why isn't prophet mohamed ?

[dream gurl]

I mean why isn't prohet mohamed(may peace be upon him) known in bibles.since all the other prophet was mention in ya books.we believe the first prophet is adam the last is mohamed,and yet ya belive the first prophet is adam da last is jesus.....right also we believe dat prophet mohamed was after jesus..essa just wondering y our most beloved prophet not mention....................

[snakelegs]

the bible was written before mohammad was born.

[lolwatever]

I mean why isn't prohet mohamed(may peace be upon him) known in bibles.since all the other prophet was mention in ya books.we believe the first prophet is adam the last is mohamed,and yet ya belive the first prophet is adam da last is jesus.....right also we believe dat prophet mohamed was after jesus..essa just wondering y our most beloved prophet not mention....................

salams sis
the prophet was mentioned in the gospel revealed to jesus but possible not in the bible written by paul etc..

tc salamz

[dougmusr]

salams sis
the prophet was mentioned in the gospel revealed to jesus but possible not in the bible written by paul etc..

tc salamz

Can you provide the Gospel passage so we can all see it?

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

[lolwatever]

Can you provide the Gospel passage so we can all see it?

first show us the original gospel so we can find it for you :uuh:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

....i wana say somethin buttttt itll be...errr wrong.

[dougmusr]

first show us the original gospel so we can find it for you :uuh:

So your post is really you believe it was contained in the Gospel as it was revealed to Jesus, but you have no proof since in your opinion that document does not exist?

[IzakHalevas]

So your post is really you believe it was contained in the Gospel as it was revealed to Jesus, but you have no proof since in your opinion that document does not exist?

How convenient. :exhausted

[lolwatever]

So your post is really you believe it was contained in the Gospel as it was revealed to Jesus, but you have no proof since in your opinion that document does not exist?

It's stated clearly in the quran... 'wa mubashiran bi rasoolin yati min ba'3di ismuhu ahmad'

"and i'm givign you glad tididngs of a prophet who will come after me called Ahmad"

surat as-saf or al-hashr... one of themc ant remember axctly.

quran is proof enough, since the revealer of the gospel is the same one as the revealer of the Quran.


tc :w:

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

Even though much falsehood has appeared in the current bible, some portions of the original remain, and even they suffice for those looking for the Truth:

John chapter 14 verse 16:

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

http://www.islam101.com/religions/ch...ity/mBible.htm

[dougmusr]

It's stated clearly in the quran... 'wa mubashiran bi rasoolin yati min ba'3di ismuhu ahmad'

"and i'm givign you glad tididngs of a prophet who will come after me called Ahmad"

surat as-saf or al-hashr... one of themc ant remember axctly.

quran is proof enough, since the revealer of the gospel is the same one as the revealer of the Quran.


tc :w:

dream gurl was asking about Muhammed in the Bible. Thanks for making this clear.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Actually, usually Christians themselves say it isnt the original. The fact that its not in its original language, and hasnt been for a verrrryyyy long time, u cant say its original or its not.

[lolwatever]

dream gurl was asking about Muhammed in the Bible. Thanks for making this clear.

no probs :) btw Ahmad is another anme of prophet Muhammad...

his got a number of names.. Muhammad, Mustafa, Abul-Qasim, Ahmad n a couple others..

just ncase sum ppl didnt knwo that..

tc :w:

[IzakHalevas]

Even though much falsehood has appeared in the current bible, some portions of the original remain:



John chapter 14 verse 16: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/mBible.htm

I would like to point out that I believe the "gospel" and "new testament" are not valid, and never were, just like I believe jesus to be a false prophet, But I do believe it is fair to show both sides of the story, so here is what a common christian response would be:



Disclaimer: Again as a Jew I feel the "new testament" has no validity now, and never did.

[Goku]

John:

16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

i read the page and ill point out that Prophecies were made in the Qur'an and many came true as well. Im just answering the guys claim on that page..

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

John:


16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Amazing how the Qur'an confirms this EXACT verse:

[53:3] And he does not say anything by his own desire.

[53:4] It is but a divine revelation, which is revealed to him.

Enough proof.

[IzakHalevas]

Amazing how the Qur'an confirms this EXACT verse:

[53:3] And he does not say anything by his own desire.

[53:4] It is but a divine revelation, which is revealed to him.

Enough proof.

Wait what?!? What proof is that?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

[53:3] And he does not say anything by his own desire.

[53:4] It is but a divine revelation, which is revealed to him.

In the Bible, it says he will not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak.

Prophet Muhammad(saw) was given the revelation from G-d through the angel Gabriel.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Wait what?!? What proof is that?

Proof that the Qur'an is a confirmation of the books that preceded it.

[IzakHalevas]

Proof that the Qur'an is a confirmation of the books that preceded it.

How is that proof? Especially to me, who views the book of john as no more divine then the cat and the hat?

Also, how does this proove anything to an christian? I mean you use the term "corrupted" so often and yet you pick and chose many verse which are myseriously "uncorrupted" because they serve your purpose. Your logic makes no sense.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Lol it does make sense. We believe the Bible has been tampered with, but it doesnt negate the fact it contains truth. Its been stated on here many times, especially by the Mods. Corrupted doesnt have to mean its all wrong. Just like one can say the US is corrupted, but it doesnt mean everyone inside is. Get me?

[Goku]

Amazing how the Qur'an confirms this EXACT verse:

[53:3] And he does not say anything by his own desire.

[53:4] It is but a divine revelation, which is revealed to him.

Enough proof.

:sl:

Yes, thats exactly what came to my mind when i first read that verse.

Theres also a verse in th Old Testament which states the exact same thing:

Deuteronomy

18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him

18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.


The Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not die until his message was completed, just like the OT verse says, we know this because:

Qur'an:

5:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam

And on his final sermon, Prophet Muhammad PBUH hinted his time was coming.

Qur'an claims to be the absolute word of God-all what He said whereas the Bible claims to be the inspired world of God. Qur'an fulfills the condition stated in the OT, NT and Qur'an.

:w:

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

How is that proof? Especially to me, who views the book of john as no more divine then the cat and the hat?

Also, how does this proove anything to an christian? I mean you use the term "corrupted" so often and yet you pick and chose many verse which are myseriously "uncorrupted" because they serve your purpose. Your logic makes no sense.

And neither does yours since your posting in a thread about which you understand nothing.

Yes, your book and the books of the Chrisitians are corrupted, yet not in entirety, some parts of Truth remains. Why do you think Islam refers to them as People of the Book and not as pagans who have not a shred of truth in them? Because there remains some aspects of Truth, yet what is corrupted is greater than what is remaining. And even from what of the Truth is remaining, it stands as a proof for Islam, just as i showed above. The verse in the Bible corresponds with the Verse in the Quran thus being a manifest proof that the Quran is the Truth. Only the one who revealed the Bible has revealed the Quran.

[Goku]

For those who want to learn how and why the Bible got corrupted, this is the book for you:

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Misquoting-J...e=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jes...e=UTF8&s=books

Its by a learnt Christian scholar, not a Muslim.

[IzakHalevas]

Deuteronomy

18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him

18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.


The Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not die until his message was completed, just like the OT verse says, we know this because:

Oh do you really want to begin a debate on that? It has already been refuted a few times on this website. Your argument in reality makes no sense, and to say that any type of Islamic prophet is mentioned in this verse is sheer lunacy.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

This one looks good too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...021391-9495902

[Goku]

:sl:

This one looks good too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...021391-9495902

:sl:

That one looks interesting.

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^ yes it does. i jus read some of it.

[IzakHalevas]

And neither does yours since your posting in a thread about which you understand nothing.

Yes, your book and the books of the Chrisitians are corrupted, yet not in entirety, some parts of Truth remains. Why do you think Islam refers to them as People of the Book and not as pagans who have not a shred of truth in them? Because there remains some aspects of Truth, yet what is corrupted is greater than what is remaining. And even from what of the Truth is remaining, it stands as a proof for Islam, just as i showed above. The verse in the Bible corresponds with the Verse in the Quran thus being a manifest proof that the Quran is the Truth. Only the one who revealed the Bible has revealed the Quran.

Wow, so it is all corrupted except for what fits your agenda. :rollseyes What a convinient way to look at it. I suggest however, that you not lecture me on how my Holy Books are "corrupted" since I believe I know a lot more about them than you since you insist on using an angry tone with me.

Your "proof" made absolutly no sense, when I read the verse in context.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Wow, so it is all corrupted except for what fits your agenda. :rollseyes What a convinient way to look at it. I suggest however, that you not lecture me on how my Holy Books are "corrupted" since I believe I know a lot more about them than you since you insist on using an angry tone with me.

Your "proof" made absolutly no sense, when I read the verse in context.

Any parts that do not contain associationism in any way or form.

[Goku]

Oh do you really want to begin a debate on that? It has already been refuted a few times on this website. Your argument in reality makes no sense, and to say that any type of Islamic prophet is mentioned in this verse is sheer lunacy.

The debates where it is attempted to show that neither Jesus nor Muhammad peace be upon them fulfilled some other conditions in the OT? Seen them on other forums but if u have a link to any such discussions/debates on this forum, it'll be interesting to read.

It may seem like "sheer lunacy" to you, but what is mentioned in those verses is an important part of our belief. (you seemed a bit defenseive in that post)

[IzakHalevas]

The debates where it is attempted to show that neither Jesus nor Muhammad peace be upon them fulfilled some other conditions in the OT? Seen them on other forums but if u have a link to any such discussions/debates on this forum, it'll be interesting to read.

It may seem like "sheer lunacy" to you, but what is mentioned in those verses is an important part of our belief. (you seemed a bit defenseive in that post)

http://www.islamicboard.com/617389-post33.html

Not defensive, just outraged at how you think that by quoting a verse that has nothing to do with your prohet from our holiest book is not anything but a complete insult to me.

One of the conditions was to bring world peace in their life time. Did jesus or your prophet do this?

[Goku]

Not defensive, just outraged at how you think that by quoting a verse that has nothing to do with your prohet from our holiest book is not anything but a complete insult to me.

One of the conditions was to bring world peace in their life time. Did jesus or your prophet do this?

Are you also outraged that your holy book has gone through alterations and changes? (refer to the links to books posted, they are by a Christian scholar not a Muslim)

There are Jews who have reverted to Islam, the OT was the holiest book for them as well.

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/

http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16697

Which other book from Abrahamic religious origin claims (or outside the Abrahamic Faiths) to be the absolute word of God?

As for world peace, Jesus PBUH will bring that in his second coming, by the will of God.

[dougmusr]

:sl:

This one looks good too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...021391-9495902

During the lifetime of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and after his death, his Companions (Sahabah) used to refer to him directly, when quoting his sayings. The Successors (Tabi'un) followed suit; some of them used to quote the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) through the Companions while others would omit the intermediate authority - such a hadith was later known as mursal. It was found that the missing link between the Successor and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) might be one person, i.e. a Companion, or two people, the extra person being an older Successor who heard the hadith from the Companion. This is an example of how the need for the verification of each isnad arose; Imam Malik (d. 179) said, "The first one to utilise the isnad was Ibn Shihab al- Zuhri" (d. 124).3.

The other more important reason was the deliberate fabrication of ahadith by various sects which appeared amongst the Muslims, in order to support their views (see later, under discussion of maudu' ahadith). Ibn Sirin (d. 110), a Successor, said, "They would not ask about the isnad. But when the fitnah (trouble, turmoil, esp. civil war) happened, they said: Name to us your men. So the narrations of the Ahl al-Sunnah (Adherents to the Sunnah) would be accepted, while those of the Ahl al-Bid'ah (Adherents to Innovation) would not be accepted."

Apparently not all writings that claim to be a Hadith are counted trustworthy. If Muslims are permitted to apply tests before accepting Hadiths, why would Christians not be allowed to test writings that claim to be Gospels?

[IzakHalevas]

Careful now, you are forgetting that there are Jews who have reverted to Islam, the OT was the holiest book for them as well.

No offense, but not many smart ones. The majority of "Jews" do not follow any of the Torah, and identify themselves as "liberals" or "secular" a huge majority do.

Which other book from Abrahamic religious origin claims (or outside the Abrahamic Faiths) to be the absolute word of God?

We do. The Torah is the word of G-d.

[Goku]

No offense, but not many smart ones. The majority of "Jews" do not follow any of the Torah, and identify themselves as "liberals" or "secular" a huge majority do.

They maybe secular, some of them may have been orthodox, but orthodox Jews are against Israel because of their belief in the Torah. From what i have seen from ur posts, ur pretty pro-Israel, are there many orthodox Jews who are pro-Islam? My understanding is that orthodox Jews believe G-d will send a messiah who will return them to the Holy land so in the meantime they shouldnt go there. I mean no offense if you find this offensive, but thats what i have understood:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

We do. The Torah is the word of G-d.

OK, but that word of G-d states there will be another prophet who will speak what G-d says, thats what we believe the Qur'an to be, the exact word of G-d.

Anyway you have the right to believe what you wish, as do we. :)

[IzakHalevas]

They maybe secular, some of them may have been orthodox, but orthodox Jews are against Israel because of their belief in the Torah.

Your wrong, and have no clue what you are talking about. Orthodox Jews are not all against Israel and these are lies from a sect that has actually been excommunicated from Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

I am an Orthodox Jew, and the most pious and Orthodox Jews were protesting at the houses of all the members of the anti-zionists who went to Iran.

I am no Zionist, as an Orthodox Jew, but Jewish life, and life of all humanity in general must be taken into account under Jewish law.

I think you are full of BS since you are telling me about Judaism, but in case you aren't please tell me what passages of the Torah/Talmud say that supporting Israel is wrong.

Please enlighten me.

Chasidim (ultra orthodox jews) denounced Neturi Karta at a rally Sunday.

These are the denounciations of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish authories against this gorup:


Picture of the Ultra-Orthodox jewish authority denounciation of this group:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-co...ragainstnk.jpg

OK, but that word of G-d states there will be another prophet who will speak what G-d says, thats what we believe the Qur'an to be, the exact word of G-d.

Yeah, and the word of G-d also says this prophet will:

1. Bring world peace.
2. Bring all the Jews to Israel.
3. Bring the ressurection of the dead.
4. Bring monotheism to this world so every human on earth becomes a monotheist.
5. Studied the Torah all day...

I can go on and on... did your prophet or jesus do these things????

NO! Which is why we are still waiting for the Moshiach.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

No need to cuss. He wasnt trying to tell you what Judaism is. If he makes a mistake just tell em, dont need to lash out. And he already apologized before hand incase u might take it offensive. So just relax a bit.

I mean no offense if you find this offensive, but thats what i have understood

[lolwatever]

isnt this starting to go waaaay off toipc :?

i think the point was made, the gospel is what Muslims believe in, and it is where the name of the prophet was mentioned.

As for other books written by humans, its not that important whether it was mentioned in there or not.

salams

[Jayda]

hola everyone,

i just wanted to say that the comforter (paraclete) is already identified as the Holy Spirit (hagia pneuma) in the Gospel of St. John...

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

just so that there is no further confusion it is the same word "hagia pneuma" who makes Mary conceive and is promised to come to the disciples, but be with us forever...

also, St. Paul did not author any gospels... he wrote several epistles which were included in the New Testament canon, and Jesus never wrote anything, there is something that certain people theorize might have existed called "q document" that might be a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, but there is no proof for their existance, and the only person who ever claimed they could have been written by Jesus is Dan Brown for his fictional story Da Vinci Code...

Dios te bendiga

[Trumble]

The verse in the Bible corresponds with the Verse in the Quran thus being a manifest proof that the Quran is the Truth. Only the one who revealed the Bible has revealed the Quran.

Logical nonsense. It would only 'prove' that the Qur'an is the Truth if you assume that the Bible is Truth, which you have made it quite clear that you don't. As IzakHalevas rightly says, you can't just cherry pick what is convenient. At best, if you assume that the Qur'an is Truth, you can deduce that equivalent passages in the Bible are also true. In neither case, though, is there 'manifest proof' of anything.

[IzakHalevas]

Logical nonsense. It would only 'prove' that the Qur'an is the Truth if you assume that the Bible is Truth, which you have made it quite clear that you don't. As IzakHalevas rightly says, you can't just cherry pick what is convenient. At best, if you assume that the Qur'an is Truth, you can deduce that equivalent passages in the Bible are also true. In neither case, though, is there 'manifest proof' of anything.

Not only that, but a two verses later the book is myseriously "corrupted" again. :exhausted

All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
(john 16:15)

Does this now refer to the "father" and "spirit" two of the three of the Trinity believed by christians?

jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, "Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me'?
(john 16:19)

Does this refer to his cruisifiction / "ressurection" which I never even believed happend, since I view the new testament as completly false and never valid, but I am just ammused that how the verses after are ignored as "corrupted", yet they use the verse just before it as completly valid and pure.

It makes no sense, and does not show any proof.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

lol people only fail to understand it when they have already set it in their mind that they wont! end of story ;D

[AvarAllahNoor]

So is he mentioned or not? Or did Mohammed just appear at a convienient time?

[lolwatever]

^ he is mentioned in the gospel.

It's irrelevent whetehr he's mentioned in books written by humans... e.g. Paul, Luke etc...

[Trumble]

i think the point was made, the gospel is what Muslims believe in, and it is where the name of the prophet was mentioned.

As for other books written by humans, its not that important whether it was mentioned in there or not.

What 'gospel' are you talking about? There are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although the word is also used in relation to assorted 'unofficial', alternative and 'lost' books such as the 'Gospels' of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas etc. ALL of them were written by humans.

[- Qatada -]

Jesus was given a scripture [the Injeel - Gospel] and we believe that this scripture got lost, these other 4 men claim that their scripture is divinely inspired whereas we believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was inspired himself. And the scriptures of these other people aren't the original which Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent with.

Christians from this forum even claim that these men writ in greek even though Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke hebrew or aramaic, and we know that the original scripture in these languages doesn't remain today. The earliest they can link any scripture back to is one from 400yrs after Jesus (peace be upon him) returned to Allaah Almighty.



Peace.

[lolwatever]

What 'gospel' are you talking about? There are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, although the word is also used in relation to assorted 'unofficial', alternative and 'lost' books such as the 'Gospels' of Mary Magdelene, Judas, Thomas etc. ALL of them were written by humans.

the gospel revealed to jesus :)

[AvarAllahNoor]

Wasn't the 'Gospel of Thomas' the only real Gospel of Jesus, which is today rejected by the Church?

[shible]

Assalamu alaikkum brothers and sisters I have a PPt that describes about the Gospel of barnabas the close companion of Jesus.

and it was destroyed by paul.

I can send that PPT. It not only describes about the gospel but also many facts about Islam with comparision of other Religions.

It wasn't created by me. I recieved it in mail. It was created in Housten, texas.

If you mail me your Id's then i can send it to you

Salaam

[- Qatada -]

Wasn't the 'Gospel of Thomas' the only real Gospel of Jesus, which is today rejected by the Church?

The real gospel was the gospel revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him) - hence, the correct gospel is the gospel of Jesus. :)

[Abu Zakariya]

To understand why Muslims might quote the Bible even though they believe in it to be corrupt, click here:

To read a Muslim-Christian-Jewish trialogue that was on this forum, about Prophecies in the Bible, click here:

[Makky]

IzakHalevas

I'm glad that we have someone here on LI who know Hebrew. I guess you will be helpful to clear many things that are written in the bible .

1st of All Did i type the word muhammad right in the Hebrew? :)

םחםד

If so then would you search for it or a similar word in the bible specially in Haggai ( חגי ) from Haggi 2-1 to 2-9

Please search in Song of Solomon ( שיר השירים ) from 5-1 to 5-16

[IzakHalevas]

IzakHalevas

I'm glad that we have someone here on LI who know Hebrew. I guess you will be helpful to clear many things that are written in the bible .

1st of All Did i type the word muhammad right in the Hebrew?

םחםד

No you did not.

If so then would you search for it or a similar word in the bible specially in Haggai ( חגי ) from Haggi 2-1 to 2-9

Please search in Song of Solomon ( שיר השירים ) from 5-1 to 5-16

No he is not mentioned in there. I know of a claim that he is, but that has already been refuted about a dozen times, but please claim it again, so I can refute you. I will be waiting. :)

[Makky]

[/LEFT]

No you did not.

by the way I wrote it right and i'll prove

the word Muhammad in Arabic consist of 4 letters

Mim : م

Ha : ح

Mim : م

Dal : د

so its محمد
4 letters

the 4 letters in Hebrew are

ם : م
ח:ح
ם:م
ד:د

and its here for example in song of solomon 5-16

חִכֹּו֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלֹּ֖ו מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דֹודִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנֹ֖ות יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃

song of solomon in Hebrew click here http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=5&version=81

5: 16 حلقه حلاوة و كله مشتهيات هذا محمد يا بنات اورشليم

I thought that you will be neutral ..

No he is not mentioned in there. I know of a claim that he is, but that has already been refuted about a dozen times, but please claim it again, so I can refute you. I will be waiting.

I say you rather say :
but that has already been Denied about a dozen times.

by the way I'm 100% sure of the spelling of the word محمد
I'm an Arab and i speak arabic

For All of you people who want to be sure of the Hebrew letters

wikipedia

[IzakHalevas]

The "ם " letter you used is not the Mem that would be at the beggining of the word to say what you want to say It would be this letter:

מ
the "mem"

Therefore you were wrong.

Anyway, here is what you say:

Claim: Mohammed Is Mentioned In Song of Songs

Another claim is made that in the book Song of Songs (Also called Song of Solomon), the coming of Mohammed is prophesied.


The verse in question (translation is the author's) is as follows:

Song of Songs 5:16 His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

The assertion is that chapter 5 is a prophecy of a prophet yet to come. But, if we take a look at a transliteration of the Hebrew text we will see what the real principle of the matter is:

Chiku mamtakim v'khulo machamadim zeh dodi v'zeh re'i b'not yerushalayim.

If you look at the word "machamadim" we can start to see the issue. Mohammed is a name that comes from the Hebrew root of "lovely" or "cute" or "desirable" and as such. These Muslims are making it so we can't use our own language without it somehow being a prophecy.

But That's Not The Word!

The word used is machamadim, the plural form of machamad.


If we follow the Muslim way of translating this sentence, we would produce the following:

His mouth is most sweet; and he is altogether Mohammeds. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

It doesn't make any sense.

Conclusion

One who asserts that Mohammed is mentioned in the Song of Songs ignores the most simple reading of the text and has probably never even looked at the Hebrew of the text.

_____________

So if I used the world "Melekh" saying He was a "Melekh" which means "King" and there was some guy that was named "Maleaac" while it has nothing to do with the word would claim Oh my name is close to the name in the story. It makes no sense.

You found a Hebrew world that means "Lovely" or "cute" and it sounded like your prophets name so you said "Oh it must be".

It shows your lack of understanding of the context of what the chapter speaks about and shows how you have no clue of you are speaking about.


How about this verse:

פְּקֻדֵיהֶם, לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה--אַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁבְעִים אֶלֶף, וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.

"those that were numbered of them, of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty."

The word in red says "Pedehem".

If my name was "Pedam" should I claim the verse refers to me? Of course not, it refers to "those that numbered" what the word means.


PLUS!

• If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by G-d (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by G-d (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by G-d (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad.

[Abu Zakariya]

Anyone who wants to look at the previous discussion on this subject can do it here: and then decide for himself wether it's been refuted or not.

[Makky]

The "ם " letter you used is not the Mem that would be at the beggining of the word to say what you want to say It would be this letter:

מ
the "mem"

Therefore you were wrong.

Do you see yourself fair when you just say : (no you didn't .)
just because I used something like small letter in english instead of a capital letter

the letter מ is the same letter ם ... but the 1st one is used in the begining...

Do you see that your way was a fair way to talk infront of people who don't know the Hebrew letters.?????????????????????

Wait for the next post to refute you , but please be fair this time

[lolwatever]

Helloooooooo aren't we now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy off topic now!

[Makky]

A question

May I ask you somthing?

what is the difference between the following 2 words

مُحَمدٌ

محمد

[IzakHalevas]

Wait for the next post to refute you , but please be fair this time

Refute me?

The same word you claimed is refering to your prohet aslo to it being traded for food and slain by G-d elswhere. Do you not believe these to? Your logic is ridiculous.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

u sure lolwatever?? its still talking about the mention of the Prophet(saw)...

[IzakHalevas]

If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by G-d (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by G-d (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by G-d (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad


I have to go now. Peace.

[Abu Zakariya]

The word, does it still mean "lovely" in the other places?

[Trumble]

Christians from this forum even claim that these men writ in greek even though Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke hebrew or aramaic

Rather more than 'claim'. Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic as his first language, although it's very likely that he was familiar with Greek as well. There is considerable historical and archeological evidence that Greek was widely used in the Galilee region for both business and government transactions and even for far more mundane uses. The Bible states Jesus had dealings with several people who were unlikely to have spoken Aramaic; it is far more likely he talked to Pilate and others in Greek. Greek was the primary literary language of the time and it is very likely that even contemporary accounts (had any been written and preserved) would have been written in that language.

and we know that the original scripture in these languages doesn't remain today

For reasons explained above, it probably never existed in those languages at all, except in translations from the Greek! The idea that just because Jesus taught in Aramaic (not Hebrew, although he was probably familiar with that as well) must mean that some now-lost 'originals' of the gospels in that Aramaic must have existed is incorrect.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Does it not make sense to u that the language Jesus(pbuh) spoke is what the gospel was revealed in? It wouldnt make sense that only Jesus(pbuh) would know Aramaic and no one else would. Like Hebrew is to the Torah, Arabic is to the Qur'an, So is Aramaic to Gospel/Bible.

[Makky]

The word, does it still mean "lovely" in the other places?

Brother I'm going to sleep now but I cann't go before saying jazak Allah khair for this excellent answer .

Insha Allah I have much to say in this thread . But I'm waiting for him to answer my question .

My response to all his calims depends on this question

[Trumble]

Does it not make sense to u that the language Jesus(pbuh) spoke is what the gospel was revealed in? It wouldnt make sense that only Jesus(pbuh) would know Aramaic and no one else would. Like Hebrew is to the Torah, Arabic is to the Qur'an, So is Aramaic to Gospel/Bible.

No, that is comparison you cannot make at least if considering the Bible from a Christian perspective, which in this context is the one you really need to consider it in. Aramaic is not to the Bible as Arabic is to the Qur'an.

The whole idea of a gospel 'revealed' to Jesus in the same way (correct me if I'm wrong?) as the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammed is a purely muslim one. To be honest, as it is described by lolwatever and Fi_Sabilillah - which I assume is mainstream Islamic doctrine - it seems absurd to me. Why, in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is there no record of Jesus ever mentioning such a revelation? Why on earth would God make such a revelation to Jesus only for it to disappear without trace? Who messed up, God or Jesus? As it seems ridiculous that it could be either, it seems equally ridiculous to me that such a 'gospel' ever existed in the first place. From the Christian perspective there was no 'revealed' gospel at all. The Christian gospels describe the story of Jesus and what he taught, they are not claimed to be the direct Word of God in the way the Qur'an is.

[dream gurl]

thanks everybody for replying but next time stay on da same topic plz take care.............................................. ......

[- Qatada -]

Hi trumble.


First of all, Grace Seeker from this forum said that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke aramaic and his companions gave the message in greek because that was the common language for the people at that time. We can't say that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke greek without no proof so therefore that doesn't hold much weight.


Regarding your second point, Allaah sent messengers to their own people and this is why we see many times in the bible - Jesus (peace be upon him) being ordered to “Go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel!” Matthew 10:6 etc. it was upto these people to preserve the scripture of their prophet.

One of the reasons why Allaah may have promised to preserve the Qur'an is because Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a messenger to mankind ["Say: 'O mankind! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth." (Qur'an 7:158) ]

Therefore it is our duty to spread the message of the Qur'an and Allaah will preserve it for us. Unlike the previous nations whose prophets only came to their own nation, hence instead of spreading it on - it was their duty to follow it and preserve it, and obviously we know that it never got preserved. That's why there is so much confusion today.



Peace.

[Trumble]

First of all, Grace Seeker from this forum said that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke aramaic and his companions gave the message in greek because that was the common language for the people at that time. We can't say that Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke greek without no proof so therefore that doesn't hold much weight.

There is no way you can 'prove' any fact like that in relation to something that happened two thousand years ago. There is more than enough historical and archeological evidence to suggest that Jesus (whose existence at all cannot be 'proven', of course) probably did speak Greek, and that holds more than enough 'weight' to carry the argument. The alternate position seems to amount to no more than evidence-free speculation based on an incorrect understanding of the linguistic demographics of the time and an unsound argument by analogy.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i find it more effective to prove to the christians the flaw of jesus dying for our sins and the concept of the trinity.

no need to go into the details of whats written in the bible and other minor details when such a huge flaw can be found in the basic fundamental faith such as Jesus dying for the sins of every rapist and drug addicted serial killer out there.

may ALlaah grant us the understanding...

[Al_Imaan]

i just learned something new....

[dougmusr]

thanks everybody for replying but next time stay on da same topic plz take care.............................................. ......

I think the answer to your question is it depends on whether it is important for your faith to find him mentioned there. I think the concensus is that he is not mentioned in a fashion that would be acceptable as proof to anyone but another Muslim.

As a Christian I feel he is mentioned by inference in this Bible verse.


John 5:43 "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."

Here is a passage from a Hadith which I feel justifies my claim.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 3:

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, 'Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.' So they will go to Adam and say, 'You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' Adam will say, 'I am not fit for this (i.e. intercession for you).' Then Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed thereof. He will say, 'Go to Noah, for he was the first Apostle, Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth.' They will go to him and Noah will say,

'I am not fit for this undertaking.' He will remember his appeal to his Lord to do what he had no knowledge of, then he will feel ashamed thereof and will say, 'Go to the Khalil--r-Rahman (i.e. Abraham).' They will go to him and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking. Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke (directly) and gave him the Torah .' So they will go to him and he will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking.' and he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will say, 'Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.' So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord's Permission and I will be given permission.

This verse in the Hadith states that Jesus was less righteous or worthy of interceeding for mankind before God than Muhammed. If Muhammed actually said this, I would interpret this as coming in his own name.

[Abdul-Raouf]

So if someone says that he got the holy spirit within him.. and then writes a book related to christianity(he writes some new concepts)... will u Christians accept his boook?

and if he wants his book to be included in in the bible.... will u all agree with him?????

[dougmusr]

So if someone says that he got the holy spirit within him.. and then writes a book related to christianity(he writes some new concepts)... will u Christians accept his boook?

and if he wants his book to be included in in the bible.... will u all agree with him?????

I suspect his or her book will be added to the bookshelves of local Christian bookstores if the material is found trustworthy when measured against the Bible, but the contents of the Bible will not be altered.

[Abdul-Raouf]

when was bible last altered???

[dougmusr]

when was bible last altered???

Others would be better able to answer, however here is some info I found.

It was during the fourth century that concentrated attempts were made both in the East and the West to establish the authoritative collection of the Canon. In 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the complete twenty-seven books of the New Testament which he regarded as the "only source of salvation and of the authentic teaching of the religion of the Gospel" (Hannah, Notes, 2.6). While Athanasius stands out in the Eastern Church, Jerome is his counterpart in the West. Jerome wrote a letter to Paulinus, bishop of Nola in 394 listing just 39 O.T. books and our current 27 N.T. ones. It was in 382 that Bishop Damascus had Jerome work on a Latin text to standardize the Scripture. The resulting Vulgate was used throughout the Christian world. The Synods of Carthage in 397 and 418 both confirmed our current twenty-seven books of the NT.

[shible]

have you heard about the Gospel of Barnabas.

where barnabas was a very close companion of jesus and the bible also refers him as apostle.in Acts(14:14), and as a good man full of holy spirit in Acts(11:24)


in 325 A.D the followers of St.Paul gained control over COUNCIL OF NICEA and Canonized 4 greek gospels that are available now.

and destroyed all the other gospels

and do u know that the only gospel wrote on Aramaic language in which the jesus spoke was also destroyed.

[shible]

Assalamu alaikkum brothers and sisters I have a PPt that describes about the Gospel of barnabas the close companion of Jesus.

and it was destroyed by paul.

I can send that PPT. It not only describes about the gospel but also many facts about Islam with comparision of other Religions.

hi guys this is my mail id, In case if you wish you can either send me mail so that i could send that file

or you can give ur id in this thred no issues

[IzakHalevas]

i find it more effective to prove to the christians the flaw of jesus dying for our sins and the concept of the trinity.

no need to go into the details of whats written in the bible and other minor details when such a huge flaw can be found in the basic fundamental faith such as Jesus dying for the sins of every rapist and drug addicted serial killer out there.

may ALlaah grant us the understanding...

Yet, a man who kills 100 people will be forgiven if he repents and converts according to Islam. I'll try and find the post for you and the replies that told me that is the absolute truth.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

If he sincerely repents and does not repeat it again. G-d knows what is really in the persons heart. Take the Pharoah for example. He was an awful person. Right before he was going to die, he accepted Islam, but it was not accepted. He did it just to escape punishment. He didnt do it sincerely.

[Malaikah]

:sl:

^Yes exaclty! Well said.

IzakHalevas, I think there something about the word sincerely and the conditions for repentance that you do not understand.

[Malaikah]

This verse in the Hadith states that Jesus was less righteous or worthy of interceeding for mankind before God than Muhammed. If Muhammed actually said this, I would interpret this as coming in his own name.

What do you mean? How is it coming in his own name? :?

[Jayda]

hi jayda ,

were you able to view the attachment.

was it helpfull for your queries

Assalamu alaikkum brothers and sisters I have a PPt that describes about the Gospel of barnabas the close companion of Jesus.

and it was destroyed by paul.

I can send that PPT. It not only describes about the gospel but also many facts about Islam with comparision of other Religions.

hi guys this is my mail id, In case if you wish you can either send me mail so that i could send that file

or you can give ur id in this thred no issues

hola shible,

i still cannot open the file... i think you are saying that this is a power point presentation, which explains the difficulty for me (i do not have powerpoint).

but i think i have the general understanding from your abbreviated post here and elsewhere... at least enough to know that the presentation cannot be correct...

first, the "gospel of Barnabas" which you are talking about did not exist during the first sixteen centuries after Christ... it was printed by the turks and distributed in spanish and italian (which are anachronistic), and attributed to the apostle (not disciple) Barnabas, but he never wrote it.

next, i think you mentioned in another place that it was rejected for Canon at Nicea, but the Canon of Holy Scripture was not decided at Nicea, the only issues at Nicea were arianism, when easter would be celebrated and what prayers would be performed, and what to do about people who converted from Christianity under torture from the romans... there were also anathemas for those who did not accept the council.

next, the Apostle St. Paul did not destroy any scriptures... there is nothing suggesting any were even written down at his time, most scholars believe that aside from the decree of the Apostles in 70AD (which was to settle a disagreement about Jewish law and gentiles between Peter and Paul), nothing was written down until the very end of the first or very beginning of the second century. everything was an oral tradition from that time...

the apostle did not destroy scriptures, that was impossible since they were not written, and the Barnabas "gospel" did not exist before the 16th century.

some writers i think are deliberately trying to confuse people who do not understand these things... there is something called "the epistle of Barnabas" which is written by Barnabas, and it comes from the late first century. it was included in an early manuscript called the codex sinaiticus from the 4th century.

epistles are lettings... not gospels, (a letter versus a book) and the epistle is very Pauline, Pauline theology means that gentiles do not have to follow the Jewish laws, but they do have to follow the Noahide laws. this is what was decided at the Council of Jerusalem, presided over by the remaining disciples.

the epistle of Barnabas says that gentiles do not have to follow certain kosher laws, do not have to be circumcized and that Christians, not Jews have the true covenant. it does not talk about Jesus or Christianity, it is about laws...

please do not allow somebody to tell you that the epistle of Barnabas and the gospel of Barnabas are the same...

here is more information about the epistle of Barnabas

here is more information about the "gospel" attributed to Barnabas

i hope this clears any confusion you have...

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

So if someone says that he got the holy spirit within him.. and then writes a book related to christianity(he writes some new concepts)... will u Christians accept his boook?

and if he wants his book to be included in in the bible.... will u all agree with him?????

hola Muzammil,

protestants and Catholics have different ideas about inspiration from the Holy Spirit... i do not understand their ideas about this very well but what i see on TV some sundays scares me... i think they believe that they can personally be taken over by the Holy Spirit like what happened to the apostles during pentecost, and everything they say is perfect and from God... ex cathedra

Catholics believe that what happened at Pentecost was something that only happened to the apostles...

we believe the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church but for different reasons, God told Peter that He would build tie His Church to Peter, who he called a "rock" and that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (the Church). Jesus also promised to be with his apostles until the end of the age... a promise which is kept through apostolic succession.

we do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the lay in their lives but it is not the same direct guidance that God gives His Church... it is not guidance that grants authority.

an offshoot of God being with his apostles to the end of the age is that the Gospels were also guided by God... all four gospels were written by apostles... it is one of the first things that must be proven for the Church to accept a gospel, they must show apostolic origin... that way there is at least a potential for the gospel to be inspired. there are many other criteria after that...

but the important thing to understand is that it must be "inspired," which means that before anything it must come from somebody who is capable of being inspired (which is not the average person), and it must be examined and accepted by the Church... which is also guided by God.

Dios te bendiga

[Jayda]

If he sincerely repents and does not repeat it again. G-d knows what is really in the persons heart. Take the Pharoah for example. He was an awful person. Right before he was going to die, he accepted Islam, but it was not accepted. He did it just to escape punishment. He didnt do it sincerely.

hola Tayyaba,

i am confused why muslims say "G-d" sometimes... like Jews say... is this something the quran tells you to do? i am confused by it because i think Jews do it so that they do not say "God" because they believe it is blasphemous (i think) to say his name... or anything like that... but muslims believe God has 99 names and they can be said read and named... so these things seem to be in conflict... maybe Izak or rav could also explain if i misunderstand these things?

Dios te bendiga....

[IzakHalevas]

G-d's name cannot be erased. Therefore, when typing on this website, if a post is deleted or the site is taken down and the name of G-d is here, then it will be erased. Therefore we do not write his name.

There are a few other more complicated reasons as well.

[Malaikah]

i am confused why muslims say "G-d" sometimes... like Jews say... is this something the quran tells you to do? i am confused by it because i think Jews do it so that they do not say "God" because they believe it is blasphemous (i think) to say his name... or anything like that... but muslims believe God has 99 names and they can be said read and named... so these things seem to be in conflict... maybe Izak or rav could also explain if i misunderstand these things?

It is a Jewish belief... not a Muslim one. I don't know why some Muslim do it...

[Sunni Student]

firstly sorry if someone had already said this in the thread already, i havent read all of the posts!

If anyone is intrested in understanding this topic, then they shud read 'Muhammad in the Bible' by Ahmad Deedat or watch the video.

[Jayda]

G-d's name cannot be erased. Therefore, when typing on this website, if a post is deleted or the site is taken down and the name of G-d is here, then it will be erased. Therefore we do not write his name.

There are a few other more complicated reasons as well.

It is a Jewish belief... not a Muslim one. I don't know why some Muslim do it...

gracias IzakHalevas and Malaikah,

is it possible Muslims do this for continuity between Jewish beliefs and Muslim ones?

Dios te bendiga

[dougmusr]

What do you mean? How is it coming in his own name? :?

"So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord's Permission and I will be given permission." This sets up Muhammed as an intermediary between God and man and makes Muhammed the agent through which Gods forgiveness is given, that is he can choose to interceed or not interceed for those who come to him.

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 601: Narrated Ma'bad bin Hilal Al'Anzi:

"It will be said, 'O, Muhammad, raise your head and speak, for you will be listened to, and ask, for you will be granted (your request); and intercede, for your intercession will be accepted.' I will say, 'O Lord, my followers!' Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed. (Take them) out of the Fire.' I will go and do so."'

This verse presumes that Muhammad is capable of knowing the hearts of men and of their level of faith. I would think this power would be reserved for God.

[IzakHalevas]

It is a Jewish belief... not a Muslim one. I don't know why some Muslim do it...

Although it is a Jewish belief, it is still a beautiful belief to not wish G-d's name be erased in anyway, do you not agree?

[Goku]

Your wrong, and have no clue what you are talking about. Orthodox Jews are not all against Israel and these are lies from a sect that has actually been excommunicated from Ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

I am an Orthodox Jew, and the most pious and Orthodox Jews were protesting at the houses of all the members of the anti-zionists who went to Iran.

I am no Zionist, as an Orthodox Jew, but Jewish life, and life of all humanity in general must be taken into account under Jewish law.

I think you are full of BS since you are telling me about Judaism, but in case you aren't please tell me what passages of the Torah/Talmud say that supporting Israel is wrong.

Please enlighten me.

I am not the one who claims to be an orthodox Jew saying Israel is against my belief. And speaking of BS, you are the one talking of excommunicating a Jewish sect, who gave you authority? What if they follow the Jewish faith more accurately, or vice versa? You wish to tell these Jews they are excommunicated:

Chasidim (ultra orthodox jews) denounced Neturi Karta at a rally Sunday.

These are the denounciations of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish authories against this gorup:


Picture of the Ultra-Orthodox jewish authority denounciation of this group:

Yep, differences of opinion, i didnt claimed all orthodox Jews are against Israel, just that there are orthodox Jews who are against Israel. And that is not my personal viewpoint, i think a 2 state solution is a plausable solution.

Yeah, and the word of G-d also says this prophet will:

1. Bring world peace.
2. Bring all the Jews to Israel.
3. Bring the ressurection of the dead.
4. Bring monotheism to this world so every human on earth becomes a monotheist.
5. Studied the Torah all day...

I can go on and on... did your prophet or jesus do these things????

NO! Which is why we are still waiting for the Moshiach.

Ressurrection of the dead will happen at Judgement Day, Prophet Jesus' second coming will bring monotheism around the world.

No need to cuss. He wasnt trying to tell you what Judaism is. If he makes a mistake just tell em, dont need to lash out. And he already apologized before hand incase u might take it offensive. So just relax a bit.

Jazak Allah Khair Sister. :)

[IzakHalevas]

I am not the one who claims to be an orthodox Jew saying Israel is against my belief. And speaking of BS, you are the one talking of excommunicating a Jewish sect, who gave you authority? What if they follow the Jewish faith more accurately, or vice versa? You wish to tell these Jews they are excommunicated:

Well they are a sect of about 1,000-3,000 and they have been excommunicated by even the anti-zionist ultra-orthodox groups. I already showed you the paper posted in all shuls about this excommunication, not only because there actions and violations of "lashon hara" but because they have been accused of worshiping there leader as some sort of diety. For example, imagine if a Muslim cleric says "it is okay to eat pork" and his followers say "yes because this cleric knows best". This is what is going on with this group. There leaders say things that are against the Torah and there followers take there word over G-d's.

Here are pictures from a protest against one of their leaders staying in a hotel:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/galle...g2_itemId=1366

It got so bad, the hotel wrote this:

Ressurrection of the dead will happen at Judgement Day, Prophet Jesus' second coming will bring monotheism around the world.

It is clearly stated that the Moshiach will accomplish this in his life time, and if he is killed or dies, he is definitly not the Moshiach, because G-d would not send Moshiach and let him die before his mission is complete.

[Abu Zakariya]

they have been accused of worshiping there leader as some sort of diety. For example, imagine if a Muslim cleric says "it is okay to eat pork" and his followers say "yes because this cleric knows best".

It's a good comparison, since we have this concept in Islam (the prohibition on following taghut).

[IbnAbdulHakim]

jazakAllaah khair goku, it made me happy to see those images mashaAllaah

[Trumble]

have you heard about the Gospel of Barnabas.

where barnabas was a very close companion of jesus and the bible also refers him as apostle.in Acts(14:14), and as a good man full of holy spirit in Acts(11:24)

Assalamu alaikkum brothers and sisters I have a PPt that describes about the Gospel of barnabas the close companion of Jesus.

and it was destroyed by paul.

The only known ancient record we have of the gospel of Barnabas is from a fifth century list of apocrypha... that's a century after the Council of Nicea and rather longer after Paul died. It is highly unlikely it was even written until long after Paul's death.

The text we have today is a medieval forgery, a fact that is accepted by all serious scholars, including the muslim ones who don't have other agendas. You won't, of course, have gathered that from sites such as http://barnabas.net which find such things as 'facts' far too inconvenient to mention. Even that site makes clear that

"The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E."

...which, as it was never accepted as canonical gospel anywhere else suggests both that it originated in that area and that it was never accepted widely beyond it even if it ever got beyond it. That hardly suggests an 'authentic' first century, Aramaic origin and it is far more likely to have been authored a couple of centuries later in Coptic. As the text no longer exists, we will never know... unless, of course, another 'lost' gospel turns up preserved in the desert somewhere.

and do u know that the only gospel wrote on Aramaic language in which the jesus spoke was also destroyed.

Nope. I don't think anybody else knows that either.

[Abu Zakariya]

This sets up Muhammed as an intermediary between God and man and makes Muhammed the agent through which Gods forgiveness is given, that is he can choose to interceed or not interceed for those who come to him.

This is not a Muslim belief, you just made this up.

We believe that on the Day of Judgement, God will allow Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to ask God for some things. For instance (quote from a text by Shaykh al-Munajjid):

What this intercession means is that he will intercede for all of mankind when Allaah delays the Reckoning and they have waited for so long in the place of gathering on the Day of Resurrection. Their distress and anxiety will reach a point where they can no longer bear it, and they will say, “Who will intercede for us with our Lord so that He will pass judgement amongst His slaves?” and they will wish to leave that place. So the people will come to the Prophets, each of whom will say, “I am not able for it,” until when they come to our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he will say, “I am able for it, I am able for it.” So he will intercede for them, that judgement may be passed. This is the greater intercession, and it is one of the things that belong exclusively to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

However, we don't turn to Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to ask for his intercession. we turn to God. Because we know that the only way he will ever get this position on the Day of Judgement is because God will allow it.

There are a few conditions for this intercession:

Allaah must approve of the one for whom intercession is made, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and they cannot intercede except for him with whom He is pleased”

[al-Anbiya’ 21:28]

Allaah must give permission to the intercessor to intercede, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission?”[al-Baqarah 2:255]

Allaah must approve of the intercessor, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“…whose intercession will avail nothing except after Allaah has given leave for whom He wills and is pleased with”

[al-Najm 53:26]

It isn't true that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the agent through which forgiveness is given. I'll ask you not to misrepresent Islamich teachings, thank you very much.

For more information about this, see this link:
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=26259&ln=eng

This verse presumes that Muhammad is capable of knowing the hearts of men and of their level of faith. I would think this power would be reserved for God.

First of all, it's not a verse. I think you confused this with the Qur'an. It's a hadith.

Second of all, it does no such thing. You can't just read this as an isolated hadith and deduce Islamic principles of faith from your own interpretation. That's not how it works. You take into consideration the other Islamic texts pertaining to this.

It's clear from other Islamic texts that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) doesn't know about the unseen unless God has revealed something to him of it.
So he doesn't know what is concealed in the hearts of men.

Also, it is stated in another hadith that the Prophet (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) will say, refering to some people,: ‘They are from me.” And it will be said; “You do not know what they did after you were gone.” And I will say, “Away with those who changed after I was gone!"
So you see that your statement was false, based on the hadith I just quoted which clearly mentions that he will not know about what is concealed in the hearts of men.

How will the level of faith be known? Well, in other hadiths it is mentioned for instance that some will have special signs on their foreheads, hands and feet because of the ablution before prayer and so it will be evident who are the believers. I don't know if this refers to these particular people, though. So maybe God will just make it clear who are the ones with faith, I don't know.

[- Qatada -]

It is clearly stated that the Moshiach will accomplish this in his life time, and if he is killed or dies, he is definitly not the Moshiach, because G-d would not send Moshiach and let him die before his mission is complete.

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

And there is none of the People of the Book [jews & christians] but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

[Qur'an 4:157-9]

:)

[IzakHalevas]

<B>

And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

</B>

And there is none of the People of the Book [jews & christians] but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

[Qur'an 4:157-9]

:)

What does that contribute to anything?

[- Qatada -]

The Messiah son of Maryam (peace be upon them) wasn't killed, he was raised back upto Allaah and will return. Hence he hasn't died, and hasn't completed his mission yet. He will come back and slay ad-dajjaal (the anti christ.)


I'm thinking you mean Messiah by saying Moshiach right? :)



Peace.

[dream gurl]

anyway I heard dat da bible its self was changed severel times during past time and in another hand da quran still remain da same since one thousand and 5 hundered something years which still remain da same infor.......................................



:quran:

[dougmusr]

This is not a Muslim belief, you just made this up.

I didn't make it up, it is in the Hadith. I am not saying you believe what is written there.

However, we don't turn to Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to ask for his intercession. we turn to God. Because we know that the only way he will ever get this position on the Day of Judgement is because God will allow it.

So the people will come to the Prophets, each of whom will say, “I am not able for it,” until when they come to our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he will say, “I am able for it, I am able for it.” So he will intercede for them, that judgement may be passed. This is the greater intercession, and it is one of the things that belong exclusively to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

The above quotes are in disagreement. You say you don't turn to Muhammad,
but your quoted explanation of the Hadith indicates that "the people will come to the Prophets" to request intercession.

It isn't true that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the agent through which forgiveness is given. I'll ask you not to misrepresent Islamich teachings, thank you very much.

Again, I am only showing what I found in the Hadith. I haven't a clue whether it agrees with Islamic teaching or not. I am at a disadvantage in that I can only read and interpret the text as it is written. It would take years of study before I could know if the text means what it says or not.

[Makky]

If one is to accept that the word Machmad refers to Muhammad then one should look at all the occurrences of that word. When one does this one can see why only the occurrence in the Song of Solomon is cited by Moslems. The others tell one that Machmad was destroyed (2 Chron. 36:19), was to be laid waste (Isa. 64:10-11), has been taken captive by an enemy (Lam. 1:10), has been traded for food (Lam. 1:11), has been slain by G-d (Lam. 2:4; Hos. 9:16), has been removed by G-d (Ezek. 24:16), is to be profaned by G-d (Ezek. 24:21), is to be buried in nettles (Hos. 9:6) and been carried away by pagans into their temples (Joel 3:5). Even an unkind person would not attribute all these things to Muhammad


I have to go now. Peace.

You didn't answer.. what is the difference between the 2 words
مُحَمدٌ

محمد

[Abu Zakariya]

I didn't make it up, it is in the Hadith.

No, this is a lie. You said that the Prophet (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is God's agent through which forgiveness is given. This isn't in the hadith.

I am not saying you believe what is written there.

What you said isn't written there. What the hadith says, however, is what we indeed believe. And it doesn't say what you said. It basically mentions that in the Hearafter, the Prophet (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) will ask God for certain things. And this will occur because God will allow it.

The above quotes are in disagreement. You say you don't turn to Muhammad, but your quoted explanation of the Hadith indicates that "the people will come to the Prophets" to request intercession.

What I said is that we don't ask Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to interced for us. And we don't, because it's forbidden since it's polytheism to turn to Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) instead of God. So if we want Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to intercede for us, we turn directly to God and ask Him of it directly.

What the quote mentions is that on the Day of Judgement, when Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) will be present, the people will go to him and ask him to intercede.

So the difference is that now we don't ask for Muhammads (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intercession from him, since he is dead and can't hear us. But on the Day of Judgement, when he along with all mankind, will be resurrected then they will go to him and ask him to go to God and make the process of judging begin. I hope you see the difference. We don't ask for his intercession because he isn't among us and can't hear us, but we will ask him when he is present and can hear us.

What we mean by intercession for forgiveness is that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) will ask God to forgive his followers. It doesn't mean that we turn to him or that God's forvigeness is bound by that intercession. In fact, the only way he ever could intercede is by God's permission in the first place!

Again, I am only showing what I found in the Hadith. I haven't a clue whether it agrees with Islamic teaching or not. I am at a disadvantage in that I can only read and interpret the text as it is written. It would take years of study before I could know if the text means what it says or not.

But if you aren't qualified to deduce what Islam says about these issues, why do it in the first place? You aren't only showing what the hadith says, you're reading stuff into it.

[One Man Army]

why did muhammad come at that time? and year? is there a link in the cycle of prophets? do they come ever so often (according to islam)?

[dougmusr]

But if you aren't qualified to deduce what Islam says about these issues, why do it in the first place? You aren't only showing what the hadith says, you're reading stuff into it.

Let me see if I understand. The text in the Quran and Hadith does not mean what it says. It is in fact spiritually encrypted and requires a key for understanding. Those who do not have this understanding should avoid reading it lest they misinterpret its teaching. Is this what you are saying?

So the difference is that now we don't ask for Muhammads (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intercession from him, since he is dead and can't hear us. But on the Day of Judgement, when he along with all mankind, will be resurrected then they will go to him and ask him to go to God and make the process of judging begin. I hope you see the difference. We don't ask for his intercession because he isn't among us and can't hear us, but we will ask him when he is present and can hear us.

Jesus still lives. Can you go to Him for intercession?

[Abu Zakariya]

Let me see if I understand. The text in the Quran and Hadith does not mean what it says. It is in fact spiritually encrypted and requires a key for understanding. Those who do not have this understanding should avoid reading it lest they misinterpret its teaching. Is this what you are saying?

That's not what I'm saying. I explained earlier why you can't read one isolated hadith and try to deduce what Islam teaches based on this one hadith. And when you on top of that read things into the hadith that aren't there, that's even worse.
You read this one hadith, and then came to the conclusion that it teaches that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) knows what is in the hearts of men. However, if you knew about the other hadith I quoted - which explicitly mentions that he doesn't know what's concealed in the hearts of men - you would not have said what you said (unless you're deceitful, which I don't think you are).
That is what I'm trying to say.

Jesus still lives. Can you go to Him for intercession?

We don't believe that Jesus ('alayhi salam) is omnipresent. He doesn't hear everything. So if I asked him for something, he wouldn't be able to respond.

[dougmusr]

That's not what I'm saying. I explained earlier why you can't read one isolated hadith and try to deduce what Islam teaches based on this one hadith. And when you on top of that read things into the hadith that aren't there, that's even worse.

Would you agree that the same might be true of the way Muslims should treat the Bible and Christian belief on this forum?

However, if you knew about the other hadith I quoted - which explicitly mentions that he doesn't know what's concealed in the hearts of men - you would not have said what you said (unless you're deceitful, which I don't think you are).

Are you saying that it is possible for these two hadith to make opposite claims and not be in conflict?

[Abu Zakariya]

Would you agree that the same might be true of the way Muslims should treat the Bible and Christian belief on this forum?

Yes.

Are you saying that it is possible for these two hadith to make opposite claims and not be in conflict?

They're not making opposite claims. The first hadith isn't saying that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) knows what people believe in their hearts.

[dougmusr]

They're not making opposite claims. The first hadith isn't saying that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) knows what people believe in their hearts.

Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed.

[- Qatada -]

Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed.

And there are also many ahadith within sahih al bukhari and muslim [hence their authentic] which mention that the people who will be removed from the hellfire are those who have the marks of prostration on their foreheads. Allaah has forbidden the fire to burn that. :)


Peace.

[FBI]

:sl:

in whose hearts there is faith

Which is Islam.

[Trumble]

You didn't answer.. what is the difference between the 2 words
مُحَمدٌ

محمد

As he hasn't, could somebody else put us non-Arabic readers out of our curiosity?

[Malaikah]

^Yeh me too... from what I can see they are exactly the same words, it says Muhammad, one has the vowel markings and the other doesn't... which doesn't mean much because people who can read Arabic can read it without the vowel markings anyway...

But it would be interesting to know what point the person is trying to make.

[Abu Zakariya]

Then He will say, 'Go and take out (all those) in whose hearts there is faith even to the lightest, lightest mustard seed.

It doesn't say that Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has knowledge of what is in the hearts of men. And since other hadiths clearly contradict such a notion, that isn't the case.
As I explained earlier, it will be known that some people have faith by their appearance. Or maybe God will tell Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) which one's should be taken out. I'm not sure about this specific thing. However, nowhere does it say that he posseses the knowledge of the unseen.

[One Man Army]

can someone explain why did muhammad sahib come specifically at that time? what was the state of the world? and what did muhammads messege change to the current things that where occuring in the world.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

can someone explain why did muhammad sahib come specifically at that time? what was the state of the world? and what did muhammads messege change to the current things that where occuring in the world.

if you have time i recommend you listen to the seerah of prophet muhammad saws which explains everything in great detail, why he came, the condition, what his mission was etc etc.

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...ghlight=awlaki

The Life oF the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) Makkan Period

Check it out :)

[Malaikah]

can someone explain why did muhammad sahib come specifically at that time? what was the state of the world? and what did muhammads messege change to the current things that where occuring in the world.

Prophet's are sent when the people are so deviated from the real religion that they need a prophet to guide them back to the true path.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) was sent to a people who had forgotten the worship on only one God, and had turned to idol worship. They were an immoral community, they had all kinds of prostitution and illegal sexual intercourse, they were very heavy drinkers, they were very oppressive of women, they used to murder their daughters at a young age, some even buried them alive... etc. That's all that comes to mind at the moment. Also, the Arabs (in Arabia) of the time were not united.

Islam abolished all these practises and replaced them with something better. Idol worship was replaced with worshipping God alone, all kinds of prostitution and sexual relationships outside of marriage were made illegal, as was drinking, women were given their rights, and the murder of young girls was made illegal. The Arab people became united under the Islamic rule.

That's all I can think of for now...

[skhalid]

The Bible doesn't mention Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.)
cos they dont accept him as a prophet, they accept most of the others but the message he bought doesnt really follow what is told in the Bible!!!

[lolwatever]

The Bible doesn't mention Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.)
cos they dont accept him as a prophet, they accept most of the others but the message he bought doesnt really follow what is told in the Bible!!!

the ones written by humans probably don't (some say they do.. who knows.. who cares), but the gospel revealed to jesus does.

[shible]

Its not true there are saying about Prophet (saw)

Jesus said "“…he shall give you another comforter…” (John 14:15-16)

Jesus said: “I have many things to say unto you, but you can’t bear them now…he will show you things to come…(John 16:14). The message of Jesus was incomplete. Another prophet was needed to guide mankind.

Gospel of Barnabas: “…Muhammad is his blessed name.” (Ch. 96-97)

A Prophet Like Moses: God said to Moses, "I will raise up a Prophet… like unto thee. I will put my words in his mouth, & he shall speak them all...” (Deuteronomy18:18)

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Does the Gospel of Barnabus really say that?? I think thats one of the parts they took out...:X

[shible]

:sl:

In case

if you need to know more information from variuos holy books including Torah, gospel of barnabas of what they say about Prophet Muhammad (saw)


then check this thread

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...r-imagine.html



:sl:

[IzakHalevas]

A Prophet Like Moses: God said to Moses, "I will raise up a Prophet… like unto thee. I will put my words in his mouth, & he shall speak them all...” (Deuteronomy18:18)

Already been refuted. I kindly ask you not to speak about the Torah unless you know about what you speak:

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

Where Did They Get That Idea?


The relevant verse of the Torah is as follows:

Deuteronomy 18:18 A prophet I will raise up for them from amongst their brethren like you and I will give my words into his lips and he will speak about them all that I command him.

We must ask the following: who is "I", who is "you", who is "them/their"? "I" is G-d, "you" is Moses, "them/their" refers to the Israelites.

So a paraphrase could be: G-d will raise up for the Israelites a prophet from the Israelites' brethren some time in the future that will be like Moses and speak the words of G-d.

Having established that, what's the connection?

The assertion is that "from amongst their brethren" refers to the Ishmaelites, and as Muslims assert many times, Mohammed is descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

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

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

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

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

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



Just a chapter back, in Deuteronomy 17, we find a similar phrase, but the voice is different. This time Moses is delivering a message from G-d directly to the Israelites, speaking to the Israelites as a single group, instead of us hearing what G-d says to Moses.

Deuteronomy 17:15 You shall put (appoint) upon yourself a king that G-d will pick him; from amongst your brethren you shall appoint a king; you will not be able to give upon yourself a foreign man that is not your brother.

This verse, just a chapter behind the verse about the prophet is quite explicit. It uses the phrase "amongst (their/your) brethren" and then clarifies that a foreigner, which is definitely a non-Israelite, is not the Israelite's brother.


For further explicitness of the term foreigner, let's turn to Exodus 12.

Exodus 12:43 And G-d said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance of the Passover offering, every son of a foreigner shall not eat of it.

Conclusion

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


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

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^thats the 3rd time i saw the same answer ;D
deja vu:? nahhh lol

[IzakHalevas]

^^thats the 3rd time i saw the same answer ;D
deja vu:? nahhh lol

Cough* we just copy and paste it over again, we don't actually type it up from scratch all over again *Cough :exhausted :D :D :p

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

i know hehe. i wasss being sarcastic ;D lol
thats big a statement between the cough ;D you'd have to say it reallly fast haha.

[IzakHalevas]

i know hehe. i wasss being sarcastic ;D lol
thats big a statement between the cough ;D you'd have to say it reallly fast haha.

Yes, I have been having throat problems lately. Maybe I should see a doctor if I continue to virtually cough on message boards :p.

[zaria]

"and i'm givign you glad tididngs of a prophet who will come after me called Ahmad"

Salaams' Its Surah Saff 61: begining at ayat 6

[Trumble]

Does the Gospel of Barnabus really say that?? I think thats one of the parts they took out...:X

Again, the text for the "Gospel of Barnabas" that we have is a medieval forgery. There is only the sketchiest evidence that an 'original' "Gospel of Barnabas" ever existed, even if it did we have no idea what it might have contained.