zaki77

One of the best books written on the subject in English!

Roger61

This is an islam perspective of History. Taking into consideration that the historical narrative regarding Yeshua or Isa as the Son of God or Messiah of Israel, it would be hard to say that Mohammed could be a prophet sent by God Himself. The Jewish Scriptures known as Torah and Brith Hadashach or New Pact were concluded about 500 years before Mohammed was born. It is a universal axion which states that the old writings have more authority than the most recent. The Quram was written and collected by prince Uthman about 250 years after Mohammed died. The New Pact was written during the life time of those who knew Yeshua, such as Shaul or Paul, who was a converted rabbi. Paying attention to what suppossedly Mohammed got as a "revelation" is distorting the historical evidence of scriptures that were written and sealed so many years before Mohammed could even read. There too many evidences showing that Islam, continues until today, being a pagan religion crammed with pagan practices sucha as kissing a black stone, making a pilgrimage or hajj to Mecca, where 360 arabic idols were worshipped before and during Mohammed's time, being Allah, the "god" belonging to the Quraixy tribe, the same one Mohammed belonged to. The half crescent on every mosque depicts that Allah is the moon god that was worshipped by arabian nomads on the Arabic Peninsula many years before Mohammed was born. Uthman collected the verses of the actual Quram, burning hundreds of so called "aliyas" and shaping the modern Quran as the "original" book. It is said that there were even two other Qurams before the one that the muslims use in their everyday readings. Besides, the belief in Yeshua has to do mostly with salvation to sinners thru Grace, while Allah gives no guarantee of salvation to any muslim, let alone Mohammed, who according to the Hadith, did not know where he was going to after his death. A religion without SALVATION is nothing else but pure human entertainment.

pherguvsel

A clarification: What I should have said is that "It doesn't help the author of this book's argument...." I should have worded my original comment better and my apologies to Abu_Noah if he or anyone else felt I meant it was he who had quoted Paul out of context when I should have stated that it was the author of the article.

pherguvsel

It doesn't help your argument when you quote Paul out of context in Romans. The full passage: But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (Rom 3:5-9) In other words, Paul is saying that we cannot promote righteousness by doing unrighteous deeds or promote truth by telling lies.