Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Sand

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Yes, we've been aware of the Johannine Comma for centuries now, and as Ehrman admits the Trinity does not rest on that verse. The reason why posting Ehrman is a moot point, is that Ehrman fundementally disagrees with Muslims. He accepts the Crucifixion and resurrection narratives as part of the original text, furthermore he would reject the idea that Jesus turned clay birds into living ones, or that a table with food descended from heaven. The fact is, where these textual scholars agree there is certainty about an event, the Muslims reject it. So whats the point? I could use Ehrman against the Quran just as easily: “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate” (The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pgs, 261-262) And yet, this "most certain fact" is explicitly rejected in the Quran. If the Quran can't get this basic thing right, why should I believe anything else it has to say?
  2. That is where the science and methods of textual scholars come into play
  3. Original means part of the text as it was first penned. Clearly Bart Ehrman does not share the extreme view of the Bible that Muslims hold, and that's says a lot!
  4. You mean about someone peeing on the Bible? I answered the substance of your question in my post. I don't accept physical coercison against people for expressing their beliefs, even if they offend me. If a Christian were to stop such a practice by civil protest, boycott, etc, I would join them, but if they wanted to stop it by physically harming the person, I would stop them.
  5. First I see nothing wrong with possessing assets, so I don't take it against Muhammad that he had possessions. What I was responding to was this image of Muhammad being painted, as if he took a vow of poverty. Clearly he had significant assets that were heavily disputed upon his passing, to the point that it caused severe animosities among some of the sahaba. You can dispute the narratives of Ibn Sa'd and Al-Tabari, though I consider them competant scholars, and seriously doubt they would invent material, especially if it cast Muhammad in a negative light. Muhammad was acting as a prophet for some 26 years if memory serves right, and in that expansive time I'm sure there were periods where he experienced poverty and difficulty. The last few years of the Mekkan period harken to such a time, and it may be that the quotations from Bukhari and Muslim are related to similar moments. But I don't believe that they are in contradiction to what Ibn Sa'd or Al Tabari mentioned. As for the passages themselves, I apologize for not finding the exact reference. You guys are welcome to disregard what I quoted, all I will say is that I did not make them up.
  6. I agree this man's action was foolish, but I disagree it deserves punishment, and that would go the same even if it was the Bible being destoryed. You see, we Westerners used to punish eachother alot for doing offensive things. Protestants would murder Catholics, and vice versa. Eventually we realized tolerating eachother's offenses saved blood and was for the greater good. That's where principles like freedom of religion and speech came from. So this man's action offends you, but perhaps you being Muslim offends someone too, and so does that mean they have a right to punish you? Of course not. In the West, Muslims are free to teach, preach, and publish as they like. You don't like the government? Ok, hold a rally, start some protests, maybe even burn a few flags, and at the end of the day, you can sleep free of worry knowing the country you just demonstrated against, will protect you for expressing your opinion. You want to spread your religion? Ok, set up some dawah tables at local colleges, teach people about Islam. There's no punishment in you trying to steer atheists or Christians to Islam, and those who decide to join you, have no fear of being executed. Everything I just mentioned probably offends some people. Perhaps some people feel Muslims should be treated the way they would treat the dhimmis under Shariah, but that is not the way of Western Civilization. The principle that everyone has a right to believe as they wish, and they have the right to not be coerced otherwise, stands supreme. To punish someone for offending another might work in your favor a few times, but remember it's a double edged sword that can be used against you. There are a lot of freedoms in the West being capitalized by many Muslims, and they need to be appreciated, even they at times they can work against the Ummah. I for one prefer Western secularism, with it's underlying Christian humanism, to any Shariah based system for obvious reasons, and I would venture to say many Muslims deep down inside agree.
  7. Take a look at the points Bart Ehrman made: 1. The original *certainly* contained narratives on the crucifixion and resurrection 2. The variants entail *nuances* of interptation 3. Scholars are able to determine which of these variants were part of the original to a *reasonable certainty* That is VERY different from what Muslims claim about the Bible. How do you personally reconcile these differences? As for Bart Ehrman's rejection of Christianity, it goes much deeper than any issue he had with the text of the Bible. The problem of evil made him doubt God entirely.
  8. Even though Jesus had two *natures* there still remain only three *Persons*
  9. I'm surprised you're not aware of the controversy that surrounded Muhammad's inheritance. Fatima went to her grave hating Abu Bakr, and Ali burried her secretly so Abu Bakr could not attend the funeral. Obviously Muhammad had assets to be fought over, but according to Abu Bakr, Muhammad had said that he leaves no inheritors. I'll quote the sources, but like I said, there is no detail on the quantity of what he possessed, but merely that it was there: "Fatimah asked Abu Bakr, “When you die who will inherit you?” He replied, “My children and relatives.” She said, “What is the justification of your becoming inheritor of the Prophet keeping us away?” He replied, “O daughter of the Apostle of Allah! I did not inherit your father’s land, gold, silver, slave, or property. She said, “The share of Allah (Khums i.e. one-fifth) which He has allotted to us and which is only our share, is in your hands.” Thereupon he replied, “I heard the Apostle of Allah saying, “It is the food that Allah makes me eat. When I die it will be distributed among the Muslims” Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir The land mentioned appears to that of Fadak: "Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. (1) By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,” he replied Al-Tabari, History of Prophet and Kings
  10. Freedom of thought and expression is an inherent right. You have the right to speak your mind and demonstrate, and that includes publically criticizing the government and burning the flag in demonstration. The same right that protects the flag burner, protects the Quran desocrator. Its a double-edged sword that has it good points and its bad, but ultimately there is more good from it.
  11. It's a well known fact that there was a lot of controversy surrounding the inheritance of Muhammad's assets after his death. I'm not aware of a listing of how much he had, but it apparently included, significant portions of land, gold, silver, horses, camels, slaves, and concubines.
  12. I agree, but the point is that it *can* be done. If a person wants to burn the flag, disfigure a cross, a tear up a Quran, that is their right to do so.
  13. "I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world." Bart Ehrman, in an email corespondence
  14. The individual in the video didn't reveal much about his personal beliefs, but the practice is not limited to people in the South. Many atheists and secular minded people have destroyed the Quran as practice of free speech. To them free speech is something that is sacred, and needs to be protected, even if it offends people.
  15. Original Concept Of Messiah

    The word Messiah means the Annointed One. In the Old Covenant, three types of figures would be annointed: kings, prophets, and priests. The Messiah would be all three. There numerous passages in the Old Testament that were identified as relating to the Messiah. Interestingly enough, after Jesus some of the Messianic verses were no longer considered as such, or interpreted differently. Consider this mysterious passage, identified to be relating to the Messiah in the mishnas: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6