Christians and Jews Will receive a Double Reward

786SalamKhan wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fyy4q8z4us&list=WLFHdUBKWxT2GrSQs5SIbA2wS6QDa3W4VJ

Salaam Alaikum, 786Salaam Khan.

My deepest apologies for taking so long, it's been (and still is) quite busy. I have watched the debate a few days ago, it was good, thank you for showing it to me. When I have time I will watch the other discussions also.

Take care, I hope all is well with you.

TG12345

Assalamu Alaikum, 786SalaamKhan,

786SalamKhan wrote: I do not consider Allah as a person(as in human) but an entity similar to how you consider the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit as persons but not human.

Fair enough. I believe Allah is God, and He reveals Himself to humanity as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

786SalamKhan wrote: You say to me to reject hadith is to reject the Quran but not once did I say that I completely reject the hadith. What's also funny is that in our past conversations you try get me to believe a hadith and when I do you try to disprove that hadith?

I apologize to you, 786SalaamKhan. I have to say that I am unclear about what you believe and do not believe about the hadiths, and I am afraid I have misinterpreted your words at times.

If you are ok with it, I would like to ask you some questions.

1) Do you believe that the things Muhammad said as a prophet that are recorded in sahih hadiths... about God, humanity, the prophets of God, how Muslims are to live, creation... were given to him by God or are they the words of a human being who spoke from his own knowledge and whose words can be either true or false?

2) As a Muslim, are you allowed to believe some of the things Muhammad said in the sahih hadiths and acknowledge them to be true and allowed to disbelieve other things he said and state they are false?

786SalamKhan wrote: For the sake of argument, consider Muhammad(SAW) as the Servant in Isaiah 42. Not only that but consider the servant(s) as Muhammad(SAW) and the religion of Islam(which Jesus will follow in his second coming). And then attribute Isaiah 42 to during and after Muhammad's life.

For the sake of argument (and only for that reason), I can assume Muhammad was a prophet of God and that he spread God's justice.

I cannot assume he is the Servant in Isaiah 42, because to do this would require either changing what Isaiah 42 says or adding to what Islam teaches.

To the best of my knowledge, Islam does not teach that Muhammad established justice in the earth. He established Islam in Arabia, he did not establish it in either the Persian or Byzantine Empire. Although he preached to the rulers of both powers, they rejected his teaching. Muhammad died before Islam was established in Persia, and long before that was the case on the Byzantine Empire.

The Servant in Isaiah 42 is prophesied to establish justice in the earth.

This is something that Jesus will do in His second coming.


Even Muhammad taught this!


(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e jesus as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (See Fateh Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)  (Book #55, Hadith #657)

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=jesus+mankind&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0
 
The Servant in Isaiah 42 will not grow faint or be discouraged until he has established justice in the earth. Muhammad did not establish justice in the earth. Jesus will.

786SalamKhan wrote: Try to imagine it from the other side of the argument, just consider Muhammad(SAW) as a Prophet. I would sometimes imagine without taking Quran and Muhammad into consideration(May Allah forgive me) that Jesus did die on the cross for our sins and that would not convince me. But I would never believe in the Trinity as there is not enough evidence to imagine that.

Why would you not believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins?

In regards to the Trinity, the Bible makes clear that Jesus is God, that the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus then states that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

786SalamKhan wrote: Although Satan would try to force the idea into my head when I wake up before Fajr, but he would also try to force idolatry such as the Moabite "god" Chemosh, Praise Allah that I would fight off these thoughts.

Unlike Chemosh, Jesus is God.

786SalamKhan wrote: http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4101

I don't think the Trinity is any more "unacceptable to the mind" than the idea that God would send 124,000 prophets and all of theirs except one's message would be changed or added to or lost.

As we both know, for many people, the very idea of God existing at all is unacceptable!

I do not know God is capable of being three persons while simultaneously being one. Do you know how He is capable of knowing everything, even our thoughts? Or do you just accept He is capable of anything, even if His greatness is too amazing for our human minds to comprehend?
 

786SalamKhan wrote: http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4133

I haven't explored the other religions listed, although I have already demonstrated that the Hindu Trimurti (belief in three gods being one) is not like the Trinity (belief in one God who exists as three persons).

Even if other religions believed in a pagan god existing as three persons (which I still have to see evidence of) it does not show "the pagan roots" of Christianity anymore than the fact that the pagan Greeks believed in an all-powerful deity named Zeus shows "the pagan roots" of Islam because like the pagan Greeks, Muslims also believe there is an Almighty God.

786SalamKhan wrote: We cannot convince each other but we must take the information and try to convince ourselves.

Agreed. And the information does not point to Islam being true. No offense intended.

786SalamKhan wrote:   Life is really simple but men insist on making things complicated.

I think like can be complicated if we follow our own thoughts and desires and values. It is more simple when we turn to God.

786SalamKhan wrote: May Allah Guide us all and grant us Jannah through his mercy only.

InshAllah.

Blessed be His Name. It is by His grace that we have any chance of salvation.


PS I will be probably again taking a few days break, perhaps a week, from the forum so when you post your response it will take me a while to respond but inshAllah I will.


Edited by TG12345 - 11 February 2013 at 5:49pm

786SalamKhan wrote: Wa Alaikum,

Alaikum Salaam.

TG12345 wrote: Please read what I said: Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case. How is that twisting your words?

786SalamKhan wrote: I apologise I took it out of context.

Thank you for that. No problem at all.

TG12345 wrote: Do you believe the hadiths contain things that Muhammad said before he was a prophet? Do you believe the hadiths we have examined thus far were his words before he knew he was a prophet? I am not trying to twist your words but I have a hard time believing that Muslims think the hadiths are Muhammad's sayings before he even met God.

786SalamKhan wrote: You misunderstood me, does every word need to be from Allah for the Prophet to even speak?

I think that if these words are recorded and are on matters of faith then yes, they need to be from God.

Here are some links arguing that to reject the hadiths is to reject the Quran.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=16302
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=83766

786SalamKhan wrote: How about when Jesus called the Gentiles as dogs, was it God's word?

As Jesus was God then yes, everything He said is His word.

TG12345 wrote: The Trimurti doctrine teaches there are three gods who exist in one form. The Trinity doctrine teaches that one God exists as three persons.

786SalamKhan wrote: Many others say Trinity is 3 in 1 also.

Three persons in one God, not three gods in one god.

TG12345 wrote: If it was a mistake it's OK. Like every other human being, we have made our share of mistakes. I was curious, that's all.

786SalamKhan wrote: Yeah it was a mistake, sorry. I meant to say Shia view not version.

Thanks for clarifying. No problem, let's move on.

TG12345 wrote: Are we discussing a hadith or are we discussing tafsir? You didn't post a link to the source, can you please do that? I asked you this before, I am asking again.

786SalamKhan wrote: I did, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus'_death#Substitution_interpretation

Thanks. Other than Wikipedia, can you find a source for this?

TG12345 wrote: Just like you worship one God who you believe has 99+ different attributes. When you call on AlRahman and AlRaheem you are calling on one God, not two different Gods.

786SalamKhan wrote: You think 99 names for ONE person is similar to the concept THREE separate persons?

Do you describe Allah as a person?

I think 99 separate names for one God is similar to the concept of one God existing as three persons.

TG12345 wrote: Indeed many Muslims grossly misunderstand what others believe, and then attack them for believing something they don't.

786SalamKhan wrote: Other Christians and Jews also attack Trinitarians as polytheists and Idol Worshippers, usually directed at Roman Catholics.

And there are Muslims who attack Hadith followers as innovators.

What's your point?

TG12345 wrote: Muhammad did not bring justice (or his version of it) to the world, he brought it to Arabia.

786SalamKhan wrote: Jesus did not bring justice to the world, but you believe it to be his second coming. Muhammad also informed other Nations with letters and his Sahaba about the religion of Islam.

Jesus did not bring justice to the world in His first coming, but He will in His second... and both Muslims and Christians believe He will come again. Do you believe in the second coming of Muhammad?

Muhammad may have informed other nations about Islam, but there is no proof that they followed. Neither the Persians or Romans were won over by his letters. King Negus allegedly became a Muslim, but there is no proof that he ruled Ethiopia according to Islamic Law.
 
Muhammad's Sahaba were informed about the religion of Islam but Isaiah 42 states the messenger will not rest until he has established justice in the earth.

Muhammad clearly did not do this. He may have done so in Arabia, but not anywhere else during his lifespan.

Also Isaiah 42:1 states that the servant will bring justice to the nations.

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
    my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
    he will bring forth justice to the nations.

What nation other than Arabia did Muhammad bring "justice" to?

The word used for nations... lag�gō�w�yim... can also mean "Gentiles".
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/laggoyim_1471.htm

If this were the case, this would also not be true of Muhammad, since he judged the Jews as well several times according to the hadiths. He judged people regardless if they were Jewish or Gentile, unlike the prophet in Isaiah 42 who is identified as coming to judge "the Gentiles"... if that is the translation you want to use.

Regardless if whether the word in Isaiah 42:1 is "nations" or "Gentiles", it does not describe what Muhammad did as a prophet.

Isaiah 42 is not a reference to him.

786SalamKhan wrote: Another link I had supporting Muhammad in Isaiah 42 is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQI

The video argues that the word "etmak" should actually be "ahmad" and that it has been tampered with. This is the author's view but I see no evidence that this is the case.

Even if the word is indeed "ahmad" it couldn't be true of Muhammad since he died long before justice is established in the earth and he did not bring justice to the nations... only one nation. He also did not bring justice to Gentiles, he brought justice (or his understanding of it) to both non-Jews and Jews alike.

786SalamKhan wrote: Also here is a Jewish answer to any prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iabTXx1wY

I know that Jews do not believe Jesus is prophesied in Isaiah. They believe the prophecy is about Israel, if I am not mistaken.

This does not however help back your assertion that Isaiah 42 is about Muhammad.

786SalamKhan wrote: Also a Jewish opinion on Islam: http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Hachrazah_5769_Kislev_15b

Thanks for sharing. The link says that like Judaism, Islam is a monotheistic religion and that Jews and Muslims can be inspired to do good deeds when seeing the other doing so. As a Christian I also believe in this.

The link does not say anything about Muhammad being prophesied in Isaiah 42.

I don't see how either the 2nd or 3rd link is relevant to our discussion on Isaiah 42, unless you brought them up to show some interesting things outside of our debate, which is cool.

TG12345 wrote: So as to where Muhammad is described in the Injil, there is still no answer to that.

786SalamKhan wrote: I said that it would be in the context of speaking to the Jews not his disciples but I would have to know Aramaic, Arabic or Koine Greek to read those Gospels as the English translations could be wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean here by stating the things Jesus said in the Injil would be in the context of speaking to the Jews not His disciples.

www.bible.cc has Greek and Hebrew translations of the words in each passage if you want to check them out.

TG12345 wrote: I do not know Shamoun, Wood and Qureshi so I cannot comment too much on them. I have read some of Shamoun's articles, he at times does misquote the Quran and hadiths. Whether this is intentional on his part or mistakes I don't know. You mistakenly said that Timothy was circumcised by having his penis in another man's mouth, you then apologized and admitted you got that from an unBiblical source. Zakir Naik misquoted a verse from the passage of Gospel of John in the video that Rational posted. It's OK, we all make mistakes. I don't know whether what Sam Shamoun writes when he is mistaken is from a willfull dishonesty or ignorance. Either way, it makes his arguments unreliable. I check out his site sometimes, and am very careful to cross-reference every claim that he makes.

786SalamKhan wrote: Here is an example of Nabeel Qureshi's dishonesty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHu_WipSyUQ

Thanks for sharing. He doesn't sound any better than the dishonest Zakir Naik.

Blessed be the Name of the Lord.


Edited by TG12345 - 09 February 2013 at 6:43pm

786SalamKhan wrote: Wa Alaikum,

Wa alaikum salaam.

TG12345 wrote: And where are the 5 pillars mentioned?...

786SalamKhan wrote: Why are you complicating things when you and I both know that the 5 pillars are obligatory upon every muslim.

Can you please show me where they are mentioned? Is there a verse in the Quran that states there are 5 pillars of Islam and describes them?

Shukran.

TG12345 wrote: Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

786SalamKhan wrote: Now you are trying to twist my words.

Please read what I said:

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

How is that twisting your words?
 

786SalamKhan wrote: You think every one of his words were Allah's? Even before his Prophethood was revealed to him? Didn't think so....

Do you believe the hadiths contain things that Muhammad said before he was a prophet?

Do you believe the hadiths we have examined thus far were his words before he knew he was a prophet?

I am not trying to twist your words but I have a hard time believing that Muslims think the hadiths are Muhammad's sayings before he even met God.

TG12345 wrote: Why not? He chose to make Himself incarnate in the world, and this is how He chose to do it.

786SalamKhan wrote: You believe that God reveals himself more over time as explanation for the trinity doctrine yet the Hindus worship the Trimurti and believe Krishna as avatar much before this.

You either misunderstand the Christian belief about God, or the Hindu belief about their gods.

trimurti, ( Sanskrit: �three forms�) in Hinduism, triad of the three great gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Scholars consider the doctrine of the trimurti to be an attempt to reconcile different approaches to the divine with each other and with the philosophical doctrine of ultimate reality (brahma). The doctrine was given classical expression in Kalidasa�s poem Kumarasambhava (�Birth of the War God�; c. 4th�5th century ce). In trimurti symbolism, the three gods are collapsed into a single form with three faces. Each god is in charge of one aspect of creation, with Brahma as creator, Vishnu as preserver, and Shiva as destroyer.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605418/trimurti



Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew Scriptures: �Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord� (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them�i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: �Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit� (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: �The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all� (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as �persons� (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is �of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,� even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinity

The Trimurti doctrine teaches there are three gods who exist in one form. The Trinity doctrine teaches that one God exists as three persons.

786SalamKhan wrote: Understandable since the doctrine of Trinity was thought up by former pagan Romans.

The idea was in the Bible all along.

TG12345 wrote: Then why did you say there is a Shia Quran?

786SalamKhan wrote: This shows that you do not fully read my posts, in one of my replies I said that some sunnis believe that Shias have a different Quran but that is unlikely.

How does this indicate I did not read your posts? I asked you why you said there is a Shia Quran... which is something you did say, before afterwards claiming this is not the case and admitting you do not know much about Shia Islam... neither do I btw.

I am curious why, if you state that you do not know much about Shia Islam and believe it is untrue that Shias have their own Quran, you previously stated there is a Shia Quran like there is a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Greek, etc. Bible.

If it was a mistake it's OK. Like every other human being, we have made our share of mistakes. I was curious, that's all.

I don't see how me asking you why you stated that there is a Shia Quran indicates I haven't read your posts. I am pasting our discussion on this for your convenience.

786SalaamKhan: Ah, I no longer believe the Bible is corrupted. I apologize, you were right when you posted hadith about Waraqa proving the existence of the Injil; I was just too stiff-necked. It was Salafi scholars like Ahmad Deedat and Zakir Naik that borrowed the ideas from the Qadianis.   http://unchangingword.com/
While I do not 100% agree with the above website, I agree with most and I'm sure you will as well so please your time and read through it. However I believe that anything in the Bible that differs from the Quran is because of the long passage of time where it was mistransmitted, mistranslated, misinterpreted but maybe a few deliberate/accidental changes. That is why there are many versions and I do not mean translations like King James but I mean Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Greek etc. Similar to how there is a Shia Quran.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

TG12345:
Hold on... now I am confused. Are you saying that the Shias use a different Quran than Sunni Muslims do?
Can you show me any evidence for such a claim? I have to admit I am blown away by this allegation. I am curious to see any proof of such a statement. Thanks.

786SalaamKhan: Some Sunnis suggest that they use a different Quran but this is unlikely so they use the same Quran but have a different opinion. The truth is that Shias deny that Uthman compiled the Quran and believe that the Quran was actually compiled by Muhammad(SAW) during his lifetime. Some suggest that the Shias believe that Muhammad(SAW) gave the True Quran to Ali and it is actually three times longer and that a future Imam(Mahdi?) will return this Quran but this view is apparently a misconception to discredit them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Quran

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

TG12345: I asked because previously you wrote that there is a Shia Quran. So you do not believe this to be the case?
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

786SalaamKhan:
I do not know much about Shia Islam.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

TG12345: Then why did you say there is a Shia Quran?
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=8

TG12345 wrote: I do not know how authentic this is either, but for the sake of Ibn Abbas' credibility I hope he didn't actually state this. Even if we disregard the claim that Jesus was not crucified and that someone offered to take his place (which I do not believe of course), the claim that there were the mentioned three groups of disciples and that two of the groups killed the third group is not only offensive to the disciples but false... and I will show you why.

786SalamKhan wrote: I already knew who the Nestorians and Jacobites were before I posted the hadith. Remember in one of my very first replies I said to read beyond the text: 1. The hadith is not talking about Jesus' disciples but his "followers" if I said that I follow Muhammad(SAW) it does not make me a Sahaba.

Are we discussing a hadith or are we discussing tafsir? You didn't post a link to the source, can you please do that? I asked you this before, I am asking again.

I apologize for misunderstanding your interpretation of the verse, to me it sounded like it stated Jesus' disciples were the ones who divided into three groups and two of the groups killed the last group.
 

786SalamKhan wrote: 2. In the hadith, Jacobites is obviously a reference to Trinitarians, Nestorians is obviously a reference to those who believe the Sonship of Jesus and Muslims is obviously a reference to Unitarians.

The Nestorians believe God is a Trinity, like the Jacobites (and most Christians) did and do.

The Church of the East faithful to the command of our Lord, and the teaching and practice of the early church, has maintained this Apostolic Succession throughout the trials and tribulations of its nearly twenty centuries-long history.

Its theology is Apostolic and Catholic, and has remained unchanged throughout its history. Its doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in conformity with that of the Council of Nicea, at which it was represented.

http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

The Syrian Orthodox church  accepts only three Ecumenical Synods namely Nicea (A.D.325), Constantinople (A.D. 381) and Ephesus (A. D. 431) as the universal Synods. The Church meticulously observe all faith declaration of the Nicean Creed. The western church at a later stage appended a statement to this creed attributing the Holy Ghost to be originating from Son also, (Filioque) which we do not accept. The Church was totally merged with the divine element and became one (Monophysite).

http://www.jacobitesyrianchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=60

At the Council of Nicea, the idea of the Trinity was defined officially. The Trinity being "the deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit under one Godhead in three co-equal and co-eternal persons"

As you can see, this definition includes both the Sonship of Jesus and the Trinity... and the Jacobites and Nestorians both accepted these things.

Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and eliminating all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ�s church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity�the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons

...

(article is continued)
http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

Both groups believed Jesus is God and both believed He is the Son of God. As a Christian I believe Jesus is both God and the Son of God.

The author of the tafsir (or hadith, if this is what you claim it is but I'd like to see evidence for that if that is the case) clearly misunderstood the beliefs of the Nestorian and Jacobite Christian groups.

 

786SalamKhan wrote: 3. The reason the hadith mentions the groups is that both Syriac sects may have at one point persecuted Unitarians as heretics. Only Allah knows.

If you can find evidence for this viewpoint, please show it to me.

786SalamKhan wrote: Again you do not read all of my posts. I already provided links for your sources.

I really apologize, but I do not see what you are talking about here.
Do you mean the list of links you presented for me to read? I am still going through them. I am involved in several debates simultaneously with different people, as well as with life outside of the forums.

It would save us both a lot of time if you could please provide the relevant link. I will look at it as soon as you do so.
 

TG12345 wrote: On earth, He made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father, as the passages I cited previously in other threads already show.

786SalamKhan wrote: You admit that they are separate and not equal yet you worship them.

Where did I say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not equal? The Bible states Jesus made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father. He is equal to the Father but chose to make Himself unequal for a while.

I worship God, who exists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Just like you worship one God who you believe has 99+ different attributes. When you call on AlRahman and AlRaheem you are calling on one God, not two different Gods.

When I call on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit I do not call on three different Gods but on one God who exists as three persons.

786SalamKhan wrote: Indeed Trinitarians are polytheists cloaked as Monotheists or "Wolves in Sheep's clothing".

Indeed many Muslims grossly misunderstand what others believe, and then attack them for believing something they don't.

TG12345 wrote: Feel free to show them and let's examine them together. I believe there are some scientific truths in the Quran, as there are some in the Bible. There are also scientific truths in other religious texts of belief systems we both acknowledge to be false.

786SalamKhan wrote: I agree but like I said before the Quran contains much more.

786SalamKhan wrote: Why do you respond if you do not fully read the content of my post such as the links? I'm not gonna reply anymore as I've pretty much already input my answers and we are just repeating ourselves. I don't have time for this.

Whether you respond or not is your choice. I have read your links. I agree with some of what they have to say, and disagree with a lot of what is in them. Forgive me, but I do not have the time or energy to refute every single one of them, if that is what you are asking me to do.

I have not seen any of the links below discussing science:

Originally posted by 786SalaamKhan

   http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm
http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/BlasphemousRumors/news/?a=5690
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3957
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3938
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3956
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/3939

Addressing other issues:
http://www.anusha.com/isaac.htm
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53815-Does-the-Quran-say-that-Ishmael-was-sacrificed-instead-of-Issac/#10
http://www.anusha.com/jesuspaul.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k94n1GfBbcw&list=LLCTZqIQFXzgBrH8RHH5q1tA
http://arabicpaper.tripod.com/prophecy.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2N2Iz5ExM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQI
http://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death#Substitution_interpretation

Regarding the source for the passage quoting Ibn Abbas on Jesus' followers dividing into three groups and persecuting one of the groups, I see you got that from a wikipedia source that says it is from Ibn Kathir without giving sources to back that up. I try to back up what I say with sources that are not wikipedia since as you probably know the stuff on there is often not reliable.

Regarding Muhammad being prophesied in the Injil, I see you believe this is in Isaiah 42, and provide a source

http://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/

.

I will briefly present some of the evidence that does not make it possible that Muhammad is referred to in that passage.

Isaiah 42:1-4

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
    my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
    he will bring forth justice to the nations.
² He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
    or make it heard in the street;
³ a bruised reed he will not break,
    and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
    he will faithfully bring forth justice.
⁴ He will not grow faint or be discourageda]">[a]
    till he has established justice in the earth;
    and the coastlands wait for his law.

Has Muhammad established justice in the earth? He established his interpretation of God's law in Arabia, but not beyond its borders.

Will he come again to judge the earth?

Jesus will.

Even the source you cited acknowledges that Muhammad established justice in Arabia.

Transliteration

 la  yiḵ�heh  wə�la  yā�rūṣ,  �aḏ-  yā�ś�m  bā��ā�reṣ  mi��pāṭ;  ū�lə�ṯō�w�rā�ṯōw  ��y�m  yə�ya�ḥ�lū.  p̄ 

English Translation (New King James Version)

He will not fail nor be discouraged,
till He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands shall wait for His law.�

Fulfillment

The hadith confrims this with the words ولن يقبضه الله حتى يقيم به الملة العوجاء بأن يقولوا لا إله إلا الله ويفتح "Allah will not let him (the Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," The Prophet was given a detailed Law (Shariah) by Allah, which is based on supreme justice, a Law similar to the Law of Moses in its comprehensiveness. Prior to the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sws), total anarchy had gripped Arabia, lewdness was rampant; slavery, usury, bloodshed, and tribal feuds was the order of the day. When the Noble Prophet commenced his mission of reforming his society based on the message of monotheism, he faced stiff opposition from the Pagans. When all the lucrative offers made to him to abandon his preaching did not work, the pagans of Makka resorted to torture and severe persecution. In the face of this stiff opposition an ordinary man might be discouraged, but the Noble Prophet (sws) struggled on. His mesage of equality of all humans was attractive for the slaves and the downtrodden. Many such as Bilal, Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, Yasir and Sumayya embraced Islam. These new converts suffered the most. But I only want to point out the grand prophecy which Prophet Muhammad (sws) made in these testing times. Following is the account given in Bukhari,

سمعت خبابا يقول أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو متوسد بردة وهو في ظل الكعبة وقد لقينا من المشركين شدة فقلت يا رسول الله ألا تدعو الله فقعد وهو محمر وجهه فقال لقد كان من قبلكم ليمشط بمشاط الحديد ما دون عظامه من لحم أو عصب ما يصرفه ذلك عن دينه ويوضع المنشار على مفرق رأسه فيشق باثنين ما يصرفه ذلك عن دينه وليتمن الله هذا الأمر حتى يسير الراكب من صنعاء إلى حضرموت ما يخاف إلا الله زاد بيان والذئب على غنمه

Narrated Khabbab:

I came to the Prophet while he was leaning against his sheet cloak in the shade of the Ka'ba. We were suffering greatly from the pagans in those days. I said (to him). "Will you invoke Allah (to help us)?" He sat down with a red face and said, "(A believer among) those who were before you used to be combed with iron combs so that nothing of his flesh or nerves would remain on his bones; yet that would never make him desert his religion. A saw might be put over the parting of his head which would be split into two parts, yet all that would never make him abandon his religion. Allah will surely complete this religion (i.e. Islam) so that a traveler from Sana'a to Hadramawt will not be afraid of anybody except Allah." [Bukhari, Kitab Manaqib al-Ansar (Merits of the Helpers in Madinah) 63, Chapter 29, Hadith 191]

Notice the underlined words. The Prophet is predicting this at a time when there were hardly 150 Muslims in the whole of Arabia. Khabbab (ra) saw these words fulfilled in his lifetime. Is this not the fulfillment of the words "He will not fail nor be discouraged, till He has established justice in the earth"?

http://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/

Muhammad did not bring justice (or his version of it) to the world, he brought it to Arabia.

Jesus on the other hand, will return and judge the world. Obviously Isaiah 42 is about Him.
The source you does not answer the question where is Muhammad mentioned in the Injil, since, as the author realizes, Isaiah 42 is in the Torah.

The prophecy I am referring to is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Isaiah and its 42nd chapter. Let me first share with you the narratives from Muslims traditions of how early Muslims saw the mention of Prophet Muhammad (sws) in the Torah.

عن عطاء بن يسار قال لقيت عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله عنهما قلت أخبرني عن صفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في التوراة قال أجل والله إنه لموصوف في التوراة ببعض صفته في القرآن يا أيها النبي إنا أرسلناك شاهدا ومبشرا ونذيرا وحرزا للأميين أنت عبدي ورسولي سميتك المتوكل ليس بفظ ولا غليظ ولا سخاب في الأسواق ولا يدفع السيئة بالسيئة ولكن يعفو ويغفر ولن يقبضه الله حتى يقيم به الملة العوجاء بأن يقولوا لا إله إلا الله ويفتح بها أعينا عميا وآذانا صما وقلوبا غلفا- تابعه عبد العزيز بن أبي سلمة عن هلال وقال سعيد عن هلال عن عطاء عن ابن سلام غلف كل شيء في غلاف سيف أغلف وقوس غلفاء ورجل أغلف إذا لم يكن مختونا  [صحيح البخاري � كتاب البيوع � باب كراهية السخب في السوق]

Narrated Ata bin Yasar:

I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. Old Testament). He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran such as: "O Prophet ! We have sent you as a witness  and a giver of glad tidings, and a warner (Qur'an 48:8) and guardian of the Ummiyyeen. You are My Servant and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh nor a noise-maker in the markets And you do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," with which will be opened blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped hearts."
[Bukhari Kitaab al-Buyu' (Book of Sales and Trade) Chapter 50 (The dislike of raising voices in the market)]

A similar hadith is mention at another place in Bukhari as follows,

Narrated Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As:

This Verse: 'Verily We have sent you (O Muhammad) as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings and as a warner.' (48.8)

Which is in the Qur'an, appears in the Torah thus: 'Verily We have sent you (O Muhammad) as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings and as a warner, and as a protector for the Ummiyyeen (i.e., the Arabs.) You are My Servant and My Apostle, and I have named you Al-Mutawakkil (one who depends upon Allah). You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive. Allah will not take you unto Him till He guides through you a crocked (curved) nation on the right path by causing them to say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah." With such a statement He will cause to open blind eyes, deaf ears and hardened hearts.'
[Bukhari Kitaab at-Tafseer' (Commentary of the Qur'an) Surah 48 (Fath), Chapter 3 (Verily We have sent you  as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings and as a warner)]

... (continued)

http://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/

So as to where Muhammad is described in the Injil, there is still no answer to that.

786SalamKhan wrote: Much before I said what's the point? This is true.

No one is forcing you to be part of this discussion. I will respond to every point that you make and I will read the links... but I will not refute each and every single one of them... unless you bring them up yourself (and by bring up I mean actually state your argument and provide reasons for it that I can address instead of telling me to read a dozen different articles). I am not trying to be rude or offensive, but am just honest about how I approach discussion.
 

786SalamKhan wrote: And here I thought that the Jews were stiff necked. Christians like Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi are the most stiff necked people I've ever seen. But unlike you they are dishonest.

 I have responded to every one of the points you have made and have read your links even if I have not responded to them all.

I do not know Shamoun, Wood and Qureshi so I cannot comment too  much on them. I have read some of Shamoun's articles, he at times does misquote the Quran and hadiths. Whether this is intentional on his part or mistakes I don't know.

You mistakenly said that Timothy was circumcised by having his penis in another man's mouth, you then apologized and admitted you got that from an unBiblical source. Zakir Naik misquoted a verse from the passage of Gospel of John in the video that Rational posted. It's OK, we all make mistakes.

I don't know whether what Sam Shamoun writes when he is mistaken is from a willfull dishonesty or ignorance. Either way, it makes his arguments unreliable. I check out his site sometimes, and am very careful to cross-reference every claim that he makes.

I would recommend every Muslim do the same for Zakir Naik's presentations on what according to him the Bible teaches.

786SalamKhan wrote: But unlike you they are dishonest.

Thank you for these kind words, and for not calling me one of the "professional liars" as the gentleman who goes by the name "truthnowcome" has so eloquently stated.

If you want to discuss more, I look forward to reading your response. If you want to end all discussion with me, it is your choice. Either way, I will continue to wish the very best for you and to keep you in my prayers.

Allahu Akhbar.