PDA

View Full Version : Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.



Pages : [1] 2

- Qatada -
01-10-2006, 06:46 PM
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his beloved family) in the Bible.
by Dr. Zakir Naik



Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Old Testament:

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".


1. Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him) Prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (peace be upon him) because Jesus (peace be upon him) was like Moses (peace be upon him). Moses (peace be upon him) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Jew. Moses (peace be upon him) was a Prophet and Jesus (peace be upon him) was also a Prophet.

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (peace be upon him) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (peace be upon them all) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.


However, it is Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) who is like Moses (peace be upon him):


i) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]


ii) Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii) Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive.
(4:157-158)


Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is from among the brethren of Moses (peace be upon him). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (peace be upon him) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (peace be upon him) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (peace be upon him).


Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

[Deuteronomy 18:18]


iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).


2. It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."


3. Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".


4. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned by name in the old testament:

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."


In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is yet present.



To Be continued...
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
james
01-20-2006, 09:32 PM
may i add a few cents to this discussion as a former Jehovahs witness and brainwashed one at that........it is difficult to say.....as the bible has been changed so many times that the translations have been lost.....

but we can all assume what the bible is trying to say and gain our own answers but we have so many christian religions and sects that gain different meanings from the bible that its difficlut to know what was changed and what wasnt........thats just my humble opinion though if i am allowed to provide it here......Peace to you all....
Reply

- Qatada -
07-04-2006, 01:35 PM
Lecturer: Imaam Anwar al-Awlaki - Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prophecised in the Bible:


Media Tags are no longer supported


Download Link: [Makkan Period CD 7]

http://lectures.kalamullah.com/greenbird/MUHAMMED_SAS_MAKKAH-V1-CD7.mp3



Can download the full series of lectures Free from:

http://www.harlowmasjid.org/downloads.html
Reply

IceQueen~
07-04-2006, 01:38 PM
sorry i know this is going off topic a little but-wow-bro james you used to be a jehovah's witness? subhanallah!
what made you accept islam (need some advice for the next time they come at our door insha allah)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
- Qatada -
07-04-2006, 01:43 PM
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the New Testament:

Al-Qur'an Chapter 61 Verse 6:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!' "
All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians.


1. John chapter 14 verse 16:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."


2. Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:


"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."


3. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".


"Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.

Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures.

Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the
Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh).


4. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is
come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me".


The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)


NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.


Peace.
Reply

IceQueen~
07-04-2006, 01:50 PM
yup Jesus (P) prophesied the coming of the comforter
1 comforter will confirm jesus (P)
2 what he brings will not be from himself but from God
3 he will explain all things in detail
4 what he brings will remain with you (addressing disciples) forever

the quran confirms prophet Jesus(P) -surah maryam
the quran is revelation from Allah
the quran is called the criterion-shariah, fiqh issues
the quran hasn't changed a single bit since it was revealed 1427 yrs ago
Reply

...
07-04-2006, 01:52 PM
Jazakallah khair for the info bro!!
Reply

thirdwatch512
11-05-2006, 02:32 AM
jesus was the last prophet according to christianity, until he returns. the Bible even says so.. Jesus said "this is the end" before he was crucified.

also, for anyone to be a prophet, they must have been a jew.. so there's no way mohammad could have been.

and jesus did have a father.

also, so moses said he will have raise up a prophet like him.. but is it EXACTLY like him? No. not at all.

and even if so, the prophet in the old testiment [torah] predicted was jesus. and islam accepts this fact too. because you guys claim it was predicting mohammad.. but the torah was predicting ONE messiah, so it's either mohammad or jesus.. but iff you guys believe it was mohammad, then you have to reject Jesus [issa] as a prophet all together.
Reply

Umar001
11-05-2006, 02:43 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus was the last prophet according to christianity, until he returns. the Bible even says so.. Jesus said "this is the end" before he was crucified.
So according to the Gospel Authors who said Jesus said 'this is the end' it meant 'there will be no more prophets'?

Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
also, for anyone to be a prophet, they must have been a jew.. so there's no way mohammad could have been.
Enlighten me where this is in the Bible. :)

Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
and jesus did have a father.
Who was?

Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
also, so moses said he will have raise up a prophet like him.. but is it EXACTLY like him? No. not at all.
Noone claims EXACTLY, else it'd be his clone or something. Similar, i.e. Like.

Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
and even if so, the prophet in the old testiment [torah] predicted was jesus. and islam accepts this fact too. because you guys claim it was predicting mohammad.. but the torah was predicting ONE messiah, so it's either mohammad or jesus.. but iff you guys believe it was mohammad, then you have to reject Jesus [issa] as a prophet all together.
First, who said Dueteronomy 18:18 was about a Messiah, also where does Islam accept that? Rather, both Jesus and Muhammad could have been prophecied in different places.

Please be patient with me, :)

Eesa
Reply

thirdwatch512
11-05-2006, 04:16 AM
jesus's father was joseph.

oh, and i take the back, the Torah never does say the prophets must be jewish.

however, if you read the Torah completely, it predicts ONE messiah in the future.. one. no more then that. it basically talks about all of the prophets that have come and their laws, and then it says that in the future another prophet will come.. but no other prophets. just one messiah. and muslims can't think that mohammad was the one, because although he may very well fit the discription of the messiah, islam also accepts jesus as a prophet, which would be impossible according to the torah.
Reply

dougmusr
11-06-2006, 03:13 AM
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
Reply

DAWUD_adnan
11-06-2006, 03:35 AM
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (QUOTE)

meaning. he was human, not divine ..
peace....
Reply

Umar001
11-06-2006, 03:37 AM
Hi :),

Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus's father was joseph.

oh, and i take the back, the Torah never does say the prophets must be jewish.

however, if you read the Torah completely, it predicts ONE messiah in the future.. one. no more then that. it basically talks about all of the prophets that have come and their laws, and then it says that in the future another prophet will come.. but no other prophets. just one messiah. and muslims can't think that mohammad was the one, because although he may very well fit the discription of the messiah, islam also accepts jesus as a prophet, which would be impossible according to the torah.
I don't think anyone believes Joseph was the proper father of Jesus.

No worries.

There are many prophecies which dont say 'this is about the messiah' there are prophecies which people interpret to be about THE messiah.

And Hi Doug,

Originally Posted by dougmusr
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
Alhamdulilah, Great passage which shows the validity of Islam, thanks. :) Peace be upon Jesus and his Mother.
Reply

dougmusr
11-08-2006, 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by DAWUD_adnan
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God (QUOTE)

meaning. he was human, not divine ..
peace....
1 John 1: 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life--
2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.

John indicates that Christ is the Son of God, and that He was from the beginning. In the flesh therefore refers to the fact the Christ, the Son of God, took on human form. It would be my interpretation of these passages that denying Christ's heavenly preexistance as the Son of God is also denying that Christ came in the flesh. Accepting Christ as a prophet does not pass the "came in the flesh" test as I read these verses.

Just as Jews do not believe Christ was a prophet, and Muslims do ot believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Christians do not believe Muhammad was a prophet.
Reply

IzakHalevas
11-09-2006, 10:48 PM
Hmmm... the same scriptures say the Moshiach will begin sacrifices on the temple mount again. They also say all war will be over when he arrives... hmmm... They also say if he does not complete one of these things then he is false... Hmmm... was Muhommad Moshiach? Not unless you deliberatly wish to change the Jewish scriptures.
Reply

thirdwatch512
11-10-2006, 01:45 AM
hah that is very true.
Reply

Umar001
11-10-2006, 09:22 AM
Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Hi doug, thanks for you reply :)

Originally Posted by dougmusr
1 John 1: 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life--
2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us--
3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.

John indicates that Christ is the Son of God, and that He was from the beginning. In the flesh therefore refers to the fact the Christ, the Son of God, took on human form. It would be my interpretation of these passages that denying Christ's heavenly preexistance as the Son of God is also denying that Christ came in the flesh. Accepting Christ as a prophet does not pass the "came in the flesh" test as I read these verses.

Just as Jews do not believe Christ was a prophet, and Muslims do ot believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Christians do not believe Muhammad was a prophet.
I disagree, but please correct my understanding if you see any flaws in it.

You said "John indicates that Christ is the Son of God, and that He was from the beginning." Rather, the author of the writing is writing a letter which is talking about himself having witnessed the happenings, as you see "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life--"

It feels like this is a re-affermation that he had been there in the beggining, that he had seen and touched and heard from early on, the start of the 'mission', I do not see anything here about Jesus existing before life on earth.

But even if he did it would not be a problem, Jesus' pre-existance, or G-d's knowledge of Jesus is not a problem and does no constitute Jesus being G-d or anything.

Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Hmmm... the same scriptures say the Moshiach will begin sacrifices on the temple mount again. They also say all war will be over when he arrives... hmmm... They also say if he does not complete one of these things then he is false... Hmmm... was Muhommad Moshiach? Not unless you deliberatly wish to change the Jewish scriptures.
Just wondering, what do you as in Jews render the word to?


Eesa :)
Reply

YusufNoor
11-20-2006, 03:24 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus was the last prophet according to christianity, until he returns. the Bible even says so.. Jesus said "this is the end" before he was crucified.

also, for anyone to be a prophet, they must have been a jew.. so there's no way mohammad could have been.
and jesus did have a father.

also, so moses said he will have raise up a prophet like him.. but is it EXACTLY like him? No. not at all.

and even if so, the prophet in the old testiment [torah] predicted was jesus. and islam accepts this fact too. because you guys claim it was predicting mohammad.. but the torah was predicting ONE messiah, so it's either mohammad or jesus.. but iff you guys believe it was mohammad, then you have to reject Jesus [issa] as a prophet all together.
where oh where did you get THAT idea??? Moses WASN'T a "Jew"! neither were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph!!! before the birth of Judah, the concept didn't exist...


also, it's really difficult to compare Jesus to Moses. we are told that the stuff that Jesus did "could fill volumes", and yet all we have are 4 gospels, 3 of which are greek copies of an original Aramean/Hebrew document! Paul is held responsible for more of the current christian culture than Jesus.

the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), on the other hand, delivered the Qur'an which is a complete way of life, a new covenant, VERY MUCH SIMILAR to what Moses brought!

and no-one says that the Prophet (pbuh) was the Jewish Messiah! that title belongs to Jesus. Muhammed (pbuh) message was for the entire world!
Reply

Muslim Woman
01-06-2007, 01:50 AM
I seek refuge in Allah (The One God) from the Satan (devil) the cursed, the rejected

With the name of ALLAH (swt) -The Bestower Of Unlimited Mercy, The Continously Merciful


Assalamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh (May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you)


&&&

without reading the whole thread , is it ok to jump in ? :hiding:



Muslim Christian Dialogue


Art Thou That Prophet?

The Jews sent priests and Levites to John the Baptist to ask who he really was. John 1:20-21:

"And he [John the Baptist] confessed and denied not; but confessed, 'I am not the Christ.'

And they asked him: 'What then? Art thou Elias? 'And he saith: 'I am not.' 'Art thou that prophet?' And he answered: 'No."'


The crucial question here is: Art thou that prophet? Who was the long awaited prophet who was to come after the advent of Jesus (p)and John the Baptist (p) ?

http://www.iad.org/books/MCD.html



I m curious to know , what Christians think about
' that Prophet '? Regarding Bible , who is he ?
Reply

Hijrah
01-06-2007, 01:54 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus's father was joseph.

oh, and i take the back, the Torah never does say the prophets must be jewish.

however, if you read the Torah completely, it predicts ONE messiah in the future.. one. no more then that. it basically talks about all of the prophets that have come and their laws, and then it says that in the future another prophet will come.. but no other prophets. just one messiah. and muslims can't think that mohammad was the one, because although he may very well fit the discription of the messiah, islam also accepts jesus as a prophet, which would be impossible according to the torah.
nuff said
Reply

YusufNoor
01-06-2007, 02:40 AM
Hijrah
Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus's father was joseph.

oh, and i take the back, the Torah never does say the prophets must be jewish.

however, if you read the Torah completely, it predicts ONE messiah in the future.. one. no more then that. it basically talks about all of the prophets that have come and their laws, and then it says that in the future another prophet will come.. but no other prophets. just one messiah. and muslims can't think that mohammad was the one, because although he may very well fit the discription of the messiah, islam also accepts jesus as a prophet, which would be impossible according to the torah.

nuff said
Assalamu 'alaykum,

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Astagfirrallah...

but, erm, huh????

you're agreeing to a statement that makes no sense...

however, if you read the Torah completely, it predicts ONE messiah in the future.. one. no more then that. it basically talks about all of the prophets that have come and their laws,
so...of the Prophets in the Nevi'im, and especially all those PROPHETS with scrolls NAMED after them :rollseyes , and Kethuvim; what are they? chopped liver??

and then it says that in the future another prophet will come.. but no other prophets
:omg: [see above]

and muslims can't think that mohammad was the one, because although he may very well fit the discription of the messiah
i hope yer not thinking that the Rasul Allah(SWT) is the Jewish Messiah! the Qur'an itself assigns that title to Isa/Jesus(as)

[3.45] When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).
The Women

islam also accepts jesus as a prophet
OK, that parts OK! :thumbs_up

which would be impossible according to the torah.
so, about all those Messianic Jews????:?

still puzzled....

:exhausted

:w:
Reply

mujahida3001
01-06-2007, 02:45 AM
assalamu alikum

i love reading/listening to dr. zakir naik's lectures.
very influtential! mashallah

barakallahu feek
Reply

Alexius
02-12-2007, 03:27 AM
I find it humorous that Muslims insist that the Injils (Gospels) are corrupted by men and yet insist on using them to defend Islam. You can't have it both ways - either ignore them or accept them...

Originally Posted by YusufNoor
where oh where did you get THAT idea??? Moses WASN'T a "Jew"! neither were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph!!! before the birth of Judah, the concept didn't exist...
Oh no, not historical revisionism!!!!!!!!!!

What were these great patriarches then?
Reply

Muslim Woman
02-12-2007, 09:44 AM
Salaam/peace;


Originally Posted by Alexius
I find it humorous that Muslims insist that the Injils (Gospels) are corrupted by men and yet insist on using them to defend Islam. You can't have it both ways - either ignore them or accept them...


---We believe the previous holy Books came from God Almighty. Later , books have been corrupted.

The verses go with Quran's teaching are accepted to us . Examples: God is One , a Prophet will come who won't speak of his own but will speak what God told him so etc :smile:


the verse that goes against the Quran is fasle such as God is three in one .....very easy to understand the matter. It's not humorous but very logical :p


What were these great patriarches then?

---what else except Muslims ? :D :smile:


They surrendered themselves to one God only , thus they were real Muslims. :okay:

Reply

YusufNoor
02-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by Alexius
I find it humorous that Muslims insist that the Injils (Gospels) are corrupted by men and yet insist on using them to defend Islam. You can't have it both ways - either ignore them or accept them...

Originally Posted by YusufNoor
where oh where did you get THAT idea??? Moses WASN'T a "Jew"! neither were Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph!!! before the birth of Judah, the concept didn't exist...


Oh no, not historical revisionism!!!!!!!!!!

What were these great patriarches then?
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu 'alaykum,

Oh no, not historical revisionism!!!!!!!!!!
you're correct, it's NOT revisionism, it's HISTORY!

btw, i would have called them Hebrews...


http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=174&o=2440

Where does the word "Jew" come from?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
1. The majority of "Jews" today are descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin -- the two tribes who comprised the "Kingdom of Judea."1 The other ten tribes, the "Northern Kingdom," were lost (see Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes) In Hebrew; the word "Jew" (Yehudi) is a clear derivative of the word Judah ("Yehudah").
2. As mentioned, the name "Jew" comes from the Hebrew word "Yehudi."
The Talmud (Megillah 13a) says that the name Yehudi applies to anyone who rejects idolatry and accepts the one true G-d. (The word "Hoda'ah," which is the root of the word Yehudi (and Yehudah), means to acknowledge). That's why Mordechai, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin, was called a Yehudi (Esther 2:5).
All Jews, no matter their ancestry, are called "Yehudim" (Jews), because every Jew possesses a G-dly soul, which is characterized by an unwavering belief in G-d.
For a deeper explanation of the "Jew" phenomenon, go to Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish.


http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=529&o=2038538
Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
One of the questions I frequently receive is regarding the name “Jew”. The word Jew is a derivative of the name Judah, Jacob’s fourth son; hence calling someone by this name would seemingly imply that the person is a descendant of that particular tribe. However, as is well known, Jacob bore twelve sons, all of whom are the antecedents of our great nation. Why, then, is the entire Israelite nation known as “Jews”?1
Perhaps this question can be cleared up by analyzing the very first individual to be dubbed Jew: “There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai the son of Yair... a Benjaminite” (Esther 2:5). Yes, the first “Jew” was actually from the tribe of Benjamin!
An objective study of the Purim story reveals that the whole frightening episode was plainly avoidable. The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times. Mordechai was an elderly rabbi who yet recalled days – more than half a century beforehand – when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem and Torah Law was supreme. His snubbing of Haman might have been condign during that generation—but how dare he put his entire nation in danger of extinction by slighting the king’s favorite minister? Apparently someone neglected to inform this sage that the ability to conform is the trick to survival!
The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times
Mordechai, however, thought otherwise; and he had a famous precedent supporting his “foolish” actions. Many years earlier, a powerful Egyptian ruler wished to take his ancestor, Benjamin, as a slave. Benjamin’s brother Judah wouldn’t hear of such a possibility. In what would be his proudest and most defining moment, Judah completely ignored all royal protocol, angrily approached the powerful ruler – who, unbeknownst to him, was actually their brother Joseph – and threateningly demanded Benjamin’s release.
Judah is the embodiment of the exiled Israelite who must walk a thin tightrope: While he must live at peace with his neighbors, follow the law and customs of the land, and “pray for the peace of the regime,” he has the courage of his convictions to stand up against all the powers that be in order to defend his ideals. “Only our bodies were sent into exile; not our souls!”
Mordechai “the Jew” was a proud student of his great-uncle Judah. He knew that Torah law forbids a Jew from bowing to Haman (and the statuette which dangled from a chain around his neck), and for him that was the final word. Indeed Judah’s and Mordechai’s actions were vindicated as events unfolded—no harm came to either of them as a result of their brave conduct.
Leading by example, Mordechai succeeded in implanting this sense of pride in the hearts of the masses. When Haman issued his decree of annihilation, not one Israelite even considered abandoning his religion in order to be spared death. At that moment, we all became “Jews”. Accordingly, the Megillah is the first place where our nation as a whole is referred to as Jews.
The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t...
The name stuck. Because the next 2500 years would repeatedly test our “Jewishness”. Under countless regimes – both friendly and, as was usually the case, hostile – we struggled against friends and enemies who wished to impose their will upon us at the expense of our relationship with G-d. Again and again we proved ourselves true to G-d, earning the name Jew through oceans of blood and tears.
The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t… The joy of Purim is greater than any other holiday because it tells the story of the nation who never allowed its soul to be shackled—the story of the Jew.2

:w:
Reply

- Qatada -
02-14-2007, 01:40 PM
:salamext:


In Hindu Scriptures



NAME OF KALKI AVTAR


* According to Kalki Puran the name of Kalki Avtar will be "SARWANAMA".
The meaning of "ANAMA" is praised one and "SARW" mean most of all, so "Sarwanama" means the most praised one and in Arabic language "Muhammad " has the same meaning, if we translate Sanskrit word Sarwanama in to Arabic language it will be "Muhammad" only difference is the language.



PARENTS OF KALKI AVTAR

* "He will be born from "SOOMATI" and his father's name will be "VAISHNUVESH"." (Kalki Puran 2, Shloka II)
VAISHNUVESH and SOOMATI means servant of God (the cherisher) and peace, respectively. Prophet Muhammad father's name was ABDULLAH in Arabic language, which means God's servant, and his mother's name was AMINA in Arabic language, which means peace, so if we translate Sanskrit word "Vaishnuvesh & Soomati" in Arabic language it will be "Abdullah & Amina". So again the difference of language.



PLACE OF BIRTH

* "HE will be born at "SHAMBAL GARAM" in VAISHNUVESH'S Brahmin Mahant's (religious saint) respectable house" (Bhagwat Puran, Khand 12, Shloka 18 and Kalki Puran Adhay 2, Shloka 4)

SHAMBAL mean peace and GARAM mean city or village, so SHAMBAL GARAM means a peace full city or city of peace, and this quality & name has been specified only for Arabia's city "MAKKAH" no other city in the world has been named city of peace. In the Holy Quran this city has been called as "ALBALAD ALAMEEN" which mean peace full city or city of peace. For reference see Holy Quran (14:35) O God, make it (Makkah) a City of Peace". And Makkah is the city where prophet Muhammad (PBUH) born.
VAISHNU-VESH, Vaishnu is actually God's name and VESH means servant or BHAGAT and man, Vaishnuvesh mean God's servant or God's devotee and in Arabic language ABDULLAH has the same meanings.

BRAHMIN MAHANT mean religious saint and Makkah's religious and respectable saint was "Hasham", then "Mutlib", then Hasham's son "Abdul Mutlib" became the religious saint of Makkah, who was the grand father of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and during the period of religious saint Muhammad was born in home of Abdullah son of Abdul Mutlib. In short, Muhammad was born in the respectable tribe of Quraish who enjoyed great respect and high place in Makkah. So according to scripture Kalki Avtar will be born in Brahmin Mahant's (religious saint) respectable family.





DATE OF BIRTH OF KALKI AVTAR


* He will be born in the month of Bisakh on 12th day (Kalki Puran Adhay 2, Shloka 15)

Baisakh is famous month in Hindi, which is still known with this name. According to Hindi calendar Muhammad was born on 12th Baisakh of 628 Bakrami, and this day according to Arabic calendar is 12th Rabiyyyul Awwal. So the date of birth matches with Kalki Avtar.





THE PERIOD OF KALKI AVTAR


* Kalki Avtar would ride horse, camel and keep the sword to kill the devil and enemies of religion.


It mean that Kalki Avtar will be born in the past time when horse and camel were used for riding and sword was being used for fight. And in this period and in the coming future people will use cars, train & planes for riding and guns, missiles will be use for fighting. So it is now useless to wait for Avtar in future. We should not forget that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was borne during the time of horse & camel, and he fought with sword during battles against infidels.



DEATH OF KALKI AVTAR'S PARENTS

* Kalki Avtar's Father will die before his birth and his Mother will die after few years of his birth. (Kalki Puran, Bhaghwat Puran Khand 12)
These two indications clearly fit on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). His Father died few days earlier of his birth and his Mother died when Muhammad was only six year old. For reference please study the life history of prophet Muhammad (PBUH).



KALKI AVTAR WILL GET WISDOM ON A MOUNTAIN

* According to Kalki Puran, the Kalki Avtar will receive wisdom or knowledge on a mountain's cave from PERSHURAM (angle).
As every one knows that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was busy in his pray in a cave of mountain "HIRA" and there one day an Angle (Gabriel) appeared and brought the first revelation from God. For reference Holy Quran (96:1) "Read (Prophet Muhammad) with the name of Allah" and he replied " I am not learned" the same indication was given in the Christian's scripture (Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12) " and the book delivered to him that is not learned, saying " Read this", I pray thee: and he said, I am not learned", this is another prove of his prophecy. So prophet Muhammad received his first revelation in the cave of mountain HIRA. And this prediction also fit on him.





PREACHING, IRRITATION, MIGRATION AND RETURN TO HIS CITY


* It is further written in the kalki Puran that " Kalki avtar will start his preaching from the city SHAMBHAL GARAM (Makkah: city of peace) which is situated in SALAM DEEP (Jazeeratul Arab), but people of that city will be against him and irritate him, so he will migrate to another city (Madina) which will be covered with mountains. Then after few years, he will be returned to his city with sword and conquer the city and the whole country."

This prediction also fit on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He started his preaching from Makkah (city of peace), which is situated in Jazeeratul Arab (salam deep), when people of Makkah tried to irritate him he migrated towards the city covered with mountains (Madina) with his companions. And after few years he came back with sword and his 10,000 companions and conquered the city Makkah and after that the whole Arab. For reference please study life history of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and this incidence is famous with the name of " Fateh Makkah" in the Islamic history.



A FLYING HORSE FROM GOD

* He will receive a flying horse from God, which will be faster than lightning. Riding it he will go around earth and seven skies" (Bhagwat Puran Khand 12, Adhay 2, Shloka19-20)

This prediction is about Kalki Avtar also match with the Incidence of "MIRAJ" For reference see Holy Quran (17.1) and for detail Hadith s of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) regarding Incidence of Miraj. According to these references Prophet Muhammad traveled the seven skies and there he met with previous Prophets, and for this God gave him a horse name BARQ which mean lightning and word Miraj mean height and ladder. Please study life history of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for details.





SPLITTING OF MOON

* According to the scripture Kalki Avtaar will split the moon.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) showed this miracle 1,400 ago. For reference see Holy Quran (54:1-3) "The hour drew night and moon rend (split) in twain ..." For more details about moon splitting please study the hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (Volume 4, book 56, number 830-832 and volume 5, book 58, number 209-211) According to these hadiths" the people of Makkah asked Allah's Apostle to show a miracle (sign of his Prophecy). So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram Mountain"


There is an interesting tradition in India. Bhoj was an Indian king, there is still city Bhoj on his name in the territory of Kachh (Gujrat). Raja was born after so many years of Bhavish Puran during the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). One night he saw moon splitting in two, he asked the Pundits, they studied the Vedas and Puranas, and told the king that this is the miracle of last prophet, when king asked the signs or descriptions of the Prophet, they told," He will be from the city of peace (Makkah) and will be born in the house of a religious saint, his name will be "Narashansah" (praise one: Muhammad in Arabic), he will have four Khulafa and have 12 wifes ". In search of Narashansah, he came to know that he appeared in Makkah. He met with him and embraced Islam at the hand of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and prophet gave him the name Abdullah, when he came back to home his family did not accept him. He spend his whole life in remembering Prophet and in worship of one God. For reference (Dr. Kamala Kant Tewari's book "Kalyuge Ke Antim Rishi" Page5, he took this from Pundit Dharm Ved Apadhye's book "Antim Ishwar Doot" page 97). So Raja was the first Indian who embraced Islam.





ANGELS WILL HELP HIM DURING WAR

* Kalki Avtar will be helped by angels during war. (Kalki Puran Adhay 2, Shloka 7)


This prediction also fit on prophet Muhammad (PBUH), when during the battle of UHAD, BADR etc. God sent His Angels for his help. For reference see Holy Quran (3:123,124,125) "And Allah must assuredly helped you at Badr when you were mortified, therefore fear Allah, in order that you will give thanks to Him. When you said to the believers, is it not enough for you that your Lord should reinforce you with three thousand (3,000) angels sent down upon you? Rather, if you have patience and cautions, and they suddenly come against you, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand (5,000) angles"
Holy Quran (9:25) " Allah has helped you on many a battlefield ..."





FOUR COMPANIONS OF KALKI AVTAR

* Kalki Avtar with his four companions or will kill the evil. (Kaiki Puran.Adhay 2,Shloka5)


There were four companions or helpers of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who helped him in spreading Islam. Their names are Umar (ra), Abu Bakr (ra), Usman (ra) and Ali (ra). After death of Prophet these companions ruled the country and practically imposed the religion. They are known as Khulafa - e - Rashideen in Islamic history. So this prediction also fit on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).





KALKI AVTAR WILL BE THE LAST AVTAR

* There are 24 main Prophet, but Kalki Avtar will be the last one, who will be the end (seal) of all Prophets. (Bhagwat Puran Partham Khand Adhay 3, Shloka 25)


No Prophet except Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has declared him as the last Prophet and it is the faith of every Muslim that Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and no Prophet will come after him. God Himself declared Muhammad (PBUH) as the last Prophet. For reference see (Holy Quran 33.40) " he (Muhammad) is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of Prophets, and Allah is aware of all things .." and in another place God says, " .. This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favor to you. I have approved Islam to be your religion ..." (5.3)


Another interesting thing is that, in the Holy Quran there are 25 Prophets mentioned by name including Prophet Ahmed (Muhammad) himself, so there were 24 main Prophets before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). So these two predictions also fit on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)





TULSI DAAS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF KALKI AVTAR

A famous religious Scholar "TULSI DAAS" presents his conclusion in his book "RAMAYAN", which contains the story of Shri Ram. In this book he discussed and concluded the predictions and indications, which are mentioned in " Sangram Puran" kand 12, Adheyae6.


* "Here I will not favored anyone, I will say only that which Sadhu and Sants have said in the light of Vedas& Purans."


* "He will born in 7th Century of Bakrami and with the light of his 4 Sun, he will be appeared in the great darkness."


Muhammad (PBUH) was born on 12th Baisakh of 628 (7th Century) Bakrami and 4 Sun referred to four Khalifas, as mentioned above.


* "And he will preach his religion with wisdom and he will give good news and forbid too."


This prediction also fit on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for reference see Holy Quran (33:45,46,47) "O Prophet! LO! WE have sent thee as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a Warner. And as a summoner unto Allah by His permission, and as a Lamp that give light. And announce unto the believers the good tidings (good news) they will have great bounty from Allah."


* "He will have 4 respected Khalifas."


As their name have been mentioned above, Umar, Abu Bakr, Usman & Ali, known as Khulafa - e - Rashedeen in Islamic history.


* "And when he and his religion will be appeared then, there will be no refuge with out Muhammad (PBUH)"


To understand the refuge of Muhammad please see Holy Quran (4.13-14) "... he who obey Allah and His messenger (Muhammad), He will admit him to Gardens underneath which rivers flow that is a great wining. And he who disobey Allah and His messenger (Muhammad) and transgress His Bounds; he will admit him to a fire and shall live in it forever. For him, there is a humiliating punishment." And further in Holy Quran (3.132) "Obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad) in order to be subjected to mercy."


* "He will be match less and there will be no likeness to him, Tulsi Daas is what ever saying is pet and true."


According to Quran (68:4) "And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character." And ("Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah, a beautiful pattern (of conduct)"(33:21).


* "The stair of 10,000 years Prophecy will be completed, then no one will get this Prophecy.


As explained above (Holy Quran 33:40) " he (Muhammad) is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of Prophets, and Allah is aware of all things .."


* "A star will shine on the Land of Arab and that land will be very respectable and glorified."


When all Arabs were is great darkness Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) appeared like a star with the light of Holy Quran.


* "He will show miracles and will be called as friend of God.
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) showed many miracles. One of them was miracle of moon splitting as mentioned above.



SOME MORE CLEAR INDICATIONS OF KALKI AVTAR

Following are some more and clear indications from Bhovishya Puran: Prati Sarg, Part III:3,3, 5-27 about Kalki Avtar, which clearly fit by name Muhammad & Ahmed and referred to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).




NAME AND PLACE OF KALKI AVTAR

* "A malechha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be MAHAMMAD. Raja (Bhoj) after giving this Mahadev Arab (of angelic disposition) a bath in the 'Panchgavya' and the Ganges water, (i.e. purging him of all sins) offered him the presents of his sincere devotion and showing him all reverence said, 'I make obeisance to thee.' 'O Ye! The pride of mankind, ("Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah, a beautiful pattern (of conduct)"[Al-Qur'an 33:21].) the dweller in Arabia, (The Sanskrit word Marusthal means a sandy track of land or a desert.) Ye have collected a great force to kill the Devil and you yourself have been protected from the malechha opponents (idol worshipers, pagans).' 'O Ye! The image of the Most Pious God the biggest Lord, I am a slave to thee, take me as one lying on thy feet.'.." (Bhovishya Puran)


* "The Malechhas have spoiled the well-known land of the Arabs. Arya Dharma is not to be found in that country. (Bhovishya Puran)


The name of the Avtar clearly mentioned as "Mahammad" and no other Prophet had this name except Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the last Prophet. It is further clear that Kalki Avtar will be not from the land of India. Rather, he will be from the land of Arab and in Arab there was only Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) born. It is also clear that Aryan religion was only found in India, not in Arabia. The Prophet did not physically take a bath in the Panchgavya and the water of Ganges. Since the water of Ganges is considered holy, taking bath in the Ganges is an idiom, which means washing away sins or immunity from all sorts of sins. Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom.




* "Before also there appeared a misguided fiend whom I had killed [note: e.g., Abraha Al-Ashram, the Abyssinian viceroy of Yemen, who attacked Makkah]; he has now again appeared being sent by a powerful enemy. To show these enemies the right path and to give them guidance the well-known MAHAMAD (Mohammad), who has been given by me the epithet of Brahma is busy in bringing the Pishachas to the right path. O Raja! You need not go to the land of the foolish Pishachas, you will be purified through my kindness even where you are". (Bhovishya Puran)





MEAT & LAWFUL THING EATER, BEARD KEEPER AND ANOUNCING FOR PRAYER (ADAN)

* "At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of a Pishacha said to Raja Bhoj, "O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of 'Ishwar Parmatma (God, Supreme Spirit), I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat-eaters." (Bhovishya Puran)


It is also clear that Kalki Avtar will be meat eater, while in Hindu Dhama meat eating is prohibited. So it is clear that Kalki Avtar will not be from Hindu Dharma. Some people may argue that 'Raja' Bhoj mentioned in the prophecy lived in the 11th century C.E. 500 years after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and was the descendant in the 10th generation of Raja Shalivahan. These people fail to realise that there was not only one Raja of the name Bhoj. The Egyptian Monarchs were called as Pharaoh and the Roman Kings were known as Caesar, similarly the Indian Rajas were given the title of Bhoj. There were several Raja Bhoj who came before the one in 11th Century C.E.)


* "My follower will be a man circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution, announcing call for prayer (Adan) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine". (Bhovishya Puran)


In Hindu Dharam Pundits or Brahmins keeps the tail on their heads, while according to Hindu Scripture Kalki will be without tail and on the contrary, he will be keeping the beard, it is well known that it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to keep the beard. And only in Islam, Muslims call for prayer during their Adan before Namaz (prayer). In Islam all lawful things and animals are allowed or Halal, while, swine or pork is prohibited (Haram) by God. According to Quran (5.88) "Eat of the lawful and good things, which Allah has provided you." And (2.173) "He has forbidden you the dead blood, and the flesh of swine")





KALKI AVTAR WILL BE MUSLIM

* "They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare (Jihad). Because of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmans (Muslims). I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nation." (Bhovishya Puran)


This indication has clearly proved that the Kalki Avtar is none other than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), because the Nation or Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is known as Muslims or Musalman.





RELIGIOUS LAW

* "AHMAD acquired religious Law (Shariah) from his Lord. This religious Law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the Sun.."[Sama Veda II:6,8]


* The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (PBUH). [Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9]


Another name of Prophet Muhammad is AHMED, no other prophet had this name except prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as Prophet Esa (PBUH) also gave the indication of a Messenger to his nation, who will come after him and his name will be AHMED. According to Quran (61.6)"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be AHMED.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'this is evident sorcery!" (61.6) Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gave the Islamic Law of SHARIAH. According to Quran (34.28) " We have sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad tidings and warning them (against sin), but most men understand not."


KALKI WILL BE CAMEL RIDER AND 60,090 ENEMIES

* "He is Narashansah or the praised one (Muhammad). He is Kaurama: the prince of peace or the emigrant, who is safe, even amongst a host of 60,090 enemies. He is a camel-riding Rishi, whose chariot touches the heaven". [Atharvaveda book 20 Hymn 127 verses 1-13]


The Sanskrit word Narashansah means 'the praised one', which is the literal translation of the Arabic word Muhammad (PBUH). The Sanskrit word Kaurama means 'one who spreads and promotes peace'. The holy Prophet was the 'Prince of Peace' and he preached equality of human kind and universal brotherhood. Kaurama also means an emigrant. The Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah and was thus also an Emigrant. He will be protected from 60,090 enemies, which was the population of Makkah. The Prophet would ride a camel. This clearly indicates that it cannot be an Indian Rishi, This mantra gave the Rishi's name as Mamah. No rishi in India or another Prophet had this name Mamah that is derived from Mah, which means to esteem highly, or to revere, to exalt, etc. Some Sanskrit books give the Prophet's name as 'Mohammad'. According to Buddhism, Buddha said " I am not the only Buddha after me, at appropriate time a great Buddah will come and his name will be "MAITREYA" which means love, kindness, compassion, mercy etc. The Arabic for mercy is rehmet. RAHMAT is the title given to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Holy Quran (21:07) "Rahmatan lil Alameen" Mercy unto the worlds. Buddha further said, "He will migrate from his homeland" (Makkah to Madinah).





TEN THOUSAND COMPANIONS OF KALKI AVTAR
* "The wagon-possessor, the truthful and truth loving, extremely wise, powerful and generous, Mamah [Mohammad] has favored me with his words. The son of the All-powerful, possessing all good attributes, the mercy for the worlds has become famous with ten thousand [companions]". [Rig Veda V, 27, Mantra 1]


The ten thousands Saints refer to the ten thousands companions who accompanied the Prophet (PBUH) when he entered Makkah during Fateh Makkah which was a unique victory in the history of mankind in which there was no blood shed.





HUNDRED GOLD COINS AND TEN CHAPLETS OF KALKI AVTAR

* "He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows". [Kuntap Sukt, Atharva Veda, Mantra 3]


He is given 100 gold coins, which refers to the believers and the earlier companions of the Prophet during his turbulent Makkan life. Later on due to persecution they migrated from Makkah to Abysinia. Later when Prophet migrated to Madinah all of them joined him in Madinah.
The 10 chaplets or necklaces were the 10 best companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) known as Ashra-Mubbashshira (10 bestowed with good news).


300 good steeds (horses of Arab Breed) refer to those companions of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who fought at BADR. (Their actual number was 313; however, in many prophecies the numbers are usually rounded up.)


The Sanskrit word Go is derived from Gaw, which means 'to go to war'. A cow is also called Go and is a symbol of war as well as peace. The 10,000 cows refer to the 10,000 companions who accompanied the Prophet (PBUH) when he entered Makkah during Fateh Makkah.





THE CONCLUSION


The above references from the Hindu Scriptures prove that Hindus were foretold about the worship of one God and were also foretold about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in their Holy Scriptures. But, they denied their Holy Scriptures and invented their own rules and regulations in the religion, and changed their religion according to their own materialistic and vain desires and made idols (images) of gods and their Avtars Ram & Karishana etc, and worshipped them as God. This is, how true religions of Vedas converted in to man-made religion (Hinduism).
With the above facts references from the Vedas & other Hindu Scriptures, it is possible that, Hindu Pundits and Brahmins might have changed the true concepts given in the Vedas into Hinduism as Christians have changed the true religion (Islam) of Jesus (PBUH) into Christianity.


The thing which is needed to do is that, Muslim scholars should take steps to preach the Hindus not only with the reference of Holy Quran but, with the fact references from their own Hindu Scriptures. According to whom worship of one God is allowed, so they should discard idol and murti worship and worship only one God according to their Scriptures. Secondly, the Kalki Avtar (Coming Prophet) which has been mentioned by name "Muhammad" & "Ahmed" in their Scriptures and all the indications about his Prophet hood mentioned in their Scriptures have been gone through and completed 1,400 years before, with the advent of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the religious law (The Quran) has been revealed on him. So, now it is the religious duty of each Hindu to accept Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as their last Avtar (Prophet), and the Quran as their last revealed Scripture and embrace ISLAM the religion of their last Avtar (Prophet) which has been chosen, perfected and authorized by his one God and become Muslim. Because according to Holy Quran:-


* "This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed my favor to you. I have approved Islam to be your religion ..." (5.3).


* "Allah has chosen for you the religion. Do not die except being Submissive (Muslim) (2.132)


* "It is HE who has been sent His Messenger with guidance the religion of truth (Islam), so that exalts it above all other religions. Allah is the sufficient witness" (48:28)


* "The only religion with Allah is Islam (submission) (3:19)


* "He who chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the everlasting life he will be among the losers" (3:85)
So, Islam is the only religion chosen and approved by God and Islam supersedes and suppress all the other religions, because no other religion will be accepted except Islam. So Hindus leave your obstinacy, which has become obstacle for you, use your wisdom & intellect and courage, do not be among the losers and embrace Islam as your religion. After these arguments, there will be no excuse for Hindus to accept Islam. I hope Muslim scholars will find and get positive answer, because natural and psychological instinct is still working unconsciously in the minds of Hindu as it was working before. It will certainly be a great achievement for the Muslim scholars.


http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...ticle&raid=275

Reply

Sinner
03-04-2007, 02:20 AM
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Scripture clearly states what it means to be a Prophet like Moses -

Deu 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Did Muhammad know God "face to face"? It is a simple yes or no question. If he didn't, then he is not the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18. It is that simple.

John chapter 14 verse 16:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Jesus said that the Comforter would be given to his Apostles. Muhammad did not appear until centuries later, thus he can not be the Comforter Jesus spoke about. If that is not enough Jesus clearly states who the Comforter is

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Comforter is a spirit, Muhammad was not. The Comforter was promised to the Apostles, so that they would remember all that Jesus taught them. Did Muhammad appear to the Apostles? If not, he was not the Comforter Jesus spoke of.

Dr. Zakir Naik would of done well to have read the Bible a little more carefully.
Reply

Umar001
03-04-2007, 07:03 PM
Hi,

Originally Posted by Sinner
Scripture clearly states what it means to be a Prophet like Moses -

Deu 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Did Muhammad know God "face to face"? It is a simple yes or no question. If he didn't, then he is not the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18. It is that simple.
I had a whole reply prepared but I just want to clarify, what is meant speak face to face?

Originally Posted by Sinner
John chapter 14 verse 16:

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Jesus said that the Comforter would be given to his Apostles. Muhammad did not appear until centuries later, thus he can not be the Comforter Jesus spoke about. If that is not enough Jesus clearly states who the Comforter is

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Comforter is a spirit, Muhammad was not. The Comforter was promised to the Apostles, so that they would remember all that Jesus taught them. Did Muhammad appear to the Apostles? If not, he was not the Comforter Jesus spoke of.

Two points I see, 1. Muhammad did not come until after Jesus' audience, i.e. those disciples he directly spoke to had gone. 2. Muhammad was not a spirit but the Comforter would be a spirit.

1:
Let me narrate something that many Christians use today to say that they should spread the Message;


Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

So whilst we see that the command was given to the disciples only, it incooperates all the true followers even after those disciples die. So although Jesus spoke it directly to the 11, this included the 'family' of believers in Jesus, and not neccesarily only the 11.

This embodiment of the followers of Jesus is recorded in the Prayer of Jesus in the Gospel according to John, chapter 17


20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one,


So the believers are one, the real followers of Jesus. Also, from the above we realise that when Jesus spoke sometimes he might be physically speaking to some people but that message might be a message that encopasses not just those but the WHOLE Family of the followers. Thus Jesus could be speaking to the immidiate audience the disciples but the whole audience included the disciples who walked with him and those who did not. Jesus's message here could be to all the believers, i.e. that the comforter will come, not just to the immidiate audience. Just like the great commision was the same.

As for the spirit here, well the word spirit and man can be used interchangebly;


1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1 John 4:1
Reply

Sinner
03-04-2007, 11:07 PM
I had a whole reply prepared but I just want to clarify, what is meant speak face to face?
Scripture would indicate that this means that God talked to Moses directly in an audible voice.

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle
Reply

Sinner
03-04-2007, 11:24 PM
So whilst we see that the command was given to the disciples only, it incooperates all the true followers even after those disciples die. So although Jesus spoke it directly to the 11, this included the 'family' of believers in Jesus, and not necessarily only the 11.
This is true, but that does not negate the fact that Comforter was promised to the Apostles.

As for the spirit here, well the word spirit and man can be used interchangebly;

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
I disagree with this interpretation. I think the passage is saying that prophets can be inspired by spirits which do not come from God, not that these spirits and these prophets are one and the same. I give this passage in support -

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places
Reply

جوري
03-07-2007, 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu 'alaykum,



you're correct, it's NOT revisionism, it's HISTORY!

btw, i would have called them Hebrews...


http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=174&o=2440

Where does the word "Jew" come from?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
1. The majority of "Jews" today are descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin -- the two tribes who comprised the "Kingdom of Judea."1 The other ten tribes, the "Northern Kingdom," were lost (see Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes) In Hebrew; the word "Jew" (Yehudi) is a clear derivative of the word Judah ("Yehudah").
2. As mentioned, the name "Jew" comes from the Hebrew word "Yehudi."
The Talmud (Megillah 13a) says that the name Yehudi applies to anyone who rejects idolatry and accepts the one true G-d. (The word "Hoda'ah," which is the root of the word Yehudi (and Yehudah), means to acknowledge). That's why Mordechai, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin, was called a Yehudi (Esther 2:5).
All Jews, no matter their ancestry, are called "Yehudim" (Jews), because every Jew possesses a G-dly soul, which is characterized by an unwavering belief in G-d.
For a deeper explanation of the "Jew" phenomenon, go to Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish.


http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=529&o=2038538
Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
One of the questions I frequently receive is regarding the name “Jew”. The word Jew is a derivative of the name Judah, Jacob’s fourth son; hence calling someone by this name would seemingly imply that the person is a descendant of that particular tribe. However, as is well known, Jacob bore twelve sons, all of whom are the antecedents of our great nation. Why, then, is the entire Israelite nation known as “Jews”?1
Perhaps this question can be cleared up by analyzing the very first individual to be dubbed Jew: “There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai the son of Yair... a Benjaminite” (Esther 2:5). Yes, the first “Jew” was actually from the tribe of Benjamin!
An objective study of the Purim story reveals that the whole frightening episode was plainly avoidable. The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times. Mordechai was an elderly rabbi who yet recalled days – more than half a century beforehand – when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem and Torah Law was supreme. His snubbing of Haman might have been condign during that generation—but how dare he put his entire nation in danger of extinction by slighting the king’s favorite minister? Apparently someone neglected to inform this sage that the ability to conform is the trick to survival!
The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times
Mordechai, however, thought otherwise; and he had a famous precedent supporting his “foolish” actions. Many years earlier, a powerful Egyptian ruler wished to take his ancestor, Benjamin, as a slave. Benjamin’s brother Judah wouldn’t hear of such a possibility. In what would be his proudest and most defining moment, Judah completely ignored all royal protocol, angrily approached the powerful ruler – who, unbeknownst to him, was actually their brother Joseph – and threateningly demanded Benjamin’s release.
Judah is the embodiment of the exiled Israelite who must walk a thin tightrope: While he must live at peace with his neighbors, follow the law and customs of the land, and “pray for the peace of the regime,” he has the courage of his convictions to stand up against all the powers that be in order to defend his ideals. “Only our bodies were sent into exile; not our souls!”
Mordechai “the Jew” was a proud student of his great-uncle Judah. He knew that Torah law forbids a Jew from bowing to Haman (and the statuette which dangled from a chain around his neck), and for him that was the final word. Indeed Judah’s and Mordechai’s actions were vindicated as events unfolded—no harm came to either of them as a result of their brave conduct.
Leading by example, Mordechai succeeded in implanting this sense of pride in the hearts of the masses. When Haman issued his decree of annihilation, not one Israelite even considered abandoning his religion in order to be spared death. At that moment, we all became “Jews”. Accordingly, the Megillah is the first place where our nation as a whole is referred to as Jews.
The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t...
The name stuck. Because the next 2500 years would repeatedly test our “Jewishness”. Under countless regimes – both friendly and, as was usually the case, hostile – we struggled against friends and enemies who wished to impose their will upon us at the expense of our relationship with G-d. Again and again we proved ourselves true to G-d, earning the name Jew through oceans of blood and tears.
The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t… The joy of Purim is greater than any other holiday because it tells the story of the nation who never allowed its soul to be shackled—the story of the Jew.2

:w:
This is a fantastic post... Thanks for sharing
Reply

Umar001
03-14-2007, 02:09 PM
Originally Posted by Sinner
This is true, but that does not negate the fact that Comforter was promised to the Apostles.

I disagree with this interpretation. I think the passage is saying that prophets can be inspired by spirits which do not come from God, not that these spirits and these prophets are one and the same. I give this passage in support -

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places

The verse doesn't really prove anything, I mean we both agree that there is afight against spiratual. But rather, even if I agree, that the spirit is only what provides the info to the prophet, people are told to test the spirits, for false prophets have gone into the world, so similarly, this could refer to sending a spirit which will guide Muhammad, peace be upon him, and as such the people should test Muhammad, because Muhammad inevitably will do what his spirit tells him.

Also with regards to the apostles thing;


17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

The prophet like unto moses, peace be upon him, was promised to the people at that time, it even says 'youmay say to yourselfs "how can weknow..."' so its clear that it was talking to them collectivly, present and future, thought it was doing this, it did not neccesitate that the Prophet should be born then at that time before the death of those.
Reply

Opus Dei
04-09-2007, 09:42 AM
@Fi_Sabilillah

Thanks for the Kalki Avatar...

:D
Reply

lavikor201
04-13-2007, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
The verse doesn't really prove anything, I mean we both agree that there is afight against spiratual. But rather, even if I agree, that the spirit is only what provides the info to the prophet, people are told to test the spirits, for false prophets have gone into the world, so similarly, this could refer to sending a spirit which will guide Muhammad, peace be upon him, and as such the people should test Muhammad, because Muhammad inevitably will do what his spirit tells him.

Also with regards to the apostles thing;

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
The prophet like unto moses, peace be upon him, was promised to the people at that time, it even says 'youmay say to yourselfs "how can weknow..."' so its clear that it was talking to them collectivly, present and future, thought it was doing this, it did not neccesitate that the Prophet should be born then at that time before the death of those.
Claim: The Torah Itself Predicts Mohammed as a Prophet

Many Muslims will claim that the Torah itself (apparently the "uncorrupted" part) predicts the coming of their so-called prophet some time after the giving of the Torah. All Bible translations are directly from the Hebrew, all of them literal.

Where Did They Get That Idea?


The relevant verse of the Torah is as follows:
Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brethren like you and I will give my words into his lips and he will speak about them all that I command him.
We must ask the following: who is "I", who is "you", who is "them/their"? "I" is G-d, "you" is Moses, "them/their" refers to the Israelites.
So a paraphrase could be: G-d will raise up for the Israelites a prophet from the Israelites' brethren some time in the future that will be like Moses and speak the words of G-d.

Having established that, what's the connection?
The assertion is that "from amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites, and as Muslims assert many times, Mohammed is descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

In order to properly analyze this, I will not make a table comparing Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, as many do on both Christian and Muslim websites in order to pervert the meaning of this verse.

Instead, I will make a minor sidestep into the world of Jewish thought.
For those of us that do not have the presumption that the Torah is wrong and faulty, there is a list of thirteen basic rules on how to deduce meaning from the Torah. They are provided as the introduction to Sifre, and are recited in the preliminary portion of the daily morning prayers.
Just as in the Torah where there are laws that are obviously "just" and those that we cannot comprehend, a parallel applies here. Some rules make sense, and others are assertions of rules. I will make use of two rules that make a good deal of sense.

Rule number 2 states quite simply "mig'zerah shavah" which means "From a decree of equality".

Rule number 12 is that "davar halamed m'inyano, v'davar halamed m'sofo" which is often translated like "An item is taught/clarified from it's context, or from nearby verses."

Why these two rules? Rule number 2 tells us that if we have a word in one location that is vague, and the same word elsewhere more clear, we can use one to clarify the other. The reason for the second rule will be evident shortly.

The Rebuttal


Just a chapter back, in Deuteronomy 17, we find a similar phrase, but the voice is different. This time Moses is delivering a message from G-d directly to the Israelites, speaking to the Israelites as a single group, instead of us hearing what G-d says to Moses.
Deuteronomy 17:15 You shall put (appoint) upon yourself a king that G-d will pick him; from amongst your brethren you shall appoint a king; you will not be able to give upon yourself a foreign man that is not your brother.
This verse, just a chapter behind the verse about the prophet is quite explicit. It uses the phrase "amongst (their/your) brethren" and then clarifies that a foreigner, which is definitely a non-Israelite, is not the Israelite's brother.

For further explicitness of the term foreigner, let's turn to Exodus 12.
Exodus 12:43 And G-d said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover offering, every son of a foreigner shall not eat of it.
Conclusion

Since we can now see that a foreigner does not take part of something as central as the Passover celebration, which is incumbant on all Israelite males when the Temple stands, we can see that a foreigner is simply a non-Israelite, and it doesn't matter their genealogy.

That being said, we have also shown that a foreigner is someone who is not from "amongst the brethren" of the Israelites. This being said, it is an incredible leap of both faith and logic to assume that Mohammed the Ishmaelite is predicted by the Torah as coming as a new prophet of a new religion for the Jews.
Reply

YusufNoor
04-13-2007, 01:50 PM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

That being said, we have also shown that a foreigner is someone who is not from "amongst the brethren" of the Israelites. This being said, it is an incredible leap of both faith and logic to assume that Mohammed the Ishmaelite is predicted by the Torah as coming as a new prophet of a new religion for the Jews.
why, yes, it IS an icredible leap of faith! but that leap can only come from Allah(SWT)! Allah(SWT) guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide. BUT the Prophet of Allah,(SAWS), came NOT to institute a "new religion of the Jews", but as a Mercy for all mankind! the Jews are too busy following the sunnah of Ezra to ever re-establish their connection to Allah(SWT). i guess killing and rejecting prophets is more profitable than adhering to the Word of Allah(SWT)!

In order to properly analyze this, I will not make a table comparing Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, as many do on both Christian and Muslim websites in order to pervert the meaning of this verse.
of course you won't! because THAT would clearly show the evidence in the favor of the Messenger of Allah, (SAWS)! but again, guidance comes from Allah(SWT), whom guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide.

Since we can now see that a foreigner does not take part of something as central as the Passover celebration, which is incumbant on all Israelite males when the Temple stands, we can see that a foreigner is simply a non-Israelite, and it doesn't matter their genealogy.
totally irrevelant, as due the sinful nature of, and continuous rejection of Allah(SWT) by the Jewish people, NO Temple for the Jews has existed for nearly 2000 years! [despite claims of an "eternal" promise from Allah(SWT)!]

Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brethren like you and I will give my words into his lips and he will speak about them all that I command him.
of course, we wouldn't expect someone who erroneously calls Abraham(as) a Jew[as if he(as) was a sinner, idolater and rejector of Allah(SWT)] to understand that the connection of the children of Abraham(as) is that they are Hebrew! but again, guidance comes from Allah(SWT), whom guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide.

youl can just wait for the Day of Reckoning and see if Ezra will have the ability to intercede on behalf of the Jews or not. we will wait with you!

:w:
Reply

lavikor201
04-14-2007, 11:38 PM
why, yes, it IS an icredible leap of faith! but that leap can only come from Allah(SWT)! Allah(SWT) guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide. BUT the Prophet of Allah,(SAWS), came NOT to institute a "new religion of the Jews", but as a Mercy for all mankind! the Jews are too busy following the sunnah of Ezra to ever re-establish their connection to Allah(SWT). i guess killing and rejecting prophets is more profitable than adhering to the Word of Allah(SWT)!
I think you do not understand the wording.

It is also an incredible leap of faith in that context to view that the word Shalom which means "Hello" can also mean "High" as in "High in the air".

of course you won't! because THAT would clearly show the evidence in the favor of the Messenger of Allah, (SAWS)! but again, guidance comes from Allah(SWT), whom guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide.
We won't because Jesus and Mohammad were false.

totally irrevelant, as due the sinful nature of, and continuous rejection of Allah(SWT) by the Jewish people, NO Temple for the Jews has existed for nearly 2000 years! [despite claims of an "eternal" promise from Allah(SWT)!]
That is because we are in exile. Do you understand the concept of golus?

of course, we wouldn't expect someone who erroneously calls Abraham(as) a Jew[as if he(as) was a sinner, idolater and rejector of Allah(SWT)] to understand that the connection of the children of Abraham(as) is that they are Hebrew! but again, guidance comes from Allah(SWT), whom guides whom He(SWT) wills to guide.

youl can just wait for the Day of Reckoning and see if Ezra will have the ability to intercede on behalf of the Jews or not. we will wait with you!
lol, your really pumped up today aren't you.

So after offering no poof, nor being able to debunk the claims, you just wildly shout "Ezra" "Sin" "Idolator" like no tommorow. How convincing.

The verdict stands. Mohammad is not in the Torah, nor anywhere in the Tanakh.

You should also chill out :p
Reply

Umar001
04-18-2007, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by lavikor201
Claim: The Torah Itself Predicts Mohammed as a Prophet

Many Muslims will claim that the Torah itself (apparently the "uncorrupted" part) predicts the coming of their so-called prophet some time after the giving of the Torah. All Bible translations are directly from the Hebrew, all of them literal.

Where Did They Get That Idea?


The relevant verse of the Torah is as follows:
Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brethren like you and I will give my words into his lips and he will speak about them all that I command him.
We must ask the following: who is "I", who is "you", who is "them/their"? "I" is G-d, "you" is Moses, "them/their" refers to the Israelites.
So a paraphrase could be: G-d will raise up for the Israelites a prophet from the Israelites' brethren some time in the future that will be like Moses and speak the words of G-d.

Having established that, what's the connection?
The assertion is that "from amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites, and as Muslims assert many times, Mohammed is descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

In order to properly analyze this, I will not make a table comparing Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, as many do on both Christian and Muslim websites in order to pervert the meaning of this verse.

Instead, I will make a minor sidestep into the world of Jewish thought.
For those of us that do not have the presumption that the Torah is wrong and faulty, there is a list of thirteen basic rules on how to deduce meaning from the Torah. They are provided as the introduction to Sifre, and are recited in the preliminary portion of the daily morning prayers.
Just as in the Torah where there are laws that are obviously "just" and those that we cannot comprehend, a parallel applies here. Some rules make sense, and others are assertions of rules. I will make use of two rules that make a good deal of sense.

Rule number 2 states quite simply "mig'zerah shavah" which means "From a decree of equality".

Rule number 12 is that "davar halamed m'inyano, v'davar halamed m'sofo" which is often translated like "An item is taught/clarified from it's context, or from nearby verses."

Why these two rules? Rule number 2 tells us that if we have a word in one location that is vague, and the same word elsewhere more clear, we can use one to clarify the other. The reason for the second rule will be evident shortly.

The Rebuttal


Just a chapter back, in Deuteronomy 17, we find a similar phrase, but the voice is different. This time Moses is delivering a message from G-d directly to the Israelites, speaking to the Israelites as a single group, instead of us hearing what G-d says to Moses.
Deuteronomy 17:15 You shall put (appoint) upon yourself a king that G-d will pick him; from amongst your brethren you shall appoint a king; you will not be able to give upon yourself a foreign man that is not your brother.
This verse, just a chapter behind the verse about the prophet is quite explicit. It uses the phrase "amongst (their/your) brethren" and then clarifies that a foreigner, which is definitely a non-Israelite, is not the Israelite's brother.

For further explicitness of the term foreigner, let's turn to Exodus 12.
Exodus 12:43 And G-d said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover offering, every son of a foreigner shall not eat of it.
Conclusion

Since we can now see that a foreigner does not take part of something as central as the Passover celebration, which is incumbant on all Israelite males when the Temple stands, we can see that a foreigner is simply a non-Israelite, and it doesn't matter their genealogy.

That being said, we have also shown that a foreigner is someone who is not from "amongst the brethren" of the Israelites. This being said, it is an incredible leap of both faith and logic to assume that Mohammed the Ishmaelite is predicted by the Torah as coming as a new prophet of a new religion for the Jews.
May you please post all of chapter 17 from your translations please.
Reply

lavikor201
04-18-2007, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
May you please post all of chapter 17 from your translations please.
Shalom Al Habeshi,

People who speak Hebrew do not use translations unless they quote in mass. They read the original text. Hebrew and English are such different languages that it is tough to rest on the translation given, (especially by Christians).

I love this site though:

http://bible.ort.org/intro1.asp?lang=1
Reply

Umar001
04-18-2007, 12:35 AM
Ok, can you sum up then your rebuttle, i.e what I understand is, the your bethren means amongst yourself because this is what is used in the previous chapter.
Reply

lavikor201
04-18-2007, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Ok, can you sum up then your rebuttle, i.e what I understand is, the your bethren means amongst yourself because this is what is used in the previous chapter.
Yes basically, the Arabs are not considered "brothers" of the Jews or bretherin. The passage refers to an Israelite.
Reply

thirdwatch512
04-18-2007, 03:10 AM
to the member who posted about mohammad predicted in Hindu scriptures.. PLEASE tell me you're joking. i'm assuming you have been finding your articles from dr. zakir naik. dr. zakir naik has been debunked in his artciles about Hinduism hundreds of times. he literally twisted around Hindu texts in front of thousands of people! he has been debunked, and if you simply good "Kalki avatar mohammad" you will see many sites that debunk the claim that Mohammad is the fufillment of Kalki Avatar. Plus, since the punishment for idoltry is death according to the qu'ran, it would be rather crazy to even accept a POSSIBILITY that kalki avatar is mohammd!!

The Vishnu Purana (4.24) says:

"When the practices taught by the Vedas and the institutes of law shall nearly have ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that divine being who exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma, and who is the beginning and the end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon the earth. He will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent brahmin of Sambhala village, endowed with the eight superhuman faculties. By his irresistible might he will destroy all the barbarians and thieves, and all whose minds are devoted to iniquity. He will then reestablish righteousness upon earth; and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as pellucid as crystal. The men who are thus changed by virtue of that peculiar time shall be as the seeds of human beings, and shall give birth to a race who shall follow the laws of the Krita age, the Age of Purity. As it is said, "When the sun and moon, and the luner asterism Tishya, and the planet Jupiter, are in one mansion, the Krita age shall return."

There are several men who claim to be the Kalki: *, *

The article begins with a logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority:

One hindu research professor, in his stunning book, claims that description of avatar found in the holy books of hindu religion is in fact that of the prophet muhammad(s.a.w). A little while ago, in India a fact revealing book has been published, which has been the topic of discussions and gossip, allover the country. Amazingly the author of this book is a fair-minded famous professor, who happens to be a Hindu. His name is Pundit Vedaprakash Upadhai and the name of his fact revealing book is "kalki avtar". The author is a hindu Brahmin by caste of Bengali origin. He is a research scholar, a seeker of the truth and a well known pundit in allahabad university. After years of research work, he published this book and other eight pundits have endorsed and certified his points of argument as authentic.

According to Hindu belief and their holy books, the description of the guide and the leader, named kalki avatar, fits that of prophet Muhammad(so.a.w)of Arabia. So the Hindus of the whole world should look into this new information not wait any longer for the arrival of kalki avatar (the spirit) as he already arrived 1400 years ago. The author produces following sound evidences from the vedas and other holy books of Hindu religion in support of his claim:-

Now we proceed to examine the proof:

1. In purana (a holy book of Hindus) it is stated that kalki avatar would be the last messenger of god in this world for the guidance of the whole world and all human beings. (according to Islam, prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) is also considered the last messenger of god in this world who was sent to guide all human beings).

The Vishnu Purana does not say that the Kalki Avatar will be the last messenger. This Purana does say that the Kalki Avatar:

1. Exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma
2. Is the beginning and the end
3. Comprehends all things
4. Will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent Brahmin of Sambhala village
5. Will be endowed with the eight superhuman faculties

None of these descriptions apply to Muhammad.

2. According to a Hindu religion prediction, the birth of kalki avatar,would take place in an isle which again according to Hindu religion is Arab region.

This is an error in geographical terminology. An isle is an island, Arabia is a peninsula.

3. In books of Hindus, the names of the father and the mother of kalki avatar are given as vishnubhagat and sumaani respectively. if we examine the meanings of these names we shall come to a very interesting conclusion: take vishnubhagat vishnu (meaning god) + bhagat(meaning slave)= slave of god Allah (god) + abd (slave in Arabic) = slave of god (Abdullah in Arabic name of Mohammed's father) sumaani = peace or calmness aamenah(Arabic) =peace or calmness (name of mother of prophet Muhammad (s.a.w)

This is an error in philology. In other words, if the names are literal, then they do not match. A servant of Vishnu would not be equivalent to a servant of Allah, unless one admits that Vishnu is Allah.

4. In religious books of Hindus, it is mentioned that the staple food of kalki avatar would be dates and olives and he would be the most honest and truthful person in the region. Without any doubt the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) is acclaimed to possess these qualities.

The Hadith are a collection of oral traditions which record the most minor details of Muhammad's life and habits. He did enjoy dates, however, there is no mention of him eating olives, although there are some references to olive oil.

5. It is stated in Vedas (holy book of Hindu religion) that the birth of kalki avatar would take place in an honorable clan. This perfectly fits the quraysh where the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) belonged to. (very honorable clan for more details u can read the history of prophet(s.a.w) to see the qualities that they possessed which made them one of the strongest clans).

No, the Vishnu Purana clearly says "He will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent brahmin of Sambhala village". Muhammad was not born in Sambhala village, he was born in Arabia, and no one has ever claimed that Muhammad came from a Brahmin family. Additionally, is there any objective reason to believe the Quaraysh to be more honorable than other clans?

6. God would teach kalki avatar through his messenger (angel) in a cave. Allah taught prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), through is messenger angel jibraeel(gabreal) in a cave known as gaar-e-hiraa(a cave in mount hiraa).

The Purana says no such thing. Hindus believe that the Kalki Avatar is a god [Vishnu] who has been reincarnated 10 times and not a mere messenger. Muhammad claimed to be a messenger and would have been grossly offended by the suggestion that he was the incarnation of a Pagan god. There is a huge difference between the concept of Propethood in Islam and the concept of the Avatar in Hinduism and one cannot impose an Islamic meaning on a Hindu title.

7. God would avail kalki avatar with a very speedy horse to ride and travel the whole world and the seven skies. indication of buraaque(horse) and me'raaj (the night when prophet traveled the seven skies).

Muhammad never traveled the whole world, he was reported to have traveled to the "farthest Masjid", although, according to Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah, Muhammad's wife Aishah claimed that his body never left the bed that night. Incidentally, this story [the Miraj] is very similar to the story of Zoroaster's ascent into the seven heavens on a mythical beast called a "Gryphon".

8. God would also avail kalki avatar with divine help. This was particularly proved in the battle of uhud.

The Kalki Avatar has, according to the Purana, "irresistible might" and is divine ["character of Brahma"]. Therefore, he does not need divine help, he provides divine help.

9. Another dazzling account given about kalki avatar was that he would be born on the 12th of a month. whereas the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) was born on the 12th of the rabiul awwal (Islamic calendar).

This assumes that Hindus used the same calendar as Muslims. There is also disagreement among Muslims scholars concerning exactly when Muhammad was born. In fact, some Islamic sources claim that Muhammad's birthday (Mawlid) was first celebrated 3 centuries after the death of Muhammad.

10. Kalki avatar would be an excellent horse rider and a swordsman. The author here draws the attention of Hindus that the real days of horses and swords have gone and the present time is of guns and missiles. so it would be foolish on the part of those who still expect kalki avatar, who should be an excellent rider and swordsman to come. in fact, the divine book, holy qur'aan contains qualities and signs attributed to kalki avatar reflecting on the prophet Muhammad (s.a.w).

Nearly every hero in the ancient world used swords and horses, therefore, this criteria doesn't point out anyone in particular. However, some Hindus believe that the Kalki Avatar will be a machine-man, who will come to earth on a white horse with a blazing sword in his hands. This future incarnation of Vishnu will appear at the end of Kali Yuga (evil eon) and would solve the problem of Adharma (unrighteousness). He will punish all evil people in this world, destroy the world, and recreate a golden age of peace and harmony. Clearly, Muhammad did none of these things.

If the author of this book were a Muslim, he could have been arrested or he could have been murdered and all the copies of this book would have been confiscated. even a ban would have been extended on its further publications. a riot and violence would have broken out against innocent Muslims and their blood would have been shed. (these are just some of the things that could have happened as Muslims would be accused of false propaganda etc). however, these facts are verified and supported by the eight eminent pundits. what the author and the eight other eminent pundits say is that the Hindus who are still anxiously awaiting the arrival of kalki avatar are simply subjecting themselves to a never ending pain. because such a great messenger has come and departed from this world fourteen centuries ago.

This type of censorship and blatant violation of human rights would be far more common in Pakistan than in democratic and secular India.

Editor Note :- Salaamun Alkum Article does not said that Hindu religion is authentic religion . It's said that even Hindus they Know about the last Prophet and did not excepted it is their fault Quran said . They know this Prophet like they know their sons. All Prophet predicted for the last prophet even the new and old Testament of Bible In present condition you can find about the last Prophet of Islam. So in the Day of Judgment they can't deny the Fact that they don't know who was the last Prophet.

If the author does not believe that Hinduism is an "authentic" religion, why does he appeal to Hindu scriptures? It is intellectually dangerous for Muslims to draw conclusions concerning what they believe to be the truth from sources they consider to be of questionable veracity. An Avatar is a reincarnation of a god - an idea that Muhammad would have immediately condemned as shirk, the most serious of all sins. In addition to the many factual flaws in this argument, there is another very serious problem.

The largest issue here is the moral and ethical problems associated with this type of polemic. This argument is an "outwitting" which essentially says that "the ways justify the means". In other words, Hindus should believe something, ... anything about Muhammad. Why is this a problem?

Suppose that a Hindu accepts the idea that Muhammad was the Kalki Avatar, or 10th reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, would he or she be a Muslim? Or, taking this scenario a little further, suppose a large number of Hindus adopted this idea, how would they be viewed by the Ummah (Muslim Community)? Would these people be considered Muslim or would they be another heterodox sect like the Nation of Islam, Ahmadis, Qadianis, or Bahá'ís - and would they be mistreated, persecuted, and killed as some of these groups were/are for their beliefs?
Reply

Fr0mHim
04-19-2007, 12:55 AM
to you guys what makes a prophecy? is it written words about someone? or what?
Reply

YEh
05-03-2007, 06:49 AM
Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
jesus was the last prophet according to christianity, until he returns. the Bible even says so.. Jesus said "this is the end" before he was crucified.

also, for anyone to be a prophet, they must have been a jew.. so there's no way mohammad could have been.
That's right all the prophets from when God made the covenant with the Jews (Isaac) were Jews.

Genesis 17
18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.
What is the point if God sends prophets to other nations when God only made a covenant (promise) with the Nation of Israel which is forever ? :?

Also Moses was a Jew he was an Egyptian Jew.

Also I would like to quote the following it is relavant.

Genesis 12
The Call of Abram
1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
Who is cursing the nation of Israel at the moment ? The Arabs (mostly muslims).

In fact the punishment for attacking Israel is quite severe in the Bible, it says that anybody who attacks Israel in the last days. Them and there children to 7 generations will not be able to go to heaven. It is almost like fighting against God himself according to the Bible. Since the promised land (Israel) is a metaphor for heaven.
They will try to totally destroy the Jews and they nearly will but God himself will stop the war and save Israel and totally destroy the attackers.

YEh
Reply

- Qatada -
05-03-2007, 11:06 AM
Oh, so now you're saying that god's racist? I can't believe you guys. Abraham wasn't a jew, nor was he a christian - yet he submitted to God and he wasn't of the polytheists.

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Prophet and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith.

[Qur'an 3: 67-8]

Islaam (which means submission to God) was the religion of ALL the Prophets of God, they all called their people to God's worship and that the people shouldn't associate partners with God in that worship.


Those who love the life of this world more than the Hereafter, who hinder (men) from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: they are astray by a long distance.

We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.

[Qur'an Abraham 14: 3-4]


Allaah guides those who are sincere, and those who submit themselves to Him. It doesn't matter what race you belong to - God will convey the message through His Prophets to mankind.


Do you know who Israeel [Ya'qub/Jacob] was? He was the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Guess what religion Israeel followed? He followed the religion of Abraham - And Abraham was a Muslim and worshipped God Alone, he wasn't of the polytheists. So compare yourself to Abraham, not anyone else, because if the jews aren't following the way of Abraham, and the christians aren't following the way of Abraham - then they are misguided since Abraham was a close friend and obedient to Allaah.

Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Prophet and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith.




Regards.
Reply

Amadeus85
05-03-2007, 11:34 AM
Do you know who Israeel [Ya'qub/Jacob] was? He was the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Guess what religion Israeel followed? He followed the religion of Abraham - And Abraham was a Muslim and worshipped God Alone, he wasn't of the polytheists. So compare yourself to Abraham, not anyone else, because if the jews aren't following the way of Abraham, and the christians aren't following the way of Abraham - then they are misguided since Abraham was a close friend and obedient to Allaah.
You have just expressed your own opinion, and don't expect that christians nor jews on this forum will believe what you say. For us it is clearly from beggining to end that all God's prophets were jews. They celebrated jewish holy days. Of course i know that for islam it is most important to prove that all prophets were muslims and Muhammed was the last one predicted in the Bible. And i am very happy seeing christians and jews here together resisting
the claim that all prophets were muslims. You know, i study history and if i said to my academic professor that Abraham or Moses were a muslims, my profesor would give me F (worse) mark. And i think that also Chinese, and Hindu teach in schools that all prophets were Israelis.

Well, you have your own version of history, and we will stay with our. :p
Reply

- Qatada -
05-03-2007, 11:47 AM
A person can be Jewish by race, however to be a Muslim is to perform a verb - Islaam [i.e. submission.] All the Prophets worshipped the One and Only God and called their people to that, in the way that God wanted to be worshipped - so they were Muslims.


Say (O Muhammad SAW) to the believers to forgive those who (harm them and) hope not for the Days of Allâh (i.e. His Recompense), that He may recompense people according to what they have earned (i.e. to punish these disbelievers, who harm the believers).

Whosoever does a good deed, it is for his ownself, and whosoever does evil, it is against (his ownself). Then to your Lord you will be made to return.


And indeed We gave the Children of Israel the Scripture, and the understanding of the Scripture and its laws, and the Prophethood; and provided them with good things, and preferred them above the 'Alamîn (mankind and jinns) (of their time, during that period),

And gave them clear proofs in matters [by revealing to them the Taurât (Torah)]. And they differed not until after the knowledge came to them, through envy among themselves. Verily, Your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection about that wherein they used to differ.


Then We have put you (O Muhammad SAW) on a plain way of (Our) commandment [like the one which We commanded Our Messengers before you (i.e. legal ways and laws of the Islâmic Monotheism)]. So follow you that (Islâmic Monotheism and its laws), and follow not the desires of those who know not.

Verily, they can avail you nothing against Allâh (if He wants to punish you). Verily, the Zâlimûn (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.) are Auliyâ' (protectors, helpers, etc.) to one another, but Allâh is the Walî (Helper, Protector, etc.) of the Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2).

This (Qur'ân) is a clear insight and evidence for mankind, and a guidance and a mercy for people who have Faith with certainty


Or do those who earn evil deeds think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, in their present life and after their death? Worst is the judgement that they make.

And Allâh has created the heavens and the earth with truth, in order that each person may be recompensed what he has earned, and they will not be wronged.


[Qur'an Al-Jathiya (the Crouching) 45: 14-22]
Reply

FatimaAsSideqah
05-03-2007, 11:49 AM
:sl:

Islam therefore lays down the foundation for the universality of a single prophet. As such the claim of the Quran -- that the Holy Prophet (sa) was raised not only for Arabia but for the whole of mankind -- is founded on a sound philosophy. We find mention in every religion of a utopian future or golden age when all mankind would be brought under the one flag. But there does not seem to be any foundation laid for the unification of man in his beliefs and dogmas. It was for the first time in the history of religion that Islam paved the way for a universal religion by the declaration that all the people of the world, at different times, were blessed with the advent of divine messengers.

According to the Holy Quran, the institution of prophethood is universal and timeless. There are two terms used to indicate the same office, each with slightly different connotations. The term An-Nabi has the connotation of prophecy. Those whom God chooses to represent Him are implanted with the knowledge of certain important events regarding the future. They are also told of things past, which were unknown to the people, and his knowledge of them stand as a sign of his being informed by an All-Knowing Being. Prophecy as such establishes the truth of the prophets, so that people may submit to them and accept their message.

The second term used in connection with prophets, is Al-Rasool or Messenger. This refers to such contents of the prophet's revelation as deal with important messages to be delivered to mankind on God's behalf. Those messages could be speaking of a new code of law, or they could simply be admonishing people for their past lapses in reference to previous revealed laws.

Both these functions unite in a single person, and as such all prophets can be termed as messengers, and all messengers as prophets.

According to Islam, all prophets are human beings and none bear superhuman characteristics. Wherever some miracles are attributed to prophets, which are understood to indicate their superhuman character, the categorical and clear statements of the Quran reject such a notion. Raising of the dead is one of such miracles attributed to certain prophets. Although similar descriptions are found in many divine scriptures or religious books, according to the Quran they are not meant to be taken literally, but have a metaphorical connotation. For instance, it is attributed to Jesus (as) that he raised the dead into a new life. But the Holy Quran speaks of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa) in the same terms, with the same words being applied to his miracle of spiritual revival. Similar is the case of creating birds out of clay and causing them to fly in the name of God. These birds are only human beings who are bestowed with the faculty of spiritual flight, as against the earthly people.

No prophet is granted an exceptionally long term of life which makes him distinctly different and above the brotherhood of prophets to which he belongs. Nor is any prophet mentioned as having risen bodily to remote recesses of the universe. Wherever there is such mention, it is spiritual ascent which is meant, not bodily ascent, which the Quran categorically declares is against the character of prophets. When the Holy Founder of Islam was required by the People of the Book to physically ascend to heaven and bring back a book, the answer which God taught him was simply this:



Say to them: 'My Lord is far above (such childish conduct). I am no more than a human being and a prophet.' Surah Bani-Israel (Ch. 17: V.94)

This answer rejects all claims about other prophets who are understood to have ascended physically to heaven. The argument implied in this answer is that no human being and no prophet can rise bodily to heaven, otherwise the Prophet Muhammad (sa) could also have repeated the same miracle. The emphasis on the human characteristics of prophets and their human limitations is one of the most beautiful features of fundamental Islamic teachings. Prophets rise above their fellow human beings not because they were gifted with superhuman qualities, but only because they gave a better account of the qualities that they had been gifted with. They remained human despite having ascended to great spiritual heights, and their conduct as such is inimitable by other human beings.

On the issue of continuity of prophecy, Islam categorically declares the Holy Prophet (sa) of Islam to be the last of the law- bearing prophets and the Quran to be the last Divine book of law, perfected and protected till the end of time. Obviously a book which is perfect and also protected from interpolation transcends alteration. No change is warranted on both counts. As long as a book is perfect and protected from human interpolation, no change is justified.

As far as prophecy other than law-bearing prophecy is concerned, the possibility of its continuity is clearly mentioned in the Quran. Again there are clear prophecies about such divine Founder of Islam and the Holy Book -- the Quran. The following verse of Surah Al-Nisa leaves no ambiguity about this:



And whoso obeys Allah and this Messenger of His shall be among those on whom Allah has bestowed His blessings, namely, the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs, and the Righteous. Surah Al-Nisa (Ch. 4: V.70)

In short, Islam is declared in the Quran to be the last perfected religion for the benefit of mankind, after which no new teaching would be revealed to annul the teachings of Islam, nor would a new independent prophet be born outside the domain of Islam; any new prophet would be completely subordinate to the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa.

The prophets always came to deliver a message. That message was not confined to the areas of beliefs, but also covered the areasre of practices and implementation of the beliefs. The teachings are divided into two large categories:

How to improve one's relationship with God.
How to conduct oneself in relation to one's fellow human beings.

These two categories in fact cover all aspects of religious laws. We cannot enter into a lengthy discussion of how this task is carried out to perfection in Islam, but perhaps it would be appropriate to illustrate a few important features of this teaching of universal character.


:w:
Reply

YEh
05-04-2007, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Oh, so now you're saying that god's racist? I can't believe you guys. Abraham wasn't a jew, nor was he a christian - yet he submitted to God and he wasn't of the polytheists.
[INDENT]
Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
No Abraham's Son was the first of the Jew's. And that is when God made a covenant with the Jews for an everlasting covenant.
They are being punished still now for their sins of their previous generations. Since they disobeyed God. Like we were punished with the ability to die when Adam sinned in heaven.
All the prophets even mentioned in the Quran are Jews from Isaac onwards. You don't find that strange ? :?

But through Jesus he made the world follow God's Word and Son. He gave many signs in the OT and NT that the gentiles will receive God's revelation after his resurrection.

- God made a covenant (promise) with the Jews. And it cannot be broken as easily as Muslims claim.
- He also made a promise that he would "pour out his spririt upon the nations" (give to us his Holy Spirit so that we can be in union with God).
- And another promise that he would make all the nations of the world follow him in truth (through the power of the Holy Spirit).

This is what happened when Jesus came to the earth and fulfilled these promises. You cannot deny the truth.

You can claim "it never happened", but why then has all the prophecies come true concerning him in the OT, and the prophecies that Jesus made in the NT come true ?
Such as "Solomon's temple (that Herod the great re-built) will be totally and utterly dismantled, so that not even a stone will be left.

Mark 13 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


Mark 13
Signs of the End of the Age
1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.
Was this prophecy fulfilled ?

Legend has it that the construction of the entire complex lasted only three years, but other sources such as Josephus say that it took far longer, although the Temple itself may have taken that long. It is possible that the complex was only a few years completed when the future Emperor Titus burnt the place to the ground in 70 CE.
This Temple was where the dome of the rock is now. This thing was huge, no one would have imagined that this place could be teared down it was so massive.
But Jesus made the bold claim, and just ~40 years latter it was totally dismantled and
Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down
so his prophecy came true. The whole temple was removed by the Romans to get rid of the Jews, so they destroyed the temple so that no one could worship.
So the Romans kicked the Israelites out of their promised land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod's_Temple

-God made the promise that the Israelites will come back though and re-establish Israel.
No one could have predicted this even the Bible scholars and historians couldn't/wouldn't believe it. But that has happened too !!

It says that the Jews will attacked and killed for many years to come. As punishment for their rebellion. To the point that the Jews will be totally wiped out. But God will show himself then, and destroy all the enemies of Israel.

Be prepared, be scared !! :laugh: :-[

YEh
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-04-2007, 10:45 AM
Oh, so now you're saying that god's racist? I can't believe you guys.
What can you not believe? I was under the impression that Allah in the Quran specifically proclaims that at one time the Children of Israel were his favorite, so is he racist? It is an interesting discussion, do you have any commentaries you could provide me with on those verses?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-04-2007, 10:54 AM
The Children of Israeel were a people chosen by Allaah for a specific amount of time, when they accepted the Prophets sent to them and obeyed them. That was the covenant - if you obey the Messengers' sent to you, Allaah will keep His side of the covenant, but when they started rejecting some Prophets while slaying others - why should Allaah keep His covenant with them? Infact, if they're breaking the covenant with Allaah - He will break His side of the covenant with them. And that's exactly what happened.


You can read more commentary here:

Allah's Blessings for the Children of Israel
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1743
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-05-2007, 02:31 AM
From the belief of all who believe in the Hebrew scriptures, that may be a problem because of how the covanent is told to be everlasting. Why would God proclaim something like this, when he knows it is not true? Oh, yeah, it was added to it later (Islams answer).
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-05-2007, 02:31 AM
I just do not see why they would add that, but either way, it is basically agree to disagree.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-05-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
From the belief of all who believe in the Hebrew scriptures, that may be a problem because of how the covanent is told to be everlasting. Why would God proclaim something like this, when he knows it is not true? Oh, yeah, it was added to it later (Islams answer).

So you think that God would keep His covenant with them even if they broke their side of it? Or do you think that God is dependant upon them? No he's not:


Allâh to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth! And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment.
Those who prefer the life of this world instead of the Hereafter, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh (i.e.Islâm) and seek crookedness therein - They are far astray.

And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allâh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.


And indeed We sent Mûsa (Moses) with Our Ayât (signs, proofs, and evidences) (saying): "Bring out your people from darkness into light, and make them remember the annals of Allâh. Truly, therein are evidences, proofs and signs for every patient, thankful (person)."

And indeed We sent Mûsa (Moses) with Our Ayât (signs, proofs, and evidences) (saying): "Bring out your people from darkness into light, and make them remember the annals of Allâh. Truly, therein are evidences, proofs and signs for every patient, thankful (person)."

And (remember) when Mûsa (Moses) said to his people: "Call to mind Allâh's Favour to you, when He delivered you from Fir'aun's (Pharaoh) people who were afflicting you with horrible torment, and were slaughtering your sons and letting your women alive, and in it was a tremendous trial from your Lord."


And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allâh), I will give you more (of My Blessings), but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily! My Punishment is indeed severe."

And Mûsa (Moses) said: "If you disbelieve, you and all on earth together, then verily! Allâh is Rich (Free of all wants), Owner of all Praise."


[Qur'an Abraham 14: 2-8]
Allaah can abrogate anything He wants, don't you see that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son? Yet what happened? Allaah abrogated that and made him slaughter a sheep/goat instead. Why shouldn't He? If a people rebel against Allaah and say evil about Him?

Instead He will replace them with a better people who will worship Him without associating partners with Him, they will love Allaah, and Allaah will love them. The covenants of Allaah are not binding upon anyone, only those whom He wills.
Reply

Malaikah
05-05-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
I just do not see why they would add that, but either way, it is basically agree to disagree.
It is also hard to understand why some people who claim to be Muslim would have denied that Muhammad was the real prophet and that the Angle Gabriel got it wrong and that he was meant to actually go to Ali (RA), or how people can claim divine-like attribute to men... but, hey, it happened, that is why we have deviant sects in Islam, because someone felt the need to make something up.

Allaah can abrogate anything He wants, don't you see that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son? Yet what happened? Allaah abrogated that and made him slaughter a sheep/goat instead. Why shouldn't He? If a people rebel against Allaah and say evil about Him?

Instead He will replace them with a better people who will worship Him without associating partners with Him, they will love Allaah, and Allaah will love them. The covenants of Allaah are not binding upon anyone, only those whom He wills.
:sl:

What do you mean? Are you saying it is Islamic belief that the covenant with the Jews was meant to last till the end of time? :?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

What do you mean? Are you saying it is Islamic belief that the covenant with the Jews was meant to last till the end of time? :?

Nah, i'm just saying that the jews believe their covenant with Allaah is forever. Yet i'm proving to them using their knowledge of Prophet Abraham that Allaah can abrogate something if He wills, so even if what they said is supposedly true i.e. that the covenant would remain with them, then they have to question why Allaah commanded something for Prophet Abraham and later abrogated it.

It's just something to think about for them.
Reply

YEh
05-05-2007, 12:38 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Nah, i'm just saying that the jews believe their covenant with Allaah is forever. Yet i'm proving to them using their knowledge of Prophet Abraham that Allaah can abrogate something if He wills, so even if what they said is supposedly true i.e. that the covenant would remain with them, then they have to question why Allaah commanded something for Prophet Abraham and later abrogated it.

It's just something to think about for them.
What did you mean by this ?

The whole Bible is about the Jewish people, prophecies through them, and about them till the end of age.
I mentioned prophecies that were fulfilled that went against all odds, all about the state of Israel.
It also says that their land will be given over to another people and they will suffer greatly, but God has not forsaken them totally. They are getting punished for their crimes against God.

Of course it says this in the Quran, but where does it state in the Bible that this "everlasting covenant" with his chosen people was revoked ?

Peace people,

YEh
Reply

- Qatada -
05-05-2007, 12:44 PM
Hey.


You know how you expect the Jews to follow the Messiah son of Mary? :) Well we expect them to accept the Messiah and follow the revelation revealed to God's final Messeinger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) :) Since the message is for all of mankind.


Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and among Al-Mushrikûn (the polytheists) were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence.

A Messenger (Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from Allâh, reciting (the Qur'ân) purified pages [purified from Al-Bâtil (falsehood, etc.)].

Containing correct and straight laws from Allâh.


And the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) differed not until after there came to them clear evidence. (i.e. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and whatever was revealed to him).

And they were commanded not, but that they should worship Allâh, and worship none but Him Alone (abstaining from ascribing partners to Him), and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât - the 5 daily Prayers) and give Zakât (the charity): and that is the right religion.

Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.


Verily, those who believe [in the Oneness of Allâh, and in His Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) including all obligations ordered by Islâm] and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.

Their reward with their Lord is 'Adn (Eden) Paradise (Gardens of Eternity), underneath which rivers flow, they will abide therein forever, Allâh Well-Pleased with them, and they with Him. That is for him who fears his Lord.


[Qur'an - Al Bayyinah [the Clear Proof/Evidence] 98]


Regards.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
So you think that God would keep His covenant with them even if they broke their side of it? Or do you think that God is dependant upon them? No he's not:


Allâh to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth! And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment.
Those who prefer the life of this world instead of the Hereafter, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allâh (i.e.Islâm) and seek crookedness therein - They are far astray.

And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allâh misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.


And indeed We sent Mûsa (Moses) with Our Ayât (signs, proofs, and evidences) (saying): "Bring out your people from darkness into light, and make them remember the annals of Allâh. Truly, therein are evidences, proofs and signs for every patient, thankful (person)."

And indeed We sent Mûsa (Moses) with Our Ayât (signs, proofs, and evidences) (saying): "Bring out your people from darkness into light, and make them remember the annals of Allâh. Truly, therein are evidences, proofs and signs for every patient, thankful (person)."

And (remember) when Mûsa (Moses) said to his people: "Call to mind Allâh's Favour to you, when He delivered you from Fir'aun's (Pharaoh) people who were afflicting you with horrible torment, and were slaughtering your sons and letting your women alive, and in it was a tremendous trial from your Lord."


And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks (by accepting Faith and worshipping none but Allâh), I will give you more (of My Blessings), but if you are thankless (i.e. disbelievers), verily! My Punishment is indeed severe."

And Mûsa (Moses) said: "If you disbelieve, you and all on earth together, then verily! Allâh is Rich (Free of all wants), Owner of all Praise."


[Qur'an Abraham 14: 2-8]
Allaah can abrogate anything He wants, don't you see that Abraham was ordered to sacrifice his son? Yet what happened? Allaah abrogated that and made him slaughter a sheep/goat instead. Why shouldn't He? If a people rebel against Allaah and say evil about Him?

Instead He will replace them with a better people who will worship Him without associating partners with Him, they will love Allaah, and Allaah will love them. The covenants of Allaah are not binding upon anyone, only those whom He wills.
Of course Allah can abrogate anything he wants, the point I am making is that he said it would be everlasting, so am I to claim that he does not have enough forsight to see that his statement of "everlasting" would be incorrect?
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey.


You know how you expect the Jews to follow the Messiah son of Mary? :) Well we expect them to accept the Messiah and follow the revelation revealed to God's final Messeinger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) :) Since the message is for all of mankind..
Are you saying Jews cannot follow their covanent and follow Jesus as well?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 02:17 PM
Maybe i can ask you this question, do you think God would keep a covenant with someone who broke their side of it? What is the definition of a covenant? Both sides have to keep their side of their treaty for it to be kept intact.

Also, if we were to use your claim that the covenant is forever, then what really is the purpose for the rest of mankind? Are they supposed to wander around in darkness without even knowing that the 'Noahide laws' apply upon them? Without knowing the consequences if they break them laws? Since i've heard many jews on the forum state that there is no repentance for a person who breaks them laws, is that really fair? When someone hasn't even been warned?


Also - if jews can follow Jesus son of Mary, then they can also follow Muhammad since he is God's final Messenger. Oops, he's from a different race you ask? So what. He called to the 10 commandments, he never broke any of them - yet he is also the descendant of Abraham. So whats the difference? God knows best who He sends as a Messenger.


Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Prophet and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith.

[Qur'an 3: 67-8]
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Maybe i can ask you this question, do you think God would keep a covenant with someone who broke their side of it? What is the definition of a covenant? Both sides have to keep their side of their treaty for it to be kept intact.
I'm not sure. But that is not the problem, the problem is that why would God say it was everlasting?

Also, if we were to use your claim that the covenant is forever, then what really is the purpose for the rest of mankind? Are they supposed to wander around in darkness without even knowing that the 'Noahide laws' apply upon them? Without knowing the consequences if they break them laws? Since i've heard many jews on the forum state that there is no repentance for a person who breaks them laws, is that really fair? When someone hasn't even been warned?
Knowingly. It is about intention in my belief, and I cannot confirm any belief except my own. If someone does not know they are breaking a law, then they won't be punished for it.


Also - if jews can follow Jesus son of Mary, then they can also follow Muhammad since he is God's final Messenger. Oops, he's from a different race you ask? So what. He called to the 10 commandments, he never broke any of them - yet he is also the descendant of Abraham. So whats the difference? God knows best who He sends as a Messenger.
Mohammad never broke the Sabbath? I'm pretty sure that is in the ten commandents. You may say the scriptures refer to Mohammad, in places where Christianity holds they refer to Jesus. That is fine, however, we will again as I stated above have to agree to disagree.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
I'm not sure. But that is not the problem, the problem is that why would God say it was everlasting?
Mohammad never broke the Sabbath? I'm pretty sure that is in the ten commandents. You may say the scriptures refer to Mohammad, in places where Christianity holds they refer to Jesus. That is fine, however, we will again as I stated above have to agree to disagree.

If we're going to use that, then you as a christian don't follow the Sabbath aswell right? Since Jesus son of Mary abrogated it? :) And the jews are supposed to follow Jesus son of Mary. If not - why do they make Sunday the day of church and all that?


Knowingly. It is about intention in my belief, and I cannot confirm any belief except my own. If someone does not know they are breaking a law, then they won't be punished for it.
A jew on this forum (rebelishauman) said otherwise. :)


Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Repentance will not save you from your actions. What it might do is give you the chance to try and correct your actions, although very hard.

A person who completly repents to G-d is someone who compeltly recongnizes that they deserve the punishment they will recieve. If they are so repentant, than they are obviously at the level where they realize that G-d should punish them, and they pray they will get another chance at life, and then deserve the right to possibly go to hell to cleanse the remainder of the sins.
http://www.islamicboard.com/710907-post77.html


You'll have to bring proof to clarify your stance. :)
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 03:00 PM
If we're going to use that, then you as a christian don't follow the Sabbath aswell right? Since Jesus son of Mary abrogated it? And the jews are supposed to follow Jesus son of Mary. If not - why do they make Sunday the day of church and all that?
Cause people who were not in the camp of israel did not have to follow it. they were actually prohibited from it. also, Jesus healed people on the sabbath, but i believe you might be aloud to break it to save people.

i dont know everything about the Church or sunday, I dont claim to be a genuis ya know, but I believe there is a valid reason.

A jew on this forum (rebelishauman) said otherwise.
By the way I said "my" belief. But he does not go in depth into what is wrong. He talks about, things like punishment. Actions may be what your punished for, but your intention defines your actions. If someone doesn't know about God, then you cannot judge there actions. If someone does, then there actions are what the quote is describing. I think he is speaking of soemthing different.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
Cause people who were not in the camp of israel did not have to follow it. they were actually prohibited from it. also, Jesus healed people on the sabbath, but i believe you might be aloud to break it to save people.

So Jesus son of Mary is coming to the 'lost sheep of israel' as stated in the bible, matthew. Yet he's not coming to them afterall?


i dont know everything about the Church or sunday, I dont claim to be a genuis ya know, but I believe there is a valid reason.
I thought it wasn't such a difficult question. But okay.


By the way I said "my" belief. But he does not go in depth into what is wrong. He talks about, things like punishment. Actions may be what your punished for, but your intention defines your actions. If someone doesn't know about God, then you cannot judge there actions. If someone does, then there actions are what the quote is describing. I think he is speaking of soemthing different.

We were talking about the gentiles, and how they get punished if they break the 'Noahide' laws - even if they havn't been warned of the consequences.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
So Jesus son of Mary is coming to the 'lost sheep of israel' as stated in the bible, matthew. Yet he's not coming to them afterall?

I thought it wasn't such a difficult question. But okay.


We were talking about the gentiles, and how they get punished if they break the 'Noahide' laws - even if they havn't been warned of the consequences.
-Jesus came with different messages for different people in my opinion.

-It is one, the deciding process of the Church created traditions based on the people and the scripture. I am not on that level nor in that circle.

-May I ask where he said that even if they were not warned of the consequences they would be punished? The situation he refered to was not breaking laws but killing and raping which is one of the worst sins ever. My interp of his comment was that possibly God would let him reincarnate according to judaism to attain forgivness.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
-Jesus came with different messages for different people in my opinion.

Proof please? I believe that Jesus son of Mary came to the children of Israeel and his people, and my proof is from Qur'an:


And remember, Moses said to his people: "O my people! why do ye vex and insult me, though ye know that I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you?" Then when they went wrong, Allah let their hearts go wrong. For Allah guides not those who are rebellious transgressors.

And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah and he is invited to Islam, and Allah does not guide the unjust people.


[Qur'an 61: 5-7]

You'll have to bring evidence from your scripture to clarify your opinion please.



-It is one, the deciding process of the Church created traditions based on the people and the scripture. I am not on that level nor in that circle.

Okay.


-May I ask where he said that even if they were not warned of the consequences they would be punished? The situation he refered to was not breaking laws but killing and raping which is one of the worst sins ever. My interp of his comment was that possibly God would let him reincarnate according to judaism to attain forgivness.

Maybe you could give the proof for that then? To clear my misunderstanding. According to jewish beliefs, does God punish people even if they feel guilt and repent for their sins? Please quote the scripture and not just an opinion.


We know that God does;

Tell My servants that I am indeed the Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;

And that My Penalty will be indeed the most grievous Penalty.

[Qur'an Hijr 15: 49-50]
Anyone who turns to God/Allaah in sincere repentance before death overtakes them - Allaah may forgive them since He is the Most Merciful, whereas those who don't repent and are too arrogant to submit to Him and accepting some of His Messengers while rejecting others, then they are blameworthy and Allaah will take them into account. No soul bears the burden of another, and no-one will be dealt with unjustly.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 03:45 PM
Proof please?
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
1 Timothy 1:15

Maybe you could give the proof for that then? To clear my misunderstanding. According to jewish beliefs, does God punish people even if they feel guilt and repent for their sins? Please quote the scripture and not just an opinion.
I don't know the Jewish belief, I know what that post said, and in context he was speaking of someone who raped and murdered. Who would have genuine good intention of raping and murdering? Therefore, that post doesn't make a connection with my belief.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
1 Timothy 1:15

Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him is being ordered to:

“Go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!” Matthew 10:6]


So he's coming to the children of Israel. And therefore they have to accept him. Ask any christian that.


I don't know the Jewish belief, I know what that post said, and in context he was speaking of someone who raped and murdered. Who would have genuine good intention of raping and murdering? Therefore, that post doesn't make a connection with my belief.

Your posts are contradictory since your scripture states that the jews have to accept Jesus, thats why he's sent to them. Yet you choose to defend them even if they reject him? Weird.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him is being ordered to:

“Go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!” Matthew 10:6]


So he's coming to the children of Israel. And therefore they have to accept him. Ask any christian that.


Your posts are contradictory since your scripture states that the jews have to accept Jesus, thats why he's sent to them. Yet you choose to defend them even if they reject him? Weird.

It is your misunderstanding of my posts. I believe that the Jews can follow there law if they wish, and also accept jesus as there savoir. Do you believe that is contradictory? How does Christianity saying to the Jews that they must believe in Christ and accept him as a savoir, have anything to do with if they follow their law or not?

The Bible relates many things to why Jesus came. He would say one purpose for one group and another for another group. His statements may contradct themselves but he said different thigns to different people for good reasons that we may not know of.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
It is your misunderstanding of my posts. I believe that the Jews can follow there law if they wish, and also accept jesus as there savoir. Do you believe that is contradictory? How does Christianity saying to the Jews that they must believe in Christ and accept him as a savoir, have anything to do with if they follow their law or not?

Ask any other christian that and they'll tell you otherwise, they say that if you dont accept the 'saviour' - then you wont be 'saved.' :)

We know Jesus son of Mary was an honorable Messenger of Allaah who came to his people, and the messenger after him is Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came to all of mankind as stated in the Qur'an:

"Say: 'O mankind! ! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." (Qur'an 7:158)

The Bible relates many things to why Jesus came. He would say one purpose for one group and another for another group. His statements may contradct themselves but he said different thigns to different people for good reasons that we may not know of.

The christians can't unite on a common scripture anyway, and they dont even have an original copy. So theres no point arguing over that. That's a proof that they need to accept God's final Messenger since that confirms what came before, and is a Criterion to judge between truth and falsehood.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Ask any other christian that and they'll tell you otherwise, they say that if you dont accept the 'saviour' - then you wont be 'saved.' :)

We know Jesus son of Mary was an honorable Messenger of Allaah who came to his people, and the messenger after him is Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came to all of mankind as stated in the Qur'an:

"Say: 'O mankind! ! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." (Qur'an 7:158)



The christians can't unite on a common scripture anyway, and they dont even have an original copy. So theres no point arguing over that. That's a proof that they need to accept God's final Messenger since that confirms what came before, and is a Criterion to judge between truth and falsehood.
I don't understand your post. Of course you can't be saved without acceptance. What do Jews following there laws have anything to do with accepting or rejecting Jesus as their savoir?
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
I don't understand your post. Of course you can't be saved without acceptance. What do Jews following there laws have anything to do with accepting or rejecting Jesus as their savoir?

Okay, so according to your 'opinion' - you feel that Jesus came to different people with different messages?


Is that merely your opinion or based on proof? :)
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Okay, so according to your 'opinion' - you feel that Jesus came to different people with different messages?


Is that merely your opinion or based on proof? :)
Is it not evident that the Bible relates to different stories of Jesus telling different people he came to the world for different purposes like "into the world to save sinners" and "the lost sheep of israel"? I'm sure there are other pruposes which speak of other stories.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
Is it not evident that the Bible relates to different stories of Jesus telling different people he came to the world for different purposes like "into the world to save sinners" and "the lost sheep of israel"? I'm sure there are other pruposes which speak of other stories.

You really think so? According to my understanding of them verses, him going to the 'the lost sheep of israel' and 'into the world of sinners' refers to them altogether. Therefore, the lost sheep of israel are included within that 'world of sinners.' :)


Regards.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:00 PM
It is your understanding.

Mark 16:15 Jesus told them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

John 3:17 “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

Matthew 10:7 “Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”

Here we see different reasons.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 05:03 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
It is your understanding.

Yeah, you have one opinion and i have another more logical one. :)


Mark 16:15 Jesus told them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

John 3:17 “God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”

Matthew 10:7 “Go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’”

Here we see different reasons.

I agree - all the creation. The lost sheep of Israel are also people in the world. :)

We know that God's final Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a Messenger to all of mankind, and therefore that includes the jews aswell as any other race.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:05 PM
Of course the lost sheep of israel are also in this world. I showed you verses saying Jesus sayed he was here for the lost sheep of israel, and then showed you verses saying he was here for every creation. He told different people he was here for different things, yet he was here for all of them.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
Of course the lost sheep of israel are also in this world. I showed you verses saying Jesus sayed he was here for the lost sheep of israel, and then showed you verses saying he was here for every creation. He told different people he was here for different things, yet he was here for all of them.

Then you agree, Jesus son of Mary came for the jews and therefore some things which the jews did would be abrogated by Jesus son of Mary. Kool. :)
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Then you agree, Jesus son of Mary came for the jews and therefore some things which the jews did would be abrogated by Jesus son of Mary. Kool. :)

*SIGH*. Were going nowhere with this. As I told you before, there is nothing here but an agreement to disagree.
Reply

- Qatada -
05-06-2007, 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by jamaaljad
*SIGH*. Were going nowhere with this. As I told you before, there is nothing here but an agreement to disagree.

Agreed, therefore the one who brings the argument forward needs to bring forth evidence. :)

It's also ironic since this is coming from a christian, because if you ask any other christian - they will tell you that they have to follow the law of Jesus son of Mary in order to be 'saved.' inc. the jews.


Whereas we as Muslims and the followers of Prophet Abraham know that Jesus son of Mary came for his people, and today the scripture [Injeel/Gospel] doesn't exist no more in its original form, therefore they need to accept God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came with a confirmation which came before and a Criterion to judge between truth and falsehood. And anyone who hears of his message has to accept it in order to be saved, since he came for all of mankind, and his message will remain authentic and preserved until the Day of Ressurection.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Agreed, therefore the one who brings the argument forward needs to bring forth evidence. :)

It's also ironic since this is coming from a christian, because if you ask any other christian - they will tell you that they have to follow the law of Jesus son of Mary in order to be 'saved.' inc. the jews.


Whereas we as Muslims and the followers of Prophet Abraham know that Jesus son of Mary came for his people, and today the scripture [Injeel/Gospel] doesn't exist no more in its original form, therefore they need to accept God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came with a confirmation which came before and a Criterion to judge between truth and falsehood. And anyone who hears of his message has to accept it in order to be saved, since he came for all of mankind, and his message will remain authentic and preserved until the Day of Ressurection.
Of course you must follow the law of Jesus, but that does not contradict the law of Moses for Jews! jesus sayed he did not come to abrogate the law. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." The Jews can follow the law of Moses if they wish, and it can do this and still fufill the law of Jesus!

The Bible especially in Revelations relates on how the Jews will still be a distinct people, and that they have a major role to play in the end times scenarios.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:32 PM
There are such things as "Messianic Jews" although not accepted by the Jewish community follow the Torah and believe in Jesus Christ as there savoir, as well as follow the law of Jesus.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
05-06-2007, 05:39 PM
Either way, I'm no longer going to get into this conversation because we obviously hold different beliefs and you define Christianity as one huge belief with a consensus which is far from the case. Can Jews not uphold both laws of Moses and Jesus? That is the point.
Reply

Umar001
05-06-2007, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by YEh
Who is cursing the nation of Israel at the moment ? The Arabs (mostly muslims).
Wasn't the passage aimed at who ever attacks Ibrahim, even if we say his children, then in reality we as Muslims cannot speak bad about the true followers, but people who claim to be following it are not straight away to be held as the true followers.

Originally Posted by YEh
In fact the punishment for attacking Israel is quite severe in the Bible, it says that anybody who attacks Israel in the last days. Them and there children to 7 generations will not be able to go to heaven.
Poor kids.

Originally Posted by Aaron85
Of course i know that for islam it is most important to prove that all prophets were muslims and Muhammed was the last one predicted in the Bible.
Not really, if it was possible to show that the Bible had not changed and there was reasonable reason to believe it had not undergone changes and that the original authors were of trustworthy nature and many other conditions, then would it be 'most important' for us as Muslim to prove it.

Originally Posted by Aaron85
And i am very happy seeing christians and jews here together resisting the claim that all prophets were muslims. You know, i study history and if i said to my academic professor that Abraham or Moses were a muslims, my profesor would give me F (worse) mark. And i think that also Chinese, and Hindu teach in schools that all prophets were Israelis.

Submit to God and resist the devil, he will flee from you, doing such a thing, i.e. submitting to the will of God, the Only One who created Everything created, then in reality is Islam, and since you agree that Jesus did that then I dont see where me or you will disagree that he was someone who done Islam in it's broader sense.

Originally Posted by YEh
You can claim "it never happened", but why then has all the prophecies come true concerning him in the OT, and the prophecies that Jesus made in the NT come true ?
If you really want to discuss Jesus fulfulling prophecies then we can in another thread. :)

The rest of the thread seems to be going in one way, but I will provide another option, maybe the differences for Jesus' coming are due to the inaccuraces of the scripture. Someone well grounded in the Biblical History knows what I mean.
Reply

rav
05-06-2007, 05:58 PM
but why then has all the prophecies come true concerning him in the OT
Shalom,

Jesus is not predicted at all in the Torah or Tanakh. He is a false prophet according to Judaism, and if you have any concerns as to why we believe so or wish to "prove" that Jesus is really mentioned in the Tanakh, then do so in this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...wered-jew.html

I would be welcome to answering any misconceptions you had about the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh.
Reply

Umar001
05-06-2007, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by rav
Shalom,

Jesus is not predicted at all in the Torah or Tanakh. He is a false prophet according to Judaism, and if you have any concerns as to why we believe so or wish to "prove" that Jesus is really mentioned in the Tanakh, then do so in this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...wered-jew.html

I would be welcome to answering any misconceptions you had about the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh.
Quick change, don't try to prove it in that thread but create another thread, that thread is only for Q and As
Reply

YEh
05-09-2007, 04:47 AM
Originally Posted by rav
Shalom,

Jesus is not predicted at all in the Torah or Tanakh. He is a false prophet according to Judaism, and if you have any concerns as to why we believe so or wish to "prove" that Jesus is really mentioned in the Tanakh, then do so in this thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...wered-jew.html

I would be welcome to answering any misconceptions you had about the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh.
I would be glad to discuss something which is kind of limited to a translation for me. You could shed light on alot of the deeper meanings of some of Judaism's texts, since I don't speak or read hebrew or accient hebrew.

Start a new new thread rav. :statisfie

YEh
Reply

aligzander
10-21-2007, 05:32 PM
I hope the moderator will not disapprove this post.


The answers to the Parable of Jesus on Matthew 20:1-16

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, [that] shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them [their] hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that [were hired] about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received [it], they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought [but] one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take [that] thine [is], and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
Matthew 20:1-16



The answers:

Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet said, "The example of Muslims, Jews and Christians is like the example of a man who employed laborers to work for him from morning till night. They worked till mid-day and they said, 'We are not in need of your reward.' SO the man employed another batch and said to them, 'Complete the rest of the day and yours will be the wages I had fixed (for the first batch). They worked Up till the time of the 'Asr prayer and said, 'Whatever we have done is for you.' He employed another batch. They worked for the rest of the day till sunset, and they received the wages of the two former batches."

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 533


Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) saying, "We (Muslims) are the last (to come) but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection though the former nations were given the Holy Scriptures before us. And this was their day (Friday) the celebration of which was made compulsory for them but they differed about it. So Allah gave us the guidance for it (Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect: the Jews' (holy day is) tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) and the Christians' (is) the day after tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)."

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 1


Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said "We are the last (to come amongst the nations) but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection. They were given the Holy Scripture before us and we were given the Quran after them. And this was the day (Friday) about which they differed and Allah gave us the guidance (for that). So tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) is the Jews' (day), and the day after tomorrow (i.e. Sunday) is the Christians'." The Prophet (p.b.u.h) remained silent (for a while) and then said, "It is obligatory for every Muslim that he should take a bath once in seven days, when he should wash his head and body." Narrated Abu Huraira through different narrators that the Prophet said, "It is Allah's right on every Muslim that he should take a bath (at least) once in seven days."

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 21


Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet said, "Your example and the example of the people of the two Scriptures (i.e. Jews and Christians) is like the example of a man who employed some laborers and asked them, 'Who will work for me from morning till midday for one Qirat?' The Jews accepted and carried out the work. He then asked, Who will work for me from midday up to the 'Asr prayer for one Qirat?' The Christians accepted and fulfilled the work. He then said, 'Who will work for me from the 'Asr till sunset for two Qirats?' You, Muslims have accepted the offer. The Jews and the Christians got angry and said, 'Why should we work more and get lesser wages?' (Allah) said, 'Have I with-held part of your right?' They replied in the negative. He said, 'It is My Blessing, I bestow upon whomever I wish .'

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 468


Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet said, "The example of Muslims, Jews and Christians is like the example of a man who employed laborers to work for him from morning till night for specific wages. They worked till midday and then said, 'We do not need your money which you have fixed for us and let whatever we have done be annulled.' The man said to them, 'Don't quit the work, but complete the rest of it and take your full wages.' But they refused and went away. The man employed another batch after them and said to them, 'Complete the rest of the day and yours will be the wages I had fixed for the first batch.' So, they worked till the time of 'Asr prayer. Then they said, "Let what we have done be annulled and keep the wages you have promised us for yourself.' The man said to them, 'Complete the rest of the work, as only a little of the day remains,' but they refused. Thereafter he employed another batch to work for the rest of the day and they worked for the rest of the day till the sunset, and they received the wages of the two former batches. So, that was the example of those people (Muslims) and the example of this light (guidance) which they have accepted willingly.

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI, Volume 3, Book 36, Number 471
Reply

khairullah
10-31-2007, 10:46 AM
The Prophesy of Mohammad (PBUH) in the Torah (Old Testament)

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospels"

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto you, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.

However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):

‘Among their brethren’ clearly refers to a nation other than the Israelites. Otherwise it should have been ‘Amongst yourselves’. The reference in (Deuteronomy 18:18) could fit nobody else except Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and not Prophet Jesus, for the following reasons:

•Moses and Muhammad were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman, but Jesus was created by a special miracle.
• Moses and Muhammad married and begot children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life.

• Moses and Muhammad brought new laws and new regulations for their people, but Jesus came only to fulfill the old law of Moses (Mathew 5:17-18).

• Both Moses and Muhammad died natural deaths and were buried, but Jesus was raised to heaven.

• Unlike Moses and Muhammad, who were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime, Jesus was deserted even by his closest disciples” He came unto his own, but his own received him not." John 1:11

• Both Moses and Muhammad ruled and legislated besides their being prophets. This was not the case with Jesus.

The only likeness between Moses and Jesus was that both belonged to the Children of Israel, like all other Israelite prophets such as Solomon, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Joshua, Zechariah, John, and many others.
Further, the well-known Deuteronomy 18:18, widely accepted as an unequivocal reference to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), is further clarified by the following verse (18:19):

“If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. “ Deuteronomy 18:19

Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Mohammed's devising. Both were given by the angel, and Mohammed's task was only to repeat what he heard."

(World Religions from Ancient History to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472)

God sent the angel Gabriel to teach Muhammad the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur’an word for word exactly as they came from God.

Now that we know that prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says:

"I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him" (Good News Bible, Deut. 18:19).


http://www.islam-for-everyone.com/En...ptions/m18.htm

“If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. “ Deuteronomy 18:19

“ But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Deuteronomy 18:20

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) preached that there is only ONE GOD. But the Bible says if the prophet speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.Prophet Mohammad (PUH) preached the oneness of God for 23 years but was not killed by anyone. He did complete his job. Allah (swt) says in the holy Quran:

“O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from people. Verily, Allah guides not the people who disbelieve.” (5:67)

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was indeed protected by God Almighty because all the pagans try to kill him many times but they failed.

"And Allah will protect you (Mohammad) from people." (5:67)

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) condemned statues idol worshiping means fake gods.

You may say to yourselves,

"How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?”Deuteronomy 18:21:22

If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

What ever Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) predicted has come true.

See the prophesies of prophet Mohammad (PBUH).
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=450

Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesized in the book of Isaiah:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray you: and he saith, I am not learned." Isaiah 29:12:

Mohammad (PBUH) received his first revelation in the cave called HIRA which is located in Saudi Arabia, one day he was in the cave praising Almighty When Archangel Gabriel came to the cave and commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying IQRA- "Read", he replied “I am not learned”

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the Old Testament:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

Translation:"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is Mohammad. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarly im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

The Coming Prophet Will be from Arabia

He (Muhummed pbuh) shined forth from mount Paran (in Arabia), and he came with ten thousand saints. (Referring to the conquest of Makkah). (d) . DEUTERONOMY 33:2


and I (God Almighty) will move them (the Jews) to jealousy with those (the Arabs) which are NOT A PEOPLE (a non-entity): I will provoke them (the Jews) to anger with a FOOLISH NATION," |the pre-Islamic Arabs) DEUTERONOMY 32:21:

Muhammad (pbuh) spoke not just a single word, but dictated a whole book in God's name. For twenty three years he spoke exclusively in the name of God Almighty. He was given one hundred and fourteen chapters, all of which were, and are to this day, recited day after day in God's name. Chapters in the Qur'an begin with the words "In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful." Yet he did not die, but lived to fulfill his message completely. He himself even narrated in the name of God a similar verse in the Qur'an:


"And if he (Muhammad) had invented false sayings in Our (God's) name, We would have taken him by the right, then We would have severed from him his aorta, and there is none among you who could have held Us off from him" The noble Qur'an, al-Haaqah(69):46

(Remember that the plural form of this verse is the Arabic plural of respect, not the Christian plural of "Trinity," as seen in chapter 14). If the claims of some are true: That Muhammad (pbuh) was an impostor, then did God go to sleep for twenty three years? Of course not! He knew full well what Muhammad (pbuh) was claiming. If he was not telling the truth, why did God not kill him? Why did he allow him to perpetrate a lie that would span fourteen centuries, and eventually come to cover the globe?

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is prophesized in Christianity
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is prophesized in Buddahism
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is prophesized in Hinduism
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is prophesized in Judaism
Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) is prophesized in Parsism



http://www.drzakirnaik.com/Features/...2/Default.aspx
Reply

ansar.tajudeen
11-09-2007, 06:54 AM
Jesus (P) speaks of Mohammed (P) in the Bible

We present here some traditions attributed to prophet Jesus (pbuh), in which he speaks of Prophets, Muhammad (pbuh). The traditions are naturally in the form of prophecies, since Prophet Jesus lived before the time of Prophet Muhammad. But they have value not merely as prophecies: they also provide one of the most beautiful tributes to the glory of the Prophet of Islam ever written. The traditions are from a version of the Gospel of Barnabas compiled by a thirteenth century Italian on the basis of early Christian sources (see footnotes).

Jesus said, "Philip! God is a Good without which there is nothing good: God is a Being without which there is nothing that has existence; God is a Life without which there is nothing that lives. He has no equal. He had no beginning, nor will He have an end, but to everything has He given a beginning and to everything shall He give an end. He has no father nor mother; He has no sons, nor brethren nor companions."

Philip answered:


"Master, what sayest thou? It is surely written in Isaiah that God is our father: how, then, hath He no sons?"

Jesus answered:

"There are written by the prophets many parables, wherefore one ought not attend to the letter, but to the sense. For all the prophets, that are one hundred and forty-four thousand, have spoken ambiguously. But after me shall come the Splendor of all the prophets who shall shed light upon the ambiguities of all that the prophets have said, because he is the Messenger of God.

"Verily, I say unto you that every prophet when he is come has borne the mark of the mercy of God to one nation only. And so their words were not extended save to the people to which they were sent. But the Messenger of God, when he shall come, will be given as it were the seal of the hand of God, insomuch as he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that shall receive his doctrine. He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry for, so promised God to Abraham, saying: 'Behold, in thy seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as thou hast broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham, even so shall thy seed do.'

"I therefore say unto you, that the Messenger of God is a splendor that shall give gladness to nearly all that God has made, for he is adorned with the spirit of understanding and counsel, the spirit of wisdom and might, of fear and love, prudence and temperance; he is adorned with the spirit of charity and mercy, of justice and piety and gentleness and patience, which he has received from God three times more than He has given to all His creatures combined. Blessed will be the time when he shall come to the world! Believe me that I have seen him and have done him reverence, even as every prophet has seen him. And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying, 'O Admirable One! God be with thee, and may he make me worthy to untie thy shoe-latchet for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God.'

"As for me, I am now come to the world to prepare the way for the Messenger of God, who shall bring salvation to the world. By the living God, in whose presence my soul stands, I am not the Savior whom all the tribes of the earth expect."

Then said the Priest:


"How shall the Savior be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?"

Jesus answered:

"The name of the Savior shall be the Admirable One, for, God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in celestial splendor. God said, 'Wait O Admirable One (=Muhammad), for thy sake I will create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereas I make thee a present, insomuch that whosoever shall curse the shall be cursed. When I send thee into the world, I shall send thee as My Messenger of Salvation, and thy world shall be true insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail but thy faith shall never fail. Admirable One is his blessed name."

Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying:


"O God send Thy Messenger. O Admirable One come quickly for the salvation of the world."

Footnotes


1) John 14: 15-16, John 15: 26-27, John 16:5-8. All three sections have references of the "Comforter". The original word used in Greek language is 'Parqaleeta', however you may find it referenced in some Bibles as the 'Comforter', other Bibles use 'Spirit of Truth", and other Bibles use 'Holy Spirit'. The actual meaning of the original Latin word 'Parqaleeta' is 'one whom people praise exceedingly.' The sense of the word is applicable to the word 'Muhammed' in Arabic.

2) If you visit the birth place of Jesus (pbuh), and look at an Arabic Christian Bible, you will find Allah is the reference for God.

3) If you look at a Red-Line Bible (all the text attributed to statements made by Jesus (pbuh) highlighted in Red), and only read the red line text, you will never find a single reference where Jesus (pbuh) ever said that he is God, or explicitly spoke once of the trinity.

If you believe Allah is One, and do not associate any partners with him, then you are nearly a Muslim. If you believe in the possibility that Mohammed (pbuh) can be one of the 125,000 prophets sent to mankind, delivering the simple message of worshiping the One God, without any associates. Not 1 in 3, or 3 in 1. Just One God,

Source:
http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/238/81/
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
12-08-2007, 04:16 PM
I have some questions I have wanted to ask about The Prophet (PBUH) being in the Torah and Gospel, is it ok if I ask here?

I have been wanting to ask for a long time.

I cant' read all these pages here so I hope it's ok to ask here.:D
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
12-08-2007, 09:00 PM
:sl:

The first one I want to ask is this verse

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This does seem like it is talking about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It says that he will come from "among their brethren". Is the brethren really the arabs for sure?

Can someone make this clear for me? I am kind of confused.

I hope someone can help me :arabic4:
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
12-08-2007, 09:02 PM
:sl:

The first one I want to ask is this verse

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This does seem like it is talking about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It says that he will come from "among their brethren". Is the brethren really the arabs for sure?

Can someone make this clear for me? I am kind of confused.

I hope someone can help me :arabic4:
Reply

pbhowmik
12-11-2007, 06:50 AM
Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
:sl:

The first one I want to ask is this verse

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This does seem like it is talking about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It says that he will come from "among their brethren". Is the brethren really the arabs for sure?

Can someone make this clear for me? I am kind of confused.

I hope someone can help me :arabic4:
This questions refers to Deuternomy 18:15-18

This prophecy could not be a reference to Mohammed for several reasons. First, the term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabian antagonists. Why would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies?

Second, in this very context, the term "brethren" means fellow Israelites. For the Levites were told "they shall have no inheritance among their brethren" (v. 2). Third, elsewhere in this book the term "brethren" also means fellow Israelites, not a foreigner. God told them to choose a king "from among yor brethren," not a "foreigner." Israel has never chosen a non-Jewis king.

Fourth, Mohammed came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, and heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. When Abraham prayed, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" God answered emphatically: "My covenant I will establish with Isaac..." (Genesis 17:21). Later God repeated: "In Isaac your seed shall be called" (Genesis 21:12). The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changs the meaning as follows, We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation." By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can include Mohammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the original Arabic text.

Fifth, the Koran itself states that the prophetic line came through Isaac, not Ishamel: "And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (Surah 29:27).

Sixth, Jesus perfectly fulfilled this verse, since 1) He was from among his Jewish brethern (Galatians. 4:4). 2) He fulfilled Deuternomy 18:18 perfectly: "He shall speak to them all the I [God] command Him." Jesus said, "i do nothing of Myself; but as my father taught Me, I speak these things" (John 8:28). And, "I have not spoken of My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49). 3) He called Himself a "prophet" (Luke 13:33), and the people considered him a prophet (Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; 24;19; John 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). As the Son of God, Jesus was prophet (speaking to men for God), priest (Hebrew 7-10, speaking to God for men), and king (reigning over men for God, Revelation 19-20).

Finally, there other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fit Jesus, not Mohammed, such as, He spoke with God "face to face" and He performed "signs and wonders" (Deuternomy 34:11) Mohammad by his own confession did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus did (Surah 17:90-93). Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (Surah 2:97). Jesus, on the other hand, like Moses, was a direct mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrew 9:15) who communicated direcly with God (John 1:18; 12:49).
Reply

pbhowmik
12-11-2007, 06:59 AM
I HAD TYPO PROBLEM ON THE LAST POST. READ THIS ONE INSTEAD. IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE. THANKS.

Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
:sl:

The first one I want to ask is this verse

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

This does seem like it is talking about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

It says that he will come from "among their brethren". Is the brethren really the arabs for sure?

Can someone make this clear for me? I am kind of confused.

I hope someone can help me :arabic4:

This questions refers to Deuternomy 18:15-18

This prophecy could not be a reference to Mohammed for several reasons. First, the term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabian antagonists. Why would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies?

Second, in this very context, the term "brethren" means fellow Israelites. For the Levites were told "they shall have no inheritance among their brethren" (v. 2). Third, elsewhere in this book the term "brethren" also means fellow Israelites, not a foreigner. God told them to choose a king "from among yor brethren," not a "foreigner." Israel has never chosen a non-Jewis king.

Fourth, Mohammed came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, and heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. When Abraham prayed, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" God answered emphatically: "My covenant I will establish with Isaac..." (Genesis 17:21). Later God repeated: "In Isaac your seed shall be called" (Genesis 21:12).

Fifth, the Koran itself states that the prophetic line came through Isaac, not Ishamel: "And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (Surah 29:27). The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changs the meaning as follows, We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation." By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can include Mohammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the original Arabic text.

Sixth, Jesus perfectly fulfilled this verse, since 1) He was from among his Jewish brethern (Galatians. 4:4). 2) He fulfilled Deuternomy 18:18 perfectly: "He shall speak to them all the I [God] command Him." Jesus said, "i do nothing of Myself; but as my father taught Me, I speak these things" (John 8:28). And, "I have not spoken of My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49). 3) He called Himself a "prophet" (Luke 13:33), and the people considered him a prophet (Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; 24;19; John 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). As the Son of God, Jesus was prophet (speaking to men for God), priest (Hebrew 7-10, speaking to God for men), and king (reigning over men for God, Revelation 19-20).

Finally, there other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fit Jesus, not Mohammed, such as, He spoke with God "face to face" and He performed "signs and wonders" (Deuternomy 34:11) Mohammad by his own confession did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus did (Surah 17:90-93). Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (Surah 2:97). Jesus, on the other hand, like Moses, was a direct mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrew 9:15) who communicated direcly with God (John 1:18; 12:49).
Reply

- Qatada -
12-11-2007, 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik

This questions refers to Deuternomy 18:15-18

This prophecy could not be a reference to Mohammed for several reasons. First, the term "brethren" refers to Israel, not to their Arabian antagonists. Why would God raise up for Israel a prophet from their enemies?

1) 'Arabs and Jews were not enemies. 2) No, the term brethren does not have to refer to the children of Israel only.


Could brethren refer to Ishmaelites?

Brown's Hebrew lexicon states that the hebrew word can refer to an indefinite relative or kin in a wider way, like cousins.


In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins.

For more info:
http://www.answering-christianity.co...s_rebuttal.htm

http://www.islamicboard.com/8377-post7.html




Second, in this very context, the term "brethren" means fellow Israelites. For the Levites were told "they shall have no inheritance among their brethren" (v. 2).

That's got no basis to the issue, since the situation referred to in verse 2 is about a totally different issue.



Third, elsewhere in this book the term "brethren" also means fellow Israelites, not a foreigner. God told them to choose a king "from among yor brethren," not a "foreigner." Israel has never chosen a non-Jewis king.

Again, there have been many other places in the OT where brethren hasn't referred to Jews only.

In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins.



Fourth, Mohammed came from Ishmael, as even Muslims admit, and heirs to the Jewish throne came from Isaac. When Abraham prayed, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" God answered emphatically: "My covenant I will establish with Isaac..." (Genesis 17:21). Later God repeated: "In Isaac your seed shall be called" (Genesis 21:12).


Infact, according to the Bible itself it becomes clear that the covenant should be done

Was the first born son of Abraham (Ishmael) and his descendants included in God's covenant and promise? A few verses from the Bible may help shed some light on this question;


1) Genesis 12:2-3 speaks of God's promise to Abraham and his descendants before any child was born to him.


2) Genesis 17:4 reiterates God's promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac.


3) In Genesis, ch. 21. Isaac is specifically blessed but Ishmael was also specifically blessed and promised by God to become "a great nation" especially in Genesis 21:13, 18.


4) According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother (being a "free" woman such as Sarah, Isaac's mother, or a "Bondwoman" such as Hagar, Ishmael's mother). This is only consistent with the moral and humanitarian principles of all revealed faiths.


5) The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham's son and "seed" and the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham's wife are clearly stated in Genesis 21:13 and 16:3. After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet, it was time that God's promise to bless Ishmael and his descendants be fulfilled. Less than 600years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad, from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God's blessing of both of the main branches of Abraham's family tree was now fullfilled. But are there additional corroborating evidence that the Bible did in fact foretell the advent of prophet Muhammad?


*


MUHAMMAD:
The Prophet Like Unto Moses


Long time after Abraham, God's promise to send the long-awaited Messenger was repeated this time in Moses' words.
In Deuteronomy 18:18, Moses spoke of the prophet to be sent by God who is:


1) From among the Israelite's "brethren", a reference to their Ishmaelite cousins as Ishmael was the other son of Abraham who was explicitly promised to become a "great nation".


2) A prophet like unto Moses. There were hardly any two prophets ,who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad. Both were given comprehensive law code of life, both encountered their enemies and were victors in miraculous ways, both were accepted as prophets/statesmen and both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them. Analogies between Moses and Jesus overlooks not only the above similarities but other crucial ones as well (e.g. the natural birth, family life and death of Moses and Muhammad but not of Jesus, who was regarded by His followers as the Son of God and not exclusively a messenger of God, as Moses and Muhammad were and as Muslim belief Jesus was).


*


THE AWAITED PROPHET WAS TO COME FROM ARABIA


Deuteronomy 33:1-2 combines references to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It speaks of God (i.e. God's revelation) coming from Sinai, rising from Seir (probably the village of Sa'ir near Jerusalem) and shining forth from Paran. According to Genesis 21:21, the wilderness of Paran was the place where Ishmael settled (i.e. Arabia, specifically Mecca).


Indeed the King James version of the Bible mentions the pilgrims passing through the valley of Ba'ca (another name of Mecca) in Psalms 84:4-6.


Isaiah 42:1-13 speaks of the beloved of God. His elect and messenger who will bring down a law to be awaited in the isles and who "shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set judgement on earth." Verse 11, connects that awaited one with the descendants of Ke'dar. Who is Ke'dar? According to Genesis 25:13, Ke'dar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.


*


MUHAMMAD'S MIGRATION FROM MECCA TO MEDINA:
PROPHECIED IN THE BIBLE?


Habakkuk 3:3 speaks of God (God's help) coming from Te'man (an Oasis North of Medina according to J. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible), and the holy one (coming) from Paran. That holy one who under persecution migrated from Paran (Mecca) to be received enthusiastically in Medina was none but prophet Muhammad.

Indeed the incident of the migration of the prophet and his persecuted followers is vividly described in Isaiah 21:13-17. That section foretold as well about the battle of Badr in which the few ill-armed faithful miraculously defeated the "mighty" men of Ke'dar, who sought to destroy Islam and intimidate their own folks who turned -to Islam.

http://www.islamicboard.com/8348-post2.html



Fifth, the Koran itself states that the prophetic line came through Isaac, not Ishamel: "And We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and We established the Prophethood and the Scripture among his seed" (Surah 29:27). The Muslim scholar Yusuf Ali adds the word "Abraham" and changs the meaning as follows, We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained Among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation." By adding Abraham, the father of Ishmael, he can include Mohammed, a descendent of Ishmael, in the prophetic line! But Abraham's name is not found in the original Arabic text.

Are you only going to use one verse to prove your claim? How about the more clearer verses which don't involve brackets even and explicitly state that Ishmael was truly a Prophet and a Messenger? That Muhammad is truly a Prophet and Messenger?


Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma'il [Ishmael]: He was (strictly) true to what he promised, and he was a messenger (and) a prophet.

He used to enjoin on his people Prayer and Charity, and he was most acceptable in the sight of his Lord.

[Qur'an Mary 19: 54-55]


Muhammad is the messenger of Allah... [Qur'an 48: 29]

Sixth, Jesus perfectly fulfilled this verse, since 1) He was from among his Jewish brethern (Galatians. 4:4). 2) He fulfilled Deuternomy 18:18 perfectly: "He shall speak to them all the I [God] command Him." Jesus said, "i do nothing of Myself; but as my father taught Me, I speak these things" (John 8:28). And, "I have not spoken of My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49). 3) He called Himself a "prophet" (Luke 13:33), and the people considered him a prophet (Matthew 21:11; Luke 7:16; 24;19; John 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; 9:17). As the Son of God, Jesus was prophet (speaking to men for God), priest (Hebrew 7-10, speaking to God for men), and king (reigning over men for God, Revelation 19-20).

If that's your only criterion, then know that this can be any Prophet from the Children of Israel. David, Solomon, John the Baptist, and hundreds if not thousands of others. Since these were all jewish by blood, they were Prophets and they conveyed God's Message.


Why is Muhammad (peace be upon him) more befitting? Again, because of the huge similarities between him and Moses.


i) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]


ii) Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii) Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive.
(4:157-158)

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).


To name a few. Whereas the only similarity between Jesus and Moses really is that they are male prophets and from the Children of Israel.



Finally, there other characteristics of the "Prophet" to come that fit Jesus, not Mohammed, such as, He spoke with God "face to face" and He performed "signs and wonders" (Deuternomy 34:11)

Mohammed never even claimed to speak to God directly, but got his revelations through angels (Surah 2:97). Jesus, on the other hand, like Moses, was a direct mediator (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrew 9:15) who communicated direcly with God (John 1:18; 12:49).

Try looking into the Israa' wal Mi'raaj (Night of Descent Journey) :) This occured when Muhammad (peace be upon him) directly met God and spoke to Him directly. It's authentic and in the two collections of Bukhari and Muslim.



Mohammad by his own confession did not perform signs and wonders like Moses and Jesus did (Surah 17:90-93).

Click on this link to read about some of the miracles which he performed :)

http://islamtoday.com/show_sub_secti...=4&sub_cat_id=

MIRACLES OF THE PROPHET (peace be upon him)

PROPHET MUHAMMED (peace be upon him)

TELLING OF THE UNSEEN

INCREASING (BY BLESSING) THE FOOD

CURING OF THE SICK






Peace.
Reply

pbhowmik
12-11-2007, 07:41 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
1) 'Arabs and Jews were not enemies. 2) No, the term brethren does not have to refer to the children of Israel only.


Could brethren refer to Ishmaelites?

Brown's Hebrew lexicon states that the hebrew word can refer to an indefinite relative or kin in a wider way, like cousins.


In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins.

For more info:
http://www.answering-christianity.co...s_rebuttal.htm

http://www.islamicboard.com/8377-post7.html







That's got no basis to the issue, since the situation referred to in verse 2 is about a totally different issue.






Again, there have been many other places in the OT where brethren hasn't referred to Jews only.

In Deuteronomy 2:4, 8, 'brethren' was used in conjunction with the Edomites, who were basically their cousins.







Infact, according to the Bible itself it becomes clear that the covenant should be done

Was the first born son of Abraham (Ishmael) and his descendants included in God's covenant and promise? A few verses from the Bible may help shed some light on this question;


1) Genesis 12:2-3 speaks of God's promise to Abraham and his descendants before any child was born to him.


2) Genesis 17:4 reiterates God's promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac.


3) In Genesis, ch. 21. Isaac is specifically blessed but Ishmael was also specifically blessed and promised by God to become "a great nation" especially in Genesis 21:13, 18.


4) According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother (being a "free" woman such as Sarah, Isaac's mother, or a "Bondwoman" such as Hagar, Ishmael's mother). This is only consistent with the moral and humanitarian principles of all revealed faiths.


5) The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham's son and "seed" and the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham's wife are clearly stated in Genesis 21:13 and 16:3. After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet, it was time that God's promise to bless Ishmael and his descendants be fulfilled. Less than 600years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad, from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God's blessing of both of the main branches of Abraham's family tree was now fullfilled. But are there additional corroborating evidence that the Bible did in fact foretell the advent of prophet Muhammad?


*


MUHAMMAD:
The Prophet Like Unto Moses


Long time after Abraham, God's promise to send the long-awaited Messenger was repeated this time in Moses' words.
In Deuteronomy 18:18, Moses spoke of the prophet to be sent by God who is:


1) From among the Israelite's "brethren", a reference to their Ishmaelite cousins as Ishmael was the other son of Abraham who was explicitly promised to become a "great nation".


2) A prophet like unto Moses. There were hardly any two prophets ,who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad. Both were given comprehensive law code of life, both encountered their enemies and were victors in miraculous ways, both were accepted as prophets/statesmen and both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them. Analogies between Moses and Jesus overlooks not only the above similarities but other crucial ones as well (e.g. the natural birth, family life and death of Moses and Muhammad but not of Jesus, who was regarded by His followers as the Son of God and not exclusively a messenger of God, as Moses and Muhammad were and as Muslim belief Jesus was).


*


THE AWAITED PROPHET WAS TO COME FROM ARABIA


Deuteronomy 33:1-2 combines references to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It speaks of God (i.e. God's revelation) coming from Sinai, rising from Seir (probably the village of Sa'ir near Jerusalem) and shining forth from Paran. According to Genesis 21:21, the wilderness of Paran was the place where Ishmael settled (i.e. Arabia, specifically Mecca).


Indeed the King James version of the Bible mentions the pilgrims passing through the valley of Ba'ca (another name of Mecca) in Psalms 84:4-6.


Isaiah 42:1-13 speaks of the beloved of God. His elect and messenger who will bring down a law to be awaited in the isles and who "shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set judgement on earth." Verse 11, connects that awaited one with the descendants of Ke'dar. Who is Ke'dar? According to Genesis 25:13, Ke'dar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.


*


MUHAMMAD'S MIGRATION FROM MECCA TO MEDINA:
PROPHECIED IN THE BIBLE?


Habakkuk 3:3 speaks of God (God's help) coming from Te'man (an Oasis North of Medina according to J. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible), and the holy one (coming) from Paran. That holy one who under persecution migrated from Paran (Mecca) to be received enthusiastically in Medina was none but prophet Muhammad.

Indeed the incident of the migration of the prophet and his persecuted followers is vividly described in Isaiah 21:13-17. That section foretold as well about the battle of Badr in which the few ill-armed faithful miraculously defeated the "mighty" men of Ke'dar, who sought to destroy Islam and intimidate their own folks who turned -to Islam.

http://www.islamicboard.com/8348-post2.html






Are you only going to use one verse to prove your claim? How about the more clearer verses which don't involve brackets even and explicitly state that Ishmael was truly a Prophet and a Messenger? That Muhammad is truly a Prophet and Messenger?


Also mention in the Book (the story of) Isma'il [Ishmael]: He was (strictly) true to what he promised, and he was a messenger (and) a prophet.

He used to enjoin on his people Prayer and Charity, and he was most acceptable in the sight of his Lord.

[Qur'an Mary 19: 54-55]


Muhammad is the messenger of Allah... [Qur'an 48: 29]




If that's your only criterion, then know that this can be any Prophet from the Children of Israel. David, Solomon, John the Baptist, and hundreds if not thousands of others. Since these were all jewish by blood, they were Prophets and they conveyed God's Message.


Why is Muhammad (peace be upon him) more befitting? Again, because of the huge similarities between him and Moses.


i) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]


ii) Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii) Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive.
(4:157-158)

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).


To name a few. Whereas the only similarity between Jesus and Moses really is that they are male prophets and from the Children of Israel.


Try looking into the Israa' wal Mi'raaj (Night of Descent Journey) :) This occured when Muhammad (peace be upon him) directly met God and spoke to Him directly. It's authentic and in the two collections of Bukhari and Muslim.






Click on this link to read about some of the miracles which he performed :)

http://islamtoday.com/show_sub_secti...=4&sub_cat_id=

MIRACLES OF THE PROPHET (peace be upon him)

PROPHET MUHAMMED (peace be upon him)

TELLING OF THE UNSEEN

INCREASING (BY BLESSING) THE FOOD

CURING OF THE SICK






Peace.
It's very interesting to see the points in your reply. I am not going to put a long post in reply to yours, but want to point out a very smple thing.

Recently, Christians have come under attack that the Bible gives false information (at least according to Dr. Naik) and is full of mis-information and can not be trusted as the word from God, but instead made up by peole and the fathers of the Church. Yet we hear that the Bible speaks of Mohammed and Muslim self made scholars are proclaiming that Mohammed is in the Bible and we should accept him as God's prophet. Please enlighten me. Since logic is used to compare the prophethood of Mohammed comparing him with Moses, how does this sound:

Bible is not from God, Bible has false information, Bible contradicts itself, Bible misinforms, Bible gives misinformation about Jesus' death and ressuraction, Bible is two faced, Bible mentions Muhammed, therefore Muhammed is a prophet.

That sounds like a good logic right?
Reply

- Qatada -
12-11-2007, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik
It's very interesting to see the points in your reply. I am not going to put a long post in reply to yours, but want to point out a very smple thing.

Recently, Christians have come under attack that the Bible gives false information (at least according to Dr. Naik) and is full of mis-information and can not be trusted as the word from God, but instead made up by peole and the fathers of the Church. Yet we hear that the Bible speaks of Mohammed and Muslim self made scholars are proclaiming that Mohammed is in the Bible and we should accept him as God's prophet. Please enlighten me. Since logic is used to compare the prophethood of Mohammed comparing him with Moses, how does this sound:

Bible is not from God, Bible has false information, Bible contradicts itself, Bible misinforms, Bible gives misinformation about Jesus' death and ressuraction, Bible is two faced, Bible mentions Muhammed, therefore Muhammed is a prophet.

That sounds like a good logic right?


Hi. :)


What our stance is towards the previous scriptures is that the revelation was sent to previous Prophets. The Torah was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel [Injeel] to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them.) The Psalms to David etc.


Now we believe that these books were once revealed to the honorable Messengers of God, however - they were not preserved entirely and were tampered with by the people. This is because the people who the scripture was conveyed to - it was their duty to keep it safe but they may have been coerced to or desired to change it for their own benefit, however, God has preserved the final scripture [the Qur'an] and it is our duty to convey it to the people. Since there are no more messengers after God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - this scripture will remain preserved by God.

As Muslims, our authentic basis is the final revelation of God - the Qur'an and the Sunnah [Prophetic example] and we are certain that they are preserved throughout history, and this is even proven through research by non muslims themselves. We may refer to the older scriptures to see similarities between the scriptures, however it is not an obligation to do this. We might only do this because of some truth which remains within the previous books. And the final revelation - the Qur'an - is a Criterion for that.





Regards.
Reply

pbhowmik
12-11-2007, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Hi. :)


What our stance is towards the previous scriptures is that the revelation was sent to previous Prophets. The Torah was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel [Injeel] to Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon them.) The Psalms to David etc.


Now we believe that these books were once revealed to the honorable Messengers of God, however - they were not preserved entirely and were tampered with by the people. This is because the people who the scripture was conveyed to - it was their duty to keep it safe but they may have been coerced to or desired to change it for their own benefit, however, God has preserved the final scripture [the Qur'an] and it is our duty to convey it to the people. Since there are no more messengers after God's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) - this scripture will remain preserved by God.

As Muslims, our authentic basis is the final revelation of God - the Qur'an and the Sunnah [Prophetic example] and we are certain that they are preserved throughout history, and this is even proven through research by non muslims themselves. We may refer to the older scriptures to see similarities between the scriptures, however it is not an obligation to do this. We might only do this because of some truth which remains within the previous books. And the final revelation - the Qur'an - is a Criterion for that.





Regards.
You haven't answered to the logic I have provided. According to Dr. Zakir Naik the old testament has full of wrong or misguided information. So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.
Reply

- Qatada -
12-11-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik
You haven't answered to the logic I have provided. According to Dr. Zakir Naik the old testament has full of wrong or misguided information. So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.

I don't need to answer according to the logic you've provided, the answers simple - the Qur'an and Prophetic guidance is the Criterion to what is correct since these are the only authentic religious texts by God remaining on earth.


Obviously this is coming from an Islamic point of view, so i don't expect you to believe that. However, this is the Islamic stance. :)



Regards.
Reply

pbhowmik
12-11-2007, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
I don't need to answer according to the logic you've provided, the answers simple - the Qur'an and Prophetic guidance is the Criterion to what is correct since these are the only authentic religious texts by God remaining on earth.


Obviously this is coming from an Islamic point of view, so i don't expect you to believe that. However, this is the Islamic stance. :)



Regards.
That's all I needed to know that you don't need to answer. Thanks. What do you think of Dr. Zakir Naik's comments?
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
12-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Are there any other places in the bible that calls the ishmailites "bretheren' of the israelites?:)
Reply

Umar001
12-12-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik
You haven't answered to the logic I have provided. According to Dr. Zakir Naik the old testament has full of wrong or misguided information. So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.
Hi :)

Are you familiar with the scholarly opinions on the formation of the current books in the Bible attributed to Moses?

That will shed some light on how Muslims can say there is some truth and some falsehood.

You stated:

So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran.

Why only those two options, what about this third option,

The Bible might contain truth passed down in traditions but might also contain falsehood? If that is the case then a Muslim can still find the truth in the Bible and discard the falsehood.

Bible is not from God, Bible has false information, Bible contradicts itself, Bible misinforms, Bible gives misinformation about Jesus' death and ressuraction, Bible is two faced, Bible mentions Muhammed, therefore Muhammed is a prophet.

The Bible we have now might not be from God but some of the information contained on it might have come from a source which was from God. Let me give you the example,

I write a book on religions, I quote the Qur'an.

Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God.

So if the traditions which were used in compiling the Bible are true and from God then why cant Muslims use them as evidence? It might be true that the rest of my book is not from God but the quotation or the source I used in some areas is God's word.

:)
Reply

pbhowmik
12-13-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Hi :)

Are you familiar with the scholarly opinions on the formation of the current books in the Bible attributed to Moses?

That will shed some light on how Muslims can say there is some truth and some falsehood.

You stated:

So if there is wrong information, why would we use it to support our (Muslims') beliefs? You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran.

Why only those two options, what about this third option,

The Bible might contain truth passed down in traditions but might also contain falsehood? If that is the case then a Muslim can still find the truth in the Bible and discard the falsehood.

Bible is not from God, Bible has false information, Bible contradicts itself, Bible misinforms, Bible gives misinformation about Jesus' death and ressuraction, Bible is two faced, Bible mentions Muhammed, therefore Muhammed is a prophet.

The Bible we have now might not be from God but some of the information contained on it might have come from a source which was from God. Let me give you the example,

I write a book on religions, I quote the Qur'an.

Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God.

So if the traditions which were used in compiling the Bible are true and from God then why cant Muslims use them as evidence? It might be true that the rest of my book is not from God but the quotation or the source I used in some areas is God's word.

:)
Your last few lines are kind of humorous.
"Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God."

Now let me get this straight. You are saying, the passages that might refer to Muhammed, those are from God and the passages that talks of other things, are not from God. What makes you think that you know which are from God and which are not? Tell the truth, I think you have a time machine.
All we know is God is infinite and we are finite creatures. Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Please do a research on it. It proves that Bible is authentic God's word and it was not manupilated. Again, please do a check on the Dead Sea scrolls. Thanks.
Reply

khairullah
12-13-2007, 11:26 AM
Please visit this link and find out if prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophesized in the Gospel of John or not.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm
Reply

pbhowmik
12-13-2007, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by khairullah
Please visit this link and find out if prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophesized in the Gospel of John or not.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm
Thank you for your link you posted. One thing that makes Dr. Zakir Naik looks like he is the winner of the debates he is in: he gives so many information, out of which most of the information are un related and simply baseless. Just because many people don't have manipulative minds like him or scholars like him, they don't go researching to see if he is right or wrong. Based on the information in the link you have provided, the information on that website is no different. First of all, one thing, Christians don't believe in Muhammad being a prophet or he is ever mentioned in the Bible. The verses the Muslim scholars always quote are not referring to Muhammed (a wishful thinking). Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit. Christians believes in the trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). That doesn't necessarily mean that God gave birth to Jesus. To understand the whole meaning of the trinity, one needs to read the entire Gospels. You cannot just go on Google and search how to attack Christians, but rather read each Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and you will understand the meaning. Of course you would be interested to read Acts afterwards along with the letters of the Apostles to answer your other questions. One thing about the Bible, it speaks the truth. What that means is, if the people of the lord during the Bible time made any mistakes (disobeyed the lord) it was mentioned in the Holy Book, not hidden or manipulated. The Bible teaches us right verses wrong. It teaches us how to live our lives and what are the consequences we have to face for living a sinful life. It does not teach us to attack other religions' faith or contradicts others' holy books. The Bible is from God, which was with God beginning of time, and it was revealed to us and was fulfilled through Jesus Christ. To understand the Bible, one should read it own self.
Reply

Umar001
12-13-2007, 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik
Your last few lines are kind of humorous.
"Now my book is not from God, but some of the content of my book is from God, if you take that to mean that my quotation is from God."
Glad you find it funny, at least this life isn't all misery for us humans.

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
Now let me get this straight. You are saying, the passages that might refer to Muhammed, those are from God and the passages that talks of other things, are not from God. What makes you think that you know which are from God and which are not? Tell the truth, I think you have a time machine.
I'm saying there might be passages which have truth and some which have falsehood. Logically speaking then there might be passages which do speak about Muhammad amongst the truthful ones. Theologically then one would see a benefit for God to do that.

Do you find it that hard to believe? Interesting. I don't know why you would. The concept is pretty simple and the probability is possible. But you seem to be in a habit of taking extremes, one or the other type of mentality when it suits you, type of like the 'Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic' thing, very restrictive. I am not saying, nor have claimed that the only truth is the passages which might refer to Muhammad, nor have I claimed that all the passages refering to Muhammad have been preserved.


Originally Posted by pbhowmik
All we know is God is infinite and we are finite creatures. Have you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Please do a research on it. It proves that Bible is authentic God's word and it was not manupilated. Again, please do a check on the Dead Sea scrolls. Thanks.
Hmm, The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible is God's word? Why don't you provide a reading reference for me of books and some websites and I will do more reading. I wonder how they prove it. And I do not think the Dea Sea Scrolls even have any NT writings, so thats the crucial part of the Bible which Christians believe missing, so howdo they prove that the NT is GOd's word and hasn't been changed.

Maybe you should do some reading too. Also be reasonably objective. :peace:

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
The verses the Muslim scholars always quote are not referring to Muhammed (a wishful thinking).
They do not? And you say this based on what knowledge? You must have reasons to reject the idea.


Originally Posted by pbhowmik
To understand the whole meaning of the trinity, one needs to read the entire Gospels. You cannot just go on Google and search how to attack Christians, but rather read each Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and you will understand the meaning.
I've done that, and far from being confronted with a triune God I found one God within the pages. Don't assume everyone is on the attack bro.

Since you disagree that there are any reference to Muhammad, please, show us the composition theories of how the Torah and the 4 Gospels were composed.

Sweet Regards,

Eesa
Reply

pbhowmik
12-13-2007, 08:36 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
But you seem to be in a habit of taking extremes, one or the other type of mentality when it suits you, type of like the 'Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic' thing, very restrictive. I am not saying, nor have claimed that the only truth is the passages which might refer to Muhammad, nor have I claimed that all the passages refering to Muhammad have been preserved.
I don't understand where I was taking extreme. I am not quoting Quran, but instead the Bible (not even quoting). Therefore, I don't think it's anything extreme. I am not sayng anything that suits me, but of course that makes sense. Not necessarily making in to a translation which I am comfortable with. In the Bible it is mentioned by Christ to beware of false prophets. I have posted that, but you have taken that off. I don't know why. It's not off topic at all. Because Bible specifically warns that there will be people claiming to be prophet safter Jeusus Christ ressurect and we should be aware of them. Bible tells us that there will be Holy spirit sent amongst us after Jesus is raised to heaven and that is what Jesus talks about. Bible also talks about Ishmael being an wild a-s-s of man in the wilderness and will be against eveyone and everyon against him. These are the words from the Bible and it's strange to see when we question the authenticity of Islam or Muhammed, the Muslims doesn't come back with a logical answer. Instead they want to hang that person, kill that person (the newspaper article in Europe) and trie to go in to Bible and Torah to find our faults. Why don't we look in to Quran and understand its purpose and meaning first and answer with logics? Not going and attacking and being EXTREME.

Hmm, The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible is God's word? Why don't you provide a reading reference for me of books and some websites and I will do more reading. I wonder how they prove it. And I do not think the Dea Sea Scrolls even have any NT writings, so thats the crucial part of the Bible which Christians believe missing, so howdo they prove that the NT is GOd's word and hasn't been changed.
Along with Christians, Jews also believes in the prophet Isiah and other prophets in the OT. They also believe that these prophets were inspired by God. But before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, people used to think that whatever the prophets have written, it was edited for the advantages of mankind. When the scrolls have been found, it was matched with the books we have in the Bible and they were word for word (Hebrew and other ancient languages). Therefore, the OT was not changed in later years. Now let's come to the NT. You said the Christians believe in NT for their faith. If that was the case, we would have only New Testament as our Bible. Because OT is as much as important as NT, we must have both parts in the Holy Bible. Of course NT talks about Jesus, but OT does too. OT talks about Jesus coming (From Genesis to Malachi), not necessarily literarily , but gives tons of indications. You have mentioned NT not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course it was not and it is not necessary to prove the autheticity of NT. Because there have been many documents found which supports the events that had happened during the NT times. The Jews kept records of all events including the crucifixion of Jesus. Of course they recorded it as he was punished and crucified because he was accused of blasphemy and they don't accept him as the Messiah.

There is a lot I can offer you to prove the autheticity of NT, but we have only so much time in our hands. I will post more in the future if necessary. Remember one thing though, we as Christians believe that the main purpose of the Bible is John 3:16, which talks about love of God towards mankind. You can only win one's heart through love, not force or logic. Because logic is created by human for the purpose of twisting the truth, but love came from God and it is more important. If logic and argument was more important then we should stick to what the scientists say "there is not god".

Thanks
Reply

Umar001
12-14-2007, 10:44 PM
Originally Posted by pbhowmik
I don't understand where I was taking extreme. I am not quoting Quran, but instead the Bible (not even quoting). Therefore, I don't think it's anything extreme. I am not sayng anything that suits me, but of course that makes sense. Not necessarily making in to a translation which I am comfortable with. In the Bible it is mentioned by Christ to beware of false prophets. I have posted that, but you have taken that off. I don't know why. It's not off topic at all. Because Bible specifically warns that there will be people claiming to be prophet safter Jeusus Christ ressurect and we should be aware of them. Bible tells us that there will be Holy spirit sent amongst us after Jesus is raised to heaven and that is what Jesus talks about. Bible also talks about Ishmael being an wild a-s-s of man in the wilderness and will be against eveyone and everyon against him. These are the words from the Bible and it's strange to see when we question the authenticity of Islam or Muhammed, the Muslims doesn't come back with a logical answer. Instead they want to hang that person, kill that person (the newspaper article in Europe) and trie to go in to Bible and Torah to find our faults. Why don't we look in to Quran and understand its purpose and meaning first and answer with logics? Not going and attacking and being EXTREME.
ME? I have deleted what? If you did not mean me, please make that clear lest others think that I have been unjust to you.

Maybe you have misunderstood, one of the problems with discussions is that more often then not people forget to listen but take one word, skim read and then assume what was said.

When I spoke of your extremity, I was speaking on the style in which you posed possabilities. For example, you said;

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
You would rather stick to one conclusion, either Bible is the true God's word and yes what it says is true or Bible is bogus and we should read only the teachings from Quran. Have I made myself clear? I hope so. Thanks.

This is the type of extreme I spoke of, if you read my writing properly you will see that I also gave a famous example of how other do this, with the question,

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
type of like the 'Jesus Lord Liar or Lunatic' thing, very restrictive.
The reason I said it was extreme is because such questions do not take into consideration other possabilities, like me asking a friend, 'is your mother out of prison yet, Yes or No?' Rather I should give other options as answers for example, the option to say that she has never been in prison. In the above example, the fourth option could be, Jesus Lord, Liar or Lunatic? Or Lied Upon, you see how it works? That's the extreme I spoke of.

As for the rest of your speech about logical answers and so forth, I have spoken to you about the compilation and sources of your books, why have you not told us? Tell us the theories, I mean to know if a hypothesis, like the Muslim view that there could be some truth and falsehood in the Bible is plausible one needs to know the history of the Books right? Well tell us the history. Or do you find that illogical, and humorous?

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
Along with Christians, Jews also believes in the prophet Isiah and other prophets in the OT. They also believe that these prophets were inspired by God. But before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, people used to think that whatever the prophets have written, it was edited for the advantages of mankind. When the scrolls have been found, it was matched with the books we have in the Bible and they were word for word (Hebrew and other ancient languages). Therefore, the OT was not changed in later years.
Give us the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, give us the background of them, just little more information.

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
Now let's come to the NT. You said the Christians believe in NT for their faith. If that was the case, we would have only New Testament as our Bible. Because OT is as much as important as NT, we must have both parts in the Holy Bible. Of course NT talks about Jesus, but OT does too. OT talks about Jesus coming (From Genesis to Malachi), not necessarily literarily , but gives tons of indications.
Well I never said Christians believe in the NT for their faith solely, I just mentioned that it is a crucial part of it. As for the OT speaking of Jesus I guess one can get that interpretation.

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
You have mentioned NT not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course it was not and it is not necessary to prove the autheticity of NT.
Oh, but you see, when you say Bible people might think the Bible, not just the OT, and as you said Christians need both. We need to try be accurate bro.

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
Because there have been many documents found which supports the events that had happened during the NT times. The Jews kept records of all events including the crucifixion of Jesus. Of course they recorded it as he was punished and crucified because he was accused of blasphemy and they don't accept him as the Messiah.
Well there are no contemporary evidences of Jesus from outside Christianity, so what do you mean? The NT by large cannot be verified of its accuracy, mistakes and truth has been found in there. Mark had a poor palestinian geographical knowledge according to some Scholars. So if anything this shows that there is right and wrong in there, my position all along.

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
There is a lot I can offer you to prove the autheticity of NT, but we have only so much time in our hands.
Make a thread and provide all you want and can in a discussion. As long as it in sincere and genuine. :)

Originally Posted by pbhowmik
You can only win one's heart through love, not force or logic. Because logic is created by human for the purpose of twisting the truth, but love came from God and it is more important. If logic and argument was more important then we should stick to what the scientists say "there is not god".
Well not all scientist say that, and logic/reason doesnot twist truth, but rather twisted reason twists truth. I try love God with all my heart and mind. I put my faith in Him, but I place it in Him through understanding. Meaning I decide through knowledge to follow God and thus have blind faith in Him. They work hand in hand.

So yes, back to topic, show us why there cannot be some truth and some falsehood in the Bible, tell us the Biblical History of compilation.

Eesa
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2007, 11:07 PM
Based on my memory, which might be a little rough, but is still going to be close....

What was found regarding the scroll of Isaiah is that prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant copy of a scroll of Isaiah dated from 800 AD, and was of the Masoretic text family. Now, the community in Qumran were essenes and did not use the same set of texts that became the Masoretic text. Yet, among the scrolls found there was a text of Isaiah, dated to 200-250 BCE, that was found to be "nearly" identical, not "exactly" identical to the 800 AD scroll. The differences were not large passages, but simple phonetic markings regarding pronounciation that did not even result in producing a different translation when translated into English. So, that's a 1000 year period of time, and two different families of text, with little to no variation noted.
Reply

Talha777
12-20-2007, 11:10 PM
Now, the community in Qumran were essenes
This is only a theory they were Essenes, most likely they were not.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2007, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by khairullah
Please visit this link and find out if prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is prophesized in the Gospel of John or not.


YOU BE THE JUDGE!

http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm
\


I have visited this and answered it many times. There is NO REFERENCE to Muhammad in the Gospel of John. Those that think there is simply do not know how to properly interpret Greek. It is as if they strained a grapefruit to get grape juice.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2007, 11:14 PM
Originally Posted by Talha777
This is only a theory they were Essenes, most likely they were not.

OK. It is only a theory that they were essenes. The comparison of the two sets of text is NOT theory, but simple, observable, documented fact. You may interpret it to mean whatever you wish, but the fact remains that over the passage of 1000 years of history we have two texts and they are close enough they could have been made on copy machine, but for the obvious differences in penmanship.
Reply

Umar001
12-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Couple of Points.

1.Dead Sea Scrolls don't seem to contain much to do with any texts that the we are speaking of.

2.More talk on the Dead Sea Scrolls which isn't on Muhammad in the Bible maybe should be done in a different thread.

3.We have still to discuss whether the compilation method of the Bible allowed for corruption of terms and exegetical statements to be attributed to Jesus.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-24-2007, 07:27 PM
The reference to the Dead Sea scrolls is only to the degree of care taken to avoid allowing corruption of the scriptures -- e.g. the 1000 years difference in two extant copies of Isaiah with little to no corruption of the text.


As to whether the method of compilation could have allowed for corruption of terms and exegetical statements being attributed to Jesus. It most certainly could have. Indeed I would allow that it did. One illustration. Matthew understands Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel. So, he reads the old Hebrew prophecies in this light. A passage that had one meaning when it was written he then reinterprets as also referring to Jesus. Then when he reports on that passage, rather than quoting it from the Hebrew scriptures, since he is writting his gospel in Greek, he quotes from a Greek translation of those scriptures. Both of these things allow for the meaning of a term to take on a new meaning. Of course, I would say that Matthew intends for us to understand this new meaning that he is intentionally giving to the term. Thus, the "young woman" (the meaning of the term "almah" in Hebrew, though many English translations say "virgin" because that is also the usual connotation behind the term, even in Hebrew) of Isaiah 7:14 simply becomes "virgin", with all doubt removed, when Matthew applies the verse to his telling of the story of Jesus birth (Matthew 1:23). Matthew has done two things:
1) he has taken a story that was written for a different specific context and applied it to the life of Jesus.
2) he has taken a word that was possible to use in multiple ways and removed all ambiguity from it.
Does that corrupt the term? I would agree that it does. Does it mean that Matthew has corrupted the story of Jesus birth? I would say, No, for Matthew is not trying to preserve Isaiah, but to tell Jesus' story which is what he has done.

That is just one illustration, doubtless there are countless others, of how terms might have been corrupted. But, I do think that what was written by Matthew and the other Biblical writers reflects their own unique understanding of what was true with regard to God, God's story, and God's interaction with his people. The key for us then is to make sure that we don't ourselves begin to put our understanding of terms to the text unless we can also be sure that they are the understanding held by the biblical writers. Terms like "the only begotten son of God" are a good example of this. The term doesn't have anything to do with biological procreation, and thinking thusly leads one to an erroneous understanding of the early church's view of Jesus. Refernces that are today made to fit Muhammad, such as in the above provided link, are similar misreadings of the text, and alterings of the Biblical terms and their meanings to substantiate a belief system that the Biblical writers themselves never espoused.
Reply

capri
01-30-2008, 09:25 AM
:sl:
Originally Posted by dougmusr

Just as Jews do not believe Christ was a prophet, and Muslims do ot believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Christians do not believe Muhammad was a prophet.
Being the son of Allah and being The messenger of Allah r 2 different things. Muslims believe in all the messengers of Allah . And muslims also believe tat Jesus(p.b.u.h) was Allah's messenger. Bible was the word of Allah but there hav been many changes in it. and nowhere did Jesus(p.b.u.h) said that he was the son of Allah. It is no more than a misconception. and further more i think christians shud not forget those Rahabs(priests) who at the time of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) did accept him as Allah's messenger and also said tat "truly The coming of Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and his being the last Prophet was also predicted in the Bible and by Jesus (p.b.u.h) himself":w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-30-2008, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by capri
:sl:

Being the son of Allah and being The messenger of Allah r 2 different things. Muslims believe in all the messengers of Allah . And muslims also believe tat Jesus(p.b.u.h) was Allah's messenger. Bible was the word of Allah but there hav been many changes in it. and nowhere did Jesus(p.b.u.h) said that he was the son of Allah. It is no more than a misconception. and further more i think christians shud not forget those Rahabs(priests) who at the time of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) did accept him as Allah's messenger and also said tat "truly The coming of Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and his being the last Prophet was also predicted in the Bible and by Jesus (p.b.u.h) himself":w:

With respect, I think that those Rahabs you refer to were in error, serious error, as is your own understanding of the nature of changes that have taken place in the Bible and of Jesus' comments with respect to his own divinity.
Reply

fromgenesis
02-04-2008, 08:47 PM
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him
It would be proper to read more than a single texts to substantiate a specific interpretation of a text. Read the following with it, and you will realise that the text cannot refer to Mohammad:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Reply

capri
02-06-2008, 08:32 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
With respect, I think that those Rahabs you refer to were in error, serious error, as is your own understanding of the nature of changes that have taken place in the Bible and of Jesus' comments with respect to his own divinity.
well u can understand this also tat the Bible is not the word of Allah anymore, there r more than 1 additions of Bible and each one is different from the other. so if an error was present it would be present now rather than hundreds of years ago. when there were not much changes.
Reply

Trumble
02-06-2008, 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by capri
well u can understand this also tat the Bible is not the word of Allah anymore, there r more than 1 additions of Bible and each one is different from the other. so if an error was present it would be present now rather than hundreds of years ago. when there were not much changes.
Not really. All of the 'proper' versions (ignoring such things as easy reading editions, children's editions etc.) are still generally translated from the best, and earliest, Hebrew and Greek texts that have been preserved. In that respect, oddly enough, rather more and better quality 'original' sources were used for the more modern translations than for, say, the King James version.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-06-2008, 11:21 PM
Originally Posted by capri
well u can understand this also tat the Bible is not the word of Allah anymore, there r more than 1 additions of Bible and each one is different from the other. so if an error was present it would be present now rather than hundreds of years ago. when there were not much changes.
As I said, I think your understanding of the changes that have taken place with regard to the Bible are in error, serious error. Indeed Catholics and Protestants recognize two different canons of scripture. But it is not because of changes in the texts, but disagreement on which books should be considered as authoritative. There are disagreements in Islam as to who should be considered authoritative as well. Does that make all the interpreters of the Qur'an untrustworthy? I don't think so. Likewise I don't think that the disagreements with regard to the canon make the agreed on books questionable.

Beyond that there are no "changes" in the Bible in the sense of alterations to change the theology or overall message. What there are are variant readings produced by errors in copying. And while some of them might be considered significant, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post.

Just as you have a "science" to determine the validity of various (i.e. variant) hadiths, so we have a science of textual criticism to determine the validity of any variant readings. Because of this, even secular scholars who don't believe in the teachings of the Bible trust the accuracy of the available texts as being the most reliable of any manuscript of its antiquity or older. Thus any reasons for not having confidence in the integrity of the Bible as presently used by Christians (be it Protestant or Catholic) are generally unfounded, your above claims not withstanding.
Reply

Umar001
02-13-2008, 09:33 PM
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His slave and messenger Muhammad.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It would be proper to read more than a single texts to substantiate a specific interpretation of a text. Read the following with it, and you will realise that the text cannot refer to Mohammad:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
I think that is inclusive of the way the Prophethood of Muhammad is perceived by Muslims.

I don't see how that verse would do damage to their claim.

Now to the changes of the Bible.

I have heard the claim made that no theological matters depend solely on a doubtful text, well, one should bear in mind several things:

That the books traveled alone, they were not written by the authors to be attached to others, in general, some were. So any possible theological change to a book could effect the meaning and the reason why it was cannonised.

That the changes could have been made and not discovered, after all it is hard, and I would say impossible, to assess the number of changes that have taken place from the time the authors put pen to paper to now.

That changes could have also occurred, and most probably did, at a time before the authors of the four present Gospels wrote, thus effecting the material they received and their editing of it.

All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God. We find almost futile efforts to try and uncover the historical Jesus through guesswork which is in no way near comparable to the system of the Isnaad and Hadith in general. One of the only interesting matters is the categorization of the manuscripts into family groups through which tendencies of scribes could be assessed to discover the best reading.


In conclusion we have no way to know what Jesus did or said with a high level of reliance, except for a couple of things.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-13-2008, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
In conclusion we have no way to know what Jesus did or said with a high level of reliance, except for a couple of things.

With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-13-2008, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is yet present.
Song of Songs 5:16
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

Problem:
The underlined word is the Hebrew Machmaddim. Moslems claim that this word is a reference to Muhammad for two reasons,
The word Machmad (singular of Machmaddim) sounds a bit like the name Muhammad
The word Machmad means The praised one (i.e. the one worthy of praise); this, they assert, must be Muhammad!

Solution:
The logic of the assertion that the word Machmad is Muhammad because the two words sound a bit similar is somewhat specious. The name John sounds a bit like the Arabic Jinn, but there is no connection between the two. Similarly a connection on the grounds that the word means "the praised one" falls short of a guaranteed logical link; has only one person in the world ever been praised?

The context of the passage identifies the person described as Machmad as someone in the time of Solomon (Song 3:11) who is loved by a Shulamite (Song 6:13). He is red-haired (Song 5:10). None of these descriptions fits Muhammad who never visited Shunem in his life.

A search of all the occurrences of the word Machmad in the Bible shows that the word has nothing to do with praise. It simply refers to whatever is desirable for whatever reason and is derived from the root chamad which means desire.

If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by God (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by God (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by God (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad.
...
Reply

YusufNoor
02-14-2008, 02:16 AM
original quote I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It would be proper to read more than a single texts to substantiate a specific interpretation of a text.

Read the following with it, and you will realise that the text cannot refer to Mohammad:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

you speak as if the Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam, spoke of things which didn't happen, how odd? THAT verse actually gives credence that IT IS talking about Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam!
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's also strange how "Christians" and other non-belivers ASSUME that Islam isn't mentioned in the Torah!

In Genesis chapter 17, Stone Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God:
v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…]

We do have one prophecy that at least according to the Jews, puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy! so why wouldn't there be further refences to Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam?

refs: The Stone Edition Chumash The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with A Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings by Mesorah Publishing as well as the Artscroll Tanach Series Bereishsis/ Genesis A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz with Overviews by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and a Foreword by HaGoan HaRav Mordechai Gifter, published by Mesorah Publication Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Chumash or Bereishsis/ Genesis respectively.

Originally posted by Grace Seeker
With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.
we speaking about different books! the ORIGINAL "Christian" Bible was the Tanakh, NOT the New Testament! None of the original apostles or disciples of Jesus EVER HELD A NEW TESTAMENT IN THEIR HANDS! EVER!

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-14-2008, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor

we speaking about different books! the ORIGINAL "Christian" Bible was the Tanakh, NOT the New Testament! None of the original apostles or disciples of Jesus EVER HELD A NEW TESTAMENT IN THEIR HANDS! EVER!

:w:
Al Habeshi was talking about the Gospels and specifically mentioned Jesus, "All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God." leading to my comments. Beyond that, the general line I hear from Muslims is to also doubt the integrity of the Tanakh, so if you can't trust it in general, how can you trust it to speak about Muhammad in particular?
Reply

YusufNoor
02-14-2008, 02:49 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Al Habeshi was talking about the Gospels and specifically mentioned Jesus, "All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God." leading to my comments. Beyond that, the general line I hear from Muslims is to also doubt the integrity of the Tanakh, so if you can't trust it in general, how can you trust it to speak about Muhammad in particular?
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

general rule of thumb: when we are in agreement, it's probably OK; where we are in disagreement it's been tampered with!

simple really!

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-14-2008, 02:45 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

general rule of thumb: when we are in agreement, it's probably OK; where we are in disagreement it's been tampered with!

simple really!

:w:
Well, now that you've laid it out like that for me, it's really obvious.

All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

I should know better than to ask Biblical scholars or to research the writings of the early church fathers for the truth, from now on I'll just ask the followers of an illiterate 7th century Arab who can tell me truth from falsehood without even opening a Bible.

:hiding:
Reply

YusufNoor
02-14-2008, 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, now that you've laid it out like that for me, it's really obvious.

All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

aye, you're on the right path!

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

probably!

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

actually, i'm finding that the REAL CONSERVATIVE Jews are finding the Tawheed in their religion, especially the ones that: puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy! gottal love them! :happy:
Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

see below, but heresy maybe!

I should know better than to ask Biblical scholars or to research the writings of the early church fathers for the truth,

if you mean Chrisitan fathers, i agree! [and see below]

from now on I'll just ask the followers of an illiterate 7th century Arab who can tell me truth from falsehood without even opening a Bible. :hiding:

just ask the "right" followers and, In Sha'a Allah, you will be guided to the truth!
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


the VAST MAJORITY of Prophets that we have knowlwdge of ALL descendants of Abraham, Alaihe Salaam, and are now generally[though not always correctly] called Jews. so if we want to determine what "their" message was, Jewish sources would be pretty reliable. here's a snippet from Rabbi Nosson Scherman in his "An Overview/ Ezra - Molder of a New Era" which serves as an introduction to The Book Ezra / A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic And Rabbinic Sources with Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz:

The First Temple and the Jewish nation - both the Ten Tribes of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah - had crumbled spiritually because of the sin of idolatry. ALL THE PROPHETS FROM MOSES ONWARD HAD WARNED ELOQUENTLY AND STRENUOUSLY ABOUT THE PITFALLS OF THIS CARDINAL SIN. Nevertheless, Israel succumbed, with the result that it was banished from it land and nearly destroyed as a people. ...why should there have been such an obsessive passion for [idolatry] that even the Prophets were ignored and murdered in the people's headlong passion to choose strange gods and pagan ceremonies over the ONE GOD and His Torah?

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

just because your "Biblical scholars" don't understand Judaism or Islam doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either of them, just the "Biblical scholars!" it's not my fault for the errors of your "Biblical scholars!"

are we clear now? :D

:w:
Reply

Umar001
02-14-2008, 06:50 PM
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His slave and messenger Muhammad.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.
Well I would agree that no one should base their faith on the words of the Bible thinking that they have a clear picture, the doubt as to what happened is overwhelming.

The again, if one already believes in the Bible then surely such prophecies should be paid attention too.

See I am not saying it is all bad, rather due to the fact that we do not know the good from the bad when looking at the book solely it should not be a foundation of faith.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-14-2008, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

just because your "Biblical scholars" don't understand Judaism or Islam doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either of them, just the "Biblical scholars!" it's not my fault for the errors of your "Biblical scholars!"

are we clear now? :D

:w:
I went to watch a basketball game at the local high school. The team was playing poorly, it was like the boys simply weren't listening to the what the coach was telling them to do and were doing their own thing instead. Finally, the coach had enough and called timeout. He took out all of the starters and put a whole new group on the floor. Then he called a second time out and told them how he wanted them to play. They did, and slowly they began to get the game first under control and then to make up the deficit, take and build a lead, till at the end of the game, they had it won handily. At that time, the coach called time out one more time and put the third string in, just to give them a little playing time. He told the third string how he wanted them to play, just as he had done with the first two groups. But this third string wasn't either as skilled, nor did it listen as well as the other subs had been. The didn't blow the game, but they didn't play like the coach asked them to either.

When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice. It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.


Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
See I am not saying it is all bad, rather due to the fact that we do not know the good from the bad when looking at the book solely it should not be a foundation of faith.
Of course, we disagree as to your premise. I think that the Biblical record can be trusted. That it is good, and that it is only the interpreation of it that has been suggested here that is in error.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-15-2008, 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I went to watch a basketball game at the local high school. The team was playing poorly, it was like the boys simply weren't listening to the what the coach was telling them to do and were doing their own thing instead. Finally, the coach had enough and called timeout. He took out all of the starters and put a whole new group on the floor. Then he called a second time out and told them how he wanted them to play. They did, and slowly they began to get the game first under control and then to make up the deficit, take and build a lead, till at the end of the game, they had it won handily. At that time, the coach called time out one more time and put the third string in, just to give them a little playing time. He told the third string how he wanted them to play, just as he had done with the first two groups. But this third string wasn't either as skilled, nor did it listen as well as the other subs had been. The didn't blow the game, but they didn't play like the coach asked them to either.

When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice. It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.

what the hell are you on about? :uhwhat


Of course, we disagree as to your premise. I think that the Biblical record can be trusted. That it is good, and that it is only the interpreation of it that has been suggested here that is in error.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i did not know that Methodists had sacrificial wine, might i suggest that you hit the wagon for a while!

btw, the topic is

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophesied in other Scriptures.
i will repeat:

In Genesis chapter 17, Stone Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God: v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…]

let me summarize:
God is speaking to Abraham, regarding Ishmael[/B] I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; and I will make him into a great nation…” and i'll type slow here: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…. THUS Islam is in YOUR Scriptures, and who may i ask delivered this Islam to mankind?

:w:
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-15-2008, 04:16 PM
I too will repeat.


Many players (prophets) may be sent in, all with supposedly the same purpose. In this case that purpose is to take the coaches instructions (God) and execute the gameplan (to lead people to live in a covenantal relationship with God). Of course some players execute that gameplan better than others. You might be right that Muhammad was put in the game, but judging by his execution of the gameplan, I don't think that Muhammad was a star player on God's team.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-16-2008, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice.
Honestly, I did not know that you feel this way. I don't know that I have ever seen such disrespect to a person that I highly honor as a Messenger of Allah!
It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.
..again such disrespect! I understand from this that you are saying that Muslims equate Muhammad (saaws) as "coach" with Allah (1st sentence God as coach to send players on the floor). This is of course shirk that Muslims utterly abhore.
You might be right that Muhammad was put in the game, but judging by his execution of the gameplan, I don't think that Muhammad was a star player on God's team.
Perhaps, you may feel differently if you actually read the book that I gave to you, "The Sealed Nectar".
Reply

Umar001
02-16-2008, 05:04 PM
Well assumption of the gameplan is what is the difference.

Also difference in the understanding, you see our view is that unlike the coach God would not place in compentant people as messengers, he would know their actions and thus not have them there.

Furthermore if they did not execute the game plan he would execute them.

And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allāh),

We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),

And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta),

And none of you could withhold Us from (punishing) him.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-16-2008, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Honestly, I did not know that you feel this way. I don't know that I have ever seen such disrespect to a person that I highly honor as a Messenger of Allah!..again such disrespect! I understand from this that you are saying that Muslims equate Muhammad (saaws) as "coach" with Allah (1st sentence God as coach to send players on the floor). This is of course shirk that Muslims utterly abhore.Perhaps, you may feel differently if you actually read the book that I gave to you, "The Sealed Nectar".
No, Allah/God is the coach who sends his players or prophets.


Look, I was a third-string player myself. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who does not fully execute the gameplan. But when I look at the message that Muhammad (pbuh) delivered and the other prophets delivered, I would have to say that Muhammad (pbuh) didn't get it 100% right, and even less than others before him. If I thought he did, I would be a Muslim, wouldn't I? But that doesn't mean he wasn't playing on God/Allah's team.

If you find it disrespectful that I don't think of Muhammad as the star player, I am sorry to have offended you or anyone else. But I don't think that a true messenger of God would ever say some of the things about Jesus that Muhammad said. For all to good he did in bringing knowledge of God to Arab pagans, to then say that belief in Jesus, his divinity, his crucifixion and resurrection are shirk and would keep a person from God -- these statements as so far off the mark it is like he was temporarily playing for the other team. No prophet of the God of the Bible would do these things. Thought there are many other reasons to suggest that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is someone esle, ultimately, even if the passage didn't point to someone esle, no one who brought the message that Muhammad brought could ever be the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. His message simply doesn't fit.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-16-2008, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Furthermore if they did not execute the game plan he would execute them.

And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allāh),

We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),

And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta),

And none of you could withhold Us from (punishing) him.
That holds water only if you can trust that the person who passed that on to you was actually executing the gameplan when he said that.

It becomes a circular arguement:
Muhammad (pbuh) gave us the Qur'an, a message from Allah.
How do you know that it is a message from Allah? Because Allah's messenger gave it to us.
How do you know that he is Allah's true messenger? Because if he wasn't Allah would have killed him.
And what is the source of this knowledge? It is in the Qur'an, the message that came from Allah.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-16-2008, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No, Allah/God is the coach who sends his players or prophets.
Did you not say, "It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught."? Perhaps, you misspoke, but anyone with half a brain could see the implied "coach" analogy with God.
Look, I was a third-string player myself. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who does not fully execute the gameplan. But when I look at the message that Muhammad (pbuh) delivered and the other prophets delivered, I would have to say that Muhammad (pbuh) didn't get it 100% right, and even less than others before him.
I have made it clear earlier and you agreed that the Islamic concept of Allah is more similar to the OT Jehovah than the Christian concept of God (F,S&HS). Your problem is that Muhammad (saaws) did not parrot the corruption brought by Paul in saying that Jesus is God. Of course you can't see that Paul was a "fifth column" that infiltrated the Christian community and (by spreading the "gospel" he said he received directly from God in Galatians) undermined the true message that Jesus (as) taught.
If you find it disrespectful that I don't think of Muhammad as the star player, I am sorry to have offended you or anyone else. But I don't think that a true messenger of God would ever say some of the things about Jesus that Muhammad said. For all to good he did in bringing knowledge of God to Arab pagans, to then say that belief in Jesus, his divinity, his crucifixion and resurrection are shirk and would keep a person from God -- these statements as so far off the mark it is like he was temporarily playing for the other team. No prophet of the God of the Bible would do these things.
That is only because you really believe that God became a man, lived a perfect life, died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead. Of course you don't see that if your beliefs are false, then what Muhammad (saaws) said was revelation from Allah (swt) is "spot-on".
Thought there are many other reasons to suggest that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is someone esle, ultimately, even if the passage didn't point to someone esle, no one who brought the message that Muhammad brought could ever be the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. His message simply doesn't fit.
...and how is the central message of Islam different from the 1st of the 10 commandments, "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God."

How many Muslims worsip any other than the One God without ancestors or descendents or equal? What Christian does not also worship the man, Jesus (as), as the Creator? How many statues or pictures of ANY living organism are present in any masjid the world over? Name me a single church that does not have at least one statue or picture of Jesus or Mary in a prominent place. If anything, the message that Paul preached and that you accept is Truth "simply doesn't fit".
Reply

Umar001
02-17-2008, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That holds water only if you can trust that the person who passed that on to you was actually executing the gameplan when he said that.
Well that would be circular if I was asking you to believe the argument only on the base of those verses, rather, I believe the argument based on those verses now, but I had also before to a certain extent on logic.

A coach would not keep on the field and aid a player who kept on scoring own goals.
Reply

*Hana*
02-17-2008, 05:51 PM
After reading over these posts from the past couple of days, I am beyond disgusted at the analogy used to describe Prophet Muhammed. Graceseeker, if we took a first-hand follower of Jesus an put him on the earth and told him to go and follow the faith Jesus taught him, what faith do you think he would be comfortable with??

Which faith does the following:

Greets each other with Salam Alaikum
Refers to God as Allah
Performs wudu before prayer
Removes shoes before entering a house of God
Falls on their face in prostration
Prays to ONE God

That faith is Islam and it is exactly what Jesus, pbuh, taught His followers.

What you follow, according to your ridiculous analogy is the team towel boy. Paul was self-appointed team player, never taught how to play by the coach, never learned the rules, never played with the other teammates and created his own form of gameplay when the true team players didn't want to play with his newly invented game! When his fraudulent playbook was discovered, he was immediately benched and kicked out of the game by the true players.

However, ignorants who never played the game followed his false game and created a whole new game with players that never had the opportunity to learn from the coach who was sent directly from the game's creator!!!

So, before you insult our Prophet, who WAS a chosen Prophet of God, think about the former Christian Killer you are following. The religion taught by Jesus, pbuh and the prophets before Him is NOT the same Pauline religion you follow today.

Deuteronomy clearly talks about another Prophet and it is clear by those verses, that comforter is NOT Jesus, pbuh, and even the Jews knew this when they were asking about 3 DIFFERENT entities: Are you Elias, Are you the Christ, Are you THAT Prophet? We already know who the Christ was, so who do you suppose was THAT Prophet?

Please try to control yourself from speaking with such disrespect about our Prophet.

Hana
Reply

Umar001
02-17-2008, 06:08 PM
As Salam Alaykum,

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Blessings and Peace be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad.

It seems that some have been upset at the analogy. I think I'll let the discussion of the last couple of days carry on since those involved are mature and see how it fizzles.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-17-2008, 07:27 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Blessings and Peace be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad.
Thank you for reiterating our beliefs toward Allah (swt) and Prophet Muhammad (saaws). You brought back proper respect in this thread for Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as a servant and messenger of Allah - what greater honor is there among men than this. I will add that this same honor is due to Prophet Jesus (as). The Quran shows the relationship of Jesus (as) to Allah (swt) as that of messenger and servant to Master as illustrated in 4:171-172 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him; Might I add that this relationship also exists in the Bible Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.... and Acts 4:27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus....


...and now back to the thread title. My interpretation of the verses in Deuteronomy, as Brother YusufNoor pointed out, are that they in fact were referring to Prophet Muhammad (saaws). I further interpret the "Comforter" that Jesus refers to in the gospels to prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad, John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you. Of course, Christians interpret this to refer to the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, but when did the Holy Spirit ever speak words heard from another?
Reply

aadil77
02-17-2008, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Thank you for reiterating our beliefs toward Allah (swt) and Prophet Muhammad (saaws). You brought back proper respect in this thread for Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as a servant and messenger of Allah - what greater honor is there among men than this. I will add that this same honor is due to Prophet Jesus (as). The Quran shows the relationship of Jesus (as) to Allah (swt) as that of messenger and servant to Master as illustrated in 4:171-172 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favored angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him; Might I add that this relationship also exists in the Bible Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus.... and Acts 4:27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus....


...and now back to the thread title. My interpretation of the verses in Deuteronomy, as Brother YusufNoor pointed out, are that they in fact were referring to Prophet Muhammad (saaws). I further interpret the "Comforter" that Jesus refers to in the gospels to prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad, John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you. Of course, Christians interpret this to refer to the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, but when did the Holy Spirit ever speak words heard from another?
He's just summed it all up!,:happy:

Grace seeker, here's some advice - just keep your crappy baseball game analogy:heated: out of it and stick to real terms
Reply

YusufNoor
02-17-2008, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That holds water only if you can trust that the person who passed that on to you was actually executing the gameplan when he said that.

It becomes a circular arguement:
Muhammad (pbuh) gave us the Qur'an, a message from Allah.
How do you know that it is a message from Allah?

we know it because it is the same mesage as all of the Prophets, excepting the "Pauline Jesus:"

the VAST MAJORITY of Prophets that we have knowlwdge of ALL descendants of Abraham, Alaihe Salaam, and are now generally[though not always correctly] called Jews. so if we want to determine what "their" message was, Jewish sources would be pretty reliable. here's a snippet from Rabbi Nosson Scherman in his "An Overview/ Ezra - Molder of a New Era" which serves as an introduction to The Book Ezra / A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic And Rabbinic Sources with Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz:

The First Temple and the Jewish nation - both the Ten Tribes of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah - had crumbled spiritually because of the sin of idolatry. ALL THE PROPHETS FROM MOSES ONWARD HAD WARNED ELOQUENTLY AND STRENUOUSLY ABOUT THE PITFALLS OF THIS CARDINAL SIN. Nevertheless, Israel succumbed, with the result that it was banished from it land and nearly destroyed as a people. ...why should there have been such an obsessive passion for [idolatry] that even the Prophets were ignored and murdered in the people's headlong passion to choose strange gods and pagan ceremonies over the ONE GOD and His Torah?

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

Because Allah's messenger gave it to us.


How do you know that he is Allah's true messenger? Because if he wasn't Allah would have killed him

in addition to the Qur'an we have from Deuteronomy 18

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." ]

if we look at this in terms of the gospels with some list Jesus/Isa's, Alaihe Salaam, at 1 year and one at 3 years, then one could see that "the Paulian Jesus" wa in fact put to death for speaking in the name of other gods, namely, himself. NOT SO with the Islamic Isa ibn Marriam, who began his testimony in his "cradle years" up until Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala, lifted him up to heaven.

to wit, OUR Jesus/Isa, Alaihe Salaam MAY be one of the prophets who fulfilled the Deuteronomy 18 prophecies, but the "Paulian Jesus" is CLEARLY NOT qualified to!

And what is the source of this knowledge? It is in the Qur'an, the message that came from Allah.

as the Messenger of Allah's, Salla Allahu alahihe Wa Salaam, message was EXACTLY the same as that of the previous Messengers we may use the Torah and Tanakh as further proof.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i must say that i'm in agreement with those who have found your last few posts offensive in the least. please don't forget: a) this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam; b) No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him; and c) There are many other discussion boards on the Web which you can promote your religion other than Islam

taken from:

15.Promoting Religions other than Islam
While interfaith discussions are allowed promoting another religion is not allowed on the discussion board. This discussion board was created to promote Islam, not another religion. There are many other discussion boards on the Web which you can promote your religion other than Islam.

16. No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. This includes, but is not limited to attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and companions, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present. While some may complain that there is "freedom of speech" please remember this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam. What is allowed in speech is determined by the Admin and not the member.
please try to remember that as Muslims, we KNOW that we are on the straight path. we have no doubt that the message of Jesus/Isa Alaihe Salaam has been corrupted. we are not looking for some sudden realization that we are mistaken. you are entitled to your mistaken beliefs in regard to Islam, but a) you will have to answer for them on Judgement Day; b) this is a privately owned discussion board which was created and is maintained to serve the purpose of promoting Islam; c) repeating your attacks on Islam & the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), AD NASEUM are against the rules of the forum.

the "circular message' we see in these discussions is YOURS! Jesus is God because he says he is God, and even though the books that you use to prove that have been changed and disputed, you still believe that they are true becaues the men who allegedly wrote them were themselves "men of God" and we know that they were "men of God" because they told us that they were "men of God"...

one gets dizzy just reading it!

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
02-18-2008, 04:00 AM
I was reading in the Bible tonight and this passage struck me as being relevant to this thread. Would anyone care to comment?

Matthew 12:18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.
Mt 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets.
Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Mt 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-18-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's also strange how "Christians" and other non-believers ASSUME that Islam isn't mentioned in the Torah!

In Genesis chapter 17, Stone Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God:
v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…]

We do have one prophecy that at least according to the Jews, puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy! so why wouldn't there be further references to Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam?

refs: The Stone Edition Chumash The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with A Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings by Mesorah Publishing as well as the Artscroll Tanach Series Bereishsis/ Genesis A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz with Overviews by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and a Foreword by HaGoan HaRav Mordechai Gifter, published by Mesorah Publication Ltd, referred to as the Chumash or Bereishsis/ Genesis respectively.

:w:
:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i just wanted to restate the FACT that Islam IS PROPHESIED in the Torah!

that's all...

:w:
Reply

fromgenesis
02-18-2008, 06:03 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His slave and messenger Muhammad.




I think that is inclusive of the way the Prophethood of Muhammad is perceived by Muslims.

I don't see how that verse would do damage to their claim.
The question would not be about perceptions but about whether Muhammad passes the "test" as far as the specific paragraph is concerned as well as a considerable number of other prophesies re the prophet that will appear. It would be very helpful to learn about. prophecies by Muhammad that he was not personally able to influence.
You seem to accept the Old Testament ( as you use this to substantiate your claim) and you are thus free to quote other verses that further substantiate your claim.:)
Reply

- Qatada -
02-18-2008, 06:19 PM
Fromgenesis, you may find these links beneficial:

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...hren-only.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...rophecies.html




Peace. :)
Reply

fromgenesis
02-19-2008, 05:23 PM
Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Thank you for your response and links - interesting but not quite what I had in mind as you would agree that we are referring to proof that Mohammad was the prophet referred to. As you will appreciate if you made the reference applicable to Mohammad, you could make it apply to any person that is referred to as a prophet (by himself if need be):)

You see, there are more than one "by the way" reference to the prophet that was to be born. Will gladly provide references in case you are not quite aware. Examples are
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Also refer to Isaiah 52:13 -53:12

It may also be relevant to consider what Jesus said:
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


Would still be interesting to hear about prophecies (not information that could be "copied" , or speculative, but that which has relevance to the future )
Reply

MustafaMc
02-23-2008, 04:46 PM
Even as a marriage of 20 years can be destroyed by a single night of indiscretion, so can the witness of 2,000 posts be destroyed by 2 posts of blatant disrespect.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-23-2008, 07:59 PM
Comments to post above.
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I was reading in the Bible tonight and this passage struck me as being relevant to this thread. Would anyone care to comment?

Matthew 12:18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased:

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemo..._index.php?l=3
Among the thousands of prophets and messengers sent by God, the Qur'an refers to 25, five of whom are known as ulu-al-Azm, or messengers with power or resolve. The first of the prophets of power or resolve (ulu al-'azm) was Nuh (pbuh), referred to as najiyullah, the confidant of Allah, the father of humanity after the Deluge. The second prophet of resolve is Ibrahim (pbuh), khalilullah, the intimate friend of Allah (Qur'an An-Nisaa 4:125). With his son Isma'il (pbuh) he built the Ka'bah, the first house for the worship of God. The third one is Musa (pbuh), called kaleemullah, the one to whom God speaks (Qur'an An-Nisaa 4:164), the recipient of the Torah. He saved the people of Israel from Ramses II and brought the tablets with the Ten Commands. Then Isa (pbuh), the Word of God and His spirit (ruhullah) the recipient of the Enjeel, who was born from the Virgin Maryam. And finally Muhammad (pbuh) referred as habibullah, the most beloved of Allah, the last messenger of God to mankind, who blessed us with the Qur'an.

I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.

Prophet Jesus (as) was sent but to the "lost sheep of Israel" (it is not fitting to give the children's bread to the dogs), while Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was sent to all mankind - specifically not excluding the Gentiles.

Mt 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets.

According to "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam" by Dr. Mahdi Ahmad, "The Prophet (saaws) used to meet secretly with the early converts in order to pass on the latest revelations that he had received...As pointed out earlier, the efforts at secrecy were very commonly employed by the Prophet (saaws) throughout his life. This being another case in point." On page 902 "Such as , 'O Prophet, We have sent you as a witness, harbinger of good tidings and a warner unto the unlettered ones. You are my slave and Messenger. I have named you Mutawakkil: neither crude nor coarse, nor yelling in the markets..."

Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment unto victory.

We know of the persecutions, insults and injury that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) suffered and endured for teaching faith in One God, yet he perservered until Islam was victorious first with the fall of Mecca. Quran 5:23 Today I have completed for you your religion and completed My favors unto you and am satisfied with Islam as your religion.

According to Christian theology, Jesus (as) was victorious in resurrection from the dead after he died on the cross (was broken for our sins).

Mt 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.
Reply

fromgenesis
02-24-2008, 12:25 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Even as a marriage of 20 years can be destroyed by a single night of indiscretion, so can the witness of 2,000 posts be destroyed by 2 posts of blatant disrespect.
If disrespect is asking proof of claims, then the shoe fits. In my opinion, however, your comment may be an effort to redirect the conversation. I would still like to receive information on real prophecies.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-24-2008, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
I would still like to receive information on real prophecies.
...and how is the post at the top of this page (Matthew 12:18-21) and the ones by Br. Yusuf Noor not relevant to your point? You may choose to believe that these scriptures don't apply to Prophet Muhammad (saaws), but we Muslims see that they do.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-24-2008, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Thank you for your response and links - interesting but not quite what I had in mind as you would agree that we are referring to proof that Mohammad was the prophet referred to. As you will appreciate if you made the reference applicable to Mohammad, you could make it apply to any person that is referred to as a prophet (by himself if need be):)

You see, there are more than one "by the way" reference to the prophet that was to be born. Will gladly provide references in case you are not quite aware. Examples are

actually these are just examples of Christian ignorance about the Tanakh.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

actually, Jewish exegesis on this verse is that it is speaking about Hezekiah, NOT some man/god or god/man invented later on..

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NO Jewish translation list the word virgin, it's young maiden[Ahaz's wife] and is another reference to Hezekiah

Also refer to Isaiah 52:13 -53:12

you'll have to be more specific as i'm not current on ALL "Christian inventions" on the Tanakh.

It may also be relevant to consider what Jesus said:

it would be more relevant to hear what Jesus actually said rather than read more "Christian inventions"

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

there's no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever said such a thing.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

there's no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever said such a thing.

Would still be interesting to hear about prophecies (not information that could be "copied" , or speculative, but that which has relevance to the future )

not sure what you're on about here
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's sad to see the way that Christians try to make the Torah and Tanakh ALL ABOUT JESUS, then they call ANYTHING else pure speculation! it's nothing but propaganda.

:w:
Reply

fromgenesis
02-24-2008, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I was reading in the Bible tonight and this passage struck me as being relevant to this thread. Would anyone care to comment?

Matthew 12:18 Behold, my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles.
Mt 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets.
Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Mt 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles hope.
Matthew 12:18 :
Read also Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
The passage refers to Isaiah 42: 1-4
You should also read the previous sentences (Matthew 12 from verse 14) which indicates that Jesus withdrew because of the antagonism of the Pharisees - who wished to destroy Him.
This reference to Isaiah shows that Jesus was in fact a person contrary to the beliefs held by the Jewish people. They expected a real earthly king, a conqueror of nations. Jesus however did not try and subdue them by force - instead of shouting for battle, lifting up His voice in the streets, oppressing the feeble ( a bruised reed he shall not break), he withdraws.
The reference to "servant" appears in a number of places in the Old Testament as well as thew New Testament:For example:
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

It is important that you read wider than a single sentence, or paragraph to allow you to see the contexts in which something is said. That is the problem - something is taken out of contexts and on its own taken to say something which it is not.
Re Mat 12:21:
Jesus was not only concerned with the nation of Israel - to offer them salvation. It is offered to each person outside of Israel as well. Paul was the great missionary to the gentiles:
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-24-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's sad to see the way that Christians try to make the Torah and Tanakh ALL ABOUT JESUS, then they call ANYTHING else pure speculation! it's nothing but propaganda.

:w:
They also try to make prophesies about the Comforter/Counselor all about the Holy Spirit in order for it to fit their dogma.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. ...
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.
Jo 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.

According to Christianity, when did the Holy Spirit ever speak to humans? If the Holy Spirit is God, then why would He "not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear". Would not God speak "from Himself" and not what He heard from another?

This passage can easily be interpreted to prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) if one has eyes to see and ears to hear. ...but Allah guides to His Truth those whom He wills to guide.
Reply

MustafaMc
02-24-2008, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Jesus was not only concerned with the nation of Israel - to offer them salvation. It is offered to each person outside of Israel as well. Paul was the great missionary to the gentiles:
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
...but Jesus was not sent to the Gentiles.

Mt 15:22 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from those borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. Mt 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15:25 But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mt 15:26 And he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

Mt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into [any] way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: Mt 10:6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The Ishmaelites (Arabs) that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) was sent to as a Messenger of Allah (swt) are Gentile, or non-Jews. What prophet in the OT or the NT was sent to the Gentiles? Do you claim that Paul was a Prophet of God that received a new revelation from God as he himself claimed in the first chapter of Galatians? Could not Paul be a false prophet as prophesied by Jesus (as) Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
Reply

fromgenesis
02-24-2008, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's sad to see the way that Christians try to make the Torah and Tanakh ALL ABOUT JESUS, then they call ANYTHING else pure speculation! it's nothing but propaganda.

:w:
actually these are just examples of Christian ignorance about the Tanakh.
You may regard it as such just because it is different to your interpretation. This does however not validate yours.
[QUOTE]actually, Jewish exegesis on this verse is that it is speaking about Hezekiah, NOT some man/god or god/man invented later on..[QUOTE] You accept the Jewish interpretation of the Torah? Hezekiah called Mighty God[NO Jewish translation list the word virgin, it's young maiden[Ahaz's wife] and is another reference to Hezekiah[QUOTE]On what basis do you accept the Jewish interpretation?
"Christian inventions"
My dear man, I do not call your beliefs by any such names or try to belittle you. Is this typical behaviour for Muslims? I form a certain perception based on your conduct and must confess it is not totally positive.
"Christian inventions", as you call them have been adequately proven by historical facts. The passages referred to refers to prophecies re Jesus which were all fulfilled.
it would be more relevant to hear what Jesus actually said rather than read more "Christian inventions"
Would be glad to receive such information that has any documentary proof from the time.[QUOTE]there's no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever said such a thing.[QUOTE]Funny that you seem to accept certain things and others not, even though the information that you accept (Jesus did not die on the cross) is contradicted by both secular historians and even Jesus' opponents (in whose interest it would be to deny). In opposition to this, none of the information provided by the Bible is contradicted - which would have lead to the demise of Christianity during the time of the apostles as all would have known it to be lies.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-24-2008, 04:16 PM
[QUOTE=fromgenesis;917073]You may regard it as such just because it is different to your interpretation. This does however not validate yours.
[QUOTE]actually, Jewish exegesis on this verse is that it is speaking about Hezekiah, NOT some man/god or god/man invented later on..[QUOTE] You accept the Jewish interpretation of the Torah?

not entirely, but i find there is alot more Tawheed in Jewish writings than there is in Christian ones. so while the Jews have indeed angered Allah, Suhannahu Wa Ta' Aala, they speak with more correctly[though not without error] regarding the One-ness of Allah, Suhannahu Wa Ta' Aala.

Hezekiah called Mighty God[NO Jewish translation list the word virgin, it's young maiden[Ahaz's wife] and is another reference to Hezekiah[QUOTE]On what basis do you accept the Jewish interpretation?

asking a Jew what Jewish words mean is logical.


My dear man, I do not call your beliefs by any such names or try to belittle you.

if it is invented by Christians, then they are indeed Christian inventions. i'm sorry that that offends you.


Is this typical behaviour for Muslims? I form a certain perception based on your conduct and must confess it is not totally positive.
"Christian inventions", as you call them have been adequately proven by historical facts.

there's not a single contemporaneous piece of evidence regarding a man-god or a god-man, nor one prophesied in the Tanakh. it's Christian invention.

The passages referred to refers to prophecies re Jesus which were all fulfilled.

that is only the opinion of Christians, go to a synagogue and inquire about all the alleged prophecies you ask about.


Would be glad to receive such information that has any documentary proof from the time.[QUOTE]there's no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever said such a thing.
Funny that you seem to accept certain things and others not, even though the information that you accept (Jesus did not die on the cross) is contradicted by both secular historians and even Jesus' opponents

but no contemporaneous testimony. iirc, just Josephus, writing 30+ years later and gospels written after Paulianity became Christianity.

(in whose interest it would be to deny). In opposition to this, none of the information provided by the Bible is contradicted - which would have lead to the demise of Christianity during the time of the apostles as all would have known it to be lies.

the term Christianity IS PROOF of the demise of the original message brought by Jesus; all of the Prophets of Allah Suhannahu Wa Ta' Aala came to:

"RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of Islam before Mohammed[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

we post and then we repeat:

in addition to the Qur'an we have from Deuteronomy 18

17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." ]

if we look at this in terms of the gospels with some list Jesus/Isa's, Alaihe Salaam, at 1 year and one at 3 years, then one could see that "the Paulian Jesus" was in fact put to death for speaking in the name of other gods, namely, himself. NOT SO with the Islamic Isa ibn Marriam, who began his testimony in his "cradle years" up until Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala, lifted him up to heaven.

to wit, OUR Jesus/Isa, Alaihe Salaam MAY be one of the prophets who fulfilled the Deuteronomy 18 prophecies, but the "Paulian Jesus" is CLEARLY NOT qualified to!
Islam is nothing new, it is a return to the religion of Ibrahim, Alaihe Salaam. it recognizes ALL of the Prophets of Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala.

Christianity on the other hand has changed "In the beginnings of Gods creating the heavens and the earth" into "In the beginnings of Jesus' creating the heavens and the earth" THAT is shirk. it's simply not the message of a single Prophet of Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala.

:w:
Reply

fromgenesis
02-24-2008, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
...and how is the post at the top of this page (Matthew 12:18-21) and the ones by Br. Yusuf Noor not relevant to your point? You may choose to believe that these scriptures don't apply to Prophet Muhammad (saaws), but we Muslims see that they do.
I was referring to prophecies from the Koran/Mohammad's own prophecies that he himself could not fulfill.
The fact that you believe some content from the Bible is relevant does not mean they are. You may believe they are relevant to anybody you choose, but it is not supported by a proper analysis of all relevant material.
The problem is basically that you choose parts that could somehow be made applicable, but reject that which is contrary to your belief system- claiming that there is no proof that for instance Jesus said something.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-24-2008, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
If disrespect is asking proof of claims, then the shoe fits. In my opinion, however, your comment may be an effort to redirect the conversation. I would still like to receive information on real prophecies.

I don't think it was your posts that were seen as disrespectful, but mine.

That I my comments have offended is something I do regret, because offense is not, nor has ever been my intent. But some of you have felt offended by them, I will not aggrevate the injury by telling you that you have no cause. I will ask -- when asked to respond to the question of Muhammad (pbuh) who denies the validity of the message of the prophets that are recorded in the Bible and goes so far as to call the gospel of Jesus Christ to be shirk, and I accept those other messages as being true (therefore, obviously, that which contradicts them would be seen as false) -- what do you expect me to say? I cannot in good conscience concur that Muhammad is THE prophet. When I read the Qur'an, the message that he claims he was given from God so distorts that which I believe is the true message that even its source must be questioned. You may find it offensive because it offends your beliefs. Then perhaps I should no longer participate in these forums. I cannot say what you want to hear. And if what you don't want to hear offends, then it is probably best that I simply remain silent as I have done these last several days, not knowing what more to say that would not continue to be seen as simply more offensive. But before I go, I do have a question -- a sincere question:

How can a Christian be accused of indiscretion for remaining faithful to the God we know and worship rather than accepting the siren calls of another?

This it what it seems like I am reading that I am being accused of. Many of you I have come to view as friends. As persons that have taught me a great deal about Islam that was previously foreign to me. But did I ever imply that in my desire to learn more about your faith that I was prepared to abandon mine and to accept Islam as true, as accurate? I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

35 years ago I realized that Jesus Christ did in fact go to the cross, that on that cross he did die. And I understood that this was something that he did out of love for those of us who lived imperfect, sinful lives, in order to redeem us back from our broken lives (that I at that time was living quite apart from God and headed for an eternity of the same) and restore us to new life that is joined with God. And this new life was found not in my own efforts, but the work of the cross. I was 16 at the time. I realized that this great unfolding drama was something that wasn't just generically for all of humanity, but was also individually Christ's love gift to me personally as well. On that day, the first Thursday in June in 1973, I realized this wasn't just words, it was something that called for a response from me. It wasn't an invitation like you might have heard tell about from an evangelist, it wasn't an altar call, it wasn't some one trying to convert me at all. I was with friends who already thought I was a Christian as we were celebrating what we called a Love Feast. But in that moment I was asked to think about and meditate on Christ's suffering and sacrifice. As I did, I came to a realization (I say realization, not just conclusion) as I asked myself why any one would go to the cross as Jesus did, that he did it out of love to save sinners. And further that if I had been the only sinner in the world that needed saving, that he would still have done just the same. I decided then and there that I would spend the rest of my life honoring Jesus. I cannot stoop to calling him no more than a prophet and keep that promise. Jesus is worthy of worship, and those that tell me that he is not simply do not speak the truth nor are they speaking on behalf of God. For me to say anything less than that would be to dishonor the one whom I serve.

You have asked, and I have answered. If that means I am no longer welcome here, then so be it. I will not turn my back on my redeemer and savior, my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ. To repent of that would be to doom myself to perdition and, worse, to dishonor God.
Reply

*Hana*
02-24-2008, 11:29 PM
Graceseeker:

It is not your belief we found offensive. You are free to believe whatever you want and to dismiss whatever you want. That has no effect on us whatsoever. What we did find offensive was your very poor and disrespectful analogy of a baseball team and what you said about our Prophet. There were a million ways you could have said why you can't accept Muhammed, pbuh, as a Prophet, without insulting our beliefs and our Prophet, especially considering this is an Islamic forum. It would be nice to use actual facts that support your belief or understanding rather than a created analogy.

Of course you are still welcome here and I don't think anyone suggested differently. You, unfortunately, chose to write an analogy that some of us found extremely offensive. I suspect this wasn't your intent, but I sincerely hope you can see why some of us were somewhat upset by your choice of words.

This is, and can continue to be, an interesting topic and your thoughts, ideas, etc., are certainly welcome.

Please understand that none of us are in a position to bring you to Islam, it is only Allah, swt, that guides. As much as we would be extremely happy to welcome you into the folds of Islam, we know that is not our call. That is between you and Allah, swt. As for answering your questions and doing our best to teach you about Islam, that is our duty. We must do that and we are happy to do that. So, no, we don't answer because we believe you will immediately leave Christianity and embrace Islam. (It took me years!!)

What happened, happened and we can't change that, so let's just leave it in the past and move forward. :) There is no reason why we can't discuss and reason together without expectations. You will not accept Islam because we say so, just as we will not accept Christianity because you say so, but we can talk about why we believe the way we do. Learn for the sake of learning...nothing more.

With peace,
Hana
Reply

YusufNoor
02-25-2008, 12:16 AM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
I was referring to prophecies from the Koran/Mohammad's own prophecies that he himself could not fulfill.

that is not the purpose of this thread which is:
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.

The fact that you believe some content from the Bible is relevant does not mean they are. You may believe they are relevant to anybody you choose,

as apparently YOU do

but it is not supported by a proper analysis of all relevant material.

we believe that any material that is not consistent with THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW is faulty and erroneous, therefor not relevant for faith.

The problem is basically that you choose parts that could somehow be made applicable, but reject that which is contrary to your belief system

again, we reject anything not consistent with THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW

- claiming that there is no proof that for instance Jesus said something.

again, there are no contemporaneous records of what Jesus spoke, THEREFORE: we reject anything not consistent with THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW and we defer to the Revelation given to the Rasulullah Mohammad ibn Abdullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam by Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala through the "Holy Spirit" Jibreel/Gabriel, Alaihe Salaam
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

that's a brief basic outline of where we differ in case you were not aware. we do not shy away from it as we are proud of it and Alhumdlillah that Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala has guided us to Islam!

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
02-25-2008, 12:26 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
What happened, happened and we can't change that, so let's just leave it in the past and move forward. :) There is no reason why we can't discuss and reason together without expectations. You will not accept Islam because we say so, just as we will not accept Christianity because you say so, but we can talk about why we believe the way we do. Learn for the sake of learning...nothing more.
I concur with what my wise Sister-in-Faith has said. May Allah reward her!
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-25-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Graceseeker:

It is not your belief we found offensive. You are free to believe whatever you want and to dismiss whatever you want. That has no effect on us whatsoever. What we did find offensive was your very poor and disrespectful analogy of a baseball team and what you said about our Prophet. There were a million ways you could have said why you can't accept Muhammed, pbuh, as a Prophet, without insulting our beliefs and our Prophet, especially considering this is an Islamic forum. It would be nice to use actual facts that support your belief or understanding rather than a created analogy.
Well, as I said, and I am glad you accept, it was not my intent to offend. I see absolutely no value in being offensive to Islam or any religion, and especially not to my friends. I was trying to respond to the "proof" that Yusuf had presented:
so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."
And I thought an analogy might be the best way to show the fallacy in his "proof". It wasn't meant to disrespect Muhammad (pbuh) any more than my words above. And I do regret that I offended so many here.
Reply

YusufNoor
02-26-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, as I said, and I am glad you accept, it was not my intent to offend. I see absolutely no value in being offensive to Islam or any religion, and especially not to my friends. I was trying to respond to the "proof" that Yusuf had presented:

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of Islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

And I thought an analogy might be the best way to show the fallacy in his "proof". It wasn't meant to disrespect Muhammad (pbuh) any more than my words above. And I do regret that I offended so many here.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

actually there's no fallacy in my proof;

1) the Jews have stated their position on the objectives of the Prophets in the Torah & Tanakh, which is:

the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; this covers those that came with new messages as well as those who just called for the return to obedience

2) which is EXACTLY what Islam is!!

3) AND [Islam] is for ALL TIMES!!

4) (all of) which by the way is proof of existence of Islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

PLUS we can add:

5) The Prophet's [Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] Ummah IS prophesied in the Torah [at least twice]!

i don't believe any of those facts are disputable! one might misunderstand or just plain refuse to be believe them...

in Islam worshipping the Prophets such as this:
Jesus is worthy of worship,
is fallacy as well as shirk, no matter how many times that you try to tell us different.


:w:
Reply

Umar001
02-27-2008, 09:16 PM
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
The question would not be about perceptions but about whether Muhammad passes the "test" as far as the specific paragraph is concerned as well as a considerable number of other prophesies re the prophet that will appear. It would be very helpful to learn about. prophecies by Muhammad that he was not personally able to influence.
You seem to accept the Old Testament ( as you use this to substantiate your claim) and you are thus free to quote other verses that further substantiate your claim.:)
If I understand your point correctly, Muhammad if he is the Prophet referred to in Deu 18:18 must fulfill this part:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I want to make note of one thing, which interests me, that if the 'prophet' speaks of a thing which does not come to pass, meaning he has made an error, then he has done wrong, notice though that he is still referred to as a prophet. As for our conversation.

Now the question arrives, are there prophecies by[??] Muhammad that he was not personally able to influence.

I will say yes, more than I know of, I have only seen a handful in my short study, I have heard in lectures of others but have never researched them.

Qatadah provided a link with different prophecies, varying, you commented on the post-

Just re read and I am confused, now, having read your reply am confused. Are you asking for Prophecies which Muhammad made, i.e. him fulfilling the role of making prophecies as indicated in the text above from Deu. Or are you asking, this is what it seems, for other Prophecies from the Old Testament with regards to Muhammad being a prophet?

I will assume you are asking the second, and I will counter with a question, on an assumption you seem to hold:

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
as well as a considerable number of other prophesies re the prophet that will appear.
You assume that other prophecies, if there are any, refer to the same prophet as Deuteronomy 18, what is that assumption based on?

You again state:

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
You see, there are more than one "by the way" reference to the prophet that was to be born. Will gladly provide references in case you are not quite aware.
You see there is a hidden assumption, that all these Prophecies refer to the same Prophet. You will need to provide evidence that they do, tell us what makes you think so, before we can answer possible questions which branch from there, such as, does the Prophet refered to in Deu 18 have to be the same as, for example, Isa 9.

I hope that is clear and understandable, thanks for your patient and look forward to the reply,

Servant of the Almighty,
Eesa
Reply

Umar001
02-27-2008, 09:25 PM
P.s. I do not accept the Old Testament, nor any book from Genesis to Revelations, whether from a Catholic Bible nor Protestant as the word of God.

I accept them as records of men, not inspired as such, which may contain remnants of teachings including prophecies and accurate incidents, biographies, of past Prophets, Messengers and Righteous individuals.
Reply

fromgenesis
02-28-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad.



If I understand your point correctly, Muhammad if he is the Prophet referred to in Deu 18:18 must fulfill this part:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

I want to make note of one thing, which interests me, that if the 'prophet' speaks of a thing which does not come to pass, meaning he has made an error, then he has done wrong, notice though that he is still referred to as a prophet. As for our conversation.It would seem so. Deut refers to prophets from other gods. There is even reference to the false prophet. The only distinction then is that what he says is not spoken on behalf of the True God

Now the question arrives, are there prophecies by[??] Muhammad that he was not personally able to influence.

I will say yes, more than I know of, I have only seen a handful in my short study, I have heard in lectures of others but have never researched them.

Qatadah provided a link with different prophecies, varying, you commented on the post-

Just re read and I am confused, now, having read your reply am confused. Are you asking for Prophecies which Muhammad made, i.e. him fulfilling the role of making prophecies as indicated in the text above from Deu. Or are you asking, this is what it seems, for other Prophecies from the Old Testament with regards to Muhammad being a prophet?
Was referring tp prophecies made by Muhammad

I will assume you are asking the second, and I will counter with a question, on an assumption you seem to hold:



You assume that other prophecies, if there are any, refer to the same prophet as Deuteronomy 18, what is that assumption based on?
It would if you do not rely on individual texts but on the overall picture ( see my explanation later on
You again state:



You see there is a hidden assumption, that all these Prophecies refer to the same Prophet. You will need to provide evidence that they do, tell us what makes you think so, before we can answer possible questions which branch from there, such as, does the Prophet refered to in Deu 18 have to be the same as, for example, Isa 9.

I hope that is clear and understandable, thanks for your patient and look forward to the reply,
Thank you for offering me the opportunity. I trust that the section that follows, will paint you a clearer picture
Servant of the Almighty,
Eesa
To consider who this person is that is referred to, we can consider a topic of much controversy- the trinity.

The words "trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible. The concept was however formed to try and explain what Scripture reveals to us (See very last paragraph).
The Old and New Testaments confirm the principle that God is One, and in this we are in total agreement. There is no other God but the One who created heaven and earth, and has given the Law to Moses.

Jesus (The Son) prophesied
We learn from the Old Testament that One that "has been of old, from everlasting", was to be born in Bethlehem.
Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

We further learn who this Person was to be- so that when He arrives, it will confirm the Scriptures.

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jer 33:15 In those days, (Jer 33:13 In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth(count) them, saith the LORD.)
and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
Zec 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. (See Mar 15:3 And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. )
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus also confirmed that He and the Father is One - a concept that we find difficult to grasp as it is totally out of our normal frame of reference or experience. We can only think very concrete that two cannot be one. Yet Jesus spoke these words which are difficult to understand:

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

References to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament:
(Genesis 1:1-2)Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
(Judges 13:24-25) "The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and The Lord blessed him, and The Spirit of The Lord began to stir him..."
(Psalm 104:30) "When you send Your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth."
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Eze 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
Num 24:2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him.

And in the New Testament:

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Rom 15:19 by the power of signs and wonders, and by the power of God's Spirit, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum.

So you can see that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not creations of Christians, but is evident in the Holy Scriptures, and not taken out of context to make it fit preconceived conclusions.

It is sometimes a problem that we have an idea and look for support in the Scriptures. This will often lead to wrong conclusions. The proper way is to let the Scripture speak and then come to conclusions.

I trust that this will somehow help a little. There are many more that tie up, but space does not allow it.

Please be assured that I am not trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or misrepresent information. If my sole purpose was to win an argument, it will be a futile exercise as it will not change the truth. At best, we can put points across, but the result is not in our hands.

You ask some pertinent questions but I trust that the information supplied will help. I am more than willing to investigate anything that does not seem to tally.

May the Holy Spirit allow you to see the truth.:smile:
Reply

Umar001
02-28-2008, 08:35 PM
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad.

I would like to show my happyness at the opportunity to have a discussion with you. I would also like remind myself and others that we are all from the first man Adaam, peace be upon him, and God willing we all have the same goal in life, to attain the pleasure of the Creator of the Creation. With this we should bear in mind that we also have a common enemy, namely satan.

I would like to focus then on parts, so not as to get lost in conversation.

The Trinity and various beliefs.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It is sometimes a problem that we have an idea and look for support in the Scriptures. This will often lead to wrong conclusions. The proper way is to let the Scripture speak and then come to conclusions.
I agree, the coming up with an idea/belief and finding evidence is so prominent and works so well that we have such a variety of Christians now days. Trinitarians and non.

We need to realise the historical context, I do not think that Scripture, Christian, is as clear as you would like to think. Many verses can be interpreted in various ways, Jehova's Witnesses have a different fundamental belief than others, yet read a similar book.

Historically there were different groups in Early Christianity, some said Jesus was only Divine, he didn't really die, but it was only a fake body. Others said no, Jesus was only human, he had no divine in him. The Orthodox disagreed with the first group and agreed also, and the same with the second, thus Jesus was divine (agreeing with the first group and disagreeing with the second) but was also human (agreeing with the second group but disagreeing with the first). Things became complicated though. Scripture that you have now was written against this background, textual variants amongst the manuscripts have been found, where scribes have tried to edit or change words so as to provide evidence for their theological view.

Now, I do not think it possible that an individual would read the Bible, even the one you have, from cover to cover and think of a trinity. The one verse you cite as explicit, has been edited out of the Bibles by scholars as not true.

Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus

You previously had provided a criterion for prophecies. You said:

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It would be very helpful to learn about. prophecies by Muhammad that he was not personally able to influence.
So Jesus must have not been able to influence the Prophecy.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Now, I do agree that Jesus cannot choose the place where he is born, but what I will debate is whether the sources we have could have edited or played a part in this. What I mean is, could it be possible that the Gospel Authors could have made Jesus fit this prophecy.

I think it is possible, you have show us why it is not possible, and do this for all the prophecies!

I personally do believe that the Authors did try to make Jesus fulfill prophecies.

So I leave you with that as my question/request, evidence.

Prophecies towards Jesus only?

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
The words "trinity" is nowhere found in the Bible. The concept was however formed to try and explain what Scripture reveals to us (See very last paragraph).
...
So you can see that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not creations of Christians, but is evident in the Holy Scriptures, and not taken out of context to make it fit preconceived conclusions.

It is sometimes a problem that we have an idea and look for support in the Scriptures. This will often lead to wrong conclusions. The proper way is to let the Scripture speak and then come to conclusions.

I trust that this will somehow help a little. There are many more that tie up, but space does not allow it.

Please be assured that I am not trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or misrepresent information. If my sole purpose was to win an argument, it will be a futile exercise as it will not change the truth. At best, we can put points across, but the result is not in our hands.

You ask some pertinent questions but I trust that the information supplied will help. I am more than willing to investigate anything that does not seem to tally.
I have yet to see what evidence there is that the prophecies are all of Jesus, I do realise that this might be the common Christian position, but what evidence is there that the authors of the Prophecies were intending them all to be solely for Jesus, just because later authors, maybe such as the Gospel authors, understood them to be only for Jesus does not mean that the original authors of the prophecies which came many years earlier, as some boast, meant them all to be for Jesus.

We need to see evidence for why we should interpret Due 18 to be speaking about the same prophet as Micah 5 etc. (if micah was speaking about a prophet).

I invite you to purify your heart and open your mind, to abstain from preconcieved ideas and resist temptations and search for God, I ask the God of Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad to open our eyes and ears and hearts to his guidance.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-03-2008, 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I should know better than to ask Biblical scholars or to research the writings of the early church fathers for the truth, from now on I'll just ask the followers of an illiterate 7th century Arab who can tell me truth from falsehood without even opening a Bible.
(Putting the sarcasm aside)...but were those "early church leaders" exclusive owners of the Truth. If Muhammad (saaws) was actually a Prophet of Allah, as we Muslims believe, would not what he have recited of the Divine Revelation (Quran) to him be the Truth regarding Jesus (as) even if it was in direct contradiction of what the NT authors and the early church leaders said?
Reply

fromgenesis
05-06-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

The Trinity and various beliefs.



I agree, the coming up with an idea/belief and finding evidence is so prominent and works so well that we have such a variety of Christians now days. Trinitarians and non.

We need to realise the historical context, I do not think that Scripture, Christian, is as clear as you would like to think. Many verses can be interpreted in various ways, Jehova's Witnesses have a different fundamental belief than others, yet read a similar book.
Yes, for this reason, the reliance on the Holy Spirit is so important. We are all human and will make mistakes. There are however a few basic aspects that all true Christians believe - including the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of people. It is quite evident what Satan wants to do - reject the deity of Christ, his sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. Remove that and people still sit in their sin , however good persons they are and believe all else in the Bible. If you reject these few basic aspects, you have a lot of nice (or not so nice) people still in their sin - exactly what Satan wants.
Now, I do not think it possible that an individual would read the Bible, even the one you have, from cover to cover and think of a trinity. The one verse you cite as explicit, has been edited out of the Bibles by scholars as not true.
If one had to rely on one verse only, it would be sad. As mentioned (I think) the concept is a derived concept to put the nature of God in a concept that we try and "pin down". It is however totally outside of our human experience. We will soon enough know and understand.

You see, the concept of a Trinity is not something you have to believe to be saved. It is the best we can do with what is revealed about God.

What is required is to recognise your sin, repent and accept Jesus' sacrifice. But this is not given to all - as predestination and election are concepts that are often not accepted nowadays as it does not seem "politically correct".

You may wish to rather spend time on the message than arguing points. What is the central message of the Quran?
Reply

fromgenesis
05-06-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
(Putting the sarcasm aside)...but were those "early church leaders" exclusive owners of the Truth. If Muhammad (saaws) was actually a Prophet of Allah, as we Muslims believe, would not what he have recited of the Divine Revelation (Quran) to him be the Truth regarding Jesus (as) even if it was in direct contradiction of what the NT authors and the early church leaders said?
As the information is contradictory. either the Bible or the Quran is true - the other is a lie. You cannot marry the two.
Reply

Umar001
05-07-2008, 04:27 PM
Welcome back and hope all is well,

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Yes, for this reason, the reliance on the Holy Spirit is so important. We are all human and will make mistakes. There are however a few basic aspects that all true Christians believe - including the fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sin of people. It is quite evident what Satan wants to do - reject the deity of Christ, his sacrifice on the cross and resurrection. Remove that and people still sit in their sin , however good persons they are and believe all else in the Bible. If you reject these few basic aspects, you have a lot of nice (or not so nice) people still in their sin - exactly what Satan wants.
Well you see, in early Christianity there may have been some who believed that the death of Jesus was not what was important, how do you know that those type of Christians were not the Christians that were following Jesus' true message and that Satan has not decieved you?

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
What is the central message of the Quran?
The regonition of the Lordship of the One God, the Creator, through this recognition and acknowledgement one is then to build a reletionship in servitude and submission with love, fear and hope.

We have still to discuss the prophecies, which was brought up in the previous posts.

I still do think it is possible for Muhammad to have been prophecied in the Old and New Testament.
Reply

fromgenesis
05-08-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Welcome back and hope all is well,
Well you see, in early Christianity there may have been some who believed that the death of Jesus was not what was important, how do you know that those type of Christians were not the Christians that were following Jesus' true message and that Satan has not decieved you?
The death of Christ is a central element of Christianity - something that was recognised and recorded by His followers, His opposition (The Sanhedrin), as well as those totally committed to normal recording of history. If Jesus did not die,and did not rise again, we would all still be with our sin.

From the very beginning, sacrifices were made (animals) - showing that a sacrifice of blood was necessary for forgiveness of sins. This however all pointed towards the complete sacrifice - someone without any sin, who took the penalty for our sin on Him by shedding His blood on the cross. This was also prophesied Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

If Satan could prevent you from accepting Christs' sacrifice, he would have prevented you from receiving Christ's imputed righteousness - which would make you right with God.
By following Jesus only for His sayings and for this life, would be such a pity as it will be useless 1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

How are you going to stand in the presence of a Holy God still with the sin that has not been paid for? To think that God will willy nilly forgive your sins, is a totally false assumption. God is not love only, but also a totally righteous God, that MUST punish sin. This is often forgotten - even by many so-called "Christians" who remarks "My God is a loving God and will not punish sin" A serious lie from Satan, preventing repentance and acknowledging that we cannot make ourselves right with God

We often forget the total abhorrence God has towards sin. We have become so "soft" towards sin, that we do not see it in a serious light- contrary to God's attitude towards it.
The regonition of the Lordship of the One God, the Creator, through this recognition and acknowledgement one is then to build a reletionship in servitude and submission with love, fear and hope
How is this transfered in the Quran? How is love shown in the Quran?
I still do think it is possible for Muhammad to have been prophecied in the Old and New Testament.
If you take a verse here and there, you may even make some of the prophecies fit a lot of people. As mentioned earlier, you reduce the likelihood of that happening by making these all as requirements for one person to meet. I am sure that Muhammad would have mentioned that as well?Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Trust this info will help a bit.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-08-2008, 12:03 PM
:salamext:

The regonition of the Lordship of the One God, the Creator, through this recognition and acknowledgement one is then to build a reletionship in servitude and submission with love, fear and hope.
I think tawheed is more than that.
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 12:18 PM
Originally Posted by Faizah
:salamext:



I think tawheed is more than that.
Wa Alaykum Salam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatu, go ahead sister..correct me please.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
The death of Christ is a central element of Christianity - something that was recognised and recorded by His followers, His opposition (The Sanhedrin), as well as those totally committed to normal recording of history. If Jesus did not die,and did not rise again, we would all still be with our sin.
No, you see, you need to be objective. The death of Christ is not something which is central to all Christian sects, some did not believe that. I don't dispute that some claimed it was, of course, but there were Christians who did not believe that! The question I am asking you, how do you know that this is what Jesus preached!?

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
From the very beginning, sacrifices were made (animals) - showing that a sacrifice of blood was necessary for forgiveness of sins. This however all pointed towards the complete sacrifice - someone without any sin, who took the penalty for our sin on Him by shedding His blood on the cross. This was also prophesied Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
This is your, along side with many others, interpretation and retrospective looking into the scriptures. Even in the old testament, was sacrafise with blood the only way for atonement?

As for Isaiah, I won't go into the different interprettations, because not everyone interprets it like you do or how Christians do, rather the Jews have other interpretations, which also affect translations and understanding.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
How is this transfered in the Quran? How is love shown in the Quran?
An example, take the first chapter:

Allah, the Exalted, said, `I have divided the prayer (Al-Fatihah) into two halves between Myself and My servant, and My servant shall have what he asks for.' If he says,

(All praise and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of existence.)


Allah says, `My servant has praised Me.' When the servant says,


(The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.)


Allah says, `My servant has glorified Me.' When he says,


(The Owner of the Day of Recompense.)


Allah says, `My servant has glorified Me,' or `My servant has related all matters to Me.' When he says,


(You (alone) we worship, and You (alone) we ask for help.)


Allah says, `This is between Me and My servant, and My servant shall acquire what he sought.' When he says,

(Guide us to the straight path. The way of those on whom You have granted Your grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray),


Allah says, `This is for My servant, and My servant shall acquire what he asked for.').


You see, with the guidance of Almighty God from the Qur'an I can build a reletionship, He wants me to meet Him, speak to Him, at least 5 times a day, not for His benefit but for mine, He cares about His servants and so He commands for them what is good.

This and more.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
If you take a verse here and there, you may even make some of the prophecies fit a lot of people.
Well then I guess that's the individual writer's fault for not indicating an accurate enough prophecy.

Also, do we have a reason for taking a verse here and there? I believe we do, for example, the fact that scholars write that the Gospels contain different stages of writings, and to recover the Original words we have to see the stages,

I The words and actions of the Historical Jesus.
II The Oral Traditions
III The writings of the Gospels

Now, it is possible that some of the material from stage I made it through to stage III, maybe just one verse in a whole chapter maybe more, so that is my justification for picking verses here and there.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
As mentioned earlier, you reduce the likelihood of that happening by making these all as requirements for one person to meet.
Unless you can show evidence from the authors of the prophecy that we should use this type of method to put the prophecies together then this is only your opinion. It is like me prophecing something and then a man coming later saying 'You have to understand this prophecy like this' I would ask, how do you know? I understand your logic behind what you are saying but it is not what the original authors wrote, that's the problem!

Regards Eesa.
Reply

fromgenesis
05-08-2008, 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

No, you see, you need to be objective. The death of Christ is not something which is central to all Christian sects, some did not believe that. I don't dispute that some claimed it was, of course, but there were Christians who did not believe that! The question I am asking you, how do you know that this is what Jesus preached!?
It is such a pity as that is the reason Jesus came to earth. I do not dispute that there are really weird sects that claim to be "Christian", but anybody with even a superficial message of the Bible will be able to confirm its central position.
We rely on the Bible as a true source of information. It is amazing that more than 40 authors have one message - and not a confusion of opinions. There are minor differences (see Luk 8: 27, Mark 5:2) but no difference about the central issues.
See :Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
To suggest that all Christians agree on all aspects, will be a lie - but this is fairly straight forward and in agreement with prophecies.
I feel sorry for guys outside of real Christianity that are confronted with such a range of opinions. My opinion would be to stick to the old guys. Read up on the revivals in Wales and you will get to know the power of God that change lives.
This is your, along side with many others, interpretation and retrospective looking into the scriptures. Even in the old testament, was sacrafise with blood the only way for atonement?
As mentioned, the sacrifice never really removed sins, but looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice - Read Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Allah, the Exalted, said, `I have divided the prayer (Al-Fatihah) into two halves between Myself and My servant, and My servant shall have what he asks for.' If he says,
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how does God show his love - by giving us what we want? I must say that there are Christians that share this view. This view is incorrect as it is not about us. Your earlier response about
The regonition of the Lordship of the One God, the Creator, through this recognition and acknowledgement one is then to build a reletionship in servitude and submission with love, fear and hope.
gets some support from the Westminster catechism
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]

In this I think, we agree - it is all about glory to God - now and for ever and not about us.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html
Reply

Umar001
05-08-2008, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It is such a pity as that is the reason Jesus came to earth. I do not dispute that there are really weird sects that claim to be "Christian", but anybody with even a superficial message of the Bible will be able to confirm its central position.
It may be the central position in your bible, but you do realise that different sects had different scriptures? Early sects had their writing which they believed, just like you believe about the bible, came from the apostles.

That's the whole point, just because the version that you follow, which has this Bible, is the version which survived or became more powerful does not mean it is the right version bro!

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
We rely on the Bible as a true source of information. It is amazing that more than 40 authors have one message - and not a confusion of opinions. There are minor differences (see Luk 8: 27, Mark 5:2) but no difference about the central issues.
If, its a big if, if I agree that there are no major contradictions, then why would you think that is? Because those who chose the books which went in would not have chosen contradictory books, that should be obvious.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
See :Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
To suggest that all Christians agree on all aspects, will be a lie - but this is fairly straight forward and in agreement with prophecies.
I feel sorry for guys outside of real Christianity that are confronted with such a range of opinions. My opinion would be to stick to the old guys. Read up on the revivals in Wales and you will get to know the power of God that change lives.
The old guys? Like the Ebonites, Gnostics and the gang?


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
As mentioned, the sacrifice never really removed sins, but looked forward to the ultimate sacrifice - Read Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
This is your interpretation of the Old Testament. I understand that you and some people who claimedto be followers of Jesus claimed this.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Forgive me for my ignorance, but how does God show his love - by giving us what we want? I must say that there are Christians that share this view. This view is incorrect as it is not about us.
Look:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

So God gives somethin that poeple want/need to show his love, God so loved the world that he provided for them salvation, guidance. This is what I was showing, as a sign of love. He guides who He wills, and loves who He wills, you don't think that God listening and answering a prayer could be a sign of love?


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Your earlier response about gets some support from the Westminster catechism
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]

In this I think, we agree - it is all about glory to God - now and for ever and not about us.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/WSC.html
Well in Islam, God rewards us, this is part of the reletionship we have with him, with those who worship him correct and strive their hardest...

And after all God will say, translation of the meaning, to his good servants;



"Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,

And enter you My Paradise!"

Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-08-2008, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Faizah
:salamext:



I think tawheed is more than that.
Ok inshaa'Allaah, let me break it up:

  • Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah


This can be summarised as: Oneness of Allaah in His actions.

That He Alone is:
- Lord and Sovereign of All things, with no partner or associate
- The Controller of the Universe, and the Disposer of all its affairs
- The One who grants provision
- The Giver of life and death

- and also believing in the Will and Decree of Allaah.

Evidence of this can be found in: [1:2], [7:54], [2:29], [51:58]

  • Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah


This is also called tawheed al-'Ibaadah, because this tawheed consists of unifying Allaah in your worship. Worship is a comprehensive term which covers everything that Allaah loves and is pleased with.

Worship can be of the heart, e.g. patience, reliance, even tawheed - which is the highest form of worship. It can be verbal, such as making du'aa (supplication), reciting the Qur'aan, dhikr, seeking help, making vows. Or it can be in the form of actions, such as charity, prayer, fasting, offering sacrifices. To direct any of this worship to other than Allaah is shirk (polytheism).

Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah implies tawheed al-Uloohiyyah. Because if you acknowledge that there is only one creator and sustainor, etc., then you must also acknowledge that there is only One worthy of worship. However, Mankind's fitrah was corrupted, thus this tawheed was the one that was the central and first message that all the Messengers came with. See: [21:25].

  • Tawheed Asmaa wa Siffaat


This is to believe with certainty that all of Allaah's Names and Attributes are beautiful and sublime, to Him are ascribed all attributes of perfection, and that He is above all faults and shortcomings, and that this applies to Him uniquely.

We do not ascribe Names or Attributes to Him, except that which He ascribed Himself with in His Book, and that which is authentically reported in a hadeeth.

This tawheed has more to it, but the basic way that people make shirk in this tawheed is by comparing Allaah to the creation, or comparing the creation to Allaah.

I felt your statement was incomplete, because first of all Ruboobiyyah is more than that, and so is Uloohiyyah.
Reply

fromgenesis
05-08-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
It may be the central position in your bible, but you do realise that different sects had different scriptures? Early sects had their writing which they believed, just like you believe about the bible, came from the apostles.

That's the whole point, just because the version that you follow, which has this Bible, is the version which survived or became more powerful does not mean it is the right version bro!
Translations such as the "King James Version" (which I use) are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament). There have been changes to the Bible by for instance the Jehova's Witnesses - to fall in line with their doctrine - and that can be shown if you go back to the original texts (or as far back as we have it).
The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. No, there is really sufficient evidence - by far more than any other document. As an example, Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars 10- manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph !
If, its a big if, if I agree that there are no major contradictions, then why would you think that is? Because those who chose the books which went in would not have chosen contradictory books, that should be obvious.
The apocrypha was for instance not included for a number of reasons - one of them being the test of propheticity. The books of the Apocrypha also abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors.
The old guys? Like the Ebonites, Gnostics and the gang?
No, I was referring to Christians - JC Ryle, Knox, Spurgeon and those guys.
This is your interpretation of the Old Testament
Nope. Can a bull take away your sin? I do not know how your sin is deemed to be removed - I assume by plain forgiveness - without any guarantee. This is contrary to my hope (and experience, when my sins were forgiven)
He guides who He wills, and loves who He wills, you don't think that God listening and answering a prayer could be a sign of love?
You are 100% correct about God guides who He wills, and this is something that is sometimes ignored in Christianity - the sovereignty of God. Answering prayer to my mind would be sign of love. We should however make sure that we ask according to God's will - and He has revealed that to us.
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Thank you for the discussion.
Reply

Umar001
05-09-2008, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Translations such as the "King James Version" (which I use) are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts -- the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament). There have been changes to the Bible by for instance the Jehova's Witnesses - to fall in line with their doctrine - and that can be shown if you go back to the original texts (or as far back as we have it).
The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. No, there is really sufficient evidence - by far more than any other document. As an example, Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars 10- manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph !
And out of these how many are in the Original Greek? And out of that how many are from the first 1000 years? And out of that how many are from the first 200 years? Erm, hardly any.

Furthermore, some leave out what others put in.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
The apocrypha was for instance not included for a number of reasons - one of them being the test of propheticity. The books of the Apocrypha also abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors.
So you agree then that people chose what went into the Bible. So it is no Miracle, nor amazing (LIKE YOU SAID) that book selected do not, for sake of arguement, contradict! They have no reason to contradict, because the ones that did, were not entered!

P.s. I think you'll find the Canocial books also have errors historical/geographical. And moreover that some Canocial books even use Apocripha.


Originally Posted by fromgenesis
No, I was referring to Christians - JC Ryle, Knox, Spurgeon and those guys.
How close in the timeline were they to the events?

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Nope. Can a bull take away your sin? I do not know how your sin is deemed to be removed - I assume by plain forgiveness - without any guarantee. This is contrary to my hope (and experience, when my sins were forgiven)
It is not yours? Who's interpretation is it? And some do believe that God forgives without needing blood sacrafise, just because you disagree doesn't make you right or them right.

Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Thank you for the discussion.
Likewise.

To sum up, the topic, the stages of the formation of the Gospels are so hard to classify, the sources of the Gospels are hard to derive. Through all that it is possible that speech of Jesus was taken, understood in one way and worked upon until it reached the Gospel writers, who in turn wrote Jesus' speech with the interpretation given to it in the Oral Tradition thus changing the meaning. Thus, it may be that, what some changed due to their understanding of being a prophecy about the Holy Spirit was actually a Prophecy of a man to come.

Eesa.

Originally Posted by Faizah
Ok inshaa'Allaah, let me break it up:
Thank you sister.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-09-2008, 08:01 PM
Well, for the Greek New Testament [printed by the United Bible Societies, third edition, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren] that sits on my desk the answers to your questions are as follows:
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
And out of these how many are in the Original Greek?
4857

And out of that how many are from the first 1000 years?
542

And out of that how many are from the first 200 years?
19

In addition there are the writings of early church fathers who quoted from the NT. Looking to just 28 of the earliest of these 2nd generation Christians, we find that between them they quote all but 30 verses of the New Testament prior to 250 AD, which I believe is within the 200 year limit you set for the writing of the New Testament.

Erm, hardly any.
I guess "hardly any" is a relative term. Personally, I would categorize such evidence as substantial.



That's the whole point, just because the version that you follow, which has this Bible, is the version which survived or became more powerful does not mean it is the right version bro!
ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.
Reply

Umar001
05-09-2008, 11:26 PM
Welcome back!

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Well, for the Greek New Testament [printed by the United Bible Societies, third edition, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren] that sits on my desk the answers to your questions are as follows:
4857

542

19

In addition there are the writings of early church fathers who quoted from the NT. Looking to just 28 of the earliest of these 2nd generation Christians, we find that between them they quote all but 30 verses of the New Testament prior to 250 AD, which I believe is within the 200 year limit you set for the writing of the New Testament.

I guess "hardly any" is a relative term. Personally, I would categorize such evidence as substantial.
Hardly any speaking relative to the number given, i.e. that of 25,000 and of 5,000+.

The Fathers also quote the variants within the scriptures, on top of this, they state that others had their own books and others claimed to have apostolic lines like yourselves.

By the way did you mean 2nd Generation Christians, as in two generations from Jesus? Or you mean 2nd century?



Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.
Grace it is not only based on faith, rather we have to acknowledge the situation of the followers of these men. Now, are you going to tell me that the followers of Jesus and the followers of Muhammad were in the same situations after the death of those great individuals? If not then is it possible that the different situations entailed different outcomes/possabilities.

I don't think anything like what happend with the Bible happend with the Qur'an. They are simply too different to have been treated the same.

Pleasure seeing you post and discussing.

Eesa.
Reply

Grace Seeker
05-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
By the way did you mean 2nd Generation Christians, as in two generations from Jesus? Or you mean 2nd century?
I meant 2nd generation, that is those that produced the copies we have were not of the first generation of the church when the originals were written. Of course, if you take my words literally, only those copied at the beginning of the 2nd century would have been done by the 2nd generation in the church, those making copies at the end of the 2nd century be more likely third or fourth generations within the church.

Example: Irenaeus, who happens to be the first known witness of the canoncity of all four gospels, died in 200 AD. He would literally be third generation as he was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of John who was the disciple of Jesus. But he represents the 2nd generation the same as Polycarp because neither was of the generation that wrote the NT, but they had access to it and were able to make copies from it. When I think of the third generation of the church (not using the term in either a biological or technical sense) I think of those that came into the church following Constantine's conversion. These "grandchildren" of the faith had no direct link back to the first generation.


Pleasure seeing you post and discussing.
I'm really not back to post and discuss. Simple matters of fact (such as I was able to provide on the number of Greek sources) are one thing, getting involved in discussions regarding interpretations and opinions are another. I probably shouldn't have even made the comment about the Qur'an. I was just remembering in my readings how when the Qur'an was first put to paper that copies were made and then checked for authenticity. Those that were deemed incorrect were burned. And the hadith involved finding people people to testify to events in the Prophets life. But the way for checking for authenticity involved what seemed to me a subjective factor as there was no objective source to check against, just memories, opinions, and whether one trusted the character of the witness. In other words, the same things that cause many to doubt the factuality of the New Testament.

So, I wasn't comparing the books, just the means by which people today determine whether they are or are not to be understood as trustworthy.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-10-2008, 12:47 AM
...back to the thread title.

Muslims interpret, through the lenses of their Islamic faith, that several verses in the OT and in the NT prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). These verses are "clear as day" to most Muslims who read them and we are frustrated that Christians can't see what we see.

Christians hold firmly to their interpretation of these same verses that the "Spirit of Truth" is the Holy Spirit personage of God. To interpret the verses any differently would challenge their entire faith structure. This change calls for nothing short of a "paradigm shift".
Reply

fromgenesis
05-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
.So you agree then that people chose what went into the Bible. So it is no Miracle, nor amazing (LIKE YOU SAID) that book selected do not, for sake of arguement, contradict! They have no reason to contradict, because the ones that did, were not entered!
You will agree if that the selection of books hardly eliminate apparent discrepancy/contradiction. To the contrary! There are different canons that different groups accepted -"Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Greek Orthodox Christians agree on the same 27 books for the composition of the New Testament; however some smaller groups of Christians do not. The Nestorian, or Syrian church, recognizes only 22 books, excluding 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

On the other hand, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the same 27 books in its "narrower" canon but adds 8 books to its "broader" canon: "four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Books of Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia.
"http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canon2.stm
MustafaMc: Muslims interpret, through the lenses of their Islamic faith, that several verses in the OT and in the NT prophesy the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). These verses are "clear as day" to most Muslims who read them and we are frustrated that Christians can't see what we see.
It may well be regarded as such by Muslims. You cannot however divorce the verses you refer to from the rest of Scripture. The Bible is one long relation that one part cannot be seen in isolation. It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions. You make up what you choose to accept.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-10-2008, 11:33 AM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions. You make up what you choose to accept.
No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.
Reply

MustafaMc
05-10-2008, 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.
GraceSeeker has put forward a good summary.
Reply

fromgenesis
05-10-2008, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.
No problem that you may accept anything you want as the truth. Whether it actually makes sense in if seen in context, is a totally different matter.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-10-2008, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
ahem! From what I've read about the first 100 years of the copying of the Qur'an, this sort of things also happened with it. You of course see the line that you inherited as the only true line and this justifies the destruction of the other error-ladened copies. But you accept it on faith and the character/integrity of early Muslims and the historical tradition which passed this information on to you that this is indeed the truth as opposed to error. Short of a time machine there really is no way for anyone to know.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

you, know i got excited when i saw you posted and then i saw what you originally posted.

JazakAllah Khayr for editing that bit above, i was going to speak out against it in a very strong voice, and probably say nasty things, but Alhumdulillah, i shan't now...

we can school you on Qur'anic history if you like in another thread, it's really not like you attempt to imply here.


It may well be regarded as such by Muslims.

perhaps you missed my post in regards to the Torah...

You cannot however divorce the verses you refer to from the rest of Scripture. The Bible is one long relation that one part cannot be seen in isolation.

actually, most of the Christians agree that it is not even the word of God, just a bunch of different authors "inspired" by [a part of?] God. so it isn't one long anything...

It is a pity that the same Bible that you refer to to substantiate your claim, is the same Bible that you discredit on other occasions.

well the title of thread is about OTHER scriptures!

You make up what you choose to accept.

a more correct view would be that which is in agreement with Islam, we tend to accept whilst not accepting that which isn't.
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker View Post
All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

actually, the correct answer in these cases should be "Allah knows best!"

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

it DOES work out that way though, doesn't it...

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

again, the "correct" answer should be "Allah knows best!"

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

probably a result of Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, may Allah have Mercy on him. BUT i tend to agree with the tone of Gene's post there, rather than DECLARE certain verses "the True Word of God" as we tend to, i think we should state our opinion on it differently. i'm working on what i would consider proper, if i ever get around to refuting Gene's refutation of Brother Qatada's thread in the Refutations section.
No, it is as GraceSeeker has pointed out earlier. We Muslims reject straight away anything in the Bible that contradicts our "gold standard" of Truth - the Quran - and we accept as possibly being true the recorded words of Jesus, Moses, David or other prophets that are in agreement with the Quran.

i think MustafaMc hit the nail pretty clearly on the head here and we should try to make that clarification in our writings. when we say something DEFINITELY IS we come off sounding as ridiculous as the Christians when they say IT DEFINITELY ISN'T! ALL in my humble opinion, of course...


i don't know why we tend to seek the "original" Greek of ANYTHING! the public voice of the people Jesus was sent to was Aramaic. this is agreed upon by scholars and indicated by quotes in the gospels. it is an indication of change in the least and corruption at the worst that the original words of Jesus have been lost or destroyed.

all that being said, the "Helper" "allegedly" predicted by Jesus/Isa Alayhe Salaam MAY VERY WELL BE our Rasulullah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam! AND the Prophet [prophesied] in Deuteronomy MAY ALSO VERY WELL BE Rasulullah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Salla Allahu Alayhe Wa Salaam! BUT Allah, Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala, knows best!

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
05-11-2008, 12:32 PM
A new brother to LI noted this link: http://myislam.zoomshare.com/files/n...w_in_bible.htm

at

http://www.islamicboard.com/introduc...tml#post939767
Reply

fromgenesis
05-12-2008, 11:48 AM
Originally Posted by YusufNoor
[B]
actually, most of the Christians agree that it is not even the word of God, just a bunch of different authors "inspired" by [a part of?] God.
I think that you are both right and wrong.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, ..
Num 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.
Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Yes, it is true that we believe that the words written by "inspired" men, is the word of God and these words are "God- breathed", as I think it is referred to in the original texts that we have.

If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.
Reply

YusufNoor
05-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
I think that you are both right and wrong.
Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, ..

in this instance, it refers to the words that God spoke there.

Num 22:38 And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.

in this instance, it refers to the words that Balaam spoke.

Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

in this case it refers to words not spoken.

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

this refers to God's words, NOT the words of men.

Yes, it is true that we believe that the words written by "inspired" men, is the word of God and these words are "God- breathed", as I think it is referred to in the original texts that we have.

so for example, in I John 5:7, when we read:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
at least in SOME versions, others omit it because it is not in the early manuscripts. so let me ask, if "these words are "God- breathed" by men "inspired by the holy Spirit", as Christians say, then how could that same spirit or those men so inspired NOT be sure that "there are three that bear record in heaven"???? it appears to be a pretty significant part of the trinity dogma, YET it appears to be an "addition"...

and that's just one example, another fairly important one in Mark 16 would be:

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.
now, Christians believe that this is the 1st of the 4 "accepted Gospels", AND YET, The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.; so this cute little story of people seeing Jesus after his "resurrection," IS ANOTHER ADDITION...


If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.

there MAY VERY WELL be parts of the Old Testament that haven't been corrupted, but we can CLEARLY see that the New Testament has been changed, PROVING it is NOT the Words of God!

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's funny how some people just plain ignore how their scripture "evolved" to follow their pagan culture, YET when the Tanakh, as it exists today, STILL has references to Islam, then they have a problem with it!

don't get me wrong, i still enjoy reading parts of the Tanakh, but as far as what has been changed and what has been added, "Allah knows best!"

:w:
Reply

medlink student
06-14-2008, 04:37 PM
:salam2:

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Zend Avesta

It is mentioned in Zend Avesta Farvardin Yasht chapter 28 verse 129
(Sacred Books of the East, volume 23, Zend Avesta Part II pg. 220):

"Whose name will be the Victorious, Soeshyant and whose name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be Soeshyant (The Beneficent one) because he will benefit the whole bodily world. He will be Astvat-ereta (he who makes the people, bodily creatures rise up) because as a bodily creature and as a living being he will stand against the destruction of the bodily (being) creatures to withstand the drug of the two footed brood, to withstand the evil done by the faithful (idolaters and the like and the errors of the Mazdaynians)".

This Prophecy applies to no other person more perfectly than it does to Muhammad (pbuh):


  • The Prophet was not only victorious at Fatah Makkah but was also merciful when he let go the blood thirsty opponents by saying:

    "There shall be no reproof against you this day".

  • Soeshyant means the ‘praised one’ (refer Haisting’s Encyclopedia), which translated in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).

  • Astvat-ereta is derived from the root word Astu which in Sanskrit as well as in Zend means ‘to praise’. The infinitive Sitaudan in present day Persian means praising. It can also be derived from the Persian root word istadan which would mean ‘one who makes a thing rise up’. Therefore Astvat-ereta means the one who praised, which is the exact translation of the Arabic word 'Ahmed' which is another name for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Prophecy clearly mentions both the names of the Prophet i.e. Muhammad (pbuh) and Ahmed (pbuh).

  • The Prophecy further says that he will benefit the whole bodily world and the Qur’an testifies this in Surah Al-Anbiya chapter 21 verse 107:

    "We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures." [Al-Qur'an 21:107]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sanctity of Prophet’s (PBUH) Companions

In Zend Avesta Zamyad Yasht chapter 16 verse 95 (Sacred Books of the East, volume 23 Zend Avesta Part II pg. 308):

"And there shall his friends come forward, the friends of Astvat-ereta, who are fiend-smitting, well thinking, well-speaking, well-doing, following the good law and whose tongues have never uttered a word of falsehood."

1.Here too Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name as Astvat-ereta.

2.There is also a mention of the Prophet’s friends as companions who will be fighting the evil; pious, holy men having good moral values and always speaking the truth. This is a clear reference to the Sahabas – the prophet's companions.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Dasatir

The sum and substance of the prophecy mentioned in Dasatir is, that when the Zoroastrian people will forsake their religion and will become dissolute, a man will rise in Arabia, whose followers will conquer Persian and subjugate the arrogant Persians. Instead of worshipping fire in their own temples, they will turn their faces in prayer towards Kaaba of Abraham (pbuh) which will be cleared of all idols. They (the followers of the Arabian Prophet), will be a mercy unto the world. They will become masters of Persia, Madain, Tus, Balkh, the sacred places of the Zoroastrians and the neighbouring territories. Their Prophet will be an eloquent man telling miraculous things.

This Prophecy relates to no other person but to Muhammad (pbuh)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad (PBUH) will be the Last Prophet

It is mentioned in Bundahish chapter 30 verses 6 to 27 that Soeshyant will be the last Prophet implying that Muhammad (pbuh) will be the last Prophet. The Qur’an testifies this in Surah Ahzab.


"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." [Al-Qur'an 33:40]
:w: :p

http://muslim-voices.com/ProphetMuha...rReligion.aspx
Reply

aamirsaab
08-24-2008, 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
....If you read the Bible with some attention, you will see that it is not disjointed remarks , but that it all fits together. Even the Old and New testament hold together.
1) So how comes Jesus' status is only considered God-like in only the books of John and not the other 60 or so books...
2) Are we including the parts where Jacob got God in a gridlock?

Clearly, the OT and NT do not hold together.
Reply

Grace Seeker
08-24-2008, 02:00 PM
The only thing that is clear to me is that what is clear to one is not clear to another.
Reply

Muslim Woman
08-25-2008, 04:20 AM
Salaam/peace;

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The only thing that is clear to me is that what is clear to one is not clear to another.
:bump:

yap , that's why one's faith is offensive/ blasphemous to others .
Reply

ASeeker
10-04-2008, 09:05 PM
it is a matter of Jewish law that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth by virtue of his marriage to Mary, his wife. That Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus is clear from the text of the Christian scriptures and this fact contributes to the mystery of the nature of Jesus Christ. This mystery is itself an element in the doctrine of the Trinity was arose directly from the plain understanding of the Christian texts. The claim by some Muslims that the doctrine was imposed on the text is an historical falsehood.

To assert that the Spirit of Truth or the Holy Spirit is Muhammed is nothing less than blasphemy and I am surprised that Muslims would engage in such behaviour. When Jesus tells his disciples that HE will send another Comforter or Counsellor to be with them forever, the word "another`in Koine Greek is allos - it means another of the same kind. The Spirit of Truth or the Comforter will be the SAME as Jesus. The Comforter will be the Spirit of Jesus. Muhammed was nothing like Jesus of Nazareth and, as far as I know, the first prophet of Islam is buried in Medina. The Spirit of Truth or Holy Spirit will be with the followers of Jesus forever.

Read Hebrew 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 4:3 in the New Testament of the Bible and you will see that the Holy Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of Christ.

Muslims should not distort the meaning of scriptures which they did not write by imposing false meanings onto the text which the writers did not intend. Almost all of the Bible was written by Jews and Jewish Christians and none of it was written by Muslims.
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
10-05-2008, 12:22 AM
But here is the thing, Jesus (Peace be upon him) said that only if he "goes will the comforter come", the Holy Spirit was already on Earth long before the time of Jesus (Peace be upon him). The comforter was supposed to speak what he hears, that is what Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) did.

The Comforter speaks what he hears, meaning he speaks what he hears from God.

Also, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is the final prophet, the first prophet in Islam is Prophet Adam (Peace be upon him)
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-05-2008, 01:02 AM
And of course Islam teaches that Muhammad was indeed just like another Jesus, both of them being prophets of Allah and nothing more. But then, also of cour, Christians don't accept that teaching as being true of Jesus.
Reply

fromgenesis
10-05-2008, 09:56 AM
Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
But here is the thing, Jesus (Peace be upon him) said that only if he "goes will the comforter come", the Holy Spirit was already on Earth long before the time of Jesus (Peace be upon him)
Who is the Holy Spirit, in your understanding, if you claim he was already present?

If you accept the text, I am sure you will agree that we must not only take the parts we want to prove our point , but properly interpret the text and text surrounding it that has relevance?
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I am sorry A_Way_Of_Life, it cannot refer to Muhammad. One receives the Holy Spirit, in my experience, when I repented of all my sins and asked God for forgiveness, understanding and accepting that Jesus has paid for my sins. I do not have to do anything, as a matter of fact I cannot do anything to deserve this forgiveness. I stand in awe that God sees fit to forgive my sins and has accepted me as His child. I can only respond with gratitude.
There are many that try and deserve being a child of God. This, I think is really a total overestimation of our good deeds, God's holiness and the real nature of sin (apart from the fact that the Bible teaches us that our good deeds cannot earn our salvation)
Reply

A_Way_Of_Life
10-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Who is the Holy Spirit, in your understanding, if you claim he was already present?

If you accept the text, I am sure you will agree that we must not only take the parts we want to prove our point , but properly interpret the text and text surrounding it that has relevance?
I am sorry A_Way_Of_Life, it cannot refer to Muhammad. One receives the Holy Spirit, in my experience, when I repented of all my sins and asked God for forgiveness, understanding and accepting that Jesus has paid for my sins. I do not have to do anything, as a matter of fact I cannot do anything to deserve this forgiveness. I stand in awe that God sees fit to forgive my sins and has accepted me as His child. I can only respond with gratitude.
There are many that try and deserve being a child of God. This, I think is really a total overestimation of our good deeds, God's holiness and the real nature of sin (apart from the fact that the Bible teaches us that our good deeds cannot earn our salvation)
The holy spirit in Islam is the Angel Gabriel (Peace be upon him)

The comforter that is prophesied in the Gospel of John can only be referring to prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)


This link can explain things better than I can.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm

These videos are from a former Christian who reverted to Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIoXsBQ-m-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3v3Y...eature=related

It is believed Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) spoke Aramaic. This clip is from "The passion of the Christ". He prophesies Prophet Ahmad (Peace be upon him); Ahmad (peace be upon him) is another name for Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) prophesies him by name in Aramaic.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-05-2008, 10:12 PM
Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
The holy spirit in Islam is the Angel Gabriel (Peace be upon him)

Perhaps in Islam, but it is not possible to identify the Angel Gabriel with the Holy Spirit in Christianity. See this story:
Luke 1

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
Now shortening the story up a bit to point out why they cannot be one and the same, note the following:

1) God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin [who's] name was Mary.

2) The angel said to her, "Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus."

3) Mary asked the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

4) The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."


Gabriel did not indicate that he would have anything to do with Mary becoming pregnant, but he did indicate the the Holy Spirit would. Thus we are talking about two different entitites.


There are many other reasons, but this should be sufficient to show that at least from a Christian understanding (which is what you need when reading the Christian scriptures) the Holy Spirit and Gabriel are not one and the same, even if they might be portrayed that way in the Qur'an.



Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
The comforter that is prophesied in the Gospel of John can only be referring to prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
This is hardly true.

First, the actual term is parakletos which you have translated Comforter (no criticism of that translation), is Counselor in the Bible I generally use, and translated into various other terms in other Bibles, as there is no precise translation for it in English or any other language I know. Never have I seen any Bible translate it as Muhammad. But I don't read Arabic, maybe it is that there. You tell me:
16 وَسَوْفَ أَطْلُبُ مِنَ الآبِ أَنْ يُعْطِيَكُمْ مُعِيناً آخَرَ يَبْقَى مَعَكُمْ إِلَى الأَبَدِ،

17 وَهُوَ رُوحُ الْحَقِّ، الَّذِي لاَ يَقْدِرُ الْعَالَمُ أَنْ يَتَقَبَّلَهُ لأَنَّهُ لاَ يَرَاهُ وَلاَ يَعْرِفُهُ، وَأَمَّا أَنْتُمْ فَتَعْرِفُونَهُ لأَنَّهُ فِي وَسَطِكُمْ، وَسَيَكُونُ فِي دَاخِلِكُمْ.

Second, Muhammad does not do the things that the Comforter is said to do:
  • to be with you forever
  • he lives with you
  • will be n you


As Jesus was speaking directly to the disciples, and Muhammad was not even yet alive, how could any of these be true of Muhammad?


Later Jesus adds some more information about this Counselor/Comforter/paracletos:
When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26
If we are to identify this Counselor/Comforter/paracletos with Muhammad, then it would mean that Muhammad was not sent by Allah, but by Jesus. It would also mean that Muhammad's job is to testify about Jesus. Yet, that does not seem to be the focus of Muhammad's life and mission, other than to deny those things that the Gospel of John records about Jesus.

So while Muslims love the verse in which Jesus says:
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
John 16:7
They pick out only one small portion of it and say it points to Muhammad and dismiss everything else that Jesus told us was also true with regard to the Counselor. Things such as are included, not just in the above passages, but in Jesus continuation of his comments in this very passage:
John 16

7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
Which of the above mentioned things are true of Muhammad?
  1. Muhammad coud not come unless Jesus went away.
  2. Muhammad convicted the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.
  3. Muhammad would convict the world of sin because men do not believe in Jesus.


It is not enough for Muhammad to do some of these things, they must all be true of him, and all of the ones menitoned above in the other passages as well, if one is to consider that Muhammad is the one being referred to by Jesus when he speaks of the paracletos. If even one of these things is untrue of Muhammad, then he is not the one Jesus was speaking about. Simply put Muhammad does not qualify, for though some of these items might be interpreted to be true of him, the majority definitely are not.

And understand also this phrase "believe in" as John uses it. To "believe in" is not to simply affirm that you believe something about Jesus, but that one actually puts his/her trust in Jesus, that one depends on Jesus. To do so the way that John is speaking of would be for Muhammad to teach that Jesus could be depended on in the same way that Allah can; it would be to make Jesus a partner with Allah, to associate a human being with Allah. Surely Muhammad would never do such a thing. I am surprised Muslims even want to make the application.
Reply

fromgenesis
10-06-2008, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by A_Way_Of_Life
The holy spirit in Islam is the Angel Gabriel (Peace be upon him)

The comforter that is prophesied in the Gospel of John can only be referring to prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)
If you will excuse me, I have always been a bit slow on the uptake. What you are saying is that that Gabriel is Muhammad - if you consider the following:
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
and
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Do not worry too much about what people say - all people are fallible and they do make mistakes. But stick to the Scriptures and see what they really say - do not try and make them fit your preconceived ideas.

The problem is not so much our argument, the problem is our souls - where we will spend eternity - in God's presence or in Hell.
Reply

ASeeker
10-09-2008, 08:17 AM
It is surely important and fair for Islam to take account of the views of Jews and Christians about the interpretation of the scriptures which belong to them. I have never heard of any Jew or any Christian who accepts the assertion that any part of the Bible says anything about Muhammad.
Reply

Hamayun
10-09-2008, 08:27 AM
Originally Posted by ASeeker
It is surely important and fair for Islam to take account of the views of Jews and Christians about the interpretation of the scriptures which belong to them. I have never heard of any Jew or any Christian who accepts the assertion that any part of the Bible says anything about Muhammad.
What Bible are you reading? There are so many different versions of the Bible you could be reading the wrong one :?

Your Bible also forbids you from drinking alcohol and eating pork... but you conveniently ignore that and even serve wine in the church lol.

So ignoring Muhammad(PBUH) in the Bible is a relatively easy task in comparison.

Peace :)
Reply

fromgenesis
10-09-2008, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
What Bible are you reading? There are so many different versions of the Bible you could be reading the wrong one :?

Your Bible also forbids you from drinking alcohol and eating pork... but you conveniently ignore that and even serve wine in the church lol.

So ignoring Muhammad(PBUH) in the Bible is a relatively easy task in comparison.

Peace :)
No answer to the logical problem faced. You are addressing issues irrelevant to the question posed.
Reply

Hamayun
10-09-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
No answer to the logical problem faced. You are addressing issues irrelevant to the question posed.
I don't think you understood my post. I said you seem to have a habit of ignoring evidences in your own Bible.

Here is an Example:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh) IN THE BIBLE
by Dr. Zakir Naik


Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Old Testament:

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".


1.
MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.

However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):


i)
Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]


ii)
Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii)
Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive. (4:157-158)

Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

[Deuteronomy 18:18]


iv)
Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v)
Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv)
Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).

2.
It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."


3.
Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".


4.
prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the old testament:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.


Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the New Testament:

Al-Qur'an Chapter 61 Verse 6:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!' "

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians.


1.
John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

2.
Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

3.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".

"Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the
Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.
Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the
Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures.

Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise
that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the
Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh).


4.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is
come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me".

The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.


Peace :)
Reply

fromgenesis
10-09-2008, 01:57 PM
Hamayun

Please refer to the question that the Holy Spirit (claimed to be Gabriel) is also claimed to be Muhammad. Please address that.

Regards
Reply

Hamayun
10-09-2008, 02:27 PM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Hamayun

Please refer to the question that the Holy Spirit (claimed to be Gabriel) is also claimed to be Muhammad. Please address that.

Regards
I'm just a newbie stating the blatently obvious :beard:

I am sure if it catches their attention then someone knowledgeable will respond...

Peace :)
Reply

ASeeker
10-09-2008, 06:09 PM
Where in the Gospels does Jesus ever say, "This is the end"? (chapter and verse please)

On the cross he was heard to say, "It is finished" or "It is accomplished" as he was about to die, having paid the price of sin. I suppose this could be what is being referred to.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-09-2008, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
Your Bible also forbids you from drinking alcohol and eating pork... but you conveniently ignore that and even serve wine in the church lol.
Where in the Bible (any Bible) does it forbid me, a Gentile, from eating pork?
Reply

جوري
10-09-2008, 11:38 PM
"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." Deuteronomy 14:8


does pork not come from swine?

Sermon on the Mount; "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."


Can't be Judeo/christian only as pleases you and solely christian as pleases you!

cheers
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 12:07 AM
Originally Posted by ASeeker
it is a matter of Jewish law that Joseph was the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth by virtue of his marriage to Mary, his wife. That Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus is clear from the text of the Christian scriptures and this fact contributes to the mystery of the nature of Jesus Christ.
Oh really, it is readily apparent that this in bold is a misstatement because it contradicts Luke 3:23 ...Jesus...being, as was SUPPOSED, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli. What is clear about that?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 12:22 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
I don't think you understood my post. I said you seem to have a habit of ignoring evidences in your own Bible.
The way I see it is more that certain persons who follow a religion that says the Bible cannot be trusted, curiously still desire to turn to it to substantiate the claims they make for one they consider a prophet. But this strong desire also causes them to read the Bible looking for this so strongly that they grasp at straws interpreting erroneously things that speak of other persons as if they spoke of their own prophet.

Here is an Example:

PROPHET MUHAMMAD (pbuh) IN THE BIBLE
by Dr. Zakir Naik


Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the Old Testament:

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".


1.
MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.

Actually, I say this refers to Joshua. That to be from among the brethern could refer to Muhammad because both are children of Abraham does not fit the context of the Exodus, which was Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. To go beyond children of Israel to include Arabs there is no reason to eliminate any person on the earth for ultimately all people in the world are related. No this prophet must be from one of the members of the 12 tribes of Israel. Muhammad fails on that test alone.

2.
It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

I don't see that you said anything of significance in this point. This doesn't point to Muhammad or any particular person. It just talks about what God will do.


3.
Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".

The list is in the millions, probably billions, of people who have been handed books to read and said that they could not because they didn't know how to reead. Isaish does not tell us that this person is any special person, just that on this day, which is a "day of the Lord" (in other words a day of judgement) that this will happen. Well, Muhammad didn't receive the Qur'an in a single day, but over an extended period of time. That Muhammad is unlearned is not sufficient to make him the subject of this passage.



4.
prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the old testament:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Your suggestion that the Hebrew word used in this passage should be translated as Muhammad is a very poor translation. The first to ever suggest it was a Muslim, and I suspect they remain the only one's. Why did no Arab translation prior to Muhammad translate it in this fashion?


Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the New Testament:

1.
John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

2.
Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

3.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".

"Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the
Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.
Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the
Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures.

Again, to translate "pericletos" as "Muhammad" or "Ahmed" is a unique view of Muslims alone, and not to be found among Arabic speakers prior to 700 AD. Further, "pericletos" most certainly does NOT translate as "the one who praises" or "the praised one", so if "Muhammad" does mean that, then "Muhammad" would be a mistranslation of "pericletos".

But even more importantly, I mentioned in the posts above all of the expectations that would be true of the pericletos, Muhammad falls short of completely fulfilling these, therefore even if you reject the Christian understanding of it as the Holy Spirit, it still cannot be Muhammad.


4.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is
come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me".

The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Really? Does Muhammad glorify Christ? I thought that Muhammad only glorified Allah, or are you suggesting that Christ and Allah are one and the same? That doesn't sound like the Muhammad I know.

I am also curious as to why you stopped quoting mid-verse and didn't complete the rest of what Jesus had to say: "14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

Does Muhammad receive from Jesus and show it to Jesus' disciples? I thought it was Gabriel that spoke to Muhammad? Or what is it that Muhammad is receiving from Jesus? In fact, Muhammad received nothing from Jesus, and Muhammad showed nothing to Jesus' disciples because he never met either. But the Spirit was received by the disciples when after his resurrection Jesus met with his disciples, "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:21-22).



NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

Trying to make Muhammad fit these passages is like trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. Muslims can insist that they can make fit, but anyone who just looks at the text itself can see that he just doesn't belong.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 12:27 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." Deuteronomy 14:8


does pork not come from swine?

Sermon on the Mount; "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."


Can't be Judeo/christian only as pleases you and solely christian as pleases you!

cheers
And when this issue was brought up before the Apostles, they had a council to decide this very point. And after hearing all sides the following was the understaning of these very Jewish men:
Acts 15
28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by fromgenesis
Hamayun

Please refer to the question that the Holy Spirit (claimed to be Gabriel) is also claimed to be Muhammad. Please address that.

Regards
You interpret Helper (John 14:16, 26, 16:7) and Spirit of truth (14:17, 16:13) as being the Holy Spirit portion of the Trinity; whereas, we interpret it as Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

Regarding John 16:13 "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears", quote for me a single word in the NT that the Holy Spirit ever spoke to anyone that he first heard from another.

If the Holy Spirit is God, then why would He not speak of His own initiative, but rather what He heard? We know that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) spoke "whatever he hears" as revelation from roh al-qudus or the Holy (al-qudus) Spirit (roh) or the Angel Jibra'el.
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And when this issue was brought up before the Apostles, they had a council to decide this very point. And after hearing all sides the following was the understaning of these very Jewish men:
these apostles were chosen by your God to abrogate his very commencements? I don't understand Why did your God change his mind, why couldn't he take care of it while he was with them instead of relegating such a task after his death, leaving room for so much confusion?

cheers
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
these apostles were chosen by your God to abrogate his very commencements? I don't understand Why did your God change his mind, why couldn't he take care of it while he was with them instead of relegating such a task after his death, leaving room for so much confusion?

cheers
My God was with them. Did you read the text? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit..."

Plus, I don't find any confusion at all. Same rules today as there have always been: Jews don't eat pork as a part of their entry into the Sinai covenant; Gentiles are to keep the Noahide laws which don't include a prohibition on eating pork.
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
My God was with them. Did you read the text? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit..."

Plus, I don't find any confusion at all. Same rules today as there have always been: Jews don't eat pork as a part of their entry into the Sinai covenant; Gentiles are to keep the Noahide laws which don't include a prohibition on eating pork.
how did they know he was your God, when he was a 'spirit'? Did they have a mass delusion?

Ok so let me get the straight, because you are a gentile God has less expectations from you- he exempts you from what he expects of everyone else?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 12:59 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You interpret Helper (John 14:16, 26, 16:7) and Spirit of truth (14:17, 16:13) as being the Holy Spirit portion of the Trinity; whereas, we interpret it as Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

Regarding John 16:13 "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears", quote for me a single word in the NT that the Holy Spirit ever spoke to anyone that he first heard from another.

If the Holy Spirit is God, then why would He not speak of His own initiative, but rather what He heard? We know that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) spoke "whatever he hears" as revelation from roh al-qudus or the Holy (al-qudus) Spirit (roh) or the Angel Jibra'el.
In the same way that Jesus said that the words he spoke were given to him by the Father, so too every word that the Holy Spirit speaks is generated by the Father and proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
how did they know he was your God, when he was a 'spirit'?
Jesus said that he was sending him. As they experienced the Spirit's presence earlier at Pentecost, they realized it was the fulfilling of what the Prophet Joel had spoken and Jesus had promised.

Did they have a mass delusion?
No

Ok so let me get the straight, because you are a gentile God has less expectations from you- he exempts you from what he expects of everyone else?
No, he doesn't have those expectations of you either. It is only the Jews who are tied to the Sinai covenant.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Regarding John 16:13 "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears", quote for me a single word in the NT that the Holy Spirit ever spoke to anyone that he first heard from another.
Actually, I just found one, Acts 13:2" ...the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." However, the Holy Spirit is speaking of His own accord not what he heard.

Note that Acts 13 marks a clear transition from Peter, Stephen, and Phillip to Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark until Acts 16-28 which was exclusively about Paul.
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Jesus said that he was sending him. As they experienced the Spirit's presence earlier at Pentecost, they realized it was the fulfilling of what the Prophet Joel had spoken and Jesus had promised.
What was their clue that it was him? the fact that he abrogated a law where they can practice a form of enjoyed gluttony.. you think God would send himself all the way to a meeting amongst deluded men merely to allow them to eat filth.. it isn't say a matter where he was wishy washy on. it is a known forbidden, all of a sudden he comes down and decides.. sorry mates, I have broken a few commandments what is a few more -- pls go find a wild boar stuff him with apples and eat?

No
so what is a rational explanation for the event?
No, he doesn't have those expectations of you either. It is only the Jews who are tied to the Sinai covenant.
Actually you can't speak to me of what God expects or doesn't expect from Muslims.. This is detailed in verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115 of the Qur'an. An exemplary verse is quoted here: "He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
so just for Christians he seemed to make an allowance, given how much he knows they love their lard, pickled pork feet, ham, and bacon... :hmm: interesting indeed.

cheers
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 01:13 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Actually, I just found one, Acts 13:2" ...the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." However, the Holy Spirit is speaking of His own accord not what he heard.
Why do you say that the Holy Spirit is speaking of his own accord?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
so just for Christians he seemed to make an allowance, given how much he knows they love their lard, pickled pork feet, ham, and bacon... :hmm: interesting indeed.

cheers
How could you forget the fried pork rinds and the southern USA delicacy known as chitterlings?

Wikipedia:
Chittlins are the intestines and rectum of a pig that have been prepared as food.

Sounds yummy, huh?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 01:25 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
What was their clue that it was him?
They knew him because he lives with them.

you think God would send himself all the way to a meeting amongst deluded men merely to allow them to eat filth
What is or isn't filth is determined by God. Thus if God says that something is clean it is clean. He even gave Peter a vision to this very effect:

Acts 10

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

.. it isn't say a matter where he was wishy washy on. it is a known forbidden, all of a sudden he comes down and decides.. sorry mates, I have broken a few commandments what is a few more -- pls go find a wild boar stuff him with apples and eat?
But to whom did God give this commandment? You yourself have said that the prophets such as Moses were sent only to the Jews. So, those commandments were not for non-Jews. I also don't try to figure out a reason for everything that God says and does. God says no sex outside of marriage. I don't have to understand the reason for that, I just obey it.


The rational explanation is that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of speaking to whoever God so desires to speak to, and that God not human beings determine what God's will is.


Actually you can't speak to me of what God expects or doesn't expect from Muslims.. This is detailed in verses 2:173, 5:3, 6:145, and 16:115 of the Qur'an. An exemplary verse is quoted here: "He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and any (food) over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
I'm not trying to tell anyone what Allah expects of Muslims. I'm just answering from the perspective of this particular Christian the questions you have asked me of what God has asked of humanity.


so just for Christians he seemed to make an allowance, given how much he knows they love their lard, pickled pork feet, ham, and bacon... :hmm: interesting indeed.

cheers
Again, no. I do not think that God made this as an exception just for Christians. This is no different than what God has always expected of non-Jews from the time of the covenant he made with the Jews through Moses at Sinai. Now, you may assert that God has now changed this and asked it of others besides Jews, but that would then not be Christians saying that God changed his mind, but Islam saying that God changed his mind.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
How could you forget the fried pork rinds and the southern USA delicacy known as chitterlings?

Wikipedia:
Chittlins are the intestines and rectum of a pig that have been prepared as food.

Sounds yummy, huh?
Not to me. It's one thing to say that they may be allowed. Another thing to say that anyone should be so foolish as to eat them. Same goes for liver, onions, and sauerkraut in my book too.
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
How could you forget the fried pork rinds and the southern USA delicacy known as chitterlings?

Wikipedia:
Chittlins are the intestines and rectum of a pig that have been prepared as food.

Sounds yummy, huh?
;D ah man.. well hey if God came down in spirit to make such an allowance to some authoritative sounding men, how can we compete with that with regular ole logic?..
Leave your reason at the door when interpreting Christianity :hmm:

I think for some and after all this nonsense it comes down to -- 'I don't like change, and I do this for a living'

:w:
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 01:31 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Why do you say that the Holy Spirit is speaking of his own accord?
The verse that I quoted was clearly written in first person. Note a distinction with the Qur'an with 308 verses containing Arabic "Qul" interpreted as "Say" which is not spoken in first person rather what the person speaking (Muhammad) heard from another telling him what to say.

For example:

Qur'an 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah the One and Only; Allah is the Self-Sufficient (independent of all, while all are dependent on Him); He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none comparable to Him.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 01:42 AM
Right, the Holy Spirit is speaking in the first person. The Holy Spirit is asking the disciples to set apart some of their number for his specific purposes. This doesn't mean that the Father isn't the one who generated the instruction which was spoken by the Holy Spirit. Remember from a Christian perspective whether it is the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or the Father we are talking about the very same being. So, what the Holy Spirit says here is a request from God, and all things in God are generated in the bosom of the Father, even if the action might be carried out by either the Son or the Spirit.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-10-2008, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Right, the Holy Spirit is speaking in the first person.
There is no indication that he is speaking what he heard
So, what the Holy Spirit says here is a request from God, and all things in God are generated in the bosom of the Father, even if the action might be carried out by either the Son or the Spirit.
...but "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears" means that the one speaking is distinct and separate from the One that he is hearing from else he would not need to hear it because he would know it already and speak of his own accord.
Reply

Keltoi
10-10-2008, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
There is no indication that he is speaking what he heard...but "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears" means that the one speaking is distinct and separate from the One that he is hearing from else he would not need to hear it because he would know it already and speak of his own accord.
It must be understood what the role of the Holy Spirit is. It is an indwelling of Spirit. That indwelling of Spirit guides people into righteousness. Therefore, if someone speaks truth and righteousness, that truth and righteousness is of the Holy Spirit. If someone is speaking falsehoods or evil, it is not of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit only reflects the Word of God. Any deviation from the Word of God cannot then be of the Holy Spirit.
Reply

doorster
10-10-2008, 04:15 AM
I like liver fried with onions, not in to cabbages much so I'm with you on sauerkraut its definitely off my menu

oh and I cant, for the life of me, think of a reason to try finding validation for my Faith from Hindu, Buddhist or Christian books
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 04:27 AM
^^Exactly. (What Keltoi said.)

I guess I just don't see the problem. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own; that he speaks only what he hears. So, I accept that this is true. That doesn't mean that I have to hear some other voice speaking to the Holy Spirit for it to be true. But it does mean that, whatever it is that we hear coming from hin, the Holy Spirit is not the independent originator of the things that he says. As I said already, it means that anything we hear coming from the Holy Spirit we know is coming from God the Father. We have Jesus' word on that.

Jesus spoke similarly of what he himself said, "For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it." (John 12:49) That doesn't mean that if you followed Jesus around you would actually hear God the Father speak to Jesus before Jesus spoke. Just that he doesn't claim his words to be his own original thoughts, but rather to have originated in the Father.

I know you are cognizant of the idea that God can and does speak to individuals in the midst of prayer, even silent prayer. If that is so with human beings, I don't see how it is that you can say that there is "no indication that he is speaking what he heard". That Holy Spirit is speaking is itself the indication that he is speaking to us that which is being generated by the Father and making it known to us, for otherwise he would not have anything to say.
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 04:33 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I guess I just don't see the problem. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own; that he speaks only what he hears.
ahahahahhaa. This is the biggest farce-- forgive me, can you keep a straight face with half of the stuff you write?.. but why is God so confused? who is the holy spirit 'God' hearing from? and how can you classify all this nonsense under monotheism?
Reply

fromgenesis
10-10-2008, 05:06 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
I'm just a newbie stating the blatently obvious :beard:

I am sure if it catches their attention then someone knowledgeable will respond...

Peace :)
Hi Hamayun. Being a newbie on the forum has little to do with your spiritual life, I am sure.

The blatantly obvious has not been explained as, according to your statements, Holy Spirit=Gabriel, Comforter = Muhammad, BUT Comforter= Holy Spirit THUS Muhammad= Gabriel.

It will also be difficult to be filled with Gabriel:
Eph 5:18 And stop getting drunk with wine, in which is reckless behavior, _but_ continue being filled with [the] Spirit,

It is also difficult to understand how Muhammad is with us forever - we know he died.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Further to this, Muhammad died and could thus not be with us for ever.
And even further, the apostles were addressed - and they were to receive the Comforter. Muhammad was born close to 600 years after Christ.

Now it is logical to still hold to your argument? I would really doubt it.

:sunny:
Reply

جوري
10-10-2008, 05:20 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
They knew him because he lives with them.
How so?

What is or isn't filth is determined by God. Thus if God says that something is clean it is clean. He even gave Peter a vision to this very effect:
Indeed, except, he has already prohibited it-- who had or didn't have a vision is inconsequential.. men shouldn't disobey divine commands by vision, considering a little drunkenness will give any man a vision!

But to whom did God give this commandment? You yourself have said that the prophets such as Moses were sent only to the Jews. So, those commandments were not for non-Jews. I also don't try to figure out a reason for everything that God says and does. God says no sex outside of marriage. I don't have to understand the reason for that, I just obey it.
God's commandments are given to his righteous servants, I have no quarrels with you claiming that they are not applicable for non-jews, but why hang on to the Judeo/christian bull when they don't recognize you and you are not willing to abide by the commandments in their book? seems like Christianity is monolithic in that regard..well actually among other things!
The rational explanation is that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of speaking to whoever God so desires to speak to, and that God not human beings determine what God's will is.
who is the holy spirit? how does he relate to our God Jesus and God the father, and how do you reconcile all three under monotheism? they seem to have very different personalities. One God who is meek, the other God is mute and the last God doesn't care about what the other two do, so he forsakes one, relegates rather odd jobs to the other!

I'm not trying to tell anyone what Allah expects of Muslims. I'm just answering from the perspective of this particular Christian the questions you have asked me of what God has asked of humanity.
God couldn't possibly put this sort of burden on humanity and expect them to abide. He seems distant, upstage, and confused at best!


Again, no. I do not think that God made this as an exception just for Christians. This is no different than what God has always expected of non-Jews from the time of the covenant he made with the Jews through Moses at Sinai. Now, you may assert that God has now changed this and asked it of others besides Jews, but that would then not be Christians saying that God changed his mind, but Islam saying that God changed his mind.
A Jew is man itaba3 alhouda.. it means those who follow guidance, I don't know what you feign of what a Jew is. When God passes a law it is eternal, it isn't a joke.. Christianity has made a joke of God, and that is really condemnable!

cheers
Reply

fromgenesis
10-10-2008, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
You interpret Helper (John 14:16, 26, 16:7) and Spirit of truth (14:17, 16:13) as being the Holy Spirit portion of the Trinity; whereas, we interpret it as Prophet Muhammad (saaws).

Regarding John 16:13 "He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears", quote for me a single word in the NT that the Holy Spirit ever spoke to anyone that he first heard from another.

If the Holy Spirit is God, then why would He not speak of His own initiative, but rather what He heard? We know that Prophet Muhammad (saaws) spoke "whatever he hears" as revelation from roh al-qudus or the Holy (al-qudus) Spirit (roh) or the Angel Jibra'el.
Hi MustafaMc

In my previous posts I only tried to indicate that if seen in context of the Bible, your interpretation seems to be flawed in respect of Muhammad being the Comforter /Holy spirit (I am slightly confused as it was previously stated that the Holy spirit = Gabriel.)

There are sufficient Scripture references to come to the conclusion that your interpretation is incorrect. The following will help:
Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost (Muhammad?) returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit (Muhammad) to them that ask him?
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost (Muhammad?).
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost (Muhammad?), and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth(Muhammad taught them?), but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.(Muhammad sais Jesus is God?)

Trust this will help somewhat.:sunny:
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 06:16 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
How so?
You already know I see these issues differently, but you're entitled to your opinion, no need to continue going around the same points repeatedly. So, I'll just address your above quesiton:


Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
What was their clue that it was him?
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
They knew him because he lives with them.
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
How so?
The Christian understanding is that God is not just some transcendent being who lives wholly apart from us, but that in Jesus of Nazareth he became incarnate and walked among us, and then in the Holy Spirit God actually becomes immament living within the individual. There are a number of scriptures that speak to different aspects of this, among them:
Acts 1:8 "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you"
Acts 4:31 "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit"
Acts 15:8 "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them"
Romans 2:29 "circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
Romans 8:11 (said in a context in which the condition describes is assumed to be true) "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you..."
Galatians 4:6 "God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, 'Abba, Father'."
1 Corinthians 3:16 "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?"
Ephesians 2:22 "And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."


So, because this is something that was true of the disciples, they knew the Spirit and would recognize his voice in the same way a baby caribou recognizes his mother's call in a herd of a thousand competing voices.


And because this connection with God is more intimate than that which Moses had, God actually does make a new covenant with those who know him this way:
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."
(Hebrews 10:15-16)
And so it is not difficult at all for a Christian to accept that the Holy Spirit might have directed the apostles in their council. We still seek that same direction today, not just from the Bible, but directly from the Holy Spirit.
Reply

mkh4JC
10-10-2008, 07:14 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker








The Christian understanding is that God is not just some transcendent being who lives wholly apart from us, but that in Jesus of Nazareth he became incarnate and walked among us, and then in the Holy Spirit God actually becomes immament living within the individual.
Just of note, this is why Christians have power over their lifestyle, because almighty God lives within them and through them, granting them the power to live out their lives victoriously, no matter what kind of past they may have.
Reply

north_malaysian
10-10-2008, 07:51 AM
Originally Posted by Fedos
Just of note, this is why Christians have power over their lifestyle, because almighty God lives within them and through them, granting them the power to live out their lives victoriously, no matter what kind of past they may have.
Erm... if God lives within them...does it mean that in Christianity, God lives inside the body?
Reply

mkh4JC
10-10-2008, 07:57 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Erm... if God lives within them...does it mean that in Christianity, God lives inside the body?
Man is composed of spirit, soul, and body. All of us are born spiritually dead. When you become Christian you become spiritually alive. God resides in a person's spirit.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 07:58 AM
Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Erm... if God lives within them...does it mean that in Christianity, God lives inside the body?

Well, remember too that God is Spirit, not taking up physical space. But if you've ever held people in your heart and mind, then I'm sure you can relate to this concept as well.
Reply

Hamayun
10-10-2008, 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by Fedos
Just of note, this is why Christians have power over their lifestyle, because almighty God lives within them and through them, granting them the power to live out their lives victoriously, no matter what kind of past they may have.
Then shouldn't you guys quit the things forbidden in the Bible and start following it properly the way it was intended? And I am not referring to the revised versions that are modified to suit someones own private agenda...
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-10-2008, 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
Then shouldn't you guys quit the things forbidden in the Bible and start following it properly the way it was intended? And I am not referring to the revised versions that are modified to suit someones own private agenda...
I believe that on the whole we do, or at least most try to, though there is always room for improvement.
Reply

fromgenesis
10-10-2008, 08:54 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
Then shouldn't you guys quit the things forbidden in the Bible and start following it properly the way it was intended? And I am not referring to the revised versions that are modified to suit someones own private agenda...
It may be good to read Galatians. Christians are no longer under the law, but under grace. This means we do not have to do things to earn salvation, but that Christ had died for our sins and we live in His freedom. Not freedom to sin, but to live according to the spirit - with its own fruit.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
This issue still divides many people. That is why the letter to the Galatians were written - to show us that the law does not bring salvation.
Reply

north_malaysian
10-10-2008, 09:05 AM
Originally Posted by Fedos
Man is composed of spirit, soul, and body. All of us are born spiritually dead. When you become Christian you become spiritually alive. God resides in a person's spirit.
I am further confused with your explanation....what are the differences between "spirit" and "soul"
Reply

north_malaysian
10-10-2008, 09:07 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But if you've ever held people in your heart and mind

Yes... not only people but God too...

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
then I'm sure you can relate to this concept as well.
So, in your opinion does this concept exist in Islam too?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 11:51 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 11:38 AM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 10:53 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 11:47 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-03-2006, 09:06 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!