Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

Well, you have a little chronology problem there, the same one that Christians have who claim that Jesus was a Christian.Jesus was a Jew. Neither Islam or Christianity existed during his lifetime.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No matter about chronology, jar. Don't you know that Moses TOO was REALLY a Muslim?

Hello, Faith:This may help along in what you are trying to explain. Ordinarily, I would not participate, but I am addressing this very issue on another board, with similar response.
I hope I am helping in some way with information westerners usually do not find readily available, or know that it exists.This is only the beginning of the information found in the link. There are other sources on the net addressing this issue. For those interested, google abrogations/contradictions/inconsistencies in koran.BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: QURAN (KORAN): MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCEH: The Abrogation of Qur'anic VersesThe abrogation of Qur'anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:"...There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah." An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, "Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies."Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur'an by stating that certain passages of the Qur'an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur'an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.AND:Jalalu'd-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?ETC:Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: "its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time". Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur'anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur'an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let's look at some of these abrogations. Some examples of these abrogations are:

Moshe, a Jew, is a Prophet of Jews, Muslims and Christians. Whether or not he really existed, is a single individual or a composite heroic figure is open to discussion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I read the title of this thread to have to do with the RELATIVE value of eyewitness accounts in religious texts. You have agreed there are none in the Koran. There is nothing more to discuss.

quote:

---

Well, you have a little chronology problem there, the same one that Christians have who claim that Jesus was a Christian.
Jesus was a Jew. Neither Islam or Christianity existed during his lifetime.

---

First for the starter, Islaam existed since "Adam." But while we are taslking about that, can I have a quote from the Bible showing and/or stating that:(1) The names such as Jew/s and/or Judaism have any Dinvine Inspiration?(2) The Jews and/or Judaism is and/or ever was a religion?(3) Who is in fact a Jew or What is a Jew?(4) When Moses brought the Torah, was that for the Jews and/or for Judaism, how?

quote:

---

No matter about chronology, jar. Don't you know that Moses TOO was REALLY a Muslim?

---

Why don't you make an effort to prove me wrong? If your Book and/or Faith is true, why are you so afraid of? This is a challenge, not a request, anymore?

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

Thanks, Pecos, but I really don't want to argue about Islam at all. The thread is about eyewitness accounts in religious texts. The Koran has none. I really think there's nothing more to say.

I am so scared of your link (NOT). Get real my friend and get some real knowledge of your own scripture before taking shots at others scripture.Here is the reality check; it is my pleasure to educate you about your own Bible and abrogation in your Bible. But you can't make any sense about Qur'aan beside copy and paste from Islaamic websites and injecting your gobbledygook.
Examples from Old Testament!

​

1. Marriage between brothers and sisters was admissible in the law of the Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham). Sarah, the wife of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham) was his sister according to the Bible (see Genesis 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife). However, we see that later marriage with one’s sister was absolutely prohibited making it equal to adultery; anyone who did it accursed and liable to execution as we read in Leviticus 18:9:

​

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

​

We also read the following in the Leviticus 20:17-18:

​

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

​

We further find something similar in Deuteronomy 27:22, which reads:

​

Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

​

In view of the above statements, we are compelled to deduce that matrimonial relations between brother and sisters were admissible and practiced under the law of Adam to Abraham (PBUT), otherwise it would constitute that all human beings are bastards (illegitimate) and their parents were adulterers; making them to be cursed, and liable to be killed. Thinking this way raises a dilemma for the Bible, that a Prophet cannot be imagined of committing such shameful acts. This leaves us to admit that such marriages were permissible under the laws of earlier prophets and abrogated under the laws of the prophets who followed the former.

​

2. Sanction to Eat Various Animals

​

We are told in Genesis 9:3 (Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things) Prophet Noah was told by God that every moving animal is Halaal (permissible). Whereas in the Law of Moses, we find the this law is abrogated as we read in

​

Leviticus 11:7!

​

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

​

Deuteronomy 14:8!

​

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

​

3. Two sisters as Wives

​

Prophet Jacob was married to two sisters (Leah and Rachel) at the same time, who were the daughters of his aunt, as we read in Genesis chapter 29:23-30.

​

029:023
And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.

​

029:024
And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for a handmaid.

​

029:025
And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

​

029:026
And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.

​

029:027
Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.

​

029:028
And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.

​

029:029
And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid.

​

029:030
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

​

Again, we find that all such marriages have been prohibited in the Law of Moses, as we read the following in Leviticus 18:18.

​

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime.

​

4. Marriage with Father’s Sister

​

In Bible we read that the father of Moses, is reported to have married Jechobed, who was his father’s sister (his aunt), again in the Bible this law was abrogated by the law of Moses, as we read in Leviticus 18:12 & Leviticus 20:18.

​

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

​

And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

​

Thus, again we are lead to believe that such marriages were sanctioned prior to the Law of Moses, which later abrogated that law.

​

5. We read in the Book of Jeremiah (31:31-32)

​

031:031
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

​

031:032
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

​

It is obvious to notice that the words that I will make a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 refer to a new divine law that was going to be sent to abrogate the existing laws. Readers may find it interesting to know that according to Paul’s claim in his Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 7:8-12) the new covenant referred in Jeremiah 31:31 is the law of Jesus. Thus, Paul seems to be admitting that law of Jesus cited below (Hebrews 7:8-12), abrogated the Law of Moses.

​

008:008
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

​

008:009
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

​

008:010
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

​

008:011
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

​

008:012
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

​

By giving these five examples cited above, which are common to Jews and Christians (out of many more), we see the presence of abrogation in the Bible. However, there are many examples that are especially related to Christians only. The following are some of them.

​

Examples from New Testament!

​

1. Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for any reason, also allowing a divorced woman to re-marry another man as we read in Deuteronomy chapter 24, cited below.

​

24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

​

However, in Christian law a man is not allowed to divorce his wife until she is found to have committed adultery, also, Christian law precludes marriage with divorced women, considering it a crime equal to adultery. Gospel according to Matthew (19:8-9) carries the following statement of Jesus that he made while replying to the objections of Pharisees on this issue.

​

19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

​

We now can see that the above statement contains abrogation twice regarding this injunction, once in the Law of Moses and once in the law of Jesus.

​

2. The Law of Moses prohibited the meat of many animals, as we have read in the earlier part of this article. However, later, Christian law abrogated this prohibition. This is obviously espouses the doubt that Judeo-Christian god cannot make-up his mind. According to Paul, this permission was further generalized to include all animals. We read in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (14:14).

​

14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

​

Paul repeated this in his Epistle to Titus 1:15!

​

1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

​

These two principles cited above, that something should be unclean only to those who consider it unclean and that everything should be clean and permissible to the Christians are quite strange.

​

The implication is that the Israelites were not clean enough to have permission to eat all animals, as the Christians can. It must be interesting to learn that Paul made a conscious effort to publicize this permission to consume the meat of all animals. Paul is reported to have said in his letter to Timothy 4:4-6!

​

4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

​

3. Precepts of the Feast and the Sabbath

​

Leviticus chapter 23 contains all the injunctions related to feast days. They were made eternal obligations for the people by the Law of Moses. Verses 14, 21, 31 and 41 of chapter 23 of Leviticus explicitly mention the eternal nature of this injunction, for example 23:14 says:

​

it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

​

Amazingly Paul abrogated this eternally binding statute. Also the Law of Moses made the observance of Sabbath an eternal obligation, prohibiting from doing any work whatsoever on the Sabbath day. Anyone deviating from this eternal law was liable to execution. Old Testament at many places emphatically emphasized the eternal nature of this injunction for example, see Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:8-11, 23:12 & 34:21, 35:2-3; Leviticus 19:3 & 23:2; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; Number15: 32-36; Jeremiah chapter 17; Isaiah chapter 56 & 58; Nehemiah chapter 9; Ezekiel chapter 20. Following passage is from Exodus 31:13-17.

​

31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

​

Jews in the time of Jesus use to question and kill him for his disregard for the Sabbath. Jews also used his disregard of Sabbath as their justification of their disbelief in the Prophethood of Jesus, since one of their argument was that Jesus works on the day of Sabbath, as we read the following in John 5:16!

​

5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

​

We also read the following in John 9:16!

​

9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

​

Readers must note that Paul abrogated all the injunctions cited above, as we understand from Paul’s letter to Colossians (2:16).

​

2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

​

Paul’s claims that the injunctions were not correct is not in accordance with the teachings of Torah, as the God specified that the animals prohibited for Israelites are unclean and that:

​

Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

​

We find further abrogation of in the Bible:

​

The Obligation of Circumcision
Precepts of Sacrifice
Regulations of the High Priest
The Abrogation of the Law of Moses
Abandonment/Abrogation of the Torah
The Law of Moses under the Curse
The Law Abrogated by Faith

​

There is much more that can be added to this issue from the Bible showing abrogation. However, let us move to the 2nd kind of abrogation in the Bible.

​

2nd Kind of Abrogation in the Bible!

​

1st Example!

​

In the Bible God asked Abraham to slay his son and offer him a sacrifice to his Lord, but this injunction was abrogated before being practiced. The entire story of this event is mentioned in chapter 22 of Genesis.

​

2nd Example!

​

Promise of Priesthood Abrogated: In 1 Samuel 2:30, we read the following statement of a Prophet to Eli, the Priest:

​

2:30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

​

It says further in verse 35:

​

2:35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.

​

In above verses we learn that the God made promise that the priesthood would remain in the family of Eli the Priest, but in the latter statement God transferred the priesthood to a new priest. That is an outright abrogation. In fact, God abrogated the injunction promising the priesthood to Eli and his family. The Priesthood was then given to Eleazar the elder son of Aaron. Then it was given to Tamar, the younger son of Aaron. This proves that the above promise of Priesthood was abrogated twice in the Law of Moses, and then latter it was abrogated third time with the coming of the law of Jesus. The promise made to Eleazar is described in the Book of Number 25:12-13!

​

25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

​

Readers might find it to be very astonishing, but according to Judeo-Christian thought, God may go against his everlasting promise. The books of Old Testament contain statements claiming that God repents and regret after having done a certain thing. For example Psalm 89:38 contains David’s address to God in these words:

​

89:39 Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.

​

We further read in Genesis 6:6-7 the following statement:

​

6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

​

Verse six above and the last phrase of verse 7, It repenteth me are clear in implying that God is regretful about what He has done. Psalm 106:44-45 contains the following words:

​

106:44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry:
106:45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

​

God’s statement in 1 Samuel 15:11 reads as follows:

​

15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

​

Further in verse 35 of the same chapter we find:

​

15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

​

In the light of above statements containing God’s repentance and his regret about creating man and making Saul the king of Israelites, the possibility of God’s repentance on making Jesus a Prophet cannot be ruled out as Jesus’ claim of being God incarnate is a greater sin than the disobedience of Saul. God, according to the above statement, did not know that Saul would not perform his commandments, similarly it makes it possible that God might have not known that Jesus would claim to be God after becoming a Prophet. Muslims neither believe in the possibility of God’s repentance nor do Muslims accept that Jesus made any claim to godhood. Muslims believe that God is absolutely free from such imperfections and Jesus is far from making such false claims of his godhood. There are dozens of more such examples in the Bible, but I will stop here, since I believe that I have proved my point.

​

Conclusion!

​

Any thinking reader of the above examples and/or statements will inevitably come to the following conclusions:

​

The abrogation of some precept in the preceding law is not limited to Islaamic law alone. The occurrence of abrogation of preceding laws is quite normal.
All the injunctions of the Law of Moses, be they eternal or otherwise, were abrogated by the law of Jesus.
Paul’s writings also speak of abrogation with regard to the whole Torah together with its injunctions.
Paul proved that a change of priesthood also necessitates a change of law.
Paul claimed that everything that becomes old has to vanish away. This allows Muslims’ to contend that the law of Jesus being older than the Law of Muhammad (SAW) must be abrogated, especially when we have a Divine Decree in support of our claim.

​

— —

​

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers (Glorious Qur’aan V.3: 85).

​

Readers to note that Paul and other exegetes, in spite of their admission that the injunctions of the Torah were ordained by God, used discourteous and improper words to them.

​

According to Islaamic definition of Naskh (abrogation) there is nothing wrong and/or objectionable about the injunctions of the Torah being abrogated, since Islaam has by default abrogated all religions including Judaism and Christianity. However, the statement indicating eternality and insisting that they should be enforced through generations put some injunctions beyond the scope of abrogation and make their abrogation objectionable. Muslims’ are free from this objection because, (a) we do not believe that present Pentateuch to be the Tawrat and/or original and literal word of God given to Moses. (b) As countless people have proved and Judeo-Christian scholars agree that present Bible including Pentateuch has been subject of great adulteration and/or distortion. (c) According to Christian’s belief, God may regret and be ashamed of some of his acts and feel regretful about some of his previous orders, causing him to change them afterwards. Similarly he is imputed with making everlasting promises and then not fulfilling them as is asserted by some of the books of Old Testament. We, the Muslims are absolutely free from such impure and polluted thought. As far as their interpretations with regard to the words of eternality are concerned, they cannot be justified and accepted for the obvious reason that the words must be taken to mean what they say. Since Christians usually contend that the injunctions containing the words ‘ever’ and ‘always’ etc. signify up to the end of the period of Old Testament. It may be noted that at many places in the Pentateuch the words ‘through generations’ or other expressions to the same effect have been used to indicate eternality, for instance see Genesis 17:12 and Exodus 12:12.

​

17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

​

12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

​

Checkmate

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

Oh, come on, Faith. Everyone knows you were already off the thread's topic. You were already talking about the number of Biblical authors over 15 centuries and how only the Bible quotes God and so forth, plus you stated your agenda of judging the relative authenticity of Koran and Bible in your conclusion to Message 59: If you'd like to stick to the topic and address the issue of how one assesses the validity of eyewitness accounts in religious texts, then that's fine. If you'd like to shift the focus slightly and instead consider the relative validity of Koran and Bible as measured by eyewitness accounts, that's fine, too. Or if you want to actually discuss the relative authenticity of Koran versus Bible as you were already well on your way to doing but are now backpedaling wildly, then we're willing to do that, too. After all, what is EvC Forum here for if not to cater to Faith's every whim.But make up your mind, will ya?--Percy

No, you can't. But what the hell do any of those questions have to do with anything anyway.I know that Muhammad had no trouble recognizing the existence of either Jews or Christians, particularly the times when they saved his sweet ass.Listen. I happen to think that Islam is a great path to GOD, as are Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and many others. If you are on the path, walk with joy. But save the bullshit for someone who's buying. I have no more tolerance for Islamic Fundamentalists than for Christian Fundamentalists. There are many parts of the Koran I admire greatly. For example, the accounts of the Garden of Eden in the Koran are far more even handed in the treatment of women than those in Genesis.But the Map is not the Territory. The Koran is NOT GOD.This message has been edited by Admin, 04-25-2005 02:38 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is enough for the purpose of this thread that there are no eyewitness accounts in the Koran and no witness support for a single one of Mohammed's claims either to his own qualifications as a prophet or to his prophecy itself. If you believe the Bible then you should believe that God requires at least TWO witnesses for the establishment of any claim. Mohammed had only himself. The Koran has only Mohammed.

Explanation of Naskh (Abrogation) of Verses in Glorious Qur’aan! The English word abrogation literally signifies annulment, nullification or cancellation. However, in Islaamic terminology that is used in Glorious Qur’aan, it means expiration of the period of the validity of a practical injunction. Following are the root letters and words derived from them, with their use in Glorious Qur’aan at four occasions (Chapters and verses are mentioned in blue next to Ayaat). — — : ‘ ‘ .2:106— : — — 22:52— : — ‘ .45:29—— : —— .— : ’ .7:15— : — .Readers must know that in Arabic, commonly a noun or a verb has three radical letters. But some nouns and verbs have four or five radical letters. However, many additional letters are added to them in usage.A radical letter is that which remains intact through all the changes and derivations of the word. An additional letter is that which is subjected to changes in different forms and derivations, as is the case above.The words, which have three radical letters, are called ath-thulathi (trilateral). Therefore, the occurrence of Naskh (abrogation) is related only to injunctions that are not eternal and are equal with regard to the possibility of their existence or non-existence.Abrogation can never be taken to mean that Allaah commanded or prohibited something and then thought better of it and decided to cancel His former command. This is impossible because it involves attributing ignorance to Allaah (Allaah forbid). Also it is not possible for Allaah to command or prohibit something and then without any change in time, subject or conditions to abrogate His injunction since that would lead to attributing imperfection to Allaah. Allaah is FREE of any imperfection whatsoever.What the Naskh/Mansookh (abrogation) signified is that Allaah knows that a certain injunction will remain valid for people up to certain time and then cease to be applicable. When that specific time is reached, a new command is sent which seems to either abrogate or change the former injunction but which, in fact, does nothing but mark the expiration of its validity. Since the former command did not have a specific period of validity attached to it, we take the new injunction as a cancellation of the former.Example:An employer might command one of his employees to do certain task with the intention of asking him to do some other task after one year, without, however, disclosing his intention to the employee. After the completion of the year, when employer ask the employee to do the other job, the employee might think that employer have changed or amended his orders, even though it is not the case, in fact, employer has not made any changes or amended his plans. Like all other changing phenomena around us, these apparent changes or amendments in the divine injunction are part of Divine Wisdom, whether we know its significance or not.
Therefore, the literal meaning of Naskh is replacement of one thing by another thing. Technical meaning from Islaamic point of view is Lifting the Law of Shariah by reasons of Shariah .
That is why Allaah (SWT) says in Glorious Qur’aan 16:101: ‘ And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’n,) in place of another - and Allh knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad —) are but a Muftari! (Forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not." "
— ‘ " ‘ " —" " " " —And if We happen to exchange a revelation, which has already, served its purpose for another revelation which is appropriate for the new circumstance, and Allah knows exactly what to reveal and when, they - the infidels - accuse you (O Muhammad) of forgery. Indeed most of them do not know the facts nor do they reflect.To read actul article click here.This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 02:34 PM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

We frown on discussion by simply doing long cut & paste jobs from other sites, particularly when the site is neither identified or linked.In the future, make your case using your own words. If you then wish to add a link to additional material, please do so but make it clear what you are linking to,

---

FaithI am not the one here on the run , it is rather you.Why would I be wasting me time to talk about a false, fabricated and abrogated religion like Christianity? I initiated a dialogue and as usual Christians' tactics. One has been on the runnnnnnnn (you)
Other posted links to divert the attentions and to change to reference hoping to bail you out.
Some one else brought up the issue of "chronology."Well, I am here and willing to debate with anyone using his or her own Bible to make my point. You or else may not admit what I present, but you can't answer that either. Because I can put three books in chronological order to prove anything I claim i.e. OT+NT+Qur'aan.Guess what? I know all three scriptures inside out.By the way your so-called eyewitness account is even rejected by Christians themselves. All sects of Christians agree on Jesus birth. Thereafter, they don't agree with each other at all.I am assuming that you are from the Protestant cult, which never existed before 16th century, neither your Bible. If you are protestant, than you should also believe that Jesus was bisexual. Because this is what your founder has written. And it has never been refuted so far.Having an alleged "eyewitness account" is not a criteria to judge a religion or a scripture.Rather, a religion is judged by its scripture, and
Is the scripture filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty?

​

Whether the religion is opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition?

​

Does the religion develop the brain and civilize the heart?

​

Is morality the highest and purest?

​

Does the religion have laws and regulations for the control of conduct to be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired?

​

How does religion treat the women, children and elderly and how are everyone’s rights protected?Do you think that they can put your "Bible" for this acid test? I am willing to put the Glorious Qur'aan for this acid test 24/7/365 and even will compare with Bible?Are you up for this challenge, Faith?This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 02:59 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 04-25-2005 03:11 PM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."