Why Arabic Is Not Good At All To Be A Language For A Holy Book?
expla...@yahoo.com
Was Mohammed an Arab?" and to understand the Arabic language
truthfully, please read the followings:
Islam has the misfortune and handicap of being founded in that period
of Arabic's development when Arabic had no orthography and
consequently no evidence of the date of Mohammed's death was. During
that period of history that Arabic existed only in spoken form and
circulated information as recitation. In every gathering of Arabs a
special place was assigned to the poet who recited the poems, sagas,
history, and information intended for communication among the people.
Just as the Bible facilitated the development of German, the Qur'an
(recitation) facilitated the development, formulation, and
standardization of Arabic.
No documents in Arabic or Qur'an, or fragments of Qur'an , exist today
dating from the period of Mohammed's death to 150 years later.
This fact need not be argued since the contrary can be proven with the
presentation of examples of written Arabic with a good provenance.
Secondary proofs would be the existence of documents referring to and
quoting excerpts from earlier documents.
--
John I. Berg
--
John L. Berg
Sea-Room, Inc.
PO Box 298
650 Minnetonka Highlands Lane
Long Lake MN 55356
952-476-6523
Some volumes of the old edition still available.
www.sea-room.com
Amen
Dear little hoopoe,
You wrote saying: "....These words, innaa ("Verily We")
and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be
used by one person speaking on behalf of a group,
or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect
or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they
issue statements or decrees in which they say "We have
decided..."
My reply:
"We" when used by one person speaking on behalf of a group
is acceptable but if by a Singular God, then it is unfathomable.
When "we" is used by a Monarch, it is taken to mean that
the King is speaking on behalf of the Royal Family, but if
the King is not married and only Himself alone in His kingdom,
He will be most foolish to use "We" when he speaks, right?
And for the truth you may not know: what if Allah uses
"We(Nahnu)" when He is speaking on behalf of the Family of
God - Elohiym; and " I(Ana) " when He uses it to express
Himself like He expressed his name to Moses as
" I AM THAT I AM" as God, the Father Almighty; and
"He(Huwa)" when He uses it to refer to His Son, Jesus???
To say that in Arabic language using plurality to emphasize
glory or respect is literary style is unwise: for why adopt
such literary style when it is practical to use the right words
to emphasize glory or respect like "I, your Allah or
We, your God(Elohiym)...I, your King or We, the Royal Family,
etc" so as not to confuse other races who, wisely, never use
plurality to emphasize glory or respect otherwise the World
would be upside-down like in most Islamic countries !
And "Innaa" translated by you as "verily, We". You know
the meaning of verily which means in the very truth, and
to put "verily" in front of the word "WE" which you say
could be "I" makes the word "verily" to also mean not
the very truth, right?
Hence, how good is the Arabic language when used in
the Quran to express the true meaning of Allah?
I could understand why the Arabic language uses such
"literary style": since Mohammed-a uneducated man,
in the past, ruling by the sword, no one dares to oppose
his grammatical errors, and now he is acclaimed by Muslims
as a prophet of Islam, who among the Muslims dare to point out
his errors WHEN MOHAMMED SAID "We" Is "I", and "I" is "We"?
Even now, no Muslim dare to object to Mohammed-
the uneducated man- using Arabic language uneducatedly
with grammatical mistakes except the Christians, right?
For Christians do what is right in the sight of God Almighty,
BUT NOT THE MUSLIMS for Muslims fear the Islamists
who are ready to kill any Muslim who goes against
the Quran even in good faith that there are grammatical errors
in the Quran such as using the PLURAL PRONOUN 'WE' wrongly!!
Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you
" Was Mohammed an Arab?"
Mohammed was not even an Arab, and hence he negated the beauty
of the Arabic language by detracting it as forementioned.
Amen in Christ Jesus - the prophet who does not lie !
radzania
> Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you "
> Was Mohammed an Arab?"
Yes he is, if you trace his (sallallahualaihiwasallam) line of history
it is up to qusai ,fom there onwards up to Prophet Ismail
alaihissalam,which is son of Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham
alaihissalam.Yes fromProphet Ismail alaihissalam downwards Arabic
descended.Another son of Prophet Ibrahim alaihissalam, Prophet Ishak
or Isaac alaihissalam is the lineof Jewish.
radzania
> circulated information as recitation. In every gathering of Arabs a
> special place was assigned to the poet who recited the poems, sagas,
> history, and information intended for communication among the people.
> Just as the Bible facilitated the development of German, the Qur'an
> (recitation) facilitated the development, formulation, and
> standardization of Arabic.
> No documents in Arabic or Qur'an, or fragments of Qur'an , exist today
> dating from the period of Mohammed's death to 150 years later.
Quran is delivered in not one book form,but in many verses over a
period of 23 years. The ProphetMuhammad sallahualaihiwasallam narated
the verses and the Sahabats wrote them on leather, khurmas pelepah,
bones,etc for reference and easier to memorize.The whole quran is
compliled completely during the Khulafa Arrasyidin Osman bin Affan
radiallahuanhu period.If you have time to visit the Islamic Exhibition
whenever it is held you will see the original transcript.And Osman bin
Affan radiallahuanhu completed about 15 years after Prophet Muhammad
sallahualaihiwasallam wafat.
Javed Iqbal Kaleem
You are a bloody fool to write such nonsense. Arabic is the richest
and powerful language and was the natural selection.
for revelation of Quran. Instead of dead Arami and Latin languages God
Almighty chose a living language for His last
revelation. You are writing such nonsense only because you are jelous.
Shame on you.
Javed Kaleem
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Radzana,
So, will you explain how the genealogy of Mohammed is being kept on
record since Arabic was only spoken around the time of Mohammed?
And why the Quran - which is the Book of Allah - lacks the genealogy
of Mohammed?
The Bible has the genealogy of Jesus- the prophet of the True Allah.
Amen In Christ Jesus
expla...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Javed Kaleem,
You are obviously wise enough to call other fools, right?
Tell me why does the Quran quote Allah using the plural pronoun " We "
whenever he-Allah- speaks?
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Radzania,
I am sure that forummers here are not interested to know that the
Quran is not in one book form, but will be keen to know how the Quran
could be ACCURATE IN BRINGING OUT THE TRUTH OF THE MESSAGES OF THE
TRUE ALLAH when the Arabic language was in spoken form only around the
time of Mohammed, and the formation of the Arabic language only exists
around the time too ???
AMEN IN CHRIST JESUS
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And Javed Kaleem... please do not run away from this debate of the
truth of the falsehood of Islam because Mohammed lied and lied.
Amen In Christ Jesus.
koolf...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
AYE KALEEM,you are a halfhindu paki,worshipping the religion of your
devdasi mothers sandnigger rapist.....mearly by being raped by
sandniggers,you cannot say everything is rich about arabs,if they were
so rich,they would have taken care of you and your mother,they loaded
you for free,or at least pay her some money for using her,i know how
arabs treat pakistanis,you enter the mosque where the al saud family
prays,you will be beheaded in public in saudi arabia.
See below there is the richest and powerful language of your god,it
appears there is not much in the koran,to read......look at the things
allah has been telling mohammed....good for you paki,good for you,you
want arabic to urdu translation now....ah but islam is a universal
religion,any one can undestand it,its requires one to GIVE UP
unconditionally to allah........sure i can understand that,what choice
does one have....ENJOY
sam...@hotmail.com
hi-hi-hi mr. explain did you miss me?
I am really interested in your claim as above : can you now show
proof that in your bible , there is a genealogy of your 'son of god'?
I went through your bible , it is as follows :
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Heli.
In your bible Joseph (supposed to be the 'father' of your 'son
of god') had 2 fathers - Jacob and Heli? Now who is who?
On the other hand , Prophet Jesus is of Virgin Birth (ie. no
father if you still do not understand). How did the bible managed
to conjure up his genealogy? Amazing , isn't it. I am waiting for
an explanation from you on this one. This time don't bring up
Isrealite priests or request me to read the tankh.
Are you lying again? Don't lie for the glory of christianity , it
will be better off without people of your kind who lie and lie
without knowing that he has sinned (by lying) :)
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Muslims,
You, Muslims-being believers of the lying prophet, Mohammed-
must answer questions regarding the sayings of Mohammed
whether he, Mohammed, lie or not otherwise you, Muslims,
are believing the false Allah of Mohammed who was proven
to be a LIAR AND AN UNHOLY MAN who had more than 4
wives and who was eyeing for sex with a 5 years old baby girl
when he, Mohammed was 53 years old; and
NOT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS WHO YOU,
MUSLIMS, DO NOT BELIEVE TO BE THE SON OF THE
TRUE ALLAH
Only ask what question about the truth of Islam otherwise
you, Muslims, will not know whether Mohammed was a LIAR
OR NOT.
Even sam1528 lied that Mohammed had married Aisha when
she was 18 or 19. Sam1528 was not even sure of the age of
Aisha at the time of the marrige. What kind of a Muslim is
sam1528 when he does not know the truth that Aisha was
married at the age of 9 and betrothed at the age of 6 when
Mohammed started having sexual activities with her. Under
modern law which is the Law of the True Allah such sexual
activities are sex offences known as paedophilic offences.
So, Muslims, how could Mohammed, the false lying prophet
be holy unto the True Allah?
Hence, sam1528 is lying to misled Muslims further into
damnation for believing the false Allah of Mohamed who was
proven to have lied and lied as follows:
Satan's false prophet- Mohammed lied and lied as follows:
Ramadan was created by the false prophet, Mohammed,
who copied errroneously from the sayings of the Christians
and hence it explains why a day's fast is only of 12 hours
when we all know a day is of 24 hours.
Mohammed lied that a day's fast is only 12 hours
when a day is of 24 hours. No other religion tells its
believers to consider a day's fast is of 12 hours as these
priests were/are educated and thus know that a day is
of 24 hours and not 12 hours, BUT MOHAMMED WAS
UNEDUCATED AND HENCE MOHAMMED
ERRONEOUSLY THINK A DAY AS DAYLIGHT OF 12
HOURS BEING ILLITERATE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
SO. The True Allah, if He had indeed sent Mohammed
as the last messenger, the True Allah would have told
Mohammed a day's fast is of 24 hours, right?
Hence, Ramadan is not a 30 days' fast.
Islam is full of lies because Mohammed lied and
lied; for the sayings of Mohammed's have been verified
as falsehood and substantiated as falsehood
by the following facts:
1]. Mohammed lied that Allah sent him as
the last messenger, BUT MOHAMMED DID
NOT HAVE THE 4 EYE-WITNESSES REQUIRED
IN SURA 24:13 TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SAYINGS
AS TRUE; and Allah call Mohammed A LIAR;
2]. Mohammed also lied that Allah has given
the Muslims, the COVENANT OF ABRAHAM AND
ISMAIL. A covenant is an agreement between God
and its believers AND THE AGREEMENT MUST
HAVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, but the Islamic
Covenant of Abraham and Ismail is EMPTY
(without terms and conditions) that is without
the laws of God namely the laws of Moses.
Hence, Islam without the Law of God of which is
THE LAWS OF MOSES OF THE 6TH COMMANDMENT
OF THE TRUE ALLAH "Thou shall not MURDER" causes
the Islamic world havoc through THE KILLINGS OF
MUSLIMS BY MUSLIMS in Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine,
lebanon, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia;
AND THE KILLINGS OF THE "INFIDELS"
WHEN BURNING AND BOMBING CHURCHES
were/are committed by Islamic terrorists.
AND for such sins, The TRUE ALLAH is punishing the
such Islamic countries that do not condemn the evil acts
of these Islamists by sending Tsunami and earthquake
after earthquake affecting Islamic countries:Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Indonesia
of which death toll is accounted Muslims alone as 90
percent of the dead;
3]. Mohammed also lied that he was an Arab
as well as a Hebrew. How could Mohammed have
2 different Fathers to enable him to be an Arab
as well as a Hebrew being the descendant of Ismail?
MOREOVER, THE FATHER OF ALL ARABS IS
QAHTAN
and
THE FATHER OF ALL HEBREWS/ISRAELITES IS
ABRAHAM!!!
4]. Mohammed also lied that a day's fast is only 12 hours
when a day is of 24 hours. No other religion tells its
believers to consider a day's fast is of 12 hours as these
priests were/are educated and thus know that a day is
of 24 hours and not 12 hours, BUT MOHAMMED WAS
UNEDUCATED AND HENCE MOHAMMED
ERRONEOUSLY THINK A DAY AS DAYLIGHT OF 12
HOURS BEING ILLITERATE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
SO. The True Allah, if He had indeed sent Mohammed
as the last messenger, the True Allah would have told
Mohammed a day's fast is of 24 hours, right?
5]. Mohammed lied that he split the moon into 2. Now, why
the moon is still round and not half; and where is the other
half-moon?
6] Mohammed lied that the earth is flat when we all know
that the earth is round.
7] Mohammed claimed that Allah is one, but if Allah is
singular, how come the Quran quotes Allah using the
plural pronoun " WE " whenever Allah speaks? The answer
explaining why the Arabic language is detracted by
Mohammed is as follows:
Amen In Christ Jesus.
pls_e...@yahoo.com
> hi-hi-hi mr. explain did you miss me?
>
> I am really interested in your claim as above : can you now show
> proof that in your bible , there is a genealogy of your 'son of god'?
>
> I went through your bible , it is as follows :
Dear Sam,
You went through the bible? Or is it that you have read it on some
islamic websites that post nothing of the truth but lies, right? Come
on...stop lying like Mohammed and tell us all the truth now, ok?
>
> MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of
> whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
> LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years
> of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
> which was the son of Heli.
>
> In your bible Joseph (supposed to be the 'father' of your 'son
> of god') had 2 fathers - Jacob and Heli? Now who is who?
Dear Sam,
Matthew 1 is the genealogy of Jesus from the father line upto David
whereas
Luke 3:23 is the genealogy of Jesus from the mother line upto
David.Hence Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph. Where do you get the
idea that Joseph had 2 fathers?
If you read bible prayfully with repentance, you will know that Heli
is the father of Mary; AND ONLY MUSLIM LIKE YOU CAN MAKE MISTAKE OF
JOSEPH HAD 2 FATHERS.
But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact that
all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
the shame of their trade ???
> On the other hand , Prophet Jesus is of Virgin Birth (ie. no
> father if you still do not understand). How did the bible managed
> to conjure up his genealogy? Amazing , isn't it. I am waiting for
> an explanation from you on this one. This time don't bring up
> Isrealite priests or request me to read the tankh.
>
> Are you lying again? Don't lie for the glory of christianity , it
> will be better off without people of your kind who lie and lie
> without knowing that he has sinned (by lying) :)
Dear Sam,
Did I ever lie? How about Mohammed's lies as follows:
Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you
" Was Mohammed an Arab?"
Mohammed was not even an Arab, and hence he negated the beauty
of the Arabic language by detracting it as forementioned.
Amen in Christ Jesus - the prophet who does not lie !
> sam1528- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Sam 1528,
Miss you? No, just hope that you will get wiser by not fooling
yourself!
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> Dear Sam,
> Matthew 1 is the genealogy of Jesus from the father line upto David
> whereas
> Luke 3:23 is the genealogy of Jesus from the mother line upto
> David.Hence Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph. Where do you get the
> idea that Joseph had 2 fathers?
> If you read bible prayfully with repentance, you will know that Heli
> is the father of Mary; AND ONLY MUSLIM LIKE YOU CAN MAKE MISTAKE OF
> JOSEPH HAD 2 FATHERS.
See , you are trying to twist the writings in your bible and
indirectly
lying .... again.
Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and
only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies
clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph,
not Mary. Its very clear when you go thru Matt 1 & Luke 3. Why are
you twisting the facts of what has been written in your bible?
By the way how did you managed your 'son of god' genealogy if he is
of Virgin Birth? You have been caught on this since October and still
have not come up with an acceptable answer.
>
> But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact that
> all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
> the shame of their trade ???
Can you show proof that he had no father? Trying to lie again?
--sip--
All the repeat (and repeated ) crap deleted
All your repeated crap were answered on my post dated 20 Oct.
Do you want to go thru them again? You are going to look bad a
again.
>
> Dear Sam 1528,
> Miss you? No, just hope that you will get wiser by not fooling
> yourself!
The very least I do not lie like you and then refuse to answer
questions posted to you.
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
Please read the thread by an Ex Muslim as follows:
From an Ex Muslim: "simple_...@yahoo.com":
"The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if
you just look at it, you will see that every fifth sentence or so
simply doesn't make sense... If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if
it
can't even be understood in Arabic, then it's not translatable into
any language." - Gerd Puin
As a child, I was asked to memorize the verses of Koran. I used to
ask
the Hujur (Mullah) what meanings were conveyed by those verses? The
reply I used to get from the Hujur was a few strokes of the cane and
rebukes. He used to say that one should never ask any question on the
matter of Islam especially on Koran. The penalty for asking questions
is whipping. source: http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/breaking_the_manacles.htm
Koran is full of internal contradictions, scientific errors and
historical blunders. 54:19 mentions Aad was destroyed in a day but
69:6,7 mentions Aad was destroyed in seven nights and eight days;
19:17 shows an angel appeared to Mary but 3:42 shows several angels
appeared; 28:40 mentions pharaoh drowned and died but 10:92 states
that the same pharaoh was saved; 18:86 states that sun sets in a
muddy
spring of water; 15:19 mentions earth is flat; 86:6,7 states that
semen emits from between back-bone and the ribs; 19:27,28 states that
Mary was the sister of Aaron, whereas history shows they were born
about 1300 years apart; 28:8 tells that pharaoh and Haman were living
at the same time and place whereas history clearly shows they were
born about 1000 years apart and pharaoh lived in Egypt and Haman
lived
in Shushan city in Persia; and 4:157 says that Jesus was not
crucified
whereas it is crystal clear in historical records that Jesus was
crucified and not another man who looked like Jesus. By the way, the
transliterated name of Jesus in arabic Quran is Isa but even this is
wrong because the name of Esau, brother of Jacob (Yaqub in arabic) is
Isa in arabic. The correct transliterated name of Jesus in arabic is
Yasu. Isa (Esau) means 'hairy' and Yasu (Jesus) means 'God saves.'
source: http://islam-watch.org/LeavingIslam/Why-I-Quit-Islam.htm
Who authored the Koran:
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/WhoAuthoredQuran/who_authored_th...
Contradictions in the Koran:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/by_name.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Qur%27an
Errors in the Koran:
Scribal Errors: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/scribal.html
Grammatical Errors: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/grammar.html
The Gate: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/gate.html
Zul-Qarnain: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/alex.html
Zul-Qarnain and the Sun: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/spring.html
Inventions to protect the miracle: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/inventions.html
Editions of the Koran printed in Egypt or Saudi Arabia are seized as
contraband in Iran; Egypt and most other Muslim nations in turn ban
the import of Korans printed in Iran. The works of a majority of
Muslim writers and philosophers are banned in most Muslim countries.
source: http://tinyurl.com/2ggld6
About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or
politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the
unbelievers...
Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts...
source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={6AA49466-2575-491F-B712-CEA90FCCCD0D}
Muslim activists emphasize that Islam is a religion of peace. They
say
that "Islam" is derived from the Arabic word "Salam," meaning peace,
while Islam, in fact, means "Surrender" (to the will of Allah). To
prove that Islam stands for peace, Muslims often quote certain verses
out of the early period of the Quranic revelation. Here are some of
them. "Let there be no compulsion in religion." Surah 2: 256 "And
have
patience with what they (opponents) say, and leave them with noble
(dignity)." Surah 73:10 However, what Muslim advocates deliberately
fail to say is that the peaceful verses from the Meccan period have
been abrogated (nullified) and replaced by the militant verses of the
Medinan period. These verses were written after Mohammed moved to
Medina, abandoned his peaceful approach and resorted to using the
sword. As an example of the abrogation, 124 verses of the Quran that
call for tolerance, peace, and patience have been canceled and
replaced by this one single verse: "Fight and slay the Pagans
wherever
ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for
them
in every stratagem (of war.)" Surah 9:5 source: "The Islamization of
America" by Abdullah Al-Araby, http://infidelnation.org/DOWNLOADS/TheIslamizationofAmericaTheIsl.zip
This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many
contradictions in the Koran. source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004246.php
expla...@yahoo.com
Who we are:
We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some
of us
had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught
never to
question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger
with
blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the
sin of
disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin
of
thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came
to
realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it
is
hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.
What we believe:
Some of us have embraced other religions but most of us have simply
left
Islam without believing in any other religion. We believe in humanity.
We
believe that humans do not need to follow a religion to be good. All
we need
to follow is the Golden Rule. All we have to do is to treat others
they way
we expect to be treated. This is the essence of all the goodness. All
good
religious teachings stem from this eternal principle. This is the
ultimate
guidance humanity need. This is the Golden Rule.
Why Mohammed was not a prophet:
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly
life.
He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he
must
not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or
an
assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a
superior
character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time.
Yet
Muhammad's life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant
caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations
and
enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war
after
killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have
sex
with their captives and their "right hand possessions" (Quran 33:50)
He
assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came
to
power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of
human
compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and
could
not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist
like
Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate
people,
but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-
old
child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally
massacred
thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions
were
big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as
he
pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are
justified.
Why Quran is not from God:
Muhammad produced no miracles and when pressed he claimed that his
miracle
is the Quran. Yet a cursory look at the Quran reveals that this book
is full
of errors. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic
blunders,
mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and
ethical
fallacies. It is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is
nothing
intelligent in this book let alone miraculous. Muhammad challenged
people to
produce a "Surah like it" or find an error therein, yet Muslims would
kill
anyone who dares to criticize it. In such a climate of hypocrisy and
violence truth is the first casualty.
What is our goal?
We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of
hate and
terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and
relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main
victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the
truth. We
are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims
into
the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated,
so
they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would
like to
see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to
Quran
and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human
civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam
eliminated
and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs,
for
equality of gender and for oneness of mankind.
Mankind's biggest challenge:
Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is
on
the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of
Muslims. This
hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences.
We
believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals
must
realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of
Islamic
world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the
arrogant
assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the
most
perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine
- the
most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes
common
knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose
its
fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat
Islamic
terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this
terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be
eliminated
unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated.
This is
what we intend to do.
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
expla...@yahoo.com
by Abul Kasem
29 Jun, 2007
A specter is haunting the Mullahs. The specter of Islamic truth.
Pardon me for paraphrasing those two famous lines of Karl Marx from
his 'The Manifesto of the Communist Party.' I could find no better
sentences than those two lines about the frantic efforts by the
Mullahs to cover up the true colors of Islam in the world of
Internet. Many recent essays in NFB (News From Bangladesh), Secular
Islam, Rational Thinking, Faithfreedom.org, and Islam-watch.org etc.,
have exposed the other side of many religions including the Islam. The
writers of these essays have taken great risks in terms of their
personal safety to expose the intolerance, cruelty, injustices and
irrationalities of many facets of Islam, the religion of "Peace."
Their forceful arguments, painstaking researched and extraordinary
dedication are really going to shake the very foundation of the
religion. I think the Mullahs could never believe that there is so
much of disgust and disdain for the irrationalities and the
backwardness in Islam in the present-day context. They thought that
the fear of death sentence and the declaration of Jihad (Holy War)
would silence the voices of rationality, logic and progress. No
wonder, the Mullahs are desperate to counter attack with theirs every
possible means. Amongst them are the illogical blind quotations of
fear, the mindless hate, personal attacks, intimidation, charges of
apostasy and blasphemy and what not. If only they could identify and
catch those Kafirs and the infidels, I am sure they cannot wait to
hang them in public. Unfortunately, the cyber world is too huge for
them to start the killing spree. Therefore, they have little choice
but to resort to intellectual assassinations.
After reading through a number of those venomous essays by these
Islamists, I could categorize them into two broad groups; namely:
The hard-core bigots. These Mullahs preach nothing but hatred towards
anyone suspected of uttering a single word against Islam. They are
completely devoid of any logical or rational thinking. Their
languages are filthy (mostly four letter words), full of personal
threats, distasteful and incomprehensible writings, etc. They usually
judge a Muslim through his/her name. They challenge the writers to
declare their apostasy in public so that they can take care of them
(that is, kill them). They usually send their threats through the
personal e-mails of the authors. So, many readers may not be aware of
these threats. They do not realize that a person's name has very
little to do with his/her religion although it (the name) may be
useful in many cases. I know many Lebanese whose names sound like
Muslims but I see them wearing crosses on their necks that tells me
what is his/her real religious affiliation is (that is they are
actually Christians). Bertrand Russell seems to be a Christians
name, but he wrote the book 'Why I am not a Christian.' The name
given to a person during his birth is beyond his/her control.
Similarly, the birth religion of a person has nothing to do with his/
her personal belief when he grows up and starts to think and act on
his/her own. This is a fundamental human right. Thus, a person being
born in a Muslim family and given a Muslim (or rather Arabic) name
does not necessarily must follow Islam when he grows up. But these
fanatic bigots will not accept this basic right of a human being.
When the bigot finds that a person has a Muslim name and he argues
certain points in Islam, he is immediately declared as an apostate
and, therefore, that person automatically becomes a target for
annihilation. I just do not understand this mindless thinking. Never
have I seen a secularist/humanist declare any person who does not
agree with him or who talks and writes against the secularists/
humanists/atheists should be killed. These people will not accept the
truth that a person has every right to examine critically his/her
birth religion. What kind of religion these bigots are preaching to
the civilized world?
Readers, have you seen that these hard-core bigots are greatly alarmed
even though they know that it is not that simple to kill people in the
cyber world? Their frustration is then manifested in the personal
attacks to the writers. There are many examples that can be found in
many criticisms of the essays written by the secularists/humanists
authors. A recent example is the criticism of Kamran Mirza's two
essays; one was on the ancient Arabian practices of worship of the
Moon God Allah and the other was the serious questions about fasting
in Islam. The Islamic critics resorted to severe personal innuendoes,
abusive languages and false accusations. I cannot quote all those
remarks. Please refer to NFB back issues if you want details.
Another example is the personal and shameless attack on Taslima
Nasrin in an article titled 'True color of Taslima Nasrin.' The
bigoted writer of this article has tried to depict Taslima as a sex
maniac and has delved into her private married life with her deceased
husband. They wanted to finish her off physically by slaughtering her
but that did not happen. They grossly underestimated her courage and
conviction. So, now they are trying to kill her through character
assassination. Nothing could be more unjust than this type of
intrusion in some ones personal and private life. But then, again, we
cannot expect anything more decent from these hard-core bigots.
These types of bigots have very little understanding even the religion
that they love so much and not to talk of their knowledge of other
religions or other philosophical/belief matters. Their main language
is violence, Jihad, and terrorizing people to the extent that the
author is compelled to stop disseminating his/her views. This tactic
is nothing new in religion. Terror and violence had always been used
in Islam (and some other religion too) to silence it's critics. You
will find many references to these types of activities if you read the
relevant passages in Koran and the Hadiths.
The intellectual bigots: These bigots have very good knowledge of
Islam, Koran Hadiths......etc. They are fully aware that what is being
written by the Kafirs and the infidels are very difficult if not
impossible to refute. These intellectual bigots are frustrated by the
logic, rationality, coherence and the realistic arguments extended by
the authors. They too wished that these writers were eliminated but
then they also feel a little guilty about the open call for their
annihilation. So, they resort to psychological killing. This
involves the quotations from Koran and Hadiths about the dreadful
punishments that will be meted out to those who dare to criticize
Islam. They openly declare that whoever questions Islam is no more a
Muslim. Of course, the infidel writers are very little concerned
whether they are considered Muslims or not. But then, the declaration
by this group of bigots has some significance. What are those? The
significance is that the author becomes an enemy of Islam and
therefore, subject to all the punishments that are applicable to non-
believers and the apostates.
These bigots are very shrewd and intelligent. They will extend
subtle threats to the authors, like becoming an outcast in society, to
rot in hell, not to have the advantages of the petrodollars, not to be
favored by the Arabs, etc. etc. This type of threat is designed to
instill the fear and greed in the minds of the authors. A preferred
fear is the fear of death. The greed is the greed of going to heaven/
petro-dollars, etc. They will quote from their scriptures about the
terrible death that awaits those who question and doubt the religion
(Islam). Most of the time these bigots will avoid going into logical
or rational reasoning because they know rather well that that won't be
fruitful. Their main armor is the quotations and the regurgitation of
only what they know about their religion. For example, when the
question of haram/halal food is raised, they will give no reason as to
why the halal food should be eaten except that religious scriptures
have decreed so. And, therefore, it should not be questioned. The
nutritional values of haram/halal foods are irrelevant in this case.
All that matters is that the religion has approved certain foods and
to the contrary has banned certain foods. Many haram foods are as
nutritional as many halal foods are if not better. If halal foods are
good, then the Muslims must be the healthiest people in the world.
How come then that those who eat haram foods have better physique?
This is a commonsense question. However, the religious bigots will
never answer this question in an honest and straightforward fashion.
They will simply hide behind the cloak of their scriptures and confuse
people more. Similar examples can be cited on many other archaic
practices in Islam. Like fasting, performing haj, praying five times
every day, etc. These bigots will never give any good reasons as to
their practices except to say that they are the pillars of Islam. Is
there anything wrong in knowing the reasons behind them? Many of
these rituals were actually practiced by the pagan Arabs long before
the advent of Islam. However, if this question is put to the bigots,
all you get is personal vilification and branding you as an enemy of
Islam. This reminds me my childhood. As a child, I was asked to
memorize the verses of Koran. I used to ask the Hujur (Mullah) what
meanings were conveyed by those verses? The reply I used to get from
the Hujur was a few strokes of the cane and rebukes. He used to say
that one should never ask any question on the matter of Islam
especially on Koran. The penalty for asking questions is whipping.
So, I stopped questioning and memorized the verses without
understanding anything. The Hujur was a symbol of terror to me. I
had no choice but to follow whatever he asked of me. That was how
fear was and still is being introduced in the minds of the people and
these bigots are repeating the same things over and over again. This
is what is called a mass hypnotization induced through intimidation
and fear. The fact is that if the real truths about the religion leak
out these Hujurs will be out of work. Pure and simple.
Another ploy employed by these people is to blame the translators of
the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. Even the eminent translator like A.
Yusuf Ali is not considered as authentic translator. These bigots
will never say which one is the authentic English version of the
Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah, etc. They will simply say that one must be
very good in Arabic to interpret Koran. This is akin to saying that
one must be very good in Aramaic and Hebrew languages to understand
the Bible and the Talmud. Or that you must be very good in Greek,
Latin and Dutch languages to understand Aristotle, Roman laws,
Copernicus' 'laws of heavenly bodies,' etc. These are absolutely
illogical ideas. Strangely though, you will notice that these bigots
will use the English translation of the Koran when it suits their
purposes. But when the inconsistencies, irrationalities and illogical
things are pointed out, these bigots will simply say that the English
translation is perverted. What kind of hypocrisy is that? In many
cases, they warn people that the interpretations will vary depending
on who is interpreting as well as the context of interpretation. This
means that only those interpretations offered by them are valid and
the rest are simply invalid. At the same time, these Mullahs also
insist by quoting from Koran that the mishandling (wrong
interpretations) is a great sin and the interpreter/s will have to
face severe penalty No wonder, it is next to impossible to gauge any
logic from these talks of the Mullahs.
Has it occurred to the readers of NFB that these bigots give them the
impression that the Koran is an extremely difficult piece to
understand and to interpret. Why should Allah make his words so
difficult that ordinary people have great difficulties in
understanding them? It simply doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.
One does not need a Ph.D in the ancient Arabic language and culture to
understand the Koran. Then, why do these Mullahs insist so much on
the mastery of the Arabic language? They know that most followers of
Islam do not know Arabic and even if they know their skill in the
language is not enough to interpret the ancient language of Koran.
Furthermore, it takes many years to master a language. Most people
have no time, patience and the motivation for that. So, they simply
take the advantage of people's ignorance and pretend that they are the
sole agents of the Koran and it's interpretations. Many people are
not conversant in the English language as well. So, they do not know
the exact meanings in many verses of the Koran. How about the Bangla
and other translations of Koran? The Mullahs simply ignore them while
accepting only those that suit them. Ironically, think about what
will happen to the Mullahs if every Muslim masters the Arabic
language! People will start interpreting the Koran in the way they
understand and not be dependent upon the Mullahs. This may open the
eyes of the masses and dehypnotize them. These Mullah's will then
simply be defeated in their own game, will they not?
This is what the Mullhas fear most. The Mullahs desperately need the
uneducated, ignorant and fearful mass to perpetuate their
stranglehold on the salesmanship of Islam.
However, the development in new technology and the introduction of the
Internet has really alarmed the Mullahs. Many people are now able to
exchange ideas almost instantly on any matter including religions.
Many Mullahs could never believe that there are so many born Muslims
who dare to question Islam and challenge its archaic practices. This
was unthinkable even a few years ago. The reason is very simple.
Many of these thinkers always had doubts about what they were supposed
to believe but thought that they were alone and hence they were
fearful about speaking their minds in public or to their peers. They
kept that question to themselves. The Internet and the modern
electronic mass media had opened an opportunity for them to be united
if not physically at least electronically. This is a very bad news
for the Mullahs. They simply cannot digest the truth that one day
Islam will not go unchallenged. This is now happening as it had
already happened with Christianity and with other religions as well
many years ago. The innate nature of humanity to seek the truth, to
explore the unexplored, to question and to innovate can never be
suppressed. One day Islam will surely realize that.
By the way, it is interesting to note that innovation in Islam is
haram. The dictionary definition of innovation is to introduce
changes or to introduce new things. This is the foundation of
civilization. Imagine what would have happened if mankind was not
innovative. The people of other religion prospered only when they
freed themselves from their religious irrationalities and started
innovating. That is why Islam is so paranoid about innovative ideas
and free-thinking. These two things hit at the heart of Islam.
Curiously, you will notice that many of the innovative ideas and
inventions are used by the Mullahs to propagate their doctrines. You
can see many examples of these. Like TV, Radio, modern appliances and
the latest is Internet. They have realized the immense power of
modern science and technology. When you ask them why should the
Islamic people accept these innovative things that are mainly due to
the innovative ideas of the Kafirs and the infidels, the Islamists
have ready answers. The answer is that these inventions are the gifts
of Allah. Some will even say that science and technology are Allah's
blessings to mankind. I have no problem in accepting the compliment.
How about the Islamic bomb? This maut be the greatest gift of Allah to
His followers. How about the Hindu bomb? Since Allah is the only god
could it be that Allah is also responsible for this great gift to the
Hindus as well? And how about the Christian and the Buddhist bombs?
If these questions are asked to the Islamists I do not know what will
be the answer? The other question is that why is it that the
followers of Islam have next to nothing contribution to the modern
science and technology? Isn't that because Islam had kept its
followers blind for centuries? Now, many of these blind people are
getting their sights back. What were impossible to think for
centuries for many innocent followers of Islam, are now having a
second look at their ancestor given faith. It is simply a matter of
time before the arrogance and the irrationality of Islam becomes a
distant history. And with that, is the demise of the Mullahs like,
Ayatollahs, Talibans, Golam Azam, Maulana Nizami, etc.
Finally, I must pay homage to the few braves who took the risk to
demystify Islam. You are the pioneers. You have taught me how to
think the unthinkable. You have taught me how to be courageous. You
have taught me how to rekindle the human spirit. You have taught me
how to fight for the justice. You have taught me how to accept
merciless criticisms with grace. You have taught me how to conquer
the unconquerable. A hundred years from now humanity will remember
you as the greatest innovators in finding a cure for the religious
blinds. That is because you dared to think differently. Truly, you
are the alarm bells of the Mullahs. History won't forget you for
being the Agradoot (harbinger) who are bent on breaking the manacles
of Islam.
expla...@yahoo.com
I wrote:
"But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact that
all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
the shame of their trade ???
Sam1528 questioned:
"Can you show proof that he had no father? Trying to lie again?"
My reply to Sam1528 question for proof:
Dear Sam,
Very simple. Your Quran has no genealogy. Therefore, there is no
listing of the father of Mohammed or the father of Mohammed's father
and his ancestors!
Can you prove that Mohammed have father or his father's father
according to the Holy Book - Quran???
Amen In Christ Jesus
expla...@yahoo.com
I wrote:
"But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact that
all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
the shame of their trade ???
Sam1528 questioned:
"Can you show proof that he had no father? Trying to lie again?"
My reply to Sam1528 asking for proof:
Dear Sam,
Very simple. Your Quran has no genealogy. Therefore, there is no
listing of the father of Mohammed or the father of Mohammed's father
and his ancestors!
Can you prove that Mohammed have a father or his father's father
expla...@yahoo.com
I wrote saying:
"But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact that
all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
the shame of their trade ???
Sam1528 questioned:
"Can you show proof that he had no father? Trying to lie again?"
My reply to Sam1528 who asked for proof:
pls_e...@yahoo.com
I wrote saying:
Matthew 1 is the genealogy of Jesus from the father line upto David
whereas
Luke 3:23 is the genealogy of Jesus from the mother line upto David.
that Joseph had 2 fathers?
If you read bible prayfully with repentance, you will know that Heli
is the father of Mary; AND ONLY MUSLIM LIKE YOU CAN MAKE MISTAKE OF
JOSEPH HAD 2 FATHERS".
Sam1528 replied saying:
"See , you are trying to twist the writings in your bible and
indirectly lying .... again.
Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and
only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies
clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph,
not Mary. Its very clear when you go thru Matt 1 & Luke 3. Why are
you twisting the facts of what has been written in your bible?"
My reply as follows:
If you are wise, you will know that a person will have 2 genealogies.
One genealogy linking him to his father, and the other linking him to
his mother.
The aforementioned genealogies are comprehensible: the genealogy
mentioned in Mathew 1:1 links to Joseph - the earthly father of Jesus,
and the other mentioned in Luke 3:23 links to the mother of Jesus.
Hence, what facts that are written in the Holy Bible have I
twisted???
And when did I lie, and how ???
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
I wrote saying:
"But Mohammed had no father...do you know this fact, and the fact
that
all prostitutes tell their sons that their fathers are dead to hide
the shame of their trade ???
Sam1528 questioned:
"Can you show proof that he had no father? Trying to lie again?"
My reply to Sam1528 asking for proof:
expla...@yahoo.com
You need to argue on the issue of How Holy Is Islam when Mohammed at
the age of 53 was eyeing lustfully at a 5 years old baby girl, Aisha,
for sex in marriage.
Mohammed, 54, had Aisha, 6, betrothed to him, and he was having sexual
acts known as thighing in the Islamic world.
So, how holy was Mohammed given this fact, and the fact that he,
Mohammed, had more than 11 wives???
A True Messenger of Allah must be holy and not lustful !
Amen In Christ Jesus
yansimon52
Halo Young Man ...........yeah been observing your posts about how bad
Islam was........
Let me giving some tips to you.............Why in Sg most opposition
parties failed?.......cos, all the time they start smearing or
undermining at the ruling PAP.......unfortunately, that is not a
realistic argument cos, PAP get thing done ....that is why most
opposition failed their test.
If, I am an opposition party member I would prefer to put it in this
way......yes PAP is a good party BUT, we opposition parties can do
better than PAP.....its foolhardly of you to condamm PAP totally.
Same as in your arguement with Islam.........you can argue until the
cow comes home still ppl or muslim don't get your message. My advice
to you is, to argue with muslim you just argue with its
fundamental..its basic of a religious belief...........ie. where is
this religious belief coming from......the Brighside or the Darkside?
Unfortunately, from what I see in you.......you are a
christian...............a christian just trying to downgrade another
person's religious belief.........due to their terrorist act worldwide
Pls bear in mind that christianity is some sort connected with
Islam.........so whatever you are doing is, you are oso smearing your
own christianity belief.....cos 'Isa' (in the muslim world ) is oso
known as Jesus.Ibraham is Abraham........Musa is
Moses...............so how?
sam...@hotmail.com
--snip--
>
> Sam1528 replied saying:
> "See , you are trying to twist the writings in your bible and
> indirectly lying .... again.
>
> Mary's name is never mentioned in the genealogy of Luke 3, and
> only arises incidentally in that of Matthew 1. Both genealogies
> clearly pertain to Joseph. Both clearly trace the descent of Joseph,
> not Mary. Its very clear when you go thru Matt 1 & Luke 3. Why are
> you twisting the facts of what has been written in your bible?"
>
> My reply as follows:
> If you are wise, you will know that a person will have 2 genealogies.
> One genealogy linking him to his father, and the other linking him to
> his mother.
>
> The aforementioned genealogies are comprehensible: the genealogy
> mentioned in Mathew 1:1 links to Joseph - the earthly father of Jesus,
> and the other mentioned in Luke 3:23 links to the mother of Jesus.
> Hence, what facts that are written in the Holy Bible have I
> twisted???
> And when did I lie, and how ???
>
> Amen In Christ Jesus.
Why don't you go thru Luke 3 & Matt 1 again. Is there any mention
of Mary in Luke? Mary is mentioned just incidentally only in Matt
1:16. You are just conjuring up stories that Luke is the genealogy
of Mary. Luke 3:23-38 , is there any mention of Mary?
Your 'son of god' is of Virgin Birth' (just in case you still do not
understand , it means no father). You boasted that there is his
genealogy in your bible forgetting that he was of Virgin Birth (no
father - in case you still do not understand). Now you are caught
and you are trying to bullshit your way out by saying that the
bible provides the listing of both Joseph & Mary. Isn't that trying
to twist what has been written in your bible to fit your bullshit?
If you are bullshitting - isn't that lying? Oops I forgot ,
christians
like you don't know when that have sinned. They can continue
to lie for eternity for all they care.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
ooo IC , so if his genealogy is not in the Quran then he has got
no father. So by your logic , can I say this :
"since you do not have a genealogy in the bible , that means
that you do not have a father as prostitutes does not tell their
children that they have got no father or your mother might have
married someone else just to put up a show that you have a
father"
See how flawed your logic is. There is no genealogy of Prophet
Muhammad in the Quran. Islam does not believe in the superiority
of race. Like I mentioned before , if by the will of Allah , a man
from China has been chosen to be the Prophet , we will now have
a Prophet from China not Arab.
So judging by your logic , your 'son of god' is of Jewish descend
and his teachings is for the Jewish people. Then why are you - a
non-Jewish is a Christian? This is clearly stated in the following
verse in your bible :
Bible Matt 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel
By your 'son of god' own admission , he has been sent to the
Isrealites
only. Your 'son of god' does not even acknowledge the non Isrealites ,
so now why are you so thickskin in saying that he has been sent
for your salvation?
sam1528
ps. For the interest of others , the following link provides a short
story
of Prophet Muhammad
http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/muh.htm
by the way ; At least in my answers I provide links for reference ,
yours
have always been words of accusation with no links
of
proof whatsoever.
sam...@hotmail.com
You see , you are so caught up in trying to undermine Islam that
you did not even do any research on this topic.
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
Why is that so much variance in he age? Her age is not recorded
in the Quran its from the Hadith (narrations). The link above shows
the first research in determining her age and subsequently further
research in determining her age . You read it , if you chose not to
believe it , it is up to you. At least people do not lie (like you) as
the link to the research has been provided. You need to read it
and be the judge.
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 17, 7:37 am, explain_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Dear Muslims,
> > You need to argue on the issue of How Holy Is Islam when Mohammed at
> > the age of 53 was eyeing lustfully at a 5 years old baby girl, Aisha,
> > for sex in marriage.
>
> > Mohammed, 54, had Aisha, 6, betrothed to him, and he was having sexual
> > acts known as thighing in the Islamic world.
>
> > So, how holy was Mohammed given this fact, and the fact that he,
> > Mohammed, had more than 11 wives???
>
> > A True Messenger of Allah must be holy and not lustful !
>
> > Amen In Christ Jesus
>
> You see , you are so caught up in trying to undermine Islam that
> Why is that so much variance in he age? Her age is not recorded
> in the Quran its from the Hadith (narrations). The link above shows
> the first research in determining her age and subsequently further
> research in determining her age . You read it , if you chose not to
> believe it , it is up to you. At least people do not lie (like you) as
> the link to the research has been provided. You need to read it
> and be the judge.
>
> sam1528
Dear all,
If Islam is true, then no one could undermine Islam. Obviously,
sam1528, you keep on lying to mislead the ignorant Muslims to hell
with your lies, and that is wicked of you to do so.
If you do not lie, then you must substantiate your sayings with
proofs; but you are not substantiating your sayings with proofs. So,
how could you keep saying that I am lying?
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Yansimon,
You are wrong in your thinking; for you said that Isa is known as
Jesus. Isa is actually Esau - which means rough like hairy; but it is
not Jesus. Because you do not known Arabic, you do not know the error
of the Muslims' belief that Isa was Jesus. Because of the falsehood of
Islam, the world suffers terrorism.
Nick 'simple language' has clarified the error the Muslims have made
on the name Isa by referring it as Jesus. This is, of course,
incorrect.
Nick 'simple' quoted as follows:
" By the way, the transliterated name of Jesus in arabic Quran is Isa
but even this is
wrong because the name of Esau, brother of Jacob (Yaqub in arabic) is
Isa in arabic. The correct transliterated name of Jesus in arabic is
Yasu. Isa (Esau) means 'hairy' and Yasu (Jesus) means 'God saves.'
source: http://islam-watch.org/LeavingIslam/Why-I-Quit-Islam.htm".
I AM HERE NOT TO DOWNGRADE THE BELIEF OF THE MUSLIMS, BUT TO TELL THE
MUSLIMS THE TRUTH. Do you think that it is better for me to keep
silence when someone's house is on fire?
Moreover, our accusation that I am downgrading another person's
religious belief is not true; for if a religion is true, no one could
downgrade its believers' belief.
Please read the thread of an Ex Muslim speaking about the truth of the
falsehood of Islam as follows:
Dear Muslims,
Please read the thread by an Ex Muslim as follows:
From an Ex Muslim: "simple_langu...@yahoo.com":
:
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear sam1528,
Keep your reply pointedly to the issue of the debate. You must now
provide proof as to the father of Mohammed, his father's father and
his father's ancestors. Please don't sidetract the issue.
If you cannot provide facts, then it goes to show that the Quran is
inaccurate and false!
Don't sidetract the issue.
Amen In Christ Jesus
expla...@yahoo.com
Keep your reply pointedly to the issue of the debate. You must now
provide proof as to the father of Mohammed, his father's father and
If you cannot provide the facts, then it goes to show that the Quran
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Yansimon,
You are wrong in your saying; for you said that Isa is known as Jesus.
Isa is actually Esau - which means rough like hairy; but it is not
Jesus as translated. Because you do not know Arabic, you do not know
the error of the Muslims' belief that Isa was Jesus. Because of the
falsehood of Islam, the world suffers terrorism.
Nick 'simple language' has clarified the error the Muslims have made
on the name Isa by referring it as Jesus. This is, of course,
incorrect.
Nick 'simple' quoted as follows:
" By the way, the transliterated name of Jesus in arabic Quran is Isa
but even this is
wrong because the name of Esau, brother of Jacob (Yaqub in arabic) is
Isa in arabic. The correct transliterated name of Jesus in arabic is
Yasu. Isa (Esau) means 'hairy' and Yasu (Jesus) means 'God saves.'
source: http://islam-watch.org/LeavingIslam/Why-I-Quit-Islam.htm".
I AM HERE NOT TO DOWNGRADE THE BELIEF OF THE MUSLIMS, BUT TO TELL THE
MUSLIMS THE TRUTH. Do you think that it is better for me to keep
silence when someone's house is on fire?
Moreover, your accusation that I am downgrading another person's
religious belief is not true; for if a religion is true, no one could
downgrade its believers' belief; for it will stand upright on its own
merit of truthfulness
.
Please read the thread of an Ex Muslim speaking about the truth of
the
falsehood of Islam as follows:
Dear Muslims,
Please read the thread by an Ex Muslim as follows:
From an Ex Muslim: "simple_langu...@yahoo.com":
:
Amen In Christ Jesus.
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow .... now you are telling me that I lied. The very least when
I provide an explanation , I provide a link to the research done
on the topic. That should be proof of substantiating of what I
wrote. If you do not care to read it , its your problem not mine.
However your accusation is all baseless and your answers is
even worse. All talk but no link to any documented work done
on anything.
My questions again (you have 2 problems now) :
1. If your 'son of god' is of Virgin Birth , how come the your
bible list his genealogy as Joseph being his father (ref :
Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38). Virgin Birth means no
father. Even the fundamental aspect is already flawed.
2. The geneology listed in your bible has major flaws : refer
to Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38. Even the listed genealogy
of your 'son of god' in the 2 chapters has mistakes when
compared between the two. Now you claim that Luke is
the genealogy for Mary. However Mary is not mentioned
in the said verses ..... all is about Joseph. These are facts
as per what is stated in your bible. Now you are twisting
the facts to suit your bullshit.
Now , let us see if you are brave enough to answer the
questions or are you going to just keep quiet , run away and
refuse to answer nor acknowledge the questions as what you
have been doing over the past.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have listed the links to your question of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) ancestry. I have also mentioned that in the Quran , there
is no listing of his genealogy. Why do you want to compare what
is in your bible and the Quran. 2 different religions and beliefs.
Why should we follow you lot by placing importance on genealogy?
If you cannot accept it , its your problem not ours.
Even the genealogy listing in your bible has major errors in which
you have failed to provide an explanation so far. To me its better
not to list a geneology rather than having 2 (Matt & Luks) listings
which are completely erronous and having a fundamental flaw
that your 'son of god' is of Virgin Birth , yet you lot try to force
his genealogy by saying that Joseph is is father. Stupid isn't it?
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
Simple answer to you : bullocks. Why are you afraid to debate
on the topics. Are you afraid that you cannot stand up to scrutiny?
By the way , I still need an answer to the following question (which
you have evaded and refused to answer) :
Bible Matt 15:24
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel".
--> Your 'son of god' does not acknowledge you as you are
not of Isrealite descend. How come you profess him as
your god and blindly follow him? He doesn't want you ...
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear sam1528,
You have lied that Mohammed married Aisha when she was 18 o 19 in
earlier debate. Your lie shows that you are a person not sincere in
seeking the True Allah, and that is why you are in deny mode which
means that you will always deny the truth even when proof and evidence
are provided.
How could you not have read the Haddith of Aisha to know that she at
the age of 6 was betrothed to Mohammed, 54 and married Mohammed, 57,
when she - Aisha was 9 old years old???
It puzzles me to know that you could bring yourself to debate with me
when you lack the knowledge of the Haddiths !!!
What about your knowledge of the Quran?
If someone -who claims to be the Last Messenger of Allah - would eye
at the age of 53 at a 5 years old baby girl for sexual act known as
thighing in marriage, I would definitely NOT BELIEVE HIS SAYINGS.
Obviously, you do !
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
You have lied that Mohammed married Aisha when she was 18 or 19 in
achtung
>
> > Dear Muslims,
> > You need to argue on the issue of How Holy Is Islam when Mohammed at
> > the age of 53 was eyeing lustfully at a 5 years old baby girl, Aisha,
> > for sex in marriage.
>
> > Mohammed, 54, had Aisha, 6, betrothed to him, and he was having sexual
> > acts known as thighing in the Islamic world.
>
> > So, how holy was Mohammed given this fact, and the fact that he,
> > Mohammed, had more than 11 wives???
>
> > A True Messenger of Allah must be holy and not lustful !
>
> > Amen In Christ Jesus
>
> You see , you are so caught up in trying to undermine Islam that
Javed Iqbal Kaleem
> On Dec 15, 12:15 pm, Javed Iqbal Kaleem <JavedIqbalKal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:00 am, explain_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you "
> > > Was Mohammed an Arab?" and to understand the Arabic language
> > > truthfully, please read the followings:
> > > Islam has the misfortune and handicap of being founded in that period
> > > of Arabic's development when Arabic had no orthography and
> > > consequently no evidence of the date of Mohammed's death was. During
> > > that period of history that Arabic existed only in spoken form and
> > > circulated information as recitation. In every gathering of Arabs a
> > > special place was assigned to the poet who recited the poems, sagas,
> > > history, and information intended for communication among the people.
> > > Just as the Bible facilitated the development of German, the Qur'an
> > > (recitation) facilitated the development, formulation, and
> > > standardization of Arabic.
> > > No documents in Arabic or Qur'an, or fragments of Qur'an , exist today
> > > dating from the period of Mohammed's death to 150 years later.
> > > This fact need not be argued since the contrary can be proven with the
> > > presentation of examples of written Arabic with a good provenance.
> > > Secondary proofs would be the existence of documents referring to and
> > > quoting excerpts from earlier documents.
> > > --
> > > John I. Berg
> > > --
> > > John L. Berg
> > > Sea-Room, Inc.
> > > PO Box 298
> > > 650 Minnetonka Highlands Lane
> > > Long Lake MN 55356
> > > 952-476-6523
> > > Some volumes of the old edition still available.www.sea-room.com
> > > Amen
>
> > > Dear little hoopoe,
> > > You wrote saying: "....These words, innaa ("Verily We")
> > > and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be
> > > used by one person speaking on behalf of a group,
> > > or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect
> > > or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they
> > > issue statements or decrees in which they say "We have
> > > decided..."
> > > My reply:
> > > "We" when used by one person speaking on behalf of a group
> > > is acceptable but if by a Singular God, then it is unfathomable.
> > > When "we" is used by a Monarch, it is taken to mean that
> > > the King is speaking on behalf of the Royal Family, but if
> > > the King is not married and only Himself alone in His kingdom,
> > > He will be most foolish to use "We" when he speaks, right?
> > > And for the truth you may not know: what if Allah uses
> > > "We(Nahnu)" when He is speaking on behalf of the Family of
> > > God - Elohiym; and " I(Ana) " when He uses it to express
> > > Himself like He expressed his name to Moses as
> > > " I AM THAT I AM" as God, the Father Almighty; and
> > > "He(Huwa)" when He uses it to refer to His Son, Jesus???
> > > To say that in Arabic language using plurality to emphasize
> > > glory or respect is literary style is unwise: for why adopt
> > > such literary style when it is practical to use the right words
> > > to emphasize glory or respect like "I, your Allah or
> > > We, your God(Elohiym)...I, your King or We, the Royal Family,
> > > etc" so as not to confuse other races who, wisely, never use
> > > plurality to emphasize glory or respect otherwise the World
> > > would be upside-down like in most Islamic countries !
> > > And "Innaa" translated by you as "verily, We". You know
> > > the meaning of verily which means in the very truth, and
> > > to put "verily" in front of the word "WE" which you say
> > > could be "I" makes the word "verily" to also mean not
> > > the very truth, right?
> > > Hence, how good is the Arabic language when used in
> > > the Quran to express the true meaning of Allah?
> > > I could understand why the Arabic language uses such
> > > "literary style": since Mohammed-a uneducated man,
> > > in the past, ruling by the sword, no one dares to oppose
> > > his grammatical errors, and now he is acclaimed by Muslims
> > > as a prophet of Islam, who among the Muslims dare to point out
> > > his errors WHEN MOHAMMED SAID "We" Is "I", and "I" is "We"?
>
> > You are a bloody fool to write such nonsense. Arabic is the richest
> > and powerful language and was the natural selection.
> > for revelation of Quran. Instead of dead Arami and Latin languages God
> > Almighty chose a living language for His last
> > revelation. You are writing such nonsense only because you are jelous.
> > Shame on you.
>
> > Javed Kaleem
>
> > > Even now, no Muslim dare to object to Mohammed-
> > > the uneducated man- using Arabic language uneducatedly
> > > with grammatical mistakes except the Christians, right?
> > > For Christians do what is right in the sight of God Almighty,
> > > BUT NOT THE MUSLIMS for Muslims fear the Islamists
> > > who are ready to kill any Muslim who goes against
> > > the Quran even in good faith that there are grammatical errors
> > > in the Quran such as using the PLURAL PRONOUN 'WE' wrongly!!
> > > Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you
> > > " Was Mohammed an Arab?"
> > > Mohammed was not even an Arab, and hence he negated the beauty
> > > of the Arabic language by detracting it as forementioned.
> > > Amen in Christ Jesus - the prophet who does not lie !- Hide quoted text -
This is an old question, showing that you are running out of questions
to create doubts about Quran.
It is a Royal style. Kings use "we" instead of "I' to show their
superior status. They talk on behalf of their governments.
This is still used in Arabic for kings. Allah SWT is the King of kings
and therefore it suits Him to call himself with 'We".
Javed Kaleem
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear Javed Kaleem,
> You are obviously wise enough to call other fools, right?
> Tell me why does the Quran quote Allah using the plural pronoun " We "
> whenever he-Allah- speaks?
>
> Amen In Christ Jesus.- Hide quoted text -
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
See what you are trying to do , deceit is all about you. I did
not lie on Aisha's age. In fact you are one who is trying to
undermine Islam and is trying your best to even going into
character smearing. Now you are saying that I lie about
Aisha's age of marriage to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
I posted the link of the research in Aisha's age. Again I am
posting the link :
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm
It is a documented research on her age of marriage. 2
researches were done and the later one concluded that
her age might be around 18 or 19 based on the enviroment
and situation at that time. Read it first. If you choose
not to read it , its again your problem not mine. However
people like you , who is trying your best to undermine
others will continue to do so , as your heart and soul is
already hardened and blackened by your sense of false
belief.
You wrote :
"It puzzles me to know that you could bring yourself to
debate with me when you lack the knowledge of the
Haddiths !!!"
Wow! Pretty boastful aren't you. You can't even provide
answers to the following
- genealogy of your 'son of god' - mistakes and flaws in
Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 (and now your claim that
the genealogy of Mary is in Luke 3:23-38 whereas Mary's
name is hardly mentioned in that said chapter of your
bible)
- why your bible is forcing your 'son of god' genealogy
listing thru Joseph but forgetting of Virgin Birth
- why do you even follow your 'son of god' whereas he
had openly admitted that he is only there for the house
of Isreal (ref. Matt 15:24)
So now how? Since you have boasted as above , can you
answer the above 3 questions. Are you going to be evasive
and not answer the questions as what you have done over
the past? You have already started to be evasive by not
answering the questions. At least I make an honest attempt
to answer all your questions.
Well you say the marriage is to a 5 year old. I am not stopping
you in your belief (nor do I care). Perhaps that is what has been
taught and have been drilled into you. However you have not and
choose not to look at the research done by others to determine
Aisha's age in the marriage. This could be because it will shake
the very core what you have dearly embraced. That means you
are afraid.
By the way Joseph was 90 years old when he married a 12 (to
14) year old Mary who soon gave birth to Prophet Jesus. The link
is as follows (from your catholic encyclopedia):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
exerpt of it : "A year after his wife's death, as the priests
announced through Judea that they wished to
find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to
espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years
of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety
years old" (ref : pragaraph : marriage , second
paragraph ; 4th line)
So what do you think of a 90 (yes 90) years old man marrying
a 12 - 14 years old girl? Well there you are - thats your Joseph
& Mary (I did not make this up , it is from the Catholic
Encyclopedia). Now are you going to say that Christianity sucks
as Joseph is a 90 YEAR OLD a pedophile?
Waiting for your response (I am enjoying this).
sam1528
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
Read this from:
http://
www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/WhoAuthoredQuran/who_authored_the_quran.htm
Who Authored the Qur'an? by Abul Kasem
This article delves into the very authorship of the Holy Qur'an. It is
a new way of looking at the Holy Qur'an. Using logical reasoning and
historical references on the authorship of the Qur'an, an enquiry is
made. Thus, this methodology is totally opposed to the blind believers
who accept the authenticity of the Qur'an unquestionably. By
analysing, dissecting and carefully interpreting the contents of the
Qur'an, the Ahadith (Muhammad's traditions and sayings) and Sirah
(Muhammad's biography), this author has identified several parties who
undoubtedly had contributed to the composition of the Qur'anic verses.
It was not Allah who wrote the Qur'an; it was not even Muhammad alone
who did this either. The Qur'an is not the creation of a single entity
or a lone person. There were several parties involved in the
composition, scribing, amending, inserting and deleting the Qur'anic
verses. The most important personalities involved in the creation of
the Qur'an were: Imrul Qays, Zayd b. Amr, Hasan b. Thabit, Salman,
Bahira, ibn Qumta, Waraqa and Ubayy b. Ka'b. Muhammad himself was
involved in the make-up of a limited number of verses, but the most
influential person who motivated Muhammad in the invention of Islam
and the opus of the Qur'an was, perhaps, Zayd b. Amr, who preached
'Hanifism'. Muhammad later metamorphosed Zayd's 'Hanifism' into Islam.
Therefore, the assertion that Islam is not a new religion stands to be
true. However, the important finding is that the Qur'an is definitely
not the words of Allah - it is a human-made scripture which Muhammad
simply passed up as Allah's final words to mankind. Another important
aspect of this essay is that among the ancient religions that the
writers of the Qur'an incorporated in it, perhaps, the practices of
the Sabeans is crucial. In fact, the rituals of 5 prayers and the 30
days fasting (the two among the five pillars of Islam) were actually
adapted from the Sabeans. Qur'an, thus, is a compilation of various
religious books that existed during Muhammad's time. Muhammad, not
Allah, simply adopted, picked and chose from various sources and
created the Qur'an. While many parties contributed to the Qur'an,
Muhammad became its chief editor - to say it plainly.
Introduction
According to Islam, questioning the Allah's absolute authorship of the
Qur'an is a serious blasphemy. A Muslim may face death sentence simply
for nurturing an atom of doubt on Qur'an's authenticity. The Qur'an is
above all. Nothing in the creation of Allah is holier than the Qur'an.
However, human being what he is - ever inquisitive - I started
doubting the Qur'an's authorship in my very childhood--when I was
introduced, in a very formal manner in the recitation of this Holy
Scripture. I spent a couple of years learning a few introductory
verses under the tutorship of a local 'Hujur' (Islamic religion
teacher) in the local mosque. This 'Hujur' taught the Qur'an to a
group of us by holding a rattan cane that looked quite shiny as he
used to oil the cane every day before his 'Murid' (learners) arrived
in the mosque. I can vouch that none of us ever liked to study the
Qur'an - it was the most boring and the most painful task during our
childhood. We simply memorised like parrots certain verses without
understanding a single word of them The 'Hujur' also did not know the
meanings of those verses. Whenever we asked any question about any
verse, the answer was a few stroke of the cane from the 'Hujur'. The
learning of the recitation of the Qur'an became associated with
corporeal punishment and child-abuse. Thus, we developed a deep
disdain towards the Qur'an recitation in particular and a profound
dislike for the Mullahs in general.
Later, after I left my university and started working, a colleague of
mine presented me with a copy of the English translation of the Holy
Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. My colleague was a die-hard 'Tabligi' (a
religious proselytiser) and exhorted me to read the translation
carefully. He vouched that after I had comprehended the true messages
of the Holy Scripture my life would change for ever - for the better,
he insisted. Reluctantly, I started to read the English translation -
verse by verse, passage by passage. The more I read, the more I was
shocked, disturbed, astonished, bewildered and resentful. I could not
believe that a book which is supposed to be the handiwork of the most
compassionate, the most merciful and the most forgiving Allah could
contain such a terrible amount of hate, terror, call for murder, war,
vengeance and most of all, a blanket plea for the destruction of all
those who do not subscribe to the Qur'anic view of the world. Of
course, there were a few verses which were very poetical, beautifully
crafted, rhythmic and sometimes rich in spirituality. Apart from that
handful of 'good' stuffs, I found the vast part of the Qur'an simply
nonsensical and not-to-talk about those incriminating verses exhorting
the believers to murder and wage an unrelenting war (Jihad) against
the unbelievers. I started questioning: How could a merciful,
compassionate Allah write such a cranky book which is largely a trash
and an ultimate manual of terror, war and plunder? When my 'Tabligi'
colleague asked how I was doing with the Qur'an, I simply told him I
was doing fine - elaborating further that I discovered plenty of new
astonishing materials in the Qur'an which I never thought existed in
it. He simply smiled and said, "The Qur'an is wonderful, isn't it?" I
replied, "You said it! It is mind-boggling, no doubt."
A few years later, I started to ponder deeply on the Qur'an. Using the
works of other translators as well as the Tafsirs (explanation), I
read and re-read the Holy Scripture--several times to make sure that
what they translated and explained were absolutely correct. The more I
learned about the Qur'an the more I became distraught, disturbed and
angry - angry, because I felt that I was utterly let down by a killer
religion which was imposed on me due to my birth. The stuff I read in
the Qur'an jolted me so much that I wanted to find the answer to my
perennial question - Who really authored the Qur'an? It took me a long
time and many years of painstaking work to arrive at the answer to
that question. This article tries to answer that question. I had been
planning this essay for a long time, and now, after writing it I feel
it is for you to ponder too - Who authored the Qur'an?
During my investigative phase I found that a lot of people were
involved in the compilation and the construction of the Qur'an.
Unknown to the vast majority of Muslims, and buried deep inside the
Qur'an, Ahadith and Sirah there are copious evidence to reject, out of
hand, the contention that the Qur'an is the creation of Allah. Making
Allah the author of the Quran, I think, is the prime lie perpetrated
on mankind for more than a millennium. We can, with certainty, say
that it was not even Muhammad alone who authored the Qur'an. In fact,
the major part of the Qur'an was actually either composed by or
inspired and written by a few other individuals. The most notable
among them were:
Imrul Qays - an ancient poet of Arabia who died a few decades before
Muhammad's birth
Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal - an 'apostate' of his time who preached and
propagated Hanifism
Labid - another poet
Hasan b. Thabit - the official poet of Muhammad
Salman, the Persian - Muhammad's confidante' and an advisor
Bahira - a Nestoraian Christian monk of the Syrian church
Jabr - a Christian neighbour of Muhammad
Ibn Qumta - a Christian slave
Khadijah - Muhammad's first wife
Waraqa - Khadijah's cousin brother
Ubay b. Ka'b - Muhammad's secretary and a Qur'an scribe
Muhammad himself
There were other parties involved too. They were:
The Sabeans
Aisha - Muhammad's child bride
Abdallah b. Salam b. al-Harith - a Jewish convert to Islam
Mukhyariq - a Rabbi and another Jewish convert to Islam
Of course, my list of the possible authors of the Qur'an is not
exhaustive. There may be many other parties involved that I might not
have even heard of. But for a concise discussion the above list should
be ample enough, I guess. In this article I have simply enumerated the
contribution of the above sources in the authorship of the Qur'an.
Now, to understand the Qur'an and its writer/s, we must, first of all,
recognise the background of Muhammad, purportedly the ultimate and the
best creation of Allah.
The Pagan origin of Muhammad
It is an absolute fact that Muhammad was born of pagan parents. His
father, Abdullah and his mother, Amina were both pagans and they used
to worship many idols. His entire childhood (probably up to his teen)
was spent in paganism. To day, many Muslims will find it extremely
hard to digest this fact. However, Muhammad's pagan origin is
disclosed by Hisham ibn al-Kalbi. On page 17 of his important work,
Kitab al-Asnam (The Book of Idols) he writes [2]:
'We have been told that the Apostle of God once mentioned al-Uzza
saying, "I have offered a white sheep to al-'Uzza, while I was a
follower of the religion of my people."
In the statement above Muhammad clearly admits of his past adherence
to paganism - the then religion of the Quraysh.
Initially, Muhammad even eulogized the important gods (or idols) of
the pagans by agreeing with the Quraysh at some point that these gods
were the intercessors of Allah. On the same page Hisham ibn al-Kalbi
writes: [3]
The Quraysh were wont to circumambulate the Ka'bah and say:
By Allat and al-'Uzza,
And Manah, the third idol besides.
Verily they are the most exalted females
Whose intercession is to be sought.
These were also called "the Daughters of Allah," and were supposed to
intercede before God. When the Apostle of God was sent god revealed
unto him [concerning them] the following:
053.019 Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
053.020 And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
053.021 What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female?
053.022 Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair!
053.023 These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and
your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever).
They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!-
Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!
[4]
When Muhammad became an adult and started to attend the annual
assembly of poets at Ukaz he was deeply impressed and moved by the
thoughts, eloquence, sentiment, freethinking and humanism expounded by
many of those poets. He started questioning the idol-worshipping and
began to start preaching a new concept of one God, the creator -
similar to the concepts of the Jews and the Christians of that time.
Nonetheless, he was confused as to which God ought to be his God.
Allah, a deity (a moon god--that is why the symbols placed at every
mosque is a crescent moon) at that time was the supreme God of the
pagans. Their only fault was that besides Allah they used to worship,
as the intercessors for Allah, the supreme, other smaller gods/
goddesses like: Hubal, Al-lat, Al-Uzza, Manat, etc. So, in the
beginning of his new concept of an almighty creator Allah was out of
his mind. Besides, at that time the magicians, the soothsayers, the
sorcerers, and even the Satan worshippers used to vow by Allah. Thus,
Muhammad found it utterly despicable to make Allah his God (ilah).
During those pagan days the people of Yemen used to worship another
deity whose name was Ar-Rahman. Muhammad, for a while, adopted the
name Ar-Rahman for God in place of Allah. Coincidentally, Ar-Rahman
was also the Jewish word Rahmana which was a name for God in the
Talmudic period. [5] Muhammad cleverly thought that by using the word
Ar-Rahman he ought to be able to attract to his new 'religion', the
Jews as well as some pagans. Please note that nowhere in the Qur'an
Allah says that He has 99 additional names, including Ar-Rahman.
So, when he declared himself to be the messenger of Ar-Rahman, the
Meccans too, were at a loss and confused. The Meccans did not know of
any Ar-Rahman other than the Ar-Rahman of al-Yamamah (some writers say
Ar-Rahman was at Yemen). To verify Muhammad's claim the Quraysh sent a
delegation to Medina Jews, as they thought that Ar-Rahman, truly, was
a deity in Yemen or Yamamah. Islamic Historian Ibn Sa'd writes: [6]
"The Quraysh sent al-Nadr Ibn al-Harith Ibn 'Alaqamah and 'Uqbah Ibn
abi Mu'ayt and others to the Jews of Yathrib and told them to ask them
(Jews) about Muhammad. They came to Medinah and said to them (Jews):
We have come to you because a great affair has taken place amidst us.
There is a humble orphan who makes a big claim, considering himself to
be the messenger of al-Rahman, while we do not know any al-Rahman
except the Rahman of al-Yamamah. They said: Give the description
before us. They gave his description, on which they asked them who
were his followers. They said: The lowly people among us. Thereupon a
scholar of from them laughed and said: he is the Prophet whose
attributes we find mentioned in our Scriptures; we also know that his
people will be most inimical to him."
When we read, with an unbiased mind, the first 50 Suras (in
chronological order) of the Qur'an we note Muhammad's confusion
regrading Lord, Allah and Ar-Rahman. He was quite unsure of whom he
should consider as his God (ilah). Here is a summary of the first 50
Suras regarding Muhammad's idea of his God:
Only Lord - 68, 92, 89, 94, 100, 108, 105, 114, 97, 106, 75 (11 Suras)
Ar-Rahman, Lord - 55, 36 (2 Suras)
Ar-Rahman, Allah, Lord - 20
Allah, Lord - 96, 73, 74, 81, 87, 53, 85, 50, 38, 7, 72, 25, 35, 56,
26, 27, 28, 17 (18 Suras)
This demonstrates Muhammad's initial vacillation, confusion and
ignorance of the affairs of his God (ilah).
The Qur'an also confirms that when he started to preach his brand of
faith, Muhammad was lost, confused and did not know much of religion.
Here is what the Qur'an writes:
Muhammad was lost, then Allah guided him... 93:7
093.007 And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance.
In the past Muhammad was heedless ... 12:3, 42:52
012.003 We do relate unto thee the most beautiful of stories, in that
We reveal to thee this (portion of the) Qur'an: before this, thou too
was among those who knew it not.
042.052 And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to thee:
thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, and what was Faith; but
We have made the (Qur'an) a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our
servants as We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the Straight
Way,-
So, how did Muhammad learn the basics of his new religion? Enter Imrul
Qais and Zayd Ibn Amr.
Imrul Qays
In ancient Arabia poetry was a passion. Poets were highly regarded in
society, and the words of many accomplished poets were regarded as
next to god's words. In a desert land, bereft of much entertainment
and natural relaxation, the ancient Arabs used to find solace, peace,
tranquillity and even the raging emotion of war and revenge through
the mesmerising words of their poets. Poets supplied the Arabs with
their mental food. Seven such poets had their verses permanently
posted on the walls of Ka'ba. These verses were known as Muallakat or
suspended.
The Dictionary of Islam [7] writes that those verses were also known
as Muzahhabat or the golden poems, because they were written in gold.
The authors of those poetical verses were: Zuhair, Trafah, Imrul Qays,
Amru ibn Kulsum, al-Haris, Antarah and Labid.
Among those seven immortal poets the most famous was Imrul Qays, the
undisputed 'king' or the legend of Arabic poetry. He was a prince, as
his father was an Arab tribal king. Through his passionate devotion to
love and poetry he irked his father and was banished from the palace.
Thereafter, he lived a solitary life by tending the sheep and keeping
alive his undying dedication to poetry. Eventually, he became a
wanderer and led a melancholic life when his tribe was almost
eliminated in a tribal war. He travelled around and finally arrived at
Constantinople. It is said that he was put to death by the Roman
ruler of Constantinople because he won the heart of a Roman princess
through love and poetry. He died around the year 530-540 A.D., before
Muhammad's birth. His matchless verses were on the lips of many Arabs,
and surely Muhammad had memorised many of his superb works. Muhammad
is said to have declared Imrul Qays the greatest of Arab poets. No
doubt then that he was keenly motivated to emulate Imrul Qays in the
very early verses of the Qur'an.
The chroniclers' of the Qur'an usually list Sura al-Alaq (the clot,
Sura 96) as the first revelation of Allah to Muhammad. However, a
systematic study of the Qur'an may reveal that that may not be the
case at all. In fact, the Dictionary of Islam, [8] citing Islamic
sources, writes that some earliest Suras (before the first revelation,
Sura 96) are most likely to be:
99 - az-Zalzalah (the Earthquake)
103 - al-Asr (the Declining Day)
100 - al-Adiyat (the Chargers)
1 - al-Fatiha (the Opening)
Those Suras were short, deep in spirituality, and enthralling. It may
be worthwhile to examine two such short Suras; namely:
Sura 99 (the Earthquake)
099.001 When the earth is shaken to her (utmost) convulsion,
099.002 And the earth throws up her burdens (from within),
099.003 And man cries (distressed): 'What is the matter with her?'-
099.004 On that Day will she declare her tidings:
099.005 For that thy Lord will have given her inspiration.
099.006 On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be
shown the deeds that they (had done).
099.007 Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see
it!
099.008 And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it
Sura 103 (the Declining Day)
103.001 By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),
103.002 Verily Man is in loss,
103.003 Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join
together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and
Constancy.
W. St. Calir-Tisdall, the author of the famous essay The Origin of
Islam [9], by comparing two passages from the Sabaa Mu'allaqat, finds
close similarity with the verses from the Qur'an. Some of these verses
are:
054.001 The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft
asunder.
093.001 By the Glorious Morning Light,
Commenting on verse 54.1 W. St. Clair-Tisdall writes: [10]
'It was the custom of the time for and orators to hang up their
compositions upon the Ka'aba; and we know the seven Mu'allaqat were
exposed. We are told that Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, was one day
repeating as she went along the above verse. Just then she met the
daughter of Imrul Qays, who cried out, "O that's what your father has
taken from one of my father's poems, and calls it something that has
come down to him out of heaven;" and the story is commonly told
amongst the Arabs until now.'
Thus, the relationship between Imrul Qays' poems and some of the early
verses of the Qur'an is pretty obvious. In this connection, W. St.
Clair-Tisdall elaborates further: [11]
"The connection between the poetry of Imra'ul Qays and the Koran is
so obvious that the Muslims cannot but hold that they existed with the
latter in the Heavenly table from all eternity! What then will he
answer? That the words were taken from the Koran and entered in the
poem? - an impossibility. Or that their writer was not really Imra'ul
Qays, but some other who, after the appearance of the Koran, had the
audacity to quote them there as they now appear? - rather a difficult
thing to prove!"
In fact, the word Allah is found in Muallaqat as well as in the Diwan
of poet Labid. So when the Muslims claim the Qur'an to be the words of
Allah, do they mean Allah copied the Qur'anic verses from Imrul Qays?
We shall now briefly review the contribution of Zayd ibn Amr to the
authorship of the Holy Qur'an.
Zayd bin Amr bin Naufal
During Muhammad's time, a religious movement to counter paganism was
taking shape. Led by a group of 'freethinkers', this group rejected
paganism, and to fulfil their spiritual needs they were searching for
an alternative religion. They were known as Hanifites or simply as
Hanifs.
The Dictionary of Islam [12] writes that the original meaning of Hanif
was a convert or a pervert [sort of apostate--to say].
The other meanings of Hanif are:
1. Any one sincere in his inclination to Islam 2. One orthodox in the
faith 3. One who is of the religion of Abraham.
W. St. Clair-Tisdall [13] writes:
'The word Hanif, indeed, originally signified "unclean" or "apostate,"
and was so used by the idolatrous Arabs of Zaid, because he abandoned
the worship of gods.'
Muhammad later used the word Hanif, first, for the religion of
Abraham, then for any sincere believer of Islam. Thus the Muslims are
supposed to be Hanifs - and truly speaking, the followers of Zayd! In
the same essay W. St. Clair-Tisdal (ibid)) writes further, "The name
pleased the Prophet and was used by him in a good sense." [14]
According to Ibn Ishaq [15] the most famous of those apostates
(Hanifs) in Mecca during Muhammad's time were:
Waraqa b. Naufal: he became a Christian
Ubaydullah b. Jahsh: he became a Christian after migrating to
Abyssinia. His wife was Umm Habiba d. Abu Sufyan whom Muhammad married
later
Uthman b. al-Huwayrith. He later went to the Byzantine emperor and
became a Christian
Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal left paganism saying that he worshipped the God
of Abraham
Waraqa was the cousin brother of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife. Some
authors suggest that he was a Jew before embracing Christianity.
Ubaydullah was the grandson of Abd al-Muttalib and Uthman b. al-
Huwayrith was offered a high position in the Byzantine court of Syria.
Only Zayd b. Amr remained a diehard Hanif. He used to say, "I worship
the god of Abraham," but he blamed his people for having chosen the
evil ways. [16]
According to W. St. Clair-Tisdal [17] Zayd worshipped yearly in a cave
near Mecca, and no doubt influenced Muhammad who used to visit the
same place for quiet and lonely contemplation.
Ibn Ishaq writes [18] that when Zayd b. Amr faced the Ka'ba he used to
say 'Labbaka in truth, in worship and in service.'
When Zayd stood and faced Qibla he would say (ibid), "I take refuge in
what Abraham took refuge."
Zayd also abhorred animal sacrifice to idols and condemned the pagan
practice of burying alive new-born females (this, I believe, was a
very rare practice--as not a single instance of live burial of a
female baby is cited either in the Qur'an or in Ahadith: these books
vaguely talk about this pagan practice without citing any specific
case of live burial).
Abu Bakr's daughter, Amina once saw a very old Zayd bin 'Amr in Ka'ba.
On this, Ibn Ishaq writes: [19]
'Hisham b. Urwa from his father on the authority of his mother Asma d.
Abu Bakr said that she saw Zayd as a very old man leaning his back on
the Ka'ba and saying, 'O Quraysh, By Him in whose hand is the soul of
Zayd, not one of you follows the religion of Abraham but I.' Then he
said: 'O God, if I knew how you wished to be worshipped I would so
worship you; but I do not know.' Then he prostrated himself on the
palms of his hands.'
Historical records do not mention clearly what eventually happened to
Zayd b. Amr. However, Ibn Ishaq writes that Caliph Umar's father, al-
Khattab (Umar b. al-Khattab was Zayd's nephew) used to severely harass
Zayd b. Amr and he was finally killed. Who killed Zayd is a complete
mystery. Here is what Ibn Ishaq writes: [20]
"When al-Khattab (Umar's father) harassed Zayd bin 'Amr so much so
that he was forced to withdraw to the upper part of Mecca and he
stopped in the mountain of Hira facing the town. Zayd could visit
Mecca in secret only.
Then Zayd left Mecca seeking the religion of Abraham - went through
all of Syria. Then Zayd returned to Mecca but was killed."
As written previously, because of his uncompromising stand on Hanifite
movement and because of his deriding remarks on paganism the Quraysh
expelled Zayd b. Amr from Mecca and he was forbidden to live there. He
was a severely ostracised person, boycotted and utterly disdained by
the larger section of the Quraysh. He had to live in the cave of mount
Hira, opposite the city. Muhammad, being a forlorn person at that time
used to meet Zayd in the cave of Hira.
Ibn Ishaq also writes that Gabriel used to visit Muhammad at the Hira
cave. When we consider the fact that on many instances Muhammad had
confessed that Gabriel, on many occasions had met Muhammad in the form
of human beings it is quite likely that when Muhammad visited Zayd b.
Amr many times to learn about the new religion of the 'Hanif' he might
have thought Zayd to be the angel Gabriel. It is also quite probable
that Zayd b. Amr took an interest in teaching Muhammad how to read
(and write) - his poetry (or verses) that later became Qur'anic
verses!
Ibn Ishaq writes [21] that Muhammad used to pray in seclusion in Hira
every year for a month to practice 'tahnanuth', a pagan practice (thus
confirming again Muhammad's pagan background). According to the
Quraysh, 'tahannuth' meant religious devotion.
Sahih Bukhari confirms that Muhammad had encountered Zayd b. Amr in
the Valley of Hira Mountain.
Muhammad meets Zayd b. 'Amr and offers him meat that was slaughtered
for the idols (Sahih Bukhari, 7.67.407, 5.58.169)
Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr b. Nufail at a place
near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the
Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had
been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused
to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you
slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on
which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering."
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley
of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal
was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it
was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you
slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things
on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering."
Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter
their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He
has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for
it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of
Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered
it as something abominable.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring
about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and
asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to embrace your
religion, so tell me some thing about it." The Jew said, "You will not
embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger."
Zaid said, "'I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never
bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of
some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion
except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is
the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a
Christian, and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" Then Zaid
went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same
as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion
unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run
except from Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse
and His Anger if I have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of
some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know any other religion
except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, Hanif is
the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a
Christian and he used to worship None but Allah (Alone)" When Zaid
heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that
place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O
Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."
Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing
with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By
Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He
used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill
his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her
on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he
would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you,
and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf."
The first Hadis tells us something about Muhammad's paganism - that,
in the beginning, he probably ate the meat offered to the idols by the
pagans (thus confirming Hisham ibn al-Kalbi), but Zayd b. Amr
steadfastly refused to eat any meat slaughtered in the name of idols.
Muhammad learned from Zayd not to eat the pagans' meat (or Haram
meat). The second Hadis apparently contradicts the first Hadis
(7.67.407) on Muhammad's consumption of 'pagan' or Haram meat.
However, a little thought on this Hadis evidently shows that Muhammad
followed Zayd with respect to Halal meat, and from Zayd he also
obtained the idea of Allah to be his (Muhammad's) God. Can we not,
therefore, conclude that the idea of Islam really came from Zayd? In
the biography of Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq [22] we find several
verses of poetry written by Zayd that are quite similar to some verses
of the Qur'an. Therefore, isn't it sufficient to say that after the
sudden, mysterious and untimely killing of Zayd Muhammad took up his
mantle, philosophy, poetry and the zeal to propagate 'Hanifism'? [For
sample verses from Zayd's poetry and their comparisons with the
Qur'anic verses please read the appendix]
Ibn Sa'd writes [23] that when Muhammad started his Islam, a convert
told Muhammad about the words of Zayd ibn Amr and Muhammad replied, "I
have seen him in Paradise drawing his skirts." This proves that
Muhammad acknowledged the piety and contribution of Zayd towards the
concept of Islam or Hanifism.
The following excerpts [24] from the Islamic historian Ibn Sa'd
demonstrates further that Muhammad got the idea of Islam from Zayd b.
Amr:
"Zayd Ibn 'Amr Ibn Nufayl said: I smelled Christianity and Judaism but
I disliked them. I went to Syria and its adjoining territories till I
came to my strangeness with my people and my abhorrence for idol
worship, Judaism and Christianity. He said to me: I see you are in
search of the creed of Ibrahim. O Makkan brother! You are seeking a
creed which is not practiced now a days. It is the creed of your
ancestor, Ibrahim, and it is the true faith. He (Ibrahim) was neither
a Jew nor a Christian. He used to offer prayers and prostrate towards
this house (Ka'bah) which is in your city. So retire to your city. He
will revive the true creed of Ibrahim and he is the most honoured of
the creatures of Allah."
It is highly palpable that Zayd himself wrote few Suras (probably
around 30 Suras, but not in chronological order), including those that
contain the Hanifship of Abraham.
Some of these verses are:
002.135 They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To
salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham
the True, and he joined not gods with Allah." [The original Qur'an
says Haneefan - my note]
003.067 Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in
Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined
not gods with Allah. [The original Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
003.095 Say: "Allah speaketh the Truth: follow the religion of
Abraham, the sane in faith; he was not of the Pagans."[The original
Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
004.125 Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole
self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in
Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend. [The original Qur'an
says Haneefan - my note]
006.161 Say: "Verily, my Lord hath guided me to a way that is
straight,- a religion of right,- the path (trod) by Abraham the true
in Faith, and he (certainly) joined not gods with Allah." [The
original Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
006.079 "For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who
created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to
Allah." [The original Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
016.120 Abraham was indeed a model, devoutly obedient to Allah, (and)
true in Faith, and he joined not gods with Allah: [The original Qur'an
says Haneefan - my note]
010.105 "And further (thus): 'set thy face towards religion with true
piety, and never in any wise be of the Unbelievers; [The original
Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
022.031 Being true in faith to Allah, and never assigning partners to
Him: if anyone assigns partners to Allah, is as if he had fallen from
heaven and been snatched up by birds, or the wind had swooped (like a
bird on its prey) and thrown him into a far-distant place. [The
original Qur'an says Hunafaa - my note]
098.005 And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship
Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to
establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is
the Religion Right and Straight. [The original Qur'an says Hunafaa -
my note]
030.030 So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith:
(establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has
made mankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah:
that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.
[The original Qur'an says Haneefan - my note]
As mentioned earlier, Zayd ibn Amr was totally against the pagan
practice of burying live female infants. The Qur'an mentions this rare
practice of the Quraysh in three verses only.
These verses are:
016.058 When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a
female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!
017.031 Kill not your children for fear of want: We shall provide
sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is
a great sin.
081.008 When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -
081.009 For what crime she was killed;
Evidently, the above verses were inspired by Zayd b. Amr and most
likely were written by him too. Later, when Zayd died Muhammad simply
passed them up as Allah's revelations to him.
Those examples demonstrate that Muhammad had copied stories, concepts
and style of Zayd ibn Amr in the composition of the Qur'an
expla...@yahoo.com
Read this:
http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Virgin_Paradise.htm
Virgins? What virgins?
by Ibn Warraq
26 Jan, 2007
It is widely believed that Muslim 'martyrs' enjoy rich sensual rewards
on reaching paradise. A new study suggests they may be disappointed.
In August, 2001, the American television channel CBS aired an
interview with a Hamas activist Muhammad Abu Wardeh, who recruited
terrorists for suicide bombings in Israel. Abu Wardeh was quoted as
saying: "I described to him how God would compensate the martyr for
sacrificing his life for his land. If you become a martyr, God will
give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness." Wardeh was
in fact shortchanging his recruits since the rewards in Paradise for
martyrs was 72 virgins. But I am running ahead of things .
Since September 11, news stories have repeated the story of suicide
bombers and their heavenly rewards, and equally Muslim scholars and
Western apologists of Islam have repeated that suicide is forbidden in
Islam. Suicide (qatlu nafsi-hi) is not referred to in the Koran but is
indeed forbidden in the Traditions (Hadith in Arabic), which are the
collected sayings and doings attributed to the Prophet and traced back
to him through a series of putatively trustworthy witnesses. They
include what was done in his presence that he did not forbid, and even
the authoritative sayings and doings of his companions.
But the Hamas spokesman correctly uses the word martyr (shahid) and
not suicide bomber, since those who blow themselves up almost daily in
Israel and those who died on September 11 were dying in the noblest of
all causes, Jihad, which is an incumbent religious duty, established
in the Koran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and
enjoined for the purpose of advancing Islam. While suicide is
forbidden, martyrdom is everywhere praised, welcomed, and urged: "By
the Being in Whose Hand is my life, I love that I should be killed in
the way of Allah; then I should be brought back to life and be killed
again in His way..."; "The Prophet said, 'Nobody who enters Paradise
will ever like to return to this world even if he were offered
everything, except the martyr who will desire to return to this world
and be killed 10 times for the sake of the great honour that has been
bestowed upon him'." [Sahih Muslim, chapters 781, 782, The Merit of
Jihad and the Merit of Martyrdom.]
What of the rewards in paradise? The Islamic paradise is described in
great sensual detail in the Koran and the Traditions; for instance,
Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses
12-22. I shall quote the celebrated Penguin translation by NJ Dawood
of sura 56 verses 12- 39: "They shall recline on jewelled couches face
to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and
ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor
take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of
fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris,
chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the
houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right
hand..."
One should note that most translations, even those by Muslims
themselves such as A Yusuf Ali, and the British Muslim Marmaduke
Pickthall, translate the Arabic (plural) word Abkarun as virgins, as
do well-known lexicons such the one by John Penrice. I emphasise this
fact since many pudic and embarrassed Muslims claim there has been a
mistranslation, that "virgins" should be replaced by "angels". In sura
55 verses 72-74, Dawood translates the Arabic word " hur " as
"virgins", and the context makes clear that virgin is the appropriate
translation: "Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents (which of
your Lord's blessings would you deny?) whom neither man nor jinnee
will have touched before." The word hur occurs four times in the Koran
and is usually translated as a "maiden with dark eyes".
Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in
the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and
second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just
martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins
in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-
Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV,
chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of
Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for
the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted
by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of
Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard
saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode
where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome
decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance
from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."
Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and
sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of
Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died
1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures
into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-
Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each
time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of
the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that
you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this
world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint.
Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides
the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."
One of the reasons Nietzsche hated Christianity was that it "made
something unclean out of sexuality", whereas Islam, many would argue,
was sex-positive. One cannot imagine any of the Church fathers writing
ecstatically of heavenly sex as al-Suyuti did, with the possible
exception of St Augustine before his conversion. But surely to call
Islam sex-positive is to insult all Muslim women, for sex is seen
entirely from the male point of view; women's sexuality is admitted
but seen as something to be feared, repressed, and a work of the
devil.
Scholars have long pointed out that these images are clearly drawn
pictures and must have been inspired by the art of painting. Muhammad,
or whoever is responsible for the descriptions, may well have seen
Christian miniatures or mosaics representing the gardens of paradise
and has interpreted the figures of angels rather literally as those of
young men and young women. A further textual influence on the imagery
found in the Koran is the work of Ephrem the Syrian [306-373 CE],
Hymns on Paradise, written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect and the
language of Eastern Christianity, and a Semitic language closely
related to Hebrew and Arabic.
This naturally leads to the most fascinating book ever written on the
language of the Koran, and if proved to be correct in its main thesis,
probably the most important book ever written on the Koran. Christoph
Luxenberg's book, Die Syro-Aramaische Lesart des Koran, available only
in German, came out just over a year ago, but has already had an
enthusiastic reception, particularly among those scholars with a
knowledge of several Semitic languages at Princeton, Yale, Berlin,
Potsdam, Erlangen, Aix-en-Provence, and the Oriental Institute in
Beirut.
Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear
if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go
into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg,
to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in
the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to
the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's
new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white
raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing
virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear
that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied
maidens or houris.
In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white,
with the word "raisin" understood implicitly. Similarly, the immortal,
pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a
misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks)
that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the
boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.
As Luxenberg's work has only recently been published we must await its
scholarly assessment before we can pass any judgements. But if his
analysis is correct then suicide bombers, or rather prospective
martyrs, would do well to abandon their culture of death, and instead
concentrate on getting laid 72 times in this world, unless of course
they would really prefer chilled or white raisins, according to their
taste, in the next.
· Common era is an alternative to Christian era as a method of
historical dating.
expla...@yahoo.com
Read this
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Sam1528,
Christians are Christians; and Catholics are Catholics. Christians do
not believe in Catholic Encyclopedia. So, be wise and stop bringing
up foolish evidence to say that Joseph at the age of 90 married a girl
of 12 or 14.
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
Dear Sam1528,
Just be wise, and just answer:
" Did Mohammed 56 married Aisha when she was 9 years old?".
Do not sidetrack with Joseph story and Catholic inventions!
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 17, 12:45 am, "Noah's Dove" <noahdo...@lightspeed.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Biblehttp://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy
>
> > The (Jewish) writers of the New Testament asserted that the Old
> > Testament spoke of a coming Messiah and quoted from it extensively to
> > prove their point. Even Jesus himself - whom many Jewish people will
> > declare to be a good rabbi and teacher - said to those who sat under
> > his teaching, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe
> > all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer
> > these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and
> > all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the
> > Scriptures concerning himself. " (Luke 24:25-27)
>
> > Since the first century, the issue of "messianic prophecy" has been a
> > hot-button topic. Does Isaiah 53 speak of Israel, or of a Messiah? Did
> > Isaiah really talk about a virgin giving birth? Did King David
> > describe someone who would be "pierced" in Psalm 22? Or did the
> > Christians misunderstand what the Hebrew Bible said, or even worse -
> > did they deliberately distort things, or arrange events so that Jesus
> > appeared to fulfill the prophecies?
>
> OK, I put it to you, Noah. If Jesus was the son of JHVH, why is there
> not a passage in the Torah advising the Jews that JHVH has a son named
> JHVSA (Jehoshua) or YSVA (Yeshua) who will come as the Messiah? That
> would have avoided the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and all the
> trouble since. In the absense of such a verse, aren't the Jews
> absolutely justified in saying that Jesus is NOT the Jewish Messiah?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Pjmutn,
If man should have son, why not God?
In fact, God is Elohiym which is God in plurality; and Isaiah 48:12-16
clearly show us all that there are 3 Gods in the Family of
God=Elohiym.
And Genesis 1:26 clearly evidences that God is a Family of 3
Gods=Elohiym by the fact that the PLURAL possessive pronoun "OUR' is
being used by God=Elohiym as well as PLURAL personal pronoun 'US"; and
in Genesis 3:22, the Lord God=Jehovah of Elohiym uses the PLURAL
personal pronoun " US " which emphazises plurality of
God=Elohiym=Trinity.
AND if you should read Psalm 2, you will know that God has declared to
us all that He had begotten His Son.
Hence, God has informed us all in His Word that He has a Son, and also
that He has informed us all in Isaiah 7:14 that the Name of His Son is
Emmanuel=With Us Is God, and Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin
maiden=almah.
Jesus was born of Virgin Mary, and Jesus is God of Elohiym taking the
place as the Son; and Jesus is with us= Emanuel= With Us Is God.
Amen In Christ Jesus.
Javed Iqbal Kaleem
All this nonsensical propaganda will have no effect, because as
Muslims we know that the world Jewery is behind it.
They are using their enormous wealth to malign Islam, by appointing
Indian Hindus, who have sold their conscience to
Satan for money.
It is vividly apparent that the opponents of Islam have gone crazy by
talking nonsense against Islam. First they attacked Arabic, which is
the most beautiful and the richest language in the world. Then they
claimed that Muhammad SAW was not an Arab. They are trying to sideline
the fact that Muhammad is a direct desendent of Prophet Abraham, whose
first born Ishmael was the forefather of prophet Muhammad. His
ancestry was already available in his family. It was because the Jews
were illiterate that God had to do it for them. True to it its name
Quran is the word of God and it does not have
details as Torah has. Because Islam is the only religion which came in
the age of reason and Muhammad is the only
prophet known to history. All others are stories, not historically
proved facts.
One thing is clear. The Jews are jelous of Muslims. Because we
replaced them as chosen people of God and we will
fight alongside Jesus Christ to avenge the conspiracy to kill him on
the cross perpetuated by Jews. Your day of reckoning
is just round the corner. Jews, we are coming.
Javed Kaleem
> ps. For the interest of others , the following link provides a short
> story
> of Prophet Muhammad
> http://anwary-islam.com/prophet-story/muh.htm
>
> by the way ; At least in my answers I provide links for reference ,
> yours
> have always been words of accusation with no links
> of
> proof whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> Who Authored the Qur'an? by Abul Kasem
Jeeps , such a long article , did you read it?
I am not overly impressed of the article. Its more like a work
of friction & his imagination rather than an investigative one.
There is no evidence and proof put forward. In other words the
author is identical to you , always conjuring up events and
claim the truth in their invention.
On the fly I have added my comments to parts of the article :
--snip--
> Imrul Qays - an ancient poet of Arabia who died a few decades before
> Muhammad's birth
Prophet Muhammad was illiterate. Imrul Qays died decades before,
how did the author managed to link that Qays's poetry inspired
Prophet Muhammad? No logic in it.
> Zayd b. Amr b. Naufal - an 'apostate' of his time who preached and
> propagated Hanifism
Hanif means truth, so if Zayed or others believed in truth, in the
religon
of there ancestors, what is the problem here, the only reason is you
have not gone throgh Quran, it says "those who believe in one Allah
his prophets and all the books revealed unto them are blessed".
Abraham was one of the prophets of Allah and Zayed was not the
only person in the world who knew this fact
> Labid - another poet
> Hasan b. Thabit - the official poet of Muhammad
Read the Quran Sura 26:224 "And the poets-they are those straying
in Evil, who follow them, see thou not that they wander distracted in
every valley,and they practice not what they say" So the allegation
that Hassan was hired poet is busted. Allegation of poetry inspired
writing is also busted.
--snip--
>
> It is an absolute fact that Muhammad was born of pagan parents. His
> father, Abdullah and his mother, Amina were both pagans and they used
> to worship many idols. His entire childhood (probably up to his teen)
> was spent in paganism. To day, many Muslims will find it extremely
> hard to digest this fact. However, Muhammad's pagan origin is
> disclosed by Hisham ibn al-Kalbi. On page 17 of his important work,
> Kitab al-Asnam (The Book of Idols) he writes [2]:
Big deal. So if his parents were pagans? Prophet Abraham's parents
were pagans.
--snip--
He then tried to put forward a suggestion that works of the Quran was
copied from Zayd but stop short , probably he did not have evidence
or proof to go forward. I ask you , why don't you find out a couple
of
things
- how many times did Zayd & Prophet Muhammad met
- was Zayd preaching at that time
- Zayd was not the only one practising Hanifism
The article is more of 'this or that could be the case' , nothing
more.
Try harder next time ....
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
> Dear all,
>
> Read this:http://www.islam-watch.org/IbnWarraq/Virgin_Paradise.htm
>
> Virgins? What virgins?
> by Ibn Warraq
>
> 26 Jan, 2007
>
After such a long long time , it is only now that you lot realised
that there is no such promise of 72 virgins. Well its better to be
late than never.
> It is widely believed that Muslim 'martyrs' enjoy rich sensual rewards
> on reaching paradise. A new study suggests they may be disappointed.
>
> In August, 2001, the American television channel CBS aired an
> interview with a Hamas activist Muhammad Abu Wardeh, who recruited
> terrorists for suicide bombings in Israel. Abu Wardeh was quoted as
> saying: "I described to him how God would compensate the martyr for
> sacrificing his life for his land. If you become a martyr, God will
> give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness." Wardeh was
> in fact shortchanging his recruits since the rewards in Paradise for
> martyrs was 72 virgins. But I am running ahead of things .
Refer to the following link :
http://ramadan4u.blogspot.com/2007/09/72-virgins-myth.html
In the interview Abu Wardeh mentioned 'hur'ain' which in arabic
means angels (ie. no gender connotation). CBS insisted it to be
virgins and made no effort to change it to reflect the truth.
Identical to you , while distorting the truth , they use falsehood
to propogate their so called 'truth'. All this in an effort to
provide
an excuse as to why people are driven to be suicide bombers.
--snip-- (all the drivel deleted)
Refer the the following link :
http://www.justjihad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17
When a cruise missle explodes and kills women & children ,
you lot stand with your mouth gaping in wonder of the
technological marvel. When a suicide bomber strikes , you
are quick to denounce - 72 virgins waiting. In the end both kill
women and children.
Identical to what you have been doing , the myth of 72 virgins
have been concocted by you lot for your own benefit and is far
away from the truth.
Anyway thanks for bringing up the article.
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> Dear Sam1528,
>
> Christians are Christians; and Catholics are Catholics. Christians do
> not believe in Catholic Encyclopedia. So, be wise and stop bringing
> up foolish evidence to say that Joseph at the age of 90 married a girl
> of 12 or 14.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
See , now you are trying to brush it off. That an extremely cheap
debate tactic. Now you are saying that catholics are not christians.
Don't you lot believe in the same god and scriptures? At least the
catholics are honest about Joseph & Mary. This is far removed
from you , while making a fuss on Aisha age (which is highly
flawed at the age of 5) , you tried to keep extremely quiet about
the ages of Joseph & Mary. Now you have been caught.
Unlike you , I did not make up the article , its there for all to
read and judge. I am posting the link again :
(from your catholic encyclopedia):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
exerpt of it : "A year after his wife's death, as the priests
announced through Judea that they wished to
find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to
espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years
of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety
years old" (ref : pragaraph : marriage , second
paragraph ; 4th line
By the way , you have not answered my questions :
- genealogy of your 'son of god' - mistakes and flaws in
Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 (and now your claim that
the genealogy of Mary is in Luke 3:23-38 whereas Mary's
name is hardly mentioned in that said chapter of your
bible). explanation needed
- why your bible is forcing your 'son of god' genealogy
listing thru Joseph but forgetting of Virgin Birth
- why do you even follow your 'son of god' whereas he
had openly admitted that he is only there for the house
of Isreal (ref. Matt 15:24)
I told you from the beginning that you will be squirming and
be very evasive in answering the questions. Its happening
again. Why are you so afraid to answer the above said
questions?
sam1528
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok ok , so now can you point out where in your bible that your
'son of god' by his own admission stated that he is the son of
god. Any one or half a verse will do.
I have been asking you this question but so far all I got from you
is evasion of providing an answer.
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear all,
Sam1528 wrote questioning:
"so now can you point out where in your bible that your 'son of god'
by his own admission stated that he is the son of god. Any one or half
a verse will do".
My answer:
Jesus, Himself, has by His own admission declared that He was the Son
of God by the fact that the Lord=Jehovah, Himself has begotten(gave
birth to Jesus) mentioned in Psalm 2:7 reading: "I will declare the
decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I
begotten thee".
For a clear understanding please read Psalm 2,
For further understanding of Trinity, please read the followings:
Dear Pjmutn,
If man should have son, why not God?
In fact, God is Elohiym which is God in plurality; and Isaiah
48:12-16
clearly show us all that there are 3 Gods in the Family of
God=Elohiym.
And Genesis 1:26 clearly evidences that God is a Family of 3
Gods=Elohiym by the fact that the PLURAL possessive pronoun "OUR' is
being used by God=Elohiym as well as PLURAL personal pronoun 'US";
and
in Genesis 3:22, the Lord God=Jehovah of Elohiym uses the PLURAL
personal pronoun " US " which emphazises plurality of
God=Elohiym=Trinity.
AND if you should read Psalm 2, you will know that God has declared
to
us all that He had begotten His Son.
Hence, God has informed us all in His Word that He has a Son, and
also
that He has informed us all in Isaiah 7:14 that the Name of His Son
is
Emmanuel=With Us Is God, and Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin
maiden=almah.
Jesus was born of Virgin Mary, and Jesus is God of Elohiym taking the
place as the Son; and Jesus is with us= Emanuel= With Us Is God.
SO, SAM1528, BECAUSE THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WORD OF THE TRUE ALLAH,
there is an answer to every question pertaining to the truth of the
True Allah of Jesus !!!
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Javed Kaleem,
Javed Kaleem...when are you going to be wise enough to stop exercise
taqiya which is lying allowed to Msulims in Islam when propagating ?
You, Javed Kaleem is a foolish man: for you bring not forth proof nor
evidence to substantiate your sayings as true !!!
Amen In Christ Jesus.
expla...@yahoo.com
Javed Kaleem wrote taqiyaing as follows:
1] It is vividly apparent that the opponents of Islam have gone crazy
by
talking nonsense against Islam. First they attacked Arabic, which is
the most beautiful and the richest language in the world.
My debunking as follows:
1] Dear Javed Kaleem, if Arabic is the most beautiful and richest
language in the world, please explain why in Arabic, ' We' is used as
' I " and vice versa? Read the followings to know understand why
Arabic language is not good enough at all for The Holy Book of the
True Allah:
Dear little hoopoe,
You wrote saying: "....These words, innaa ("Verily We")
and nahnu ("We"), and other forms of the plural, may be
used by one person speaking on behalf of a group,
or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect
or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they
issue statements or decrees in which they say "We have
decided..."
My reply:
"We" when used by one person speaking on behalf of a group
is acceptable but if by a Singular God, then it is unfathomable.
When "we" is used by a Monarch, it is taken to mean that
the King is speaking on behalf of the Royal Family, but if
the King is not married and only Himself alone in His kingdom,
He will be most foolish to use "We" when he speaks, right?
And for the truth you may not know: what if Allah uses
"We(Nahnu)" when He is speaking on behalf of the Family of
God - Elohiym=Trinity; and " I(Ana) " when He uses it to express
Himself like He expressed his name to Moses as
" I AM THAT I AM" being God, the Father Almighty speaking as the
Family of God; and
"He(Huwa)" when He uses it to refer to His Son, Jesus???
To say that in Arabic language using plurality to emphasize
glory or respect is literary style is unwise: for why adopt
such literary style when it is practical to use the right words
to emphasize glory or respect like "I, your Allah or
We, your God(Elohiym)...I, your King or We, the Royal Family,
etc" so as not to confuse other races who, wisely, never use
plurality to emphasize glory or respect otherwise the World
would be upside-down like in most Islamic countries !
And "Innaa" translated by you as "verily, We". You know
the meaning of verily which means in the very truth, and
to put "verily" in front of the word "WE" which you say
could be "I" makes the word "verily" to also mean not
the very truth, right?
Hence, how good is the Arabic language then when used in
the Quran to express the true meaning of Allah?
I could understand why the Arabic language uses such
"literary style": since Mohammed-a uneducated man,
in the past, ruling by the sword, no one dares to oppose
his grammatical errors, and now he is acclaimed by Muslims
as a prophet of Islam, who among the Muslims dare to point out
his errors WHEN MOHAMMED SAID "We" Is "I", and "I" is "We"?
Even now, no Muslim dare to object to Mohammed-
the uneducated man- using Arabic language uneducatedly
with grammatical mistakes except the Christians, right?
For Christians do what is right in the sight of God Almighty,
BUT NOT THE MUSLIMS for Muslims fear the Islamists
who are ready to kill any Muslim who goes against
the Quran even in good faith that there are grammatical errors
in the Quran such as using the PLURAL PRONOUN 'WE' wrongly!!
Now, speaking of the beauty of the Arabic language, may I ask you
" Was Mohammed an Arab?"
Mohammed was not even an Arab, and hence he negated the beauty
of the Arabic language by detracting it as forementioned.
Amen in Christ Jesus - the prophet who does not lie !
Will debunking the followings soon:
Then they claimed that Muhammad SAW was not an Arab. They are trying
to sideline the fact that Muhammad is a direct desendent of Prophet
Abraham, whose
first born Ishmael was the forefather of prophet Muhammad. His
ancestry was already available in his family. It was because the Jews
were illiterate that God had to do it for them. True to it its name
Quran is the word of God and it does not have
details as Torah has. Because Islam is the only religion which came
in
the age of reason and Muhammad is the only
prophet known to history. All others are stories, not historically
proved facts.
Amen In Christ Jesus
sam...@hotmail.com
>
> > Ok ok , so now can you point out where in your bible that your
> > 'son of god' by his own admission stated that he is the son of
> > god. Any one or half a verse will do.
>
> > I have been asking you this question but so far all I got from you
> > is evasion of providing an answer.
>
> > sam1528- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dear all,
> Sam1528 wrote questioning:
> "so now can you point out where in your bible that your 'son of god'
> by his own admission stated that he is the son of god. Any one or half
> a verse will do".
>
> My answer:
> Jesus, Himself, has by His own admission declared that He was the Son
> of God by the fact that the Lord=Jehovah, Himself has begotten(gave
> birth to Jesus) mentioned in Psalm 2:7 reading: "I will declare the
> decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I
> begotten thee".
> For a clear understanding please read Psalm 2,
--snip-- (part of the post deleted)
> SO, SAM1528, BECAUSE THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WORD OF THE TRUE ALLAH,
> there is an answer to every question pertaining to the truth of the
> True Allah of Jesus !!!
> Amen In Christ Jesus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You never answer my question do you. My question is :
- where in your bible that your 'son of god' by his OWN ADMISSION
stated that he is the 'son of god'? if he is the 'son of god' with
divine attributes , why can't he himself say that he is the son
of god. your god admits that he is god the almighty.
Answer to the question. Do not be evasive.
By the way you have quoted Psalm 2:7 , the Old Testament.
The Jews claim that it is David while the Christians claim that
it is Jesus.If your 'son of god' is part of GOD Almighty or the
son of god then how is it possible for Psalm 2:7 to be referring
to Jesus as the historical time line does not support your claim.
Moses to David : ~ 500 years
Moses to Jesus : ~ > 1500 years
(ref Link : http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch9.html)
You are digging yourself deeper and deeper in your own hole.
sam1528
expla...@yahoo.com
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > If man should have son, why not God?
> > In fact, God is Elohiym which is God in plurality; and Isaiah 48:12-16
> > clearly show us all that there are 3 Gods in the Family of
> > God=Elohiym.
>
> > And Genesis 1:26 clearly evidences that God is a Family of 3
> > Gods=Elohiym by the fact that the PLURAL possessive pronoun "OUR' is
> > being used by God=Elohiym as well as PLURAL personal pronoun 'US"; and
> > in Genesis 3:22, the Lord God=Jehovah of Elohiym uses the PLURAL
> > personal pronoun " US " which emphazises plurality of
> > God=Elohiym=Trinity.
>
> > AND if you should read Psalm 2, you will know that God has declared to
> > us all that He had begotten His Son.
>
> > Hence, God has informed us all in His Word that He has a Son, and also
> > that He has informed us all in Isaiah 7:14 that the Name of His Son is
> > Emmanuel=With Us Is God, and Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin
> > maiden=almah.
>
> > Jesus was born of Virgin Mary, and Jesus is God of Elohiym taking the
> > place as the Son; and Jesus is with us= Emanuel= With Us Is God.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 'son of god' by his own admission stated that he is the son of
> god. Any one or half a verse will do.
>
> I have been asking you this question but so far all I got from you
> is evasion of providing an answer.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Dec 18, 6:38 pm, sam1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > absolutely justified in saying that Jesus is NOT the Jewish Messiah?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dear Pjmutn,
>
> > If man should have son, why not God?
> > In fact, God is Elohiym which is God in plurality; and Isaiah 48:12-16
> > clearly show us all that there are 3 Gods in the Family of
> > God=Elohiym.
>
> > And Genesis 1:26 clearly evidences that God is a Family of 3
> > Gods=Elohiym by the fact that the PLURAL possessive pronoun "OUR' is
> > being used by God=Elohiym as well as PLURAL personal pronoun 'US"; and
> > in Genesis 3:22, the Lord God=Jehovah of Elohiym uses the PLURAL
> > personal pronoun " US " which emphazises plurality of
> > God=Elohiym=Trinity.
>
> > AND if you should read Psalm 2, you will know that God has declared to
> > us all that He had begotten His Son.
>
> > Hence, God has informed us all in His Word that He has a Son, and also
> > that He has informed us all in Isaiah 7:14 that the Name of His Son is
> > Emmanuel=With Us Is God, and Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin
> > maiden=almah.
>
> > Jesus was born of Virgin Mary, and Jesus is God of Elohiym taking the
> > place as the Son; and Jesus is with us= Emanuel= With Us Is God.
>
> > Amen In Christ Jesus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok ok , so now can you point out where in your bible that your
> 'son of god' by his own admission stated that he is the son of
> god. Any one or half a verse will do.
>
> I have been asking you this question but so far all I got from you
> is evasion of providing an answer.
>
> sam1528- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear all,
Sam1528 wrote questioning:
"so now can you point out where in your bible that your 'son of god'
by his own admission stated that he is the son of god. Any one or half
a verse will do".
My answer:
Jesus, Himself, has by His own admission declared that He was the Son
of God by the fact that the Lord=Jehovah, Himself has begotten(gave
birth to Jesus) mentioned in Psalm 2:7 reading: "I will declare the
decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I
begotten thee".
For a clear understanding please read Psalm 2,
For further understanding of Trinity, please read the followings:
Dear Pjmutn,
If man should have son, why not God?
In fact, God is Elohiym which is God in plurality; and Isaiah
48:12-16
clearly show us all that there are 3 Gods in the Family of
God=Elohiym.
And Genesis 1:26 clearly evidences that God is a Family of 3
Gods=Elohiym by the fact that the PLURAL possessive pronoun "OUR' is
being used by God=Elohiym as well as PLURAL personal pronoun 'US";
and
in Genesis 3:22, the Lord God=Jehovah of Elohiym uses the PLURAL
personal pronoun " US " which emphazises plurality of
God=Elohiym=Trinity.
AND if you should read Psalm 2, you will know that God has declared
to
us all that He had begotten His Son.
Hence, God has informed us all in His Word that He has a Son, and
also
that He has informed us all in Isaiah 7:14 that the Name of His Son
is
Emmanuel=With Us Is God, and Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin
maiden=almah.
Jesus was born of Virgin Mary, and Jesus is God of Elohiym taking the
place as the Son; and Jesus is with us= Emanuel= With Us Is God.
SO, SAM1528, BECAUSE THE HOLY BIBLE IS THE WORD OF THE TRUE ALLAH,
expla...@yahoo.com
"Bisa kamu tunjukkan dari Alkitab Yang Benar Allah punya ada mengakui
Jesus ia Anak dari Yang Benar Allah....."
jawab saya:
" Ya ada.Buku Psalm 2 dari Alkitab, Jesus tunjukkan Yang Benar Allah
bilang: "Kamu (Jesus) Anak saya sebab saya melahirkan kamu hari ini."
Sebab Alkitab dari Jesus yang benar, itu la apa betanyaan Alkitab ada
jawab !
Amen In Christ Jesus
expla...@yahoo.com
> > Back to definitions.
> Holy:dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or
> religion: a holy man.
> You still rotate around the same point. What is holy? Holy is a
> relative word which is inherently nonsensical.
>
> So to be holy, you assume some god is involved or some church is
> involved or some religion is involved. Muslim's All-Mighty Creator is
> Allah. Muslims have Mosques. Muslims have Islam for a religion. So
> a Muslim is holy in that sense.
>
> On the other hand, Christians are unholy because they do not follow
> the Lost Bible to Jesus; they don't worship Allah only a man called
> Jesus; their church is a den for slavery and exploitation and
> fornication.
>
> Jews would be also unholy by similar argument.
Dear Avorice,
Do you not know that you are lying when you speak without bringing
forth proof or evidence or are you just exercising TAQIYA which is
lying allowed in Islam for all Muslims when propagating Islam? So how
true are the sayings of Mohammed when he was allowed to lie ???
I have been telling Muslims that the reason why they speak "upside-
down" is because the Quran lacks the Law of God of the Hebrews and now
Christians since Mohammed was a false lying prophet he did not know
that the Law of God must go with the Covenant of God. Hence, without
the Law of God to guide the Muslims, they just speak 'upside-down'
like you just did when you defined the word "Holy".
According to the True Allah of Jesus, holiness can only be derived
from righteousness in the sight of God of the Hebrews and now
Christians. So, when you said:
"Holy:dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or
religion: a holy man."
You still rotate around the same point. What is holy? Holy is a
relative word which is inherently nonsensical.
AND further said that:
So to be holy, you assume some god is involved or some church is
involved or some religion is involved. Muslim's All-Mighty Creator is
Allah. Muslims have Mosques. Muslims have Islam for a religion. So
a Muslim is holy in that sense.", YOU ARE SPEAKING UPSIDE-DOWN :
For do you mean that it was holy for Mohammed- 54 to eye Aisha- 5 for
sexual acts(paedophilic acts) in marriage, and had sex with Aisha- 6
when Mohammed was 57 ??? AND that it was holy for Mohammed to have
more than 11 wives and the raping of captured women??? All these facts
are taken from Islamic website:www.answering-christianity.org and from
the Quran and Haddiths which you, Muslims, failed to read to
understand the evil it contains.
The Holy Bible contains the Word of God of Jesus which defines
righteousness as DOING WHAT IS RIGHT according to James 4:15-17 as
follows:
Jam 4:15 For that ye [ought] to say, If the Lord will, we shall live,
and do this, or that.
Jam 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is
evil.
Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it]
not, to him it is sin.
AND these verses aptly apply to the evil that the Islamists are doing:
boastings such as: shouting 'Allah Arkbar' and 'Inshallah' and taking
the name of Allah in vain by committing violent acts with the majority
of the Muslims agreeing to it; but the few who disagree fear to voice
it out: for they fear to be killed by the evil Islamists!
Amen In Christ Jesus.
sam...@hotmail.com
Why you twist and turn of what I asked :
My question again :
- where in your bible that your 'son of god' by his OWN ADMISSION
stated that he is the 'son of god'? if he is the 'son of god' with
divine attributes , why can't he himself say that he is the son
of god. your god admits that he is god the almighty.
Are you afraid or couldn't answer my question? Such a simple
question also you cannot answer .....
You want to talk about 'son of god' , there are many 'sons of god' in
your bible :
1. Exodus 4:22 "Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my
firstborn
2. Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn
Then you go around creating other threads claiming that you have
answered my question. So now : how many son or sons ar involved
here?
sam1528