Interesting...thanks. What I notice most about the flaws in Judaism and Christianity is the replacing of scripture with tradition. And it's worse the more exposed to various christian denominations you become. And I assume Islam is the same. But must admit, I know very little about it. But I've learned, you can speak to anyone if you leave politics out of it. And I believe this includes having preference for national identities as well. That would be preferring Israel over the Palestinians, etc. Or Neo- Conservatism and their "defence planning guidance" agenda.

The only reason that Islam is still growing is the high birth rate among Muslims. In fact, the apostacy rate among Muslims is on an all-time high.

And now to the questions:

1. Is the Qur'an a secular or a "Holy Book?"

How do you define a "Holy Book"? To me, a "Holy Book" must necessarily contain the infallible word of God.

Since the Qur'an claims that Jesus was not crucified (and therefore implies he never rose), it is not infallible, and therefor not a Holy Book.

2. Can it be compared to the Bible? If so, how are they alike and different?

They are in no way alike. To the Muslim, the Qur'an is the eternal word of God, similar to what Jesus himself is to a Christian. Muslim belief is that the Quar'an is a verbatim copy of the heavenly Qur'an that has existed unchanged since eternity.

Little do they know that the Qur'an has been standardized only in the 1920, and there are still dozens of different versions around. It is also proven that a number of suras have been lost. Muslim scholars do their best to keep these facts from the flock, but thank God this kind of information can easily be found on the internet these days.

3. What is the Qur'an's origin? Who is its author (s)?

Since there are numerous cases in which suras are suddenly revealed to Muhammad to justify his previous acts (such as marrying his own adopted son's wife, or slaughtering a barely armed Meccan caravan during the holy month), it is obvious to me that the Qur'an has mere human authorship.

4. Does it speak of Jesus?

It speaks of a distorted version of Jesus.

5. Can Christian doctrine be found in the Qur'an?

It contains distorted Christian doctrine.

6. Are there any values or lessons for the Christian to learn?

Scattered around here and there... but not worth the hassle separating them out from all the rest.

7. Which book is older- The Bible or The Qur'an?

Since the Qur'an speaks of the Bible, and the oldest complete Bible manuscripts date hundreds of years before the Qur'an was written, it is clear that the Bible is much older.

Muslims claim that the Bible we have today was corrupted after the Qur'an was written, but literally all manuscript finds disprove that claim.

There's a dilemma here. The Qur'an claims that it affirms the truth of the Old Testament and New Testament. Yet the Old Testament and New Testament that existed at the time of Muhammad are the same OT and NT that exist today, and contradict the Qur'an historically and doctrinally in most major points.

8. Is it possible to bring one to Christ using the Qur'an?

Interestingly, yes. There seem to be at least two distinct ways to bring Muslims to Christ: by using the Qur'an and by attacking the Qur'an.

In addition, some seek to say some of the stories, events, and acts of violence in the Bible are in the Qur'an. Does it make a difference which book I read and believed? A case in point, a Muslim scholar Fareed Zakaria, in a Newsweek article entitled, “Why They Hate Us: The roots of Islamic Rage—and What We Can Do About it", wrote:

There is violence in the Bible as well, however, it is largely descriptive and not prescriptive. In the few cases of prescriptive violence in the Bible, these are very specific cases during the taking of Canaan by the Israelites, and not valid today. To the Christian, Jesus message of complete non-violence and peacefulness is the only valid message.

Violence in the Qur'an however is prescriptive in most cases, to all Muslims at all times. Sura 9, the most violent of them all, is the last sura written by Muhammad, and abrogates all previous (contradicting) peaceful statements.

• “The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in its condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. Through its long history, Christianity has supported inquisitions and anti- Semitism, but also human rights and social welfare.” Is this a fair assessment of the teachings of the Koran and of the Bible?

We must distinguish between Islam as a religion, and Muslims. Islam is "intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion". The Qur'an may contain peaceful passages, but they have mainly been abrogated. Also, the Qur'an names Muhammad as the prime example of a perfect life that every Muslim is supposed to copy in as many aspects as possible. From the life of Muhammad (Hadith), however, we can mostly derive a lot of violence, hatred, sexism, and more violence and hatred.

Muslims, however, especially in the West, honestly believe that Islam means "peace" and is essentially a religion of peace.

Virtually all Muslims I know are peaceful and friendly and toleranr, have picked the few peaceful aspects of their religion, and probably have never been taught all the gory details.

Muslims in general are far from being intrinsically intolerant and violent.

More details here:
https://ebooks.faithlife.com/products/55767/no-god-but-one-allah-or-jesus
https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

Cassius Clay was a good man (by worldly standards), who was tragically deceived by Islam in multiple ways. His case actually displays very well that Islam not only pretends to be a religion of peace, but also a religion for the "oppressed coloured people" entirely ignoring that Muhammad had white skin, not coloured, and that over the centuries a whole lot more black slaves lived and died under Muslim dominance than under white Christian rule.

Acts 17 Apologetcs also has a video about Clay.

Excellent and astute points Dave L!

@Dave_L said:
I can see how Ali would want a spiritual identity apart from the white folk who made life so miserable for blacks.

Made? Still make...

@C_M_ said:

@Jan said:
The only reason that Islam is still growing is the high birth rate among Muslims. In fact, the apostacy rate among Muslims is on an all-time high.

Is not this is the same reality of Catholic and Protestant Churches? I think I recall a Barna Report that a large percentage of churches grow biologically because of a lack of evangelism of outreach of inclusion. I stand to be corrected here.

Churches are mushrooming in places like China. I don't think that Christianity is globally reclining.
It surely is declining in the West though.
And Islam grows faster than Christianity.

The problem is that Muslims often use this as an argument for a truth claim, which is problematic an many ways.

1. Is the Qur'an a secular or a "Holy Book?"

How do you define a "Holy Book"? To me, a "Holy Book" must necessarily contain the infallible word of God.

Can a people declare thing holy (set apart for sacred use)? Am I to understand you to be saying that a "Holy Book" must be universally acknowledged to be recognized?

This is not at all what I'm saying. I was asking for the definition of Holy Book, and gave my personal definition as an example, according to which the Qur'an is not holy.

Since the Qur'an claims that Jesus was not crucified (and therefore implies he never rose), it is not infallible, and therefor not a Holy Book.

Did you cite a reference from the Qur'an for your above point? Does citing a quote saying Jesus was crucified makes the Christian Bible "Holy?"

I don't think so. Should be somehow agree on a universal definition of "Holy Book", we can find out for certain.

2. Can it be compared to the Bible? If so, how are they alike and different?

They are in no way alike. To the Muslim, the Qur'an is the eternal word of God, similar to what Jesus himself is to a Christian. Muslim belief is that the Quar'an is a verbatim copy of the heavenly Qur'an that has existed unchanged since eternity.

Little do they know that the Qur'an has been standardized only in the 1920, and there are still dozens of different versions around. It is also proven that a number of suras have been lost. Muslim scholars do their best to keep these facts from the flock, but thank God this kind of information can easily be found on the internet these days.

**Are there not a number of translations, manuscripts, and KJV editions around?

Oh, there are, and I'm thankful for that. I'm thankful that Christians throughout history preserved their manuscripts, enabling us today to do textual criticism and research the original text.

On the other hand, all but one Qur'an manuscripts were burned by Uthman in 651, eliminating all versions that did not confrom to his standard text.

The Hadith records an ample amount of examples that people afterwards complained about changes in the text, missing suras etc.

Problem is that the Qur'an claims that it cannot be changed. Now history has recorded that changes did occur, and even worse, that the original has been lost.

The Bible never makes such claim.

Do we have all the words of Jesus, his acts, and the disciples recorded, in the Christian Bible?

No, John explicitly write that it's incomplete.
Jesus's original words were probably Aramaic, and we only have them in Greek. There has already been a loss of information through translation into Greek.
Then the four Gospels sometimes record Jesus's words slightly differently, which is further evidence that we don't have the original words.

However, the Bible doesn't claim that we have the original words, therefore it poses no problem to the Christian faith.

Are there not lost books of kings and judges of the OT? In short, are there writers and books mentioned in the Christian Bible that don't exist?**

Sure. Book of Jubilees etc. Again, the Bible makes no claim that it is the preserved copy of a heavenly manuscript. The Bible clearly identifies most of its human authors, and claims that the words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There's no contradiction to that claim.

Whereas there's plenty of contradiction to the claim that the Qur'an is a copy of a heavenly manuscript that cannot be changed or altered.

8. Is it possible to bring one to Christ using the Qur'an?

Interestingly, yes. There seem to be at least two distinct ways to bring Muslims to Christ: by using the Qur'an and by attacking the Qur'an.

This interesting. To connect the dots of your responses the questions above I don't see how this is possible. You said:
1. The Qur' ran "is not infallible, and therefore not a Holy Book."
2. The Qur' ran is "in no way alike" to the Christian Bible.
3. The Qur'ran has "proven that a number of suras have been lost."
4. In The Qur' ran "there are numerous cases in which suras are suddenly revealed to Muhammad to justify his previous acts."
5. In The Qur' ran values are "scattered around here and there... but not worth the hassle separating them out from all the rest."
6. Then at whatever point, you would "attack the Qur'an."

Why would a Muslims sit with you or subject himself to your reality of his book, religion, and leader?

Why would a Muslim watch David Wood's videos? I think they do because they want to prove him wrong. Since he gives canonical evidence for each and every of his claims, Muslims can't disprove him.

Muslims love to discuss and to debate, and if you can get them researching about missing suras, textual reliability, evidence for Jesus's crucificion etc., then that's excellent.

There an American English phrase "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." I just found out something amazing about flies, vinegar, and honey that turns this old idiom on its ear!

• "The design of a fly trap that attracts them with vinegar, but traps them with honey. It's an inverted jar, and the flies, lured in by the smell of the vinegar (vinegar smells like rotting fruit to them, which they adore) are tricked into going higher up the jar, where the sides are coated with honey. They get stuck on the honey. I think the basic meaning of the saying remains intact, that if we want people to do what we want, we should be sweet and not rude to them."

There must be a better way. Jan, let's see how can we reach Muslims with love and respect? Witness to them without turning them off. This would be a nice project for all in CD to share in another thread under the category of "Ministry Methods". More next time. CM

There's also a cultural aspect. in Middle Eastern culture, people defend their positions with zeal and passion. If you don't show the same, even if your argements are the better ones, you're not going to convince many. You still gotta do it with love and respect, of course.

@Jan said:

@Dave_L said:
I can see how Ali would want a spiritual identity apart from the white folk who made life so miserable for blacks.

Made? Still make...

Yes, excellent point. I'm aware of racism in the News. But we have zero tolerance for racism locally with few exceptions.

Yet, Paul did so for the sake of relating the message of gospel to people the see Acts 17:22, Acts 17:28, 1 Corinthians 15:33, and Titus 1:12. Paul quotes a Hymn to Zeus by Aratus, Epimenides of Phaestus, and, Menander. Paul does not praise their works, but he does not ignore their their documents either. For our sake Paul even explains this concept here: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23.