Oh no not Ahmed Deedat! His debates run too long. Yeah, like three hours!
I have seen those videos, sir. Although a very good speaker, I'm afraid Deedat does not impress me. Believe me, I'm trying my best not to be biased, but if I am then so is Deedat. I stand corrected but he is no scholar of the scriptures. If he is then I wuold dearly love to know what his theological qualifications are. But the message he imparts clearly leads me to believe that he HAS no qualifications.Hello BGFromGB,
All the answers about the bible's curruption are given in the following vidoes of open debates:
Is Bible True Word of God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4058605158253427977
Is Jesus God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961180591411776337
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Mentioned by Name in the Bible.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=muhammad+bible+deedat+company
After these videos, there is no need to waste time in redundantly re-writing the things which have already been explained in the videos.
If you have some additional question which has not been answered in videos, that you can ask.
Thanks,
Bye.
I have seen those videos, sir. Although a very good speaker, I'm afraid Deedat does not impress me. Believe me, I'm trying my best not to be biased, but if I am then so is Deedat. I stand corrected but he is no scholar of the scriptures. If he is then I wuold dearly love to know what his theological qualifications are. But the message he imparts clearly leads me to believe that he HAS no qualifications.
However, some posts that I have read on this site, such as oneofamillion, yourself, bluegazer, virtualeye, the moderator and others have said things that have "grabbed" my attention. I have found merit in what they have all said - more so than Deedat I'm afraid. His agenda is quite clear. Instead of imparting the message of Allah, and what the Quran teaches, he does quite the opposite. I'm afraid I'm not privy to that sort of "non-debate". That is why I'm not impressed. What I was expecting to hear was the message of the love of God and his Qur'anic teachings. That is what I want to learn.
One thing I will never do is to degrade a book (the Qur'an) purely in order to win points. Nor will I ever degrade a book that has been written (the Bible) even to degrade itself!! (that's the message I get from Deedat). There are billions of people out there who follow the scriptures. Billions of people cannot be fools and Deedat should know that.
Respectfully sir, The Qur'an is a book for those people who honestly follow the teachings of Allah. I will NOT disrespect those followers, as I do not to people of other faiths. I'm here to find out about the TRUE Islam, the faith, the GOD, where it comes from and where it leads us to.Not what people say about and criticise other faiths. Islam must speak for itself. It must "sell" itself. And when it does, then people will follow.
That is what i like about this site, I haven't seen any posts degrading the scriptures, Not yet. And I hope not. Maybe the reason for this is that debates are not permitted on this site. Debates can become ugly and degrading. You assertively put forward your feelings about Islam and that's fine.
Finally, If Islam is a religion above all religions, then show it. Sell it. Let God be the judge of other religions.
I
There are billions of people out there who follow the scriptures. Billions of people cannot be fools and Deedat should know that.
.
a couple of more questions to bg.
If your a TRUE Christian answer them in a true christian way.
Do You really think BILLIONS of people are truly following the Bible ?
Why was Galileo Galilei persecuted by the church/Vatican ?
Are TRUE Christians allowed to have an proper education and to gain wisdom ?
Is planet earth the center of the universe ?
Bluegazer sent me a long and informative post under the title "Israel the biggest...."
That post is now closed.
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort it [i.e., the Torah] after they had understood it while they were knowing?
I have read your last post and have to say that I'm somewhat surprised in your rejection of the ENTIRE scriptures.
I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.
But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.
Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.
For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.
Main Entry: in·ter·po·late
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-p&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin interpolatus, past participle of interpolare to refurbish, alter, interpolate, from inter- + -polare (from polire to polish)
transitive verb
1 a : to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter b : to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation
2 : to insert between other things or parts : INTERCALATE
3 : to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values
intransitive verb : to make insertions (as of estimated values)
synonym see INTRODUCE
- in·ter·po·la·tion /-"t&r-p&-'lA-sh&n/ noun
- in·ter·po·la·tive /-'t&r-p&-"lA-tiv/ adjective
- in·ter·po·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun
6 Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53 - viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.
2 The narrative of the sinful woman (chap. vii. 53 to chap. viii. 11) is rejected by the most competent authorities as a spurious interpolation. The question will be found fully discussed in the introduction to the larger edition of Westcott's and Hort's Greek New Testament (page 299, section 388); and it is given as their opinion that this particular passage "has no right to a place in the Text of the Four Gospels." The language of the MSS. containing the passage varies considerably; but the generally accepted reading I have added at the end of this Gospel, where it is placed as an appendix for reference, but not in any way as a part of the Sacred Text.
What's Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation
et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare
et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare
I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.
But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.
Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.
For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.
As Yeshua said " Let him who is without sin, cast the 1st stone"
Where did you source that from. Its not in the scriptures.Nor is it in the Koran. When Yeshua said Let him (meaning everybody noy just the Jews) who is without sin (again not only the Jews), cast the first stone. This applies to all of us
With due respect to you, its you that is going round and round in circles and not willing to find the point.
Surely you can understand what YESHUA is alluding to. No one is perfect and we are not in a position to judge each other - we're all sinful. YESHUA ain't. He is the only person in a position to throw stones. Not us.
The history of literacy goes back several thousand years, but before the industrial revolution finally made cheap paper and cheap books available to all classes in industrialized countries in the mid-nineteenth century, only a small percentage of the population in these countries were literate. Up until that point, materials associated with literacy were prohibitively expensive for people other than wealthy individuals and institutions. For example, in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write. Only in 1870 was government-financed public education made available in England.
The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in April 1539, and an injunction was issued by Cromwell that a copy of it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use; and contemporary evidence proves that it was welcomed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Philippians 2:15), some read the gospel "of envy and stife, and some also of good will"; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people of England, a hold which has never since been relaxed,.........
The "high water mark" of Henry VIII's reign, as far as the English Bible is concerned, was his express approval of the "Great" Bible of 1539 and his declaration appointing it to be set up for public use and read in all churches.
For all this, the "Great" Bible was still the version that, however reluctantly, the King and his Bishops had set out for the instruction of the common people, and it was heavily used by shepherds, merchants and laborers alike (provided they had the gift of literacy).
It was not, of course, as simple as it sounded. The King may not have meant to start a revolution when he rejected the Pope and all his works but that, in effect, was what he had done. There was a long tradition of anti-clerical feeling and smouldering religious radicalism in England and Henry's personal quarrel with Rome had provided the spark which set a quantity of tinder-dry undergrowth alight. The subsequent conflagration proved, not surprisingly, difficult to control - especially when the Great Bible, based on Tyndale's and Coverdale's translation, was made available to the general public. The average concerned and educated layman was now, for the first time, in a position to study and interpret the word of God for himself and, in the 1530s and 1540s, this was the very stuff of revolution. It led naturally to the spread of revolutionary ideas; to the realization that it was possible for an individual to hold direct communion with God, that the ordinary layman (or woman) was no longer totally dependent on the priest to act as his intermediary, and the sense of excitement and emotional release this brought to many people cannot be emphasized too strongly
By Christmas it was clear that the King himself was getting worried about the increasing dissension between the rival factions, and in a speech delivered to Parliament on Christmas Eve, he reproved the nation via its elected representatives for speaking slanderously of priests and for having the temerity to follow its own 'fantastical opinions and vain expositions' in high matters of religious doctrine. Henry reminded his audience that licence to read Holy Scripture in their mother tongue had been granted them only to inform their consciences and so that they might instruct their children and families. It was emphatically not a licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry 'to make Scripture a railing and a taunting stock against priests and teachers'. The King was very sorry, he went on, 'to hear and know how unreverently that most precious jewel, the word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same'.
Unfortunately, this royal scolding had little effect on that section of the population which had discovered the heady delights of theological and, by implication, political debate........
For instance, The question of the crucufixion as related in the scriptures. Just how this has been corrupted? Well, not even the Qur'an can explain.
In fact, in my view and from what I'm presently studying in this book, it is not even clear about the cricifixion, especially when taken in the context it was written. It neither confirms nor denies the incident.
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.
Question:
I am very interested in this site and i am regular visitor to this site.i have great respect for u. Before go my question i would like to say that I have no about holy Quran and i believed that even single letter of the quran wasn't change. But i have some misunderstanding about this two verses. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! (sura maryam 33) the day that i die,what does this mean? and also this verse And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (an-nisa 159) before his death,what does this mean? but this verses "That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (an-nisa 157) " Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- (an-nisa 158) right now i am studying in china.i have some friends from diffrent faith asking about holy quran and status of jesus(pbuh) in islam.i am trying my best to answer all their questions.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
First of all, we would like to thank you for your keenness to ask about matters of your religion, and your efforts to understand the Book of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. We ask Allaah to bless us and you with beneficial knowledge.
With regard to the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And Salaam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!”
[Maryam 19:33],
al-Tabari said in his Tafseer: The phrase “And Salaam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive” means: I am granted protection from Allaah against the Shaytaan and his troops on the day I was born, so that they could not do to me what they do any newborn, i.e. prick him. And on the day I die I shall be protected from the terrors of death. And on the day I am raised alive on the Day of Resurrection I shall be protected against the terror that will seize the people when they see the horrors of that Day.” [Tafseer al-Tabari, 8/340].
Al-Qurtubi said: “And Salaam (peace) be upon me” means protection that is granted to me from Allaah, may He be exalted. Al-Zajjaaj said: Salaam was mentioned before this without the definite article, and the second time it was mentioned with the definite article. The phrase “the day I was born” means, in this world. And it was said: from the suggestions of the Shaytaan. The phrase “and the day I die” means in the grave. The phrase “and the day I shall be raised alive” means, in the Hereafter, because he has three stages: alive in this world, dead in the grave, and resurrected in the Hereafter, and he is granted protection in all three.
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 11/98.
From the comments of the mufassireen quoted above it may be known that the phrase “and the day I die” does not mean that he has died, rather it means that when he dies – which will happen after he has descended and killed the Dajjaal, as is proven in the ahaadeeth – then he will be protected from dying without belief in Allaah, may He be exalted. Similarly the words “and the day I shall be raised alive” do not mean that he was raised on the Day of Resurrection. Rather he was speaking about his situation at the time of his birth, at the time of his death and at the time of his resurrection. Undoubtedly he will die, but as is indicated by the other verses that you quoted, he did not die by being killed or crucified, rather Allaah took him up to Himself, and he will die after he descends from heaven and kills the Dajjaal.
With regard to the verse in which Allaah says:
“And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”
[al-Nisa’ 4:159]
The scholars differed as to whom the pronoun “his” in the phrase “his death” refers. There are two views:
1 – That the pronoun refers to ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), in which case the meaning of the verse is: that there is no one among the people of the Book but he must believe in ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) before he (‘Eesa) dies, because when he descends from heaven and kills the Dajjaal, he will break the cross and kill the pigs and abolish jizyah, and he will accept nothing but Islam, and at that time the People of the Book will believe in him, before he dies (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him), and they will know that he is true and that he did not die before then. So what is mentioned in the verse is one of the signs of the Hour and one of the portents of the Day of Resurrection, which will happen after the descent of ‘Eesa; before he dies at that time, the People of the Book will believe in him. There is support for this view in the comment made by Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) after he narrated the hadeeth which speaks of the descent of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) at the end of time. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, soon the Son of Maryam will descend among you as a just judge. He will break the cross and kill the pigs and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will become so abundant that no one will accept it, and one prostration will be better than this world and everything in it.” Then Abu Hurayrah said: recite, if you wish: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”[al-Nisa’ 4:159]
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3129; Muslim, 220.
2 – That the pronoun refers to the kitaabi (Jew or Christian) himself, in which case the meaning of the verse is that there is no one among the people of the Book but he must believe in ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), and that he is true, and that he did not die. That is when he suffers the agonies of death and sees realities and proofs. At the time of death, the kitaabi will know that what he believed is false, but that faith will not benefit him at that point.
Based on both views mentioned above, there is no indication or suggestion in the verse that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) has died. Rather the words – according to the first view – refer to a matter of the Unseen which will come to pass in the future, because he (peace be upon him) will undoubtedly die, but that will be after he has descended, as stated above. And according to the second view, the phrase “before his death” refers to the death of the kitaabi himself.
Al-Tabari, Ibn Katheer and other imams of tafseer regarded the first view as more likely to be correct. Ibn Katheer said: With regard to the words (interpretation of the meaning): “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”[al-Nisa’ 4:159], Ibn Jareer said: The scholars of interpretation differed concerning the meaning of that. “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa. That means that all of them will believe in him when he comes down to fight the Dajjaal, so all religions will become one, which is the monotheistic religion of Islam, the religion of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). ... It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him). … It was narrated that al-Hasan said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa, and by Allaah, he is alive with Allaah, but when he descends they will all believe in him. … Ibn Jareer said: And others said: That means before the death of the one who believes in the Book (i.e., the Jew or Christian), because at that point (just before death) he will now truth from falsehood because everyone upon whom death comes, his soul does not come out until truth has been made distinct from falsehood with regard to his religion. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas concerning this verse: He said: No Jew will die until he believes in ‘Eesa. … Ibn ‘Abbaas said: If his head is cut off, his soul will not come out until he believes in ‘Eesa. … It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Jew will not die until he bears witness that ‘Eesa is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.
Ibn Jareer said: The most likely of these opinions to be correct is the first one, which is that no one of the People of the Book will be left after the descent of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) but he will believe in him before the death of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). Undoubtedly what Ibn Jareer said is the correct view, because it is what is meant from the context of the verses, which state that what the Jews claim, that ‘Eesa was killed and crucified, is false, as are the claims of the ignorant Christians who believed the claims of the Jews. Allaah tells us that this is not what happened, rather it was made to appear so to them, and they killed the look-alike and did not realize that. But he (‘Eesa) was taken up to Him, and he is still alive, and will descend before the Day of Resurrection, as is indicated in the mutawaatir ahaadeeth. He will kill the false messiah (the Dajjaal) and will break the cross and kill the pigs, and abolish jizyah, i.e., he will not accept it from any of the followers of other religions, rather he will only accept Islam or the sword. This verse tells us that all the people of the Book will believe in him at that time, and not one among them will fail to believe in him. Hence he said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” i.e., before the death of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), whom the Jews and the Christians who agreed with them claim that he was killed and crucified, but on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them, i.e., because of their deeds that he witnessed before he was taken up into heaven and after he descends to the earth again. Tafseer Ibn Katheer (1/762).
It is essential to note that debate with the Christians must be done on the basis of knowledge and proof, so that you will not be a cause of people not accepting the truth because of weak arguments. The Christians do not have any sound proof at all, but they present specious arguments to distort the truth and they confuse truth with falsehood. May Allaah grant us refuge from the ways of the misguided.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A