The Bible of Christianity has different versions and remains under modification and revision from time to time.
The Quran of Islam has one single version from the time of Prophet Muhammad up till this moment, for the last forteen centuries. All the copies of the Quran are the same: no word more and no word less.
Which book is more divine: a book that has many different versions and is subjected to continual revision or an unchangeble book? Which is more godly and divine: the Bible or the Quran? Let us assume that you do not know either. Just judge on the basis of changeability and variety of versions of the Bible versus the unchangeability and oneness of the version of the Quran. Which is the book of God: the Bible, which changes through time, OR the Quran, which has remained as it was revealed?
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Original Language
Christianity says that the gospel of Matthew was originally written by Matthew in Hebrew. But this Hebrew original exists nowhere; it has been lost forever. What exists is a translation of that lost original.
Islam says that the original language of the Book of Islam i.e., the Quran, is Arabic. The Arabic Quran was and has always been available in Arabic since it was revealed about fourteen centuries ago.
With the authenticity criterion, which is more reliable: a book with a lost original or a book with an available original? What would you choose as more dependable?
Islam says that the original language of the Book of Islam i.e., the Quran, is Arabic. The Arabic Quran was and has always been available in Arabic since it was revealed about fourteen centuries ago.
With the authenticity criterion, which is more reliable: a book with a lost original or a book with an available original? What would you choose as more dependable?
Who Made the Choice?
Christianity says that there were scores of gospels one day, but the church selected four of them, i.e., the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The other gospels were banned or burnt or destroyed.
Islam says that there has always been one single version of the Holy Quran and no similar process of selection was ever made or needed.
On what basis did the church make its choice? Why those four gospels in particular? Why not three or five or ten gospels? Why not the other gospels? Who had the right to select and eliminate gospels? Who gave him that right? If the gospels were God's word, why would some of them be ruled out?
As you may feel, which is more reliable; a religion, the books of which are chosen by voting or religion, the book of which is revealed by God? Let us accept what each religion says as for granted and then judge each accordingly. You stand as an objective neutral evaluator or judge. Forget that you are whatever you are for a moment and decide objectively.
Islam says that there has always been one single version of the Holy Quran and no similar process of selection was ever made or needed.
On what basis did the church make its choice? Why those four gospels in particular? Why not three or five or ten gospels? Why not the other gospels? Who had the right to select and eliminate gospels? Who gave him that right? If the gospels were God's word, why would some of them be ruled out?
As you may feel, which is more reliable; a religion, the books of which are chosen by voting or religion, the book of which is revealed by God? Let us accept what each religion says as for granted and then judge each accordingly. You stand as an objective neutral evaluator or judge. Forget that you are whatever you are for a moment and decide objectively.
Contradictions
The four gospels of the New Testament show hundreds of disagreements on the same incidents although the church says that they are God's word.
The Quran, God's word according to Islam, shows no internal disagreements or contradictions.
For the sake of argument and by handling one issue at a time, let us take what each side says as for granted. Which, to you, sounds more divine: the New Testament which includes hundreds of inter-gospel disagreements or the Quran which has no internal inconsistencies? Churchmen says that the gospel disagreements are due to differences in human reporting. But remember that the gospels are not human reports, as they claim. According to the Church, they are God's word and revelation. How can the gospels contradict one another if they are God's word? They cannot be God's word and human reports at the same time.
Which do you accept as God's pure word: the New Testament with its four contradictory gospels or the Quran with its invariable consistency?
The Quran, God's word according to Islam, shows no internal disagreements or contradictions.
For the sake of argument and by handling one issue at a time, let us take what each side says as for granted. Which, to you, sounds more divine: the New Testament which includes hundreds of inter-gospel disagreements or the Quran which has no internal inconsistencies? Churchmen says that the gospel disagreements are due to differences in human reporting. But remember that the gospels are not human reports, as they claim. According to the Church, they are God's word and revelation. How can the gospels contradict one another if they are God's word? They cannot be God's word and human reports at the same time.
Which do you accept as God's pure word: the New Testament with its four contradictory gospels or the Quran with its invariable consistency?
Authenticity
Jesus' language was Aramaic as proven in "Eli, Eli, lama sa - batcha - ni" (Matt. 27:46). But this sentence was the only Aramaic sentence reported about Jesus. No gospel is available in Aramaic. The exact Aramaic words of Jesus are lost.
Muhammad's language was Arabic. All that Muhammad said is available in Arabic, the original language which he spoke.
Here you have two persons. Jesus spoke Aramaic and nothing is reported about him in Aramaic. What we have is only translations of lost originals. Muhammad spoke Arabic and all that is reported about him is in the same language which he spoke. Which reports are more authentic in your opinion: those about Jesus or those about Muhammad? Just decide on the basis of one factor at a time. Which reports sound more authentic? What would happen to reports translated from originals that no more exist?
Muhammad's language was Arabic. All that Muhammad said is available in Arabic, the original language which he spoke.
Here you have two persons. Jesus spoke Aramaic and nothing is reported about him in Aramaic. What we have is only translations of lost originals. Muhammad spoke Arabic and all that is reported about him is in the same language which he spoke. Which reports are more authentic in your opinion: those about Jesus or those about Muhammad? Just decide on the basis of one factor at a time. Which reports sound more authentic? What would happen to reports translated from originals that no more exist?
Sunday, April 29, 2007
50,000 Mistakes:
Christian scholars admit that the Bible has a number of mistakes ranging between 30,000 to 50,000 depending on individual judgements. They talk about mistakes in dates, scientific facts, geography, history, and international inconsistencies.
Muslim scholars say that thier Book, the Quran, has not a single mistake.
Let us accept each party for what they say. Which do you choose for God's word: the Bible or the Quran? You decide for yourself. Do you accept a book with 50,000 mistakes to be God's book? You decide and you choose.
(to be continued)
Muslim scholars say that thier Book, the Quran, has not a single mistake.
Let us accept each party for what they say. Which do you choose for God's word: the Bible or the Quran? You decide for yourself. Do you accept a book with 50,000 mistakes to be God's book? You decide and you choose.
(to be continued)
Scientific Facts:
The book of Christianity, i.e., the Bible, contradicts scientific facts on many occasions. For example, on the first page of the Bible (Gen 1:5), it is mentioned that God created light and morning and evening on the first day of creation. It goes on to say that He created the moon, the sun, and the stars on the fourth day (Gen 1:14). How could there be light and morning and evening on the first day when the sources of light were created three days later?
Another example is that water was created on the first day of creation according to the Bible (Gen 1:2) when science affirms that the universe began as a gaseous nebula. How could gas carry oceans of water?
Cases of Biblical contradictions to science prove that the Bible, as it is now, is not God's word, because God knows the facts about the universe which He created.
The Book of Islam, i.e., the Quran, does not contradict scientific facts at all. In fact, it includes facts which have not been known to man until recently.
Which is God's word in your opinion: a book that contradicts scientific facts OR a book that affirms them? Please, think and choose.
Another example is that water was created on the first day of creation according to the Bible (Gen 1:2) when science affirms that the universe began as a gaseous nebula. How could gas carry oceans of water?
Cases of Biblical contradictions to science prove that the Bible, as it is now, is not God's word, because God knows the facts about the universe which He created.
The Book of Islam, i.e., the Quran, does not contradict scientific facts at all. In fact, it includes facts which have not been known to man until recently.
Which is God's word in your opinion: a book that contradicts scientific facts OR a book that affirms them? Please, think and choose.
Content:
The Bible is a book that contains the word of God plus the word of prophets plus the word of historians plus the word of commentators plus the word of disciples. This is what Biblical scholars assert and what any reader can easily see by himself.
The Quran is God's word only. The Quran does not include the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, nor comments of historians or commentators. What Muhammad said appears in books outside the Quran. Commentators, historians, and interpreters have thier own books seperate and distinct from the Quran.
Which do you tend to accept as God's pure word: the Bible with its cocktail writers and contents OR the Quran?
The Quran is God's word only. The Quran does not include the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, nor comments of historians or commentators. What Muhammad said appears in books outside the Quran. Commentators, historians, and interpreters have thier own books seperate and distinct from the Quran.
Which do you tend to accept as God's pure word: the Bible with its cocktail writers and contents OR the Quran?
Old and New Testaments:
The Old Testament says that God is one and has no son. But the New Testament gives God a son and Christianity makes God Three in one. Furthermore, the Old Testament does not admit the Day of Judgement or the other life, whereas the New Testament admits them both.
Although the two testaments are in one book, i.e., the Bible, they amazingly disagree on major principles of belief, i.e., God and resurrection. How is this possible? Two revealed books, as it is claimed, disagree whether God is one or three in one, whether He has a son or not, whether there is resurrection or not, whether there is a day of judgement or not and whether there is another life or not. Had these two testaments been truly God's word, they would have not disagreed on those basic beliefs.
In contrast, the book of Islam, i.e., the Quran, is very clear and perfectly consistent. God is one. He has no son or father. There will be resurrection. There will be a day of judgement. There will be another life.
Which do you choose as God's pure word: the Bible with its disagreements OR the Quran with its conciseness and consistency?
Although the two testaments are in one book, i.e., the Bible, they amazingly disagree on major principles of belief, i.e., God and resurrection. How is this possible? Two revealed books, as it is claimed, disagree whether God is one or three in one, whether He has a son or not, whether there is resurrection or not, whether there is a day of judgement or not and whether there is another life or not. Had these two testaments been truly God's word, they would have not disagreed on those basic beliefs.
In contrast, the book of Islam, i.e., the Quran, is very clear and perfectly consistent. God is one. He has no son or father. There will be resurrection. There will be a day of judgement. There will be another life.
Which do you choose as God's pure word: the Bible with its disagreements OR the Quran with its conciseness and consistency?
CHAPTER 1: Authenticity
Gospel Writers:
Matthew is Jesus' disciple. But he wrote his gospel in Hebrew, the original of which is lost forever. What is available is the translation of that lost original. Thus, no one can prove that Matthew's gospel of today is identical with what Matthew wrote, because no original is available.
Mark is not Jesus' disciple. He is Peter's disciple. Thus Mark's gosple cannot be considered as first-hand narration. Mark did not see what Jesus did, nor did he hear what Jesus said. No one can prove the truth of Mark's reporting about Jesus. Jesus' disciples are more reliable reporters about Jesus than the disciples of disciples. Mark is merely a disciple of a disciple.
Similarly, Luke is not Jesus' disciple. He never saw or heard him. Luke is not even a disciple of a disciple. Luke is a disciple of Paul, who was never a disciple of Jesus. How can we accept Luke's reporting if he never saw or heard Jesus? What authentic value do his reports have when they are merely third-hand reports?
As for the evangelist John, scholars assert that he is not John the disciple of Jesus. The content of the gospel of John and its wording, as analysis tells, cannot be written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Someone wrote it and attributed it to John the disciple to give it more reliability. Scholars confirm that it was written about 97 A.D., i.e., sixty-four years after Jesus' disappearance. John would be at least eighty-four years old by then, assuming that he was only twenty years at Jesus' disappearence.
Why should John the disciple wait until he was 84 years to write the gospel? Why did he wait 64 years to begin his work? This confirms the conclusion that John's gospel was not written by John the disciple.
What we have, in brief, is four strongly - doubted gospels. Matthew's original manuscript is lost forever and none can prove the authenticity of the present translated version. Mark's gospel cannot be highly trusted because Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and thus he was not a first-hand reporter. The same defect applies to Luke, and even more clearly, because Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was a disciple of Barnaba, who was a disciple of Jesus. Luke's gospels is third-hand reporting. John's gospels is written by an anonymous writer, and not John the disciple, whose name was simply used as a cover.
In contrast, the Quran is one version. We do not have different versions of the Quran.
Which do you choose to be God's pure word: the gospel with its four different contradictory versions and lost originals, second-hand and third-hand reporting OR the Quran with its one single version?
Matthew is Jesus' disciple. But he wrote his gospel in Hebrew, the original of which is lost forever. What is available is the translation of that lost original. Thus, no one can prove that Matthew's gospel of today is identical with what Matthew wrote, because no original is available.
Mark is not Jesus' disciple. He is Peter's disciple. Thus Mark's gosple cannot be considered as first-hand narration. Mark did not see what Jesus did, nor did he hear what Jesus said. No one can prove the truth of Mark's reporting about Jesus. Jesus' disciples are more reliable reporters about Jesus than the disciples of disciples. Mark is merely a disciple of a disciple.
Similarly, Luke is not Jesus' disciple. He never saw or heard him. Luke is not even a disciple of a disciple. Luke is a disciple of Paul, who was never a disciple of Jesus. How can we accept Luke's reporting if he never saw or heard Jesus? What authentic value do his reports have when they are merely third-hand reports?
As for the evangelist John, scholars assert that he is not John the disciple of Jesus. The content of the gospel of John and its wording, as analysis tells, cannot be written by John, the disciple of Jesus. Someone wrote it and attributed it to John the disciple to give it more reliability. Scholars confirm that it was written about 97 A.D., i.e., sixty-four years after Jesus' disappearance. John would be at least eighty-four years old by then, assuming that he was only twenty years at Jesus' disappearence.
Why should John the disciple wait until he was 84 years to write the gospel? Why did he wait 64 years to begin his work? This confirms the conclusion that John's gospel was not written by John the disciple.
What we have, in brief, is four strongly - doubted gospels. Matthew's original manuscript is lost forever and none can prove the authenticity of the present translated version. Mark's gospel cannot be highly trusted because Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and thus he was not a first-hand reporter. The same defect applies to Luke, and even more clearly, because Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was a disciple of Barnaba, who was a disciple of Jesus. Luke's gospels is third-hand reporting. John's gospels is written by an anonymous writer, and not John the disciple, whose name was simply used as a cover.
In contrast, the Quran is one version. We do not have different versions of the Quran.
Which do you choose to be God's pure word: the gospel with its four different contradictory versions and lost originals, second-hand and third-hand reporting OR the Quran with its one single version?
Preface
Islam and Christianity are the most widespread religions throughout our world today. The followers of each exceed one billion in number. Both sides strive to gain more and more followers.
Both religions have been competing for long centuries in different aspects and different arenas. Unfortunately, however, the followers of each religion know only little about the other religion. That is why it has come to my mind the idea that it will be worthy to try to put the two religions together in one book and give the reader a comparative look at both creeds.
This book gives answers to these questions:
1. Where do Islam and Christianity stand with regard to authenticity?
2. What is God according to Christianity and what is God according to Islam?
3. How does each religion look at Jesus?
4. What are the basic creeds of each religion?
5. How does worship differ in both religions?
6. What are the ethical differences between Islam and Christianity?
7. What is law in both religions?
In brief, this book aims at comparing Islam and Christianity concernin seven areas: authenticity, God, Jesus, creeds, worship, ethics and law. Knowledge is power, as it is always repeated. To know is better than not to know. This comparative knowledge may help the reader in the way he may find convenient to him. This book may change all your life if you read it carefully and objectively with an open mind and an open heart
Dr. Muhammad Ali Abdul Karim Alkhuli
Amman, Jordan.
Both religions have been competing for long centuries in different aspects and different arenas. Unfortunately, however, the followers of each religion know only little about the other religion. That is why it has come to my mind the idea that it will be worthy to try to put the two religions together in one book and give the reader a comparative look at both creeds.
This book gives answers to these questions:
1. Where do Islam and Christianity stand with regard to authenticity?
2. What is God according to Christianity and what is God according to Islam?
3. How does each religion look at Jesus?
4. What are the basic creeds of each religion?
5. How does worship differ in both religions?
6. What are the ethical differences between Islam and Christianity?
7. What is law in both religions?
In brief, this book aims at comparing Islam and Christianity concernin seven areas: authenticity, God, Jesus, creeds, worship, ethics and law. Knowledge is power, as it is always repeated. To know is better than not to know. This comparative knowledge may help the reader in the way he may find convenient to him. This book may change all your life if you read it carefully and objectively with an open mind and an open heart
Dr. Muhammad Ali Abdul Karim Alkhuli
Amman, Jordan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
