Proof?
donie
> Come on , I am waiting for your response to at least
> proof that the verses of the bible were wrong of it as
> prophesy of Prophet Muhammad (saw). As usual, the
> crappy theology of christianity cannot even do that.
The burden of proving that bible verses prophesying islam prophet
should rest with muslims, don't you agree Sam?
David G.
The burden of proof always rests on the one making the positive claim.
342oQ
7c3240...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Jalani hidup dengan keyakinan pada satu hal, bukan berdebat dengan banyak
hal
Anda meyakini sesuatu.
Tapi jangan mendorong orang lain untuk percaya pada keyakinan anda.
Karena apa yang anda yakini belum tentu benar.
Anda baru akan tahu kebenarannya ketika anda telah berhadapan langsung
dengan-Nya.
sam...@hotmail.com
Hi - how's it going?
Its a fair assertion that the burden of proof is on the
person making the claim - I agree with that. The same
cannot be said for nick 'nabi palsu & his other names'
and 'mbill'. They can never present a decent argument.
Refer to my post dated Aug 2 , 11.57 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indonesia/browse_thread/thread/f4fd02e6b2d63245/e720b8d5bbe46b78
I presented the verses and the tests to the verses. It is
ample proof. I am waiting for the counter argument.
So far none except 'Bwahahahahahahahah'. Thats not
much of an argument is it?
sam1528
ps. please keep this to the thread 'HAI KAUM MUSLIMIN
/MUSLIMAH BERSABARLAH' - don't waste bandwidth
ini si þíLL™
news:7fa365d4-7444-4fb2...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com
:
that's why this sammy boy could never understand why people on NG keep
bwahahahahahahahahahah-ing him
talking about simple logic
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> that's why this sammy boy could never understand why people on NG keep
> bwahahahahahahahahahah-ing him
>
> talking about simple logic
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Why are you so afraid to answer the questions or
counter argue.
Those are not difficult questions. Unless you don't
even know your own bible.
Shouting 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA' is not
an answer. It doesn't help you. Well .... it does ....
makes you look like an idiot. Anyway , is this a
standard answer that that the missionaries have
taught you? If you cannot provide a decent answer
then shout 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'.
sam1528
darion
si þíLL meets his Waterloo.
Waraqah T
<sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fa365d4-7444-4fb2...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 5, 5:48 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 3:27 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Come on , I am waiting for your response to at least
>> > proof that the verses of the bible were wrong of it as
>> > prophesy of Prophet Muhammad (saw). As usual, the
>> > crappy theology of christianity cannot even do that.
>>
>> The burden of proving that bible verses prophesying islam prophet
>> should rest with muslims, don't you agree Sam?
>
> Hi - how's it going?
>
> Its a fair assertion that the burden of proof is on the
> person making the claim - I agree with that.
****You agree with that? Then where's the proof, WHERE? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH....
Waraqah T
"paracletos" meant. He thinks that both Pol Pot and Hitler are good examples
of comforter and paracletos. Only Sam called Hitler and Pol Pot his
prophets, and no one else.....
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH..........
Even that 4 year old girl was scared to death, if you know what I
meant...BWAHAHAHAH again..Comforter? My foot...!
"ini si þíLLT" <mBle...@indo.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AF192AD4DC...@208.49.82.60...
qw
>> Jalani hidup dengan keyakinan pada satu hal, bukan berdebat dengan banyak
>> hal
>> Anda meyakini sesuatu.
>> Tapi jangan mendorong orang lain untuk percaya pada keyakinan anda.
>> Karena apa yang anda yakini belum tentu benar.
>> Anda baru akan tahu kebenarannya ketika anda telah berhadapan langsung
>> dengan-Nya.
sayanyah melihat ucapan dan prinsip dari orang inih adalah manusia
nyang kabingungan dan tidak punya keinginan untuk lebih baik..
wasalam
qw
ini si þíLL™
a8677a...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com :
> On 5 Agu, 15:34, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 3:25 pm, "ini si ţíLL™" <mBleke...@indo.net> wrote:
>> --snip--
>>
>>
>>
>> > that's why this sammy boy could never understand why people on NG
keep
>> > bwahahahahahahahahahah-ing him
>>
>> > talking about simple logic
>>
>> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
>>
>> Why are you so afraid to answer the questions or
>> counter argue.
>>
>> Those are not difficult questions. Unless you don't
>> even know your own bible.
>>
>> Shouting 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA' is not
>> an answer. It doesn't help you. Well .... it does ....
>> makes you look like an idiot. Anyway , is this a
>> standard answer that that the missionaries have
>> taught you? If you cannot provide a decent answer
>> then shout 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'.
>>
>> sam1528
>
> si ţíLL meets his Waterloo.
>
ooopps not the mr. teh botol again ..... :)))
Jendral
Stujuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ........................
jadi kalauwww ngliat orang nyungsep di got, akibat kena kibul orang
mangka biarken aje ...
meeskipun kita bisa memberiken lampu 1000 wattt supaya itu orang tahu
jalan yang benar .....
demikian, smoga mingkin rame Kang .............
ini si þíLL™
@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com :
you know sam, bwahahahahaha does help curing your being ignorant, give
it a try sam :))
it's obvious you seriuosly think that people highly regard your posts
but in fact all your writings are not even worth people's
bwahahahahahahaha, they are all craps , PERIOD :))
anyway, to still show you my lil' appreciation allow me to
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahhha some more for ya :))
oopps, PS : LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE, in case you've never heard
it :))
ini si þíLL™
news:Xns9AF1E602B43...@62.141.42.83 :
> darion <hyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:bd2bf6fd-a120-421a-a707-
> a8677a...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com :
>
>> On 5 Agu, 15:34, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Aug 5, 3:25 pm, "ini si þíLL™" <mBleke...@indo.net> wrote:
>>> --snip--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > that's why this sammy boy could never understand why people on
NG
> keep
>>> > bwahahahahahahahahahah-ing him
>>>
>>> > talking about simple logic
>>>
>>> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
>>>
>>> Why are you so afraid to answer the questions or
>>> counter argue.
>>>
>>> Those are not difficult questions. Unless you don't
>>> even know your own bible.
>>>
>>> Shouting 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA' is not
>>> an answer. It doesn't help you. Well .... it does ....
>>> makes you look like an idiot. Anyway , is this a
>>> standard answer that that the missionaries have
>>> taught you? If you cannot provide a decent answer
>>> then shout 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'.
>>>
>>> sam1528
>>
>> si þíLL meets his Waterloo.
>>
>
> ooopps not the mr. teh botol again ..... :)))
>
ehhh meneerr, lumayan lohhh , this sammy boy can be a substitute
'toy' to us .... during your absence, but trust me he cant beat you
so far, you are still the greatest bozo circus in NG
so please be back soon, my pants are wet already
I miss ya so much deaarrrr .....
ini si þíLL™
hi folks, this sammy boy from KL is awesome, he even bothers to
subscribe to SCI ! ...... just to get his itchy hands scratched by
waraqah and si mbiLL, BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA ....
wow ! thanks sammy, you really make my days :)))
David G.
> Anyway , is this a
> standard answer that that the missionaries have
> taught you? If you cannot provide a decent answer
> then shout 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH'.
>
This "BWAHAHA" thing has been used quite often by everybody in this
forum, moslems and christians.
Be careful when you are criticizing. The stuff could have been done by
your own folks just the same.
qw
>> This "BWAHAHA" thing has been used quite often by everybody in this
>> forum, moslems and christians.
hoping u know the different between "dongoks men" and "non dongoks
men" when using the BWAHAHAHA..
Q : what is ur name ?
A : BWAAHAHAHA..
Q : 1 + 1=3
R : BWAAHAHAHA...
>> Be careful when you are criticizing. The stuff could have been done by
>> your own folks just the same.
that's not a moeslem principal..
right is right, wrong is wrong..
the different is just "the way" how to face them.
ini si þíLL™
@registered.motzarella.org :
> Only Sam called Hitler and Pol Pot his
> prophets, and no one else....
hey, he regarded himself as "son of God" too ya know
check out his yesterdays posts
this sammy boy is really something !
is ADW aware that a new clone of ADW has just been launched to NG?
bwahahahhahhahahahahahahahah ......
donie
> On Aug 5, 5:48 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 3:27 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Come on , I am waiting for your response to at least
> > > proof that the verses of the bible were wrong of it as
> > > prophesy of Prophet Muhammad (saw). As usual, the
> > > crappy theology of christianity cannot even do that.
>
> > The burden of proving that bible verses prophesying islam prophet
> > should rest with muslims, don't you agree Sam?
>
> Hi - how's it going?
>
> Its a fair assertion that the burden of proof is on the
> person making the claim - I agree with that. The same
> cannot be said for nick 'nabi palsu & his other names'
> and 'mbill'. They can never present a decent argument.
>
>
> I presented the verses and the tests to the verses. It is
> ample proof. I am waiting for the counter argument.
> So far none except 'Bwahahahahahahahah'. Thats not
> much of an argument is it?
>
You must be referring to your statement no 7:
================quote================
7 Do not even know that the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saw)
has been foretold in the bible. Reference of a comforter or
paraclete.
=================unquote======
It's true. Christians don't know that your prophet is foretold in the
bible. How would that proof your claim?
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear DECEIVED Muslims,
You -Muslims- must not be fooled by Mohammed- the LIAR- anymore. That
prophet whom God would raise was DEFINITELY not Mohammed who was an
Arab; and God EXPLICITLY said in Deut 18:15: "The LORD thy God will
raise up unto thee a Prophet from THE MIDST OF THEE, of THY
BRETHEN(Israelites=Jews), like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.".
MOHAMMED WAS NOT AN ISRAELITE or Jew at all.
Mohammed claimed to be an Arab as well as Ishmaelite[=A HEBREW but not
ISRAELITE].
AMEN
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear DECEIVED Muslims,
You -Muslims- must not be fooled by Mohammed- the LIAR- anymore. That
prophet whom God would raise was DEFINITELY not Mohammed who was an
Arab; and God EXPLICITLY said in Deut 18:15: "The LORD thy God will
raise up unto thee a Prophet from THE MIDST OF THEE, of THY
BRETHEN(Israelites=Jews), like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.".
MOHAMMED WAS NOT AN ISRAELITE or Jew at all.
Mohammed claimed to be an Arab as well as Ishmaelite[=A HEBREW but not
ISRAELITE].
HOW COULD A MAN WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE 2 FATHERS BE A TRUE PROHET OF
ALLAH?
AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text
Dear DECEIVED Muslisms,
Beware of imams and mullahs who are preaching LIES in masjids and
posting LIES on their Islamic
websites to deceive you- sincere Muslims- and the ignoramus from
knowing the truth of the True Allah of Jesus.
To verify the sayings of imams and mullahs, go to websites:
1] www.answering-christianity.org
2] www.faithfreedom.org
Mohammed HAD LIED as follows:
1]MOHAMMED HAD NOT EVEN 1 WITNESS TO AFFIRM HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS THE
LAST MESSENGER OF ALL ALLAH'S PROPHETS;
2]MOHAMMED HAD LIED that Allah had given the Muslims the Covenant of
Abraham, but the Quran has not the Law of God which covers the
Covenant of Abraham. This explains why the Muslims are lawless and
easily misled into false martyrdom!
3]MOHAMMED HAD LIED THAT HE WAS AN ARAB who descended from 13 Arabic
tribes from the 13 sons of Qahtan -the Father of all Arabs; and a
HEBREW being a descendant of Ishmael[Ismail]- the son of Abraham, and
Abraham was the Father of all Hebrews. Hence, how could Mohammed have
2 FATHERS?
4]MOHAMMED HAD LIED THAT A DAY OF FAST IN RAMADAN IS ONLY 12 HOURS
WHEN A DAY IS 24 HOURS, all ancient prophets had fasted a day of 24
hours even Doctors affirm a day of fast must be of 24 hours for
patient before operation is to be carried out;
5]MOHAMMED HAD LIED THAT HE SPLIT THE MOON AND THE MOON IS STILL 1 NOT
2;
6]MOHAMMD HAD LIED THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT[Sura 15:19], but we all know
the earth is round;
7]MOHAMMED HAD LIED THAT ALLAH ALLOWS 4 WIVES BUT MOHAMMED HAD 30
WIVES;
8]MOHAMMED HAD MARRIED A BABY AISHIA 6 who was young enough to be his
great, great, great grand-daughter when he -Mohammed- was 59;
9]MOHAMMED HAD MARRIED AN ELDERLY woman old enough to be his mother
named Khatijah 40 when he -Mohammed- was 25.
How HOLY is Sharia laws now?
AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
Dear Muslims,
According to SAHIH BUKHARI,Book 4 Volume 1 Number 229 & 231 Aisah
said: Mohammed, after having sex with his wives, washed his cloth and
went to pray in masjid while his wet cloth still stained with semen!
According to SUNAN ABU-DAWUD: Purification (Kitab Al-Taharah) Book 1,
Number 0270 Aisha said: when she, Aisha, was having menstruation,
Mohammed would uncovered her and put his head on her thighs!
What UNHOLINESS Mohammed had for Allah?
How holy is Sharia laws now?
Amen
READ THIS:
Dear osamakon,
Moreover, how could Mohammed - a prophet of Allah - when 59 married a
baby girl Aisha 6 BE HOLY taking into consideraion of the fact that
Aisha could be Mohammed's great, great, great grand-daughter too young
to be his wife and his first wife- Khatijah - was old enough to be
Mohammed's mother?
The Holy Bible tells us NO prophet has EVER MARRY a woman old enough
to be his mother or a baby girl young enough to be his great, great,
great grand-daughter!
AMEN
achtung
sam...@hotmail.com
Their problem not mine. However it seems to be a standard
answer by these christians when they are tongue tied.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--.
>
> ****You agree with that? Then where's the proof, WHERE? BWAHAHAHAHAHAH....
>
Another christian who has failed to provide a decent
argument and now trying to act stupid (which comes
naturally in christianity anyway). I have already posted
the proofs , up to you to read and understand it.
Again - shouting 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAH' will not help
you in your case.
--snip--
>
> > Refer to my post dated Aug 2 , 11.57 pm
> >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indonesia/browse_thread/th...
sam...@hotmail.com
> Bill, first of all this Sammy boy doesn't know what the word "comforter" and
> "paracletos" meant. He thinks that both Pol Pot and Hitler are good examples
> of comforter and paracletos. Only Sam called Hitler and Pol Pot his
> prophets, and no one else.....
>
> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH..........
>
> Even that 4 year old girl was scared to death, if you know what I
> meant...BWAHAHAHAH again..Comforter? My foot...!
Awww .... this is an emotional moment for nick 'nabi palsu
& his other names' and 'mbill'. Two delusional christians
whom have lost in a debate and being reduced to only
shouting 'BWAHAHAHAHAHAH' are comforting each other.
Are you guys crying and hugging each other? Who is the
'comforter' in this scene?
Now poor you have resorted to lying. Nobody ever mentioned
that pol pot and hitler. This is typical of christians. They
cannot argue .... lie their way out.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
:)
sam...@hotmail.com
> it a try sam :))
>
> it's obvious you seriuosly think that people highly regard your posts
> but in fact all your writings are not even worth people's
> bwahahahahahahaha, they are all craps , PERIOD :))
>
> anyway, to still show you my lil' appreciation allow me to
> bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahhha some more for ya :))
>
> oopps, PS : LAUGHTER IS THE BEST MEDICINE, in case you've never heard
> it :))
From what is going on , it looks like the muslims are
laughing at you christians , expecially nick 'nabi
palsu & his other names' and you. You guys cannot
even put forward a decent counter argument. The only
argument that you can come up is shouting
'BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA'.
Why don't you ask them?
sam1528
verifying...@yahoo.com
Your OWN prophet had confessed that he was A LIAR!
Read this:
HOW TRUE IS THE QURAN WHEN MOHAMMED CONFESSED TO LYING AND DECEITS???
According to the Haddith of Aisha MOHAMMED CONFESSED THAT HE WAS A
LIAR AND A MAN FULL OF DECEITS to his fellow Muslims including Aisha
as follows:
2]SAHIH BUKHARI, BOOK 12: Characteristics of Prayer
Volume 1, Book 12, Number 795:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle -MOHAMMED- used to invoke
Allah in the prayer saying "O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the
punishment of the grave and from the afflictions of Masi,h Ad-Dajjal
and from the afflictions of life and death. O Allah, I seek refuge
with You from the sins and from being in debt".
3]" Somebody asked him[Mohammed], "WHY DO YOU so frequently SEEK
REFUGE WITH ALLAH from being in debt?"
The Prophet replied, "A person in debt tells lies whenever he speaks,
and breaks promises whenever he makes (them)."
Aisha also narrated: I heard Allah's Apostle- MOHAMMED - in his prayer
seeking refuge with Allah from the afflictions of Ad-dajjal.
VERIFY THE SAYINGS OF MOHAMMED, go to websites:
1] w w w answering-islam org
2] w w w faithfreedom org
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> Dear DECEIVED Muslims,
>
> You -Muslims- must not be fooled by Mohammed- the LIAR- anymore. That
> prophet whom God would raise was DEFINITELY not Mohammed who was an
> Arab; and God EXPLICITLY said in Deut 18:15: "The LORD thy God will
> raise up unto thee a Prophet from THE MIDST OF THEE, of THY
> BRETHEN(Israelites=Jews), like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.".
>
> MOHAMMED WAS NOT AN ISRAELITE or Jew at all.
>
> Mohammed claimed to be an Arab as well as Ishmaelite[=A HEBREW but not
> ISRAELITE].
> HOW COULD A MAN WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE 2 FATHERS BE A TRUE PROHET OF
> ALLAH?
> AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
What a guy , you just cannot stop lying.
If Prophet Ishmael (as) and Prophet Isaac (as) are the sons
of the same father Prophet Abraham (as) , then they are
brothers. And so the children of the one are the BRETHREN
of the children of the other. The children of Prophet Isaac (as)
are the Jews and the Children of Prophet Ishmael (as) are the
Arabs - so they are BRETHREN to one another. The Bible
affirms,
gen16:12
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477
[12] And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every
man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall
dwell in the presence of all his brethren
gen25:18-19
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477
[18] And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before
Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: and he died in the
presence of all his brethren.
[19] And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son:
Abraham begat Isaac:
The children of Prophet Isaac (as) are the brethren of the
Ishmaelites. In like manner Prophet Muhummed (saw) is
from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was
a descendant of Prophet Ishmael (as) the son of Prophet
Abraham (as). This exactly as the prophecy has it deut18:15
& 18
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=741530
[15] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;
unto him ye shall hearken;
[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Note : I have caught you equivocating again. You deliberately
inserted '...(Israelites=Jews)...' into deut18:15. No honest
person will do such. This further affirm my saying that your
bible has been corrupted by the words of man. Your action
is an example of it.
There the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming
prophet who would be like Prophet Moses (as), must arise
NOT from the 'children of Israel' or from 'among themselves',
but from among their brethren. Prophet Muhammad (as)
therefore was from among their brethren.
Consider the following verse : isaiah29:12
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2594466
[12] And the book is delivered to him that is not learned,
saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not
learned.
Reference to deut18:18 and isa29:12 and in the context of
the verses. It fits the description of Prophet Muhammad (saw)
not Prophet Jesus (as). Prophet Muhammad (saw) was
illiterate and the revelation of the Quran was transmitted to
him via recitation from Archangel Gabriel. In other words
as per deut18:18 '..... put my words in his mouth....'. This
again proves that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) has been
foretold in the bible (albeit it being corrupted - prime example
is the action of inserting '...(Israelites=Jews)...' into deut18:15
by our good buddy : nick 'explain_pls' whom will surely
disappear after this).
Tomorrow we will look into the verse deut18:18 which has
the meaning of '...like unto thee...'. This meaning raising
another prophet like moses. Prophet Jesus (as) does not
even come close fitting the description of being like Prophet
Moses (as).
sam1528
ini si þíLL™
@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com :
oopssss very much typical moslem response
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhha, sammy boy c'mon man ,
dont be too shy :)))
ini si þíLL™
news:17963289-9fa7-4c28...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com
:
bwahahahahahhahaahah, poor sammy still can quit thinking that all his
posts are worth argueing
bwahahahahahahahahahahhaha, wake up maaannnn :)))
ini si þíLL™
c14cac...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com :
bwahahahahahahahahhahahah, to our healthy spirits sammy boy !
ooppsss, must I tell ya over and over to stop messing NG with your
delucinary islamic rubbish ???
bwahahahahhahahahahahaha again , allow me sammy :))
ini si þíLL™
@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com :
well, here you go sammy .... the moron being substituted by you
bwahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahaahhhahahaha
expla...@yahoo.com
You should be asking yourself to stop lying and start confessing all
your lies like your PROFIT Mohammad did.
On Aug 6, 2:08 pm, "subandrio.an...@gmail.com"
<subandrio.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some one confess that him self is lie but really he is not liar is
> better then some one who confess that him self is honest but really he
> is a liar.
pls_explain REPLYING to the above:
Dear subandrio andri,
No ancient prophets of the True Allah had ever confessed to have lied
like Islamic false prophet Mohammed did.
If a prophet[messenger of Allah] who was propagating the Word of God
had lied, then that the message of this lying prophet WAS NOT OF THE
True Allah. Hence, the Quran is false because Mohammed had been lying
and lying!
> I am not pointed to any body, I only proposed the philosophy fact, for
> the good intellectual person is no proper to humiliate others who ever
> them.
pls_explain REPLYING to the above:
Dear Subandrio Andri,
Please learn the difference between the humiliating of a person, and
the pointing
out of a lying false prophet!
Pointing out the truth is not humiliating anyone except the liar and
his believers feeling the humuliation: for they -his believers- all
become liars propagating the false religion of Islam as true through
lying!
> Our self is like "jar" what ever flow out from the "jar" it is
> reflected from the inner, if the inner jar content by mud it must be
> flow out of mud, if some body like full to insult other it mean his
> inner content by opprobrium.
pls_explain REPLYING to the above:
Dear Subandrio Andri,
You are right. So what flowed out of the false prophet Mohammed were
lies just like if the jar contained mud, out flowed the mud. The
heart
of Mohammed was full of lies and so flowed out THE MOUTH OF MOHAMMAD
were lies for Islam! Hence Mohammed was a false prophet, and the
Quran
is a false holy book!
> I am sorry for many unpleasant words to you.
> Thank you and hope God give you the guidance.
> Andri Subandrio- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
pls_explain REPLYING to the above:
Dear Subandrio Andri,
You do not need to be sorry for speaking out if your speaking out is
of the truth; BUT if it is not, then you should really be sorry to
the
True Allah.
May the True Allah guide you to read from the Islamic webstites and
the christian websites to learn the truth of God.
To verify the sayings of imams and mullahs, go to websites:
1] www.answering-islam.org or answering-christianity.org
2] www.faithfreedom.org or faithfreedom.com
AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
sam...@hotmail.com
> posts are worth argueing
>
> bwahahahahahahahahahahhaha, wake up maaannnn :)))
Don't you enjoy this? You cannot even challenge my posts
but just go on whining and shouting 'bwahahahahahahaahah'.
You cannot even touch me but I am hitting your christian
theology left and right with the truth. Quoting 2cor13:8
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5161648
[8] For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
Keeping to my promise. This goes on to prove that Prophet
Muhammad (saw) has been foretold in your bible. Reference
to deut18:15 & 18
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=741530
[15] The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet
from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me;
unto him ye shall hearken;
[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren,
like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he
shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
The prophecy made during the time of Prophet Moses (as)
was that there will be another prophet similar to Prophet
Moses (as) raised among the brethren of the israelites (as
covered in my last post). 3 elements of this prophecy are
as follows :
1. The awaited prophet will arise from the brethren of the
israelites and the ishmaelites as affirmed by your bible
in gen16:12 and gen25:18-19. Your bible even describes
the geography from where this prophet will arise. Consider
the verses isaiah 42:1:11 ;
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2594466
[1] Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in
whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon
him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
[2] He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to
be heard in the street.
[3] A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking
flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment
unto truth.
[4] He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set
judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
[5] Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens,
and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth,
and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto
the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
[6] I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will
hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a
covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
[7] To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from
the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the
prison house.
[8] I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not
give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
[9] Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new
things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of
them.
[10] Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise from
the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and
all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants
thereof.
[11] Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their
voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the
inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the
top of the mountains.
Consider verse 11 , it mentions the village that kedar
inhibited.
Gen25:13 : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477
[13] And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by
their names, according to their generations: the firstborn
of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and
Mibsam,
Kedar was the son of Prophet Ishmael (as) whose
descendant was Prophet Muhammad (saw).
ref : http://www.mostmerciful.com/god-gave-land-to-countless-children-of-abraham.pdf
page 4 : ' ... Ishmael married a daughter of Jorhamite
prince named Mudad and she gave him an
illustrious son named Kedar (Ar. Qaidar).
Kedar was an ancestor of Adnan (or Qais),
who was progenitor of the tribes of Northern
Arabia and forbearer of the Prophet
Muhammad (saw).
2. Prophet Muhammad (saw) is like Prophet Moses (as)
comparision moses jesus muhammad
birth usual virgin usual
life married not married married
family children no children children
death natural unnatural natural
prophet & ruler yes no (not ruler) yes
forced to flee median none madinah
writing of revelation yes none yes
when lifetime after him lifetime
teaching spiritual spiritual spiritual
& legal only &
legal
acceptance of him rejected rejected rejected
then by most then
accepted isrealites accepted
3. Allah puts his word into the mouth of the said prophet.
Refer to deut 18:18
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=741530
[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in
his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that
I shall command him.
This has been confirmed by the Quran , surah 53:3-4
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/53.htm
3. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire.
4. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him:
The said prophet shall be unlettered :
Consider the following verse : isaiah29:12
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=2594466
[12] And the book is delivered to him that is not learned,
saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am
not learned.
Affirmation by the Quran , surah 7:158
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/7.htm
158. day: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the
Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the
dominion of the heavens and the earth: there
is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life
and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger,
the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah
and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be
guided."
Thus it has been proven that the coming of another prophet
whom is like Prophet Moses (as) as foretold in your bible
and being confirmed by the Quran has always been Prophet
Muhammad (saw) and not Prophet Jesus (as). However you
can take heart , no doubt that your bible has been corrupted
by the words of man , traces of the revelation from Allah still
exist.
Tomorrow we will look into the events and deeds of the founder
of christianity - the self proclaimed apostle paul whom have
never met , walked nor talked to Prophet Jesus (as). Before
he morphed into paul , he was known as saul of tarsus. He
was a bounty hunter hunting down christians either to be
killed or be fed to the lions.
sam1528
donie
>
> Thus it has been proven that the coming of another prophet
> whom is like Prophet Moses (as) as foretold in your bible
> and being confirmed by the Quran has always been Prophet
> Muhammad (saw) and not Prophet Jesus (as). However you
> can take heart , no doubt that your bible has been corrupted
> by the words of man , traces of the revelation from Allah still
> exist.
Sam, it's ok you interpret and assume those bible verses as prophecy
for the coming of your prophet Muhammat. I don't mind. It's good that
bible can add your faith and your confidence on your prophit. You can
even even use them to your heart content as a campaign gimmick for
your Muhammat, but if you wave that to a simple christian face, they
will see you ridiculing yourself. Believe me, you have seen that in
this group. Christians see those bible verses has been fulfilled in
Jesus Christ. Christan name itself comes from Christ-like or follower
of Yesus Christ.
When confronted with your so-called 'proof', we can't help but
compare, and find sharp contrast between the teaching and the living
of Jesus Christ and that of your prophet Muhammat. While Jesus demands
that we christians cast our guns off, your Muhammat who came about 700
years later led a life full of and and to this very day inspires his
followers to raise swords. Christ teaches heart circumcision, inner
cleanliness, your prophet leads you to focus more on physical
appearance or outward rituals. And looking into the matrimonial
affairs of Muhammat as depicted in alquran, hadists, and other islamic
histories, he can not be a prophet, not in christian standard. He
should have refrained more on taking more wifes. When he saved Zainab
to himself rather than saving the marriages of his adopted son, Zaid,
he was degrading himself, dragging along Gabriel who conveyed the
qoran verse allowing Muhammat to marry Zainab, even below his Arab
contemporary.
But again, it is up you to highly regard your prophet, as we have
different standards.
> Tomorrow we will look into the events and deeds of the founder
> of christianity - the self proclaimed apostle paul whom have
> never met , walked nor talked to Prophet Jesus (as). Before
> he morphed into paul , he was known as saul of tarsus. He
> was a bounty hunter hunting down christians either to be
> killed or be fed to the lions.
>
Isn't it queer for/of you to show us the who, whats and the whys of
Rasul Paulus. Isn't more logical if you tell us more on your Rosul
Muhammat?
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
At last your patience broke didn't it. Its good as at the very
least you are responding. How does it feel when others hurl
'insults' at your religion? Christians have been doing that to
muslims and when the same is being done in reverse - you
cannot cry foul.
However it should be pointed out that the quotations, verses
etc , that were posted had reference to links that could be
verified & all of them can be verified word for word. In short
everything that were posted can be verified hence there has
been no lying. However when you christians post things
like Allah being a moon god , authorship of the Quran , etc
etc , none can be backed up by any Quran verses or hadith
or in the seerah. In short you lot lie when making a claim.
Thats not good isn't it?
--snip--
>
> Sam, it's ok you interpret and assume those bible verses as prophecy
> for the coming of your prophet Muhammat. I don't mind. It's good that
> bible can add your faith and your confidence on your prophit. You can
> even even use them to your heart content as a campaign gimmick for
> your Muhammat, but if you wave that to a simple christian face, they
> will see you ridiculing yourself. Believe me, you have seen that in
> this group. Christians see those bible verses has been fulfilled in
> Jesus Christ. Christan name itself comes from Christ-like or follower
> of Yesus Christ.
>
I do not agree with you. To muslims , your bible is already a
corrupted book , we do not need it for our faith. My contention
is that you christians do not even know your own bible.I keep
on asking for a response to the verses that were quoted. I
quoted them word for word with no changes. If you don't agree
on the interpretation , then what is the alternate interpretation?
You are a christian and your values originate from the bible.
If you had carefully looked at my posts , everything that you
christians throw at us muslims can be redirected back to you
harder as it is all in your bible. To me its simple , people who
whine and shout 'bwahahahahhahahahahahaha' cannot
respond hence the denial. All I am asking is very simple ,
what is your alternate interpretation?
> When confronted with your so-called 'proof', we can't help but
> compare, and find sharp contrast between the teaching and the living
> of Jesus Christ and that of your prophet Muhammat. While Jesus demands
> that we christians cast our guns off, your Muhammat who came about 700
> years later led a life full of and and to this very day inspires his
> followers to raise swords. Christ teaches heart circumcision, inner
> cleanliness, your prophet leads you to focus more on physical
> appearance or outward rituals. And looking into the matrimonial
> affairs of Muhammat as depicted in alquran, hadists, and other islamic
> histories, he can not be a prophet, not in christian standard. He
> should have refrained more on taking more wifes. When he saved Zainab
> to himself rather than saving the marriages of his adopted son, Zaid,
> he was degrading himself, dragging along Gabriel who conveyed the
> qoran verse allowing Muhammat to marry Zainab, even below his Arab
> contemporary.
>
Are you sure? The last time I checked Prophet Jesus (as) was
a Jew and he came to fulfill the laws and not to create new
ones (ref : matt 5:17-18). Prophet Jesus (as) asked you to cast
off your guns? Why was he then willing to fight with swords at
gethsemane? Isn't this jihad? Win or lose , its a different
matter. You tell me which great prophet did not fight or jihad
if called upon? Prophet Moses (as) did , Prophet David (as)
did. Samson in your bible committed 'suicide bombing'. If you
are referring to the current geopolitical issues , why did you
christians established the terrorist state of Israel in the mid
east. You gassed the jews in WW2 , the compensation should
come from europe and the christians. The answer is simple ,
you lot cannot keep your hands off the oil in the region hence
creating unstability in the region with the creation of the
terrorist and zionist state of israel. The ruling administration
of israel is zionist whom does not even follow the laws of
Prophet Moses (as).
Can you proof to me that Prophet Muhammad (saw)
slaughtered the jews in madinah and the pagans in mecca?
If the muslims committed genocide in India and in mid east,
there will not be any living hindu in india or christians in
egypt or the mid east. By the way 2000 years of christianity
in iraq is nearly and going to be wiped out due to the illegal
invasion. Who is responsible - you christians , not muslims.
Jesus did not teach heart circumcision , it was paul as
jesus himself was circumcised when he was 8 days old.
Circumcision is a rite under the covenant that Prophet
Abraham (as) had with god. If your religion comes under
the tree of Prophet Abraham (as) you have to observe the
covenant. No two ways about it.
Your values are from the bible , how many wives did
Prophet David (as) or Prophet Solomon (as) had? How
many wives did Prophet Abraham (as) had? These are
the great prophets in your bible. For the case of Zainab
, I can challenge you to show proof of the Prophet
Muhammad (saw) wrong doing. The Quran is the only
religious book advocating of monogamous marriage if
a person cannot afford it. Surah 4:3
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/4.htm
3. If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with
the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three
or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly
(with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right
hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you
from doing injustice.
Your bible does not have this conditions and restriction of
marriage. In actual case , in christianity you can marry any
number of wives. Is only political appleasement by the
church to institute such. So in the christian society it is
ok for a married man to have a mistress(es) and he won't
be persecuted by the law but if he marries more than one
the law persecute him. Where is the fairness to the female?
This happens and continue to happen in the christian
society.
> But again, it is up you to highly regard your prophet, as we have
> different standards.
>
What is your standard? As far as I know the standard for
you christians comes from your bible. What other
standards do you adhere to?
You want to talk about moral standards , consider the
following :
ref : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7535-2005Jan13.html
Looks like christians & christian missionaries have this
knack of surreptitiously trying to convert others under the
guise of trying to help. This includes kidnapping orphans
and trying to convert them. Worst still, then having the
plan of sending them back as missionaries years later.
This is just one case. However muslims do not resort to
such low tactics. Why don't you get the book 'Islam at
the crossroads by De Lacy O'Leary.
ref : http://bama.ua.edu/~msa/islam.html
excerpt : "History makes it clear however, that the legend
of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world
and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon
conquered races is one of the most fantastically
absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."
--De Lacy O'Leary, ISLAM AT THE CROSSROADS,
London, 1923, p. 8.
Do you know from 1960 upwards , the highest rate of revert
to Islam is from Europe and the US. The figures quadrupled
after 9/11.
ref : http://www.riseofislam.com/islam_in_america_03.html
Did anybody forced the westerners to convert? Answer is no.
> > Tomorrow we will look into the events and deeds of the founder
> > of christianity - the self proclaimed apostle paul whom have
> > never met , walked nor talked to Prophet Jesus (as). Before
> > he morphed into paul , he was known as saul of tarsus. He
> > was a bounty hunter hunting down christians either to be
> > killed or be fed to the lions.
>
> Isn't it queer for/of you to show us the who, whats and the whys of
> Rasul Paulus. Isn't more logical if you tell us more on your Rosul
> Muhammat?
Well you lot posted the article on Prophet Muhammad (saw)
being a narcissist. My post tomorrow is to examine the
character of your self proclaimed apostle paul. I will respond
to the article and then will turn the tables to proof that it is
actually paul of tarsus who was the full blown narcissist. I
have already stated to nick 'explain_pls' that you lot will look
bad when the article is being responded to.
Anyway you kind of stole my thunder here. I was going to
inform you of that tomorrow.
sam1528
ini si þíLL™
@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com :
> I do not agree with you. To muslims , your bible is already a
> corrupted book ,
Dont ya forget donie, this sammie boy has faith in that very same
corrupted book that it has "produced" the prophecy of his prophet's
comming
so in short, his islamic faith becomes stronger as he reads the
corrupted verses and lines in Bible about his Kang Mamad, the so-
called nabie
bwahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha, sammmy boy you do beat down
all the morons in the entire universe
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
donie
> On Aug 7, 6:26 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> At last your patience broke didn't it. Its good as at the very
> least you are responding. How does it feel when others hurl
> 'insults' at your religion? Christians have been doing that to
> muslims and when the same is being done in reverse - you
> cannot cry foul.
Sam, why don't we skip who is losing patience or not. Let's just focus
on your claim.
--snip--
>
>
> > Sam, it's ok you interpret and assume those bible verses as prophecy
> > for the coming of your prophet Muhammat. I don't mind. It's good that
> > bible can add your faith and your confidence on your prophit. You can
> > even even use them to your heart content as a campaign gimmick for
> > your Muhammat, but if you wave that to a simple christian face, they
> > will see you ridiculing yourself. Believe me, you have seen that in
> > this group. Christians see those bible verses has been fulfilled in
> > Jesus Christ. Christan name itself comes from Christ-like or follower
> > of Yesus Christ.
>
> I do not agree with you. To muslims , your bible is already a
> corrupted book , we do not need it for our faith. My contention
> is that you christians do not even know your own bible.I keep
> on asking for a response to the verses that were quoted. I
> quoted them word for word with no changes. If you don't agree
> on the interpretation , then what is the alternate interpretation?
Those verses foretell the coming of Jesus Christ.
--cut--
>
There are a lot of things about christianity that you don't understand
the way christians do, and you compound your misunderstanding with
mixing christianity with jewish. I think your problem stems from
understanding christianity the islam way. With regard to the
interpretation of Jesus Christ fulfilling the law, I don't have the
pretension of being able to explain in a simple manner. I can give you
a link, should you seriously feel you desire to learn to know obout
our Lord Jesus Christ. But please don't just read it using your islam
eyes, and air it to public. You will appear to be ridiculing
yourselves more, and as you said, since you considered the bible is
corrupted, it can not boost you islamic faith, anyway. So why bother
reading and interpreting bible your own way?
Christ teaches us to love even our own enemies, how can we commit our
self to the swords? He commanded RAsul Peter to cast off his sword,
and returned/healed the earlobe of the capturing soldier. We draw
more on repentance traits in OT characters, not the jihad side.
> Can you proof to me that Prophet Muhammad (saw)
> slaughtered the jews in madinah and the pagans in mecca?
I don't know specific jew killing in Mecca, but in Yatrib yes, at
least genocide for males, slavery for women at least for three tribes.
Proof? I don't know if your own hadis and Ibnu Ishac's SiratulRasul is
enough proof for you. For one, I don't think there is any jewish
communities in today Arab anymore, while recitals of Jews are quite
often found in you alquran and hadis.
> If the muslims committed genocide in India and in mid east,
> there will not be any living hindu in india or christians in
> egypt or the mid east. By the way 2000 years of christianity
> in iraq is nearly and going to be wiped out due to the illegal
> invasion. Who is responsible - you christians , not muslims.
>
> Jesus did not teach heart circumcision , it was paul as
> jesus himself was circumcised when he was 8 days old.
> Circumcision is a rite under the covenant that Prophet
> Abraham (as) had with god. If your religion comes under
> the tree of Prophet Abraham (as) you have to observe the
> covenant. No two ways about it.
You misunderstand me again, picking "heart circumcision" literally.
> Your values are from the bible , how many wives did
> Prophet David (as) or Prophet Solomon (as) had? How
> many wives did Prophet Abraham (as) had? These are
> the great prophets in your bible.
Those are characters in the old testament. Just because they were
happy go lucky marrying left and right, your prophet had to duplicate
them, thousand years apart? King David schemed to have Bethseba by
sending her husband Uriah to a front-line war. But David was rebuked
by Prophet Nathan. Your prophet took a liking at Zainab the very wife
of his adopted Son, Zaid. Aware of possibility of a certain
'predicament', suddenly Zaid processed to divorce Zainab to make room
for a 'great thing.' Instead of rebuking Muhammat, your Gabriel
mandated the marriage of Muhammat with Zainab after her 'iddah', with
a qoranic verse.
I am not saying that is the wrongdoing of Muhammat, it is just
appeared to be very jahilliah, shouldn't be committed by any spiritual
leader, with the caliber Islam wants to project. It is just too easy
for him to get any girls he wanted.
--cut--
> Your bible does not have this conditions and restriction of
> marriage. In actual case , in christianity you can marry any
> number of wives. Is only political appleasement by the
> church to institute such. So in the christian society it is
I am comfortable with that condition. I don't think God inspired
religious books need to state you can marry 4 wifes or nine wifes. As
mankind has god-given wisdom, all we have to do is read between the
lines and as we can see today, we have civil law, and church circulars
as you mention, that already govern such practices. You can also, in
fact you do, issue relevant Fatwas to regulate the issues of polygamy,
monogamy or polyandry. Religious books, as I understand should deal
more on more spiritual side of living in this world.
> > But again, it is up you to highly regard your prophet, as we have
> > different standards.
>
--cut--
>
> Well you lot posted the article on Prophet Muhammad (saw)
> being a narcissist. My post tomorrow is to examine the
Which one? Let's hear from you on that. I believe you will enlighten
us more on Islam, rather than trying to discuss Rosul Paulus who has
nothing to do with boosting your faith, as you said, but only
ridiculing yourself more in my eyes. You can do it Sam, inshaallah?
Waraqah ™
1. Tempat kuburan
2. Tempat persembunyian
3. Tempat buang air (berak)
4. Tempat mainan roh-roh Iblis
Silakan mulai berdebat....he he he he
<sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84fb83d5-09db-491d...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> Sam, why don't we skip who is losing patience or not. Let's just focus
> on your claim.
>
So say you ... I have got no problems with it.
> --snip--
>
> > I do not agree with you. To muslims , your bible is already a
> > corrupted book , we do not need it for our faith. My contention
> > is that you christians do not even know your own bible.I keep
> > on asking for a response to the verses that were quoted. I
> > quoted them word for word with no changes. If you don't agree
> > on the interpretation , then what is the alternate interpretation?
>
> Those verses foretell the coming of Jesus Christ.
>
Then you have got to show the proof and not just sweeping
it with a broad brush. I have listed the verses. What is the
interpretation from your side? I provided the interpretation
from my end with tests to the interpretation. You have not
provided such. Following up on what you mentioned before,
we need to show proof when making a claim. You also nee
to do one better ...... you have got to apply tests to the verses
when making such claims. I need to see that from you.
> --cut--
>
>
>
>
>
--snip--
I disagree. There is no such thing as mixing christianity with
jewish beliefs. Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) was a jew , therefore
whether you like it or not the jewish elements will have to
be included. If you claim of such , what you are saying is
that you are only restricted to the NT. Then why bother to
have the OT in your bible. What you are doing is trying to
throw away whatever in the bible that does not fit your
outlook or belief of say 'christian love'. Things does not
happen this way ...... if you take upon the book , you need
to take all of it.
I am not interpreting your bible in the islamic way. I am
calling it as it is. I did not hide anything. For example ,
christians believe that it was Prophet Isaac (as) whom
was involved in the covenant with god. However if you
look into the book of genesis , you will see that this is
not so. Per gen17 Prophet Abraham (as) and Prophet
Ishmael (as) have already been circumcised before the
birth of Prophet Isaac (as). Circumcision is one of the
rites of the covenant with god. Therefore you need to
close the covenant first then execute the rites. If you
claim of Prophet Isaac (as) being involved in the
covenant , then it is already contradictory as he was
circumcised when he was 8 days old. You don't
execute the rites before closing the covenant due to
the fact that you won't even know what will the rites
be before closure of the covenant.
This is the same as when we read and interpret the
Quran. We muslims read and interpret it in a critical
manner. That is why you have revered teachers such
as maliki , ghazali , jaafar etc. The tafseer of the
Quran is a group activity that each can present his/her
views and then be challenged. To me thats healthy.
If you think I am ridiculing myself , why until now folks
like 'mbill' or 'nabi palsu' or to an extent your good self
are not challenging my views? At least now you are
talking ... thats good , those 2 guys are just all bark
no bite. It tells me something , either you are not
confident of yourself or you do not have an alternate
interpretation and tests of the verses that were stated.
My feeling ..... its the latter.
> Christ teaches us to love even our own enemies, how can we commit our
> self to the swords? He commanded RAsul Peter to cast off his sword,
> and returned/healed the earlobe of the capturing soldier. We draw
> more on repentance traits in OT characters, not the jihad side.
>
Thats where I think you have erred. Prophet Isa/Jesus
(as) beef was with the pharisees. The fight was with and
among them as the pharisees wanted to harm him as
they have already rejected his teachings and message.
However Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) had not forseen the fact
that the pharisees used the romans to their aid (in the
same vein similar to what israel is using the US).
Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) surrendered as it would have
been foolish to continue as all of them would have been
slaughtered when coming up against the roman soldiers.
However one of his disciples tried to lob off the head of
one the pharisees and only managed to cut off their
servant's ear. Only in luke that Prophet Jesus (as)
healed the ear which arise the question of consistancy.
Does Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) actions mirror repentance?
I don't think so. He was defiant all the way and even in
the so called kangaroo court. Your interpretation of him
being repentant is weak. If he was repentant , he would
have begged for forgiveness. However Prophet Isa/Jesus
(as) was steadfast in his beliefs , teachings and message.
This is the trait of a true jihad. He strived in the way of
god against injustice. Winning or losing is secondary.
> > Can youproofto me that Prophet Muhammad (saw)
> > slaughtered the jews in madinah and the pagans in mecca?
>
> I don't know specific jew killing in Mecca, but in Yatrib yes, at
> least genocide for males, slavery for women at least for three tribes.Proof? I don't know if your own hadis and Ibnu Ishac's SiratulRasul is
> enoughprooffor you. For one, I don't think there is any jewish
> communities in today Arab anymore, while recitals of Jews are quite
> often found in you alquran and hadis.
>
Since you claimed that you have the hadiths and ibn Ishaq's
narration then you will have to do some fact finding. There
was an agreement with the jews (lets take bani quraiza).
You need to find out the contents of the agreement , who
broke the agreement. Who was the judge that delivered
the verdict and under what laws. That I challenge you. I
want you to find that out as I want you to discuss that
ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism
excerpt : '.... Iran contains the most number of Jews among
Muslim countries and Uzbekistan and Turkey have
the next largest communities....'
so much so for the axis of evil .....
with me.
--snip--
>
> You misunderstand me again, picking "heart circumcision" literally.
>
Sorry , I do not think I misunderstood. It wasn't Prophet Isa/
Jesus (as) who taught you 'heart circumcision'. Rather it was
the teaching of paul.
--snip--
>
> Those are characters in the old testament. Just because they were
> happy go lucky marrying left and right, your prophet had to duplicate
> them, thousand years apart? King David schemed to have Bethseba by
> sending her husband Uriah to a front-line war. But David was rebuked
> by Prophet Nathan. Your prophet took a liking at Zainab the very wife
> of his adopted Son, Zaid. Aware of possibility of a certain
> 'predicament', suddenly Zaid processed to divorce Zainab to make room
> for a 'great thing.' Instead of rebuking Muhammat, your Gabriel
> mandated the marriage of Muhammat with Zainab after her 'iddah', with
> a qoranic verse.
>
They were not happy go lucky marrying left and right. Its
their culture. This was only stopped in about 1950s in the
US. David was rebuked but he still went ahead didn't he?
The story of zainab you got was probably from al-tabari who
quoted that from waqidi as the source. However you have
conveniently left out the fact that in the next page or so ,
al-tabari himself quoted that such source was highly
unreliable. This story was exploited by people like william
muir and the like.
The article to explain such as as follows :
ref : http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/zaynab_bint_jahsh.htm
Her marriage to zayd was not a happy one as zayd was a
former slave. They parted although zayd was advised against
divorce. The marriage of zainab to the prophet serves several
things :
- the prevalent custom was that divorcees could not remarry.
by that marriage this corrupt custom was abolished and at
the very least she gained dignity out of all that happened.
- zayd was an adopted son. there is no blood tie between him
and the prophet. there is no incest or whatever thus breaking
the prevalent custom of considering such marriage to be of
incest.
> I am not saying that is the wrongdoing of Muhammat, it is just
> appeared to be very jahilliah, shouldn't be committed by any spiritual
> leader, with the caliber Islam wants to project. It is just too easy
> for him to get any girls he wanted.
>
Then proof to me that he wanted to get any girls he desired.
Of his wives , how many were divorcees? If he was really
a leecher , all of his wives would have been young single
women.
This further points to the fact that in his early days of his
prophethood , the quraish wanted to stop him and they
offered him a bribe of any amount of money and any women
that he desired.
ref : http://www.iqra.net/muslimstudents1/seniorsessay1
excerpt : '.... The leaders of the Quraish did not accept
the new religion. Some of them tried to bribe
Prophet Muhammad (saw) with money and
power, including an offer to make him a king.
But our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw)
refused to abandon Allah’s message...'
He was married to the older khatijah and he could have
said to hell with her and become a king will all the money
and power (plus women). He refused ..... your argument
crumbles on its own.
> --cut--
>
> > Your bible does not have this conditions and restriction of
> > marriage. In actual case , in christianity you can marry any
> > number of wives. Is only political appleasement by the
> > church to institute such. So in the christian society it is
>
> I am comfortable with that condition. I don't think God inspired
> religious books need to state you can marry 4 wifes or nine wifes. As
> mankind has god-given wisdom, all we have to do is read between the
> lines and as we can see today, we have civil law, and church circulars
> as you mention, that already govern such practices. You can also, in
> fact you do, issue relevant Fatwas to regulate the issues of polygamy,
> monogamy or polyandry. Religious books, as I understand should deal
> more on more spiritual side of living in this world.
>
I think you are off the mark. It could be true with christianity
but not with islam as it encompass spiritual and physical
matters and governance. What is the christian solution to
the fact that women has outnumber men in this world?
ref : http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0215-10.htm
excerpt : '.... women make up 52 percent of the world's
population .....
Therefore there is a discrepancy of 4% (of about 6 billion
people ~ 240 mil). Lets take off 2% for women above the
ages of 60 and below 20 (this still doesn't mean that
people above 60 do not want to have a relationship).
There is still about 120 mil of women in excess. Let us
discount gays for this time in being.
Following your christian law of no polygamy , these women
will either be mistresses or public property (ie. moving
from one married man to another). I am very sure only a
small % of the ~120 mil will not want to have a relationship.
Every human will want a relationship , its their natural
instinct or 'fitrah'. What is your christian solution?
>
--snip--
>
> Which one? Let's hear from you on that. I believe you will enlighten
> us more on Islam, rather than trying to discuss Rosul Paulus who has
> nothing to do with boosting your faith, as you said, but only
> ridiculing yourself more in my eyes. You can do it Sam, inshaallah?
You perceive it as being me in ridicule but deep down
I sense frustration in you lot as until now you have not
managed to refute what I stated. I quoted directly from
your bible. People like nick 'mbill' and nick 'nabi plasu'
doesn't pose anything to me. They can only whine and
bark 'bwahahahahahaha' but have done nothing to even
touch me. Whereas I am hitting your christian theology
left and right and these guys/you are frustrated.
sam1528
donie
> On Aug 8, 12:41 am, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
> > > I do not agree with you. To muslims , your bible is already a
> > > corrupted book , we do not need it for our faith. My contention
> > > is that you christians do not even know your own bible.I keep
> > > on asking for a response to the verses that were quoted. I
> > > quoted them word for word with no changes. If you don't agree
> > > on the interpretation , then what is the alternate interpretation?
>
> > Those verses foretell the coming of Jesus Christ.
>
> Then you have got to show the proof and not just sweeping
> it with a broad brush. I have listed the verses. What is the
> interpretation from your side? I provided the interpretation
> from my end with tests to the interpretation. You have not
> provided such. Following up on what you mentioned before,
> we need to show proof when making a claim. You also nee
> to do one better ...... you have got to apply tests to the verses
> when making such claims. I need to see that from you.
>
Sam, you are asking for a proof again. Let's go back a bit. You are
the one who contain that your prophet muhammat is foretold in
Christianity bible. I argued it should be you moslems supporting your
own claim. You shouldn't ask christians to proof that your claim is
right. You agree, but then you ask :"then what is the alternate
interpretation?" I replied : "Those verses foretell the coming of
Jesus Christ."
Gee.. Sam, you are asking us to prove our own interpretation of our
own books. We can certainly provide you how we arive at our
interpretation, but I can tell you from the onset that that wouldn't
serve the purpose of supporting your claim. Our interpretation would
only be 'proving' to our own eyes. Aren't you emotional rather than
logical expecting Christians to buy your interpretation of the
selected bible verses you quote? What would then that serve? You
already state that you don't believe in the bible, corrupted, you say.
You also say that you already have enough faith and confidence of the
prophethood of Muhammat without bible materials.
But then, I thought, who new that my friend Sam was really someone for
the catch of the 'parakletos', the Holy Spirit? Here is a lengthy
refutation of the not so famous claim, which necessarily contain our
interpretation and the tests, as you term it, Sam. Happy reading!
Is Muhammad Foretold in the Bible?
by John Gilchrist
Contents:
MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE?
MOSES AND THE PROPHET
1. The Word of God in the Prophet's mouth
2. A prophet from among their Brethren
3. A Prophet like unto Moses
4. Jesus - the Prophet like unto Moses
JESUS AND THE COMFORTER
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE?
During 1975 Ahmed Deedat held a series of lectures at the Durban City
Hall, two of which set out to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the
Bible. The first lecture, entitled "What the Bible Says About
Muhammad", dealt with the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18.18 in the Old
Testament, and in it Mr. Deedat sought to show that Moses was
predicting the coming of Muhammad when speaking of a prophet to follow
him who would be like him. During 1976 Mr. Deedat published this
lecture in booklet form under the same title. In his second lecture in
1975 he spoke on "Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ" and here
he endeavoured to prove that Jesus was foretelling the coming of
Muhammad when he exhorted his disciples to wait for the coming of the
one he called the Comforter who, he said, would follow him.
Deedat's lectures were typical of numerous similar attempts that have
been made by Muslim writers over the years to make these two
particular prophecies fit Muhammad. The effort has generally arisen
from a verse in the Qur'an which states that the coming of Muhammad
was foretold in the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. It reads:
Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they
find mentioned in their own (Scriptures) - in the Law and the Gospel.
Surah 7.157
It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Muslims have searched
exhaustively through the "Law and the Gospel" (the Tawrat and the
Injil, the Old and New Testaments respectively) for proof that these
two books indeed contain prophecies of the coming of Muhammad. The
Qur'an seems to suggest that these prophecies would be found in the
Torah and the Gospel without much difficulty, but when Muslims have
applied themselves to finding these alleged predictions, they have
been unpleasantly surprised to discover that in these two books it is
Jesus who is the subject of the many prophecies in them and not
Muhammad. The birth of Jesus, his ministry, parables, miracles,
crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, second coming, deity, glory and
honour are the concerns of the prophetic texts of the Torah and the
Gospel, and so extensively do these prophecies herald his advent as
the ultimate climax of God's revealed truth and love towards men that
one cannot help but be struck by the fact that the Bible makes no
allowance for the anti-climax of a "prophet" to follow him. Such
prophecies are conspicuous only by their absence.
Nevertheless, spurred on by the assurance in the Qur'an that the Bible
indeed foretells the coming of Muhammad, Muslims have made every
effort to find these prophecies. The obvious dearth of material in
support of their quest has led most of them to wisely rely solely on
the two prophecies we have already mentioned - one in each of the
Testaments -, to prove their claim. Others, like Kaldani and
Vidyarthy, have unwisely tried to apply every major prophecy in the
Bible to Muhammad (including striking predictions of the crucifixion,
atoning work and resurrection of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53 for
example!), but the shameless twists of interpretation that they have
been compelled to resort to together with an abdication of all reason
in their efforts to prove their points has fortunately restrained
other Muslims from following in their steps and they have accordingly
relied solely on the two prophecies we have mentioned, one by Moses
and one by Jesus respectively.
We are in the circumstances entitled to presume that these two
prophecies are believed by the Muslims to be the strongest in support
of their claims. Accordingly, if it can be proved that these texts do
not in any way refer to Muhammad, or anticipate his advent or
prophethood, then the whole theory that Muhammad is foretold in the
Bible must simultaneously fall to the ground.
We shall therefore in this booklet generously consider the strongest
evidence of the Muslims that Muhammad is foretold in these two
passages and will, in the light of the context of each passage, and of
other factors crucial to a proper determination of the matter, decide
whether the evidence is sufficient to prove the point or whether the
case must ultimately be found to go against them.
It is universally accepted in all civilised communities that if a
matter is to be determined properly, all the relevant evidence must be
weighed together and all irrelevant evidence must be ignored
accordingly. No matter how great the temptation may be to ignore the
relevant facts while giving undue weight to the irrelevant ones if
this is the only way a matter can be decided in one's favour, the man
who really loves the truth and seeks for it will resist the
temptation. It is our sincere hope that the Muslims who read this
document will do likewise.
MOSES AND THE PROPHET
"I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their
brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to
them all that I command him".
Deuteronomy 18.18
Whenever Muslims seek to establish that Muhammad is foretold in the
Torah, the Old Testament, they invariably refer to this verse as the
one obvious prophecy in support of their claim. They argue that the
prophet who was promised by God to Moses was Muhammad because:
1. The Qur'an is allegedly the Word of God and therefore, as Muhammad
recited each passage that was delivered to him, he had the words of
God put into his mouth in accordance with the words of this prophecy;
2. The prophet to come would be from among the brethren of the
Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites, because Israel (Jacob) and Ishmael
were both descended from Abraham, and the tribes who descended from
the twelve sons of Ishmael are therefore "brethren" of the tribes who
descended from the twelve sons of Israel. As Muhammad was the only
Ishmaelite to claim prophethood in the line of the Old Testament
prophets, they aver that the prophecy can only refer to him;
3. Muhammad was like Moses in so many ways that the prophecy can only
refer to him.
We shall consider these claims briefly and will do so in the light of
the context of the prophecy, for this is the only way that a correct
interpretation of the text can be obtained. Every intelligent
expositor of scripture knows that no passage can be fairly interpreted
if it is isolated from its context. Therefore it is essential to quote
from the whole passage in which the prophecy is found and the
following two extracts are of great importance:
The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have
no portion or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings by
fire to the Lord, and his rightful dues. They shall have no
inheritance among their brethren; the Lord is their inheritance as he
promised them.
Deuteronomy 18.1-2.
The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
among you, from your brethren - him shall you heed - just as you
desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when
you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, or see
this great fire any more, lest I die'. And the Lord said to me, 'They
have rightly said all that they have spoken. I will raise up for them
a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words
in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.
And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my
name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to
speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or
who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die'.
Deuteronomy 18.15-20.
We shall proceed to briefly consider the three points that supposedly
prove that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in the text and
thereafter will, in the light of the context of the passage, discover
precisely which prophet is referred to in the prophecy contained in
Deuteronomy 18.18.
1. THE WORD OF GOD IN THE PROPHET'S MOUTH.
Christians do not believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God but,
purely for the sake of argument, we shall proceed as if God did indeed
put his words in Muhammad's mouth to discover whether this might prove
that Muhammad is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18.18. In our
view the statement "I will put my words in his mouth" does not help to
identify the prophet referred to at all. It is true of every prophet
that God has put his words in his mouth. For God said to Jeremiah:
"Behold I have put my words in your mouth".
Jeremiah 1.9
Furthermore we also read in Deuteronomy 18.18 that the prophet to
follow Moses "shall speak to them all that I command him". Now we read
that Jesus once said to his disciples:
"For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me
has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I
know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I
say as the Father has bidden me".
John 12.49-50.
A similar text which illustrates this point is found in the great
prayer which Jesus prayed on the last night that he was with his
disciples. He said:
"I have given them the words which thou gavest me".
John 17.8
In no way, therefore, can the identity of the prophet in the text of
Deuteronomy 18.18 be established from the fact that God would put his
words in his mouth. With every prophet who is true this is the case
and the great prophet referred to in the text, who would be uniquely
like Moses in a way that none of the other prophets were, must
accordingly be identified from other sources.
2. A PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN.
Muslims allege that the expression "their brethren" in Deuteronomy
18.18 means the brethren of the Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites. In
this case, however, if we are truly to discover the real identity of
the prophet who would be like Moses, we must consider the expression
in its context.
God said, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among
their brethren." Of whom is God speaking when he speaks of "them" and
"their"? When we go back to the first two verses of Deuteronomy 18 we
find the answer:
"The Levitical priests, that is, all the tribe of Levi, shall have
no portion or inheritance with Israel ... they shall have no
inheritance among their brethren".
Deuteronomy 18.1-2.
It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the
tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven
tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of
interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow
that Deuteronomy 18.18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi
and the remaining tribes of Israel. Let us briefly examine the only
possible exposition of the prophecy that can lead to a correct
interpretation and identification of "their brethren". We need only
accentuate the relevant words from Deuteronomy 18.1-2 to discover the
only possible conclusion that can be drawn. The text reads:
"The tribe of Levi shall have no inheritance with ISRAEL. They
shall have no inheritance among THEIR BRETHEREN".
Therefore the only logical interpretation of Deuteronomy 18.18 can be:
"I will raise up for them (that is, the tribe of Levi) a prophet like
you from among their brethren (that is, one of the other tribes of
Israel)". Indeed throughout the Old Testament one often finds the
expression "their brethren" meaning the remaining tribes of Israel as
distinct from the tribe specifically referred to. Let us consider this
verse as an example:
But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of
their brethren, the children of Israel.
Judges 20.13
Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of
Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18.18,
therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of
the tribe of Levi. Again in Numbers 8.26 the tribe of Levi is
commanded to minister to "their brethren", that is, the remaining
tribes of Israel. In 2 Kings 24.12 the tribe of Judah is distinguished
from "their brethren", once again the remaining tribes of Israel.
(Further scriptures proving the point are Judges 21.22, 2 Samuel 2.26,
2 Kings 23.9, 1 Chronicles 12.32, 2 Chronicles 28.15, Nehemiah 5.1 and
others).
Indeed in Deuteronomy 17.15 we read that Moses on one occasion said to
the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king
over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your
brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one
from among your brethren" - no foreigner, be he Ishmaelite, Edomite or
whoever he may be, could be made King of Israel because he was not one
of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel.
At this stage, therefore, we have a fatal objection to the theory that
Muhammad is foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. He was an Ishmaelite and
accordingly is automatically disqualified from being the prophet whose
coming was foretold in that verse. The prophet was obviously to come
from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. God
said he would raise up a prophet for the Levites like Moses from among
"their brethren", that is, from one of the other tribes of Israel. As
we intend to prove that Jesus was the prophet whose coming was
foretold it will be appropriate to mention at this stage that he was
descended from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1.2, Hebrews 7.14). He is
therefore ably qualified to be the prophet who would be raised up from
among the brethren of the Levites.
3. A PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES.
The Islamic publications listed in the Bibliography to this booklet
are full of comparisons between Moses and Muhammad where evidence is
brought forward of certain likenesses between them. These publications
also produce many differences between Jesus and Moses as the authors
try to disprove that Jesus is the prophet whose coming was foretold in
Deuteronomy 18.18.
In his booklet "What the Bible Says About Muhummed" Mr. Deedat
produces a number of similarities between Moses and Muhammad which he
claims do not exist between Moses and Jesus. Most of these are
meaningless, however, and only serve to show the supreme uniqueness of
Jesus over against the whole human race. For example, Deedat argues
that Moses and Muhammad were both born naturally of human parents and
are buried on earth, whereas Jesus was born of a virgin-woman, had no
earthly father, and ascended to heaven (Deedat, What the Bible Says
About Muhummed", p. 7, 12). It is obvious that all men have natural
parents and go back to the dust, and all Mr. Deedat is doing is to
reveal certain ways in which Jesus was absolutely unique among men.
This does not help to identify the prophet predicted by Moses,
however.
In the publications referred to we do find occasionally more prominent
likenesses between Moses and Muhammad which do need to be analysed
more carefully. Three such comparisons are:
1. Moses and Muhammad became the lawgivers, military leaders, and
spiritual guides of their peoples and nations;
2. Moses and Muhammad were at first rejected by their own people, fled
into exile, but returned some years later to become the religious and
secular leaders of their nations;
3. Moses and Muhammad made possible the immediate and successful
conquests of the land of Palestine after their deaths by their
followers, Joshua and Umar respectively.
At the same time it is alleged in these publications that Jesus and
Moses were so different, according to Christian belief, that Jesus
cannot be the prophet referred to. Such differences are these:
1. Moses was only a prophet but, according to Christian belief, Jesus
is the Son of God;
2. Moses died naturally but Jesus died violently;
3. Moses was the national ruler of Israel which Jesus was not at any
time during his ministry here on earth.
We are constrained to ask: do these similarities and contrasts in any
way prove that Muhammad is the prophet like Moses whose coming was
foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18? It is the easiest of matters to show
that this sort of reasoning will in no way assist us to discover the
real identity of the prophet. Firstly, none of the alleged differences
between Moses and Jesus are of any importance. The Bible often calls
Jesus a prophet as well as the Son of God (see, for example, Matthew
13.57, 21.11, and John 4.44) and the fact that Jesus died violently is
hardly relevant to the issues at stake. Many prophets were killed by
the Jews for their testimonies, a fact to which both the Bible and the
Qur'an bear witness, (cf. Matthew 23.31, Surah 2.91). Furthermore the
Bible teaches that the Christian Church as a whole has replaced the
nation of Israel in this age as the collective object of God's special
favours. Likewise, whereas Moses led that nation during his life on
earth, so Jesus today heads the Church of God from his throne in
heaven above. In this respect, therefore, he is really like Moses.
Secondly, if we reverse the process we can show many similarities
between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad at the same time can be
contrasted with them. Some of these are:
1. Moses and Jesus were Israelites - Muhammad was an Ishmaelite. (This
is, as we have seen, a crucial factor in really determining the
identity of the prophet who was to follow Moses).
2. Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to perform God's work - Muhammad
was never in Egypt. Of Moses we read: "By faith he forsook
Egypt" (Hebrews 11.27). Of Jesus we read: "Out of Egypt have I called
my Son" (Matthew 2.15).
3. Moses and Jesus forsook great wealth to share the poverty of their
people which Muhammad did not. Of Moses we read: "He considered abuse
suffered for the Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of
Egypt" and that he chose "to share ill-treatment with the people of
God" (Hebrews 11.25-26). Of Jesus we read: "For you know the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he
became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2
Corinthians 8.9).
So we have similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad can be
contrasted with them. This shows how weak the Muslim method of
comparing Moses with Muhammad (while contrasting them with Jesus) is,
for it works both ways. How then can we truly identify the prophet who
was to be like Moses?
As there were numerous prophets down the ages, it is logical to assume
that this prophet would be uniquely like Moses in a way that none of
the other prophets were. Clearly the prophet to come would emulate him
in the exceptional and unique characteristics of his prophethood.
Indeed we would expect that God would give some indication in the
prophecy of the distinguishing features of this prophet who was to be
like Moses. We only have to refer to the context of the prophecy to
find this striking verse which very clearly gives us an indication of
the nature of the prophet to follow:
"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from
among you, from your brethren - him you shall heed - just as you
desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when
you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see
this great fire any more, lest I die' ".
Deuteronomy 18.15-16.
The prophet would be raised up just as God had raised Moses up as the
mediator of the covenant which he gave at Horeb. The Israelites
pleaded with Moses to become a mediator between them and God because
they did not wish to hear God's voice face to face, and God said "They
have rightly said all that they have spoken" (Deuteronomy 18.17). God
henceforth raised Moses up as the mediator of the covenant between
himself and Israel. We need also to consider that God spoke to Moses
in a very special way as well and in the Bible we read:
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks
to his friend.
Exodus 33.11
The Qur'an also teaches that God spoke directly to Moses in a way in
which he did not speak to other prophets (Surah 4.164). Furthermore,
to confirm the great mediatorial work which Moses was to perform, God
did great signs and miracles through him in the presence of all
Israel. Now as God had promised that the prophet to come would be like
him in this mediatorial work, we must conclude that the distinguishing
features of the prophet would be these:
1. He would be the direct mediator of a covenant between God and his
people;
2. He would know God face to face;
3. His office would be confirmed by great signs and wonders which he
would do by the power of God in the sight of all the nation of Israel.
This conclusion is in fact clearly established by these last words in
the Book of Deuteronomy:
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses,
whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and
wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh
and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty
power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in
the sight of all Israel.
Deuteronomy 34.10-12.
The three distinguishing features of Moses as a prophet are clearly
mentioned: he was the mediator between God and Israel, he knew the
Lord face to face, and he did great signs and wonders. The prophet
like him would obviously have to emulate these unique features of his
prophethood. Did Muhammad possess these exceptional characteristics by
which the prophet was to be recognised?
Firstly, whereas God spoke directly to Moses, so that he was a direct
mediator between God and the people of Israel, the Qur'an is alleged
to have come at all times from the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad and at no
time did God directly communicate it to him face to face, as the
Muslims themselves admit. He also did not mediate a covenant between
God and the people of Israel.
Secondly, Muhammad performed no signs and wonders. Although the Hadith
record some fanciful miracles, these are purely mythical, for the
Qur'an very clearly says of Muhammad that he performed no signs. In
Surah 6.37, when Muhammad's adversaries say "Why has no sign been sent
down to him from his Lord?", Muhammad is bidden to reply merely that
God could send one if he wanted to but had not done so. In the same
Surah we read that Muhammad said, "I have not that for which you are
impatient" (Surah 6.57), meaning signs and wonders such as Moses had.
He goes on to say that if he had had them, the dispute between him and
them would have been decided long ago.
Again in the same Surah Muhammad's adversaries say they will believe
if signs come from God, but he only replies that God has reserved them
because they would still disbelieve anyway (as indeed the Jews did
with Jesus - John 12.37). Furthermore the Qur'an also says that
Muhammad's adversaries in Mecca also once said to him:
"Why are not (signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to
Moses?"
Surah 28.48
The answer the Qur'an gives is much the same - they rejected the signs
of Moses anyway, so why do they now expect Muhammad to perform signs?
Nevertheless, in terms of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18.18, this was
a very poignant and significant observation for it plainly
distinguishes between Moses and Muhammad in the very important matter
of performing signs and wonders. How indeed could Muhammad possibly be
the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 if he was
not granted the power to perform the kind of signs and wonders
performed by Moses? In this case, therefore, he was definitely not
like Moses in one of the vital, distinguishing characteristics of his
prophethood. The Qur'an has its own testimony to this effect.
So we find that Muhammad was not a direct mediator between God and
man, nor could he do any signs and wonders to confirm his office.
Deuteronomy 34.11 makes it essential that the prophet like Moses would
do similar signs and wonders to those which Moses did, and as Muhammad
did not, we have a second fatal objection against the theory that he
is the prophet foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. We can conclude by
saying that whatever evidence the Muslims may produce in favour of
their assertion, the really relevant and crucial evidence needed to
prove the point is not only unfavourable in his case but in fact
fatally rules out the possibility that he might indeed be the prophet
of whom Moses spoke.
4. JESUS - THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES.
Considering now whether Jesus is the prophet referred to, let us begin
by answering a few typical objections raised by the Muslims. Firstly,
if he was the Christ, they say he could not be the prophet to follow
Moses, because the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ, and
the prophet (John 1. 19-21). The argument goes that John the Baptist
is believed by the Christians to have come in the spirit of Elijah,
Jesus was the Christ, and Muhammad, therefore, must have been the
prophet. We have already shown, however, that it is impossible for
Muhammad to be the prophet. In any even nothing conclusive can be
construed from the speculations of the Jews. They once said of Jesus:
"This is indeed the prophet" (John 7.40). On another occasion they
said he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16.14), on another "a
prophet" (Mark 6.15) and worse still thought of him as both Elijah
(Mark 6.15) and John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16.14).
It needs to be pointed out that the Bible does not teach that Elijah,
the Christ, and the prophet were to come in that order. The questions
put by the Jews to John, whether he was Elijah, the Christ, or the
prophet, merely expressed their own hopes and expectations of
figureheads to come. In the light of their confusion, however, we can
see that no serious consideration can be given to the distinctions
they made between the Christ and the prophet. It is also important to
note that the predictions of the prophet, etc., were made in the
reverse order in the Old Testament (the prophet was promised by Moses,
most of the prophecies of the coming Christ were set out in the
writings of the later prophets, and the promise of the coming of
Elijah only appears at the end of the book in Malachi 4.5).
Furthermore no deliberate distinction between the prophet and the
Christ was ever drawn in these prophecies and it is not surprising to
find the Jews in one breath proclaiming that Jesus was indeed both the
prophet and the Christ (John 7.40-41).
Another favourite objection is that Jesus died at the hands of the
Jews and God said, in Deuteronomy 18.20, that only the self-styled
prophets would die. Every prophet, however, died - many violently as
the Qur'an and the Bible jointly testify - and the mere physical death
of a prophet was certainly no evidence against his divine mission. God
obviously did not mean that every true prophet would not die! What he
meant was that a false prophet was to be put to death and would perish
eternally - and all his prophecies with him. Only Judgment Day will
reveal all the false prophets of the ages.
What we are ultimately concerned about is this - God gave a definite
promise that a prophet would arise like Moses who would mediate
another covenant and that signs would accompany this covenant to
confirm its heavenly origin. The very Bible that contains the prophecy
of the prophet to come confirms quite clearly that that prophet was
Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the
coming of Jesus Christ through all the prophets, appealed specifically
to Deuteronomy 18.18 as proof that Moses had done so (Acts 3.22).
Jesus himself said, "Moses wrote of me" (John 5.46) and it is
difficult to find elsewhere in the five books of Moses such a direct
prophecy of his advent. Peter chose Deuteronomy 18.18 as the one
distinctive prophecy in all the writings of Moses of the coming of
Jesus Christ into the world.
Likewise in Acts 7.37 Stephen appealed to Deuteronomy 18.18 as proof
that Moses was one of those who had "announced beforehand the coming
of the Righteous One", Jesus, the one whom the Jews had recently
betrayed and crucified.
After witnessing all the signs that Jesus had done and after taking
part in the New Covenant which he had mediated face-to-face between
God and his people, the early Christians knew that Jesus was the
prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. They also knew
that the prophecy of a prophet to come like Moses had been
supplemented by God's promise to the prophet Jeremiah that he would
mediate a new covenant in the days to come between himself and his
people. For in speaking of this new covenant God clearly distinguished
between it and the old covenant he had made with Moses and it was
therefore obvious that the one who would mediate it would be the
prophet whose coming Moses had foretold. God said:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon
their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. And
no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother,
saying 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know me, from the least of
them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".
Jeremiah 31.31-34.
"I will make a new covenant", God said, thereby confirming the promise
in Deuteronomy 18 that a prophet would come to mediate between God and
his people in the likeness of Moses. The promised new covenant was
directly compared with the covenant God had made with Moses. The
covenant would be different to that given through Moses but the
prophet who would mediate it would be like him. It is therefore quite
obvious that the prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy
18.18 would be the one to mediate this new covenant between God and
his people. And we read: "Therefore Jesus is the mediator of a new
covenant" (Hebrews 9.15). To ratify the first covenant we read that:
Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said,
'Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in
accordance with all these words'.
Exodus 24.8
Just as the first covenant had therefore been ratified by the blood of
a sacrificial offering, so the prophet to follow Moses would be like
him and would also ratify God's new covenant with blood. And Jesus
therefore said:
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood".
1 Corinthians 11.25
God's promise of the coming of a prophet like Moses who would mediate
a new covenant was one of the great blessings in the days preceding
the advent of Jesus Christ. Although God mediated the old covenant
through Moses, the blazing fire the Israelites saw together with the
tempests and other portents made them "entreat that no further
messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that
was given" (Hebrews 12.19-20). They all broke the covenant (Jeremiah
31.31) and died in the wilderness like flies (1 Corinthians 10.5).
They failed to receive the life that was promised to those who abided
by the old covenant.
Therefore God promised to their descendants that he would raise up
another prophet like Moses and would mediate a new covenant through
him which God's people would both give heed to and obtain the promised
blessings accompanying it - true knowledge of God, forgiveness of
sins, power to keep God's law, and the public favour of God (Jeremiah
31.33-34). This new covenant Jesus brought in in due time.
Unlike the Israelites under the old covenant who fell by the wayside,
the people of God through this new covenant have come "to the assembly
of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God
of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the
mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks
more graciously than the blood of Abel" (Hebrews 12.23-24). This is
the covenant which Jesus brought in.
Jesus therefore is the promised prophet like Moses for he mediated the
new covenant between God and his people. Like Moses (and in a way in
which no other prophet could compare), he also knew God face-to-face
and became a direct mediator between God and men. "I know him, I come
from him, and he sent me", Jesus said (John 7.29). Again he
proclaimed: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to
whom the Son chooses to reveal him" (Matthew 11.27). And yet again
Jesus said: "Not that anyone has ever seen the Father except him who
is from God - he has seen the Father" (John 6.46). And what further
evidence do we need that Jesus knew God face-to-face and is the direct
mediator between him and men than these two verses: "I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me ... Anyone
who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14.6, 14.9).
When he spoke to God face-to-face, "Moses did not know that the skin
of his face shone while he talked with him" (Exodus 34. 29-30). When
the image of the invisible God was directly revealed through the
transfigured face of Jesus Christ, "his face did shine as the
sun" (Matthew 17.2). No other prophet could claim such a distinction -
no one else knew God face-to-face in such a way that his face shone
while he communed with him.
Not only was the new covenant mediated through Jesus who knew God face-
to-face as Moses had done, but he too performed great signs and
wonders to confirm his mediatorial work. One of the greatest signs
that Moses did was to control the sea: "Moses stretched out his hand
over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east
wind" (Exodus 14.21). Although other prophets had power over rivers
(Joshua 3.13, 2 Kings 2.14), no other prophet emulated him in
controlling the sea until Jesus came and we read that his disciples
exclaimed "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea
obey him?" (Matthew 8.27). He caused a raging storm on the Sea of
Galilee to cease with just three words: "Peace - be still" (Mark
4.39).
Another of the great signs that Moses did was the feeding of the
Israelites with bread from heaven. When the Israelites at the time of
Jesus saw him perform a similar miracle by feeding no less than five
thousand people with just a few loaves of bread they were convinced
that he was the promised prophet.
When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, 'This
is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world'.
John 6.14
When they saw the sign, they said "This is the prophet". They knew
well enough that the promised prophet would be recognised among other
things by the performance of signs similar to those which Moses had
done. When Jesus gave no indication of repeating the sign, the
Israelites recalled that Moses had performed his feat for forty years
unabated. So they said to Jesus, "What sign do you do that we may see
and believe you?" (John 6.30), appealing to Moses' act of sustaining
the lives of their forefathers in the wilderness. Jesus replied:
"I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from
heaven that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread
which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will
live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the
world is my flesh".
John 6.48-51.
In every way he gave proof that he was the prophet who was to come -
one to mediate a covenant like that mediated through Moses at Horeb -
one who would know God face-to-face - one who would perform great
signs and wonders as Moses had done. In every way the Jews were right
on this one point when they said "This is really the prophet" (John
7.40).
So it is proved that Muhammad is not foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 but
rather that the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse was
Jesus Christ. We shall go on to see that if Muhammad is not foretold
on the Old Testament, neither is he foretold in the New Testament.
We shall again see that Jesus Christ is the climax of all prophecy in
all the revealed scriptures of God. For all the promises, revelations
and blessings of God are vested in him - the fountainhead of the love
and favour of God towards men.
For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we
utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God.
2 Corinthians 1.20
We shall also see, even more clearly, that in the Torah and the Gospel
there is only one Saviour, one man alone through whom the favour of
God can be obtained. While there were many prophets in ages past -
both true and false - yet for us there is only one Lord and one
Saviour - Jesus Christ. Again it will be seen how deeply God wishes to
impress this truth upon all men that they may believe in and follow
Jesus Christ into the Kingdom of Heaven.
For all who do not heed his words or believe in him with all their
hearts, there remains only a "fearful prospect of judgment" (Hebrews
10.27) when God will fulfill his warning in Deuteronomy 18.19 by
requiring of them their unbelief in the Saviour he sent and he will
surely dismiss them, one and all, from his presence for ever and ever.
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and
your household.
Acts 16.31
JESUS AND THE COMFORTER
Whenever Muslims seek to prove that Muhammad is foretold in the New
Testament, they immediately appeal to the promise of Jesus that the
"Comforter" would follow him and claim that this Comforter was
Muhammad (particularly as in the Qur'an, Jesus is alleged to have
foretold the coming of Muhammad in Surah 61.6 in similar language).
Whereas the Revised Standard Version uses the word "Counsellor" rather
than "Comforter", we shall use the word "Comforter" throughout this
chapter because it is more familiar to the Muslims. The texts where
the Comforter is mentioned by Jesus are:
"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another
Comforter, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the
world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you
know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you".
John 14.16-17.
"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance
all that I have said to you".
John 14.26
"But when the Comforter comes, whom I shall send you from the
Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he
will bear witness to me".
John 15.26
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I
go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you;
but if I go, I will send him to you".
John 16.7
It is generally alleged by Muslims that the Greek word
"paracletos" (meaning Comforter, Counsellor, Advocate, etc., in
effect, one who unites men to God) is not the original word but that
Jesus in fact foretold the coming of Muhammad by name and that the
translation of his name into Greek (or at least the meaning of his
name in Greek) is "periklutos", that is, the "praised one".
There is not a shred of evidence in favour of the assertion that the
original word was "periklutos". We have thousands of New Testament
manuscripts pre-dating Islam and not one of these contains the word
"periklutos". In view of the fact that Muslims are prone to levelling
false allegations that Christians are regularly changing the Bible, it
is rather intriguing to find that they have no scruples about doing
this themselves when it suits them to do so. In any event a cursory
reading of the texts where the word "paracletos" appears will show
that this is the only word that suits the context as I will show in
one instance later on in this chapter.
Some wiser Muslims admit that "paracletos" is correct, but they claim
in any event that Muhammad was the Comforter whom Jesus was referring
to. Let us briefly examine some of the texts in a truly exegetical
manner to discover whether Muhammad is indeed the Comforter whose
coming Jesus foretold.
It is quite obvious from the four texts quoted that Comforter, Holy
Spirit, and Spirit of Truth are interchangeable terms and that Jesus
is speaking of the same person in each instance. The one obvious fact
that emerges is that the Comforter is a spirit. (The fact that Jesus
always speaks of the Spirit in the masculine gender in no way suggests
that the Comforter must be a man as some of the publications in the
Bibliography suggest. God himself is always spoken of in both the
Bible and the Qur'an in the masculine gender and God is spirit - John
4.24. In the same way Jesus always speaks of the Comforter as a spirit
and not as a man).
If we apply sound exegesis to John 14.16-17 we shall discover no less
than eight reasons why the Comforter cannot possibly be Muhammad.
1. "He will give YOU another Comforter".
Jesus promised his disciples that God would send the Comforter to
them. He would send the Spirit of Truth to Peter, and to John, and to
the rest of the disciples - not to Meccans. Medinans or Arabians.
2. "He will give you ANOTHER Comforter".
If, as Muslims allege, the original word was periklutos and that
Christians changed it into paracletos, then the sentence would have
read, "He will give you another praised one". This statement is both
out of place in its context and devoid of support elsewhere in the
Bible. Jesus is never called the "periklutos" in the Bible (the word
appears nowhere in the Bible) so it is grossly unlikely that he would
have said "He will give you another praised one" when he never used
that title for himself. Worse still, as the Muslims allege that he
actually foretold the coming of Muhammad by mentioning his name, the
sentence in that case would have read "He will give you another
Muhammad". The further the Muslims try to press the point, the more
absurd it tends to become.
John 16.12-13 makes it clear that the word "paracletos" is obviously
the correct one. The text reads: "I have yet many things to say to
you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he
will guide you into all the truth". In other words, I have been your
Comforter, your paracletos, and have many things to tell you, but I
send the Spirit of Truth to you, another Comforter, another
paracletos.
In 1 John 2.1 we read that Christians have an "advocate" with the
Father, "Jesus Christ the Righteous", and the word translated
"advocate" is paracletos in the Greek. So Jesus is our paracletos, our
Comforter and advocate with the Father, and he promised to give his
disciples another Comforter. It is therefore logical to find that
Jesus promised another paracletos when he himself was described as the
paracletos of his followers, but it is illogical to suggest that he
would speak of "another periklutos" when the word was never used to
describe him in the first place.
3. "To be with you FOREVER".
When Muhammad came he did not stay with his people forever but died in
632 AD and his tomb is in Medina where his body has lain for over 1300
years. Nevertheless Jesus said that the Comforter, once he had come,
would never leave his disciples, but would be with them forever.
4. "The Spirit of Truth whom the world CANNOT receive".
The Qur'an says that Muhammad came as a universal messenger to men
(Surah 34.28). If so, Jesus was not referring to Muhammad for he said
that the world cannot receive the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth.
5. "You KNOW him".
It is quite obvious from this statement that the disciples knew the
Spirit of Truth. As Muhammad was only born more than five hundred
years later, it certainly could not be him. The next clause brings out
just how the disciples knew him. At this stage we can see quite
clearly that the Comforter is a spirit who was in the disciples'
presence already.
6. "He dwells WITH you".
Where did the Comforter dwell with them? From various verses,
especially John 1.32, we can see that the Spirit was in Jesus himself
and so was with the disciples.
7. "He will be IN you".
Here the death-blow is dealt to the theory that Muhammad is the
Comforter, the Spirit of Truth. As the Spirit was in Jesus, so he
would be in the disciples as well. The Greek word here is "en" and
this means "right inside". So Jesus was in fact saying "he will be
right inside you".
8. The last reason is really a re-emphasis of the first one. Do you
notice how often Jesus addresses his own disciples when he speaks of
the sphere of influence of the Comforter? "You know him ... he dwells
with you ... he will be in you". Quite clearly the disciples were to
anticipate the coming of the Comforter as a spirit who would come to
them just after Jesus had left them. No other interpretation can
possibly be drawn from this text. Only wishful thinking makes the
Muslims allege that Muhammad was foretold by Jesus, but a practical
interpretation of the texts destroys this possibility.
Let us read how the Spirit came to Jesus: "The Holy Spirit descended
upon him in bodily form, as a dove" (Luke 3.22). We read that the
Spirit, the Comforter, came to the disciples in a similar way just
after the ascension of Jesus (as Jesus told them he would): "And there
appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on them.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2.3-4). He was
with the disciples in the person of Jesus while he was still with
them, and he was in the disciples from the day of Pentecost. We thus
see the prediction Jesus made in John 14.17 duly fulfilled in the
coming of the Holy Spirit.
Within only ten days after the ascension of Jesus, the disciples duly
received the Comforter as he was promised to them by Jesus. He had
told them to wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit, the Comforter,
should come (Acts 1.4-8) as indeed he did while they were all together
praying for his advent in the city. Muhammad is right out of this
picture.
Moving on now to John 16.7 (quoted earlier), the whole meaning of this
verse also becomes clear from the statement of Jesus, "I have many
things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (John 16.12).
Jesus also said: "It is to your advantage that I go away" (John 16.7).
The disciples could not bear his teaching now because they were
ordinary men devoid of power to comprehend or apply what he said. The
Spirit of Truth was indeed in Jesus, but was not yet in his disciples,
so they were unable to follow the spiritual elements in his teaching.
But after the ascension they received the Spirit and could now
communicate and understand his teaching because the Spirit of Truth
was in them as well. That is why Jesus said "it is to your advantage
that I go away". This is made equally clear elsewhere in the Bible:
What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man
conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him, God has
revealed to us through the Spirit. For what person knows a man's
thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So no one
comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have
received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from
God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
1 Corinthians 2.9-13.
Paul makes it plain that the Spirit had already been given and if it
had not, it could not have been to any advantage to the disciples to
be without Jesus once he had ascended to heaven.
So it is abundantly proved that Muhammad is not the Spirit of Truth,
the Comforter, whose coming Jesus foretold. Who is the Comforter then?
He is the very Spirit of the living God as can be seen from some of
the quotations already given. On the day when the Comforter duly came
upon the disciples, his coming was accompanied by a tremendous sound,
"like the rush of a mighty wind" (Acts 2.2). When the Jews heard this,
they rushed together to see what was happening. Peter declared to them
all:
"This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And in the last
days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all
flesh' ".
Acts 2.16-17.
The Comforter, the Spirit of God, had come down on the disciples as
Jesus had promised and was to be given to believing Christian men and
women from every nation under the sun. But notice how Peter linked the
coming of the Spirit with the ascension of Christ:
"This Jesus God raised up and of that we are all witnesses. Being
therefore exacted at the right hand of God, and having received from
the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this
which you see and hear".
Acts 2.32-33.
Clearly the coming of the Comforter was inseparably linked to the
risen, ascended glory of Jesus in the highest place that heaven
affords. The Comforter is also called "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans
8. 9) and the reason is plain from what Jesus said:
1. "He will glorify me" (John 16.14).
2. "He will bear witness to me" (John 15.26).
3. "He will convince the world concerning sin because they do not
believe in me" (John 16. 8-9).
4. "He will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16.14).
5. "He will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to
you" (John 14.26).
Quite obviously the great work of the Comforter is to bring people to
Jesus, to make them see him as Saviour and Lord, and to draw them to
him. The Comforter was given so that the glory of Jesus might be
revealed to men and in men. A beautiful example of this is given by
the Apostle John:
His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was
glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and
done to him.
John 12.16
Without the Spirit, they had no understanding, but when they received
the Spirit after Jesus was glorified, then they remembered as Jesus
said they would. John illustrates this in this passage as well:
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and
proclaimed, 'If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who
believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart will flow
rivers of living water'. Now this he said about the Spirit, which
those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had
not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 7.37-39.
As soon as Jesus was glorified the Spirit was given so that the glory
of Jesus in heaven might become real to men here on earth. As Peter
said (Acts 2.33), once Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, the
Spirit was freely given to his disciples.
Again Peter said, "The God of our fathers glorified Jesus" (Acts
3.13). We cannot see or comprehend this glory of Jesus here on earth
(and Jesus himself said, "I do not receive glory from men" John 5.41),
but he sent the Spirit so that we might behold this glory by the eye
of faith. As Jesus himself said to his disciples of the Spirit:
"He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it
to you. All that the Father has is mine, therefore I said that he will
take what is mine and declare it to you".
John 16.14-15.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and he is given to all true
believers so that the glory of Jesus in heaven may become real to men
on earth. John makes it plain how a man receives the Holy Spirit:
Now this he spoke about the Spirit, which those who BELIEVED in
him were to receive.
John 7.39
To receive the Comforter, the Spirit of God, one must believe in Jesus
and surrender body and soul to him. Without the Spirit no one sees or
believes in the glory of Christ, but for those who are his true
followers and who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.2),
Peter says:
Without having seen him, you love him, though you do not now see
him, you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy.
As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 1.8-9.
The distinction between those who have received the Spirit and those
who have not, those who have beheld the glory of Christ and those who
have not, comes out very clearly as Peter continues to speak to his
fellow-believers:
To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do
not believe, 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become
the head of the corner'.
1 Peter 2.7
The Bible says much about the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, but the
great and most handsome work of the Spirit is summed up in Jesus'
words:
"HE WILL GLORIFY ME".
John 16.14
Although the Spirit had been at work in the world before the advent of
Jesus Christ, and had indeed filled many of the great prophets and men
of old with a longing for the coming Christ, he only finally united
himself to men, and men to God, and indeed true believers to one
another after the resurrection and ascension of Christ to heaven.
Jesus Christ spoke to his OWN disciples of the coming of the Comforter
because the Spirit was sent down to comfort and regenerate all true
believers in Jesus. This is one of the most significant and consistent
elements of the teaching of Jesus about the Comforter. The prime
purpose of the coming of the Comforter - immediately after the
ascension of Jesus - was to draw men to him so that those who are
influenced by the work of the Comforter will therefore become
followers of Jesus. It is further evidence against the theory that
Muhammad was the Comforter for, whereas the Comforter would not speak
of himself but only of Jesus, Muhammad drew attention away from Jesus
to himself, describing himself as the ultimate apostle of God to be
followed and obeyed. The Comforter was never to do a thing like this.
Jesus made it plain that the Comforter would draw the attention and
faith of all men to himself and would glorify him before the eyes of
faith of true believers as the Lord of glory in heaven.
After Jesus Christ had ascended to heaven to be glorified at the right
hand of God above all the angels and departed saints, the Comforter
came immediately upon his disciples to make this glory real to them
and through them to spread it all over the world. For Jesus Christ is
the very image of the Father's glory. In him are all things united,
whether in heaven or on earth. He is the climax of God's plan for the
fulness of time. He is the beginning and the end of all God's gracious
work in all ages - for all the salvation and glory that God has
prepared for those who love him are vested in Jesus.
The Comforter came to give us a foretaste of this glory. He came to
make the resplendent glory of Jesus real to those who follow him. As
Moses encouraged his people to look forward to the prophet who would
be like him, who would mediate a new covenant to save all who truly
believe, so the Comforter encourages Christ's followers in this age to
look up to the risen, ascended, Lord Jesus Christ who sits on the
throne of God in eternal glory above the heavens.
Far from Muhammad being foretold in the Bible, every prophecy, every
agent of God, every true prophet and spirit, looks upward towards the
radiance of the Father's glory, the one who sits upon the throne, the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ ascended to heaven - God took him to himself. For Jesus
alone is the Redeemer of the world. He alone is able, as a man, to
enter the holy presence of the Father's throne and fill it with his
own glorious majesty. So likewise he is able to reconcile sinful men
to God and will one day be seen again in all his splendour as he comes
to call his own - those who eagerly awaited his coming before his time
and all those who since his sojourn on this earth look forward to his
return from heaven - to be with him where he is to behold with awe the
glory which the Father gave him in his love for him before the
foundation of the world.
Moses rejoiced to see his day when speaking of the prophet to come.
The Comforter today still rejoices to reveal his glory and majesty to
those in whom he dwells. The angels and departed saints await with
longing for the day when he shall be revealed to all the universe in
all his magnificence - when all men shall be raised from the dead to
see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great
glory, a day when the Comforter's work will be finally completed, a
day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that it is
Jesus Christ who is Lord - to the everlasting glory of God the Father
- Amen!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS:
Badawi, Dr J - Muhammad in the Bible. (Islamic Information Foundation,
Halifax, Canada, 1982).
Dawud, Prof A - Muhammad in the Bible. (Angkatan Nahdhatul- Islam
Bersatu, Singapore, 1978).
Deedat, A H - Muhammad in the Old and the New Testaments. (Uthmania
Islamic Service Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. n.d.)
Deedat, A H - Muhammad Successor to Jesus Christ as portrayed in the
Old and New Testaments. (Muslim Brotherhood Aid Services, Johannesburg
South Africa n.d.)
Deedat, A H - What the Bible says about Muhammad. (Islamic Propagation
Centre, Durban, South Africa, 1976)
Durrani, Dr M H - Muhammad - The Biblical Prophet. (International
Islamic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan, 1980).
Gilchrist, J D - The Prophet after Moses. (Jesus to the Muslims,
Benoni, South Africa, 1976).
Gilchrist, J D - The Successor to Christ. (Jesus to the Muslims,
Benoni, South Africa, 1975).
Hamid, S M A - Evidence of the Bible about Mohammad. (Karachi,
Pakistan, 1973).
Jamiat, U N - The Prophet Muhammad in the Bible. (Jamiat Ulema Natal,
Wasbank, South Africa, n.d.)
Kaldani D B - Mohammad in the Bible. (Abbas Manzil Library, Allahabad,
Pakistan, 1952).
Lee, F N - Muhammad in the Bible? (Unpublished M.Th. thesis,
Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1964).
S G Mission - The Prophet like unto Moses. (Scripture Gift Mission,
London, England, 1951).
Shafaat, Dr A - Islam and its Prophet: A Fulfilment of Biblical
Prophecies. (Nur Al Islam Foundation, Ville St Laurent, Canada, 1984).
Vidyarthy, A H - Muhammad in World Scriptures. (Volume 2, Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Ishaat-l-lslam, Lahore, Pakistan, 1968).
Y.M.M.A. - Do you know? The Prophet Muhammad is prophesied in the Holy
Bible! (Young Men's Muslim Association. Johannesburg, South Africa,
1960).
ARTICLES IN OTHER BOOKS:
Niazi, K - The Bible and the last Prophet. (The Mirror of Trinity, S M
Ashrai', Lahorc, Pakistan, 1975).
Pfander, C G - Is the Mission of Mohammad foretold in the Old or New
Testaments? Mizanul Haqq - the Balance of Truth, Church Missionary
House, London, England, 1867).
Robson, J - Does the Bible speak of Muhammad? (The Muslim World, Vol.
25, p. 17).
Smith, P - Did Jesus Foretell Ahmed? (The Muslim World, Vol. 12, p.
71).
Tisdall, W St C - Does the Bible Contain Prophecies concerning
Muhammad? (Mizanul Haqq - The Balance of Truth, Revised Edition,
Religious Tract Society, London, England, 1910).
LECTURES ON TAPE:
Deedat, A H - Muhammad the Natural Successor to Christ. (Durban City
Hall, Durban, South Africa, 1975)
donie
--discussed, and cut>
>
> > There are a lot of things about christianity that you don't understand
> > the way christians do, and you compound your misunderstanding with
> > mixing christianity with jewish. I think your problem stems from
> > understanding christianity the islam way. With regard to the
> > interpretation of Jesus Christ fulfilling the law, I don't have the
> > pretension of being able to explain in a simple manner. I can give you
> > a link, should you seriously feel you desire to learn to know obout
> > our Lord Jesus Christ. But please don't just read it using your islam
> > eyes, and air it to public. You will appear to be ridiculing
> > yourselves more, and as you said, since you considered the bible is
> > corrupted, it can not boost you islamic faith, anyway. So why bother
> > reading and interpreting bible your own way?
>
> I disagree. There is no such thing as mixing christianity with
> jewish beliefs. Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) was a jew , therefore
> whether you like it or not the jewish elements will have to
> be included. If you claim of such , what you are saying is
> that you are only restricted to the NT. Then why bother to
> have the OT in your bible. What you are doing is trying to
> throw away whatever in the bible that does not fit your
> outlook or belief of say 'christian love'. Things does not
> happen this way ...... if you take upon the book , you need
> to take all of it.
Here is one explanation of the relationship between the OT and the
Gospel, covering a number of issues of our discussion.
====How Christians benefit from the Old Testament=========
An Analysis of 2 Timothy 3:15-17
James M. Arlandson
One day, I got an email from a Christian who seemed genuinely
concerned that jihad in the Quran was analogous to hunting down and
killing mediums in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:27 and 1 Samuel
28:3-9). (It is a sad fact that Christians in history have done this,
erroneously.) I regularly read Muslim polemics that seek to bind
Christians to every aspect of the Old Testament, such as severe
punishments of sinners, and holy wars.
If the Bible orders these practices, then who are Christians to
complain about jihad in Islam and the Quran’s revival of harsh
punishments?
However, I have never heard a qualified pastor or priest today assert
that we should hunt down witches or wage a Christian jihad. Simple
hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) can clarify why they do
not. When the Old and New Testaments are interpreted carefully and
rightly, using Scripture to interpret Scripture, this truth will
emerge: Christ has fulfilled the Old Testament in many, many areas.
Christians honor and revere the Old Testament as inspired by God, and
they learn timeless truths from it, but many of its passages, like
animal sacrifice, no longer apply to today after Jesus ushered in a
new era of salvation.
2 Timothy 3:15-17, serving as a gateway for the rest of this article,
is analyzed first. Then five other questions are asked and answered,
such as "Do progressive revelations damage the universal truths in the
Old Testament?"
Having basic theological textbooks for beginners in the background,
this article’s purpose is to clarify some issues for both Christians
and Muslims alike.
(1) 2 Timothy 3:15-17 says that God has inspired the Scriptures (the
Old Testament), so is this holy book still binding on Christians
today?
Paul writes to Timothy:
15 . . . You have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make
you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture
is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and
training for righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work.
This passage perfectly supports the main point of the promise and
fulfillment process in the New Testament. All of the clauses are
linked by one central theme: Christians learn faith and morals and
timeless truths from the Old Testament, which are not bound by time
and place. Let’s analyze the passage verse by verse.
Verse 15: You have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make
you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Abraham is an example in the Old Testament, "who makes us wise for
salvation." God promises him a son, and "Abraham believed the Lord,
and he credited it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Paul the
Apostle finds this passage in Genesis "useful" for showing how faith
saves us, and our faith is placed in Christ (Romans 4). So the
inspired Old Testament, when used properly, can teach us about
salvation through faith in Christ. This is a universal truth that the
New Testament applies to us.
Verse 16: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting, and training for righteousness . . .
Here are some examples of "rebuking, correcting, and training for
righteousness."
First, the inspired authors of Hebrews uses God’s "rest" on the
seventh day in Genesis 1-3 to teach us about a divine Sabbath rest
that is fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 4). We rest in his atoning good
work on the cross, so that we do not have to depend on our
righteousness to usher us into heaven. Our own works make us insecure
because we are never one hundred percent sure that they are good
enough. This lesson from the Old Testament "trains" us to receive the
righteousness of Christ, for our own is not good enough. This truth
rises above time and place.
Second, Jesus himself uses Scripture to rebuke some chief priests and
Pharisees who reject him (Matthew 21:33-46). After telling the Parable
of the Tenants, in which the tenants rent out a vineyard, but then
kill the son (= Son of God) of the vineyard owner (= Father God), he
quotes a passage from the Psalms to drive home the point as a rebuke:
42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The
stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done
this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.’ (See Psalm 118:22-23)
The chief priests and the Pharisees (the builders) reject Jesus (the
stone-turned-capstone by the Lord’s doing), so they "knew he was
talking about them" (Matthew 21:45). Jesus rebukes them with
Scripture, just as 2 Timothy 3:16 says. The timeless spiritual
message: We would all do well not to reject the stone (the Son of God)
that the Lord has made the capstone.
Our final example of "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training for
righteousness" is found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Paul quotes
Scripture to preserve the holiness of believers, so that they do not
mingle excessively closely with darkness and unbelievers. "I will live
with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will
be my people. Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the
Lord" (6:17; cf. Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 32:38; Ezekiel 37:27;
Isaiah 52:11). These passages correct the Corinthian Christians (and
us). The passages train them to be more righteous, which teaches us
about faith and morals, which are always valid, as 2 Timothy counsels.
Verse 17: . . . so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work.
The main thesis of this verse, seen in the two words "so that," is for
the man of God to be equipped for every good work. The examples used
in our analysis of verses 16 and 17 show us this kind of equipping.
The man of God not only teaches timeless faith and morals in the Old
Testament to the church, but he himself walks in righteousness, after
being corrected and rebuked by Scripture, if he was tempted to wander
off.
Thus, we find that the central theme of the Timothy passage counsels
us to learn faith and morals and universal truths about life for
followers of Christ. All of these truths come directly from the Old
Testament. This book is inspired by God as a promise or prophecy,
which finds fulfillment in the New Testament, especially in Christ.
So is the Old Testament still binding on New Testament believers? The
word "binding" may be too strong. But the direct answer depends on the
doctrine or passage in the Old Testament. When it teaches spiritual
and universal truths like how to obey God and have a relationship with
him, then it is authoritative for the believer. But other areas like
circumcision and animal sacrifice are no longer binding. But even in
the case of circumcision Paul uses the practice to teach us about
circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28-29), once again taking an old
physical truth from the Old Testament and spiritualizing it. Our
hearts are "circumcised" so that we can join the New Covenant. As
eating or not eating food "does not bring us near to God" (1
Corinthians 8:8), so "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing" (7:19; cf. Acts 16:3). These natural and physical things
ultimately point to spiritual things, in Christ.
This passage in 2 Timothy can be further clarified with five more
questions.
(2) What is the relation between the Old Testament and the New
Testament?
A wise adage says: the New Testament is in the Old concealed, and the
Old is in the New revealed. Another one says that the Old Testament is
to the New what promise is to fulfillment.
Both of these sayings mean that Old Testament truths find their
amplification and explanation and fullness in the New Testament. For
example, the animal sacrifices in the Old points toward Christ’s
atoning sacrifice on the cross. Or the prophecy about the suffering
and death of the Anointed Servant in Isaiah 53 points to Christ and
his suffering and death. The New Testament makes ample use of the Old
in the double theme of prophecy and promise.
(3) What are some major doctrines and themes that are promised and
prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament?
Here are four areas in the Old Testament, representing others, that
have been fulfilled in the New Testament, through Christ.
(1) Christians no longer wage military warfare as the Old Testament
commands. That was relevant to the historical era of the Old
Testament. God wanted a small land cleansed of a specific kind of
paganism. (See this article and this one on how Old Testament wars
differ from Islamic wars of world conquest.) But in the New Covenant
believers wage spiritual warfare to fight nonmaterial forces by
preaching and praying alone. The inspired Apostle Paul says:
3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world
does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On
the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We
demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against
the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it
obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Paul uses the image of a military war with words like "weapons,"
"fight," "demolish," and "strongholds." But these verses have nothing
to do with fighting people with sharp swords in a physical war.
Instead, the verses communicate mental and spiritual warfare, in key
words such as "arguments," "pretension," "knowledge," and "thought."
(2) In the Torah, the three main traditional divisions are fulfilled:
the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, but only the latter two are
analyzed here.
Jesus fulfills the ceremonial or ritual aspect of the Torah (Hebrews
9:11-14).
11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already
here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is
not manmade, that is to say, not part of this creation. 12 He did not
enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the
Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal
redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of heifers
sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that
they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to
God, cleanse out consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we
serve the living God.
This passage contrasts the sacrificial system in the Old Covenant
under a fallible high priest, a temporary tabernacle and the blood of
animals with the Christ’s once and for all sacrifice, which ushered in
the New Covenant as he entered the perfect, heavenly tabernacle. The
Old Testament makes promises by using temporary signs and copies,
whereas the New fulfills them with their reality.
Besides the atonement through blood sacrifices, Christians are
permitted to eat whatever foods their conscience allows them (Mark
7:14-19). If they voluntarily keep away from traditionally unclean
animals like swine, then they are free to do this. But this is not a
requirement from Christ or the New Testament authors. In Christ, all
foods are ritually clean (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) (See Question no. 1,
verse 17).
Second, Jesus fulfills the judicial aspect of the Torah.
The passage from the Epistle to Hebrews just now quoted above
discusses the outward cleansing. In the New Covenant, Christ cleanses
the inner man. His death on the cross takes away the severe penalty of
death for sins like homosexuality and cursing parents because divine
wrath for human sins was poured on him on the cross. However,
criminals like murderers should be punished, because of the principles
of justice behind the particular rules. Both the Old and New
Testaments promote good government (Romans 13:1-7). But even they can
have their sins forgiven while they suffer the just consequences of
their crimes. Jesus and the New Testament authors never rescinded
justice. The lives of criminals can be redeemed.
Here is a link to a prison ministry, Prison Fellowship. They preach
the gospel to prisoners and help them out in practical ways.
(3) In the Old Covenant, God gave instructions on how to build a
mobile tabernacle (Exodus 25-27). Then he gave special permission to
Solomon to build a permanent temple (1 Kings 5:1-6:38 and 7:13-8:66).
However, Jesus fulfills this earthly temple in his own person and in
his church. Jesus says to the Pharisees, referring to himself: "I tell
you that one greater than the temple is here" (Matthew 12:6). Jesus
said this in the historical and literary context of keeping the law
and sacrificing in the temple. He now fulfills the temple sacrifices
and becomes a living temple through his new people of God: his church
(1 Corinthians 3:16 and 1 Peter 2:4-8). His church is found around the
world now, so his living temple is worldwide and not limited to one
location. Further, the long passage in Hebrews says that Christ
entered a perfect tabernacle, that is, in heaven. So the earthly
tabernacle in the Old Covenant has multiple fulfillments: Christ’s
person, his church, and heaven. These fulfillments are united in their
move away from the literal and obsolete earthly tabernacle under the
Old Covenant.
(4) Christ fulfills prophecies that predicted his first coming. This
theme relates to a major part of the Old Testament, the Prophets. They
promised a new era of salvation, and Jesus fulfills that promise. As
noted under Question no. 2, the primary example among many, many
others is found in Isaiah 53, which describes the suffering Servant-
Messiah. Verse 5 says: "But he was pierced for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we
are healed." This is a perfect description of Jesus’ death on the
cross, since he was wounded and pierced. His death brings us peace
from God because it atones or pays for our sins. He fulfills every
prophecy that predicted his first coming.
These four areas and others have been explored more fully in this
article and this one.
(4) Is there a progression of revelation from the Old Testament to the
New Testament?
Progressive revelation is a fact of the Bible.
In Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians he divides the dealings of God
before Christ came and after he came. In the past, people were
enslaved to basic principles of the world. "But when the time had
fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to
redeem those under the law that we might receive the full rights of
sons" (4:4-5).
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes this point very
strongly, distinguishing between past revelations and those in the
last days. "In the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the
prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he
has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and
through whom he made the universe" (Hebrews 1:1-2). In ancient times,
God used a variety of means of revelations, even Balaam’s donkey
(Numbers 22:21-34). Now revelation has progressed up to the Son of
God. The New Testament is the final and complete revelation.
Incidentally, for Bible-educated Christians, neither the Quran nor the
Book of Mormons is valid or authoritative. They can be studied as
cultural artifacts, but their theologies diverge too widely from Jesus
Christ as he is presented in the New Testament, whose authors knew him
or who stayed close to and researched those who knew him in the
apostolic community.
The Epistle to the Hebrews goes on to say that the Old Testament is
rooted in history, being encased in earthly and cultural shells,
containing many types and shadows and symbols (e.g. Hebrews 8:5 and
9:23). The New Testament, also rooted in history, contains the
reality, substance, and fulfillment, being a spiritual revelation. It
is a more complete sacred book with mature themes, such as the
fullness of the Spirit of God. In the Old Testament, the Spirit was
given to a limited number of people and not in his complete power. But
in the New Testament, the Spirit is poured out on the universal
church, and he dwells in them in a permanent and powerful and full
way.
However, the incompleteness of the Old Testament does not mean that it
is devoid of some mature teachings. An example is polygamy and
monogamy. The Old Testament holds up monogamy in the Garden of Eden,
but it also allows polygamy, though it is also honest enough to reveal
the problems inhering in this custom (Genesis 16:5 and 1 Samuel
1:6-7). The New Testament affirms the original model in the Garden of
Eden: one man and one woman (Matthew 19:3-6). So monogamy represents a
mature teaching of the Old Testament, which the New Testament
everywhere affirms.
(5) Do progressive revelations damage the divine universal truths in
the Old Testament?
Nothing damages divine universal truths. Revelation is given to humans
in a form that they can understand in their own culture and language
and customs. It is misguided to force, for example, the culture of
Corinth in Paul’s day on to the culture of Sinai in Moses’ day.
Interpreters of the Bible take each passage in its historical context.
But embedded in these various contexts are truths that transcend or
rise above time and place. For example, Moses says not to commit
adultery (Exodus 20:14), and Jesus says the same (Matthew 5:27-28).
Here is a cultural-historical example from which we can derive
timeless truths even today. Moses sent twelve spies to explore the
land of Canaan (Numbers 13). After their return, ten gave a bad
report. No one could conquer that land. But only Joshua and Caleb had
enough faith to proclaim that the land is fruitful, and God would give
it to them, so they should prepare to take it. But should we apply the
passage literally today as if Christians go out and spy and conquer?
Rather, the universal truth that we learn is faith and trust in God,
which raises our vision beyond our physical surroundings and
challenges and obstacles; keeping our eyes focused on them may cause
us to doubt. God will help us conquer our own non-literal "land of
Canaan" if we put our trust in him and follow him closely.
However, this search for timeless truths does not mean that we discard
the historical context of each passage in the Bible. Referencing this
context keeps us honest and does not allow us to twist the Scriptures
as we want. It is a difficult process to get to know the cultural and
social and political context of the Bible, which has been written over
a span of fourteen hundred years. So it is imperative to find
accessible, understandable commentaries that respect the Bible. Often,
Bible translations have commentaries added in, such as the New
International Version (NIV) Study Bible. (I find it to be very
helpful.)
So the concept of revelations that progress from one era to the next
does not damage universal, timeless truths, such as faith, obedience,
redemption, salvation, trust, praise and worship, and fellowship with
the Lord. These themes run throughout both the Old and New Testaments,
regardless of the era. However, the New Testament puts its own stamp
on them, such as salvation through Christ and his atoning death of
redemption, to which the Old Testament had testified, if only
partially and indirectly through animal sacrifices and prophecies
concerning the Messiah.
(6) How do we know when the Old Testament applies to us who live under
the New Covenant and when it does not apply?
As noted in the previous question, the New Testament guides us as to
when to apply or not apply the Old Testament, and this interpretive
skill requires careful study. The New Testament sacred books and
epistles quote the Old Testament, but their use of it teaches lessons
about faith and morals and other timeless themes. Even when a New
Testament saint, like Stephen, reviews an historical outline of the
Old Testament, the spiritual, moral punch line is not far away (Acts
7:1-8:1). Stephen sketches out the sweep of the Old Testament to
rebuke the self-righteous leaders (recall that rebuking is a purpose
in 2 Timothy 3:16). The spiritual punch line says that the Jewish
establishment in his day was too eager to kill their own fathers and
the Righteous One, Jesus Christ (Acts 7:51-52).
But we must not do a simplistic transference of every verse in the Old
Testament to our lives, the church, and society today. This has caused
all sorts of problems. This example must be repeated. God commands in
the Old Testament the execution of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10).
However, Paul points out that some in the church were once adulterers
(and he adds homosexuals, prostitutes, and idolaters, all of whom were
stoned in the Old Testament). But now they have the opportunity of
being cleansed: "And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).
It must not be believed that early Christians really wanted to stone
sinners, but they could not because Roman or Jewish law prevented
them. Smaller communities within the dominant one could carry out
their own brand of justice before the authorities knew about it. Jesus
was nearly thrown off a cliff by a mob (Like 4:28-30) and almost
stoned by other mobs (John 8:59 and 10:31). Stephen was stoned to
death. Jews and Gentiles of Iconium plotted to stone Paul, but he fled
their city (Acts 14:5). He was nearly killed by this method in Lystra
(Acts 14:19). Finally, a Roman named Gallio, proconsul of Achaia,
Greece, who lived in Corinth, showed no concern when some Jews beat
Sosthenes the synagogue ruler for supporting Paul. In fact, Gallio
told the Jews "settle the matter yourselves" (Acts 18:15). "Then they
all turned on Sosthenes the synagogue ruler and beat him in front of
the court. But Gallio showed no concern whatsoever" (v. 17). Thus, a
small community within the large one could take matters in its own
hands before the authorities knew about it, and sometimes they
explicitly permitted the sub-community to do this.
Incidentally, the purpose of the previous paragraph is to show how
Scripture interprets Scripture and how the historical context
clarifies the Bible. Though it takes a long time to learn how to do
this, which often requires respectful commentaries, it guards us
against twisting the Word of God for our own purposes.
To return to our example of how the early Christian church dealt with
sinners who would have been stoned under the Old Covenant, the New
Covenant ushers in a new way to deal with them. They convert to Christ
and are saved and washed and sanctified. But if they do not want this,
then that is their free choice. Even in this sad case, Christians wage
spiritual warfare by preaching and praying alone. They do not (or
should not) threaten or kill sinners by stoning them (or by any other
method). Jesus Christ pays for this harsh penalty meted out in the Old
Covenant by his death on the cross.
Conclusion
Christians receive great benefit and edification from reading the Old
Testament. This sacred book reveals many timeless and universal
themes, like faith and salvation, and hope and praise to God. But this
book has also been fulfilled in Christ, as God had promised. Now the
New Covenant guides the believer in Christ (and the rest of society if
it wants). He reads the Old Testament through the eyes of Christ and
the New Testament books and epistles. He must never simplistically
transfer every verse from the Old Covenant (like executing mediums and
adulterers) to the New Covenant, which instead provides forgiveness
and reconciliation and restoration.
These words must mean something: Old Covenant and New Covenant; Old
Testament and New Testament. Nonetheless, the interrelation between
the Old and the New is rich and profound. It takes years of study to
see how the two merge and separate, only to merge and separate all
over again—the unity and diversity of the Bible over for a span of
fourteen hundred years. The Old is to the New what promise is to
fulfillment. The New is in the Old concealed; and the Old is in the
New revealed.
The key is to know both the Old and New Testaments thoroughly.
Here is the universal truth that emerges from and unifies both
Covenants throughout the fourteen hundred years that the Bible was
composed: God loves us and offers a relationship with him. Now the
fullest relationship comes through Christ and the Spirit.
This article has three companion pieces: How Christ fulfills the Old
Testament, The freedom of Christ and the law of Muhammad, and Promise
and fulfillment in the Bible.
Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson.
donie
> I am not interpreting your bible in the islamic way. I am
> calling it as it is. I did not hide anything. For example ,
> christians believe that it was Prophet Isaac (as) whom
> was involved in the covenant with god. However if you
> look into the book of genesis , you will see that this is
> not so. Per gen17 Prophet Abraham (as) and Prophet
> Ishmael (as) have already been circumcised before the
> birth of Prophet Isaac (as). Circumcision is one of the
> rites of the covenant with god. Therefore you need to
> close the covenant first then execute the rites. If you
> claim of Prophet Isaac (as) being involved in the
> covenant , then it is already contradictory as he was
> circumcised when he was 8 days old. You don't
> execute the rites before closing the covenant due to
> the fact that you won't even know what will the rites
> be before closure of the covenant.
See what you have done, Sam? Call it any other way, all you have been
trying to do is swaying bible verses to fit Islamic perspective. You
limit covenant only with 'circumcision,' unaware that the covenant
covers God's promise to Abraham (meaning father of many) to father
many nations. And you forget that you don't even have any canon
materials of your own, all you have is bible which you state already
corrupted. If you only talk about physical circumcision and when your
refer to your own material, why would your quran always state the
quartet: Ibrahim, Ismail, Isaac, and Yacob, never mentioning the
descendant of Ismail? Why? "Gabriel" doesn't know the name of Ismail's
sons coz he did not find it in the bible, his main and only
reference?
donie
Please check back Sam. How do you arrive at (my) interpretation of him
(Jesus Christ)
being repentant? I never did. I was only referring to characters in
OT.
Anyway, love is the central theme of Jesus teaching and deed. He died
in the cross, for loving us mankind, sinners. Love your enemy. Make
peace within your core family before building relationship with
others. Judge yourself first before judging others. Never showing off,
like when giving and fasting. Inner cleansing rather than outward
appearance. Fight sins starting right from mind and heart (like when
you see a women with lust, you already commit sin).
Going back to your claim of Muhammat being prophecied in the Bible,
Christians hardly go through pamphlet I copied earlym but mainly
"begin with the end in mind." We just compare. And found the sharp
contrast, as I point earlier.
donie
> > > Can youproofto me that Prophet Muhammad (saw)
> > > slaughtered the jews in madinah and the pagans in mecca?
>
> > I don't know specific jew killing in Mecca, but in Yatrib yes, at
> > least genocide for males, slavery for women at least for three tribes.Proof? I don't know if your own hadis and Ibnu Ishac's SiratulRasul is
> > enoughprooffor you. For one, I don't think there is any jewish
> > communities in today Arab anymore, while recitals of Jews are quite
> > often found in you alquran and hadis.
>
> Since you claimed that you have the hadiths and ibn Ishaq's
> narration then you will have to do some fact finding. There
> was an agreement with the jews (lets take bani quraiza).
> You need to find out the contents of the agreement , who
> broke the agreement. Who was the judge that delivered
> the verdict and under what laws. That I challenge you. I
> want you to find that out as I want you to discuss that
> ref :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_Judaism
> excerpt : '.... Iran contains the most number of Jews among
> Muslim countries and Uzbekistan and Turkey have
> the next largest communities....'
> so much so for the axis of evil .....
> with me.
>
No matter how the content of the agreement was, the portrayal of jew
massacres in islamic sources is a way beyond our imagination if
Muhammat is to be crowned a prophethood.
Btw, when I say Arab, I was referring to Saudi Arabia, where all of
koran verses were 'nuzuled.' And Iran is not an arab country.
donie
>
>
> > Those are characters in the old testament. Just because they were
> > happy go lucky marrying left and right, your prophet had to duplicate
> > them, thousand years apart? King David schemed to have Bethseba by
> > sending her husband Uriah to a front-line war. But David was rebuked
> > by Prophet Nathan. Your prophet took a liking at Zainab the very wife
> > of his adopted Son, Zaid. Aware of possibility of a certain
> > 'predicament', suddenly Zaid processed to divorce Zainab to make room
> > for a 'great thing.' Instead of rebuking Muhammat, your Gabriel
> > mandated the marriage of Muhammat with Zainab after her 'iddah', with
> > a qoranic verse.
>
> They were not happy go lucky marrying left and right. Its
> their culture. This was only stopped in about 1950s in the
> US. David was rebuked but he still went ahead didn't he?
In Christianity, God gives us above all, "freedom" and "wisdom." Every
individual should seek to grow on how to exercise these 2 traits. It's
your freedom to still highly respect someone who can not even be
"above his contemporary" such as your prophet, coz perhaps that's the
level of wisdom you've earned. But not for me, I have been
internalizing the teaching of Jesus Christ, either though Gospels or
Rasul Paul, John, Peter et all epistles or many other sermons even
after or beyond (Genesis to ) Revelation, as to unthinkable say the
marriage behavior of your prophet is prophet-ly. We could have
respected him if he didn't marry Aisha, the child bride, for a prophet
doesn't need to cement his comrade with his very second man, the
father of Aisha, abu Bakar Basir. So does with the daughter of Umar
Katab. To be regarded as Holy Book, alquran should not have contained
the verse favoring Muhammat to marry practically every women in his
Medinah entour. Sorry, but that's my wisdom
donie
.
>
> This further points to the fact that in his early days of his
> prophethood , the quraish wanted to stop him and they
> offered him a bribe of any amount of money and any women
> that he desired.
> ref :http://www.iqra.net/muslimstudents1/seniorsessay1
> excerpt : '.... The leaders of the Quraish did not accept
> the new religion. Some of them tried to bribe
> Prophet Muhammad (saw) with money and
> power, including an offer to make him a king.
> But our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw)
> refused to abandon Allah’s message...'
> He was married to the older khatijah and he could have
> said to hell with her and become a king will all the money
> and power (plus women). He refused ..... your argument
> crumbles on its own.
>
powerful to curb the desire of your prophet for more women. Look what
happen after she died. He practically marrying on average one per year
on his remaining 13 years? There were also women slaves gained as war
booty.Qurasih bribery attempt? Dont' you say that your prophet side
was a prosecution stage while in Mecca? Why would attackers want to
pay for the weak defender?
donie
Look at the trouble you have trying to justify polygamy, citing the
world statistics on sexes, while all you have to do is allowing your
wisdom to grow beyond what contained in your scripture. What happen
should there are more man to women, would you allow polyandry?Those
statistics will have to be broken down to the community where you
live. Again you will have to exercise you wisdom. If marrying late
you must, do it.
>> Which one? Let's hear from you on that. I believe you will enlighten
> > us more on Islam, rather than trying to discuss Rosul Paulus who has
> > nothing to do with boosting your faith, as you said, but only
> > ridiculing yourself more in my eyes. You can do it Sam, inshaallah?
>
> You perceive it as being me in ridicule but deep down
> I sense frustration in you lot as until now you have not
> managed to refute what I stated. I quoted directly from
> your bible. People like nick 'mbill' and nick 'nabi plasu'
> doesn't pose anything to me. They can only whine and
> bark 'bwahahahahahaha' but have done nothing to even
> touch me. Whereas I am hitting your christian theology
> left and right and these guys/you are frustrated.
>
Sam, I still want you to enlighten us more on Islamic topics rather
than showing us how to read the bible.
sam...@hotmail.com
> corrupted book that it has "produced" the prophecy of his prophet's
> comming
>
> so in short, his islamic faith becomes stronger as he reads the
> corrupted verses and lines in Bible about his Kang Mamad, the so-
> called nabie
>
> bwahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha, sammmy boy you do beat down
> all the morons in the entire universe
>
> bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> ....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> ....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
>
> bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> ....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
> ....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
Are you & nick 'nabi palsu' enjoying this. I am enjoying every
minute of this. All both of you can do is to whine and bark
'bwahahahahahahahah'. I am literally kicking your asses and
your christian theology and until now there is nothing you can
do. There is nothing much you can do anyway ....
Keeping to my promise , we will look into this deceitful lying
bugger - the self proclaimed apostle 'paul'. Formerly known
as saul of tarsus.
In your bible rev21:14 and matt10:2-4 shows that there were
12 disciples or apostles of jesus. Paul or saul's name was
not in any one of them.
This little lowlife , had no remorse in persecuting the early
christians.
phil3:6
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=5200653
[6] Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the
righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
He regards himself blameless when he persecutes the early
christians.
acts8:3
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4870983
[3] As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering
into every house, and haling men and women committed
them to prison.
In other words this saul guy was a real lowlife who bragged
about being blameless in eyes of the law and he got away
with murder , torture , deceit , mob rule etc.
His morph into paul was the greatest of his deceit and he
currently have managed to bullshit ~ 2.5 bil people. Lets
look at the facts of what had happened to him , on his way
to damascus.
acts 9:1-10
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4870983
[1] And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter
against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high
priest,
[2] And desired of him letters to Damascus to the
synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether
they were men or women, he might bring them bound
unto Jerusalem.
[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and
suddenly there shined round about him a light from
heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto
him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said,
I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee
to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt
thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise,
and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou
must do.
[7] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
[8] And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were
opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand,
and brought him into Damascus.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat
nor drink.
[10] And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named
Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias.
And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
In the mid of his journey , he saw a blinding light and heard
a voice supposedly of jesus instructing him. The men that
journeyed with him heard the voice but see no man. Paul
was then sent to ananias to be told what was to be done
and to heal his blindness (acts1: 12).
Consider the following verses ; acts26:12-19
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4870983
[12] Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and
commission from the chief priests,
[13] At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven,
above the brightness of the sun, shining round about
me and them which journeyed with me.
[14] And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice
speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee
to kick against the pricks.
[15] And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus
whom thou persecutest.
[16] But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared
unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and
a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,
and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
[17] Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles,
unto whom now I send thee,
[18] To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to
light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they
may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among
them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
[19] Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto
the heavenly vision:
Here he confirmed to king agrippa that he saw a light and
jesus supposedly spoke and gave him instructions. Notice
his sense of self centered , there was no mention of
ananias (who cured him) , his blindness and of the people
who travelled with him.
Consider the following verses ; acts22:5-13
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4870983
[5] As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all
the estate of the elders: from whom also I received
letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to
bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem,
for to be punished.
[6] And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and
was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly
there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
[7] And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying
unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[8] And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto
me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
[9] And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and
were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that
spake to me.
[10] And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said
unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it
shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for
thee to do.
[11] And when I could not see for the glory of that light,
being led by the hand of them that were with me, I
came into Damascus.
[12] And one Ananias, a devout man according to the
law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt
there,
[13] Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother
Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up
upon him.
Here he saw the light , fell down and supposedly jesus told
him to go to damascus to meet up with ananias who healed
his blindness. The other travellers saw the light but did not
see anything.
Basically verses acts22:5-13 agrees with verses acts9:1-10.
However verses acts26:12-19 contradicts the afore mentioned
verses.
Comparing them :
- acts9:7 , the men heard a voice but saw no man but verse
acts22:9 stated that they saw the light but no voice.
- acts9:4 stated that he fell to the ground and the rest stood
speechless in acts9:7 whereas in acts26:14 stated that
everybody fell to the ground and acts 22:7 stated that only
paul fell to the ground with no mention of the rest.
There is more ; a logical fallacy in this case :
- acts9:9-10 stated that paul saw the light and was blinded
for 3 days (ie. impressing on the glory of the bright light).
However in acts22:9 everybody saw the light but only paul
was blinded.
It is obvious that this lowlife was lying.He just could not
provide a consistent testimony. This really showed that he
was just an untrustworthy character.He couldn't even
remember how he fabricated his lie and kept on contradicting
himself. This lowlife contradicted himself 3 times and also
committed a logical fallacy.He actually exposed himself.
This paul remind you of nicks 'mbill' , 'nabi plasu' and
our esteemed 'explain_pls'. Liars by nature but very
inconsistent in their lying.
This was not the end , he very sneakily tried to connect his
'conversion experience' to the so called resurrection of jesus
whereas in the actual case he was not even there, 1cor15:3
-8
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=5072031
[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures:
[5] And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
[6] After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep.
[7] After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out
of due time.
This is another lie by this lowlife paul. He did not even know
that jesus first appeared to the women and (in luke/john)
jesus appeared in the flesh and ate food.
What paul was trying to do was to lie to others that he had
become an authority through his so called vision of the
resurrection in which only he had the experience eventhough
there were others with him. This lowlife was just a liar. How
you christians managed to regard him as a prophet , only
you christians can answer that. This paul was nothing but a liar.
Tomorrow I will respond to the article posted by nick
'explain_pls' and proof to you that the full blown narcissist
was this lying paul.
sam1528
ini si þíLL™
neeb I re-remind ya sammie boy ?
"this sammie boy has faith in that very same
corrupted book that it has "produced" the prophecy of his prophet's
comming
so in short, his islamic faith becomes stronger as he reads the
corrupted verses and lines in Bible about his Kang Mamad, the so-
called nabie
bwahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahaha, sammmy boy you do beat down
all the morons in the entire universe
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
....bwahahahahahahahahahaha, bwahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha ...
sam...@hotmail.com wrote in news:3d3f93e5-98de-43d5-a67f-
a9682d...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com :
sam...@hotmail.com
> the one who contain that your prophet muhammat is foretold in
> Christianity bible. I argued it should be you moslems supporting your
> own claim. You shouldn't ask christians to proof that your claim is
> right. You agree, but then you ask :"then what is the alternate
> interpretation?" I replied : "Those verses foretell the coming of
> Jesus Christ."
>
> Gee.. Sam, you are asking us to prove our own interpretation of our
> own books. We can certainly provide you how we arive at our
> interpretation, but I can tell you from the onset that that wouldn't
> serve the purpose of supporting your claim. Our interpretation would
> only be 'proving' to our own eyes. Aren't you emotional rather than
> logical expecting Christians to buy your interpretation of the
> selected bible verses you quote? What would then that serve? You
> already state that you don't believe in the bible, corrupted, you say.
> You also say that you already have enough faith and confidence of the
> prophethood of Muhammat without bible materials.
>
What I have requested was fair. I presented my case and
the test to the verses I presented. You just used a broad
brush to say it was jesus that was foretold. Sorry , I do
not think that was good enough. There is no emotion in this
one. We have to call it as we see it. I have never asked
you to buy into my interpretation , rather kept on asking
for your response. The verses have to be selected and as
a whole looking at its context.
> But then, I thought, who new that my friend Sam was really someone for
> the catch of the 'parakletos', the Holy Spirit? Here is a lengthy
> refutation of the not so famous claim, which necessarily contain our
> interpretation and the tests, as you term it, Sam. Happy reading!
>
Its not famous but has implication to the christian theology.
--snip-- <lengthy intro by gilchrist stating his position>
>
> MOSES AND THE PROPHET
>
> "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their
> brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to
> them all that I command him".
> Deuteronomy 18.18
>
> Whenever Muslims seek to establish that Muhammad is foretold in the
> Torah, the Old Testament, they invariably refer to this verse as the
> one obvious prophecy in support of their claim. They argue that the
> prophet who was promised by God to Moses was Muhammad because:
>
> 1. The Qur'an is allegedly the Word of God and therefore, as Muhammad
> recited each passage that was delivered to him, he had the words of
> God put into his mouth in accordance with the words of this prophecy;
>
> 2. The prophet to come would be from among the brethren of the
> Israelites, hence the Ishmaelites, because Israel (Jacob) and Ishmael
> were both descended from Abraham, and the tribes who descended from
> the twelve sons of Ishmael are therefore "brethren" of the tribes who
> descended from the twelve sons of Israel. As Muhammad was the only
> Ishmaelite to claim prophethood in the line of the Old Testament
> prophets, they aver that the prophecy can only refer to him;
>
> 3. Muhammad was like Moses in so many ways that the prophecy can only
> refer to him.
>
He stated the position of the muslims here
When he stated that the levites will have no inheritance, per
deut 18:1-2 he has inadvertently supported the argument
presented. This is also supported by the following : matt21:43
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4380943
[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.
This is not isolation of verses in context but rather taking
the verses and relating them together in context. A fairer
and much more honest way of looking at the verses.
>
--snip--
What he did was very simple , he has taken deut 18:18
and tried to show that in isolation this verse means nothing
as the same could be said of jer1:9. Then he proceeded to
link deut18:18 with john12:49-50 and john17:8 thus showing
it to be jesus. Of course you can do that , nobody has ever
said you cannot do that. However we are not looking at
those verses , we are looking at deut18:18 and linking it to
the verses in isaiah , gen and matt (21:43). These are
the verses linked and looked as a whole in context. Sorry
to say , gilchrist did not answer the question but pulled
the reader in a different direction.
--snip-- <intro>
What he did here was also similar to he had done before.
Using deut18:18 as the starting point thus narrow the band
to the so called tribes of israel hence narrowing the scope
of the readers to the tribes of israel only. This is not right,
we need to start from the very top , Prophet Abraham (as)
and his 2 sons. If it needs to be narrowed down , then by
all means we need to do it. However in the book of genesis
it can be clearly understood that the israelites and the
ishmaelites are breathren of each other.
When he brought up deut17:15 , it is specifically for the
israelites who were rescued from egypt. In that interim
the ruler shall be of them. This is understood.
--snip-- <showing the muslim viewpoint>
>
> Secondly, if we reverse the process we can show many similarities
> between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad at the same time can be
> contrasted with them. Some of these are:
>
> 1. Moses and Jesus were Israelites - Muhammad was an Ishmaelite. (This
> is, as we have seen, a crucial factor in really determining the
> identity of the prophet who was to follow Moses).
>
> 2. Moses and Jesus both left Egypt to perform God's work - Muhammad
> was never in Egypt. Of Moses we read: "By faith he forsook
> Egypt" (Hebrews 11.27). Of Jesus we read: "Out of Egypt have I called
> my Son" (Matthew 2.15).
>
> 3. Moses and Jesus forsook great wealth to share the poverty of their
> people which Muhammad did not. Of Moses we read: "He considered abuse
> suffered for the Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of
> Egypt" and that he chose "to share ill-treatment with the people of
> God" (Hebrews 11.25-26). Of Jesus we read: "For you know the grace of
> our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he
> became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich" (2
> Corinthians 8.9).
>
This where his arguments really crumbled. In number one , he
has failed to look at it from the start (ie. from genesis as who
and whom closed the covenant). He was still trying to narrow
band the whole thing to the israelites and conveniently left out
the fact that the descendents of Prophet Abraham (as) are the
brethren of each other. In number 2 , Prophet Moses (as) was
in Egypt and his mission started when he was an adult. Jesus
was there as when he was baby. It like chalk and cheese. In
number 3 , he equivocated , when the Prophet Muhammad
(saw) died , he did not leave a single cent.
ref : http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/muhammad/prophet_description.html
excerpt : '.... when the prophet died, he did not leave a cent,
a slave man or woman, or any property except his
white mule, his weapons and a piece of land which
he had dedicated for the good of the community ....
> So we have similarities between Moses and Jesus where Muhammad can be
> contrasted with them. This shows how weak the Muslim method of
> comparing Moses with Muhammad (while contrasting them with Jesus) is,
> for it works both ways. How then can we truly identify the prophet who
> was to be like Moses?
>
Refer to the counter argument, Gilchrist's arguments were
very weak plus he equivocated.
--snip--
>
> 1. He would be the direct mediator of a covenant between God and his
> people;
>
> 2. He would know God face to face;
>
> 3. His office would be confirmed by great signs and wonders which he
> would do by the power of God in the sight of all the nation of Israel.
>
> This conclusion is in fact clearly established by these last words in
> the Book of Deuteronomy:
>
> And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses,
> whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and
> wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh
> and to all his servants and to all his land, and for all the mighty
> power and all the great and terrible deeds which Moses performed in
> the sight of all Israel.
> Deuteronomy 34.10-12.
>
> The three distinguishing features of Moses as a prophet are clearly
> mentioned: he was the mediator between God and Israel, he knew the
> Lord face to face, and he did great signs and wonders. The prophet
> like him would obviously have to emulate these unique features of his
> prophethood. Did Muhammad possess these exceptional characteristics by
> which the prophet was to be recognised?
>
Again gilchrist equivocated. Prophet Moses (as) has
never met or spoken to god face to face whether in
the bible or in the Quran. In the tradition , belief and
in the Quran , Prophet Muhammad (saw) met Allah face
to face. Reference to "Israq & Miqraj'. It is correct to
quote deut34:10-12 as this can be linked to the warning
of Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) as in matt21:43.
That has always bee a problem with the jews and to an
extent the chrsitians. They are always looking for signs
that a prophet can do a miracle. Did they believe after
seeing the miracle? A big no! They still went on to
reject the message delivered by the prophets. Its not
that Prophet Muhammad (saw) did not managed to
perform miracles but to what extend does it serve. To
muslims , miracles are not needed if you have faith.
To quote Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) of people who always
ask to see miracles , matt12:39
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4426641
[39] But he answered and said unto them, An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there
shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet
Jonas:
There is no use showing miracles if the people are just
looking for it and in the end , they still don't believe.
That is what happened to Prophet Isa/Jesus (as) as
he was still persecuted even though he raised the
dead. The key is faith , not miracles.
That is why Prophet Muhammad (saw) has been
instructed by Allah to just say that he is just a warner
(even though he performed the splitting of the moon etc).
surah 7:188
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/7.htm
188. Say: "I have no power over any good or harm to
myself except as Allah willeth. If I had knowledge
of the unseen, I should have multiplied all good,
and no evil should have touched me: I am but a
warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those who
have faith."
The rest , will continue tomorrow.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> (Jesus Christ)
> being repentant? I never did. I was only referring to characters in
> OT.
Your previous post : '... Christ teaches us to love even our
own enemies, how can we commit our self to the swords?
He commanded RAsul Peter to cast off his sword, and
returned/healed the earlobe of the capturing soldier. We
draw more on repentance traits in OT characters, not the
jihad side.....'
You did mentioned that 'repentance trait in the OT char ...'
Who is the central character if not jesus? Does he show
signs of repentance? I do not think so. He defended his
beliefs , teachings and message till the end come what
what may. Thats not repentance , its jihad (ie. he strived
in the path of Allah to defend his beliefs , teachings and
the message given through him).
> Anyway, love is the central theme of Jesus teaching and deed. He died
> in the cross, for loving us mankind, sinners. Love your enemy. Make
> peace within your core family before building relationship with
> others. Judge yourself first before judging others. Never showing off,
> like when giving and fasting. Inner cleansing rather than outward
> appearance. Fight sins starting right from mind and heart (like when
> you see a women with lust, you already commit sin).
>
I do not think that love is the central thing in his teachings.
refer to matt5:17-18. He came to fulfill the laws. This means
the enforcement of the laws in the OT. Similarly , all of the
prophets of Allah came to enforce the laws as part of their
duty. He has never said that he came to die for humanity.
I don't think you can find a verse that attest to that.
The rest is identical to all of the teachings of all the prophets,
nothing new. Fasting etc, whether you like it or not , it will
be shown , so there has never been matter of showing off ,
everybody who is required to fast does it.
> Going back to your claim of Muhammat being prophecied in the Bible,
> Christians hardly go through pamphlet I copied earlym but mainly
> "begin with the end in mind." We just compare. And found the sharp
> contrast, as I point earlier.
If you guys do not want to read it , your right. Comparing
is not enough , you do not have the details and facts on
hand.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> massacres in islamic sources is a way beyond our imagination if
> Muhammat is to be crowned a prophethood.
> Btw, when I say Arab, I was referring to Saudi Arabia, where all of
> koran verses were 'nuzuled.' And Iran is not an arab country.
That is where you are making an unqualified judgement.
You do not even do any fact finding of the whole issue
and again broad brushing the fact that it was Prophet
Muhammad (saw) in the wrong. You should look at
the contents of the agreement first. In any case of breach
of agreement , each is to be judged by their own people
by their own laws. Bani Quraiza broke the agreement
in the battle of badr. The judge was a muslim jew named
sad and judgement was per the laws in deut. You find out
what the laws are. Prophet Muhammad (saw) did not
have a hand in the whole process. This is where your
speculation an your believe in the rantings of others had
influenced you. You have not find out the facts for yourself.
Why arab? Islam is a religion not centered to arabs.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> individual should seek to grow on how to exercise these 2 traits. It's
> your freedom to still highly respect someone who can not even be
> "above his contemporary" such as your prophet, coz perhaps that's the
> level of wisdom you've earned. But not for me, I have been
> internalizing the teaching of Jesus Christ, either though Gospels or
> Rasul Paul, John, Peter et all epistles or many other sermons even
> after or beyond (Genesis to ) Revelation, as to unthinkable say the
> marriage behavior of your prophet is prophet-ly. We could have
> respected him if he didn't marry Aisha, the child bride, for a prophet
> doesn't need to cement his comrade with his very second man, the
> father of Aisha, abu Bakar Basir. So does with the daughter of Umar
> Katab. To be regarded as Holy Book, alquran should not have contained
> the verse favoring Muhammat to marry practically every women in his
> Medinah entour. Sorry, but that's my wisdom
Then look again , do you know that the hadith is very
weak and close to being an unreliable hadith. However
christians are using it to the fullest. Its like a good
ammunition for character assassination.
ref : http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm
excerpt : '.... Based on the evidences presented above,
the marriage of fifty-two-year-old Prophet (pbuh)
with Ayesha (ra) at nine year of age is only a
proverbial myth.....'
This excuse for character assassination has been used
repeatedly. Quite used to it already. Where is it in the
Quran that states for Prophet Muhammad (saw) be able
to marry all of the women he came across. Again you are
broad brushing your prejudice.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> powerful to curb the desire of your prophet for more women. Look what
> happen after she died. He practically marrying on average one per year
> on his remaining 13 years? There were also women slaves gained as war
> booty.Qurasih bribery attempt? Dont' you say that your prophet side
> was a prosecution stage while in Mecca? Why would attackers want to
> pay for the weak defender?
Like I said , she was rich but he was promised more riches
and power. If he was a lecher or opportunist , he would have
taken the opportunity. Your last question shows that you did
not bother to read the link. Don't expect me to spoon feed
you.
I am asking again , if he was a lecher , how many of his wives
were young single women. You need to find that out.
A good debate for you to watch is as follows :
ref : http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic
Was Muhammad a True Prophet?
The christian David Woods was also obsessed with the
women in the prophet's life.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> world statistics on sexes, while all you have to do is allowing your
> wisdom to grow beyond what contained in your scripture. What happen
> should there are more man to women, would you allow polyandry?Those
> statistics will have to be broken down to the community where you
> live. Again you will have to exercise you wisdom. If marrying late
> you must, do it.
>
There is no trouble in my end. I am asking for a solution
from you from your christian viewpoint. You are trying to
evade the question. I have already informed earlier that
the Quran is the only book that advocated monogamous
marriage with restrictions on polygamy. You know for a
fact that nowadays women outnumber men. Polygamy
is an offence in christianity. However in the christian
society , the person is not persecuted if he has a
mistress(es). Is the right of the woman protected?
Now you are stating your position to allow the 'wisdom to
grow'. Are you saying that if needed , polygamy is ok?
Then you agreed with what has been written in the Quran.
Look at the Quranic verse on this one, if a person feels
that he cannot be just, marry only one. Isn't that an
affirmation of taking one's wisdom in this matter. The
problem here is that you are beating around the bush
providing vague answers as you do not want to be seen
agreeing with the Quran due to you being a christian.
Polyandry , that will be the day. Now we are talking
about hypothetical issues. You can break it down to any
community , the 2-4 % discrepancy still exist.
--snip--
>
> Sam, I still want you to enlighten us more on Islamic topics rather
> than showing us how to read the bible.
I am not showing you how to read the bible. I am hilighting
the issues in the bible. This is where you have fallen short
responding to the arguments and questions that I posted.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
To continue on the comments :
> 4. JESUS - THE PROPHET LIKE UNTO MOSES.
>
> Considering now whether Jesus is the prophet referred to, let us begin
> by answering a few typical objections raised by the Muslims. Firstly,
> if he was the Christ, they say he could not be the prophet to follow
> Moses, because the Jews distinguished between Elijah, the Christ, and
> the prophet (John 1. 19-21). The argument goes that John the Baptist
> is believed by the Christians to have come in the spirit of Elijah,
> Jesus was the Christ, and Muhammad, therefore, must have been the
> prophet. We have already shown, however, that it is impossible for
> Muhammad to be the prophet. In any even nothing conclusive can be
> construed from the speculations of the Jews. They once said of Jesus:
> "This is indeed the prophet" (John 7.40). On another occasion they
> said he was "one of the prophets" (Matthew 16.14), on another "a
> prophet" (Mark 6.15) and worse still thought of him as both Elijah
> (Mark 6.15) and John the Baptist himself (Matthew 16.14).
>
This is where gilchrist equivocated again. In the muslim
belief , the spirit on one doesn't even 'go into' or incarnate
in another person. Prophets Elijah (as) , Isa (as) and
Muhammad (saw) are different people. Prophet Isa (as)
is affirmed by muslims to be of virgin birth.
--snip--
> Another favourite objection is that Jesus died at the hands of the
> Jews and God said, in Deuteronomy 18.20, that only the self-styled
> prophets would die. Every prophet, however, died - many violently as
> the Qur'an and the Bible jointly testify - and the mere physical death
> of a prophet was certainly no evidence against his divine mission. God
> obviously did not mean that every true prophet would not die! What he
> meant was that a false prophet was to be put to death and would perish
> eternally - and all his prophecies with him. Only Judgment Day will
> reveal all the false prophets of the ages.
>
Again gilchrist equivocated. Muslims have never claimed that
jesus died in the hands of the jews. You should know it by
now.
> What we are ultimately concerned about is this - God gave a definite
> promise that a prophet would arise like Moses who would mediate
> another covenant and that signs would accompany this covenant to
> confirm its heavenly origin. The very Bible that contains the prophecy
> of the prophet to come confirms quite clearly that that prophet was
> Jesus Christ. The Apostle Peter, claiming that God had foretold the
> coming of Jesus Christ through all the prophets, appealed specifically
> to Deuteronomy 18.18 asproofthat Moses had done so (Acts 3.22).
> Jesus himself said, "Moses wrote of me" (John 5.46) and it is
> difficult to find elsewhere in the five books of Moses such a direct
> prophecy of his advent. Peter chose Deuteronomy 18.18 as the one
> distinctive prophecy in all the writings of Moses of the coming of
> Jesus Christ into the world.
>
There is no denying , Prophet Moses (as) testified that other
prophets will come. Muslims do not even reject the idea that
Prophet Isa (as) is included. You need to understand that
Prophet Isa (as) is regarded by muslims as one of the great
prophets of Allah. If you look at a couple of verse before john
5:46 , john5:43
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4760421
[43] I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:
if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Looks like Prophet Isa (as) is warning everyone of paul.
1cor4:16 : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=5072031
[16] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1cor11:1 : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=5072031
[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Looks like the dire warning of Prophet Isa(as) came true.
Paul was preaching under his name and authority.
--snip--
>
> After witnessing all the signs that Jesus had done and after taking
> part in the New Covenant which he had mediated face-to-face between
> God and his people, the early Christians knew that Jesus was the
> prophet whose coming was foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18. They also knew
> that the prophecy of a prophet to come like Moses had been
> supplemented by God's promise to the prophet Jeremiah that he would
> mediate a new covenant in the days to come between himself and his
> people. For in speaking of this new covenant God clearly distinguished
> between it and the old covenant he had made with Moses and it was
> therefore obvious that the one who would mediate it would be the
> prophet whose coming Moses had foretold. God said:
>
> "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a
> new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like
> the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the
> hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they
> broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the
> covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,
> says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon
> their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. And
> no longer shall each man teach his neighbour and each his brother,
> saying 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know me, from the least of
> them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their
> iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".
> Jeremiah 31.31-34.
>
Again , there is no denial from the muslim standpoint of the
coming of Prophet Isa (as). We are looking at the verses of
deut , isaiah and matt specifically and all in its context. So
far , gilchrist has not even looked into these verses. Muslims
always agree that there were covenants between the great
prophets and Allah , surah 33:7
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/33.htm
7. And remember We took from the prophets their covenant:
As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and
Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn
covenant:
The problem with christians is that you only narrow band your
beliefs to jesus forgetting that there were others before and
after him. Quoting jesus in Matt 21:43 & 45
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4380943
[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.
[45] And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard
his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
The jews when heard this automatically knew of their
displacement from the words of Prophet Isa (as) himself.
--snip--
>
> In every way he gaveproofthat he was the prophet who was to come -
> one to mediate a covenant like that mediated through Moses at Horeb -
> one who would know God face-to-face - one who would perform great
> signs and wonders as Moses had done. In every way the Jews were right
> on this one point when they said "This is really the prophet" (John
> 7.40).
>
> So it is proved that Muhammad is not foretold in Deuteronomy 18.18 but
> rather that the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse was
> Jesus Christ. We shall go on to see that if Muhammad is not foretold
> on the Old Testament, neither is he foretold in the New Testament.
>
I just wish this guy looks into deut , isaiah and matt which
were the verses in contention. Muslims have never denied
the coming of the other great prophets. Gilchrist is going
around in circles and narrow banding it to only jesus. In
the same vein , you christians need have a wider mind
frame that there are others before and after Prophet Isa (as)
, as bring proven with the verses of your bible.
--snip--
>
> JESUS AND THE COMFORTER
--snip--
>
> There is not a shred of evidence in favour of the assertion that the
> original word was "periklutos". We have thousands of New Testament
> manuscripts pre-dating Islam and not one of these contains the word
> "periklutos". In view of the fact that Muslims are prone to levelling
> false allegations that Christians are regularly changing the Bible, it
> is rather intriguing to find that they have no scruples about doing
> this themselves when it suits them to do so. In any event a cursory
> reading of the texts where the word "paracletos" appears will show
> that this is the only word that suits the context as I will show in
> one instance later on in this chapter.
>
> Some wiser Muslims admit that "paracletos" is correct, but they claim
> in any event that Muhammad was the Comforter whom Jesus was referring
> to. Let us briefly examine some of the texts in a truly exegetical
> manner to discover whether Muhammad is indeed the Comforter whose
> coming Jesus foretold.
>
Again gilchrist is imagining things that are not there. The
alleged claimed made by muslims is just to follow what
has been stated in the bible. Word smitting of 'periklutos'
against 'paracletos' has never been raised. He is just
attempting this in order to try to demonstrate confusion in
the muslims understanding which is totally wrong.
> It is quite obvious from the four texts quoted that Comforter, Holy
> Spirit, and Spirit of Truth are interchangeable terms and that Jesus
> is speaking of the same person in each instance. The one obvious fact
> that emerges is that the Comforter is a spirit. (The fact that Jesus
> always speaks of the Spirit in the masculine gender in no way suggests
> that the Comforter must be a man as some of the publications in the
> Bibliography suggest. God himself is always spoken of in both the
> Bible and the Qur'an in the masculine gender and God is spirit - John
> 4.24. In the same way Jesus always speaks of the Comforter as a spirit
> and not as a man).
>
Again gilchrist is equivocating , Allah has never been
been described in the masculine gender in the Quran.
This is where his argument destroys itself. Firstly he said
that it will be his disciples. However it will breakdown as
they do not last for ever. Then he tried to show that it might
be the holy ghost that dwells in his disciples. In this case
gilchrist has been very sneaky. He conveniently left out
another condition. John16:7
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4760421
[7] Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you
that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will
not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto
you.
This condition virtually destroys his claim of the holy ghost
being the paraclete. The holy ghost already existed during
the lifetime of jesus. Even the disciples cannot fit the
description as jesus often called them 'of little faith' as ref
to matt8:26, matt14:31, matt16:8, luk8:25, matt15:16 &
luk9:41.
The rest has been covered in my previous post on this
subject. A link which sums up the issue is as follows :
ref : http://www.mostmerciful.com/paraclete.htm
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> word "binding" may be too strong. But the direct answer depends on the
> doctrine or passage in the Old Testament. When it teaches spiritual
> and universal truths like how to obey God and have a relationship with
> him, then it is authoritative for the believer. But other areas like
> circumcision and animal sacrifice are no longer binding. But even in
> the case of circumcision Paul uses the practice to teach us about
> circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28-29), once again taking an old
> physical truth from the Old Testament and spiritualizing it. Our
> hearts are "circumcised" so that we can join the New Covenant. As
> eating or not eating food "does not bring us near to God" (1
> Corinthians 8:8), so "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
> nothing" (7:19; cf. Acts 16:3). These natural and physical things
> ultimately point to spiritual things, in Christ.
>
This is basically my contention. In this paragraph , arlandson
stated that the OT is only used when it suits the situation. A
lot of people apart from muslims will also find this hard to
accept. This means that for example : the prophecy of Jesus ,
then you will look hard into the OT to show proof but when it
comes to dietary restriction , ok no problems. I reiterate ,
jesus came and stated that he came to fulfill the laws not to
abolish it (matt5:17). Doesn't this mean anything? You can't
have it both ways.
The only answer I got was I am telescoping the verses from
the islamic viewpoint and teaching you how to read your
bible. You have become emotional over all this. I am actually
asking from a logical standpoint. Take for example -
1cor15:13-14
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5118001
[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ
not risen:
[14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and
your faith is also vain.
This is the central pillar of christianity , that is jesus came ,
died for your sins & was resurrected hence he is god. His
death and resurrection washed you from the 'original sin' as
preached by paul.
However if we refer to mat7:21-23
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4380943
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth
the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have
we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name
have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This is jesus own words , he stressed for the people to
do the will of the father in heaven (ie. the commands of
Allah). Anybody who does anything in his name (ie.
name of jesus) will not be even be acknowledged by
jesus after the final hour.
Can you appreciate the two conflicting messages that
have been forwarded? Logically anyone will look into
who's who have been saying as per the stated verses.
- 1cor15:13-14 are verses stated by a third party
meaning he could or could not have been at the
actual event. Since all of the NT was written after
the passing of jesus , thus these verses becomes
'historical' words (ie. words from people who
interpolate from a historical event)
- mat7:21-23 are verses supposedly quoted by jesus
himself. In a red letter bible , it would have been
hilited in red.
If I were to compare the conflicting verses , I would
logically choose mat7:21-23 over 1cor15:13-14 as it
is the words of jesus himself.
This is the issue I have always been hiliting and I
look forward for a response from you. I am not here
to teach you how to read your bible. That you can
do a lot better than me. This was also been posted
to nicks 'mbill' , 'nabi plasu' & 'explain_pls'. All of
them evaded in answering the question. Well ...
'bwahahahahahahaha' was the answer. Why are
you guys so afraid to answer the question?
sam1528
donie
interpretation, but why would you force me to present alternative
interpretation, and when I present one, you label that 'broad brush.'
What's happening to you Sam?
donie
> On Aug 8, 10:02 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
>
>
> > Please check back Sam. How do you arrive at (my) interpretation of him
> > (Jesus Christ)
> > being repentant? I never did. I was only referring to characters in
> > OT.
>
> Your previous post : '... Christ teaches us to love even our
> own enemies, how can we commit our self to the swords?
> He commanded RAsul Peter to cast off his sword, and
> returned/healed the earlobe of the capturing soldier. We
> draw more on repentance traits in OT characters, not the
> jihad side.....'
>
> You did mentioned that 'repentance trait in the OT char ...'
> Who is the central character if not jesus? Does he show
Let me tell you Sam that Jesus is not the central character in the Old
Testament (OT). OT consist of 39 books starting with 5 Moses books
thru Malachi. The characters therefore include Abraham, Ishak, Jacob,
Moses, Saul, David, Salomon. Jesus Christ is the central charactr in
the NT. You will always be falling into the same trap if you keep
trying to show Christians how to understand Christianity. That clearly
shows that you and many muslims, do not have adequate confidence in
promoting your prophet on your handbooks alone. You go all the way to
find fault with other religions instead. Or, perhaps that's exactly
the way your are taught in Islam?
donie
Tell me the content of the agreement and what type of breaches that
warrant massacre of three jew tribes? And the genocides were supposed
to be decided and led by the prophet himself. A prophet is supposed to
be a spiritual leader, and he or she should not be a war criminal.
Where was the spirituality of your prophet in those genocides?
> Why arab? Islam is a religion not centered to arabs.
>
I was saying that your koran recites on jew quite a lot, meaning that
there was a mass of jewish population in Arab then. They vanished,
after your prophet accumulated enough military power.
donie
> On Aug 8, 10:45 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
>
>
>
>
> > In Christianity, God gives us above all, "freedom" and "wisdom." Every
> > individual should seek to grow on how to exercise these 2 traits. It's
> > your freedom to still highly respect someone who can not even be
> > "above his contemporary" such as your prophet, coz perhaps that's the
> > level of wisdom you've earned. But not for me, I have been
> > internalizing the teaching of Jesus Christ, either though Gospels or
> > Rasul Paul, John, Peter et all epistles or many other sermons even
> > after or beyond (Genesis to ) Revelation, as to unthinkable say the
> > marriage behavior of your prophet is prophet-ly. We could have
> > respected him if he didn't marry Aisha, the child bride, for a prophet
> > doesn't need to cement his comrade with his very second man, the
> > father of Aisha, abu Bakar Basir. So does with the daughter of Umar
> > Katab. To be regarded as Holy Book, alquran should not have contained
> > the verse favoring Muhammat to marry practically every women in his
> > Medinah entour. Sorry, but that's my wisdom
>
> Then look again , do you know that the hadith is very
> weak and close to being an unreliable hadith. However
> christians are using it to the fullest. Its like a good
> ammunition for character assassination.
> excerpt : '.... Based on the evidences presented above,
> the marriage of fifty-two-year-old Prophet (pbuh)
> with Ayesha (ra) at nine year of age is only a
> proverbial myth.....'
They are all from your own books. Why don't you moslems work out first
and make up your mind through fatwas which part of hadist, quran and
other histories are myths, which allow character assassination, do
some sort of 'mansukh' on them.
> This excuse for character assassination has been used
> repeatedly. Quite used to it already. Where is it in the
> Quran that states for Prophet Muhammad (saw) be able
> to marry all of the women he came across. Again you are
> broad brushing your prejudice.
>
I just give you a clue, search in you Al Azhab Sura, you'll find it.
Btw, you being unaware of the muhammat marital verses further support
my hypothesis that "unable to comprehend your own religion, you find
fault with other religions."
donie
> On Aug 8, 10:57 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --snip--
>
>
> > Khadijah was a reach merchant widow. With her money she was very
> > powerful to curb the desire of your prophet for more women. Look what
> > happen after she died. He practically marrying on average one per year
> > on his remaining 13 years? There were also women slaves gained as war
> > booty.Qurasih bribery attempt? Dont' you say that your prophet side
> > was a prosecution stage while in Mecca? Why would attackers want to
> > pay for the weak defender?
>
> Like I said , she was rich but he was promised more riches
> and power. If he was a lecher or opportunist , he would have
> taken the opportunity. Your last question shows that you did
Just when was it in your time perspective Quraish offered him bribery?
When Khadijah was still around or after returning military power from
Yatrib?
> not bother to read the link. Don't expect me to spoon feed
> you.
> I am asking again , if he was a lecher , how many of his wives
> were young single women. You need to find that out.
At least 4 just from the list below:
1.Khadija: the rich widow he married, they maintained faithful
monogamy for 25 years until her death did them apart. From several
historical accounts he married on average someone new every year
during his remaining life (13 years?). Don't you ever question
why he suddenly revolutionized his matrimonial habit?
2.Sauda: Widow of Mecca. May fall under your category: CARE FOR
WIDOWS.
3.Aysha: betrothed at 7, consummated at her 9th year of age. May be
politically correct at that time to further cement the bond with his
right hand man Abu Bakr. The age might also be culturally proper at
that time.
4.Hafsyah binti Umar: VIRGIN? Also for furtherance of his alliance
with Umar, his follower?
5.Zainab. Widow of his adopted son Zeid. To care for widow? If he
was a great prophet couldn't he SAVE THE MARRIAGE instead of only
saving the widow for himself?
6.Mary the Copt: Chosen from two Christian slaves given by Egypt
Governor Al-Mouqawqas. What would be the base of his SELECTION over
the less fair Serena?
7.Juwariyah: The captive and BEAUTIFUL widow of a defeated tribe
chief?
8.Raihana: A Jewess widow and orphan of a defeated tribe. Offered
marriage but stayed slave and JEWESS? Why wouldn't he give some
of the captives to his followers to cement further brotherhood?
9.Safiya: The defeated Khaibar Jew leader's widow.
10.Um Habiba: Widowed daughter of Abu Sufyan, separated from her
apostate husband.
11.Maimuna: A political marriage to gain important converts Khalid
Ibn al Waleed and Amr.
12.There are a number of other names in his life. Many slaves at that
time were treated as concubines.
> ref :http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eq6Mdu8idic
> Was Muhammad a True Prophet?
>
> The christian David Woods was also obsessed with the
> women in the prophet's life.
>
To be a real spiritual leader Muhammat should be above David Wood,
whoever this guy is.
donie
>
> I do not think that love is the central thing in his teachings.
That's exactly the issue I have been raising. You are reading
christianity, bible and Jesus Christ with islamic mindset. Off course,
you don't understand that love is the focal point christianity
teaching. But it's okay. You have "freedom" to curb your "wisdom"
donie
Sam, before we expand to discuss fringe issues, let me try to
summarize some conclusions:
1. Sam or Muslims should be responsible to 'proof' if they want to
read bible verses as prophecy of Muhammat, muslim's prophet.
2. Muslims interpret some of the bible verses foretelling the coming
of Muhammat.
3. Christian interpret that those bible verses quoted by Sam as
prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ.
4. Each side advances arguments of of its position. We therefore we
agree to disagree.
Now related to this prophethood in general, is there any criteria in
Islam to name one as a prophet? Why would Islam regard Muhammat, as
well as a number of OT characters as prophets? A very simple question,
but I don't think if it ever discussed adequately.
sam...@hotmail.com
> interpretation, but why would you force me to present alternative
> interpretation, and when I present one, you label that 'broad brush.'
> What's happening to you Sam?
I have responded to your article by gilchrist. Awaiting
your comments.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> > own enemies, how can we commit our self to the swords?
> > He commanded RAsul Peter to cast off his sword, and
> > returned/healed the earlobe of the capturing soldier. We
> > draw more on repentance traits in OT characters, not the
> > jihad side.....'
>
> > You did mentioned that 'repentance trait in the OT char ...'
> > Who is the central character if not jesus? Does he show
>
> Let me tell you Sam that Jesus is not the central character in the Old
> Testament (OT). OT consist of 39 books starting with 5 Moses books
> thru Malachi. The characters therefore include Abraham, Ishak, Jacob,
> Moses, Saul, David, Salomon. Jesus Christ is the central charactr in
> the NT. You will always be falling into the same trap if you keep
> trying to show Christians how to understand Christianity. That clearly
> shows that you and many muslims, do not have adequate confidence in
> promoting your prophet on your handbooks alone. You go all the way to
> find fault with other religions instead. Or, perhaps that's exactly
> the way your are taught in Islam?
That comes even worse for you. In the Quran and the
muslim theology , all works of the great prophets are
revered including Prophet Isa (as). You christian as per
your argument have narrow banded yourself to jesus
(whom you regard as god) in the NT. You also claimed
that you are under the covenant of the NT. Then why
are in flip flop in acknowledging the prophets in the OT.
You tell me which great prophets of Allah have not
strived (or jihad) in Allah's cause.
The problem with you guys is that that in your
salesmanship of your religion you stressed that in
christianity its all love. For your info , all other religion
also stressed in love. You dismiss the OT of its violence
but when challenged to proof the prophersy of jesus ,
you then regard the OT as authoritative. Then you scour
the OT to look for verses that foretell the arrival of jesus.
Muslims do not have this problem. We take it all in , we
accept and make it an article of faith to believe in all of the
great prophets of Allah.
If I want to be blunt (excusing myself to you) - you are a
hypocrite. Muslims have full confidence in our Quran and
our belief of all the great prophets of Allah. We are not
telling you how to believe in you own religion. Rather its
you guys are having this flip flop in your beliefs and you
want to project that inconsistency unto others. You
guys are just using the bible to your own whim and fancy.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> warrant massacre of three jew tribes? And the genocides were supposed
> to be decided and led by the prophet himself. A prophet is supposed to
> be a spiritual leader, and he or she should not be a war criminal.
> Where was the spirituality of your prophet in those genocides?
>
That is why I asked you to find out for yourself. What were
the contents of the agreement. Who was the judge whom
passed judgement. The judgement was passed under what
laws. What was the Prophet Muhammad (saw) involvement
in the whole process. If you find out for yourself you will
understand better. Then by all means you can bring up the
points for argument. No problems.
> > Why arab? Islam is a religion not centered to arabs.
>
> I was saying that your koran recites on jew quite a lot, meaning that
> there was a mass of jewish population in Arab then. They vanished,
> after your prophet accumulated enough military power.
There has never been a mass of jewish settlers in the
so called arabic peninsula. The Quran and muslims regard
the jews in the time of the jewish prophets to be the
'people of the book' hence whatever salvation that those
people worked for will be judged favourably in the day
of judgement in equal footing to the muslims. In the
same vein , this also applies to the 'christians' whom
followed the Injeel.
Like I mentioned , you need to do a lot of fact finding.
You can start with bani quraiza.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> and make up your mind through fatwas which part of hadist, quran and
> other histories are myths, which allow character assassination, do
> some sort of 'mansukh' on them.
>
Just because you couldn't find it , doesn't mean it is not
there. You just didn't looked hard enough. You cannot
blame others for your lack of effort.
> > This excuse for character assassination has been used
> > repeatedly. Quite used to it already. Where is it in the
> > Quran that states for Prophet Muhammad (saw) be able
> > to marry all of the women he came across. Again you are
> > broad brushing your prejudice.
>
> I just give you a clue, search in you Al Azhab Sura, you'll find it.
> Btw, you being unaware of the muhammat marital verses further support
> my hypothesis that "unable to comprehend your own religion, you find
> fault with other religions."
If you are trying to imply that the surah 33:4,5,37
conveniently provided the excuse for Prophet Muhammad
(saw) to marry then you are mistaken. Lets look at the
then customs & practice of the pagan quraish
- it was a then practice to regard adopted sons as blood
sons , hence marrying their divorced wives was
considered incest
To say that the prophet forced zayd to divorce zainab is
lying. If he really was eyeing her , he would have married
her as he knew her even before zayd. She came from a
noble family and was not happy with zayd whom was a
freed slave. Zayd also was not happy as he felt that he
was not in equal social footing with her. The prophet was
the one who arranged their marriage. He needs to clean
up the mess of the marriage. In addition , his marriage to
zainab broke the stupid believe of adopted sons being of
blood tie. In the actual case , biologically zayd and the
prophet are strangers. To to call it incest is an outright
lie.
ref : http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/zaynab_bint_jahsh.htm
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> > and power. If he was a lecher or opportunist , he would have
> > taken the opportunity. Your last question shows that you did
>
> Just when was it in your time perspective Quraish offered him bribery?
> When Khadijah was still around or after returning military power from
> Yatrib?
>
I did provide you the link on this issue. The bribe was made to
the prophet during his early years of prophethood (ie. before
hijra). That time khatijah was still around. If you say that she
was rich , the prophet was offered the bribe of more riches ,
power and women. If he was a narcissist , he would have said
to hell with khatijah and left her to accept the bribe. He did not
do it. The persecution by the pagan quraish continued.
--snip--
>
> At least 4 just from the list below:
>
> 1.Khadija: the rich widow he married, they maintained faithful
> monogamy for 25 years until her death did them apart. From several
> historical accounts he married on average someone new every year
> during his remaining life (13 years?). Don't you ever question
> why he suddenly revolutionized his matrimonial habit?
>
2x widow : age 40
If you say that now the rich widow was dead then it freed him
to go leeching. Then you should study the profile of a
narcissist, you will see that these people have a consistent
behaviour pattern. If you had read my link , he was offered
a bribe which amount to more than what khatijah had in terms
of weath , power and women. He turned that down and
suffered continuous persecution. That is definately not the
character profile of a narcissist.
> 2.Sauda: Widow of Mecca. May fall under your category: CARE FOR
> WIDOWS.
>
widow , age :50
refer to appended link
> 3.Aysha: betrothed at 7, consummated at her 9th year of age. May be
> politically correct at that time to further cement the bond with his
> right hand man Abu Bakr. The age might also be culturally proper at
> that time.
>
virgin , age >16 (however you guys regard it as 9)
refer to the appended link
> 4.Hafsyah binti Umar: VIRGIN? Also for furtherance of his alliance
> with Umar, his follower?
>
widow , age : 22
refer to the appended link
> 5.Zainab. Widow of his adopted son Zeid. To care for widow? If he
> was a great prophet couldn't he SAVE THE MARRIAGE instead of only
> saving the widow for himself?
>
widow , age : 38
Answered that in the previous post.
refer to appended link
> 6.Mary the Copt: Chosen from two Christian slaves given by Egypt
> Governor Al-Mouqawqas. What would be the base of his SELECTION over
> the less fair Serena?
>
virgin , 17
refer to the appended link.
Again you are making subjective claims. How did
you know that mary was prettier that serena?
The governer gave him the ladies to cement ties
thru marriage. If he was a narcissist , he would
have married both.
> 7.Juwariyah: The captive and BEAUTIFUL widow of a defeated tribe
> chief?
>
widow , age : 20
refer to the link
> 8.Raihana: A Jewess widow and orphan of a defeated tribe. Offered
> marriage but stayed slave and JEWESS? Why wouldn't he give some
> of the captives to his followers to cement further brotherhood?
>
????? - who is she??
> 9.Safiya: The defeated Khaibar Jew leader's widow.
>
widow , age : 17
ref : http://muslim-responses.com/Marriage_with_Safiyyah/Marriage_with_Safiyyah_
refer to the appended link
> 10.Um Habiba: Widowed daughter of Abu Sufyan, separated from her
> apostate husband.
>
widow , age :36
refer to the appended link
>
> 11.Maimuna: A political marriage to gain important converts Khalid
> Ibn al Waleed and Amr.
>
widow , age :36
refer to the appended link
> 12.There are a number of other names in his life. Many slaves at that
> time were treated as concubines.
>
Then you need to show proof with the seerah to back that
up as the life of the prophet was only recorded by people
like ibn ishaq etc.
--snip--
http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/prophets-wives.htm
>
> To be a real spiritual leader Muhammat should be above David Wood,
> whoever this guy is.
Like I mentioned before , if I gauge the Prophet Muhammad
(saw) in biblical values , I do not think he will have any issue.
The prophets listed in your bible like Prophet Abraham (as) ,
Prophet David (as) , Prophet Solomon (as) all had many
wives. Your problem is that you are not consistent with your
values as you ascribe to the NT and only consider the OT
at your convenience and when only to your advantage. You
might as well take off the OT from your bible. You don't have
a consistent standard to judge Prophet Muhammad (saw).
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
In one of your previous posts you stated that the covenant
is a lot more than circumcision. I agree. The message that
I get from you is that you are all about love and repentance.
Is that all of your religion? What about governance , spiritual
guide , family , food (ie. a total way of living). Is that not
important? For your information all other religions also have
love and repentance in their teaching.
That was exactly the point I made. Jesus did not teach all
is about love and repentance. He showed his willingness
for jihad to preserve his principles. He stated that he came
to enforce the laws. What has happened to his teachings
which you can find in your bible? My questions that you
have not answered :
- compare mat7:21-23 over 1cor15:13-14. The former was
the words of jesus and the latter paul. They contradict
each other. Who would you choose?
- women now outnumber men. what is the christian
solution? you mention wisdom - could you be more
definitive? .... marry late if you must do it ....- this
does not solve the problem.
I will give you an example. The recent sen edwards issue
of him having a mistress. If he married her , he would be
persecuted. He 'used' her and then he engineered a PR
coup. Now he has been hailed as a truthful person. Any
thoughts to the lady in concern? Her dignity has been
shattered. Not fair isn't it? Is that very christian. In an
islamic situation , since he can 'afford' another wife ,
he should have married her and come clean. In this
way she get her rights as a wife. What does she get
now?
sam1528
Waraqah T
Court rejects bid to leave Islam
From correspondents in Kuala Lumpur
August 06, 2008 08:32pm
Article from: Agence France-Presse
A MALAYSIAN court has rejected a Muslim woman's appeal to convert back to
Christianity, the latest case to test the limits of religious freedom in the
country.
The Court of Appeal threw out Noorashikin Lim Abdullah's bid to renounce
Islam on technical grounds - that she used her original Chinese name in her
suit, her lawyer Edmond Bon said.
The court said the appellant was not legally recognised because her Chinese
name - Lim Yoke Khoon - no longer existed following her conversion to Islam
in 1994, Bon said.
A Chinese judge on the three-man panel dissented, he said.
"The court rejected the appeal on technical grounds, not on merit. We
believe they are afraid to hear the case'' because of the sensitivity of the
issue, Bon said.
Lim, 35, is likely to appeal to the country's top civil court, he added.
A rising number of disputes about religious conversions have sparked anxiety
among minorities - Buddhists, Christians and Hindus - because courts almost
always rule against people seeking to leave Islam, which is Malaysia's
official religion.
Lim married a Muslim man in 1994, converted to Islam and obtained a new
identity card with her Muslim name. But she divorced three years later and
wants to convert back to Christianity, Bon said.
In 2003, she applied to change her name and religion on her identity card
but the National Registration Department told her she must get permission
from the Islamic Sharia Court to renounce Islam, Bon said.
Lim turned to the high court seeking a declaration that she was no longer a
Muslim but the court ruled in 2006 that it had no jurisdiction to hear the
case, Bon said.
Malaysia has a dual court system with civil courts for non-Muslims and
Shariah courts for Muslims.
Ethnic Chinese and Indians, who account for more than 30 per cent of
Malaysia's 27 million people, have complained that court decisions in
religious disputes favour Muslims - who account for more than 60 per cent
and are mainly ethnic Malay.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
<sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:938a2b0d-1156-4db8...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> Sam, before we expand to discuss fringe issues, let me try to
> summarize some conclusions:
> 1. Sam or Muslims should be responsible to 'proof' if they want to
> read bible verses as prophecy of Muhammat, muslim's prophet.
> 2. Muslims interpret some of the bible verses foretelling the coming
> of Muhammat.
> 3. Christian interpret that those bible verses quoted by Sam as
> prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ.
> 4. Each side advances arguments of of its position. We therefore we
> agree to disagree.
>
> Now related to this prophethood in general, is there any criteria in
> Islam to name one as a prophet? Why would Islam regard Muhammat, as
> well as a number of OT characters as prophets? A very simple question,
> but I don't think if it ever discussed adequately.
http://www.al-sunnah.com/pdf/WAMY7.pdf
sam1528
ini si þíLL™
7e028a...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com :
> In an
> islamic situation , since he can 'afford' another wife ,
> he should have married her and come clean
bwahahahahahahhahahahahaha, I tawld ya
Those NO NO things in other religions are in fact blessed and approved
by eslam's paganic god, ..... take adultery for instance, which they
call it polygami, see above .
ini si þíLL™
news:Xns9AF6E306662...@62.141.42.83 :
a religion that solely bothers of how to indulge and spoil the lustful
sexual desire of the male kind
no wonder, the filthy lustful nabie
bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha ......
R. Rakhmat Soewirjo
Ujang Kartasasmita
@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com :
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24139120-23109,00.html
siloba-hutang
@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com :
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24139120-23109,00.html
Ujang Kartasasmita
jee@tmnet.net.my ong kong jee
fast for ramadan, continues eating pork, stop dressing as a muslim, behave
completely as a non Muslim, will the Sharia Law be utilised to jail her for
not following a religious faith she now does not subscribe to? If she is,
then there is no freedom of worship in Malaysia and the reason why Malaysia
has a high muslim population is because once a convert be, there is no
returning back. If Islam is a great religion, it should not be neccessary to
resort to such tactics. Islam should win converts by reason and retain them
by their teachings and never by force.
"Waraqah T" <war...@fortuneteller.com> wrote in message
news:g7n0g4$1ru$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> Sam, before we expand to discuss fringe issues, let me try to
> summarize some conclusions:
> 1. Sam or Muslims should be responsible to 'proof' if they want to
> read bible verses as prophecy of Muhammat, muslim's prophet.
> 2. Muslims interpret some of the bible verses foretelling the coming
> of Muhammat.
> 3. Christian interpret that those bible verses quoted by Sam as
> prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ.
> 4. Each side advances arguments of of its position. We therefore we
> agree to disagree.
>
> Now related to this prophethood in general, is there any criteria in
> Islam to name one as a prophet? Why would Islam regard Muhammat, as
> well as a number of OT characters as prophets? A very simple question,
> but I don't think if it ever discussed adequately.
I have responded. What is the christian criteria for
a prophet? Is paul a prophet?
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> sam1...@hotmail.com wrote in news:eb9fe989-a0bb-4544-9ec1-
> 7e028abdf...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com :
>
> > In an
> > islamic situation , since he can 'afford' another wife ,
> > he should have married her and come clean
>
> bwahahahahahahhahahahahaha, I tawld ya
>
> Those NO NO things in other religions are in fact blessed and approved
> by eslam's paganic god, ..... take adultery for instance, which they
> call it polygami, see above .
You see , you do not even have an answer. This christian
was fooling around and committed fornication and in the
christian values he came out clean. This shows that
christians are actually pagans.
Refutation of the article 'who authored the Quran' will
be out tomorrow. Then the bible will be examined and
it will be seen that this is just a story book written by
unknown people and you christians consider it the
word of god.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> Now if this woman refuses to go to the mosque for friday prayers, refuse to
> fast for ramadan, continues eating pork, stop dressing as a muslim, behave
> completely as a non Muslim, will the Sharia Law be utilised to jail her for
> not following a religious faith she now does not subscribe to? If she is,
> then there is no freedom of worship in Malaysia and the reason why Malaysia
> has a high muslim population is because once a convert be, there is no
> returning back. If Islam is a great religion, it should not be neccessary to
> resort to such tactics. Islam should win converts by reason and retain them
>
--snip--
If I were the judge , I would have kicked her out and tell
her to stop wasting public funds. Nobody is in any position
to stop her if she wants to renounce Islam. Good riddance
is the order of the day.
This again shows the flip flop nature of christians. Should
have said no from the beginning. What is so difficult about
it?
sam1528
ini si þíLL™
@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com :
so you admit it huh , eslam is nothing more than religion of adultery,
sex and sex and sex and sex and sex
or in Bahasa we call it Agama Mesum,
bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha, thank ya sam for being honest and
fair ...
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> > You see , you do not even have an answer. This christian
> > was fooling around and committed fornication and in the
> > christian values he came out clean. This shows that
> > christians are actually pagans.
>
>
> so you admit it huh , eslam is nothing more than religion of adultery,
> sex and sex and sex and sex and sex
>
> or in Bahasa we call it Agama Mesum,
>
> bwahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha, thank ya sam for being honest and
> fair ...
Yes I admit , christians go around fornicating
their mistress(es).
Thank you for you supporting me in this one.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> fast for ramadan, continues eating pork, stop dressing as a muslim, behave
> completely as a non Muslim, will the Sharia Law be utilised to jail her for
> not following a religious faith she now does not subscribe to? If she is,
> then there is no freedom of worship in Malaysia and the reason why Malaysia
> has a high muslim population is because once a convert be, there is no
> returning back. If Islam is a great religion, it should not be neccessary to
> resort to such tactics. Islam should win converts by reason and retain them
>
Friday prayers is not mandatory for women. You need
to get your facts right.
Don't talk about if this and that. Its hypothetical issues,
not facts. The point is Islam do not converts that are flip
flops. You should do a thorough investigation before you
commit yourself. If you want to commit , do it for the long
haul else just say no. Its not difficult to say no from the
very beginning.
Who can to stop a person if he/she renounce Islam. You
can do it in a personal basis or you can challenge the
authorities (in which you will come out second best). The
choice is yours.
sam1528
donie
>
> Like I mentioned , you need to do a lot of fact finding.
> You can start with bani quraiza.
>
following suffice?
===========Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews=============
How Sad made Muhammad glad
James M. Arlandson
In AD 627, Muhammad committed an atrocity against the last remaining
major tribe of Jews in Medina: the Qurayza.
He beheaded the men and the pubescent boys and enslaved the women and
children. In doing this, he wiped an entire tribe "off the map" to use
the language of the President of Iran, recently.
The purpose of this article is full disclosure and straightforward
analysis about early Islam. How and why did this atrocity unfold?
Background
The immediate background of this mass extermination and enslavement is
the Battle of the Trench (or Ditch), in February-March-April (the
exact calculations vary), AD 627. This battle—though it ended up being
a siege—pitted a coalition of Quraysh (a large tribe in and around
Mecca) against Muslims and some Medinan non-Muslims. The Quraysh also
had allies: the Ghatafan (northern Arab tribes to the east of Medina
and Mecca) and an assortment of smaller tribes. As for the Muslims,
prominent Islamologist W. M. Watt says that on the eve of battle,
Muhammad’s army consisted of "practically all the inhabitants of
Medina with the exception of the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah, who seem to
have tried to remain neutral. There were some Medinans in league with
the Meccans, but they were presumably . . . exiled from Medina for the
time being" (Muhammad at Medina, p. 36).
For the size of the two armies, the standard figure for the Meccans
and their allies is 10,000, but one Muslim scholar says that the
coalition of pagans may have reached 12,000 (Maududi vol. 3, p. 63).
However, Watt says of the coalition: "The numbers given for the
various contingents [the coalition was divided into three corps],
however, do not add up to more than about 7,500. The Meccans
themselves had about 300 horses and the nomadic tribes a similar
number" (Statesman, pp. 166-67). On the Muslim side, the standard
figure that is widely accepted is 3,000. They had no cavalry to speak
of.
The larger background of this atrocity against the Jews reveals that
Muhammad had already expelled two tribes of Jews: the Qaynuqa in AD
624 and the Nadir in AD 625.
It is unclear why the prophet expelled the first tribe, the Qaynuqa.
One source says that these Jews waged war on Muhammad, but this is
unlikely since he was flushed with victory over the Meccans at the
Battle of Badr, only a month before. But perhaps this exaggeration
reflects at least some level of conflict between the two sides.
Another source says that some Jews played a trick on a Muslim woman,
but this too is unlikely, since the trick is found in Arabic
literature. These Jews controlled the market of crafts and trade, and
the new Muslim immigrants to Medina were craftsmen, so maybe this is
the reason. Regardless, the results worked out the same. After being
besieged in their fortress for fifteen days, they were expelled, and
the Muslims took over the crafts. "The Banu [tribe] Qaynuqa did not
have any land, as they were goldsmiths [and armor-makers]. The
Messenger of God took many weapons belonging to them and the tools of
their trade" (Tabari, vol. 7, p. 87).
About the Nadir tribe, an early Muslim source says that Muhammad
suspected an assassination attempt, while he was collecting some blood-
wit money (compensation for bloodshed) from the tribe. Muhammad called
on his followers to wage war on them, besieging them in their
strongholds for fifteen days in August. Muhammad set about destroying
their palm trees. Their livelihood undergoing destruction, they
surrendered and departed for the north. Muhammad confiscated their
property, just as he took the tools of the Nadir tribe.
The upshot of all of this is clear. The conflict between Muslims and
Jews is escalating, and the prophet for all of humanity is about to
impose the ultimate penalty on the last remaining major tribe of Jews
in Medina. And he will take their property, as well.
Sources: W. M. Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford UP, 1961,
pp. 130-31; 148-51; 166-67; Muhammad at Medina, Oxfored UP, 1956;
Sayyid Abul A’La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 3; Ibn
Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, pp.
363-64; 437-45. Ibn Ishaq (d. 767) valuable and reliable source by
modern scholars, except for some chronology and the miraculous
elements. Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, trans. M.V.
McDonald and annotated by W. M. Watt (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 85-87; 156-61.
Tabari (d. 923) is also considered a reliable source, except for some
chronology and the miraculous elements.
What started the Battle of the Trench?
Many causes feed into any conflict, but one stands out. Muslim raiders
harassed Meccan trade. Modern Saudi biographer Safi-ur-Rahman al-
Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea: . . . "[I]t was wise for the
Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under
their control" (p. 201). Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the
Battle of Badr in AD 624. In each one, Muslims were the aggressors, to
accomplish the big objective of strangling Mecca’s trade. These raids
that sometimes involved hundreds of men continued steadily from that
time to the Battle of the Trench. The Meccans had had enough. So they
wanted to finish off Islam, once and for all.
From Muhammad’s point of view, he wanted the Kabah shrine in Mecca,
and if this goal involved hindering Meccan trade, then so be it. Two
early Medinan suras or chapters (2 and 8) reveal his outlook. Sura
2:189-196 and 216-218 command Muslims to fight the Quraysh because
this tribe wanted to control their own shrine, even if this entailed
prohibiting the Muslims, who were hampering the large tribe’s trade,
from visiting it. Next, Sura 2:125-129 asserts without a shred of
evidence that Abraham built and purified the shrine, and now Muhammad
the monotheist is the best representative of this patriarch. He
claimed this while he lived in Mecca, too (Sura 14:35-41). So in
effect the shrine belonged to him by revelation, before it actually
did by conquest (in early AD 630). Finally, in Sura 8:30-40, the
prophet recounts his persecution back in Mecca and why the Quraysh are
not the rightful guardians of the shrine. They barred people from it—
never mind that about eight years later the prophet will bar pagans
from the shrine. All Arab polytheists will be forced to convert or
die.
It is impossible (for me at least) to escape the impression that if
Muhammad had put aside this desire to control the Kabah, then much of
the conflict between him and the Quraysh would never have erupted in
the first place. But the shrine was a popular place of religious
pilgrimage, so how could he allow religious freedom for polytheists?
Were the Jews involved in the start of the Battle of the Trench? The
Islamic sources say that they stirred up the Meccans against the
Muslims.
Early biographer Ibn Ishaq says:
A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among
whom were Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq al-Nadir [he had been assassinated so
the chronology or his placement here is off], and Huyayy b. Aktab al-
Nadri, and Kinana b. Abu’l-Huaqayq al-Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al-
Wa’ili, and Abu Ammar al-Wa’ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or
clan] Nadir and B. Wa’il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited
them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get
rid of him altogether. (p. 450).
How much did the Jews instigate the battle, and how much were the
Meccans fed up with Muslim harassment on their own without Jewish
provocation? This is unclear. But let us assume only for the sake of
argument that the Islamic sources are right. These specific Jews were
the principal instigators. In the end, this does not matter, for the
following reason.
It is important to cite these (complex) names, above, because today’s
Muslim polemicists who defend Muhammad’s extermination and enslavement
of the Qurayza Jews overlook the fact that early Islam knew
specifically who the enemy Jewish leaders were—by name. So did all the
men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and
children enslaved? Could only the leaders not have been executed?
Sources: Ibn Ishaq; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, trans. M. Fishbein,
vol. 8, (1997), pp. 6-7. Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, The Sealed
Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, Darrusalam, 1996, p. 201. This
biography was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, but it
is an encomium more than an objective biography.
The Battle of the Trench
The Muslims dug trenches to the north of Medina, linking them to or
near various high grounds (e.g. Mt. Sal, a hill in the central area of
Medina) and other difficult spots (e.g. a marshy ground), in order to
neutralize the Meccan cavalry and to avoid hand-to-hand pitched
battles. The strategy of trenches was new to Arabia, and the early
Islamic sources make much of it. The Muslim army bivouacked south of
the trench with Medina at their backs, while the coalition camped
north of the trench, facing Medina, with Mt. Uhud at their backs. The
Jews retreated south of Medina, facing the back of the Muslim army.
Though the Muslims were under siege, which pressed them hard, the
trenches indeed worked well. The coalition’s cavalry was stymied,
except a foray that came to nothing. The Meccans tried to assault the
trench, but they were easily repulsed. The Muslim sources say that
Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, fought in a duel, which he won.
Some arrows were shot, but that achieved nothing.
This must be emphasized: No real battles or warfare occurred, and this
favored the outnumbered Muslims. Early biographer Ibn Ishaq says—and
modern historians are in complete agreement—that "[t]he siege
continued without any actual fighting" (p. 454). Early historian
Tabari agrees: "The Messenger of God and the polytheists stayed in
their positions for over twenty nights—nearly a month—with no warfare
between the troops, except for the shooting of arrows and the
siege" (vol. 8, p. 17). Again, modern western scholars agree on this
point.
Even Allah in the Quran confirms this absence of pitched battle: 25
Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a
state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers
battle [q-t-l]. (Sura 33:25; for more analysis, see the section "the
Quran," below)
It is important to realize this fact because Muslim polemicists assert
or imply that the Jews actually fought the Muslims, so if the Jews
were exterminated and enslaved, then it was their fault. But no full-
scale battles ever took place, and the early sources say that the Jews
remained in their houses and fortresses near Medina—that is, the
sources do not depict them forcefully sallying out and attacking
Muslims from behind.
Finally, the early sources say that a storm battered the coalition,
and the Quran confirms this, implying also that supernatural forces
joined in the fight: "You who believe, remember God’s goodness to you
when mighty armies massed against you: We sent a violent wind and
invisible forces against them. God sees all that you do" (Sura 33:9;
Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004).
In short, the coalition that had amassed against the Muslims in Medina
was losing heart.
Besides Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, see the reliable hadith collector and
editor Bukhari here and here. The hadith is the traditions about
Muhammad outside of the Quran.
The aftermath of the siege
The Meccans and their allies had to withdraw, for at least four
reasons.
(1) As we just observed in the previous section, the Muslims had
adopted an effective strategy: trenches.
No full-scale battle or warfare could take place, so the coalition was
becoming discouraged. It is highly likely that the average soldiers
saw that they would not be dividing up any spoils, and this added to
their disheartenment.
(2) Early sources say that Muhammad was about to offer the Ghatafan
tribe (a major part of the coalition) one-third of the date harvest,
if they withdrew.
But before this offer, he consulted two of his own leaders, and they
said that he should not make the deal. They would prefer to meet the
coalition with the sword. This account may or may not be authentic.
However, the prophet was, after all, under siege for nearly a month,
and he wanted to relieve the pressure off of his Muslims. Though the
offer may not have been made (and perhaps not even conceived), the
narrative may reveal a weakening in the coalition, which Muhammad had
observed.
(3) This weakening was indeed the case, which comes up in a tradition
that scholars seem to accept, if only tentatively.
A recent convert to Islam, Nuaym, of the Ghatafan tribe, volunteered
himself in any way that would help. Muhammad set out on a plan, using
Nuaym’s affiliations with the Quraysh and the Jews as a ruse: "The
apostle said: ‘You are only one man among us. Go and awake mistrust
among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is
deceit’" (Ibn Ishaq, p. 458; see also Bukhari, and view the two
hadiths below this linked one).
First, Nuaym goes to the Jews who were his drinking companions in the
"Time of Ignorance." Deceitfully reminding the Jews of his special
ties and affection for them, he tells them that the invaders are
foreigners, so if the coalition leaves after a fight but wins no
spoils and the Jews join them in battle, then the Jews will remain in
their homes here in Medina, without any help, leaving them exposed and
powerless. Thus, they should not fight with the coalition unless they
take some hostages from some leaders of the Quraysh and Ghatafan to
ensure that the pagan tribes would fight to the bitter end.
Nuaym then goes to the Quraysh polytheists. Deceitfully reminding them
of his affection for them and how he has separated from Muhammad, he
informs them that word has reached him that the Jews regretted how the
relations between them and Muhammad had devolved. So they told the
prophet that they would take some Quraysh leaders hostage, under the
subterfuge that ensures that the Quraysh would fight hard. But in
reality, the Jews would turn the hostages over to Muhammad. Nuaym said
that the Quraysh should not take the deal because of this subterfuge.
This would end the siege.
Finally, the Quraysh and the Jews communicated with each other, and
they were on the verge of a full onslaught against the Muslims, but
negotiations broke down. The Jews indeed asked for hostages to ensure
that the Quraysh would fight to the very end, and the (forewarned)
Quraysh turned the Jews down, fearing that the Jews would betray the
noblemen to Muhammad.
(4) The coalition’s animals were dying.
This practical reason for the coalition’s withdrawal is beyond
dispute. Generally, the Arabs did not feed their animals, in this case
horses and camels, but allowed them to graze. However, Muhammad had
ordered the Medinans to harvest early, so this took away the animals’
food. And even if he had not ordered this, then the pasture lands were
gone after nearly a month. Indeed, the source documents say through
the mouths of the Quraysh and Ghatafan to the Jews that "[t]hey had no
permanent camp, that the horses and camels were dying."
To sum up this section, it may be said fairly that Muhammad won a
great victory with little fighting. He had three thousand troops at
this disposal. The only opposing tribe left in the region was the
Jews. Nuaym the deceitful go-between was right up to a point. When the
coalition left, the Jews were left powerless, outnumbered, and alone,
without allies. This spells trouble for them.
Sources: Ibn Ishaq, p. 458-59; Tabari vol. 8, p. 23-24.
The aftermath of the withdrawal for the Qurayza Jews
After the withdrawal of the coalition, the Jews were isolated, whereas
Muhammad had 3,000 jihadists, signaling disaster for the Jews. The
tragic drama unfolds in five stages.
(1) Traditions state that as the prophet was taking a bath, the (non-
Biblical) angel Gabriel appeared to him.
Gabriel tells him the battle is not finished. Muhammad is ordered to
fight the Qurayza Jews.
When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq
(i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel,
whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put
down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah’s
Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing
towards the tribe of Bani [tribe] Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went out
towards them. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here.)
This next hadith shows a regiment of Gabriel (Muslim warriors)
marching towards the fortresses of the Jews.
Narrated Anas: As if I am just now looking at the dust rising in the
street of Banu Ghanm (in Medina) because of the marching of Gabriel's
regiment when Allah's Apostle set out to Banu Quraiza (to attack
them). (Bukhari; see this parallel hadith: Muslim no. 4370 and see no.
4371)
These traditions about Gabriel’s leadership are designed to give
divine support for the atrocity that is about to be unleashed. Today,
we may see this as fanciful, but to millions of Muslims this is real.
Be that as it may, one thing is clear. Muhammad had taken off his
armor and was enjoying a bath, so he did not feel immediately
threatened by these Jews. They had not lined up in battle array to
wage war.
But even if Muhammad had felt threatened, why not expel the Jews? Soon
Islam will be so powerful that it will expel all Jews (and Christians)
from the Arabian Peninsula (see also these hadiths here and here).
Muhammad had expelled two tribes of Jews a few years earlier. In fact,
he conquers the mainly Jewish city of Khaybar in AD 628. Therefore, it
would be inaccurate to assert that if Muhammad had simply expelled the
Jews, they would constitute a later substantial and serious threat. He
is on the rise militarily.
(2) It is odd that during Muhammad’s twenty-five-day siege of the
Jews, he employed a poet to abuse them.
The Prophet said to Hassan, "Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel
is with you (i.e. supports you)." (Through another group of sub-
narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, "On the day of Quraiza’s (besiege),
Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your
poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).’" (Bukhari)
This shows how valued poetry was in seventh-century Arabia. In some
instances, it could resemble a smear campaign, to use the language of
today. However, Muhammad assassinated poets who mocked him. But now
that he has the power, he gets to employ a satirical poet without fear
of reprisal. In fact, he refers to the Jews as brothers of monkeys,
citing a legend that he believed, namely, that God turned some
disobedient Jews into apes. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 461-62).
(3) The Jews did not mount a strong resistance.
How could they do this, when Muhammad had just withstood such a large
coalition and still had at his command 3,000 jihadists?
Then something strange happened while the Jews were negotiating the
terms of surrender. They called for a man named Abu Lubabah, a nominal
or half-committed Muslim who may have opposed Muhammad on several
occasions. They asked him, "Abu Lubabah, do you think we should submit
to Muhammad’s judgment?" He said yes, but then he gestured with his
hand to his throat to indicate slaughter. Immediately afterwards, he
felt that he had betrayed Muhammad. But why? Scholars are not sure.
Maybe Abu Lubabah believed that he had signaled imminent death to the
Jews, although Muhammad wanted to keep this brutality a secret. The
Jews would have resisted submission on these gruesome terms. Watt
speculates that the Muslim go-between may have been standing firm in
his own clan’s alliance with the Jews and gave away too much
information. Regardless, this must be emphasized: It is not whether he
gestured that is in dispute, but the dispute is over why he felt that
he betrayed Muhammad. Be that as it may, this means that the outcome
was not in doubt—as the hand to the throat indicated.
Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 462; Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 188-89;
214-17
(4) Muhammad proposed that the Jews submit to the judgment of Sad bin
Muadh.
He was the leader of a large Medinan tribe, the Aws (or Aus), some of
whom favored old alliances with the Jews. The leader was an elderly
man who was wounded during the siege. His verdict was short and simple—
but bloody and cruel.
When the tribe of . . . Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment,
Allah’s Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a
donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar) [or
Helpers], "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside
Allah’s Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept
your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors
should be killed and their children and women should be taken as
prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst
them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." (Bukhari;
see parallel hadiths here, here, and here)
It should be noted from this passage that Sad bin Muadh sat next to
Muhammad. Was there undue influence from Muhammad on the wounded old
man who was about to die and meet Allah? Muhammad had often preached
hell fire in the mosque. That is, Sad knew that he was dying, so he
wanted to demonstrate his allegiance to the prophet and Islam. The
best way, as the circumstances presented themselves, was to decide on
death and enslavement, the ultimate penalty signaling the ultimate
commitment. Sad made the prophet glad. Shortly after this verdict the
elder in fact died from his wound.
Sources: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 463-64; Tabari vol. 8, p. 34.
(5) The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 300-600 men and
pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children. Ibn Ishaq
says that the number may have been as high as 800-900 (p. 464).
Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in
order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were
probably carried out by Muhammad’s fellow Emigrants from Mecca, as the
heads and bodies were dragged into trenches in the business district
of Medina.
Source: Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 174
How did the executioners decide on which boy to slaughter or leave
alive? This hadith gives the obvious answer.
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu [tribe]
Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun
to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not
killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Abu Dawud; see Ibn
Ishaq, p. 466)
This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed.
Narrated Aisha . . . No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed
except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and
belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her
people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-
and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a
new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha]
said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she
knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawud)
The following narrative says that Muhammad took one woman for himself.
The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint
Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him
until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and
put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for
that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown
repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism.
(Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)
Shortly afterwards, though, she converted to Islam and a messenger
informed Muhammad of this, and he reacts to the good news: "This gave
him pleasure." It is wrong to believe that this was Muhammad’s motive
to execute so many Jews, but this woman does provide an unforeseen,
extra benefit.
This hadith gives a hint on how the wealth was distributed.
People used to give some of their date palms to the Prophet (as a
gift), till he conquered Bani [tribe] Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir,
whereupon he started returning their favors. (Bukhari; see a parallel
hadith here)
More specifically, Ibn Ishaq says the spoils were divided among the
Muslims thus:
Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children . . . among
the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and
men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the
horse and one for the rider. A man without a horse got one share (p.
466).
A jihadist horseman was generally wealthier than a horseless jihadist,
so this reveals elitism in "egalitarian" Islam. Also, Muhammad was
unable to collect any spoils from the departed Meccans and their
allies, so how was he supposed to reward his jihadist? The wealth of
the Jews. Apart from the details of how the prophet distributed the
spoils here, the division of twenty percent for him and eighty percent
for his warriors conforms to a "revelation" just after the Battle of
Badr in AD 624. In Sura (Chapter) 8:1 and 41, which deals with this
battle, Allah grants him and his fighters these percentages.
Allah also allows jihadists to have sex with female slaves. Do we need
to discuss this topic any further in the context of these Jewish women
and girls?
Sources: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464-66; Tabari, vol. 8, pp. 27-41.
Summary of the aftermath for the Jews
Since all the names and politics can be confusing, here is a quick
overview of the facts found in the previous section "the aftermath for
the Qurayza Jews."
1. After the Meccans and their allies depart, the Jews are left
powerless and outnumbered before 3,000 Muslim jihadists.
2. While the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender with Abu
Lubabah, he gestures to his throat, which indicates slaughter. This
means that the flow of the events headed in one direction.
3. Sad bin Muadh is the leader of the Aws tribe.
4. This tribe had old alliances, whatever they were, with the Qurayzah
tribe of Jews.
5. However, the Aws fought alongside Muhammad.
6. The Jews sided with the coalition (though the Jews did not actually
fight).
7. Thus, the old alliances between the Aws and Jews are weakening.
8. After Muhammad’s attack on the Jews, some of the Aws plead with
Muhammad to be lenient, such as expulsion.
9. Muhammad turns down this request for mercy—a key point, which
supports no. 2. The outcome is never in doubt.
10. Instead, Muhammad appoints Sad bin Muadh to decide, and everyone
agrees to abide by his decision.
11. Sad decrees slaughter and enslavement, wanting to firm up his
allegiance to Islam before he dies. He dies shortly thereafter from
his wound.
12. Muhammad says that Sad’s verdict is the judgment of "King Allah."
It is right and just. Sad makes him glad.
13. Even though everyone agrees to abide by the verdict, Muhammad
still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind
their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. He
takes one of the beautiful, recently "widowed" Jewish women for
himself instead of taking the path of mercy.
14. Muhammad gets twenty percent of the Jewish property (movable,
immovable and human), and the jihadists get eighty percent, to be
distributed as he sees fit.
In any steps leading up to an atrocity, something wrong is bound to be
revealed, and this appears to be no. 9. As noted, Muhammad could have
exiled the Jews, as he had done to the Jewish tribes of Qaynuqa and
Nadir a few years earlier. Or he could have executed only the leaders,
if he believed that they stirred up his enemies—assuming that they
really did this, as the Islamic sources allege.
Something is also wrong with step no. 13. Even though everyone agreed
to abide by the verdict, who could have complained—justly complained—
if Muhammad had announced this? "We agreed to abide by the tribal
chief’s verdict, but as I watch the men and boys being handcuffed and
observe all the tears from the women and children, I’m sure no one
would object if we showed mercy and exiled them and executed only the
few trouble-makers. After all, I often say that Allah is most
merciful. I set the example for my community and the world!" But this
is wishful thinking. He took one of the beauties (now a widow) for
himself, instead.
Why does he not show mercy? The answer is found in no. 14. Muhammad
needs to reward his jihadists, since they collected no spoils from the
departed coalition—Allah gives him permission in Sura 33:27 (see the
next section, "the Quran"). And what makes this entire episode doubly
heinous is that Muhammad and his jihadists could have had all of the
wealth of the Jews after their banishment, but he still did not take
this merciful option. But if he had taken it, would he have earned all
the money (and a new "bride") coming from the enslavement of Jewish
women and children?
The Quran
Allah seems to celebrate this slaughter and enslavement in Sura
33:25-27:
25 Allah turned back the unbelievers [Meccans and their allies] in a
state of rage, having not won any good, and Allah spared the believers
battle [q-t-l]. Allah is, indeed, Strong and Mighty. 26 And He brought
those of the People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them from
their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts, some of them you
slew [q-t-l] and some you took captive. 27 And he bequeathed to you
their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you
have never trodden. Allah has power over everything. (Majid Fakhry, An
Interpretation of the Qur’an, NYUP, 2004; insertions are mine)
These verses reveal three unpleasant truths.
First, Allah helps the Muslims in warfare or battle (three-letter
Arabic root is q-t-l in v. 25) against a much-larger foe, so Allah
endorses Islam in battle. Also, verse 25 confirms that Muhammad had
nothing substantial to fear from the Jews. "Allah turned back the
unbelievers . . . and Allah spared the believers battle." In down-to-
earth terms, Muhammad still had at his disposal a large, weather-
beaten army. The prophet had expelled two other tribes (Qaynuqa and
Nadir), so he could have done the same to the Qurayza—as indeed they
requested. But the prophet for humanity declined this merciful and
humane option.
Second, Allah permits the enslavement and beheading of Jews, so any
Muslim familiar with the background of this verse knows that beheading
as such has been assimilated into the Quran. The word q-t-l in verse
26 means slaughter. What is so troubling about the verse is that it
seems to celebrate the "terror" that Allah threw into the Jews’
hearts. Indeed, when Abu Lubabah the mediator approached the Jews
during negotiations, the women and children were crying. Allah gladly
terrorized them.
Finally, Allah permits Muhammad to take the Jewish clan’s property on
the basis of conquest and his possession of all things. This is a
dubious revelation and reasoning. Allah speaks, and this benefits
Muhammad materially. This happens too often in Muhammad’s life.
If anyone is looking for a down-to-earth reason for Muhammad’s attack
on the Qurayza Jews (instead of "Gabriel’s leadership"), then he does
not need to look any further than verse 27. The prophet confiscated
wealth. After all, the Meccans and their allies withdrew without
allowing Muslims to take their wealth. So how was Muhammad going to
reward his jihadists? He was following a bad custom of winner-take-all
in seventh-century Arabia. It is a pity that he could not rise above
this, as the prophet for all of the world, the last and the best of
all the prophets.
For more translations of these verses, the readers may go to three
sites: this one has multiple translations; this one has three; and
this conservative translation is subsidized by the Saudi royal family.
Defenses of this atrocity
(1) Muhammad was following his culture.
W. M. Watt follows this tact. He writes:
So far were the Muslims who killed them [the Qurayza Jews] from
feeling any qualms that one of them, describing the return from the
deed, wrote that they returned with the head of their victim "five
honorable men, steady and true, and God was with the sixth of us."
This is so much in keeping with the spirit of pre-Islamic times that
it is almost certainly authentic; but, even if not, it shows the
attitude of the early Muslims. (Muhammad at Medina, p. 328)
This is a remarkable statement from Watt. Five Muslims (plus a sixth)
returned after the executions, carrying the head of one of the
slaughtered victims, and "God was with the sixth of us" (or the sixth
Muslim). This represents the attitude of the early Muslims? God was
with all of them during the slaughter? The problem with the "he’s only
following his culture" defense is that Muhammad is no ordinary tribal
leader; if he were, specialists in Arab culture might read about this
atrocity and move on, concluding that, though a difficulty, it has no
lasting impact. However, Muhammad claims universality for his
religion. He and his followers after his death waged wars of worldwide
conquest to prove this universality. Thus, the stakes are too high to
retreat to this "culture" defense today.
(2) Muhammad was following the Law in the Old Testament.
This line of defense seems to say that the Qurayza Jews got what they
deserved from their own Scriptures. If so, then this is a completely
misguided comment on this atrocity against the Jews. This sectarian
polemicist even quotes Deuteronomy 20:12-14 (see his note 26a. See
this article at a Muslim website that quotes this passage in
Deuteronomy and one in Numbers.)
In reply, however, this defense turns everything on its head and
misapplies the true Scriptures. This severe command was given to Moses
for a specific purpose and for a specific time (c. 1,400 BC) and for a
specific place (the holy land). It was never intended to be followed
outside of the holy land at a later, vaguer time and for self-serving
purposes. Were the Qurayza Jews carrying out this ancient command of
Moses in the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century AD so that
Muhammad had to take revenge? The corollary opposite is true. Even if
we grant the non-Biblical prophet Muhammad credit for understanding
the Torah (and that is giving him way too much credit because the
Quran is filled with confusion about the Bible), then he was
misinterpreting the Law of Moses by waging war at the wrong time, the
wrong place, and for self-serving reasons. He is the one who forced
Arab polytheists to convert or die; he is the one who said that all
Jews and Christians should be forced out of the Peninsula.
However, to imply that Muhammad was carefully following the Old Law is
to assume too much. Here are some areas in the Old Testament that
Muhammad disobeys: adultery, and divorce; this article is a quick
overview of other areas. So why should we take seriously this line of
defense that says Muhammad was following the Old Testament?
Hence, this defense is yet another example of tribalism at its worst.
Because the ancient Hebrews did this 2,000 years before Muhammad
lived, he is justified in doing this to the Jews in his day in Medina.
All the Jews of all times meld into one species—the same tribe. But
this yanks a Biblical text way out of context and anachronistically
misapplies it to another era and context. It is best to analyze
Muhammad in his own context and set of circumstances. Did the Qurayza
Jews really fight against him? No fighting took place, not even
between the coalition and the Muslims.
Finally, Muhammad suffers from the distinct disadvantage of living six
hundred years after Jesus, who showed us a better way. We compare—
implicitly or explicitly—the two founders, and then the two diverge
widely from each other. Thus, all reasonable people sense that this
wholesale slaughter and enslavement is an unjustifiable atrocity.
For Christians, Jesus fulfills the aspect of warfare in the Old
Testament. See this article on fulfillment and this one on how
Christians benefit from the Old Testament. The geographically limited
and time-specific wars in the Old Testament have been explained and
contrasted with Islamic wars of world conquest in this article and
this one. This article replies to Muslim polemics on the topic.
(3) The Jews broke (in this link find Sura 33) the treaty and fought
against Muhammad.
Let’s take the two aspects (breaking the treaty and fighting) one at a
time.
The Islamic sources say that the Jews broke the treaty, so let’s
assume this, only for the sake of argument. Yet the early sources also
reveal the specific names of the Jewish leaders who instigated the
rupture in the treaty. Why did not Muhammad put only them on trial?
Why did he have to exterminate every man and adolescent boy and
enslave the women and children? This is tribalism at its worst—and
greed for Jewish wealth (Sura 33:27).
As for fighting against Muslims, modern historians, using simple logic
and the early sources, agree that the Jews did not march out in battle
formation; they never sallied out of their fortresses and killed
Muslims en masse or even one of them, so the Jews did not actually
fight. In fact, no substantive fighting during the month-long siege
took place even between the Quraysh and Ghatafan on the one hand and
the Muslims on the other. Moreover, after these allies withdrew from
Medina, Muhammad was too strong militarily, for he still had at his
disposal 3,000 hardened veterans. This is why the Jews never mounted a
vigorous resistance when they were besieged. Finally, the Quran says
that the Muslims were spared a battle. Allah says in Sura 33:25 that
he turned away the huge coalition. So how was Muhammad really
threatened by a Jewish sub-group that was much smaller than the
Quraysh and Ghatafan?
Also, as noted briefly, the numbers do not add up for an attack by the
Jews after the coalition left. Recall that Ibn Ishaq says that
possibly 900 Jewish men and pubescent boys were butchered. Let’s grant
that number for a moment. On the other side, the sources say that
Muhammad had 3,000 men in his army. How could 900 men and boys fight
against 3,000 jihadists? Even if we double the number to 1,800 Jewish
men and boys, how could they fight against a large Muslim army that
had just withstood a huge coalition of non-Muslim tribes? What about
the Medinan Arab tribe, the Aws, who still had alliances, such that
they were, with the Jews? The Aws fought for Muhammad; would they now
fight against him? No evidence suggests even a hint that the Aws were
on the verge of switching sides. The alliances quickly dissolved into
thin air. To repeat, Muhammad was never seriously threatened or in
real jeopardy from the Jews. If he imagined Gabriel commanding him to
fight, then Muhammad was actually adding up these numbers. He
correctly concluded that the Jews were isolated and outnumbered and
that he could do what he wanted with them.
But Muslim polemicists do not allow this high number for the Jews, for
it makes Muhammad’s atrocity seem worse, if that is possible.
Sectarian Maulana Muhammad Ali says that the number of Jews was 300
(see note 26a). Paradoxically, and perhaps unwittingly, this
commentator makes the prophet of humanity seem worse with this low
number. In no way were 300 Jewish men and boys ever a real threat
against 3,000 Muslim jihadists. Clearly, expulsion of the Jewish
community was the better option, not butchery and enslavement. But
Muhammad was unable to collect any spoils from the departed Meccans
and their allies, so he looked to the Jews. The women and children
became human spoils.
This inconsistency happens too often in Muslim polemics. For example,
Muhammad assassinated individual critics and opponents. To justify
this, polemicists argue that he was defending a fragile and fledgling
community. On the other hand, other polemicists argue that Islam was a
strong and full-fledged State, so it was allowed to protect its
"dignity. The key is to choose the contradictory argument that fits
the need at the moment.
Finally, to the victor goes the writing of the history books. Muhammad
is the one who gets to call the actions of the Jews a break in the
treaty. But are they the only ones to blame? When Muhammad moved to
Medina in AD 622, three major tribes of Jews thrived in Yathrib (pre-
Islamic name of Medina). When he dies of a fever in AD 632, no major
group was left, and the number of individual Jews is in dispute. In
these ten years Muslim polemicists would have us believe that all
conflicts were everyone else’s fault. When Muhammad either sent out or
went out on seventy-four raids, small assassination hit squads, or
full scale wars, he was always acting defensively and hence justly.
However, this is absurd on its face, as anyone who knows human nature
must conclude. In the complicated give-and-take of many wars and
conflicts, it is rarely only one side that is blameless entirely. More
to the point, when did the Jews ever slaughter Muslim men and boys and
enslave women and children, so that Muhammad would be justified in
taking like-for-like revenge on them after the allies left?
Thus, even if we assume that the Jews broke the treaty, and even if we
assume—contrary to fact—that the Jews forcefully fought against
Muhammad before and after the coalition left, he still did not have to
kill every man and every pubescent boy and enslave all the women and
children, did he? Could he not have set the example for the world and
punish them in a more lenient and humane way?
(4) Sad bin Muadh, the leader of the Aws, made the decision, so
Muhammad is blameless.
As already noted, this line of defense is wrong. Muhammad could have
called off the trial. Some of the Aws begged him to show mercy, but he
turned down this request. Next, he could have told imaginary Gabriel
(read: the prophet’s calculations) to get lost. Further, passing off
the verdict to Sad bin Muadh reveals not only extra-sly political
acumen in Muhammad, but also cowardice. He did not want to make this
hard decision. Maybe he feared the old alliances between the Aws and
the Jews, but the alliances did not last. The Aws fought for Muhammad,
whereas the Jews opposed him. Would the Aws flip-flop so easily? This
did not happen in point of fact. Be that as it may, Sad sat next to
Muhammad, and when Sad issued the verdict, he made the prophet glad.
"O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment
of the King Allah." Was there undue influence from Muhammad on Sad who
was dying and about to meet Allah?
(5) Put in perspective, the atrocity is no big deal.
Reza Aslan, a young intellectual Iranian, in his book No god but God
(Random House, 2005), says that the Qurayza tribe amounted to a tiny
fraction of Jews in Medina and its environs (p. 94). Therefore,
Muhammad’s execution of them is not a "genocide" (Aslan’s word). His
implication is that this act against one tiny tribe of Jews is minor
and therefore not extreme, but proportional.
In reply, however, the number of the Jews who remained in Medina is
under dispute, but the evidence suggests that there was not one
dominant group, though individuals may have been left (Watt, Muhammad
at Medina, pp. 216-17). Next, tribalism ruled in Arab culture (and
still does in many places), and Muhammad eliminates an entire tribe.
Though not a genocide, it is excessive even for the Jews’
"brazen" (Aslan's word) crime. It is simply underhanded to throw in
the word "genocide" as if it is supposed to make Muhammad’s excessive
punishment seem acceptable. Eliminating a tribe? That’s no big deal
when we compare it to a genocide, so Aslan implies. This kind of
confused defense of Muhammad’s indefensible actions permeates Muslim
literature today.
(6) The West has committed atrocities, so who are Christians to
complain?
The answer to this is simple. First, the West and Biblical
Christianity are not identical. Second, it is always better to compare
a founder (Jesus) of a religion with another founder (Muhammad). And
this is where the similarities break down completely. Third, the
Medieval Crusaders are not foundational for Christianity. Only Jesus
and the New Testament authors are. Fourth, the "West" does not claim
divine inspiration, but Muhammad did.
Despite these six defenses, anyone whose mind has not been steeped in
a lifetime of devotion to Islam knows that Muhammad’s action was
factually and objectively excessive, regardless of his culture that he
lived in. And excess is never just, as even Allah himself states when
he rebukes his favorite prophet for another of his acts of cruelty
(see this hadith, Abu Dawud 4357, and this article). Sadly, though,
Allah does not reprimand his favorite prophet, but celebrates the
atrocity in Sura 33:25-27.
Conclusion
Muslim polemical and outreach websites often assert that Islam
promotes human rights. It is impossible to see how they can say this
honestly and at the same time appeal to the origins of their religion.
This whitewash is deceitful at best and dangerous at worst, if or when
Islam gets a foothold in a region on the pretence of "peace and love."
Maybe sleepy Westerners and others will accept this benign version of
Islam—in fact too many are, right now. But what happens later when
hard-line Muslims (not to mention nonviolent and violent fanatics)
cite the numerous brutal verses in the Quran and passages in the
hadith to inflict barbarity on people, especially on Jews?
The evidence in this article alone demonstrates that violence is
embedded in original Islam. Even a reliable hadith shows Allah
reprimanding Muhammad for another of his cruelties.
It is time for Muslim leaders to renounce violence clearly and
specifically, not vaguely: "Yes, we denounce all forms of
violence" . . . . They must go deeper than this. They must stop
denying the dark past, found in the Quran itself and in the example of
their prophet. They must, instead, be clear. "We denounce these
specific verses and passages in the Quran and hadith that are violent.
These specific acts and words happened in the seventh century (and
later centuries), and we have moved beyond all of them. We now want
peace."
A peaceful presentation of Islam is not full disclosure. It is time to
be honest. Only then can interfaith dialogue even begin.
donie
>
> To say that the prophet forced zayd to divorce zainab is
> lying. If he really was eyeing her , he would have married
> her as he knew her even before zayd. She came from a
> noble family and was not happy with zayd whom was a
> freed slave. Zayd also was not happy as he felt that he
> was not in equal social footing with her. The prophet was
> the one who arranged their marriage. He needs to clean
> up the mess of the marriage. In addition , his marriage to
> zainab broke the stupid believe of adopted sons being of
> blood tie. In the actual case , biologically zayd and the
> prophet are strangers. To to call it incest is an outright
> lie.
Wow, let's look at all-out way you defend the marriage Sam.
Islamic sources say Muhammat went to visit Zaid house and accidentally
only met Zainab. Muhammat expression as perceived by Zainab and later
relayed to her husband, was one with 'eyeing.' Being raised from
slavery and adpoted as son, Zaid knew how to pay back the favor,
knowing fully well the 'male prowess' of his adopting father. Zainab
liked the divorce as well. Both are imagining their further elevation
to the number 1 in power circle. Okay, that may be required to set an
example to jahiliah Arab, but why should Jibril need to endorse with a
very specific verse? Just like the verse in allowing Muhammat to
practically marry anybody in his Hijrah entourage. You may not feel
embarrassed that Jibril was quick to accommodate Muhammat's fleshly
desire, but to non-moslem? You can test the water by reciting the
verses in their language.
You may label those portion of hadist and history as myth. Never mind.
But at the end of the day, if you really regard Muhammat as prophet,
with spiritual character rather than political, he should be in a very
appropriate position to save the marriage. If he could not save the
marriage which he arranged himself of his own adopted son Zaid with
his second or third cousin Zainab, then the non-moslem world, who are
aware of the scandal, would label him more as a political leader,
political prophet if you insist, but not spiritual prophet.
donie
> On Aug 9, 11:21 pm, donie <donien...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Just when was it in your time perspective Quraish offered him bribery?
> > When Khadijah was still around or after returning military power from
> > Yatrib?
>
> I did provide you the link on this issue. The bribe was made to
> the prophet during his early years of prophethood (ie. before
> hijra). That time khatijah was still around. If you say that she
> was rich , the prophet was offered the bribe of more riches ,
Now, I give you some logic which will nullify your statement. The
Quirasih was persecuting Muhammat and his followers, so they ran off
to Yatrib. Would the stronger one would be promising pay off to the
weak one? Where islogic Sam? It was even more likely that it was your
prophet that bribed the Quraish made possible by assets of his
merchant wife Khadijah..
donie
> > politically correct at that time to further cement the bond with his
> > right hand man Abu Bakr. The age might also be culturally proper at
> > that time.
>
> virgin , age >16 (however you guys regard it as 9)
> refer to the appended link
>
why do you guys allow an array of "shahih" verses below to state her
age was 9? If you feel embarrassed enough, why don't you propose
refrendum to delete all those embarrassing verses?
EVIDENCE THAT AISHA WAS 9 WHEN HER MARRIAGE TO MUHAMMAD WAS
CONSUMMATED
(Copied partly from Sila's pamphlet)
There are a number of sources, all written by Muslims, that detail
Muhammad's marriage and consummation with his young child-bride -
Aisha.
FROM THE HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI
I have used Bukhari's Hadith, translated into English by Dr. Muhammad
Muhsin Khan, at the Islamic University in Medina. Bukhari's Hadith is
considered authentic by the majority of Sunni Islamic scholars. It is
second to the Quran in terms of importance. The central figure to
approve and sign the translation is Dr. Amin Al-Masri, Ph.D. Cambridge
University. He is the Advisor and Head of the Sharia Dept., at the
College of Sharia and Islamic Studies in Mecca.
From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:
"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her
when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she
was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha
remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
Bukhari vol. 7, #88:
"Narrated Urwa: "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha
while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her
while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years
(i.e. till his death).""
Bukhari vol. 5, #234 says:
"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We
went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got
ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my
mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some
of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing
what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me
stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my
breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and
head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I
saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and
a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for
the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the
forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a
girl of nine years of age."
FROM THE HADITH OF SAHIH MUSLIM VOLUME 2, #3309
Aisha reported: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years
old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine….
FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD
Abu Dawud's Hadith is the third most respected Hadith in Islam.
From Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2116:
"Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years
old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had
intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."
FROM THE HISTORY OF TABARI
Tabari wrote the most authentic Islamic history. It covers 39
volumes. Tabari was one of the greatest Islamic scholars and the
greatest Islamic Historian.
From Tabari, volume 7, page7:
"....my marriage (to Muhammad) was consummated when I was
nine....."
From Tabari, volume 9, page 131
"Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God
consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years
old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of
me"......(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration,
when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was
nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was
eighteen years old when he died.
I also want to provide evidence from the best Islamic Ency. available
in English, and other Islamic writers. They also acknowledge Aisha's
age being 9.
FROM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ISLAM, under "Aisha". (pub. by E.J.
Brill).
"Some time after the death of Khadija, Khawla suggested to Muhammad
that he should marry either Aisha, the 6 year old daughter of his
chief follower, or Sawda Zama, a widow of about 30, who had gone as a
Muslim to Abyssinia and whose husband had died there. Muhammad is
said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. It had
already been agreed that Aisha should marry Djubayr Mutim, whose
father, though still pagan, was friendly to the Muslims. By common
consent, however, this agreement was set aside, and Muhammad was
betrothed to Aisha.... The marriage was not consummated until some
months after the Hidjra, (in April 623, 624). Aisha went to live in
an apartment in Muhammad's house, later the mosque of Median. She
cannot have been more than ten years old at the time and took her toys
to her new home."
From the Muslim book "WOMEN IN ISLAM" by Said Abjullah Seif-Al-
Hatimy, published by Islamic Publications in Lahore Pakistan:
"...(Aisha) She was the youngest of his wives. It is said that she
was nine years of age when he married her."
ini si þíLL™
@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com :
good boy ... good boy, finally you admitted it ! alleluya ... :))
eslam is nothing but "religion" of SAHWAT and SAHWAT and SAHWAT !
now we're talkin'
bwahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahah, you're awesome sammy boy !
donie
Thru a link. Fine, in the absence of your summary, I will have to find
time to open the link.
>What is the christian criteria for a prophet? Is paul a prophet?
AFAIK, Christians aren't particularly fond of classifying bible
important characters as prophets. Even those who really spoke of
prophecies such as Isaiah and Jeremy we seldom assign the prefix
prophet. We never give a prophet title to Paul, we normally call him
Apostle or Rasul (in Bahasa) Paul, just like the rest of Jssus
Christ's disciples. We normally referred to David as King David not
prophet David.
I am quite surprise that you practically name bible character as
prophet including John the Babtist of NT. Are you naming them prophet
just for the matter of reverence, or considering them inspiring
prophecies?
.
sam...@hotmail.com
Did you read this article? Again arlandson did what he
did best. He cherry picked what he wanted to comment
and what events that supported him and left out details
that would be negative to his view. Whatever historians
he quoted goes back to 2 primary sources - ibn ishaq
and al-tabari.
--snip--
>
> It is unclear why the prophet expelled the first tribe, the Qaynuqa.
> One source says that these Jews waged war on Muhammad, but this is
> unlikely since he was flushed with victory over the Meccans at the
> Battle of Badr, only a month before. But perhaps this exaggeration
> reflects at least some level of conflict between the two sides.
> Another source says that some Jews played a trick on a Muslim woman,
> but this too is unlikely, since the trick is found in Arabic
> literature. These Jews controlled the market of crafts and trade, and
> the new Muslim immigrants to Medina were craftsmen, so maybe this is
> the reason. Regardless, the results worked out the same. After being
> besieged in their fortress for fifteen days, they were expelled, and
> the Muslims took over the crafts. "The Banu [tribe] Qaynuqa did not
> have any land, as they were goldsmiths [and armor-makers]. The
> Messenger of God took many weapons belonging to them and the tools of
> their trade" (Tabari, vol. 7, p. 87).
Again the source is only in al-tabari and nowhere else.
The events that folded came about when the jewish
person caused the lady to be exposed and then a
fight broke out. A muslim came to the lady's rescue
and was lynched by the jews. We will look into this
later as the focus is on bani quraiza. Whatever it is ,
arlandson cannot make a sweeping statement of
maybe this or that was the reason. If he ascribed to
al-tabari , he needs to publish the full details.
--snip--
>
> What started the Battle of the Trench?
>
> Many causes feed into any conflict, but one stands out. Muslim raiders
> harassed Meccan trade. Modern Saudi biographer Safi-ur-Rahman al-
> Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea: . . . "[I]t was wise for the
> Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under
> their control" (p. 201). Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the
> Battle of Badr in AD 624. In each one, Muslims were the aggressors, to
> accomplish the big objective of strangling Mecca’s trade. These raids
> that sometimes involved hundreds of men continued steadily from that
> time to the Battle of the Trench. The Meccans had had enough. So they
> wanted to finish off Islam, once and for all.
>
Of course they harassed the caravan of the meccans.
In al-tabari and ibn ishaq narration , they raided the
caravan as the meccans were selling their belongings
when the meccans kicked them out of mecca. The
muslims were forced to leave with nothing. Their property
and belongings were confiscated. They have every right
to do such. Again arlandson left out this fact which is
very evident in al-tabari and ibn ishaq. This is again
equivocating.
>
> It is impossible (for me at least) to escape the impression that if
> Muhammad had put aside this desire to control the Kabah, then much of
> the conflict between him and the Quraysh would never have erupted in
> the first place. But the shrine was a popular place of religious
> pilgrimage, so how could he allow religious freedom for polytheists?
Again , it is his opinion and not stating facts in the
records of al-tabari and ibn ishaq. In the traditions
and in the Quran the kaabah was built by Prophet
Abraham (as) and his son Prophet Ishmael (as) as
a sanctuary and to form a unified direction when
worshipping Allah. It was built for the worship of one
god , not a place for idols.
>
> A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among
> whom were Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq al-Nadir [he had been assassinated so
> the chronology or his placement here is off], and Huyayy b. Aktab al-
> Nadri, and Kinana b. Abu’l-Huaqayq al-Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al-
> Wa’ili, and Abu Ammar al-Wa’ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or
> clan] Nadir and B. Wa’il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited
> them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get
> rid of him altogether. (p. 450).
>
> How much did the Jews instigate the battle, and how much were the
> Meccans fed up with Muslim harassment on their own without Jewish
> provocation? This is unclear. But let us assume only for the sake of
> argument that the Islamic sources are right. These specific Jews were
> the principal instigators. In the end, this does not matter, for the
> following reason.
Arlandson conceded that it was the jews who broke the
treaty. However he is trying to paint a vague picture in
his defense of bani quraiza. He has left out the contents
of the agreement ; which is as follows :
ref : http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-prophets-document-between-the-muhajirun-the-ansar-and-the-jews/
ref : http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/13.htm
The points of consideration in the agreement :
- each practice their own religion
- each will render support to the other in a battle or war
- each will be judged by their own people in accordance
with their own laws
- quraish and their helpers will not be given protection
Nobody forced the bani quraiza to enter into the agreement.
They fully well knew that the prophet was having problems
with the quraish of mecca.
>
> It is important to cite these (complex) names, above, because today’s
> Muslim polemicists who defend Muhammad’s extermination and enslavement
> of the Qurayza Jews overlook the fact that early Islam knew
> specifically who the enemy Jewish leaders were—by name. So did all the
> men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and
> children enslaved? Could only the leaders not have been executed?
Now he is appealing to emotion. That seems to be a
favourite tactic of you christian writers. You cannot
present facts , you appeal to emotions. The jewish
law in this case is as per deut20:13-14 ;
ref : http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=741530
[13] And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into
thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof
with the edge of the sword:
[14] But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle,
and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof,
shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the
spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God
hath given thee.
--snip--
Notice that bani quraiza was supposed to help the
muslims in the battle. They were at the back of the
muslim army and it was expected that bani quraiza
defend the muslims from the back in which was left
unguarded.
Arlandson has now contradicted himself. He is now
trying to paint a picture that no battle has ensued
however in his earlier commentary , the meccans
tried to cross the trench but were replused. Isn't that
fighting?
>
> It is important to realize this fact because Muslim polemicists assert
> or imply that the Jews actually fought the Muslims, so if the Jews
> were exterminated and enslaved, then it was their fault. But no full-
> scale battles ever took place, and the early sources say that the Jews
> remained in their houses and fortresses near Medina—that is, the
> sources do not depict them forcefully sallying out and attacking
> Muslims from behind.
>
> Finally, the early sources say that a storm battered the coalition,
> and the Quran confirms this, implying also that supernatural forces
> joined in the fight: "You who believe, remember God’s goodness to you
> when mighty armies massed against you: We sent a violent wind and
> invisible forces against them. God sees all that you do" (Sura 33:9;
> Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004).
>
The violent wind was the only thing that helped the
muslims from extermination. Huyayy ibn Akhtab al
Nadari incited bani quraiza to break the treaty. This
was confirmed by Zubayr ibn al Awwam, Sad ibn
Mu’adh, Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah, Abd Allah ibn Rawahah
and Khawwat ibn Jubayr whom was sent by the
prophet to check and confirm bani quraiza action
of breaking the treaty.
If you follow on to ibn ishaq , bani quraiza sent
spies to confirm the location and then they
subsequently attacked in tandem with the
meccan forces. There was nothing the muslims
could do and it was the violent winds that saved
them. This is all in ibn ishaq's book in which
arlandson did not even quote.
--snip--
>
> This shows how valued poetry was in seventh-century Arabia. In some
> instances, it could resemble a smear campaign, to use the language of
> today. However, Muhammad assassinated poets who mocked him. But now
> that he has the power, he gets to employ a satirical poet without fear
> of reprisal. In fact, he refers to the Jews as brothers of monkeys,
> citing a legend that he believed, namely, that God turned some
> disobedient Jews into apes. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 461-62).
There is no value in poetry. When the prophet arrived
at the fortress , instead of apologising , the people
of bani quraiza mocked and abused them. The
language is akin to poetry. Each sides were abusing
each other. Again arlandson is lying , there has never
been a case that the prophet had people killed due to
them mocking him with poetry.
> (3) The Jews did not mount a strong resistance.
>
> How could they do this, when Muhammad had just withstood such a large
> coalition and still had at his command 3,000 jihadists?
>
> Then something strange happened while the Jews were negotiating the
> terms of surrender. They called for a man named Abu Lubabah, a nominal
> or half-committed Muslim who may have opposed Muhammad on several
> occasions. They asked him, "Abu Lubabah, do you think we should submit
> to Muhammad’s judgment?" He said yes, but then he gestured with his
> hand to his throat to indicate slaughter. Immediately afterwards, he
> felt that he had betrayed Muhammad. But why? Scholars are not sure.
> Maybe Abu Lubabah believed that he had signaled imminent death to the
> Jews, although Muhammad wanted to keep this brutality a secret. The
> Jews would have resisted submission on these gruesome terms. Watt
> speculates that the Muslim go-between may have been standing firm in
> his own clan’s alliance with the Jews and gave away too much
> information. Regardless, this must be emphasized: It is not whether he
> gestured that is in dispute, but the dispute is over why he felt that
> he betrayed Muhammad. Be that as it may, this means that the outcome
> was not in doubt—as the hand to the throat indicated.
>
> Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 462; Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 188-89;
> 214-17
Again arlandson provided only a half picture. Abu Lubabah
regretted his action and repented. This information is also
in ibn ishaq.
ref : http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-qurayzah/
>
> (4) Muhammad proposed that the Jews submit to the judgment of Sad bin
> Muadh.
>
> He was the leader of a large Medinan tribe, the Aws (or Aus), some of
> whom favored old alliances with the Jews. The leader was an elderly
> man who was wounded during the siege. His verdict was short and simple—
> but bloody and cruel.
There was no proposal by the prophet. It was clear that
from the agreement , bani quraiza was to be judged by
their own (a jew) with their own laws as per the torah.
The person who judged them was sad and via the law
in the torah ; particularly deut20:13-14 (as stated above).
The so called 'delirious' woman was killed as she killed
a muslim with a grinding stone.
ref : http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/29.htm
Arlandson again tried to appeal to emotion of fact that
the prophet should be more merciful etc. How can he
do that , the agreement has stated such. These are
the laws and rules that had to be abided by. Arlandson
then tried to paint sad to be a person who wanted to
'die' as a firm believer as he passed the judgement. In
fact sad whom was also a jew , dying from battle was
to be a martyr , he doesn't need any 'extra points'
anymore.
--snip--
If you go through arlandson's article in detail and
when compared to ibn ishaq , you will notice that
there are lots of important events that have been
conveniently left out by him. He has not been
very honest.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> Islamic sources say Muhammat went to visit Zaid house and accidentally
> only met Zainab. Muhammat expression as perceived by Zainab and later
> relayed to her husband, was one with 'eyeing.' Being raised from
> slavery and adpoted as son, Zaid knew how to pay back the favor,
> knowing fully well the 'male prowess' of his adopting father. Zainab
> liked the divorce as well. Both are imagining their further elevation
> to the number 1 in power circle. Okay, that may be required to set an
> example to jahiliah Arab, but why should Jibril need to endorse with a
> very specific verse? Just like the verse in allowing Muhammat to
> practically marry anybody in his Hijrah entourage. You may not feel
> embarrassed that Jibril was quick to accommodate Muhammat's fleshly
> desire, but to non-moslem? You can test the water by reciting the
> verses in their language.
Can't be , as it was not the first time he met Zainab.
He grew up with her. He could have married her but
arranged the marriage with zayd. What you christians
have done is to pounce on the hadith and then claim
that he eyed her based on the hadith but conveniently
left out the fact that the prophet grew up with her.
How can you 'test' without knowing the background.
Thats not honest is it?
>
> You may label those portion of hadist and history as myth. Never mind.
> But at the end of the day, if you really regard Muhammat as prophet,
> with spiritual character rather than political, he should be in a very
> appropriate position to save the marriage. If he could not save the
> marriage which he arranged himself of his own adopted son Zaid with
> his second or third cousin Zainab, then the non-moslem world, who are
> aware of the scandal, would label him more as a political leader,
> political prophet if you insist, but not spiritual prophet.
Didn't he prohibited zayd from divorcing zainab? The
seerah and hadith is there. There is nothing to hide.
Its just that you only took the information to support
your case and left out the ones going against the case
that you are trying to present.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> Quirasih was persecuting Muhammat and his followers, so they ran off
> to Yatrib. Would the stronger one would be promising pay off to the
> weak one? Where islogic Sam? It was even more likely that it was your
> prophet that bribed the Quraish made possible by assets of his
> merchant wife Khadijah..
If you had read and understood the link I provided,
you will noticed that at that time in mecca , Prophet
Muhammad (saw) was under the protection of his
uncle Abu Talib who was a chief of one of the clans.
The quraish of mecca have to exhaust all avenues
first before going after the prophet's neck.
ref : http://www.iqra.net/muslimstudents1/seniorsessay1
excerpt : '.... In the first three years of Prophet
Muhammad’s (saw) mission, forty people
accepted Islam. He then began to preach
Islam in public. The leaders of the Quraish
did not accept the new religion. Some of
them tried to bribe Prophet Muhammad
(saw) with money and power, including an
offer to make him a king. But our beloved
Prophet Muhammad (saw) refused to
abandon Allah’s message. When this did
not work, they tried to convince his uncle,
Abu Talib, to allow them to kill Prophet
Muhammad (saw). Therefore, his uncle
tried to dissuade him from preaching.
But Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) said
” O uncle, if they were to put the sun in my
right hand and the moon in my left hand to
stop me from preaching Islam, I would never
stop. I will keep on preaching until Allah
makes Islam prevail or I die. ”....'
What you have stated clearly showed that you lacked
the background information before making your so called
logical reason.
Can you see the difference between your argument and
mine. I quoted directly from your bible and provide what
I think is the interpretation and question (of which until
now you have evaded in answering). The quotation is
taken word for word. However you (and arlandson's
articles) did not even check the background information
before making your claims.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
snip--
The hadith is not the Quran. Hadith are narrated by men
and it was compiled way after the prophet's death. As
such it is not infallible. That is why the challenge to hadith
still is still going on with the criteria of isnads and
witnesses.
One of it is the age of ayesha.
ref : http://www.quranicteachings.co.uk/ayeshas-age.htm
Why don't you do the maths , lets focus on the definate
issue and not on the vague ones :
'..... Most historians have consensus on the age of one
of the oldest female companions of the Prophet, namely,
Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha that was ten years older
than Ayesha. It is also reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as
well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73
Hijrah when she was 100 years old. Clearly, if Asma was
27 or 28 years old at the time of Hijrah, Ayesha was 17
at the time of Hijrah and 19 at the time of consummation
of her marriage with Muhammad....'
source : A`la'ma'l-nubala', Al-Zahabi, Vol 2, Pg 289,
Arabic, Mu'assasatu'l-risalah, Beirut, 1992.
Ibn Kathir confirms this fact, [Asma] was
elder to her sister [Ayesha] by ten years"
(Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol 8,
Pg 371, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah,
1933). For Asma being 100 years old, see
Al-Bidayah wa'l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol 8,
Pg 372, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah,
1933).
More importantly in surah4:6
ref : http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/QURAN/4.htm
6. Make trial of orphans until they reach the age of marriage;
if then ye find sound judgment in them, release their
property to them;........
The Qur’an gives a clear definition of adulthood or marriageable
age as the one when one has attained a good measure of
mental maturity. This should raise the question: Does a
6- or 9-year old have that level of quality of sound judgment?
The answer is a resounding NO. Prophet Muhammad (saw)
is steadfast to the Quran and he would have abide by it.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> > their mistress(es).
>
> > Thank you for you supporting me in this one.
>
> > sam1528
>
> good boy ... good boy, finally you admitted it ! alleluya ... :))
>
> eslam is nothing but "religion" of SAHWAT and SAHWAT and SAHWAT !
>
> now we're talkin'
>
> bwahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahah, you're awesome sammy boy !
Of course I admit that christians go around fornicating
their mistress(es). You agreed , thank you.
sam1528