Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...
-
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?
-
apple pie, why is it so hard for you to answer a simple allegation.
Why do you adhere to Lane's when it suits you, and then diverge from Lane's when it suits you?
(ps. there is no more proof needed to refute your claims, it's already been presented by others. I am now merely deconstructing/exposing your logic and methods)
-
Greetings Ali Omar,
Thanks for your reply?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you make a distinction between ?Prophets? and ?Messengers??
If that is the case, please elaborate.
?Messengers?, in the Koran, can refer to many things, including the angels.
Thus, if Islam?s ?prophet? were directly mentioned, then you would expect for clear verification and an assignment of ?prophethood? to that individual.
As it is?.nowhere in the entire Koran does it make this claim?..which is rather odd considering that Muslims revere an individual that has a most dubious ?description? within their book of faith.
This all points to yet another fictitious emanation from the Islamic machine that is not supported by their book of faith?
Thanks?
-
Greetings Ali Omar,
Thanks for your reply?
If you don?t mind, I would like to know what do you consider to be the qualities of a Messenger and what do you consider to be the qualities of a Prophet.
The qualities of each is determined by the context in which it is used.
Do you have a specific example that you are thinking about??
Thanks?
-
is it just me or is it impossible to get a straight answer out of this guy, even for a simple definition?
No, it's not just you. As I have experienced myself, Apple Pie is an unfair debater who likes to sidetrack people into debating other stuff and shifting goalposts.
Everybody here can see that Apple Pie's exegesis has nonexistent credibility. Apple Pie is not going to convince anybody into being a Jesus idolizer here by doing so.
-
Dear Apple Pie,
As I understand that you have a very good understanding of the matter at hand, and therefore most probably have worked through examples from various contexts, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as to enlighten me further, by giving me one of your examples.
Regds,
Ali Omar