Saturday, December 9, 2017

Are Mainstream Modern Comics Just Racist Propaganda Tracts?



Dave Cotton - What one thing do you hate most about modern comics?

Muhammad Rasheed - They continue the trend of supporting the White Supremacist Ideology.

Dave Cotton - Explain, personally I don't think that Marvel and several other groups do that. Astro City doesn't do that either.

Brandon Peyton - I dont want to speak for Muhammad, but i agree with him.

Basically they all push the idea (intentionally or not) that white heroes are superior to POC heroes. As you've said dozen of times, they push the Steve's, Tony's, etc... and treat the Rhodey's, Luke's and Miles', like second class citizens. Second best. Replacements. Backups.

That is rooted in the idea that white heroes "sell better" than POC heroes and thus must be centered. That's white supremacy. White supremacy isn't just the N word, lynching, etc...

Muhammad Rasheed - Thanks, Brandon.

@Dave... To build upon Brandon's point, the real world is very much a white-dominated civilization that forces the White Supremacist Ideology down our throats at all levels. They do this to indoctrinate us all into supporting their ham-fisted monopoly of wealth & power. Those of us who are indoctrinated -- and we ALL are to varying levels -- take on the racist nonsense they want us to believe as uncritical faux-truths. Consequently, those fake racist political talking points the dominant white supremacist, Eurocentric society wants us to believe are true in order to support their agenda, are actually true within the rules of the fictional universes they create and own.

So within their white-created fictional universes, it's true that human biological theory represents the so-called 'evolution' of stupid spiritual brown people UP INTO smart material-humanist white people. Look across all of their universes and you will find humans on distant worlds are white people (with maybe a li'l island of Blacks tucked away under a corner somewhere to shut the activists up). As a blatant slap in the face to the facts of history, white-created fictional universes ignore the contributions of the Black-dominated civilizations of the past that the real world Western Civilization built upon to attain its technological marvels, and they certainly ignore the many Black heroes that had major influence in building up the Industrial Revolution and the Information Age. According to what the white creators BELIEVE, the 'truth' within their fiction is that Blacks were just sitting around for aeons waiting for whites to kick start civilization. When they are forced to confront the undeniable evidence of technologically-advanced Black Civilizations of olde, then okay, that's where characters like The Celestials come in, or a newly caucasian-featured Apocalypse shows up. lol

lol Just focusing my thoughts on it like this to describe it is pissing me off. hahaha Basically, the opposing side's argument points -- in every racism debate I've been in since Darren Wilson was found not guilty -- are actual truths inside of white-owned, white-BELIEVED fictional tales. At the beginning of Kingdom Come (Waid & Ross), when Gotham City was introduced, who were the "thugs" that Bruce Wayne's "Bat Sentinels" went after? Do you remember? Whites thought it was sooooooooooooooooo funny.

Muhammad Rasheed - Even when Black creators are hired into that machine, the editorial control makes sure they don't damage the matrix of white supremacist ideology that holds that universe together. Ronald Wimberly wrote a great essay detailing the straight up bullshit that happened when he decided to color a Latina character (who was otherwise undefined) as a Black woman. Ronald's white woman editor, in her role as 'Agent Smith' to keep Ronald from fucking up The Matrix, pushed to make the character a white Latina to fit with racist society indoctrination "norms."

Muhammad Rasheed - In another thread, I noticed you singing the praises of a manga property...

Dave wrote: "This dude here is my most favorite superpowered black man in fiction at the moment. Not Blue Marvel, Not Luke Cage. Calvin Ellis comes close. But the Raikage is my favorite. His no fucks attitude, leadership position and high power scale is what made the difference as most black characters imo tend to feel either neutered or underpowered. Both in attitude and power scale. To those that question the blonde hair I humbly ask you to look up the Melanesians."

With my curiosity piqued I went to look him up. What I found was a line of powerful village leaders who started off Black with dark hair, with one blond/blue-eyed caucasian Raikage apprearing and being "renowned to be the greatest Raikage the village has ever had" (i guess the creator was a YUGE/BIGLY Eminem fan), and then all subsequent Raikage leaders having brown skin but blond hair. lol In addition to this highly-symbolic foolishness & fuckery, I find that "Raikage" means "lightning shadow," which treats melanated people as odd and unusual by default.

Once again we find a fictional universe that treats as concrete truth what the real world racist powers are desperate for the populace to believe as true. That's what I hate most about modern comics, is that they pretty much across the board function as little more than propaganda for my traditional enemy. But that's true for all mainstream properties across all media.

Dave Cotton - @M. Rasheed... And as one of the examples of the generation gap that I often referred to, you unfortunately proved it. 1. Naruto is an Asian product. 2. The village is based on Black Lightning and Black Panther references. In my response I mentioned to look up the Melanesians, who are the closest black people to Japan


Now I get it many of us hate the blonde hair due to what it can represent. From Spike in the X-Men animated series, to Aqualad currently we don't like it, but instead of slamming down on it I knew enough to know that the Cloud Village is based on Asian blacks which are the Melanesians. I don't leave certain information there for it to be ignored to make a point. Lastly Lightning Shadow is a Ninja name, names like that have always been common to Ninja names. Why do I like the character 1. He's the leader of an entire kingdom of mostly black people. 2. He's a powerful character compared to most black characters that I come across, even the ones who are created by black people and he isn't a Superman analogue like Icon, Blue Marvel or Calvin Ellis. 4. Lastly they make so many Black Comics references to the village and the way he is treated on the show is with the utmost respect as their village is the only one that is not fraught with corruption like the other places are, to the point where they are the ones who are the leaders during their big War where all the other villages and Nations make his country the leader. Now if Melanesians don't count as black people to you, I don't know what to say. Its not like there aren't any dark haired black people in the village.

Dave Cotton - I reiterate, the closest black people to Japan are these people. They wouldn't make stories about them? Again, please do not ignore the other information I listed to prove your point. Its intellectually dishonest. Naruto is a show about Ninjas, he's a Ninja on the show. Ninjas have names like Lightning Shadow.

Dave Cotton - Blacks from the Solomon Islands, also near Asia



Dave Cotton - I don't know about you but I'd rather my characters have names like Lightning Shadow instead of Black Lightning.

Dave Cotton - Now let me ask you Muhammad Rasheed do you think Japan should not be making stories about the Asians that live closest to them like the Melanesians and Solomon Islands in favor of more African Americans?

Muhammad Rasheed -



Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not pushing back on what you found exciting in the Raikage, Dave. That's not my argument; I understand why people would like what they like. I'm pointing out what aspects support that one thing I hate about modern comics. Fleshing out Brandon's answer further. I didn't intend for you to feel like I was attacking you. When I address these points, it's just from my own perspective, not as a tear down against you, please. We're good.

Dave Cotton - I don't consider it to be a tear down. What I consider it to be is ignoring information. We have to listen to each other. I got your point and in the case of a Spike and Aqualad I 100 percent agree with you, but when I saw members of the cloud village especially one in particular I said "Oh, they are Melenasians, that would make sense for a black kingdom in Asia. So I don't consider them part of the white supremacy narrative because it makes sense for the black people of Asia - to look like the black people of Asia.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dave wrote: "1. Naruto is an Asian product."

I know. I don't see how that would exempt them from being supporters of white supremacy though. The Japanese are kind of famous for not giving a crap about using all that old mammie/coon imagery from the slavery/jim crow era, and are pretty insensitive about it. After WW2, they formally apologized to the West for daring to challenge their White Supremacist Imperialism machine, agreed to dismantle their standing army, and became permanent supporters of everything the western powers wanted to do. I don't see how saying that "Naruto is an Asian product" would automatically mean there wouldn't be any offensive racist stuff in it. To me, that would actually be out of character based on the historical record.

Dave wrote: "2. In my response I mentioned to look up the Melanesians..."

I know them. They are notable as one of many Black native peoples found all over the world, often hidden among the mainstream "face" groups. They are the pure remnants of the original migrants out of Africa.

Dave wrote: "Now I get it many of us hate the blonde hair due to what it can represent."

I actually don't hate it at all, but I do hate it when Black folk gush all over it like it's the best stuff EVER. That clear demonstration of self-hatred is certainly hate worthy. I don't dislike whites for no other reason than because they are white people. I hate the White Supremacist Ideology, and any and everything it touches.

Dave wrote: "...but instead of slamming down on it I knew enough to know that the Cloud Village is based on Asian blacks which are the Melanesians. I don't leave certain information there for it to be ignored to make a point."

To me, the part you wanted me to celebrate was tainted with the insertion of the white-skinned Kaikage who was magically considered the best one of them all, but also had to have marked, with the blond hair trait, all subsequent Kaikage that followed him. Why in the world would I want to praise something that that? That makes me want to throw the whole thing away as exactly the type of foulness I hate.

Dave wrote: "Lastly Lightning Shadow is a Ninja name, names like that have always been common to Ninja names."

I understand. In this case, by attaching it to specifically Black characters, it makes it come across like they are trying to shine a spotlight on their Blackness, for the same reason 1970s Jewish TV writers had to add "Black" to the name of every single character they made. It's also foul-smelling and exploitative.

Dave wrote: "Why do I like the character"

You did an excellent job of explaining that the first time; it's why I went to look him up.

Dave wrote: "Lastly they make so many Black Comics references to the village..."

When those same references are problematic in their own right, that doesn't inherently make doing so a good thing. Mainstream Black characters written by whites don't make me beam with pride. Should they? I'm not one to stand around begging for begrudgingly tossed off scraps from off of someone else's table.

Dave wrote: "...and the way he is treated on the show is with the utmost respect [...] Nations make his country the leader."

That's cool.

Dave wrote: "Now if Melanesians don't count as black people to you, I don't know what to say."

That's a strawman effigy fallacy, since it was never my point. The problem I saw was there was this line of powerful Black leaders whose most awesome and most renowned of them all happened to be the white one. lol If you don't understand why that would be an infuriating taint to me, I'm the one who doesn't know what to say. I understand that you are a big, BIG fan of the property, and are necessarily protective over it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dave wrote: "I don't know about you but I'd rather my characters have names like Lightning Shadow instead of Black Lightning."

lol Well, in this particular context, they function exactly the same. A "darkness" reference reserved specifically for the Blacks. Are there any other non-Black ninja clans in that universe who don't have "shadow" in their names?

Muhammad Rasheed - Dave wrote: "What I consider it to be is ignoring information."

It wasn't ignored, Dave. The part you were celebrating was indeed the part that piqued my curiosity and made me research them. That part was acknowledged.

Dave wrote: "...but when I saw members of the cloud village especially one in particular I said 'Oh, they are Melenasians, that would make sense for a black kingdom in Asia.'"

And I agree. That specific aspect does make sense, but they ruined it by making that trait come from, not only a white figure that popped up in an otherwise Black line, but by making that white character the best of them all. lol That was the point where I took my curiosity back.

Dave wrote: "So I don't consider them part of the white supremacy narrative because it makes sense for the black people of Asia - to look like the black people of Asia." 

Does it make sense that the best of them was one white guy that showed up, or that their blond hair came from that same white dude? Because that's what the writers did.

Dave Cotton - All the best ninja in the village are black, all of them. Those other characters are from different villages. Now as far as them not being the best of the show I can agree and that is why we have to be the best on ours.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm talking about among the Kaikage themselves. In their line of tribal leaders, one of them was mysteriously a white guy, who is celebrated in the narrative history as the best Kaikage of all. He's the one that intro'd the blond hair into the line of Kaikage.

You don't see how I would find that problematic and irritating from a pro-Black point of view?

Dave Cotton - Not if you know the history behind it. Black people in Asia look like that. But we can agree to disagree.

Muhammad Rasheed - I've already acknowledged that I was already familiar with the Melanesians. That's not the point of contention. My problem is that:

1.) The best of of them all was the white guy
2.) The blond hair in that tribe came from that white guy

That's not where those people's blond hair comes from, and that's not how recessive genes work either. So for the writers to do this not only doesn't make sense in basic science, but they bend over backwards in order to create story points that serve zero purpose other than to support the white supremacist ideology. Stuff like that stands out to me.

Dave Cotton - I also don't expect non black people to make something pro black. For what they are I think they did a hellova job. The pro black in me was happy to see Melanesians

Muhammad Rasheed - Those are their own people, and they shitted on them to support a foreigner's ideology. A foreigner that hates their guts.

Dave Cotton - As I said, I don't expect non blacks to make something pro black, just like I don't expect you to make something pro white. I will give credit where credit is due.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Melanesians are the Japanese's own people and are their own genetic ancestors. They are certainly closer to them than the Europeans are, so why taint the Melanesian history with that befouled pro-white stuff?

Dave Cotton - That's a genre issue. Fact is that despite it all the character has a great place to me in the world for the fact that they are non black.The world respects them even though they don't look like anyone else. They make lots of references to black comic characters and black culture, including our music. For a non black work I was impressed. Now as far something pro black that's my job to create. Not theirs.

Dave Cotton - To expect something pro black from them is like expecting something pro white from a black creator. Personally I can't think of a white superhero character made by a black creator, or even asian one that is treated with the same respect.

Dave Cotton - For me, they made a cool black character even though they aren't black. Name one cool non black character made by black creators.

Dave Cotton - A well loved non black character. Black people cosplay as Naruto's black characters. For me that's pretty damn cool

Dave Cotton - Here is a sister from the same village

Dave Cotton - Here is her daughter

Muhammad Rasheed - I agree that it's cool to have a property achieve that level of super success. It's not so cool when said property contains elements that support the highly toxic White Supremacist Ideology though.

Muhammad Rasheed - The LAST thing the populace needs is more of that indoctrination...

Dave Cotton*nods*

Dave Cotton - That's what we are for right?

Muhammad Rasheed - Hopefully.

Muhammad Rasheed - Seems like the vast majority of Black creators are too busy caping for the mainstream stuff and desperately hoping to break in there. They're more mesmerized by all that than they are filling the pro-Black void unfortunately. But I have hope that it can change.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Kirb Drops the Gauntlet of Challenge! (again)


Kirb Brimstone - In a response to the question "Who created Christianity according to Islam?" M. Rasheed wrote: "I would say it was Constantine, who used the Council of Nicea to determine which of the many, many, many competing doctrines, and which of the many writings, would become canon under the Western Christian banner, and receive governmental legitimacy."

Kirb Brimstone (that's me) responded:

Wow. Constantine? That is not remotely historical. You know we have pre-Constantine Christian literature (the Gospels, other New Testament writings, and the writings of the church fathers) all of which proclaim deity of Christ and resurrection. The only thing that the Council of Nicea did force Christians to make an official Creed of what they already believed. Anyone who thinks the council of Nicea had many competing doctrines just doesn't know what they are talking about. The Arian heresy and the traditional Christian doctrine were the only ones in dispute.

Constantine supported the Arian heresy and it lost in a vote of 2 to 298. lol

But okay, let's ignore all of that because it doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask who M. Rasheed thought founded Christianity, I asked who founded Christianity according to Islam?

The answer is Allah.

Surely you know this.

After all it was Allah who deceived people into believing that he was crucified.

Quran 4:157- 158
"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: -

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise; -"

So where did we get the idea that Jesus died by crucifixion? Not from the apostle Paul and not the Council of Nicea. We got it from Allah according to the Quran.

After all Allah is the best of all deceivers (according to Quran 3:54; 7:99; 8:30). So good was Allah at deception, that generations of Christians believed that Jesus died on the Cross.

Remember Christianity is fundamentally based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sad, that Jesus came and failed as a Messiah. I mean what did Jesus really do? Allah saved him from crucifixion and then told no one thus founding a false religion.

Not only did Allah trick the Jews into believing that Jesus was crucified he seemed to promote Jesus’ followers who were led astray.

Quran 61:14
"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "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."

According to this Surah, Allah allowed the Christians to prevail over the Jews. Who is the Quran talking about? Not the Muslim followers of Christ. We have no record of Muslim followers of Christ. So, they died out quickly if they existed at all.

So, when did Christians prevail? I must agree with Yusuf Ali who attributed it to the Roman Christians:

Yusuf Ali's commentary, footnote 5448 says:

"A portion of the Children of Israel - the ones that really cared for Truth - believed in Jesus and followed his guidance. But the greater portion of them were hard hearted, and remained in their beaten track of formalism and false racial pride. The majority SEEMED at first to have the upper hand when they thought they had crucified Jesus and killed his Message. But they were soon brought to their senses. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70 and the Jews have been scattered ever since. "The Wandering Jew" has become a bye-word in many literatures. On the other hand, those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races withing their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world until the advent of Islam...."

It gets stranger in Quran 3:55

"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."

So not only did Allah create Christianity and help them prevail he promised to make those who followed Jesus superior until the day of resurrection.

*looks outside window*

Nope. The day of Resurrection has yet to come. So, Allah either lied or wasn’t powerful enough to keep his word.

Speaking of not powerful enough and not keeping ones word… Can God’s word be corrupted? According to the Quran it can’t be corrupted.

Quran 6:114-115
"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all."

and Quran 18:-27

"And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him."

Yep, incorruptible. So then is the Torah and the Gospels the word of God?

Quran 3:3-4
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Yep. Torah and the Gospel is the word of Allah. Which leads me to wonder something else if Allah failed and his words was corrupted then why did he send Christians to a corrupted book?"

and Quran 7:157

"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

Now how could Christians find Muhammad in their corrupted Gospel centuries after the Council of Nicea? In fact, Christians and Jews are supposed to judge by this same corrupted revelation that Allah couldn’t stop from being tainted.

Quran 5:47
"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Why is Allah sending us to our corrupted Gospels? If we judge by the Gospels we have, then we would be forced to concluded that the Quran is false. Allah even wanted them to stand upon these corruptions:"

Quran 5:68
"O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.:

Why would Allah ask Christians to stand upon a corrupted book? Wouldn’t Allah say get rid of them instead of pointing us to them?

If any of this is causing some doubts I recommend being a good Muslim and following Mohammed’s example in Surah 10:94:

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

I’ll be happy to help  ----

Now Mr. M. Rasheed has easily defeated the arguments presented here in the past. So I wanted to create a separate post just so everyone can see his solid response and watch me run away in defeat.

Muhammad Rasheed - A quick question for you to start.

1.) Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected... filtered through your Christian lens... is the correct one that supports your doctrinal views, when the central thesis of the Qur'an itself denies your faith's central beliefs regarding a crucified-turned-divine Jesus Christ?

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Kirb wrote: "Who created Christianity according to Islam? The answer is Allah."

The belief system you call "Christianity" -- with it's worship of the final Hebrew messenger, concept of Original Sin, rejection of righteous deeds to save the soul, etc. -- was not created by the One God. The Christ Jesus (peace be upon him) never know any of these concepts, as they were invented after his mission was complete. The religion of God was what was actually practiced by Jesus himself to demonstrate to the believers how to worship the One God. This is the religion that Allah created, and it never bore the name "Christianity" for the brief time period it was actually practiced on earth before the 'divine Jesus' usurpation happened. There is no god but Allah, the One God of Abraham, and He is not the Author of falsehood.

Muhammad Rasheed - 3.) Kirb wrote: "...we have pre-Constantine Christian literature (the Gospels, other New Testament writings, and the writings of the church fathers) all of which proclaim deity of Christ and resurrection"

This is hardly a full listing you've offered. You just listed the works that make up the current NT with amendments pretty much. The Apocryphal writings conflict with your preferred version of Christianity, which is why they are apocryphal. You mentioned Arianism, but there were other schools of doctrine as well. Cherry-picked bits and pieces of chunks of them eventually came to form the Christianity you know today. The Gnostics were a famous early Christian group with conflicting beliefs about who Jesus was and how he functioned exactly. The followers of James the Just were a major presence at the time, with James of course being the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem. That group definitely did NOT believe in a divine Jesus, and in fact followed a pure monotheistic belief system little different than Islam. The purpose of the Nicene Council was to definitely distinguish between all the so-called Christian doctrines, and definitively determine who Jesus really was. James' religion was obviously left on the cutting room floor.

Interestingly, the Christian scholar Oscar Cullmann pointed out that the Aramaic descriptor "mari" that Jesus was addressed by during his earthly lifetime, wasn't different than "rabbi," but it was the translation of 'mari' into 'kyrios' that caused the original confusion. In Greek, 'kyrios' means more than 'lord' and people quickly made the 'Jesus is divine!' leap once they had that rolling off their tongues. The Christian scholar Aloys Grillmeier pointed out that it was Paul who innovated the concept of actually worshiping Jesus as 'Lord,' as well as the concept of a pre-existing Christ, both of which heralded the so-called "Apostolic Age" in Christian literature scholarship

Muhammad Rasheed - 4.) Kirb wrote: "So where did we get the idea that Jesus died by crucifixion? We got it from Allah according to the Quran."

No, you got it from the enemies of Allah and His messenger, who boasted that they killed Jesus because they tried to kill Jesus. lol God saved the messenger, and made it appear as if they succeeded so they would not continue to pursue Jesus and his family. The religion was built up around the doubts and conjectures of a people who only thought they knew the truth of the matter, but in fact knew nothing. Today you can even find the doctrinal descendants of those same people rejecting the truth as revealed by Jesus' God in favor of those same long ago crafted conjectures.

Muhammad Rasheed - 5.) Kirb wrote: "After all Allah is the best of all deceivers (according to Quran 3:54; 7:99; 8:30). So good was Allah at deception..."

Why do you all insist upon translating 'mukhat' as 'deceive' when it means 'plan'? Do you think it aids in building your credibility in accurately translating the Qur'an?


Muhammad Rasheed - 6.) Kirb wrote: "Sad, that Jesus came and failed as a Messiah. I mean what did Jesus really do?"

Allah said the Christ didn't fail at all. In fact, He said they all were successful in performing that which they were anointed to perform, i. e., preach the Word of God and instruct the people in scripture and wisdom. Pointedly, Allah said it was not their job to make the people believe, but only to preach the Word clear & true. Allah confirmed that they did so, and thus earned their Reward. This includes the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, who was also successful in doing what his Lord commanded of him.

Muhammad Rasheed - 7.) Kirb wrote: "According to this Surah, Allah allowed the Christians to prevail over the Jews. Who is the Quran talking about? Not the Muslim followers of Christ. We have no record of Muslim followers of Christ. So, they died out quickly if they existed at all."

lol James the Just, the hand-picked heir of the Christ's message (who was actually more famous than his anointed big brother during the time period), was the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem, whose group was a major force to contend with. He and his followers were definitely Muslim, as they practiced the uncompromising monotheistic religion taught to them by the Christ himself.

Muhammad Rasheed - 8.) Kirb wrote: "...he promised to make those who followed Jesus superior until the day of resurrection."

Those who dedicate themselves to belief in the One God who made them are inherently superior to those who do not. Should they die in that believing state, they will thus remain in that superior position over the enemies of truth till the Resurrection. The battle is a spiritual one, not material. Do not be fooled by the shallow ebb & flow of earthly rises to power. They are inconsequential as the war will indeed be won by the One God. Glory be to He!

Muhammad Rasheed - 9.) Kirb posted: Quran 6:114-115
'Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.'"

The argument here isn't towards the People of the Book, but to the pagan Arabs. "The Book, explained in detail" God is referring to is the Qur'an. God is the very Author of truth & justice; and when truth & justice are so achieved in any circumstance, God's Word is manifest. 

In every previous generation that molested their scripture, God always anointed a messenger to realign the people back to the purity of His newly-revealed Word to set things aright. Even in the case of the People of the Book and the Torah and Gospel, despite their efforts to change their charges to benefit their own vanities and lusts... BEHOLD! God anointed a new messenger, and revealed a new scripture to right the wrongs they unjustly attempted! Note that the Qur'an specifically addresses those specific corruption attempts, because He did indeed hear and know their schemes as they formed. As I mentioned above, the Qur'an bluntly addresses those items very early in its pages to let the schemers know that God was not fooled.

Muhammad Rasheed - 10.) Kirb posted: "and Quran 18:-27
'And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.'"

Here God is talking directly to the prophet, so the "none can change His Words" part is referring to no one can change them on the revelation route from God, through the angel, to Muhammad (pbuh).

Muhammad Rasheed - 11.) Kirb wrote: "Yep, incorruptible. So then is the Torah and the Gospels the word of God?"

The current form of the Torah is what is left of the original Law of Moses, now the watered down memories of the ancient revealed scripture. The four Gospels of the NT are not the revelation of God even if I were to pretend they were actually the writings of the men whose names they bear. The actual Gospel -- the revealed message spoken by Jesus to the children of Israel was never collected in written form, and is conspicuously absent from the NT writings collection. Those writings were derived from things Jesus said, several times filtered through many people until they got to this form. Jesus' message was carried over by James' camp, until it faded away to be resurrected anew in the Qur'an.

Muhammad Rasheed - 12.) Kirb posted: Quran 3:3-4
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)."

God sent down the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus. These were the pure and unfiltered Word of God, that were no different than how the Qur'an reads, from God's Voice. The work we call "Torah" today doesn't sound like that, but was obviously written later by people talking ABOUT Moses' adventures. It is clearly not the original scripture given to Moses but tales told about that event by later scribes. And again, the Gospel of Jesus is a lost Book, with only the fumes of its memory present in the NT's writings collection.

Muhammad Rasheed - 13.) Kirb wrote: "Yep. Torah and the Gospel is the word of Allah."

There is no evidence supporting this statement.

Kirb wrote: "Which leads me to wonder something else if Allah failed and his words was corrupted then why did he send Christians to a corrupted book?"

With the Qur'an among us... having confirmed, fulfilled and realigned the previous scripture back to the Path... obviously Allah did NOT fail in keeping His Word safe. That's what the cycle of new messengers and new revelation was all about, the phoenix-like rebirth of the ever-enduring Word of Allah. But now the cycle is complete, and the canon of sacred scripture is secure for the ages.

Muhammad Rasheed - 14.) Kirb posted: "and Quran 7:157
"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

This is actually the second part of a quote from God, in which He is paraphrasing something He told Moses long ago on Mt Sinai. Here He's actually telling Moses about the future coming of the Arab unlettered prophet.

Muhammad Rasheed - 15.) Kirb wrote: "Now how could Christians find Muhammad in their corrupted Gospel centuries after the Council of Nicea?"

Because before the rise of Islam, the envious among the People of the Book had no reason to fear the concept of a new prophet being prophesied, because each of them assumed such a figure would belong to their own camp -- the Jews assumed "that prophet" would be a Jew, and the Christians assumed he would be a Christian. It wasn't until the rise of Al-Islam, and centuries of our epic debates, did the theologians guarding the previous scriptures decide to downplay and eventually remove altogether the doctrine of a newly-arriving prophet.

Kirb wrote: "In fact, Christians and Jews are supposed to judge by this same corrupted revelation that Allah couldn’t stop from being tainted."

The revelation of the Qur'an was the definitive act of God removing the taint that you all allowed. Did He not say that He freed the Christ of the blasphemies you said about the messenger and his mom? God cleared their name of your taint with newly-revealed scripture sent down for the task.

Muhammad Rasheed - 16.) Kirb posted: Quran 5:47
"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."

Kirb wrote: "Why is Allah sending us to our corrupted Gospels?"

He's actually not. That verse is part of a sequence in which God says that He revealed scripture to each camp's prophet -- to Moses, to Jesus, and to Muhammad -- and as He sent scripture down said to each the poetic quote "Let the people of the [Law/Gospel/Qur'an] judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel." When He finished with the Qur'an's part, he added that Muhammad had the authority to judge between both the Jews and the Christians, implying that this last scripture abrogated what the People of the Book held.

Kirb wrote: "If we judge by the Gospels we have, then we would be forced to concluded that the Quran is false."

Then you should let them go as they clearly have you courting hellfire. Bow down to the One God with unflinching monotheism as a Muslim and be saved.

Kirb wrote: "Allah even wanted them to stand upon these corruptions:"

No, He was speaking to the peoples of the distant past who had just received their fresh scripture as the messengers still walked among them. This sequence was a poetic retelling of past events in a creative and specialized form.

Muhammad Rasheed - 17.) Kirb posted: Quran 5:68
"O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."

Kirb wrote: "Why would Allah ask Christians to stand upon a corrupted book? Wouldn’t Allah say get rid of them instead of pointing us to them?"

You're missing the relevance of the "and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" part. He's telling you to accept ALL the revelation as truth, which is the Muslim's position "BELIEF IN THE BOOKS." That means by default that the Qur'an confirms, fulfills and abrogates the previous scriptures as it corrects those areas they were allowed to stray. In other words, God is telling the People of the Book to become Muslim.

Muhammad Rasheed - 18.) Kirb wrote: "If any of this is causing some doubts..."

Not even remotely.

Kirb wrote: "...I recommend being a good Muslim and following Mohammed’s example in Surah 10:94: 'If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.'"

In the verses before this, God recaps what happened during the Exodus adventures, so that's why He's telling the prophet to confirm with the doctors of the Law if he has doubts that this was really coming from God and not an over-active imagination.

Michael Daniels - M. Rasheed wrote: "This is hardly a full listing you've offered." 

Let's put things in historical context here. Jesus lived in the first century. The Council of Nicea took place in 325. By that time Biblical canon had already been established and the understanding of the nature of Christ and other essential doctrines were widespread among people then known as Christians. The things decided at the Council were by overwhelming majorities from as diverse a group as was available.

Michael Daniels - So roughly 300 years later the Qur'an is recited. There is no mention of James or any apocraphal writings. If there were other writings that explained better what Christianity should be why not reference them. The Qur'an doesnt even reference James own canonical writing, but it does laud the Gospels which firmly establish Christian doctrine, as does James the just btw.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael wrote: "The Council of Nicea took place in 325. By that time Biblical canon had already been established..."

Meanwhile, the literal purpose of the Nicene Council was to determine what was to be canon in Western Christian literature.

Michael Daniels - This is absolutely, uneqivocably false. Look up the wiki under. "Common Misconceptions". I can't do links from my phone.

Michael Daniels - M. Rasheed wrote: "Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected..."

You seem to be saying here the Qur'an contradicts itself. Why wouldn't the cited scriptures agree with the central theme? You've provided no alternate interpretation in which they do.

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh. Because the verses he pulled are referring to concepts and events other than Kirb's doctrinal biases want them to mean. Early in the second Surah, Allah says point blank that the Hebrew messenger was not divine, he didn't get crucified, and he only preached the same message as all the other prophets, which includes Muhammad (peace be upon them all). This is all part of the Qur'an's central message that the entire religion of Islam is built around. So why would anyone assume that carefully cherry-picked quotes meant the opposite of what they definitively mean in context of the big picture message they were packaged in?

This sloppy paradox appears to be the foundational structure of Kirb's entire argument here, that he oddly has such confidence in.

Michael Daniels - Because they say what they say. And you've now given four more posts and failed to provide a context for these scriptures that fit them into the "central theme".

Muhammad Rasheed - The verses do "say what they say," but to decode them using a doctrinal lens that's fundamentally opposed to their contextual message, while stepping over and ignoring the verses that do provide that context, is intellectually dishonest, or just plain deliberately manipulative. In this case, with both you and Kirb, I don't believe it's a case of the latter, but that of a strong myopic viewpoint from two people trained in a myopic view since your youth. For you, the pauline doctrine interpretation makes perfect sense because you don't know anything else within a religious context. That's what it looks like when your "research" never ever strays outside of the narrow walls of your dedicated myopic point of view. That's why you two always respond the way you do when I reference the numerous Christian scholars whose work steps outside of the pauline doctrine literature to show where that body of work fits in to a bigger picture, which always shows Paul in a very different, oft unflattering light than you were trained to see him in. To my continuous amusement, those same Christian scholars never denounce their belief in Paul (which is why I take the time to point out that they are indeed "Christian scholars"), but are always able to weirdly compartmentalize the doctrine they were trained in, versus the stark truth of their consistent findings within the historic record. On cue, you and Kirb always treat them like heretics, because the facts support what the Qur'an says.

In other words, Kirb doesn't have a leg to stand on in this thread. It looks like he's flopping around like a beached fish to me, genuinely confused that I don't accept his interpretation of his carefully compiled Qur'anic verses at face value. I expect him to remain confused, as his audience is the people who think exactly the way he thinks, who will only hi-five him and reinforce the fallacies they all accept as truth.

Michael Daniels - And still another post where you fail to explain the Quranic verses Kirb cited. In fact you seem to be saying if they don't agree with the central theme they should be ignored. That's not proper from a legitimate holy book. It should be cohesive.

Muhammad Rasheed - The cohesiveness with the Qur'an's actual message is exactly what I'm arguing. You and Kirb seem to believe isolated verses can magically support the pauline doctrine's 'divine jesus' concept that the Qur'an point blank condemns just because you want them to, and you call that "cohesiveness" to the message. Naturally I have to reject that as a blatant slap in the face to both logic AND reason.

Michael Daniels - What you seem to be rejecting is explaining those scriptures. That's okay. I wont ask you to anymore. If you dont feel comfortable or up to it I won't force the issue. Just know that it reads as contradictory.

Muhammad Rasheed - I would imagine that it would only seem as if my posts were contradictory if the reader insisted that those verses could only possibly be interpreted through a pro-pauline doctrine lens, while refusing to ever even try to interpret the Qur'an through the main precepts that it builds the religion of Al-Islam from.

Otherwise l can't see how my posts would be considered contradictory from a more objective standpoint.

Michael Daniels - I'm sorry. Maybe yhe fault is mine in communicating. If you gave me a scripture from the Bible that seemed to be contradictory (and there are some that seem so) I would break that scripture down and explain the the specific context as to why it was not contradictory but in fact complimentary to the Biblical premise. I can do this because all Biblical scriptures are God breathed and designed for just such purposes. Are you not able to do this with the Qu'ran?

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure. This is all material that the three of us have covered numerous times in the past. There's nothing new here. The wall we always run into is that -- despite what the Qur'an says about Jesus from the Islamic standpoint -- you both still emphatically insist that when Allah references the Gospel, He must be referring to the NT as you hold it today, as opposed to the revealed scripture spoken by the Christ specifically, which is conspicuously no longer on earth. This is the source of the 'contradictory' illusion from your POV. Finding the message of God in your scripture with the help of the People of the Book requires a learned scholar with a big picture scope of the caliber of learned figure typically rejected by the Deacon and Kirb Brimstone level of Christian believer. Your type of Christian generally fails to retain the info when I take the time to explain what the Qur'anic verses that you use in your "ministering to our lost Moslem brethren" tool kit actually mean, and in fact you even dismiss my explanations as either apologetic, dishonest, "MRasheed-isms" and just otherwise not as accurate as your pauline-slanted interpretations.

So yes, I am able to do so, and have done so and I will do so again shortly (see above), no doubt to receive the same responses as before. The one consistent thing I notice when arguing with you two is you never hear me. Our discussions are a lot like living in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray. lol

Kirb Brimstone - @Michael Daniels... Luv ya brother but I wanna post my response

Kirb Brimstone - R1) I have done nothing of the sort. I present the Quran as it is. Which is easy because according to Surah 11:1 

"A Book whose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware"

And according to Surah 16:89

"And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender." 

See the Quran is clear. What passages have I reinterpreted? I only use the Islamic Sources to understand what is written, everything else I merely let the verse speak for itself. This is far from a “Christian lens” sounds like you are trying to evade the clear teaching if the Quran.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R1) I have done nothing of the sort. I present the Quran as it is. See the Quran is clear. What passages have I reinterpreted?"

You quoted the verse, which is the literal presenting the Qur'an as is, and then you proceed to give your opinion as to what it means based on your own understanding of it. Of course there's nothing wrong with that -- that's what we're supposed to do when we read scripture -- I'm asking why do you believe that your understanding of the Qur'an's individually isolated verses should hold more weight to me than my own when you reject the central message of the Qur'an that the verses you've favored support? Why do you think -- or why do you presume I should think -- that your understanding of what the Qur'an is telling us is more accurate than my own?

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you believe your interpretation of the specifically isolated Qur'anic verses you've chosen is closer to Allah's intended meaning than my own interpretation?

Is that your official position for the record?

Kirb Brimstone - What passage have I reinterpreted And why?

I believe the interpretation I provided is the correct one the one the author (whoever it is) intended.

Muhammad Rasheed - And why do you think that?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you believe your interpretation of those Qur'an verses is the most accurate, common sense interpretation? Based on what exactly?

Kirb Brimstone - What passage have I reinterpreted And why?

Muhammad Rasheed - Do you believe the way you understand the verses is 100% accurate, and the way I see them is severely flawed and wrong?

Kirb Brimstone - If you disagree with me show me where I have misinterpreted and explain to me why it's a misinterpretation.

Muhammad Rasheed - I did, and you ignored it. So I'm interested in your philosophy. Why do you think your understanding of the Qur'an's verses you targeted is more pure, accurate, and objective?

Kirb Brimstone - So if you already did copy and paste where you showed why my interpretation is wrong that should be easy for you since you already did it

Muhammad Rasheed - All the parts where I explained that the Qur'an's mentions of "the Gospel and the Torah" were talking about the pure revelation given to the messengers during those lifetimes, not Mark, Luke, etc., narratives after the fact. You insist that the Qur'an is talking about the whole kit-n-kaboodle of Christian literature within the modern NT, despite the many areas where it said that Jesus was not God, nor was he crucified. I'd like to understand your thought processes on that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Can you walk me through your logic train that led you to that conclusion?

Kirb Brimstone - R2) Christianity at its core is based on the Death and Resurrection of Christ. That is why the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel a which I preached to you, which also you received and b in which you stand, 2 c by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. 3 For e I delivered to you first of all that f which I also received: that Christ died for our sins g according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day h according to the Scriptures, 5 i and that He was seen by 1 Cephas, then j by the twelve. 6After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have 2 fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then k by all the apostles. 8 l Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am m the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because n I persecuted the church of God. 10 But o by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, p yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.


That’s the core doctrine of Christianity. By the way, this passage contains the earliest Christian tradition that pre-dates Paul himself as agreed by a majority of Scholars from all walks of the theological spectrum. It’s called the Pre-Pauline Creed. Now I know you’ll dismiss the scholarly consensus in favor of your one or two radical non-historian sources you list or a quote from a Christian Scholar that says something close to what you like to hear, but I’ll list them anyway:

William Lane Craig a NT Historian writes:

The evidence that Paul is not writing in his own hand in I Cor. 15.3-5 is so powerful that all New Testament scholars recognize that Paul is here passing on a prior tradition.

Gary Habermas NT Historian writes:

Do critical scholars agree on the date of this pre-Pauline creed? Even radical scholars like Gerd Lüdemann think that “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion . . . no later than three years after the death of Jesus.” Similarly, Michael Goulder contends that Paul’s testimony about the resurrection appearances “goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”

An increasing number of exceptionally influential scholars have very recently concluded that at least the teaching of the resurrection, and perhaps even the specific formulation of the pre-Pauline creedal tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, dates to AD 30! In other words, there never was a time when the message of Jesus’ resurrection was not an integral part of the earliest apostolic proclamation. No less a scholar than James D. G. Dunn even states regarding this crucial text: “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”


Gerd Lüdemann an atheist NT Critic said:

The testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is the earliest text in the New Testament to make concrete mention of the death, resurrection, and appearances of the risen Christ. Here Paul uses traditions which he knows from an earlier period. As 1 Corinthians is usually dated around 50 A.D., we may note, first, that the traditions which he mentions must be even older… It is hard to say what the relationship is between the event itself and the development and description of it. Because of the extraordinary nature of the event in question we may suppose that it was also reported immediately after the appearance of Jesus. How could it be conceivable that an event took place and was only related, shall we say, ten years later?[5]

skeptic Michael Goulder writes:

[1 Corinthians 15:3-8] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.”[

Bhart Erman Agnostic and popular NT critic says this:

it contains a pre-Pauline fragment, that is, a quotation of an earlier source that Paul inherited, in just these verses, chapter 1 verses 3-4.

Mike Lacona a NT Historian writes:

The earliest report of Jesus’ death is found in the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3. Virtually all scholars who have written on the subject hold that Paul here provides tradition about Jesus which he received from others. There is likewise widespread agreement that it was composed very early, reflected what was being taught by the Jerusalem apostles, and is the oldest extant tradition pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus.

And since you brought up Oscar Cullmann let’s se what he says on this topic:

“. . . it is difficult to imagine Paul’s not receiving at least the contents of this formula [the pre-Pauline creed] soon after his conversion . . . .”

Anything else Oscar?

“. . . it must be understood that the legitimate agent of the tradition is the apostle – not only one of the Twelve, but apostle in the wider sense of an eye-witness, one who ‘had seen the Lord.’”

Hear that? Paul got this tradition from the 12 apostles. Of course, you will dismiss the current diverse mainstream scholarship (hundreds of relevant Scholars) for some guy who says what you like to hear. Talk about bias. Even if we ignore the mountain of evidence the point still stands the Christianity according to Paul comes out of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection. So, where did Paul get the Idea that Jesus died on the cross according to the Quran? Allah. More on that later.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "That’s the core doctrine of Christianity. By the way, this passage contains the earliest Christian tradition that pre-dates Paul himself..."

Which part of it is that?

Kirb wrote: "...as agreed by a majority of Scholars from all walks of the theological spectrum."

This is the logical fallacy called "Appeal to the People." You used it a lot in one of those previous arguments you abandoned. It's a trait of poor debate skill. That "majority of scholars" as you call them are wrong if they all contradict what the One God revealed about the last Hebrew messenger.

Kirb wrote: "It’s called the Pre-Pauline Creed. Now I know you’ll dismiss the scholarly consensus..."

It's true that I have no use for logical fallacies, Kirb, not even your pet favorite one in use here. At least you've managed to retain a tiny bit of info about me.

Kirb wrote: "William Lane Craig a NT Historian writes... 'The evidence that Paul is not writing in his own hand in I Cor. 15.3-5 is so powerful...'"

What evidence might THAT be, Kirb? Did he reveal it? I'm sure the atheists are crapping their pants at the knowledge that there is actual evidence of someone's hand being guided by a preternatural force of some description. Does The Amazing Randi know about this?

Kirb wrote: "Gary Habermas NT Historian writes... 'Do critical scholars agree on the date of this pre-Pauline creed?'”

Why does any of this about your 'pre-pauline creed' matter? All it's saying is that the proto-doctrine was formed from the soup of doubts & conjecture God said followed in the wake of the crucifixion attempt. Why would all of this mean anything to me? So the people who believe in it got all excited at the idea that the basis of their doctrine was formed in the mess of gossipy confusion at the end of his mission. I am not the audience for this material, Kirb. I believe God, not these talking heads.   

Kirb wrote: "Mike Lacona a NT Historian writes... 'Virtually all scholars who have written on the subject hold that [...] There is likewise widespread agreement that ...'"

Ah. No wonder you love that logical fallacy so much, since your heroes use it, too. "We appeal to the idea that a whole bunch of people speculated, conjectured, and decided to blind faith believe in this stuff, so it MUST be true!"

Kirb wrote: "And since you brought up Oscar Cullmann let’s se what he says on this topic... '...it is difficult to imagine Paul’s not receiving at least the contents of this formula [the pre-Pauline creed] soon after his conversion...'”

Should I be moved by this speculative conjecture regarding his doctrine? Earlier you attacked me for what you interpreted as conjecture about the Qurr'an, yet here you celebrate it. Is this another demonstration of your self-proclaimed 'common sense' at work then?

Kirb wrote: "Anything else Oscar? '...it must be understood that the legitimate agent of the tradition is the apostle – not only one of the Twelve, but apostle in the wider sense of an eye-witness, one who ‘had seen the Lord.’”

It "must be understood" based on what? Do you expect me to take at face value the claims of Paul's "vision"? To be clear, my position about the topic is that Paul never saw Jesus before in any capacity, and he is in fact the false prophet of legend. 

Kirb wrote: "Hear that?"

Meh.

Kirb wrote: "Paul got this tradition from the 12 apostles."

No. God said the companions of Jesus were actually true in faith and at Jesus' request, He magically made the food of the Last Supper appear from an angel's delivery. So Paul could never have received falsehood from the 12, because they would never, ever have betrayed the messenger who they so loved, nor the One God they all served.

Kirb wrote: "...Of course, you will dismiss the current diverse mainstream scholarship (hundreds of relevant Scholars)..."

I also dismiss the 'Appeal to the People' logical fallacy, as an FYI. It's pretty easy for me, too.

Kirb wrote: "...for some guy who says what you like to hear."

That's one way of putting it. I prefer to call it: "For someone whose findings align to the Word of God," which is the position we should all take as believers. Logical fallacies will not save your soul from hell, so I advise you to have less faith in them. 

Kirb wrote: "Even if we ignore the mountain of evidence..."

What mountain of evidence would that be, Kirb? If there were such a thing we wouldn't be having this argument.

Kirb wrote: "...the point still stands the Christianity according to Paul comes out of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection."

It actually comes out of the gossipy cesspool of doubt and conjecture that swirled in the wake of the failed crucifixition attempt, but, hey. "Tomato/tamato", amirite?

Kirb wrote: "So, where did Paul get the Idea that Jesus died on the cross according to the Quran?"

Obviously he got it from the fact that the enemies of the messenger boasted loudly that they had done such a thing, and the word carried wide throughout the Hebrew communities until it formed into quasi-pagan false doctrine.

Kirb Brimstone - You disappoint me Mo.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't know what that means coming from you, Kirb.

You're actively resisting all my efforts to actually understand the position you are taking so that I can better analyze your responses and know exactly what you mean. So comments like this are ridiculously (and unnecessarily) cryptic.

Muhammad Rasheed - I disappoint you in what way? Because I refuse to abandon the message of God and instead bow down at the feet of your pet logical fallacy that you oddly consider evidence? I disappoint you because I am not swayed by your weak attempts to court me to hell?

You're just going to have to get over it I'm afraid. Try answering some of my questions.

Kirb Brimstone - No because you refuse to see the obvious truth.

Muhammad Rasheed - What part makes it obvious? The 'Appeal to the People' fallacy part?

Is that a 'truth' though? It's certainly true that a lot of people decided to believe it, sure. But that doesn't make what they decided to believe in a truth, too.

For the record, you didn't disappoint me at all.  :)

Muhammad Rasheed - You expected me to see "the obvious truth" after you posted the same stuff you ALWAYS post in these arguments of ours. Do you feel that your debate skills are stronger since we met? You do respond in the same way to the same stuff and post the exact same things.

What did you think would be different this time, Kirb?

Muhammad Rasheed - I suggest you read through all of our previous arguments, and analyze your approach. I won't bother to suggest you analyze MY style & approach since it's obvious you don't give a shit, but try to improve your own game.

Kirb Brimstone - R3) Council of Nicaea formally denounced heresies that had been rejected earlier. That includes Gnosticism. You say the Gnostic writings are early but nearly all NT historians date the Gnostic gospels in 2nd century. The earliest that the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, could have been written was A.D. 150 (second century A.D.), and many more were written in the third and even fourth centuries. They saw Jesus as a spirit and the Creator as a lesser god. A far cry from the Muslim followers of Jesus you desperately try to force into ancient history.

Bhart Erman Agnostic and popular NT critic says this:

"Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus’ divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine.... Quite the contrary: everyone at the Council—in fact, just about every Christian everywhere—already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus’ divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? Those were the issues that were addressed at Nicea, not whether or not Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus’ divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, and had been from the early years of the religion."

The Arian heresy made Jesus a demi-god and reintroduced polytheism as Jesus was still worshiped. Are these the early Muslim followers of Christ you speak of? Sounds a far cry from Islam, either way it lost in a vote of 2 to 298 as Christians (like myself) are monotheists.

Aloys Grillmeier isn’t a NT scholar he is a priest and I can’t find him saying Paul invented Christ’s deity.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R3) Council of Nicaea formally denounced heresies that had been rejected earlier."

"Formally denounced" them from what authority? "Rejected" by whom and based on what?

Kirb wrote: "That includes Gnosticism."

That included a LOT of doctrines. I just used that as an example to go with the one you volunteered.

Kirb wrote: "You say the Gnostic writings are early but nearly all NT historians date the Gnostic gospels in 2nd century."

You don't think that's "early"? To be honest, you don't have any credibility as to who or what the NT historians are, or what they know. More on that at the end of this post.

Kirb wrote: "The earliest that the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas, could have been written was A.D. 150 (second century A.D.)..."

The Christian scholar Pheme Perkins pointed out that by the 2nd century it was at the fully developed high point of classic gnostic masters, with the doctrine first forming in the 1st century, contemporary with the earliest Christian writings. 
Kirb wrote: "A far cry from the Muslim followers of Jesus you desperately try to force into ancient history."

Jesus, his 12 companions, his brother James, and all others of those who also took a stance of uncompromising monotheism as taught by the Christ were Muslims. This is no less than the Word of God I type, and believe you me, no desperation is a part of my partnering with the Truth of the Lord.   

Kirb wrote: "Bhart Erman Agnostic and popular NT critic says this: '...everyone at the Council—in fact, just about every Christian everywhere—already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God.'"

That's not the first time I've witnessed a disbeliever bend over backwards to protect the religious doctrine he was raised in out of traditionalism loyalty. I've seen atheist jews and atheist former Muslims do it, too. Should I be surprised or impressed? lol These are the same people tat abandoned their faith in the first place, so who cares what they have to say about doctrine they only halfassed understood back when they halfassed followed it? 

Writing in 1891, the Christian scholar Frederic Huidekoper quoted Clement of Alexandria: "In the times of the Emperor Hadrian appeared those who devised heresies, and they continued until the age of the elder Antoninus." Obviously Bhart Erman is just being loyal to his precious doctrine he grew up with. The powers that be merely rejected the non-divine Jesus competing doctrine, that's all. In doing so, the question of Jesus' divinity was definitely on the council's agenda, inherent within the Arian item itself.

Kirb wrote: "The Arian heresy made Jesus a demi-god and reintroduced polytheism as Jesus was still worshiped. Are these the early Muslim followers of Christ you speak of?"

Since Muslims don't believe in the clearly pagan worship of the messengers as demi-gods like the Christians do, that would be a "no."  The early Muslims of that time period were the loyal followers of the Christ, the followers of the Christ's hand-picked heir, and the Christ himself. 

Kirb wrote: "Sounds a far cry from Islam, either way it lost in a vote of 2 to 298 as Christians (like myself) are monotheists."

Considering that corrupt pagan tradition that "made Jesus a demi-god and reintroduced polytheism as Jesus was still worshiped" describes the current pauline doctrine of Western Christianity at it's core, obviously that wasn't the aspect of Ariasm that was shot down during the council. You cannot continue to worship the last Hebrew messenger of Abraham's God as a divine figure and still call it "monotheism." It's absurd.

Kirb wrote: "Aloys Grillmeier isn’t a NT scholar he is a priest and I can’t find him saying Paul invented Christ’s deity."

Scholarship is definitely a part of the Jesuit priests' duties. The cardinal-deacon Aloys Grillmeier said it in his book "Christ in Christian Tradition" (1965), which was one of 12 works he produced, in addition to hundreds of published articles that made up his greater contribution to NT literature.

Kirb Brimstone - You are using the Appeal to People fallacy incorrectly. It's only an fallcy if the ad populum the people I am appealing to a group of elites who aren't authority on the subject. 

You call it a fallacy when a 9 out of 10 doctors recommend quitting cigarettes because it leads to heart disease.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not the definition of that logical fallacy. Where are you getting that one?

Kirb Brimstone - You style is obfuscation. But we're not done yet. You ignore the facts because you are so sure that the Quran is the word of God and Muhammad is his prophet. Time to challenge that notion.


Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "You ignore the facts because..."

Wait. What "facts?" Because all those people you quote said a whole lot of people agreed with them? How is that a "fact?"

Muhammad Rasheed - The "snob appeal" version isn't the one I'm talking about, and I'm sure you are well aware of that. The one you are committing, and consider factual evidence in your claims, is the "bandwagon" one.



Muhammad Rasheed

obfuscation... the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

If that's how you really feel, then why don't you ever ask me follow up questions so that my point is clear? I can only conclude it's because you really don't care. You're the one that wants to be my friend though. Curious.

Kirb Brimstone - *rolls eyes* Agrumentum ad Populum is the Appeal to people. I am not saying I am right because a lot of people agree with me. I am saying the authorities on the matter have studied the topic and agree with me. That at the very least should make yopu ask why.

Kirb Brimstone - No sense. I have asked at least 3 times: "What have I misinterprested and why?

Kirb Brimstone - You only respond with a question because you are being disingenuous.

Muhammad Rasheed - I consider them the authority over a doctrine that the Supreme Creator confirmed was false. So why should I ask 'why' over something stupid?

Kirb Brimstone - This circular reasoning at it's best. The supreme creator din't have to do with that false book (the Quran) that has been corrupted changed contains contradictions and scientific errors. 

That's what we are debating. You are committing the fallacy of circulus in probando.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "No sense. I have asked at least 3 times: 'What have I misinterprested and why?' You only respond with a question because you are being disingenuous."

I didn't say you "misinterpreted" anything. I asked "why do you believe your interpreted understanding is superior to my interpreted understanding?" You're trying to anticipate where I'm going and asking a question to an answer I never received. If you really do believe your understanding of the Qur'an verses you quoted is more accurate than mine, then tell me why you think that based on other verses that conflict with your understanding of the verses you believe you have mastered.

Kirb Brimstone - Nothing you've said in response to my argument is a counter argument. You deny my argument and assert an alternative without putting forth any reasons to believe it. 

There is nothing for me to interact with.

Muhammad Rasheed - The 'circular reasoning' fallacy is inherent within any opposing faith-based positions. There's no getting around that. "My book is real and yours is corrupt." "No, MY book is real and yours is false." We knew that going in. That's baby stuff. Today I'm trying for more nuance and precision. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "There is nothing for me to interact with."

Sure there is. You don't really believe that; you just don't want to answer my counter-argument questions because you fear there's a trap somewhere. Some you can see coming, and others you just suspect (correctly).

The game here is whether you will bravely step forward and end up tapping out, or cut-n-run and abandon the thread as usual. Either way is a win for me. You're not very good at this stuff.

Kirb Brimstone - So instead of leaving I want to talk about how the Quran was corrupted as described by Islam's most trusted sources.

Kirb Brimstone - M. Rasheed wrote: "You're not very good at this stuff." 

Thanks Mo, you put a smile on my face. I love irony.

Muhammad Rasheed - First define who are "Islam's most trusted sources" for the record.

Kirb Brimstone - Okay. Now to answer your question:

I believe my interpretation is correct because it's the plain reading of the text. If the Quran says

Qur’an 5:47
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Qur’an 5:68
Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

Qur’an 7:157
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)—in the Law and the Gospel— . . . it is they who will prosper.

Then I take it at face value. 

If the Quran says:

Qur’an 61:14
O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as [Jesus] son of Marium said to (his) disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost.

Then I take it at face value. 

If the Quran says:

Qur’an 3:55
Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection.”

Then I take it at face value.

Unless you give em good reason not to. You have not.

Muhammad Rasheed - How can you consider it a "plain reading of the text" if you remove it from the specific contextual narrative it was a part of, and try to make it fit something the greater Qur'anic message does not agree with?

Muhammad Rasheed - For example, 5:47 was not talking to you. In the narrative you removed it from it was a poetic retelling of something God told the believers of olde when they received their revelation from the Christ. Your attempt to make it seem like it was a contemporary command for the modern Christian is an inaccurate understanding. 

A "plain reading of the text" still involves context.

Muhammad Rasheed - Another example is 5:68. Allah is talking to the Arabian Jews of Medina pointedly, who had started to betray the covenant and did a 180 on accepting Muhammad as the messenger of Allah (pbuh). When He tells them "and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" He definitely means the Qur'an, too, and is warning them to repent and realign themselves to the Medina covenant and save themselves from hell.

Kirb Brimstone - The seven facts leave me with a number of questions unanswered:


  • Why would Allah lead Jesus’ followers astray and destroy everything Jesus had worked so hard to accomplish?
  • Why did Allah tell Jesus that his followers would be superior to unbelievers until the Day of Resurrection? Didn’t Allah know that he was about to corrupt Christianity?
  • If the Gospel was given to man as “guidance,” why didn’t Allah preserve his message (rather than start a heresy)?
  • If the Gospel was corrupted in the early centuries of Christianity, why did Allah say that Christians still possessed it during Muhammad’s time?
  • If Allah is powerless to stop people from corrupting his message, can we even trust the Qur’an?
  • Once the Christian heresy had started, why did Allah help the Christians rise to power?
  • If Allah deceives people who follow his prophets, how do Muslims know that he isn’t deceiving them?


Muhammad Rasheed - That last one will be addressed when I get to the similar item in your R-List.

Muhammad Rasheed - That 2nd to last one puzzles me coming from a Christian. How did Nebuchadnezzar, Goliath and Nimrod, etc., come to power?

Muhammad Rasheed - 3rd to last... Qur'an's revelation is Allah's power that corrected the corruption of the message. That's what it's for. Just like the Gospel was Allah correcting the corruption of the hard-hearted children of Israel.

Muhammad Rasheed - 4th to last... Allah preserved His message with newly revealed scripture in the time-honored tradition.

Muhammad Rasheed - (i answered this stuff already in the previous R-List comments)

Muhammad Rasheed - 2nd bullet... Allah is talking about Jesus' followers who heard his message directly. He's was NOT referring to Paul's followers. That's why you are confused. God was talking about Jesus' LITERAL followers during the messenger's lifetime.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1st bullet... (again I already answered this) The Qur'an confirms that Jesus' companions were true in faith, and would indeed receive their reward. They did not go astray. The messenger's job is to preach the Word clear & true. That's all. "destroy everything Jesus had worked so hard to accomplish" does not compute in an Islamic context.

Kirb Brimstone - @M. Rasheed... Where you do you get the "he messenger's job is to preach the Word clear & true. That's all."

It's not in the Quran. Is it in the Hadith?

Muhammad Rasheed - It's clearly in the Qur'an. lol

Kirb Brimstone - I have read the Quran and I disagree.

Muhammad Rasheed - You've clearly not. You only read those cherry-picked verses from those answeringIslam type sites.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's why you reject all my "context" counter arguments.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's why you seem to think those isolated verses you favor are the Qur'an in its entirety.

Kirb Brimstone - Simply saying "It's clearly in the Qur'an. lol" is not a counter argument.

Show me in the Quran where it claims that all Jesus came to do is preach his word.

Because the Quran CLEARLY calls him the messiah.

The Jews wanted to kill Jesus in fact they boasted that they killed Jesus.

Why would they want to kill him for imply saying "Believe in the Torah."

How do you reconcile these things?

According to the Quran Jesus Followers would be superior until the day of Resurrection. But you say his followers faded away.

You say the Quran meant superior in death. Then why doesn't the Quran say that? It simply says superior. Why should anyone believe your interpretation of the Quran? How do you know it's correct?

I read each verse in context and the meaning remains intact.

I cited Yusif Ali's commentary that agree that the Christians that dominant over the Jews were the Roman Christians.

You have so far ignored that information. Why do your trusted Islamic sources agree with me?

Next up: How the Quran was corrupted.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here:

16:35-36, 16:82, 24:54, 29:18

Kirb Brimstone - LAzy.

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you talking about?

Kirb Brimstone - What are you responding to? M. Rasheed: "Here...some numbers."

Kirb Brimstone - "Here are some verses" isn't good enough. Which verse supports what?

Muhammad Rasheed - Those are the Surah/Ayats to the verses where God said that the messengers' job is to preach the message, to instruct the believers in scripture and wisdom. Dassit.

Those are verses where the relevant item is standalone within them.

Kirb Brimstone - Also I'll talk about how kissing the Kaba and praying towards Mecca are pagan practices that Muhammad incorporated into Islam. And the Quran are a mix of Pagan, Christian, Jewish stories.

Muhammad Rasheed - You may talk about those old "Neil P" items if you like, but it would just create more of that circular reasoning back-n-forth you hate.

Muhammad Rasheed - You know I believe that the Ka'aba was built by Abraham and Ishmael, right? I actually believe it was built by Adam the Patriarch, and rediscovered and rebuilt by Abraham.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Islamic rituals were established originally by the patriarchs at God's command, were adopted by the pagans eventually, and were rescued and returned to the believers by Muhammad. That's my belief system as a Muslim regarding the well-rehearsed rituals of Al-Islam. The fact that Allah either commanded us to perform them, or had no issue with them as the prophet did, means they are purified of pagan taint.

What is your argument that can cause me doubt in this area? Let me hear it.

Kirb Brimstone - M. Rasheed wrote: "You know I believe that the Ka'aba was built by Abraham and Ishmael, right?" 

I know. That simply isn't true.

It a stolen pagan temple. 

Muhammad Rasheed - No, Allah said it was built by His prophets. Disbelievers saying "they don't think so" about an ancient temple they have no way of proving either way doesn't move me.

Muhammad Rasheed - (this guy looks like Brett)

Muhammad Rasheed - Right, so he believes that the pagans built the Ka'aba and the prophet "strong-armed" it from them and that's where it comes from. Allah said otherwise, so why should I believe clone-Brett over the Lord of the worlds?

Muhammad Rasheed - Faux-Brett also believes that it was the Muslims' idea to face the Ka'aba as we pray. lol That's not so. We do so for only one reason: Because the One God of Abraham commanded us to. That's it. It doesn't matter what we think. Iblis had an issue or two with bowing down to the clay being that God intro'd the denizens of paradise to, but it didn't matter what he thought! God said to do it, so Iblis' refusal meant he was a disbeliever who deserved hell. Prove you believe by obeying the Lord who made you. PERIOD.

Thus, I face towards the Ka'aba as I make my formal prayers as a believer.

Muhammad Rasheed - Brett 2.0: "Because Muhammad told you to."

No, because Muhammad's God told the believers to, the prophet did it, and we followed his example also per the command of the One God.

Kirb Brimstone - Idolatry! Muslims bows to pagan temple.

The Pagans before Mohammad traveled to Mecca, they kissed the black stone, the walked around the building.

There is no record anywhere that the Kaaba was anything but pagan temple before Muhammad.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Right, so he believes that the pagans built the Ka'aba and the prophet "strong-armed it from them and that's where it comes from."

Exactly. That's what it is.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Allah said otherwise, so why should I believe clone-Brett over the Lord of the worlds?"

That is what we are debating. Allah (God) said no such thing. A man plagiarizing Christian stories, Jewish fables, and pagan Traditions in order to set himself up as prophet and make Allah a sock puppet that gave him revaluations that conveniently gave him political power, and special privileges regarding sexual partners, and when people can visit him.

The Quran is obviously false.

Muhammad Rasheed - His narrative string regarding those hadith are dismissed. Most of them I don't believe anyway, I certainly don't care about a disbeliever's opinions of them.

Kirb Brimstone - What kind of Muslim are you Muhammad?

Kirb Brimstone - Dismissed by who?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "There is no record anywhere that the Kaaba was anything but pagan temple before Muhammad."

God's Word is the record. He said Abraham built it. Since there is probably no way of ever verifying it scientifically, I will accept the All-Powerful God's Word of the matter as true. I'm pretty sure that will be good enough.

Muhammad Rasheed - Dismissed by me.

Muhammad Rasheed - His opinion of the topic isn't worth addressing.

Kirb Brimstone - Sunni or Shiite?

Muhammad Rasheed - Neither. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His messenger.

Kirb Brimstone - "Dismissed by me." ROFL!!!!

and who are you? Those hadith are trust hadith by Muslim scholars and Muslim community.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm a believer in the One God of Abraham, and as such, I reject falsehood that does not align to the Word of God. Some hadith are real, some are false. I am not interested in addressing fake-Brett's rant regarding literature that doesn't mean anything to me.

So I dismissed it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I waste enough time playing around with you. lol

Kirb Brimstone - Oh boy. typical westernized Muslim.

So you just pick the hadith you like and deny the ones you don't. SMH.

You ignore the common sense understanding of text in favor of a interpretation that follows your invented narrative.

You're right I can't win if you just ignore my evidence and make words mean what they don't mean.

YOu can never come to the truth because you already assume the Quran is the word of God and every contradiction needs to be rationalized. Why? because it's the word of God so it must have a rationalization otherwise why would God say that.

I have one question for you Mo. Why do you believe the Quran is the word of God?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "So you just pick the hadith you like and deny the ones you don't."

No. I accept the ones that align to God's Word, and reject those that do not.

Kirb Brimstone - Why do you believe the Quran is the word of God?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you believe the NT is?

Kirb Brimstone - Answer me first

Muhammad Rasheed - Answer me now.

Kirb Brimstone - I have an answer.

Kirb Brimstone - If I answer will you answer?

Muhammad Rasheed - Of course. I have a soft spot for your foolishness.

Muhammad Rasheed - Haven't I proven that?

Muhammad Rasheed - I keep a literal library of our past dialogues, dude...

Muhammad Rasheed - Go.

Kirb Brimstone - Because all the historical data supports the death and resurrection Jesus Christ. The NT has more manuscripts evidence than any other ancient writing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, that's...

...totally NOT why I believe the Qur'an is the Word of Allah. lol

Muhammad Rasheed - I WAS just going to copy/paste yours. That's what I get for giving you too much credit, I guess. smh

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Kirb Brimstone - We have manuscripts that are dated close to the events that are written by eyewitnesses to the event or interviewed the eye witnesses

Kirb Brimstone - not done yet

Muhammad Rasheed - Meh. I don't care anymore. Now I just want to answer mine.

hahahahhaha

Kirb Brimstone - The NT (particularly the Gospels) are the earliest written biographical texts of the life of Jesus.

Kirb Brimstone - The NT is repeatedly supported by the OT.

Kirb Brimstone - Plus read this and tell me what you think. Isaiah 53

Kirb Brimstone - But read that text and tell me it isn't beautiful.

Kirb Brimstone - Please just tell me your honest thoughts.

Muhammad Rasheed - My first thought is that it leaves a lot of questions.

Kirb Brimstone - You didn't read it.

Kirb Brimstone - Prove it and don't copy and paste.

What questions does it leave? Who is the verse talking about?

Muhammad Rasheed - That's where all my questions are. Who is speaking, and to whom. Who is being referenced in it. All of those types of questions.

Muhammad Rasheed - Reading it feels like I walked in off the street into a movie that was already playing. "What did I miss?"

Kirb Brimstone - lo. So what about that seems corrupted?

Kirb Brimstone - Anything you don't agree with?

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, that "corrupted" item is one of the things I have to address in your R-List. If I ask the question now will you answer it or just duck it?

Kirb Brimstone - Tell me what you disagree with in this verse and I'll answer your questions.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't know enough about the context at the moment to agree/disagree with it. Like I said, it left me with a lot of questions. That's the only real impression I got. I didn't feel pulled in enough to want to know the context, but that may just be residue from the fact that it was you that posted it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Out of the anguish of WHOSE soul, and why is he anguished?

Muhammad Rasheed - It was the will of the Lord to crush who?

Kirb Brimstone - Refresh for the whole chapter. Since I must put it in one post.

Kirb Brimstone - The whole chapter is talking about one person. it was the will of the Lord to crush him because bore the sin of many.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who is the 'us' that's speaking? And who is "the arm of the Lord?"

Kirb Brimstone - Muhammad that is the Gospel the true Gospel as revealed by God.That Jesus who was sinless died for the sins of many.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Who is the 'us' that's speaking?
2.) And who is "the arm of the Lord?"

Kirb Brimstone - Us equals humanity.

Muhammad Rasheed - Humanity wrote this?

Muhammad Rasheed - Who is humanity talking to?

Kirb Brimstone - Te author is telling humanity that Jesus died for all of us.

Kirb Brimstone - You do understand English?

Kirb Brimstone - The verse is about the Messiah.

Muhammad Rasheed - How do you know it's referring to Jesus? Many of the subsequent verses don't lend themselves to that to me.

Kirb Brimstone - Written by a real prophet.

Kirb Brimstone - What verse?

Kirb Brimstone - point them out specifically

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "You do understand English?"

Yes. My questions are being partially answered by someone thoroughly indoctrinated in a specific doctrine who is in too much of a hurry to shove that doctrine down my throat than actually address what I am asking. Since I do not believe in that doctrine, it doesn't answer the questions I have in the narrative for me as it does for him.

Kirb Brimstone - So no?

Muhammad Rasheed - The 3rd verse. How does that apply to Jesus in your doctrine? What part of the story?

Kirb Brimstone -  You don't know how a man who was crucified naked while people shouted absentees at him could be called a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief and be rejected? That the people, his people shouted for his Crucifixion wouldn't be an example of rejected by his people?

Even Quran says the that a portion of Jews rejected him.

The majority of Jews clearly rejected him hence "and we esteemed him not."

You believe it or not wrote: "someone thoroughly indoctrinated in a specific doctrine"

I do love irony but why do you keep attributing your attributes too me?

Both you and the Quran are clueless regarding basic Christian doctrine and history.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, I read 52 before it and 54 after it, and now I see the context. Chapter 53 isn't referring to an individual. It's talking about Jerusalem and its rebirth. How for long years it was abandoned by the Israelites, and scorned by men, abused. But now it was to be purified of disbeliever filth (the way Mecca and the Ka'aba were purified after the Muslims reclaimed it), and raised up to glory once more. That's what this is talking about. It's like a victory song for the nation of Israel.

Muhammad Rasheed - The fact that y'all are trying to shoehorn it into a prophecy about Jesus (and I can certainly see the sloppy evidence of tampering at around 52:13) is just supporting what I said about your myopic indoctrination.

Scripture isn't for one such as you. You are blind to it, and repelled by the true message. I suggest you repent.

Kirb Brimstone - 52 is a different topic.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's the exact same topic.

Kirb Brimstone - Is 51 the same topic?

Kirb Brimstone - No.

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't look at 51 just now, but saw how 52 began, and how the narrative continued over into 53 and 54.

Kirb Brimstone - Can barely read the crime you're not going to start teaching me how to read the Bible. As a matter of fact Jews thought that that text was a forgery because it describe Jesus so much until your favorite topic which you know nothing about the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and it turns out that that predated Jesus Christ.

Muhammad Rasheed - No, because I find you to be unteachable and I wouldn't waste the effort.

Kirb Brimstone - Why started 52? Your exegesis of the Qur'an is like it's just the Bible you make it say what you wanted to say if you read 53 it couldn't be talking about Jerusalem and by the way you're getting the argument wrong it's supposed to be Israel not Jerusalem.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "As a matter of fact Jews thought that that text was..."

They threw away most of their scripture, and prefer to think that only the Law of Moses is 'REAL' scripture. I wouldn't use stuff like that to support your doctrine when talking to me if I were you.

Kirb Brimstone - that by the way is what a real prophecy looks like not the gibberish that you find in the cron that is not in chronological order doesn't actually prophesy anything

Muhammad Rasheed - At the beginning of 52 it says "Jerusalem" by name. So I said "Jerusalem" and not "Israel."

Muhammad Rasheed - So your "by the way" is trash.

Kirb Brimstone - That's correct because 52 is about Jerusalem

Kirb Brimstone - In the same passage it talks about Jerusalem being a sinner and then in 53 if it's Jerusalem Jerusalem sinless it doesn't make any sense so I couldn't be talking about Jerusalem it's what's called a branch Passage in ancient judaic prophetic writings they didn't write like they write today

Muhammad Rasheed - You're the one that wanted me to remark on how "beautiful" it was...

Kirb Brimstone - So the indicated when they change topics and Isaiah and actual profit is not discussing the suffering servant servant that's why most people including a number of Jews understood this to be a Messianic Passage

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, they were wrong.

Kirb Brimstone - If you could give me an exegesis remotely close to what I just said on the Kuran you may win me on the

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not trying to win you, Kirb. I don't think you function that way. You're very hard-headed.

Muhammad Rasheed - You refuse to answer my questions because you don't want to be trapped. We don't have actual conversations/discussions. It's just game-play.

Kirb Brimstone - But the problem is you merely say no no that's not with the Quran means.

The Quran means X.

Well why does the Quran mean X Muhammad?

because it's the word of God

why is it the word of God?

because I say so!

why should I trust what you say?

because I'm talking about the word of God!

It's circular reasoning you don't have any reason to believe that the Qur'an is the word of God.

I noticed you still haven't answered my question why you believe.

I told you the Bible is the word of God because it's historically accurate. I told you the Bible the word of God because it mini cooperating manuscripts more than any other ancient text.

Meanwhile I have these claims that the Quran has been altered even in the Hadith the most trusted Islamic sources versus have been lost in war vs have been lost by goats according to Ayesha his favorite wife.

His father-in-law claims the versus have been lost all his best friends all his surrounding Council of Muhammad claims that the Quran had been destroyed or let people had competing versions of the Quran yet you say It's the word of God.

I say No.

Muhammad Rasheed - If it comes across as if I'm just talking to myself in these exchanges, it's because you refuse to actually engage. Then you complain about it. It's not my fault that your idea of debate is just to copy/paste a canned argument template from AnsweringMuslims, and then get mad if I don't run through the maze the way you imagined I would.

Muhammad Rasheed - Learn your material better, and learn how to argue it against different debate styles.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yourself.

Muhammad Rasheed - And stop leaning on logical fallacies so much. And find some integrity from somewhere.

Kirb Brimstone - Text to talk please refresh it didn't come out right and I accidentally pressed enter before I could at it

Muhammad Rasheed - What part?

Kirb Brimstone - My last post

Muhammad Rasheed - Were you drunk when you were speaking it?

Kirb Brimstone - @Muhammad... obfuscation and lying is not a debate Style. Muhammad poor reasoning isn't debate Style. You think I'm I don't like this because you overwhelmed me or you're too much for me I don't like doing this because I feel a lot of pity for you. Anyone rational person can see that you're not making any sense and when you defend your position so poorly I can tell that you're being dishonest and I really don't want to believe the truth. That makes me sad. It's not something I like to think about

Kirb Brimstone - I'm done with this side track. I will wait for you to respond R1 through R17.

Muhammad Rasheed - I just have R4 thru R18 to go. >:(

Kirb Brimstone - In the meantime I'm going to go Christmas shopping with my family and when I have free time I will write up my case for the Quran a forgery and not the word of God.

Kirb Brimstone - Sure you do.

Muhammad Rasheed - I probably already read it.

Kirb Brimstone - I got new stuff.

Kirb Brimstone - New to me at least

Muhammad Rasheed - I doubt it.

Kirb Brimstone - Seriously why do you believe the Qur'an is the word of God?

Kirb Brimstone - David Wood Proves Scientific Mistake in the Quran and Hadith

Kirb Brimstone - The Quran Plagiarizes False Stories

Kirb Brimstone - 99.99999997% of all Muslims have Never Seen This

Kirb Brimstone - That one is about the textual variations in the Qur'an. Executing stuff!

I know you will not watch them because you are afraid of them but them videos there are pretty much what I am going to speak on.

Muhammad Rasheed - I've argued that stuff with numerous disbelievers for years now and have found their arguments of the same caliber of nonsense as your own. My blog is full of the trophies brought back from those debates.

You're "going to speak on" them where?

Muhammad Rasheed - In your podcast?

Muhammad Rasheed - James White wrote: "Muhammad. Not Uthman. Uthman is not inspired."

That's like saying that one of Jesus' twelve were not inspired. Uthman was one of the prophet's inner circle, and of all the believers in Arabia at the time, he was on the short list of those who would definitely know what right looks like.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Third Rashidun Caliph of Al-Islam was definitely in the position to make sure the Qur'an remained aligned to the prophet's message.

Kirb Brimstone - I doubt you've debated anyone and won. Deacon seemed to win ever encounter you've had.

Kirb Brimstone - Neil P used to trounce you to the point I private messaged him to not be so rough.

I regret that. Seeing how you're brother turned into a bully.

But... uh.. I've never seen you win a debate...well maybe New Era. He just cussed and called your worldview dumb.

Kirb Brimstone - "You're "going to speak on" them where? In your podcast?"

That's a great Idea!

Kirb Brimstone - M. Rasheed wrote: "James White wrote: "Muhammad. Not Uthman. Uthman is not inspired."'

You mean James White said,

Yep. His point is that Uthman who wasn't inspired edited and created a final version of Quran. How can the Muslim know he got it right?

Kirb Brimstone - Question: What methodology do you use to differentiate between good hadith and bad hadith?

Muhammad Rasheed - Uthman didn't create a final version of the Qur'an. He just got rid of the ones in different dialects of Arabic than the prophet's hejaz. He didn't trust the other dialect version because he, like the believers who complained before, feared where it could lead.

Muhammad Rasheed - The good hadith are the ones that support the Qur'an. The bad hadith are the ones that conflict with the Qur'an because someone just made it up for their own agenda.

Muhammad Rasheed - Neil P was my first encounter with an active anti-Islam troll. That battle was very educational. He pushed buttons I didn't know I had, and I agree that I lost that argument, based primarily on not knowing what I was dealing with.

Kirb Brimstone - You finish with R1 through R17 yet?

Kirb Brimstone - FYI you lost to Neil P because Islam is false. You loose to Deacon because Islam is false. You loose to me because Islam is false.

I know It's a hard reality but the good news is the true God has a place for you in his kingdom.

Kirb Brimstone - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "You finish with R1 through R17 yet?"

I finished R1 through R4. I would have completed a few more, but you were harassing me with your 'seven points' and "the beauty of Isaiah 53."

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll dismiss your other two posts because they aren't real.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "Why do you believe the Quran is the word of God?"

Because I read the Qur'an, and found Allah's argument about the string of messengers from Adam to Muhammad, and the ever-enduring cohesiveness of the Message of God to make 100% sense. In comparison, other doctrines stand out as falsehoods in the same way God describes them to be.

Kirb Brimstone - Interesting. What doctrine stands out as falsehoods to you?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "You're right I can't win if you just ignore my evidence and make words mean what they don't mean."

You haven't presented any evidence. You know better than to think the 'Appeal to the People' logical fallacy is evidence for anything. In fact, now that I've found your false Isaiah prophesy is really talking about Jerusalem, your argument is even flimsier than I thought. At first I was actually open to seeing prophesies of Jesus in the OT, because why not? He really was the final messenger in Isaac's line and that IS kinda significant, after-all. But that wasn't a prophesy, and blatant clumsiness of it angers me.

Muhammad Rasheed - The doctrine of worshiping the final Hebrew messenger as a divine demi-god/aspect of the trinity concept. That's the one relevant for our purposes.

Kirb Brimstone - Yeah what you said sounds silly I don't believe that either.

Kirb Brimstone - But I think like your Quran you little bit confused about what Christians actually believe. There's the doctrine of the Incarnation and the doctrine of the trinity. Which of those doctrines do you find false and why?

Muhammad Rasheed - Basically, as a disbeliever, you don't hold anything to offer me that would make me reject the Message of God. I reject your offer of paganism. It offends me.

Muhammad Rasheed - Give me a quick summary of each of them, please.

1.) Incarnation -
2.) Trinity -

Muhammad Rasheed - Your offer to get me to "believe in the Son" only beckons me to hell.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "You ignore the common sense understanding of text in favor of a interpretation that follows your invented narrative."

I've never seen you (nor Deacon) use a 'common sense' approach to understanding either your scripture or mine. You very firmly see it through a heavily-biased doctrinal lens, and will jump through amazing hoops to force it in that way. The fact that you think Isaiah 53 is talking about the Christ after reading Isaiah 52 and 54 is the solid evidence for this observation.

Kirb Brimstone - Dang Muhammad you responding to everything but R1 to R18.

Kirb Brimstone - You ever going to get taxi responding to my actual arguments and not the things I say on the side?

Muhammad Rasheed - My response to R1 has been up there for over a week. You could've responded to it at any time.

Kirb Brimstone - I've already explained to you why I and most people including Jews from the past interpreted that Isaiah 53 as a suffering servant. Not as Jerusalem but is that coming Messiah that can be found the Dead Sea Scrolls this isn't my interpretation this is the interpretation of Jews before Jesus Christ was ever born. You have no such evidence for any of allows self- referencing quasi prophecies

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "I've already explained to you why I..."

Hence my above observation about your 'common sense' aversion.

Kirb wrote: "...and most people..."

The 'Appeal to the People' logical fallacy doesn't mean as much to me as it does to you, Kirb.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's not "evidence."

Kirb Brimstone - But before you sidetrack and focus so hard on on Isaiah 53 that I never posted as an argument but was making a point about how much more beautiful Isaiah sounds in comparison to the Qur'an in English or in Arabic. That's a big deal for the Quran because actual scripture writings Islam claims that the proof that the crown comes from God is the writing itself and how beautiful it is which is preposterous.

Kirb Brimstone - That has nothing to do with my central argument

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn't say it did have anything to do with your central argument, nor have I ever made that one of my argument points. I suggest you spend less time inventing faux-arguments to throw rocks at, and devote yourself to addressing the responses I have made to your central argument that you've ducked thus far.

Kirb Brimstone - You keep misusing the appeal to the people fallacy

Kirb Brimstone - It's only a fallacy when you appeal to an elite that don't have necessary Authority on the subject

Muhammad Rasheed - You keep being disingenuous about it when you say that.

Muhammad Rasheed - The "bandwagon" one is the one I'm referring to in your usage of the fallacy. From your own link.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "...but was making a point about how much more beautiful Isaiah sounds in comparison to the Qur'an in English..."

You're an artist. Are you really trying to make me think that "beauty" of a piece of art is universally appreciated?

Muhammad Rasheed - I find the Olde English speak of the Qur'an to be beautiful and great fun, as well as the Arabic. There were way too many questions for me in Isaiah 53 -- as well as the taint of suspicion generated because of who provided those quotes -- for me to have appreciated the beauty of the prose the way you wished me to anyway.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "YOu can never come to the truth because you already assume the Quran is the word of God and every contradiction needs to be rationalized."

As a believer I don't assume anything. I know it's the truth from the depths of my belief in the material. Nothing you hold outshines it, but your doctrine falls apart at its flimsy seams as truth stands out clear from your manifest error.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "Oh boy. typical westernized Muslim."

lol There's nothing "typical" about me. That's why people like you, who prefer to argue from uncritical pre-packaged scripts you find on the Internet, are always asking me what Islamic sect I subscribe to. I don't believe in sects as I believe in Allah.

Kirb Brimstone - [VIDEO] WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID IS ONE OF THE MOST INSANELY, IDIOTIC THINGS I HAVE EVER HEARD

Kirb Brimstone - I just couldn't help myself I read what you wrote and I immediately thought of that clip LOL. I'm driving and then I gotta do homework with my kids I'll get back to Facebook when I have time

Muhammad Rasheed - ME: That's why people like you, who prefer to argue from uncritical pre-packaged scripts you find on the Internet, are always asking me what Islamic sect I subscribe to.

YOU: What you've just said is one of the most insanely, idiotic things i have ever heard

ALSO YOU: Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said:

GOOGLE:


Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug*

Kirb Brimstone - R4) But… let’s set aside all that for a moment.

You wrote, "No, you got it from the enemies of Allah and His messenger, who boasted that they killed Jesus because they tried to kill Jesus. lol God saved the messenger, and made it appear as if they succeeded so they would not continue to pursue Jesus and his family"

So according to Quran and now you, the enemies of Allah and his messenger passed down a tradition that Jesus died on the cross, correct? According to Quran and now you Allah deceived the “enemies of Allah and his messenger” appear as if they succeeded. Succeeded in what? Crucifixion! So, using some kind of illusion people thought Jesus died. They see the guy again they put 2 and 2 together and they think he rose from the dead. Hence the Christian Church as we know it today.

My point stands strong now by your own confession.

So, the question is, “Why would Allah trick people into believing a lie and thus found a false religion?”

I established that earliest (1st century) Christians believed in Christs deity.

You’ve not shown any record of a Jesus’ Muslim followers. The Quran states clearly in Surah 61:14 that the followers of Christ prevailed over the Jews. The only examples of Christians prevailing over Jews are the “Pauline Christians” who eventually overtook Rome and increased in numbers beyond that of the Jews. Yusuf Ali agrees in his commentaries. The Quran clearly states in Surah 3:55 that the followers of Jesus will be superior until the day of resurrection. The only followers of Jesus that are superior are the ones from the so-called Paul sect of Christianity. Hmmm.

The only response I’ve received is “Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected”

Well I invite anyone to read those passages I quoted because as the Quran says about itself in Surah 11:1 it is clear.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R4) But… let’s set aside all that for a moment."

You don't think you've done enough ducking? It seems like you've already started preparing your latest exit strategy of abandonment.

Kirb wrote: "M. Rasheed wrote: 'No, you got it from the enemies of Allah and His messenger, who boasted that they killed Jesus because they tried to kill Jesus. lol' So according to Quran and now you, the enemies of Allah and his messenger passed down a tradition that Jesus died on the cross, correct?"

You tell me, chief. Between the two of us, which holds the passed down tradition of the crucifixion as a central pillar of our sacred belief system? HINT: I'm the one that rejects falsehood.  ;)

Kirb wrote: Why would Allah trick people into believing a lie and thus found a false religion?”

Allah tricked a savage and blood thirsty mob to prevent them from slaying His messenger. Foolish men in the aftermath of the event gossiped and conjectured over the doubts and began to form the seeds of many false doctrines. Note that the truth of the Lord was also among those available doctrines, and it had enough followers to raise the Christ's hand-picked heir to a place of honor during his lifetime, a state that Jesus himself was denied.

Kirb wrote: "I established that earliest (1st century) Christians believed in Christs deity."

See above referece to 'gossip & conjecture' in the wake of post-crucifixion attempt confusion.

Kirb wrote: "You’ve not shown any record of a Jesus’ Muslim followers."

I've mentioned the well-documented record of james the Just, leader of the First Church of Jerusalem about a million times now.

Kirb wrote: "The Quran states clearly in Surah 61:14 that the followers of Christ prevailed over the Jews."

"The portion" God is talking about among them clearly describe the immediate schisms, and since James and his followers rose to success out of that schism against the disbelievers, as the righteous to enjoy their reward both in this world and in the next.

Kirb wrote: "The only examples of Christians prevailing over Jews are the 'Pauline Christians' who eventually overtook Rome and increased in numbers beyond that of the Jews."

God is not talking about political squabbles between doctrine over the ages. He was referencing the specific incidents that erupted from the companions of Jesus versus the disbelievers:

The Holy Qur'an 61:14
O ye who believe! be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples "Who will be my helpers to the work of Allah?" Said the Disciples "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. 

Kirb wrote: "Yusuf Ali agrees in his commentaries."

So?

Kirb wrote: "The Quran clearly states in Surah 3:55 that the followers of Jesus will be superior until the day of resurrection."

This is very true, in the exact same way the followers of Muhammad during his own lifetime will be superior to those who rejected the message. In the more expanded sense, you are NOT a follower of Jesus, Kirb, you're a follower of Paul. I am a follower of Jesus.

Kirb wrote: "The only followers of Jesus that are superior are the ones from the so-called Paul sect of Christianity."

Nope.

Kirb wrote: "The only response I’ve received is 'Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected.'”

I've given you many responses.

Kirb wrote: "Well I invite anyone to read those passages I quoted because as the Quran says about itself in Surah 11:1 it is clear."

It is indeed, except to those like you who are willfully blind to it.

Kirb Brimstone - R5) The word makr (the actual word used in Arabic Quran 3:54; 7:99; 8:3) according to the Lane’s Arabic Dictionary defines the Arabic word makr: to practice deceit, guile or circumvention and abominable or evil action. You can translate it to plan all you want as long as you know it is plans to deceive.

In fact, Muslim scholar Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub says when he asks, “how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." 

he quotes a renowned Muslim expositor named ar-Razi who wrote, "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." 

But the Quran says Allah is the best makr there is.

Ayoub also quotes one Muslim who actually boasted of Allah being the best conniver/deceiver/schemer etc.,

"Qurtubi observes that some scholars have considered the words ‘best of schemers’ to be one of God’s beautiful names. Thus one would pray, ‘O Best of Schemers, scheme for me!’ Qurtubi also reports that the Prophet used to pray, ‘O God, scheme for me, and do not scheme against me!’ 

One of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad interpreted Q. 8:30:

Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them.

Thus, the Quran unashamedly calls Muhammad’s god the best liar and deceiver of them all! It even dares to say that ALL deception belongs completely to Allah. Surah 13:42

And verily, those before them did deceive/scheme (makara), but all deception/scheming is Allah's (falillahi al-makru). He knows what every person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end. 

So, there is no confusion concerning the fact that this word means that Allah is a deceiver notice how this term is used in the following references:

Surah 2:9 Hilali-Khan:
They (think to) deceive Allah (Yukhadiaaoona) and those who believe, while they only deceive (yakhdaaoona) themselves, and perceive (it) not! 

Surah 8:6 Pickthall
And if they would deceive thee (yakhdaaooka), then lo! Allah is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers, Allah is such a deceiver that you should be afraid!

Surah 7:99 Pickthall:
"Are they then secure from Allah's scheme? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme save folk that perish."

No wonder Abu Bakr the first rightly-guided Caliph and close friend of Muhammed/father in-law said:

“By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.”

To the Christian this is an insult to the Almighty God John 8:44 says,

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Satan is the greatest deceiver not God. So, it is no surprise that Allah tricked and deceived people into believing that Jesus died on the Cross.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R5) The word makr [...] You can translate it to plan all you want as long as you know it is plans to deceive."

Honestly this thread is where your "most idiotic thing I've ever heard" YouTube clip belongs. Are you really trying to make the case that God is abominable and evil because He saved His holy messenger from the insane violence of His disbeliever enemies? From your debates with the Muslims, you all have invented this entire "God is a deceiver" sub-doctrine in order to protect your false crucifixion thing. You're literally slandering the One God of Abraham to protect it; really fishing to make the case that God is evil in order to protect the idea that the literal enemies of God followed through on their desire to torture and kill the holy messenger.

This is the nonsense you keep inviting me to.

Kirb Brimstone - R6) I wrote: "Sad, that Jesus came and failed as a Messiah. I mean what did Jesus really do?"

You wrote: "Allah said the Christ didn't fail at all." 

Really? According Quran 3:3-4 the gospel was given “as a guide to mankind” but as you put it only “faded away” and all his followers followed a strange That’s a failure.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R6) That's a failure."

No. God said that the messengers' job was to preach the message, and He confirmed that they all did that and were successful. What the believers did and what happened to them afterwards is irrelevant.

Kirb Brimstone - R7) What are you talking about? The early Church was a persecuted minority James died a martyr and (assuming you are right) any early so-called early Muslim followers of Jesus died along with him. How is that prevailing?

The Quran says in Surah 61:14
"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "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."

Your response is: "James the Just, the hand-picked heir of the Christ's message (who was actually more famous than his anointed big brother during the time period), was the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem, whose group was a major force to contend with. He and his followers were definitely Muslim, as they practiced the uncompromising monotheistic religion taught to them by the Christ himself."

Major force to contend with? Popular? The Quran says, “We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed”

Prevailed in what? A popularity contests? Well they lost according to actual history any followers of Jesus were persecuted minority. That is until Rome. That is why Yusuf Ali's commentary, footnote 5448 says:

"A portion of the Children of Israel - the ones that really cared for Truth - believed in Jesus and followed his guidance. But the greater portion of them were hard hearted, and remained in their beaten track of formalism and false racial pride. The majority SEEMED at first to have the upper hand when they thought they had crucified Jesus and killed his Message. But they were soon brought to their senses. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70 and the Jews have been scattered ever since. "The Wandering Jew" has become a bye-word in many literatures. On the other hand, those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races withing their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world until the advent of Islam...."

Side note: You keep asserting the followers of James were Muslim. Any evidence to back this up?

Because historically Paul and James preached the same gospel

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R7) What are you talking about?"

1.) Surah 61:14 - "But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed."
2.) James the Just was the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem, whose group was a major force to contend with.

What's the problem? The enemies of God tried to kill the messenger, but the followers of the Christ ended up prevailing.

Kirb wrote: "Prevailed in what?"

Spreading the message, and building the community of believers. What else?

Kirb wrote: "You keep asserting the followers of James were Muslim. Any evidence to back this up? Because historically Paul and James preached the same gospel"

The followers of James were uncompromising monotheists who worshiped only God, not Jesus. Paul and his followers were doctrinally opposed to that of James, and worshiped Jesus as divine. The followers of James referred to Paul as "The Liar."

Kirb Brimstone - R8) Why don’t you quote the actual Quran? The Quran is clear in Surah Quran 3:55

"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."

You’re response: "Those who dedicate themselves to belief in the One God who made them are inherently superior to those who do not." 

That’s not what the Quran says. Wouldn’t a those who dedicate themselves to belief in the One God simply be any Muslim? Why not just say the Muslim will be superior till the day of resurrection? It doesn’t, instead it specifically says those who follow Jesus. But the Gospels got corrupted and we needed the Quran and the Christians followed Paul etc. etc. The actual followers of Jesus’ failed in getting out Allah’s word like the Muslim Jesus. The same failed Messiah who chose poorly in his followers who either led astray by Paul or failed to carry his message.

So far Islam equals failed Messiah deceptive God. Thank the Lord Jesus I do not have such problems.

You go on to say: "they will thus remain in that superior position over the enemies of truth till the Resurrection."

And what is this superior position? In an unseen spiritual way! Convenient. Heck of a promise Allah gives Jesus. Some scheme.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R8) Wouldn’t a those who dedicate themselves to belief in the One God simply be any Muslim? Why not just say the Muslim will be superior till the day of resurrection? It doesn’t, instead it specifically says those who follow Jesus."

Those who followed Jesus were Muslims. They bowed down in worship to the same God Jesus himself bowed down in worship to, with zero compromise. You're allowing your doctrinal biases to blind you from the obvious.

Kirb Brimstone - R9) Quran 6:114-115

"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all."

M. Rasheed wrote: “'The Book, explained in detail' He's referring to is the Qur'an.”

Sure, I grant you that fully. In Surah 6:114 the Quran says, “He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book” You say it’s talking about the Quran? Okay.

But the important point I am making is found in Surah 6:115 to show that the Quran clearly says, “The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words”

It doesn’t say the Quran or the Book. It says, “his words.” Plural.

So the question is, “Is the Torah and the Gospel the words of Allah according to the Quran. More on this later.

You said: “when truth & justice are so achieved in any circumstance, God's Word is manifest.”

Okay if the words of Allah were manifested anywhere else then: “None can change His words”

The Quran is clear.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R9) But the important point I am making is found in Surah 6:115 to show that the Quran clearly says, 'The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words'”

Right. When they tried to change His message in the past, God just revealed more revelation to confirm & fullfil what came before, and correct the falsehood they tried to cover it with. None can chnage it as God is greater than their effort.

Kirb wrote: "It doesn’t say the Quran or the Book. It says, 'his words.' Plural."

Huh? You know the Qur'an has more than one word in it, right? You quoted at LEAST a dozen of them yourself.

Kirb Brimstone - R10) 'And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.'"

M. Rasheed said: "Here God is talking directly to the prophet, so the 'none can change His Words' part is referring to no one can change them on the revelation route from God, through the angel, to Muhammad (pbuh)."

Wow. Shame Allah’s power to preserve his words stops at Gabriel. As soon as Muhammad get’s it anyone can change it. Is that what you’re saying?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R10) Wow. Shame Allah’s power to preserve his words stops at Gabriel. As soon as Muhammad get’s it anyone can change it. Is that what you’re saying?"

No, I'm saying God was giving comfort to the prophet to be at ease; for him to accept what was being revealed to him as the Truth from none other than the Lord of the worlds. In that verse's specific context, that's what "none can change it" meant.

Kirb Brimstone - R11) You wrote: “The current form of the Torah is what is left of the original Law of Moses, now the watered-down memories of the ancient revealed scripture.” 

That’s just not what the Quran says: “It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind,”

I hope we can agree that Allah isn’t sending anyone else’s words. The Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) and thus cannot be changed.

You wrote: “The four Gospels of the NT are not the revelation of God even if I were to pretend they were actually the writings of the men whose names they bear.”

So Men changed the The Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)?

You wrote: "The actual Gospel -- the revealed message spoken by Jesus to the children of Israel was never collected in written form, and is conspicuously absent from the NT writings collection."

That’s not what the Quran says: Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.”

What book? The Jews and Christians are the people of The Book. How can we be people of a Book that never was?

The Quran also says in Surah 7:157Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures)—in the Law and the Gospel— . . . it is they who will prosper.

Do you know what the word scripture means? Religious writing.

You wrote: “Those writings were derived from things Jesus said, several times filtered through many people until they got to this form.” 

Do you know what you call filtering something till it takes a different form? Change. Again, did men change the word of Allah?

These radical interpretation does violence to the Quran. As the Quran describes itself in Surah 41:3 

“A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;” and in Surah 11:1 “A Book whose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware” and according to Surah 16:89: “And We have sent down on thee the Book making clear everything, and as a guidance and a mercy, and as good tidings to those who surrender.”

What you’re saying doesn’t sound very clear.

You wrote: “Jesus' message was carried over by James' camp, until it faded away to be resurrected anew in the Qur'an.”

What you describe is a failed Jesus whose followers died out in the first century (whom we have no record of historically) that worshiped a God who couldn’t keep his word safe and waited until 600 years later to correct this false religion his accidently started by being a trickster.

Sad your god can’t stop his word from fading. Get a bigger God. Come home to Jesus.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R11) That’s just not what the Quran says."

God said He sent down to the prophet the Qur'an, which confirms the messages sent down to previous messengers, just as He sent down the revelation to Moses and Jesus. Again, God is specifically referencing the pure revelation He sent to the prophets, not the books you hold today. You are wrong. The Qur'an is saying exactly what I explained.

Kirb wrote: "I hope we can agree that Allah isn’t sending anyone else’s words."

We can agree to the concept in the abstract, but your own understanding of it is suspect.

Kirb wrote: "The Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) and thus cannot be changed."

The pure message was indeed not changed, as it can be found once again in the Qur'an, as originally revealed to the prophets of olde. The ever-enduring message of God has thus remained consistent due to Allah's faithfulness in making sure new prophets were anointed, and new revelation was sent down for the task.

Kirb wrote: "So Men changed the The Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)?"

No, because you can find those messages unchanged within the Qur'an, the final revelation.

Kirb wrote: "That’s not what the Quran says.”

Sure it is. The message of "all the revelation" is firmly within the Qur'an. Everything the previous prophets preached for the believers to be saved from the Pit. So unless you are using that message, you have no ground to stand upon.

Kirb wrote: "What book?"

The revealed message of God you were supposed to be guarding.

Kirb wrote: "The Jews and Christians are the people of The Book."

We are all People of the Book, but in this verse's context, God is talking to you, yes.

Kirb wrote: "How can we be people of a Book that never was?"

"That never was" is a strawman effigy. You lost your book, through the sloppiness and deceits of previous generations' actions. As a self-professed believer in the One God, it is your job to seek out the pure message from your Lord, a message that is found within the Qur'an.

Kirb wrote: "Again, did men change the word of Allah?"

Again, the Word of Allah is unchanged as it is found in its pure form within the Qur'an.

Kirb wrote: "These radical interpretation does violence to the Quran."

You realize that you're actually trying to convince me that the Qur'an believes Jesus is a god, right? Despite the many verses where God point blank sets the record straight and says Jesus is NOT divine? Your effort to make this point is the violent radical interpretation.

Kirb wrote: "What you’re saying doesn’t sound very clear."

It's very clear to me. It's unclear to those willfully blind to the truth. You insist upon looking at it through the lens of the pauline doctrine, which twists everything into a mess of ridiculous confusion (see: your reading of Isaiah 53).

Kirb wrote: “What you describe is a failed Jesus..."

The One God of Abraham confirmed that Jesus did NOT fail. You are directly contradicting the Word of the All-Mighty Supreme Creator.

Kirb wrote: "...whose followers died out in the first century (whom we have no record of historically)"

Who is this "we"?

Kirb wrote: "...that worshiped a God..."

They worshiped THE God.

Kirb wrote: "...who couldn’t keep his word safe..."

Meanwhile He always kept His Word safe in new revelation sent down for precisely that very reason.

Kirb wrote: "...and waited until 600 years later to correct this false religion his accidently started by being a trickster. Sad your god can’t stop his word from fading. Get a bigger God. Come home to Jesus."

Here.  Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. I read what you wrote and I immediately thought of that clip you posted the other day. LOL (far more appropriate here!)

Kirb Brimstone - R12.) You wrote: "God sent down the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus. These were the pure and unfiltered Word of God," 

So, you agree. The Torah and the Gospel are the words of God! Excellent. I hope you agree with the Quran that they can’t be changed.

You wrote: "The work we call 'Torah' today doesn't sound like that, but was obviously written later by people talking ABOUT Moses' adventures." 

Oh, what you’re saying is the Torah that Allah revealed is not the same as the Torah we have today. So, they changed the Torah. So, Allah’s words can be changed?

You wrote: “And again, the Gospel of Jesus is a lost Book, with only the fumes of its memory present in the NT's writings collection.”

Oh, what you’re saying is the Gospel Allah revealed to Jesus is not the same as the Gospel we have today. So, they changed it the Torah. So, you disagree with the Quran then, Allah’s words can be changed?

I guess the Quran is up for grabs. Perhaps the Umar took what Muhammed said and gave us a different Quran. Maybe the Quran we have today is only fumes of what Allah gave Muhammed?

Thank the Lord Jesus! I don’t have that problem.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R12.) "Thank the Lord Jesus! I don’t have that problem."

lol The Words of God are with God. He sent them down to humanity as a Guide, and had done so countless times since Adam the Patriarch walked the earth. The Words of God cannot be changed because God is All-Powerful; who can change the Words God holds? He revealed His Word to the messengers as needed, and now the canon is complete. There will be no more revelation into the body of sacred scripture. Knowing this, the early Muslims were wise enough to guard the final revelation with the seriousness the previous People of the Book conspicuously lacked. Consequently, the Qur'an is the only revealed scripture of God on earth, and it is miraculously still in its holy state. Glory be to Allah! Lord of the worlds!

Kirb Brimstone - R13.) You wrote: “Kirb wrote: "Yep. Torah and the Gospel is the word of Allah."

"There is no evidence supporting this statement.”

What?? Now you are all over the place. You just said, “God sent down the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus. These were the pure and unfiltered Word of God” you literally just wrote that.

Besides the Quran says in Surah 3:3-4:
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).


Is Allah sending someone else’s words down?

Kirb wrote: "Which leads me to wonder something else if Allah failed and his words was corrupted then why did he send Christians to a corrupted book?"

With the Qur'an among us... having confirmed, fulfilled and realigned the previous scripture back to the Path... obviously Allah did NOT fail in keeping His Word safe. That's what the cycle of new messengers and new revelation was all about,

You know what’s crazy? Neither the Quran nor the Muslim sources mention anything about a cycle of messengers. This is stuff you are making up whole cloth. Listen to how Muslim Expositors understand Surah, 6:115

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs : Perfected is the Word of thy Lord) the Qur'an, detailing the commands and prohibitions (in truth) in His speech (and justice) from Him. (There is naught that can change His words) the Qur'an; it is also said that this means: the Word of your Lord has prescribed that His friends shall triumph. He is truthful in His speech and just in that which shall come. Nothing can change His words about His giving help to His friend. It is also said that this means: the religion of your Lord is now manifest, people truthfully believe that it is Allah's religion. Allah's command is just and nothing will ever change His religion. (He is the Hearer) of their speech, (the Knower) of them and their works.

And

Tafsir al-Tabari : The word of God meant in this verse is the Quran. This word is complete in truth and justice. Nothing can change Allah’s word which he revealed in his BOOKS. The liars cannot add or delete from Allah’s BOOKS. This is referring without a doubt to the Jews and Christians because they are the people of the books which were revealed to their prophets. Allah is revealing that the words they (the people of the book) are corrupting were not revealed by Allah, but Allah’s word cannot be changed or substituted.

A group of Muslim scholars even used Surah 6:115 to prove that books such as the Torah could never be corrupted since they are the revealed words of Allah.

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351
On the other side, another party of hadith and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. 

This is the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmael Al-Bukhari who said in his hadith collection:

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it.”

Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said:

“There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except Allah. It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his messenger (Muhammad) to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this command from their copies, that is why they covered up the stoning verse while they were reading it to the prophet. It was then when Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the Jews.”

Also, whenever the prophet would ask them (the Jews) concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were not able to remove them either, and they would respond by stating that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet in their Torah.

Abu Dawood narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:

A group of Jewish people invited the messenger of Allah to a house. When he came, they asked him: O Abu Qassim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman, what is your judgment against him? So they placed a pillow and asked the messenger of Allah to set on it. Then the messenger of Allah proceeded to say: bring me the Torah. When they brought it, he removed the pillow from underneath him and placed the Torah on it and said: I BELIEVE IN YOU AND IN THE ONE WHO REVEALED YOU, then said: bring me one of you who have the most knowledge. So they brought him a young man who told him the story of the stoning.

The scholars said: if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you.

This group of scholars also said: Allah said:

Surah 6:115"And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." 

And the Torah is Allah’s word.” [End quote]

You wrote: “the phoenix-like rebirth of the ever-enduring Word of Allah. But now the cycle is complete, and the canon of sacred scripture is secure for the ages.”

Do you know what is the opposite of enduring? Dying. Do you know what phoenixes do? Die. Sounds like the Quran is a Hindu.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R13.) What?? Now you are all over the place. You just said, 'God sent down the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus. These were the pure and unfiltered Word of God' you literally just wrote that."

I did, because it's true. The tragedy is that the people they preached those messages to did not protect and guard what they had, and God had to reveal new revelation so His unchanging Word would remain on earth as a guide.

Kirb wrote: "Besides the Quran says in Surah 3:3-4: 'It is He Who sent down to thee...'"

"Thee" being the prophet Muhammad.

Kirb wrote: "...(step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it..."

That's the Qur'an being referenced of course, as it confirms the message God sent down before, just as each revelation confirmed what came before in the time-honored fashion.

Kirb wrote: "Is Allah sending someone else’s words down?"

What you all did with the message, or didn't do with His message, once received has nothing to do with what the prophets themselves received and preached. In fact, using the facts of history as the judge, this was the perfect case of the "pearls cast before swine" saying.

Kirb wrote: "You know what’s crazy? Neither the Quran nor the Muslim sources mention anything about a cycle of messengers."

This post is you admitting you've never read the Qur'an.

Kirb wrote: "This is stuff you are making up whole cloth."

Your willful ignorance about the material has nothing to do with me.

Kirb wrote: "Listen to how Muslim Expositors understand Surah, 6:115."

Both sections posted align to my understanding of the verse.

Kirb wrote: "A group of Muslim scholars even used Surah 6:115 to prove that books such as the Torah could never be corrupted since they are the revealed words of Allah."

They would be correct in that the revelation in question is intact within the Qur'an itself. God quotes what He told Moses, so let there be no doubt of the truth.

Kirb wrote: "Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said: 'There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars.'"

lol I guess you missed that line, huh?

Kirb wrote: "This group of scholars also said..."

hahahaha Based on your quote directly above that, my only possible response is: "So what?" Obviously you care about their "difference of opinins" more than I do, since I'm indifferent to both their opinions of the matter, and the point you want so hard to make. lol

Kirb wrote: "You wrote: 'the phoenix-like rebirth of the ever-enduring Word of Allah. But now the cycle is complete, and the canon of sacred scripture is secure for the ages.' Do you know what is the opposite of enduring? Dying. Do you know what phoenixes do? Die."

You know what's the opposite of dying? Rebirth. Do you know what else phoenixes do? They are reborn.

Kirb wrote: "Sounds like the Quran is a Hindu."

Why do you say that, Kirb?

Kirb Brimstone - R14) Allah tells Moses that the unlettered prophet will be found in the gospel? The Gospel has not yet been revealed at Moses' time, nobody was able to find anything in this nonexistent gospel.

Muhammad Rasheed - The verse you quoted was God's paraphrased retelling of something He told Moses. You don't think the All-Knowing God was in a position to tell a past prophet what would be in the future scripture?

Do you even believe, bro?

Anyway, the mention was when Jesus told his companions that the Paraclete was coming after him. That was the Gospel's mention of the unlettered prophet, and there were probably many more besides, but we don't know since you all didn't painstakingly collect all of Jesus' sayings.

Kirb Brimstone - R15) I wrote: "Now how could Christians find Muhammad in their corrupted Gospel centuries after the Council of Nicea?"

You wrote: “Because before the rise of Islam, the envious among the People of the Book had no reason to fear the concept of a new prophet being prophesied, because each of them assumed such a figure would belong to their own camp -- the Jews assumed 'that prophet' would be a Jew, and the Christians assumed he would be a Christian. It wasn't until the rise of Al-Islam, and centuries of our epic debates, did the theologians guarding the previous scriptures decide to downplay and eventually remove altogether the doctrine of a newly-arriving prophet.”

This doesn’t begin to answer my question. According to Surah 7:157 Christians can find a prophecy about Muhammad. How can they trust much less find anything in a book that’s corrupted?

Before you say that this is a future prophecy given to a man who couldn’t understand it because it’s about a book that hasn’t been written yet and according to you will never will be thus making it a false prophesy) why would Allah bother even mentioning a prophecy that no one could confirm? Think about it in the 7th century the only place a person can find the prophecy about Muhammad is on recitations Muhammad was reciting. Lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R15) This doesn’t begin to answer my question."

Of course it does. The Nicene Council had no reason to cover that Paraclete part up, therefore you'd still be able to find it in your book. Before Islam, Christians believed the comforter was the prophesized arrival of "that prophet" mentioned in Deut 18. The corruption was the reinterpretation of who Jesus was referring to as "Paraclete," then y'all's entire rap changed.

Kirb wrote: "According to Surah 7:157 Christians can find a prophecy about Muhammad. How can they trust much less find anything in a book that’s corrupted?"

You can trust God. If He said it's still in there, then it's still in there.

Kirb wrote: "...why would Allah bother even mentioning a prophecy that no one could confirm?"

You're asking me why the All-Powerful, All-Knowing God decides to do anything? Is that supposed to be a question? That's something I'm used to atheists asking me. You're officially the only so-called Christian that asks me retarded questions like that, so I'll assume this is more of your pre-packaged scripts you found somewhere. I would imagine that if you literally knew EVERYTHING! you would often speak in "prophecy talk" when you bothered to speak to mortals, but that's only wild speculation on my part. I'm positive God has His reasons for doing what He does. My job is just to believe.

Kirb wrote: "Think about it in the 7th century the only place a person can find the prophecy about Muhammad is on recitations Muhammad was reciting. Lol"

I don't understand why you are directing the "Lol" towards me. I believe Deut 18 in the Pentateuch, and the Paraclete comment attributed to the Christ in the NT are specifically referring to the prophet Muhammad. The incredulous confusion is only on your side of the argument.

Kirb Brimstone - R16) I wrote: "Why is Allah sending us to our corrupted Gospels?"

You replied: “He's actually not. 'Let the people of the Gospel (Christians) judge by what Allah hath revealed therein (The contents of the Gospel)'”

How do you judge the contents of a book without going to it? In other words, how can Allah tell 7th century Christians to judge a book that doesn’t exist/faded away/got corrupted?

The answer is whoever wrote the Quran Jews and Christians had their scripture intact. That’s why the Quran sends people there. The people is modern Muslims who actually have access to the Bible can see the Quran can’t be confirmed so they go against eh Quran and say, “Uuuuh, it’s been corrupted!”

That is why you can find nothing Quran talking about the corruption of the Torah and Gospel.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R16) 'Let the people of the Gospel (Christians) judge by what Allah hath revealed therein (The contents of the Gospel)' How do you judge the contents of a book without going to it? In other words, how can Allah tell 7th century Christians to judge a book that doesn’t exist/faded away/got corrupted?"

If God tells you do judge by what He "revealed therein" in the book you hold, then by default "corrupted" doesn't mean the entire book is wrong. It means selections of it are wrong, but you can still find truth within it. You're taking an extremist position to force a point.

Kirb wrote: "That is why you can find nothing Quran talking about the corruption of the Torah and Gospel."

Oh, really? So even though the Qur'an point blank says Jesus was not divine, nor was he crucified, but the NT DOES say he was crucified and divine, you don't think that represents the Qur'an talking about corruption in the previous book? That when the Qur'an says that God instructed the children of Israel in a dietary law that was the exact same as the one He gave the Muslims, but says the Hebrews under their own initiative gave themselves MORE dietary restrictions that God never gave them, you don't think that represents the Qur'an talking about corruption in the previous book?

Remember when you claimed to have read the Qur'an in its entirety?  Okay, that was a lie. You confirm again and again the only Qur'an you have ever read were these isolated verses that you find packaged in these missionary arguments you've picked up from those anti-islam sites.

Kirb Brimstone - R17) You wrote: "You're missing the relevance of the 'and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord' part."

No you’re missing the point! You can’t stand fast on books that are corrupted or missing. If the Quran agreed with you that the

You wrote: He's telling you to accept ALL the revelation as truth, which is the Muslim's position "BELIEF IN THE BOOKS."

Again, how can you accept ALL of something when 2/3 of that thing is missing? How can you accept a book you don’t have?

You wrote: “That means by default that the Qur'an confirms, fulfills and abrogates the previous scriptures as it corrects those areas they were allowed to stray.”

Nope. It only means that the Quran wants a certain to stand upon the Torah and Gospel. You can’t do that if the Torah and Gospel was sullied to the point it is nothing more than the “watered down memories of the ancient revealed scripture.”

Everything you have written is doing violence to the Quran as you are infusing intentions and meanings that clearly aren’t there.

The Quran claims to be clear, but your interpretation seems to make it as unclear as a crossword puzzle.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "No you’re missing the point!"

Your point is an extremist position that doesn't make any sense outside of what you are feebly attempting to force it to mean for your agenda. You CAN miss me with it, as the kids say.

Kirb wrote: "You can’t stand fast on books that are corrupted or missing."

He told you to stand fast on the parts He revealed that are still within it. That means the corruption isn't total, and there is still some good within you. If the corruption were total, God would not say in the Qur'an that the People of the Book are His people.

Kirb wrote: "If the Quran agreed with you that the (You wrote:) 'He's telling you to accept ALL the revelation as truth, which is the Muslim's position 'BELIEF IN THE BOOKS.'" Again, how can you accept ALL of something when 2/3 of that thing is missing? How can you accept a book you don’t have?" 

"Accept ALL of" is a strawman effigy. What He SAID was to judge by what He revealed within what you hold. Which means you'll have to actually discern between the truth and the falsehood that you have grown used to holding side-by-side in the scripture in your midst.

Kirb wrote: "Nope."

Yup.

Kirb wrote: "Everything you have written is doing violence to the Quran as you are infusing intentions and meanings that clearly aren’t there."

How would you know?

Kirb wrote: "The Quran claims to be clear..."

And it is quite clear.

Kirb wrote: "...but your interpretation seems to make it as unclear as a crossword puzzle."

That's because, for one, you aren't even trying to understand it. And for two:

The Holy Qur'an 2:170-171
170. When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?
171. The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom. 

Kirb Brimstone - R18) I wrote: "If any of this is causing some doubts..." You Wrote: “Not even remotely.”

That’s sad. I hope you continue to think deeper on this. 

I quoted Surah 10:94. 

You wrote “In the verses before this, God recaps what happened during the Exodus adventures, so that's why He's telling the prophet to confirm with the doctors of the Law if he has doubts that this was really coming from God and not an over-active imagination.”

How can the people of the Book (Jews and Christian confirm that the message is from Allah if they don’t have the revelation of Allah? 

Muhammed clearly this flawed book can’t come from the perfect one God. 

Please, I implore you to pray to God to reveal himself to you. Pray that He reveal whether he is the God found in the Quran or the God found in the Bible. You don’t even have to tell me you did it. But let go of this false religion that blasphemes God. Calls him a deceiver and makes God a mere man. 

By the way you’re right Muhammed can be found in the Bible. 

Look at Matthew 7:15 – 17 and 1 John 2:18-25

Christians should have said to Muhammad, "Ah ha! We've been waiting for you."

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirb wrote: "R18) I wrote: 'If any of this is causing some doubts...' You Wrote: 'Not even remotely.' That’s sad. I hope you continue to think deeper on this."

These pre-packaged arguments you found are for "cultural Muslims" that aren't even practicing the faith, let alone have actually cracked open the Qur'an and studied it. You haven't presented anything that challenges me in my belief in Islam, and in fact, I find your presentation deceitful, ham-fisted, and often stupid as it relies on logical fallacies an embarrassing number of times.

Kirb wrote: "How can the people of the Book (Jews and Christian confirm that the message is from Allah if they don’t have the revelation of Allah?"

You know about the Exodus story from your own book, right? Then obviously the idea that the whole book is corrupted isn't coming from the Qur'an, but from the forced extremist position you are only taking to promote your agenda. And you look silly while you're doing it.

Kirb wrote: "Muhammed clearly this flawed book can’t come from the perfect one God."

Perhaps you should actually try reading it for yourself, and forming your own original arguments actually tailored towards me? Or you can continue tainting your witness and looking like a plagiarizing damned fool every single time you challenge me in these things. #UpToYou




See Also:

The Return of Kirb Brimstone

RESPONSE - Former Muslim Turned Christian Conversion Tale

Breaking Down Liberalism with Charles Mills

Logos Your Way & I Goes Mine

The Truth About "Islamic" Slavery

Debunking the Debunking: Yes, the GOP is Racist

Deep Space Exploration - Planet #1818: Kirby's World

Killing Blacks For Fun & Profit