Anyone in the greater Los Angeles area is invited to two debates on April 12th. The topics are "Is Muhammad a Prophet?" (Jalal Abualrub vs. David Wood) and "Does the Bible Teach that Jesus Is God?" (James White vs. Jalal Abualrub).
"Is Muhammad a Prophet?" I think both muslims and christians would agree that if the moral principles/commandments and spiritual principles/doctrine as enunciated by Jesus are truly from God (and as recored by disciples/apostles in the NT), then Muhammad cannot be a true prophet. If one were to compare/contrast Jesus and Muhammad, one would see a violation of Jesus' commandments and spiritual definitions in every sense. The NT repeatedly quotes OT to show the continuity and legitimacy. There are indications that Muhammad did seek to be seen as a continuity of the Jewish-Christian prophets and the scriptures. It would be interesting to see what would have Muhammad quoted from OT/NT if he tried to quote the way NT quotes OT. By violating all the prophets (particularly Jesus) and by violating the Scriptures, what remote chance is there that Muhammad is a prophet?
well sunil, first of all you beg the question that we hold what you define as Gospel as what we define as Gospel.
Read more here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
You also erroneously assume that we hold the Biblical Jesus as a person of great character, which we don't. Read here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_the_biblical_jesus_such_a_great_person_
Ok, so don't think that you can come here and easily brush aside Islam like that.
Oh yeah, you talked about the NT quoting the OT, hahaha http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_new_testament_author_s__mis_citations_of_the_old_testament__another_proof_for_their__un_inspiration_
If your argument is sooo simple and accurate then encourage David to use that in his debate with me. lets see what happens.
>> first of all you beg the question that we hold what you define as Gospel as what we define as Gospel.
In my post, I said "if the moral principles/commandments and spiritual principles/doctrine as enunciated by Jesus are truly from God (and as recored by disciples/apostles in the NT), then Muhammad cannot be a true prophet". So, there is no assumption here about definition of gospel being the same. I know that it is suicidal for todays muslim to accept the teachings/life/morality/spiritual definitions of Jesus from NT. Nevertheless, as seen in http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2007/07/hello-fellow-traveller-part-one.html it is quite evident that Muhammad did try to be seen as a continuity of Judeo-Christian Scriptures of his time (same as now) rather than going against them (the articles in your link are so vague and weak as compared to the clarity of the point made in the link cited above). In fact, had he claimed to go against all the avilable scriptures of Jews/Christians, he would instantly loose all legitimacy. It is the claim of continuity that would give legitimacy (there cannot be a lone standalone "prophet" going against all prophets and against all available scriptures that are endorsed by prophets before). It is the Jesus/NT's endorsement of OT that gave legitimacy, that it is talking about the same God of OT (a religion that goes against the God of OT/NT, is a violation of the first commandment of God). The genuine continuity is a necessary condition of prophethood, though not a sufficient condition.
>> You also erroneously assume that we hold the Biblical Jesus as a person of great character, which we don't.
If ones faith hangs on hoping for character flaws in Jesus, one can tell that one is really hoping against hope. The link you gave trying to find some character flaws in Jesus with great difficulty actually further confirms the point. For example, the article has problem with Jesus not giving human kinship priority over spiritual kinship etc. Frankly it is extremery rare (muslim or otherwise) to dare to claim to find character flaws in the life/spiritual/moral doctrine of Jesus and God's commandments as revealed in Jesus. One can be sure that most (including most muslims) would find and readily grant that the life/message/commandments of Jesus as of great character/example (though you may not personally).
>> about the NT quoting the OT..
I do not think anyone will dispute the fact that Jesus/NT endorsed and held OT in high respect. More complex Jewish methods of references are used in NT to refer/quote OT (anyway, why would anyone deliberaty misquote of text that is available and a text the writer is endorsing). The point is the NT's endorsement/continuity with the OT - the continuity which is not just lost with Muhammand, but his religion actually goes against the God of OT/NT and the Scriptures.
Yes Sunil we know that the Prophet Muhammad came as a continuity of the previous Prophets, but what I am saying is that you are begging the question that the OT and NT that you have today accurately portrays that. Thus, you are using them as a standard to decide whether the Prophet actually did serve as a continuity. The links I provided are not vague, I can bet that you didn't even properly read 10% of what I have written. Those links show that we don't believe that the OT and NT that you have is full authority.
As for the Biblical Jesus' moral character, what a joke. You ignored almost all of the examples that I have given. Your just in denial.
You also ignored my article with clear cut examples of the NT authors misquoting the OT. Plus, I never said that it was intentional. I only said that they misquoted. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't care if they did it intentionally or unintentionally, the point is that they misquoted it.
Clearly, your no one to take seriously in a discussion.
>> Prophet Muhammad came as a continuity of the previous Prophets, but what I am saying is that you are begging the question that the OT and NT that you have today accurately portrays that. Thus, you are using them as a standard to decide whether the Prophet actually did serve as a continuity.
Looks like you are responding without reading what is written. I did NOT say that islam accepts the moral principles/commandments and the spiritual principles enunciated by Jesus (as recorded by disciples/apostles in the NT). What I said is that IF the life/message/spiritual/moral teachings of Jesus (as recorded in NT) are truly from God, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet, because he and his religion violated them. You are also agreeing to this point and that is why you are so vehemently opposing Jesus from NT. The Christian hope is that the moral teachings, life, message, death and resurrection of Jesus (from NT) are true. The muslim hope is that it is not (because if teachings of Jesus from NT are right, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet of God). To claim/show that the moral/spiritual principles, life/message/teachings of Jesus from NT are not from God is really a tall order at all levels - subjective, objective, spiritual, logical, historical etc. There is a very strong case for it.
>> The links I provided are not vague..
In my first post, I only made an observation that if the teachings of Jesus from NT are true, then Muhammad is not a true prophet. You diverted the discussion into whether Muhammad endorsed OT/NT or not. As the link http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2007/07/hello-fellow-traveller-part-one.html suggests, Muhammad did seem to talk of the scriptures is a positive vein. The link also refers to how al-Tabari, al-Bukhäri, al-Ghazzali etc believed in the authenticity of the then existing (Greek) Gospel text. I would actually say that, had Muhammad really endorsed the scriptures clearly and fully in his life/message, that would have actually given him some credibility (if there was a corruption with what the people believed to be scriptures, then the Judeo-Christian prophets would have told about it, instead of endorsing. There is no evidence that any Judeo-Christian prophet opposed what the people considered as scripture). For a muslim to argue that Muhammad spoke/lived/taught against the scriptures is like cutting off the very branch or chopping off the roots of the very tree one is sitting on. You need not write so many articles saying that Muhammad went against the scriptures - his violation of the life/teachings of Jesus is all too evident. Muhammad's approach to the scriptures of his time was ambiguous. We have the data provided in the link above on one hand. On the other hand Muhammad went against the scriptures (which are endorsed by Judeo-Christian prophets) by his life, message, some of his words and by violating the teachings of Jesus from NT. I said your article is vague. You referred to two verses from Quran. S2:79, which says that 'Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith'. Is this supposed to mean that Muhammad is claiming that the scriptures endorsed by Judeo-Christian prophets through history as corrupted/useless? And then you refer to S4:157, Quranic rejection of Jesus' death on the cross and it is supposed to imply that Muhammad is claiming that scriptures are corrupted? What is it if not vague/weak? Overall, what one can say is that there are indications that Muhammad tried to refer scriptures of his time as authentic, yet did not fully/genuinely endorse as he violated and went against the teachings of Jesus (from NT) and the scriptures.
>> As for the Biblical Jesus' moral character, what a joke. You ignored almost all of the examples that I have given..
I gave one example that you complained about Jesus not giving human kinship priority over spiritual kinship (which is actually a right thing to do). Let me give you another example. You say that it was wrong of Jesus to command to 'Love your enemies' and that it amounts to love Satan! If this is the kind of extremity of against commonsense that one has to go to show "character flaws" is Jesus, it actually confirms the perfect moral example of Jesus.
>> NT authors misquoting the OT. Plus, I never said that it was intentional. I only said that they misquoted. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't care if they did it intentionally or unintentionally, the point is that they misquoted it.
And the point is, one has to understand the complex Jewish methods of references/quoting before trying to suggest that there was misquote. And why would the writers do it, what purpose does it serve etc.
8 comments:
you and I gotta get back to work after your done with your debate.
Bassam,
Absolutely! Has your schedule cleared up a bit?
loool actually not really. but thats no excuse.
lets just start after your debate.
see ya.
"Is Muhammad a Prophet?" I think both muslims and christians would agree that if the moral principles/commandments and spiritual principles/doctrine as enunciated by Jesus are truly from God (and as recored by disciples/apostles in the NT), then Muhammad cannot be a true prophet. If one were to compare/contrast Jesus and Muhammad, one would see a violation of Jesus' commandments and spiritual definitions in every sense. The NT repeatedly quotes OT to show the continuity and legitimacy. There are indications that Muhammad did seek to be seen as a continuity of the Jewish-Christian prophets and the scriptures. It would be interesting to see what would have Muhammad quoted from OT/NT if he tried to quote the way NT quotes OT. By violating all the prophets (particularly Jesus) and by violating the Scriptures, what remote chance is there that Muhammad is a prophet?
well sunil, first of all you beg the question that we hold what you define as Gospel as what we define as Gospel.
Read more here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
You also erroneously assume that we hold the Biblical Jesus as a person of great character, which we don't. Read here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_the_biblical_jesus_such_a_great_person_
Ok, so don't think that you can come here and easily brush aside Islam like that.
Oh yeah, you talked about the NT quoting the OT, hahaha http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/the_new_testament_author_s__mis_citations_of_the_old_testament__another_proof_for_their__un_inspiration_
If your argument is sooo simple and accurate then encourage David to use that in his debate with me. lets see what happens.
Regards,
Bassam
Bassam,
>> first of all you beg the question that we hold what you define as Gospel as what we define as Gospel.
In my post, I said "if the moral principles/commandments and spiritual principles/doctrine as enunciated by Jesus are truly from God (and as recored by disciples/apostles in the NT), then Muhammad cannot be a true prophet". So, there is no assumption here about definition of gospel being the same. I know that it is suicidal for todays muslim to accept the teachings/life/morality/spiritual definitions of Jesus from NT. Nevertheless, as seen in http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2007/07/hello-fellow-traveller-part-one.html it is quite evident that Muhammad did try to be seen as a continuity of Judeo-Christian Scriptures of his time (same as now) rather than going against them (the articles in your link are so vague and weak as compared to the clarity of the point made in the link cited above). In fact, had he claimed to go against all the avilable scriptures of Jews/Christians, he would instantly loose all legitimacy. It is the claim of continuity that would give legitimacy (there cannot be a lone standalone "prophet" going against all prophets and against all available scriptures that are endorsed by prophets before). It is the Jesus/NT's endorsement of OT that gave legitimacy, that it is talking about the same God of OT (a religion that goes against the God of OT/NT, is a violation of the first commandment of God). The genuine continuity is a necessary condition of prophethood, though not a sufficient condition.
>> You also erroneously assume that we hold the Biblical Jesus as a person of great character, which we don't.
If ones faith hangs on hoping for character flaws in Jesus, one can tell that one is really hoping against hope. The link you gave trying to find some character flaws in Jesus with great difficulty actually further confirms the point. For example, the article has problem with Jesus not giving human kinship priority over spiritual kinship etc. Frankly it is extremery rare (muslim or otherwise) to dare to claim to find character flaws in the life/spiritual/moral doctrine of Jesus and God's commandments as revealed in Jesus. One can be sure that most (including most muslims) would find and readily grant that the life/message/commandments of Jesus as of great character/example (though you may not personally).
>> about the NT quoting the OT..
I do not think anyone will dispute the fact that Jesus/NT endorsed and held OT in high respect. More complex Jewish methods of references are used in NT to refer/quote OT (anyway, why would anyone deliberaty misquote of text that is available and a text the writer is endorsing). The point is the NT's endorsement/continuity with the OT - the continuity which is not just lost with Muhammand, but his religion actually goes against the God of OT/NT and the Scriptures.
Yes Sunil we know that the Prophet Muhammad came as a continuity of the previous Prophets, but what I am saying is that you are begging the question that the OT and NT that you have today accurately portrays that. Thus, you are using them as a standard to decide whether the Prophet actually did serve as a continuity. The links I provided are not vague, I can bet that you didn't even properly read 10% of what I have written. Those links show that we don't believe that the OT and NT that you have is full authority.
As for the Biblical Jesus' moral character, what a joke. You ignored almost all of the examples that I have given. Your just in denial.
You also ignored my article with clear cut examples of the NT authors misquoting the OT. Plus, I never said that it was intentional. I only said that they misquoted. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't care if they did it intentionally or unintentionally, the point is that they misquoted it.
Clearly, your no one to take seriously in a discussion.
>> Prophet Muhammad came as a continuity of the previous Prophets, but what I am saying is that you are begging the question that the OT and NT that you have today accurately portrays that. Thus, you are using them as a standard to decide whether the Prophet actually did serve as a continuity.
Looks like you are responding without reading what is written. I did NOT say that islam accepts the moral principles/commandments and the spiritual principles enunciated by Jesus (as recorded by disciples/apostles in the NT). What I said is that IF the life/message/spiritual/moral teachings of Jesus (as recorded in NT) are truly from God, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet, because he and his religion violated them. You are also agreeing to this point and that is why you are so vehemently opposing Jesus from NT. The Christian hope is that the moral teachings, life, message, death and resurrection of Jesus (from NT) are true. The muslim hope is that it is not (because if teachings of Jesus from NT are right, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet of God). To claim/show that the moral/spiritual principles, life/message/teachings of Jesus from NT are not from God is really a tall order at all levels - subjective, objective, spiritual, logical, historical etc. There is a very strong case for it.
>> The links I provided are not vague..
In my first post, I only made an observation that if the teachings of Jesus from NT are true, then Muhammad is not a true prophet. You diverted the discussion into whether Muhammad endorsed OT/NT or not. As the link http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2007/07/hello-fellow-traveller-part-one.html suggests, Muhammad did seem to talk of the scriptures is a positive vein. The link also refers to how al-Tabari, al-Bukhäri, al-Ghazzali etc believed in the authenticity of the then existing (Greek) Gospel text. I would actually say that, had Muhammad really endorsed the scriptures clearly and fully in his life/message, that would have actually given him some credibility (if there was a corruption with what the people believed to be scriptures, then the Judeo-Christian prophets would have told about it, instead of endorsing. There is no evidence that any Judeo-Christian prophet opposed what the people considered as scripture). For a muslim to argue that Muhammad spoke/lived/taught against the scriptures is like cutting off the very branch or chopping off the roots of the very tree one is sitting on. You need not write so many articles saying that Muhammad went against the scriptures - his violation of the life/teachings of Jesus is all too evident. Muhammad's approach to the scriptures of his time was ambiguous. We have the data provided in the link above on one hand. On the other hand Muhammad went against the scriptures (which are endorsed by Judeo-Christian prophets) by his life, message, some of his words and by violating the teachings of Jesus from NT. I said your article is vague. You referred to two verses from Quran. S2:79, which says that 'Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith'. Is this supposed to mean that Muhammad is claiming that the scriptures endorsed by Judeo-Christian prophets through history as corrupted/useless? And then you refer to S4:157, Quranic rejection of Jesus' death on the cross and it is supposed to imply that Muhammad is claiming that scriptures are corrupted? What is it if not vague/weak? Overall, what one can say is that there are indications that Muhammad tried to refer scriptures of his time as authentic, yet did not fully/genuinely endorse as he violated and went against the teachings of Jesus (from NT) and the scriptures.
>> As for the Biblical Jesus' moral character, what a joke. You ignored almost all of the examples that I have given..
I gave one example that you complained about Jesus not giving human kinship priority over spiritual kinship (which is actually a right thing to do). Let me give you another example. You say that it was wrong of Jesus to command to 'Love your enemies' and that it amounts to love Satan! If this is the kind of extremity of against commonsense that one has to go to show "character flaws" is Jesus, it actually confirms the perfect moral example of Jesus.
>> NT authors misquoting the OT. Plus, I never said that it was intentional. I only said that they misquoted. Don't put words into my mouth. I don't care if they did it intentionally or unintentionally, the point is that they misquoted it.
And the point is, one has to understand the complex Jewish methods of references/quoting before trying to suggest that there was misquote. And why would the writers do it, what purpose does it serve etc.
Post a Comment