A good Muslim is one who is without denomination, faction, or any other special loyalty. The prophet (SAWS), in his final speech to the whole Ummah, said that between Muslims, there are no races or tribes. We have divided the Ummah which our nabi (SAWS) tried so hard to keep together. Allah warns us, in verse 105 of surah #3 not to allow ourselves to dissociate. The verse reads:

The approximate meaning in English is:
"And be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear signs: for them is a dreadful punishment in store".

Islam, being a flexible religion, allows for a variety of opinions and customs, as long as they do not contradict the religion. As mentioned, religious disagreements between the so-called sects of Islam can be resolved by turning to the Quran, not by segregation. The Quran is the book of guidance for ALL OF mankind.

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/A..._the_Sects.htm

I tell you, in order to correct you, as you further the misconception you refer to. If you had read the link you would see it is actually directed at All people.

Quote:

Ihave a friend who is a muslim of african american decent..i just met her...she is a very sweet girl...but she cries all the time.. and prays to find a husband because at her masjid...she is the only black muslim an everyone treats her like a baby who knows nothing of Islam..and when people send her prospects for husbands they are all old, tired, black men..she doesnt want to complain..but she would prefer someone her age..but the women would never introduce her to their sons or nephews or family friendsbecause she is black and they want someone along the same cultural lines because they think that

she isnt good enoughconfused3

she asked one of her friends about it..but they told her, "but u are black?!?! ur culture is different"...but i told her...the culture should be Islam first if that is what they are teaching...

That is not a problem with Islam, it is a problem some of the people following Islam. Personally i hope they stop these ways and act in fairness and equality as the quran clearly teaches. However, as we both know, there are good and bad people in all groups, and just as some followers of Islam have transgressed in one way or another and used racial hatread, oppression and discriminations, so have others of different religions and groups also. To discuss such an idsues requires fairness in order to identify whether it is the people or the religion which promotes/condones such behaviour. In the case of Islam, it is totally against such practices, and equality of ALL mankind regardeless of any difference, is clearly stated in the text and millions of muslims do adhere to this.

Geeg:

well does that even matter?are the surahs put in chronologicla order?
there were many versions of the quran before and one of the caliphs destroyed a lot of the versions allowing one versions which we have today-this information is sourced from unbiased sources,example karen armstrong an atheist who actually supports islam.

If there are so many versions of Koran where are they? confused3

The surahs aren't in chronological order but they weren't copied from eachother nor do they contradict eachother like the Gospels.

Getting information on Islam from an atheist is like going to a butcher for health advice.




this is not true one of the gospels look further into it.2 of the gospels was definately written by an apostle,one is still in debate,the other i agree, but it was just rewritten as the original was lost.i will look further in case i am misinformed

Well, shouldn't you have looked into it already before you said it wasn't true?

This is the problem, too many Christians let emotions get in the way of logic and seeing the facts.





where did you get this information from?

From a book?

You think I got an angel sitting on my shoulder all day giving me the "low down" on ancient manuscripts.



yes if converting to islam does help you in life i am all for it.everyone should be free to do as they wish especially if its for their own good if they feel that way.

I think everyone should have a right to believe in what they want but NO ONE should choose a religion simply on how it makes them "feel".

Choices in religion should be based on facts, truth and logic because feelings and even life circumstances can change over time.

Truth does not.



however christianity isnt paganistic-we dont worship nature etc,the problem is most people in the uk only see british chirstianity which has substituted its pagan festivals and replaced them with christian ones but still celebrate them the pagan way eg xmas,easter etc.

If what we see in England and America isn't the truth Christianity then where can we find it?

What country should we go to in order to find the pure teachings of Jesus being practiced?

[align=center]When were the gospels written and by whom?[/align]


Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

[align=center]Destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. , Luke and Acts[/align]
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded by the gospel writers if they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied -- would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.
Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and naturally would have garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of the history of the early Christian church. The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"[suP]1[/suP] and we have further evidence that it was written very early and not long after Jesus' ascension into heaven.
If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, [suP]2[/suP] until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus(Grk. "lover of God")"may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."[suP]2[/suP] This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

• "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."[suP]3[/suP]
• "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."[suP]4[/suP]

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

[align=center]Matthew[/align]The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.[suP]5[/suP]

• "Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."[suP]6[/suP]

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

[align=center]Mark[/align]
[align=left] Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."[suP]7[/suP]Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70. [/align]
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

• "T

• he first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, [suP]2[/suP] until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. [suP]3[/suP] To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God," (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.
As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."[suP]8 [/suP]Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."[suP]9[/suP]
[align=center]John
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events and was most probably written well 20 or so years after the destruction of the Temple. John focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.
Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses. [/align]

Kurupzion:

like i said most versions were destroyed.-however i do know of one being recently uncovered.i will try and find a link for you.

Like you said?????

I don't even remember talking to a "Kurupzion" before.

How can I trust one who keeps changing their identity?




we have already gone through this before-the koran does contradict itself-but you have reasons/excuses/different interpretations for these,just like to you the bible contradicts itself but when you look deep enough it doesnt.

the point is the koran isnt in chronological order but in order of size isnt it?no what kind of order is that?

You tell me since you're the only one that seems to be concerned about it.

Islam isn't like Christianity, we're less concerned about the designes of our books and the decorations of stain glass in the church...and more concerned about the truth our books contain.

The fact is the Koran is ONE solid book from a credible and well known author.

Some many not agree with or like whats contained in the Koran but its authenticity can never seriously be questioned...unlike the bible.

You have hundreds of different bibles containing serval different books.

The Catholics have their bible, the Jews have theirs...how many times can the word of God be interpreted?




no it has nothing to do with that.not 1 person knows everything about their own religion it is impossible so i dont think its such a hard thing to understand that a person can not remember everything about what he has read.or do you?

If you don't know everything about your own religion...which you clearly admitted to...how can you be so sure it's the right one?

I wouldn't argue with anyone about what THEY believe until making sure I first understand what I'M supposed to believe.....am I right?

I've read the entire bible from cover to cover twice...have you even read it in it's entirety once?



well then what book?if you are going to go into things show your sources of information at least -its not too much of a hard request is it?or anyone can say anything and when asked for where the source is from anyone can say a book.

The Gospel of Barnabas
Paul: The Myth Maker

...to name a few




thats true but isnt funny if a muslim wants to convert to another religion that they according to your religion can be legally killed/murdered.funny thats its one rule for the non muslims and another for muslims.what happened to equality to all people?

That's not so funny to tell a bold faced lie like that.

Muslims have the freedom to accept and reject Islam at will.

Koran 2:256 "Let there be NO COMPULSION in religion".

God gave us free will to choose.

But the INQUISITION...on the other hand....killed those who refused to accept
Christianity.

Muslims didn't go all over this world in the name of Jesus raping and killing people because they were pagans...CHRISTIANS did that.



like i said look harder.the orthodox churches are totally different from western churches.we have no connection with the old pagan festivals to our celebrations.plus no church worships nature.where did you see that?

I didn't ask for a different spin on the same lie.

I asked you WHERE on this Earth can we find the "pure" Christianity being practiced since you say what people practice in the West isn't.







Sheik Jamal:

Where is that TRUE list that you posted some weeks ago about the chronological order of when the books of the bible were written?

I copied it but can't seem to find it at the moment.