Mecca had a local tribe of Jews and heretical Christians that Muhammad could very easily learn Biblical and Talmudic stories from. Ibn Ishaq in his biography on Muhammad (edited by Ibn Hishām), and Muqatil ibn Sulayman in his Tafsir, reported that Muhammad used to be taught by Christian slaves named Jabr and Addas on the hill of Marwa as well as having reported that Muhammad was taught by a Jewish man named Abu Fakayha Yasar. (Muqatil b. Sulayman, Tafsir al-Qur'an, 2; Foreign slaves in Mecca and Medina in the formative Islamic period p. 345-350)
Many scholars believe the Qur'an began in a proto form as a liturgical lectionary among Arabian Nestorian Christians that was eventually redacted with various "revelations" that Muhammad received, and in a sense, Muhammad's revelations almost serve as a Midrash around the core of the original text; indeed when we read the very first chapter of the Qur'an, Al-Fatihah, we find that it does not sound like a revelation from Allah to Muhammad, as Muslims claim, but rather a liturgical prayer:
(See: The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Qur'an, by Christoph Luxenberg for more info on this topic)
We also find in the Qur'an the main title for Jesus being "Son of Mary" instead of "Son of God" (Qur'an 4:171, Qur'an 9:31, Qur'an 5:72-75, Qur'an 5:116, etc.) which is exactly what the Nestorians (a heretical Christian sect in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia in the 7th century) used to refer to Jesus. Further Muhammad refers to the Trinity as making God "the third of three" (Qur'an 5:73) and also he includes Mary in the Trinity (Qur'an 5:116, Qur'an 4:171), which was likely a Nestorian polemic against the Monophysites (another heretical Christian sect in southern Arabia, Egypt, and Ethiopia in the 7th century) who believed Jesus's human and divine nature mashed together to form a distinct divinity. This means that Nestorian Christianity heavily influenced Islamic Christology.
Further we see in the Qur'an numerous Talmudic stories like the story of Abraham and the Idols (Qur'an 21:51-70) which cannot be found in the Bible but originated only in the Talmud in the 2nd century; as well as psuedo-New Testament material not found in the current Christian New Testament but which was widely circulating among heretical Christian sects in Arabia and Mesopotamia at the time of Muhammad such as the story of Mary giving birth to Jesus under a palm tree (Qur'an 19:22-26) which cannot be found in the current New Testament but can be found in the Arabic Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew written about 10 years before Muhammad is claimed to have received his revelation.
Essentially Muhammad was heavily influenced by the local Nestorian Christians and Jews of Mecca and Medina who taught him much about their respective faiths. He took what he learned, claimed he had some revelations from their God, combined what he had learned from the Jews and Christians with a few already existing pagan Arabian practices (such as the Hajj), and had many of his supposed revelations redacted in a proto-Qur'an used as a liturgical text among local Christian to give birth to what we now know as the Qur'an, and boom Islam was born.
Muhammad wasn't even the only supposed Arabian prophet of that time, it's just that he proved most influential only because he got into conflict with the Quraysh and then went onto conquer Arabia from there. Other supposed prophets include: Musaylimah, Al-Aswad Al-Ansi, and most interestingly Zayd ibn Amr who lived before Muhammad, and who belong to a sect scholars call "the followers of Abraham." This sect was neither Jewish nor Christian but adopted elements from both and opposed idolatry, claiming to have worshiped the God of Abraham alone. They also promoted Hagarism, an early form of Arab supremacy. Muhammad likely picked up on all these ideas, and it's very likely Muhammad was influenced or even came into contact with this sect.
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, God raised him to Himself. And ever is God Exalted in Might and Wise.
Islam is the fulfillment of the Prophet Isa you damn fool. Just like Isa was the fulfillment of Moses.
Your cant see the truth in the quran because you have sealed your hearts to the worship of idols
Can you prove that? Forgive me if i have trouble trusting your word, since that one time you fabulous individuals pretended to have gone to a collage class that conveniently debunked the webm you're replying to.
So how was this other person made to resemble your Islamic Isa? Was he a hologram? Or a clone? Why did your pagan god want to save Isa's life with a hologram, and trick everyone into believing he was cricified?
That came from the Baptist Hotwheels, not from Muslims.
According to the quran, drinking camels urine is healthy /thread
Islam teaches that incest is fine, and Muslims still believe it >>>/islam/25465 Read this thread if you like misery
those were not my words. I simply follow the most beautiful philosophy I can find.
I don't know. that was just one translation. others say words to the effect of "they didn't crucify him, but it seemed like that to the people". it would be no biggie for God to accomplish any of those things you mention though, of course.
well, you know who the head trixer is. anyway, the point of the matter is that he wasn't crucified (thank God), and there is of course a lot more to this subject that would be interesting to know.
Has any Muslim tried to refute this? It seems pretty airtight to me.
One pretended to refute it by saying he went to some made up collage class, when asked to elaborate he doubled down, even though it's directly quoting the Koran. I would like to hear a good muslim's answer to it though, but this board is counter discussion for better or worse (have you ever tried talking to a gnostic about Christianity? it's like talking to a brick wall).
Quite the conundrum there, though I'm sure the usual "you're using English translations, not Arabic" argument will happen.
what part seems "airtight"?
Nothing lol. Christians have to revert to strawmans to try and refute a religion they know nothing about
They are so brainwashed by the idols of this world that it isnt even perceivable to them that their precious bible may have been altered just slightly.
(The original Gospel of Mark had no Resurrection story by the way if you take a look at the oldest scriptures available. That was just a fanfic Paul added in)
The original gospel of Mark still had the resurrection
He was never killed. It was Jesus Barabbas.
Magdelene and the others thought it was JNazareth because they only looked on him from a distance. The whole story about the piercing in his body and the holes in his hand is stupid and gets debunked in this video: youtube.com/watch?v=FpSHN1cFZYI
After Jesus of Nazareth was released by Pilate he returned to his disciples as stated, and then rose up to heaven. He was never killed. He was never resurrected.
Also see picrelated for even more holes to be poked in the modern Bible
Literally the same could be said of you. You accuse others of strawmanning and meming but you still haven't formulated a single coherent argument as to why the webm here is false, and instead you have to resort to spamming your shitty infographic which again lacks any argumentation. If I didn't know any better I'd would say you were just larping as a Muslim just to amuse yourself by trolling here.
Hey dude, but what's up with the whole Jesus Barabbas story thing? I see some Druze and Gnostics/Freemasons peddling it and the idea that the trial was between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Barabbas (which translated to Son of God). Could you debunk it please?
Yeah because it's my first point. I see this argument (the Jesus Barabbas argument) and I would like to see a refutation to it.
A refutation of what? There's literally no evidence of it. There's enough historical evidence to indicate that Barabbas' given name was Jesus, but the fact that Barabbas means 'son of the Father' means nothing. It's literally just a conjecture, and the only references I can find to it anywhere online references one guy who just says something like "Well, the names are really similar, so this, of course, must be true." There's nothing to refute. It's just one guy pulling things out of his ass.
I wonder about the Jesus Barabbas thing too like maybe it's just bad reporting… like some jews were chanting "Release the son of the Father" and others were chanting "Crucify him" and someone reporting the account just goofed and didn't understand Hebrew and thought they must have been calling for someone else's release.
I mean are all eyewitness testimonies perfect? No. That's one of the reasons the synoptic gospels differ as Lee Strobel points out.
I'd actually like to hear it refuted by someone who has done more thinking on this topic because "Jesus Barabbas" is just a coincidence because it's a common name is like… wilfully retarded.
wow the word filter (y.eshua) totally made my post incoherent^ lol
Jesus is called Isa in the Quran and in arabic if I'm not mistaken.
Yes and that's wrong. If the revelation came from Allah he would know the correct translation, not slang Greek transliteration.
well, it says son of Mary. or Maryam. or you have a problem with that word too?
Only philosophy? Then what matter is faith to you in reality.
Look at my post the Barabbas post had no refute to it. It's doing a few things. Questioning the authenticity of the bible answered in the first webm. Check the other books by (Max Dimont) the source he posted, And finally he simple tells us that the "original" gospel of mark didn't have the resurrection, which can easily be corrected here
What hurts the credibility of the Barabbas post is how much of a blatant troll he is about his information, this is why few are engaging him.
Can Christians actually make an argument against Islam without banning every Muslim that refutes their arguments?
Or do you have to ban us because you know your beliefs hae holes in them
Your "prophet" thrusted his penis between the thighs of a 6 (six) year old little girl named Aisha to massage it until orgasm; he did so because he didn't want to have full sexual intercourse with her until she reached 9 (nine) years of age. He is currently experiencing the eternal torments of Hell and you may meet him one day.
According to Islam, Muhammad was the "last prophet". If that's true, then you can't be a prophet. Either that or you're not Muslim.
Muslims belittle Paul for having a spiritual vision of Christ yet their Muhammad had a vision of a being he couldn't even identify until his wife's cousin said it was Gabriel because he was "familiar" with Jewish and christian scripture…. How dubious is that.
That doesn't matter to Muslims. They probably think its hot. Aisha was still playing with dolls but mohhamad didn't care. He was attracted to kids after all.. In that culture it was normal. And the same evil exists in mans heart still
Well that's haram
It depends on the sect/school of thought. The Hanafi (Sunni) and Jafari (Shi'a) schools put the female age of consent at 9. All other branches of Islam put the AoC at 15.
Addendum: The Maliki have 17 as age of consent.
Aye, I am not a prophet like muhummad. I have merely spoken with the holy spirit and been given guidance that other people may have not thought of.
I havent been approached by Gabriel himself, and probabally wont until the end times. I am merely a messenger, sent to guide christians back to the right path, as I am formerly Christian.
Hadiths are manmade interpretations of the truth, remember only the Quran is truly holy. Allah intentionally decieves many Muslims into committing bad deeds because their hearts were already impure.
I wish christians would understand this But atleast you didnt immediately ban me this time
There have been many, many messengers have been sent throughout the world at different points in time, like myself who have been sent to wake people up, although they are not literal "Prophets". Some are more influential than others. Some are more right than others. Not all of them are even necessarily muslims. (atleast not consciously)
There are many many more. They all embody the truth. They all seek the truth. They all seek to find the good in the world and want to improve it
Becoming a Prophet of God is easy. Embody and speak what you undoubtedy know to be true. You know truth because it stands out from all falsehoods. The Quran is the Gospel of truth. The guiding light for people to make their way through the world
All of them bring
The Antichrist has been sendin
I'm sure you meet Muslim standards of being a prophet by being a nonsensical illiterate and delusional narcissist. 🤣
Get a load of this self-styled Apostle to the Channers. 🙄
no it doesn't. but I can tell you it's way healthier than yours.
According to his posts on /islam/, he just converted to Islam a week ago. And here he says he's a Quranist (Islam's version of KJV-onlyist). Gotta love LARPers.
First, Muhammad’s solution to sickness was drinking camel urine. Why don’t doctors today recommend camel urine for stomach problems? Because camel urine doesn’t help with stomach problems, though this doesn’t stop Muslim merchants from selling camel urine as a cure. One merchant even got caught selling bottles of his own urine as camel urine. Think about how much urine has been consumed by the Muslim community over the centuries because of Muhammad.
Second, Islam’s most trusted sources claim that the Muslims who drank the camel urine left Islam, scattered Muhammad’s camels, and killed his camel-herder—after the camel urine cured them. But is this really believable? Why would they leave Islam and become enraged after following Muhammad’s advice and being cured? Isn’t it far more likely that they drank the camel urine, became even more sick, realized that Muhammad was a false prophet who made them drink camel urine, and scattered Muhammad’s camels in a fit of rage?
Third, Muhammad had his followers chop the men’s hands and feet off and burn out their eyes with hot nails. The men were then left in the heat to die and were refused water. One of them was biting at the ground out of thirst. Muslims often claim that these apostates were tortured, mutilated, and left to die because of what they had done to Muhammad’s camel-herder. But Anas, who narrated the story, was specifically asked whether they were tortured, mutilated, and left to die because of some sin, or because of kufr (their return to unbelief). Anas said that they were tortured, mutilated, and left to die for kufr—unbelief.
Welcome to Islam—the religion that tells you to drink camel urine, then, when you get even sicker and decide to leave, chops off your hands and your feet, burns out your eyes with hot nails, and leaves you to die as you bite the ground from thirst
Thats hadith tho. I mean, technically they should follow it, since Mo said so, but its still not the Koran. Koran, however, has gems like this:
what's the objection here? not muslim, just curious. Is it the metaphorical language about the setting of the sun? Cause that's a fedora tier critique.
No Patrick, you can't use this every time you want, especially considering that Koran is clear and literal according to Koran. Also
no it doesn't (as someone already said).
That's not true. Surah 3:7 says there are clear verses and others are unspecific, and those who want to sow discord will cling to the unspecific verses.
Hey, lets post full verse, shall we In short "If you disagree with my retarded headcanons, you disagree with Allaaaaaaaaaaaah!" And yet: Asides this, There is still a hadith, where Muhammad confirms that sunset part is literal