Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...
-
Greetings Andya Primanda,
Thanks for your reply?
Then I would like you to address why you ignore the posts that say 'Muhammad' is mentioned in this thread.
A short statement of "I admit I am wrong, 'Muhammad' is mentioned in the Qur'an" from you would be fine, if you are a fair debater.
Let?s start here?
First of all?please show us ALL of the ayahs that you feel mention the ?prophet? of your book of faith.
Secondly, tell us why you think that the ayahs are describing your ?prophet??.
Thanks?
-
hello applie pie,
i am going to add my 2 cents here. perhaps your inability to understand why the muslims here do not really care for your question stems from a difference of backgrounds.
the HUGE difference between christianity and islam is that for christians, Jesus the person is of the utmost importance himself. He is, you might say, the centerpiece.
However, Muhammad is not the centerpiece of Islam. Though he is loved and revered, Muslims do that out of their own hearts, not by any command in the Quran. The Quran is not meant to be a tale of Muhammad, (whereas the Bible is mostly tales/stories about Prophets). The Quran is meant at the utmost to be guide for how a successful society should be built. Muslims do not gain salvation through Muhammad, and his personality is only secondary, whereas for Christians, Jesus the person is critical.
That is why it appears so out of place that you yourself are obsessed with proving/disproving the person Muhammad. To us, all the evidence points to his existence and his being the Prophet... certainly no OTHER person is mentioned in the context of delivering the Quran. BUT despite that, for us it is not really all that critical... it is of historical interest, but our main goal is to implement the teachings of the Quran.
Your claim that the "authors" of the Quran felt the Bible was the true book and copied its stories seems rather silly, if you read the Quran in regards to the false deification of Jesus and how he was not crucified. There may be some superficial similarity in SOME of the stories in the Bible and the Quran, but the similarity ends there.. these are totally different books.
The others here have already answered your earlier questions, so there's no need for me to get into that.
-
Greetings shuaib,
Thanks for your reply?
That is why it appears so out of place that you yourself are obsessed with proving/disproving the person Muhammad. To us, all the evidence points to his existence and his being the Prophet...
Are you speaking from the vantage point of the Koran?.or of Islam??
As the two are quite different?
certainly no OTHER person is mentioned in the context of delivering the Quran.
Oh really?..?
BUT despite that, for us it is not really all that critical... it is of historical interest,
Perhaps because you follow Islam instead of the Koran?
but our main goal is to implement the teachings of the Quran.
The teachings of Islam?.or the Koran?.?
Your claim that the "authors" of the Quran felt the Bible was the true book and copied its stories seems rather silly,
First of all, it?s not my claim, but the authors who penned the text as we know it today?
Secondly, the authors of the Koran fall all over themselves in proclaiming that they indeed utilized the trustworthy Jewish and Christian scriptures in their opus?
if you read the Quran in regards to the false deification of Jesus and how he was not crucified.
Actually, the Koran loudly and proudly confirms the deity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as well as His Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection.
If you take the time to study the classic Arabic, then you cannot help but see this?
There may be some superficial similarity in SOME of the stories in the Bible and the Quran, but the similarity ends there.. these are totally different books.
Some similarity?..?
Thanks?
-
Greetings Andya Primanda,
Thanks for your reply?
Then I would like you to address why you ignore the posts that say 'Muhammad' is mentioned in this thread.
A short statement of "I admit I am wrong, 'Muhammad' is mentioned in the Qur'an" from you would be fine, if you are a fair debater.
Let?s start here?
First of all?please show us ALL of the ayahs that you feel mention the ?prophet? of your book of faith.
Secondly, tell us why you think that the ayahs are describing your ?prophet??.
Thanks?
http//www.openburhan.com/pages/obeb94.html
3144
Wama muhammadun illarasoolun qad khalat min qablihi alrrusulu afa-in mataaw qutila inqalabtum AAala aAAqabikum wamanyanqalib AAala AAaqibayhi falan yadurra Allahashay-an wasayajzee Allahu alshshakireena
Literal
And Mohammad is not except a messenger, had passed/expired from before him the messengers, so if he died, or (he was) killed, you turned/returned on your heels , and whom turns/returns, on his two heels, so he will never/not harm God, a thing, and God will reward the thankful/grateful.3340
Ma kana muhammadun aba ahadin min rijalikum walakin rasoola Allahi wakhatama alnnabiyyeena wakana Allahu bikulli shay-in AAaleeman
Literal
Mohammad was not a father (to) anyone from your men, and but God's messenger, and the prophets' end/conclusion/final , and God was/is with every thing knowledgeable.472
Waallatheena amanoowaAAamiloo alssalihati waamanoo bimanuzzila AAala muhammadin wahuwa alhaqqu minrabbihim kaffara AAanhum sayyi-atihim waaslahabalahum
Literal
And those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds, and believed with what was descended on Mohammad, and it is the truth from their Lord, He covered/substituted from them their sins/crimes, and He corrected/repaired their mind/thought/condition.4829
Muhammadun rasoolu Allahi waallatheenamaAAahu ashiddao AAala alkuffari ruhamaobaynahum tarahum rukkaAAan sujjadan yabtaghoona fadlanmina Allahi waridwanan seemahum feewujoohihim min athari alssujoodi thalika mathaluhumfee alttawrati wamathaluhum fee al-injeelikazarAAin akhraja shat-ahu faazarahu faistaghlathafaistawa AAala sooqihi yuAAjibu alzzurraAAaliyagheetha bihimu alkuffara waAAada Allahuallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihatiminhum maghfiratan waajran AAatheeman
Literal
Mohammad (is) God's messenger, and those who with him (are) strong over the disbelievers, merciful between them, you see them bowing, prostrating wishing/desiring grace/favour from God, and an acceptance/approval , their marks/identifications/expressions (are) in their faces/fronts from the prostration's trace/sign , that (is) their example in the Torah, and their example in the Bible/New Testament , as/like a plant/crop, it brought out/emerged its sprout/shoot , so it surrounded and strengthened it, so it hardened/thickened , so it straightened/leveled on its stem, it pleases/marvels the sowers/seeders/planters to anger/enrage with it the disbelievers, God promised those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds from them, forgiveness and a great reward.There. That should be clear.
Now if you please, your retraction of the claim 'Muhammad is not mentioned in the Qur'an'... a simple 'I admit I am wrong' will do.
-
apple pie,
well that was an interesting response. it would lead us astray from this topic, but i can't help but ask you to demonstrate for us ignorant folk how on earth the Quran claims that Jesus is God and that he was crucified.. at least for amusements sake.
for your information, (you may be new to the forum), but a great number of the people on this forum go back to the classical Arabic to understand the meaning of the Quran. (I know you might not expect that, considering that Christians RARELY go back to "original" source documents, but this is rather common amongst Muslims).
-
Greetings Andya Primanda,
Thanks for your reply?
http//www.openburhan.com/pages/obeb94.html
3144
Wama muhammadun illarasoolun qad khalat min qablihi alrrusulu afa-in mataaw qutila inqalabtum AAala aAAqabikum wamanyanqalib AAala AAaqibayhi falan yadurra Allahashay-an wasayajzee Allahu alshshakireena
Literal
And Mohammad is not except a messenger, had passed/expired from before him the messengers, so if he died, or (he was) killed, you turned/returned on your heels , and whom turns/returns, on his two heels, so he will never/not harm God, a thing, and God will reward the thankful/grateful.3340
Ma kana muhammadun aba ahadin min rijalikum walakin rasoola Allahi wakhatama alnnabiyyeena wakana Allahu bikulli shay-in AAaleeman
Literal
Mohammad was not a father (to) anyone from your men, and but God's messenger, and the prophets' end/conclusion/final , and God was/is with every thing knowledgeable.472
Waallatheena amanoowaAAamiloo alssalihati waamanoo bimanuzzila AAala muhammadin wahuwa alhaqqu minrabbihim kaffara AAanhum sayyi-atihim waaslahabalahum
Literal
And those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds, and believed with what was descended on Mohammad, and it is the truth from their Lord, He covered/substituted from them their sins/crimes, and He corrected/repaired their mind/thought/condition.4829
Muhammadun rasoolu Allahi waallatheenamaAAahu ashiddao AAala alkuffari ruhamaobaynahum tarahum rukkaAAan sujjadan yabtaghoona fadlanmina Allahi waridwanan seemahum feewujoohihim min athari alssujoodi thalika mathaluhumfee alttawrati wamathaluhum fee al-injeelikazarAAin akhraja shat-ahu faazarahu faistaghlathafaistawa AAala sooqihi yuAAjibu alzzurraAAaliyagheetha bihimu alkuffara waAAada Allahuallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihatiminhum maghfiratan waajran AAatheeman
Literal
Mohammad (is) God's messenger, and those who with him (are) strong over the disbelievers, merciful between them, you see them bowing, prostrating wishing/desiring grace/favour from God, and an acceptance/approval , their marks/identifications/expressions (are) in their faces/fronts from the prostration's trace/sign , that (is) their example in the Torah, and their example in the Bible/New Testament , as/like a plant/crop, it brought out/emerged its sprout/shoot , so it surrounded and strengthened it, so it hardened/thickened , so it straightened/leveled on its stem, it pleases/marvels the sowers/seeders/planters to anger/enrage with it the disbelievers, God promised those who believed and made/did the correct/righteous deeds from them, forgiveness and a great reward.There. That should be clear.
So?.after you searched the entire Koran from start to finish, these four ayahs are all that you could come up with as evidence that you somehow ?feel? mentions your "prophet"?.? o
Thus?you conveniently forgot to mention exactly why it is that you feel that these ayahs are referring to Islam?s ?prophet?.
Let?s review the Arabic word that has been used in each of these ayahs...
= ?muhammadun?
?muhammadun? definition
A man praised much, or repeatedly, or time after time; endowed with many praiseworthy qualities. It comes from the root ?hamida?, which means he praised, eulogized, or commended him; spoke well of him; mentioned him with approbation; sometimes because of favor received. Also implies admiration; and it implies the magnifying, or honoring, of the object thereof; and lowliness, humility, or submissiveness, in the person who offers it. He declared the praises of God or he praised God much with good forms of praise.
Reference
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 638 - 640If these four ayahs were discussing your ?prophet?, then why is the word not even once mentioned as Islam?s ?prophet? in the Classical Lexicons?
Thanks?
-
Greetings shuaibm
Thanks for your reply?
well that was an interesting response. it would lead us astray from this topic, but i can't help but ask you to demonstrate for us ignorant folk how on earth the Quran claims that Jesus is God and that he was crucified.. at least for amusements sake.
A prime location that declares the deity, Crucifixion, and Resurrected of Jesus comes from Sura 86.
I have detailed it in the Christianity section?enjoy?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28737#28737
You may also want to check-out Sura 89 as it confirms Jesus? Resurrection on the third day?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=40634#40634
for your information, (you may be new to the forum), but a great number of the people on this forum go back to the classical Arabic to understand the meaning of the Quran. (I know you might not expect that, considering that Christians RARELY go back to "original" source documents, but this is rather common amongst Muslims).
This is one of my favorite forums for that very reason, that many of the Muslims here are not afraid to dig deep into their book of faith ? none the less, there are still plenty of ignorant Muslims (here & there) that claim to have open minds until they realize the truth that what they have always been taught turns out to be pure fabrication and abrogation of what was originally penned into their book of faith?.
Additionally, over the years in my discourse with Muslims, I have discovered that most Muslims are typically quite ignorant of what their Koran truly states, and most are more concerned with what Islam states on the matter, rather than what their own book of faith states?
Thanks?
-
Nice try on dodging the issue Apple-Pie.
You asked
1 Is Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an?
2 In what capacity is Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an?I answered
1 Yes, explicitly in four verses
2
In 3144 as a messenger (rasul) like messengers before him
In 3340 as God's messenger (rasul Allah) and the final prophet (khatama an-nabiyyin)
In 472 as someone whom God descends truth to (nuzzila 'ala Muhammadin, wa huwa al-haqqu min Rabbihim)
In 4829 as God's messenger (rasul Allah)Unlike you, my first source for word meanings in the Qur'an is not Lane, but the original text of the Qur'an itself.
Now I demand your retraction. Come on, is it really hard to be a fair debater?
-
Greetings Andya Primanda,
Thanks for your reply?
You asked
1 Is Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an?
2 In what capacity is Muhammad mentioned in the Qur'an?I answered
1 Yes, explicitly in four verses
2Out of the entire Koran?..you can come up with only four ayahs that you feel even remotely mention your ?prophet??..?
Moses is mentioned 136 times and is specifically called a Prophet.
Do we ever find this of Islam's ?prophet?....?
Let?s look...
In 3144 as a messenger (rasul) like messengers before him
So..... is a messenger?.?
If this is the case, then could refer to anyone or anything?..not the ?prophet? of Islam?
In 472 as someone whom God descends truth to (nuzzila 'ala Muhammadin, wa huwa al-haqqu min Rabbihim)
Sent down to ?..again?..why do you want to make it out to be Islam?s ?prophet??..?
In 4829 as God's messenger (rasul Allah)
So..... is a messenger once again?.?
These first three can easily NOT refer to the ?prophet? of Islam.
As can easily be seen from the context?
Period.
That leaves us with one single solitary ayah (out of the entire Koran) that you feel refers to the ?prophet? of Islam?
In 3340 as God's messenger (rasul Allah) and the final prophet (khatama an-nabiyyin)
I would like for you to exegete the Arabic of this ayah so that we can really understand what it is stating?
Up for that??
After all?.you make this bold claim here?
Unlike you, my first source for word meanings in the Qur'an is not Lane, but the original text of the Qur'an itself.
Let?s see just how well you really understand the ?original text of the Qur?an itself??.
Thanks?
-
Peace,
Somehow, as I contemplate on the Quranic verses, ahadiths (Bukhari, Malik, Saleh, Dawood, Tirmidhi and the like) and other outside exposures, and reasoning out Apple Pie's rebuttles, I believe that the "Religion of Islam" was invented/solicitated by Muhammad and/or by his scribes, who disobeyed GOD. One of the reasons why Muhammad was revered by the Arabs who turned the tables upside down.
I denounce all man-made religions.
-
Apple Pie,
I have shown you. The Qur'an said that Muhammad is the messenger.
That is clear enough. Is it so hard for you to accept that we have answered your question? You shift the goalposts. But the verses are clear enough.
Muhammad is the messenger. God sent down his Message through Muhammad. Clear enough. We at this forum attach more importance to the Message instead of the Messenger.
-
Greetings Andya Primanda,
Thanks for your reply?
I have shown you. The Qur'an said that Muhammad is the messenger.
So?now your ?prophet? has been reduced down to ?messenger? status??
That is clear enough. Is it so hard for you to accept that we have answered your question? You shift the goalposts. But the verses are clear enough.
The ayahs are very clear?..that is the problem for Muslims?.the scant few ayahs that you somehow feel mention your ?prophet? could easily apply to numerous others.
Muhammad is the messenger. God sent down his Message through Muhammad. Clear enough.
Unfortunately, your book of faith does not support this assertion.
The Koran does, however, give ample credence to it?s Biblical prophets such as Moses?as I have already mentioned.
Perhaps, if you are in need of a real trustworthy Prophet that is called as such, then you need to look past the figure-head one that Islam puts forth?.
We at this forum attach more importance to the Message instead of the Messenger.
Then you are speaking from the vantage point of Islam?.as your Koran definitely does NOT support your claim?as you are even afraid to look too deep into the Arabic text for what you might discover as the real truth?
Thanks?
-
apple pie,
Thanks for posting the link, but I totally disagree with your interpretation (and indeed it is a far-fetched interpretation of the text). However, you have to realize that there is a huge difference in how Muslims deal with written scripture and how Christians deal with written scripture.
Very few Muslims would be able to relate with a people who can make 3 equal 1, and somehow logically comfort themselves that it makes sense. You also have not responded to the numerous contradictions in the Bible that was already presented, neither have any other Christians that I have met.
I had the longest debate with a Christian over the SIMPLEST things.. for example, Jesus "died" on Friday supposedly, yet 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS later is supposed to be Sunday?? Interestingly, a good number of Christians ARE finally coming around to realizing it should have been Good Wednesday instead of Good Friday... but the fact that most don't, despite the fact that it's a simple matter of counting for yourself, shows how Christians disrespect THEIR OWN text and twist it to their own ends.
This is why I doubt any Muslim could take a Christian interpretation of the Quran seriously. You basically twist the text of the Quran to your own ends, just as you twist the text of the Bible to your own ends. First clean up the interpretations of your own book, deal with the contradictions and fabrications in a logical and clean manner, THEN you may be in a position to comment on the Quran more convincingly.
As it is right now, you are blatantly committing hypocrasy with the Quran. You claim that the lexicons don't say muhammad means Prophet so it must refer to something else, YET in the same breath you claim At-Tariq refers to Jesus even though the lexicons DO NOT mention this!
You may get away with this kind of work in the Bible, but not with the Quran.
-
Greetings shuaib,
Thanks for your reply?
Thanks for posting the link, but I totally disagree with your interpretation (and indeed it is a far-fetched interpretation of the text).
If you disagree, then feel free to post exactly why you disagree?.in the dedicated threads?thanks?
However, you have to realize that there is a huge difference in how Muslims deal with written scripture and how Christians deal with written scripture.
Muslims tend to eisegete scriptures.
Christians tend to exegete scriptures.
Very few Muslims would be able to relate with a people who can make 3 equal 1, and somehow logically comfort themselves that it makes sense. You also have not responded to the numerous contradictions in the Bible that was already presented, neither have any other Christians that I have met.
Let me ask you this question
What is the theme of this thread?..?
If you want to stray from the theme of the thread, then please have the courtesy to start a dedicated thread with your insecurities?
I had the longest debate with a Christian over the SIMPLEST things.. for example, Jesus "died" on Friday supposedly, yet 3 DAYS and 3 NIGHTS later is supposed to be Sunday?? Interestingly, a good number of Christians ARE finally coming around to realizing it should have been Good Wednesday instead of Good Friday... but the fact that most don't, despite the fact that it's a simple matter of counting for yourself, shows how Christians disrespect THEIR OWN text and twist it to their own ends.
It is clear that Muslims hold the crown for scripture twisting?
This is why I doubt any Muslim could take a Christian interpretation of the Quran seriously. You basically twist the text of the Quran to your own ends, just as you twist the text of the Bible to your own ends. First clean up the interpretations of your own book, deal with the contradictions and fabrications in a logical and clean manner, THEN you may be in a position to comment on the Quran more convincingly.
I back up my positions with verifiable references.
This is more than I can say for most Muslims, including yourself.
As it is right now, you are blatantly committing hypocrasy with the Quran. You claim that the lexicons don't say muhammad means Prophet so it must refer to something else, YET in the same breath you claim At-Tariq refers to Jesus even though the lexicons DO NOT mention this!
If you feel this way, then you should also be taking Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Furthermore, the lexicons back my position completely, and verify that Sura 86 can only refer to the Biblical Jesus.
If you doubt this, then let?s discuss it in that dedicated thread?
You may get away with this kind of work in the Bible, but not with the Quran.
The Koran is no more than the Biblical Hebrew and Greek translated into Arabic.
Knowing this, what exactly would you expect to find within its pages??
Thanks?
-
unfortunately for you apple pie, i dont think the Muslims here are oblivious to how you repeatedly ignore the remarks made to you.
Though you simply pass it off as being off the topic, the point is that Muslims are not going to listen to a person who makes their OWN scripture sound nonsensical, and who cannot respond to obvious contradictions within their own scripture.
It's obvious that you are playing the same games with the Quran, on the one hand claiming Muhammad doesn't mean prophet because it's not listed in Lane's, and then turning around and claiming at-Tariq means Jesus though Lane makes NO mention of this. Having your cake and eating it too... 3 equaling one. 3 days and 3 nights equaling 1 dayand 2 nights... God equaling the devil... this is a pattern, and this is why your message will be unsuccessful here.
-
Peace
Apple Pie
Very few Muslims would be able to relate with a people who can make 3 equal 1, and somehow logically comfort themselves that it makes sense. You also have not responded to the numerous contradictions in the Bible that was already presented, neither have any other Christians that I have met.Let me ask you this question
What is the theme of this thread?..?
If you want to stray from the theme of the thread, then please have the courtesy to start a dedicated thread with your insecurities?
From another thread...
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2278Well?then please explain why Jesus is worshiped as God Almighty in Sura 86?
Where in the Bible is there a chapter 86? We are talking about the Bible right or did I start speaking about some other book in some post of mine in this thread?
roll
-
tux,
one's history/pattern of method in interpreting sacred texts is entirely relevant to this thread. i have pointed out the pattern for apple pie and how such tactics damage any credibility he may have had.
Dont try to put the cart before the horse in hopes of hiding the fact that the horse is lame and dying. Before making radical interpretations in the Quran, one must clear the contradictions in their own scripture and own up to hypocritical techniques.
-
Greetings shuaib,
Thanks for your reply?
unfortunately for you apple pie, i dont think the Muslims here are oblivious to how you repeatedly ignore the remarks made to you.
Most respect the thread theme?
Though you simply pass it off as being off the topic, the point is that Muslims are not going to listen to a person who makes their OWN scripture sound nonsensical, and who cannot respond to obvious contradictions within their own scripture.
I let each person decide for themselves?
It's obvious that you are playing the same games with the Quran, on the one hand claiming Muhammad doesn't mean prophet because it's not listed in Lane's, and then turning around and claiming at-Tariq means Jesus though Lane makes NO mention of this. Having your cake and eating it too... 3 equaling one. 3 days and 3 nights equaling 1 dayand 2 nights... God equaling the devil... this is a pattern, and this is why your message will be unsuccessful here.
Once again?..you know which threads to go to if you desire dialogue in those areas?
Thanks?
-
Apple Pie, again you seem to ignore the fact that your credibility has everything to do with this topic.
If you run away from the other points then at LEAST do not run away from THIS point, which you yourself have made in THIS THREAD.
You claimed that since Lane's does not mention Muhammad being a prophet, therefore those verses that were given to you IN THIS THREAD, you claimed, IN THIS THREAD, did not refer to the Prophet.
YET, we know from your previous arguments (yes in another thread) that when it suits you, you take meanings NOT given in Lane's, like LOCUSTS for jinn and JESUS for tariq.
This is hypocrasy, a kind which obliterates your credibility, and THAT is entirely relevant to this thread.
-
Greetings shuaib,
Thanks for your reply?
Apple Pie, again you seem to ignore the fact that your credibility has everything to do with this topic.
This is hypocrasy, a kind which obliterates your credibility, and THAT is entirely relevant to this thread.
Sounds to me like the last bastion of a bankrupt argument?.from an individual who has no other recourse? wink
If you run away from the other points then at LEAST do not run away from THIS point, which you yourself have made in THIS THREAD.
You claimed that since Lane's does not mention Muhammad being a prophet, therefore those verses that were given to you IN THIS THREAD, you claimed, IN THIS THREAD, did not refer to the Prophet.
YET, we know from your previous arguments (yes in another thread) that when it suits you, you take meanings NOT given in Lane's, like LOCUSTS for jinn and JESUS for tariq.
First of all, thanks for acknowledging Lane?s authority in the definition that I posted?.not that you would (or could) challenge it, anyway?
Secondly, if you were confident in your position, then you would have already specifically and directly challenged the Lexical definitions and context of the ayahs under exegesis?
As it is, you would rather stall for time and not accept my offer to dialogue specifically on those areas that you are troubling you so much.
Step up to the plate?