In response to Aftab Khan: Muslims do not believe in the Gospels
Lee Jay Walker
Global Security News
Aftab Khan gave a reply to an article by Nazir S. Bhatti but major inconsistences apply to his reply. This not only applies to the dating of the “authentic Koran” but also other statements which appear to be based on Islamic kitman.
Aftab Khan stated that “The Muslims also believe in the Injeel [Gospel], reveled to Prophet Jesus Christ [pbuh], Torah to Moses [pbuh], Psalm to David [pbuh] and revelations to other prophets. Since these books are claimed to be part of Bible, hence Muslims are obliged to respect it, even if they have reservations or different opinion.”
The Gospels were not revealed to Jesus because the Gospels are about the life of Jesus and His statements, deeds and His ultimate sacrifice for humanity. Therefore, Aftab Khan should understand that the Gospels are based on the “pure actions” and life of Jesus.
Note how Aftab Khan states at first that “Muslims also believe in the Injeel (Gospel…” but ends by stating that “…hence Muslims are obliged to respect it, even if they have reservations or different opinion.”
Clearly Aftab Khan went from “believe” to “respect” but signing off on “even if they have reservations or different opinion.” Within one paragraph Aftab Khan changed greatly and this is the problem with Islamic kitman because it does not hold any substance.
The Gospels and New Testament are either true or they are false?
Also, it is obvious that the Koran and Hadiths make many errors from both the Old Testament and New Testament. Therefore, given the fact that Mohammed does not follow the purity of the New Testament and denies the Gospel message that Jesus was the Son of God then clearly Muslims and Mohammed could not “believe” in the Gospels and nor could they “respect it” because Islam states that Jesus was neither the Son of God nor did He die on the cross.
In other words Islam is saying that the Gospels are lies and this is the problem with Islam because the confusion is great. Also, it is strange that the Koran and Hadiths state that Jesus was the purest of all men and that He was born special and was taken to heaven after His death.
However, the Koran and Hadiths clearly show Mohammed in a lower light because he was not born special and on his death it was unsure if he went to heaven or not. More important, the Hadiths tell us that Mohammed married a child, had sex with concubines, enslaved and supported the killing of apostates.
This is strange because the Koran and Hadiths do not say anything negative about the life of Jesus but they paint Mohammed in a bad light. Therefore, what made Mohammed the greatest prophet when the Koran and Hadiths clearly show that he was a man who married more than 9 wives, married a child, had sex with slave concubines and supported jihad……what is special about any of this?
If Aftab Khan is trying to claim that non-Muslims have equal rights in Pakistan then if this applied it would only be because of secular law. After all, Aftab Khan knows that according to Islamic Sharia law it is punishable by death for non-Muslims to marry Muslim women.
Aftab Khan also knows that the Hadiths support killing apostates and in modern day Saudi Arabia all apostates face the death penalty.
In fact, it is abundantly clear that non-Muslims and Ahmaddiya Muslims are unequal in Pakistan and clearly if a non-Muslim male desired to marry a Muslim female then this would cause uproar.
Today a young Christian lady in Pakistan faces the death penalty and every day she resides under complete pressure and why Aktab Khan? Yes, becasue of discrimination and just for mere words in Pakistan you can face the death penalty.
In Pakistan it is clear that the roots of Hinduism and Buddhism were part of the very fabric of what became Pakistan before the Islamic invasions of the Indian subcontinent. However, the de-Hinduization of Pakistan continues and the blasphemy law in Pakistan is aimed at protecting Mohammed and for merely saying something about Mohammed you face the death penalty.
Obviously, if you say something negative about Lord Ram and others then nothing would happen. Is this the equality that Aftab Khan is talking about?
Finally Answering Islam states the following about the authentic Koran:
“The other manuscript said to be one of the Uthmanic codices is the one on display in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. Once again it requires only a sight of the text to discount this possibility as we are again faced with a Kufic manuscript. Then again, like the Samarqand codex, it is written on parchment and is also largely devoid of vocalisation, both of which suggest that it, too, is one of the very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an to survive, but those who claim that it dates back as far as Uthman himself must explain the obvious anachronism in the use of a Kufic script.”
“This manuscript is also supplemented with ornamental medallions, indicating a later age, with occasional ornamentation between the surahs as well. One only needs to compare it with the Samarqand codex to realise that they most certainly cannot both be Uthmanic originals. The Istanbul codex has eighteen lines to the page whereas the Samarqand codex has between eight and twelve; the Istanbul codex is inscribed throughout in a very formal manner, the words and lines always being very uniformly written out, while the text of the Samarqand codex is often haphazard and considerably distorted. One cannot believe that both these manuscripts were copied out by the same scribes. (As pointed out already, it is hard to believe that even the Samarqand codex alone was not written out by a number of different scribes).”
“An objective, factual study of the evidences shows that neither of these codices can seriously be regarded as Uthmanic, yet one finds that Muslim sentiment is so strong at this point that both of them are said to have been not only Uthmanic originals but even the actual Qur’an which Uthman was reading when he was murdered! A photograph of a page from the Samarqand codex appears as a frontispiece in a book titled Muhammad in the Quraan published in Pakistan by an author who only gives his initials (S.M.A.) and, underneath the photograph, a caption appears clearly identifying it as the Samarqand text now preserved in the Soviet State Library and alleging that “This is the same Quran which was in the hand of the Caliph when he was murdered by the rebels and his blood is still visible on the passage ‘Fasa Yakhfihum (sic) Ullah-o-Wa huwasamiul-Alim’ (Surah 2.137)”.
“In a recent edition of the Ramadan Annual published by The Muslim Digest in Durban, South Africa, however, a photograph appears of the Topkapi Codex in Istanbul, correctly identifying it as such, but alleging that it belonged to Uthman with the comment “This Qur’an, written on deerskin, was being read by the Caliph when he was assassinated and the bloodstain marks are still seen on the pages of this copy of the Qur’an to this day” (Vol. 39, Nos. 9 & 10, p.107).
“It is most intriguing to find that both the manuscripts are not only attributed to Uthman but are alleged to be the very codex in his own possession which he was said to have been reading when he was assassinated. Of course each one has verifiable bloodstains of the Caliph himself to prove the point!”
“It is contradictory statements like these, where the same fame is claimed for each of these codices, that expose the Muslim approach to this subject as one based not on a cautious historical research dependent on available evidences but on popular sentiment and wishful thinking. It would suit the Muslim world to possess an Uthmanic original, it would be convenient to have a codex of the earliest possible origin to verify the proposed textual perfection of the Qur’an, and so any manuscript of the Qur’an surviving that can be shown to be of a relatively early age is automatically claimed to be the one desired! It hardly matters that the same claim is made for more than one codex, or that in each case internal evidence (particularly the Kufic script) must lead an honest enquirer to presume on a much later date.”
“The Samarqand and Topkapi codices are obviously two of the oldest sizeable manuscripts of the Qur’an surviving but their origin cannot be taken back earlier than the second century of Islam. It must be concluded that no such manuscripts of an earlier date have survived. The oldest manuscripts of the Qur’an still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad’s death.”
Christians do not need to get into a debate with Muslims about if Mohammed could have visited the furthest mosque during Mohammed’s mystical night journey to Jerusalem; after all, no mosque existed in Jerusalem at this time and the mystical animal that Mohammed flew on also did not exist.
This is merely petty point scoring and all religions “can throw stones” but this is not the point and atheists will deem both Christians and Muslims to be wrong and so forth.
However, what is important is equality and religious freedom based within the legal framework and which is implemented in order to protect all citizens.
It is abundantly clear that Islamic Sharia law does not support equality and in the twenty-first century you still have the death penalty for leaving the Islamic faith in nations like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, The Maldives, and Yemen.
In other mainly Muslim nations you also have discrimination within family law and so forth. Therefore, in Egypt it is clear that Coptic Christians face discrimination and the same applies in Pakistan because the blasphemy law in Pakistan is used against all minorities in order to protect the dominance of Islam in Pakistan.
The modern Koran is not a replica of either the Istanbul or Tashkent version and if Aftab Khan is even trying to imply this then clearly he is mistaken because neither are complete and clearly the dating is not based on 19 years afterwards.
Aftab Khan should focus on the reality of modern day Pakistan and he should not bother with Islamic kitman because it does not wash.
In the lands of Mecca and Medina all apostates from Islam face the death penalty and discrimination throughout the Islamic world is rampant.
Ahmaddiya Muslims are only killed and persecuted by Muslims because they have religious freedom in mainly non-Muslim nations. Why?
http://pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2867 (In reply to this article)
http://global-security-news.com (please visit)