The Concept of God

[Scimitar]

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE OWNER OF THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT

The Concept of God

For most of us, we presuppose a premise that God is above any need or want - and hold fast to this idea as a firm base for belief.

However, we as a species are diverse and have many languages. And with prejudice, we often build up barriers which stop us from learning about each others true theology.

We may find we have more in common than not.

One of the main factors I see prop up on forums is the idea that if a God is of a different name - it is a different God. If the theology is different, then yes - it's a different god that is worshipped.

But in most cases I have found that people of the world, even parts where Islam may never have reached, have had held onto the idea that God is 1 and is above need and want - is the creator of all. And this alludes to the possibility of prophets who may have visited these people in an ancient past undocumented.

As wondrous as this is, we find ourselves arguing and debating idiots with agendas on forums without giving eachother much of a chance to actually share something amazing which can make us all really take a step back in wonderment and appreciate God in all His magnificence as much as we humanly can.

yes, we still find the odd person who will say "Your God is different to my god because the names are different".

I don't believe it matters, as long as we are referring to the same God - the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Everything - we should aim to call him by the best of names.

It's quite fascinating to learn that even the jungle cultures of this world have remarkable similarities to the Monotheistic concept of God, and how the concept relates directly to the rendering of the spoken name of God.

THE ZULU CONCEPT

In South Africa, the Zulus, a very virile and militant people - a nation akin to the Qureish of pre- Islamic Arabia - have given a name to God Almighty - uMVELINQANGI. This word when properly articulated in its own dialect, sounds identical to the Arabic words Walla-hu-gani, meaning - "And Allah is Rich" (Bounteous). It also sounds like "Allegany" of the Red Indians of North America (Remember their ALLEGANY mountain). The origin or real meaning of the word "Allegany," is not commonly known to the American people. But ask any Zulu as to who or what this uMvelinqangi is and he will surely explain to you in Zulu:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

Believe me, this is almost a word for word translation of Sura Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of the Holy Qur'an.




SAY: HE IS ALLAH THE ONE AND ONLY;

ALLAH, THE ETERNAL ABSOLUTE;

HE BEGETTETH NOT, NOR IS HE BEGOTTEN:

AND THERE IS NONE LIKE UNTO HIM. - Holy Qur'an 112:1-4

Now, compare the above verses with my free translation of what the Zulu actually said:

"Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Every African tribe, South of the Zambesi River, that is, in Southern Africa, have given different names to the Almighty - Tixo, Modimo, uNkulunkulu, etc., and each and every African language group will take pains to explain the same pure and holy concept as the Zulu. It is to the glory of the African nations that though they had no written languages, and hence no written records, therefore not being able to recount the names of their respective prophets, yet not a single one of the tribes ever stooped down to worshipping idols or images of either of men or animals, until the White man first introduced his religion and gave the African his anthropomorphic concept of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and brought the African down to bowing before the statues of Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, St. Christopher and so on.

Out of the dozens of African tribes inhabiting this part of the world, not a single one of them ever made "umfanegisos"(images) of their God. Yet they were capable of carving out of wood, elephants and lions, and reproducing men and women also, in clay. Besides, the Zulus also had some knowledge of metallurgy. When questioned an old Zulu as to the reason, why the Africans did not make umfanegisos of their Gods, he replied, "How could we make images of Him (God Almighty) when we know that He is not like a man, He is not like a monkey, or an elephant or a snake: He is not like anything we can think of or imagine. He is a pure and Holy Spirit."

LIKE THE ARABS

This term, uMVELINQANGI, though well known to the Zulus, was not commonly used. Again they were like the pagan Qureish of Pre-Islamic Arabia who knew the name Allah, but passed Him by, because they felt that He was too High, too Pure, too Holy to be approached, so they went for their substitutary and imaginary gods - their Al- Lats, AI-Uzzas and Al-Manats and a hundred besides. The Zulus too would not call upon uMvelinqangi directly, but he was better than the Arab of the Ayyam-ul-jahiliyya (days of ignorance), because he did not go after false gods; he only invoked the spirits of his ancestors to intercede with uMvelinqangi on his behalf, exactly as the Catholics do in invoking the Virgin Mary and the Saints.

The more common term used by the Zulus for their God is uNKULUNKULU which literally means - the Greatest of the Great or the Mightiest of the Mighty (Almighty). More colloquially when taking oath, they would exclaim "iNkosi phe-Zulu" meaning - the Lord Above (knows), or the God in Heaven (knows), or Heaven knows, that I am speaking the truth. The word "zulu" in the language of the Zulu literally means High Heaven, and they consider themselves to be superior to the numerous other tribes of Southern Africa, being in this respect like the Querish among the dwellers of the desert before Islam.

CONCEPT FROM THE EAST

The Hindi word for God Almighty is PRAMATMA. In Sanskrit, the language of ancient India, "Atma" meant the soul, and"Pram-atma" meant the Great and Holy Soul, or the Holy Spirit, which is really a beautiful description of the "Father" in Heaven. The Bible says, "God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Not in form, shape or size, but in SPIRIT.

Despite his pantheistic* interpretation of the Divinity, the name the Hindu gives the Supreme Being, in his classical language, is OM (Aum), which means Guardian or Protector. A very suitable attribute about which the Muslim can have no misgivings.

* "Pantheism:" a doctrine in which people believe that God is everything, and everything is God. The Muslim puts the right emphasis when he says - "EVERYTHING IS GOD'S!" Do you realise the stupendous difference this apostrophe 's makes to the concept of God?

CONCEPT FROM THE WEST FROM THE WEST

The Anglo/Saxon and the Teuton in their own and other allied European languages call their object of worship "GOD" or words of similar sound and import, i.e.

God in English;
Got in Afrikaans (the language of the descendants of the Dutch from Holland in South Africa);
Gott in German; and
Gudd in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian languages.

The ancient Phoenicians called their God - ALLON - (not far from Allah if we could only hear it articulated), and the Canaanites - ADO. The Israelites not only shared the word EL with the original people of Palestine, but borrowed the name of their chief deity - ADO and turned it into ADONAI, and everywhere the four-letter word YHWH occured in their Holy Scriptures, they read "Adonai" instead of "Yahuwa." You will not fail to notice the resemblance between the Jewish Adonai and the heathen Adonis. ADONIS was a "beautiful godling loved by Venus" in the Greek pantheon.

THE LATIN CONCEPT

In the Latin-dominated languages of Western Europe, where Latin had remained dominant in learning and diplomacy for centuries, the chief term used for God is DEUS:

Deus in Portuguese;
Dieu in French;
Dio in Italian;
Dies in Spanish;
Dia in Scotch and Irish; and
Duw in Welsh.

Surprisingly in all the languages above, Deus and all the similar sounding words mean heaven.

Moulana Vidyarthi, in his monumental work - "Muhammad in World Scriptures," devotes a hundred pages to the names of God in the different languages. And out of a list of 155 attributive names, over 40 of them use the word "Heaven" or the "Above," in their language in describing God. Though the Muslim chants the Asma-ul-husna (the most beautiful names), 99 as derived from the Holy Qur'an with the crowning name, ALLAH; "Heaven" is not one of those ninety-nine attributes. Symbolically, heaven may be described as the abode of God, and in the words of Wordsworth in Tintern Abbey:

WHOSE DWELLING IS THE LIGHT OF SETTING SUNS, AND THE ROUND OCEAN AND THE LIVING AIR, AND IN THE BLUE SKY, AND IN THE MIND OF MAN: A MOTION AND A SPIRIT THAT IMPELS ALL THINKING THINGS, ALL OBJECTS OF ALL THOUGHTS, AND ROLLS THROUGH ALL THINGS.


CONCEPT FROM BEYOND THE FAR EAST

Among all the 155 tantalising names of God in the various tongues, the one that tickled me most was - "A-T-N-A-T-U!"

WHAT IS SO FUNNY OR SO NOVEL ABOUT ATNATU?

The aborgine of South Australia calls his God "Atnatu" because some philosopher, poet or prophet had programmed him, that the Father in Heaven is absolutely free from all needs; He is independant; He needs no food nor drink. This quality, in his primitive, un-inhibited language, he conversely named ATNATU, which literally meant "the One without an anus - the One without any flaw" - i.e. the One from Whom no impurity flows or emanates. When I started sharing this novel idea with Hindu, Muslim and Christian friends, without exception, their immediate reaction was one of mirth, they giggled and laughed. Most of them not realising that the joke was on them. The boot was on the other foot. Though the word "anus" is a very small word, only four letters in English, most people have not heard it. One is forced to use the colloquial substitute which I hesitate to reproduce here, nor will I use the same in public meetings because of people's hypersensitivity - because in the words of Abdullah Yusuf All, people "HAD PERVERTED THEIR LANGUAGE ONCE BEAUTIFUL, INTO JARGONS OF EMPTY ELEGANCE AND UNMEANING FUTILITY."

Therefore to ease the situation, in a round-about-way let us say that where you have an "input," you must allow for an "output." The one who eats, must have the call of nature - the toilet or the bush - and our primitive friend smelt the need, which he could never attribute to his Creator. Therefore, he called his God - ATNATU! 'The one without the excretory system or its tail end.

GOD EATS NOT!

This novel concept of God by primitive man, is not really altogether novel. God Almighty conveys the same truth to mankind, as in His Last and Final Revelation - The Holy Qur'an - but in a language so noble, so sublime, as befitting its Author. But because of its very finesse, and refined manner of expression we have overlooked the Message. We are commanded to say to all those who wish to wean us from the worship of the One True God -

SAY: "SHALL I TAKE FOR MY PROTECTOR ANY BUT ALLAH
THE ORIGINATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH?

WHEN IT IS HE WHO FEEDS BUT HAS NO NEED TO BE FED." - Qur'an, Surah An'am 6:14

In other words, we are made to declare that - "WE WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE AS OUR LORD AND PROTECTOR, OTHER THAN ALLAH (Lit. - The One God), WHO IS THE WONDERFUL ORIGINATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.".

__________

What you shouldn't do is attempt to claim you worship a different God based on the name you are knowing HIM by.

What you may be surprised to find is that theologically, people actually have a lot more in common and Islam has the truth of the fruit to prove it. Just re-read this post if you do not believe me.

God bless,

Scimi

[Scimitar]

WHO IS JEHOVAH?

Astonishing as it may sound, it is an admitted fact that prior to the sixteenth century, the word "Jehovah," was unheard of. Whenever the origin of this word appeared in its true Hebrew form in Jewish Scriptures (read from right to left as in Arabic) Yet, Huh, Wav, Huh; or Y.H.W.H. these four letters were preceded by a substitute word "Adonai," to warn the reader that the following word was not to be articulated. The Jews took meticulous care in repeating this exercise in their "Book of God" six thousand, eight hundred and twenty-three times - interpolating the words "Adonai" or "Elohim." They sincerely believed that this awesome name of God was never to be pronounced. This prohibition was no ordinary affair: it called for a penalty of death on one who dared to utter it, and this taboo has been more successful than all the "DO's" and "DON'T's" of the Ten Commandments put together.

If Jehovah is the name of God Almighty, and if the 27 Books of the New Testament were inspired by Him, then it is an anomaly of the highest order, that He (Jehovah) signally failed to have His Own Name recorded in "His Word" (N.T.) the Christian addition to the Jewish Bible. The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand so-called "originals" of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has "Jehovah" written in it. Curiously this "name of God" (?) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky'ri.os and the.os', which mean 'Lord' and 'God.' Yet, miracle of miracles - Alleluya! - no devil or saint has been able to eliminate the word "ALLAH" from the so-called New Testament of the Christians.

NEW FANGLED DOCTRINES

A hundred years ago, all of a sudden, more than a hundred new cults and denominations of Christiandom mushroomed in the United States of America. The Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Menonites, the Christiadelphins, The Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The founder of the last named cult, a Judge Rutherford, about whom the orthodox Christians say that he was no "Judge." This Judge was a voracious book-worm and a prolific writer. He stumbled across the word "Jehovah" which tickled him immensely, and he made a religion out of it.

Judge Rutherford, followed by Charles T. Russell created a new "church," which in its system of organisation and administration is second to none in the world. There is very much we Muslims can learn from their enthusiasm and methodology. Read, "Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave" by Schelin. It is not their theology I am enamoured with but their modus operandi (the way they operate). Read, how this incorrigible sect came very close to conquering Germany before Hitler. Read, about their second come- back in West Germany. Think, why they are making a most concerted effort in Nigeria. Will the system or religion that prevails in Nigeria, be utlimately the norm of the rest of Africa! This giant is the hero of the majority of the African people south of the Sahara. Muslims must reflect.

VIRILE SECT

The "Jehovah's Witnesses," have made the most phenominal progress of all the religious sects of the past hundred years, on a percentage basis. The Bahaies are moving at a snails-pace in comparison, actually receding in ratio with the other Christian off-shoots. These "Witnesses" are the fittest in their fight against the other Christians as well as against the Muslims. Simply because they programme themselves five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls," and what they learn they implement during the week-ends. We Muslims are supposed to be "programmed" five times a day in our daily Salaat, but we have lost the true purpose of this Pillar of Islam. Our Salaat is for earning Sawaab (spiritual blessings) only.

They have made the word JEHOVAH famous. They knock at people's doors, asking the question - "What is His Name?" The orthodox Christian replies - "God." They say, "God is not a name, it is an object of worship. What's His Name?" "Father," says the orthodox as a second try. "Is your father God?" Of course not! So what is His Name? "JEHOVAH! is His Name," says the "Witness" to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. He has become a professor of this one word. He has made it into a religion.

THE "TETRAGRAMMATON"

Why not for a change ask him, a question or two. Ask him where he got the word Jehovah from? He will surely reply - "From the Holy Bible." What does it say? Does it spell out the word J-e-h-o-v-a-h? "No," he will reply. "There is a 'tetragrammaton' in the Bible from which the word Jehovah is derived." What is a tetragrammaton? No one seems to have heard this highly mystical term. In the University of Illinois in the U.S.A. I asked a gathering of students and lecturers whether any one had heard this jaw-breaker! Not one of them knew its meaning! But every Jehovah's Witness seems to know, even the commonest of them. They have really specialised - ours is a world of specialisation. They are Professors of the one word - Jehovah.

What then is a "tetragrammaton!" The Jehovah's Witness replies, "Y H W Hi!"
"No!" "What I want to know from you is, what does the word tetragrammaton mean?" You will find him most reluctant in explaining. Either he does not really know, or he is feeling embarrassed in replying. "Tetra," in Greek means FOUR, and "grammaton," means LETTERS. It simply means "a four letter word."

Can you read into Y H W H the word Jehovah? I cannot. "No!", says the Jehovah's Witness, "we ought to add vowels to these four consonents to produce the sound. Originally, both Hebrew and Arabic were written without the vowel signs The native of each language was able to read if even without those vowels. Not so the outsider, for whose benefit the vowels were invented.

THE "J" SICKNESS

Let us add the vowels as the "Witness" suggests. YHWH becomes YeHoWaH. Juggle as you like but you can never materialise Jehovah! Ask him, from which hat he drew his "J". He will tell you that "this is the 'popular' pronunciation from the 16th century." The exact sound of the four letters YHWH is known neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, yet he is ramming JEHOVAH down everyones throats. The European Christians have developed a fondness (sickness) for the letter "J" They add J's where there are no Jays. Look!

Yael he converts to Joel
Yehuda to Juda
Yeheshua to Joshua
Yusuf to Joseph
Yunus to Jonah
Yesus to Jesus
Yehowa to Jehovah

There is no end to the Westerner's infatuation for the letter "J." Now in the busy streets of South Africa, he charges people who carelessly cross them for "jay-walking," but nobody charges him for converting Jewish (Yehudi) names into Gentile names.

The letters Y H W H occur in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6 823 times, boasts the Jehovah's Witness, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;" 156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in the English Bible as "Lord God," "Lord God," Lord God," ad infinitum.

COMMON ORIGIN

What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.

Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.

HEBREW ARABIC ENGLISH
Elah Ilah god
Ikhud Ahud one
Yaum Yaum day
Shaloam Salaam peace
Yahuwa Ya Huwa oh he

YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.

THE MIND BLOW

As we know, Arabic and Hebrew Aramaic are sister languages.

Consider that of the 99 names of Allah the Muslims were given, one is Al Hayy (The ever living)

And the Ayaat - "wa huwa ala kulli shay'in kadeer" - And He is the ONE with Mights (power/able to do all things)

Wa huwa / Ya hovah - mean the same thing. "He is". The great I AM is expounded upon in more detail in the Qur'an - when we learn the context it fits, the verse completes with "the One with Might (Power/able to do all things)"

Amazing isn't it?

Scimi

[Scimitar]

ALLAH IN THE BIBLE

The suffix "IM" of the word "ELOHIM" is a plural of respect in Hebrew.

(Remember that in Arabic and Hebrew there are two types of plurals. One of numbers and the other of honour (the Royal Plural) as in Royal proclamations. Since the plural of honour is uncommon in the language of the European, he has confused these plurals to connote a plurality in the "godhead," hence his justification for his Doctrine of the Holy Trinity - the Father, Son and Holy Ghost).

Hence ELOHIM = ELOH + IM. Now I want you to perform an exercise. Do you see the words: YA-HUWA ELOH-IM? Place your left hand index finger on the first two letters "YA" meaning oh! and the other index finger on the "IM" a plural of respect. What you now have remaining in Huwa Eloh or Huwa Elah.

El in Hebrew means god, and Elah or Eloh also stands for the same name - god. Therefore, "Huwa el Elah" or HUWA 'L LAH, which is identical to the Quranic expression - Huwal Lah (meaning: HE IS ALLAH) of the verse QUL HUWAL LAH HU AHUD

QUL - SAY:

HUWAL LAH - HE IS ALLAH

HU AHAD - HE IS ONE (the one and only) (Qur'an 112:1)

(Mind Blowing Stuff)

The above exercise proves that El, Elah and Elohim are not three distinctly different words. They all represent the single Arabic word Allah. This is not my wishful thinking. Please see below. It is a photostatic reproduction of a page from the English Bible, edited by Rev. C. I. Scofield,D.D., with his Bible Commentary· This Doctor of Divinity is well respected among the Bible Scholars of the Christian world. He is backed in his "NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION" of this translation by a galaxy of eight other D.D.'s:

Rev. Henry G. Weston, D.D., LL.D., President Crozer Theological jeminary.
Rev. W. G. Moorehead, D.D., President Xenia (U.I,) Theological Seminary.
Rev. lames M. Gray, D.D., President Moody Bible Institute.
Rev. Elmore Harris, D.D., President Toronto Bible Institute.
Rev. William !. Erdman, D.D., Author "The Gospel of John," etc.
Rev. Arthur T. Pierson, D.D., Author, Editor, Teacher, etc.
Rev. William L. Pettingill, D.D., Author, Editor, Teacher.
Arno C. Gaebelein, Author "Harmoney of Prophetic Word," etc.

I have not listed the above luminaries to awe you. They have been unanimous in supporting Rev. Scofield in his "New and Improved" commentary.

Please note that in their comment No. 1 below left, they concur that - "Elohim, (sometimes El or Elah meaning God)" and alternatively spelled "Alah" (line three, third word). All the eight D.D.'s above could not have been blind in dittoing the spelling "Alah" for God. How far were they from the Arabic word spelled - ALLAH - in English, I ask you dear reader? This is Allah's handiwork, but the Devil (I must give him a capital "D," he deserves it) was not slow in making a quick come-back through his agents. You will find these references in the recent reproduction of "The New Scofield Reference Bible." You will not be able to lay your hands anymore on the Bible with "Alah" in it. The Devil has seen to that.

QUICK ABROGATION

"Now You See It" - "Now You Don't" is an old, old gimmick in the West. Compare the above and see how cleverly, how deftly the new band of missionaries expunged the word "Alah" from the "Authorised King James Version" of the Scofield translation of the Bible.

__________

Hebrew Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages, so it comes as no surprise that when Moses (pbuh) was in Exile, he married Jethroes daughter - Jethroe was an Arab - and Moses was able to communicate with the Arabs simply because their languages shared the same roots - they were Semitic.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

For those who may be finding this difficult to follow, I will attempt to explain in sha Allah.

The idea being that the promise of God to Abraham that He will make Abrahams seeds mutiply and prosper, was truthfully witnessed in biblical timelines - Moses, descended from Isaac, and Jethroes daughter, descended from Ishmael.

Furthermore, as we discovered earlier in this thread, the Jews have traditionally staved off calling God by His glorious names, and refer to Him rather inconspicuously, this has led to many confusions within Christianity and even led to a few modern day sects which have no idea what they blabber on about, such as the Jehovas Witnesses.

The penny drops though, when we are shown real evidence regarding the words YHWH and Eloh-im, and understand they are parts of an incomplete statement - or - declaration of faith, "YHWH-ELOH-IM" - "Oh HE -(is)- GOD(Royal Plural)"

YHWH-ELohim (hebrew) / Yahuwa'llah (Arabic) / Lo - He is God (English)

Mind blown yet?

It is US, the MUSLIMS, who have this truth. While they keep guessing at its meaning and approach the name of God with no understanding.

Allahu Akbar.

Scimi

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

[Scimitar]

Hallelujah - ye say? but know not, what it means...

Al Hayyu'l Qayyum: Yahweh / YHWH

Allahu laa ilaha Illahuwa'l Hayyu'l Qayyum!!! The Greatest Named Attribute of God is this, according to authentic Muslim sources.
____________ ___ _____________

Scimi, sometimes you hurt my brain with all the information you get into...your lengthy posts are ones to go back to and digest a little bit at a time. Especially in the mornings. Which reminds me I haven't prayed in a few days....

Oh haha sorry sister TU.

Imagine having to find this info yourself and then understand it, then post it so others can follow it - makes my brain hurt too hehe.

But it's sooo worth it - we get to know "things" which are deeply buried secrets. Things that help us to see reality more clearly. To understand the past, to be able to measure it with a yardstick that can compensate for the things we did not know before... this to me is fascinating and makes me feel closer to God because in the process of comparative studies I find that God has placed all the clues there for us to follow.... problem is, not many follow on. Hardly anyone is interested in comparative religion or comparatvie history, as both of these sound boring - nothing could be further from the truth.

They are amazing subjects.

Scimi

What an amazing article.Such interesting information.Zulu girl up in here!!

I'm pleased you liked it

Shangdi or Shang-ti (Chinese: 上帝; pinyin: Shàngdì), also written simply as Di or Ti (Chinese: 帝; pinyin: Dì; "Emperor"), is a supreme god and sky deity in China's traditional religions. At a point he was identified as Tian, "Heaven", the "Universe", the "Great All".

The earliest references to Shang Di are found in oracle bone inscriptions of the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC.

God bless you all,

Scimi

[greenhill]

Muslims too will suffer the same fate?


:peace:

[Scimitar]

Muslims too will suffer the same fate?


:peace:

I doubt it - we have not made the same mistakes the ancients did.

We have a preserved Qur'an, and even the Ahadeeth have been commented on by non Muslim scholars with comments such as "The stringent methodology by which the early Muslims collated the sayings of their prophet, is an example by which we can authenticate any known word attributed to another, but only if we take a leaf out of their (the Muslims) book."

or to that effect.

We have the sign and the seal.

We will not suffer as they did - but we will be tested at each step. If we take that step, we are safe for Allah tells us, take a step towards me, I come running to you.

If anything, I'd say we are helping to recorrect the mistakes of the ancients.

Scimi

[noraina]

Great stuff ma'sha'Allah - you have just hugely helped me with my revision for exams :D JazakAllah khayr

[Scimitar]

I did? :D

I had no idea I did.

What exam? please do elaborate - you know I have no education? I was a failure in everything, so what you wrote has really touched me deeply. If anything I, an uneducated person can teach someone who is educating themselves and sitting exams - I feel like Allah has blessed me with an atom of a drop of knowledge.

I just hope what I share is good, because all the good comes from Allah and only the mistakes are mine.

Scimi

[noraina]

I did?

I had no idea I did.

What exam? please do elaborate - you know I have no education? I was a failure in everything, so what you wrote has really touched me deeply. If anything I, an uneducated person can teach someone who is educating themselves and sitting exams - I feel like Allah has blessed me with an atom of a drop of knowledge.

I just hope what I share is good, because all the good comes from Allah and only the mistakes are mine.

Scimi

Alhamdulillah, it was a very beneficial post and may we all learn and benefit from it.

I am in my final year of A-levels, one of the subjects I am studying is Islam and within that the concept of God both in Islam and also other religions. This suited the specification nicely and will be a huge help, alhamdulillah.

I wouldn't say you were a failure or uneducated. Academic education is very important in some respects, but in all honesty sitting at a desk for fifteen years of your life and gaining some slips of paper to declare that at the end make a very small part of being 'educated' or 'literate'. Academic success doesn't necessarily mean you are well educated or particularly knowledgeable. When I speak to someone, it is not their qualifications which call out to me, but their character and manners. And this form of education you don't learn at an institution, you learn it from life and its vast experiences. And those who learn from life are amongst the most educated people I've met, and they may not have a single academic qualification to their name.

In that respect I am uneducated, very much a student of life probably in grade 1 :D.

[Scimitar]

I've spent years chasing questions which bugged me. Purchasing books, learning various methods of study, and the ologiies which come with it. My main study was Surah Al Kahf, ayahs 83-99 - I wanted to get to the bottom of the mystery of Gog Magog and Dhul Qarnayn... I now have no questions left with that study as the answers I have come to understand through diligent research and beseeching Allah to open my understanding - have paid off.

I have what I feel are secrets which none but those I share with, know.

I learnt to ask better questions and received better answers, and today, no info on the story of dhul qarnayn and yajuj majuj hold any weight except for that which is in the Qur'an.

I've not done the conventional study either, in my search for the identity of Dhul Qarnayn, I looked to the ancient historians such as Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Pseudo Methodius, Cyropaedia of Xenophon - and of course my favourite - Herodotus (people most Muslims have never even heard of)... and it was here between Josephus, Xenophon and Herodotus that I found the real identity of Dhul Qarnayn, and that - after the investigation into Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other bible books were all expended in my research.

I was thus able to identify with satisfaction wh Dhul Qarnany really was in history, and further, where he travelled to, the scope of his journey, the matching of his travels to those of the Qur'an and the location of the barrier he built out of Iron and what I identify as "lava" from a nearby volcano. And thus, I was also able to identify who was termed as Ya'juj and Ma'juj in the Qur'an.

This info I sent to scholars such as Shaikh Imran Nazar Hosein, who didn't entertain the proofs I gave to him as it would most likely mean he would have to revise three books he has written.

We stand on the shoulders of giants when we step out into research. It's a journey like no other, I sleep and I dream of times past, I walk with ancients and listen to them as they impart words of wisdom, I witness the sweeping arc of their arms as they attempt to relay ideas unknown to their people, and I follow on from those sympathetic revelations which I find in the very research I have committed ten years to (possibly more).

Maybe I should write a book... maybe I should keep quiet. The info I have is world changing.

Scimi

EDIT: sorry I got lost in that rant - What I wanted to relay was this: everything posted in this thread is part and parcel of me searching for dhul qarnayn and yajuj majuj... these are parts of the offshoots I learnt during my investigations. And so, this thread :)

Scimi

[BeTheChange]

Asalamualykum,

This looks like a very interesting thread Alhamdulilah.

I've never used the subscribed option but today i have :D.

Insha Allah i shall return when i have more time.

Jazahka Allah - May Allah swt open the doors of knowledge for us all Ameen.

[Scimitar]

I'm truly honoured to have this thread your first subbed one :)

It has truly made my day even more enjoyable.

I love sharing knowledge, and having it shared back to me in return.

Often I do not reply straight away because I love to mull over what I read, let it digest and form new thought, before I respond. But that's just me... My mouth can get me into trouble if I don't exercise caution. hehe.

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Sister BeTheChange - you may also like these :

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...mmad-pbuh.html

and

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...d-muslims.html

Scimi

[BeTheChange]

Asalmaualykum,

This subscription button works like a treat Alhamdulilah.

Jazahka Allah for the recommendations - insha Allah i'll have a read soon.

Maybe this is why the first word that prophet Muhammad saw was given was 'Iqra' - Read!

The right knowledge really does change us for the better in more ways than we can count. Alhamdulilah.

In Islam, knowledge comes before action; there can be no action without knowledge, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So know (O Muhammad) that Laa ilaaha ill-Allâh (none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and ask forgiveness for your sin, and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women”[Muhammad 47:19]

Allaah warns every Muslim against speaking without knowledge, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “And follow not (O man, i.e., say not, or do not, or witness not) that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allâh)”[al-Israa’ 17:36]

https://islamqa.info/en/10471

May Allah swt continue to bless you & us with intellect Ameen.

[Scimitar]

MashaAllah dear sister, wonderful ayaat.

Brother Najimuddin... I don't know, the thought is quite overwhelming. But if I die, this knowledge goes with me. Allahu Alam. I should start, you are correct.

Scimi

[noraina]

Knowledge is one of those treasures which becomes priceless when shared with others, if it is kept to oneself then it doesn't achieve the heights it can in our lives.

SubhanAllah, I think there is a hadith which says that the Prophet's (pbut) do not leave behind material wealth, they leave knowledge - which is the inheritance of the Prophets (pbut).

So I think you should definitely write a book, this thread is really interesting ma'sha'Allah as well as the fact this is the result of your own research - I'll be waiting for it :D.

[Scimitar]

It's not all my own research - only parts of it... Whereas the surah al kahf study is 100% my own (and those who helped me)

Scimi

[Scimitar]

bump

[jubal]

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE OWNER OF THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT

The Concept of God

For most of us, we presuppose a premise that God is above any need or want - and hold fast to this idea as a firm base for belief.

However, we as a species are diverse and have many languages. And with prejudice, we often build up barriers which stop us from learning about each others true theology.

We may find we have more in common than not.

Um, don't the majority of Gods command something from there followers?

That's pretty strong evidence God wants or needs something, after why would you command a action otherwise?

[anatolian]

Realizing the concept of God comes through realizing who created who..Did we create God? Or did God create us?

[greenhill]

@BeTheChange that is why "iqra'" was the first word. Told to a unlettered man .. a message for the world but answering those who question at that times.

The Quran is filled with ayats asking us to ponder, think, consider etc.

The subject is big. The Concept of God .. wow


:peace:

[Scimitar]

Um, don't the majority of Gods command something from there followers?

Hi Jubal - is that with a silent J?

brrrr, anyway, I reject the idea of "majority of gods" simply because the idea of many gods seems ridiculous given the strength of monotheist theology all over the world - as seen in the OP.

That's pretty strong evidence God wants or needs something, after why would you command a action otherwise?

I think you are seeing things from an altogether biased perspective - if you can entertain an idea, entertain this:

God doesn't need or want anything - HE is self sufficient, rather we humans worship HIM for our own benefit.

Scimi

[Pygoscelis]

Informative thread. Thanks for posting it.

[Serinity]

we should sticky this. :D

[Bosanac]

Super fascinating read, I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

I have a question regarding that quote on hadith methodology you mentioned:


We have a preserved Qur'an, and even the Ahadeeth have been commented on by non Muslim scholars with comments such as "The stringent methodology by which the early Muslims collated the sayings of their prophet, is an example by which we can authenticate any known word attributed to another, but only if we take a leaf out of their (the Muslims) book."

Can you provide a source for this please. I feel like this will help me when in similar discussions I have with some atheist/non Muslim friends.

Other source material will greatly be appreciated too, would love to read them.

As this is an older topic and I'm not a regular on this forum, have you written similar posts on Gog and Magog? You mentioned researching them and would enjoy reading what you found.

[Scimitar]

Super fascinating read, I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

JazakAllahu Khairan,

I have a question regarding that quote on hadith methodology you mentioned:


We have a preserved Qur'an, and even the Ahadeeth have been commented on by non Muslim scholars with comments such as "The stringent methodology by which the early Muslims collated the sayings of their prophet, is an example by which we can authenticate any known word attributed to another, but only if we take a leaf out of their (the Muslims) book."

Can you provide a source for this please. I feel like this will help me when in similar discussions I have with some atheist/non Muslim friends.

I couldn't find the exact reference, but this should suffice for now in sha Allah (it's actually really interesting and if you read the link, you will see the Oriental Skeptic's issues with Hadeeth literature, only to have their issues (bias) examined by Fueck and corrected - here you go:

It can be observed that all of the orientalists mentioned so far share a common skeptical attitude towards the hadith literature. At this point, we may refer to a different view in the orientalist literature, namely that of Johann Fueck (1894-1974), who criticizes the skeptical approach of his predecessors, arguing that the Prophet had set an ideal example for Muslims from the beginning. He stresses the uniting, as opposed to dividing, aspects of the hadith literature, focusing on independent and neutral hadith scholars rather than an idea of competing groups fabricating prophetic traditions. According to Fueck, those who see the hadith literature as simply a collection of views of later generations ignore the deep influence of the Prophet on believers. They thus fail to see the originality of the hadith literature, regarding it instead as a ‘mosaic' composed of many foreign elements. Consequently, they accept the hadiths as fabricated until proven otherwise. For Fueck, however, despite the fact that hadith scholars were not completely successful in eliminating fabricated hadiths, the hadith literature contains many authentic traditions. For when the activities of collecting hadith started fifty years after the death of the Prophet, only the younger Companions were still alive and the ulema of hadith narrated only from them. In this context, the fact that there are very few traditions narrated from such companions as Abu Bakr and Omar, who were closer to the Prophet, increases the credibility of the hadith scholars. (For, according to Fueck, if these scholars had been fabricating the hadiths as was claimed, they would have attributed them to older companions who were closer to the Prophet, rather than the younger ones, for this would support the soundness of their [fabricated] hadiths; but the fact that they did not do so proves their trustworthiness.) On the other hand, Fueck argues that the narrative chains of hadiths can ultimately be traced back only to the second century (AH), while there is no sound evidence for the preceding period. Although he admits the idea that the roots of the sunnah can be found in the first century, he claims that some modifications and revisions in the hadiths were made by later generations. Nevertheless, he still differs from earlier orientalists in arguing that in many cases the authentic essence beneath these modifications can be established on the basis of certain criteria.

It is clear that all the orientalists mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Johann Fueck, basically agree with, and expand upon, the views put forward by Goldziher. Nevertheless, Joseph Schacht (1902-1969), who made an impact on his successors similar to that of Goldziher, complained that the findings of the latter had been ignored and consequently the ‘standards lowered'. By ‘lowered standards' he meant, of course, the abandonment of Goldziher's skepticism towards hadiths. He saw his own studies as an extension of Goldziher's work, and started from the basic premise that the hadiths were not traditions that conveyed the Prophet's sayings and practices, but were rather simply a reflection of developments and dominant views in second-century Islamic society. According to Schacht, it was al-Shafi's (150/767-204/820) efforts that allowed the hadiths to become a legitimate source of Islamic law, gaining an ultimately authoritative position vis-à-vis opinion; within 50 years there was a great wave of marfu (hadiths that belonged to the Prophet) narrations. Accordingly, Schacht alleges that the marfu hadiths first emerged in the middle of the second century (AH), and the legitimate hadiths belonging to the Companions (mawkuf traditions) emerged in the early second century. As is apparent from this periodization, he claims that the adoption of the hadiths of the Prophet as a source of law in Islam took place at a later date than that of the traditions of the Companions - that is, the latter were adopted at a time closer to the Prophet himself. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the date he provides for the traditions of the Companions does not reach further back than 100 (AH), which also invites another of his assertions. According to Schacht, it is not possible to find any authentic tradition among those attributed to the Companions either. He argues that authentic legal traditions can only be found among those attributed to the subsequent generation, the generation of Successors (tabiun). Thus, the implications of his allegations are serious. Furthermore, although he admits that the hadiths about theological issues could be dated to an earlier time than the legal traditions, Schaht nevertheless asserts that not all of these hadiths can be dated to the first century. He also maintains that his conclusions about legitimate hadiths can be applied to historical narratives as well. Considering all this, his assertions might be said to have far-reaching implications. Thus, Schacht became a major figure in orientalist literature, greatly influencing the later scholars - so much so that the subsequent generations of orientalists have been divided into either those who accept his claims or those who do not, making him a central figure in the literature.
The orientalists briefly discussed so far are those who represent the mainstream tradition of Islamic studies in the West. The designation of Schacht as a turning point is not only due to his great influence on his successors, but also because he shaped the direction of the discipline by generating a strong reaction against his assertions. The common allegation of his own work and this period in general can be summarized thus: contrary to what Muslims think, there was no intense activity of hadith narration or any systematic scientific effort on the part of Muslim scholars in this area during or after the lifetime of the Prophet. For this reason, the orientalists of this period do not believe in the authenticity of the hadith literature, nor do they ever directly relate it to the Prophet in any way. However, this attitude makes it impossible to say anything about the first century and prevents further research, turning it into a closed period. Those Western scholars who have realized this and tried to make use of the hadiths on the basis of certain criteria they have established, on the other hand, are accused (by Schacht) of "lowering the standards".

Source

Other source material will greatly be appreciated too, would love to read them.

If there is anything in particular, do ask in sha Allah.

You may find this Christian forum attempting to convert me, rather "interesting" :) http://www.vigilantforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2674

As this is an older topic and I'm not a regular on this forum, have you written similar posts on Gog and Magog? You mentioned researching them and would enjoy reading what you found.

Ah,

Well, there a few threads here on the forum but the one I put some interesting info into was this one: https://www.islamicboard.com/-ilm-kn...t=dhul+qarnayn

Enjoy :)

Scimi

[Akeyi]

We may find we have more in common than not.

ı dıdnot understand what you dıd mean explaın plz ıtsc complıcarted then ı wıll foorsetze zu reading

[goodwill]

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE OWNER OF THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT

The Concept of God

For most of us, we presuppose a premise that God is above any need or want - and hold fast to this idea as a firm base for belief.

However, we as a species are diverse and have many languages. And with prejudice, we often build up barriers which stop us from learning about each others true theology.

We may find we have more in common than not.

One of the main factors I see prop up on forums is the idea that if a God is of a different name - it is a different God. If the theology is different, then yes - it's a different god that is worshipped.

But in most cases I have found that people of the world, even parts where Islam may never have reached, have had held onto the idea that God is 1 and is above need and want - is the creator of all. And this alludes to the possibility of prophets who may have visited these people in an ancient past undocumented.

As wondrous as this is, we find ourselves arguing and debating idiots with agendas on forums without giving eachother much of a chance to actually share something amazing which can make us all really take a step back in wonderment and appreciate God in all His magnificence as much as we humanly can.

yes, we still find the odd person who will say "Your God is different to my god because the names are different".

I don't believe it matters, as long as we are referring to the same God - the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Everything - we should aim to call him by the best of names.

It's quite fascinating to learn that even the jungle cultures of this world have remarkable similarities to the Monotheistic concept of God, and how the concept relates directly to the rendering of the spoken name of God.

THE ZULU CONCEPT

In South Africa, the Zulus, a very virile and militant people - a nation akin to the Qureish of pre- Islamic Arabia - have given a name to God Almighty - uMVELINQANGI. This word when properly articulated in its own dialect, sounds identical to the Arabic words Walla-hu-gani, meaning - "And Allah is Rich" (Bounteous). It also sounds like "Allegany" of the Red Indians of North America (Remember their ALLEGANY mountain). The origin or real meaning of the word "Allegany," is not commonly known to the American people. But ask any Zulu as to who or what this uMvelinqangi is and he will surely explain to you in Zulu:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

Believe me, this is almost a word for word translation of Sura Ikhlas, Chapter 112 of the Holy Qur'an.




SAY: HE IS ALLAH THE ONE AND ONLY;

ALLAH, THE ETERNAL ABSOLUTE;

HE BEGETTETH NOT, NOR IS HE BEGOTTEN:

AND THERE IS NONE LIKE UNTO HIM. - Holy Qur'an 112:1-4

Now, compare the above verses with my free translation of what the Zulu actually said:

"Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Every African tribe, South of the Zambesi River, that is, in Southern Africa, have given different names to the Almighty - Tixo, Modimo, uNkulunkulu, etc., and each and every African language group will take pains to explain the same pure and holy concept as the Zulu. It is to the glory of the African nations that though they had no written languages, and hence no written records, therefore not being able to recount the names of their respective prophets, yet not a single one of the tribes ever stooped down to worshipping idols or images of either of men or animals, until the White man first introduced his religion and gave the African his anthropomorphic concept of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and brought the African down to bowing before the statues of Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, St. Christopher and so on.

Out of the dozens of African tribes inhabiting this part of the world, not a single one of them ever made "umfanegisos"(images) of their God. Yet they were capable of carving out of wood, elephants and lions, and reproducing men and women also, in clay. Besides, the Zulus also had some knowledge of metallurgy. When questioned an old Zulu as to the reason, why the Africans did not make umfanegisos of their Gods, he replied, "How could we make images of Him (God Almighty) when we know that He is not like a man, He is not like a monkey, or an elephant or a snake: He is not like anything we can think of or imagine. He is a pure and Holy Spirit."

LIKE THE ARABS

This term, uMVELINQANGI, though well known to the Zulus, was not commonly used. Again they were like the pagan Qureish of Pre-Islamic Arabia who knew the name Allah, but passed Him by, because they felt that He was too High, too Pure, too Holy to be approached, so they went for their substitutary and imaginary gods - their Al- Lats, AI-Uzzas and Al-Manats and a hundred besides. The Zulus too would not call upon uMvelinqangi directly, but he was better than the Arab of the Ayyam-ul-jahiliyya (days of ignorance), because he did not go after false gods; he only invoked the spirits of his ancestors to intercede with uMvelinqangi on his behalf, exactly as the Catholics do in invoking the Virgin Mary and the Saints.

The more common term used by the Zulus for their God is uNKULUNKULU which literally means - the Greatest of the Great or the Mightiest of the Mighty (Almighty). More colloquially when taking oath, they would exclaim "iNkosi phe-Zulu" meaning - the Lord Above (knows), or the God in Heaven (knows), or Heaven knows, that I am speaking the truth. The word "zulu" in the language of the Zulu literally means High Heaven, and they consider themselves to be superior to the numerous other tribes of Southern Africa, being in this respect like the Querish among the dwellers of the desert before Islam.

CONCEPT FROM THE EAST

The Hindi word for God Almighty is PRAMATMA. In Sanskrit, the language of ancient India, "Atma" meant the soul, and"Pram-atma" meant the Great and Holy Soul, or the Holy Spirit, which is really a beautiful description of the "Father" in Heaven. The Bible says, "God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Not in form, shape or size, but in SPIRIT.

Despite his pantheistic* interpretation of the Divinity, the name the Hindu gives the Supreme Being, in his classical language, is OM (Aum), which means Guardian or Protector. A very suitable attribute about which the Muslim can have no misgivings.

* "Pantheism:" a doctrine in which people believe that God is everything, and everything is God. The Muslim puts the right emphasis when he says - "EVERYTHING IS GOD'S!" Do you realise the stupendous difference this apostrophe 's makes to the concept of God?

CONCEPT FROM THE WEST FROM THE WEST

The Anglo/Saxon and the Teuton in their own and other allied European languages call their object of worship "GOD" or words of similar sound and import, i.e.

God in English;
Got in Afrikaans (the language of the descendants of the Dutch from Holland in South Africa);
Gott in German; and
Gudd in Danish, Swedish and Norwegian languages.

The ancient Phoenicians called their God - ALLON - (not far from Allah if we could only hear it articulated), and the Canaanites - ADO. The Israelites not only shared the word EL with the original people of Palestine, but borrowed the name of their chief deity - ADO and turned it into ADONAI, and everywhere the four-letter word YHWH occured in their Holy Scriptures, they read "Adonai" instead of "Yahuwa." You will not fail to notice the resemblance between the Jewish Adonai and the heathen Adonis. ADONIS was a "beautiful godling loved by Venus" in the Greek pantheon.

THE LATIN CONCEPT

In the Latin-dominated languages of Western Europe, where Latin had remained dominant in learning and diplomacy for centuries, the chief term used for God is DEUS:

Deus in Portuguese;
Dieu in French;
Dio in Italian;
Dies in Spanish;
Dia in Scotch and Irish; and
Duw in Welsh.

Surprisingly in all the languages above, Deus and all the similar sounding words mean heaven.

Moulana Vidyarthi, in his monumental work - "Muhammad in World Scriptures," devotes a hundred pages to the names of God in the different languages. And out of a list of 155 attributive names, over 40 of them use the word "Heaven" or the "Above," in their language in describing God. Though the Muslim chants the Asma-ul-husna (the most beautiful names), 99 as derived from the Holy Qur'an with the crowning name, ALLAH; "Heaven" is not one of those ninety-nine attributes. Symbolically, heaven may be described as the abode of God, and in the words of Wordsworth in Tintern Abbey:

WHOSE DWELLING IS THE LIGHT OF SETTING SUNS, AND THE ROUND OCEAN AND THE LIVING AIR, AND IN THE BLUE SKY, AND IN THE MIND OF MAN: A MOTION AND A SPIRIT THAT IMPELS ALL THINKING THINGS, ALL OBJECTS OF ALL THOUGHTS, AND ROLLS THROUGH ALL THINGS.


CONCEPT FROM BEYOND THE FAR EAST

Among all the 155 tantalising names of God in the various tongues, the one that tickled me most was - "A-T-N-A-T-U!"

WHAT IS SO FUNNY OR SO NOVEL ABOUT ATNATU?

The aborgine of South Australia calls his God "Atnatu" because some philosopher, poet or prophet had programmed him, that the Father in Heaven is absolutely free from all needs; He is independant; He needs no food nor drink. This quality, in his primitive, un-inhibited language, he conversely named ATNATU, which literally meant "the One without an anus - the One without any flaw" - i.e. the One from Whom no impurity flows or emanates. When I started sharing this novel idea with Hindu, Muslim and Christian friends, without exception, their immediate reaction was one of mirth, they giggled and laughed. Most of them not realising that the joke was on them. The boot was on the other foot. Though the word "anus" is a very small word, only four letters in English, most people have not heard it. One is forced to use the colloquial substitute which I hesitate to reproduce here, nor will I use the same in public meetings because of people's hypersensitivity - because in the words of Abdullah Yusuf All, people "HAD PERVERTED THEIR LANGUAGE ONCE BEAUTIFUL, INTO JARGONS OF EMPTY ELEGANCE AND UNMEANING FUTILITY."

Therefore to ease the situation, in a round-about-way let us say that where you have an "input," you must allow for an "output." The one who eats, must have the call of nature - the toilet or the bush - and our primitive friend smelt the need, which he could never attribute to his Creator. Therefore, he called his God - ATNATU! 'The one without the excretory system or its tail end.

GOD EATS NOT!

This novel concept of God by primitive man, is not really altogether novel. God Almighty conveys the same truth to mankind, as in His Last and Final Revelation - The Holy Qur'an - but in a language so noble, so sublime, as befitting its Author. But because of its very finesse, and refined manner of expression we have overlooked the Message. We are commanded to say to all those who wish to wean us from the worship of the One True God -

SAY: "SHALL I TAKE FOR MY PROTECTOR ANY BUT ALLAH
THE ORIGINATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH?

WHEN IT IS HE WHO FEEDS BUT HAS NO NEED TO BE FED." - Qur'an, Surah An'am 6:14

In other words, we are made to declare that - "WE WILL NOT TAKE ANYONE AS OUR LORD AND PROTECTOR, OTHER THAN ALLAH (Lit. - The One God), WHO IS THE WONDERFUL ORIGINATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.".

__________

What you shouldn't do is attempt to claim you worship a different God based on the name you are knowing HIM by.

What you may be surprised to find is that theologically, people actually have a lot more in common and Islam has the truth of the fruit to prove it. Just re-read this post if you do not believe me.

God bless,

Scimi

When beginning with the name of God, did you really have in mind God as maalik مَالِكِ “owner,” according to the Hafs text of the Quran http://tanzil.net/#1:4 or God as malik مَلِكِ “king” according to the slightly different Warsh text of the Quran https://www.scribd.com/doc/36966315/Warsh-an-Nafi-Tajweed-مصحف-التجويد-برواية-ورش-عن-نافع ?


Your source (Deedat?) or sources were heavy on diatribe. What was with all the rancour toward whites? Perhaps your sources did not know how the ahadith described Muhammad https://sunnah.com/search/?q=this+white+man+reclining and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=white+complexion and https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/130 and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=black+slave


The Zulu gods seem to provide more material for a contrast than a comparison. According to The Religious System of the Amazulu by Henry Callaway (available on Google Books), Umvelinqangi was identical to Unkulunkulu, who was said to be the first man and no longer exists. And according to Wikipedia, the sky god Umvelinqangi had a wife Uthlanga and begot a daughter Mbaba Mwana Wares.


Regarding anthropomorphism, the Bible teaches that mankind has been made in God’s image. Man thus reflects God’s image both individually and communally. The father-son relationship therefore is not an anthropomorphism applied to God but rather an ennobling theomorphism applied to men.


As even the Quran affirms, the New Testament writers were inspired and authoritative. So why would your source call it “sacrilegious” for them to render the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek as “Kyrios”?


The Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered heretical, as I think you pointed out in a previous thread. Christians are not bound by the mistakes of the JW's. But regarding something your source mentioned concerning the Divine name, the New Testament phrase “Alleluia” is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase, “Hallelu Yah” and means, “Praise Yah”—“Yah” being a short form of the Tetragrammaton. The phrase does not derive from Arabic “Allah” as your source insinuated.


Your source also claimed there was a royal plural used in ancient Hebrew. But there is no demonstrable example of a royal plural in the Hebrew Bible. Kings in the Old Testament refer to themselves with a singular pronoun. Historically, the “royal we” came later. In light of the New Testament, it is natural to infer that something plural is in view when the Hebrew Scriptures use the plural word “Elohim” for God and when they record a first-person plural pronoun referring to God.


Accusing Europeans of a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the letter “J” was puerile and unworthy of anyone trying to pass himself off as a serious scholar. The letter “J” began as an elongated form of the letter “I” and accordingly is still pronounced as an English “Y” in various northern European languages. The shift in pronouncing initial “I” or “J” from a “Y” phoneme to a different phoneme, as in modern English, French, or Spanish, was an organic linguistic development. Pronunciation simply can change over time and across people groups. In modern Arabic, for example, the word for Gospel, “Injil,” has an English “J” sound where the original Greek has a hard “G” sound: “Euangelion.” According to A Grammar of Classical Arabic, p. 19, note 4
https://archive.org/stream/AGrammarOfClassicalArabic#page/n31/mode/2up the original pronunciation of the Arabic letter ج “jim” was a hard “G” and not the “J” sound that occurs in most modern Arabic dialects. Would your source, then, accuse most Arabic speakers also of having a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the “J” sound?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Scimitar my friend;

I have a simple belief in; 'The One God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen' so we are all created by the same God, and the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation, so that has to mean, caring for each other despite our differences.

Mankind is too stupid and sinful to do things one way. There is only One Jesus Christ, we know this, but there are thousands of Christian denominations almost in competition with each other, and each one claiming 'truth'. We are now in Christian Unity week, and generally we try and acknowledge each other and work together.

True Christian Unity would almost be like a marriage. A man and a women come together in marriage, and talking from experience, we have huge differences, but somehow, through loving kindness we just try very hard to make this relationship work. We have to do things together, help each other and share. If I tried too hard to make my wife believe as I do, we would probably have separated years ago.

Tonight I shall be praying with, and praying for Christians from four denominations. I would like to extend this to interfaith relationships, when people of all faiths can pray together, and pray for each other. After praying together, it would be a good time to do charitable work in the community together.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

[Scimitar]

Morning goodwill and ericH dear brothers, thank you for responding here. I will reply hopefully later tonight or at some point tomorrow God willing - got a full on day here and will not have much time before 7pm to reply.

Goodwill, you bought up some interesting points which I will discuss with you God willing.

EricH, ecumenalism is much needed in Christianity so I commend your effort for unity within the Christian traditions.

God bless

Scimi

[greenhill]

Asalmaualykum,

. . . . .

Maybe this is why the first word that prophet Muhammad saw was given was 'Iqra' - Read!

. . . . .

I believe it is!

Allah knew the prophet (pbuh) could not read and really had no 'teacher'. So the message was not for him. It was for mankind. Allah will teach our prophet (pbuh) and thus, mankind.

Apart from the learning aspect, we are also supposed to write down any agreements and have a witness (as said in the Quran but I can't remember where). Besides, how can we know the content if we cannot read? The whole thing fits for me.


:peace:

[noraina]

I enjoyed re-reading this, I feel quite in my element in this area of study.

:jz:

[Scimitar]

When beginning with the name of God, did you really have in mind God as maalik مَالِكِ “owner,” according to the Hafs text of the Quran http://tanzil.net/#1:4 or God as malik مَٰلِكِ “king” according to the slightly different Warsh text of the Quran https://quran.com/1/4-14 ?

He is both KING of ALL and OWNER. Why would they be separated? When HE has DOMINION over all. This is Arabic, a language where one word can have many associated meanings, the name Malik or Maalik, are still rooted from the same three letters - Meem, Laam and Kaaf - surely Goodwill - you knew that. Yet you still wrote the above? Strange.

Your source (Deedat?) or sources were heavy on diatribe. What was with all the rancour toward whites? Perhaps your sources did not know how the ahadith described Muhammad https://sunnah.com/search/?q=this+white+man+reclining and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=white+complexion and https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/130 and https://sunnah.com/search/?q=black+slave

You prefer to look at the messenger and not the message? Well, that is a very Christian thing to do, so I cannot really blame you for that, it's in your nature as a Christian to do so.

I fail to see how you claiming racism has anything to do with what I posted? Unless you are referring to the white minority ruled Africa in which Deedat grew up in. Which has nothing to do with me, nor you... lol

Please do explain your bias in more detail.

The Zulu gods seem to provide more material for a contrast than a comparison. According to The Religious System of the Amazulu by Henry Callaway (available on Google Books), Umvelinqangi was identical to Unkulunkulu, who was said to be the first man and no longer exists. And according to Wikipedia, the sky god Umvelinqangi had a wife Uthlanga and begot a daughter Mbaba Mwana Wares.

Wikipedia is your "source" ???? You're being serious aren't you?

Did you read my post? In it's entirety? The Zulu prayer I quoted - I'd love to hear you get a translation of it - just so you can realise how wrong you are, and how wiki can make you look like you don't know an elbow from an ankle.

Look again bro Goodwill, at this:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

and the translation: "Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Does not BEGET, nor is he BEGOTTEN, and there is nothing like him (theo-morphism death) - tell that to wiki-moronipedia.

Also, the Zulu girl I quoted in a later post - agreed with all I wrote when I first shared this on vigilantcitizen forum, so I threw that in this thread for good measure. Why did you ignore her, in lieu of wikipedia bro?

Now go and read Surah Al Ikhlas from the Qur'an and see the similarity in theology between Muslims an Zulus.

Heck - try telling a Zulu about wiki's article and watch the Zulu become offended real quick... which begs the question, are you not offended by your own self for trusting Wikipedia? Serious question. Wiki pages are editable by any idiot with an account.

Regarding anthropomorphism, the Bible teaches that mankind has been made in God’s image. Man thus reflects God’s image both individually and communally. The father-son relationship therefore is not an anthropomorphism applied to God but rather an ennobling theomorphism applied to men.

That's why you believe in an old man with some long beard sitting on a fluffy cloud?

Theo-Morphism lol, you fell for that? Really? the same the Freemasons teach? That we are all "gods" ??? Because - THAT - is where this train of thought you sponsor, will eventually lead you to in argument.

This was explored before, a few years back, on the old vigilantcitizen forum.

As even the Quran affirms, the New Testament writers were inspired and authoritative. So why would your source call it “sacrilegious” for them to render the Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek as “Kyrios”?

I'm really wondering why you have written this? I explained to you, the tetragrammatron - in context from the semitic understanding - I have the feeling you speak only one language fluently and thus, cannot appreciate what I am attempting to tell you.

YHWH / YHVH - Hallelujah... Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum. In case you didn't realise it - that translates to "O' He is Allah, None is worthy of worship save He, the Hayyul Qayyum (The Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists).

That verse also sounds very much like what the true form of the tetragrammatron, and the hallelujah mystery, rolled into one - mind blow supreme... would mean in context, and this verse is actually in the Qur'an and is said by some scholars to be containing the Ismul Azam - the Great name of God. The Ismul Azam of the Hebrew folk is the tetragrammaton, YHVH/YHWH. Don't you see the aligment? and the context?

The only difference being, the Children of Israel, have not dared say the full "great and holy name" out loud for millenia+

But the Muslims - we DO. Why is that a problem? Why would the declaration of HIS great name "Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum - the Ismul Azam which the children of Israel refuse to utter aloud, be a problem for you? because Muslims declare the name openly? I don't understand why you are struggling with it.

Would you disagree that God is the sustainer of all that exists - or are you vying for the "theo-morphic" theology which leads to "we are all gods" ????

Decide bro.

Surely, if you know your schisms and nuances within Christianity and Judaism, you would have to be in agreement with me on this, and not feed your bias - oh seeker of truth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered heretical, as I think you pointed out in a previous thread. Christians are not bound by the mistakes of the JW's. But regarding something your source mentioned concerning the Divine name, the New Testament phrase “Alleluia” is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew phrase, “Hallelu Yah” and means, “Praise Yah”—“Yah” being a short form of the Tetragrammaton. The phrase does not derive from Arabic “Allah” as your source insinuated.

How about the Hebrew - Elah? which is the same as the Arabic, Allah. Both, Arabic, and Hebrew Aramaic, being sister languages, with the same root applications which work for both, due to the dna of both languages having a common ancestry from the Phoenician mothering of those tongues? No?

Your source also claimed there was a royal plural used in ancient Hebrew. But there is no demonstrable example of a royal plural in the Hebrew Bible. Kings in the Old Testament refer to themselves with a singular pronoun. Historically, the “royal we” came later. In light of the New Testament, it is natural to infer that something plural is in view when the Hebrew Scriptures use the plural word “Elohim” for God and when they record a first-person plural pronoun referring to God.

Not sure why this matters - the royal WE, is a plural of respect, and came later - so what? Is Elah, Elohim or not? The IM being the plural of respect.

Of course - they are the same. Why are you so staunch in denying this, when even Christian scholars do not disagree? Neither do Jewish ones, in case you was tripping or something.

What is your point? I'm really struggling to understand you - as for the first person pronoun - "Worship God, as if ye see HIM". Reflect on that bro. Our scriptures, are subtle in meaning, but the gravity of those meaning leave long insightful impressions.

Accusing Europeans of a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the letter “J” was puerile and unworthy of anyone trying to pass himself off as a serious scholar. The letter “J” began as an elongated form of the letter “I” and accordingly is still pronounced as an English “Y” in various northern European languages. The shift in pronouncing initial “I” or “J” from a “Y” phoneme to a different phoneme, as in modern English, French, or Spanish, was an organic linguistic development. Pronunciation simply can change over time and across people groups. In modern Arabic, for example, the word for Gospel, “Injil,” has an English “J” sound where the original Greek has a hard “G” sound: “Euangelion.” According to A Grammar of Classical Arabic, p. 19, note 4
https://archive.org/stream/AGrammarOfClassicalArabic#page/n31/mode/2up the original pronunciation of the Arabic letter ج “jim” was a hard “G” and not the “J” sound that occurs in most modern Arabic dialects. Would your source, then, accuse most Arabic speakers also of having a “sickness” and “infatuation” for the “J” sound?

Jacob was not Jacob. He was Yakob. I can go on with the "J" name hijacks but lets stick with Jacob - the father of the Israelites.

What right did the Europeans have to change the names of a people who have an alphabet which is rooted in meanings? Eh?

Don't you know, that rooting Jacob in Hebrew would mean something totally different to the intended meaning of his name, Yakob?

Puerile or no, what the Europeans done when they refused to pronounce the biblical prophets names as they were intended, was absolutely horrendous.

It's a sickness, like it or not - it needs to be cut out altogether in my opinion. Unless you think convoluting meanings and diluting details is a good thing lol.

Scimi

[goodwill]

He is both KING of ALL and OWNER. Why would they be separated? When HE has DOMINION over all. This is Arabic, a language where one word can have many associated meanings, the name Malik or Maalik, are still rooted from the same three letters - Meem, Laam and Kaaf - surely Goodwill - you knew that. Yet you still wrote the above? Strange.




You prefer to look at the messenger and not the message? Well, that is a very Christian thing to do, so I cannot really blame you for that, it's in your nature as a Christian to do so.

I fail to see how you claiming racism has anything to do with what I posted? Unless you are referring to the white minority ruled Africa in which Deedat grew up in. Which has nothing to do with me, nor you... lol

Please do explain your bias in more detail.



Wikipedia is your "source" ???? You're being serious aren't you?

Did you read my post? In it's entirety? The Zulu prayer I quoted - I'd love to hear you get a translation of it - just so you can realise how wrong you are, and how wiki can make you look like you don't know an elbow from an ankle.

Look again bro Goodwill, at this:

"HAWU UMNIMZANI! UYENA, UMOYA OINGCWELE. AKAZALI YENA, FUTHI AKAZALWANGA; FUTHI, AKUKHO LUTMO OLU FANA NAYE."

and the translation: "Oh Sir! He is a pure and Holy Spirit, He does not beget and He is not begotten, and further there is nothing like Him."

Does not BEGET, nor is he BEGOTTEN, and there is nothing like him (theo-morphism death) - tell that to wiki-moronipedia.

Also, the Zulu girl I quoted in a later post - agreed with all I wrote when I first shared this on vigilantcitizen forum, so I threw that in this thread for good measure. Why did you ignore her, in lieu of wikipedia bro?

Now go and read Surah Al Ikhlas from the Qur'an and see the similarity in theology between Muslims an Zulus.

Heck - try telling a Zulu about wiki's article and watch the Zulu become offended real quick... which begs the question, are you not offended by your own self for trusting Wikipedia? Serious question. Wiki pages are editable by any idiot with an account.



That's why you believe in an old man with some long beard sitting on a fluffy cloud?

Theo-Morphism lol, you fell for that? Really? the same the Freemasons teach? That we are all "gods" ??? Because - THAT - is where this train of thought you sponsor, will eventually lead you to in argument.

This was explored before, a few years back, on the old vigilantcitizen forum.




I'm really wondering why you have written this? I explained to you, the tetragrammatron - in context from the semitic understanding - I have the feeling you speak only one language fluently and thus, cannot appreciate what I am attempting to tell you.

YHWH / YHVH - Hallelujah... Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum. In case you didn't realise it - that translates to "O' He is Allah, None is worthy of worship save He, the Hayyul Qayyum (The Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists).

That verse also sounds very much like what the true form of the tetragrammatron, and the hallelujah mystery, rolled into one - mind blow supreme... would mean in context, and this verse is actually in the Qur'an and is said by some scholars to be containing the Ismul Azam - the Great name of God. The Ismul Azam of the Hebrew folk is the tetragrammaton, YHVH/YHWH. Don't you see the aligment? and the context?

The only difference being, the Children of Israel, have not dared say the full "great and holy name" out loud for millenia+

But the Muslims - we DO. Why is that a problem? Why would the declaration of HIS great name "Ya Huwa'llah ilaha Illahu'al Hayyul Qayyum - the Ismul Azam which the children of Israel refuse to utter aloud, be a problem for you? because Muslims declare the name openly? I don't understand why you are struggling with it.

Would you disagree that God is the sustainer of all that exists - or are you vying for the "theo-morphic" theology which leads to "we are all gods" ????

Decide bro.

Surely, if you know your schisms and nuances within Christianity and Judaism, you would have to be in agreement with me on this, and not feed your bias - oh seeker of truth.




How about the Hebrew - Elah? which is the same as the Arabic, Allah. Both, Arabic, and Hebrew Aramaic, being sister languages, with the same root applications which work for both, due to the dna of both languages having a common ancestry from the Phoenician mothering of those tongues? No?




Not sure why this matters - the royal WE, is a plural of respect, and came later - so what? Is Elah, Elohim or not? The IM being the plural of respect.

Of course - they are the same. Why are you so staunch in denying this, when even Christian scholars do not disagree? Neither do Jewish ones, in case you was tripping or something.

What is your point? I'm really struggling to understand you - as for the first person pronoun - "Worship God, as if ye see HIM". Reflect on that bro. Our scriptures, are subtle in meaning, but the gravity of those meaning leave long insightful impressions.




Jacob was not Jacob. He was Yakob. I can go on with the "J" name hijacks but lets stick with Jacob - the father of the Israelites.

What right did the Europeans have to change the names of a people who have an alphabet which is rooted in meanings? Eh?

Don't you know, that rooting Jacob in Hebrew would mean something totally different to the intended meaning of his name, Yakob?

Puerile or no, what the Europeans done when they refused to pronounce the biblical prophets names as they were intended, was absolutely horrendous.

It's a sickness, like it or not - it needs to be cut out altogether in my opinion. Unless you think convoluting meanings and diluting details is a good thing lol.

Scimi

On your choice of Quran versions, it surprised me that you chose one reading over another, but as long as you agree that Quranic texts differ with each other, I will leave it there.


So your source was Deedat after all! While even a racist may make a valid point sometimes, the problem is that his racism discolors his general outlook and may lead to a distorted understanding. In any case, Deedat’s outlook drove him to puerile commentary about the letter “J,” commentary that ironically applies also to the Arabs from whom he derived his religion and who enslaved his fellow Africans, as I showed in one of the links to the ahadith. More on that below.


Funny, the Wikipedia article that you mock as moronic referenced Deedat himself as a source. But if you carefully read what I wrote, you will see that I also referenced another, more scholarly source. This book contains an account of ancient Zulu religion told by the Zulus themselves, in the Zulu language, and translated into English with copious footnotes. From this source, it is clear that ancient Zulu religion was a kind of ancestor worship and different from Islam. As for your Zulu prayer, it appears to be a later Islamic fabrication and does not resemble the actual, documented, ancient Zulu religion.


Your understanding of theomorphism is apparently mistaken. Christians do not believe that God is an old man with a beard. As I have said on this forum before, you should try to understand what Christians believe before you presume to criticize their beliefs. The Biblical doctrine that man is made in God’s image does not conflict with the doctrine that God is “the sustainer of all that exists.” And as usual the Quran indirectly confirms what Christians believe about these matters.


Scimi, bro, there was nothing to “blow the mind” in your forced analogy between the Hebrew phrase for “Praise Yah” and those unrelated Arabic words. Aside from the fact that the phonetic similarity is not all that close, what phonetic similarity there is proves nothing, especially when the words themselves have disparate meanings and etymologies. Any words could be artificially strung together to “blow the mind” if that’s what you’re after, but the results would also be arbitrary. In English there is a tongue-twister, “She sells sea shells by the seashore.” If we found an uncannily similar-sounding Arabic phrase, it would not prove a common linguistic origin, kinship, or meaning.


Biblical Hebrew El and Biblical Aramaic Elah are cognates of Arabic ilah but they are not exact equivalents of Allah, since al-Lah contains the definite article.


I do not deny that the singular noun El and the plural noun Elohim both mean God in the Hebrew Scriptures. I merely point out that the Bible ultimately explains the plurality in Elohim not as a plural of respect but as indicative of a composite unity. And, again, the Quran indirectly affirms what Christians believe.


Pronouncing a foreign name in accordance with one’s own native phonemic inventory does not change the original meaning of the name. Rather, it facilitates communication. Besides, God has nowhere commanded that names must be pronounced today precisely as they were pronounced in the remote past. Do you know precisely how names were pronounced in the remote past? If not, why do you fault others for failing to do what you also fail to do? Moreover, in condemning those Europeans you condemn yourself. What right do you “have to change the names of a people who have an alphabet rooted in meanings?” “Abraham” means “father of a multitude” in the original Hebrew, yet some Arabs obscured this original meaning by changing the name to Ibrahim. “Elijah” means “My God is YHWH” in Hebrew, but some Arabs changed the name to Ilyas. “Gabriel” means “My strength is God” in Hebrew, but some Arabs changed the hard “G” to a “J” and called him Jibril. And they changed Hebrew Gog and Magog to Yajuj and Majuj. And they changed Hebrew Goliath to Jalut. Is all that “horrendous” too? And, once again, the Quran indirectly confirms all the original Hebrew pronunciations.

[talibilm]

This proves the following verses of the Noble Quran and the hadith which said something like there were more than 120,000 Messengers of Allah that came into this world for the guidance of Man kind. If the Noble Quran did not specify we will never know that Jesus was a Muslim though its just about 2000 years from him. So how about those messengers who have been coming for many 10,000's of years ????

So they are some where over there but in disguise.

Noble Quran 14 :4 ''We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them.........................''
''And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.''

[Scimitar]

Talibilm thanks bro, you got in before me.

Scimi

[goodwill]

This proves the following verses of the Noble Quran and the hadith which said something like there were more than 120,000 Messengers of Allah that came into this world for the guidance of Man kind. If the Noble Quran did not specify we will never know that Jesus was a Muslim though its just about 2000 years from him. So how about those messengers who have been coming for many 10,000's of years ????

So they are some where over there but in disguise.

Noble Quran 14 :4 ''We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them.........................''
''And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut." And among them were those whom Allah guided, and among them were those upon whom error was [deservedly] decreed. So proceed through the earth and observe how was the end of the deniers.''

Brother Talibilm, greetings. If you are referring to Scimi's Zulu prayer, here’s the thing. A 20th-century Islamic prayer translated into Zulu does not prove that the Zulus practiced Islam thousands of years ago. As the scholarly work, The Religious System of the Amazulu, makes clear, traditional Zulu religion was a form of ancestor worship.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Scimitar;

I don't believe it matters, as long as we are referring to the same God - the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth,

This is the only God worth searching for, and I truthfully believe that we will never look into the eyes of anyone, who does not matter to God. And if everyone is important to God, then everyone should be important to me.

God has to be greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together, the same God hears all our prayers, despite our differences. I have just been to a unity service tonight in our town, Christians from 16 denominations came together, to say God is One.

I would really welcome a greater interfaith unity service with people from all the diverse faiths of the world.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

[talibilm]

Brother Talibilm, greetings. If you are referring to Scimi's Zulu prayer, here’s the thing. A 20th-century Islamic prayer translated into Zulu does not prove that the Zulus practiced Islam thousands of years ago. As the scholarly work, The Religious System of the Amazulu, makes clear, traditional Zulu religion was a form of ancestor worship.

Friend, if they were on Perfect Islam might be there would not require Allah to send more of his messengers to the world. I already gave you a clue in the above post, so i quote it again

''If the Noble Quran did not specify we will never know that Jesus was a Muslim though its ' just ' about 2000 years from him. So how about those messengers who have been coming for many 10,000's of years ???? ( to many corners of the globe ?? )

So they are some where ( & in some form ) over there, but '
" in disguise. ''


here is another link to prove my claims

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...uhammad-(pbuh)

[talibilm]

Talibilm thanks bro, you got in before me.

Scimi

Thanks to you to Bro Scimi for a most needed thread to clear the air of suspicions of different Gods & different religions but islam proved it they were '' all from one source , One Supreme God The Creator & one Mankind ''

[Scimitar]

Brother Talibilm, greetings. If you are referring to Scimi's Zulu prayer, here’s the thing. A 20th-century Islamic prayer translated into Zulu does not prove that the Zulus practiced Islam thousands of years ago. As the scholarly work, The Religious System of the Amazulu, makes clear, traditional Zulu religion was a form of ancestor worship.

Hmmm,

Bro Goodwill, in the OP, I posted about the Zulu belief and prayer being a mirror to Surah al Ikhlas - the theology is the same.

One God,

Does not beget, nor was HE begotten.

He is unimaginable.

The theological belief about God in Islam is the same as that of the Zulu, that was the point I was making.

God has always sent messengers and prophets to mankind, they were not limited to the Children of Israel - if they were, I'm not sure a God like that would be worth your worship, as this would prove an wholly racist God - but we find this is not the case - that God sent messengers and prophets to the whole world. What those people who received the message did with it - was their choice - that's free will.

What I and others find amazing, is how very real traces of Strict Monotheism, as per the belief in Islam, is prevalent in many cultures and races across the world.

Signs, for a people who reflect.

Scimi

[goodwill]

Hmmm,

Bro Goodwill, in the OP, I posted about the Zulu belief and prayer being a mirror to Surah al Ikhlas - the theology is the same.

One God,

Does not beget, nor was HE begotten.

He is unimaginable.

The theological belief about God in Islam is the same as that of the Zulu, that was the point I was making.

God has always sent messengers and prophets to mankind, they were not limited to the Children of Israel - if they were, I'm not sure a God like that would be worth your worship, as this would prove an wholly racist God - but we find this is not the case - that God sent messengers and prophets to the whole world. What those people who received the message did with it - was their choice - that's free will.

What I and others find amazing, is how very real traces of Strict Monotheism, as per the belief in Islam, is prevalent in many cultures and races across the world.

Signs, for a people who reflect.

Scimi

Scimi,
the Bible teaches that the ancestors of the human race were originally monotheists and that God has not left Himself without witness anywhere. For example, you may be aware of Flood stories from cultures around the world that echo the original Flood of Noah’s day as recorded in Genesis 6. My point about the Zulu prayer is that it is not demonstrably an ancient Zulu prayer reflecting ancient Zulu religion. As I have pointed out, the prayer contrasts so sharply with documented traditional Zulu religion that it seems to be merely a Muslim prayer translated into the Zulu language recently, in the 20th or 21st century.

[Scimitar]

Scimi,
the Bible teaches that the ancestors of the human race were originally monotheists and that God has not left Himself without witness anywhere. For example, you may be aware of Flood stories from cultures around the world that echo the original Flood of Noah’s day as recorded in Genesis 6. My point about the Zulu prayer is that it is not demonstrably an ancient Zulu prayer reflecting ancient Zulu religion. As I have pointed out, the prayer contrasts so sharply with documented traditional Zulu religion that it seems to be merely a Muslim prayer translated into the Zulu language recently, in the 20th or 21st century.

And here, you and I differ on two points.

1) Monotheism suffers corruptions over time, just look at Christianity.

2) Pockets of Zulu and Swazi Monotheists exist today who have not idol worshipped. Thet are a minority in the faiths tradition today.

oh there's a third point too... namely that trinitarian Christianity has also suffered the same as the Zulu tradition. Once monotheist, now polytheist.

As for the prayer, the Zulu sister (AnonymousDamsel from VC) said it was fine. And she speaks the language. Because she's Zulu.

Scimi

[goodwill]

And here, you and I differ on two points.

1) Monotheism suffers corruptions over time, just look at Christianity.

2) Pockets of Zulu and Swazi Monotheists exist today who have not idol worshipped. Thet are a minority in the faiths tradition today.

oh there's a third point too... namely that trinitarian Christianity has also suffered the same as the Zulu tradition. Once monotheist, now polytheist.

As for the prayer, the Zulu sister (AnonymousDamsel from VC) said it was fine. And she speaks the language. Because she's Zulu.

Scimi

I “just look at Christianity” and feel grateful and blessed. Here is a monotheism where God is more than a slaveowner of orphans. And since the Quran confirms the Bible, you are obligated as a Muslim to believe the Bible, too. Ironic.


You have not yet addressed the real issue regarding the Zulu prayer. The question is not whether there are Zulus who are monotheists today, nor is the question whether your Zulu prayer was translated correctly. At the beginning of this thread, unless I misread your intention, you showcased the Zulu prayer as representing some kind of ancient proto-Islam dating back thousands of years. But in order to prove your point, you must do more than quote from Deedat. You must provide the documented origin and date of the prayer and show that the prayer was free and independent of Muslim influence.

[Scimitar]

I “just look at Christianity” and feel grateful and blessed. Here is a monotheism where God is more than a slaveowner of orphans. And since the Quran confirms the Bible, you are obligated as a Muslim to believe the Bible, too. Ironic.

Cool, which of the 100's of versions is the right one?

You have not yet addressed the real issue regarding the Zulu prayer. The question is not whether there are Zulus who are monotheists today, nor is the question whether your Zulu prayer was translated correctly. At the beginning of this thread, unless I misread your intention, you showcased the Zulu prayer as representing some kind of ancient proto-Islam dating back thousands of years. But in order to prove your point, you must do more than quote from Deedat. You must provide the documented origin and date of the prayer and show that the prayer was free and independent of Muslim influence.

You are asking for dates of prayers from a people who had no record of time keeping. You know that right? Surely you also know that when Deedat, from whom I sourced, used the word Zulu, it was their current identification and they originally came from the east of Africa, migrating all the way to the heart of it. This took a long time, do you follow history enough to delve into the anthropology of the places and periods of time involved? Because if you did, you'd realise that dating the origin of the Zulu belief becomes problematic simply because it's older than the heart of Africa which the original Nguni Bantu migrations ended up, circa 9th century CE.

What you also failed to consider was that the belief the Bantu peoples held - was what Deedat identified as Zulu, which is actually a derivative of the Nguni language group.

Do you know what this suggests?

That the belief prayer, could be even older than the Zulu language.

Not sure if you was expecting that.

But hey, it is what it is.

Scimi

[keiv]

I “just look at Christianity” and feel grateful and blessed. Here is a monotheism where God is more than a slaveowner of orphans. And since the Quran confirms the Bible, you are obligated as a Muslim to believe the Bible, too. Ironic.


You have not yet addressed the real issue regarding the Zulu prayer. The question is not whether there are Zulus who are monotheists today, nor is the question whether your Zulu prayer was translated correctly. At the beginning of this thread, unless I misread your intention, you showcased the Zulu prayer as representing some kind of ancient proto-Islam dating back thousands of years. But in order to prove your point, you must do more than quote from Deedat. You must provide the documented origin and date of the prayer and show that the prayer was free and independent of Muslim influence.

The Quran does not confirm the Bible. Why else would the Quran be sent down if none of the previous scriptures, as mentioned before, have been unchanged? That wouldn't make any sense. The Quran confirms the previous scriptures before it that were sent down but, the Quran was sent down as the final message to all of humanity and is protected from the corruption that the previous scriptures had suffered from.

[Scimitar]

...you'd realise that dating the origin of the Zulu belief becomes problematic simply because it's older than the heart of Africa which the original Nguni Bantu migrations ended up, circa 9th century CE.

What you also failed to consider was that the belief the Bantu peoples held - was what Deedat identified as Zulu, which is actually a derivative of the Nguni language group.

Do you know what this suggests?

That the belief prayer, could be even older than the Zulu language.

Not sure if you was expecting that.

But hey, it is what it is.

Scimi

Monotheism in the ancient world.

Scottish anthropologist Andrew Lang concluded in 1898 that the idea of an High God or 'All Father' existed among some of the simplest of contemporary and ancient tribes, prior to Western contact.


His theory was first defended by Willhelm Schmidt (1868–1954),in his Der Ursprung der Gottesidee appearing from 1912, opposing the "Revolutionary Monotheism" approach that traces the emergence of monotheistic thought as a gradual process spanning the Bronze and Iron Age Religions of the Ancient Near East and Classical Antiquity.


Alleged traces of primitive monotheism were found extant in many cultures across the globe. Monotheism in Schmidt's view is the "natural" form of theism, which was later overlaid and"degraded" by Polytheism.


Schmidt's hypothesis was controversially discussed during much of the first half of the 20th century. In the 1930s, Schmidt adduced evidence from Native American Mythology,Australian aborigines and other primitive civilizations in support of his views. He also responded to his critics.


For instance, he rejected Rafael Pettazoni's claim that the sky gods were merely a dim personification or embodiment of the physical sky,saying in The Origin and Growth of Religion, "The outlines of the Supreme Being become dim only among later peoples."He adds that "a being who lives in the sky, who stands behind the celestial phenomena, who must 'centralize' in himself the various manifestations [of thunder, rain, etc.] is not a personification of the sky at all."

Scimi,
the Bible teaches that the ancestors of the human race were originally monotheists and that God has not left Himself without witness anywhere.

Bro Goodwill,

You should attempt to learn about monotheism from an historical POV. You'll discover much. We're on the same page regarding monotheism being the proto religion for humanity.

Scimi

[goodwill]

Cool, which of the 100's of versions is the right one?

Pretty much all of them contain the good news of the Messiah. Christians never needed an Uthman to destroy variant texts.

[goodwill]

The Quran does not confirm the Bible. Why else would the Quran be sent down if none of the previous scriptures, as mentioned before, have been unchanged? That wouldn't make any sense. The Quran confirms the previous scriptures before it that were sent down but, the Quran was sent down as the final message to all of humanity and is protected from the corruption that the previous scriptures had suffered from.

Brother Keiv, your reasoning is correct. There was no need for God to send another book in the 7th century A.D. because God has always been faithful to preserve the Holy Scriptures. The Quran itself unambiguously confirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Bible. Consider these verses:


The Quran confirms the Bible that existed in Muhammad’s time. Surah 2:87,89,91,97,101; 21:105; 40:53,54.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was preserved up until the time of Muhammad. Surah 2:106.
The Quran teaches that Muslims must believe the Bible too. Surah 2:136; 3:84; 4:136; 29:46.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was given as guidance for all “mankind” and not for the Jews only. Surah 3:3,4.
The Quran teaches that the Bible contains guidance and light and that Jews and Christians should judge by the Bible. Surah 5:43-48;21:48
The Quran teaches that Christians should listen to the Bible and “stand firmly by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you [Christians] from your Lord.” Surah 5:68.
The Quran teaches that no one can change God’s words. Surah 6:34,114,115; 10:64; 18:27.
The Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. Surah 7:157. Although Muhammad per se is not mentioned in the Bible, this verse presupposes that the Bible’s message has been preserved.
The Quran says that if Muhammad doubts Islam, he should consult Christians who read the Bible, “the Book before you [Muhammad].” Surah 10:94.
The Quran teaches that, if Muhammad does not know something, Muhammad should ask Christians, “the people of the Reminder” prior to Muhammad. Surah 16:43; 21:7.
The Quran teaches that God supported the believing Christians and that they became dominant over the unbelieving Jews. Surah 3:55; 61:14. Historically, the only Christians who “became dominant” were those who affirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and who affirmed the Bible as we have it today. According to Yusuf Ali’s commentary on 61:14, “those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world.”
So “Do not argue with the People of the Book...say, We believe in that which has been revealed...to you.” Surah 29:46.

[Scimitar]

Brother Keiv, your reasoning is correct. There was no need for God to send another book in the 7th century A.D. because God has always been faithful to preserve the Holy Scriptures.

Preserved, you say?

The New Testament is "preserved"????

Bro, that has to be the most ridiculous statement I've read all week on this forum, and I've read quite a few.

The Quran itself unambiguously confirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Bible. Consider these verses:

Seems your dissemination of Qur'an is faulty - but what can I expect from a Christian who interprets any holy scripture according to his bias? Let's put you straight in sha Allah.

The Quran confirms the Bible that existed in Muhammad’s time. Surah 2:87,89,91,97,101; 21:105; 40:53,54.

The Qur'an does indeed.

The Quran teaches that the Bible was preserved up until the time of Muhammad. Surah 2:106.

Up til the time of... meaning, when God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad pbuh, it was time for a new revelation because the old one was confuddled with so many versions and so many sects that the core theology of the Christians was too far gone to revert back to the original path.

The Quran teaches that Muslims must believe the Bible too. Surah 2:136; 3:84; 4:136; 29:46.

The Qur'an teaches that the Torah, Psalms and Injeed were vaildated scriptures, until their corruptions. As for the injeel where is it? I don't see the Gospel of Jesus pbuh anywhere, I see gospels according to four men who never left a last name and are mysterious figures whom the church is still guessing at. So please - do not attempt to paint the various new testaments as the gospel of Jesus pbuh. They are not.

The Quran teaches that the Bible was given as guidance for all “mankind” and not for the Jews only. Surah 3:3,4.

Allah sent down the Torah, and the Gospel, the verse says - not Jesus. It was given to Jesus, and only some men knew that gospel, who then ran for their lives during the passion and crucifxion mess - and practiced their faith in secret... meanwhile, the book you hold is Pauline doctrine, and Paul didn't even know Jesus, so please - remind yourself to not make such hairy mistakes again.

The Quran teaches that the Bible contains guidance and light and that Jews and Christians should judge by the Bible. Surah 5:43-48;21:48

WOW - massive errors on your part lol.

5:43 is describing an incident when the Jews wanted the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to judge their criminals crime according to shariah - but Muhammad pbuh told them to judge according to their own laws, and so the criminal was stoned to death - the Jews were expecting a lighter form of punishment due to them expecting shariah law to be effective for the Jews, but NOOOOOO, Prophet Muhammad pbuh told the Jews, judge him according to your own laws... a lot of Jews regretted being Jewish that day... wanna guess what happened next? :)

As for 21:48 - another grave error by you, boy oh boy, your ayah references do you no favours bro trust me.

I'm showing you how you are doing this wrong.

21:48 - Just confirms that Moses and Aaron pbut were given the Law - and for the record, Torah, means LAW. As we already established. But that LAW was abrogated by the Jewish rabbi's interpreting the meanings and punishments wrongly... small wonder now, why the Jews of Medina wanted to be judged for their crimes according to the Shariah and not the Torah. Savvy?

Goodwill, you've made many mistakes here - massive ones.

The Quran teaches that Christians should listen to the Bible and “stand firmly by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you [Christians] from your Lord.” Surah 5:68.

You're burying yourself now bro - here is the ayah:

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.

As I mentioned, the Christians and the Jews were to follow the LAW of the TORAH properly - which is why the ayah specifically mentions "...you are standing on NOTHING UNTIL YOU UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE TORAH..." which they could never uphold, even Jesus pbuh told the Rabbi's they had corrupted the Laws an made the temple a den of thieves. You're so out of context Goodwill, honestly.

The Jews of Medina preferred shariah law over their own corrupted explanations of the Mosaic Law of Torah - the Talmud. And the Talmud - being a man made work and not divine - is compared to the Islamic ahadeeth because the Talmud contains the narrations regarding the practice of the Laws, but, they were totally corrupted by the "lying pen of the scribes" go see Jeremiah 8.

The Quran teaches that no one can change God’s words. Surah 6:34,114,115; 10:64; 18:27.

Referring to the Qur'an - because this sure doesn't appeal to any other scripture.

The Torah, disappeared during the captivity in Babylon - it came back because Ezra pbuh recited it for the children of Israel after he was raised back to life again - he'd been dead for 100 years and during those 100 years, the 70 year captivity happened and the Torah was destroyed.

When Ezra was raised back to life, he entered Jerusalem and that's when he eventually taught the Torah to the children of Israel - who did not have a Rabbi amongst them by the way. They changed the "meanings" and this eventually led to all sorts of corruption in Judaism, one of which, is recorded in your bible, namely the event when Jesus pbuh became really angry at the temple because the Rabbi's had turned the temple into a den of thieves.

The Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. Surah 7:157. Although Muhammad per se is not mentioned in the Bible, this verse presupposes that the Bible’s message has been preserved.

Nope. It shows that elements of it remained uncorrupted - that is all. When it comes to the most important message - theology - the bible is all over the place. Because, it's not divine - it is not the gospel of Jesus pbuh, but as I mentioned - the gospel of four mysterious figures the church fathers and scholars still remain confused over.

I think it's ridiculous, if I were to read a text book on science written by a man who never left his last name, I would not trust it because the author himself did not see it fit to lend his identity to his work.

The Torah doesn't suffer this, but the New Testament does.

The Quran says that if Muhammad doubts Islam, he should consult Christians who read the Bible, “the Book before you [Muhammad].” Surah 10:94.

WOW - you are sooo out of context, I'm starting to think you are trolling lol

Read the chapter from verse 88 to 94 and try and claim what you did again :)

You will not be able to.

Allah informed Muhammad pbuh about the Egyptian captivity Moses pbuh freeing the children of Israel - this event - and this is what Allah is asking the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to have confirmed by the children of Israel - The Children of Israel - Jews, not Christians, and the confirmation was regarding an historical event. The red sea crossing. Pull ya socks up fella.

The Quran teaches that, if Muhammad does not know something, Muhammad should ask Christians, “the people of the Reminder” prior to Muhammad. Surah 16:43; 21:7.

16:43 - And We sent not before you except men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.

Muhammad, who had no idea what he was being tasked with as the first Prophet and Messenger to the Arabs with no prior knowledge of the previous prophets and messengers - was now being told by Allah, that HE had indeed sent prophets and messengers to the nations before his own, and if he did not know this, then to seek their truths by asking the children of Israel about these prophets and messengers.

This in no way lends your claim any strength, but serves to only strengthen the claim of Islam even more. That Muhammad pbuh is the final prophet and messenger to all mankind. This is contextual, and not open to interpretation - a bad habit Christians have run with since, well, Constantine.

The Quran teaches that God supported the believing Christians and that they became dominant over the unbelieving Jews. Surah 3:55; 61:14. Historically, the only Christians who “became dominant” were those who affirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and who affirmed the Bible as we have it today. According to Yusuf Ali’s commentary on 61:14, “those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world.”
So “Do not argue with the People of the Book...say, We believe in that which has been revealed...to you.” Surah 29:46.

First - define dominant :) because your yard stick by which you measure - is "material"... which is why you fail in your interpretation, and the Qur'an does not require "interpretations" - it is perfectly contextual and understood by Muslims around the world, who find what you just write, ridiculous - the whole post of yours - ridiculous.

Now, for the ayaat themelves.

61:14 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah. As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples, "We are Allah.s helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.

PREVAILED - in what? worldly matters? or in their afterlife because they believed in the correct belief? The latter, obviously. Come on brooo, don't read bias into scripture - that is wrong and unhealthy for your soul because you are guiding it wrongly and into the narratives of those who passed before you and are taking their seat in the fire for being such liars to their own souls and to others whom are impressionable and easily led.

3:55 - when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.

This is really not helping your case now is it?

1) Allah raised Jesus pbuh to HIMSELF. No Cruci-fiction.

2) Allah is informing Muhammad pbuh about when the followers of Jesus pbuh, who were more contextually - better Jews than the Jews themselves - had been raised in rank for believing in the correct theology and dissemination of the Mosaic Laws, as being "purified" in belief and conduct. Nothing more, nothing less.

3) and that on the day of judgement, Allah will judge between what they used to differ.

4) This does not help your point. As it actually lays a foreboding trial over those who differed with the Muslims with a hard hearted bias and mockery.

29:46 - And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."


And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best - meaning, with respect and due dilligence, and without emotional attachment, appealing to their better senses such as reason, logic, context and cotext of biblical verses and quranic ayaat, etc

except for those who commit injustice among them, - these we do not entertain. They are not worth wasting time over - we Muslims are a people of deed and conduct, we do not entertain such idiotic situations. We leave those fools to themselves, unless they seek truth. In which case we discuss in a manner which is mutually sound and engaging. But if they persist in their mockery and bias, we say: "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

You wasted your time attempting to interpret the Qur'an yourself when the Qur'an requires no interpretation but contextual study. We do not suffer the corruptions your scripture did. We are not on shaky ground.

Your hubris is cute, though :)

Next time, come with something more substantial than this wasteful exercise you thought had momentum in it.

God bless,

Scimi

[Scimitar]

Pretty much all of them contain the good news of the Messiah.

Not sure a book bragging about its author is to be considered worthy of acceptance,

Where are the other prophets and messengers mentioned in the New Testament? Agabus? Anna? and Silas? Really? mysterious figures whom even the Hebrews reject as prophets and messengers?

What of Aaron and Moses, Abraham and Lot, Isaac and Ishmael, Ezra and Ezekiel, Daniel and Jeremiah, David and Solomon? where are they in your New Testament?

Anyway, back to the point - what does MESSIAH mean in context? and what does it mean out of context as per the Christian understanding of the word?

You will find the Jews and the Muslims are contextual, whereas the Christians seem to think MESSIAH means BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD - that's not only out of context, but blasphemy to boot.

Christians never needed an Uthman to destroy variant texts.

Seems the Christians destroyed their own doctrine without anyone's help - as for Uthman, he standardised the written form of the Qur'an - and the words Al Qur'an literally mean "The Recital" - it was memorised by heart by thousands of Muslims by the time it was standardised in Arabic script. Your point is moot.

You really are making a pigs ear out of your posts here my bro.

Scimi

[goodwill]

Preserved, you say?

The New Testament is "preserved"????

Bro, that has to be the most ridiculous statement I've read all week on this forum, and I've read quite a few.



Seems your dissemination of Qur'an is faulty - but what can I expect from a Christian who interprets any holy scripture according to his bias? Let's put you straight in sha Allah.




The Qur'an does indeed.



Up til the time of... meaning, when God revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad pbuh, it was time for a new revelation because the old one was confuddled with so many versions and so many sects that the core theology of the Christians was too far gone to revert back to the original path.



The Qur'an teaches that the Torah, Psalms and Injeed were vaildated scriptures, until their corruptions. As for the injeel where is it? I don't see the Gospel of Jesus pbuh anywhere, I see gospels according to four men who never left a last name and are mysterious figures whom the church is still guessing at. So please - do not attempt to paint the various new testaments as the gospel of Jesus pbuh. They are not.



Allah sent down the Torah, and the Gospel, the verse says - not Jesus. It was given to Jesus, and only some men knew that gospel, who then ran for their lives during the passion and crucifxion mess - and practiced their faith in secret... meanwhile, the book you hold is Pauline doctrine, and Paul didn't even know Jesus, so please - remind yourself to not make such hairy mistakes again.



WOW - massive errors on your part lol.

5:43 is describing an incident when the Jews wanted the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to judge their criminals crime according to shariah - but Muhammad pbuh told them to judge according to their own laws, and so the criminal was stoned to death - the Jews were expecting a lighter form of punishment due to them expecting shariah law to be effective for the Jews, but NOOOOOO, Prophet Muhammad pbuh told the Jews, judge him according to your own laws... a lot of Jews regretted being Jewish that day... wanna guess what happened next? :)

As for 21:48 - another grave error by you, boy oh boy, your ayah references do you no favours bro trust me.

I'm showing you how you are doing this wrong.

21:48 - Just confirms that Moses and Aaron pbut were given the Law - and for the record, Torah, means LAW. As we already established. But that LAW was abrogated by the Jewish rabbi's interpreting the meanings and punishments wrongly... small wonder now, why the Jews of Medina wanted to be judged for their crimes according to the Shariah and not the Torah. Savvy?

Goodwill, you've made many mistakes here - massive ones.



You're burying yourself now bro - here is the ayah:

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.

As I mentioned, the Christians and the Jews were to follow the LAW of the TORAH properly - which is why the ayah specifically mentions "...you are standing on NOTHING UNTIL YOU UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE TORAH..." which they could never uphold, even Jesus pbuh told the Rabbi's they had corrupted the Laws an made the temple a den of thieves. You're so out of context Goodwill, honestly.

The Jews of Medina preferred shariah law over their own corrupted explanations of the Mosaic Law of Torah - the Talmud. And the Talmud - being a man made work and not divine - is compared to the Islamic ahadeeth because the Talmud contains the narrations regarding the practice of the Laws, but, they were totally corrupted by the "lying pen of the scribes" go see Jeremiah 8.



Referring to the Qur'an - because this sure doesn't appeal to any other scripture.

The Torah, disappeared during the captivity in Babylon - it came back because Ezra pbuh recited it for the children of Israel after he was raised back to life again - he'd been dead for 100 years and during those 100 years, the 70 year captivity happened and the Torah was destroyed.

When Ezra was raised back to life, he entered Jerusalem and that's when he eventually taught the Torah to the children of Israel - who did not have a Rabbi amongst them by the way. They changed the "meanings" and this eventually led to all sorts of corruption in Judaism, one of which, is recorded in your bible, namely the event when Jesus pbuh became really angry at the temple because the Rabbi's had turned the temple into a den of thieves.



Nope. It shows that elements of it remained uncorrupted - that is all. When it comes to the most important message - theology - the bible is all over the place. Because, it's not divine - it is not the gospel of Jesus pbuh, but as I mentioned - the gospel of four mysterious figures the church fathers and scholars still remain confused over.

I think it's ridiculous, if I were to read a text book on science written by a man who never left his last name, I would not trust it because the author himself did not see it fit to lend his identity to his work.

The Torah doesn't suffer this, but the New Testament does.



WOW - you are sooo out of context, I'm starting to think you are trolling lol

Read the chapter from verse 88 to 94 and try and claim what you did again :)

You will not be able to.

Allah informed Muhammad pbuh about the Egyptian captivity Moses pbuh freeing the children of Israel - this event - and this is what Allah is asking the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to have confirmed by the children of Israel - The Children of Israel - Jews, not Christians, and the confirmation was regarding an historical event. The red sea crossing. Pull ya socks up fella.




16:43 - And We sent not before you except men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.

Muhammad, who had no idea what he was being tasked with as the first Prophet and Messenger to the Arabs with no prior knowledge of the previous prophets and messengers - was now being told by Allah, that HE had indeed sent prophets and messengers to the nations before his own, and if he did not know this, then to seek their truths by asking the children of Israel about these prophets and messengers.

This in no way lends your claim any strength, but serves to only strengthen the claim of Islam even more. That Muhammad pbuh is the final prophet and messenger to all mankind. This is contextual, and not open to interpretation - a bad habit Christians have run with since, well, Constantine.




First - define dominant :) because your yard stick by which you measure - is "material"... which is why you fail in your interpretation, and the Qur'an does not require "interpretations" - it is perfectly contextual and understood by Muslims around the world, who find what you just write, ridiculous - the whole post of yours - ridiculous.

Now, for the ayaat themelves.

61:14 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah. As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples, "We are Allah.s helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.

PREVAILED - in what? worldly matters? or in their afterlife because they believed in the correct belief? The latter, obviously. Come on brooo, don't read bias into scripture - that is wrong and unhealthy for your soul because you are guiding it wrongly and into the narratives of those who passed before you and are taking their seat in the fire for being such liars to their own souls and to others whom are impressionable and easily led.

3:55 - when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.

This is really not helping your case now is it?

1) Allah raised Jesus pbuh to HIMSELF. No Cruci-fiction.

2) Allah is informing Muhammad pbuh about when the followers of Jesus pbuh, who were more contextually - better Jews than the Jews themselves - had been raised in rank for believing in the correct theology and dissemination of the Mosaic Laws, as being "purified" in belief and conduct. Nothing more, nothing less.

3) and that on the day of judgement, Allah will judge between what they used to differ.

4) This does not help your point. As it actually lays a foreboding trial over those who differed with the Muslims with a hard hearted bias and mockery.

29:46 - And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."


And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best - meaning, with respect and due dilligence, and without emotional attachment, appealing to their better senses such as reason, logic, context and cotext of biblical verses and quranic ayaat, etc

except for those who commit injustice among them, - these we do not entertain. They are not worth wasting time over - we Muslims are a people of deed and conduct, we do not entertain such idiotic situations. We leave those fools to themselves, unless they seek truth. In which case we discuss in a manner which is mutually sound and engaging. But if they persist in their mockery and bias, we say: "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

You wasted your time attempting to interpret the Qur'an yourself when the Qur'an requires no interpretation but contextual study. We do not suffer the corruptions your scripture did. We are not on shaky ground.

Your hubris is cute, though :)

Next time, come with something more substantial than this wasteful exercise you thought had momentum in it.

God bless,

Scimi

Hi, Scimi, I have revised my theses slightly in view of your comments.


The Quran confirms the Bible that existed in Muhammad’s time and confirms the Jewish and Christian revelations that were still “with” the Jews and Christians. Surah 2:87,89,91,97,101; 21:105; 40:53,54 https://quran.com/40/53-63
The Quran therefore implies the Bible’s inspiration, authority, and preservation. Otherwise, the Quran would have confirmed a corrupted revelation.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was preserved up until the time of Muhammad. Surah 2:106 https://quran.com/2/106-116
Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that predate Muhammad, so the Quran by implication agrees that the Bible has been preserved not only until the time of Muhammad but up until the present day.
The Quran teaches that Muslims must believe the Bible too. Surah 2:136; 3:84; 4:136; 29:46 https://quran.com/2/136-146
The Quran does not teach, as you claimed, that the Bible was valid until it was corrupted, because the Quran does not teach that the Bible was corrupted at all. As we have seen just from the above references, the Quran repeatedly confirms the preservation of the Bible. So Muslims are still obligated by the Quran to believe the Bible too.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was given as guidance for all “mankind” and not for the Jews only. Surah 3:3,4 https://quran.com/3/3-13
The Quran disagrees with your assumptions. If you read the verses in the more literal Arabic translation given at quran.com (hold your cursor over the Arabic text) you will see that the Bible was given as a guidance for “mankind,” which means for all people at all times. Moreover, the Quran says that the Bible was presently existing between one’s hands - بَيْنَيَدَيْهِ baina yadehi (usually translated in English Qurans as “before”)in the 7th century A.D. So the Quran does not assert that the Bible had been whisked away from Christians by Paul long before. The revelation given through Jesus was still intact in the Christian’s “hand.” We will see this phrase again below.
The Quran teaches that the Bible contains guidance and light and that Jews and Christians should judge by the Bible. Surah 5:43-48; 21:48 https://quran.com/5/43-53
This implies that the Bible was preserved and was still authoritative. Otherwise, the Quran would have instructed the Jews and Christians to judge by a corrupt or inaccessible book. Twice in 5:46 the Quran says that the Old Testament existed in the Jew’s hand (between his hands - بَيْنَيَدَيْهِ baina yadehi) and in 5:48 the New Testament is called the Book in the Christian’s hand (“the Book in his hands” بَيْنَيَدَيْهِمِنَٱلْكِتَٰبِ). This again shows that, according to the Quran, our Bible was preserved. It also shows that the Quran viewed the New Testament as a unit, a single book, possessed by and recognized by Christians. Moreover, the Quran goes on to say that Christians are rebels if they do not judge by the New Testament.
The Quran teaches that Christians should listen to the Bible and “stand firmly by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you [Christians] from your Lord.” Surah 5:68 https://quran.com/5/68-78
Your comments on this ayah were a non sequitur. This ayah is self-explanatory and clearly teaches the inspiration, preservation, and continuing authority of the Bible. Why would the Quran tell Christians to stand firmly by a corrupt or inaccessible book?
The Quran teaches that no one can change God’s words. Surah 6:34,114,115; 10:64; 18:27 https://quran.com/6/114-124
The Quran does not limit the scope of this promise to the Quran. Christians believe that God is a preserver of His word. God is faithful! I’m sorry you don’t believe in His faithfulness as I do.
The Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. Surah 7:157 https://quran.com/7/157-167 Although Muhammad per se is not mentioned in the Bible, this verse clearly presupposes that the Bible’s message has been preserved since, by appealing to the Bible, the Quran confirms the Bible’s veracity.
Funny that you should claim to reject the Gospels because the human authors did not affix their names when the Quran itself is anonymous. It may be that the four Evangelists did affix their names. In any case, the names of the four Evangelists have been associated with the same books by consistent tradition since time immemorial and there was never any competing tradition or dispute in the early Church over the authorship of the four Gospels.
The Quran says that if Muhammad doubts Islam, he should consult with those who read “the Book before you [Muhammad].” This could mean Jews or Christians, since both had books before Muhammad. Surah 10:94
https://quran.com/10/94-104
You recommended reading from verse 10:88 to 94, but my Quran version says that 10:93 begins another section, and therefore another context, that lasts until 10:103. Here Israelites (10:93), non-Jews (10:98), and “all who are on earth (10:99)” are mentioned. In this context verse 10:94 mentions only “the Book before you [Muhammad].” We have seen above that the Quran considers the New Testament as one of the books before Muhammad. The New Testament, in fact, was the Book immediately before Muhammad. With that in mind, see the verses adduced next:
The Quran teaches that, if Muhammad does not know something, Muhammad should ask Christians, “the people of the Reminder” prior to Muhammad. Surah 16:43; 21:7 https://quran.com/16/43-53
These verses also clearly presuppose the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible and that Christians still had access to it.
The Quran teaches that God supported the believing Christians and that they became superior and dominant over the unbelieving Jews. Surah 3:55; 61:14 https://quran.com/3/55-65 Historically, the only Christians who “became dominant” were those who affirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and who affirmed the Bible as we have it today. According to Yusuf Ali’s commentary on 61:14 https://quran.com/61/14-24, “those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world.” http://islamhelpline.net/quran/61/14
You asked me in response to define “dominant” and claimed that “Muslims around the world” understand these verses. So why did you reject my interpretation? The interpretation I gave was that of “renowned English translator and commentator of the Qur'an” Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who, in your own words, was a “Muslim from around the world who understood these verses.” Abdullah Yusuf Ali defined “dominant.”
So “Do not argue with the People of the Book...say, We believe in that which has been revealed...to you.” Surah 29:46. https://quran.com/29/46-56
So, in conclusion, if you want to argue over Biblical interpretation, perhaps the Quran gives you permission to do that. But you are forbidden to argue with Christians over the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible, since the Quran confirms these three things and requires you to believe what has been revealed to us.

Blessings.

[MidnightRose]

Hello,

You will need to revise your views again. This is because there is no mention of the Bible anywhere in the Qur'an. Allah mentions the Injil in the Qur'an, not the Bible - which is the current book of the Christians.

The Injil was a revelation that Allah gave to Isa :as:. Allah says in the Qur'an:

"We sent Isa, son of Maryam, and gave him the Injeel." (Surah 57: part of verse 27) See: https://quran.com/57/27

The Bible was not given to Isa :as:.

So Muslims have no relation whatsoever to this Bible that you are talking about. See also: https://www.islamicboard.com/compara...ml#post2928102

Addtionally, to comment on the blatant misinformation that you mentioned about the Qur'an:

Funny that you should claim to reject the Gospels because the human authors did not affix their names when the Quran itself is anonymous.

According to the respected Islamic scholar Mufti Ebrahim Desai:

"The method in which this divine knowledge was passed down to us by our predecessors was from heart to heart which required one to be under the direct tutorship and supervision of ‘Ulama. The first teacher of this ummah was our beloved Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who taught the Sahaba (radhiyallahu ‘anhum), they then taught the Tabi’een (rahimahumullah), who in turn taught the Tab’e Tabi’een (rahimahullah) and who in turn taught our predecessors. As such, the knowledge of Shari’ah was transferred from generation to generation in this manner."

Source: http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/30663

The Qur’an is a narrative of Allah provided to us through Muhammad (:saws:). It - itself - is of the highest degree of authenticity due to being mutawatir. The Islamic definition of the technical term mutawatir is:

"A mass-transmitted report that is transmitted from one generation to the next in such large numbers, that one could not imagine that they conspired to forge it." (See The Preservation of Hadith)

To paraphrase the senior Islamic research scholar, Mufti Taqi Usmani:

Allah has safeguarded the Qur’an in an extraordinary manner. Due to this, it wouldn’t matter if all the copies of the Qur'an disappeared today. This Qur'an has been and still is in the hearts and minds of millions of people – word for word in the original Arabic – through uninterrupted chains of transmission since the time of the Prophet (:saws:). These people are known as Hufaaz. Attempts to alter the Qur'an throughout history by various entities have failed precisely because of this.
(See An Approach to the Sciences of the Qur’an: Uloomul Qur’an)

Indeed, the late William W. Cooper – a celebrated academic who is widely considered to be the father of management science – stated that as of his research in 2008, “…the number of Hafiz (sic) in the world is estimated to be more than 10 million”. (Click here to access original source.)
_______________________________
Thus, there is no anonymity in the origin and transmission of the Qur'an. We know of it's authenticity - beyond a shadow of a doubt - because the knowledge of Shari’ah (Qur’an, ahadith, etc.) continues to be transmitted this way. The verification of its authenticity can be ascertained by becoming acquainted with the people who are part of this method of education. The image below shows the chains of transmission in ahadith for Shaykh Mansur Memon Madani, Shaykh al-Hadith Abdul Moiz, Shaykh Ibrahim Memon Madani, and Mufti Husain Ahmed Madani. They are all currently teachers at Darul Uloom Canada.

We have unbroken, mutawatir links that lead directly back to the Prophet :saws:.
See also: The Isnād System: An Unbroken Link to The Prophet

Image obtained from: http://enterthesunnah.com/bloggers-short-bios/.

A high quality version can be obtained by clicking on the following link: https://bukhari2013.files.wordpress....4/05/sanad.pdf

Hi, Scimi, I have revised my theses slightly in view of your comments.


The Quran confirms the Bible that existed in Muhammad’s time and confirms the Jewish and Christian revelations that were still “with” the Jews and Christians. Surah 2:87,89,91,97,101; 21:105; 40:53,54 https://quran.com/40/53-63
The Quran therefore implies the Bible’s inspiration, authority, and preservation. Otherwise, the Quran would have confirmed a corrupted revelation.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was preserved up until the time of Muhammad. Surah 2:106 https://quran.com/2/106-116
Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that predate Muhammad, so the Quran by implication agrees that the Bible has been preserved not only until the time of Muhammad but up until the present day.
The Quran teaches that Muslims must believe the Bible too. Surah 2:136; 3:84; 4:136; 29:46 https://quran.com/2/136-146
The Quran does not teach, as you claimed, that the Bible was valid until it was corrupted, because the Quran does not teach that the Bible was corrupted at all. As we have seen just from the above references, the Quran repeatedly confirms the preservation of the Bible. So Muslims are still obligated by the Quran to believe the Bible too.
The Quran teaches that the Bible was given as guidance for all “mankind” and not for the Jews only. Surah 3:3,4 https://quran.com/3/3-13
The Quran disagrees with your assumptions. If you read the verses in the more literal Arabic translation given at quran.com (hold your cursor over the Arabic text) you will see that the Bible was given as a guidance for “mankind,” which means for all people at all times. Moreover, the Quran says that the Bible was presently existing between one’s hands - بَيْنَيَدَيْهِ baina yadehi (usually translated in English Qurans as “before”)in the 7th century A.D. So the Quran does not assert that the Bible had been whisked away from Christians by Paul long before. The revelation given through Jesus was still intact in the Christian’s “hand.” We will see this phrase again below.
The Quran teaches that the Bible contains guidance and light and that Jews and Christians should judge by the Bible.Surah 5:43-48; 21:48 https://quran.com/5/43-53
This implies that the Bible was preserved and was still authoritative. Otherwise, the Quran would have instructed the Jews and Christians to judge by a corrupt or inaccessible book. Twice in 5:46 the Quran says that the Old Testament existed in the Jew’s hand (between his hands - بَيْنَيَدَيْهِ baina yadehi) and in 5:48 the New Testament is called the Book in the Christian’s hand (“the Book in his hands” بَيْنَيَدَيْهِمِنَٱلْكِتَٰبِ). This again shows that, according to the Quran, our Bible was preserved. It also shows that the Quran viewed the New Testament as a unit, a single book, possessed by and recognized by Christians. Moreover, the Quran goes on to say that Christians are rebels if they do not judge by the New Testament.
The Quran teaches that Christians should listen to the Bible and “stand firmly by the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you [Christians] from your Lord.”Surah 5:68 https://quran.com/5/68-78
Your comments on this ayah were a non sequitur. This ayah is self-explanatory and clearly teaches the inspiration, preservation, and continuing authority of the Bible. Why would the Quran tell Christians to stand firmly by a corrupt or inaccessible book?
The Quran teaches that no one can change God’s words.Surah 6:34,114,115; 10:64; 18:27 https://quran.com/6/114-124
The Quran does not limit the scope of this promise to the Quran. Christians believe that God is a preserver of His word. God is faithful! I’m sorry you don’t believe in His faithfulness as I do.
The Quran claims that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible. Surah 7:157 https://quran.com/7/157-167 Although Muhammad per se is not mentioned in the Bible, this verse clearly presupposes that the Bible’s message has been preserved since, by appealing to the Bible, the Quran confirms the Bible’s veracity.
Funny that you should claim to reject the Gospels because the human authors did not affix their names when the Quran itself is anonymous. It may be that the four Evangelists did affix their names. In any case, the names of the four Evangelists have been associated with the same books by consistent tradition since time immemorial and there was never any competing tradition or dispute in the early Church over the authorship of the four Gospels.
The Quran says that if Muhammad doubts Islam, he should consult with those who read “the Book before you [Muhammad].” This could mean Jews or Christians, since both had books before Muhammad.Surah 10:94
https://quran.com/10/94-104
You recommended reading from verse 10:88 to 94, but my Quran version says that 10:93 begins another section, and therefore another context, that lasts until 10:103. Here Israelites (10:93), non-Jews (10:98), and “all who are on earth (10:99)” are mentioned. In this context verse 10:94 mentions only “the Book before you [Muhammad].” We have seen above that the Quran considers the New Testament as one of the books before Muhammad. The New Testament, in fact, was the Book immediately before Muhammad. With that in mind, see the verses adduced next:
The Quran teaches that, if Muhammad does not know something, Muhammad should ask Christians, “the people of the Reminder” prior to Muhammad. Surah 16:43; 21:7 https://quran.com/16/43-53
These verses also clearly presuppose the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible and that Christians still had access to it.
The Quran teaches that God supported the believing Christians and that they became superior and dominant over the unbelieving Jews.Surah 3:55; 61:14 https://quran.com/3/55-65 Historically, the only Christians who “became dominant” were those who affirmed the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and who affirmed the Bible as we have it today. According to Yusuf Ali’s commentary on 61:14 https://quran.com/61/14-24, “those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races within their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world.” http://islamhelpline.net/quran/61/14
You asked me in response to define “dominant” and claimed that “Muslims around the world” understand these verses. So why did you reject my interpretation? The interpretation I gave was that of “renowned English translator and commentator of the Qur'an” Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who, in your own words, was a “Muslim from around the world who understood these verses.” Abdullah Yusuf Ali defined “dominant.”
So “Do not argue with the People of the Book...say, We believe in that which has been revealed...to you.”Surah 29:46. https://quran.com/29/46-56
So, in conclusion, if you want to argue over Biblical interpretation, perhaps the Quran gives you permission to do that. But you are forbidden to argue with Christians over the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the Bible, since the Quran confirms these three things and requires you to believe what has been revealed to us.

Blessings.

[Scimitar]

MashaAllah, brother Najimuddin got in before me - and the point is extant - the Bible NT is not the Injeel of Isa Alaihis Salaam. But a book of controversial ahadeeth attributed to four men who are mysteriously absent from any other record. This is what the Christians call their holy book, a collection of narrations from anonymous persons - aka the New Testament, and its many MANY versions.

And God is not the author of confusion.

Scimi

[AabiruSabeel]

Allah :swt: says:

So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. [2:79]

in another Surah:

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. [3:78]

That shows that the previous scriptures were already altered at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an. As the brother pointed out above, the Qur'an only confirms the original scriptures that were revealed on previous Messengers, not their current and distorted versions.