Gospels, Quran & Hadiths

[De Maria]

I believe you are mistaken,

That doesn't make me wrong.

i've studied divinity and each person of the Trinity is a God in it's own respect,

I don't know where you studied divinity, but it must not have been from an orthodox Christian source:

i will ask a Christian moderator to clarify to us both.

Why not consult the Early Church Fathers:
Athenagoras

For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, - the Father, the Son, the Spirit because the Son is intelligence, reason, wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it (A Plea for the Christians, 2:18 [A.D. 177]).

Hippolytus

A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 8 [A.D. 200-210]).

& let the double standards roll in. Unlike the Bible the Quran is supported by thousands of Sahih Hadiths; no one can verify the anonymous authors of the Bible besides what the Church Believes as "Tradition"

1. Can the Sahih Hadiths attest to anyone else seeing the Angel?

No? Therefore, then, they are simply more evidence that Muhammed CLAIMED to have seen an angel.

It is hearsay piled upon hearsay.

2. Do the Sahih Hadiths deny that Uthman burned the original Quran?

If not, then they attest to the fact that the best evidence was burned and a copy was thrust in its place in order to hide the fact that the original Quran was in such a disarray that no one could make heads or tails of it.

1. No one saw Isaiah being inspired by God, therefore no one can confirm that the Holy Spirit actually inspired Isaiah.

But we don't rely upon Isaiah alone. We have many prophets who actually performed miracles to confirm that they were sent by God.

& apply this to every other character in the Bible. You sure love applying double standards don't you?

Lets start in the New Testament. Twelve people lived with Jesus. They witnessed His miracles and listened to His Gospel.

Four contemporaries of Jesus, three of whom walked with Him, recorded His Gospel. The fourth testament was written by a man who interviewed eyewitnesses of the life and times of Jesus Christ.

Nothing in Islam can stand up to this type of evidence.

Then throw out your Bible, unlike the Bible the authorship of the Quran is not anonymous & there is no "Church Tradition" involved.

1. The people who wrote the Gospels were operating in secret. They were known by the community.
2. That particular group was steeped in ancient TRADITIONS and kept them by word of mouth. People with this type of cultural background today have far better memories than the so called "literate" people of our culture.
3. People of that culture also used rhyme, rhythm, pictures and mnemonics to help them retain the traditions passed down by word.
4. Add to that the fact that the literate people of their community also wrote down the facts which had been witnessed by hundreds.

And you've got a pretty reliable source for evidence. Better than most which is provided in a court of law today. Except of course for video taped evidence.

Incorrect, he did not burn the "Original Quran", who told you that, your preacher?

It is recorded in Islamic history.

Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61

Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'. I said to Umar, `How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?' Umar said, `By Allah, that is a good project'. Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised.

Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 510, pp. 478-479; book 61

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HAFSA'S QURAN?

"'Marwan used to send courier to Hafsa - meaning, when he was governor of al-Madina on behalf of Mu`awiya - asking her for the folios from which the Qur'an had been copied [kutiba minha] but she would refuse to give them to him.' Salim continued: 'When Hafsa died and we returned from her burial, Marwan sent an imperative request to `Abd Allah ibn `Umar for those folios to be sent to him, whereupon `Abd Allah ibn `Umar sent them to him. Then Marwan gave an order so they were ripped up (fashuqqiqat). He said: 'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'

"The wording in Abu `Ubayda's narration has: 'so they were torn up' (famuzziqat). Abu `Ubayd [sic] said: 'It is unheard of that Marwan tore up the folios except in this narration.' I say: Ibn Abi Dawud narrated it with a chain from Yunus ibn Yazid, from Ibn Shihab, in a similar wording which has:

"'When Marwan was governor of Madina he sent courier to Hafsa asking her for the folios but she refused him access to them.' He [Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri] said: 'Salim ibn `Abd Allah [ibn `Umar] narrated to me saying: "When Hafsa died..."' and he narrated it [as above] and said in it: 'So he had them ripped up and burnt' (fashaqqaqaha wa harraqaha).

"And this addition also came up in the narration of `Umara ibn Ghuzayya, also an abridged one, but he, also made it part of the narration of Zayd ibn Thabit who said in it: 'So he had it washed out thoroughly (faghassalaha ghaslan)'.... And all this can be reconciled by saying that this was done with all the folios - renting, them washing out, then burning - and it is possible that the word [harraqaha] be read 'kharraqaha' (he had them rent) so that he has them first torn up then washed out, and Allah knows best."

These Suhuf were of course the Mushaf of Abu Bakr (RA) kept by `Umar, then kept by his daughter Hafsa the Mother of the Believers, wAllahu a`lam.
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html

He burnt interpolated Quran's

Thank you, thank you, thank you. The only Quran he allegedly kept was Hafsa's and it was destroyed also.

And ALL the other Quran's which were written by the friends of the Prophet were burned because they were considered INTERPOLATED.
in·ter·po·late (n-tûrp-lt)
v. in·ter·po·lat·ed, in·ter·po·lat·ing, in·ter·po·lates
v.tr.
1. To insert or introduce between other elements or parts.
2.
a. To insert (material) into a text.
b. To insert into a conversation. See Synonyms at introduce.
3. To change or falsify (a text) by introducing new or incorrect material.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Interpolated

& requested the Original Manuscripts from Hafsa(r.a), which were the most authentic manuscripts in history, these were copied then multiplied & all other "Different" Qurans were destroyed. Proof of Quranic preservation.

The only way to prove Quranic preservation is to compare it to the originals. But ALL the originals were burned, or otherwise destroyed. Including Hafsa's.

The originals were not burnt, your assertion is illogical in itself & you have no proof, why would a disciple of the Prophet "Burn Originals"? He burnt forgeries that differentiated from the Original manuscripts of Hafsa, i would have done the same.

And Hafsa's were also destroyed.

But no identical pair... So do you just pick which manuscripts suit your fancy?

The differences are miniscule and do not affect any doctrines of orthodox Christianity.

You also do know that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the Greek manuscripts we have today date before the Nicene Creed?

You have no idea the volumes of evidence that we have for the Bible. I won't even mention the Traditions which are invaluable but you don't seem to understand their value.

anuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

....The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26),....

BUT THERE'S MORE
We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:

(3) Versions or Translations:
Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) (McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47).

(5) Early Church Father's Letters:
But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):
Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.
Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

& most of these are in fragments. So what we have here are 24,000 different manuscripts written centuries after Jesus.

Nope. We have much more than 24,000 manuscripts. The Bible can be reproduced from the commentaries of the Early Church Fathers, ALONE. Many times over.

You obviously have no knowledge of Islam, i do not see a learned man claiming that the "Original Quran" was burned; please tell me: WHAT/WHERE WAS THE ORIGINAL QURAN? WHO HAD IT?

[

See hadiths above.

Awsome, throw out your bible.

The Gospels are eyewitness testimonies.

ALOT of things are "Hinted" in the OT, one could interpret the OT as a pagan polytheistic God deceiving the Jews; there are alot of false interpretations possible, the Trinity being the most famous.

There are many false interpretations possible. But the Christian interpretation is the correct one.

"Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
(Matthew 10:5)

That was the first missionary journey. Before the Descent of the Holy Spirit and their Great Commission to the World.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

In all truth, Christians rely on 4 anonymous Gospels (authorship determined by Church Tradition),

Authorship confirmed by Church Tradition. True.

the origin of the Quran is blatant

The idea that it came from God is highly disputable. At best, you have the unverified and unverifiable claims of Muhammed as the source.

& you quoted the Sahih Hadiths of Uthman(r.a) copying the manuscripts of Hafsa.

And ordering them burned. Plus I quoted another Islamic source saying that Hafsa's version was never seen after Uthman returned it to Hafsa and was destroyed after Hafsa's death.

Regarding Hafsa's Suhuf (RA), they did survive until the time of Mu`awiya (RA) but were then destroyed by Mu`awiya's Amir over Madina, Marwan ibn al-Hakam. It seems she did, indeed, disobey `Uthman's (RA) categorical order to burn all but his codex:

Imam al-Bukhari narrates in his Sahih (6:183-184) from Anas ibn Malik (RA) that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman came to `Uthman at the time the people of Sham were battling for the conquest of Armenia and Azerbaijan [~year 25H] with the people of Iraq....

"'Marwan used to send courier to Hafsa - meaning, when he was governor of al-Madina on behalf of Mu`awiya - asking her for the folios from which the Qur'an had been copied [kutiba minha] but she would refuse to give them to him.' Salim continued: 'When Hafsa died and we returned from her burial, Marwan sent an imperative request to `Abd Allah ibn `Umar for those folios to be sent to him, whereupon `Abd Allah ibn `Umar sent them to him. Then Marwan gave an order so they were ripped up (fashuqqiqat). He said: 'I only did this because I feared that after the passing of time, some doubter might foster doubt with regard to those folios.'....
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html

You have absolutely no reason to dispute the Quran's authenticity; even the Shia sect of Islam who view Uthman(r.a) negatively do not for a second doubt the Quran's authenticity. You yourself have proven the authenticity of the Quran; this is what you quoted earlier:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Do you have any reason/evidence to believe Uthman(r.a), one of the closest disciples of Muhammad(pbuh) suddenly became an apostate & destroyed the Quran? Ofcourse not, such an assertion would be illogical.

Of course I do. The Sahih which I quoted depict the original Quran as in disarray. Uthman didn't want this to be known. He destroyed the originals except one and Marwa destroyed it.

There is now, no longer, anyway to confirm that the Quran is authentic.

Didn't you know that Uthman did not write the Quran?

I don't remember saying that Uthman wrote the Quran? Please provide the statement that gave you that impression.

He simply ordered scribes to copy the original text, he had nothing to do with what the Quran says.

He could have ordered those same scribes to put in the Quran the authentic Sahih to prove the true nature of Muhammed's revelation.

What does "Quran" mean, according to you?

According to arabic it means "recitation"; not synonymous with the word "Gospel".[/quote]

That's what I thought. But you've presented me with very many new doctrines of Islam so I wanted to see what you would say.

Ofcourse, "divine revelations" are communications from God to the Soul; all material things are absent during this event. No one could see Moses, David or Jesus(pbuh) communicating to God; it does not mean it didn't happen, it means prophetic revelations are personal experiences undergone by chosen apostles of God.

But everyone could see the Apostles talking to Jesus.

I think a bit of clarification is in order here. You see, Muhammed's revelation is the so called "eternal" Quran.

Whereas, that which was revealed to the Apostles is the Divinity of Christ. Not the Bible. The Bible contains the written record of the eyewitness testimony of some of those who walked with Christ.

All the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh) [and everyone else] were commanded not to insert anything into the Quran:

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.� (The Noble Qur'an, 2:77-79)

Lol! Thank you. I'm sure you don't realize it but you just provided the explanation of why Muhammed did not write the Quran nor compile it.

Unless Muhammed is God, they CAN'T BE THE DIRECT inspired words of God.

I ment that the meanings of the words were not changed by a 3rd party; so it's direct in that sense; not direct in the sense of an A & B conversation.

With Uthman's rescension in mind, even the idea that the "words were not changed by a 3rd party" is in question.

Ofcourse not; the Quran is the sole authority scripturally & like all scripture, it is left down to interpretation;

Thank you. And who is the official interpreter of the Quran?

but it's supreme in the sense that nothing can contradict its judgment.

You keep giving the Quran human qualities? The Quran has judgment?

If it forbids adultery; there is no way this law can be overturned.

Does it forbid adultery? How is adultery defined in the Quran?

Is there a punishment issued by the book for those who misinterpret it?

Ofcourse not; "Interpretation" is afterall subjective. But there are punishments for those who transgress:

...do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors
(Quran 2:190)

Only God knows who are the transgressors of interpretation.

For all you know then, the Sufis may be right and the Sunnis wrong? Or the Black Muslims, or Osama bin Laden may be the true Muslims.

Who is to say that their interpretation is wrong?

And is there a reward issued by the book for those who interpret it correctly?

A $3000 reward from the local mosque Im sure you havn't evaluated this question. The righteous will be rewarded & the evil will be punished:

[center]
The Earthquake - az Zalzalah

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful!

When the earth is rocked with her (final) earthquake, when the earth shakes off her burdens, and man cries: What is the matter with her? on that day she will tell her news, that your Lord has inspired her (with His command). On that day men will issue forth in small groups to be shown their labours. Whoever does an atom's eight of good will see it then, and who ever has done an atom's weight of evil will see it then also.[/center]

Chapter 99 of the Quran

[/quote]

But although many sects of Islam have been declared heretic, no such earthquake has occurred. Yet these people were declared heretic for doing something, interpreting the Quran, in their own fashion.

Sharia derives from the rules layed out in the Quran & the Sahih Hadiths.

Who derived the Sharia from the Quran and the Sahih and by what authority?

And where are the Schools?

A school of law in Islam is known as a "Madh'hab". These are the following schools (within mainstream Islam):

1) Sunni Hanafi
2) Sunni Hanbali
3) Sunni Maliki
4) Sunni Shafi'i
5) Zaidi

All these schools are roughly synonymous but differ slighty in interpretation & practices of prayer; and each were founded by prominant Islamic scholars; for example, Malik's great grandfather was a disciple of the Prophet.

Ok.

Numbers 2-3 cannot dispute with 1, if they do they were obsolete from the beginning.

Who determines if there is a dispute? And if there is a dispute, who determines the resolving of the problem?

Disputes are most of the time blatant & obvious; and if the Sahih Hadiths dispute with the Quran they are automatically rejected. However, if it's a matter of interpretation then the schools of law will each give their verdict.

Are the schools of law set up according to Muhammed's instructions? Or where did the model for these schools come from?

Yes muslims do not accept ordinary hadiths as authoritative; only Sahih Hadiths are accepted in an Islamic Court.

Are Sahih Hadiths accepted by all Muslims such as the Shia for instance?

Yes, for example no Shia will dispute anything on Wikipedia regarding the prophet (which is written based on Sahih Hadiths):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

But they do dispute the successorship of the first 3 disciples; and believe that the disciple Ali(r.a) was ment to succeed the Islamic Empire. I could be biased, so it's best to read from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

THAT I didn't know.

1st question:
Where does this say who witnessed the event? Is it assumed that the narrator is the witness? Because he doesn't say, "I witnessed this event..."?

I apologise; you have to know a bit of background information about the disciples before you can fully understand the implications of the hadiths.

The narrator is the witness; Anas is a disciple and lived in the same city as Muhammad(pbuh) for most of his life after converting to Islam:

Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari (Arabic: أنس بن مالك الخزرجي الأنصاري‎, c.612-712, or died 709[1]) was a well-known sahabi (companion) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Have you just quoted a bit of Islamic tradition? Or is that another Sahih Hadith? Also, where does the Sahih you provided say that Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari witnessed the event described? Or is that simply assumed?

He was an Ansar of the Banu Khazraj. He is not to be confused with Malik ibn Anas. Anas ibn Malik, the last of the Companions of the Prophet died at al-Basrah in 93 AH aged 103.[2]

That's all very good, but you simply ... the Arabs); however the verse was wrongly attributed (in Islamic opinion) to the Messiah when it referred to someone entirely different, which muslims believe is none other than Muhammad(pbuh).[/quote]

Deuteronomy 18:18 (King James Version)

18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Moses came with signs and wonders.
Jesus came with signs and wonders. Jesus is the brethren. Muhammed is not.

Also see:
Muhammad(pbuh) in the New Testament

I will examine the evidence you provide in this thread.

Remember I asked for the BEST evidence. Therefore, I am assuming you understood the request and provided the best. SO FAR, these two are examples of hearsay evidence ( or worse, concocted stories are also possible). There is no evidence of eyewitness testimony provided in these two Sahih Hadith which you provided.

All the disciples are eyewitnesses;

Eyewitnesses of what?

you can choose to believe that their recounts are fiction/false or exaggerations (as asserted by atheists); but they recorded events in which they claimed to have experienced; and i believe them. Ofcourse belief is subjective; but the objective records are there; the hadiths were compiled into numerous collections; and many parallels can be drawn between them, a man named Muhammad(pbuh) existed & he transformed pagan arabia into a monotheistic nation within a few years:

I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
(Deuteronomy 18:19)

Deut 18:19 is a prophecy of Jesus. Not Muhammed.

& i would like to correct myself, to be more specific, around 6000+ Hadiths are regarded authentic (Sahih) out of the half a million hadiths.

It doesn't matter to me if you and a million other Muslims consider them authentic. You also consider the hearsay evidence of the Quran authentic. Yet it only contains hearsay.

There's really no sense in our going over and over on this issue. The problem is very clear. You said you could provide evidence from the Sahih Hadith of Muhammed's miracles. So far, you have provided:

1. Examples of hearsay evidence. Which is not acceptable in any court of law.
2. Single sources. You have not produced third party confirmation of any hadith although you claim thousands exist.
3. You have admitted that you accept them on grounds of what we call "tradition". A form of evidence for which you adamantly deny any worth.

Until you do what you said you would do, I see no reason for me to continue this thread. You may have the last word.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Murad]

In all truth, Christians rely on 4 anonymous Gospels (authorship determined by Church Tradition),

Authorship confirmed by Church Tradition. True.

There is nothing to confirm, it is a baseless assertion. The labels "Gospel according to XXXX" did not exist until the second century.

the origin of the Quran is blatant

The idea that it came from God is highly disputable.

I am not talking about divine origin; the fact is that we can verify the oral source of the Quran, that is Muhammad(pbuh).

At best, you have the unverified and unverifiable claims of Muhammed as the source.

Muhammad(pbuh) does not claim anything in the Quran.

& you quoted the Sahih Hadiths of Uthman(r.a) copying the manuscripts of Hafsa.

And ordering them burned.

Yes, you say that like it's something negative; on the contrary muslims boast about the fact that the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh) established a definitive canon & everything except that text was destroyed. It was not left to councils of anonymous people centuries later like Christianity. All the disciples agreed with Uthman (or no one disagreed).

Plus I quoted another Islamic source saying that Hafsa's version was never seen after Uthman returned it to Hafsa and was destroyed after Hafsa's death.

Which is irrelevant because you quoted that he copied them. You are simply cherry picking which parts you want to believe.

You have absolutely no reason to dispute the Quran's authenticity; even the Shia sect of Islam who view Uthman(r.a) negatively do not for a second doubt the Quran's authenticity. You yourself have proven the authenticity of the Quran; this is what you quoted earlier:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Do you have any reason/evidence to believe Uthman(r.a), one of the closest disciples of Muhammad(pbuh) suddenly became an apostate & destroyed the Quran? Ofcourse not, such an assertion would be illogical.

Of course I do. The Sahih which I quoted depict the original Quran as in disarray. Uthman didn't want this to be known. He destroyed the originals except one and Marwa destroyed it.

There is now, no longer, anyway to confirm that the Quran is authentic.

You basically repeated what all muslims are taught in the 3rd grade; an official Quran was written down from the original manuscripts & everything except that Quran was destroyed; EVERY SINGLE disciple agreed with Uthman:

Zaid is reported to have said, "I saw the companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, "By Allah, Uthman has done well! By Allah, Uthman has done well!" [Nisaburi]

Ibn Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies; not a one spoke out against him." Ali commented, "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same."
[Zarkashi]

We are not talking about ordinary disciples; we are talking about Ali(r.a) who was given the title "Lion of Allah". If i was in the place of Uthman(r.a) i would do the same; unlike the NT in Christianity, Islam does not have 24,000 different words of God.

Didn't you know that Uthman did not write the Quran?

I don't remember saying that Uthman wrote the Quran? Please provide the statement that gave you that impression.

Here:

I wonder why these miracles aren't in the Quran? Did Uthman not know about these miracles?

He simply ordered scribes to copy the original text, he had nothing to do with what the Quran says.

He could have ordered those same scribes to put in the Quran the authentic Sahih to prove the true nature of Muhammed's revelation.

The Quran forbids any insertion; even if he wanted to (which i doubt he would) it would be impossibe.

What does "Quran" mean, according to you?

According to arabic it means "recitation"; not synonymous with the word "Gospel".

That's what I thought. But you've presented me with very many new doctrines of Islam so I wanted to see what you would say.

The majority of Islamic Doctrines are nothing new in Judaism & Unitarian Christianity; you know alot more about Islam than you probably think you do.

Ofcourse, "divine revelations" are communications from God to the Soul; all material things are absent during this event. No one could see Moses, David or Jesus(pbuh) communicating to God; it does not mean it didn't happen, it means prophetic revelations are personal experiences undergone by chosen apostles of God.

But everyone could see the Apostles talking to Jesus.

Agreed, but Jesus is not God incarnate in Islam; he is the Messiah & Messenger of God who was rejected by the Jews.

I think a bit of clarification is in order here. You see, Muhammed's revelation is the so called "eternal" Quran.

Whereas, that which was revealed to the Apostles is the Divinity of Christ. Not the Bible. The Bible contains the written record of the eyewitness testimony of some of those who walked with Christ.

Although i & most New Testament Greek scholars do not believe in the eye witness recordings of the canonical Gospels (As i showed you from Wiki earlier), the divinity of Christ was historically first introduced by Saul of Tarsus who never met Jesus apart from his Damascus experience. All of the claims for the divinity of Christ in the canonical Gospels can be refuted & given alternative explanations.

Jesus is not God in Islam; and the concept of a human God is blasphemous in Islam & Judaism. But unlike Judaism, Islam accepts the Messiah Jesus & admonishes the Jews for rejecting him, but also emphasises the importance of one undivided God & that dividing the pureness & holyness of God is polytheism.

All the disciples of Muhammad(pbuh) [and everyone else] were commanded not to insert anything into the Quran:

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.� (The Noble Qur'an, 2:77-79)

Lol! Thank you. I'm sure you don't realize it but you just provided the explanation of why Muhammed did not write the Quran nor compile it.

Muhammad(pbuh) did not write the Quran; he was illiterate & unschooled, this is the miracle of the Quran, such a prime text of Arabic that created new language techniques like palindromic phrases came from the mouth of a mountain shepard who never went to school or knew how to read a single letter:

‘Neither did you (O Muhammad) read any book before it (this Qur’an), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand . . .’
[al-‘Ankaboot 29:48]."

Unless Muhammed is God, they CAN'T BE THE DIRECT inspired words of God.

I ment that the meanings of the words were not changed by a 3rd party; so it's direct in that sense; not direct in the sense of an A & B conversation.

With Uthman's rescension in mind, even the idea that the "words were not changed by a 3rd party" is in question.

There is no doubt; all the disciples were in agreement.

Ofcourse not; the Quran is the sole authority scripturally & like all scripture, it is left down to interpretation;

Thank you. And who is the official interpreter of the Quran?

There is no "Official Interpreter", as that implies a sort of hierachy which is forbidden in mainstream Islam. The Scholars can debate interpretations & it's up to you to choose which one you believe. However; certain topics like killing the innocent or paying charity are not attempted to be "interpreted" differently; as their meanings are universal, blatant & undeniable.

There are however some words in the Quran that only the Prophet knows the meaning. No one knows what the words "Ta Ha" & "Ya Sin" mean.

but it's supreme in the sense that nothing can contradict its judgment.

You keep giving the Quran human qualities? The Quran has judgment?

For example; the Quran has ruled out adultry; its judgment is that this sin will lead the masses into a hell fire; nothing can refute this; no Sahih Hadith nor even the Prophet or his disciples can change this Quranic ruling.

If it forbids adultery; there is no way this law can be overturned.

Does it forbid adultery? How is adultery defined in the Quran?

Sex with someone you are not married to is adultery:

And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.
(Qur'an 17:32)

And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin. The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement.
(Qur'an 25:6)

For all you know then, the Sufis may be right and the Sunnis wrong? Or the Black Muslims, or Osama bin Laden may be the true Muslims.

Who is to say that their interpretation is wrong?

The Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was reported to have said:

"The Jews split into seventy-one sects; one will be in Paradise and seventy will be in the Fire. The Christians split into seventy-two sects; seventy-one will be in the Fire and one will be in Paradise. And by the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, this Ummah (nation) of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in Paradise and seventy-two will be in the Fire. It was asked, "Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?" He (peace be upon him) said, "Al-Jamaýah (i.e., the group which adheres steadfastly to the way of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Companions)."


The hadeeth is hasan and is reported by at-Tirmidhee (no.2643), Ibn Waddaah in al-Bidýah (p.85), al-Aajurree in ash-Shareeýah (p.15) and in al-Arbaýeen, al-Haakim (1/128-129), Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (no.62), al-Laalikaaýee in as-Sunnah (no.147), Ibn al-Jawzee in Talbees Iblees (p.16) and al-ýUqailee in ad-Duýafaaý (2/262) from the hadeeth of ýAbdullah ibn ýAmr.

And in another narration:

"(Those who follow) what I and my Companions are following."

Mainstream muslims are following what the Prophet & the disciples followed; that is, praying 5 times a day, giving charity & fasting the compulsory month etc...

As far as i believe; mainstream muslims (85-90%) are following true Islam; the rest are following a subjective Islam which i find contradictory.

[center]
The Earthquake - az Zalzalah

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful!

When the earth is rocked with her (final) earthquake, when the earth shakes off her burdens, and man cries: What is the matter with her? on that day she will tell her news, that your Lord has inspired her (with His command). On that day men will issue forth in small groups to be shown their labours. Whoever does an atom's eight of good will see it then, and who ever has done an atom's weight of evil will see it then also.[/center]

Chapter 99 of the Quran

But although many sects of Islam have been declared heretic, no such earthquake has occurred. Yet these people were declared heretic for doing something, interpreting the Quran, in their own fashion.

There are a few signs of Judgment Day in Islam; the earthquake being one of the major signs; it has not occured yet. Different interpretations are acceptable, that's why there are different Schools of Law, but the sects of Islam that split from mainstream Islam differ vastly & are by all means heretics.

Sharia derives from the rules layed out in the Quran & the Sahih Hadiths.

Who derived the Sharia from the Quran and the Sahih and by what authority?

Sharia just means "Law" or "System". The rules are layed out by the Quran & Sahih Hadiths; Sharia is not a different concept idea or thing; simply a word that implies the "Laws of God".

However; true Sharia cannot be established without a caliph (Islamic Ruler); thus there is not a single country in the world that follows true "Sharia". The Islamic Khilafah (Empire) will be reborn once the Mahdi (Guided One) appears to unite the muslims:

Are the schools of law set up according to Muhammed's instructions? Or where did the model for these schools come from?

The schools of law were founded by early influential scholars, some descending from the disciples. It is a common misconception to believe they teach a "different" Islam; they do not so there is no need for any endorsment. They simply dispute over minor issues such as body posture while praying/doctrinal interpretations etc... The foundations remain the same. The schools of law that i quoted earlier make up mainstream Islam; & it does not matter which one you place yourself in; as there is no fundamental difference.

1st question:
Where does this say who witnessed the event? Is it assumed that the narrator is the witness? Because he doesn't say, "I witnessed this event..."?

I apologise; you have to know a bit of background information about the disciples before you can fully understand the implications of the hadiths.

The narrator is the witness; Anas is a disciple and lived in the same city as Muhammad(pbuh) for most of his life after converting to Islam:

Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari (Arabic: أنس بن مالك الخزرجي الأنصاري‎, c.612-712, or died 709[1]) was a well-known sahabi (companion) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Have you just quoted a bit of Islamic tradition? Or is that another Sahih Hadith? Also, where does the Sahih you provided say that Anas bin Malik ibn Nadar al-Khazraji Al-Ansari witnessed the event described? Or is that simply assumed?

Well i've quoted wikipedia who have quoted T. P. Hughes, 1885/1999, Dictionary of Islam, New Delhi: Rupa & Co. who have quoted Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim. No it is not assumed; as if he was reporting something he heard from someone else he would give references to that disciple or person. When the narrator is giving a recount of what he experienced, he most of the time does not say "And then i saw..., because it is a truism in the hadith that does not need to be emphasised.

2nd question:
When was this Sahih Hadith recorded? Who wrote it down?

Hadiths were teachings taught by the disciples on what they saw & heard the prophet do.

Ofcourse we cannot determine the exact date the hadiths were written;

None of them?

The only dates that were kept were of important events like the migration from Mecca to Medina; the disciples did not give hadiths in the form of a journal so there is no date on what they said or recorded down. There are ofcourse accurate approximations one can give; but the exact date cannot be known. However the date is irrelevant when the author is determined.

they were most likely written on parchment & bones but were also orally transmitted through the family; for example the grandsons of Anas gave the hadiths to Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari who compiled them together with other hadiths that he collected. The hadiths that are parallel with 3 disciples (meaning each disciple recorded the same event) are authentic.

A form of oral tradition? And yet you deny the validity of Christian tradition? How is that logical?

Even with the Oral tradition; the names of the transmitters are no "Mystery", most of the time they are children or grandchildren of the disciples. Unlike Church Tradition which only started late 2nd or 3rd century; hundreds of years after Jesus. The authenticity of the Sahih Hadith's are incomparable with the Gospels which are regarded anonymous by the majority of New Testament scholars.

Please produce the hadith which confirms the Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 13, Number 55: Narrated by Anas bin Malik.

It is also found in Sahih Muslim Book #004, Hadith #1956.

Who witnessed this event? Same questions apply:
1st question:
Where does this say who witnessed the event? Is it assumed that the narrator is the witness? Because he doesn't say, "I witnessed this event..."?

Anas was a child shepherd on the mountains of Uhud when this event took place; it changed him as a child & reconfirmed his faith. Umar & Uthman were prophecied to die for the cause of Islam; but how & by who was not specifically specified. Uthman was violently crushed by a mace on his skull by rebels who did not accept his messege of Islam. Umar was killed by a persian; & his companion Jabir bin Mutaam recorded the assasination.

Please quote the section in the Sahih Hadith which names the witness to this event.

I quoted it in the beginning:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet ascended the mountain of Uhud and he was accompanied by Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. The mountain shook beneath them. The Prophet hit it with his foot and said, "O Uhud ! Be firm, for on you there is none but a Prophet, a Siddiq and a martyr (i.e. and two martyrs).
(Book #57, Hadith #35)

Also see:
Book #57, Hadith #24
Book #57, Hadith #46
Book #57, Hadith #49

Not of this specific event? Then this may be disqualified. Please produce your best evidence.

There are plenty, an example being:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet used to stand by a stem of a date-palm tree (while delivering a sermon). When the pulpit was placed for him we heard that stem crying like a pregnant she-camel till the Prophet got down from the pulpit and placed his hand over it.
Book #13, Hadith #41

Parallel with:
Book #56, Hadith #783
Book #56, Hadith #784

Then if they reject you (O Muhammad), so were Messengers rejected before you, who came with clear signs, and the Scripture and the Book of Enlightenment.
(Quran 3:184)

The Jews rejected Jesus & labelled him an imposter, & history has repeated itself with Muhammad(pbuh).

Nevertheless, you claimed that he produced miracles and that there was evidence to this purported fact. Now you seem to be changing the story.

There is far more verifable evidence for the miracles of Muhammad than there is for Abraham, Moses or Jesus. The Bible cannot be used to validate itself; Christians have no 3rd party source.

Muhammad(pbuh) was prophecied in Deuteronomy 18:18 (the brethren are the Arabs); however the verse was wrongly attributed (in Islamic opinion) to the Messiah when it referred to someone entirely different, which muslims believe is none other than Muhammad(pbuh).

Deuteronomy 18:18 (King James Version)

18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Moses came with signs and wonders.
Jesus came with signs and wonders. Jesus is the brethren. Muhammed is not.

No the brethren of the Israelites (who are addressed in Deut 18:18) are the Ishmaelites aka the ARABS. This verse does not refer to the Messiah. I will further emphasise this below.

Also see:
Muhammad(pbuh) in the New Testament

I will examine the evidence you provide in this thread.

Firstly i need to quote the Gospel of John:

Now this was John’s testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Christ.�

They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?�

He said, “I am not.�

“Are you the Prophet?�

He answered, “No.�

Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?�

John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’�

Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?�

“I baptize withi water,� John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.�
(John 1:19-27)

When the Pharisees asked Yahya (John the Baptist):

Are you Christ? - [No]
Are you Elijah? - [No]
Are you THAT Prophet? - [No]

As you can clearly see; Christ & the "Prophet" were clearly differentiated. WHO was this "Prophet"? Muslims believe it is Muhammad(pbuh) who single handedly transformed pagan arabia into a monotheistic nation.

Remember I asked for the BEST evidence. Therefore, I am assuming you understood the request and provided the best. SO FAR, these two are examples of hearsay evidence ( or worse, concocted stories are also possible). There is no evidence of eyewitness testimony provided in these two Sahih Hadith which you provided.

All the disciples are eyewitnesses;

Eyewitnesses of what?

A disciple that narrates an event is an eye witness.

you can choose to believe that their recounts are fiction/false or exaggerations (as asserted by atheists); but they recorded events in which they claimed to have experienced; and i believe them. Ofcourse belief is subjective; but the objective records are there; the hadiths were compiled into numerous collections; and many parallels can be drawn between them, a man named Muhammad(pbuh) existed & he transformed pagan arabia into a monotheistic nation within a few years:

I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
(Deuteronomy 18:19)

Deut 18:19 is a prophecy of Jesus. Not Muhammed.

I disagree; the brethren of the Israelites are the Ishmaelites. There are many Prophetic prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures; not all of them refer to the same person; the Messiah is not the sole person that God promised to deliver.

& i would like to correct myself, to be more specific, around 6000+ Hadiths are regarded authentic (Sahih) out of the half a million hadiths.

It doesn't matter to me if you and a million other Muslims consider them authentic.

Ofcourse; but it matters to historical hadith scholars. Western & Eastern.

You also consider the hearsay evidence of the Quran authentic.

The Quran's authorship is no mystery; it originated from the words of Muhammad(pbuh). The canonical Gospels are a completely different story (from wiki):

Mark

The majority of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).[7]

Matthew

Papias does not identify his Matthew, but by the end of the 2nd century the tradition of Matthew the tax-collector had become widely accepted, and the line "The Gospel According to Matthew" began to be added to manuscripts.[4] For many reasons most scholars today doubt this - for example, the gospel is based on Mark, and "it seems unlikely that an eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would need to rely on others for information about it"[5] - and believe instead that it was written between about 80-90 AD by a highly educated Jew (an "Israelite," in the language of the gospel itself), intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, standing on the boundary between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values.[6] The disciple Matthew was probably honoured within the author's circle, as the name Matthew is more prominent in this gospel than any other,[7] and it is possible that some of the "M" material may have originated with Matthew himself.[8]

Luke

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.[12] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time he composed the Gospel, he must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment.[36]


John


Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[18][19]

There's really no sense in our going over and over on this issue. The problem is very clear. You said you could provide evidence from the Sahih Hadith of Muhammed's miracles. So far, you have provided:

1. Examples of hearsay evidence. Which is not acceptable in any court of law.
2. Single sources. You have not produced third party confirmation of any hadith although you claim thousands exist.
3. You have admitted that you accept them on grounds of what we call "tradition". A form of evidence for which you adamantly deny any worth.

Equating the New Testament to the Sahih Hadiths is inaccurate & dishonest. There is far more support for the Sahih Hadiths than the New Testament which has no 3rd party but itself to confirm itself; and the traditions regarding disciple authorship started in the second century by anonymous Church Fathers for anonymous reasons.

Until you do what you said you would do, I see no reason for me to continue this thread. You may have the last word.

I have no interest in proselytising or playing the elementary game "My belief is better than yours"; but objectively Islam is on a far more solid platform than Christianity.

1) Anonymous Gospels written in a foreign language (Greek) [Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or Hebrew?]
2) Anonymous Church Fathers who started the authorship traditions
3) 4 Gospels cherry picked in the midst of hundreds of Gospels

Sincerely,

De Maria

& Sincerely yours,

Murad