Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?

74 views
Skip to first unread message

Jochen Katz

unread,
Aug 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/8/99
to

The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147

has not received any responses. I am seriously interested to
know what people think about it. If it is true, it is a strong
argument. I am somewhat baffled that there was not even one
reaction, not on the newsgroup, not in private email. I still
don't know what to think of it. I have placed it preliminarily
now at

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html

for the time being.

I will be gone for some weeks. I would appreciate responses also
to be send to my email address.

Thank you.

Jochen Katz

Saad Alfoudari

unread,
Aug 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/9/99
to
Jochen Katz wrote:
>
> The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
>
> has not received any responses. I am seriously interested to
> know what people think about it. If it is true, it is a strong
> argument.
[Deleted Text]

My personal guess is that people got bored from responding to (or taking
seriously) every bit of claim put forward. As I remember, the claim goes
in limiting any general word like al'alameen to be not a general word,
which would be a problem, since arabic words can be loaded (One can use
such arguments to deduce that non-Muslims are farmers.) Frankly, this is
a rediculous claim, since if it really had any solid basis for it (never
mind the hadeeth that explicitly says otherwise with clear words,) then
you wouldn't have found people like Salman alfaresi (the Persian) and
Sohaib alrumi (the Roman,) nor would Muslims have allowed non Arabs to
embrace Islam (like the people of Sham, Egypt, and Persia) which was
mostly during the time of Omar. And also, you might doubt the letters
sent to the neighbouring kings (like Persia) in support for such claim
(Maybe you already do.)

I personally think that cluttering with arguments is nothing more than
attempting to cloud the message. The message is clear, Worship the one
God, and do not associate anything with him.

Peace
Saad


Mohammad Ghoniem

unread,
Aug 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/10/99
to
In article <7olldo$28s$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,

jk...@math.gatech.edu (Jochen Katz) wrote:
>
> The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
>
> has not received any responses.

I was about to send a reply two weeks ago and then I thought that I had
better things to do than waste my time on that article.

> I will be gone for some weeks. I would appreciate responses also
> to be send to my email address.

But since you are bringing it up again, let me point out the following:
In your article, the author is trying to limit the scope of Arabic words
that are understood by Muslims to refer to the whole mankind. One such
word is 'aalameen. In your article, the author cites a few verses from
various surahs in the Quran containing the word 'aalameen, but curiously
enough he does not mention the #1 verse that would occur to anyone i.e
the beginning of surat al-fatiHah. Can the author of that article
pretend that "Praise be to God the Lord of the Universe ['aalameen]" is
refering to the Arabs only? Does it make sense to say that 'aalameen in
this verse refer exclusively to the Arabs? Isn't God the Lord of
everyone and everything? Jochen, can this verse be restricted to Arabs?

Mohammad


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

ali9...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
seems that the poster overlooked a verse?

wa maa arsalnaaka illa KAAAFFATAN linnaasi basheeran wa NADHEERAN 34:28

[34:28]
YUSUFALI: We have not sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men,
giving them glad tidings, and warning them (against sin), but most men
understand not.
PICKTHAL: And We have not sent thee (O Muhammad) save as a bringer of
good tidings and a warner unto all mankind; but most of mankind know
not.
SHAKIR: And We have not sent you but to all the men as a bearer of good
news and as a warner, but most men do not know.

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Aug 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/12/99
to
Salam Alikum.

Jochen Katz wrote:
>
> The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
>
> has not received any responses.

There were many Muslim scholars who refuted that claim
throughout the centuries. Perhaps you can see what Ibn
Tayymiya or Al-Ghazali said about this issue. But there's
an amazing refutation to this article by Dr. Heger, which
you can enjoy.

> I am seriously interested to
> know what people think about it. If it is true, it is a strong
> argument.

You already got a response from Dr. Heger.
Please check Dr. Heger's response in the thread:

"Did Mohammed Borrow? Part 2"

He wrote:

"Even in the absence of such reports in the traditional seera
literature it is clear that their was no lack of Christian teachers
for Muhammad: His family, the Quraysh were Christians, so he should
have been given some education in this religion."

So if the author who wrote the article you're whining about
is correct, then Heger's opinion stands against it because:

1) Mohammed (s) did not come for the Arab Pagans, because
Quraysh were Christians, as the doctor proved (?) it.

2) If Mohammed (s) was sent to "Quraysh who are Christians",
then he came to modify not only the religion of the "Arab
Christians" (according to Heger), because a modification
to the Christian religion of the Arabs means a modification
to Christianity. Unless of course there are many versions
of Christianity.

You, Heger, and whoever wrote this article can solve this
problem, and we Muslims will follow your genuine Christian
contradictory views.


Salam,
Abdalla.
--
___________________________________________________________
|Abdalla S. Alothman mailto:abd...@blueskyweb.com |
|------------------- ----------------------------- |
|"And the servants of the Beneficent are they who walk on |
|the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address |
|them, they say: Peace." [Quran 25:63] |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|Really, have you read the Quran? |
|http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/naeindex.htm |
|__________________________________________________________|

spring...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to
peace,

> The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
>

> has not received any responses. I am seriously interested to


> know what people think about it.

Just like the regular stuff written by you - no different.

>If it is true, it is a strong

> argument. I am somewhat baffled that there was not even one
> reaction, not on the newsgroup, not in private email. I still
> don't know what to think of it. I have placed it preliminarily
> now at
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html
>
> for the time being.

Good. It blends well with the rest of the site.

> I will be gone for some weeks. I would appreciate responses also
> to be send to my email address.

I am trying to come to terms with the irony. You go to such desperate
lengths to twist and distort the Qur'an and try to extract meanings that
are not there. Just comparing it to what i know your reaction is to
what Jesus is supposed to have said categorically, without ifs and buts
- "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel." [Matthew 15.24]

peace.

American_Muslim

unread,
Aug 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/22/99
to
Jochen Katz wrote in message <7olldo$28s$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...

>
>The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> ...


This is the most ridiculous claim yet, specially coming from people
who pretend to be knowledgeable of Islam and the holy Quran.

"They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said
Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord."
Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden,
and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one
to help." (5.72)


comb...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/27/99
to
In article <7olldo$28s$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
jk...@math.gatech.edu (Jochen Katz) wrote:
>
> The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147

I must say Jochen, it was a very interesting essay. There were some very
good points, I'll admit that. However, as you should have already
figured out from other people's responses, no one who has replied seems
impressed. I don't mean that in an offensive way. Put yourself in the
muslim's shoes for a second. Or better yet, let me reshape the scenario
so that it can fit you. There has long been people who have said that
the origianl Christians did not consider their religion different from
Judaism, nor did they think Jesus was God, nor did they believed the
mitzvot (laws) were done away with, and they wondered if converting
gentiles was permissable. Writers such as S.G.F. Brandon have written
alot on this subject. Now, you have probably read these works, or at
least had someone throw them at you, I'm sure. What was your response?
Not impressed right? Such and such scholar says the original Christians
didn't think Jesus was God. Do you care? I doubt you do. Your reaction
to such claims are similar to a muslims reactions to your post on
Muhammad only being a warner for Arabia. I will give my thoughts, then
touch back on the above train of thought.

The article quoted the following ayat: "(Mohammed) You are only a Warner
and for every nation there is a guide." (13:7) This does help the theme
of the article. However, there is a certain crookedness to the article.
The author listed a number of ayats, includding Saba' 34:28, and tried
to offer a better understanding of these ayats, and wrote:

"The above verses in the light of the above six points would mean that
prophethood is for all people of Arabia."

This is interesting, but the author edited Surah Saba' 34:28. Please
allow me to show what the Author wrote, compared with what the ayat
actually says.

The author's version of Saba' 34:28 was "And we have not sent you (O
Mohammed) except as a giver of glad tidings and a Warner to all people."

However, the actual ayat says something to the effect of "We have not


sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad

tidings, and warning them (against sin), BUT MOST MEN UNDERSTAND IT
NOT." (Yusufali translation)

Reading different translations of Saba' 34:28 (Pickthall, Yusufali,
Shakir, Sher Ali, Rashad Khalifa) they all have something similar to the
ending that I put in caps. So i would like to say that the ayats the
author offered to prove his point, do not prove he was only for Arabia
in light of Saba' 34:28. I wonder if the author excluded the last part
of the ayat from Surah Saba for reasons to suit his agenda..... I should
not make false acusations.

Whatever the case, I'd like to get back to what I was originally sayin
(and I apologize if this post jumps all over the place). Many muslims
I'm sure have tried to tell you the theory that early Christians,
includding Jesus' followers, did NOT believe Jesus was God. Your
reaction is to look in the scriptures and find verses that prove your
stance, and disprove your opponant's stance. So to quote someone like
S.G.F. Brandon would never be enough to overrule the verse in the bible
where Jesus is quoted as saying "before Abrham I AM". Just the same, I
doubt the author's post will ever convince any muslims to interpret
ayats such as 7:158, 34:28, and 2:185 any differently than they already
have. I'm not saying this to try and insult you, I'm just offering this
as an analogy in case you wonder why such a good article falls on deaf
muslim ears.

Whatever the article was very good, and i think you should give it a
permanant spot on your webpage. Alot of muslims don't like you or your
webpage, but seeking the truth can never be wrong, and Muslims should be
prepared for such questions.

Peace

jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In article <7oqkt8$2ll$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Mohammad Ghoniem <mgho...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> > that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at

> > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147

> > has not received any responses.

> I was about to send a reply two weeks ago and then I thought that I had
> better things to do than waste my time on that article.

Thanks for the response, but I do prefer less condenscending attitudes.

> But since you are bringing it up again, let me point out the following:
> In your article, the author is trying to limit the scope of Arabic words
> that are understood by Muslims to refer to the whole mankind. One such
> word is 'aalameen. In your article, the author cites a few verses from
> various surahs in the Quran containing the word 'aalameen, but curiously
> enough he does not mention the #1 verse that would occur to anyone i.e
> the beginning of surat al-fatiHah. Can the author of that article
> pretend that "Praise be to God the Lord of the Universe ['aalameen]" is
> refering to the Arabs only? Does it make sense to say that 'aalameen in
> this verse refer exclusively to the Arabs? Isn't God the Lord of
> everyone and everything? Jochen, can this verse be restricted to Arabs?

Which shows, that you have not understood the argument. He does not
deny that 'aalameen does sometimes or even often mean "universe".
The point is that it does NOT ALWAYS refer to all people and quite
often actually to a restricted entity.

If it is established that it sometimes refers to all and sometimes only
to parts, then the context determines the meaning, and in particular,
these verses where Muhammad is sent with a message to the 'aalameen
does then not automatically refer to all people, as it could just as
well be only those among whom he lived.

No, there was no argument that the word is restricted in Fatiha to
the Arabs only. But you have not dealt at all with the facts and
data the article provided. As such, the argument stands strong so
far.

Fariduddien Rice

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
Assalamu alaikum, brothers and sisters,

On 6 Sep 1999 jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:

> > > The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> > > that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
>
> > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
>
> > > has not received any responses.

[...]

> As such, the argument stands strong so far.

I didn't respond to this because the response seems so obvious.... I am
very disappointed that Jochen was not able to see it, after spending so
long in soc.religion.islam....

For example,

O Mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single
person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered
(like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence God, through whom ye
demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you):
for God ever watches over you.

[Meaning of Qur'an 4:1]

In this verse, all of Mankind is addressed explicitly.

I have also found at least 9 other verses which addresses all of Mankind
explicitly (4:133, 4:170, 4:174, 10:23, 10:57, 22:1, 22:5, 31:33, 49:13),
and there are also several other verses which are candidates in addition
to this....

Interestingly, Jochen's friend did not consider it worthy to consider
these very explicit verses in his article, but instead decided to mention
only verses which he felt he could interpret to support his hypothesis.

I also find it interesting that Jochen did not pick this up, as it shows
that after all these years participating in soc.religion.islam, it seems
to me that Jochen is not able to see through a weak argument as long as it
is made against Islam. When an argument is made against Islam, Jochen
seems to start becoming very gullible -- probably because he so
desperately wants to believe the argument is true.

In addition, it is well-known that several of the followers of Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allah be with him) were non-Arab, such as Salman
al-Farisi (the Persian), and Bilal, who was sub-Saharan African, may Allah
be pleased with them. If Jochen's friends' hypothesis is correct, then
these people would not have been Muslims, as they were non-Arabs.
However, in contrast, these two were among the elite among the Companions
of the Prophet. For example, it is well-known that Bilal was chosen to be
the first muezzin (the person who makes the Islamic call to prayer).

Furthermore, we also know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah
be with him) dictated letters which were sent to rulers of the nations of
his time, inviting them to Islam -- including nations which were non-Arab.
This behavior also goes against Jochen's friend's hypothesis.

So, in summary, not only has Jochen's friend apparently ignored any verses
in the Qur'an which invalidate his hypothesis, he has also chosen to
ignore the wealth of historical evidence which contradicts his claims.


Wassalamu alaikum,

__________________________________________________________________________

Fariduddien Rice Email : farid @ stormcity.com

Australian web site http://homepages.haqq.com.au/salam/
US mirror site http://www.stormcity.com/salam/
__________________________________________________________________________

MGhounem

unread,
Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99
to
>The point is that it does NOT ALWAYS refer to all people and quite
>often actually to a restricted entity.

often actually ? examples ?

Let's look at the obvious;

the two Prophets Jesus and Muhammad both used terms such as "all nations"

in the case of Jesus, it is bluntly plain that Jesus was referring to the
nations within Israel only.

in the example of Muhammad, it is clear that Muhammad was referring to the
nations world wide.

how do we come to this conclusion ?

elementary;

Gospel says about Jesus;

"But he answered and said, I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." [Matthew 15:24]

Hadeeth says about Muhammad:

"The Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wrote to Chosroes (King of Persia),
Caesar (Emperor of Rome), Negus (King of Abyssinia) and every (other)
despot inviting them to Allah, the Exalted. And this Negus was not the one for
whom the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had said the funeral prayers."
(Book 18, Number 4382: Narrated Anas ibn Malik:)

Simply because our Prophet Jesus was restricted to Israel only, is no reason to
distort commonly known facts regarding Muhammad.

Another Example;

Muhammad had non-Arab companions, as brother Fariduddien pointed out such as
Salman
al-Farisi (the Persian), and Bilal, who was sub-Saharan African.

Jesus only had Jewish companions and had an intense racism against non-Jews;

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do,
they may trample them
under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." [Matthew 7:6]

"It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." [Matthew
15:26]

In context, Jesus is referring to non-Jews as dogs.

While Muhammad says;

"No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any
superiority over a black man, or the black man any superiority over the white
man. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was created from clay."
(Bayhaqi and Bazzaz)

The Holy Qur'an states:

"Indeed, the noblest among you before Allah are the most heedful of you" (Holy
Qur'an 49:13). That is, the superiority of one man over another is only on the
basis of Allah-consciousness, purity of character and high morals, and not
colour, race, language or nationality. People are therefore not justified in
assuming airs of superiority over other human beings.

In conclusion, for those who can see the Obvious, the difference between one
who was sent for and cares about all people, and the difference between one who
angrily chose one group (Jews) over all others, then say "Alhamdu'liLah", for
those who can not see the obvious or refuse to acknowledge it, then ask our
Creator to pardon your sins, ask without the thirst of blood, ask with Love
only, ask without the middle men, ask directly.

Peace

http://read.at/savior


jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/10/99
to
In article <7r5g1j$nfc$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, Fariduddien Rice writes:

> > > > The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> > > > that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at

> > > > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147

> > > > has not received any responses.

> I didn't respond to this because the response seems so obvious.... I am


> very disappointed that Jochen was not able to see it, after spending so
> long in soc.religion.islam....

No need to get emotional and condescending. Let's see what you propose.

> For example,
>
> O Mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single
> person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered
> (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence God, through whom ye
> demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you):
> for God ever watches over you.
>
> [Meaning of Qur'an 4:1]
>
> In this verse, all of Mankind is addressed explicitly.

I know that you don't know Arabic, and you seem not even to consult
a variety of English translations, but you make your argument from
just one translation. Pickthall and Yusuf Ali translate "O Mankind",
but Shakir, Sher Ali, Rashad Khalifa, Muhammad Sarwar, etc. translate
the phrase as "O People!" and E.H. Palmer as "O ye folk!"

All these translators do not think that necessarily all mankind
is addressed, but the understanding of the text is that God
addresses through Muhammad the people he is talking to. That
certainly is a natural way of reading it. Muhammad after all
preached this to his audience and more likely addressed them
in his recitation as "o you people" and not as "o mankind".

My author friend himself responded similarly:

It would be perfectly alright to translate his "O mankind" as
"O people" meaning people of Arabia. There are times when we
make statements which are general to an specific audience.
A general statement is general but background and context
may make it specific. Similarly this "O people" could have
been general but since Mohammad has clearly mentioned his
scope therefore it cannot be taken as general.
for example I may tell some people in a room that I have
a message from God for people in this room and that could
start with

"O people!, Reverence your Guardian-Lord,
who created you from a single person, ..."

Nothing of this diminishes the argument presented in my article.

> I have also found at least 9 other verses which addresses all of Mankind
> explicitly (4:133, 4:170, 4:174, 10:23, 10:57, 22:1, 22:5, 31:33, 49:13),
> and there are also several other verses which are candidates in addition
> to this....

Well, I did the research for the various translations for Q.4:1, and
showed that you are wrong on that. If you want to make that argument
I will leave it to you to carefully look at all those ayahs in those
different translations (which are all available on the web) and then
report back what you find.

Conclusion: The argument is not even touched. Nothing has been
shown by Dr. Rice. The original article stands strong as ever.

> Interestingly, Jochen's friend did not consider it worthy to consider
> these very explicit verses in his article, but instead decided to mention
> only verses which he felt he could interpret to support his hypothesis.

Jochen's friend at least speaks Arabic, understands the Qur'an quite
well, and makes his own translation of the Qur'an in the verses he
discusses. In comparison to that, your argument that is based on
consulting one English translation and not even carefully reading
the argument in the original article before you think you can casually
dismiss it.

> I also find it interesting that Jochen did not pick this up, as it shows
> that after all these years participating in soc.religion.islam, it seems
> to me that Jochen is not able to see through a weak argument as long as it
> is made against Islam. When an argument is made against Islam, Jochen
> seems to start becoming very gullible -- probably because he so
> desperately wants to believe the argument is true.

Did this paragraph establish anything? I don't see what it does to
improve the understanding of the issue. It is only an attempt to
ridicule my mental powers, or integrity, albeit with semi-polite
language. By the end of the response, I hope, you are embarrassed
that you ridiculed and looked down, while it seems to be you who
lacks the understanding of what is really going on.

> In addition, it is well-known that several of the followers of Muhammad
> (peace and blessings of Allah be with him) were non-Arab, such as Salman
> al-Farisi (the Persian), and Bilal, who was sub-Saharan African, may Allah
> be pleased with them. If Jochen's friends' hypothesis is correct, then
> these people would not have been Muslims, as they were non-Arabs.

The author responds:

My stand is that it was for the people living in Arabia
"So that you may warn the Mother of the cities and those
around it"
Obviously, these two people were there at that time.
Then there are Groups who do not believe any other
source of religion except Quran this argument is very
strong against them.

My own comment:

Again, please do first read carefully the hypothesis before you get
carried away arguing against a strawman. The thesis did not propose
that Muhammad was only for ethnic Arabs, but "for Arabia". As the
above states, those people lived in Mecca/Medina, in the area of
Muhammad's mission. No problem for the proposed thesis.

> However, in contrast, these two were among the elite among the Companions
> of the Prophet. For example, it is well-known that Bilal was chosen to be
> the first muezzin (the person who makes the Islamic call to prayer).

Still no argument.

Apart from the fact that the article clearly starts with:

... I will only demonstrate here that according to the Qur'an
Mohammed is a Warner only for Arabia. ...

Examined is only the Qur'an, not the Hadith, the Sirat or other
sources. The text of the Qur'an, in grammar and lexical meanings.
That is the issue. What does the text actually say? Not: what
is politically correct in an Islamic context.

> Furthermore, we also know that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah
> be with him) dictated letters which were sent to rulers of the nations of
> his time, inviting them to Islam -- including nations which were non-Arab.
> This behavior also goes against Jochen's friend's hypothesis.

The author asks:

What is the authentication of those letters??
They may be forged.
Let us know the Isnad of those letters from the Prophet up to today.


Again: The issue is the teaching of the Qur'an. And let me add:
One could even ask whether Muhammad was true to his calling.
Maybe Muhammad got a bit carried away towards the end of his life,
when military success suddenly overcame his group? Maybe Muhammad
took his role to far? Shouldn't that be measured by the teaching
of the Qur'an first of all?

> So, in summary, not only has Jochen's friend apparently ignored any verses
> in the Qur'an which invalidate his hypothesis, he has also chosen to
> ignore the wealth of historical evidence which contradicts his claims.

If you want to uphold this summary, you first need to bring some
stronger evidence that there exist any such verses which are
invalidating the hypothesis. I have not yet seen them quoted and
carefully discussed.


Just for fun, let me look to the verses you list as references only
(4:133, 4:170, 4:174, 10:23, 10:57, 22:1, 22:5, 31:33, 49:13):

4:133 is translated even by Pickthall and Hilali/Khan as "people"
and Yusuf Ali is alone in making it "mankind." And the verse does
not make much sense in Yusuf Ali's version. And I think this makes
clear you only read Yusuf Ali in this case.

Shakir:

If He please, He can make you pass away, O people!
and bring others; and Allah has the power to do this.

That is a reasonable verse. But Yusuf Ali make this:

If it were His will, He could destroy you, o mankind,
and create another race; for He hath power this to do.

In order to justify his "mankind" translation, he has to
invent the word "race" which is not in the text.


4:170 is again thoroughly mixed with some translating
"mankind" and others "people", but when thinking about
it, imagining that Muhammad recites it to his audience
and what they would understand, "people" makes more
sense.

It says:

O people! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger
with the truth from your Lord, so believe in him, it is
better for you.

Obviously, Muhammad was not omnipresent in all the world,
and he has only come to those who physically saw him at
the time he recited this verse to them. It does not say
he or his message WILL come to all the world/mankind, but
that he HAS COME to them, and Muhammad didn't reach the
mankind part of Europe or China yet at that time. Do
thing contextual and things become clearer.

4:174 is basically the same.

10:23 - some translate "mankind," some translate "people,"
again, "people" makes more sense since it addresses a
real audience. "mankind" is an abstraction and you can't
really talk to "mankind" since most of mankind is not
alive at any given time to hear it.

10:57 has nothing new, it is like 4:170 etc.

22:1 - again the translators are mixed in mankind or people,
but the same arguments hold. People is a better translation.

22:5 is a good illustration again, some translate mankind,
some people, but it says:

O mankind/people! if ye are in doubt concerning the
Resurrection, then ...

an abstract "mankind" cannot have doubt. some concrete
individuals, people, might have doubts and others do not.
So, they, the people with doubt, are addressed.

31:33 - nothing new

49:13 - some interesting observations could be made on
that verse, but nothing conclusive for your argument
as far as I can see.


Okay, end of discussion for today. None of the verses you
listed proves what you want them to establish. You will
have to go search again.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz


Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:

> Jochen's friend at least speaks Arabic, understands the Qur'an quite
> well, and makes his own translation of the Qur'an in the verses he
> discusses. In comparison to that, your argument that is based on
> consulting one English translation and not even carefully reading
> the argument in the original article before you think you can casually
> dismiss it.

Please ask him about this verse:

"And We have not sent you (O Muhammad SAW) except as a giver of
glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know
not." [Quran 34:28]

Tell him, "What does 'lin-naasi kaaffa' mean, my dear anonymous
friend?"

I don't know why Jochen hasn't commented on the argument that
was raised by one of our brothers about prophet Isaa's mission
which started with the lost sheep of Israel, and then the disciples
were told to preach to all the nations. Maybe Jochen is tongue-tied?

If Jochen's anonymous friend gets stuck with his ignorance and thinks
that "lin-naasi kaaffa" means all the Arabs, then all the nations should
also mean: all the nations of Israel.

Salam,
Abdalla.
--
___________________________________________________________
|Abdalla S. Alothman mailto:ada...@blueskyweb.com |

MGhounem

unread,
Sep 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/11/99
to
>It would be perfectly alright to translate his "O mankind" as
> "O people" meaning people of Arabia. There are times when we
> make statements which are general to an specific audience.

where? where does Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an say "O people of Arabia" ?

we know you are accustomed to the constrained mission of our Prophet Jesus,
with his boundaries confined to the borders of Israel as the Gospel says;

""The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one" Mark
12:29

"When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to
all the people of Israel." Acts 13:24

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name
of Jesus" Acts 4:10

Yes, the Gospel has convinced me by repeatedly making it clear that the term
"all people" referred only to the people within Israel, why? gee, let me
guess..... Must be cause the verses end with the words _of Israel_.

Now you want to Ignore the blunt fact that the Bible verses end with the
clarified address _of Israel_ and then pretend that the Qur'an verses end with
the non-existent phrase -of Arabia-, Just because Jesus ended his sentences
with the words .....of Israel, does not mean the Qur'an does it.

When we read in the Qur'an "O People" there is no confined location that
follows as in the Gospel (i.e. _of Israel). You can imagine one if you would
like, more room in Heaven for us.

Nothing new, your usual attempt of adding or subtracting from the Qur'an.

I challenge you to find one verse in the Qur'an which God says "People of
Arabia" or the phrase you conjure, "O people of Arabia"

>Maybe Muhammad got a bit carried away towards the end of his life, >when
military success suddenly overcame his group? Maybe Muhammad
>took his role to far?

it is amusing how far Christians are willing to bend, until they look like a
zero.

Disobedient Prophets? what else will the Christians come up with? In order to
try to be in line with their thesis, that Muhammad was only for Arabia, they
now call him disobedient for inviting others outside of Arabia to the Path of
Allah. How pathetic the zeros are.

According to that hypothesis, that makes Jesus disobedient since the Christians
claim he was sent to the entire world yet he spent over ten years in Egypt
without inviting anyone, I guess Jesus is also disobedient because he
supposedly could walk on water, yet never crossed any seas to tell his Gospel,
only spoke in Israel, what a disobedient Prophet he was?

So now we have Muhammad over confident so he disobeys God and spreads Islam
world wide, while we have Jesus, lacking in self esteem, so he disobeyed God
(according to the Christians) and barely spread Christianity within Israel
only.

Now we have the Islamic view, without the zero's opinions, The Islamic view is,
both Prophets obeyed God and spread faith where they were told to. Jesus to
Israel and Muhammad to the World.

In conclusion, try not to mix up confined localities and disobedience as found
in the Bible, with Islamic perspectives, lastly, if you are a Bible believer?
Then you would know that one language can be for all nations;

"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call
upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent." {Zephaniah 3:9}

Peace

http://read.at/savior

jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/12/99
to
In article <7rd816$eem$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:

> > Jochen's friend at least speaks Arabic, understands the Qur'an quite
> > well, and makes his own translation of the Qur'an in the verses he
> > discusses. In comparison to that, your argument that is based on
> > consulting one English translation and not even carefully reading
> > the argument in the original article before you think you can casually
> > dismiss it.
>
> Please ask him about this verse:
>
> "And We have not sent you (O Muhammad SAW) except as a giver of
> glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know
> not." [Quran 34:28]
>
> Tell him, "What does 'lin-naasi kaaffa' mean, my dear anonymous
> friend?"

Same advise for you as for Dien Rice. Read the article carefully
before you complain. This verse is already discussed. Please
refer to

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html

> I don't know why Jochen hasn't commented on the argument that
> was raised by one of our brothers about prophet Isaa's mission
> which started with the lost sheep of Israel, and then the disciples
> were told to preach to all the nations. Maybe Jochen is tongue-tied?

No, Jochen is not tongue-tied at all, but that article did not
contribute anything to the understanding of the topic and was
only a show of emotional babble.

The discussion of Jesus mission to Israel and his mission to
the nations as reported in the Bible are a matter of interpreting
the text of the Bible and have nothing to do with a proper
interpretation of the Qur'anic text. [Or do you want to claim
the Qur'an cannot be properly understood without consulting
the Bible?] Maybe there are similarities between the two,
maybe they are very different, but each needs to be understood
in its own context and on the basis of its own language, grammar,
semantics etc. The Biblical texts are discussed in great detail
on these pages:

http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/gentiles.html
http://answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/warner.html
http://answering-islam.org/Morin/israel.html


But here the meaning of the Qur'an is discussed and you have
not contributed anything that has not been mentioned yet.

> If Jochen's anonymous friend gets stuck with his ignorance and thinks
> that "lin-naasi kaaffa" means all the Arabs, then all the nations should
> also mean: all the nations of Israel.

No, both in Qur'an and Bible we have to take the context of the
whole book into account, and when the context is different the
meaning of a term might be different. That is a very elementary
linguistic insight.

Jochen Katz

mar...@vom.com

unread,
Sep 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/12/99
to
as-salaamu ^alaykum.

mgho...@aol.com (MGhounem) wrote:

>>It would be perfectly alright to translate his "O mankind" as
>> "O people" meaning people of Arabia. There are times when we
>> make statements which are general to an specific audience.
>

>where? where does Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an say "O people of Arabia" ?

This is a little embarassing. If the argument being presented is
correct, every occurrence of yaa ayyuha n-nass could be such an
instance, unless there were additional evidence specifying the
reference as general and not exclusively particular.

If I stand up in front of a crowd of men in San Francisco and say
"Men, serve your lord," am I addressing the crowd or am I addressing
all of mankind?

*It is ambiguous.*

I think it was Mr. Katz who made the original comment quoted above.
His comment does not directly assert that Muhammad or the Qur'aan
"made statements which are general [in form] to a specific audience,"
so Br. Ghounem's question is misdirected. The comment was about *us*,
and it is certainly true to that extent.

I am informed that it is common among Arabs, or some Arabs, to refuse
to acknowledge any truth which is uttered by an opponent in debate,
that considers this a weakness.

To the extent that this is true, it would explain for me, at least
partly, why the Arab sun of power came to be in eclipse. Those who
deny truth will ultimately be the losers, as surely as the sun burns
and the earth turns.

We are not Christians, to imagine that we have some magic immunity
>from our declared affiliation as Muslims. While a kaafir may attempt
to use the truth in an effort to mislead, it is that intention which
is corrupt, not the truth. This is the great hazard of debate and
argument, that we are led to be attached to our own views, opinions,
beliefs, and conclusions, so attached that we become blind to anything
which appears to contradict them.

And this is the description of kufr itself.

We have confused faith with belief; belief is nothing other than
firmly held opinion, an imitation of certainty quite different from
the certainty of faith.


AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
USA

Jochen Katz

unread,
Sep 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/12/99
to
In article <7ou7c7$qdc$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> responds to me:

> > The article "Muhammad claimed to be a warner only for Arabia ?!?"
> > that I had posted about two weeks ago and which can be found at
> >
> > http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=504476147
> >
> > has not received any responses.
>

> There were many Muslim scholars who refuted that claim
> throughout the centuries. Perhaps you can see what Ibn
> Tayymiya or Al-Ghazali said about this issue.

Well, I do not have easy access to those scholars. Maybe
you would like to quote them for the benefit of all of us?
After we have their statements, then we can discuss them,
and evaluate if they are correct or not by checking it
against the text.

> But there's
> an amazing refutation to this article by Dr. Heger, which
> you can enjoy.

...

> "Even in the absence of such reports in the traditional seera
> literature it is clear that their was no lack of Christian teachers
> for Muhammad: His family, the Quraysh were Christians, so he should
> have been given some education in this religion."
>
> So if the author who wrote the article you're whining about
> is correct, then Heger's opinion stands against it because:
>
> 1) Mohammed (s) did not come for the Arab Pagans, because
> Quraysh were Christians, as the doctor proved (?) it.

First question: Do you believe this? Obviously something that
you don't believe to be true doesn't make much of a good
counter argument.

Second, whatever you believe about the above, it is irrelevant
to the actual discussion: The argument was not that Muhammad
came only to pagans, the argument (see the title) was that
he was sent only to Arabia (whatever kind of religion those
people might have had). It was an issue of locality in the
article presented, not one of religious affiliation.

I really would recommend that you carefully read any article
before you critique it, or otherwise your response will be
simply irrelevant to the given argument.

Jochen Katz

Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
Jochen Katz wrote:

> First question: Do you believe this? Obviously something that
> you don't believe to be true doesn't make much of a good
> counter argument.


Well to be honest, I don't believe a single word from Heger.
But you haven't commented on his idea that the people of Quraysh
were Christians. Are you shy to disagree with Heger? :)

Oh by the way, do you believe that Mohammed (s) was a
PROPHET...to the Arabs or not? Why don't you make this clear?
Was he a prophet in the first place or a false prophet? In
other words, why don't you give us your opinion on what "Muhammed
claimed" to be? See, I can't take your argument seriously until I
know who I am speaking to. So please make up your mind, Mohammad (s)
is either a prophet to the Arabs or a false prophet; what's
your opinion (if you have one)? If you don't have an opinion,
then any effort to reply to your argument seriously is certainly
a waste of time.

If Jochen and his friend are trying to prove the validity of
Mohammad's (s) prophethood to the Arabs, then this means
that they have finally agreed that the Quran is not the work
of a normal human being, but a prophet designated by God. But,
if he and his friend do not believe that Mohammad was a true
prophet to the Arabs, then why are they, trying to prove that he
is only a prophet to the Arabs? It doesn't make sense to me. That's
why I find it important that he gives his opinion on the new
painting he added to his beautiful site. A neutral position in
this case would not even suffice.

If the Christian fanatics have finally established enough
evidence that God sent Mohammad to the Arabs, then the Quran
cannot be faulty, and the teachings of Mohammad are surely
authentic. If they claim that Mohammad "was carried away" with
his Message, then this means that God--who they believe did indeed
send Mohammad--was not careful with his choice whenever He selected
a prophet. But, if they don't believe that Mohammad was indeed a
prophet from God, then they can't argue about the scope of his
prophethood, because to them, he is not a prophet.

It would be very nice if the Christians are able to add their
personal conclusion at the end of their article: Was Mohammad
(s) a PROPHET to the Arabs or not?

In this page:

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/

Jochen provides us with many links that try to prove that
Mohammed was a false prophet. But in this page:

http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html

he suddenly changes his mind, and decides to prove that
Mohammad is only a prophet to the Arabs. This shows how
the missionaries are really unstable. They have to make
up their minds about the authenticity of Mohammad as a
prophet from God.

> Second, whatever you believe about the above, it is irrelevant
> to the actual discussion: The argument was not that Muhammad
> came only to pagans, the argument (see the title) was that
> he was sent only to Arabia (whatever kind of religion those
> people might have had). It was an issue of locality in the
> article presented, not one of religious affiliation.

Again, the idea is that if Mohammed (s) came to the Arabs,
who include Christians and Jews among them, then he came
to invite those who follow those two religions as well.

Religion does not equal (!=) racism in the Quran, but it
does in the Bible (e.g. God of Israel, Hear O Israel, etc.).
If the Quran combined religion and racism, we would have
faced many challenges similar to the challenges which face
the Christian and the Jewish scriptures. But, lilaah alhamd,
our Quran clearly defies the idea that belief is linked to
a certain race. In reality, this is what the missionaries are
doing. They are twisting our Quran and spitting at us the same
challenges which crippled them for centuries.

I find it strange that Jochen does not refer to the numerous
corrections that the Quran made to Christianity and Judaism.
Apparently a fanatic Christian, like Jochen, cannot digest
the truth very well, since the mentality of the fanatic
Christian was not able to extract the creed--the foundation
of any religion--from the religion's holy book. I mean it took
the Christians hundreds of years and 318 fanatics to discover
their creed, when their holy book contains the teachings of many
many many prophets. Yet, they were not smart enough to find their
creed in their holy books. One wonders how then can they be
very smart all of a sudden to understand the Quran which is given
only to one single prophet. It looks like a puzzle to me.

MGhounem

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
Salaam brother AbdulraHman,

>>where? where does Prophet Muhammad or the Qur'an say "O people of Arabia" ?

> every occurrence of yaa ayyuha n-nass could be such an


>instance, unless there were additional evidence specifying the
>reference as general and not exclusively particular.

perhaps I should clarify, in the Qur'an, when God is referring to a particular
group, it is -specified-:


"People of Pharaoh" (Qur'an 54:41)

"People of Israel" (Qur'an 46: 10)

"People of Noah" (Qur'an 25:37)

"People of Abraham" (Qur'an 29:24)

"People of the Book" (98:6)

and so on.


Simply because it was recited in Arabic does not mean it is confined
-specifically- to the people of Arabia. I am writing in English, is this only
for people in England ?

Of course not, it is for anyone world wide who *understands*, and anyone who
takes a couple weeks of classes, can understand English, similarly:

"A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail;- a Qur'an in Arabic, for
people who understand" (41:3)

Again, general people, it is not addressed "for People of Arabia".

In fact, the Jews were focused in Israel, and spoke Hebrew, yet it is stated
that the Arabic Qur'an is also for them:

"Have you not considered those (Jews) who are given a portion of the Book? They
are invited to the Book of Allah that it might decide between them, then a part
of them turn back and they withdraw." (Qur'an 3:23)

To answer your comment, yes, there is abundant evidence specifying the


reference as general and not exclusively particular.

>I am informed that it is common among Arabs, or some Arabs, to refuse


>to acknowledge any truth which is uttered by an opponent in debate,

>that considers this a weakness. (Qur'an 8:54)

I agree, this is a trait among Arabs which dates back to pre-Islamic times,
Pharaoh is described as refusing Truth in the face of death . (Qur'an 8:54)
Pharaoh, an Egyptian/Arab, continued to believe he himself was a god, despite
signs from our Prophet Moses and the True God.

Yet with this stubbornness, I find it pleasant how the Majority of Arab
Christians and Arab Jews have converted to Islam, Suphon'Allah.

I find it even more pleasant that people ((are)) willing to Understand for God,
of all the Muslims world wide, only 27% of them are Arabs, there are More
Indian Muslims just in the Hindu speaking India, then the Muslims in Arabia.

Peace

http://read.at/savior

jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
In article <7q6h62$l73$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
comb...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I must say Jochen, it was a very interesting essay. There were some very
> good points, I'll admit that.

Thank you very much for the compliments. I have forwarded them
to the author.

> However, as you should have already
> figured out from other people's responses, no one who has replied seems
> impressed.

Well, if they admit it is correct, they would undermine their own
faith. So, I didn't really expect a lot of applause and agreement.
I mainly wanted to see if there are any substantial flaws in the
article, whether there are any strong arguments that the author
overlooked, before I decide to put it up on the site. I wanted to
test it out, because that argument was very new to me, and I was
not sure that it would really hold up to scrutiny. The lack of
serious counter arguments has convinced me that it wasn't so bad
after all. So, I have decided to follow your recommendation:

> Whatever the article was very good, and i think you should give it a
> permanant spot on your webpage. Alot of muslims don't like you or your
> webpage, but seeking the truth can never be wrong, and Muslims should be
> prepared for such questions.

The truth never has to fear critical evaluation. Truth is not
always simple, and distortions, half-truths might be a lot more
appealing at first sight than some tough truths, but in the end,
only what is genuinely true will survive the fire of testing. And
better having your faith here tested and abandon what is wrong now,
than finding out you had shut your eyes to the truth when finally
standing before God and there is no hiding anymore.

Let me respond to one of your remarks though:

> The author listed a number of ayats, includding Saba' 34:28, and tried
> to offer a better understanding of these ayats, and wrote:
>
> "The above verses in the light of the above six points would mean that
> prophethood is for all people of Arabia."
>
> This is interesting, but the author edited Surah Saba' 34:28. Please
> allow me to show what the Author wrote, compared with what the ayat
> actually says.
>
> The author's version of Saba' 34:28 was "And we have not sent you (O
> Mohammed) except as a giver of glad tidings and a Warner to all people."
>
> However, the actual ayat says something to the effect of "We have not
> sent thee but as a universal (Messenger) to men, giving them glad
> tidings, and warning them (against sin), BUT MOST MEN UNDERSTAND IT
> NOT." (Yusufali translation)

The author replied to your statements:

Editing the Quran Hah! They allegate so easily.
I have clearly stated in my article in Note 1:
In many cases only part of the verse has been quoted
and referred to in the text of the paper as "the
verse", to avoid the tedious use of the phrase "part
of the verse".
And the left out part - if included - makes no diffrence
it simply is "yet most of people to not know". In the
light of other ayats that is simply meaning that most
of people of Arabia do not know.

So, I think your observation might just have been a misunderstanding.
And I myself also do not see how the last part of the verse makes
any difference in the argument. However, it is somewhat strange
that you chose Yusuf Ali out of all the translations that you looked
at,

> Reading different translations of Saba' 34:28 (Pickthall, Yusufali,

> Shakir, Sher Ali, Rashad Khalifa) they all have ...

because comparing those you must have seen that it was actually
Yusuf Ali who edited and added to the Qur'an. You can see a comparison
of the above and some other translations showing those additions in
the little web page I created about this verse at

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/034.028.html


By the way, a professor of Arabic language in a Middle Eastern
University has basically confirmed the content of the article
and written a supplementary article. We are in the process of
scanning that, translating it and adding it to the site as well.


Jochen Katz


jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
In article <7ristl$2rs$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:

> > First question: Do you believe this? Obviously something that
> > you don't believe to be true doesn't make much of a good
> > counter argument.

> Well to be honest, I don't believe a single word from Heger.
> But you haven't commented on his idea that the people of Quraysh
> were Christians. Are you shy to disagree with Heger? :)

No, I have no problems to disagree with anyone if I am of a different
opinion. But as I stated before, this issue is irrelevant to the
discussion anyway.

> Oh by the way, do you believe that Mohammed (s) was a
> PROPHET...to the Arabs or not? Why don't you make this clear?

I have made that clear many times before. Here are two examples:

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=419449008&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=455988819

Yes, I believe that Muhammad contradicts essentials of the
messages of the earlier true prophets and that is decisive
to reject him as a false prophet just as I reject Joseph Smith,
founder of the Mormons, Bahaullah, founder of the Bahai faith,
and many more modern gurus and religious founders.

If I would accept Muhammad as a true prophet, I would have to
accept Islam as true. I do not believe that Muhammad was sent
by God, I do not believe that the Qur'an is from God, and I am
astonished that you even ask whether I do, as if that were not
clear from just about every posting that you have ever read
from me.

> Was he a prophet in the first place or a false prophet?

A false prophet.

> In
> other words, why don't you give us your opinion on what "Muhammed
> claimed" to be?

Have I really failed to do so? Is it really me, or do you have
trouble to comprehend my actually very clear writings?

> See, I can't take your argument seriously until I
> know who I am speaking to.

Now, I hope you can start to take it serious.

> So please make up your mind, Mohammad (s)
> is either a prophet to the Arabs or a false prophet; what's
> your opinion (if you have one)?

I hope it is clear now.

> If you don't have an opinion,
> then any effort to reply to your argument seriously is certainly
> a waste of time.

Well, now take it serious.

> If Jochen and his friend are trying to prove the validity of
> Mohammad's (s) prophethood to the Arabs,

reading comprehension again. Where does the article even hint
at that? The article does not make any judgment on the truth
of the claim to prophethood, it ONLY sets out to understand
what the Qur'an actually claims. Before you critique a claim,
you have to understand it. That is my greatest frustration
with most Muslim attackers on the Bible. They try to argue
against something they have never made an effort to understand.
Therefore they attacks are mostly laughable and misguided and
any discussion is so horribly frustrating.

This article only sought to look at all the data given in
the Qur'an to this topic, and find out what the Qur'an actually
says about the scope of Muhammad's prophethood. Whether the
Qur'anic claims are true or not is another issue, but first we
need to understand what the Qur'an actually says before we
discuss that.

> But, if he and his friend do not believe that Mohammad was a true
> prophet to the Arabs, then why are they, trying to prove that he
> is only a prophet to the Arabs?

We are doing scholarly work by interpreting a text, a text that
is at the foundation of our religious controversy. All discussion
about it is useless before we first understand what it actually
says. Is that not the right way to proceed?

So, we have no intention to prove that he was a prophet to anyone,
but we have an interest to find out exactly what the Qur'an says
before we start to discuss the implications of it, and evaluate
whether the claims are true or not.

> It doesn't make sense to me.

I hope it does not.

> If the Christian fanatics have finally established enough
> evidence that God sent Mohammad to the Arabs,

No, we only established that the Qur'an CLAIMED that Muhammad
was sent to the Arabs from an entity that he named Allah, not
that it was the one true God who sent Muhammad anywhere.

> then the Quran
> cannot be faulty, and the teachings of Mohammad are surely
> authentic.

If it were so, then this might be part of the conclusion, but
nothing like that has been claimed.

> In this page:
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/
>
> Jochen provides us with many links that try to prove that
> Mohammed was a false prophet. But in this page:
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html
>
> he suddenly changes his mind, and decides to prove that
> Mohammad is only a prophet to the Arabs.

We did no such thing.

> This shows how
> the missionaries are really unstable. They have to make
> up their minds about the authenticity of Mohammad as a
> prophet from God.

That mind is pretty much made up. There is just too much evidence
to come to any other conclusion. But that doesn't mean that we
have to write that into every page where some aspect of the
Qur'an is discussed.

> Religion does not equal (!=) racism in the Quran, but it
> does in the Bible (e.g. God of Israel, Hear O Israel, etc.).

Again, it would be helpful if you get to know the Bible before
you criticize it. We have looked at all relevant passages in
the Qur'an regarding the scope of Muhammad's claimed messengership.

Now, before you talk about "God of Israel" you should read ALL
the verses how God is related to Israel and how God is related
to the nations in the Bible. After you read them all in their
context, THEN you can draw your conclusions, but don't do that
by misinterpreting just a half sentence picked out somewhere.

There is no propagation racism in the Bible. Quite in the
contrary.

> I find it strange that Jochen does not refer to the numerous
> corrections that the Quran made to Christianity and Judaism.

Because those were not corrections, but deviations and corruptions
of the truth.

> Apparently a fanatic Christian, like Jochen, cannot digest
> the truth very well, since the mentality of the fanatic
> Christian was not able to extract the creed--the foundation
> of any religion--from the religion's holy book. I mean it took
> the Christians hundreds of years and 318 fanatics to discover
> their creed, when their holy book contains the teachings of many
> many many prophets. Yet, they were not smart enough to find their
> creed in their holy books. One wonders how then can they be
> very smart all of a sudden to understand the Quran which is given
> only to one single prophet. It looks like a puzzle to me.

If you are at some time interested to actually understand
the Christian faith, you are most welcome to ask for a book
recommendation on the development of the creeds. But I cannot
detect any serious effort to understand in the above paragraph
of screaming ignorance, so I won't waste my time on attempts
to explain.

Jochen Katz

The Armin

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to

John 17: 3: "And this is eternal life (oh our Father) that they might know
that You are the Only True God, and that they might know Jesus Christ, whom You
have sent."


JKatz's claim that Mohammed only warned the Arabs is quite incorrect.
Mohammed himself in fact wrote letters to Heraclius and the Shah of Iran,
indeed many world leaders, explaining Islam to them and inviting them to
convert. Actually, it was Jesus who claimed according to the christians own
testaments as we have today: "I am only sent to the lost sheep of the House of
Israel."


Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:
>
> In article <7rd816$eem$1...@bolero.rahul.net>,
> Abdalla Alothman <ada...@blueskyweb.com> writes:

> > Please ask him about this verse:
> >

> > "And We have not sent you (O Muhammad SAW) except as a giver of


> > glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know
> > not." [Quran 34:28]
> >
> > Tell him, "What does 'lin-naasi kaaffa' mean, my dear anonymous
> > friend?"
>
> Same advise for you as for Dien Rice. Read the article carefully
> before you complain. This verse is already discussed. Please
> refer to
>
> http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/warner.html

I looked at it, I found that he defines the english translation
to "lin-naasi kaaffa" *according* the six points which he invented,
and what he invented is his weak definition which isn't even based
on the context of the verse, but on his own six points.

I think you have been reading too much church stories in your
holiday. That's why you have a new comprehension problem. :)

Anyway, I'll postpone the discussion about lin-naasi kaafa,
until you can make up your confused 3 = 1 mind whether Mohammad
(s) was a *prophet* [to the Arabs] or a false prophet. What he
claimed is not important right now, your opinion does. :)

Khaled....@ensigct.fr

unread,
Sep 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/13/99
to
Salaam


MGhounem wrote:

> Jesus only had Jewish companions and had an intense racism against non-Jews;

Mohammed I am sincerelly in trouble !

I can not understand how you can belive that `Issa Ibnu Mariem was a
"racist"
against non-Jews ?! Really I do not understand how you can belive that
God
choose and send him as His apostle and in the same time you seem to be
convinced that he was "racist" !

For the two references you bring as "proof" i know that they are in
Matta,
But it is very hard to me (to not say impossible) to belive that `Issa
has
never said such things.



> "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do,
> they may trample them
> under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." [Matthew 7:6]

> "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." [Matthew
> 15:26]

Salaam
Khaled


jk...@math.gatech.edu

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
In article <7rk0ii$6au$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
thea...@aol.com (The Armin) writes:

> John 17: 3: "And this is eternal life (oh our Father) that they might know
> that You are the Only True God, and that they might know Jesus Christ, whom You
> have sent."

In general, this is a wonderful verse, but may I ask whether you
corrupted this yourself, or whose translation are you quoting?
I am not aware of any translation that renders it this way.

> JKatz's claim that Mohammed only warned the Arabs is quite incorrect.

I never said so. Your claim about my statements are quite incorrect.

> Mohammed himself in fact wrote letters to Heraclius and the Shah of Iran,
> indeed many world leaders, explaining Islam to them and inviting them to
> convert.

The article contained in its first paragraph the scope of the
study:

I will only demonstrate here that according to the Qur'an
Mohammed is a Warner only for Arabia.

May I ask in which sura you have found these letters?

There is the question of authenticity of those letters. But that is
nearly irrelevant since the discussion was about the Qur'an and my
edition of the Qur'an does not contain those letters. Or in which
sura do you find them?

> Actually, it was Jesus who claimed according to the christians own
> testaments as we have today: "I am only sent to the lost sheep of the House of
> Israel."

And why can't you read the other postings on the issue before you respond?

Two days ago I had posted in this thread:


The discussion of Jesus mission to Israel and his mission to
the nations as reported in the Bible are a matter of interpreting
the text of the Bible and have nothing to do with a proper
interpretation of the Qur'anic text. [Or do you want to claim
the Qur'an cannot be properly understood without consulting
the Bible?] Maybe there are similarities between the two,
maybe they are very different, but each needs to be understood
in its own context and on the basis of its own language, grammar,
semantics etc. The Biblical texts are discussed in great detail
on these pages:


But here the meaning of the Qur'an is discussed and you have

not contributed anything that has not been mentioned yet and
responded to repeatedly.


Jochen Katz


Abdalla Alothman

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
jk...@math.gatech.edu wrote:

> Yes, I believe that Muhammad contradicts essentials of the
> messages of the earlier true prophets and that is decisive
> to reject him as a false prophet just as I reject Joseph Smith,
> founder of the Mormons, Bahaullah, founder of the Bahai faith,
> and many more modern gurus and religious founders.

But see, how can he contradict his message if his message
was false? If he made up his message, he can add to it for
as much as he wishes--who are you to stop him? Jochen is trying
to eliminate liars from lying twice. I think his logic is pretty
hilarious.

I told you that you cannot understand our prophet Mohammad (s)
because he is a real prophet, and you cannot understand real
prophets. If you could, you wouldn't need 318 men to discover
your creed for you--you could easily open your Bible and understand
your creed from Jesus or any of the other prophets. But it appears
that all the bible prophets are worthless for you.

You see fanatical Christians like your respectful self, are punished
by God, as one brother puts it, with their simple reasoning. Let me
explain to you how you fail to understand what Prophet Mohammad (s)
said. But before that, let me show you why God is punishing you with
this kind of fish logic.

1) You chose to ignore all the teachings of the prophets.

None of your beliefs are approved by any of the Bible
prophets. You wont find any reference of one prophet where
he teaches that God is three in one, that God will become
man, that God is so unjust that he has to kill his prophet
to forgive your sins, so that you can later become sinless
born-agains and knockout all the bible prophets who allegedly
committed sins.

2) Evangelical Missionaries wish to deny God and Mislead His People.

Allah tells you to go back to your Injeels and find out where do
I tell you that I am three in one? You say, "We don't care,
that's what we believe and we're gonna convert the people!" God
tells you okay; Where did Jesus tell you that he was God? You
say, "Nowhere, but we just like the idea, and we're gonna fight
for it and mislead the people!" God tells you okay, "Can you kill
your own sons?" You say, "No, but you're the one who loves the
blood, so if you're gonna kill your son and forgive our sin, we have
a deal with you! No blood no deal!"

Your priests invented your baseless beliefs in favor of the
commandments of God, so God punished you and disabled your
attempts to mislead His people by planting mediocrity inside
of you. And your arguments are nothing but a live example of
this mediocrity.

I told you that you could not understand all the Bible prophets, due
to your fanatical Christian mentality which claims that 3=1, and
your 318 fanatical role models claimed that "God from God" and "True
God from true God" = one God, when they clearly appear as two gods in
your creeds. And you have no problem repeating that nonsense. Obviously,
you don't find that in any of the teachings of the prophets, if you did,
you would find Muslims and Jews agreeing with you. But, because you
choose to ignore the teachings of your prophets--including Jesus, God
smashed your brains and filled them with grease.

Now, let me explain to you what you failed to understand.

You say, "Mohammad claimed to be a warner to Arabia only!" And you
use the Quran to prove your point. The proof that you couldn't understand
Mohammad (s) who is only one prophet--compared to the many many Bible
prophets--is that you didn't realize what Mohammad claimed to be.
He simply did not claim that he came up with the Quran. His real
"claim" is that God taught him what's in the Quran. And you thought that
he claimed that he came up with all his ideas. If he "lied", his lie is
that God instructed him and gave him the Quran.

See, how you didn't understand it?

So, you are actually inventing ideas from your imagination about
Mohammad (s), because, if Mohammad (s) "claimed" something, he didn't
claim that he was "a warner to Arabia only", but he really "claimed"
that God told him that. And he "claimed" that God told him to spread
Islam, and he "claimed" that God told him to pray to the God of Abraham,
and he "claimed" that God told him many other things. A false prophet
can claim many many things.

So, your problem is not the claim about Mohammad (s) being a warner
to Arabia, but your problem is that you don't believe that God sent
Mohammad (s). If Mohammad (s) acted from his own desires, then he has
all the freedom to "claim" whatever he wants. And he can also claim
that God also told him to spread Islam all over the planet--he's a
false prophet according to your terminology, after all. So, you can't
try to prove that Mohammad (s) was only a prophet to Arabia, when you
don't believe that he was a prophet at the first place.

But a believer wonders, if God didn't reveal anything to Mohammad (s),
then why is his reputation and the reputation of the religion he
taught was spread all over the world? Why did God allow this to happen?
One wonders, why didn't the Christians and the Jews live in peace
until they were ruled by the Muslims? If you don't believe that,
check Hans Kung book, Christianity--I didn't come up with that one.

Why is it that Jesus had only 12 disciples, and Mohammad had thousands?
Why is it that Christianity never prevailed in Arabia like Islam? Why
is it that when Ali (K) was a teenager, he wanted to die for Mohammad (s)?
All these are questions which show that God supported Mohmmad (s),
protected him, and made him prevail.

Why is it that what Muslims have documentation about Mohammad (s)
that exceeds all what the Christians have about Jesus? Not only Jesus, but
what's successively narrated from Mohammad (s) exceeds all the words
of the Bible prophets put together. Why did God allow that? Sounds to me
that Mohammad (s) was a true Prophet blessed from God.

> If I would accept Muhammad as a true prophet, I would have to
> accept Islam as true. I do not believe that Muhammad was sent
> by God, I do not believe that the Qur'an is from God, and I am
> astonished that you even ask whether I do, as if that were not
> clear from just about every posting that you have ever read
> from me.

If you don't believe that Mohmmad is a prophet, then why are
you trying to prove that he is only a prophet to Arabia? Heheh

If Mohammad "lied" about the universality of his message, he can
also lie about his claim about being a warner only to Arabia.
Similarly, if he "lied" about the being a "warner to Arabia only"
he can also lie about the universality of his message. In fact,
he doesn't have to lie when he decides to change the scope of his
message, all he has to do is **change his mind.**

I don't see that you have a good case.

> > Was he a prophet in the first place or a false prophet?
>
> A false prophet.

Then it is not a surprise that he can "claim" that he is a warner
to all the world, Arabia, Jinn, and to the aliens of Pluto.

> reading comprehension again. Where does the article even hint
> at that?

In the whole article you tried to prove that Mohammad (s) is only
a prophet to the Arabs. You said, "he claimed" and you used
the Quran--a false book according to you--to prove your argument.
You didn't understand that Mohammad (s) didn't claim that he came up
with the Quran, rather, it was revealed to him by God according to
his "claims". So according to your beliefs, he also lied about the
book which he received from God, and which supposedly contains two
things:

1 - He was sent to Arabia.

2 - He was sent to the whole world.

So, if the Quran is a book of lies (according to you), what
prevents Mohammad (s) from adding #2 to his book of lies? He
became moral all of a sudden for the sake of one lie? If it was
a lie, why didn't the thousands of Muslims who followed him question
his messengership to all the world?

It's either you and your friend are mistaken, or the thousands
of Muslims are wrong. I think I will side by the majority.

> The article does not make any judgment on the truth
> of the claim to prophethood, it ONLY sets out to understand
> what the Qur'an actually claims.

If the Quran is false, then it can claim anything. Is it a
surprise that a liar can lie twice? Don't you get it? Your
argument is trying to tell liars, "Can you lie again?"
Ahaha... I can't tell you, Jochen, how much I am laughing
at your reasoning.

> Before you critique a claim,
> you have to understand it. That is my greatest frustration
> with most Muslim attackers on the Bible. They try to argue
> against something they have never made an effort to understand.
> Therefore they attacks are mostly laughable and misguided and
> any discussion is so horribly frustrating.

Ahh, I posted a comparison between Joseph's (a) dream in the
Bible and in the Quran. Do you have any comments, or are
you tongue-tied? Check the article and let's see how you
can correct this biblical loophole:

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=520912194&fmt=text

> We are doing scholarly work by interpreting a text,

Ahaha, scholarly work? Right. You exchanged some of your
views with our respectful brother AltWay at another thread.
When he posted a Bible passage in the thread: Christianity
and Islam

and you wrote:

"_A_ prophet is not the same as "THE Son of Man". The Son of
Man always refers to Jesus, not to somebody else. Read the passage
in its context **and don't corrupt its meaning.** Your twisting of
the holy scriptures is worse than what sectarian Christians have done.
**You are the one who corrupts the scriptures and you will have to
answer God for it in the last judgment.** I know you are intelligent
enough to know what you do."

As you can see, you whine and jump up and down when someone
refers to your Bible--you just don't like it. And you consider
it a forgery. But you expect us to believe that when you interpret
our book and twist the meanings of the Arabic language that it is a
scholarly work? Now this is super evangelical hypocrisy. :)

Oh, and by the way, open Ezekiel and see how many times God
calls Ezekiel Son of Man. It's funny that Jochen tells me to
read the Bible when he doesn't even know how many bible prophets
were called son of man.

See, I told you that the fanatical Christian mentality you have
been developing can never help you understand what many bible
prophets said, let alone one prophet--Mohammad (s). It must be a
punishment from God, I tell you! So, get rid of your cross and
refrain from eating pigs and repent to Allah. It will help you
pump some credibility to your poor unstable personality.

> Again, it would be helpful if you get to know the Bible before
> you criticize it. We have looked at all relevant passages in
> the Qur'an regarding the scope of Muhammad's claimed messengership.

If you believe that he was a false prophet, then from his side, he
can claim all what he wants. And from your side, you are wasting your
time trying to prove the falsity of something you consider false--it's
like someone who's trying to tell us that rain is called water.
You should rather prove that God made no contact with him besides
jumping ten steps at a time.

As for reading the Bible, I read it but I don't believe that it
is all from God. The bible itself told me that it was written
by the false pen of the scribe (Note, it says pen of the scribe,
not the scribe as you will probably try to defend it). I read
that in Jeremiah 8:8, you can read it and make your judgment. In
fact, read all of Jeremiah and see in who's hands was the Bible.

> Now, before you talk about "God of Israel" you should read ALL
> the verses how God is related to Israel and how God is related
> to the nations in the Bible. After you read them all in their
> context, THEN you can draw your conclusions, but don't do that
> by misinterpreting just a half sentence picked out somewhere.

When the Bible scribes referred to the God of Israel as God of
all the nations, they really meant all the nations of Israel.
Sorry, I made my mind on this one. I checked the documents
which you posted, and I think they are all 3=1 nonsense.

> There is no propagation racism in the Bible. Quite in the
> contrary.

Bzzzzt. It would be nice if you can tell us how Paul describes Hager
and Ishmael who God blessed, read Galatians 4:22-31 and see how
your Bible calls Arabs "Your slaves". Read how it discriminates
between races. Perhaps that's why the Christians enslaved the
Muslims and the Jews during their crusades, hmm?



> so I won't waste my time on attempts to explain.

It's because you cannot explain it. Let's see how you explain
the passage from Galatians and Joseph's dream. Really, I would
love to see your wonderful comments. If you didn't even know that
God called Ezekiel and tons of other prophets son of man, how can
you explain all this? The holy spirit is not helping you, here. I
suggest rubbing a golden plus sign.

Mr Mahdi

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
I can't believe that this silly issue of "Muhammad being sent only to the
Arabs" is dragging this far.

I am quite suprised that no one cited the famous hadith of Muhammad (saaw) that
said that Muhammad (saaw) saw the ends of the Earth and saw Islam covering the
whole earth. If Islam was sent only to the Arabs, why on earth did Muhammad
(saaw) say he saw Islam covering the whole earth?

Mahdi

http://members.aol.com/mrmahdi/opinions/index.htm


AltWay

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
In article <7rist4$2pe$1...@bolero.rahul.net>, mgho...@aol.com (MGhounem)
wrote:
Perhaps I should clarify, in the Qur'an, when God is referring to a

particular group, it is -specified-:

"People of Pharaoh" (Qur'an 54:41)
"People of Israel" (Qur'an 46: 10)
"People of Noah" (Qur'an 25:37)
"People of Abraham" (Qur'an 29:24)
"People of the Book" (98:6)
and so on.


Simply because it was recited in Arabic does not mean it is confined
-specifically- to the people of Arabia. I am writing in English, is this
only for people in England ?

Comment :-
I did not think this thread was worth answering. I am surprised that anyone
would doubt that Muhammad (saw) came for the whole world in view of the fact
that he had brought a confirmation of the message of all Prophets sent
throughout the world and a rectification of the misinterpretations of all
previous scriptures.

It has always been understood that Muhammad came for all mankind. We know
this from the Hadith. The translators would not otherwise have translated
the words that way.

No. I do not think that this is worth arguing about. It cannot possibly
matter to disbelievers in his prophethood whether he came only for Arabia or
the whole world. The fact remains that he IS a Prophet for many people all
over the world. This disbelief is, therefore, a case of the ostrich
syndrome.

H.S.Aziz

H.S.Aziz


--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way"
_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ ... ha...@argonet.co.uk

Mr Mahdi

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99