PROPOSITION 4
The Bible warns
“‘But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.’ You may say to yourselves, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Muhammad made false predictions:
“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.” S. 30:2-4
The Arabic word for “few years” is Bida’. This word is found in S. 12:46. Here are the comments of Muslim exegete Ibn Kathir’s regarding the meaning of Bida' in S. 12:46:
that it refers to the man who was saved. As was said by Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ishaq and several others. As for ‘a few years’, or, Bida' in Arabic, IT MEANS THREE TO NINE, according to Mujahid and Qatadah. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "Ayub suffered from the illness for seven years, Yusuf remained in prison for seven years and Bukhtanassar (Nebuchadnezzar - Chaldean king of Babylon) was tormented for seven years." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 5, Surah Hud to Surat Al-Isra', Verse 38, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: July 2000], pp. 170-171; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Several problems immediately arise from a plain reading of the text. This alleged prophecy is a great example of how incoherent, incomplete and unintelligible the Quran truly is. The prophecy states that the Romans have been defeated in a land close by. Yet, we are not told who defeated them, when were they defeated, and where were they defeated. Is the phrase a "land close by" directed towards the Muslims or the Romans? If one claims that it refers to the Muslims then this still leaves us with the problem of identifying the precise location of the land. A land close to the Muslims can be a reference to Medina (provided that this was "revealed" during the time the Muslims were still in Mecca), Mecca, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jerusalem, Persia etc. If it is referring to the Romans themselves, then the land close by can refer to a land near either Turkey (Constantinople) or Rome. How does anyone know for certain?
Second, who defeated the Romans and how does one know for certain? Third, when was this "prophecy" given? Is it Pre-Hijrah or post-Hijrah? Since the prophecy states that the Romans would be victorious within a few years, knowing the precise date of this alleged prophecy is an essential and integral part of verifying whether it came to pass or not.
According to Muslim scholarship this passage was supposedly “sent down” approximately around 615 AD and refers to the defeat of the Romans at the hands of the Persians. When we consult the encyclopedias and other sources we discover that the Roman victory didn’t occur until 13 years later, not the 3-9 years stipulated by the Quran. Under Heraclius, Encyclopedia Britannica writes:
In 614 the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine, taking Jerusalem and what was believed to be Christ's Cross, and in 619 occupied Egypt and Libya ...
In 622, clad as a penitent and bearing a sacred image of the Virgin, he left Constantinople, as prayers rose from its many sanctuaries for victory over the Persian Zoroastrians, the recovery of the Cross, and the reconquest of Jerusalem…
The next two years he devoted to campaigns in Armenia, the manpower of which was vital to the empire, and to a devastating invasion of Persia. In 625 Heraclius retired to Anatolia. He had encamped on the west bank of the Sarus River when the Persian forces appeared on the opposite bank. Many of his men rushed impetuously across the bridge and were ambushed and annihilated by the enemy.
Emerging from his tent, Heraclius saw the triumphant Persians crossing the bridge. The fate of the Empire hung in the balance. Seizing his sword, he ran to the bridge and struck down the Persian leader. His soldiers closed rank behind him and beat back the foe.
In 626 the Persians advanced to the Bosporus, hoping to join the Avars in an assault on the land walls of Constantinople. But the Romans sank the primitive Avar fleet that was to transport Persian units across Bosporus and repelled the unsupported Avar assault. Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march across the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of Nineveh. There, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in single combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian commander, and scattered the Persian host.
A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure. Khosrow was overthrown by his son, with whom Heraclius made peace, DEMANDING ONLY THE RETURN OF THE CROSS, the captives, AND CONQUERED ROMAN TERRITORY. Returning to Constantinople in triumph, he was hailed as a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio. IN 630 HE PERSONALLY RESTORED THE CROSS TO THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE IN JERUSALEM. (bold and capital emphasis mine)
A. Yusuf Ali in an appendix to his English translation, states:
16. In these desperate circumstances Heraclius conceived a brilliant plan. He knew that the Persians were weak in sea power. He used his sea power to attack them in the rear. In 622 (the year of the Hijra) he transported his army by sea through the AEgean Sea to the bay just south of the Taurus Mountains. He fought a decisive battle with the Persians at Issus, in the same plain in which Alexander the Great had defeated the Persians of his day in his famous march to Syria and Egypt. The Persians were taken by surprise and routed. BUT THEY HAD STILL A LARGE FORCE IN ASIA MINOR, which they could have brought into play against the Romans if Heraclius had not made ANOTHER and equally unexpected dash by sea from the north. He returned to Constantinople by sea, made a treaty with the Avars, and with this help kept the Persians at bay round the capital. Then he led THREE CAMPAIGNS, IN 623, 624 AND 625, along the southern shore of the Black Sea and took the Persians again in the rear in the region round Trebizond and Kars. Through Armenia he penetrated into Persia and got into Mesopotamia. He was now in a position to strike AT THE VERY HEART OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE. A DECISIVE BATTLE WAS FOUGHT ON THE TIGRIS NEAR THE CITY OF MOSUL IN DECEMBER 627. Before this battle, however, he had taken care to get the alliance of the Turks and with their help to relieve Constantinople IN 626 against the Persians and the treacherous Avars who had then joined the Persians.
17. Heraclius CELEBRATED HIS TRIUMPH IN CONSTANTINOPLE IN MARCH 628. PEACE WAS THEN MADE BETWEEN THE TWO EMPIRES ON THE BASIS OF THE STATUS QUO ANTE. Heraclius, in pursuance of a vow he had made, went south in the autumn to Emessa (Hims) and from there marched on foot to Jerusalem TO CELEBRATE HIS VICTORIES, AND RESTORE TO ITS PLACE THE HOLY CROSS WHICH HAD BEEN CARRIED AWAY BY THE PERSIANS AND WAS RETURNED TO THE EMPEROR AS A CONDITION OF PEACE. Heraclius's [sic] route was strewn with costly carpets, AND HE THOUGHT THAT THE FINAL DELIVERANCE HAD COME FOR HIS PEOPLE AND HIS EMPIRE… (Ali, appendix X, pp. 1073-1074; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Ali's claim leaves us with a time period after 628 AD for the Roman victory.
Refuting the kid :
Eat this:
http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsi ... false.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/defeat_romans.htm
http://www.animal-cruelty.com/rebuttal_ ... hecies.htm
Say: "I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, NOR DO I KNOW WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH ME OR WITH YOU. I follow but that which is revealed to me by 58inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9
Refuting the kid :
This is because the holy prophet was humble.
Just like you say that Jesus = God didn't know the hour because he was modest and humble
An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. 'Uthman bin Maz'un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-'Ala's family), 'Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, "O Abu As-Sa'ib, may Allah's Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you." On that the Prophet said, "How do you know that Allah has honored him?" I replied, "I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah's Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not 'Uthman)?" He said, "As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me," By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for 'Uthman bin Maz'un. I went to Allah's Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, "That symbolizes his (good) deeds." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266)
Quoting rubbish from rubbish books:
Eat this:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ ... /chap2.php
Contrast this with the assurance that the Lord Jesus gives to his true followers:
“I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.” John 10:28-29
“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.’” John 11:25-27
“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30-31
Refuting the kid :
Eat this:
Did Jesus die for our sins???
How can Christians be sure that they are saved when Jesus himself
made statements declaring we are headed for Hell?
" But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire . "[ Matthew 5:22]
Surely most of us have said bad words now and then, therefore according to Jesus , most of us will taste the Fires of Hell and are not Free from punishment according to Jesus .
How can a Christians be sure they are saved when Jesus repeatedly says that with a sinning eye or a sinning hand , We Will Go to Hell?
" And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire " [Mark 9:47]
How can Christians be sure they are saved when Jesus says that we will hold an account for our words:
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. [Matthew 12:36]
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. [Hebrews 13:4]
Who are the people that will pay account for their wicked ways?
If those didn't accept Jesus sacrifice, then they will have a direct one way ticket to hell. So why would God judge them or why would they pay an account? They are already going to hell, so why the account?
If those people accepted Jesus Sacrifice, then where does Jesus sacrifice stand?
Did Jesus fulfill the criteria to be a sacifical lamb for sins forgiving?
Jesus must have fulfilled the full criteria of lamb sacrifice depicted in the OT, but did he????
A sacrificial lamb must be one year old [Numbers 7:16]
The lamb is to be sacrificed in the evening [Exodus 12:6]
A sacrificial lamb must be unblemished [Exodus 12:5]
Christians in order to solve the discrepancy found in [John 19:36-37], they lined a bunch of meaningless words found in Exodus 12:8-9 and Exodus 12:46 talking about the sacrificial lamb that shouldn't be boiled or cooked in parts; rather it was to be roasted whole; no bones were to be broken:
Now they saw this criterion of the lamb and match it with Jesus but refused to admit and to see the other criteria of the lamb.
Why is the New Testament so concerned about the laws of the lamb when it comes to the second half of Exodus 12:46, but not at all concerned with these laws when it comes to Exodus 12:3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,44, the first half of 46, or 48?
Why do Christians never mention verses like Hosea 14.2 or 1 Kings 8:44-52 or 2 Sam 12:13 or Leviticus 5:11-13 or Psalms 32.5 or Isaiah 6.6-7 which demonstrate that one does not need a blood sacrifice to have their sins forgiven, or verses like Proverbs 21.3 or Psalms 40.6 or Hosea 6.6 or Psalms 69:30-31 or 1 Samuel 15.22 which say clearly that God actually PREFERS other methods of atonement to blood sacrifice, or Jeremiah 7:22-23 which goes so far as to say that God NEVER EVEN COMMANDED US ABOUT SACRIFICES???
Why are there numerous stories in the Old Testament of people who sinned, and were forgiven through prayer and repentance WITHOUT A SACRIFICE, such as David in 2 Sam 12:13, or the city of Nineveh in Jonah?
What good is Jesus as a sin sacrifice when sin sacrifices were only for the unintentional sinner? (Leviticus 4: 2,13,22,27; 5:15,1: 18
When Jesus told his followers that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer, Peter protests, "GOD forbid it lord, this shall never happen to you." [Matthew 16:22].
Peter didn't joyfully exclaim: Praise GOD, you are the suffering servant of Isaiah 53!
Why was this idea of a dying Messiah new to Peter? Had he forgotten the message of Isaiah 53 which every child knew? Do you find it rather hard to believe that in the first century, with Messianic fervor raging everywhere, that the followers of a presumed Messiah would not understand their own Scriptures, especially those referring to the Messiah who would be killed and resurrected?
How could the followers of a presumed Messiah have overlooked something as important in their Scriptures as the death of the coming Messiah?
The Disciples who were pious Jews never knew that the Messiah was supposed to suffer.
Jesus' enemies, such as Herod [Matthew 2] and the Jews certainly didn't think that the Messiah was supposed to be killed, otherwise why help his cause by trying to kill him!?
People expected the Messiah to rule as a king over a restored Israel in an age of universal peace and belief.
We prefer the Jesus way of salvation not the pagan one of crucified god:
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
"Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said "What is written in the law? How do you read?"
And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all
your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will
live." [Luke 10:25-28]
And we also prefer the Bible way of forgiving sins:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
[2 Chronicles 7:14]
To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. [Proverbs 21:3]
It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. [Jeremiah 36:3]
Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. [Isaiah 55:7].
"It has been told you, O' man, what is good, and what the LORD does require of you, only to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God". [Micah 6:8]
"Then I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not cover up my guilt... and You forgave the guilt of my sin." [Psalm 32:5]
"And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me." [Jeremiah 33:8]
'The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression” [Numbers 14:18].
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. [Hosea 6:6]
Finally I just want to share with you my Biblical view on this passage:
"Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. And last of allhe sent his son to them, saying, "They will respect my son. But when the wine dressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him." [Matthew 21:33-39]
The church keeps telling us that: landowner= God, vineyard= Earth, vinedressers= man (humans), servants= prophets of God, son= Jesus.
The Landowner did not send his son to be sacrificed, he sent his son to get his fruit [Matthew 21:34]. The Land owner did not expect the vinedressers to kill his son, the intension to send out his son was not to be killed. The landowner says; "they will respect my son" [Matthew 21:37], they won't kill him.
Therefore this contradicts the Christian point of view that Jesus was sent specifically to be killed for sins, while the Land owner's intension was to send the son to reap (fruit {worship} from the earth), not to be killed.
These propositions conclusively demonstrate that Muhammad is not a true prophet of God, and that the Quran that he passed on as revelation cannot be from God.
Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. You are indeed the risen One and are alive forever and ever. We love you immortal Lord of glory.