Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...

unknownuser

Greetings Ali Omar,

Thanks for your replies?

Dear Apple Pie,

What hinders you from looking into verse 33.40 yourself, as you, according to yourself, are ?more cognizant of Quran?ic scripture than most Muslims??

As you seem reluctant, I must draw the conclusion that the verse states what I have already said. But then again, your overall statement seems baseless, although I do not like to conclude with such an assumption.

Here?let me get you started?

Please show us Islam?s ?prophet??..and how he's supposed to be a ?prophet??.

Your ?Koranic? evidence is probably evidence to you but I can not find it, even though I am trying hard, and still re-reading what you suggested.
I must commend you on the nice pictures, though, but your conclusions are very far-fetched, from what I can see, but I keep my hopes up, and continue vigorously and haven?t given up yet.
You draw attention to the name of Chapters. These are not part of God?s message. (just for your information)

Specifics?please?.

It would be interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that I don?t have any understanding of Arabic.

It?s pretty clear from your posts?

By the way, how do you know what my mother-tongue is?

It?s not Arabic?

Also, why are you so unwilling to assist me in my search for more knowledge?

We are all here to learn from each other.

It would help if you put some effort into your replies?

I do not need conjecture, which is found in abundance many other places. I hope to have tangible facts, or at least indices pointing towards a logical deduction.
You give very little of that, why? When you know the Qur?an better than most ?Muslims?, you must be a fountain of knowledge, please do not be stingy!

Great?

Again?.what specifically is bothering you?..?

I have studied what you have explained but am still at loss. In order to get Sura 86 to fit into your picture, you assume too many things that are not there, many of them mentioned in the answers you have already received from others.

Care to give specific examples?blanket generalization means nothing?

One thing that is beyond doubt is that you assume the Bible (whichever version you are holding) is divine.

The Holy Bible is divinely inspired, yes.

The Koran is not.

Therefore it would be of interest to know exactly which version do you use?

I hold to the canonized 66 books?

Was the original of it written before, or after the Qur?an?

Before, just as the authors who penned the Koran, confirmed for us?

Where can I find the original of it?

The extant manuscripts can be ?googled? from the web?

The reason for asking is that it looks like some of the words of your Bible have borrowed expressions from the Qur?an.

Now...that would be a neat trick?as the Holy Bible was canonized centuries BEFORE the Koran was even penned by its authors?

In addition, the authors of the Koran flat-out tell us that they copied the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Unless you want to call into question the authors of the Koran? wink

This may well be connected to the fact that in the days when Islam was a World-power, many of the existing Bibles were actually written in Arabic and was thought to Christian students by Arabs. Whereas the Qur?an still exists in, mainly, the same form now, as it was before that era.

Since there are no extant Korans in existence anywhere in the known world, and the earliest dated Koran is a mere FRAGMENT of a sura dating to a century AFTER the supposed life and times of Islam?s ?prophet?, then your assertion would be impossible to prove as truth?

This is yet another destroyed Muslim myth from Islam 101?

Another thing that I have forgotten to comment on was your notion of ?time?. God never created ?time?, as ?time? does not exist, only changes without beginning and without end.
When something is coming into ?existence?, we say that time begins for this ?existence?, and time ends when it does not ?exist? any more.
This is not so, let us say that a human is borne, lives and dies. Time has not passed for this human, it has only gone through a number of changes, and if we could follow the track of this human before its birth we would go through many generations of people and end up in eternity.
When the same human being dies, changes continue for this human being until eternity. Time doesn?t begin or stop, it is just a concept we use because we can not grasp ?eternity?, and must, therefore, find a way to limit it.

A short story demonstrating a time-less ?cycle?

In a forest, a tree was marked and cut down. It went to a paper-mill.
The product that came out from there was tissue paper. A fellow went into the woods one day and got very sweat. He used the tissue paper, that came from the said tree, to wipe his face, and threw it away. Due to ?nature?s forces?, the tissue paper went through stages of decomposition until it became indistinguishable from the soil around it. A seed fell on it from a tree above. The seed grew and fed on, among other things also the decomposed tissue paper, until it became big enough to be marked and cut and was sent to the paper-mill??????..
When did ?time? begin and end, was it when natures building blocks were joined in the form of a tree or a tissue paper, and when did ?time? end?

Time has never been created, and it does not exist. It is just our concept of it that exists. Time is actually merely a measure that we put on changes.
Sorry for the side-track! This was not the main issue here, but maybe it goes to show that we may perceive things as real when they are not.

Great?.a Muslim philosopher?

Perhaps you could refute the most proven principles in all of physics for us?.SR & GR?

Then we will see who has the best evidence that time itself had a beginning??and that it will have an end?.just as stated in the Holy Bible?.

Thanks?

unknownuser

Hello Apple Pie,

Would you care to tackle those contradictions and errors from The Bible that I posted earlier in this thread? You never did answer any of my inquiries about those issues.

Care to try?

unknownuser

Start a new thread with your webpasted insecurities... lol

unknownuser

PEACE, APPLE PIE,

I just happened upon this thread and I two quesions for you

Are you saying that Muhammad, was not a prophet? If so, what is your evidence of this?
Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't Jesus being fully God and fully man the core tenet of Christianity? 1Thess.521, demands that the upholders of your scriptures...prove all things. Given that the core tenet of Christianity posits Jesus being fully God and fully human , hence, a "dual nature" nature, would you produce the verse where I can find the word "God-man? Mind you now, if you can find this word , it must agree with the Greek or Latin scripture, where the word "theoanthropos" is clearly/explicitly written there.

unknownuser

Start a new thread with your webpasted insecurities... lol

Below is the link to the thread where the debate has started. Come and get some.

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=46681#46681

Ali_Omar

Dear Apple Pie,

If we have agreed that by the word ?nabi? is meant ?prophet?, then why don?t you make an effort to read the Arabic script?
Something you claim to be able to, which I sincerely doubt, but that is of no importance.

If God says ?this? human is a prophet, well, who are you to argue?
The God-father?

Quote
We are all here to learn from each other.

Allow me to doubt this statement from you.
The only thing you have shared with others, is your conviction of the Bible being divinely inspired and the Qur?an not.
Without any base in reality you further insinuate that Surah 86 is about Jesus. I would not even call it far-fetched, it is utterly deceiving.
The good ?Paul of the Bible? must have really struck you as something extraordinary. In that case I agree with you, but to me extraordinary sly.
Or maybe it was Peter?
It could not have been ?Jesus-God? because he is not accused of writing anything in the Bible.

Please show me how the Bible can be divine, i.e. its contents are from God.

By the way, where in the Qur?an is your Bible mentioned?

Quote
Unless you want to call into question the authors of the Koran?

What I call into question is your wild assumptions, worthy of a Shakespeare, and the canonizing authorities.
Who were they, and on whose authority could they canonize anything?
Oh, forgive my ignorance, the ?popes?, of course?
If the whole ?pope-thing? was not so tragic it would have been a good comedy.

You would not understand the concept of time, I?m afraid, so I will leave that alone. But, just in case you should come across some, please spare me an extra hour or two, to compensate for the TIME I consider wasted on this discussion so far.

Lastly, I do not need any answer on the questions; they are just for your reflection. I will not waste any more time on ?idle talk? like this discussion has been.
Have a good life and try to stay in the reality of our Universe.

Best regds

Ali Omar

unknownuser

Greetings PRIEST_BOKMEI,

Thanks for adding your comments?

Are you saying that Muhammad, was not a prophet?

The Koran never mentions anything about Islam?s prophet?

If so, what is your evidence of this?

The lack of Koranic evidence?

Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't Jesus being fully God and fully man the core tenet of Christianity? 1Thess.521, demands that the upholders of your scriptures...prove all things. Given that the core tenet of Christianity posits Jesus being fully God and fully human , hence, a "dual nature" nature, would you produce the verse where I can find the word "God-man? Mind you now, if you can find this word , it must agree with the Greek or Latin scripture, where the word "theoanthropos" is clearly/explicitly written there.

Strawman?

Thanks?

unknownuser

YooHoo...Apple Pie,

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3661

I hope to see you there.

unknownuser

PEACE, APPLE PIE,

Thanks for adding your comments?

Anytime.

The Koran never mentions anything about Islam?s prophet?The lack of Koranic evidence?

What do you mean Al-Quran never mentions anything about the Prophet?

Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't Jesus being fully God and fully man the core tenet of Christianity? 1Thess.521, demands that the upholders of your scriptures...prove all things. Given that the core tenet of Christianity posits Jesus being fully God and fully human , hence, a "dual nature" nature, would you produce the verse where I can find the word "God-man? Mind you now, if you can find this word , it must agree with the Greek or Latin scripture, where the word "theoanthropos" is clearly/explicitly written there.

Strawman?

Sorry, that kind of cop-out simply is not going to cut it, Pie. You want to tell us that there is no evidence of the Prophet in Al-Quran, yet, you cannot even prove the most fundamental tenet of your belief...the dual nature nature of Jesus! That's a...huge problem ...not a strawman.

I suggest before you question us that...you have your own paradigm in order.

Peace.

unknownuser

Greetings PRIEST_BOKMEI,

Thanks for your reply?

Quote
The Koran never mentions anything about Islam?s prophet?The lack of Koranic evidence?

What do you mean Al-Quran never mentions anything about the Prophet?

Just what I said?

Quote
2. Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't Jesus being fully God and fully man the core tenet of Christianity? 1Thess.521, demands that the upholders of your scriptures...prove all things. Given that the core tenet of Christianity posits Jesus being fully God and fully human , hence, a "dual nature" nature, would you produce the verse where I can find the word "God-man? Mind you now, if you can find this word , it must agree with the Greek or Latin scripture, where the word "theoanthropos" is clearly/explicitly written there.

Quote
Strawman?

Sorry, that kind of cop-out simply is not going to cut it, Pie. You want to tell us that there is no evidence of the Prophet in Al-Quran, yet, you cannot even prove the most fundamental tenet of your belief...the dual nature nature of Jesus! That's a...huge problem ...not a strawman.

I suggest before you question us that...you have your own paradigm in order.

You have two strawmen working here?

The first is that Islam actually thinks that their ?prophet? is mentioned as such in the Koran.

The second is the coining of a term that you demand be found in the Holy Bible?

You can do better than this?

Take care?

shuaib

salam PRIEST_BOKMEI,

It is amusing isn't it? You would think what's good for the goose is good for the gander... i.e., he wants a specific verse in the Quran that says the Muhammad is a prophet etc... yet in the same breath claims the Bible does not need to state the dual nature of Jesus.

But his responses should just show you that he's obviously not serious about discussing it. I'm sure he's having a dandy ol' time trying to get under our skins, his only true goal.

unknownuser

PEACE, APPLE PIE,

The first is that Islam actually thinks that their ?prophet? is mentioned as such in the Koran.

Again, what do you mean by this?

The second is the coining of a term that you demand be found in the Holy Bible?You can do better than this?

Yes, I demand to see the Greek or Latin verse, where the fundamental tenet of Christianity, that being, Jesus had/has... "dual nature" nature, or, in a word, theoanthropos. You see, it my understanding that, the bible mentions three natures, all of which, can be found in the Greek

theos...God Almighty.
pneumatikos...angels/Holy Ghost.
anthropos...fully human.

Now, can you produce the verse where I can find

theoanthropos...fully God and fully human.

If not, then you violate 1Thess. 521...prove all things...

If you can prove item #4, by way of your Greek scriptures , then you cannot prove the authenticity/legitimacy of your belief sytem. Without proof, all you have is conjecture...and that is the bottomline, Pie.

Just your saying...strawman, does not at all refute my position nor does it defend/establish/prove yours. Certainly, you can do better than you have. wink

Peace-

unknownuser

PEACE, SHUAIB,

salam PRIEST_BOKMEI,

It is amusing isn't it? You would think what's good for the goose is good for the gander... i.e., he wants a specific verse in the Quran that says the Muhammad is a prophet etc... yet in the same breath claims the Bible does not need to state the dual nature of Jesus.

But his responses should just show you that he's obviously not serious about discussing it. I'm sure he's having a dandy ol' time trying to get under our skins, his only true goal.

Of course you are correct, Shuaib. I don't think he was prepared for that question.

unknownuser

Greetings PRIEST_BOKMEI,

Thanks for your reply?

PEACE, APPLE PIE,
Quote
The first is that Islam actually thinks that their ?prophet? is mentioned as such in the Koran.

Again, what do you mean by this?

Perhaps (as you are new to this thread) you need to read through the entirety of the thread in order to understand what I have been saying?

Quote
The second is the coining of a term that you demand be found in the Holy Bible?You can do better than this?

Yes, I demand to see the Greek or Latin verse, where the fundamental tenet of Christianity, that being, Jesus had/has... "dual nature" nature, or, in a word, theoanthropos. You see, it my understanding that, the bible mentions three natures, all of which, can be found in the Greek

theos...God Almighty.
pneumatikos...angels/Holy Ghost.
anthropos...fully human.

Now, can you produce the verse where I can find

theoanthropos...fully God and fully human.

If not, then you violate 1Thess. 521...prove all things...

If you can prove item #4, by way of your Greek scriptures , then you cannot prove the authenticity/legitimacy of your belief sytem. Without proof, all you have is conjecture...and that is the bottomline, Pie.

Just your saying...strawman, does not at all refute my position nor does it defend/establish/prove yours. Certainly, you can do better than you have.

Islam 101?.right on cue.

You have just coined a new term by merging previous words?.and now you demand that this new term be found in the Holy Bible?

This is what I mean by your strawman argument.

This would be like me asking you to show me the word ?Trinity? in the Koran.

You obviously would have a position regarding it?.however, the word is NOT found in the Koran?.however, the concept is?just as it is in the Holy Bible?

Hence, you would have a completely formed opinion on the matter even though the word is not called-out in your book of faith.

Same goes for your clich?? and pathetic Muslim ?theoanthropos? argument?as the concept is there in both the Koran and the Holy Bible?but not the coined word?

You would do better coming up with some original and sensible ?arguments? of your own?

As far as Islam?s ?prophet? is concerned, we can all clearly see that he is never mentioned as such in their book of faith?..not piecemeal?..not even together?and certainly not juxtaposed?.and yet, Muslims take it for granted that they even had a so-called ?prophet? who received the Koran, in the first place.

Read your Koran?.it is clear that the authors copied/collected the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?.who needs a ?prophet? to do this?..?

Thanks?

shuaib

salam guys,

i'm sure everyone is familiar with Ahmed Deedat's debates. He has done a lot of work compiling interesting facts about Christianity. He made the following statement/challenge

There is not a single unequivocal statement throughout the Bible, in all its 66 volumes of the Protestant versions, or in the 73 volumes of the Roman Catholic versions, where Jesus claims to be God or where he says "worship me". Nowhere does he say that he and God Almighty "are one" and "the same person."

http//jamaat.net/cis/ChristInIslam.html

unknownuser

Islam 101....right on cue.... wink

unknownuser

PEACE, APPLE PIE,

Islam 101?.right on cue. You have just coined a new term by merging previous words?.and now you demand that this new term be found in the Holy Bible? This is what I mean by your strawman argument. Same goes for your clich?? and pathetic Muslim ?theoanthropos? argument?as the concept is there in both the Koran and the Holy Bible?but not the coined word?

Sorry to see you so undone. There is nothing pathetic about my position at all. Your book, tells you, clearly, to...prove all things,, yes? Well, what could be more important to prove, than the very fundamental core tenet of your doctrine...the "dual nature" nature of Jesus! My, my, imagine that...can't prove the core tenet of your own belief system...now...that is...pathetic. lol

When you say something of God, well, then you must back it up with the what He revealed, relative, to what you are ascribing to Him/saying in His name, otherwise, you are guilty of the following ayat

378 Most surely there is a party among those who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be of the Book, and they say, It is from God, while it is not from God, and they tell a lie against God and they know it.

Listen, when you get your own stuff together , then, by all means, come back and straighten us out, however, until then, you should just sit back, calm down, and read the posts here and learn something about Deen, Truth, Reality.

Peace.

Andya_Primanda

This would be like me asking you to show me the word ?Trinity? in the Koran.

You obviously would have a position regarding it?.however, the word is NOT found in the Koran?.however, the concept is?just as it is in the Holy Bible?

Hence, you would have a completely formed opinion on the matter even though the word is not called-out in your book of faith.

Same goes for your clich?? and pathetic Muslim ?theoanthropos? argument?as the concept is there in both the Koran and the Holy Bible?but not the coined word?

Yes, the Qur'an contains the concept of trinity, which it clearly said as blasphemous. Your exegesis of surah 86 does not hold against these verses.

Verses regarding trinity

4171
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

Literal
You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on (about) God except the truth , but the Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son (is) God's messenger and His word/expression He threw it away to Mary, and a Soul/Spirit (could be Gabriel) from Him; so believe with God, and His messengers, and do not say "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but God (is) one God, His praise/glory that to be for him a child; for Him what (is) in the skies/space and what (is) in the earth/Planet Earth, enough/sufficient with God (as a) guardian/protector .

572
Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha huwa almaseehu ibnu maryama waqala almaseehu ya banee isra-eela oAAbudoo Allaha rabbee warabbakum innahu man yushrik biAllahi faqad harrama Allahu AAalayhi aljannata wama/wahu alnnaru wama lilththalimeena min ansarin

Literal
Those who said "That God, He is the Messiah Mary's son," had disbelieved, and the Messiah, said "You, Israel's sons and daughters, worship God, my Lord and your Lord, that he who shares/makes partners with God, so He had forbidden on him the Paradise, and his shelter/refuge (is) the fire , and (there are) no victoriors/saviors to the unjust/oppressors."

573
Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin wama min ilahin illa ilahun wahidun wa-in lam yantahoo AAamma yaqooloona layamassanna allatheena kafaroo minhum AAathabun aleemun

Literal
Those who said "That God is a third of three." had disbelieved, and (there is) no God except from one God, and if they do not end/stop from what they say, a painful torture will touch (E) those who disbelieved from them.

Now I'm going back to the audience seat.

unknownuser

Greetings PRIEST_BOKMEI,

Thanks for your comments?

Quote
Islam 101?.right on cue. You have just coined a new term by merging previous words?.and now you demand that this new term be found in the Holy Bible? This is what I mean by your strawman argument. Same goes for your clich?? and pathetic Muslim ?theoanthropos? argument?as the concept is there in both the Koran and the Holy Bible?but not the coined word?

Sorry to see you so undone. There is nothing pathetic about my position at all. Your book, tells you, clearly, to...prove all things,, yes? Well, what could be more important to prove, than the very fundamental core tenet of your doctrine...the "dual nature" nature of Jesus! My, my, imagine that...can't prove the core tenet of your own belief system...now...that is...pathetic.

The Holy Bible is tested all the time, and has passed the test for thousands of years.

The fact that Jesus is both God and man can be shown to be true in both Koranic and Biblical scriptures?

Perhaps you need to read the Arabic of your book of faith? wink

As far as Islam?s? ?prophet?, it is quite clear that you agree with my prior statements, as you have absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever?.thanks?

When you say something of God, well, then you must back it up with the what He revealed, relative, to what you are ascribing to Him/saying in His name, otherwise, you are guilty of the following ayat

378 Most surely there is a party among those who distort the Book with their tongue that you may consider it to be of the Book, and they say, It is from God, while it is not from God, and they tell a lie against God and they know it.

Wa-inna minhum lafareeqan yalwoona alsinatahum bialkitabi litahsaboohu mina alkitabi wama huwa mina alkitabi wayaqooloona huwa min AAindi Allahi wama huwa min AAindi Allahi wayaqooloona AAala Allahi alkathiba wahum yaAAlamoona

First of all, thanks for acknowledging that ?alkitabi? refers to the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is mentioned hundreds of times through-out the pages of the Koran. This is because the authors of the Koran are constantly using Biblical material to construct their opus?.and they are constantly comparing their opus to its source material, the Holy Bible?

Secondly, thanks for proving to us that the written word of the Holy Bible is indeed intact?as you used the English words ?distort the Book with their tongue? which tells us that the written word is indeed true.

Listen, when you get your own stuff together , then, by all means, come back and straighten us out, however, until then, you should just sit back, calm down, and read the posts here and learn something about Deen, Truth, Reality.

How about you coming back when you can find the word ?Trinity? in your book of faith?

Thanks?

unknownuser

PEACE, APPLE PIE,

The fact that Jesus is both God and man can be shown to be true in both Koranic and Biblical scriptures?

Listen, if you say so, however,...prove all things... and produce from your book, the nature which defines a god/man nature. Your book, if I'm not mistaken, does name three natures, theos, pneumatikos and anthropos. Now, a godman nature, and I'm certain you will agree, is quite unique, thus, there must be a name for it, given, as you say, it is a scriptural truth/reality. So, with this in mind then, stop waxing tangential and produce what must be...theoanthropos, and I will concede the point to you. If you cannot find this term, then, you cannot prove any such as fully god and fully man proposition, hence, you are only following conjecture and conjecture is from man and not Almighty God. If you want us to take you seriously, then you must prove what you proffer, otherwise, you cannot be taken as a credible individual in comparative religious matters...prove all things...

Peace.