Thursday, January 7, 2010

Reply to Abdullah Kunde on Various Issues

I noticed a number of arguments being brought up by Abdullah Kunde as a reply to Sunil.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=189095653198387790

Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics:

Kunde wrote:


1) Muslims/Qur'an does not attempt to follow earlier revelations or prophets.
a) This is absolutely false. The Qur'an, in multiple instances, asks Christians and Jews to look to what is still contained within their books for guidance towards the Qur'an and Islam.

Hogan replies:


I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad’s time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad’s time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this?

In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the ‘Four Gospels’, hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the ‘Four Gospels’, which Christians commonly referred to as ‘the Gospel’ and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus’ death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur’an.

But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase ‘what is still contained within their books’ and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance.

This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur’an:

Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord(Sura 5:68-71)

But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur’an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings:

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (Sura 29:46)

If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU(Sura 10:94).

“O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray” (Sura 4:136)

I would assume if the author of the Qur’an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel), yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur’an.

The author of the Qur’an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant!

If as you assume that these previous revelations are no longer reliable, why are the Christians, the Jews and the muslims asked to seek guidance from these books, and if it only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur’an differentiate explicitely between these corrupted passages and the intact passages?

I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur’an, if this indeed was the author’s view.

Kunde continues:

In fact, we see in the Gospels a clear and progressive steering away from the earlier message. In Mark (12:29) we find Jesus saying the greatest commandment is "Hear, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.", yet in the parallel passage in Matthew (23:36) states: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind." Why? Possibly developing Christian theology?

Hogan replies:

No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this?

Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew’s Gospel that Matthew’s omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology?

Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur’an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur’an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur’an is the book that deviates.

Kunde continues:

2)All the disciples/followers of Jesus were also mislead by the fake crucifixion.
a) This is only if you assume the Gospel accounts are accurate, which I do not, and as I argue, it is completely reasonable to question the validity of them (at the very least).

Hogan replies:

Again I find your conclusion highly inconsistent

Firstly, the Gospels are according to the Gospels not revelations they are the transmitted testimony of the eyewitnesses. The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8).

Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses.

In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says:

‘When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning’.

Having been with Jesus from the beginning and be elected was to be a fundamental and authoritative witness, and this was indeed vital as we see from the selection of Matthias to join the category of the twelve (Acts 1: 23-26).

What am I saying here: I am saying that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their transmission of the Gospel account and the sayings of Jesus, not revelation. Hence the Gospel is a witness of those who were commanded by Jesus to transmit this information.

Indeed the Qur’an seems to confirm this

When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: ‘who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?’ Said the disciples: ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness’ (3: 53-4)

If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur’an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah:

O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’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 (Sura 6: 14)

I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55)

Kunde continuous:

3)What Paul did isn't deception.
a)I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Paul lied", but I did say something along the lines of deception. I was asked a similar question on the night to which I replied: "If it were modern times, would Paul come into a mosque and pray as we pray, etc, in order to present Christianity? Thats what it seems he did.

Hogan replies:

This is exaggerating the matter, I doubt Paul would have recognised any resemblance between Islam and first century Judaism! Paul would not have bowed toward a Gentile city like Mecca and a pagan shrine with a black stone kissed by its followers, I guess Paul would have recognised such practice as paganism. Paul at least realised that parts of Judaism and the religion of Israel was part of the progressive revelation of Yahweh, which Islam is not. This is why Paul and early Christians did not view it problematic to enter the temple or a synagogue; I don’t think they would have been equally sympatetic with a mosque.

Kunde continues:

You do realise that by being a 'Gentile to the Gentiles' that means he possibly worshiped their gods while with them? Do you think God needs to be presented in this way?"

Hogan replies:

You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22:

‘To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God’s Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law’.

It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information.

I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context.

Kunde continues:

If you say 'yes', thats a very interesting belief system.

Hogan replies:

I also find it interesting that the Qur’an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur’an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?

62 comments:

Fernando said...

Bravo, bravo bravissimo brother Hogan... as eber... bravo...

Sunil said...

I was about to post the following response to Mr. Abdullah Kunde, when I saw this new post. So I am posting it here.

Here is the part-1 of my response:

>> 1) Muslims/Qur'an does not attempt to follow earlier revelations or prophets.
>> a) This is absolutely false. The Qur'an, in multiple instances, asks Christians and Jews to look to what is still contained within their books for guidance towards the Qur'an and Islam.

Much of NT is to show/prove the fulfillment of OT (or God’s revelation in history thus far) in Jesus. That is required for showing the legitimacy/genuinity of who Jesus is. That is the root and foundation of Christian faith. Even the miracles of Jesus, even if proved conclusively, is not enough to show the legitimacy of Jesus – it has to be necessarily a fulfillment of OT. That is why it is very significant that God’s revelation before Jesus are part of Christian scriptures. Now, to simply ask to look at Jewish/Christian scriptures, that too after claiming that God’s revelation and message of the prophets is not even available in a robust/reliable manner, it is really pointless and cannot be used to validate the legitimacy of Muhammad. On the other hand, if we assume that God’s revelation/message of prophets is available in a robust/reliable manner, the situation is equally bad or worse for Muhammad – because the available God’s revelation/information etc of the prophets will would prove Muhammad as a false prophet and Muslims themselves agree that Muhammad does not tally with the revelation/information that is available (which is why Muslims deny the robustness/reliability of available message/information/text about all the prophets – where as, for a Christian, that is the necessary foundation, which is how it should be).

>> In fact, we see in the Gospels a clear and progressive steering away from the earlier message.

Jesus' life/message has advanced nuances and the true spirit/meaning of the symbolism, true spirit of the law etc seen in OT (and the fulfillment in Jesus). It does not contradict or violate or steering away from OT. In fact, Jesus/disciples and all writers of NT affirmed the robustness/reliability of God’s revelation and the available message/information about all the prophets. And followers of Christ assert the same today. It is the Muslims who have problem in asserting/defending what is available of God’s revelation/information/text/message of all of prophets and manner of God’s dealings for thousands of years. The only way to defend Islam is to say that God’s revelation thus far (before Muhammad) is not even known/available in a robust/reliable manner so that it can be conveniently brushed aside as and when there is a problem. That itself should call the whole legitimacy of Muhammad/Islam into question.

Sunil said...

Part-2 of the response:

>> In Mark (12:29) we find Jesus saying the greatest commandment is "Hear, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.", yet in the parallel passage in Matthew (23:36) states: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind." Why? Possibly developing Christian theology?

How does "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind" contradict or violate OT? In fact that same line is there in Deuteronomy 6:5. So, in this case, it not even an advanced nuance etc. It is a quotation from OT. If this theme/command to love God with all your heart, soul and mind is missing or downplayed in Islam, that is an issue for Islam. If your point is that this line is not there in Mark 12:29, that is really taking things too far. Jesus must have made multiple sentences (even in one conversation), numerous discussions of this nature etc.

>> 3)What Paul did isn't deception.
>> a)I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Paul lied", but I did say something along the lines of deception. I was asked a similar question on the night to which I replied: "If it were modern times, would Paul come into a mosque and pray as we pray, etc, in order to present Christianity? Thats what it seems he did. You do realise that by being a 'Gentile to the Gentiles' that means he possibly worshiped their gods while with them? Do you think God needs to be presented in this way?"

Now, you are putting words in the mouth of Paul and attributing things with presumption. One can be a gentile (in many ways/senses) and be a follower of Christ (after all, there are many gentile Christians). However, one cannot be an idol worshipper and be a Christian - that is why he did not say that he has become a idol worshipper for idol worshippers – that is your extrapolation which cannot be what Paul meant, by any stretch of imagination. Like I gave the example of a group which has been culturally very serious about eating only vegetarian food, a preacher living among them, can limit his/her own diet to vegetarian food as well. So there are many senses in which one can 'become' like a group without violating any commandments of God. One can be sensitive to some cultural sensibilities, where there is violation of God's commandments. (It can be often hard, and Paul calls himself a ‘slave’ for doing this – “Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone”).

Sunil said...

Sorry, I missed to respond to point2

>> 2)All the disciples/followers of Jesus were also mislead by the fake crucifixion.
>> a) This is only if you assume the Gospel accounts are accurate, which I do not, and as I argue, it is completely reasonable to question the validity of them (at the very least).

Every available evidence shows that the disciples/followers/apostles of Jesus believed that Jesus was crucified and that they were willing to die for that faith, established of early church, and spread the Christian faith etc. If the disciples did not believe in crucifixion, and opposed it that is major thing and there should be a trace of that etc. You will have to give some reason to suggest that disciples/followers did not believe in crucifixion, and that it is only the enemies of Jesus who believed in crucifixion established early church and spread Christianity etc. It is really impossible to believe that God has faked it all and set up the whole thing like this. Even in cases where God has allowed the wicked people and enemies of God to fall into their own deceptive ways etc, God always ensures that Truth is always visible/clear. God never hides the truth.

In essence the Islamic belief has to be God’s revelation, history, message of prophets etc has not been there in a robust/reliable manner at all, for all the thousands of years of God’s revelation and history of dealings through prophets etc. God is supposed to have just made an exception of bringing out truth only with Muhammad for the first and last time!

AKunde said...

Greetings Hogan,
(My replies are bolded for simplicity)
Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics:

I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad’s time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad’s time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this?
A poor, but common, Christian misunderstanding. You clearly did not listen to the first 10 sentences of my explaination about what Muslims believe regarding the NT/Gospel accounts.
Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?
Regardless, it is well known that there were no Christian Scriptures in Arabic until well after the time of Muhammad. Even Al Ghazzali, a 12th Century Islamic Scholar, had to rely on a Coptic version because the Arabic ones were poor and difficult to access. Ergo, I sincerely doubt Muhammad (pbuh) would have ever had access to Christian Scriptures similar to those in existence today.
However, as I have stated in the recent debate and in the one with Dr. James White, the Christian Gospels, as they are, still contain some clear elements of the true message (such as Mark 12:29).

In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the ‘Four Gospels’, hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the ‘Four Gospels’, which Christians commonly referred to as ‘the Gospel’ and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus’ death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur’an.
Notice the Qur'an differentiates between the Injeel and the books that are with them? Or is this lost on you?
But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase ‘what is still contained within their books’ and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance.
Unreliable as a whole, but still containing elements of truth, is what I have consistently maintained. See above for example.
This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur’an:
“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

A better translation is:
Say: "O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs -unless you truly observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer!" Yet all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee O Prophet by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their denial of the truth. But sorrow not over people who deny the truth: (TMQ: 5:68)

AKunde said...

But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur’an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings:
Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (Sura 29:46)
“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

Who says this verse is directed to Muhammad? It is directed to mankind. Very strange translation you are using, but it perhaps matches the very poor references you are giving. I'll correct all your references at the end.
And so, O man, if thou art in doubt about what We have bestowed upon thee from on high, ask those who read the divine writ before thy time: surely, the truth has now come unto thee from thy Sustainer. Be not, then, among the doubters (TMQ: 10:94)
I think I have explained with at least some small examples how the Qur'an is not refering to your current book in all passages (when it refers to Torah or Injeel), and when it does, its obvious the key message is still contained within your distorted text, if one looks hard enough (see other sections of response).

I would assume if the author of the Qur’an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel) Your understanding and the Islamic understanding of these terms is different. See above. , yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur’an.
The author of the Qur’an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant!
Or you need to a) watch my whole presentation, b) actually read the Qur'an and c) [this is an assumption] stop copy/pasting false arguments that you haven't bothered to verify.
If as you assume that these previous revelations are no longer reliable, why are the Christians, the Jews and the muslims asked to seek guidance from these books,
See above. enough information is still there to direct the seeker of truth in the right direction.
and if it only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur’an differentiate explicitely between these corrupted passages and the intact passages?
Simple: whatever agrees with the Qur'an = true. whatever doesn't = false, whatever is in between is doubtful.
I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur’an, if this indeed was the author’s view.
T To assume makes an ass of you and me
No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this?
Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew’s Gospel that Matthew’s omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology?

AKunde said...

You've said it yourself (underlined). Moreover, the entirety is not important in this regard. A good question is, did a scribe decide to cut it out in a copy, due to the theological implication, which eventually became standard in all copies of Matthew?
Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur’an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur’an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur’an is the book that deviates.
Can you give an example?
Again I find your conclusion highly inconsistent
Firstly, the Gospels are according to the Gospels not revelations they are the transmitted testimony of the eyewitnesses. (Ergo, not the same as what the Qur'an refers to as the revelation of Jesus)
The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8).
Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses.
In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says:
‘When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning’.
Yet at times they did not understand his teachings (and were afraid to ask him about them)? How could they pass them on? Isn't that inconsistent? Mark 9:32, Luke 18:32-34.
But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.
The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

I'm sure, you'd argue, it all made sense to them in the end. Aside from a single verse in John, whats the evidence for this?

Having been with Jesus from the beginning and be elected was to be a fundamental and authoritative witness, and this was indeed vital as we see from the selection of Matthias to join the category of the twelve (Acts 1: 23-26). See above.
What am I saying here: I am saying that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their transmission of the Gospel account and the sayings of Jesus, not revelation (I never suggested they were. If you watched the first 10 minutes of my presentation you'd see me explain this). Hence the Gospel is a witness of those who were commanded by Jesus to transmit this information.
Eyewitness testimony doesn't come 120 years after events occur. At best what you have are copies of copies of copies of eyewitness testimony. Surely you'll agree with this?
Indeed the Qur’an seems to confirm this
When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: ‘who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?’ Said the disciples: ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness’ (3: 53-4)
If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur’an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah:
O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’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 (Sura 6: 14)

AKunde said...

Some issues:
Word 'disciple' is never used in Arabic/Qur'an. It's 'the white-garbed ones'. don't impose your belief on a translation of the text in order to suggest your disciples are the true disciples of Jesus referred to in the Qur'an.
The long period of theological debate in the early Christian Period about the status of Jesus and what texts are acceptable and aren't are referred to here. Consider Arius, Thedotus of Byzantium, Marcion, their beliefs weren't declared as official heresy until 200-400CE (depending on which). Well after Jesus' time. Why such a debate over 400 years?
More astounding, the debate still isn't over. We have Coptics, Romans, Baptists, Unitarians, etc. What exactly is a Christian?
The verse is clear however, in that it refers to the success of the Muslims, i.e. the ones that believed. The light of Islam has never been completely extinguished, and even the distorted texts still hold some truth. Amazing.


I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55) (Wrong reference again.)Indeed, this verse refers to those that worship One God (and don't divide Him in Trinity while claiming to worship Him in Sublime Unity), do righteous deeds, are patient and speak the turth (TMQ: 103)
You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22:
‘To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God’s Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law’.
It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information.
Why would Paul need the Gospel information? Didn't he receive direct information from Jesus?
I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context.
Interpret it as you wish. 'To those outside the Law I became like one outside the Law' is pretty clear to me.
I also find it interesting that the Qur’an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur’an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?
The greatest flaw in this argument Christians constantly propose, that the NT is the logical and clear continuation of the OT is that Jews are still Jews. If it were genuinely so clear that the NT follows on from the OT, wouldn't they be all Christian?

At least we give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they now follow a text that has become distorted, ergo, it may be more difficult for them to see the clear connection between the earlier revelations and the Qur'an. Christian's don't share this luxury.

In all your response has a range of reference flaws, which suggests large portions of it have been copy/pasted and also suggests that you do not understand the arguments yourself.

You have also used some very liberal Qur'an translations which imply a meaning you choose to convey, which are found in no Islamic exegeses or translations. In fact, your translation inserts words (such as disciples and Muhammad) which aren't there in the text.

Moreover, I find the behaviour of some members of this blog quite discourteous. I am not accustomed to being referred to by my surname by and individual I have not met. If you don't like calling me by my first name, at least have the courtesy to add Mr. to the start of my surname.

Kind regards,

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

lol,

I gues I touched a nerve,

I will respond your points as soon as I get the time

all I see is more inconsistency, more claims and hardly anything of historical significance.

Are you upset by my reference to you as Kunde, do you want me to refer to you as Mr. Kunde (well...)?

Fernando said...

Man... if someone woulde want to writte a book on biblical misinterpretations and was not inspired to see which ones shoulde be refuted he simply woulde need to read the words of our friend, the muslim apologist known as Abdullah Kunde...

Sepher Shalom said...

AKunde said: [in regard to Surah 10:94 "Who says this verse is directed to Muhammad? It is directed to mankind. Very strange translation you are using,..."

...and...

AKunde said: "You have also used some very liberal Qur'an translations which imply a meaning you choose to convey, which are found in no Islamic exegeses or translations. In fact, your translation inserts words (such as disciples and Muhammad) which aren't there in the text."

Your assertion about the Islamic exegetes is a blatant falsehood. I will give you the benefit of the the doubt that you are simply ignorant of the facts on this issue rather than being intentionally deceptive. I was able to falsify your above claim in about 5 minutes of investigation. Here is what I found:

Tafsir al-Jalalayn [10:94]- So, if you, O Muhammad (s), are in doubt concerning what We have revealed to you, of stories — hypothetically speaking — then question those who read the Scripture, the Torah, before you, for it is confirmed [therein] with them and they can inform you of its truth. The Prophet (s) said, ‘I have no doubt, nor will I question’. Verily the Truth from your Lord has come to you; so do not be of the waverers, [of] those who have doubts about it.

In addition to that, you have condemned the translation you supplied in attempting to discredit the one Hogan referenced, when you said "In fact, your translation inserts words (such as disciples and Muhammad) which aren't there in the text." The fact of the matter is you also provided a translation that inserts words that are not in the original Arabic. "O man" is not in the original text, and is (properly) given as a parenthetical insertion in at least one other Quran translation. I regret to inform you that you are using "very liberal Qur'an translations which imply a meaning you choose to convey". The idea that this verse is directed to mankind and not Muhammad is nothing more than the opinion of the translation you are using, and as it were, both Marmaduke Pickthall and al-Jalalayn disagree with you.

"O Mister Kunde, if you are in doubt about that which I have revealed to you, consult the Tafseerun and the work of previous Quran translators who were scholars in Arabic."

;)

Sepher Shalom said...

AKunde said: "Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?

So you actually think it is logical that Yeshua (whom Muslims claim to be "a great prophet of Islam") was given a divine revelation from Allah of utmost importance for His people, and Allah allowed it to disappear while simultaneously allowing the Gospels we have to spread all over the earth becoming the most widely translated material in the history of humankind? I'm wondering, why is there no substantive evidence of this Injeel you claim teaches Muslim theology ever having had existed?

Abdullah, what exactly makes Yeshua a "great prophet of Islam" in your estimation? From what I can tell the Muslim version of Yeshua was a complete failure in every respect who accomplished nothing.

ben malik said...

Alkunde is heavily influenced by Muhammad Asad since his point about the Arabic word "al-hawariyun" meaning white garbed ones is "borrowed" from Asad's commentary. However had Kunde actuall done some serious research he would have learned that this is an Ethiopian loanword according to al-Suyuti which was used by the Ethiopian Christians for the disciples of Christ. I will let Hogan deal with Kunde's wild spins and half truths.

Just one advice. Make sure to correct the grammatical errors that are found in Hogan's reply.

AKunde said...

Greetings Hogan,

No, you didn't 'touch a nerve'. Its just basic courtesy I teach my 5 year old cousins and expect of all around me. :)

Not sure what inconsistencies you are referring to, but I'm very much looking forward to it ;)

Oh, and a reason for there being such blatant errors in your Quranic referencing would be nice.

Kind regards,

shafsha said...

Breaking news:

CNN, Rheuters, Times, Washington post ,...etc

Shooters opened fire at a gathering outside an eastern Egyptian church, killing six during the celebration of a Christian sect's Christmas Eve, Egypt's Interior Ministry reported.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/06/egypt.shootings/index.html?iref=allsearch

The shooting happened in the southern Egyptian town of Nagaa Hamady after midnight mass on Coptic Christmas, which is celebrated on Jan. 7. Another nine Copts -- Egyptian Christians -- were wounded, the interior ministry said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLDE60611R


Copts protest in south Egypt after fatal shootings
Protests took place inside Nagaa Hamady hospital and outside the church where the shooting occurred. Police later pushed the protestors into the church grounds.
http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSLDE6060UT20100107

shafsha said...

http://freecopts.net/english/

ben malik said...

Here we can see Alkunde's true colors come through.

No, you didn't 'touch a nerve'. Its just basic courtesy I teach my 5 year old cousins and expect of all around me. :)

He is wonderfully exemplifying the very condescending and oppressive spirit which tormented Muhammad to the extent that he wanted to end his life (what a better place the world would have been if he only went through with it).

Prediction. AlKunde won't be able to hide his venom and hate for Christians and it will be a matter of time before he starts spewing out poison.

AKunde said...

Greetings Sepher,

Many apologises, I was certainly not aware of Pickthall's take, nor the reports you ascribe to Tafsir al Jalalayn.
Pickthall is hardly a well-accepted English translation in general, as far as I know, despite it being one of the earliest.

As for Tafsir al Jalalayn, I'm not familiar with it's content, but will take your word for it that that is what it says in regards to 10:94. Either way, if Tafsir al Jalalayn is the highest graded tafsir with such an exegesis, that wouldn't mean much. Ibn Hazm and Ibn Kathir, which I am familiar with and are earlier and more accepted do not share this interpretation.

Imam as Suyuti, who co-authored Tafsir al Jalalayn, held his opinion in regards to the origins of the term الحواريون
which he is entitled to. It's not essential that we believe it just because he said it. He was a Shafi'i scholar, therefore under Shafi'i usooli methods, which have never been a majority school in the history of Islam.

As for my 'reliance' upon the Muhammad Asad translation, this is because I personally find it to be the best English translation. Even non Muslim Arabic language academics agree it is one of the most (if not the most) faithful English translation. You can, if you so wish, look at English-Arabic dictionaries and literal translations online to see the excellence of the translation for yourself, if you do not know Classical Arabic. Merely understanding Classical Hebrew should, at least, assist slightly.

Kind regards,

shafsha said...

funeral of the 8 christian martyrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUQrN0bAx3A&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZ5gsQzY6o&feature=channel

copts protesting calling for their rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_CvzP7neSg&feature=channel

ben malik said...

Alkunde is getting funnier with every post:

Imam as Suyuti, who co-authored Tafsir al Jalalayn, held his opinion in regards to the origins of the term الحواريون
which he is entitled to. It's not essential that we believe it just because he said it. He was a Shafi'i scholar, therefore under Shafi'i usooli methods, which have never been a majority school in the history of Islam.


Neither are Muslims required to take whatever Asad says, nor are Christians. So next time try to be a little more consistent and don't force Asad's defintion of al-hawariyun upon Hogan and then chide him for not sharing your choice of translation.

Your comments show that it is you who really have no clue how language works and yet pretend that you do. Case in point. You are basing your statement concerning the meaning of al-hawariyun on it's root meaning which is basically committing a very common fallacy that Muslims have mastered. In case you didn't know what that fallacy is called it is the root or etymological fallacy.

In order to show that Jesus' disciples were white garbed ones you need to do something called historical investigation to see whether such a definition is appropriate and fits the first century context of the disciples. However, you pretty much shot yourself in the foot since the only sources that you have for that period are the Gospels, the reliability of which you attacked. So please don't bother quoting them to establish your position since if you do you will be demonstrarting that you have become a world-class expert at logical fallacies, which is the very trademark of Islam and Muslims.








I also advise that you avoid on

shafsha said...

Aljazeera report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35p_P07vVGk&feature=related

why is it always muslims killing others??????

shafsha said...

aljazeera report 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElS406EIfg8&feature=channel

AKunde said...

Greetings benmalik,

Please don't suggest I chided Hogan for not sharing my choice of translation. I merely illustrated that, for me, his translation seemed strange.

I openly stated that I have not read Pickthall's translation nor Tafsir al Jalalayn and apologised:

Many apologises, I was certainly not aware of Pickthall's take, nor the reports you ascribe to Tafsir al Jalalayn.
Pickthall is hardly a well-accepted English translation in general, as far as I know, despite it being one of the earliest.

As for Tafsir al Jalalayn, I'm not familiar with it's content, but will take your word for it that that is what it says in regards to 10:94.


By the way, it is pretty difficult to suggest an etymological fallacy when dealing with a classical language. If we attempted to suggest a modern Arabic definition were the same as the classical root origin, that may be such a mistake. This, is most likely, not. But, you are certainly correct in illustrating that such mistakes can be made, however, generally they would only occur when comparing modern-classical, not classical-classical.

Moreover, I stated in my presentation, and possibly on this blog, that I agree that the Gospel accounts are the best historical accounts of the life of Jesus we have. I have gone further to say that, while I recognise their historical value, I do not personally find them reliable enough to bank my after-life on.

Regardless, I hardly need to do such an historical investigation to justify the definition given by Asad. Asad's definition is based on the root word classical usage and reflects two major early exegeses I am familiar with, which also had their own justifications for the definition.

Kind regards,

Sepher Shalom said...

Akunde said: "Many apologises, I was certainly not aware of Pickthall's take, nor the reports you ascribe to Tafsir al Jalalayn."

Apology accepted. No one can possibly know everything :)

I find it odd that you favor the Asad translation, but have posted a rendering of 10:94 that does not place "O man" in parenthesis. The Asad translation I have access to renders it in parenthesis.

In any case, no one is right 100% of the time in regards to their information.

Sepher Shalom said...

AKunde said: "don't impose your belief on a translation of the text in order to suggest your disciples are the true disciples of Jesus referred to in the Qur'an."

If the disciples we refer to are not the same disciples mentioned in the Quran then please tell us who are these mystery disciples? You have already stated you believe the Nazarene Writings/New Testament as the best historical source on the events in question, so where are these Islamic followers of Yeshua? Why is there not a single whisper of them anywhere in all of the historical record? We have the four Gospel writers, we have the letters of Paul, we have rabbinic literature by multiple authors, historians such as Josephus...and none of these sources bear witness to these "mystery disciples" you seem to alude to.

Make sense of this for me Abdullah, because I have to admit I'm becoming extremely weary of seeing Muslims just throw out history and turn to baseless conspiracy theories. I'm actually really trying to listen to what Muslims have to say, but after a little more than 2 years of listening I'm just about at my limit and ready to stop even bothering with what your side of issue is putting out there.

AKunde said...

Greetings Sepher,

It's very easy to suggest any true followers of Jesus - or lets say, those that properly understood his message - could have easily gone the way of the Essenes, Zealots and Saducees.

In terms of texts they held, perhaps we could look at the Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazarenes and Ebionites for some clues.

To be honest, it is hardly my field of historical expertise (i.e.non proto-Orthodox Christian groups), but I'd suggest the above 3 groups probably give the best clues towards those that properly understood Jesus' message.

Kind regards,

Sunil said...

Dear Abdulla Kunde,

>> I've given responses to some of your questions on another page of the blog, so I won't repeat anything between them. But if you miss out on some of the specific questions, let me know, please.

Well, with due respect, I will have to say that you have not addressed the issues at stake, nor defended the charges you have made (about Paul as well s unreliability on the story of Jesus as recorded in NT etc).

>> However, it's important to note that, while Dr. William Lane Craig may hold that opinion regarding the historical evidence of the Gospels, I do not.

Yes, but we have to see the reasons given by each and see which is a more reasonable position to take.

>> Worth considering is that Dr. WLC uses the kalam cosmological argument, a foundational Muslim theological argument, as the basis of his attacks on atheism (which he openly acknowledges).
>> I know of no Muslim that needs to use the theological arguments of a Christian in order to battle atheists.

True that Dr. WLC uses the Kalam cosmological argument and gives the credit where it is due. It is a philosophical argument and not based on authority of Muhammad or something like that. So what is the issue?

>> Moreover, many of these issues are straw men arguments often presented by Christians.

I have not understood which argument you are referring to as a straw man argument. For example, let us take the issue of whether what is available of the entire God’s revelation and record of God’s dealings in history are reliable. Islam has a problem here if it has to rely on the hope that we do not have a reliable account of what God did/said through the entire history. Whatever is the individual position, Islam has a major problem here.

>> What I do say is that no 2 pages of 6000 NT manuscripts is identical. Now thats a very poor manuscript tradition.
>> Moreover, I say that there is no evidence for the Synoptic Gospels within 100 years of when they would have originally been written. About 99% of scholars would agree with this statement.

That is like saying that all the essays written by a student wrong because there is at least a spelling mistake in each. That is quite a deliberately misleading statement. One has to go into the details of what the variants are, whether there are reasons to believe early tampering to the point of making God's revelation/history about who Jesus is (and indeed of all prophets before) is rendered completely unreliable etc.

Sunil said...

Dear Abdulla Kunde,

(Continued from previous post to Mr. Abdulla Kunde)

>> Ergo, all you have as a Christian is copies of copies of copies of something that we can't be certain of the originals, because all the manuscripts we have today aren't completely uniform (no 2 pages are identical).

I have responded to this point in the other blog entry (where your debate is posted). That we have only copies of copies and not original is not necessarily an insurmountable issue in itself, more so, when the loss is due to natural causes like longevity of the material on which they are written (and not a forceful one by those with armed power). What is available and their variants give a good indication, especially if the copies are made from different copies. One or two generation of people must have been alive while the initial copies are made and so on. Given these and a lot of factors, there is no way one can claim ignorance about Jesus, what disciples believed and died for etc.

>> I'm not going to use unreliable texts, that don't conform theologically or ritually to what came before it
>> But, you are free to do such, if you wish. :)

This is amusing. You are actually taking the extreme step of calling the entire history of God's revelation and of all the prophets as unreliable and hence discarding it. To discard the entire history of God's revelation and the prophets etc as unreliable is a major leap of faith. Belief in Jesus is like the wise man who built his house upon the rock. Jesus is testified by hundreds/thousands of years of God's revelation/history of dealing with prophets, and we have the testimony of the disciples on who Jesus is etc. Rituals are symbolical and point to something and not an end in itself. So, it is to be expected that there is a fulfillment (in Jesus, of the OT sacrificial system, ceremonial rituals etc).

Frankly, taking all issues into consideration, believing in the only reasonable thing to do and there is really no excuse to claim ignorance about Jesus or about what Jesus’ disciples believed. You are believing in a stand-alone man without foundation/root and delinked from all the history of God's revelation and what is made known/available to us about all the prophets of God (hence not a legitimate prophet of God). I think your claim of ignorance about Jesus is based on a very weak excuse.
The primary purpose of all scriptures/revelation, writings of prophets/disciples of Jesus etc is to reveal who Jesus is. And you are claiming ignorance. That’s quite a dangerous leap and has no excuse before God, I would say. Imagine standing before God on judgement day and say that in spite of all the history of God's revelation/intervention in history and all prophets pointing to Jesus, you claim to be still ignorant about who Jesus is! I dont think sir, that God will buy that claim of yours.

Sunil said...

More response to Mr. Abullah Kunde:

>> Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?

What/Where is the Injeel (or for that matter the Torah) that Muhammad talked about. Did they exist fleetingly and disappeared after that, never to be known/seen by anyone including the Jesus and disciples? BTW, the NT Gospels are not 4 testimonies about Jesus by Jesus' disciples/associates asserting the fulfillment of Scriptures in Jesus. (not merely 4 writers of history)

>> Ergo, I sincerely doubt Muhammad (pbuh) would have ever had access to Christian Scriptures similar to those in existence today.

I agree. The Quran just narrates popular stories from Bible and nothing more deeper insights etc. But Muhammad could have known that there is something called the Gospels that Christian talk about or read.

>> the Christian Gospels, as they are, still contain some clear elements of the true message (such as Mark 12:29).

How do you know that one line is true, when you claim the entire God's revelation before Muhammad is rendered unreliable/unknown?

>> Unreliable as a whole, but still containing elements of truth, is what I have consistently maintained

Frankly, the statement is a meaningless/valueless statement. Even a book by some New age Guru can have some 'elements of truth', but it cannot be recommended to read it to know God. Even a complete false witness in a court can tell some 'elements of truth', but no one in right mind will ask/recommend to refer to such a witness.

>> its obvious the key message is still contained within your distorted text, if one looks hard enough
>> Simple: whatever agrees with the Qur'an = true. whatever doesn't = false, whatever is in between is doubtful.

It is like saying that a witness (in a court) is unreliable as a whole, but please listen to the witness, because if you listen ‘hard enough’, you may get to hear some truth! Frankly, with no offence, no one in right mind would say such a thing. And when asked, how to identify the truth from the otherwise unreliable witness, the answer given is, whatever portion of the witness says agrees with the version of the accused, that is the truth! Simple!

>> A good question is, did a scribe decide to cut it out in a copy, due to the theological implication, which eventually became standard in all copies of Matthew?

If that were the case, the scribe would have removed all references to worship of God, like Matthew 4:10 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only'. Indeed the entire NT asserts this. Even the line 'Love God with all your heart, soul and mind' also says/conveys exactly the same point about worship of God.

>> at times they did not understand his teachings (and were afraid to ask him about them)? How could they pass them on? ... I'm sure, you'd argue, it all made sense to them in the end. Aside from a single verse in John, whats the evidence for this?

For this, I don’t think we have to even look for scriptural evidences etc. It is plain common sense. The disciples lived with Jesus for years. They must have had several conversations. If they did not understand something, when Jesus told it first, it is nothing unusual to assume that they later discussed it or got an explanation, or realized/understood based on something said or explained later else etc.

>> Why such a debate over 400 years? More astounding, the debate still isn't over. We have Coptics, Romans, Baptists, Unitarians, etc. What exactly is a Christian?

Debates and sects/groups exist even in Islam. What’s the point. But most core/key beliefs are common with most groups.

(Continued in next..)

Sunil said...

(Continued from previous post, response to Mr Abdullah Kunde)

>> and even the distorted texts still hold some truth. Amazing

So, the unreliable witness ‘holds some truth’, and the truth can be filtered by tallying with the version of the accused! The accused (Muhammad) is saying that the witness of prophets (or the witness of the prophets that is available to us) is true in so far as it agrees with himself! This is what is most Amazing!

>> The greatest flaw in this argument Christians constantly propose, that the NT is the logical and clear continuation of the OT is that Jews are still Jews.

Not all Jews are still Jews. Even the early disciples/followers and almost all writers of NT are all Jews. The Jews who were expecting a political messiah or attached to the rituals/traditions etc rather than God Himself, they did not accept Jesus. Given the fulfillment of prophecies etc, ideally, not just the Jews, even the non-Jews should have recognized the salvation by Jesus. Sadly, that is not the case.

>> If it were genuinely so clear that the NT follows on from the OT, wouldn't they be all Christian?

Sure, God will ask that question to those who did not knowingly accept Jesus - to the Jews , as well as to the non-jews for that matter.

>> At least we give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they now follow a text that has become distorted, ergo, it may be more difficult for them to see the clear connection between the earlier revelations and the Qur'an. Christian's don't share this luxury.

You want the 'luxury' of discarding the entire history of God's revelation and the witness of the prophets saying that all that is unknown/unreliable? I don’t want that ‘luxury’ and I don’t think anyone should want such a luxury either!

ben malik said...

Akunde is gettin funnier with every new post.

In terms of texts they held, perhaps we could look at the Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazarenes and Ebionites for some clues.

Yes, let's look at them and see if this helps out Muhammad. Ebionites were vegetarians turned John the Baptist and Jesus into vegetarians as well. They also denied Jesus' virgin birth, believing that he was sired by Joseph. So if they are right Muhammad is a false prophet.

The Nazarenes were Jews who believed in the divinity of Jesus and virgin birth. The only problem the Gentile churches had with them was that they kept observing many of the Old Testament commandments which the Gentile Christians believed no longer applied. So, again, if they are right Muhammad is proven to be a false prophet.

And here are some excerpts from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Origen on John, ii. 12. And if any accept the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour himself saith, 'Even now did my mother the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me away unto the great mountain Thabor', he will be perplexed, &c. . . .

On Jeremiah, homily xv.4. And if anyone receive that saying, 'Even now my mother the Holy Spirit took me and carried me up unto the great mountain Thabor', and the rest. . . .

The description of the Holy Spirit as 'my mother' is due to the fact that the Hebrew word for spirit is of the feminine gender. The saying, it is generally thought, refers to the Temptation.


On Isa. xi.2. (The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him) not partially as in the case of other holy men: but, according to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazarenes read, 'There shall descend upon him the whole fount of the Holy Spirit'. . . .In the Gospel I mentioned above, I find this written: And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said unto him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldst come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, and thou art my first begotten son, that reignest for ever.

On Isa. xi. 9, My mother the Holy Spirit.

On Ezek. xvi.13. My mother, the Holy Spirit.


So Jesus' mother is the Holy Spirit and is her firstborn Son who reigns forever! But I thought you Muslims believe that she is the Angel Gabriel?

Matt. vii. 5. The Jewish has here: If ye be in my bosom and do not the will of my Father which is in heaven, out of my bosom will I cast you away.

Not only is the Holy Spirit Jesus' mother but God is also his Father. But Muhammad son of Abdullah said Allah has no sons. Who should we believe?

More to come in the next part.

ben malik said...

(continued)
Here are some more goodies from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, lately translated by me into Greek and Latin speech, which Origen often uses, tells, after the resurrection of the Saviour: 'Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant of the priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the Lord's cup until he should see him risen again from among them that sleep)', and again after a little, 'Bring ye, saith the Lord, a table and bread', and immediately it is added, 'He took bread and blessed and brake and gave it unto James the Just and said unto him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep'.

On Isa., preface to bk. xviii. For when the Apostles thought him to be a spirit, or, in the words of the Gospel which is of the Hebrews, which the Nazarenes are wont to read, 'a bodiless demon', he said to them (Luke xxiv. 38).
(Link: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html)

So according to this Gospel Jesus died and resurrected! You seriously want us to believe that this agrees with Muhammad's teachings?

So, Akunde, take your pick since no matter what you choose Muhammad the false prophet comes out looking real bad.

When I have more time I will address your justification for committing the root fallacy.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

This is my reply to Mr Kunde, it’s a lot of reading though, it contains my original post, Mr Kunde’s reply to my original post and my reply to Mr Kunde’s response to my post.
Hogan wrote:
Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics:
I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad’s time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad’s time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this?

Mr Kunde replies:
A poor, but common, Christian misunderstanding. You clearly did not listen to the first 10 sentences of my explaination about what Muslims believe regarding the NT/Gospel accounts.
Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts.
Hogan replies to Mr Kunde
I could not care the slightest what the opinion is of you or other Muslim, what you are claiming here is not the view of the Qur’an. The Qur’an clearly refers to the Christians as possessing the Injeel and as having to follow the Injeel, and the Muslim having to believe in this book.
If I am wrong on this then post to us here the one verse in the Qur’an which explicitly states that the Injeel used by Christians universally in Muhammad’s time was corrupted by writing.
Mr Kunde wrote
The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?
Hogan replies:
Where I get the idea from? Well, in the Qur’anic context, it refers to the Injeel used by the Christians of the time; it is your own book that makes this assertion not me. Do I really need to educate you about the basics of the Qur’an. It is the Qur’anic author who messes things up here, don’t blame me.
Perhaps you can show me anywhere from history a writing that states that the Gospel book was a direct revelation to Jesus. Maybe confer with your Gnostic supporters or Marcion. Or should we wonder why these victorious followers of Jesus (mentioned in the Qur’an) failed to preserve this very simple piece of information.
What you claim here is simply the failure of the Qur’anic author to understand the nature of the Gospel literature, yeah probably since he had not access to the sources in Arabic language---does that ring a bell?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Mr Kunde wrote:

Regardless, it is well known that there were no Christian Scriptures in Arabic until well after the time of Muhammad. Even Al Ghazzali, a 12th Century Islamic Scholar, had to rely on a Coptic version because the Arabic ones were poor and difficult to access. Ergo, I sincerely doubt Muhammad (pbuh) would have ever had access to Christian Scriptures similar to those in existence today.

Hogan replies:

Then you just proved my point. Is this why Muhammad (if Picktal is right) or ‘mankind’ I assume in Arabia were never told to read Christian scripture but to consult those who possess it.
But you are absolutely right here the author of the Qur’an did not possess this information, which is why he messed up referring to the existing Gospel information as a direct information to Jesus and supposedly in agreement with the Qur’anic information.

Mr Kunde wrote:

However, as I have stated in the recent debate and in the one with Dr. James White, the Christian Gospels, as they are, still contain some clear elements of the true message (such as Mark 12:29).

Hogan replies:

Interesting! Could you then post the supposed this direct revelation from the Gospels here. I would like to see that.

Hogan wrote:

In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the ‘Four Gospels’, hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the ‘Four Gospels’, which Christians commonly referred to as ‘the Gospel’ and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus’ death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur’an.

Mr Kunde replies:

Notice the Qur'an differentiates between the Injeel and the books that are with them? Or is this lost on you?

Hogan replies:

Ok, so do post here the Qur’anic reference which states that the Christians now possess books but not the intact Injeel, could you please elaborate on this with a explicit Qur’anic verse?

Hogan wrote:

But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase ‘what is still contained within their books’ and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance.

Mr Kunde replies:

Unreliable as a whole, but still containing elements of truth, is what I have consistently maintained. See above for example.

Hogan replies:

Show me then from the Qur’an that your assumption is right, where does the Qur’an maintain that the Gospel is unreliable as a whole with some elements of truth within them?
You are reading your own ideas into to the text; nothing of what you assume is originally Qur’anic; otherwise prove me wrong, show me a clear verse that proves your case.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur’an:

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

Mr Kunde replies:

A better translation is:

Say: "O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs -unless you truly observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer!" Yet all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee O Prophet by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their denial of the truth. But sorrow not over people who deny the truth: (TMQ: 5:68)

Hogan replies:

Does it really change anything what so ever?

The Qur’an in both translations states that those who follow the book have no ground for their believes unless the truly observe the Torah and the Gospel---hello!!!

But I thought you said these books are as a whole unreliable, why is the author of the Qur’an commanding Christians and Jews to abide by them? And if he only refers to certain parts which are intact, why does the text here not clarify these?

In fact this passage supports the fact that the Injeel was not corrupted in Muhammad’s time and that Christians were to follow this writing.

That the Qur’an comes later and creates in them stubbornness (which the passage suggests), does not prove corruption, but only that Christians were not willing to accept Qur’an as they accepted the previous revelations.

So far you have proven and refuted nothing!

Hogan wrote:

But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur’an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings:

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (Sura 29:46)
“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

Mr Kunde wrote:

Who says this verse is directed to Muhammad? It is directed to mankind. Very strange translation you are using, but it perhaps matches the very poor references you are giving. I'll correct all your references at the end.
And so, O man, if thou art in doubt about what We have bestowed upon thee from on high, ask those who read the divine writ before thy time: surely, the truth has now come unto thee from thy Sustainer. Be not, then, among the doubters (TMQ: 10:94)

Hogan replies

I have this translation from Picktal, which is a very respected translation of the Qur’an (but thanks for correcting me on this if I am wrong; I will look into it). But I do find it interesting in that case that there are so many corrupt translations out there; do scholars have a problem understanding the Qur’an?

But in that case who is this man!
And who is he to ask, and who are these who read the divine writing before his time? It cannot simply be mankind, as mankind lived when the revelations were given; it has to be a specific man. If it refers to people in Muhammad’s time, then clearly Allah is commanding mankind to consult those who read the pre-Islamic scripture prior to them; either this is a call for mankind to consult to pre-islamic scripture (which then cannot be corrupted since no reference to that is included), or the passage makes no logical sense!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Mr Kunde wrote:

I think I have explained with at least some small examples how the Qur'an is not referring to your current book in all passages (when it refers to Torah or Injeel), and when it does, its obvious the key message is still contained within your distorted text, if one looks hard enough (see other sections of response).

Hogan replies:

No you have not explained anything, you have utterly failed to provide any reference that agree with the Qur’an and you have certainly not proven anything from history; so far all I get from you are assumptions that fit a modern muslim mindset not even the mindset of the Qur’an author or your beloved prophet.

And again let me ask you: show me from the Qur’anic text that the pre-Islamic revelation is found within a distorted Injeel text. I would love to see that.

Hogan wrote:

I would assume if the author of the Qur’an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel)

Mr Kunde wrote:

Your understanding and the Islamic understanding of these terms is different. See above. ,

Hogan replies:

What Islamic understanding? Can
you post to me the understanding of the Qur’anic author and the understanding of Muhammad that explicitly supports your view?

Hogan wrote:

yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur’an.
The author of the Qur’an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant!

Mr Kunde replies:

Or you need to a) watch my whole presentation, b) actually read the Qur'an and c) [this is an assumption] stop copy/pasting false arguments that you haven't bothered to verify.

Hogan replies:

Do you accuse me of pasting false arguments, whatever I have given you agrees with your own book (the Qur’an), you are the one deviating from the Islamic teaching; this is why I say that the Islamic teaching basically annihilates itself; modern Muslims can only escape this by denying this basic teaching of the Qur’an.

Hogan wrote:

...and if it (the Qur’an) only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur’an differentiate explicitly between these corrupted passages and the intact passages?

Mr Kunde replies:

Simple: whatever agrees with the Qur'an = true. whatever doesn't = false, whatever is in between is doubtful.

Hogan replies:

That is not very scholarly or academic Abdullah! I could make similar claims and you would abuse me for it.

This sounds to me like a childish chant, my book is right yours is wrong.

At least I am trying to approch this matter with a scholarly approach.

Notice also that since I do not believe the Qur’an to be God’s word or a revelation, you cannot utilize the Qur’an as a criteria upon me; I do not have any scriptural, logical or historical reasons to believe in the Qur’an.
It’s contrast with the Bible, the Qur’an is full of ambiguity, contradictions, scientific errors and there is utter confusion related to its compilation, not to forget its textual variants and burning of the evidence; this is more than sufficient for me to reject is value.

Hogan wrote

I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur’an, if this indeed was the author’s view.

Mr Kunde replies:

T To assume makes an ass of you and me

Hogan replies:

Well all you have given me so far is assumption.

But be honest about it, if the Gospel was corrupted would you not agree that the author of the Qur’an would have dealt with it entirely differently?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this?
Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew’s Gospel that Matthew’s omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology?

Mr Kunde replies:

You've said it yourself (underlined). Moreover, the entirety is not important in this regard. A good question is, did a scribe decide to cut it out in a copy, due to the theological implication, which eventually became standard in all copies of Matthew?

Hogan replies:

Careful mr Kunde you are assuming, remember according to your own words it can make an ass out of you
Prove it, how do you know a scribe omitted it? Provide the evidence. This is indeed wild speculation; that is why I say: give me something that is solidly based on evidence.

Hogan wrote:

Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur’an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur’an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur’an is the book that deviates.

Kunde replies:
Can you give an example?

Hogan answers:

Yeah, the crucifixion in the Qur’an

Hogan wrote:

The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8).

Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses.

In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says:

‘When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning’.

Mr Kunde replies:

Yet at times they did not understand his teachings (and were afraid to ask him about them)? How could they pass them on? Isn't that inconsistent? Mark 9:32, Luke 18:32-34.

Hogan replies:

You are entirely correct, are you saying that Muhammad’s followers always got the matter right, why do you have four schools of Islam?

Mr Kunde wrote:

But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it. The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

Hogan replies:

The context here is the suffering of Jesus, which was too much for them to take in at that time; don’t assume that they did not understand e.g. the Sermon on the mountain, you are using a specific passage to undermine the entirety of the matter, again not very academic. Muhammad did not understand or grasp his earliest revelation, are you then saying that Muhammad’s transmission cannot be trusted? Do apply this approach both ways.

Mr Kunde replies:

I'm sure, you'd argue, it all made sense to them in the end. Aside from a single verse in John, whats the evidence for this?

Hogan replies:

What verse in John are you referring to in particular; there are several verses in John that clarify this. However, read Matthew 28 and Luke 24 in which the Apostles are commissioned as those who will transmit the information. Consider also Acts chapter 1, in which Jesus spends 40 days with them teaching them the Kingdom of God. Consider also the role of the Holy Spirit which according to the Gospel and Acts will teach them and remind them.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Mr Kunde replies:

Eyewitness testimony doesn't come 120 years after events occur. At best what you have are copies of copies of copies of eyewitness testimony. Surely you'll agree with this?

Hogan replies:

The eyewitness testimony did not occur 120 years after the events. According to the Gospels and the early church fathers, such transmission began with the disciples and was handed over to successors orally and in writing. For example the apostle Peter to Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, and John the Apostle to Polycarp and Ignatius and from Polycarp to Irenaeus, and John the Elder to Papias and Polycarp.
As to you problem with copies, are you saying that a copy of a copy of a copy is 90 procent corrupted, not even Ehrman will agree with you! He might say that no passage is entirely identical, but this relates to spelling mistakes, grammar in particular, not intended corruption.

Hogan wrote:

Indeed the Qur’an seems to confirm this:

When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: ‘who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?’ Said the disciples: ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness’ (3: 53-4)

If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur’an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah:

O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’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 (Sura 6: 14)

Mr Kunde wrote:

Some issues:
Word 'disciple' is never used in Arabic/Qur'an. It's 'the white-garbed ones'. don't impose your belief on a translation of the text in order to suggest your disciples are the true disciples of Jesus referred to in the Qur'an.

Hogan replies:

I can see that my brothers on this blog have already deal with this issue. Let me only add: Who were the followers of Jesus except for his disciples and apostles.

Mr Kunde wrote:

The long period of theological debate in the early Christian Period about the status of Jesus and what texts are acceptable and aren't are referred to here. Consider Arius, Thedotus of Byzantium, Marcion, their beliefs weren't declared as official heresy until 200-400CE (depending on which). Well after Jesus' time. Why such a debate over 400 years?

Hogan replies:

I am not totally in agreement, the second century Christianity reveals a pretty good insight into the present canon. I agree that there was scrutiny and the controversy over clear definitions over certain matters, also there were heretics.

As to your reference to e.g. Arius and Marcion. You seem to have great sympaty with Marcion in particular, are in agreement with Marcion? Based upon the teachings of Marcion do you find it odd that the churches rejected his teaching?

Do you agree with the omission of certain passages in Marcion's use of Luke?

Furthermore are you saying you have not had any heretics or schism in Islam, how about the schism between the Shia and Sunni and there various view points? How about the four schools of Islam, there is certainly a great deal of controversy still present in the Islamic religion!

Mr Kunde wrote:

More astounding, the debate still isn't over. We have Coptics, Romans, Baptists, Unitarians, etc. What exactly is a Christian?

Hogan replies:
Much like the four schools of Islam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Mr Kunde wrote:

The verse is clear however, in that it refers to the success of the Muslims, i.e. the ones that believed. The light of Islam has never been completely extinguished, and even the distorted texts still hold some truth. Amazing.

I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55) (Wrong reference again.)Indeed, this verse refers to those that worship One God (and don't divide Him in Trinity while claiming to worship Him in Sublime Unity), do righteous deeds, are patient and speak the turth (TMQ: 103)

Hogan replies:

No, Mr Kunde, the verse specifically refers to those who follow Jesus in the past. Who are those who blaspheme? They are those who reject faith (Sura 3: 55) are we justified in separating these from those unbelievers who plot and plan. These were not followers of Jesus, but seems to refer to the Jews who plotted against Jesus (Sura 3: 54). This is obvious from Sura 3: 52 in which Jesus find unbelief on behalf of the Jews and in the same passage the ‘disciples’ declare their submission to Jesus message. The blasphemers are not false Christians who believe in the Trinity but the Jews who presented blasphemous statements against Jesus, just consider the Talmud.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22:

‘To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God’s Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law’.

It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information.

Mr Kunde wrote:

Why would Paul need the Gospel information? Didn't he receive direct information from Jesus?

Hogan replies:

Paul did receive information both ways.

According to First Corinthians seven Paul indeed received direct revelation and also inspiration.

According to Galatians one we find both types of transmission. In the passage Paul’s earliest stage in Christianity was based upon revelation, yet in the same chapter, Paul met with Peter.

In first Corinthians 15 Paul indeed uses early tradition.

Some passages might according to some be ambiguous, such as in first Corinthians eleven in which Paul refers to the Last Supper, stating that he received this from the Lord. According to most scholars this is a reference to transmission that Paul received from presumably early successors, most likely according to the Greek term, the apostles, who received it from Jesus, hence based upon the methods and terms of first century transmission and succession Paul received this information from Jesus through successors.

So to answer your question Paul received information both ways.

Hogan wrote:

I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context.

Mr Kunde wrote:

Interpret it as you wish. 'To those outside the Law I became like one outside the Law' is pretty clear to me.

Hogan replies:

No this is not clear to you at all.

Can you show me that Paul lived like a pagan worshipper. All Paul says is that among those not possessing the Mosaic Law he does not follow the Mosaic Law. This does not indicate that Paul worshipped their gods, but simply that he did not follow the Mosaic Law. In fact as I already pointed out Paul emphasis here that he is still following the Law of Christ, so how can you presume that he worships idols?

The passage clearly states that he follows the Christian teaching, but not the Law.

Yet even if he stated that he lived like a gentile, even this would not support your presumption of Paul worshipping idols. Firstly a number of Gentiles were Christians, yet they did not all follow the Mosaic Law.

Furthermore, many Gentiles were atheists, they did not worship any gods what so ever; hence even Paul living like a Gentile, even without the reference to the Law of Christ does not indicate that Paul worshipped idols.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan wrote:

I also find it interesting that the Qur’an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur’an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?

Mr Kunde replies:

The greatest flaw in this argument Christians constantly propose, that the NT is the logical and clear continuation of the OT is that Jews are still Jews. If it were genuinely so clear that the NT follows on from the OT, wouldn't they be all Christian?

At least we give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they now follow a text that has become distorted, ergo, it may be more difficult for them to see the clear connection between the earlier revelations and the Qur'an. Christian's don't share this luxury.

Hogan replies:

I don’t find your presumption here valid. Many Jews simply rejected Jesus. There is a clear continuation of the OT into the NT. You enforcing on to me that I have to declare that the OT is corrupted, why on earth should I agree with you?

Mr Kunde wrote:

In all your response has a range of reference flaws, which suggests large portions of it have been copy/pasted and also suggests that you do not understand the arguments yourself.

Hogan replies:

This is offensive Mr Kunde, you do not know anything about me or my studies.

I have indeed an MA in Christian Origins and have spent most of my time studying from critical sources.

Anyway your behaviour here is the typical personal attack I get from Muslim all the time, especially when they have no more answers. I hope not to associate you with that category.

As I said this kind of comments are offensive, childish and immature, I suggest that if you want to continually communicate with me that you apologize and show basic courtesy.

As someone who has had the privilege to debate James White and Samuel Green, I would expect something differently.

Mr Kunde wrote:

You have also used some very liberal Qur'an translations which imply a meaning you choose to convey, which are found in no Islamic exegeses or translations. In fact, your translation inserts words (such as disciples and Muhammad) which aren't there in the text.

Hogan replies:

Again this is an offensive statement.
I think some of my brothers on this blog have dealt with you on that one. The translation I have used mainly is that of Picktal, who is a respect translator at least in the UK. At least Arabic speaking individuals have suggested this translation as the best. I am not saying it is, but that is what I have been told.
Furthermore, as to Sura 10: 90, Picktal is the one who includes Muhammad. I believe also that there is a good case based upon the Hadith and the early Islamic commentators that the ‘man’ is Muhammad, but as I said I will look into it. I maintain however that my reference to the followers of Jesus as the apostles and disciples is a logical interpretation.

Mr Kunde wrote:

Moreover, I find the behaviour of some members of this blog quite discourteous. I am not accustomed to being referred to by my surname by and individual I have not met. If you don't like calling me by my first name, at least have the courtesy to add Mr. to the start of my surname.

Hogan replies:

I apologize if I have upset you by referring to you as Kunde; I guess we are facing some cultural differences; I will therefore refer to you as Mr Kunde. Sorry.

ben malik said...

Akunde's replies go from bad to worse. He can't help from being inconsistent.

He writes:.

More astounding, the debate still isn't over. We have Coptics, Romans, Baptists, Unitarians, etc. What exactly is a Christian?

What is astounding is your inconsistency since you have as many sects in Islam which evidently doesn't bother you. You have Sunnis versus Shias, Salafis' versus Asharis concerning whether Allah's eyes, hands, shin etc. are metaphors or literal descriptions of Allah's traits. You have those Sunnis along with Shias who accept the intercession of prophets and saints and actually pray to them for intercession (something known as tawwassul), whereas you have those Salafi Sunnis who say that this is contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Then you have the debate whether the Quran is eternal or not, with Shias and Muslims of the past like the Mutazilites arguing that isn't and even punishing and imprisoning those who said it was.

I can go on and on.

This is really hliarious:

But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it. The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

But I thought the Gospels are not reliable? If so then how do you know that this depiction of the disciples is reliable? Simply because it suits your purpose?

I like how you do scholarship... BUT NOT DOING AT ALL! You were arguments are from scholarly and simply show that you are not consistent since your approach to the Gospels would force you to acknowledge that the Quran is a fraud along with its author.

Like I said, Akunde's career as a Muslim apologist and academic is coming to an end.

ben malik said...

Hogan, all you need to do is simply quote 1 Corinthians 10:5-23to show that Paul would never have worshiped the idols of the pagans since he warns the Corinthians that they cannot participate the in the sacrifices to idols since such sacrifices are given to demons. Akunde thinks that the Bible is like the Quran in that it is without a coherent context which explains why he can butcher Paul's words without any problems.

Akunde has further confused Paul with Muhammad since it was Muhammad who bowed to a pagan shrine and licked a black stone, a practice which even confoundedd his companions like Umar.

Count the days for Akunde since it won't be long before he vanishes from the apologetic and academic scene.

ben malik said...

Akunde not only butchers the Bible he also seems to have no problems. He says that Quran 10:94 doesn't refer to Muhammad:

Who says this verse is directed to Muhammad? It is directed to mankind. Very strange translation you are using, but it perhaps matches the very poor references you are giving. I'll correct all your references at the end.
And so, O man, if thou art in doubt about what We have bestowed upon thee from on high, ask those who read the divine writ before thy time: surely, the truth has now come unto thee from thy Sustainer. Be not, then, among the doubters (TMQ: 10:94)


Ahh, the Arabic tells us it is Muhammad since the word for you is singular.

So if you [kunta] (O Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it). Hilali and Khan translation

Kunta is singular and is addressing one person, with that person being the false prophet Muhammad. In order for your perversion of a translation to be correct then we would expect to find the Arabic word kuntum, which would then be a general command for everyone.

And here is what some of the Muslim scholars said in regards to this verse.

4) Among his people, the Prophet was famously known for his truthfulness during the first forty years of his life; it logically follows, therefore, that he was also truthful with himself. So in studying the reality of revelation and what was happening to him he for sure realized that there was no need to doubt what he was experiencing was real. As for the INITIAL FEARS he had, THE FOLLOWING VERSE REFUTES THEM:

"So if you (O Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it)." (Qur’an 10: 94)

It has been related THAT AFTER THIS VERSE WAS REVEALED, the Prophet said, "I do not doubt, and I do not ask."

[1] Related by At-Tabaraanee (17906, 17908), with his chain from Qatadah. Also, refer to Tafseer Al-Qurtubi (8/340). (Dr. ‘Ali Muhammad As-Sallabee, The Noble Life of the Prophet, translated by Faisal Shafeeq [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: October 2005], Volume 1, p. 140)

And:

4) The Prophet’s honesty and integrity over a period of forty years and the reputation which he enjoyed among his people as a result of this required him to be truthful, first and foremost, with himself. Hence, he must, through his study of the revelatory event which he had experienced, have overcome any doubts which had come into his mind. The following verse seems to have been revealed in response TO HIS INITIAL SELF-EXAMINATION in relation to the revelation he had received: “So if you are in doubt (O Muhammad), about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters” [Jonah 10:94]. It is related THAT FOLLOWING THE DESCENT OF THIS VERSE, the Prophet said, “I do not doubt, nor do I question.” (Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography & A Brief History of the Orthodox Caliphate, translated by Nancy Roberts, revised by Anas al-Rifa’i [Dar al Fikr in Damascus, Reprinted 2006], p. 147)

So there you have it. Surah 10:94 was "revealed" to assuage the the fears and doubts that Muhammad had. So if anyone is using poor sources it is you.

My advice to you is to start practicing what you preach for a change since once you start doing so you will be able to be consistent.

ben malik said...

Oops! I said,

I like how you do scholarship... BUT NOT DOING AT ALL! You were arguments are from scholarly and simply show that you are not consistent since your approach to the Gospels would force you to acknowledge that the Quran is a fraud along with its author.

I meant to say that Akunde's arguments are FAR from being scholarly. My apologies for all the mistakes.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hi Ben Malik

I meant to post Corinthians 10:5-23but forgot it in the huge amount of information being posed here.

Good job bro

The Fat Man said...

Abdullah Kunde said ...
"Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?"

You sir are still running from the question.

DID THIS INGEEL YOU KEEP APPEALING TO EXIST AT THE TIME OF MOHAMED?

Here is what we do know, during the time of Mohamed there was a Syriac Harmony by Tatian of the 4 Gosples. The Diatessaron as it is called used John as the primary source.

If you claim as I have heard some muslism that this is infact the "ingeel" then you still have a problem. Becasue the Diateseron has The crucifiction, death and reserection of Jesus Christ.

If you say this wasnt the "Ingeel" then again I ask DID THIS INGEEL EXIST AT THE TIME OF MOHAMED?

Please answer that question. Once that question is answered you muslims can then procceed to have a meaningfull converation with christians.

ben malik said...

I am glad that FatMan pointed this out since this is a further embarrassment to Akunde.

"Nowhere do I, or any other Muslim since the revelation of the Qur'an. suggest that the Injeel is synonymous with the Gospel accounts. The Gospels are a history (4 versions of it at that) and the Injeel was a revelation directly to Jesus. Where do you get the idea they are synonymous?"

It is obvious that you haven't done any serious study. Here is what the oldest source on Muhammad's life says:

“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, "They hated me without a cause" (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord's presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord's presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’

“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 103-104)

Ibn Ishaq is quoting John 15:23-16:1 and says that John wrote down the Gospel of Jesus for his followers.

Even though Ibn Ishaq does not claim that the Injil is the Four Gospels he does say that it is dientical to John's Gospel, which happens to be the very Gospel that teaches that Jesus eternally existed as the Word and is God who became flesh, died on the cross, and rose from the dead!

Time for you to call it quits, Akunde, and find some other hobby.

Gem said...

Suni, Hogan, Ben Malik, FatMan & the rest

I love reading your response to Abdullah Kunde. It is so insightful.
Thanks. And I hope Mr Kunde will give response as I am eager to read from his perspective.

God bless in Christ Jesus

Fernando said...

Man... I have never seen someone being so easely "destroied" as you guys habe doone withe dear Kunde... all his claimes only shows: utter ignorance off the Bible, and utter falsity off the qur'an and the islamic teachings... never teh less, as I daide previously: he's a quite non agressive person; yes, he's a pompous person ordering other to trite him like a pharaon, butt nevertheless he has a cute tie (at the least in the videos we saw off him)...

Fernando said...

Dear Kunde...

whate a solar eclipse from you, my friend... or as Queen woulde tell: «Another one bites the dust / Hey, I'm gonna get you too / Another one bites the dust»...

AKunde said...

Greetings all,

I apologise for tarrying so much in my replies to these questions. Believe it or not, but when I added all the questions I received on the blog over a 24 hour period into one document, the word count was over 12,000. Some of it was others quoting me, but most was new material I had to examine and couldn’t just respond to without some reading. What follows is most of the unique questions I read all put together, with my responses. I hope, in the future, we can streamline the way in which this is done, as unless I have several hours to commit to reading and typing, it becomes impossible for me to respond.


You are believing in a stand-alone man without foundation/root and delinked from all the history of God's revelation and what is made known/available to us about all the prophets of God (hence not a legitimate prophet of God). I think your claim of ignorance about Jesus is based on a very weak excuse.
A stand-alone man who’s revelation was witnessed by an entire community of thousands.


The primary purpose of all scriptures/revelation, writings of prophets/disciples of Jesus etc is to reveal who Jesus is.

Interesting…
Imagine standing before God on judgement day and say that in spite of all the history of God's revelation/intervention in history and all prophets pointing to Jesus, you claim to be still ignorant about who Jesus is! I dont think sir, that God will buy that claim of yours.

I think I’d ask such a God similar to what I’ve asked further on: Where did the Hebrew Prophets teach us about a Triune God or a God-Man?
BTW, the NT Gospels are not 4 testimonies about Jesus by Jesus' disciples/associates asserting the fulfillment of Scriptures in Jesus. (not merely 4 writers of history)

What are they then?


How do you know that one line is true, when you claim the entire God's revelation before Muhammad is rendered unreliable/unknown?

>> Unreliable as a whole, but still containing elements of truth, is what I have consistently maintained
Read further for more explanation and the Qur’anic injunction regarding the books of those that claim to follow the teachings of Jesus.

So, the unreliable witness ‘holds some truth’, and the truth can be filtered by tallying with the version of the accused! The accused (Muhammad) is saying that the witness of prophets (or the witness of the prophets that is available to us) is true in so far as it agrees with himself! This is what is most Amazing! You want the 'luxury' of discarding the entire history of God's revelation and the witness of the prophets saying that all that is unknown/unreliable? I don’t want that ‘luxury’ and I don’t think anyone should want such a luxury either!

What prophet witnesses for the Triune God? The God-Man or the God-Man sacrifice?


In terms of texts they held, perhaps we could look at the Gospels of the Hebrews, Nazarenes and Ebionites for some clues.

Yes, let's look at them and see if this helps out Muhammad. Ebionites were vegetarians turned John the Baptist and Jesus into vegetarians as well. They also denied Jesus' virgin birth, believing that he was sired by Joseph. So if they are right Muhammad is a false prophet.

The Nazarenes were Jews who believed in the divinity of Jesus and virgin birth…

And here are some excerpts from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Quoting Origen, assuming he has quoted correctly, a text that has not existed for almost 2000 years. This, the same Origen that did not know Jesus was a carpenter? Or do you honestly attempt to suggest that you quoted from the actual Gospel of the Hebrews, like you attempt to suggest you actually quote from Ibn Ishaq below?

AKunde said...

If I am wrong on this then post to us here the one verse in the Qur’an which explicitly states that the Injeel used by Christians universally in Muhammad’s time was corrupted by writing
What the Qur’an says is simple – as I have maintained from the beginning. There is no ambiguity, I think.

And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those [earlier prophets], confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the God-conscious.
Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high-it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!
And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ
Hence, judge between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views; and beware of them, lest they tempt thee away from aught that God has bestowed from on high upon thee. And if they turn away [from His commandments], then know that it is but God's will [thus] to afflict them for some of their sins: for, behold, a great many people are iniquitous indeed (TMQ: 5:46-49)




Well, in the Qur’anic context, it refers to the Injeel used by the Christians of the time; it is your own book that makes this assertion not me. Do I really need to educate you about the basics of the Qur’an. It is the Qur’anic author who messes things up here, don’t blame me.

No. The Qur’an calls on ‘the followers of the Gospel’ (ahl injeel) to judge based on what was revealed in it – confirmed by the Qur’an *see quoted verses.

Perhaps you can show me anywhere from history a writing that states that the Gospel book was a direct revelation to Jesus.

Perhaps you can show me a non-Christian historical source that says Jesus rose from the dead? It’s a meaningless challenge and a straw man at best.

Maybe confer with your Gnostic supporters or Marcion. Or should we wonder why these victorious followers of Jesus (mentioned in the Qur’an) failed to preserve this very simple piece of information.

Only similar to the failed prophets of Israel, that failed to bring all of their people back to monotheism.



Then you just proved my point. Is this why Muhammad (if Picktal is right) or ‘mankind’ I assume in Arabia were never told to read Christian scripture but to consult those who possess it.
Clarify exegesis -





Interesting! Could you then post the supposed this direct revelation from the Gospels here. I would like to see that.

Again read the Qur’an I’ve quoted above. It tells the Prophet what to instruct Christians to do (i.e. read the Qur’an for the yardstick)

AKunde said...

Ok, so do post here the Qur’anic reference which states that the Christians now possess books but not the intact Injeel, could you please elaborate on this with a explicit Qur’anic verse?

Qur’an above, as per my statement you quote
Mr Kunde replies:

Unreliable as a whole, but still containing elements of truth, is what I have consistently maintained.
See above for example. You actually asked this question in several similar ways. I wonder, without intending any offence, Is it really that hard to read the 10 verses before the ones you quoted to give you the answer to the questions?


In fact this passage supports the fact that the Injeel was not corrupted in Muhammad’s time and that Christians were to follow this writing.


No… Read Qur’an above. Read a tafsir (as some on this blog seem to be able to do).

I have this translation from Picktal, which is a very respected translation of the Qur’an (but thanks for correcting me on this if I am wrong; I will look into it). But I do find it interesting in that case that there are so many corrupt translations out there; do scholars have a problem understanding the Qur’an?

But in that case who is this man!
In terms of this, I have read the complete explanation of Tafsir al Jalalayn and others on this verse. It is firstly explicit and uniform, amongst all exegetes that the Prophet (pbuh) never doubted his mission. This is emphasized in many collections and it ius further illustrated that some biographers/historians collected traditions that illustrated the Prophet did have initial doubts, however these traditions are strange (shadh), weak (daif) and false.

It’s probably worthwhile illustrating here that biographers/historians used lower levels of authentication when collecting their histories. They just collected and collated everything and left it to the hadith scholars to determine what was reliable and not reliable. Another example of an unreliable tradition that is often suggested to be accepted by mainstream scholars of the past are the Satanic verses. Basic searches of the commentaries by scholars of authentication of the classical era correctly illustrate it was never accepted as a reliable narration. But perhaps that’s another debate?

Where the exegetes differ is in the direction of the statement. Some say (as is used by Asad, Ibn Kathir and others which I was familiar with) it is an instruction the Prophet is to give to mankind in general.
Others say it is hypothetically directed to the prophet (“if you doubt”) and this allowed the Prophet the opportunity to express that he did not doubt his mission.

All, however, refer back to other verses in the Qur’an, such as the ones I quoted, which indicate the yardstick for determining what is true and what is false in what books they currently hold is the Qur’an. Regardless of if you accept the Qur’an or not, this is what it says about itself and the state of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.



And again let me ask you: show me from the Qur’anic text that the pre-Islamic revelation is found within a distorted Injeel text. I would love to see that.

Hogan wrote:

I would assume if the author of the Qur’an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel

How? Seems explicit to me. Can you give a more clear instruction?

AKunde said...

Notice also that since I do not believe the Qur’an to be God’s word or a revelation, you cannot utilize the Qur’an as a criteria upon me; I do not have any scriptural, logical or historical reasons to believe in the Qur’an.
It’s contrast with the Bible, the Qur’an is full of ambiguity, contradictions, scientific errors and there is utter confusion related to its compilation, not to forget its textual variants and burning of the evidence; this is more than sufficient for me to reject is value.

That’s a fair statement and, indeed, was used by many in the earliest days of Islam.
Usually when delivering the message of the Qur’an, we would first ask you to accept, through the proofs it provides of itself, it as a divine revelation. We would then take further steps to discuss your current revelation, once you have drawn a specific conclusion on the Qur’an in its own right. I’ll discuss this point later on perhaps, God willing, in more detail.




Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur’an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur’an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur’an is the book that deviates.

Again, which Pentateuch reference can you provide regarding the Triune God? What Prophetic reference about the Triune God? What about the God-Man? Isn’t it more in line with the OT than the NT? If not, supply a direct reference from the Pentateuch and prophetic writings that clearly illustrates the concept of the Triune God or God-Man.


Hogan replies:

The eyewitness testimony did not occur 120 years after the events. According to the Gospels and the early church fathers, such transmission began with the disciples and was handed over to successors orally and in writing
Same Church fathers that didn’t know Jesus was a carpenter?

…not intended corruption.

Not intended corruption? Is this a selective reading of Ehrman? Considering some of the chapter and subchapter titles of Misquoting Jesus like ‘Intentional alterations of the text, adoptionist alterations of the text, antiadoptionist alterations of the text’, etc?


As to your reference to e.g. Arius and Marcion. You seem to have great sympaty with Marcion in particular, are in agreement with Marcion? Based upon the teachings of Marcion do you find it odd that the churches rejected his teaching?

No, I don’t support Marcionism. I use it as an example. Surely, being a student of history, you are aware that in the 3rd Century its estimated there were just as many followers of Marcion as there were Orthodox Christians?

Furthermore are you saying you have not had any heretics or schism in Islam, how about the schism between the Shia and Sunni and there various view points? How about the four schools of Islam, there is certainly a great deal of controversy still present in the Islamic religion!
The four schools of Islam differ on jurisprudential methods, but still come up with basically the same laws.
Moreover, law is not belief. The four schools do not differ on belief, aqidah, which is unified on all key issues (even Shia agree) eg, theres only One God, nothing is comparable to Him, etc.
The four modern day Christian examples I gave have very different beliefs about God. Coptics believe in a monophysite Christ. Romans have intercession through saints and relics. Baptists discard both of these beliefs and Unitarians don’t accept the trinity. Very different theologies, not merely religious legal practices (although, they are also very different and far more so than our 4 schools of law). Main point, law doesn’t equal theology.

AKunde said...

What is astounding is your inconsistency since you have as many sects in Islam which evidently doesn't bother you. You have Sunnis versus Shias, Salafis' versus Asharis concerning whether Allah's eyes, hands, shin etc. are metaphors or literal descriptions of Allah's traits.
Do we differ as to if there is more than one personality of God or not?
Do we differ as to whether that God has one-being or two-beings?
No
What exactly is the nature of the Salafi-Ashari difference. Asharis say: We don’t interpret the verses that anthropomorphise God, Salafis say: we affirm them as facts, but don’t question the how or like, to maintain He is unlike the creation. I.e. God has a hand, but unlike our hand.

Nothing like the theological differences still present in your co-religionists today.

You have those Sunnis along with Shias who accept the intercession of prophets and saints and actually pray to them for intercession (something known as tawwassul), whereas you have those Salafi Sunnis who say that this is contrary to the teachings of Islam.
But all accept the concept of tawwassul, at least through the Prophet on the day of Judgement, as per the supplication after the athan said by most muslims 5 times a day (Salafi/Shia/Sunni/Sufi alike). Protestants don’t allow the concept at all, Orthodoxy allows it without limits. Very different systems with no foundational agreement on the basic concept itself.

Then you have the debate whether the Quran is eternal or not, with Shias and Muslims of the past like the Mutazilites arguing that isn't and even punishing and imprisoning those who said it was.

Actually created or not – and essentially the definitions that were concluded by the mutazilah and the ahlul sunnah are the same – i.e. that Allah swt spoke to Muhammad through His speech which is unlike ours. The alul sunnah conclude that: and the ‘keyf’ or ‘how’ that became to be the Qur’an we have is not something to be delved into, whereas the Mutazilah concluded that it must be affirmed that the Qur’an is created. Semantic issues, unlike something like dualism, trinitarianism and Unitarianism, all which existed which large numbers of followers up till the 4th Christian Century.
Whats amazing is that Islamic theological differences are minor semantic issues, because there is so little room to move for interpretation. Yet, Christians have loads of room to move, because Christology itself isn’t specifically explained in the NT, not even basic aspects like the Trinity or the God-Man. Nothing.

AKunde said...

This is offensive Mr Kunde, you do not know anything about me or my studies.

I have indeed an MA in Christian Origins and have spent most of my time studying from critical sources.

I apologise. I was not referring to your understanding of Christianity, rather, your poor quotes of the Qur’an (which I illustrated as being, often, very incorrect e.g., chapter 50 quoted as chapter 5 etc.).


Anyway your behaviour here is the typical personal attack I get from Muslim all the time, especially when they have no more answers. I hope not to associate you with that category.
Apologies again. I merely suggested you had not actually read the verses of the Qur’an you quoted (for the above reason, references were very poor).


As someone who has had the privilege to debate James White and Samuel Green, I would expect something differently.

Indeed, both were privileges for which I am grateful to God.

I apologize if I have upset you by referring to you as Kunde; I guess we are facing some cultural differences; I will therefore refer to you as Mr Kunde. Sorry.
Apology accepted. Although, Abdullah would have been better  First name makes us more friend-like 


Like I said, Akunde's career as a Muslim apologist and academic is coming to an end.
I wasn’t aware I had a career ;)
Count the days for Akunde since it won't be long before he vanishes from the apologetic and academic scene.
Hopefully then I’ll have more time for golf and football. :)

AKunde said...

Hogan, all you need to do is simply quote 1 Corinthians 10:5-23to show that Paul would never have worshiped the idols of the pagans since he warns the Corinthians that they cannot participate the in the sacrifices to idols since such sacrifices are given to demons. Akunde thinks that the Bible is like the Quran in that it is without a coherent context which explains why he can butcher Paul's words without any problems.

Paul concludes the passage you quote, quite strangely, with ‘Everything is permissible. Eat whatever you are served unless you are specifically informed it is pagan, but do not ask. I try to please everybody for their own good (i.e. so the good news may be spread to all) ’.

Moreover, he illustrates in Acts 17 that the Lord does not reside in temples built by hands.

Neither of these statements are uniform with the Hebrew Scriptures/OT. Nor is I Corinthians 10:23 uniform with the 15 verses that it comes after. I’m not really sure what he was trying to say in his letters, but to conclude Paul is uniform and the Qur’an isn’t is just as strange as the letters themselves. Perhaps, even stranger.

If you have alternate readings to what I have quoted, please provide them for consideration.



January 8, 2010 11:51 PM

Ahh, the Arabic tells us it is Muhammad since the word for you is singular.

Is that why classical commentators who are experts in Arabic grammar also determined it as a message the Prophet was instructed to give to others?


Kunta is singular and is addressing one person,
True and correct.
with that person being the false prophet Muhammad. In order for your perversion of a translation to be correct then we would expect to find the Arabic word kuntum, which would then be a general command for everyone.

Not correct, see above.

And here is what some of the Muslim scholars said in regards to this verse.

4) Among his people, the Prophet was famously known for his truthfulness during …… INITIAL FEARS he had, THE FOLLOWING VERSE REFUTES THEM:…
It has been related THAT AFTER THIS VERSE WAS REVEALED, the Prophet said, "I do not doubt, and I do not ask."


See above re: explanation of seerah/history sources.

So there you have it. Surah 10:94 was "revealed" to assuage the the fears and doubts that Muhammad had. So if anyone is using poor sources it is you.

My advice to you is to start practicing what you preach for a change since once you start doing so you will be able to be consistent.

Here is what we do know, during the time of Mohamed there was a Syriac Harmony by Tatian of the 4 Gosples. The Diatessaron as it is called used John as the primary source.

If you claim as I have heard some muslism that this is infact the "ingeel" then you still have a problem. Becasue the Diateseron has The crucifiction, death and reserection of Jesus Christ.

If you say this wasnt the "Ingeel" then again I ask DID THIS INGEEL EXIST AT THE TIME OF MOHAMED?

Please answer that question. Once that question is answered you muslims can then procceed to have a meaningfull converation with christians.

Did the actual injeel exist in the time of Muhammad (pbuh)? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps in the future we will find out. However, the verses I have quoted above make it clear the Qur’an doesn’t seem to think the books used by the Christians at the time, who claim to be the followers of the true Injeel, are completely reliable as total truth.
It is obvious that you haven't done any serious study. Here is what the oldest source on Muhammad's life says:….
Ibn Ishaq is quoting John 15:23-16:1 and says that John wrote down the Gospel of Jesus for his followers.

So what version of Ibn Ishaq is that? Unless you have Ibn Ishaq’s actual text, which hasn’t existed for about 1000 years?

AKunde said...

If the disciples we refer to are not the same disciples mentioned in the Quran then please tell us who are these mystery disciples? You have already stated you believe the Nazarene Writings/New Testament as the best historical source on the events in question, so where are these Islamic followers of Yeshua? Why is there not a single whisper of them anywhere in all of the historical record? We have the four Gospel writers, we have the letters of Paul, we have rabbinic literature by multiple authors, historians such as Josephus...and none of these sources bear witness to these "mystery disciples" you seem to alude to.

I’d disagree. We have a range of early Christian groups which not much about is known. We know that there was a group that had a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel, we know there was a group that maintained Jewish laws. We know other bits and pieces and other stuff is disputed. Either way, even if we had nothing, it wouldn’t negate the possibility of them existing. Whats the historical proof for Jesus rising from the dead?



Akunde, your inconsistency is appaling to be quite frank. You speak of no 2 NT MSS being alike as if this somehow means that the mss tradtion IS SO VASTLY different that if you had 2 different MSS of the same book you would be presented with completely contradictory and conflicting theologies, which is a lie.

Another problem with your statement is that you dishonestly withhold or hide the fact that no 2 Quranic MSS are alike, a fact admitted by Muslim authorities.

Thus saith Muhammad ibn Ishaq [al-Nadim]: I have seen a number of Quranic manuscripts, which the transcribers recorded as manuscripts from Ibn Mas‘ud. NO TWO QUR'ANIC COPIES WERE IN AGREEMENT and most of them were on badly effaced parchment. …. According to this very same reference it wasn't just the MSS of Ibn Masud's Quran which were not in complete agreement:


A- Lets have some examples. We keep dancing around this issue. I can provide you with whole sections of the Gospels which were later additions (such as the story of the adulteress), can you give a single example of the Qur’an, which isn’t known and explained by scholars before the story of the adulteress was even added to your text? If not, admit your texts have had major additions/subtractions that we know about and can confirm.

B- This doesn’t say no 2 Quranic manuscripts are in agreement. It says none of the two examined were. It doesn’t even illustrate how they compared to the rasm Uthmani.

C- Even if it did, bring forward an example. I’ve told you all that manuscripts from Sana’a are freely available on a UN (non Muslim) website. Bring a single example. Its quite an easy challenge.
So far the closest to meeting this is Fogg’s Palimpsest, which most scholars agree had some basic grammatical errors which don’t actually conform, as is suggested by a fringe minority, to the reported reading of Ibn Masud.

AKunde said...

Your arguments become more laughable when you say that you wouldn't bank your eternal life on the Gospels because of all of their supposed inconsistencies and poor MSS support. But you have no problem believing in the Quran for which you have absolutely no complete codex from Muhammad's time to verify whether the Quran has always had only 114 chapters.
Now you want a complete codex as a standard? What are the earliest complete Gospel manuscripts you have, pre tell?

To make matters worse your earliest sources on Muhammad's life were written hundreds of years after Muhammad's death and yet you naively believe that the isnad system somehow guarantees the authenticity of the reports which were supposedly circulating for centuries by word of mouth.

Hence why, as I said, historians/biographers collected everything and left it to the experts in textual criticism (hadith scholars and others) to determine what’s correct and what is doubtful and what’s clearly false.

In spite of all this you still have the nerve to question the Gospels which were written within the first generation of the eyewitnesses.
Do you have a complete manuscript of a Gospel written within 50 years/generation of an eyewitness? I genuinely don’t know the answer and am interested to know.

I know you can't be seriously suggesting that Marcion's canon or the Nag Hammadi are more reliable or reflect more accurately the teachings of Jesus and his disicles since this would mean that Muhammad is a false prophet since his teachings conflict with what these sources say concerning God and Jesus.

I’m not suggesting these texts were/are correct.

I merely illustrated 2 points.

1) Many early Christians did believe these texts were true, up until the 4th Christian Century
2) The (proto)Orthodoxy banned these texts, and obviously destroyed them, as we only have small examples, like Nag Hammadi, of them in existence today.


If Marcion is right then Muhammad is wrong again. Take your pick.

Never suggested Marcion was right. Not sure how you’d extrapolate that from what I said.
Kind regards,

Fernando said...

Daer Kunde... how glad I am to see you back again here withe your always kind wordes... I'm sure brother Hogan will point the inconsistencies and lack off truthness in your words, butt its, indeed, always so great to see a polite maometan for ounce... I hoppe you won't disapear now...

ben malik said...

I see that Kunde has finally tried to interact (emphasis on tried) with the responses. Needless to say he didn't address the issues and ignored key points. I will have a thorough reply for him as soon as I manage to find some time.