Haruwn,

I only published your comment because I hope you are willing to believe, and tell, the truth.

Quoting Haruwn:

Filth and lies.
The first video isn't more than a propaganda.

I agree in these ways--it seems to me that both videos are telling lies as well as the truth, and both videos are propaganda promoting an agenda. The point of my article above is not to promote either video's agenda, but to promote the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Quoting Haruwn:

In Islam, there's validation of everything, unless its validated, you must not follow/obey.

What is Islam's validation for its claim that "Allah is merciful"? It seems to me that because of Allah's tawhid, Allah's mercy is arbitrary. Arbitrary mercy is manifestly not good. But the statement "Allah is merciful" is intended to mean that Allah is good. This appears to be an irreconcilable contradiction in Islam's teaching. Either Allah is good (because he is merciful), or he is not good (because he is arbitrary).

This is the general problem Socrates posed in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Socrates claimed either God is below the law, so not all-powerful, or he is above the law, and so is arbitrary. Islam claims Allah is above the law, because his essence or identity is found exclusively in his tawhid, his radical unity which transcends the diversity of his attributes, and the law could not be part of his unity, but only part of his attributes. So Allah can make the law be whatever he wants it to be, which means Allah is arbitrary. What is more, the attribute of "mercy" does not apply to Allah himself, because Allah is beyond, and is not, his attributes.

The true God of the Bible IS His attributes; His essence is what His attributes say it is. If you demand evidence of this claim, you can find it in Exodus 33 and 34. In Exodus 33:18, Moses asked God, "Please show me your glory," which amounted to a request for God to reveal His essence. In response, God revealed His glory by declaring what His attributes are: "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:6, 7).

Because the true God is His attributes, His will is always in accord with His nature (His nature is described by His attributes.) Therefore His will is not arbitrary; rather, it is always in accord with His attributes of holiness, righteousness, goodness, and as I quoted above, mercy. The Bible's answer to Socrates' dilemma is that God is neither above or below His law; rather, He IS His law; the law He obeys is part of His nature, so He remains all-powerful, and the law He chooses by His will to require men to obey is not arbitrary, because it is rooted in His nature, including His holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Only on this solid foundation can anyone claim, as Paul claims of God's law in Rom. 7:12, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good."

Quoting Haruwn:

In Islam, there are only 2 sources of Islamic teachings which will never change till this world exists.
1. Al-Qur'an
2. 6 books of Hadith

Doesn't this world exist? I assume you meant to say the opposite of what you said: "till this world ceases to exist." I take this grammatical mistake (and the several others in your comment) as an indication that you may not be writing very carefully. But because the reason may instead be that you may not know English very well, in the interest of promoting the truth I'm still responding to your comment.

Quoting Haruwn:

If someone quotes anything from Islam, he/she must provide Reference.

Is your point here that the videos quoted from sources other than the two sources you mention? If so, I understand that you will say some of the video's claims are based on the wrong sources, but what positive point of substance does this documentation requirement imply? For example, does it somehow imply that Islam is a peaceful religion, as the second video affirms, and the first video denies?

Quoting Haruwn:

* Making pictures is prohibited in Islam so please stop this filth and explaining something which is not by your propaganda old pictures stuff and filth said by your Free Mason Fellows.

We have no ecclesiastical fellowship with Free Masons - see www.opc.org/GA/masonry.html. I don't remember what parts of either video came from the Free Masons. More to the point, I don't intend to offend Muslims by providing a link to pictures that Islam forbids, but making pictures is not forbidden by the Bible, so I at least meant no harm toward you, and what is more, the law of God and of my country leaves me free to provide the link above. Aside from the sin of idolatry, which the Bible forbids, making pictures is a very good thing, and I wish your religion, your conscience, and your country would give you the freedom to make them!

Interestingly, you may remember that Jesus, of whom Mohammed approved in Surahs 3:3 and 5:46 as a prophet inspired by God (see carm.org/.../... for quotations), approved of the image of Caesar on the Roman coin in Matthew 22:20, Mark 12:16, and Luke 20:24. In addition, in the books of Moses, of which Mohammed approved in Surahs 2:87 and 3:3 as given by the inspiration of God, God commanded Bezalel and Oholiab to make pictures. See Exodus 35, 36, 37, 38. How do you reconcile Mohammed's approval of the books of Moses with the Hadiths' prohibition of making any pictures? What is more, Surahs 2:248 and 34:12-14 in the Qur'an COMMEND the making and venerating of the "sign" and "symbol" of the "Ark of the covenant" and "statues." (See these surahs quoted here: answering-islam.org/.../....) How do you reconcile these surahs in the Qur'an with the Hadiths? As one Muslim who became a Christian said, because Mohammed commanded him to read, believe, and obey the books of Moses, the Psalms (Surah 4:163), and the Gospels, he read them, and found that the Qur'an could not be reconciled with them. He had to choose either the Qur'an or the Bible, and when he discovered that the Qur'an required BOTH obedience AND disobedience of the Bible on the same point (like the making of pictures here), but the Bible required him not to believe and obey the Qur'an, the choice was clear: only the Bible is the true word of God to be believed and obeyed.

Muslims claim the Bible has been corrupted, and that is why they need not believe it. But Mohammed said "there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" (Surah 6:34), "None can change His words" (Surah 6:115), and "no change can there be in the words of Allah" (Surah 10:64). If, as Mohammed said, Allah "gave" the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Gospel of Jesus, those books contain Allah's words, which "none can change." So, did Allah allow men to change his words? If so, when did he allow this change?

Was it before the days of Mohammed, who lived from 570 to 632 AD? If so, then it appears Muslims contradict Mohammed--he said Allah's word could not be changed, but it was changed. Christians recognize that copyists made some incorrect copies of the original manuscripts of the New Testament, but there is such a great agreement between even those copies that differ, that it remains undeniable that the original included the word "likeness" in Matthew 22:20, Mark 12:16, and Luke 20:24, mentioned above. The historical process of these copying mistakes is open to historical investigation, because the differing copies of the New Testament were not destroyed, but preserved for our investigation. Muslims claim the Qur'an was given by direct inspiration--by dictation--but the historical fact is that the copies of the Qur'an which differed from the officially approved version were destroyed, and cannot be examined even for the purpose of recognizing how the mistakes in copying were made. Which is the more trustworthy practice--destroying, or preserving, the evidence?

On the other hand, was the change to the Bible made after the days of Mohammed? If so, it appears Mohammed contradicted himself. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve a copy of the Old Testament (including the books of Moses) from before Mohammed's time which is nearly identical to the Masoretic Text on which today's Bible translations are based. There is, then, no doubt that God commanded Bezalel and Oholiab to make images. The oldest and most reliable copies of the whole New Testament are found in the codex (book format) copies of the whole Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments, named Sinaiticus (en.wikipedia.org/.../...) and Alexandrinus (en.wikipedia.org/.../...), which were made in the 4th and 5th centuries AD, before Mohammed wrote the Qur'an. Other faithful copies of parts of the New Testament exist from earlier centuries, even dating back to 125 AD (like the ones named P52 en.wikipedia.org/.../... and P46 en.wikipedia.org/.../...). This is solid proof that Jesus approved of Caesar's "likeness" being on the Roman coin, because that word exists in Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus, and Mohammed approved of Jesus' word as being the true word of Allah.

Quoting Haruwn:

All who wants the truth must seek the truth and follow the proper way and proper books not some stupid video,movie,dra ma,and all un authenticated things like that.

I agree. Now, is the Qur'an telling the truth, when it says:

"A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith." (Surah 2:248, Y. Ali translation - note the Ark is said to be "carried by angels," whom Islam says do not approve of pictures.)

and

"And unto Solomon (We gave) the wind, whereof the morning course was a month's journey and the evening course a month's journey, and We caused the fount of copper to gush forth for him, and (We gave him) certain of the jinn who worked before him by permission of his Lord. And such of them as deviated from Our command, them We caused to taste the punishment of flaming Fire. They made for him what he willed: synagogues AND STATUES, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful." (Surah 34:12-14 Pickthall translation)

Is this a contradiction, or is there some other way to understand these words? It appears to me that on this point, the writings of Mohammed are self-contradictory, and so are the writings of a mere man, and not the word of God. I call you to believe and obey the true word of God, which is the Bible.

Quoting Haruwn:

I need to be honest and st. forward no matter there's a knife on my neck.

So do I.

Filth and lies.
The first video isn't more than a propaganda. Whatever they speak of ALLAH and Qur'an and Prophet and beheading are LIES.
In Islam, there's validation of everything, unless its validated, you must not follow/obey.
In Islam, there are only 2 sources of Islamic teachings which will never change till this world exists.
1. Al-Qur'an
2. 6 books of Hadith

If someone quotes anything from Islam, he/she must provide Reference.
* Making pictures is prohibited in Islam so please stop this filth and explaining something which is not by your propaganda old pictures stuff and filth said by your Free Mason Fellows.

All who wants the truth must seek the truth and follow the proper way and proper books not some stupid video,movie,dra ma,and all un authenticated things like that.
I could pretend to be a bloody doctor and said something wrong about others religion. But that isn't what Islam tells me.

I need to be honest and st. forward no matter there's a knife on my neck.