to explain some of the important points that need to be considered while determining the nature of the directive entailed in the referred verses of the Qur'an . Please keep in mind that the referred verses are a part of Surah Al-Taubah, which in turn has its own particular placement in the Qur'an  being preceded by Surah Al-An`aam, Al-A`raaf and Al-Anfaal. A thorough understanding of Surah Al-Taubah will obviously require an in-depth understanding of the preceding Surahs as well, as they serve as the premises on which the directives in Surah Al-Taubah are given. However, to avoid extra-ordinarily lengthy details, I shall, presently, restrict the scope of my analysis only to the evidences that are internal to Surah Al-Taubah. In case any question remains unanswered, we can then take up the analysis of the whole group of Surahs, beginning from Al-An`aam and ending at Al-Taubah.

The first point that needs to be considered is the opening of Surah Al-Taubah. The opening of the Surah may be translated as:

    "A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the idolaters with whom you have made [no-war] agreements. Thus, you [O polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God's judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Hajj-e-Akbar, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these polytheists. If you repent, [O polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God's judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them." (Al-Taubah 9: 1 – 5)

The Qur'an  further says:

    "How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous." (Al-Taubah 9: 7)

A close look at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, "Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them" is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet  (pbuh), had entered into an agreement and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims. Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world.

The Qur'an  further says:

    "Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and have conspired to banush the messenger? They were the first to attack you." (Al-Taubah 9: 12)

Thus, a further qualification of those against whom the directive is given is that besides breaking their oaths with the Muslims, they conspired to banush the Prophet  (pbuh) and were the first to attack the Muslims. It is obvious that the referred directive implies to take action against a particular people. It cannot be generalized to the whole world and to all times to come. The Qur'an  further clarifies that the directive is mainly against those particular polytheists who were the custodians of the Haram – the Ka`bah. The Qur'an  says:

    "It is not becoming for these polytheists to manage the mosques of God – being themselves witnesses on their own rejection." (Al-Taubah 9: 17)

An important point to remember here is that, according to the Qur'an , it is the special and specific position of the Rasu'l (messengers) of Allah, which renders the rejecters among his direct addressees "themselves witnesses on their own rejection". The Qur'an  tells us that the messengers of the Almighty, in contrast to Nabi's (prophets), are not merely deliverers of God's message. It tells us that a messenger of God is a sign of God's final justice. When God sends his messenger among a people, these people are left with no excuse of rejection. The truth becomes as apparent for them as the shining sun. Consequently, if these people persist in their rejection, they are sentenced to one of the following two punishments depending upon their beliefs:

      If they are polytheists (Mushrik), they are sentenced to death, as a punishment of their rejection. The Qur'an  has presented the people of `aad, Thamud, Nooh, Lut, Musa etc. as examples of this category;
   1.

      On the other hand, if these people are not polytheists, they are not sentenced to death, however they are forced to become subservient to the believers  of the messenger. The Banu Israeel, after their rejection of Jesus (pbuh)[1] were subjected to this punishment.

Keeping this brief explanation of God's law regarding the rejecters of His Rasu'l in perspective it should be clear that the phrase 'being themselves witnesses on their own rejection' implies a particular people against whom the companions of the Prophet  (pbuh) are directed to take the action.

As has been mentioned above, the polytheists among the rejecters of a messenger of God are sentenced to death. The implementation of this sentence may take two forms, depending on the condition of the believers :

    *

      If the believers  are very few in number and if an Islamic state has not been created, then this punishment is directly implemented by the Almighty. This implementation normally takes the form of a natural calamity, like a flood, an earthquake, a windstorm etc. This has generally been the case with the rejecters of the messengers of Allah. They were punished by nature unleashed. The Qur'an , in Surah Al-Qamar, while addressing the polytheists of Arabia , at the beginning of the Prophet 's ministry, has referred to some of the more known among the rejecters of the previous messengers of God and has mentioned the consequences that they were subjected to face because of their rejection. At the end of the Surah, the Qur'an  has asked the addressees of the Prophet (pbuh):

        "[Why O polytheists of Arabia , would you not be punished in the same way?] Are your unbelievers better than these [previous rejecters of our messengers]? Or are you given immunity [from this punishment] in the Holy Scriptures? Do they say: We are a strong army [of men]? [Nay,] the army shall surely be routed and they shall flee turning their backs." (Al-Qamar 54: 43 – 46)

    Thus, the addressees of the Prophet  (pbuh) were warned of the consequences of their rejection from the beginning of the Prophet's ministry. They were informed that if they persist in their rejection, they shall face the same consequences as were faced by the rejecters of the previous messengers of God.

    *

      If a significant number of people accept the messenger of God and the messenger also succeeds in forming an Islamic state, then this punishment is implemented through the believers . This serves two purposes. Firstly, the rejecters are punished and secondly, the believers are tested for their truthfulness and the genuineness of their faith.

Keeping this point in perspective, if we consider Al-Taubah 9: 14 – 16, we see that these verses direct the companions of the Prophet  (pbuh) to fight the unbelievers and inform them of the reasons for this directive. Let us take a close look at these verses:

    "Fight them. God shall punish them [for their rejection] through your hands. He shall humble them, grant you victory over them and shall thereby heal the spirit of the believers  and remove all rancor from their hearts... [This fighting against your own kith and kin shall be a test for the truthfulness of your belief in God.] Did you think that you would be left alone [and not tested for the truthfulness of your faith], while God has not yet determined those among you who fight [in His way] and take none as close associates except God, His messenger and the believers? [Remember that] God is aware of all your actions."

Seen in this perspective, it should be obvious that the directives entailed in these verses are specific to the direct addressees of the Qur'an . They can, by no means, be generalized for all human beings and for all times to come.

Finally, if we look at Al-Taubah 9: 39 – 40, we shall see that in these verses, God has warned the hypocrites  and the weak among Muslims that if they do not help the Prophet  (pbuh) and fight according to God's directives, they shall face the dire consequences of turning their backs. These verses also declare that whether the Muslims help the Prophet (pbuh) or not, God shall Himself help him and shall grant him victory over the rejecters. The Qur'an  says:

    "If you do not go to war [against these rejecters], He will punish you severely and will replace you by another people [, who shall help him]. You will not harm him in any way for God [is his protector and He] has power over all things. [Thus,] if you do not help him, God [will Himself help him, as He] helped him when these rejecters drove him out, when he was only the second among the two. When they were in the cave, when he said to his companion: 'Do not despair, indeed God is with us'. God caused His tranquility to descend upon him and strengthened him with warriors that were not visible to you and [thus] He routed the words of the rejecters and exalted the word of God. Indeed God is mighty and wise."

The ultimate result of the fighting regarding which the believers  were being directed to participate in was also declared in this Surah. The Qur'an  declared:

    "It is He, Who has sent His messenger with His guidance and the True Religion that He may exalt it above all other religions [of Arabia], however much these polytheists may detest it." (Al-Taubah 9: 33)

In the light of the above explanation, it should be clear that the Surah and the directives entailed in it are specific not only in their address but also in their implication.

I hope this helps. In case any aspect of my answer remains unclear, please feel free in writing back to me at your own convenience.

May the Almighty guide us all to the path of His liking.

Regards

Dont ignore this mustardseed.

Mustardseed,

For me, the issue is whether progressive revelation is operant or whether an ill-tempered Muhammad became progressively more irritated by the resistance of Jews and Christians and unconsciously infused a more bigoted and murderous rage into his image of Allah.  I favor the latter explanation because of obvious indications that Muhammad consciously or unconsciously ripped off much of his "revelation" about the early childhood of Jesus from historically discredited Christian infancy Gospels composed from the 2nd to the 5th  centuries.  I have tracked down these parallels.  No modern historian invests these infancy Gospels with a shred of historical credibility.  What truly frightens me is the realization that the Islamo-Fascists seem to have more legtimate claim than the moderates to a correct interpretation of the true intent of Muslim tradition.

Don   

Don, instead of ranting on about claims why don't you support your proof? Show me an authentic hadith where Muhammed was so called ill tempered towards Jews and Christians?? If you think the holy Quran was ripped from the bible THEN CLEARLY you have not read the bible nor have you read the Quran.According to archaelogical discoveries an original Arabic version of the Bible was discovered dated back to the year 1000, meaning that if the Qur'an was copied, it would be identical to the Arabic bible or at least have some similarities, but they are totally different. If the implication is that the content has been copied, I would say both documents may cover common material. Both the Qur'an and the Bibles have the stories of Jonah and the Whale in common, as well as the Exodus of Moses and the story of Joseph as covered in the Old Testament and the Miracle birth of Jesus and that of John the Baptist in the New Testament. However this does not imply copying, but rather information originating from a common source. Because there are remnants of God's revelation still evident in the modern Bibles, as Muslims we acknowledge the common thread, however, and this I must stress, if Qur'an was copied from the Bible as they claim, then the foundation of Christian belief should be easily visible in Qur'an - such as the 'Crucifiction", the "Resurrection", the existence of a "Trinitarian godhead", the "Original sin", and that "Jesus died for the sins of the world" etc... But non of this is in the Qur'an, the most important parts of Christian belief is abscent from Qur'an, the very foundations on which Christianity stands in not in the Qur'an yet Christians claim the Qur'an is copied from the Bible. I don't think so. If you take a look at my thread "understanding Christianity" it will cite the many errors available in the Ot and NT. Tell me, find me on valid error in the holy Quran? If the Quran was copied then surely it would be filled with the same sort of errors copied from the bible?  As Muslims we believe that Jesus had the true message "The Injeel" But the Christians have shown a history of corrupting such a word, my words are also backed up by historical accounts of the bible being altered and changed through out history.Now let me explain what the Qur'an is! It is an untranslatable document, it may be available in French, Spanish, Portuegese, German, Swahilli etc... non of which is the Qur'an but rather an authors choice of word within his limited understanding of the Arabic original. The Arabic Qur'an is composed of prose, of poetry in the first person (God's Almighty's speech), it is verbal art, with aesthetic evocative qualities and cadences that make grown men cry when heard. It is rythimic with incantatory qualities and totally euphonic and possess vowel harmony. This beauty only exists in the Arabic Quran and when translated into any other language its effect is lost... completely. So.., does that imply when the Qur'an was copied from the Bible (which are second and third persons accounts of events) which have non of these aforementioned qualities, translated into a Qur'an speaking in the first person, containing all these aforementioned qualities, I don't think so. Besides, because of these said qualities, Qur'an it easy to remember, hence Millions of Muslims have committed some portion of Qur'an to memory with hundreds of thousands of Gufaaz (scholars) situated all over the world, all having committed the whole of the Qur'an to memory. Todate, I have not come across any person that committed the entire Bible to memory besides the fact that the Bible is a work in progress and changes every so often. The Bible has gone through a metamorphasis since its inception and has yet to arrive in its final state.o my question now is, how it it possible to copy the Qur'an from the Biible and build into this copy the potential to easily commit it to memory when the host does not possess that quality. Because of these amaizing qualities, a chalange has been set by this very Arabic Qur'an daring any human being to produce just one chapter like it, portraying such qualities. Todate, nobody has and in fact never will. When the poetry of the the "world's greatest poets" like Homer, Dante and Shakespear was compared to verses of Qur'an, one sees how insipid and inferior their poems are, and how ridiculously inadequate English is.

Arabic has a very very vast vocabulary and as such has contributed words to numerous other languages. One of the Miracles of the Qur'an is that it is a book of guidance for life of man, an epic of the prophets of old, a historical document of the unseen, a scientific document of nature, an account of creation, a directory for the afterlife, a book of morals, a light beacon to those lost, an incantation for prayer, a hotline to the Creator, a basis for unity and so much more, written in a mere 2000 unique words. Miracle? I would say so!

Do you think MustardSeed wrote out that entire argument? He gets a copy from the internet to prove his "point" so shall I.

I have come here to show him a whole new world of spirituality. A new concept, a concept which I believe is the truth. Why do you find something wrong with that? Maybe his true callign is the submission to God??? Maybe it isn't who knows.

In the name of Allah the most gracious most merciful

I don't think there should be a division in man, whether your Christian,Jewish,Muslim you are all the same! I don't think religion is stupid at all! I think that the misunderstanding of religion is completely false and wrong. I am a Muslim, we believe that Jesus was not the son of God but rather a man equal to you and I! We are all capable of communicating with God, but we believe God provided a criterion to judge between right and wrong and this is the Holy Quran.

Read this: http://www.freewebs.com/1slam/thekoran.htm

Inshallah it will open your mind to a totally new world! I think our mission is man and not the occult. The occult is a dangerous thing to look into bro.
take a look at this recitation about the "spirits." We believe that there are Jinns in this universe, many of them are those who try to deceive mankind but among them are truth seekers. This chapter refers to a party of them who listened to the Holy Quran and said indeed this is a wonderful recital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN4dFoFXYHk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYDqUYEph28

Peace and blessings be with you.

Sorry for the double post but I ask God for you to read it all, and Inshallah truth will be restored, and confusion shall be relinquished. Ameen

contradictions:

Should we kill?

    * Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
    * Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

      vs.

    * Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
    * I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
    * I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and butt. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
    * Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
    * Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

      For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).

Should we tell lies?

    * Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
    * Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

      vs.

    * I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
    * II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

      Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

Should we steal?

    * Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
    * Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."

      vs.

    * Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
    * Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
    * Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

      I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

Shall we keep the sabbath?

    * Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
    * Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
    * Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

      vs.

    * Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
    * John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
    * Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

Shall we make graven images?

    * Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
    * Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
    * Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."

      vs.

    * Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
    * I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"

Are we saved through works?

    * Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
    * Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
    * Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

      vs.

    * James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
    * Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

      The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."

Should good works be seen?

    * Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
    * I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."

      vs.

    * Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . that thine alms may be in secret."
    * Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men."

Should we own slaves?

    * Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
    * Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
    * Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
    * Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
    * Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
    * Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."

      vs.

    * Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
    * Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."

      Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.

Does God change his mind?

    * Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
    * Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
    * Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
    * James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

      vs.

    * Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
    * Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
    * Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

      See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.

      See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)

Are we punished for our parents' sins?

    * Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
    * Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
    * I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."

      vs.

    * Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
    * Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Is God good or evil?

    * Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."
    * Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

      vs.

    * Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
    * Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
    * Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
    * Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."

Does God tempt people?

    * James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

      vs.

    * Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Is God peaceable?

    * Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
    * Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

      vs.

    * Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."
    * Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."

Was Jesus peaceable?

    * John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
    * Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
    * Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."

      vs.

    * Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
    * Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Was Jesus trustworthy?

    * John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."

      vs.

    * John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

      "Record" and "witness" in the above verses are the same Greek word (martyria).

Shall we call people names?

    * Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." [Jesus speaking]

      vs.

    * Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]
    * Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Has anyone seen God?

    * John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
    * Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
    * John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."
    * I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."

      vs.

    * Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
    * Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
    * Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
    * Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."

How many Gods are there?

    * Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."

      vs.

    * Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."
    * Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil."
    * I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

      It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve.

Are we all sinners?

    * Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
    * Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
    * Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."

      vs.

    * Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
    * Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
    * Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

How old was Ahaziah?

    * II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

      vs.

    * II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Should we swear an oath?

    * Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
    * Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place Beersheba ["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them."
    * Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath."

      See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39.

      vs.

    * Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
    * James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

When was Jesus crucified?

    * Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

      vs.

    * John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."

      It is an ad hoc defense to claim that there are two methods of reckoning time here. It has never been shown that this is the case.

Shall we obey the law?

    * I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."
    * Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." See also Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1.

      vs.

    * Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."

How many animals on the ark?

    * Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark."
    * Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
    * Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

      vs.

    * Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Were women and men created equal?

    * Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

      vs.

    * Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Were trees created before humans?

    * Genesis 1:12-31 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: . . . And the evening and the morning were the third day. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

      vs.

    * Genesis 2:5-9 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. .Ê.ÊAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food."

Did Michal have children?

    * II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

      vs.

    * II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

How many stalls did Solomon have?

    * I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

      vs.

    * II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."

Did Paul's men hear a voice?

    * Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

      vs.

    * Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

      (For more detail on this contradiction, with a linguistic analysis of the Greek words, see "Did Paul's Men Hear A Voice?" by Dan Barker, published in the The Skeptical Review, 1994 #1)

Is God omnipotent?

    * Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
    * Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

      vs.

    * Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Does God live in light?

    * I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."
    * James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
    * John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."
    * Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
    * Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.

      vs.

    * I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1)
    * II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."
    * Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."
    * Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."

Does God accept human sacrifice?

    * Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

      vs.

    * Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
    * Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
    * Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
    * II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
    * Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
    * I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."

Who was Joseph's father?

    * Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."

      vs.

    * Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

PART 2:


INTRODUCTION

The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.

This concept invented originally by these scholars, claims that there are some verses in the Quran that have been abrogated and invalidated by other verses!

The verse that is the abrogator they call (Al-Nasekh) while the abrogated verse they call (Al-Mansoukh).

These scholars have come up with hundreds of cases of abrogated verses to the extent that they have formulated a whole science of the subject filling lengthy books and references.

Although the concept was originally invented by Muslim scholars as a result of their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it has been widely exploited by non-Muslim writers to tarnish the perfection and divinity of the book.

Abrogations or Contradictions?

The lie invented by the Muslim scholars suggests that some Quranic verses have been abrogated by other verses. On the other hand, the non-Muslim writers claim that these cases, and other cases they put forward, are in fact contradictions inside the Quran. Consequently, they use these cases as evidence to refute the divinity of the Quran.

It is noted that the examples used by Muslim scholars as 'abrogated verses' are not always the verses used by non-Muslim writers and which they simply refer to as 'contradictions in the Quran'.

Although it can be said that the common aspect shared by the two groups is their poor understanding of the Quran, yet it can also be added that in the case of the non-Muslim writers, and particularly those who do not speak Arabic, we often find many of their claims for contradictions to be a product of their acquisition of corrupted and misleading translations of the Quran.

Both of these types of false claims can be dealt with in the light of the Quran. It can be demonstrated that these claims are no more than cases of poor understanding of the book.

Abrogation claims of

Muslim Scholars

"A.L.R. This is a book whose verses have been perfected" Sura 11, verse 1
"......the words of God are unchangeable" 10:64

Although God asserts that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions, yet sadly these scholars have invented the greatest lie about the Quran, claiming that there are verses in the Quran that abrogate and invalidate other verses.

They base their claim on a corrupted interpretation of two verses:

FIRST VERSE 2:106

"Whichever Ayah We relinquish or cause to be forgotten We replace it with its equal or with that which is greater, did you not know that God is capable of all things?" 2:106

What the interpreters claim is that this verse confirms that some Quranic verses are invalidated by others. They interpret 'Ayah' in this verse to mean a verse in the Quran.

However the word Ayah, as used in the Quran, can have one of four different meanings:

a- It could mean a miracle from God as in:

"And We supported Moses with nine profound Ayah's (miracles)." 17:101

b- It could also mean an example for people to take heed from as in:

"And the folk of Noah, when they disbelieved the messengers, We have drowned them and set an Ayah (example) of them for all people." 25:37

c- The word 'Ayah' can also mean a sign as in:

"He said, 'My Lord, give me an 'Ayah' (sign).' He said, 'Your Ayah is that you will not speak to people for three consecutive nights." 19:10

d- It could mean a verse in the Quran, as in:

"This is a book that We have sent down to you that is sacred, perhaps they will reflect on its 'Ayat' (verses)." 38:29

Now if we consider verse 106 of Sura 2, we can easily spot that the word 'Ayah' in this particular verse could not mean a verse in the Quran. It can mean any of the other meanings (miracle, example or sign) but not a verse in the Quran. This is because of the following reasons:

1- The words "cause to be forgotten" could not be applicable if the word 'Ayah' in this verse meant a verse in the Quran. How can a verse in the Quran become forgotten? For even if the verse was invalidated by another (as the interpreters falsely claim) it will still be part of the Quran and thus could never be forgotten.

2- The words "We replace it with its equal" would be meaningless if the word 'Ayah' in this verse meant a Quranic verse, simply because it would make no sense for God to invalidate one verse then replace it with one that is identical to it!

3- If the word 'Ayah' in verse 106 meant a miracle an example or a sign, then all the words of the verse would make perfect sense. The words "cause to be forgotten" can apply to all three meanings and that is what actually happens with the passing of time. The miracles of Moses and Jesus have long been forgotten. We only believe in them because they are mentioned in the Quran.

Similarly the words "We replace with its equal or with that which is greater" is in line with the miracles of God. God indeed replaces one miracle with its equal or with one that is greater than it. Consider the following verse :

"And We have sent Moses with Our Ayah's (miracles or signs) to Pharaoh and his elders proclaiming : 'I am a messenger from the Lord of the universe'. When he brought them our Ayah's they laughed at him. Every Ayah We showed them was greater than the one that preceded it." 43:46-48

SECOND VERSE 16:101

"When We substitute one Ayat (revelation) in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, 'You made this up'. Indeed most of them do not know"

The substitution spoken of here is concerned with one of two things:

a- The substitution of one Scripture in place of another.

b- The substitution of one verse or law within a Scripture with another in a subsequent Scripture

a- The first meaning is given evidence to in the following verse:

"Then we revealed to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming previous scriptures, and superseding them." 5:48

Here, the words "superseding them." confirm that the previous scripture were substituted with the Quran.

b- The second meaning is also given evidence to in the Quran where various issues that were prohibited to the previous people of the book were made lawful in the Quran.

As an example, we are told in 2:187 that sexual intercourse between married couples during the nights of the fasting month was made lawful, while it was prohibited previously.

We are also told in 6:146 that God prohibited for the Jews all animals with undivided hoofs; and of the cattle and sheep the fat was prohibited. These were made lawful in the Quran.

This verse 16:101 does not speak about the substitution of one verse in the Quran with another.

The evidence to that is given within the same verse (16:101):
The key to the meaning of the verse lies in the words:

"........they say, 'You made this up"

Here we must stop and ask, who is likely to tell the messenger "You made this up" ? and why? For sure it cannot be his followers, his followers are not likely to tell him

"You have made it up"................it has to be those who do not believe in him, which focuses on the followers of previous scripture who feared that their scripture was in danger of being "substituted" with the Quran............

What more evidence to that more than the fact that till this day, the Jews and Christians accuse Muhammad that he fabricated the Quran himself! If this accusation is from the Jews and Christians we must then ask, are they accusing Muhammad of substituting one verse in the Quran with another? The Jews and Christians do not care if one verse in the Quran is substituted for another, after all they do not believe in the whole book............. they will not complain that one verse in the Quran is being substituted with another! However, and if their Scripture is being substituted by the Quran, they will immediately accuse the messenger that the Scripture he brings (Quran) is not from God but that he "made it up" himself.

These glorious words "You have made it up" indeed stand as true indicator from God Almighty that the substitution spoken of in this verse is not related to one within the Quran, but indeed a substitution between two scripture.

As mentioned before, the substitution of the previous scripture with the Quran is confirmed in 5:48

       As a result of the corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101, and the claim that some Quranic verses invalidate other verses, the interpreters have demonstrated their failure to uphold two main characteristics of the Quran, those being that the Quran is perfect and harbours no contradictions (11:1) and also that the words of God are unchangeable (10:64).

It is well worth inquiring here into the motive behind the interpreters corruption of the meaning of 2:106 and 16:101.

Perhaps the major reason is not connected to the Quran at all but to the 'hadith'. It is well accepted among the hadith scholars that the concept of abrogation applies to the hadith since it is found that many 'hadith' contradict one another. The examples of these are too numerous. The following are only some examples:

P.S. (the first number is the number of the book (chapter), and second number is the number of hadith. For example Muslim 18/58 means the 58th hadith in the 18th book of Muslim. In other quotations the name of the chapter is given instead of its number.

1- "I am the most honourable messenger" (Bukhary 97/36).
This hadith contradicts the following hadith:
"Do not make any distinction among the messengers; I am not even better than Jonah" (Bukhary 65/4,5; Hanbel 1/205,242,440).

2- "The Prophet never urinated in standing position" (Hanbel 6/136,192,213). This contradicts:
"The prophet urinated in standing position" (Bukhary 4/60,62).

3- "The prophet said, 'The sun was eclipsed the day Ibrahim (the prophet's son) died'...(Bukhary 7/page 118)
This contradicts:
"The prophet said, 'the sun and moon are signs from God, they are not eclipsed for the death or life of any one" (Bukhari 2/page 24)

4- "If two Muslims fight each other with their swords, the killer and the killed will go to hell" (Bukhari 1/page 13, Muslim 18/page 10).
This hadith contradicts the hadith of the ten who were foretold that they will go to heaven by the prophet (Ahmad 1/page 187-188, also narrated by Abu Dawood and Al-Tarmazy). That is because among those ten were those who fought and killed one another in battle, specifically Ali, Talha and Al-Zobair. According to the first hadith they will go to hell but accoding to the second hadith they are foretold paradise!

5- In various hadith, specifically in the chapters of the 'Hereafter' in the books of Bukhary and Muslim we read numerous predictions by the prophet detailing what will take place there. This contradicts the hadith by Aesha, the prophet's wife where she says "Anybody who says that Muhammad knows the future is a liar" (Bukhary 8/ page 166, Muslim 3/ page 9-10)

6- "The prophet said, 'Take your religion from the words of Aesha (the prophet's wife)"
This contradicts: "The prophet said, 'Aesha is immature in mind and faith." (Bukhari and others)

The heart of the matter is directly connected to the following verse:

"Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from a source other than God, they would have detected within it numerous contradictions." 4:82

This verse confirms that anything that contains contradictions cannot be from God, and since the hadith contains numerous contradictions, as shown, it cannot be from God. But the hadith advocates claim that the hadith was inspired by God and that the hadith Al-Qudsy is God's own words spoken to Muhammad! If that is so, how could they explain the contradictions in hadith? How could it be from God when it is full of contradictions? According to 4:82 nothing that contains contradictions can be from God.

To wiggle out of this tricky situation, the hadith advocates devised the concept of the abrogation of Quranic verses.

The plan was as such: If the Quran can be shown to contain contradictory verses, yet no one will dispute that it is from God, then the hadith with its contradictions can also be described to be inspired by God !!!

Quite a sly plot except for one minor detail;

THE QURAN CONTAINS NO CONTRADICTIONS!

      It is the intention of this book to review the most common cases of abrogation and, God willing, demonstrate that they are all based upon poor understanding of the Quran. Each case presented will be accompanied by Quranic evidence that confirms the absence of any contradiction between the relevant verses, and as a result will expose the interpreter's poor understanding of the Quran.

CLAIMS OF ABROGATION

P.S.

(The following are a few examples, the complete number of claimed abrogated cases appear in the book by the author).

CASE ONE:

The first example is concerned with the following verses:

Abrogated

"Whether you declare your inner thoughts or you conceal them, God holds you accountable to them." 2:284

Abrogator

"God never burdens any soul beyond its means, to its credit is what it earns, and against it is what it commits." 2:286

The claim is that these two verses contradict one another, the first verse states that God holds people accountable to their intentions while as the second verse indicates that we are only accountable to our deeds. Therefore this stands as a candidate for abrogation where the second verse is the abrogator and the first verse is abrogated.

Thus they claim that the underlined words in 2:284 were invalidated by the underlined words in 2:286

However, one only has to read the verse immediately before verse 284 to realise that there is no contradiction between 284 and 286:

The last words of verse 283 together with verse 284 read as follows:

"Anyone who withholds a testimony is sinful at heart. God is fully aware of everything you do. To God belongs everything in the heavens and the earth, Whether you declare your inner thoughts or conceal them, God holds you accountable for them."

By reading the two verses together it becomes apparent that the subject of verse 284 is testimony and not one's intentions in general.

Verse 284 confirms that God holds those who conceal a testimony accountable. Furthermore, the words used in verse 284 are 'declare' and 'conceal' while as the words used in verse 286 are 'earn' and 'commit'. The words 'declare' and 'conceal' are consistent with the subject of testimony. Testimony can indeed be declared or concealed. On the other hand, the words 'earn' and 'commit' which are used in verse 286 speak of our deeds.

Indeed verses 283 and 284 are related to the same subject (withholding testimony) since they are consecutive. For all that, it becomes clear that there is not the slightest contradiction between verses 284 and 286.

CASE TWO:

Abrogated

"Surely those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabaeans, those among them who believe in God and the hereafter, and who works righteous deeds, will receive their recompense from their Lord, they have nothing to fear nor will they grieve" 2:62

Abrogator

"Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers" 3:85

Here the claim is that while verse 2:62 says that some Jews and Christians will be rewarded, this was abrogated by 3:85 which states that all who are not Muslim will end up in hell.

The misunderstanding and poor interpretation here stems from their lack of understanding of the word Islam (Submission). In spite of the fact that God tells us in the Quran that Islam (Submission to God Alone) is as old as Abraham who was the first Muslim (see 2:128, 2:131, 2:133) and who was the first to name us Muslims (22:78), still the Muslim scholars today insist that Islam is confined to being the religion of the Quran !!!

By creating such a false statement, the Muslim scholars claim to be the custodians of the message! In 3:67 God specifically tells us that Abraham was neither Jewish nor Christian, but a monotheist Muslim. God also tells us in 5:111 that Jesus and the Disciples were Muslim. In 27:44 tells us that Solomon was Muslim and in 5:44 we are told of all the prophets who were given the Torah and who were all Muslim.

What all these verses are confirming is that there are Muslims who followed the Torah and the Bible and who knew nothing of the Quran. These Muslims were submitters to God Alone , Lord of the universe.

In effect the religion of Islam which was originally founded by Abraham can be found, not only in the Quran, but also in the Torah and the Bible. After all we are told that all the foundations of the religion, and which Muslims call the pillars of Islam were first given to Abraham.

The Quran confirms the true meaning of a Muslim, as being he who submits to God Alone and obeys the law of God Alone, and should not be confined to he who follows the Quran.

Those among the Christians who believe in the Oneness of God and who do not worship Jesus are Muslim in the sight of God. Similarly those among any other religion who submit to God Alone and who set up no idols to partner Almighty God are Muslim in the sight of God.

All these have their recompense from their Lord and have nothing to fear (2:62). These people are also the subject of 3:85 since they chose to be Muslim (submitters) to God. They could be Muslim submitters, Jewish submitters, Christian submitters .....etc.

Consequently, there is no contradiction between 2:62 and 3:85

CASE THREE:

Some of the most ridiculous cases of abrogation are connected with the difficulty of these scholars in understanding that some laws set by God make allowance for exceptions. Whenever the scholars see a law that makes allowance for an exception, they construe it as a case of abrogation!

There are many cases throughout the Quran of this poor deduction and total irrationality, the following are some of them:

1- In 4:19 God address's the men by saying:

"You shall not force them (the women) to give up anything you have given them, unless they commit a proven adultery"

Here the abrogation claim is that the first part of the verse "You shall not force them (women) to give up anything you have given them" has been abrogated by the second part of the verse "unless they commit a proven adultery" !!!!

Why does an exception to a rule that is made allowance for by God obliterate the rule??? Obviously the rule still stands, because God states that for all women who have not committed adultery, their husbands do not have the right to regain anything they had previously given them.

The first part of the verse, which constitutes the general case has not been abrogated. The second part of the verse which constitutes the exception also stands.

2- In 2:159 we read:

"Those who conceal Our revelations and guidance, after proclaiming them in the Scripture, are condemned by God; they are condemned by all the condemners"

They claim that this verse (159) has been abrogated by the verse that immediately followed it (160) which reads:

"Except those who repent, reform and proclaim, I redeem them. I am the Redeemer, the Most Merciful"

Again we see that verse 160 says that those who had concealed the revelation but then repented and reformed are redeemed by God. Verse 159 has not been abrogated. It still stands, since all those who concealed the revelations and have not repented and reformed are not redeemed.

3- In 3:86-88 we read:

"Why should God guide those who disbelieved after believing................the retribution is never commuted for them, nor will they be reprieved"

The claim here is that these verses have been abrogated by verse 89:

"Exempted are those who repent thereafter and reform, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Once again the claimed abrogation is non existent. Both verses stand true.

Verses 86-88 are speaking about those who disbelieve after believing and maintain their disbelieving until death. They are never reprieved in the hereafter. Verse 89 speaks about those who repent and reform during their life. Because God is Forgiver and Most Merciful they are reprieved.

The Quran confirms that only those who die as disbelievers are not pardoned:

"Those who disbelieve and die as disbelievers, an earthful of gold will not be accepted from any of them, even if such a ransom were possible. They have incurred painful retribution; they will have no helpers." 3:91

Once again the claim of abrogation is false and is based on poor understanding of the Quran.

4- Another case of poor understanding is found in the following verses:

"Also you shall not be married to two sisters at the same time" 4:23

they claim that this has been abrogated by the words that immediately followed :

"except that which has taken place in the past"

and they interpret the last sentence, which in Arabic is (Ila ma salaf) to have the meaning of (I have forgiven you).

Obviously this is all incorrect. What this last verse means is 'do not break up existing marriages'. It has nothing to do with forgiveness.

In other words God is saying that this law is to be enforced from that time onwards, but not to previous marriages so as not to break existing families.

Again the abrogation is non existent.
The same is applied to :

"Do not marry the women who were previously married to your fathers, except that which has taken place in the past.............." 4:22

CASE FOUR:

Here they claim the underlined words in the following verse:

"To God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you go you will always be facing God. God is Omnipresent, Omniscient" 2:115

have been abrogated by the underlined words in the following verse:

"We now assign a Qiblah that is pleasing to you. Henceforth, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. Wherever you may, all of you shall turn your faces towards it." 2:144

The claim is that in the beginning God made it lawful for the believers to face anywhere in Salat (Contact Prayers) (as in 2:115) then later God cancelled that by appointing a set Qibla (2:144) for the believers. Therefore, the claim is that 2:144 invalidates 2:115

First of all, it was never made lawful for believers to face anywhere in their Salat. We are told in the Quran that the Qibla was changed, but nowhere are we told that there was no Qibla.

We are told in the Quran that there was a Qibla that did not appeal to the prophet, and that God changed it to one that is more appealing to the prophet (see 2:144)

The obvious misunderstanding here is that while verse 144 is speaking about Qiblah for the Salat, verse 115 is not speaking about Salat at all. Verse 115 is speaking about the fact that God is present everywhere, and thus wherever we may look or wherever we may go, we will always be facing God. The presence of the word "Omnipresent" at the end of the verse confirms that the subject of the verse is God's Presence and not the Salat.

Verse 144 does not abrogate verse 115. They are talking about two completely different subjects.

CASE FIVE:

Abrogated:

"Had they, when they wronged their souls, come to you and prayed to GOD for forgiveness, and the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful." 4:64

Abrogator:

"Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people." 9:80

The claim is that the underlined words in 9:80 "even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them" invalidate the underlined words in 4:64 "the messenger prayed for their forgiveness, they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful."

Once again very poor understanding of the Quran.

Here we immediately note that these two verses speak about two different groups of people. In 4:64 God is speaking about those who have wronged their souls but have turned back to God and asked for His forgiveness. The fact that they asked forgiveness from God denotes that they believe in God, and for that we are told that "they would have found GOD Redeemer, Most Merciful."

On the other hand, those spoken of in 9:80 are described by the words: "they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger" .........and because they are disbelievers, we are told that "GOD will not forgive them"

From these two verses we learn that forgiveness can be asked for any believer who repents and reforms, but may never be asked for disbelievers.

No contradiction or invalidation exists between the two verses.

CASE SIX:

Abrogated:

"O you who believe, witnessing a will when one of you is dying shall be done by two equitable people among you (relatives or close friends). If you are travelling, then two others may do the witnessing. After observing the Contact Prayer (Salat), let the witnesses swear by GOD, to alleviate your doubts: "We will not use this to attain personal gains, even if the testator is related to us. Nor will we conceal GOD's testimony. Otherwise, we would be sinners." 5:106

Abrogator:

"Once the interim is fulfilled, you may reconcile with them equitably, or go through with the separation equitably. You shall have two equitable witnesses from among you (relatives or close friends) witness the divorce before GOD." 65:2

The claim is that in 5:106 any two witnesses, who are not necessarily relatives or close friends, can act as witnesses while in travel if relatives are not available, but this was invalidated by 65:2 which stated that the witnesses must be from among the relatives or close friends.

Once again, the claim is false for the following reasons:

1- The subject of 5:106 is witnessing the will of someone who is dying, or near death. The subject of 65:2 is witnessing a divorce.

2- In the situation of travel, a dying person may not have much time left, and since equitable relatives may not be available in time, thus God wavered the condition of the witnesses being from among the relatives, so that the will is witnessed in time before the death of the person.

3- The case of divorce does not present such immediate urgency, and thus the condition of equitable witnesses from among the relatives stands.

4- Thus it is obvious that 65:2 does not abrogate 5:106 in any way.

CASE SEVEN:

Abrogated:

"Say, 'I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day." 6:15

Abrogator:

"We have bestowed upon you (O Messenger) a great victory, whereby GOD forgives your past sins, as well as future sins........" 48:2

Here the claim is that the underlined words in 6:15 were abrogated later by the underlined words in 48:2

The indirect outcome of this outrageous abrogation is one of total idolatry.

If the scholars state that the words "I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day" are invalidated, are they saying that the prophet no longer has to fear God? !!!

To demonstrate the truth of these verses and their implications it is necessary first to examine in the light of the Quran what is forgiven by God, and which can be implied under 48:2, and what is never forgiven by God and thus must be feared according to 6:15.

We are told in the Quran that God forgives all sins except idolatry:

"God does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offences for whomever He wills." 4:48 and 116

We are also told that this warning applies to all people, including God's messengers. To affirm that even Muhammad was not excluded from that warning we see God specifically warning Muhammad against idolatry:

"It has been revealed to you (O Muhammad), and to those before you that if you ever commit idolatry, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers." 39:65

Now when we come to the claimed abrogation of 6:15, we read the following words:

"Say, 'I fear, if I disobeyed my Lord, the retribution of an awesome day."

However, when we read the words that immediately precede this verse, we read:

"Say, "I am commanded to be the most devoted submitter, and, `Do not be an idol worshiper." 6:14

If we put the two verses next to one another (verses 14 and 15 of Surah 6), it becomes obvious that the messenger is to say (I fear the retribution of an awesome day if I should disobey God and commit idolatry).

It follows from that to conclude that verse 48:2 which promises the messenger's sins will be forgiven (past and future sins) is obviously connected to all other sins, except idol worship.

There is no contradiction or abrogation between the two verses.

CASE EIGHT:

Abrogated:

"GOD has pardoned you: why did you give them permission (to stay behind), before you could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars?" 9:43

Abrogator:

"The true believers are those who believe in GOD and His messenger, and when they are with him in a community meeting, they do not leave him without permission. Those who ask permission are the ones who do believe in GOD and His messenger. If they ask your permission, in order to tend to some of their affairs, you may grant permission to whomever you wish, and ask GOD to forgive them. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 24:62

The claim here is that in 9:43 the prophet was not allowed to give permission to the ones wanting to stay behind, before he could distinguish those who are truthful from the liars, while in 24:62 he was not given the permission to do so.

Again, the error is quite obvious. Verse 9:43 is specifically talking about going out for battle while 24:62 is talking about leaving a community meeting to attend to some personal matters!

We read in the two verses preceding 9:43, namely 9:41 and 42:

"You shall readily mobilize, light or heavy, and strive with your money and your lives in the cause of GOD. This is better for you, if you only knew.
If there were a quick material gain, and a short journey, they would have followed you. But the striving is just too much for them. They will swear by GOD: "If we could, we would have mobilized with you." They thus hurt themselves, and GOD knows that they are liars."

The underlined words "mobilize" and if it were a "short journey" indicate that the subject is mobilizing to go out for the purpose of battle.

However, the words "community meeting" in 24:62, denotes that the situation then is not one of battle but a normal community meeting where a request for permission to be excused for some personal matters would not exactly be classified as an unforgivable sin!

Once again 24:62 does not contradict or abrogate 9:43, the subject of the two verse is different.

PRAISE ALMIGHTY GOD

Christianity

Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God.

One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian.

The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets. 

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9).

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran:

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen.

Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: 'Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma'idah 5:116-117)

I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran.

Before leaving the subject of Christianity, I should mention one small point of observation. If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying.
Various Holy Bibles

It is worth mentioning that the Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects and all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible; New International Version, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, Roman Catholic Version and the King James Version. A special note: I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," and nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible.

In addition to the many different Christian sects and Bibles, I have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects and are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed.

I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. Briefly, let me mention that on September 8, 1957, the Jehovah's witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50,000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah's witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5,000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God?

Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and New Testaments:

II Samuel 8:4 (vs)
   

II Samuel 8:9-10
   

II Kings 8:26

II Samuel 6:23
   

Genesis 6:3
   

John 5:37

John 5:31
   

I Chronicles 18:4
   

I Chronicles 18:9-10

II Chronicles 22:2
   

II Samuel 21:8
   

Genesis 9:29

John 14:9
   

John 8:14
   



Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.

How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God. 

I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.

From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian's mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God's word.

As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.

The Gospels

If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author's autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:

"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)."

Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He's and the Him's of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God.

It is worth noting, and well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present four "gospels" of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, and not by Jesus. Constantine's mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant and criminal who murdered his son, his wife and thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father."

Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus' disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. If these writings were not more authentic than the four present gospels, they were of equal authenticity. Some of them are still available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Quran. The Gospel of Barnabas, until now, is the only eyewitness account of the life and mission of Jesus. Even today, the whole of the Protestant word, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other sects and denominations condemn the Roman Catholic version of the Bible because it contains seven "extra" books. The Protestant have bravely expunged seven whole books from their word of God. A few of the outcasts are the Books of Judith, Tobnias, Baruch and Esther.

Concerning Jesus' teachings of the Gospel (Injeel), the Gospel writers frequently mentioned Jesus preaching the Gospel: Matthew 9:35, Mark 8:35, and Luke 20:1. The word "gospel" is recurrently used in the Bible. However, in the New Testament Greek edition the word Evangeline is used in place of the word gospel, which is translated to mean good news. My question was: what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus, and only of the 27 books are known to be attributed as the Gospel of Jesus. The remaining 23 were supposedly written by Paul. Muslims do believe that Jesus was given God's "Good News." However, they do not recognized the present four Gospels as the utterances of Jesus.

The earliest Gospel is that of Mark's which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas's sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke's Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark's and Matthew's. Luke was Paul's physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4?

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

John's Gospel is from a different source, and was written in about 100 AD. He (John) should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE long before this gospel was written. It should be accepted as a reliable account of the life of Jesus, and whether it should be included in the scriptures.

Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark."

The permission to call "According to" writings the Gospel was not given by Jesus nor by any other divine guidance. These writings; Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, were never originally to be the Gospel. Therefore, Mark 1:1 can not be a true statement that his writing is the gospel of Jesus. 

It should be mentioned that Muslims must believe in all Divine scriptures in their original form, their Prophets and making no distinction between them: The Suhuf (Abraham); Torah (Moses); Psalms (David); Gospel - or the Injeel (Jesus); and the Quran (Muhammad). It is clearly stated in the Quran 3:3 that Allah sent down the Torah and the Gospel. However, none of these scriptures remains in its original form now, except the Quran, which was sent for all mankind everywhere and for all times.

In addition to other reasons why the Quran was sent to mankind, as mentioned in 18:4-5 it was sent to warn the Christians of a terrible punishment from God if they cease not in saying: "Allah has begotten a son."

Muslims sincerely believe that everything Jesus (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) preached was from God; the Gospel (Injeel): The "good news" and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. There is no place mentioned in the present four Gospels that Jesus wrote a single word of his Gospel, nor is it mentioned that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. What passes off, as the "Gospels" today are the works of third party human hands. The Quran 2:79 says:
"And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and they say: "This is from Allah (God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!" 
Jesus As the Son of God

Is Jesus the Son of God?  Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus.  If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22:

"Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.

Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus' doctrine, God is "Father" – Nourisher and Sustainer – of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.

In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David: 

"...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."

Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says:

"...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."

Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn't this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?

I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads: 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten, Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now let's read Luke 10:25-28:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live.

These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says;

"And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, 'Why do you call me good? – No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."

There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone.

In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus' mission.

In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples:

"But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing."

Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God's nature. The Qur'an 19:35 says:


"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam  19:35)

The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9:20:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

Did Jesus ever claim to be God or say, "Here am I, your God, worship me"? The answer is no. For there is no single, unequivocal statement in the Bible whereby Jesus himself declares, "I am God, therefore worship me." Virtually all of the more than two thousand verses of the epistles of Paul are his own fabrications to include Romans 9:5 that says, depending upon which Bible you read:

"...Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God."

Christians should know that Paul himself mentions his own gospel, not Jesus, in his epistle to the Romans when he says in Romans 2:16:

"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

In face, the Pauline epistle to the Romans serves as the foundation of today's Christianity. Thus, it is the Christians whose efforts will be wasted in this life as they think they were acquiring good by their works when they attribute partners to God, as stated in Chapter 18:103-106 of the Qur'an:


"Say: Shall we tell you of those who lost most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?" they are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell; because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.
(Al-Kahf 18:103-106)

Indeed, it is so strange and ironic, knowing that none of Paul's epistle to the Romans, more than 430 verses, were ever formulated by Jesus. Paul should have made direct reference to the pristine teachings of Jesus, if only the former claim for apostleship by divine inspiration was indeed true. Instead, large parts of his epistles' Biblical quotations (notably those in the Epistle to the Romans) were taken from the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea. His epistles were, indeed a product of tedious efforts, but that does not make Paul far better than any of the other men who authored the Bible, nor does it make him a Prophet. 

Other practices that were adopted under Paul included the following: the Roman sun-day as the Christian Sabbath; the traditional birthday of the Sun-god as the birthday of Jesus; the emblem of the sun-god (the cross of light) to be the emblem of Christians; and, the incorporation of all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sun-god's birthday celebrations.

As I come to a close concerning the position of Christ, I would like to ask my Christian reader bow down and pray earnestly to God and ask Him to invoke His curse on you, your wife, your sons, and your daughters if what you believe about Christ (Christ is God, Son of God or part of a trinity of God) are false. Likewise, I have learned that if you asked a Muslim to earnestly pray to God to invoke His curse on him, his wife, his sons, and his daughters if what he is saying about Christ (Prophet, Messenger of God, A Word from God) are false, the Muslims are firm in their faith knowing that Christ is not God, nor the Son of God and nor part of a trinity of God. This exercise of asking God to invoke His curse on you and your family may sound a bit cruel, but it would prove two points: (1) you would know that you are on the wrong path; and, (2) it would put you on the right path.
The Crucifixion and Atonement

A very significant event in the Christian doctrine is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Before talking about the many controversies surrounding the Crucifixion, it should be mentioned that it was a gospel of Paul's which professed the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (II Timothy 2::

"Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel."

In addition, the gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 was already removed from the text by gospel writers in the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version and then, for some reasons, restored in the 1971 edition. In many Bibles, if not removed, it is printed in small print or between two brackets and with commentary (See the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

The traditional biblical account of Jesus' Crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960's by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus' Crucifixion.

Did any one of the disciples or the writers of the Gospel see the Crucifixion or the Resurrection? No! In Mark 14:50, it says the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. Even Peter forsook Jesus after the cock crowed three times as Jesus foretold:

(Matthew 26:75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

The most likely persons whom may have witnessed this moment in Jesus' life were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee's children and other women (Matthew 27:55-56). However, there is no statement or account in the Gospels from those women as to what they saw or heard.

The disciple(s) found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty, and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged Crucifixion. Nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. Jesus himself stated that he did not die on the cross in Luke 24:36-41, as explained in the following paragraphs.

Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, which was empty. She saw somebody standing who looked like a gardener. She recognized him after a conversation to be Jesus and wanted to touch him. Jesus said (John 20:17):

"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."

Now read Luke 24:36-41:

"And as they (disciples) thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? And why so thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me end see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of boiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."

Does a spiritual or dead body have a need to eat food? Jesus eating of food was to prove to the disciples that he was not a spirit, but rather, he was still alive and not dead.

Jesus being alive and not dead is further supported in his own prophecy (Matthew 12:40):

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Did Jesus fulfill this miracle? Christians would say "yes," because Jesus died and rose three days later according to Luke 24:36 and Matthew 20:19, to name a few verses. However, in line with the miracle of Jonah and according to the Bible, Jesus only spent one day and two nights in the sepulchre, and not three days and three nights as he prophesied.

Jesus was put in the sepulchre just before sunset on Friday (Good Friday) and was found missing before sunrise on Sunday (Easter). If we were to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the time frame a bit, one may say that Jesus spent three days in the earth, but there is no way and I repeat, no way, that Jesus spent three nights in the earth. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty.

Consequently, there are some inconsistencies as to whether Jesus fulfilled his own prophecy. Whether he was actually crucified, or if the day (Good Friday) of his alleged Crucifixion is wrong. Another significant point to mention is that Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. The Christians says, Jesus was dead in the belly of the earth/tomb, and this contradicts Jesus' own prophecy. Jesus said (Luke 11:30):

"As Jonah was...so shall the Son of man be."

If Jonah was alive, so was Jesus.

One critical event that took place before the alleged Crucifixion was the prayer of Jesus to God for help. Luke 22:42:

"Saying Father if thou be willing, remove this cup (of death) from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done." 

Jesus' prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God according to Luke 22:43 and Hebrews 5:7. Therefore, if all of Jesus' prayer were accepted by God, including not to die on the cross, how could he have died on the cross?

In Matthew 27:46, it states that while Jesus was on the cross, he said:

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).

If Jesus said these words, it represents a blatant declaration of disbelief according to all theological authorities. This is a great insult as such words could only come from an unbeliever in God. Further, it is incredible that such words should come from a Prophet of God, because God never breaks His promise and His Prophets never complained against His promise, especially when the Prophet's mission is understood. It could be said that whoever relates that this statement was said by a Prophet (Jesus), is a disbeliever.

Muslims believe, as the Qur'an states, Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but Allah saved him from their plot. Qur'an 4:157:

"That they (Jews) said boasting, "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they (Jews) killed him not, nor crucified him..."

(An Nisa 4:157)

Understanding Abrogation:

Let's first agree on certain points, which I believe you are aware of. First, no one can offer a correct explanation of the Qur'an except scholars who have mastered all sciences that qualify them to understand its occasions of revelation, linguistic style, structure, and all other imports and aspects. Even with their near-perfect explanation, we can still safely say that their explanations are not totally perfect; rather, they are subject to error just like the product of any human mind.



This actually is good because God's words are beyond the limitations of a human mind, hence, man can comprehend and grasp only some aspects of those words but not all of them, otherwise God's words will be limited and restricted.



Coming to the issue of abrogation, we need to understand one focal point, which is that Allah Almighty's knowledge covers everything. It is not subject to change because it is not limited by the boundaries of time. This means that when Allah Almighty reveals something in the Qur'an and later on gives a fresh command that adjusts the old one or cancels it, He surely knows already that He is going to reveal something to adjust the old command or cancel it. In other words, the new command is not new to Him; it is new to us because we have no access to His knowledge and we are bound by time limitations.



In the light of this, we can understand that Allah Almighty has already had knowledge that He is going to give a new command at a certain point in the life of people telling them to change their way of life or correct certain concepts in ways that suit the new stage. Behind this, there is surely great divine wisdom, which sometimes we are aware of and sometimes we are not.



To illustrate this, let's think about a father whose five-year-old child asks him about the origin of life; where do males and females come from? At this point of the child's age, the most suitable answer will be something like "We come from Adam and Eve." But later on when this same child grows up, the simple answer will be abrogated by telling him about the mechanism of production and fertilization. This example gives a bit of an idea about how this process of abrogation works.



Here's another example: When a teacher is teaching a certain book for his students, he already knows the contents of what he is teaching. To the students, the information he is giving every time is new but to him it is not. Besides, he may give a certain rule at one time and later on speaks about other things that contradict this rule. When one of the students says, "Excuse me, sir! This contradicts what you said last time," the teacher will simply tell him, "There are exceptions to every rule and this is one of the exceptions. Today's example is meant to make you aware of the exceptions to last time's rule." Of course, the exception is new to the student but it is not new to the teacher who has already known it a long time ago.



As for Allah, His infinite knowledge neither has a start nor an end. Yet, here we need to ask, if that is what abrogation is like, what is the benefit or the wisdom of doing that?



In fact, scholars have counted a number of wisdoms behind abrogation. First, abrogation can happen as a way of gradual legislation that aims at making things easy for people.



Sometimes, Allah Almighty commands that a certain strict thing should be observed and then alleviates it to make the life of people easier. An example of this is when Allah Almighty commanded that anyone who wants to speak to the Prophet (peace be upon him) should offer something in charity. Later on, Allah (Glory be to Him) removed this requirement and just encouraged people to establish prayer and do good deeds.



But one may ask, "What is the point of this?" The answer is, there are many wisdoms behind it, one of which is to make people aware of the fact that Allah is merciful to them and that He looks after them and cares for their well-being. Another wisdom is to refine the souls of people and train them on how to observe to higher levels of morality.



For instance, if your child is not studying hard and spending much time playing, you can discipline him saying, "You are not allowed to play anymore for the coming month." Later on, you may see that he has complied with the command and became very good in his studies, so what you do is to alleviate the restrictions and allow him to play for a certain number of hours. In this way, you create a balance in his life. In this exact way, Allah Almighty trains us on how to lead a life of balance.



Sometimes, abrogation comes to establish a certain ruling that needs to be established gradually because it is difficult for people to apply it completely. Suppose that you want a drug addict to give up drugs, it would be unpractical to ask him to give up right away. The most practical way will be to train him how to give up bit by bit. The same is applied in the Qur'an when Allah Almighty commanded the believing community to give up wine: He did not do that at one shot. Rather, Allah Almighty first spoke about wine and that it may be beneficial for some people (i.e. traders) but it has some greater harm. Later on, a new instruction came prohibiting any drunken man to engage in prayer and, in fact, that was stage two. Then, when the community was fully prepared to receive a final decision and were able to apply the law, Allah Almighty told them to avoid drinking wine completely and never approach it.



Focusing more on the verse you referred to in your question, I would like to mention one more wisdom of abrogation, which is correcting ideas and removing misunderstandings. For instance, Allah Almighty gives a rule that whoever does a good deed will get a reward for it in this life and in the hereafter. Some people may understand that the hereafter reward is also given to non-believers and therefore Allah Almighty explains this in another place in the Qur'an saying that a condition for reward in the hereafter is to believe in Allah Almighty and adopt Islam. One of the examples that fall into this category is the example you have referred to.



Another important point is that the Qur'an is interlinked which means that verses explain and expound one another. In some places where Allah Almighty says that those Jews, Christians, and Sabians who believe in Allah and the Last Day should fear no harm on the Day of Judgment, He actually refers to a rule that needs further elaboration, mentioned elsewhere in the Qur'an. This elaboration exists in the following surah wherein Almighty Allah explains that the accepted way of Allah being Islam is the way that should be followed by anyone who wants to be safe on the Day of Judgment.



*{And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. }* (Aal `Imran 3:85)



Now, we clearly see that there is no contradiction between the two statements because they compliment each other. If one says, why doesn't Allah make each one self-explanatory without need to the other statement? We simply tell the asker that because both statements are considered the same word of  Allah, and we should take the word of  Allah as a total entity wherein no part can stand on its own without referring to the whole. In the light of this, we can also understand the sayings of some scholars who said that the whole Qur'an is treated as one verse.


My view:

For your question, the word abrogation is a translation of the word "naskh" which means revocation and replacement of a legal ruling with another legal ruling. It does not mean cancellation or amendment in the English sense.

However, this issue has been a subject of disagreement among scholars. I am of the opinion that there is no cancellation or abrogation but there was always revocation or progression in setting up legal rulings. In other words, the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in a gradual manner, so as to enable the people to have a better understanding of its meanings and teachings. This is stated in the Qur'an, Allah says what means: "And (it is) a Qur'an that We have divided, that you may recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation." (Al-'Isra': 106)

AL-NASIKH WA AL-MANSUKH


The revelations from Allah as found in the Qur'an touch on a variety of subjects, among them beliefs, history, tales of the prophets, day of judgement, Paradise and Hell, and many others. Particularly important are the ahkam (legal rulings), because they prescribe the manner of legal relationships between people, as Allah wishes them to be observed.
While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law (shari'a) for their respective communities.
The Arabic words 'nasikh' and 'mansukh' are both derived from the same root word 'nasakha' which carries meanings such as 'to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate'.

The word nasikh (an active participle) means 'the abrogating', while mansukh (passive) means 'the abrogated'. In technical language these terms refer to certain parts of the Qur'anic revelation, which have been 'abrogated' by others.
Naturally the abrogated passage is the one called 'mansukh' while the abrogating one is called 'nasikh'.
The Qur'an on Naskh The principle of naskh (abrogation) is referred to in the Qur'an itself and is not a later historical development:
'
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou that God has power over all things?' (2: 106). [Some however say that this refers to the revelations before the Qur'an, which have now been substituted by the Qur'an itself. See Mawdudi. The Meaning of the Qur'an, Lahore,
1967, Vol. I, p.102. note 109.]

How it came about When the message of Islam was presented to the Arabs as something new, and different from their way of life, it was introduced in stages. The Qur'an brought important changes gradually, to allow the people to adjust to the new prescriptions.
Example: There are three verses in the Qur'an concerning the drinking of wine. Wine drinking was very widespread in pre-Islamic times and, although a social evil, highly esteemed. The three verses which finally led to the prohibition of intoxicating substances were revealed in stages (4: 43, 2: 219; 5: 93-4).
Why it is important Knowledge of al-nasikh wa al-mansukh is important because it concerns the correct and exact application of the laws of Allah. It is specifically concerned with legal revelations:

 It is one of the important pre-conditions for explanation (tafsir) of the Qur'an.
 It is one of the important pre-conditions for understanding and application of the Islamic law (hukm,
shari'a).
 It sheds light on the historical development of the Islamic legal code.
 It helps to understand the immediate meaning of the ayat concerned.
Tafsir (explanation of the Qur'an) or legal ruling is not acceptable from a person who does not have such knowledge.


How do we know it?
As in the field of asbab al-nuzul, the information about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh cannot be accepted upon mere personal opinion, guesswork or hearsay, but must be based on reliable reports, according to the ulum al-hadith, and should go back to the Prophet and his Companions.

The report must also clearly state which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh.
Some scholars say that there are three ways of knowing about al-nasikh wa al-mansukh:

 Report from the Prophet or Companions.
 Ijma' (consensus of the umma upon what is nasikh and what mansukh).
 Knowledge about which part of the Qur'an preceded another part in the history of revelation. [Qattan,
op.cit., p. 199]
Example:
Narrated Mujahid (regarding the verse):
Those of you who die and leave wives behind, they (their wives) shall await (as regards their
marriage) for four months and ten days (2: 234).
The widow, according to this verse, was to spend this period of waiting with her husband's family, so Allah revealed: Those of you who die and leave wives (i.e. widows) should bequeath for their wives, a year's maintenance and residence without turning them out, but if they leave (their residence) there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is honourable (i.e. Lawful marriage) (2: 240).
So Allah entitled the widow to be bequeathed extra maintenance for seven months and 20 nights and that is the completion of one year. If she wished, she could stay (in her husband's home) according to the will, and she could leave it if she wished, as Allah says: Without turning them out, but if they leave (the residence) there is no blame on you.
So the idea (i.e. four months and ten days) is obligatory for her. 'Ata' said: Ibn 'Abbas said: This verse i.e. the statement of Allah ... without turning one out ... cancelled the obligation of staying for the waiting period in her late husband's house, and she can complete this period wherever she likes.
'Ata' said: If she wished, she could complete her 'idda by staying in her late husband's residence according to the will or leave it according to Allah's statement:

'There is no blame on you for what they do with themselves.'
'Ata' added: Later the regulations of inheritance came and abrogated the order of the dwelling of the widow (in her dead husband's house) so she could complete the 'idda wherever she likes. And it was no longer necessary to provide her with a residence.
Ibn Abbas said: This verse abrogated her (i.e. the widow's) dwelling in her dead husband's house and she could complete the 'idda (i.e. four months and ten days) (wherever she liked, as Allah's statement says: ...'without turning them out ...'
[Bukhari, VI, No. 54.]
This report explains clearly which part of the revelation is nasikh and which is mansukh. Mujahid was one of the wellknown tab'iun and Ibn 'Abbas was a Companion of the Prophet.

What is Abrogated?
According to some scholars the Qur'an abrogates only the Qur'an. They base their view on suras 2: 106 and 16: 101.
According to them the Qur'an does not abrogate the sunna nor does the sunna abrogate the Qur'an. This is, in particular, the view held by Shafi'i. [For details see Kitab al-risala, Cairo, n.d., pp.30-73; English translation by M. Khadduri, op.cit.,
pp. 12345; for a brief summary of Ash-Shafi'i's views see also Seeman, K., Ash-Shafi'is Risala, Lahore, 1961, pp.53-85.]
Others are of the opinion that the Qur'an may abrogate the Qur'an as well as the sunna. They base their view on Sura 53: 34.

There is also the view that there are four classes of naskh:
 Qur'an abrogates Qur'an.
 Qur'an abrogates sunna.
 Sunna abrogates Qur'an.
 Sunna abrogates sunna.
[Qattan, op.cit, pp. 201-2.]

In this discussion, we shall only consider the abrogation in the Qur'an, and leave aside the abrogation in the sunna.

Three Kinds of Naskh in the Qur'an
[Ibn Salama, al-nasikh wa al-mansukh, Cairo, 1966, p.5.]
The scholars have divided abrogation into three kinds:

 Abrogation of the recited (verse) together with the legal ruling.
 Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited (verse).
 Abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling.

For abrogation of the recited (verse) together with its legal ruling:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear
sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and
Allah's apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and
recited by the Muslims). [34 Muslim, II, No. 3421.]

For abrogation of a legal ruling without the recited (verse):
'O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou has paid their dowers; and
those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to
thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles
and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates
her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee and not for the
believers (at large);We know what we have appointed for them as to their wives and the
captives whom their right hands possess; - in order that there should be no difficulty for
thee and God is oft-forgiving, most merciful' (33: 50).
'It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other)
wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as
handmaidens); and God doth watch over all things' (33: 52).
This is one of the few very clear examples of naskh, though only concerning the Prophet specifically, since for Muslims in general the number of wives has been restricted to four. (Sura 4:3).

For abrogation of the recited (verse) without the legal ruling:
'Abdullah bin 'Abbas reported that 'Umar bin Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's messenger (may peace
be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and he sent
down the book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We
recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him)
awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and after him, we
also awarded the punishment of stoning. I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget
it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the book of Allah, and thus go astray by
abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's book for married men and
women who commit adultery when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy or a confession. [Muslim,
III, No. 4194; Bukhari, VIII, No. 816.]
The punishment of stoning for adultery by married people has been retained in the sunna, while it is not included in the
Qur'an .

The Abrogated Verses
There are, according to Ibn Salama, [Op cit., see pp.6-8 for the names of these suras.] a well-known author on the
subject:
 43 suras with neither nasikh or mansukh.
 6 suras with nasikh but no mansukh.
 40 suras with mansukh but no nasikh.
 25 suras with both nasikh and mansukh.

According to Suyuti's Itqan there are 21 instances in the Qur'an, where a revelation has been abrogated by another.
He also indicates that there is a difference of opinion about some of these: e.g. 4: 8, 24: 58, etc. [Itqan, II, pp.20-3; Kamal, op.cit., pp.101-9 also gives Suyuti's complete list.]
Some scholars have attempted to reduce the number of abrogations in the Qur'an even further, by explaining the relationships between the verses in some special ways, e.g. by pointing out that no legal abrogation is involved, or that
for certain reasons the naskh is not genuine
Shah Waliullah (d. 1759) the great Muslim scholar from India only retained the following 5 out of Suyuti's 21 cases as genuine:

Mansukh 2: 180 nasikh 4: 11, 12
Mansukh 2:240 nasikh 2: 234.
Mansukh 8:65 nasikh 8: 62.
Mansukh 30:50 nasikh 33: 52.
Mansukh 58: 12 nasikh 58: 13.

A case listed by Suyuti, which has no direct legal implication is the following:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: When the verse: 'If there are 20 amongst you, patient and persevering,
they will overcome two hundred', was revealed, it became hard on the Muslims, when it became
compulsory that one Muslim ought not to flee before 10 (non-Muslims) so Allah lightened the order by
revealing: 'but now Allah has lightened your (task) for He knows that there is weakness in
you. But (even so) if there are 100 amongst you who are patient and persevering, they will
overcome 200 (non-Muslims)' (8: 66). So when Allah reduced the number of enemies that Muslims
should withstand, their patience and perseverence against the enemy decreased as much as their task
was lightened for them. [Bukhari, VI, No.176.]
Still others hold that there are no genuine (sahih) reports available on this issue, going back to the Prophet, while those going back to the Companions contradict each other. [Ali, M.M.: The Religion of Islam, Lahore, 1936, p.32. It may be pointed out that Ali's treatment of the subject is not very thorough. Of the three examp1es he cites in support of his opinion ('in most cases, where a report is traceable to one Companion who held a certain verse to have been abrogated, there is another report traceable to another Companion, through the fact that the verse was not abrogated' - p. 33) two are definitely not in his favour, while the third can be easily explained. His first case concerns Sura 2:180 (inheritance). It has certainly been superseded by other verses, e.g. 4:7-9 and that is probably all that is meant, when saying it is mansukh Ali's second case, '2:184, is considered by Ibn 'Umar as having been abrogated while Ibn 'Abbas says it was not' . See below, where I have quoted this very hadith from Ibn 'Abbas (Bukhari, VI, No.32) where Ibn 'Abbas himself explains why he does not hold it as abrogated. The third case is, like the first one, definitely not in support of Ali: '2: 240
was abrogated according to Ibn Zubair, while Mujahid says it was not'. This is wrong, see Sahih Bukhari, VI, Nos. 53 and 54, where both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid hold the verse to be abrogated. Furthermore both Ibn Zubair and Mujahid are tabi'un, and not Companions (sahaba).]
Therefore to them the issue of nasikh wa al mansukh is perhaps not of great importance. However, it is clear from the Qur'an itself, (e.g. in the case of inheritance, 2: 180; 4: 7-9, etc.) that abrogation occurred occasionally. Hence it is wrong to completely ignore the subject.
Abrogation and Specification There is of course a difference between abrogation and specification. By the latter is meant that one revelation explains in more detail or according to specific circumstances how another revelation should be understood.
Example: Sura 2:183 says 'O you who believe, fasting is prescribed to you ...'
Narrated 'Ata' that he heard Ibn 'Abbas reciting the Divine verse 'for those who can do it is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent' (2:184). Ibn 'Abbas said 'This verse is not abrogated but it is meant for old men and old women who have no strength to fast, so they should feed one poor person for each day of fasting (instead of fasting). [Bukhari, VI, No. 32.]
It is quite clear that the second verse (2:184) does not abrogate the rule of fasting from the first verse (2:183) but explains that in a specific case, that of feeble old people, there is a way of making up for the loss of fast.
In the same way the verses concerning intoxicating drinks can be understood as specifications rather than abrogations (see 4:43;2:219;5:93-4).
Summary The Qur'an, in 2:106, refers to the concept of naskh. However, there is a difference of opinion about the extent to which al-nasikh wa-al mansukh does in fact occur in the text of the Qur'an. The information concerning al-nasikh wa-al mansukh must be treated with great caution as, for all reports concerning the text of the Qur'an, two independent witnesses are required. Many of the examples which the scholars have drawn upon to illustrate this question (and I have quoted them for the same purpose) are based on one witness only. 'A'isha alone reported that 10 or 5 sucklings had been part of the Qur'anic recitation, and only 'Umar reported that the 'verse of stoning' had been included in the Qur'anic text.
These legal rulings are not included in the Qur'an precisely because they were not considered reliable, being based on one witness only. Similarly, other examples about naskh, based on the words of Ibn 'Abbas or Mujahid alone, are to be judged by the same measure.
However, as mentioned there remain a small number of verses which, as far as can be ascertained from the internal evidence of the Qur'an, have been superseded by other verses in the Qur'an.


(From: Ulum al-Quran by Ahmad von Denffer)

Well whatta ya know all the loving people coming out of the woodwork, as soon as the debate get a bit edgy. The kind spirited replies overwhelm me.....shut the yap.....shut the piehole .....shut the f***up, I guess I hit a raw nerve. Examine these things for yourself.

Jeehad please explain to me the Islamic doctrines of "Naskh" "Taqiyya" and "Tu-Quoque" I would be interested in your take on that.

Regards Mustardseed

I think religion is essentially not the corrupt part, but rather man is. I mean, nowadays "religion" has been converted into a business. Although, this is not a product of the religion itself!! Where in Christianity does it allow any sort of "popes" "priests" to benefit from money by blessing people? Where do religions teach ignorance or hatred? Hatred is apart of our nature! This is why God created a perfect order, revelations sent down to mankind to guide us to the straight path. Let me go into an Islamic perspective, Islam is the submission or surrendering to the One Almighty God! This is the essential meaning! The Call to Islam was to humanity, to unite mankind out of a state of ignorance! I don't mean that an ignorant state is one who is a non Muslim! But rather Islam teaches us to bring mankind together! Re-Unite the covenant of man! Stop all business benefits off of religion!! Calling man to worship ONE GOD.

Servants of Allah the most Compassionate are those who walk on earth in modesty and if ignorant people address them, they say," Peace
(HQ: 25:63).

.. if anyone kills a person who did not kill, and did not mischief on earth, it would be as if he killed all human beings. And if any one saved a life of one person, it would be as if he saved the life of all human beings. (HQ: 5: 32) (Our translation)

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein
(HQ: 5: 14).


Everyone, I am sorry for this heated debate but I am entitled to defending claims in which MustardSeed is having against Muslims. I think people are misrepresenting this religion, and whether you are a believer or not one should truly look into such matters instead of making blind accusations.

MustardSeed:

Naskh is a form of Islamic calligraphy... Its like an artistic way of writing the Holy Quran I dont see why that needs explaining??

Taqqiya is widely unbelieved by the majority of Muslims, but some insist on it to be true!Lets sayyy all muslims were to be killed globally, taqiyya allows the person to hide or conceal his religious belief.


Tu-Quoque... Are you sure you got the name right?