Talk:The Koranic Bible

From WikiIslam

[edit] Comments on the Article

I think this Archangel Guy thinks that this is a Pro-Islamic Site. How do we go about informing him otherwise (since he hasn't bothered to read the article before editing it all these times)? It was okay for me to revert the article, right? Or is that only for Specific admin. people? Sanitarium 18:28, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Hi Sani yes you did the right thing. Anyone can revert vandalism, its just like any other edit. Yes I guess he didnt bother to read the intent of the article. --Whale 20:09, 6 January 2007 (CST)

High Guys ....your problem was that you did not checked my just statements, which are simple to proof. The Archangel.

Quote from the article:..... More importantly, we will learn that the Koran confirms important Biblical concepts such as The Trinity; that Jesus is the Son; that Jesus was crucified; that Jesus was resurrected; that Jesus Created the Universe; that Jesus is God Almighty; and that the Koranic “Muhammad” is actually the Biblical Jesus! End of Quotation. In the Koran the "Concept" Trinity is fighted. The historical comming up of the Concept "Trinity" was by one of the Church-Fathers. His "Trinity Concept" contains the Concept: Of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. My opinion is leaned on what I found in on of the truthfilled Gospels, so I think that the FATHER is THE HOLY SPIRIT. In one of the Gospels Jesus is named by a young man: "Holy Teacher".... Its reported that Jesus reacted very accurate giving the young man advice, that only ONE is Holy ! The Holy God. So this is no case of plagiat but a case of discence between the thought from a Church-Father and the Koran author of the according passage. To the second "idea" that the Koran supports the Idea as Jesus as Son from God. In the Koran there are many sentences in which it is stated that the islamic "God" has no Sons. Thus Muslims believe in a "God" without Sons as Mohamed was only shorttime father of sons), whereas on the Writings in the Bible Christians and I too believe that Jesus is Son of God. According to the Tanach Jews and Hebrews also believe that God is Father with Sons! (but not that Jesus is one of them). What has been overtaken by the author of the Koran is that Jesus is Son from Mary. ....and there has been written a lot in which this has been quoted. This is one of the very small sequences in which the author of the Koran really followed what is written in the Bible. Third: In the Koran is stated that Jesus was not crucified and also not stoned .... this is written explicitly that way ! Fourth: ....I have a faint remembering that Jesus reanimation is also denied... Fifth: Creator of the Universe was the Holy FATHER ..... this is what is the situation declared in the Bible. Sixth: ....absolutely no Position in the Bible about that. How should a Son be creating the Holy God ? The misconcept of deleting the Holy God and making instead Jesus as the Almighty God is widely spreaded in Free Churches such as the Babtist Church and simlar sectarian groups. Seventh: ....if one of you had read the life of Jesus as presented by Mark, Luke and John you would think everyone cracy who tries to mix these to souls.

The "imagination" that the Koran is a plagiat from the Bible is not hiting the truth. The intention of the Koran writer(s) was to abuse Information given in the Bible to make His (their) outcome of their own ARABIC DEITY. Thus the Koranwriter CHANGED almost alll the stories from the Bible. He created something in the WAKE of a Mind who was in REBELLION against the true Messages. A very clear example for this can be found when comparing Luke`s report of Gabriel bringing Zakaria the message that his WIfe will become pregnant with John the Babtizer. As Zakarias did not believed he was got punishment from Gabriel. Zakaria could not speak until a very moment during the name giving ceremony of John, where he tried to confirm his Wife on the choosen name for the child. Read the whole story in Lukes Gospel ! In the Koran the story has been changed into this sick making version: Zakarias asked Gabriel for a wonder. Gabriel made Zakarias for three days loosing his ability to speak. So what makes sick if you believe such ? Ask an " koranic Archangel" for a Proof and you would get some kind of drastic hit ... as loosing the ability to speak. .... So consider what such emptional "koranic concept" brings up in souls ..... brutality is the "wonder of bringing believe"...... that is the impression that this koranic episode delivers.... for if one of God`s representant is asked a human question the answer is brutal .......... So many Muslims try to satisfy there projetions of what "their ""Gabriel"" "likes"..... and since they try to "be better than Gabriel" they try to be more brutal..... So Biblical reports are changed in the Koran ..... If muslim fundamentalists read this "the Koranic Bible" without knowing what WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE such get the impression if everything was okay with the Koran. They from their sight see that Apple Pie made a mistake when naming the Koran a Plagiat .... they think beause of their lack of knowledge that Mohamed wrote everything down as is written in the Bible ..... no one would call someone a plagiator who follows the truth of his former prophets... Such people hold so long this sight until it is revealed to them that Mohamed did change almost anything what has been reported in the Bible.

Apple Pie gave the impression as if the Koran is in harmony with the given informations in the Bible. This is nearly clompletly wrong.

The Archangel

Another Quotation from this article: Careful study of all this evidence can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Koran is merely a paraphrased version of the Holy Bible, integrating Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel, and Apocalyptic material within its pages - the purpose, of which, still transmits a decidedly Christian message. End of Quote. ....decidedly "Christian message" as to rob, to plunder to murder and so on.... And you will make me think that such lies are "islamcritics" ..... how shallowminded are you Whale and "Sani" .... because of "Sani".... maybe he is not that "shallowminded" at all ???? hmmm! If I would make a guess I would say that you are one of those lyloving Koranlovers ! Be aware estimated Liar that your misleading thoughts will bring you before an eternal court ! Who is the author of "KB" ? The Archangel

Whale ... from the sight of the muslim manipulators you are the dull thinking dhimmi, who helps their lying ..... you should learn to get this sensing for the muslim lielovers .... ...some are very though in lying, they try hard to make more tricky lies than Mohamed, Abu Bakr, Uthman and such ....if such do not change their attitude towards truthful emotional ripening they would get their "rewards" from such as they are... .....and some as me watch that they get enough from such as they are. The Archangel

Hello Archangel :) Nice to meet you. Although I understand what you are saying, your points are based on your emotional point of view, and not facts.

True, the Koranic Bible, at first glance appears to be a "Pro Islamic" or "apologetics" article. However if you read through it you will find that interpreting the Arabic (as Apple Pie as done) will show that many muslim beliefs, and their interpretation of the Quran, is contradictory to the interpretation of the literal arabic.

IN Apple Pie's translation, the arabic clearly shows us that concepts that are emphatically denied by Muslims, and their own translations of the Quran, are in fact confirmed by the Quran. ie. the Trinity, the Divinity of Isa (Jesus), etc... If you'd like to rebutt or change this article, then you will have to refute on the arabic evidence provided. Can you do that?

Regarding the Plageurism; you say it isn't Plageurism because the stories are not exactly the same. This conclusion is wrong. Say you write an essay. I take the essay and change the wording, or some details in it....isn't it still a copy (although crappier) than your essay?

Contrary to your conclusion, we are neither "dhimmi's" nor "islamic apologists". Please look at other articles on this site to see that.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your points, or have missed anything Thanks!

Sanitarium 03:27, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Hello Archangel :) Nice to meet you. Although I understand what you are saying, your points are based on your emotional point of view, and not facts.

>>>>>>>>>> The Archangel: This is wrong. I can quote every aspect I have been writting.

True, the Koranic Bible, at first glance appears to be a "Pro Islamic" or "apologetics" article.

>>>>>> The Archangel: Indeed, it is that misleading, especially for those who do not well know what is in the Bible.

However if you read through it you will find that interpreting the Arabic (as Apple Pie as done) will show that many muslim beliefs, and their interpretation of the Quran, is contradictory to the interpretation of the literal arabic.

>>>>> The Archangel: For sure translation can lead to misinterpretation ...... this can lead to big misunderstandings. As you shall have learned from my comparing the both "Gabriel-Zakarias" stories the whole outcome of a story brings mostly much more difference than different word interpretations.

IN Apple Pie's translation, the arabic clearly shows us that concepts that are emphatically denied by Muslims, and their own translations of the Quran, are in fact confirmed by the Quran. ie. the Trinity, the Divinity of Isa (Jesus), etc... If you'd like to rebutt or change this article, then you will have to refute on the arabic evidence provided. Can you do that?

>>>>>>>THe Archangel: Read Sura 4 Verse 169. There is according to Mohamed written about the Trinity as a failure. But Mohamed brings this in a context as if Jesus is not the Son from God. So Mohamed stands against the Church-Fathers imagination not because he is generally speaking against the idea of "Trinity" ... Mohamed is against the idea because this brings Jesus close to divine ORIGIN. So Mohameds taking a stand against Trinity does not follow loving sights ..... this is a result from his jealousness on Jesus. .....Mohamed did use the taking a stand against the Trinity theory of the Church Father to try to reduce Jesus importance. In the Case of Jesus as Son from God the viewpoint of Mohamed given in the Sura 4 Verse 169 is against the teachings in the Gospels !

Regarding the Plageurism; you say it isn't Plageurism because the stories are not exactly the same. This conclusion is wrong. Say you write an essay. I take the essay and change the wording, or some details in it....isn't it still a copy (although crappier) than your essay?

>>>>>>>The Archangel: Do not understand the word "crappier": Will look for it. To the ideas of this chapter of yours. If you follow the sense of the story everyone who reads or hears the story can say: Oh ..... you both are reporting from the same event ! BUT this is not the case when you read stories in Bible and Koran.

Contrary to your conclusion, we are neither "dhimmi's" nor "islamic apologists". Please look at other articles on this site to see that.

>>>>>>>>The Archangel: There are parts within your souls which proof that there is still a lot of "mohamedinian" thinking in you.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted your points, or have missed anything Thanks!

>>>>>>>THe Archangel: Indeed I HOPE that you got it this time ! If you did not then the "dark" sides of your souls have been underestimated from me.

>>>>> The Archangel: See my changes in my comment above ..... tried to bring it more clearly.

>>>>> The Archangel: My regard is to take "KB" out of Wikiislam and instead of this bring a collection of quotes from the Bible and from the Koran which make clear how often Mohamed abused Bible knowledge to change this into his "aims of living". This article should also give insight in the contradictionary sights of Suras written in Medina against Suras written in Mekka (which are mixed up in contemporary koran versions since Uthman did such).

Sanitarium 03:27, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel: Pleaes take note that I have re-added my Original Quote UNALTERED, as you have not followed proper Commenting Procedure. If you wish to reply, then please Copy and Paste my Comments in order to Add your own comments underneath each Part. Its a lot less messer and easier to Follow. Please also Sign your Additions by using the Four Tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (without the spaces) Thank you

Okay I have read your comments; here are my thoughts on what you wrote:

If you can quote every aspect of what you have been writing, then perhaps it would be better for you to create a Seperate article (with your own thoughts) here on WikiIslam instead of changing another article. What is in the Bible is irrelevant to this issue. We are talking about what is in the Quran. Again, if you disagree on Apple Pie's interpretation, please write your own article

We agree that Muhammad's stance on the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus is contrary to the teaching's of the Bible. However the article goes through possible other translations of the arabic in the Quran; showing that it can be translated in a way that would show that the Quran actually says that Jesus IS God, DID create the Universe, and Allah DOES have a Son. This of course, is completely contrary to the Beliefs of Muslims, their scholars; and is against the Fundamental's of Islam.

We Know what the Bible says in regards to these things; but your claims show that you have a basic ignorance of Islam. Islam of course claims to "confirm the previous scriptures" (that would be the Taurat and Injeel - the Bible), but that the "previous scriptures" were corrupted and cannot be relied apon. In translating the Quran in the way Apple Pie has done, shows that the Quran does in fact confirm the previous scriptures  ; only not in the way Muslims expect. This shows all Muslim belief to be wrong, and confirms the Bible to be right. I hope you understand our view on this issue now.

My apologies; 'crappier' a lesser Quality Copy of something. I never said they were reporting the same event. The Quran claims to "expand" (ie. give more detail) of Biblical events. As I know due to the contradictions, this is not the case. The Quran is wrong. For example: the Quran gets many Biblical figures time periods wrong, events wrong etc... although it could be claimed that the story of Jesus' crucifixion is an 'elaboration' ( I don't agree with the Quran account of course), due to the fact that the Bible says he was crucified, but the Quran says NO! "Someone else was given his appearance" so Isa was not crucified.

There is a lot of "mohammadean thinking" in our souls? I find that hard to believe. You will find that although there are ex-muslims here, there are no muslims and those who have never been muslim . I am one of the latter. I have NEVER been a Muslim, and I have never believed the Quran. How can you say there is "mohammadeanism" in me??

You are absolutely right; an article needs to be written on the absurdity of the Quran; and the differences between the Bible and Quran. Perhaps you could write a new article for WikiIslam?

It is my belief that this article should stay, and stay as it is however. I hope I have explained our position clearly enough ;)

Thanks

Sanitarium 06:25, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Hi Archangel :) Also to add: It is not our contention that the Quran's permissability of Terrorism, Changed message, Slave Trading/owning/taking, Booty taking, Pillaging, Mass Murder, etc.. are condoned by the Bible; or a 'continuation of its message. We say that the Quran's Message is completely contrary to the message of the Bible.

Muhammad admitted that no Prophet BEFORE HIM was allowed to do these things. For example, please look at this hadith:

Also See: Sahih Bukhari 4:52:220 Sahih Muslim 4:1063 Sahih Muslim 4:1066 Sahih Muslim 4:1067

So we agree that Muhammad invented the permissability of these things starting with himself, and with Islam. We do NOT say that the Bible says these things are okay; after all Muhammad himself said he was the only "Prophet" that was Allowed these things. This in itself is a big hint as to the fact that the Quranic Deity and the Biblical one cannot be the Same, as claimed by the Quran and by Muslims.

Hope this is clear.

Sanitarium 08:19, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel, all this article says that Muhammed tried to copy the Bible. He took the stories from there. This is an opinion critical of Islam and so it belongs in WikiIslam. The article doesnt say "the message of the Bible is the same as of the Quran". Its a critique - plageurism. We are different editors of different faiths and beliefs but we have one thing in common which is the criticism of Islam. Do you see the point of plaguirism? He was clever. If he said something entirely new, people might reject it. So he had to make a "connection" in order to give people a choice. --Whale 14:15, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Whale, read the text "The Koranic Bible" again and you will see that the Intention is to bring "Koran" and Bible closer ..... Thus reaching credibility for the Koran and thus bringing up the idea that all the "Islamic mistakes" have its origin just in "bad translators" or arabic tongue misinterpreting.

....and not in the Koran writings itself.

As we booth know this is wrong .... because Koran writings are also proofed by that what Mohamed has done (robbery, murdering, and even worse) .... which has been reported by many.

Apple Pie`s has psychopathic thoughts .... The Title itself shows his intent. Think about it.

This Apple Pie tries to cover differences.

The Title is an attempt to give the Bible a touch as if the Bible was the Preambel of the Koran .... thus trying to establish this book of lies as the final last book.

THAT IS WHAT IS THE POSITION OF MUSLIMS WHO ARE BONE DEEP LIARS.......

Apple Pie is a soul sick guy.

THE ARCHANGEL

Archangel, I dont think you're getting it. Please do not edit the article further unless you have something constructive and scholarly to add to the article. Also please do not duplicate Talk content on the main article page. Thats considered vandalism. Read the last few lines of the article.--Whale 15:48, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Whale .............oooooooooooch

Who needs a liefilled booklet to proof stories of many much much older books and stories ?

Are we here on a page to criticise the Koranic messages or are we here on a site where we applaude the Koran as a book which BRINGS US NEARER TO BELIEVE BIBLE  ????????

Whale...I am sure, that Muslims use this article to overthrow inside critics by commenting on that what gives the impression as if the Koran was in a straight line with the bible notes.

Again. I repeat: DO WEE NEED A LIEFILLED BOOKLET TO BELIEVE IN BIBLICAL REPORTS ?

The Archangel

Meanwhile I think that this Apple Pie is a Muslim... I am also quite sure that Sami is.

There is even the possibility that you are Whale, since you ignored what I proofed by quotation and you left this KB lie as Apple Pie (Sami?) wrote.

I will consider steps to stop your lie protection.

THE ARCHANGEL

Archangel, do you really think a Muslim would say this? Here's what the author Applepie wrote:

Koran is merely a paraphrased version of the Holy Bible, integrating Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel, and Apocalyptic material within its pages - the purpose, of which, still transmits a decidedly Christian message.

You're reading more into the article than it says. Please do not edit the article again in the manner you have done, or I'll have to block you. I have asked you to discuss the issue over here and first get editors to agree on what you are trying to put in.--Whale 16:19, 9 January 2007 (CST)

Och .... Whale .... how are you rotating ?

Read the text you quoted: The message is that people should be grateful that the Koran integrates all the former books .... THAT IS A MUSLIM VIEW ... if you do not knew such by now !!!!!!!

Your reading of the article is that of a coward.

Archangel

Archangel, I told you not to edit the article before discussing the contentious issues here first. Besides it wasnt exactly "editing", rather you were voicing your protest that the article was wrong in some way, and the main article is not the right place to say that obviously. Since you kept editing the article like that after my repeated reverts and notices to you, I had no option but to block you for now. If you return, I hope you will participate in constructive editing.--Whale 16:50, 9 January 2007 (CST)

From Archangel for Whale .... and the misleaders.

I made clear by quote that Apple Pie did not write correctly according to the aspect of trinity. His idea was that in the Koran a Trinity aspect has been supported. What I showed is that in the Koran a "trinity" aspect is denied. If you tried to get informations on the Trinity Matter you would have learned that several meanings of Trinity were brought forward in the past. Since Mohamed(Abu Bakr/Uthman/someone else ?) did not specified which Trinity was meant we can only think that Mohameds Perception of God is not the same as was given in the Gospels where there is a report that the brothers Johannes and Jakobus asked Jesus to sit on the left side beside the HOLY GOD. Need to get the info where to find this .... or you trust me. What you should have learned from me is that you made a failure in trusting Apple Pie and this Sami Guy. Do the just and throw this article out of Wikiislam.

What is cristal clear to me is the following. This Apple Pie and this Sami (maybe the same person)are deeply inside so sick that they wish so deeply a completly to the right Bible messages fitting "Islam" that such even try to rewrite the Koran in a fitting way........

To throwing out this article there is one very wise alternative which may be an example of how deeply connected people are to the Mohamed soul..... they would lie for him to make his life posthum a nice life. Putting before the text an advice (some quotes too)for readers who did not know what is in the Koran and even not know the true parts in the Bible (this is meant in the way that for example the Gospel from Matthews is not one of the true parts)will learn in which great amount muslimsympathisants are willing to lie for their spiritual leader. "At the end of the day" this KB article is an attempt to give the Koran a position as if it was one of the books in the best proliverated tradition of Divine spirited men. The Koran is not ...... because his inventor is not.

Read the 114 Sure (is a own story why this sura has been positíoned last years after Mohameds dying) to learn that a man did learn in the past to recognize finally a Ghost as not being Gabriel... ....by then this Mohamed was to great a coward to tell his by then of-his-kind-friends about the lyloving souls from which he had taken misleading thoughts..... the only for which in generations the Koran will be "famous" for will be its lying as in a much more deeper impact the Matthews Gospel will remind Christians and Jews and all Abraham children and all other Humans deep in their souls of how willing once peoples minds were to believe in the dark .....

Archangel

PS.: Whale. I appreciated your rendering of your up to this time last article. Seeing forward to having more to be fond of you. I indeed in the meanwhile would prefer to let the KB article .... but there must at least a notice in a Preambel with a direct information to this TALK passage of today ! We are no winners if we let unknowing people decide wheter the cracy ideas of Apple Pie`s and Sami`s are correct without giving the unknowing the knowledge that such as this KB article is only mental offspring of souls deeply involved in muslim feeling hearts.... No use to behead such corporally .... as now they have more spacious thinking their wrong heartemotions must be turned over to get their upper concious minds into straight forward thinking .... thus bringing true caring emotions back to their hearts-

Archangel for Sani:

Sorry that I wrote your Abbrevation wrongly (Sami instead of Sani)

This wrote Sani....

IN Apple Pie's translation, the arabic clearly shows us that concepts that are emphatically denied by Muslims, and their own translations of the Quran, are in fact confirmed by the Quran. ie. the Trinity, the Divinity of Isa (Jesus), etc... If you'd like to rebutt or change this article, then you will have to refute on the arabic evidence provided. Can you do that?

This quoted from me:

>>>>>>>THe Archangel: Read Sura 4 Verse 169.

Next in the row was again by Sani...

We agree that Muhammad's stance on the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus is contrary to the teaching's of the Bible. However .....

Archangel: "We" agree ... who "We" .... ? Archangel: "However" ...... why "However"?

Archangel: Human minds would ask for apology about the misleading .... Human minds would take the penance to change what is wrong in Apple Pies article.

Archangel: .... Humand minds would be grateful for having been shown such mistake.

By Archangel

Ok Archangel, here's the thing: if you have any criticism to add about this KB article or any other article, you can create its own page like Criticism of the Koranic Bible and you could then link it at the bottom of the KB article as a link. How does that sound to you? You would have to write it well and polish it first though. --Whale 23:10, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Okay Whale ...... good sound ...... suppose the sound of a big blue whale taking a deep breath for good moving.

Archangel

Archangel for Whale

Whale did started the text "Critics on the Koranic Bible" today .... have reached so much critical input that this should be brought already on the main page.

I will complete it and refine it in the next days.

Again I believe it important that my critic is passed already at this stage behind the critisised text on the main page to prevent thus more misleadings by Apple Pies Lies tractat.

Archangel Greetings to you ! Whale ....and I hope you also see the urgency of my proposal, when having read how I and what has been critisised yet.

Ofcourse it cant be featured on the main page. It will be at most a link at the bottom of its related main article, the KB article as a "Criticism" link and you will have to work a lot to make it look more readable, less emotion driven and more of an _objective_ analysis. Eliminate the mention of exactly who said what - make it look a good article, not a personal battle or crusade. And sign your comments using the signature button. --Whale 17:55, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Whale ....when having finalized the wording you will see that just puting a link would be a wrong decision. Why ? Simply because it would be stirring to have the facts according to the standings in both books in the backrow and the manipulation on first sight. The KB text should be there with warning previous to the text and then the clearing with my words, so we get for the visitors of the pages the clear impression of how far Muslims go in trying to manipulate. To your word use of "personal battle" or "crusade". It has some similarities to the former. Pilgrims were attacked, murdered and robbed. Then Pilgrims were protected ..... in later days there was a mixing up of business related aims and believe differences which led also to abuse of weapons.

If the Muslims then would have loved that people from Europe who travelled in these former days thousands of miles to come to places where the Fathers Son was teaching HIS Fathers love we would have had a long tradition of praise and praying togehter but this Mohamed prayed to another God and thus this liar even gave the command when praying togehter with "infidels" there should be weaponed "friends" (Muslims) in the back. Most of European Pilgrims came with good intentions ..... many of them were slaughtered by hordes of misbelievers. Also to honour here the loving deeds of Pilgrims from Europe is a very personal aspect.

Whale .... its not favourable to surpress every personal feelings when you are confronted with a bunch of lieloving manipulating wordings. --Archangel for L.G. 15:35, 14 January 2007 (CST)

There's no suppression here. You can write good criticism and totally whack the article's original claims if you have the objective logical arguments to do that, and I doubt that seeing your writeups. There's no bias here. A Criticism link will suffice. For example if people are reading the article, they'll look at the end too and then see the criticism. Have you seen Wikipedia? Thats how Criticism is dealt with over there too and it makes sense. You are being allowed to criticize the article in a nice way and people will be allowed to read that criticism. What more do you want? --Whale 15:55, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Whale .... I think I am making progress in getting the right wording to convince readers from the real heartfelt position of Apple pie. What`s your opinion of the previous change ? Greetings Archangel--Archangel for L.G. 15:56, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel, I dont think think you have an idea what an article should look like. It shouldnt have stuff like "I think", or "My opinion". That kind of stuff belongs on your user page, not in an article. Keep working on it. Make it look like something which is really convincing, and please, let go of your vindictive motivation for "exposing the real position" of Appliepie. That attitude will not help you at all in writing a good article. Try to think objectively. Look at Applepie's articles. He has used real sources while making his arguments. You will have to do the same. For example, take a look at this to see how you should write an article: The Koranic Bible: Who is Ahmad?. There are references and quotes from other texts and materials. Its not just a personal opinion. You must also bring in references and quotes from texts and other sources, if you want to create a convincing argument. --Whale 19:06, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Hello Whale ....the sources I used can be bought worldwide... the Bible and also the official version of the Koran .... when you read my latest edition you can find several quotes to several positions Apple Pie wants to make readers believe in. I clearly showed with this quotes that Apple Pie did not wrote the truth ..... either having been influenced by someone not knowing the Bible statements or doing all that knowingly as the widely known Muslim strategy "lie upon Christians" to make them silent .....but only lie for the purpose that Muslims can mutliply for "takeover".--Archangel for L.G. 15:06, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Hello Archangel I am glad to see you are constructing your own article as suggested! Please let us know if we can help in any way with the construction/layout etc... or any other help at all!!!

Sorry for reformatting this page; it was a bit difficult to read through all squished together like that :p

Sanitarium 13:18, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Maybe you can help me Sanitarium. I already found several Positions where in the Koran can be found that Allah has no Sons. Do you know how many such sentences of this contents can be found?

Remember: Apple Pie wrote that Jesus is Son .... why Apple Pie did not wrote that Jesus is Son from the Almighty Holy One .... as can be found very often in the Gospels.

What are your conclusions about Apple Pie`s motion solely to write about the Mother of Jesus ?--Archangel for L.G. 15:06, 18 January 2007 (CST)

AA, thats what you have to do. If you're refuting interpretations of verses as incorrect, you should support your views with verses and quotations as well. If you really want to refute Appliepie, you have to do a completely polar opposite of what he has done. See how he is making his points and then, make your points in the same way with an equivalent or stronger approach. --Whale 21:08, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Sanitarium showed up with "or any other help at all" ..... so Whale do not interrupt his positive move. Better you to hope for him that he will be successful with what I asked him for. Also this to you Whale. If you checked the quotations I gave why you did not removed the "KB" article already.... or fixed it with the "Warning note" I gave rather early in this thread.--Archangel for L.G. 03:24, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel,

I did not mean help in writing the article. I meant with layout, formatting, how to insert special features etc.. Its a little strange to say You are all totally wrong! And then ask for help to build your case on why we are wrong. Let me know if you would still like me to ge the verses you requested and I will do so.

Thanks

Sanitarium 18:07, 23 January 2007 (CST)

.....just move on. So you will find soon, that the Koran is not a "mere copy" and being not this it even more contains opposing elements to the Believe of the Ever Loving. "Love enemies" is one of the clear messages the Son told us from the Ever Holy God. Mohameds believe is in fighting enemies. Not talking is the Medinian Message from Mohamed, Murdering is his message ( in Mohameds Words: Killing). Mohamed is standing in a row with so called prophets who are dealing with lieing Souls. So Joseph Smith had his problem and also Alastair Mc Crowley... and so many others more-.

Why did became Mohamed so famous ? This is really very simple to answer. Because he and his "Ghost" showed up a kind of soulish surpression that especially fits to a certain kind of souls .... especially those from Arab Origin.

.....wheras the Message from The EVER TRUTHLOVING brought through the Messiah has found believers everywhere amongst the souls on this planet.

On a deep inside level you will find that the Mohamed "success" story (primarily a story of murder and theft) mainly comes from the envy of Muslims because of not being the primarily blessed Souls from Abraham.

This has also been made clear by Jesus by having said: That HIS GOD is the GOD for Abraham, Jizhaak and Israel.

.....having a favorite does not mean to have no time for others.....

Mohamed and his believers problem comes from the missing of real devotion. They want to be "first".... so many of such even try with murdering to gain this position ..... which is absolutely dangerous for such because such end there what they fear most.

Mohamed did turn around their minds so that many Muslims have ended there what they fear most ... and why? .... because they followed Mohameds words.--Archangel for L.G. 14:25, 24 January 2007 (CST)

For Whale: We put a final quotation in the Critics. Now you have the choice either to set the link or to cut the KB article off from Wikiislam. As I think that I can improve the Critics article I still want to have the possibilty to improve it, when its installed as link.

--Archangel for L.G. 19:02, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Hello Archangel,

You are in no position to be issuing ultimatums or making demands. Write the article, polish it up (this means remove all personal attacks on Apple Pie and the author's of the article) and then perhaps Whale will see what he can do.

Please don't be so pushy. An account here is a privellege and not a right.

Thanks

Sanitarium 23:14, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Sanitarium I stated already WHO you are and what`s your intentions. I mean that Whale surely does not need you as his advocate or advisor in this talk. Stay to your words and show up with your "help".... which is intended that this search will really HELP YOU to get rid of all the lies your try to cover.

For Example:

From Apple Pie: .....that Jesus Created the Universe; that Jesus is God Almighty; and that the Koranic “Muhammad” is actually the Biblical Jesus! End of Quote.

Anyone who has studied both books never would come to such "conclusions". What you try is to get Christians for your Muslim theatre. So Mr. Sanitarium/Apple Pie there must be much money in the background and even more hatred in your soul that you still confess to such nonsense.

Your believe is hatred. The coming out of this hatred is an incredible destructive thinking, which has its biggest effects on your own destiny.

I guess you were born in a Muslim country, quite sure in a Muslim family ..... because you show so much of the sickness I feel in the ways Muslims "think" .... maybe you came to Europe and now where you are also here confronted with truth you are so anxiously drilled by your wrong believes that you use power for lie-prolonging. .... instead of watching out for clear thinking.

....would you have read the quotes I gave to Apple Pie and your KB article you would ask for apology .... ...... and later also me for apology. --Archangel for L.G. 17:05, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Whale I think its time to make on the Main Page of Wikiislam a remark that there are attempts from Muslims or Muslim sympathisants to undermine Wikiislam.--Archangel for L.G. 17:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Arch, sorry that wont happen. There's no undermining going on anywhere here.--Whale 17:16, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Quote from the article: ....that Jesus Created the Universe; that Jesus is God Almighty; and that the Koranic “Muhammad” is actually the Biblical Jesus! End of Quote

....some like it slowly. One conclusion Apple Pie wants us to believe in is: Mohamed is Allah.

Is`nt it funny how the wish to lie and to betray forges a Muslim into contradiction to what can be found in the Koran, since in the Koran is standing that "Gabriel" gave Mohamed what was coming from "God". ....the wrong undermining of such liars as Apple Pie and Sanitarium always leads to undermining of the own souls, learn this from this talk Whale.

--Archangel for L.G. 17:39, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel,

I am not:

1. Apple Pie 2. Male 3. Living in ( or born in) a Muslim Country I live in Australia. 4. Born into a Muslim family 5. A Christian, Jew or Muslim

So no, you should be offering apologies to us for trying to throw your weight around, and ridiculing people you know nothing about.

Regards

Sanitarium 02:54, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Sanitarium , I know that you protect lies. I know that you broke your word.

Never beg a liar for apologies !

--Archangel for L.G. 13:34, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Whale, someone abused my Signature manipulating the prior beginning of this site.... I changed this one by taking out the signatures which were not made by me. Look at history. Any idea how such could have been done? No doubts about the idelogy which stands behind such manipulatung attempts ! Finally .... Whale, ? who else should be informed to put this cracy KB article out of the Site, since I made clear that this KB article contains a lot of and several extreme lies

--Archangel for L.G. 13:34, 27 January 2007 (CST)

What? It was your own nick, the one you had before you got blocked. Give a link to show me what you're talking about. --Whale 13:43, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Archangel: You say you know I broke my word? Where did I do that? Vendetta's are no reason to write a rebuttal. It appears you are just be contradictory for the heck of it. Right?

Sanitarium 21:26, 27 January 2007 (CST)

User Archangel was wright by condemnning this article as a PRO Islamic agenda.

I wonder WHY moderator wahle and user sanitarium did not checked the lying of the author of the article.

Both are guilty in not taking his points seriously.

--KKKKK 11:32, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

Hi,

Actually we read Archangel's thoughts on the article and he was allowed to (and did) create a rebuttal article to The Koranic Bible. However, he used the article to personally attack users of this Wiki instead of addressing the article. You are welcome to create a rebuttal to this article if you believe it is in error.

Thanks for your comments! Sanitarium 11:41, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

I agree. Archangel was being disruptive by continuing to edit the main article instead of working on his own article, removing the personal attacks and stuff. When he kept doing that I had no option but to ban him. KKKK, if you can create a response to this article, we can link it on the bottom. --Whale ^talk contribs 11:48, 11 May 2007 (PDT)

[edit] error in the Quran regard Jewish faith

Don't know where they should write about this error so I mention it here.Everybody that know will mention it in the correct article. In sura 9:30 the Quran say that the Jews said Ezra is the son of God. However no modern Jews say that and in no Jewish scripture it has been mention or something like that.Oren tal 06:27, 15 July 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Question

WHALE, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THIS ARTICLE ?

Angel in the LIGHT

The article says in the bottom: "The Koran, for the most part, albeit being an abbreviated, convoluted, and paraphrased rendition of the Bible - is still an extra-biblical confirmation to the authority of the Holy Bible….". As far as i see it, the intent is to show that Quran plaguiraised the Bible. --Whale ^(talk/contribs) 12:33, 17 August 2007 (PDT)

If you could see further you would see that the Quoran is a misleading book which was ment to carry through unbiblical sights.

It is no abbrevation, no convolution and not a single paraphrase on Words which can be read in the Bible. Its Simply a liars booklet, whose author showed his main interest when ordering murdering Jews and Christians.

Need any more statements to clean Wikiislam from "The Koranic Bible" ?--Angel in the LIGHT 06:47, 22 August 2007 (PDT)