Verse 5:116

[Farid]

I dont know why you are against that verse, because there are Christians who understand that verse and are actually agreeing with it. The reason some Christians agree with that verse is because they know who the subject is in that verse, and I hope that I telling you the subject of that verse will change your mind.

The subject of verse 5:116 are the Maryan Christian Cult. The Maryan Cult were people in the Fifth century A.D. who spread the belief that Jesus(pbuh) and his mother Mary(as) would be two seperate gods beside God. And therefore God spoke out only against them. The minority of the Maryans believed that mary was the mother of god, through whom he produced a physical son. According to Christianity this was and is blasphemy, and therefore agree with the verse 5:116.

And behold! God will say: "O Jesus, the son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God,?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.'" (Surah 5 Maida, verse 116)


thank you. and if you have any other questions then i will try my best to answer them thank you.

[Aineo]

Farid, your explanation further demonstrates the inaccuracy of Muhammad's revelations in the Qur'an. The "people of the book" did not view Mary as a god. There may have been a Marian cult that did, however Coptic Christians in the 5th century believed Mary was the mother of the Messiah (Jesus), which is what is taught in the "book".

[Farid]

But there is not mention of "the people of the book" in that verse. These revelations came to Muhammad(pbuh) at the time where he needed it, so it could be that Muhammad(Pbuh) became aware of this cult and God gave them this verse. There could be other explanations also. but one thing that i know is that God did not make a mistake, the reason is, if you look at the Quran you can see many scientific verses, you can understand these verses if you know Arabic especially. Also in the Quran there were verses revealed to Muhammad(pbuh) about future events and the event described in the Quran did take place just like it was said, now these are the reasons i dont believe verse 5:116 to be a mistake. Of course it could be a mistake if Muhammad(pbuh) wrote the Quran, but how would Muhammad(pbuh) know about the big bang, process of rain, embroyology, future events, etc. especially when Muhammad(pbuh) was an illiterate man.

Future events predicted in the Quran.

“We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, “I believe there is no god except in the One whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter. Too late! For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor. Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations. Verily, many among mankind are totally oblivious to our signs.” (Holy Quran, from 10:90 to 10:92)

The underlined verse is saying that the pharoahs body will be preserved, The body of pharoah, Merneptah, (pharoah of the exodus) was found well preserved in 1898, it is still in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.


Scientific verses in the Quran:

Sura 51, verse 47

"The heaven, we have built it with power. Verily we are expanding it."

this verse is referring to the universe and of course the universe is expanding but an illiterate man wouldnt know that.

"Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of what is inside their bodies, coming from a conjunction between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it." 16, Verse 66

explanation of 16:66 by Dr. Bucaille:


"From a scientific point of view, physiological notions must be called upon to grasp the meaning of this verse. The substances that ensure the general nutrition of the body come from chemical transformations which occur along the length of the digestive tract. These substances come from the contents of the intestine. On arrival in the intestine at the appropriate stage of chemical transformation, they pass through its wall and towards the systematic circulation. This passage is effected in two ways: either directly, by what are called the Lymphatic vessels', or indirectly, by the portal circulation. This conducts them first to the liver, where they undergo alterations, and from here they then emerge to join the systematic circulation. In this way every thing passes through the blood-stream.. The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands. These are nourished, as it were, by the product of food digestion brought to them via the bloodstream. Blood therefore plays the role of collector and conductor of what has been extracted from food, and it brings nutrition to the mammary glands, the producers of milk, as it does to any other organ. Here the initial process which sets everything else in motion is the bringing together of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself. This very precise concept is the result of the discoveries made in the chemistry and physiology of the digestive system. It was totally unknown at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and has been understood only in recent times. The discovery of the circulation of the blood, was made by Harvey roughly ten centuries after the Qur'anic Revelation. I consider that the existence in the Qur'an of the verse referring to these concepts can have no human explanation on account of the period in which they were formulated."






There are many more of these, but I hope that you get my point, and that is that how will an illiterate man come up with something like this, the explanation is God, and if God revealed these verses then how could he make a mistake in 5:116, to me this is logic.

thank you.

[Aineo]

004.171 O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught � concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a � messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from � Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) � better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent � Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in � the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. � �
http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP004.htm

005.073 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is � no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall � on those of them who disbelieve. � �
005.074 Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah � is Forgiving, Merciful. � �
005.075 The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the � like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. � And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for � them, and see how they are turned away! � �
005.076 Say: Serve ye in place of Allah that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor � use ? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower. � �
005.077 Say: O People of the Scripture! Stress not in your religion other than the � truth, and follow not the vain desires of folk who erred of old and led many astray, � and erred from a plain road. � �
http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP005.htm

Would you care to rethink your post?

Job 9:8-10
8 Who alone stretches out the heavens,
And tramples down the waves of the sea;
9 Who makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades,
And the chambers of the south;
10 Who does great things, unfathomable,
And wondrous works without number.
NAS

Psalms 104:2
2 Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
NAS

Isaiah 40:22
22 It is He who sits above the vault of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
NAS

The word translated "vault" in Isaiah 40:22 is:

OT:2329

chuwg (khoog); from OT:2328; a circle:


KJV - circle, circuit, compass.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

All modern scientists teach the universe "stretched" and one theory is the universe is expanding, however this is not universally accepted since some scientists believe the universe is static and spinning.

No human being taught the earth is a circle until the Greek philosophers, who came hundreds of years after all of the above were written.

Knowledge of preserved Pharaohs preceded Muhammad by hundreds of years since the tombs of the Pharaohs were blundered, so what you posted was common knowledge in Egypt.

Since most, if not all your science proofs can be debunked based on what Greek philosophers knew long before Muhammad. So I will have to do a bit of research on this Sura before I can comment.

[Farid]

I agree with the scientific verses from the Bible, as you already know, Muslims believe that the Bible was also sent from God. We believe that Bible has undergone some alteration over the long periods of time. The verse 10:90-10:92 that is talking about the pharoah being preserved, is not showing Mohammad(pbuh) that bodys can be preserved because Egyptions had acquired that knowledge in about 26oo B.C.. verse 10:90-10:92 is actually saying that he will be kept preserved for later generations as a sign, not as a sign that bodys can be mummified, but a sign so people can see the power of God.

And you are welcome to study those surahs, but an important advice would be to study it from the Muslim and Non-Muslim side. thank you. and yes I was just wondering why does it say "New Convert" under my name, does it mean i am new member?

thank you.

[Aineo]

Are you trying to tell me that you think Merneptah was drowned in the Red Sea and then Allah preserved him? Other than the fact the Exodus occurred before Merneptah was born, it was Pharaoh's chariots that pursued the Hebrews that drowned, the Pharaoh did not. Your miracle is a mistake and shows that Muhammad got it wrong. There are hundreds of mummies in Egypt so what is so miraculous about one of them?

Now Farid, when will you Muslims start furnishing proof that the Bible has been changed? Every Muslim who posts here makes the same accusation without any proof. And the Qur'an is not proof.

Who said anything about studying Suras? I am going to research Greek science. You see Farid, most of Islamic scientific proof for the divine inspiration of the Qur'an can be shown to have been known information when Muhammad dictated the Qur'an. Your science concerning an "expanding universe" is in the books of the Bible, which predate Muhammad over 1000 years.

[Farid]

First of all, we are still not sure what the date of Exodus is for sure. Because using Exodus scholars have suggested that the date of Exodus was in the 1400 B.C., Scholars have suggested that it was Thutmose III who was the pharoah of Exodus, but the problem with that is that we still have the sarcophagus of Thutmose III, and the events described in the exodus, well we know nothing like that happened during his reign, the same goes for Rameses II.

In Quran it has been said that even the Pharoah drowned, now using Egyptology we know that the pharoahs always led their army. Now even if Merneptah is not the pharoah of exodus it doesnt make that sura a mistake because Merneptah died of drowning and shock, and he was found well preserved, so he is the best guess of the pharoah mentioned in the Quran. Merneptah is the supposed pharoah of exodus according to Catholic Encyclopedia:

Merneptah I
(1234?-1214 B.C.), the fourth king of the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty and the supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus, was the thirteenth son of Rameses II whom he succeeded in or about 1234 B.C., being then long past middle age. His rule lasted some twenty years, during which he carried on considerable building operations in the Delta, and notably at Tanis (Zoan), where, indeed as elsewhere, he usurped a number of some of his predecessors' monuments. His original works are comparatively few and insignificant. His name is constantly found on the monuments of his father; it appears also in Nubia, and in the old quarries in the Sinaitic peninsula. In his third year, he quelled a revolt to the northeast, possibly excited by the Hittites' and in his fifth year, he repelled an invasion of Egypt by the Lybians and their allies, which victory is boastfully described on a black granite stela found in 1896 in his funeral temple at Thebes, and bearing the earliest known reference to Israel. He is commonly regarded as the Pharaoh of the Exodus on the following grounds.

On the one hand, Egyptian discoveries have shown that Rameses II founded the cities represented in Exodus., i, 11, as built by the oppressed Hebrews, and therefore point to him as the Pharaoh of the oppression.
On the other hand, Ex., ii, 23; iv, 19, imply that the immediate successor of that Pharaoh was on the throne when Moses returned to Egypt where he soon delivered his people. Whence it is not unnaturally inferred that Merneptah I, Rameses son and successor, is the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Scholars are debating over who the real pharoah of exodus was, but even if it is not Merneptah, then that does not mean the Quran made a mistake, because Merneptah is not mentioned by name. And second, about the Bible being altered, well i cant give you much evidence other than the Quran and that we dont have the original Bible and that the author of Matthew, luke, and John are unknown since they talk in third person view in those gospels.

I believe you that the theory of expanding universe is in the Bible because we believe that Bible was also sent from God, and not all of them has been altered.

I dont know why you regard it offensively when i said to study the Suras, i dont see nothing wrong with that, i mean if you want to find the error in the suras then you have to study them, right?

thank you.

[Aineo]

Let me start with this:

And second, about the Bible being altered, well i cant give you much evidence other than the Quran and that we dont have the original Bible and that the author of Matthew, luke, and John are unknown since they talk in third person view in those gospels.

You do not have the original Qur'an, what you have is a compilation of Muhammad's sayings from various sources that were written on whatever was available, or simply memorized. Caliph Uthman compiled the Qur'an and issued his "official" version in 705 AD. Most histories are written in the 3rd person, this is a style of writing and does not prove anything. So what you are telling me is that you reject the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible based on the Qur'an, which means you appeal to the Qur'an as a self-authenticated book. This is known as circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.

You appealed to 016:066 as proof the Qur'an contains scientific information that was unknown in the 7th century. Reading other Sura's is not going to confirm or deny your statement.

Since there were Jews and Christians living in Saudi Arabia long before Muhammad was born the fact the Qur'an agrees with the Bible does not prove the Qur'an is of divine origin. All you have shown is that Muhammad could have plagiarized Scripture. Read Sura 4 and then the Infancy Gospel of James, which was written in the 2nd century and used by Catholics for some of their Marian doctrines. I can make a good case that part of Sura 4 is based in this Gnostic Gospel.

Now, lets address the Exodus.

Genesis 47:11-12
11 So Joseph settled his father and his brothers, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had ordered. 12 And Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father's household with food, according to their little ones. NAS

Exodus 12:37

37 Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children. NAS

Numbers 33:3-5
3 And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the next day after the Passover the sons of Israel started out boldly in the sight of all the Egyptians, 4 while the Egyptians were burying all their first-born whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD had also executed judgments on their gods.
5 Then the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses, and camped in Succoth. NAS

RAMESES

RAMESES

There is mentioned in Egyptian monuments RHMSS, son of Aahmes I (Lepsius); the new Pharaoh "that knew not Joseph." The Pharaohs of the 19 th dynasty of Rama (Rameses II was the great conqueror) two centuries later have a final -u, Ramessu. In Genesis 47:11 Rama is the name of a district. In Exodus 1:11 Raamses is the city which already existed, but which the Israelites now strengthened as a treasure city. Rameses II fortified and enlarged it long after. Septuagint make Rama the Heroopolis of later times. It and Pithom were on the canal dug under Osirtasin of the 12 th dynasty. Derived from Ra-mes, "child of Ra" the sun god. The Egyptians called themselves "children of Ra" front the earliest times, even "Mizraim" may be from Mis-ra. The name Rama would fitly apply to Goshen which was especially associated with sun worship. Aahmes I built cities in the Delta, especially on the eastern quarter from whence the invading shepherds had come, and was likely as restorer of the sun (Ra) worship to have given the name Rama to the treasure city which Israel fortified there, as he gave it also to his son. Besides Pi (city) should appear before Rama if it were the Egyptian designation from the name of king Rameses. When Rameses II enlarged it its name was Rama Meiamon, not Rama simply. Moreover, when enlarged by him it was the center of a large Egyptian festive population, whereas in Exodus 1:11 it is in the midst of oppressed Israelites. Lepsius makes Aboo Kesheyd to be on the site.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft)

Rameses as used in Scripture is the name of a district in Eqypt, and the name of a city not the name of a Pharaoh.

Exodus 12:40-42

40 Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came about at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt. 42 It is a night to be observed for the LORD for having brought them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the LORD, to be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout their generations. NAS

1st Kings 6:1
6:1 Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. NAS

Scholars differ as to the exact dates of Solomon's reign, however they all agree that he died between 925 and 930 BC. Therefore the Passover that initiated the Exodus was on Nisan 15 between 1441-1446 BC. when Thutmose III was Pharaoh.

Some Pharaoh's led their armies, but that does not mean they engaged the enemy. Since the Bible is the only source of information concerning the Exodus:

Exodus 14:28
28 And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even Pharaoh's entire army that had gone into the sea after them; not even one of them remained. NAS

Not Pharaoh and his entire army.

Recent archaeological discoveries in Egypt have uncovered the remains of a city that dates to the time of Thutmose III on farm land that was on the Nile before it changed course.

We know that Thutmose III did not drown.

[Farid]

Everytime a revelation was sent to Mohammad(pbuh), his companions would write it down on whatever was available and sometimes they would memorize it. Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) would also memorize and he would check what his companions has written down by asking one of them to read it for him, and he would hear those who had memorized to also, this way it would be authorized. He would clear any mistakes his companions made. In this way the Quran was written down under Mohammad(Pbuh) supervision. Even the order of the verse revealed to Mohammad(pbuh) was completed under Mohammad(Pbuh) supervision. Every Ramadan, the verses that was revealed to Mohammad(Pbuh) were recited and on Mohammad(pbuh) last Ramadan, it was rechecked and reconfirmed two times. So it is very clear that the Quran was compiled and authenticated by prophet Mohammad(pbuh) during his lifetime. When Abu Bakr(the first Caliph) became the caliphate, he compiled the Quran in one common material and tied it with strings so that no part of the Quran was lost.

Many companions of Mohammad(pbuh) wrote down their own version of Allahs revelation to Mohammad(pbuh) and not all of them were authenticated by Mohammad(pbuh). hence a dispute among Muslims began over the different contents of the Quran, this dispute began during the reign of Caliphate Usman(r.a). consequently Usman(r.a) borrowed the copy of the Quran which was authenticated by Mohammad(pbuh) and put in one common material by Abu Bakr(r.a) from Hafsha(r.a), Mohammad(pbuh) wife. Usman(r.a) ordered four companions who were among the scribes to make copies of the authenticated Quran, Usman(r.a) burned all the copies of the Quran which didnt match the Original one. two of the authenticated Qurans that were copied by Usman(r.a) are still available, one Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union, the other in Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.


The original Quran does not contain the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script, because the Arabs were in not in need of them, sinc Arabic was their mother tongue. The signs were put in for Non-Arabic people so they can pronounce the words right.

Allah has promised in the Qur’an :

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). [Al-Qur’an 15:9]


I know that Mohammad(pbuh) could not have read the Jews and Christians scriptures and copy it, since Mohammad(pbuh) was illiterate. Sura 4 being parrallel with the infancy gospel of james doesnt necessarily mean that sura 4 was plagarised, it could go both ways, it could mean that sura 4 is of divine origin and is confirming the old scriptures(which i believe) or it could mean it was plagarised, sura 4 being same as the infancy gospel of james could mean of the above statements, not just one of them.


The pharoah of exodus is not known with 100% accuracy, some say, Thutmose III, some say Ramses II, some say Merneptah, Horemheb, etc. But the true pharoah in my opinion is the one described in the Quran. And according to most scholars, the city of Ramesses was built by Ramsses the II. the city of Rameses, named Pi-Ramesses or Per-Ramesses, meaning "house or domain of Ramsesses". Now this would put the date of exodus some time after 1313 B.C. so how can Thutmose III be the pharoah at a time when the city of Ramsesses was already built.

there are lots of theories.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Every Muslim has their own explanation for how and why Caliph Uthman compiled what is considered by some Muslims to be the correct Qur'an. Just as most Muslims insist that all Muslims recite the same Qur'an until confronted with the fact their are 7 recitations, then they backtrack and say yes Muhammad authorized 7 recitations, which means not all Muslims recite the same Qur'an.

As to the Exodus, even secular scholars agree within a spread of 5 years on the dates of Solomon's reign. So you can do the math yourself. Take 925 as the date of Solomon's death and add 40 years (the time he reigned). This gives you 965 as the date he began to reign as King of Israel.

1st Kings 6:1
6:1 Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
NAS

965-4+480=1441, Thutmose III reigned from 1479 to 1425.

Believe what you will, however unless you can come up with some evidence that Merneptah I was the Pharaoh of the Exodus other than the Catholic Encyclopedia, which contains many historical errors what you believe is immaterial.

Those who seek to show Judaism and Christianity are based on pagan mythology would agree with you, since then they can say that the Jews got the concept of one God from Amenhotep IV, the 10th Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty.

[Aineo]

Okay, now lets address Sura 16:066.

This Sura like all Sura's that Muslims claim as proof that Allah through the agency of Muhammad revealed scientific information before such information was discovered by science can be shown to be based in Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers were the first "scientists".

http://www.greektexts.com/library/Arist ... g/141.html
http://www.greektexts.com/library/Arist ... g/142.html
http://www.stanford.edu/class/history13 ... svein.html

There is nothing in Sura 16:066 that even justifies your Dr. Bucaille's assumption that this Sura reveals any scientific knowledge. Physiology was not invented by modern scientists and all you Sura tells you is that milk is produced between the heart and the "refuse", not how cows produce milk.

Now, I have refuted your post of Wed May 30, 2007 04:37 pm by using the Qur'an, historical information, and accepted history.

[Farid]

That still doesnt answer how Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) came up with verse 16:66, as everyone knows, science is cumulative, and i know what ancient greek scientist knew were close to this sura, but in order for Muhammad(pbuh) to come up with this sura, he first has to study their work, but he was illiterate and before he became a prophet, he was a trader and a shepard. and second after studying Aristotles work, he then has to experiment with them, so how did he come up with this sura in a few minutes.

Anyone who doesnt believe that Muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet will probably come to a conclusion that he studied ancient greek philosophers work and then began his own experiment and came up with these suras. Lets say that was the case, he probably got some goats and experimented with them, but how do you explain the scientific verses that it was almost impossible for Muhammad(pbuh) to experiment with. for example:

[015:022] And We send the fecundating (to impregnate or fertilize) winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water (in abundance), though ye are not the guardians of its stores.

this verse is incredible, it is describing wind as fecundating wind, well because it is the winds that carry the aerosols to the water vapours, thus producing water droplets and rain.

[030:048] It is God Who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: then when He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do rejoice!-

How will an illiterate man, know that it is the winds that hold the heavy clouds floating in the air.

So people can argue that Sura 16:66 is made up by Muhammad(pbuh) because he learned from ancient philosophers, but I dont see how Muhammad(pbuh) could have experimented with clouds and wind.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Muhammad did not live in a vacuum, he was a merchant who traveled with caravans. However, this is beside the point. There is nothing in the Qur'an to establish divine inspiration. (How clouds are formed was known before Muhammad was born).

It has been part of the Muslim’s belief, based on traditions, that Prophet Muhammad was illiterate. God says in verse 29:51 that the Quran itself is the only miracle of the prophet. By alleging illiteracy for him, traditional Muslims were trying to make the claim even "more miraculous," for a book of such literary quality was sent down through an illiterate man. This is despite the many assertions in the Quran to the contrary. The first Quranic revelation that came down to Muhammad is, "Read! In the name of your Lord who creates...." (96:1) It is clear that this is also a commandment. To all of us, including the prophet, God stresses the importance of literacy in the very first revelation. Furthermore, the second revelation is "The Pen" which indicates again the importance of written communication. This makes the importance of literacy even more compelling. If indeed Muhammad was an illiterate man when the Quran was first revealed to him, how could he not make himself learn to read and write during the twenty some years of his mission? Perhaps a more poignant question should be, "How dare he not to obey his Lord’s clear commandment to read and write?" Being a messenger of God, of course he would not dare disobeying his Lord.
http://www.submission.org/illiteracy.html

Now, why continue to bring up more propaganda when you have not establish your first three "proofs"?

[Farid]

Yes I know that Muhammad(pbuh) wasnt living in a vacuum. When he would travel with caravans, he sometimes met Christian monks, not all the time, so am i supposed to believe that Muhammad(pbuh) learned everything about Judaism and Christianity in a few second. and yes Mohammad(pbuh) was illiterate, he may not have been for all his life, but I know that he was an illiterate man before becoming muslim, there are many verses of The Quran that informs us of that:

PICKTHAL(verse 7:157): Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful"

PICKTHAL(verse 7:158): Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no Allah save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright"


And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee. So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject our signs. And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.[29:47-48]


The last verse clearly says that he was unlettered before this book came to him.

Now I am not bringing up propaganda because I have not established my first three "proofs", think of it like a domino affect, I am bringing these verses to prove that verse 5:116 is not a mistake, the reason these verses will prove my point is that you can clearly see that these verses were not written by a human, but God, and everyone knows that God doesnt make mistakes. now when i presented verse 16:66, you said he could have gotten these information from ancient scientists, so therefore i presented to you verses that people at that time couldnt experiment with, all these verses are connected with each other, you cant really get a meaning of a verse making it out of context or by reading just that one verse, you have to read other verses with it so you can understand the first one better.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Scholars traveling through the Middle East traveled with caravans, therefore during his early life before he "recited" (starting when he was about 40) the Qur'an, he would have been exposed to Judaism, Coptic and Eastern Christianity, and scholars who understood Greek science. We are not addressing a "few seconds", we are addressing decades of exposure to conversations with men while traveling, at rest stops, and at merchants where he bought and sold his merchandise.

You say that God revealed truths to Muhammad, and I have shown you that at least one of your "truths" is not true, and that Muhammad could have easily learned about the "stretching" or "expanding" of the universe from sources other than God since this is recorded in more than one Scripture.

The Qur'an disagrees and contradicts the Bible, which you have admitted you cannot prove was changed by either Jews or Christians. Allah claims authorship of the Bible, where we as Christians are told "to love our enemies" and "not take our own revenge" while Allah told Muhammad to "kill unbelievers where you find them". God tells Christians that church leaders should "be husbands of one wife" and Muhammad had 19 wives and teaches Muslims they can have up to 4 wives.

In the Bible God tells us that He does have a Son, and Allah says he does not have a son. In the Bible we are told Mary had 6 children other than Jesus and the Qur'an disagree. The Qur'an says Jesus made clay birds, and an apocryphal book that is rejected as truth records that Jesus not only made clay birds but gave those birds life.

Allah told Muhammad that Israel belongs to the Jews, and modern Muslims tell the Jews they have not right to that sliver of land.

We have more than 26000 manuscripts and parts of manuscripts to support the accuracy of the Bible and Islam has zilch to support the accuracy or authenticity of the Qur'an.

You want to appeal to science, well I can appeal to the science of manuscript evidence to show the Bible has been preserved by God for over 4000 years.

What do you have to offer? A religion that used fear, extortion, the sword, and lies since the 8th century.

[Farid]

When Mohammad(pbuh) was a merchant, he was known as "Al-Amin" meaning the trustworthy, he was known for his honesty, and compassion. Before he was a prophet, he adopted a kid named Zayd, and named Zayd after himself, but when he became a prophet, he was told to change Zayd's name back to his original one, so why would a man, who supposedly wanted power, wealth, make rules against himself?, there is another case of this, once he was giving a speech when a blind man came to listen, Mohammad(pbuh) overlooked the blind man and was talking while looking at others, just for this, a revelation came to him, telling him why he did that? so you see, Mohammad(pbuh) would not just make rules against himself if he wanted wealth and power. And I dont see why the Quran having similarities with the Bible has anything to do with him plagarizing it, because we believe that Mohammad(pbuh) was sent by the same God that sent Moses(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh). And even if he did talk to scholars, how will that lead Mohammad(pbuh) to come up with these advanced scientific verses.

I dont see why he couldnt have gotten the "expanding theory" verse from God, just because it was in more than one scripture, doesnt mean anything, because Mohammad(pbuh) was being taught by the same God, that had sent the earlier scriptures, so I am sure you would expect some similarities.

I know that the Quran disagrees and contradicts the Bible, even the different gospels contradict each other, so how do you know which one is the right one? My proof that Bible has been changed is well first of all the Quran, second, we dont have the original Bible, and third, the authors of the gospels of Luke, Matthew, John, are unknown, I know that many people write in a third person view, but these gospels are different, instead of saying "me" or "I" they are addressing themselves by their name, I know that wasnt the style back then because the gospel of peter is not like that and the gospel of paul is not like that.

In the Quran, it is prohibited to fight for revenge, fame, or glory. the only reason you can fight is for self-defense. the verse you just told me about the Quran is not instructions for Muslims to kill everyone, come on, if that was the case, half the world would have been dead by now. those verses are saying to defend yourselves, It doesnt say to kill innocent people, you have to read other verses along with these ones to understand this one better: for example:

Noble Verse 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.
[60:9] GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

Hadiths:


Inscribed on the hilt of the Prophet's sword: 'Forgive him who wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do good to him who does evil to you, and speak the truth although it be against yourself.'

A perfect Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands mankind is safe, and a true emigrant [muhajir] is one who flees from what God has forbidden.

It is unworthy of a Mu'min [a person with faith] to injure people's reputations; and it is unworthy to curse any one; and it is unworthy to abuse any one; and it is unworthy of a Mu'min to talk arrogantly.


What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of a human being, to feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the wrongs of the injured.




Of course the Quran says that God doesnt have a son, because God is way above that, it is the same in Judaism, or Old Testament.

So tell me, how do you know if those apocryphal books are not the real words of Jesus(pbuh), why just choose the gospels that suit your needs, why not the others, why are they rejected as truth? who gave you the authority to choose which one is true or which one is false?, all the 26000 manuscripts contradict each other, so how does that prove anything, one says Jesus(pbuh) did this, while the other says differently, so how do you know which one to choose?

And we still have the Uthmanic Quran, it is written in very bold letters and it is about 1-2 feet tall, and wide.

tell me, how can you use the science of manuscripts to prove that the Bible has not been changed?

Have you forgotten about, the Crusades, the burning of people alive, if they had any heretic ideas.

The rapidity of the spread of Islam, noticeably through extensive provinces which had been long Christian, is a crucial fact of history.. The sublime rhetoric of the Quran, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy". (M. Pickhtal, The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, p.vii)
This, and the urgency of the simple message carried, holds the key to the mystery of one of the greatest catalysms in the history of religion. When all military, political and economic factors have been exhausted, the religious impulse must still be recognized as the most vital and enduring.

As to the effects of Islam when first embraced by a Negro tribe, can there, when viewed as a whole, be any reasonable doubt? Polytheism disappears almost instantaneously; sorcery, with its attendant evils, gradually dies away; human sacrifice becomes a thing of the past. The general moral elevation is most marked; the natives begin for the first time in their history to dress, and that neatly. Squalid filth is replaced by some approach to personal cleanliness; hospitality becomes a religious duty; drunkenness, instead of the rule, becomes a comparatively rare exception...chastity is looked upon as one of the highest, and becomes, in fact, one of the commoner virtues. It is idleness that henceforward degrades, and industry that elevates, instead of the reverse. Offences are henceforward measured by a written code instead of the arbitrary caprice of a chieftain - a step, as everyone will admit, of vast importance in the progress of a tribe. The Mosque gives an idea of architecture at all events higher than any the Negro has yet had. A thirst for literature is created and that for works of science and philosophy as well as for commentaries on the Quran. (Quoted from Waitz by B. Smith, Muhammad and Muhammadanism, pp.42-43)

The tolerance of Islam is another factor in the spread of Islam. Toynbee praises this tolerance towards the Peoples of the Book after comparing it with the attitude of the Christians towards Muslims and Jews in their lands. (A Historian's Approach to Religion, p.246) T. Link attributes the spread of Islam to the credibility of its principles together with its tolerance, persuasion and other kinds of attractions. (A History of Religion) Makarios, Orthodox Patriorch of Antioch in the seventeenth century, compared the harsh treatment received by the Russians of the Orthodox Church at the hands of the Roman Catholic Poles with the tolerant attitude towards Orthodox christians shown by the Ottoman Government and prayed for the Sultans. (T. Link, A History of Religion)

This is not the only example of preference by the followers of the religions for Muslim rule over that of their own co-religionists. The Orthodox Christians of Byzantium openly expressed their preference for the Ottoman turban in Istanbul to the hats of the Catholic cardinals. Elisee Reclus, the French traveller of the nineteenth century, wrote that the Muslim Turks allowed all the followers of different religions to perform their religious duties and rituals, and that the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Sultan were more free to live their own lives than the Christians who lived in the lands under the rule of any rival Christian sect. (Nouvelle Geographie Universelle, Vol. IX) Popescu Ciocanel pays tribute to the Muslim Turks by stating that it was luck for the Romanian people that they lived under the government of the Turks rather than the domination of the Russians and Austrians. Otherwise, he points out, "no trace of the Romanian nation would have remained." (La Crise de L'Orient}

The Muslim's attitude towards the people of the conquered lands is quite clear in the instructions given by the rightly-guided Caliphs:

Always keep fear of God in your mind; remember that you cannot afford to do anything without His grace. Do not forget that Islam is a mission of peace and love. Keep the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) before you as a model of bravery and piety. Do not destroy fruit-trees nor fertile fields in your paths. Be just, and spare the feelings of the vanguished. Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices. Do not kill civilians. Do not outrage the chastity of women and the honour of the conquered. Do not harm old people and children. Do not accept any gifts from the civil population of any place. Do not billet your soldiers or officers in the houses of civilians. Do not forget to perform your daily prayers. Fear God. Remember that death will inevitably come to everyone of you some time or other, even if you are thousands of miles away from a battle field; therefore be always ready to face death. (Andrew Miller, Church History; Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Nahj al-Balagha)

A historical episode which Balazuri, a famous Muslim historian, tells about how pleased the native peoples were with their Muslim conquerors is of great significance:

When Heraclius massed his troops against the Muslims, and the Muslims heard that they were coming to meet them, they refunded the inhabitants of Hims the tribute they had taken from them, saying: "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied: "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyranny in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your help, repulse from the city." The Jews rose and said: "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanguished and exhausted." Saying this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of other cities - Christians and Jews- that had been capitulated did the same. When by God's help the unbelievers were defeated and Muslims won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and players of music, and paid the tribute. (Futuh al-Buldan)

thank you.

[Aineo]

First, the Gospels do not contradict, they compliment each other. Second:

In the Quran, it is prohibited to fight for revenge, fame, or glory. the only reason you can fight is for self-defense. the verse you just told me about the Quran is not instructions for Muslims to kill everyone, come on, if that was the case, half the world would have been dead by now. those verses are saying to defend yourselves, It doesnt say to kill innocent people, you have to read other verses along with these ones to understand this one better:

Of all the wars fought by Muhammad only two were self defensive in nature.

You are missing my point in regards to what Muslims appeal to as unknown scientific facts in the Qur'an. First of all those "scientific facts" do not tell you anything that was not common knowledge in more advanced civilizations. Your miraculous Qur'an is anything but miraculous.

Of course the Quran says that God doesnt have a son, because God is way above that, it is the same in Judaism, or Old Testament.

Have you ever read the Bible? Apparently not or you would not have posted this statement.

Genesis 6:2
2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. NAS
Genesis 6:4
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
NAS
Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. NAS
Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. NAS
Job 38:7
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
NAS
Psalms 2:7
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son,
Today I have begotten Thee.
NAS

Jesus is the unique Son of God in that Jesus is the only human being born of the Father.

Now you can try to rationalize away what the Qur'an says by quoting Suras that show the Qur'an contradicts itself, however the fact remains that Muhammad killed "unbelievers" and those who hurt his pride.

[Farid]

the battles Muhammad(pbuh) fought were in self-defense, he had no choice but to fight. and another reason Muhammad(pbuh) fought were because the people whom he had made a treaty with broke them, All his battles and fights were either in self-defense or a just cause. and even then he wasnt suppose to kill anyone innocent, in all the Battles and fights Muhammad(pbuh) went through, there was about 1080 deaths, now compare that to the death count of WWII: 56,125,262. Muhammad(pbuh) still followed rules when fighting. He did not fight for wealth or power:

The enmity that took place in the hearts of people of Quraish was due to the fact that they feared the emerging power of Muhammad (PBUH) , thought that he would weaken their stand. The Prophet (PBUH) stood for the Call regardless of the danger that he was facing. It was not out of enmity that he refused to compromise with masters of Quraish, it was because he wanted his stand to be clear and the call to be pure. The Masters of Quraish offered him to rule them, or if he wanted they would make him rich as they are if, and only if, he left them alone without spreading his beliefs as against theirs. Obviously, The Prophet (PBUH) refused their offer and said his famous statement to his uncle who was pursuing him to accept.

"I swear that if even they brought the Sun and the Moon (from the sky) and put them on my right and left hands in order to give up this Call, I would not abandon my way until God makes it rise, or I am led to my end while working for it”.

How were the Quranic scientific verses known at that time? how did people know that it is because of the winds that rain comes? how did people know that it was the winds that hold the clouds in air? how did people know about the stages of babys inside a womb? how did people know that the clouds were actually very heavy? how did people know about how milk is produced from a goat? how did people know that the mountains were like pegs, that keep us from shaking due to our rotation? etc.


Now are you using the Old Testament to prove that God had a son, how many jews agree with you on that? those verses are not talking literally. and if they are literally, then does that mean that David is also Gods begotten son? there isnt any verse in there that says Jesus(pbuh) is Gods son. I mean think about it, if Jews were to take every one of those verses literally then every prophet would have been regarded like Jesus(pbuh) of the canonical Bible. There is a scroll called the Nag Hammadi scroll, it dates from the two or third century AD, and there is a verse in there that says that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified but rather a substitute was, now how can you tell which one is the real story?

thank you.

[Aineo]

the battles Muhammad(pbuh) fought were in self-defense, he had no choice but to fight. and another reason Muhammad(pbuh) fought were because the people whom he had made a treaty with broke them, All his battles and fights were either in self-defense or a just cause. and even then he wasnt suppose to kill anyone innocent, in all the Battles and fights Muhammad(pbuh)..

Now you are contradicting yourself, which is typical of Muslims. From your post made Sat Jun 02, 2007 02:50 pm:

In the Quran, it is prohibited to fight for revenge, fame, or glory. the only reason you can fight is for self-defense.

I do not see a "just cause" is this statement. Add to this that secular historians without an agenda easily refute your subtle lie that Muhammad's wars were in a "just cause". Muhammad was a power hungry opportunist who used any perceived insult as a reason to go to war.

Muhammad spent his last ten years, from 622 to 632, as the leader of a Muslim community in Medina that was engaged in a state of war with the Meccans. Muhammad and the emigrees, known as the Muhajir, had earlier fled Mecca for Medina in what is known as the Hijra. Through raids, sieges, and diplomacy, he and his followers allied with or subdued most of the tribes and cities of the Arabian peninsula in their struggle with the powerful Banu Quraish of Mecca.

They also sent out raiding parties against Arabic-speaking communities ruled under the Roman Empire. Muhammad was believed by the Muslims to be divinely chosen to spread Islam and that warfare was one aspect of this struggle for the truth was clarified in its ultimate form.[1] After initially refusing to accede to requests by his followers to fight the Meccans for what was viewed as continued provocation,[2] he eventually proclaimed the revelations of the Quran:

"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged -truly Allah has the power to come to their support- those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah'..." (Qur'an, 22:39-40)"

After the first battle of Badr against the Quraysh, he is reported as having said "We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul)."[3] John Esposito writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Now are you using the Old Testament to prove that God had a son, how many jews agree with you on that? those verses are not talking literally. and if they are literally, then does that mean that David is also Gods begotten son? there isnt any verse in there that says Jesus(pbuh) is Gods son. I mean think about it, if Jews were to take every one of those verses literally then every prophet would have been regarded like Jesus(pbuh) of the canonical Bible. There is a scroll called the Nag Hammadi scroll, it dates from the two or third century AD, and there is a verse in there that says that Jesus(pbuh) was not crucified but rather a substitute was, now how can you tell which one is the real story?

This is an interesting paragraph full of speculation and false statements. The first Christians were Jews who understood their own Scriptures and understood that Jesus is their prophesied Messiah. All you have done is try to obfuscate history. Also since the foundation of Christianity is Judaism and Jesus is prophesied in the OT that is where we start with the Bible to show that Jesus is the unique Son of God. Since what I posted was to show that your statement concerning God does not have a son is false why not refute those Scriptures instead of trying to avoid what you posted.

Now why don't you think instead of parroting Muslim lies? The Jews always rebelled against God's will and killed God's prophets while retaining what those prophets said and wrote as part of their history. Common sense tells you that David is not God's begotten son, since we know David's father's name was Jesse. Common sense also tells you that some of the OT is poetic language that uses allegory, metaphor, anthropomorphism, and other figures of speech.

There is no such scroll as the "Nag Hammadi scroll", what was discovered in 1945 is what is commonly referred to as the Nag Hammadi library, a collection of scrolls that have been dated to the late 4th century. This library is an important find since it gives us a better understanding of Christian Gnosticism, a heretical religious philosophy that tried to merge Christian truth and Greek philosophy. The "one verse" that you appeal to is from a Gnostic Gospel that dates to the 2nd century and was not written by an eye witness to the crucifixion. So once again you have confirmed that Muhammad appealed to what was known (and rejected) by those who understood Gnosticism.

If you expect me to take you seriously at least post truth and not fables that are easily refuted.

As to "Islamic science", it has all been refuted by what we know from the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers was common knowledge centuries before Muhammad was born. Common sense alone tells us the Islamic apologists force what they want to believe on the vague comments Muhammad claimed to be divine revelations. So milk comes from the udder which is located between the heart and the "refuse", when I look at a cow or goat I can see where the udder is and do not need to understand animal physiology to understand that milk is good to drink or where it comes from.

[Farid]

Self-defense falls in the category of a just cause. I am not contradicting myself in my post of Sat Jun 02, 2007 02:50 pm:, I may have forgotten to put just cause, but that does not mean that I made just cause up because it is mentioned in Quran. Now why are you generalizing that it is typical of Muslims to contradict themselves, how do you know I contradicted myself, I forgot to put it, so you cant just say I contradicted myself, you cant judge people just because i forgot to write something down, I mean sure it would be contradicting if I made up just cause, but that is the thing, i didnt made it up. That is why Jesus(pbuh) said to not judge people, because we are humans, we make mistakes, how does one human know what is in the heart of another? I would leave Islam, if I made just cause up. We are talking about salvation here, I will not argue with you if I know that I am wrong and will burn in hell.

Now anyone can see that Muhammad(pbuh) was not after wealth or power:

Quoted material deleted as you did not furnish a link to the source.

does a power hungry man say something like this? it takes common sense to see he is not after wealth or power.

I know that you feel that Jews made a mistake not accepting Jesus(pbuh) but you guys should have learned from them, when samething happened to you guys, you guys didnt accept Muhammad(pbuh), but some did. Muhammad(pbuh) was also predicted in the Old Testament, there are some Jews who know this, so I dont think God would tell the Jews about two prophets that will contradict each other?

And I am still waiting for the "Islamic Science" to be refuted, I dont see how the writings of ancient philosophors could have influenced him to lie. I mean let say he did, and he did experiments and found out some stuff, but again here is my question, how did he experiment with winds and clouds, and shape of the earth? I am still waiting for those to be refutted.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Okay, now that you have "clarified" your post by appealing to a redundant repetition, a "just cause" does not equate to self defense. Defending the poor against unjust treatment is a "just cause", combating prejudice is a "just cause", taking out a dictator who murders innocent people is a "just cause", going after cowards who bomb innocent civilians is a "just cause", self defense is just that self defense and even unjust aggressors defend themselves.

Qur'an, Islam and Science

You are waiting for Islamic science to be refuted (see the above link), and I am waiting for you to admit your reference to the "Nag Hammadi scroll" is wrong.

As far as the Jews rejecting their Messiah, you should read the Bible.

Romans 11:1-10
11:1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, they have torn down Thine altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life." 4 But what is the divine response to him? "I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day."

9 And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
10 "Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever."
NAS

Romans 11:25-27

25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."
27 "And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."
NAS

Why in the world should any Jew accept what Muhammad had to say? His message contradicts the Bible, which you agree is true. And since the Jews know they did not alter the OT Scriptures that argument was not even used until the end of the 11st century.

Muhammad is most definitely not named, mentioned, or referred to in the Scriptures, this is a lie. Muhammad is nothing like Moses and in the list of those nations considered the Jews "brethren" you will not find Ishmael named or any of his descendants. Also, the Jews are aware of this:

Genesis 16:11-12
11 The angel of the LORD said to her further,

"Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 "And he will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone's hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
NAS


Genesis 17:20-21
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."
NAS

The Jews believed God, not an Arab who claimed to descend from Ishmael.

Now, unless you have something new that has not been posted by other Muslims over the last 4 years and refuted by history and correct sources I see no reason to waste more time with you or your propaganda.

[Farid]

I am sorry that link didnt help me answer my question, it would be better if an Arabic speaking person was to comment on those verses.

Now in the Nag Hammadi "library", sorry if I said scroll. but any ways there is a verse that says Jesus(pbuh) did not get crucified: here let me show you the verse I have saved:

There are many Jews who see Muhammad(pbuh) as a prophet of God, because they say he was the prophet that was to come. from the website you just gave me, AnsweringIslam.com, there is an article thats talking about Muhammad(pbuh) prophethood, saying that "in order for him to be a prophet he has to prophecy, since he has not made any prophecies he is not to be taken as a prophet" well if that is how they test people then Muhammad(pbuh) is certainly a prophet, since he made a lot of accurate prophecies. AnsweringIslam.com used Deutronomy 18:21-22 to test Muhammad(pbuh):

these are just a few examples of why some Jews do and should believe in Muhammad(pbuh).

thank you.

[Aineo]

Farid, since I already addressed that "one verse" in "one scroll" in a library that contained over 50 books and you have not refuted what I posted why continue to appeal to that "one verse"?

I deleted your quote concerning that one verse since you once again ignored our Forum Rules.

6. No copyrighted articles. If you are going to post an article it must be quoted and the source cited.
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/rules.php

Also I have explained why Muhammad is not prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15 and why the Jews and any Christian who believes God will never accept Muhammad as a prophet of God, so why appeal to verses 21-25 and then post a quote (which was also deleted since you ignored our Forum Rules) concerning events that do not prophesy future events?

There are 322 Messianic prophesies that were fulfilled in Jesus. There are an additional 43 Messianic prophesies that will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. Jesus prophesied that Israel would again be a sovereign nation, which was fulfilled in 1948. The Qur'an does not contain a single prophesy.

I am sorry that link didnt help me answer my question, it would be better if an Arabic speaking person was to comment on those verses.

Ask and you shall receive. Register at http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/index.php and ask Kai, whose native language is Arabic and whose dissertation concerns Islamic science and why Islamic science is a myth.

[Farid]

Aineo, I dont remember you addressing that "one verse" in "one scroll" and I dont know which post of yours I have not refuted?

Since you deleted that verse of mine, I will follow the rules and post it again, so you can see it. thank you:

In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, one of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, it states:

“I did not succumb to them as they had planned… And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them …For my death which they think happened [happened] to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death … It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns … And I was laughing at their ignorance.”

http://tracyrtwyman.com/blog/?page_id=42

“Muhammad fancied himself a Prophet like Jesus and the Prophets of the Old Testament. The problem with Muhammad's claim is that a Prophet must give prophecies (detailed predictions of future events which must come true) in order to be called a Prophet. One does not bestow the title on himself as Muhammad did. Muhammad failed the Bible's test and, therefore, cannot be considered a Prophet” (Andrew Vargo, http://www.answering-islam.org/response ... 200K63.htm)

"When a prophet speaks in the Name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken, the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.".(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)







Prophecies of Muhammad(pbuh)

‘Umar reports in a narration recorded in Sahih al-Muslim:

‘Before the Battle of Badr started, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, walked around the battlefield and pointed to some locations, saying, Abu Jahl will be killed here, ‘Utba here, Shayba here, Walid here, and so on. By God, we found, after the battle, the dead bodies of all those men in the exact places that God’s Messenger had pointed out.’

Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmad ibn Hanbal record:

During the construction of the Prophet’s Mosque in Madina, God’s Messenger, upon him be peace and blessings, told ‘Ammar:

What a pity O ‘Ammar, a rebellious group will kill you.

‘Ammar was killed in the Battle of Siffin by the supporters of Mu‘awiya, who rebelled against Caliph ‘Ali.


The Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, predicted the Mongol invasion, saying:

The Hour will not come before you fight against a people with red faces, small, slant eyes and flat noses. They wear hairy leather boots.


According to an authentic narration, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, declared:

‘Uthman will be killed while reading the Qur’an. God will dress him in a shirt but they will desire to remove it from him.

By this saying, he meant that ‘Uthman would become Caliph but his deposition would be sought, and finally he would be martyred while reading the Qur’an. This happened exactly as he predicted.

Again, according to an authentic narration, the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, declared:

Surely, Constantinople (Istanbul) will be conquered (by my community); how blessed the commander who will conquer it, and how blessed his army.


Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth Caliph, had also been informed by the Prophet of his assassination in such detail that he knew the man who was going to kill him, and identified him pointing him out to the people. They asked Ali why he did not kill the man and he replied: "Then who will kill me?" The night preceding his assassination Ali came out, gazed at the sky and said: "By Allah the prophet (peace be upon him) never told a lie, nor was a lie ever told to him." The next day the same man killed Ali, as the prophet had predicted.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/p ... es_muh.htm

By the admission of Deutronomy 18:21-22, prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet sent by God.

And I wont argue with you about prophecies made by Jesus(pbuh) because we already believe that he was a prophet.

Ok I re-posted my quotes with sources cited this time.

thank you.

[Aineo]

I will repeat, the Qur'an does not contain a single prophesy. You have not refuted what I posted Mon Jun 04, 2007 05:21 pm.

Now, the 2nd Treatise of Seth is from Gnosticism, a sect founded in Greek pagan religious philosophy that tried to pervert the teachings of Jesus. Had this cult survived to the 7th century Muhammad and his intolerance would have resulted in Muhammad being reviled. Gnostics taught tolerance and viewed any religion that was intolerant of Greek "wisdom" a perversion. There is also a Gnostic "gospel that states Jesus initiated young men into the sexual mysteries of phallic worship. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam condemn homosexuality, which was tolerated by Roman and Greek cultures. Therefore, it is a bit hypocritical of Muslims to appeal to a sect that promotes what Islam condemns in your attempt to show the crucifixion and resurrection never happened and the Qur'an is true.

Christian Gnosticism was the first heresy that Christianity had to deal with, and taught among other errors that Thomas was Jesus' twin brother.

This idea of Thomas as a twin messiah appears to have been embraced by many of the early Christian groups. There was a Syrian sect called the “Christians of St. Thomas”, and similar sects throughout the Middle and Far East. This is largely because Thomas is believed to have traveled throughout the East spreading the gospel after Jesus’ death, and his supposed tomb can be found in India. Several of these sects believed that he was literally Jesus’ twin brother. Many people were already receptive to this idea, because the archetype of twin gods or sons of God is one that can be found in the legends of many cultures throughout the world. In Edessa, Turkey, where The Acts of Thomas were written, the worship of the twin gods Momim and Aziz was replaced seamlessly by that of Thomas and Jesus.
http://tracyrtwyman.com/blog/?page_id=42

If you accept the 2nd Treatise of Seth is true, you have to accept the entirety of Gnosticism is true, which means you also have to reject Muhammad and Islam or admit you are resorting to quote mining in an attempt to justify accepting a false prophet.

[Farid]

Mon Jun 04, 2007 07:21 pm, I am not sure what your question was, are you saying that Muhammad(pbuh) was not prophecised in the Bible, is that your question? here is my question, how is it that supposedly the twin tower accident was hinted in the Bible, or other events, but a man who would change the lives of billions of people, would not be included in there?

I know for a sure that Muhammad(pbuh) is prophecised in the Old and New testament. In the Holy Quran there is a verse that says Muhammad(pbuh) has been mentioned in the Old and New testament.

“Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel…” (Quran 7:157; Trans.: Yusuf Ali)

Now I do agree with just that one part of the treatise of the great seth, and I do not have to agree with all of them, If you agree with a verse in Quran, does that mean you have to believe in the whole Quran. I am sure you believe that Mary(r.a) is mentioned in Quran and you agree that she had a virgin birth, so do you have to believe in the whole Quran? I am sure there are also verses in the Nag Hammadi Library that you agree with, but that doesnt mean you believe in the whole thing.

In Deutronomy 18:18, it is talking about a prophet who will be like Moses, will come from among their brethren, Ishmael could be this brethren, the Bible refers the Israelits as the brothers of Ishamelits in Gen. 16:12, and Gen. 25:18.

According to the Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible, “Brethren” is the:
"Personification of a group of tribes who were regarded as near kinsmen of the Israelites. "
http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm

And second Muhammad(pbuh) was very much like Moses(pbuh): for example: the natural birth, the natural death, forced emigration, writing the revelation during their lifetime, etc.

and third, God will put His words into his mouth, this can apply to any prophet who was telling people of God's word, but if you read the Quran, you can see that it is not in a narrative form, but the direct words of God, that is why it is hard to understand it.

and fourth, this prophet will speak in Gods name, 113 chapters out of 114 says "In the name of Allah(God), Most gracious, most merciful". And in the Quran it has been said that Allah is God's personal name.

You can repeat that the Quran has no prophecies but that wont do you any good, because you are wrong, thats like me saying " I will repeat, the Bible doesnt have a single prophecy" so who is the blind one. I just posted some of the prophecies of Muhammad(pbuh), Muhammad(pbuh) got those prophecies from Allah, what else are you looking for, It will be very wrong to believe in the Bible but to not follow it, it said in Deutronomy 18:21-22 that a real prophets prophecies will come true, Now if you dont believe in Deutronomy then you can go ahead and say that Muhammad(pbuh) is not a real prophet. what good will it do if you believe in Deutronomy but you are not obeying it? If you are saying that Muhammad(pbuh) is a false prophet, then you shouldnt believe in Deutronomy, and therefore you shouldnt believe in Jesus(pbuh).

A prophecy that Suraqah (a man who was about to kill Prophet Muhammad during the later’s journey to Madinah (Medina) after the pagans plotted to kill him) would become a Muslim,

participate in the Muslim army conquering the Persian Empire and would actually have access to the Emperor’s crown and place it over his head! Not only did this prophecy appear to be a virtual impossibility when it was made, but its fulfillment was so perfect and complete as if the Prophet was looking eye-to-eye at the scene which took place years after his death. The fact that Suraqah did become a Muslim, lived long enough to participate in the conquest of Persia, that the Muslims came out victorious, that Suraqah had access to the Emperor’s crown and actually wore it, can hardly be regarded as a coincidence or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Surely the chances are nil that numerous such prophecies, all in the minutest detail described by Prophet Muhammad, happened by accident! Nor can such 100% accuracy every time and at all times emanate from any other than a true and genuine prophet using the criterion stipulated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm

He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he has set judgment in the earth (V. 4), he shall prevail against his enemies (V. 13) and shall bring judgment to the Gentiles (V. 1).

In comparing the lives and missions of Jesus and Muhammad, it becomes readily clear that in the case of Jesus he expressed on more than one occasion how disappointed he was in the Israelites’ rejection of him. Nor did Jesus live long enough on Earth to prevail over his enemies (beyond the moral victory which is a common victory for all prophets).

On the other hand, we find no trace of Prophet Muhammad’s discouragement even in the most critical moments of his mission. In one year his beloved and supporting wife Khadijah died following 25 years of successful marriage; his uncle Abu-Talib, who was instrumental in protecting him from the fury of the pagan Arabs also died. These two tragedies were combined with the fact that his followers constituted only a small persecuted and tortured group. Under such trying circumstances, Muhammad went to the city of at-Taif to invite people to Islam and seek their support in his struggle against paganism. He was rejected, mocked at and stoned to the point of bleeding. In spite of all this he was never “discouraged” to use Isaiah’s term (V. 4): “0 Allah! Forgive my people for they do not know what they’re doing” was his utterance. When Angel Gabriel offered him the chance to retaliate by destroying their city, he refused in the hope that out of the descendants of these wicked people would come those who would worship God, and come they did!

After this bitter struggle, Muhammad “prevailed against his enemies”, established a strong community of believers who indeed “brought judgment to the Gentiles”, especially in the Persian and Byzantine Empires. Many such Gentiles were guided to Islam while others suffered defeats. As such he was truly “a light of the Gentiles” of the whole world.

He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street (V. 2).

Not only was this a distinct characteristic and mark of decency of Muhammad’s, it was indeed the embodiment of the revelation given to him. In the words of the Qur’an:

“Be modest in thy bearing and subdue thy voice. Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass. “ (The Qur’an 31:19)

“Allah loveth not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (The Qur’an 4:148)

“The Isles shall wait for his law. “ The only prophet who came, after this prophecy was made (Isaiah’s time) with a complete and comprehensive code of law was Prophet Muhammad. The law revealed to him spread to all corners of the earth, even in many remote isles and to the farthest deserts.

He will be sent “to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house” (V. 7).

Many of those who were opposed to the truth and bitterly fought Muhammad ended up among the most devout believers. Their blindness to truth was cured. Those who lived in the darkness of an unholy life came to the light of truth completed through the mission of Muhammad.

No wonder the Qur’an describes itself as “Nooram-mubeena” or light manifest. Describing the Qur’an, God addresses Prophet Muhammad:

“A book which we revealed unto you, in order that you may lead mankind out of the depths of darkness unto light by the leave of their Lord to the way of Him, the exalted in power, worthy of all praise.“ (The Qur’an 14: l. Emphasis added)
http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm

thank you.

[Aineo]

Mon Jun 04, 2007 07:21 pm, I am not sure what your question was, are you saying that Muhammad(pbuh) was not prophecised in the Bible, is that your question? here is my question, how is it that supposedly the twin tower accident was hinted in the Bible, or other events, but a man who would change the lives of billions of people, would not be included in there?

I know for a sure that Muhammad(pbuh) is prophecised in the Old and New testament. In the Holy Quran there is a verse that says Muhammad(pbuh) has been mentioned in the Old and New testament.

“Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel…” (Quran 7:157; Trans.: Yusuf Ali)

You know Farid, if Muhammad had given chapter and verse in the Bible that supposedly prophesies his coming you would be in a better position to make your case. However, if you will reread my posts dated June 4 you will find that I refuted the Qur’an.

Now I do agree with just that one part of the treatise of the great seth, and I do not have to agree with all of them, If you agree with a verse in Quran, does that mean you have to believe in the whole Quran. I am sure you believe that Mary(r.a) is mentioned in Quran and you agree that she had a virgin birth, so do you have to believe in the whole Quran? I am sure there are also verses in the Nag Hammadi Library that you agree with, but that doesnt mean you believe in the whole thing.

Since the Bible records that Mary is Jesus’ mother and that Mary was a virgin when overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the fact the Muhammad incorporated these details in the Qur’an is something I can agree with. However, the balance of what Muhammad included in the Qur’an regarding Mary is myth. So no, I do not have to accept the Qur’an as true. But when you accept one verse out of the 2nd Treatise of Seth and reject the rest of the that scroll and the entire Gnostic library as true you are being hypocritical and are simply quote mining.

In Deutronomy 18:18, it is talking about a prophet who will be like Moses, will come from among their brethren, Ishmael could be this brethren, the Bible refers the Israelits as the brothers of Ishamelits in Gen. 16:12, and Gen. 25:18.

I have already addressed Genesis 18:15-21. Also in Deuteronomy the Ishmaelites are not listed as the brethren of the Hebrews.

According to the Hebrew Dictionary of the Bible, “Brethren” is the:
"Personification of a group of tribes who were regarded as near kinsmen of the Israelites. "
http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm

And second Muhammad(pbuh) was very much like Moses(pbuh): for example: the natural birth, the natural death, forced emigration, writing the revelation during their lifetime, etc.

and third, God will put His words into his mouth, this can apply to any prophet who was telling people of God's word, but if you read the Quran, you can see that it is not in a narrative form, but the direct words of God, that is why it is hard to understand it.

and fourth, this prophet will speak in Gods name, 113 chapters out of 114 says "In the name of Allah(God), Most gracious, most merciful". And in the Quran it has been said that Allah is God's personal name.

There are so many factual errors in the above it boggles the mind. Moses was not forced to emigrate, God put the words of the Torah in Moses “mouth” and hand since Moses recorded the words of God, and in an Arabic Bible Allah (the God) is not Yaweh’s personal name, Yaweh is Allah’s personal name. Deuteronomy 18:21-25 tells us that many false prophets will try to speak in Yaweh’s name, so this does not make Muhammad a prophet of God.

You can repeat that the Quran has no prophecies but that wont do you any good, because you are wrong, thats like me saying " I will repeat, the Bible doesnt have a single prophecy" so who is the blind one. I just posted some of the prophecies of Muhammad(pbuh), Muhammad(pbuh) got those prophecies from Allah, what else are you looking for, It will be very wrong to believe in the Bible but to not follow it, it said in Deutronomy 18:21-22 that a real prophets prophecies will come true, Now if you dont believe in Deutronomy then you can go ahead and say that Muhammad(pbuh) is not a real prophet. what good will it do if you believe in Deutronomy but you are not obeying it? If you are saying that Muhammad(pbuh) is a false prophet, then you shouldnt believe in Deutronomy, and therefore you shouldnt believe in Jesus(pbuh).

You quoted supposed prophesies from the Hadiths, not the Qur’an. I will not accept as definitive any quote from a Muslim site quoting a Hebrew dictionary. Quote the Hebrew dictionary with a link to the definition of 'ach. Catholics use the same tactic to try to prove that Mary did not have 4 sons and 2 daughters after the birth of Jesus.

Now I have reviewed the wars between the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and the Persian Empire and can find no reference to Suraqah wearing the crown of either the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire or the king of the Persian Empire, except in Islamic literature, which leads me to discern that Islamic apologists have resorted to revisionism to show Muhammad was a real prophet. As to the rest of your “proofs” they are nothing more than lies, since Muhammad was not a man of peace, humble, did not give sight to the blind, and etc. All of those “prophesies” are taken from the Hebrew Scriptures and apply to Jesus not Muhammad. When Muhammad died the Persian Empire of the 7th century was actually the Sassanid Empire, which was already on the verge of collapsing because of its wars with Constantinople and Arabs. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) did not fall until the Muslim armies conquered Constantinople on May 29, 1453.

Repeating your lies concerning Deuteronomy 18 does not make your case that Muhammad was prophesied by Moses.

Deuteronomy 18:15-22
15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' 17 "And the LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20'But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. NAS

Deuteronomy 23:1-8
23:1 "No one who is emasculated, or has his male organ cut off, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord. 3 "No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. 6 You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days.

7 "You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8 The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD. NAS

OT:251

'ach --
brother
a) brother of same parents
b) half-brother (same father)
c) relative, kinship, same tribe
d) each to the other (reciprocal relationship)
e) (figuratively) of resemblance
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

The Edomites were Esau’s descendents, the Amorites were Ham’s descendents and Moabites were Lot’s descendents. There is not mention of Ishmaelites being considered the “brethren” of the Hebrews after the Exodus.

Genesis 16:11-12
11 The angel of the LORD said to her further,

"Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 "And he will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone's hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
NAS


Genesis 17:20-21
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."
NAS

As I posted earlier and you choose to ignore, no Jew or Christian would view any descendent of Ishmael as a true prophet of God.

It seems you Muslims would rather ignore what the Bible, which Allah takes credit for disowns the Ishmaelites since they were nations of warmongers, a fact history confirms.

[Farid]

First of all, its not Muhammad(pbuh) that said verse 7:157, you very well know that not all prophecies or verses are not very clear in the Bible also. this reminds me of a story in the Quran, when the Jews were ordered to sacrifice a goat, the Jews made it harder for themselves by asking too many questions about the goat until the goat was narrowed down to just one, the one goat was owned by a boy who did not want to give the goat without his moms permission, and her mom wanted money for the goat. if they hadnt asked so many question, they could have sacrificed any goat.

now I tell you a verse from the Quran, but you tell me why is in it telling me exactly where to find it?

Not all the prophets were Israelits, it only started with Moses(pbuh), all the other prophets were from somewhere else, and not all the prophets are mentioned in the Bible or the Quran, so you never know there could have been prophets from India, Pakistan, America, Brazil, etc. it is a little prejudice to say that just because Muhammad(pbuh) is not a prophet because he is an Ishmaelite, and even being an Ishmaelite, he is in the lineage of the prophets.

Now I can give you all the proofs you want, but you will probably still argue with me, you will always look at the proofs and the Quran from a point of view that is trying to attack instead of learning from it. lots of problems have been solved by looking at it from a different view. \

There are so many factual errors in the above it boggles the mind.

I dont see any factual errors in there, so are you saying that Moses(pbuh) did not escape from Egypt because he was going to be killed. and second I never even said that God put His words into Moses mouth.

I already proved that Muhammad(pbuh) is a real prophet by the admission of Deutronomy 18:21-22, I mean if the Torah doesnt mean anything to you then go ahead say anything you want.

And history probably wont show Suraqah wearing the crown, because that is too much detail, you dont see in history writings that pharoah Ramses went to the bathroom, then took a drink. that is too much detail. But the wearing of the crown is recorded in Islamic literature, and that to me is enough. you know the sources of history is not from one place only, so why suraqah wearing the crown regarded as not true just because Muslims recorded it.

Since you rely on miraclous healing to prove prophets are real prophets, then what about Moses(pbuh) how is it he is a prophet, but has not healed anyone.

Muhammad(pbuh) was a man of peace and humble, he may not have given sight to blind eyes, but that doesnt prove anything.

The sassanid empire was actually the name for the second Persian Empire (226 - 651).

Quran prophecies

"The Roman Empire has been defeated- In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious- Within a few years. With God is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice- With the help of God. He helps whom He will, and He is exalted in might, most merciful. (The Noble Quran, 30:2-5)"
http://answering-christianity.com/how_many_years.htm

this verse was obviously fullfilled without a doubt.

"Verily, He Who has given you [O Muhammad] the Qur'an [i.e. ordered you to act on its laws and to preach it to others] will surely bring you back to Ma`ad [place of return, either to Makkah or to Paradise after your death]..." [Qur'an 28:85]
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=471

Mohammad(pbuh) returned to his birthplace(Makkah) in the year of conquest.

"...Certainly, you shall enter Al Masjid al Haram, if Allah wills, secure, [some] having your heads shaved, and [some] having your head hair cut short, having no fear..." [Qur'an, 48:27]
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=471

this prophecy was also fulfilled.

"Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to [the present rulers] in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion which He has chosen for them [i.e. Islam]. And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear [provided] they [believers] worship Me and do not associate anything [in worship] with Me." [Qur'an, 24:55]
http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=471

This promised was also fullfilled because God does not break his promise.




" That whenever there comes to you An Apostle with what ye Yourselves desire not, ye are Puffed up with pride ? Some ye called imposters and others ye slay." Surah 2. The Cow ( The Heifer) Al-Baqara.-Verse 87( Yusuf Ali ).

thank you.

[Aineo]

First, I have shown you from the Bible that the Ishmaelites were not the brothers of the Jews when they came out of Egypt, I have shown you why no Jew or Christian who believes the Bible will accept Muhammad as being the prophet prophesied by Moses, but you still insist on telling me what the Bible actually teaches.

Not all the prophets were Israelits, it only started with Moses(pbuh), all the other prophets were from somewhere else, and not all the prophets are mentioned in the Bible or the Quran, so you never know there could have been prophets from India, Pakistan, America, Brazil, etc. it is a little prejudice to say that just because Muhammad(pbuh) is not a prophet because he is an Ishmaelite, and even being an Ishmaelite, he is in the lineage of the prophets.

Another factual error, the Israelites began with Jacob (Israel), and Jacob (Israel) was a prophet. Now, if you follow the genealogies back from Jacob to Adam you will find that all of God's prophets came through that one line, a line that excludes all other tribes and peoples.

The Bible from Genesis through Revelation deals with two topics; the Kingdom of God and the King of God's Kingdom. Jesus' said:

Luke 4:43 "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose." NAS

Jesus also said:

John 17:1-4
17:1 These things Jesus spoke; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee, 2 even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. 4 "I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. NAS

There is no need for another prophet like Moses to teach mankind Yaweh, the Father's truth.

You posted that you believe the words of Jesus because he is a prophet, and then deny the truth of what Jesus said.

Muhammad plagiarized Greek intellectuals, Jewish intellectuals, and Arab Christian intellectuals in order to "reveal" the Qur'an.

You refer to a story in the Qur'an about sacrificing a goat, but did not reference the Sura. Now, if this story concerns pre 70 AD, the Jews would not have debated over a goat since the Torah is clear concerning what is an acceptable sacrifice. If the story concerns the Jews after the destruction of the Temple it is a lie, since sacrifices were made only by the priests and only at the Temple in Jerusalem, in other words after the destruction of the Temple the Jews ceased animal sacrifices.

If you can give me any proofs, then by all means do so. However, since you have not refuted what I posted concerning Deuteronomy 18:15-21, Ishmael, and have not linked to a Hebrew dictionary to back up your Islamic quote mining I doubt you can furnish any proof that is not easily shown to be false.

There is nothing in the Qur'an that can teach me anything. However, you might learn something if you actually believed the book you taught as being from the only true God.

Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, is the latest Muslim expert to say that the Koran - the holiest Muslim work - is actually Zionist.

In an interview with Jamie Glazov of FrontPageMagazine.com (June 3, 2004), Mohammed quoted the Koran (5:20-21) as saying: "Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."
http://www.wordofmessiah.org/muslims_4_israel.htm

You can read the balance of the article for yourself. In 1948 the Jews did what Muhammad revealed and Arab Muslims have been at war with Israel since then.

Moses escaped (he did not migrate) from Egypt. The Torah does mean a lot to me, which is why I know that Muhammad is a false prophet and I base this on the Torah, and you have not addressed those Scriptures that defeat your premise.

You want me to accept Islamic literature and then reject Jewish and Christian literature. This Farid is both ludicrous and violates common sense. Judaism has a history that goes back to at least 4000 BC. Islam was born with Muhammad in the 7th century AD.

There were many prophets of God who did not perform healing miracles. I simply pointed out that the prophesy you apply to Muhammad dealt with giving sight to the blind. Muhammad was a warmonger and ego maniac who killed people for insulting him. Muhammad's prophesy concerning the Roman Empire was off by 700 years, so who do you think you are kidding other than yourself?

Sura 28:85 could and probably was "revealed" after the fact, or Muhammad knew he planned a war to force his theology on those in Mecca. The Ottoman Empire was conquered by a Christian nation and split between France and England. It was decades before most Middle East Arab nations gained their independence and then only with the sanction and support of France, England, and the U.N. Christian nations supplied the technology, money, and infrastructure that established the oil wealth now controlled by those nations. Western greed, not Allah supplied security for Islam in the Middle East. Indonesia is a better example of tolerant Islam than any Arab nation ruled by Islamic law.

You have not established Muhammad was a prophet.

[Farid]

if you follow the genealogies back from Jacob to Adam you will find that all of God's prophets came through that one line, a line that excludes all other tribes and peoples.

that is a factual error, because not all the prophets are mentioned in the Bible, or Quran, hence some of them could have been chinese, some Arabian, some Aztec, etc. It wouldnt be fair if only the people of Israelites were warned but other people were also punished with them.

Are you saying that Jews and Christians shouldnt believe in Muhammad(pbuh) as a prophet just because he was in the lineage of Ishmael? Ok so you said why Jews and Christians dont believe in Muhammad(pbuh), but do you know why Jews dont believe in Jesus(pbuh) either? because they think he didnt fulfill the prophecies, so I know that you feel they are wrong, same with me.

There is no need for another prophet like Moses to teach mankind Yaweh, the Father's truth.

That is not really up to you, that is up to God.

Of course I believe that Jesus(pbuh) was a prophet, the reason I dont believe in every single word, is becuase I am not sure he has said that, because non of the writings about Jesus(pbuh) go back to him.

You could say that Muhammad(pbuh) plagiarised scriptures, but how can that be possible with the verses that are completely different from the scriptures, and how could he have obtained these advanced scientific verses? If you can answer these then Muhammad(pbuh) probably did plagiarised scriptures.

The "goat" sacrifice is in 2:67-71 (Noble Quran), sorry it is not a goat but a heifer, my mistake.

Why do you post an article that says Quran is for zionist? Because I have no problem with Jews, the reason some people hate Jews is not because their religion, but mostly over land.

And about Deutronomy 18:15-21. Ishmaelites are said to be the brothers of Israelites in Gen. 16:12, and Gen. 25:18, And second Muhammad(pbuh) was very much like Moses, and third, God did put His words in Muhammad(pbuh) mouth. And Muhammad(pbuh) did speak in the name of God.


Moses(pbuh)escaped from Egypt, I said emigrated, but I hope you knew what I meant, same thing happened to Muhammad(pbuh).

How can you say that Muhammad(pbuh) was a false prophet based on the Torah, tell me how? I know it is not Deutronomy 18:21-22, because that actually proves Muhammad(pbuh) as a true prophet, so are you telling me that based on the Torah, Muhammad(pbuh) is a true prophet and a false one?

You can accept Islamic literature or not, it is up to you. but we believe that Quran is enough. Islam was not born with Muhammad(pbuh) but in reality it was restored with Muhammad(pbuh).

Muhammad(pbuh) was not a warmonger, he may have fought in self-defense or in just cause, but just because he fought that doesnt make him any less of a prophet. Are you sure that the Qurans prophecies were off by 700 years. that prophecy is saying that the Byzentines will fight again and will win, where did you get 700 years from. that happened around 7-10 years, I dont remember the exact time though, but it was around that.

And you think that Sura 28:85 was revealed after the fact, well that would be a little ackward for the people who were memorising and copying the Quran, and second Muhammad(pbuh) did not plan a war to capture Mecca, and he did not force his theology on those in Mecca.

Western greed, not Allah supplied security for Islam in the Middle East.

The prophecy about Muslims being in state of security is not talking about the Ottoman Empire, it is talking about the Muslims at the time of Muhammad(pbuh) that were not allowed to go to hajj.
and second Allah is the same God of Old and New testament, and every Christian should know that nothing can happen without the will of God.

And tell me why have I not establishe Muhammad(pbuh) as a prophet, is it because you wont believe his prophecies, the scientific miracles, the prophecies made about him? How can I convince you when everything I tell you, is regarded by you as false.

thank you.

[Aineo]

if you follow the genealogies back from Jacob to Adam you will find that all of God's prophets came through that one line, a line that excludes all other tribes and peoples.

that is a factual error, because not all the prophets are mentioned in the Bible, or Quran, hence some of them could have been chinese, some Arabian, some Aztec, etc. It wouldnt be fair if only the people of Israelites were warned but other people were also punished with them.

Really? What is fair about "killing unbelievers where you find them" or saying "there is no compulsion in religion" and then making those who reject Islam pay a tax? As I posted the two themes in the Bible are the Kingdom of God, which God revealed through His prophets and the King of the Kingdom of God, which God also revealed through His prophets. The Kingdom of God will be set up on earth in Israel where Jesus will reign when he returns.

Are you saying that Jews and Christians shouldnt believe in Muhammad(pbuh) as a prophet just because he was in the lineage of Ishmael? Ok so you said why Jews and Christians dont believe in Muhammad(pbuh), but do you know why Jews dont believe in Jesus(pbuh) either? because they think he didnt fulfill the prophecies, so I know that you feel they are wrong, same with me.

Read Romans 11, which I posted to teach you why the majority of Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah.

There is no need for another prophet like Moses to teach mankind Yaweh, the Father's truth.

That is not really up to you, that is up to God.

God inspired this:

Hebrews 1
1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee"?
And again,
"I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me"?
6 And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says,
" And let all the angels of God worship Him."
7 And of the angels He says,
"Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire."
8 But of the Son He says,
"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. 9 "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee With the oil of gladness above Thy companions."
10 And,
"Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11 They will perish, but Thou remainest; And they all will become old as a garment, 12 And as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; As a garment they will also be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end. "
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
"Sit at My right hand,Until I make Thine enemies A footstool for Thy feet"?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?
NAS

You could say that Muhammad(pbuh) plagiarised scriptures, but how can that be possible with the verses that are completely different from the scriptures, and how could he have obtained these advanced scientific verses? If you can answer these then Muhammad(pbuh) probably did plagiarised scriptures.

to take and use ideas, passages, etc., from (another's work) by plagiarism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=plagiarize

There is more than enough historical evidence that proves all of Muhammad's so-called science came from Greek philosophy, that his basic theology came from Judaism, and his concept of Paradise is an amalgamation of pagan sexual perversion, mythology, and Christian tradition. Why are Muslims promised 72 "hora" and 28 prepubescent boys to serve them and to be used in Paradise? Pederasty, free sex, and pedophilia are found in Arabic culture both pre and post Muhammad.

The "goat" sacrifice is in 2:67-71 (Noble Quran), sorry it is not a goat but a heifer, my mistake.

My response to your "goat" applies to your "heifer'.

Numbers 19:1-2
19:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 "This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded, saying, 'Speak to the sons of Israel that they bring you an unblemished red heifer in which is no defect, and on which a yoke has never been placed. NAS

Why do you post an article that says Quran is for zionist? Because I have no problem with Jews, the reason some people hate Jews is not because their religion, but mostly over land.

Zionism is concerned with land and in the Qur'an Allah tells the Jews and Muslims the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Did you bother to read the article or the articles sited?

And about Deutronomy 18:15-21. Ishmaelites are said to be the brothers of Israelites in Gen. 16:12, and Gen. 25:18, And second Muhammad(pbuh) was very much like Moses, and third, God did put His words in Muhammad(pbuh) mouth. And Muhammad(pbuh) did speak in the name of God.

Moses(pbuh)escaped from Egypt, I said emigrated, but I hope you knew what I meant, same thing happened to Muhammad(pbuh).

Millions have "escaped" persecution by going to another country. America and many European nations have millions of citizens who escaped Muslim persecution by leaving Muslims controlled nations, or due to religious persecution. My German ancestors left Switzerland for the U.S. for this reason, as did my English ancestors. This argument is nonsensical.

You can accept Islamic literature or not, it is up to you. but we believe that Quran is enough. Islam was not born with Muhammad(pbuh) but in reality it was restored with Muhammad(pbuh).

Real history disagrees with you. Islam was born when Muhammad had his visions.

Muhammad(pbuh) was not a warmonger, he may have fought in self-defense or in just cause, but just because he fought that doesnt make him any less of a prophet. Are you sure that the Qurans prophecies were off by 700 years. that prophecy is saying that the Byzentines will fight again and will win, where did you get 700 years from. that happened around 7-10 years, I dont remember the exact time though, but it was around that.

Muhammad died in 632 and Constantinople was conquered in 1453 or 821 years after this so-called prophesy.

and second Allah is the same God of Old and New testament, and every Christian should know that nothing can happen without the will of God.

The Qur'anic Allah is a perversion of Yaweh, who never told Christians or Jews to advance the cause of Judaism or Christ with the sword, taxes or kill those who reject Judaism or Jesus' message.

And tell me why have I not establishe Muhammad(pbuh) as a prophet, is it because you wont believe his prophecies, the scientific miracles, the prophecies made about him? How can I convince you when everything I tell you, is regarded by you as false.

Muhammad did not make any prophesies, his "scientific proofs" were common knowledge among educated Arabs, Jews, Christians, and pagan Greeks, and Muhammad was an egotistical, sex crazed warmonger who resorted to deceit and his military genius (he was a good general) to have his way.

[Aineo]

Yet Muhammad did not confuse the contentiousness of clan relations in the oasis with the religious message of Judaism. Passages in the Qur'an that warn Muslims not to make pacts with the Jews of Arabia emerge from these specific wartime situations. A larger spirit of respect, acceptance, and comradeship prevailed, as recorded in a late chapter of the Qur'an:

We sent down the Torah, in which there is guidance and light, by which the Prophets who surrendered to God's will provided judgments for the Jewish people. Also, the rabbis and doctors of the Law (did likewise), according to that portion of God's Book with which they were entrusted, and they became witnesses to it as well…. Whoever does not judge by what God has sent down (including the Torah), they are indeed unbelievers. (5:44)

Some individual Medinan Jews, including at least one rabbi, became Muslims. But generally, the Jews of Medina remained true to their faith. Theologically, they could not accept Muhammad as a messenger of God, since, in keeping with Jewish belief, they were waiting for a prophet to emerge from among their own people.

The exiled Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa removed to the prosperous northern oasis of Khaybar, and later pledged political loyalty to Muhammad. Other Jewish clans honored the pact they had signed and continued to live in peace in Medina long after it became the Muslim capital of Arabia.
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

The tension that exists today between Muslims and Jews is not an entirely modern phenomenon. Muhammad came into conflict with the Jewish tribes of his time, and this conflict ended in tragedy. Throughout the history of Islam Muhammad's anti-Jewish sentiments, preserved in the Qur'an and Hadith, have affected relations between Muslims and Jews. Today anti-Semitism reverberates throughout the Muslim world with an intensity not seen since the time of Hitler. Muhammad's own teachings are often used to justify it.

Apologists for Islam traditionally blame the Jews for their troubled relations with Muhammad, accusing the Jews of colluding with Muhammad's enemies. The truth is hardly that simple. Even the early Arabic sources, clearly biased in favor of Muhammad, tell a story that puts Muhammad's actions in question. We will look at these sources to understand the roots of this Muslim-Jewish tension.
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad06.htm

The second question we ask is whether Muhammad was a prophet to the Jews? In Medina were a number of Jewish groups called the Kahinan. They were the wealthiest inhabitants of Medina, and lived in fortified forts surrounding the city. There were three principle tribes living in Medina (according to Muslim Tradition): the Kaynuka, the al-Nadir, and the Kurayza. They all had good relations with the Jews of the north (especially in Khaybar).

During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there, describing himself as their prophet, who could be placed in the long line of prophets.

To appease them, he adopted many of their religious observances. Some of these were: 1) keeping the 10th of Muharram as a fast day, much like the Yom Kippur fast, 2) performing the 3-daily prayer rituals (versus the two Salats kept by Muhammad before the Hijra, while still in Mecca), 3) the weekly community worship services in the early afternoons on Fridays (following the Jewish Sabbath day of preparation). Note: this also made common-sense since Friday was the market day, the day when the largest number of people would have been in Medina. And finally, 4) Muhammad also adopted the north-facing Qibla, the practice of facing Jerusalem when praying.

It soon became clear, however, that the Jews in Medina were not going to accept Muhammad's claim to prophethood. These were for a number of reasons, which we can find in Sura 17:90-93. The Jews would not accept an Arabic speaking prophet. They had never accepted Jesus as a prophet, and he was an Aramaic speaking Jew! So why should they change now? Their principle requests, as we can derive from Sura 17, was that Muhammad present them with a few "superfluous" miracles.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/muha_jews.html

Muhammad Married His Daughter-in-law

We read in Sura al-Ahzab 33:37,

"When thou saidst to him whom God has blessed and thou hadst favoured, 'Keep thy wife to thyself; and fear God', and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted son, when they had accomplished what they would of them; and God's commandment must be performed."
وَإِذْ تَقُولُ لِلَّذِي أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِ أَمْسِكْ عَلَيْكَ زَوْجَكَ وَاتَّقِ اللَّهَ وَتُخْفِي فِي نَفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَاهُ فَلَمَّا قَضَى زَيْدٌ مِّنْهَا وَطَرًا زَوَّجْنَاكَهَا لِكَيْ لَا يَكُونَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَرَجٌ فِي أَزْوَاجِ أَدْعِيَائِهِمْ إِذَا قَضَوْا مِنْهُنَّ وَطَرًا وَكَانَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ مَفْعُولًا


Most expositors agree that this verse speaks of Zainab, Zaid's wife, whom Muhammad saw dressed in a chemise with a veil over her face when he went to Zaid one day on certain business. She was fair, and her physical appearance was perfect among the women of the Quraish, so that he was bewitched by her beauty. Then he said, "Praise be to him, who changes hearts!" and left. When Zaid arrived home, she told him, and he looked into the matter diligently. He came to Muhammad and said, "I want to leave my wife." Muhammad said to him, "What is the matter with her? Did she do anything to make you suspicious of her?" Zaid said, "No by God. All I saw in her was good. But she treats me as inferior on account of her nobility, and hurts me with her tongue [i.e., with what she says]." So God himself who gave me in marriage, and fear God" [that is, "Do not leave her"].

In the Torah we read:

Leviticus 18:6
6'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. NAS

Leviticus 18:15
15'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. NAS

Leviticus 18:26-30
26'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27(for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29'For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30'Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.' " NAS

Leviticus 20:12
12'If there is a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. NAS

Numbers 15:15-16
15'As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD. 16'There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.' "
NAS

Muhammad set up laws for Muslims and laws for non-Muslims.

Muhammad's Allah is not the same God we find the Old and New Testaments, which makes Muhammad a false prophet.

[Farid]

The verse about "kill unbelievers wherever you find them...." is actually telling Muslims at the time to defend themselves, it is not saying to kill innocent people, you have to read other verses in order to understand this one better:

[


And I dont believe Hebrews 1:1, because first of all, we dont believe that Jesus(pbuh) was the son of god. And we believe that it was Muhammad(pbuh) that was the last prophet, Jews believe that prophet hood ended with Malachai.

My question about Muhammad(pbuh) plagiarising the works of earlier people are, let say he got an idea from the ancient philosophors, but how did an illiterate man took it to this advanced level without experiment?

The horas are not human, they are another creation, we are not sure about the number of them, because it was stated in a weak hadith. Just because some things existed pre or post time of Muhammad(pbuh) doesnt mean he copied them.
At the time of Jesus(pbuh), the Romans were the ones who would deify a dead person, and call some the son of god.

Zionism is concerned with land and in the Qur'an Allah tells the Jews and Muslims the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Did you bother to read the article or the articles sited?

It doesnt bother me that the land belongs to the Jews, I already told you that. I am not against Zionism.

My response to your "goat" applies to your "heifer'.

I didnt understand that response of yours, the heifer story was not a question, what are you trying to answer?

Real history disagrees with you. Islam was born when Muhammad had his visions.

Muslims believe that every prophet of God were Muslims, even the Jews who followed Moses(pbuh) and the early Christians who followed Jesus(pbuh). And that is the reason we believe it was a restoration, of course the restoration began with his vision.

Muhammad died in 632 and Constantinople was conquered in 1453 or 821 years after this so-called prophesy.

The prophecy about the Romans and persians is not about Constantipole, the Romans were defeated, a revelation came to Muhammad(pbuh) that Romans will fight again and this time they will win, it was a prediction of winning just that one battle, not conquering Constantipole. The prediction of conquering Constantipole was in a hadith, not Quran.

It is part of our religion to believe that God is one, and it is part of our religion to believe that Allah is the same God of Adam down to present time. God has never said to kill those who dont believe:

Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"

How can you say that Muhammad(pbuh) did not make any prophecies when I clearly listed them to you, if you dont believe that then you shouldnt believe anything in the Bible too, because it seems that you want to see it for yourself.

Most of his "scientific proofs" were discovered only in recent times, for example the big bang, embroyology stages, etc. Give me an example of how Muhammad(pbuh) was egotistical, he risked his life preaching the message of God to people, he refused the offer of wealth and power, out of people who worshipped idols, he made a great new nation. How is he egotistical when he preached the message of salvation to mankind, he didnt care about this world, so he didnt want anything from this world.

Hadith:

"What do I care about this world, for I am in this world like a rider who sat for a while under the shade of a tree, then got up and left behind"

Muhammad(pbuh) was compassionate, honest, trustworthy. Muhammad(pbuh) never broke his treaty with anyone, he never decieted anyone.

About Muhammad(pbuh) marrying his daughter in-law, first of all Zaid was not his real son, it was his former adopted son, so they were not blood related.

Leviticus 18:6
6'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. NAS

thank you.

[Aineo]

Your response is typical of Muslims who say they believe the Qur'an, and then deny the accuracy of the Qur'an. Allah took credit for the Bible, and if you believe Allah then you should believe Hebrews 1:1.

003.003 He hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture with truth, confirming; that which was (revealed) before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. ;
003.004 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of ; right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a ; heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

012.111 In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no; invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed ; explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe.
http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP003.htm

An adopted son is still your son, so your attempt to rationalize an immoral marriage is hypocritical.

002.190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
002.191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
002.192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
002.193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
http://www.islam101.com/quran/QTP/QTP002.htm

Undoubtedly, the concept of an offensive war to spread the faith is a genuine Islamic concept; it is known as a Holy War for the sake of God. We will see what Muslim scholars have explicitly determined that this is the essence of Islam. They also indicate that if sufficient military power is available to Islamic countries, they ought to attack all other countries in order to force them to embrace Islam, or pay the poll tax and be subject to Islamic rule. Muhammad (as well as all the Caliphs who succeeded him) called for holy wars . All scholars and lawyers acknowledge that.
http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv2.html

Any honest historian recognizes that out of the 68 wars Muhammad fought only one was in self defense. The rest were initiated or instigated by Muhammad.

You don't understand that the Jews would not debate over a heifer? Since you did not address the Scripture I posted, I think you do and just do not want to admit it.

If Muslims want to believe a lie and think that all God's prophets were Muslims that is your problem. But why am I not surprised?

However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."
Lying in Islam

Muslims will lie through their teeth to promote Islam as a religion of peace that only defends itself from aggressors. Tell me Farid, when did Spain attack Muslims? The invasion of Spain was an act of aggression. The 1948 Israeli war of independence was initiated by Muslims who rejected that Allah plainly states that Israel belongs to the Jews.

Now, it is time you address what I post instead of ignoring what I post so you can continue to defend Islamic lies.

[Farid]

I know Allah took credit for the Bible, but Allah also said that the Bible has been corrupted and changed.

The verse about marrying your daughter in law said to not marry your close blood relatives, Zaid was not Muhammad(pbuh) blood relative, just because he was his adopted son doesnt mean that their genes were the same.

Again, those verses are not instructions for us, they are telling us to defend ourselves, again, you have to read other verses to understand these ones better, those verses are not telling us to kill innocent people, that is the answer, you can accept it or you can ignore it, it is up to you.

Of all the wars fought by Muhammad only two were self defensive in nature.

Any honest historian recognizes that out of the 68 wars Muhammad fought only one was in self defense.

first it was two, now it is one?
any war that Muhammad(pbuh) went to was either self-defense or a just cause.

You don't understand that the Jews would not debate over a heifer? Since you did not address the Scripture I posted, I think you do and just do not want to admit it.

In the story the Jews didnt debate over a heifer, they just asked too many questions, so their job could be plainer to them, but in reality it became harder.




Lying is not allowed in all cases, and I am very much against it also, dont worry, I wont lie to you deliberately. And if the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, then let them have it, I am not against that, I have no problem with Jews or Christians, or anyone who is not fighting with me, Just because some people have gotten the wrong interpretation of the Quran doesnt mean every Muslim is like that.


Lying is a major sin in islam.

thank you.

[Aineo]

I know Allah took credit for the Bible, but Allah also said that the Bible has been corrupted and changed.

Where?

The verse about marrying your daughter in law said to not marry your close blood relatives, Zaid was not Muhammad(pbuh) blood relative, just because he was his adopted son doesnt mean that their genes were the same.

Who is addressing genes? You see Farid, this is why Islam and Islamic apologists are hypocrites. You appeal to tradition to say that Ishmael was Abraham's oldest son and therefore the son due the rights of inheritance do the first son despite the fact Hagar was a concubine. Now you are ignoring the laws and traditions of adoption.

Again, those verses are not instructions for us, they are telling us to defend ourselves, again, you have to read other verses to understand these ones better, those verses are not telling us to kill innocent people, that is the answer, you can accept it or you can ignore it, it is up to you.

Oh, so the fact Muslims have applies this verse to justify killing "unbelievers" is not the issue, when you don't want it to be an issue.

Of all the wars fought by Muhammad only two were self defensive in nature.

Any honest historian recognizes that out of the 68 wars Muhammad fought only one was in self defense.

first it was two, now it is one?
any war that Muhammad(pbuh) went to was either self-defense or a just cause.

I checked my facts, the two was incorrect. Maybe you should check "facts" instead of relying on propaganda.

You don't understand that the Jews would not debate over a heifer? Since you did not address the Scripture I posted, I think you do and just do not want to admit it.

In the story the Jews didnt debate over a heifer, they just asked too many questions, so their job could be plainer to them, but in reality it became harder.

:D I posted Scripture that shows your story is a fabrication. The priests did not have to ask questions regarding a heifer, they knew what was required and so would any Jew who lived in an agrarian culture. What is do difficult about finding a red heifer without blemish? I can do that without asking one question.

Lying is not allowed in all cases, and I am very much against it also, dont worry, I wont lie to you deliberately. And if the land of Israel belongs to the Jews, then let them have it, I am not against that, I have no problem with Jews or Christians, or anyone who is not fighting with me, Just because some people have gotten the wrong interpretation of the Quran doesnt mean every Muslim is like that.

We are not discussing you, we are discussing the Qur'an, which does permit Muslims to lie. Also, the vast majority of Middle East Muslims ignore the Qur'an in their wars against Israel and their stated goal to annihilate all Jews living in Israel. I know that not all Muslims lie, are warmongers, or want to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. I have already commented on the Indonesian Islamic nation where Muslims are tolerant of other faiths and intolerant of militant Islam.

What is missing from your response is proof that Muhammad fought only those who attacked him first, which proves that Muhammad did not agree with what you have posted, or is it your contention that forcing people to convert to Islam is a "just cause"?

I edited out the quotes from your post because you did not link to the source. The next time you do that I will delete your post instead of editing it.

[Farid]

"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-" (Quran 4:157)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/y ... uption.htm

This verse proves that some parts of the Bible are conjecture. To me, another proof is that some parts of the Bible is contradictory with the Quran, to me that proves that the Bible has been changed.

Who is addressing genes? You see Farid, this is why Islam and Islamic apologists are hypocrites.

I told you that Zaid was not Muhammad(pbuh) real son, but you said he was still his son, the reason I said that their genes are not the same is becuase that proves that he wasnt his son, and or relative. You know lots of things can be addressed without actually naming the thing.

Now you are ignoring the laws and traditions of adoption.

Ishmael was not adopted.

Oh, so the fact Muslims have applies this verse to justify killing "unbelievers" is not the issue, when you don't want it to be an issue.

Who are you going to believe?, the scholars, who know the story behind the verses and the context, and know Muhammad(pbuh) biography, or some people who kill and use these verses justify it.
the scholars will give you the real meaning, while the people who kill will give you the meaning they want from it.

I checked my facts, the two was incorrect. Maybe you should check "facts" instead of relying on propaganda.

What propaganda? the scientific verses? the prophecies?. I have given you facts, why should I lie in order for me to complete a goal, I told you, I dont like lying, I wont lie to you deliberately.

I posted Scripture that shows your story is a fabrication. The priests did not have to ask questions regarding a heifer, they knew what was required and so would any Jew who lived in an agrarian culture. What is do difficult about finding a red heifer without blemish? I can do that without asking one question.

How do you even know the stories are the same ones? How do you know the story in the Quran is not an earlier story?

we are discussing the Qur'an, which does permit Muslims to lie

The Quran doesnt permit anyone to lie, the permission of lying in very necessary cases have been allowed in Hadiths.

What is missing from your response is proof that Muhammad fought only those who attacked him first, which proves that Muhammad did not agree with what you have posted, or is it your contention that forcing people to convert to Islam is a "just cause"?

The History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge, A Collective Work, Harcourt Brace and co., p. 520


Muslims did indeed wage many wars, just as many Jews and Christians did both before and after this. Muslims waged their wars in self-defense or in order to abolish idolatry, tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Muslims were commanded to not attack those who did not attack them, to not cut down a fruit tree, to not kill the animals, to not take the people's property, to not harm women or children or old people so long as they did not fight with them, and to not burn crops.


When they were victorious, the Muslims were commanded not to destroy the churches nor the synagogues, nor to force the people to convert to Islam. The people were allowed to continue to practice their religion without persecution or being forced to convert

"There is no compulsion in religion. The right path is henceforth distinct from misguidance"

If Islam was indeed spread by the sword and not by it's spiritual appeal, then how do we explain, for example, the fact that Islam is the religion of the majority of the people of the country of Indonesia even though no Muslim army ever set foot on their land and they can by no stretch of the imagination be labeled as Arabs? The only contact these people ever had with Islam was through Muslim traders who passed through their lands.


If the truth were to be known, in almost every single battle the Muslims ever participated in, they were almost always vastly outnumbered. For example, when the Muslims finally overthrew the pagan Byzantine superpower in the battle of Al-Yarmook of the year 636 C.E., the Muslim army consisted of 40,000 fighters verses 200,000 solders in the Byzantine army. So although many historians may like to attribute the fall of this superpower to any number of factors such as claiming that they were taxed and weary from previous battles with the Romans, (while not claiming that the Muslims were taxed and weary from their previous battles), and although they refuse to believe that this victory could have come from the Almighty, still, one needs to wonder if this victory were not through divine intervention then how do we explain the fact that an ill-equipped army of Bedouin sheep herders who were outnumbered more than four to one could so resoundingly defeat one of the two "superpowers" of their age?


"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world. There is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue."

The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, George Bernard Shaw, No. 81936.


"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him-the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

Hamilton Gibb, Whither Islam, London, 1932, p. 379.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/libr ... ch6.5.html

thank you.

[Aineo]

If all Muslims were like those in Indonesia you would have a case that Islam is a religion of peace, and since I brought up Indonesia your attempt to rationalize Muhammad's true character by appealing to Indonesia is ludicrous. Middle Eastern Muslims and Muslim nations are the source of Islamic terrorism where cowards hide behind and kill noncombatants.

The Qur'an does permit Muslims to lie, a fact Muslim scholars agree is true.

If there is no compulsion in religion then why tax those who do not accept Islam and kill those who did not fight against Muhammad? Your appeal to Islamic apologists who white wash history simply demonstrates that some Muslims lie. Although I am not a Catholic, I admire John Paul II for his public apology for the excesses including wars committed by Catholic armies during the Crusades and the Inquisitions. You will not find a single command in the NT to "kill anyone", on the other hand the Qur'an permits Muslims to "kill unbelievers". Any unbiased history of Muhammad and the spread of Islam documents Muhammad's wars were wars of aggression.

Muslims lie concerning changes in the Bible, that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible, and that Jesus was a Muslim, even Muhammad's genealogy is a lie. You say you believe what Jesus said and then label Jesus a liar.

Revelation 21:8
8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." NAS

Jesus refers to Yaweh as the only true God, Islam denies this.

You believe the Qur'an and I believe the Bible, which has a better documented history than the Qur'an, which was plagiarized from Greek philosophy, Christianity, Gnosticism, and Arab pagan beliefs, a fact you have yet to refute and have even proven with your appeal to the Gnostic 2nd Treatise of Seth.

[Farid]

where cowards hide behind and kill noncombatants.

I hope you know that in Islam, it is strictly prohibited to kill innocent civilians, people who do these are not following Islam.


Noble Verse 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

The Quran only tells you to hide your faith if necessary.

and kill those who did not fight against Muhammad?

Muslims are not allowed to do that. you can clearly tell from the verses in the Quran, we have said this many times, but no one will believe us, and that only hurts you.

Muslims lie concerning changes in the Bible, that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible, and that Jesus was a Muslim, even Muhammad's genealogy is a lie. You say you believe what Jesus said and then label Jesus a liar.

It is not all the Muslims that believe Bible has been altered, there are many other people, even the Bible historians and theologians say that gospels of Luke, Matthew, and John are written by unknown authors.
We are not lying about Muhammad(pbuh) being prophecised in the Bible, you guys just dont believe us. Jews think that Christians lie about Jesus(pbuh) being prophecised in the Bible also, just because it is said like that, doesnt mean it is true.

Jesus refers to Yaweh as the only true God, Islam denies this.

there is not a single verse in the Quran that denies that:

“And your Allâh
s one Allâh; there is no god but He, Most Gracious Most Merciful.” (Qur’ân, 2:163)

“Here is a Message for mankind: Let them take warning there from, and let them know that He is (no other than) One Allâh. Let men of understanding take heed.” (14: 52)

" Allâh! There is no god but He (the) Rabb[2] (the Only Cherisher and Sustainer) of the Throne Supreme!” (27: 26)

“O mankind! Call to mind the grace of Allâh unto you! Is there a Creator other than Allâh to give you sustenance from heaven or earth? There is no god but He. How then are you deluded away from the Truth? (35:3)

“Verily, your Allâh
s One, Rabb of the heavens and of the earth and all between them and Rabb of every point at the rising of the sun!” (37:4-5)

“Say: ‘Call upon Allâh or call upon Rahman (the Most Beneficent), by whatever name you call upon Him (it is well), for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Neither speak your Prayer aloud nor speak it in a low tone but seek a middle course between.’ And say: ‘Praises belong to Allâh Who begets no son and has no partner in (His) dominion: nor is He low to have protector. And magnify Him for His greatness and glory!’” (17:110-111)

You can call God: Allah, Rahman, Yaweh, etc.

You believe the Qur'an and I believe the Bible, which has a better documented history than the Qur'an, which was plagiarized from Greek philosophy, Christianity, Gnosticism, and Arab pagan beliefs, a fact you have yet to refute and have even proven with your appeal to the Gnostic 2nd Treatise of Seth.

There may be some verses that are similiar to Greek philosophy, but not all of them, there are some verses much more advanced than the Greek philosophy, I know that alot of verses are similiar to Christianity and Judaism, because they all came from the same source; God Almighty.

‘Say: The Truth has come from your Lord. Let him who will, believe it, and let him who will, reject it.’
(al-Kahf 18: 29)

thank you.

[Aineo]

There may be some verses that are similiar to Greek philosophy, but not all of them, there are some verses much more advanced than the Greek philosophy, I know that alot of verses are similiar to Christianity and Judaism, because they all came from the same source; God Almighty.

‘Say: The Truth has come from your Lord. Let him who will, believe it, and let him who will, reject it.’
(al-Kahf 18: 29)

thank you.

The Qur'an teaches that Sodom was destroyed because of sexual immorality, specifically homosexuality. The first person to teach this was Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who lived from 20 BC to 50 AD. The truth from the Lord God Almighty is that Sodom was destroyed because the citizens of Sodom were rich, had abundant food, were lazy, and did not feed the poor and abused strangers (aliens, travelers) (Ezekiel 16:49-50).

All of your Islamic science was common knowledge among educated Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Chinese, and etc., which proves that your "unlettered" prophet did not reveal anything miraculous concerning human scientific knowledge.

What the Qur'an teaches and the current situation in the Middle East according to you contradict each other. So are you telling me that Muslim nations under Islamic law are not really Muslim nations and therefore do not represent true Islam?

The Quran only tells you to hide your faith if necessary.

So the Qur'an permits Muslims to lie, you proved my point. However, this is not the only time Muslims are permitted to lie per Islamic scholars and you know this as well as I do. FIGSOLIVE admitted this as have other Muslims who posted here.

The Lord God Almighty of the Bible does not permit any lie for any reason and Jesus said if we deny him before men, he will deny us before the Father.

Matthew 10:32-33
32 "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 "But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. NAS

So once again we see where the Qur'an contradicts the Bible, which shows that Allah is not the God of the Bible and another reason both Jews and Christians should reject Muhammad as a true prophet of God.

[Farid]

The Qur'an teaches that Sodom was destroyed because of sexual immorality.

Yes I do believe that was the reason they died, but they didnt die without warning. It does not matter to me if a hellenistic Jew was the first person to propose this, how do you know he wasnt lying? so are you saying that if something is the truth, but it has already been proposed by someone else, then you shouldnt tell the truth.
you are going only one way with this situation, just because a man already proposed this idea doesnt mean that the Quran is plagiarising, it could also mean that the Quran is confirming it, it could go both ways.

I mean if you rely so much on what people used to do and say, then you shouldnt even believe that Jesus(Pbuh) was the son of God, because the Romans used to call some the son of God, and used to deify the dead. in one of the dead sea scrolls, there is a title, the son of God, but it is talking about someone else, so it was common back then to give this title to people, but it wasnt to be taken literally.

All of your Islamic science was common knowledge among educated Greeks, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Chinese, and etc.,

Not all of them was common knowledge back then, as I have showed you in earlier posts, some of the verses were completely unknown at that time.

What the Qur'an teaches and the current situation in the Middle East according to you contradict each other. So are you telling me that Muslim nations under Islamic law are not really Muslim nations and therefore do not represent true Islam?

If a Muslim nation follows the Quran and Hadith making sure that they dont transgress then yes they are an Islamic nation, but if they dont then they are not. I cant call them unbelievers though.

So the Qur'an permits Muslims to lie, you proved my point.

there is a big border between this kind of lying and the everyday lying, there is a thin border between lying permitted in the Hadiths, so that is why you should be careful not to cross the line. I dont see anything wrong with lying to save your life, I mean if you deny a prophet with your lips doesnt mean you will be denying him with your heart either, and the heart is what God looks at. in a Bible verse Jesus(pbuh) said that men look at the outside of people but God looks at the inside(intentions, faith). Even one of the disciples lied when it became necessary to saving his life, it was peter, when he denied Jesus(pbuh) but he didnt deny him with his heart, Jesus(Pbuh) would not have built his church upon the rock(peter) if peter was going to become a sinner.

So once again we see where the Qur'an contradicts the Bible, which shows that Allah is not the God of the Bible and another reason both Jews and Christians should reject Muhammad as a true prophet of God.

You are taking everything word for word, of course its not all going to be the same, things might be described different in Bible and different in Quran, but sometimes they are both talking about the same thing, but some times they are not, and in that case, I believe the Quran, because it is the restoration of earlier scriptures, what you rely on is your choice.

thank you.

[Aineo]

The Qur'an teaches that Sodom was destroyed because of sexual immorality.

Yes I do believe that was the reason they died, but they didnt die without warning. It does not matter to me if a hellenistic Jew was the first person to propose this, how do you know he wasnt lying? so are you saying that if something is the truth, but it has already been proposed by someone else, then you shouldnt tell the truth.

You know Farid, first I told you about Philo, then I posted the Bible's explanation for the destruction of Sodom. Now you are trying to justify Muhammad's incorporation of a Greek philosopher's opinion as the truth.

you are going only one way with this situation, just because a man already proposed this idea doesnt mean that the Quran is plagiarising, it could also mean that the Quran is confirming it, it could go both ways.

Well, Allah took credit for the Bible, Muhammad chose to go with Philo so all you have shown me an anyone with the ability to think that if the first person to contradict the Bible was a philosopher then Muhammad is not a prophet.

I refuse to waste any more time with a person who ignores historical truth, appeals to fables as truth, and then tries the old the Romans did the same thing when in fact the Bible does not teach Jesus is God. I was waiting for that one and if you will take the time to read the Trinity Debate Forum you will find I am not a Trinitarian. The concept of hell is a pagan concept that Muhammad adopted from myths, the Muslim concept of Paradise is a pagan concept, the entire Qur'an is a bad work of fiction plagiarized from Christianity, Greek philosophy, Gnostic Christians, and paganism.

I have been following your posts on the Ex-Muslims site concerning Islamic science and so far Kai has buried you so deep you should need air, water, and food piped to you. The one about mountains being pegs is laughable. Science knows that the land masses of the earth "float" and are moving and are not pegged to anything.

[Farid]

then I posted the Bible's explanation for the destruction of Sodom.

That is where the Quran comes in, you see we believe that the Bible has been changed, some words have been forgotten and others have been misplaced, that is historical truth. The Quran is confirming the Old scriptures, and fixing any errors inserted into the Bible.

Well, Allah took credit for the Bible, Muhammad chose to go with Philo so all you have shown me an anyone with the ability to think that if the first person to contradict the Bible was a philosopher then Muhammad is not a prophet.

for this situation, you first have to understand that the Quran has been sent by God, and after understanding that there shouldnt be any questions like this one. How can we prove Quran is from God? lets use the Bible test, all the prophecies of Mohammad(pbuh) and the Quran have come true, hence Quran has passed the test. Now when you understand that it is from God, then you will also understand that everything in it is the truth, and therefore Mohammad(pbuh) did not plagiarise anyones work.

refuse to waste any more time with a person who ignores historical truth, appeals to fables as truth, and then tries the old the Romans did the same thing when in fact the Bible does not teach Jesus is God. I was waiting for that one and if you will take the time to read the Trinity Debate Forum you will find I am not a Trinitarian. The concept of hell is a pagan concept that Muhammad adopted from myths, the Muslim concept of Paradise is a pagan concept, the entire Qur'an is a bad work of fiction plagiarized from Christianity, Greek philosophy, Gnostic Christians, and paganism.

I do not ignore historical facts, I am convinced that the Quran has been sent by God, so any ancient people who had the same idea doesnt bother me. and how do I appeal to fables as truth?

I didnt say that Jesus(pbuh) is God, I know the Bible doesnt teach that, but you still believe that he is the son of God, and that is what the Romans did also.

hell is a pagan concept that Muhammad adopted from myths

so you dont believe in hell.

the entire Qur'an is a bad work of fiction plagiarized from Christianity, Greek philosophy, Gnostic Christians, and paganism.

So where did Mohammad(pbuh) get the scientific verses that were unknow at that time?

mountains being pegs is laughable

I dont see any thing laughable about that, for the height of a mountain there is 10 to 15 times more underground, making like pegs, and second Quran.

Science knows that the land masses of the earth "float" and are moving and are not pegged to anything.

Quran also says that the mountains are moving like the passing of the clouds.

"Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of God, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 27:88)"
http://www.answering-christianity.com/e ... tation.htm

thank you.

[Aineo]

You keep asking the same question over and over and over concerning Muhammad and your so called Islamic science. Arabia was not an intellectual vacuum when Muhammad came up with the Qur'an. Arab, Greek, Jewish, and Christian intellectuals lived in Saudi Arabia, and Alexandria was a center of knowledge. My answer to your question is not going to change.

No, I do not believe in an eternal hell where the "souls" of men are tormented throughout eternity. This concept comes from the same Greco/Roman culture you accuse Christians of following with the concept of the Son of God, which makes your argument concerning the Son of God hypocritical.

You keep making claims concerning the Bible being changed, however you have yet to post when, how, who, where, and why. In other words you have yet to furnish any proof other than the Qur'an, which we can prove was plagiarized from the Bible, Greek philosophy, apocryphal Christian literature, and the Gnostic Gospels with a dash of Arab paganism thrown in.

I dont see any thing laughable about that, for the height of a mountain there is 10 to 15 times more underground, making like pegs, and second Quran.

Site a geological site that backs up your peg theory.

"Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of God, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 27:8)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/e ... tation.htm

They sure do, this is called erosion and was known as such before Muhammad was born. The Rocky Mountains have eroded, while the Himalayas are still rising due to tectonic forces.

You have done nothing but post unsubstantiated claims that prove nothing.

[Farid]

No, I do not believe in an eternal hell where the "souls" of men are tormented throughout eternity. This concept comes from the same Greco/Roman culture you accuse Christians of following with the concept of the Son of God, which makes your argument concerning the Son of God hypocritical.

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Rev. 14:11)

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Mt. 25:46)

http://bible.cc/matthew/25-46.htm

You keep making claims concerning the Bible being changed, however you have yet to post when, how, who, where, and why. In other words you have yet to furnish any proof other than the Qur'an, which we can prove was plagiarized from the Bible, Greek philosophy, apocryphal Christian literature, and the Gnostic Gospels with a dash of Arab paganism thrown in.

What is common between Islam and other religions are your proof that the Quran is plagiarised,if that is so,then the NT having anonymous authors is more than enough proof that the whole NT is not the words of Jesus(pbuh), and there is no original copy of the New Testament available, Jewish Christians who were called Nazerenes, used the "Gospel of Hebrews" probably written by Matthew. Anyone who was from this territory who desired to read the texts were supposed to make a copy of it by themselves letter by letter or have someone else do it for them. Many of the notes and comments of the text that was being copied from would be written in the main body of the new manuscripts, thus changing the whole wording. to fit their need they would sometimes leave out complete passages.

this kept going until the original manuscripts were completely lost or destroyed, the "Jewish Christians" were good at preserving their traditions and sacred texts, and had great motivation to preserve it, but when the other groups who became the dominant and orthodox changed the Bible to make it more urbanised and Romanised. they were not very fond of the so called "Jewish Christians" and their original text and practices, they tried to discredit the "Jewish Christians" and made a law for their destruction in the fourth century. The Nag Hammadi Library, may have been hidden because of the persecution they were undergoing in the fourth century.

The manuscripts that survived such as the Nag Hammadi Library are not accurate copies of the original copies, it is copies of copies of original.

http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

Prof. Eberhard Nestle, an expert in original evangelical texts, comments on this situation in his Einf~hrung in die Textkritik des griechischen Testaments:

"Learned men, so called Correctors were, following the church meeting at Nicea 325 AD, selected by the church authorities to scrutinize the sacred texts and rewrite them in order to correct their meaning in accordance with the views which the church had just sanctioned."
http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

The Danish professor of religious history, Detlef Nielsen, says further:
"We have to handle many, partly contradictory texts which were written in the time period of 50 - 150 AD. In the New Testament were no less than four evangelical texts included. One tried to bring about some kind of unity which was presented as an unadulterated, true narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus, complementing each other, and which together -- though apparently unsimilar -- formed the only true evangelical text. In order to bring the various passages in harmony of each other, they were subjected to a thorough revision. As a first measure one rewrote the evangelical handwritten manuscripts, disregarding parts which did not conform, and wrote comments to make them compatible with each other. One then took to the clerical art of interpretation in order to explain the contents in such a way that
a unified evangelical text could be created."
http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

One of the oldest evangelical texts is Mark, written by the interpreter of Peter in Rome. Papias is communicating this in his epistle to the presbyter, Johannes:
"Mark, the interpreter of Peter, recorded with great energy, if not with great accuracy, everything that he could remember had been told about Jesus. He himself had never seen the Master. He was just the interpreter of Peter, and could only retell what he had heard at various instances; not always had he got everything well explained to him and commented. One should therefore not reproach Mark ..."
http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

Edgar Hennecke says:
"It is known that the wording of the Greek texts, which we use as a base, originate from the 5th century"

In Luke 23:53, it is written that Yeshu (Jesus) was placed in a tomb "where no-one had ever yet been laid". As a possible defense against an accusation of someone stealing the body, scribes seem to have added the words "and he rolled a great stone before the door of the tomb". The Codex Bezae was even altered to add "and having placed him there he positioned before the tomb a stone that scarcely twenty people could roll."
Luke 24:12 reads: "But Peter, rising up, ran to the tomb; and stooping down he saw the linen cloths alone, and he returned home marveling at what had happened.". This was just after Luke writes that the disciples did not believe the women, whose words seemed nonsense to them. This verse is missing from Codex Bezae and some Old Latin manuscripts. The text varies in other manuscripts. One wonders why this verse would be dropped from Codex Bezae by a scribe, especially given the reluctance of scribes to delete anything from the text? There are far more insertions than deletions, especially in the Codex Bezae, which is notorious for adding material, not subtracting it.

It is agreed among scholars that whenever Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts agree, that reading must date back to at least the second century, if not earlier. Also, readings from Codex Bezae are found very early. Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians (AD 110) quotes the version of Acts 2:24 found in Codex Bezae.

Luke 24:12 was probably added by a scribe in the second century so as to make the Roman version of a resurrection more believable? If it was not added, then some scribes must have consciously chosen to delete it, which seems unreasonable.

The verse is very similar to Peter's rushing to the tomb in John 20:3-10. The word for the linen cloths in Luke 24:12 (othonia) is not the word that Luke has just used in Luke 23:53 (sindoni), but it is the word used in John 20:5.

This one verse, Luke 24:12, has 3 words or phrases used nowhere else in Luke or Acts. It also uses an "present tense" instead of his normal past tense used int he rest of the manuscript. Of the 93 historic presents in the Markan verses that Luke used, no less than 92 were changed by him to past tenses. This seems indicative of a pericope addition for it is missing from other important manuscripts, it has many non-Lukan features, but features which resemble John's Gospel.

Codex Bezae and many Old Latin texts do not include Luke 24:40 - "having said this, he showed them his hands and feet". Either some scribe added this verse, or some scribe dropped it. It is hard to see why any scribe would drop the verse. It is easy to see why a scribe would add the verse, basing it on John 20:20.

In Luke 24:3,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase "the Lord Jesus" in "they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Clearly, the phrase "the Lord Jesus" was added by a scribe to make sure that the Gospels recorded that the women went to the right tomb. The phrase only occurs in this verse and in another apparent addition - Mark 16:19.

In Luke 24:6,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase "He is not here, but has been raised". Apparently this phrase was another addition by a scribe to reinforce the physical resurrection theme.
http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

Site a geological site that backs up your peg theory.

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-b.htm
this is not a geologiccal site, but they base their sources from the book "Earth" which is used in universities all around the world.

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)

Figure 8: Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.)

Figure 9: Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)

thank you.

[Aineo]

This book by Bruce Metzger reveals how and who added glosses and verses to the NT.
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

Origen of Alexandria is among those men who made a few identified alterations to some manuscripts, however since we have two 4th century manuscripts that attest to the overall accuracy of the 27 book NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls attest the accuracy of the OT your appeal to a Buddhist site is ludicrous.

What was not added was that Jesus is the son of God, Ezekiel 16:49-50 or any other verse that affects sound doctrine found in the OT. Also if the Bible goes down based on the criteria used by the Essene Buddhist so does the Qur'an.

No original copy of any New Testament book exists.
http://essenes.net/gop31nt.htm

No original copy of the Qur'an exists. Uthman Ibn Affan, the man who compiled and published the official Qur'an ordered all other written documents of the recitations destroyed. Why?

I asked you for a science site to back up your peg theory, not a Islamic apologist site.

[Farid]

we have two 4th century manuscripts that attest to the overall accuracy of the 27 book NT and the Dead Sea Scrolls attest the accuracy of the OT your appeal to a Buddhist site is ludicrous.

The dead sea scroll may attest to the accuracy of the Old Testament, but what is attesting to the accuracy of the Dead sea scrolls, and if you have two 4th century manuscripts to attest to the accuracy of the New Testament, then what is attesting to accruacy of the two 4th century manuscripts.

No original copy of the Qur'an exists. Uthman Ibn Affan, the man who compiled and published the official Qur'an ordered all other written documents of the recitations destroyed. Why?

Uthman(R.A) did copy the original Quran which he got from Hafsa(R.A) and she got it from Umar(r.a) and he got it from Abu Bakr(r.a), and Abu Bakr(r.a) was the one who compiled the Quran from different materials into one, and the Quran from different materials was the one being used at the time of Muhammad(pbuh), the Quran goes all the way back to Muhammad(pbuh), that is not the case for the New and Old testament.

I asked you for a science site to back up your peg theory, not a Islamic apologist site.

That site got its sources from a university textbook.
if you dont trust that site, then I suggest you read these books (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413), (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220), (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158).


thank you.[/i]

[Aineo]

Why did Utham order the documents he used to compile the official Qur'an destroyed?

Where is your evidence that the Jews changed the OT?

Rowland gave a great response to your "pegs" and mountains preventing shaking on this thread:
http://www.formermuslims.com/forum/view ... 0181#23777

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Why did Utham order the documents he used to compile the official Qur'an destroyed?

Farid Wrote:

Uthman (r.a) returned the document he used to compile the official Quran, he only destroyed the other versions of the Quran that didnt match the original Quran, which was authorised by Muhammad(pbuh), the other versions were there because some of them had also heard Muhammad(pbuh) revelation, but not all of them and they were not authorised, hence they were destroyed by their permission.


Aineo Wrote:

Where is your evidence that the Jews changed the OT?

Farid Wrote:

"And it came to pass, when moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites(Jews), which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands."
(Deuteronomy 31:25-29)


"How can you say we (the Jews) are wise and the law of the Lord is with us, when in fact the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?"
Jeremiah 8:8 (Revised Standard Version)


"And because of their (the Jews) breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their places and have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook (their misdeed). Verily! Allah loves the kindly."
(The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):13.)


"O Messenger!(Muhammad) Do not be grieved by those who vie with one another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe" but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: of them are those who listen eagerly to lies -listener to others who have not come to you. They change the words from their places; they say: If you are given this then take it, but if you are not given this then beware! He whom Allah dooms unto sin, you (by your efforts) will avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment."
(The noble Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):41.)

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/libr ... ch2.3.html

Aineo Wrote:

Rowland gave a great response to your "pegs" and mountains preventing shaking on this thread:

Farid Wrote:

1.Rowland wrote that the mountains are like pegs, which supporte the Quran, 2. second he wrote that mountains pegs dont prevent earth from shaking. 3. third he wrote that we think that mountains are firmly fixed.

1. Mountains are like pegs, Rowland agrees with me on that.

2. Rowland wrote that mountains dont prevent earth from shaking, but in Quran it is not very clear as to what the mountains prevent from shaking.

The Scientific Fact:

In former times, mountains were known as simply rocky blocks protruding from the earth. This definition was considered valid until 1835, when Pierre Bouguer pointed out that the gravitational forces registered in the Andes Mountains are considerably less than what would be expected for such a massive rocky block. Supposedly, for him, a massive block of the same kind must be immersed deep in the earth. It was on this basis that the abnormality of gravity was to be interpreted.

In the middle of the 19th century, George Everest paid great attention to the abnormality of the results of measuring the gravity of the Himalaya Mountains in two different places. Everest, nevertheless, failed to interpret this phenomenon and so he called it The Mystery of India. However, George Airy stated in 1865 that all mountain chains on earth are floating blocks on a sea of magma (i.e. molten rock material beneath the earth’s crust) and that all such molten material is denser than the mountains themselves. As a result, the mountains must dive into this high density material to maintain their uprightness.

Geologists discovered the fact that the earth’s crust is made of adjacent patches called continental plates and that mighty mountains float on a sea of molten material and higher-density rocks below the surface. They also discovered that mountains have roots that help them float and keep fastened to the plates of the earth so it will not shake. In 1948, the Geologist Van Anglin stated in his book Geomorphology (on page no. 27) that it is quite well understood currently that there is a root for each mountain below the crust of the earth.

The function of mountains on the earth is to fasten the crust of the earth. This fact was proven by the principle of hydrostatic balance of the earth as illustrated by the US Geologist Dutton, in 1889. He stated that the protrusions of the earth are immersed into the earth in a way that conforms to their height. Moreover, after the existence of the plates of the earth was proven in 1969, it became clear that the mountains are responsible for maintaining the equilibrium of all the plates.
http://www.nooran.org/en/Q/3.htm

3. Rowland thinks that we think that the mountains are firmly fixed, but that is not true. the reason he thinks that is because he hasnt read every verse about mountains in the Quran, this verse will show that we dont think mountains are firmly fixed:

"Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of God, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 27:88)"

thank you.

[Aineo]

First Rowland posted that 27:88 refers to erosion, not that mountains move. Second, Rowland did not agree that mountains are pegs and showed that the other Qur'an verses referring to mountains are wrong based on science and the real world. Muhammad did not reveal anything new with his peg theory.

Tents are fixed using pegs with the ground so that they stand firm and so on. But mountains pegged the earth with what object? Ancient people thought in the similar way, Omnipotent God created mountain to fix the earth from shaking/moving/rotating. That’s why all in their scriptures mountains are described as pegs. Hindu scripture also have the same myth. Here is what RIK VEDA (Hindu Scripture) told many thousand years before generating Quran on earth.

"Sabita made this Earth fixed by different devices (like hills and mountains) and sustains sky without pillars so that it does not move" [RIK VEDA]

Now, should the mankind accept Hindu science, rather than Islamic science, as they brought that scientific miracle of “mountain” much earlier than Allah?
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm41008.htm

Modern science tells us that mountains are formed by volcanoes and earthquakes, which result from tectonic instability. Mountains did not tie (peg) anything to anything else.

Moses did not prophesy the Jews would change God's word, he told the Jews they would corrupt themselves by breaking God's laws. Jeremiah wrote the scribes interpreted God's law in such a way as to lead the Jews astray. The scribes who were Levites (the priests) wrote down the traditions and interpretations of the Torah that Jesus took the Pharisees to task for following. Paul and Peter both warned against following the traditions of men because those traditions lead people astray.

As to Uthman and the Qur'an:

Uthman's reaction in 653 AD is recorded in the following Hadith:

"So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33:23)" (Bukhari 6:61:510)
First standardization

You have not made your case for Muhammad's prophethood or the uniqueness of the less than Noble Qur'an, which is nothing more than a collection of ancient myths, concepts plagaraized from the Scriptures and apocryphal Christian manuscripts, and Neoplatonism.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Mountains did not tie (peg) anything to anything else.

Farid Wrote:

Did you read my above post?

Aineo Wrote:

Moses did not prophesy the Jews would change God's word,

Farid Wrote:
You asked for evidence that the OT has been corrupted, and those verses tell you they are.

Aineo Wrote:

Now, should the mankind accept Hindu science, rather than Islamic science, as they brought that scientific miracle of “mountain” much earlier than Allah?

Farid Wrote:

If there is scientific verses in the Hindu scriptures that are accurate, then go ahead and accept it if you want.

Aineo Wrote:

As to Uthman and the Qur'an:

You quoted Wikipedia.org, but I already told you that in the above post, do you even read the posts?

Aineo Wrote:

You have not made your case for Muhammad's prophethood or the uniqueness of the less than Noble Qur'an, which is nothing more than a collection of ancient myths, concepts plagaraized from the Scriptures and apocryphal Christian manuscripts, and Neoplatonism.

Farid Wrote:

1.Some say that Muhammad(pbuh) learned everything from a Roman Black smith who was a Christian, Qur’an says in Surah An-Nahl chapter 16 verse 103:

"We know indeed that they say, ‘It is a man that teaches him,’ The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."
[Al-Qur’an 16:103]

Muhammad(pbuh) and the black smith spoke two different languages.

2.some say that Muhammad(pbuh) learned from Waraqa. Relative of Khadija(R.A)?

Muhammad(pbuh) met Waraqa only twice, once when Waraqa was worshipping at the Kaaba before the prophetic mission of Muhammad(pbuh), and second when Muhammad(pbuh) saw his first revelation. Waraqa died three years later, but Muhammad(pbuh) revelation continued for about 23 years.

3. Religious discussion of Muhammad(pbuh) with Jews and Christians?
Muhammad(pbuh) did have discussions with Jews and Christians, but this took place in Medina 13 years later the first revelation came to Muhammad(pbuh) and second he wasnt learning from them, it was Muhammad(pbuh) who was teaching them.

4. Did Muhammad(pbuh) learn the Quran from Jews and Christians that he met outside of Arabia?

Historical records show that he only made three trips outside of Makkah:
a. At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Madinah.
b. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria.
c. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria.

The prophetic mission of Muhammad(pbuh) lasted for 23 years, many pagans were constantly searching for any mistake Muhammad(pbuh) made. Many wise and intelligent Noble Quraish followed Muhammad(pbuh) and embraced Islam, they could have easily been suspicious about how the Quran was revealed.

The day-to-day life of Muhammad(pbuh) was open for all to see, if he was meeting people to help him write the Quran, it would have come out into open very easily.

the enemies of Islam always tried to find something to accuse Muhammad(pbuh) of lying, they didnt find a single evidence of this, second they could point out a single instance where Muhammad(pbuh) had a secret rendezvous with Jews and Christians.

How could anyone who helped Muhammad(pbuh) didnt claim credit, or the share of power when Muhammad(pbuh) was ruling, how is it that someone can help you write a fake book and at the same time believe you as a prophet.

In Surah Al-Ankabut chapter no.29 verse 48

"And thou was not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted."
[Al-Qur’an 29:48]

Muhammad(pbuh) was illiterate, that is a fact, but we are not sure if he remained an illiterate.

Surah Al A’raf chapter 7 verse 157:

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

the mention of Muhammad(pbuh) illiteracy is also mentioned in Surah A’raf chapter 7 verse 158 and in Surah Al-Jumu’a chapter 62 verse 2.

The Arabic version of the Bible was not present at the time of Muhammad(pbuh). The earliest version of the Old Testament in Arabic was written by R. Saadias Gaon of 900 C.E. The earliest New Testament in Arabic was written by Erpenius in 1616 C.E.

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t18/t18a/pg1.htm

thank you.

[Aineo]

Faith is great, blind faith is foolish, especially when you have to avoid what is right in front of you. Muhammad's so called "revealed science" is nothing more than repeating myths and Greek science.

Anyone who claims the Bible was corrupted should be able to demonstrate his allegation by appealing to some source other than a book he claims was corrupted and have the intelligence to understand "ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." is not referring to the book but the people.

If science supports your pegs then science support the Hindu version of the same science, this Farid is simple logic.

Wikipedia quoted a Hadith, so are you telling me the Hadiths have been corrupted?

Muhammad was not illiterate, as you agreed to in an earlier post. You cannot seem to keep your lies straight.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Faith is great, blind faith is foolish, especially when you have to avoid what is right in front of you. Muhammad's so called "revealed science" is nothing more than repeating myths and Greek science.

Farid Wrote:

There are verses in Quran that were not known at the time. for example the impregnating wind, etc.

Aineo Wrote:

is not referring to the book but the people.

Farid Wrote:

"How can you say we (the Jews) are wise and the law of the Lord is with us, when in fact the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?"
Jeremiah 8:8 (Revised Standard Version)

then what is this verse talking about, the people, the book, or both, because you need both of them in order for the book to become corrupted.

Aineo Wrote:

If science supports your pegs then science support the Hindu version of the same science, this Farid is simple logic.

I dont see anything wrong with that, if the Hindu scriptures has accurate scientific verses then let it be.

Aineo Wrote:

Wikipedia quoted a Hadith, so are you telling me the Hadiths have been corrupted?

Farid Wrote:

I dont get that question, are you saying that just because Wikipedia.org quoted it then it is not true. that is not what I meant when I said that "you quoted Wikipedia.org", what I meant was that I already told you the information that you got from Wikipedia.org

Aineo Wrote:

Muhammad was not illiterate, as you agreed to in an earlier post. You cannot seem to keep your lies straight.

Farid Wrote:

No, what I said was that it is a fact that Muhammad(pbuh) was an illiterate, the only thing in debate is if he remained an illiterate. There are verses that attest that theory.

thank you.

[/quote]

[Aineo]

Wikipedia quoted a Hadith and linked to the source:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamental ... 06.061.510

Oh, and since the link I posted was a bad link how can you comment on the content of the article? I fixed the link.

Jeremiah is addressing people who followed traditions of men, he does not in any way write that the Jews corrupted the Torah.

You don't seem to understand that Muhammad's revelation of known knowledge is far from miraculous. All of your scientific proofs would have been common knowledge among educated Arabs, Greeks, and Jews especially those in Alexandria, which was a major center of schools of philosophy in the 7th century.

The day-to-day life of Muhammad(pbuh) was open for all to see, if he was meeting people to help him write the Quran, it would have come out into open very easily.

People like educated Jewish, Greek, Coptic Christian, and Arab philosophers who supplied the details from myths, apocryphal literature, and science that became part of the Qur'an?

Your arguments deny the truthfulness of Islamic sources and are illogical.

[Aineo]

One other thing, which I forgot to address and that is hell.

One of Platos most famous stories is the one of Atlantis, which according to him was situated west of the Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar), and consisted of a mighty people of great virtue. This ideal state was destroyed when the people was corrupted. It was Plato who invented the concept of Hell. In his dialogue Gorgias he speaks of the eternal punishments, a thought later adopted by the Christians.
http://www.in2greece.com/english/histor ... /plato.htm

That Scripture you quoted from Revelation tells us the lake will burn forever, not those who are consigned to the lake of fire. Scripture is clear that only God has immortality and that the body and souls of those who reject God's will be destroyed.

Psalms 44:25-26
25 For our soul has sunk down into the dust;
Our body cleaves to the earth.
26 Rise up, be our help,
And redeem us for the sake of Thy lovingkindness.
NAS

Matthew 10:27-28
28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
NAS

1st Thessalonians 5:23

23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NAS

The word translated "hell" in Matthew 10:28 is Gehenna, which is where Jerusalem's trash and dead bodies of animals were burned or destroyed. The concepts of hell and an immortal soul are both from Greek philosophy and we know that Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo both interpreted the Bible by appealing to Neoplatonism and that later Christian scholars appealed to Aristotelian philosophy.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

One of Platos most famous stories is the one of Atlantis, which according to him was situated west of the Pillars of Heracles (Gibraltar), and consisted of a mighty people of great virtue. This ideal state was destroyed when the people was corrupted. It was Plato who invented the concept of Hell. In his dialogue Gorgias he speaks of the eternal punishments, a thought later adopted by the Christians.

Farid Wrote:

If you are posting this, then why are you asking me for evidence that the Bible has been changed? you just quoted an article that says Christianity adopted platos concept of hell, but you deny that hell in Christianity is supposed to eternal:

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." (Rev. 14:11)

How is it that the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever without anyone actually being in hell? My answer: because people will be in hell for eternity according to this verse, unless you are admitting that the Bible has been changed.

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Rev. 20:10)

This is not talking about eternal destruction, it is talking about eternal torment, which means that people will be in hell for eternity.

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Mt. 25:46)

Again not eternal destruction, but eternal punishment, which means that sinners will be in eternal punishment.

thank you.

[Aineo]

What people teach as Biblical truth based on interpretations of a few select Scriptures does not indicate the Bible was changed, corrupted, or altered. The smoke of corpses of men who die by fire does not prove that a just and righteous God will torment those who reject His truth throughout eternity.

What I find a bit hypocritical concerning your posts is your appeal to those Scriptures you see as supporting your thesis and ignoring those Scriptures that do not.

Psalms 88:10

10 Wilt Thou perform wonders for the dead?
Will the departed spirits rise and praise Thee?
NAS

Psalms 115:17-18
17 The dead do not praise the LORD,
Nor do any who go down into silence;
18 But as for us, we will bless the LORD
From this time forth and forever.
Praise the LORD! NAS

Isaiah 66:24
24 "Then they shall go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm shall not die,
And their fire shall not be quenched;
And they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind."
NAS

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

What I find a bit hypocritical concerning your posts is your appeal to those Scriptures you see as supporting your thesis and ignoring those Scriptures that do not.

Farid Wrote:

Perfect! you now feel what Muslims sometimes feel when people quote a verse that supports them but leaves out the ones that dont.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Aineo Wrote:

What I find a bit hypocritical concerning your posts is your appeal to those Scriptures you see as supporting your thesis and ignoring those Scriptures that do not.

Farid Wrote:

Perfect! you now feel what Muslims sometimes feel when people quote a verse that supports them but leaves out the ones that dont.

thank you.

When Muslims make claims like the Bible has been changed and then quote the Bible as proof, or claim Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible and again without proof, and when Muslims appeal to Scripture out of context to try to prove Islam is true is a bit different than showing the Qur'an has been plagiarized, promotes lying, and etc. by quoting the Qur'an.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

When Muslims make claims like the Bible has been changed and then quote the Bible as proof, or claim Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible and again without proof, and when Muslims appeal to Scripture out of context to try to prove Islam is true is a bit different than showing the Qur'an has been plagiarized, promotes lying, and etc. by quoting the Qur'an.

Farid Wrote:

I agree with Muslims who claim that the Bible has been changed, their proof is not enough to convince you. I also agree with Muslims claiming that Muhammad(pbuh) has been prophesied in the Bible, again, their proof is not enough for you, but it is for some people. I completely disagree with Muslims who appeal to scriptures out of context.

I am not sure if you know, but there is a verse in the NT that says, the religion founded by satan will not last. If you believe the Bible, then you should know that Islam has lasted for over 1400 years and is growing, unless Jesus(pbuh) was lying, the Quran is from God.

thank you.

[Aineo]

Aineo Wrote:

When Muslims make claims like the Bible has been changed and then quote the Bible as proof, or claim Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible and again without proof, and when Muslims appeal to Scripture out of context to try to prove Islam is true is a bit different than showing the Qur'an has been plagiarized, promotes lying, and etc. by quoting the Qur'an.

Farid Wrote:

I agree with Muslims who claim that the Bible has been changed, their proof is not enough to convince you. I also agree with Muslims claiming that Muhammad(pbuh) has been prophesied in the Bible, again, their proof is not enough for you, but it is for some people. I completely disagree with Muslims who appeal to scriptures out of context.

Then why do you appeal to Scriptures taken out of context?

I am not sure if you know, but there is a verse in the NT that says, the religion founded by satan will not last. If you believe the Bible, then you should know that Islam has lasted for over 1400 years and is growing, unless Jesus(pbuh) was lying, the Quran is from God.

Judaism has lasted for about 4000 years, Christianity for about 2000, Hinduism for about 4000 years, and Buddhism for about 2500 so if longevity is your criteria Islam loses as it is the new kid on the block.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Then why do you appeal to Scriptures taken out of context?

Farid Wrote:

I dont know where that came from? but if I have done that, then please show it to me.

Aineo Wrote:

Judaism has lasted for about 4000 years, Christianity for about 2000, Hinduism for about 4000 years, and Buddhism for about 2500 so if longevity is your criteria Islam loses as it is the new kid on the block.

Farid Wrote:

I would say Islam would be in danger if the numbers are declining, but they are rising. Now you are making it sound like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, just jumped to those numbers, they all had to go through the 1400's, Now my criteria is not that whichever religion is the youngest is false, no. According to Bible, the false religion wont last long.

Now again, if you judge by the criteria of Bible, Muhammad(pbuh) is a true prophet, and Islam is the right religion, that is according to the Bible, if you dont believe it, then let it be.

thank you.

[Aineo]

How have you and other Muslims taken Scripture out of context? First by trying to show that Muhammad is prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15. The context of the Bible tells us that the descendants of Ishmael would fight everyone and that God would establish His covenant with Isaac.

Genesis 16:11-12
11 The angel of the LORD said to her further,

"Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son;
And you shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12 "And he will be a wild donkey of a man,
His hand will be against everyone,
And everyone's hand will be against him;
And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
NAS

Genesis 17:20-21
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year." NAS

The Ishmaelites are among those peoples God will destroy.

Psalms 83:1-8
O God, do not remain quiet;
Do not be silent and, O God, do not be still.
2 For, behold,
Thine enemies make an uproar;
And those who hate Thee have exalted themselves.
3 They make shrewd plans against Thy people,
And conspire together against Thy treasured ones.
4 They have said, "Come, and let us wipe them out as a nation,
That the name of Israel be remembered no more."
5 For they have conspired together with one mind;
Against Thee do they make a covenant:
6 The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites;
Moab, and the Hagrites;
7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek;
Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assyria also has joined with them;
They have become a help to the children of Lot.
NAS

The nations that are conspiring against modern day Israel just happen to be the descendants of the above. Muhammad hated the Jews and looked for any excuse to attack them.

Then there is your vain attempt to show that the Jews changed the Scriptures by taking Jeremiah 8:8 out of context.

Now again, if you judge by the criteria of Bible, Muhammad(pbuh) is a true prophet, and Islam is the right religion, that is according to the Bible, if you dont believe it, then let it be.

Not true, none of God's true prophets were illiterate, suffered from demonic oppression, lied, lifted themselves above God's law, or had visions that allowed themselves special privileges. However, God has used pagans nations and those who promote false religions to be Israel's enemies and then destroyed them.

Islam is the last false religion that will gain worldwide prominence and don't forget:

2nd Peter 3:8-13

8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. NAS

Muslims are arrogant and refuse to repent of their lies concerning the only true God and His prophets.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

The context of the Bible tells us that the descendants of Ishmael would fight everyone and that God would establish His covenant with Isaac.

Farid Wrote:

Yes, Muslims know that, but then where did the blessing that was going to be bestowed upon Ishmael go, just because God will establish his covenant, with Israel, doesnt mean it wont be taken away if they act undeservingly.

NASB: "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (NASB ©1995)

Aineo Wrote:

Muhammad hated the Jews and looked for any excuse to attack them.

Farid Wrote:

He did not hate Jews, he lived amongst them, remember. Half the Jews in Madina became Muslims, does that mean he hated them, no. There were some Jews who wanted to exterminate the Muslims, so Muhammad(pbuh) always had to be on guard.


Aineo Wrote:

Not true, none of God's true prophets were illiterate, suffered from demonic oppression, lied, lifted themselves above God's law, or had visions that allowed themselves special privileges. However, God has used pagans nations and those who promote false religions to be Israel's enemies and then destroyed them.

Farid Wrote:

Since when is literacy a must for a prophet, Muhammad(pbuh) was an illiterate, but he didnt remain one, some say he never was illiterate, just illiterate of spiritual knowledge. Muhammad(pbuh) never lied, and he never lifted himself above Gods law, the vision of him about marrying Aisha(r.a) was from God, if you disagree with Muhammad(pbuh) decision, then you are disagreeing with God, the reason it was from God is because Muhammad(pbuh) was a prophet and all prophets dreams are from God, take for example, Abraham, when he had the dream to slaughter his son.

Muhammad(pbuh) was not above God's law:

Al-Mugeerah ibn Shooba narrated:

"The Prophet, peace be upon him, used to stand in prayer until his feet became swollen and cracked. He was then asked: 'Hasn't God forgiven you that which is before you and that which is behind you?' He (Muhammad, pbuh) replied: 'Should I not be a thankful servant?' " (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

Aisha (pbuh) narrated:

"Allah's Messenger (pbuh) used to fast till one would say: he never stops fasting, and he would abstain from fasting till one would say:t he never fast." (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

Anas said:

"You would never like to see him standing in the middle of the night in prayer but you would, and never would you like to see him sleeping but you would" (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

The companions narrated that when a hardship or trial befell him he would pray. He would say

"My comfort has been placed in prayer" (Narrated by Al-Nissai)

Abu Tharr narrated that Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said,

"If I had gold equal to the mountain of Uhud, it would not please me that any of it should remain with me after three nights (i.e. I would spend all of it in Allah's cause) except what I would keep for repaying debts." (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

Jabir ibn Abdullah narrated:

"The messenger of Allah was never asked for something and then he said 'no' (he never refused a request)" (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)

Muhammad(pbuh) held himself below God:

On another occasion, a man said: "God and You (O Muhammad) have willed this" regarding a certain matter. The Messenger of Allah then rebuked him saying:

"Have you made me equal to God?" (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

For the same reason, another time, a man was delivering a speech and said: "He who obeys God and His messenger is indeed wise, and he who disobeys Allah and his messenger has lost." Upon hearing this, the Messenger of Allah said:


"You are the most evil of speakers" (Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

He did not even want his name mentioned beside God almighty, how could he disobey God.

Aineo Wrote:

Muslims are arrogant and refuse to repent of their lies concerning the only true God and His prophets.

Farid Wrote:

Jesus(pbuh) said, if a man says "fool" then he is in danger of being in hell-fire.

What is said about Israel in Isaiah:

"You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, 'Yes, I knew of them.' You have neither heard nor understood; from of old your ear has not been open. Well do I know how treacherous you are; you were called a rebel from birth. For my own name's sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 48:6-9)"

thank you.

References:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/libr ... y/ch9.html

http://www.answering-christianity.com/god_kingdom.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/21-43.htm

[Aineo]

Aineo Wrote:

The context of the Bible tells us that the descendants of Ishmael would fight everyone and that God would establish His covenant with Isaac.

Farid Wrote:

Yes, Muslims know that, but then where did the blessing that was going to be bestowed upon Ishmael go, just because God will establish his covenant, with Israel, doesnt mean it wont be taken away if they act undeservingly.

I answered this question. The Ishmaelites gave it up by fighting every man.

As to Muhammad and the Jews.

Judeophobia in the World of Islam

Let us now consider the situation of Jews in the Muslim world. Contrary to Arab propaganda, echoed by many leftist European and American and university professors, Jews were severely persecuted in the Muslim world. Where they were not massacred or cruelly expelled, they were heavily taxed unlike Muslims (a special “protection” tax), were not permitted to construct new synagogues, had to wear distinctive cloths, and were prohibited from holding any public office.

Their condition is summarized in the following annotated map:
http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org/joel11.htm

You can quote the Qur'an until the Lord comes again, however actions speak louder than words "revealed" to the man who persecuted the Jews because Muhammad did not like the fact they honored treaties made with his enemies.

God's true prophets did not lead armies that killed people of other faiths in order to spread a new religion. This alone demonstrates that Muhammad is a false prophet. Also, you cannot find a Scripture where Christians are told to take their own revenge for any reason. We are told that we should be willing to be reviled by men and Muhammad was great at reviling others and claiming special rights for himself, such as the number of wives he had. Also read what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees who also fasted and prayed a lot. He called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs.

As to your misuse of what Jesus said concerning "raca", I did not post Muslims are "fools" I posted they are arrogant. However, they are being foolish by killing each other over who should be in charge of Islam. Muslims have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims have killed Muslims. Just like at what Sadam did in Iraq and what Muslim terrorists are doing in Iraq and the Gaza Strip.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

I answered this question. The Ishmaelites gave it up by fighting every man.

Farid Wrote:

So if the Ishmaelites lost it that easily, what makes you think that Isrealites wont?

NASB: "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. (NASB ©1995)

According to Jesus(Pbuh) they already lost it.

Aineo Wrote:

As to Muhammad and the Jews.

Farid Wrote:

The treatment of Jews you just mentioned were not during the time of Muhammad(Pbuh), I do not agree with the Muslims that treated the Jews like that, but there were also times when they were treated good, according to Islam, they are to be treated equally:

After the expansion of Arab and other Muslims into the Middle East from the Arabian Peninsula, Jews, along with Christians and Zoroastrians, typically had the legal status of dhimmi. As such, they were entitled to limited rights, tolerance, and protection, on the condition they pay a special poll tax (the "jizya"), which exempted them from military service, and also from payment of the Zakat alms tax required of Muslims. As dhimmi, Jews were typically subjected to several restrictions and mistreatments, the application and severity of which varied by time and place. Conversely, they sometimes attained high positions in government, notably as viziers and physicians. Jewish communities, like Christian ones, were typically constituted as semi-autonomous entities managed by their own laws and leadership, who carried the responsibility for the community towards the Muslim rulers. The treatment of Jews in Muslim lands was generally better than that in Europe. As a result, many Jews sought refuge in Muslim ruled Middle East and North Africa (Maghreb) from persecution in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... uslim_rule

According to Islam, the Jews shouldnt have been mistreated. When Muhammad(pbuh) settled in Madinah, he made a charter which goes like this.

"In the name of the most Merciful and Compassionate Lord, this charter is given by Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah to all believers, whether of Quraish or Medina, and all individuals of whatever origin who have made common cause with them, who shall all constitute one nation"

The following are some extracts from the charter: The state of peace and war shall be common to all Muslims; no one among them shall have the right of concluding peace with, or delcaring war against, the enemies of co-religionists. The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistance and good offices. The jews of the various branches and all others domiciled in Medina shall form with the Muslims one compostie nation; they shall practice their religion as freely as the Muslims. The allies of the Jews shall enjoy the same security and freedom. The guilty shall be pursued and punished. The Jews shall join the Muslims in defending Medina against all enemies. The interior of Medina shall be a sacred place for all who accept htis charter. All true Muslims shall hold in abhorrence every man guilty of crime, injustice or disorder; on one shall uphold the culpable, though he be his nearest kin.

Stories of the prophets: By Imam Ibn Kathir, (pg. 404-405)

Aineo Wrote:

You can quote the Qur'an until the Lord comes again, however actions speak louder than words "revealed" to the man who persecuted the Jews because Muhammad did not like the fact they honored treaties made with his enemies.

Farid Wrote:

You are blaming Islam and Muhammad(pbuh), but if I quote the Quran, that should tell you that the men who persecuted the Jews didnt do it because of the Quran, by quoting the Quran, it wont be louder than actions, but to me they are. So if you dont want me to quote the Quran, then dont post these against Islam, because by showing you the quotes, you will see that it is against Islam to mistreat the Jews.

Aineo Wrote:

God's true prophets did not lead armies that killed people of other faiths in order to spread a new religion. This alone demonstrates that Muhammad is a false prophet. Also, you cannot find a Scripture where Christians are told to take their own revenge for any reason. We are told that we should be willing to be reviled by men and Muhammad was great at reviling others and claiming special rights for himself, such as the number of wives he had. Also read what Jesus had to say about the Pharisees who also fasted and prayed a lot. He called them hypocrites and whitewashed tombs.

Farid Wrote:

please dont make things up, when did Muhammad Kill in order to spread a new faith?

Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

It doesnt matter if Jesus(Pbuh) called the people who prayed alot hypocrites, it doesnt mean that he called them that because they were praying, maybe because they were praying to show off, etc. That would be a little ackward for Jesus(pbuh) to fast for 40 days and then call people who fasted hypocrites, this goes to show that the people whom he called hypocrites may not have been praying with a clean and sincere heart, like Jesus(pbuh) was. Many prophets fasted and prayed, but they did it sincerely, that is where the difference lies, of course even in Islam people who pray just to show off are called hypocrites.

Aineo Wrote:

God's true prophets did not lead armies that killed people of other faiths in order to spread a new religion.

Farid Wrote:

First of all Muhammad(pbuh) didnt do that, Muhammad(pbuh) fought in self-defense and in just cause, if you think that makes him a false prophet, then I dont know what to say to you.

When Muhammad(pbuh) was trying to emigrate to Al-Ta'if, the pagans told their kids to throw rocks at Muhammad(pbuh), the kids did that until the face of Muhammad(pbuh) was bleeding and was swollen, at the end, Muhammad(pbuh) prayed for them so they may become guided, hence they later on embraced Islam.


thank you.

[Aineo]

For a person who denies taking Scripture out of context why do you continue to do so?

Matthew 21:42-45
42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures,

'The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief corner stone;
This came about from the Lord,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. 44 "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." NAS

Now who was Jesus talking to?

Matthew 21:23

23 And when He had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people..NAS

What Jesus did not tell the chief priests and the elders of the people is that the Jews had forfeited the Kingdom of God.

Jeremiah 31:30-37
31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

35 Thus says the LORD,

Who gives the sun for light by day,
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The LORD of hosts is His name:
36 "If this fixed order departs
From before Me," declares the LORD,
"Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease
From being a nation before Me forever."

37 Thus says the LORD,

"If the heavens above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out below,
Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel
For all that they have done," declares the LORD.
NAS

Ezekiel 37:1-14
37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 And He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, Thou knowest." 4 Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.' 5 "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 6'And I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin, and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.' "

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold, a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, sinews were on them, and flesh grew, and skin covered them; but there was no breath in them. 9 Then He said to me, "Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, 'Thus says the Lord GOD," Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they come to life. "'" 10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they came to life, and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

11 Then He said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up, and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.' 12 "Therefore prophesy, and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD," Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. 14 "And I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.' " NAS

Now go back to Psalm 83 are read the roll call of nations that God will destroy when He keeps this promise.

So you do not like that site that shows how Muslims following Muhammad's example have persecuted the Jews.

In other words the reason this treaty is dissolved, according to Muhammad was because the Meccans aided one against him. Of course this is a lie. The Meccans did not help Bani Bakr against Muhammad. This verse is basically an excuse, a face saver. Here Muhammad implies that the reason for the attack is because the Meccans aided the Bani Bakr. To see the absurdity of this excuse imagine that America and Russia sign a peace treaty but Russia supplies India some arms which the Indians use against Pakistan . Would America be justified to declare war on Russia accusing the Russians of the breach of their peace accord because America and Pakistan are allies? This makes no sense at all and it is clear that Muhammad was looking for an excuse to renege his treaty.
Were Muhammad's Wars in Self Defense?

Muhammad "revealed" that those who reject Islam were to pay a "tax".

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm

However, Yaweh told the Jews:

Numbers 15:16
16'There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.' " NAS

The god of Islam is not the Yaweh of the Bible and Muhammad is a false prophet.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

For a person who denies taking Scripture out of context why do you continue to do so?

Farid Wrote:

Almost every verse I post, I will go and check the context first.

Aineo Wrote:

Now who was Jesus talking to?

Farid Wrote:

To me, it is still the same, why dont you explain who it is talking about?

Aineo Wrote:

So you do not like that site that shows how Muslims following Muhammad's example have persecuted the Jews.

Farid Wrote

If the Jews were presecuted this much, and yet they still liked the Muslim Empire better, then think about how they were being treated by the Christians.

Competition for converts and other factors led to an intensification of Jewish-Christian conflict towards the end of the first century even though there is evidence of continued Jewish-Christian interaction, including Christian participation in Sabbath worship, in some areas well beyond that. These conflicts had a negative impact on the writers of certain parts of the New Testament especially the author of the gospel of John which was compiled about this time. In several places John' s gospel associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays.

In the second century and beyond, many of the principal Church Fathers began to write of Jews as a "rejected people" who were doomed to a life of marginality and misery. Jews were to wander the world as a "despised people." This image persisted in Christian preaching, art and popular teaching for centuries to come. In certain countries it often led to civil and political discrimination against Jews and in some instances to physical attacks on Jews which resulted in death. While some Popes, bishops and Christian princes stepped up to protect Jews, they were clearly a minority. It was only in the mid-twentieth century that the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations issued major statements repudiating this anti-Judaic theology and began a process of constructive Christian-Jewish interaction.

Hans Küng, a leading Catholic theologian, has written that "Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... tisemitism

Again, as Jesus(pbuh) said in Matthew 7:3-5,

"Why do you notice the little piece of dust in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood in your own eye? How can you say to your friend, ‘Let me take that little piece of dust out of your eye’? Look at yourself! You still have that big piece of wood in your own eye. You hypocrite! First, take the wood out of your own eye. Then you will see clearly to take the dust out of your friend’s eye."
http://www.heartlight.org/wjd/0322-wjd.html

Aineo Wrote:

However, Yaweh told the Jews:Quote:
Numbers 15:16

16'There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.' " NAS

Farid Wrote:

I am not sure if you forgot to put the rest of the context in, or you just took out of context?

14 And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do.

30 But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

29 both he that is home-born among the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them: ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0415.htm

A stranger who sojourns with you is to burnt a fire offering.

And a stranger that sojourns with you and errs, then he is to be cut-off from among you.

Aineo Wrote:

The god of Islam is not the Yaweh of the Bible and Muhammad is a false prophet.

Farid Wrote:

Why? because the laws are not the same? well there is an easy explanation for that, God can change his law to suit the needs of people and time. But God never changes.


Aineo Wrote:

Muhammad "revealed" that those who reject Islam were to pay a "tax".

I already explained that to you, the exemptions were so high, that its figurative meaning pre-dominated.

Thank you.

[Aineo]

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since February 2007.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification.
Please help to improve this article by adding reliable references.
Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since February 2007.


The neutrality of this article or section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... tisemitism

You need to find a better source for your attempt to derail this thread since Wikipedia questions the accuracy of the article.

Christian antisemitism dates back to Justin Martyr and the Catholic Church, which taught the Jews forfeited the covenants by rejecting their own Messiah. However JPII apologized to the Jews for Catholicism's misuse of Scripture to justify persecuting the Jews.

Now that you have tried to avoid Muhammad's devious methods in order to claim the Jews broke a treaty and have not refuted what faithfreedom posted on their Internet site, I take you concede that Muhammad hated the Jews.

There was one law for the Jews and gentiles when Israel was a sovereign nation. The ceremonial (religious) laws concerning sacrifices and etc. were for the Jews, however gentiles were allowed to make offerings, but were not taxed because they did not accept Yaweh as the only true God. On the other hand Muhammad did taxed both Jews and Christians, this is a matter of historical truth.

As to Matthew 7:3-5, I do not promote or advocate jihad against those who reject Christianity and demean Jesus. So this section of Scripture does is not germain to this thread.

Farid Wrote:

To me, it is still the same, why dont you explain who it is talking about?

If you do not understand what "chief priests and elders" means then I doubt I can explain this phrase and suspect you are simply trying to avoid the fact you cannot prove your position with the Bible.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Now that you have tried to avoid Muhammad's devious methods in order to claim the Jews broke a treaty and have not refuted what faithfreedom posted on their Internet site, I take you concede that Muhammad hated the Jews.

Farid Wrote:

I went to the Faithfreedom.org, and I must tell you, I do not blame you for not believing me, those people are telling you half-truths, for example:

Only two years after the treaty of Hudaibiyah he felt strong enough to attack Mecca and was able to gather 10,000 men to accompany him in the expedition. (At Hudaibiyah he had only 1500 men). Not all those who accompanied him were Muslims. But he was an emerging tyrant and some of the tribes feared that refusing his demand would anger him and they too could become his subsequent victims. In other words they tried to stay out of his harm by appeasing him. Among them were the two big tribes of Sulaim and Tamim. To sweeten the deal Muhammad offered them a share of the booty. Carrot and stick are the preferred tools of narcissists.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm

He/She is not providing facts, he is stating that after he felt strong, he is just guessing what Muhammad(pbuh) felt, he sees things from outside and then makes a prediction of what is on the inside. The reason Muhammad(pbuh) took over Mecca, he did not attack it, it was a peaceful take over, is because the Quraish broke their 10 year treaty with the Muslims by killing some Muslims.

emerging tyrant and some of the tribes feared that refusing his demand would anger him and they too could become his subsequent victims. In other words they tried to stay out of his harm by appeasing him

Again, he is just guessing on what people felt, there is no proof here, when Muhammad(pbuh) took over Mecca, there were some men that used to be his enemies, and he asked them Shall I forgive you or punish you, they asked for forgiveness and it was granted to them, for a few times, the pagans were even allowed to do their rituals, which was walking naked around the Kaaba. Muhammad(pbuh) was very tolerant, he did not force anyone into believing, but he did however destroy the idols which cannot be questioned.



Thank you.

[Aineo]

Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. Islam can't be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It can't be molded, but it can be smashed. It is rigid but brittle. That is why Muslims do not tolerate criticism of it. To eradicate Islam, all we have to do is tell the truth. It's that simple. The truth about Islam is out. It's all here in this site. Now it is up to you to spread it. With truth, the decent Muslims will leave Islam and with each Muslim that leaves, we gain a new soldier in our fight against terrorism. We are growing exponentially. The days of Islam are numbered and world peace is around the corner. Many of us will see that day. We might have to go through very tough times meanwhile. The storm is approaching.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

WE WILL REMOVE THIS SITE IF PROVEN WRONG
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm

So prove them wrong, which you have done done.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

WE WILL REMOVE THIS SITE IF PROVEN WRONG
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm
So prove them wrong, which you have done done.

Farid Wrote:

I barely have enough time to reply to this and the ex-muslims debate.
You see here is how they tell a story, I mean the story about Muhammad(pbuh) invading Mecca, they are not lying, it is just that they keep away some of the details so it gets blamed on Muhammad(pbuh) as I showed you in the last post, you can go ahead and believe them if you want. For example, let say a kid A pushed kid B, then the kidB punched back, so when the cops come for interogation, the friend of kid A says that kid B punched him without telling him that kid A pushed him, would you listen to that kid?

How can I listen to the faithfreedom.org when they dont listen to things like this:

Dear Ali

I was debating with one of my religious relatives and when I showed her this verse (9:5) she accused us (you and I) of misinterpretation. According to her we are reading this verse in the wrong context. Her interpretation of this verse is that Muslims are asked to fight back in self defense only and we should read verses 9:04 - 9:06 in order to get the correct meaning. She looks at it from Yusuf Ali's tafsir which states fight only if the pagans make war against you.

She is telling the truth, but they dont believe it, then how do you expect me to believe them.

[Aineo]

Now add kid C. Kid C is Kid A's friend who pushes kid B, does it make sense for kid B to attack kid C as well as A? Off course not since kid C was just a bystander. However Muhammad chose to do just that.

[Farid]

The Quraish broke the treaty, if Muhammad(pbuh) would not have acted, then their wouldnt have been no justice, we were not living at the time, so we dont really know everything about it, how can you side with the pagans?


Thank you.

[Aineo]

The Quraish broke the treaty, if Muhammad(pbuh) would not have acted, then their wouldnt have been no justice, we were not living at the time, so we dont really know everything about it, how can you side with the pagans?

Why would you side with a thief and a liar who made a treaty with "pagans"?

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory " [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm

The Quraish were Muhammad's fellow Arabs and if they broke a treaty why attack the Jews or why attack the Jews who were not party to a treaty Muhammad made with Arabs?

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Why would you side with a thief and a liar who made a treaty with "pagans"?

Farid Wrote:

I dont know who you are talking about, but Muhammad(pbuh) made a treaty so peace may prevail, and so he can call others to Islam.

Aineo Wrote:

Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih Bukhari and the Quran into English writes:

"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory " [Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.]
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm
The Quraish were Muhammad's fellow Arabs and if they broke a treaty why attack the Jews or why attack the Jews who were not party to a treaty Muhammad made with Arabs?

Farid Wrote:

The reason they were ordered to this, is because the Quraish broke it first, so Muhammad(pbuh) was ordered to not make another treaty with them.

Aineo Wrote:

The Quraish were Muhammad's fellow Arabs and if they broke a treaty why attack the Jews or why attack the Jews who were not party to a treaty Muhammad made with Arabs?

Farid Wrote:

He didnt, the Quraish broke it, so Muhammad(pbuh) took over Mecca just as it was prophecised.

And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.
Deuteronomy 33:2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca


If you knew, how the Jews were behaving towards Muhammad(pbuh) then you would understand why he had to do what he did, the Jews always plotted against him, always tried to assassinate him, the Jews sided with the hypocrite Muslims, hence even hypocrite Muslims were against Muhammad(pbuh), so was the Jews, so was the Quraish, he was surrounded, it is a miracle Islam is still alive, if it werent for the actions of Muhammad(pbuh), Islam would have been annihilated.

Thank you.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca

[Aineo]

If you knew, how the Jews were behaving towards Muhammad(pbuh) then you would understand why he had to do what he did, the Jews always plotted against him, always tried to assassinate him, the Jews sided with the hypocrite Muslims, hence even hypocrite Muslims were against Muhammad(pbuh), so was the Jews, so was the Quraish, he was surrounded, it is a miracle Islam is still alive, if it werent for the actions of Muhammad(pbuh), Islam would have been annihilated.

So what you are telling us is the Muhammad's ego was bruised so he attacked the Jews and you now admit that without the sword Islam would not exist today? BTW, the source you are taking exception with that faithfreedom quotes is from a Muslim.

n this discourse Muhammad declared that all the treaties that he had previously signed with the Pagans are null and that the Pagans had four months of grace to submit to him and after that they would be hunted and as the verse 2 says; “covered with shame”.

The verse 3 clearly states that after the lapse of those four months, Muhammad would unilaterally dissolve his treaties and obligations with the Pagans "and will inflict grievous penalty on those who reject his Faith."
[Introduction to English translation of Sahih Bukhari, p.xxiv.] Dr. Muqtedar Khan
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm

Muhammad dissolved those treaties and spread Islam by the sword.

Christianity existed for over a 1000 years before the first war was fought in the name of Christ (the Crusades) so your rationale concerning Muhammad and his egotistical justifications for breaking treaties is nothing more than a vain effort to avoid the truth.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

So what you are telling us is the Muhammad's ego was bruised so he attacked the Jews and you now admit that without the sword Islam would not exist today? BTW, the source you are taking exception with that faithfreedom quotes is from a Muslim.

Farid Wrote:

Ok, let me try to get this, you want Muhammad(pbuh) to sit, while he has enemies in his own army, the Jews, the Quraish and their allies?

Aineo Wrote:

Muhammad dissolved those treaties and spread Islam by the sword.

Christianity existed for over a 1000 years before the first war was fought in the name of Christ (the Crusades) so your rationale concerning Muhammad and his egotistical justifications for breaking treaties is nothing more than a vain effort to avoid the truth.

Farid Wrote:

It was the Quraish that broke the treaty first, look I keep telling you that, but you keep asking the same question. about the crusades, actually Jesus(pbuh) would've slain anyone who didnt want him to reign over them:

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk019.html

Thank you.

[Aineo]

The Quraish were Arabs not Jews, which is what you are ignoring. Arabs not Jews supposedly broke a treaty so Muhammad used that as an excuse to murder the Jews. I say "supposedly" because Muslim sources disagree with you.

I thought you were going to stop taking verses from the Bible out of context.

And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

Luke 19 is not a call to war or instructions for kings to kill their own servants who fear them, Luke 19 records a fable (parable) concerning the use of God given talents.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

The Quraish were Arabs not Jews, which is what you are ignoring. Arabs not Jews supposedly broke a treaty so Muhammad used that as an excuse to murder the Jews. I say "supposedly" because Muslim sources disagree with you.

Farid Wrote:

I know, that is why Muhammad(pbuh) attacked Mecca, you can tell me anything you want, but I know that everything that Muhammad(pbuh) was because he knew what he was doing, I mean look at all the raids and wars Moses(pbuh) declared.

Aineo Wrote:

I thought you were going to stop taking verses from the Bible out of context.

Farid Wrote:

Sorry about that. I dont think this is going anywhere, you can keep talking about this, or let me know if you want to change topics, my choice is the
Trinity, Just let me know.

Thank you.
[/b]

[Aineo]

Trinitarians "know" that Jesus is God, however that does not make what they "know" any more true than you "know" that Muhammad attacked innocent Jews because they broke a treaty. Also since this thread concerns Muhammad not Moses your attempt to attack a straw man only demonstrates you cannot establish the truth of your traditions.

Muslims consistently accuse Christians of taking parts of the Qur'an out of context while consistently taking verses of the Bible out of context. There is not a single NT Scripture that tells Christians to take their own revenge over broken treaties or to wage war with those who reject the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. In fact Jesus told the 70 he sent to proclaim the Gospel:

Matthew 10:12-15
12 "And as you enter the house, give it your greeting. 13 "And if the house is worthy, let your greeting of peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your greeting of peace return to you. 14 "And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. NAS

Mark 6:10-11
10 And He said to them, "Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave town. 11 "And any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake off the dust from the soles of your feet for a testimony against them." NAS

Urban II took a leaf from Muhammad's play book in 1095 when he instigated the Crusades.

The Trinity is a myth so why discuss a myth?

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Trinitarians "know" that Jesus is God, however that does not make what they "know" any more true than you "know" that Muhammad attacked innocent Jews because they broke a treaty. Also since this thread concerns Muhammad not Moses your attempt to attack a straw man only demonstrates you cannot establish the truth of your traditions.

Farid Wrote:

First and foremost, Bani Qurayza was a Jewish tribe, they broke their treath with the Muslims, they would have been part of the Ummah if they hadnt. When the Jews broke their treaty, they joined the pagans and attacked Medina in the battle of the trenche, after the battle, Muhammad(pbuh) fought them, knowing that they had broke their treaty and wanted to annihilate the Muslims.

Aineo Wrote:

Also since this thread concerns Muhammad not Moses your attempt to attack a straw man only demonstrates you cannot establish the truth of your traditions.

Farid Wrote:

I know it does, but you know the topics change, now Moses(pbuh) supposedly did the same things, and sometimes even worse, to make it more general this topic is about the wars, the prophets engaged in, so I think using Moses(pbuh) as an example was not a mistake, but relevant, we cant discuss this topic in a vacuum, that will be hypocritical. it is like wearing a blue shirt and then telling someone dont wear a blue shirt, and when they tell you, why are you wearing one? would it be right, if you answer, "Iwasnt talking about Myself"?


Aineo Wrote:

Muslims consistently accuse Christians of taking parts of the Qur'an out of context while consistently taking verses of the Bible out of context. There is not a single NT Scripture that tells Christians to take their own revenge over broken treaties or to wage war with those who reject the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. In fact Jesus told the 70 he sent to proclaim the Gospel:

Matthew 10:12-15
12 "And as you enter the house, give it your greeting. 13 "And if the house is worthy, let your greeting of peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your greeting of peace return to you. 14 "And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. NAS

Farid Wrote:

How do you even know that those are Jesus(pbuh) words, there was a study that showed 82% of the sayings attributed to Jesus(pbuh) is not his own, back then plagiarising was common, the words in Mat 10:12-15 ..." 15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

This part is nowhere to be found in the two most ancient Bible manuscripts, hence the theory that this was a fabrication is applicable here.

Thank you.

References:

http://drhassaballa.blogspot.com/2005/0 ... r-god.html

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/libr ... ch2.1.html

[Aineo]

The Quraish broke the treaty, not the Bani Qurayza.

The Banu Qurayza (Arabic بني قريظة; بنو قريظة alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia during the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). In 627 CE, the tribe was besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad, who charged the tribe with treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench. The Qurayza were taken captive and all men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all women were enslaved.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Ibn Ishaq recorded that after Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622, the Arabs and Jews of the area signed an agreement, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made or with whom.[14][15][2] Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.[2]

Aside from the general agreements, Muslim sources including the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, contain a report that after arriving to Medina, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq does not name his sources for this claim; al-Waqidi mentions two sources: Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy, who was sold into slavery after the massacre of the Qurayza men and subsequently became a Muslim. According to Watt, both sources may be biased against the Qurayza, and on these grounds the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt.[2] Norman Stillman furthermore argued that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the later massacre of the Qurayza men and the enslavement of their women and children.[16] On the other hand, R. B. Serjeant is more optimistic about this agreement and infers that Banu Qurayza knew the consequences of treachery.[17][verification needed]
http://www.answers.com/topic/banu-qurayza

Other than you insistence that the Jews broke the treaty there is no historical basis to accept your view.

The topic of this thread is:

005.116 And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah ? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden ?

Moses did not attack those who did not first attack the Jews during the Exodus. In fact the Jews traveled around nations that would not allow them passage through their territory. So once again you are perverting what if found in the Bible.

When you Muslims cannot defend your positions you appeal to splinter groups who decided that Jesus did not say what is recorded in Scripture. In other words that dog won't hunt and you know it. Take those 3 verses out of Matthew and Jesus' instructions do not change. The 70 were not to do anything to those who rejected the Gospel and it was not until after Muhammad started killing those who rejected Islam that Urban II decided to defend Christians using Muhammad's tactics. Also:

Luke 10:1-16
2 And He was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 "Go your ways; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 "Carry no purse, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 "And whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' 6 "And if a man of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 "And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 "And whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them,' The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 "But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' 12 "I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. 13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 "But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment, than for you. 15 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! 16 "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."
NAS

It is probable that a scribe added 3 verses to Matthew so it would agree with Luke. You see Farid, we know that there were words and verses added to some NT books, however those additions do not affect any valid doctrine.

Now, why did Uthman destroy those partial manuscripts that disagreed with his "official" Qur'an? This is also a part of Islam so if you are going to attack the Bible then you need to defend the actions of the man who compiled your Qur'an.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity or viewed as a goddess by any orthodox Christian group. Therefore the Qur'an is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. If Allah was the one true God he would have known this.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

The Quraish broke the treaty, not the Bani Qurayza.

Farid Wrote:

Hence, Muhammad(pbuh) took over Mecca.

Aineo Wrote:

Quote:
The Banu Qurayza (Arabic بني قريظة; بنو قريظة alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, Quraytha, and the archaic Koreiza) were a Jewish tribe who lived in northern Arabia during the 7th century, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina). In 627 CE, the tribe was besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad, who charged the tribe with treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench. The Qurayza were taken captive and all men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all women were enslaved.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

Ibn Ishaq recorded that after Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622, the Arabs and Jews of the area signed an agreement, the Constitution of Medina, which committed the Jewish and Muslim tribes to mutual cooperation. The nature of this document as recorded by Ibn Ishaq and transmitted by ibn Hisham is the subject of dispute among modern historians many of whom maintain that this "treaty" is possibly a collage of agreements, oral rather than written, of different dates, and that it is not clear when they were made or with whom.[14][15][2] Watt holds that the Qurayza and Nadir were probably mentioned in an earlier version of the Constitution requiring the parties not to support an enemy against each other.[2]

Aside from the general agreements, Muslim sources including the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, contain a report that after arriving to Medina, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq does not name his sources for this claim; al-Waqidi mentions two sources: Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy, who was sold into slavery after the massacre of the Qurayza men and subsequently became a Muslim. According to Watt, both sources may be biased against the Qurayza, and on these grounds the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt.[2] Norman Stillman furthermore argued that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the later massacre of the Qurayza men and the enslavement of their women and children.[16] On the other hand, R. B. Serjeant is more optimistic about this agreement and infers that Banu Qurayza knew the consequences of treachery.[17][verification needed]
http://www.answers.com/topic/banu-qurayza
Other than you insistence that the Jews broke the treaty there is no historical basis to accept your view.

Farid Wrote:

First of all, I am using Ibn Ishaq again, to make it the story more fuller, even do I dont agree with Ibn Ishaq on the 900 jews beheaded, I will tell you why, but here is another narration of Ibn Ishaq about the Banu Qurayza:

The writer wrote "When the Jews of medina resisted Muhammad in the 7th Century; he beheaded the men and sold their women and children into slavery." This is a completely distorted story with the prejudiced, subjective personal opinion of the writer.

In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina (where Muslims and Muhammad lived) under the command of Abu Sufyan. This is called the battle of the Trench. Abu Sufyan asked the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish) tribe to help them conquer Medina, by attacking the Muslims from behind the lines or letting them into the town.

According to one early historian, Ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayza chief, Ka'b, was initially reluctant, but eventually decided to support the Meccans, being so persuaded by Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the Banu al-Nadir (a Jewish tribe).

This was the second time Bani Qurayza had broken the peace treaty with the Muslims and allied with Banu Al-Nadir against the Muslims; the first time, Banu Qurayza suffered no loss and were allowed to stay in Medina.

However, Abu Sufyan's forces were defeated in the Battle of the Trench, and retreated, abandoning their allies to the victors. The very day of the victory, Muhammad led the Muslim troops towards the Banu Qurayza's neighborhood. The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and contemplated their alternatives. As the Banu Qurayza morale waned (according to early Historian Ibn Ishaq), their chief made a speech to them, suggesting three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam; kill their own children and women, then rush out for a "kamikaze" charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on Saturday (the Sabbath, when by mutual understanding no fighting would take place). But it seems that none of these alternatives were accepted. After a siege that lasted several weeks, the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally.

According to Muslim accounts, Aws (an Arab tribe allied with the Jews) pleaded to Muhammad for Banu Qurayza and asked Muhammad to appoint Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as an arbitrator to decide their fate. Their request was accepted. Since, at that time, no specific punishment had been revealed in the Qur’an about the fate of the Jews, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh announced his verdict in accordance with the Torah. As per the Torah, the punishment for treason was that all men should be put to death; the women and children should be made slaves and the wealth of the whole nation should be distributed among the conquerors. In accordance with this verdict pronounced, all men were executed. John Esposito (Director for the Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at the Georgetown University) writes that Muhammad's use of warfare in general was alien neither to Arab custom nor to that of the Hebrew prophets, as both believed that God had sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord.

In contrast to the Jews, the Christians in Arabia had remained neutral, and had not sided with any party. The Prophet gave them a Charter which was a monument of enlightenment and tolerance. The Charter provided that the Christians were not to be unfairly taxed; that no bishop was to be expelled from the monasteries; that no Christian was to be restrained from the performance of pilgrimage; that no Christian churches were to be pulled down; and that where a Christian woman was married to a Muslim, she could retain her religion and go to her Church, even after marriage.

Christians and Jews are treated as People of the Book (Scriptures of Jews, Christians and Muslims). Christians and Jews prospered under Muslim rule. Leaders like Suleiman the magnificent of the Ottoman Empire contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership. And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population - that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_8 ... s_into.htm

And Now, let see, if Ibn Ishaq is a reliable source for the beheading of the Jews. Ibn Ishaq first of all got the story of the 900 Jews from Jews themselves, and he got it 300 years after Muhammad(pbuh), the story of tthe 900 Jews for this reason is not a true story, I cant bring it to my mind right now, but this story runs perfectly parrallel with another story from the past where there was around 800-900 Jews killed, even the characters matched up perfectly. Seeing as how the narrator didnt get the story from reliable sources, it is not to be taken seriously.



Aineo Wrote:

Moses did not attack those who did not first attack the Jews during the Exodus. In fact the Jews traveled around nations that would not allow them passage through their territory. So once again you are perverting what if found in the Bible.

When you Muslims cannot defend your positions you appeal to splinter groups who decided that Jesus did not say what is recorded in Scripture. In other words that dog won't hunt and you know it. Take those 3 verses out of Matthew and Jesus' instructions do not change. The 70 were not to do anything to those who rejected the Gospel and it was not until after Muhammad started killing those who rejected Islam that Urban II decided to defend Christians using Muhammad's tactics. Also:

Farid Wrote:

If I recall correctly, I think it was Elijah that prayed for the childrens death, when the children mocked him, and suddenly a bear came and mauled the little kids. Now even if in the Old Testament, if Moses was fighting because the enemy started it, then why did he order to kill everything that breathes, except the virgin girls?

Aineo Wrote:

It is probable that a scribe added 3 verses to Matthew so it would agree with Luke. You see Farid, we know that there were words and verses added to some NT books, however those additions do not affect any valid doctrine.

Now, why did Uthman destroy those partial manuscripts that disagreed with his "official" Qur'an? This is also a part of Islam so if you are going to attack the Bible then you need to defend the actions of the man who compiled your Qur'an.

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity or viewed as a goddess by any orthodox Christian group. Therefore the Qur'an is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. If Allah was the one true God he would have known this.

Farid Wrote:

And yet it is still book of God, Aineo, it was not only the 3 verses, that verses may not have affected the doctrine, but there are others that has, for example> if you look in the RSV Bible, you will see that the whole adultress women story is missing, because it was a later insertion, surely that affects the doctrine, How? well that story nullifys the law of stoning. and second the verse that says, ..."there are three that take account in the heaven, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.", this too, was a later insertion, surely this will affect the true doctrine, it was inserted to support trinity, completely changing the message of Jesus(pbuh), and another verse about the doubting thomas, first of all some say that it was an insertion. You see the doubting Thomas story also affects the true doctrine, Why? well Thomas said to Jesus(pbuh) , ..."My lord, My God" now God in greek is Ho Theos, but when scholars looked at the earlier manuscripts they saw that "Ho" was not ther, just "Theos" which means, (god, divine,) Theos has been used to describe the demons, angels, idols,Moses, it has been used to convey the message of authority, so the correct translation of the the Thomas' words would be ...."My lord the divine" or ..."my divine lord"..


Aineo Wrote:

Mary was never viewed as part of the Trinity or viewed as a goddess by any orthodox Christian group. Therefore the Qur'an is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. If Allah was the one true God he would have known this.

Farid Wrote:

Yes, that is understood, but that doesnt mean there wasnt any sect that didnt, the maryan cult did, and they are the subjects, now my proof is well
the mayan cults were the ones who viewed Mary as a God, so therefore it matche with the Quran.

Of course if the Quran says that the orthodox Christians thougth that, then me and you would know that it is false, but there is no evidence nor proof that verse is talking about the orthodox Christians, if you have proof, then please show it.


Thank you.

[Aineo]

You have not established that the Bani Qurayza broke a treaty with Muhammad.

In 627, a Meccan army under the command of Abu Sufyan, together with contingents from the Bedouin tribe of Ghatafan and the exiled Banu Nadir, marched against Medina and laid siege to it. According to Al-Waqidi, the Banu Qurayza helped the defense effort by supplying spades, picks, and baskets for the excavation of the defensive trench.[15] They also possessed large numbers of weaponry, as 1,500 swords, 2,000 lances, 300 suits of armor, and 500 shields were later seized by the Muslims.[19] Although the Qurayza did not commit any act overtly hostile to Muhammad,[3] there are reports about their negotiations with the Meccans:

Ibn Ishaq writes that during the siege Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of the exiled Banu Nadir, came to the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad and persuaded him to help the Meccans conquer Medina. Ka'b was, according to Al-Waqidi's account, initially reluctant to break the contract and argued that Muhammad never broke any contract with them or exposed them to any shame, but decided to support the Meccans after Huyayy had promised to join the Qurayza in Medina if the besieging army would return to Mecca without having killed Muhammad.[20] Ibn Kathir and al-Waqidi report that Huyayy tore into pieces the agreement between Ka'b and Muhammad.[3][21]

Watt writes that Muhammad "became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them" and that he considered "the result was disquieting."[3] According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad ordered a man from the Ghatafan who had secretly converted to Islam to go to Muhammad's enemies and sow discord among them. The man went to the Banu Qurayza and advised them to join the hostilities against Muhammad only if the besiegers provide hostages from among their chiefs. When the representatives of the Quraysh and the Ghatafan came to the Qurayza, asking for support in the planned decisive battle with Muhammad, the Qurayza indeed demanded hostages, breaking down the negotiations.[22] As a result, the Banu Qurayza did not take any action in support of the besieging army until Abu Sufyan's forces retreated.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Quray ... the_Trench

As to Mary, what a minor sect that existed in Arabia at the time of Muhammad believed is not the issue. The issue is that from the First Council of Nicea through today the Trinity has been defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All you have shown is that Muhammad wrote a book based on what he thought he knew about Christianity, which precludes the Qur'an from being a revelation from God.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

As to Mary, what a minor sect that existed in Arabia at the time of Muhammad believed is not the issue. The issue is that from the First Council of Nicea through today the Trinity has been defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All you have shown is that Muhammad wrote a book based on what he thought he knew about Christianity, which precludes the Qur'an from being a revelation from God.

Farid Wrote:

Of course it matters, the verse was talking about them, you claim that the verse is an error, but yet you dont listen the the answer.

Thank you

[Aineo]

Of course it matters, the verse was talking about them, you claim that the verse is an error, but yet you dont listen the the answer.

Thank you

I listened to the answer and posted a response, which you have chosen to ignore. What your response indicates is that Muhammad, not God came up with the Qur'an, since an almighty God would have warned the majority of Christians concerning what was and still is a major tenet of orthodox Christianity if Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God.

[Farid]

Aineo Wrote:

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 02:44 am Post subject: Re: Quran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farid wrote:
Of course it matters, the verse was talking about them, you claim that the verse is an error, but yet you dont listen the the answer.

Thank you
I listened to the answer and posted a response, which you have chosen to ignore. What your response indicates is that Muhammad, not God came up with the Qur'an, since an almighty God would have warned the majority of Christians concerning what was and still is a major tenet of orthodox Christianity if Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God.

Farid Wrote:

Your answer was that it is talking about the Orthodox Church, but you have no proof for that, and even if it is about the Orthodox Church, then just because Mary was mentioned to be a god, doesnt literally mean a god, because once, Muhammad(pbuh) was reciting the Quran and the verse which says that the Jews made the priests god and lords, and then a Jew who was a revert to Islam, asked Muhammad(pbuh) that we didnt worshipped them as gods, then Muhammad(pbuh) said, didnt they make things lawful and unlawful for you? and he answered yes, so just because mary is mentioned as god, doesnt literally mean the type of god that you guys have in mind.

[009:031] They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

Now this is obviously talking about the Catholic Church, now this does literally mean that the saints are held as gods, no.It is saying that they are viewed in that way by being prayed to.

You claim that the Quran has bee written by Muhammad(pbuh), but that will never answer the scientific verses, and the prophecies, who wrote that? If Muhammad(pbuh) plagiarised, lets say from Hippocrates, for example, then why didnt Muhammad(pbuh) write down everything, how come Muhammad(pbuh) precisely choose the correct ones and left the wrong ones out? He wasnt a scientist, nor a learned man.


Thank you.

[Aineo]

Your answer was that it is talking about the Orthodox Church,

False, my response was that Muhammad was addressing a minor cult not the Orthodox Church, which has never viewed Mary as a goddess.

[009:031] They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

Now this is obviously talking about the Catholic Church, now this does literally mean that the saints are held as gods, no.It is saying that they are viewed in that way by being prayed to.

Muslims take Imans as their lords and worship those imans as demigods so your criticism of Catholicism is hypocritical on this count. BTW, check a dictionary for the definition of "worship", which in western culture has meanings other than worship in the religious sense. Catholics do not "worship" the saints, priests, or anchorites in a religious sense, they honor the saints, priests, and anchorites in the same way Muslims "worship" imans and ayatollahs. Muhammad adopted the Catholic/Orthodox view of Mary, which is not found in the Scriptures but is found in apocryphal literature and Gnosticism.

Muhammad's concept of Christianity was based on cults not on what was found in either Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

As to your attempt to once again take this thread off topic, I referred you to the Ex-Muslim Forum for your answers regarding Islamic science and so far you have not been able to refute Kai. In other words Farid, Islamic science is a myth that is partly based on known ideologies from Greek philosophy or is down right mythology that contradicts science.