Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by capri

well u can understand this also tat the Bible is not the word of Allah anymore, there r more than 1 additions of Bible and each one is different from the other. so if an error was present it would be present now rather than hundreds of years ago. when there were not much changes.

---

As I said, I think your understanding of the changes that have taken place with regard to the Bible are in error, serious error. Indeed Catholics and Protestants recognize two different canons of scripture. But it is not because of changes in the texts, but disagreement on which books should be considered as authoritative. There are disagreements in Islam as to who should be considered authoritative as well. Does that make all the interpreters of the Qur'an untrustworthy? I don't think so. Likewise I don't think that the disagreements with regard to the canon make the agreed on books questionable.

Beyond that there are no "changes" in the Bible in the sense of alterations to change the theology or overall message. What there are are variant readings produced by errors in copying. And while some of them might be considered significant, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post.

Just as you have a "science" to determine the validity of various (i.e. variant) hadiths, so we have a science of textual criticism to determine the validity of any variant readings. Because of this, even secular scholars who don't believe in the teachings of the Bible trust the accuracy of the available texts as being the most reliable of any manuscript of its antiquity or older. Thus any reasons for not having confidence in the integrity of the Bible as presently used by Christians (be it Protestant or Catholic) are generally unfounded, your above claims not withstanding.

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His slave and messenger Muhammad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fromgenesis

It would be proper to read more than a single texts to substantiate a specific interpretation of a text. Read the following with it, and you will realise that the text cannot refer to Mohammad:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

---

I think that is inclusive of the way the Prophethood of Muhammad is perceived by Muslims.

I don't see how that verse would do damage to their claim.

Now to the changes of the Bible.

I have heard the claim made that no theological matters depend solely on a doubtful text, well, one should bear in mind several things:

That the books traveled alone, they were not written by the authors to be attached to others, in general, some were. So any possible theological change to a book could effect the meaning and the reason why it was cannonised.

That the changes could have been made and not discovered, after all it is hard, and I would say impossible, to assess the number of changes that have taken place from the time the authors put pen to paper to now.

That changes could have also occurred, and most probably did, at a time before the authors of the four present Gospels wrote, thus effecting the material they received and their editing of it.

All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God. We find almost futile efforts to try and uncover the historical Jesus through guesswork which is in no way near comparable to the system of the Isnaad and Hadith in general. One of the only interesting matters is the categorization of the manuscripts into family groups through which tendencies of scribes could be assessed to discover the best reading.


In conclusion we have no way to know what Jesus did or said with a high level of reliance, except for a couple of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

In conclusion we have no way to know what Jesus did or said with a high level of reliance, except for a couple of things.

---

With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by - Qatada -

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

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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

Problem:
The underlined word is the Hebrew Machmaddim. Moslems claim that this word is a reference to Muhammad for two reasons,
The word Machmad (singular of Machmaddim) sounds a bit like the name Muhammad
The word Machmad means The praised one (i.e. the one worthy of praise); this, they assert, must be Muhammad!

Solution:
The logic of the assertion that the word Machmad is Muhammad because the two words sound a bit similar is somewhat specious. The name John sounds a bit like the Arabic Jinn, but there is no connection between the two. Similarly a connection on the grounds that the word means "the praised one" falls short of a guaranteed logical link; has only one person in the world ever been praised?

The context of the passage identifies the person described as Machmad as someone in the time of Solomon (Song 3:11) who is loved by a Shulamite (Song 6:13). He is red-haired (Song 5:10). None of these descriptions fits Muhammad who never visited Shunem in his life.

A search of all the occurrences of the word Machmad in the Bible shows that the word has nothing to do with praise. It simply refers to whatever is desirable for whatever reason and is derived from the root chamad which means desire.

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

---

---

...

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fromgenesis

It would be proper to read more than a single texts to substantiate a specific interpretation of a text.

Read the following with it, and you will realise that the text cannot refer to Mohammad:
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

you speak as if the Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam, spoke of things which didn't happen, how odd? THAT verse actually gives credence that IT IS talking about Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam!

---

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

it's also strange how "Christians" and other non-belivers ASSUME that Islam isn't mentioned in the Torah!

In Genesis chapter 17, Stone Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God:
v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…]

We do have one prophecy that at least according to the Jews, puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy! so why wouldn't there be further refences to Rasulullah, Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam?

refs: The Stone Edition Chumash The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with A Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings by Mesorah Publishing as well as the Artscroll Tanach Series Bereishsis/ Genesis A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz with Overviews by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and a Foreword by HaGoan HaRav Mordechai Gifter, published by Mesorah Publication Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Chumash or Bereishsis/ Genesis respectively.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grace Seeker
With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.

---

we speaking about different books! the ORIGINAL "Christian" Bible was the Tanakh, NOT the New Testament! None of the original apostles or disciples of Jesus EVER HELD A NEW TESTAMENT IN THEIR HANDS! EVER!

:w:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YusufNoor

we speaking about different books! the ORIGINAL "Christian" Bible was the Tanakh, NOT the New Testament! None of the original apostles or disciples of Jesus EVER HELD A NEW TESTAMENT IN THEIR HANDS! EVER!

:w:

---

Al Habeshi was talking about the Gospels and specifically mentioned Jesus, "All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God." leading to my comments. Beyond that, the general line I hear from Muslims is to also doubt the integrity of the Tanakh, so if you can't trust it in general, how can you trust it to speak about Muhammad in particular?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Al Habeshi was talking about the Gospels and specifically mentioned Jesus, "All these factors provide a very probable possibility that the text have changed. And because of this we find a varied view of who Jesus was and the reliability of the text across scholarly level, from Jesus of the NT not existing, to Jesus being God." leading to my comments. Beyond that, the general line I hear from Muslims is to also doubt the integrity of the Tanakh, so if you can't trust it in general, how can you trust it to speak about Muhammad in particular?

---

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

general rule of thumb: when we are in agreement, it's probably OK; where we are in disagreement it's been tampered with!

simple really!

:w:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YusufNoor

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

general rule of thumb: when we are in agreement, it's probably OK; where we are in disagreement it's been tampered with!

simple really!

:w:

---

Well, now that you've laid it out like that for me, it's really obvious.

All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

I should know better than to ask Biblical scholars or to research the writings of the early church fathers for the truth, from now on I'll just ask the followers of an illiterate 7th century Arab who can tell me truth from falsehood without even opening a Bible.

:hiding:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Well, now that you've laid it out like that for me, it's really obvious.

All Bible verses that are in agreement with the teachings of Islam are probably original.

aye, you're on the right path!

All Bible verses that are not are cleary corruptions.

probably!

And any Bible verse that might be understood one way by Muslims and another way by either Jews or Christians are themselves correct but are only properly understood by Muslims.

actually, i'm finding that the REAL CONSERVATIVE Jews are finding the Tawheed in their religion, especially the ones that: puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy! gottal love them! :happy:
Lastly, any non-Biblical material discarded by Jews or Christians as being unauthentic, heresy, or simply works of non-revelatory fiction but that contain elements seen as in concert with the teachings of Islam are to be understood as the last vestiges of what remains of the original uncorrupted Injil or Tanakh.

see below, but heresy maybe!

I should know better than to ask Biblical scholars or to research the writings of the early church fathers for the truth,

if you mean Chrisitan fathers, i agree! [and see below]

from now on I'll just ask the followers of an illiterate 7th century Arab who can tell me truth from falsehood without even opening a Bible. :hiding:

just ask the "right" followers and, In Sha'a Allah, you will be guided to the truth!

---

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


the VAST MAJORITY of Prophets that we have knowlwdge of ALL descendants of Abraham, Alaihe Salaam, and are now generally[though not always correctly] called Jews. so if we want to determine what "their" message was, Jewish sources would be pretty reliable. here's a snippet from Rabbi Nosson Scherman in his "An Overview/ Ezra - Molder of a New Era" which serves as an introduction to The Book Ezra / A New Translation With A Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic And Rabbinic Sources with Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz:

The First Temple and the Jewish nation - both the Ten Tribes of Samaria and the Kingdom of Judah - had crumbled spiritually because of the sin of idolatry. ALL THE PROPHETS FROM MOSES ONWARD HAD WARNED ELOQUENTLY AND STRENUOUSLY ABOUT THE PITFALLS OF THIS CARDINAL SIN. Nevertheless, Israel succumbed, with the result that it was banished from it land and nearly destroyed as a people. ...why should there have been such an obsessive passion for [idolatry] that even the Prophets were ignored and murdered in the people's headlong passion to choose strange gods and pagan ceremonies over the ONE GOD and His Torah?

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

just because your "Biblical scholars" don't understand Judaism or Islam doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either of them, just the "Biblical scholars!" it's not my fault for the errors of your "Biblical scholars!"

are we clear now? :D

:w:

In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Peace and Blessings be upon His slave and messenger Muhammad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

With that level of doubt, no one should be referring to the Bible to substantiate Muhammad as a prophet of God. If you can't trust it to tell you about Jesus, you certainly can't trust it to tell you about Muhammad.

---

Well I would agree that no one should base their faith on the words of the Bible thinking that they have a clear picture, the doubt as to what happened is overwhelming.

The again, if one already believes in the Bible then surely such prophecies should be paid attention too.

See I am not saying it is all bad, rather due to the fact that we do not know the good from the bad when looking at the book solely it should not be a foundation of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YusufNoor

so, the Prophets came to "RE-ESTABLISH THE WORSHIP OF THE ONE TRUE GOD AND THE OBEYANCE OF HIS LAW"; which is EXACTLY what Islam is!! AND this message is for ALL TIMES!! which by the way is proof of existence of islam before Muhammed's[Salla Allahu Alaihe Wa Salaam] times."

just because your "Biblical scholars" don't understand Judaism or Islam doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with either of them, just the "Biblical scholars!" it's not my fault for the errors of your "Biblical scholars!"

are we clear now? :D

:w:

---

I went to watch a basketball game at the local high school. The team was playing poorly, it was like the boys simply weren't listening to the what the coach was telling them to do and were doing their own thing instead. Finally, the coach had enough and called timeout. He took out all of the starters and put a whole new group on the floor. Then he called a second time out and told them how he wanted them to play. They did, and slowly they began to get the game first under control and then to make up the deficit, take and build a lead, till at the end of the game, they had it won handily. At that time, the coach called time out one more time and put the third string in, just to give them a little playing time. He told the third string how he wanted them to play, just as he had done with the first two groups. But this third string wasn't either as skilled, nor did it listen as well as the other subs had been. The didn't blow the game, but they didn't play like the coach asked them to either.

When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice. It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

See I am not saying it is all bad, rather due to the fact that we do not know the good from the bad when looking at the book solely it should not be a foundation of faith.

---

Of course, we disagree as to your premise. I think that the Biblical record can be trusted. That it is good, and that it is only the interpreation of it that has been suggested here that is in error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I went to watch a basketball game at the local high school. The team was playing poorly, it was like the boys simply weren't listening to the what the coach was telling them to do and were doing their own thing instead. Finally, the coach had enough and called timeout. He took out all of the starters and put a whole new group on the floor. Then he called a second time out and told them how he wanted them to play. They did, and slowly they began to get the game first under control and then to make up the deficit, take and build a lead, till at the end of the game, they had it won handily. At that time, the coach called time out one more time and put the third string in, just to give them a little playing time. He told the third string how he wanted them to play, just as he had done with the first two groups. But this third string wasn't either as skilled, nor did it listen as well as the other subs had been. The didn't blow the game, but they didn't play like the coach asked them to either.

When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice. It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.

what the hell are you on about? :uhwhat


Of course, we disagree as to your premise. I think that the Biblical record can be trusted. That it is good, and that it is only the interpreation of it that has been suggested here that is in error.

---

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i did not know that Methodists had sacrificial wine, might i suggest that you hit the wagon for a while!

btw, the topic is

Quote:

---

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophesied in other Scriptures.

---

i will repeat:

In Genesis chapter 17, Stone Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God: v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…]

let me summarize:
God is speaking to Abraham, regarding Ishmael[/B] I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; and I will make him into a great nation…” and i'll type slow here: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…. THUS Islam is in YOUR Scriptures, and who may i ask delivered this Islam to mankind?

:w:

I too will repeat.


Many players (prophets) may be sent in, all with supposedly the same purpose. In this case that purpose is to take the coaches instructions (God) and execute the gameplan (to lead people to live in a covenantal relationship with God). Of course some players execute that gameplan better than others. You might be right that Muhammad was put in the game, but judging by his execution of the gameplan, I don't think that Muhammad was a star player on God's team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

When God sent his players out on the floor, you are right that they were sent with a game plan, that plan being not so much simply to worship the one true God, but to live in covenant with him. Some did, some didn't. In time God would send in some subs. They had the same role. And some of them fulfilled it, and some of them didn't. Sorry, but I put Muhammad in the didn't category. In fact, though I do believe he played for the same coach, it's like he wasn't even paying attention in practice.

---

Honestly, I did not know that you feel this way. I don't know that I have ever seen such disrespect to a person that I highly honor as a Messenger of Allah!

Quote:

---

It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught. There are similarities, but not enough to make me think that Muhammad was ever a first-string player.

---

..again such disrespect! I understand from this that you are saying that Muslims equate Muhammad (saaws) as "coach" with Allah (1st sentence God as coach to send players on the floor). This is of course shirk that Muslims utterly abhore.

Quote:

---

You might be right that Muhammad was put in the game, but judging by his execution of the gameplan, I don't think that Muhammad was a star player on God's team.

---

Perhaps, you may feel differently if you actually read the book that I gave to you, "The Sealed Nectar".

Well assumption of the gameplan is what is the difference.

Also difference in the understanding, you see our view is that unlike the coach God would not place in compentant people as messengers, he would know their actions and thus not have them there.

Furthermore if they did not execute the game plan he would execute them.

And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allāh),

We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),

And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta),

And none of you could withhold Us from (punishing) him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Honestly, I did not know that you feel this way. I don't know that I have ever seen such disrespect to a person that I highly honor as a Messenger of Allah!..again such disrespect! I understand from this that you are saying that Muslims equate Muhammad (saaws) as "coach" with Allah (1st sentence God as coach to send players on the floor). This is of course shirk that Muslims utterly abhore.Perhaps, you may feel differently if you actually read the book that I gave to you, "The Sealed Nectar".

---

No, Allah/God is the coach who sends his players or prophets.


Look, I was a third-string player myself. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who does not fully execute the gameplan. But when I look at the message that Muhammad (pbuh) delivered and the other prophets delivered, I would have to say that Muhammad (pbuh) didn't get it 100% right, and even less than others before him. If I thought he did, I would be a Muslim, wouldn't I? But that doesn't mean he wasn't playing on God/Allah's team.

If you find it disrespectful that I don't think of Muhammad as the star player, I am sorry to have offended you or anyone else. But I don't think that a true messenger of God would ever say some of the things about Jesus that Muhammad said. For all to good he did in bringing knowledge of God to Arab pagans, to then say that belief in Jesus, his divinity, his crucifixion and resurrection are shirk and would keep a person from God -- these statements as so far off the mark it is like he was temporarily playing for the other team. No prophet of the God of the Bible would do these things. Thought there are many other reasons to suggest that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is someone esle, ultimately, even if the passage didn't point to someone esle, no one who brought the message that Muhammad brought could ever be the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. His message simply doesn't fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

Furthermore if they did not execute the game plan he would execute them.

And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allāh),

We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),

And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta),

And none of you could withhold Us from (punishing) him.

---

That holds water only if you can trust that the person who passed that on to you was actually executing the gameplan when he said that.

It becomes a circular arguement:
Muhammad (pbuh) gave us the Qur'an, a message from Allah.
How do you know that it is a message from Allah? Because Allah's messenger gave it to us.
How do you know that he is Allah's true messenger? Because if he wasn't Allah would have killed him.
And what is the source of this knowledge? It is in the Qur'an, the message that came from Allah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

No, Allah/God is the coach who sends his players or prophets.

---

Did you not say, "It's little wonder that when Muhammad is today looked to as if he were a coach himself, that the game his players play looks so different from what the original coach taught."? Perhaps, you misspoke, but anyone with half a brain could see the implied "coach" analogy with God.

Quote:

---

Look, I was a third-string player myself. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who does not fully execute the gameplan. But when I look at the message that Muhammad (pbuh) delivered and the other prophets delivered, I would have to say that Muhammad (pbuh) didn't get it 100% right, and even less than others before him.

---

I have made it clear earlier and you agreed that the Islamic concept of Allah is more similar to the OT Jehovah than the Christian concept of God (F,S&HS). Your problem is that Muhammad (saaws) did not parrot the corruption brought by Paul in saying that Jesus is God. Of course you can't see that Paul was a "fifth column" that infiltrated the Christian community and (by spreading the "gospel" he said he received directly from God in Galatians) undermined the true message that Jesus (as) taught.

Quote:

---

If you find it disrespectful that I don't think of Muhammad as the star player, I am sorry to have offended you or anyone else. But I don't think that a true messenger of God would ever say some of the things about Jesus that Muhammad said. For all to good he did in bringing knowledge of God to Arab pagans, to then say that belief in Jesus, his divinity, his crucifixion and resurrection are shirk and would keep a person from God -- these statements as so far off the mark it is like he was temporarily playing for the other team. No prophet of the God of the Bible would do these things.

---

That is only because you really believe that God became a man, lived a perfect life, died on the cross and was resurrected from the dead. Of course you don't see that if your beliefs are false, then what Muhammad (saaws) said was revelation from Allah (swt) is "spot-on".

Quote:

---

Thought there are many other reasons to suggest that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is someone esle, ultimately, even if the passage didn't point to someone esle, no one who brought the message that Muhammad brought could ever be the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. His message simply doesn't fit.

---

...and how is the central message of Islam different from the 1st of the 10 commandments, "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God."

How many Muslims worsip any other than the One God without ancestors or descendents or equal? What Christian does not also worship the man, Jesus (as), as the Creator? How many statues or pictures of ANY living organism are present in any masjid the world over? Name me a single church that does not have at least one statue or picture of Jesus or Mary in a prominent place. If anything, the message that Paul preached and that you accept is Truth "simply doesn't fit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

That holds water only if you can trust that the person who passed that on to you was actually executing the gameplan when he said that.

---

Well that would be circular if I was asking you to believe the argument only on the base of those verses, rather, I believe the argument based on those verses now, but I had also before to a certain extent on logic.

A coach would not keep on the field and aid a player who kept on scoring own goals.

After reading over these posts from the past couple of days, I am beyond disgusted at the analogy used to describe Prophet Muhammed. Graceseeker, if we took a first-hand follower of Jesus an put him on the earth and told him to go and follow the faith Jesus taught him, what faith do you think he would be comfortable with??

Which faith does the following:

Greets each other with Salam Alaikum
Refers to God as Allah
Performs wudu before prayer
Removes shoes before entering a house of God
Falls on their face in prostration
Prays to ONE God

That faith is Islam and it is exactly what Jesus, pbuh, taught His followers.

What you follow, according to your ridiculous analogy is the team towel boy. Paul was self-appointed team player, never taught how to play by the coach, never learned the rules, never played with the other teammates and created his own form of gameplay when the true team players didn't want to play with his newly invented game! When his fraudulent playbook was discovered, he was immediately benched and kicked out of the game by the true players.

However, ignorants who never played the game followed his false game and created a whole new game with players that never had the opportunity to learn from the coach who was sent directly from the game's creator!!!

So, before you insult our Prophet, who WAS a chosen Prophet of God, think about the former Christian Killer you are following. The religion taught by Jesus, pbuh and the prophets before Him is NOT the same Pauline religion you follow today.

Deuteronomy clearly talks about another Prophet and it is clear by those verses, that comforter is NOT Jesus, pbuh, and even the Jews knew this when they were asking about 3 DIFFERENT entities: Are you Elias, Are you the Christ, Are you THAT Prophet? We already know who the Christ was, so who do you suppose was THAT Prophet?

Please try to control yourself from speaking with such disrespect about our Prophet.

Hana