It's May 13, 2024, 01:21:07 AM
A number of scholars are agreed that Mohammed was influenced by certain teachings on Christianity. It is evident that he had learned some of the Bible accounts from the way he has incorporated them into the Qu'ran. However his understanding was limited and he not only plagiarised the Bible but was also lacking in understanding sequences of events and the roles that certain people played. Karen Armstrong, who is quite sympathetic to him in her biography Muhammad, notes:"Muhammad did not know the chronology in which the scriptural prophets appeared: he seems, for example, to have thought that Mariam, the mother of Jesus, was the same as Mariam, the sister of Moses in the Jewish scriptures."
Actually I never stated anything about which son Abraham intended to sacrifice. As Maryam points out, the Qu'ran doesn't specify whether it is Ishamel or Isaac who is to be sacrificed (Surah 37:100-107). The important point here is that the Bible does clearly specify that it was Isaac. You can read the biblical account here. One important aspect of the biblical account is of course that Isaac is the father of Jacob, who has his name changed to Israel. The twelve sons of Israel are the patriarchs who father each of the twelve tribes of Israel. From one of these tribes we then have the genealogy that leads to Jesus. To introduce ambiguity to this account, by not specifying that it was Isaac who was chosen, is misrepresenting the biblical account, and removes not only the direct connection with Jesus but also has led to the Islamic misinterpretation that God rejected the Jews and made the Arabic people (those who become muslims) the chosen people instead. This view is supported by passages such as Surah 2:127.
The Qu'ran omits the Book of Acts and the New Testament teaching on the Holy Spirit, and reflects Mohammed's self-replacement for the Spirit of God. Mohammed recited the Qu'ran in the 7th century, well after the books of the Bible had been written. Unlike the Bible, which no one man can claim to have written or to have had complete revelation of as an author, the Qu'ran is one person's plagiarism of the Bible.
The Qu'ran does have provision for husbands to beat their wives (Surah 4:34). Maryam's post states that: "The 'beating' verse you referenced (4:34) says that a husband may discipline his wife who is guilty of nushuz (which originally was understood to mean sexual immorality, but later Muslim theologians interpreted it to mean gross marital disharmony)."
ya'll forget something.. islam is known to have been founded at a particular date hunders of years after jesus...its an invention of a mans mind..
^ my theory is jesus was a pimp too
^ my theory is jesus was a pimp too course this makes the believers ho's...
Your comparing a book (The Bible) that has been altered hundreds of times from it's origional gospel, and can't even be found in it's origional language. The Qu'ran has been kept intact just as it was revealed, in Arabic, it is a confirmation of some of the stories from the origional Gospel, it is an analysis of all things, and it is a giudance to the believers. The article is stating that things in the Qu'ran don't correspond with the Bible, the answer is simple, the Bible has been altered so many times many of the stories in the Bible are inaccurate. Infact, the word Bible itself means library, basically, hundreds of years after Jesus was alive, Christian leaders had a council where they decided which of the many books from the library they wanted to keep, and those books now represent what is contained in the Bible. Infact, depending on what sect you are in, Catholic, Protestant, etc., your Bible will have differences, some of the newer Bibles have changes in them even from the time we were young to now. The Bible just keeps changing. The Qu'ran has been perserved in it's origional form and it's origional language and has not been changed, and it is the same today from North America, to Nigeria, to Indonesia, as it was over a thousand years ago in Mekkah.