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.
Are you aware of the concept of logical fallacies. Did you not say you are a shia and you reject sunni hadiths, are you aware that Osama of answering-christianity is a sunni who utlisies sunni hadiths namely those of Bukhari/Muslim. Do you realise you are denying the antecedent in posting his links to defend yourself?
Pls show us the shia sources in your line of defense and stop making yourself look ridiculous posting links from a sunni who is using Bukhari/Muslim hadiths in his response which you reject.
Is this the shia line of thought, to utilise the work of my enemy against another enemy...the enemy of my enemy is my friend! alhamduillah!
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???
I guess I am expecting too much seeing you are as ignorant about christianity as you show to be about islam, the unblemished lamb was sacrificed by the chief priests every year for the sins of the house hold. You are making an argument that every sin should not be confessed but one should immediately rush over and go kill a lamb, sins were confessed and forgiveness was asked prior to killing a lamb for the sins of the household once a year.
Hosea 14
2 Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.
What do you think it means when it says calves of our lips?
And pls read Leviticus in it's proper context:
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
Isaiah 6
6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
Without even reading the passage in context it is clear that Isaiah is having a vision from God. Since your koran is devoid of all metaphor you are no doubt going to interpret every other religious book in line with your koran. I take it then you believe putting hot coals in your mouth will cleanse you of your sins? Or like Mohammed believed washing your armpits, arms and ankles cleanses you of your sins.?
We prefer the Jesus way of salvation not the pagan one of crucified god:
'The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression” [Numbers 14:18].
Sorry to disappoint you here buddy, the Lord is clearly not allah, as allah is the best of deceivers (makireen) an abrogator, and has created jinns and men as fuel for hell, with predestination already destined for them(no choice)
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.
By your literal islamic mindset devoid of metaphorical symbolism, the jews must have killed one prophet beat only one prophet and stoned only one prophet in their whole history right?
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.
You are now going to interpret scriptures for us??? why didn't you read the rest of the passage:
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
Let me guess the stone is islam and Mohammed?
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.
Instead of laughing when you are asked a question, show us what prophecies Mohammed made that came true (pls don't point to a sunni website using sunni hadiths which you reject) shows us the shia sources. What deems Mohammed the office of prophethood.?
Since you like quoting the old testament like you identify with it did you read this bit of it:
If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 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. "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death."
Deuteronomy 18:19-22, 13:1-5
With the above quote how do you reconcile allah who only tolerates arabic, and a lascivious rite associated with the pagan sabaens and believe you are following the one true 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.
You are one to laugh, considering you are following the made up nonsense of a demon possessed epileptic, pedofile, rapist, crook, caravan mercenary, liar, theif and incestual sexual predator (contradicting all levitical laws on incest) without a prophecy or miracle to his name, and hoping to enter an eternal brothel where the women are chained to their beds waiting for you, 70 a room.
Ofcourse as a shia you can always claim you reject sunni hadiths to save face that leaves you in a bigger problem when do you apply context to the koran? How do you know how to perform salat? when it says slay the idolaters where you find them, or fight against unbelievers even if they be the people of the book, will you then run to your sunni mentors and say well we need to look at the koran in it's proper context?