Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...

Andya_Primanda

Is it so hard? One does not equal three. Jesus is not God. He's a man. A man can't be God.

Your scriptures paint a different story?

Oh is it? Then why does it contain these verses

4171
You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on 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 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 .

517
Those who said "That God, He is the Messiah Mary's son." had disbelieved, say "So who owns/possesses from God a thing, if He wanted that He destroys the Messiah, Mary's son, and his mother, and who (is) in the earth/Planet Earth all together? And to God (are) the skies/space and what (is) between them (B)'s ownership/kingdom , He creates what He wills/wants, and God (is) on every thing capable ."

572
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
Those who said "That God a third of three." had disbelieved, and there is no God except one God, and if they do not end/stop from what they say, a painful torture will touch (E) those who disbelieved from them.

The whole chapter 112
Say, "He is God, The One. God on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is His equal."

Only Christians accept this illogical doctrine. Muslims and Jews can do the maths better 1 3.

You are preaching the Islamic mentality?

Perhaps the Koranic mentality is the one that you need to preach.

I'll be preaching the same thing then. Even if you ask me to preach Judaic mentality it'll still be the same 1 3. God is One, not three. Jesus is not God.

Besides, I thought the premise that made the Christian concept of Jesus as God is that Jesus comes as a saviour to redeem humankind's sins? This is something we don't believe in.

?We? is who?.Islam?.

Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, everyone but Christians.

We don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. We don't believe in the fall of humankind. We don't carry the sins of our ancestors. We believe that Adam has been forgiven. Therefore, we don't need a saviour.

Can you bring forth Koranic scripture to back up what you believe?.?

With pleasure.

Adam is forgiven
237
So Adam received from his Lord words/expressions, so (He) forgave on him, that He is, He is the forgiver , the most merciful .

More on Adam, Adam's mate & Shaytan's story
2120-122
So the devil inspired and talked to him, he said "You Adam, do I guide you on to the immortality's/eternity's tree, and possession and free will/kingdom (that) does not wear out?"
So they ate from it, so their shameful genital private parts to be covered appeared to them, and they started and continued to stick on them from the Paradise's leaves, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so he was misguided/failed.
Then His Lord chose/purified him, so He forgave on him, and guided

We do not carry the sins of others
4111
And who acquires/carries a sin/crime , so he carries it on himself, and God was/is wise/judicious.

6164
Say "Is other than God I desire as a Lord? And He is Lord of every thing, and every self does not earn/gather except on it, and no sinner/burdener carries/bears (the) load/weight (of) another, then to your Lord (is) your return, so He informs you with what you were in it differing/disagreeing ."

5338-39
No sinner/burdener bears/carries another's sin/burden. And that there is nothing to man except what he strived/endeavored.

No need for a saviour because nobody can help anyone else in the Day
2123
And fear a day/time, no self rewards/reimburses (removes) from a self a thing, and no redemption/ransom (is) to be accepted/received from it, and nor mediation benefits it, and nor they be given victory/aid.

unknownuser

Greetings Andya Primanda,

Thanks for your reply?

Apple Pie wrote
Quote
Is it so hard? One does not equal three. Jesus is not God. He's a man. A man can't be God.

Your scriptures paint a different story?

Oh is it? Then why does it contain these verses

4171
You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, and do not say on 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 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 .

517
Those who said "That God, He is the Messiah Mary's son." had disbelieved, say "So who owns/possesses from God a thing, if He wanted that He destroys the Messiah, Mary's son, and his mother, and who (is) in the earth/Planet Earth all together? And to God (are) the skies/space and what (is) between them (B)'s ownership/kingdom , He creates what He wills/wants, and God (is) on every thing capable ."

572
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
Those who said "That God a third of three." had disbelieved, and there is no God except one God, and if they do not end/stop from what they say, a painful torture will touch (E) those who disbelieved from them.

You did it again?

You failed to show context?

Here?let me help you out once again?

Wa-ith qala Allahu ya AAeesa ibna maryama aanta qulta lilnnasi ittakhithoonee waommiya ilahayni min dooni Allahi qala subhanaka ma yakoonu lee an aqoola ma laysa lee bihaqqin in kuntu qultuhu faqad AAalimtahu taAAlamu ma fee nafsee wala aAAlamu ma fee nafsika innaka anta AAallamu alghuyoobi

5.116 And when allah said "You Jesus Mary's son, did you say to the people 'Take me and my mother (as) two gods from other than allah?' He (Jesus) said 'Your praise/glory, (it) is not to be for me that I say what is not for me with (a) right/truth, if I was (had) said it, so You had known it, You know what (is) in my self, and I do not know what (is) in Your self, that You, You (are) all knower (of) the unseens/hidden (unknown).'"

Now?.what part of the Koranic ?three-gods? concept?Jesus, Mary, ?allah??is escaping your intellect?.? roll

The whole chapter 112
Say, "He is God, The One. God on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is His equal."

Sura 112 is once again a Biblical confirmation that there is only One God.

Additionally, the authors who penned this text have used the Biblical gospel material and are stating that the ?god allah? of the Koran was not created, and that he does not give birth?.which is a clear knock ? off of the Book of Luke in which the Koran also states that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Quote
Quote
We don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. We don't believe in the fall of humankind. We don't carry the sins of our ancestors. We believe that Adam has been forgiven. Therefore, we don't need a saviour.

Can you bring forth Koranic scripture to back up what you believe?.?

With pleasure.

Adam is forgiven
237
So Adam received from his Lord words/expressions, so (He) forgave on him, that He is, He is the forgiver , the most merciful .

More on Adam, Adam's mate & Shaytan's story
2120-122
So the devil inspired and talked to him, he said "You Adam, do I guide you on to the immortality's/eternity's tree, and possession and free will/kingdom (that) does not wear out?"
So they ate from it, so their shameful genital private parts to be covered appeared to them, and they started and continued to stick on them from the Paradise's leaves, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so he was misguided/failed.
Then His Lord chose/purified him, so He forgave on him, and guided

I think that you meant to say sura 20 (instead of sura 2)?. wink

We do not carry the sins of others
4111
And who acquires/carries a sin/crime , so he carries it on himself, and God was/is wise/judicious.

6164
Say "Is other than God I desire as a Lord? And He is Lord of every thing, and every self does not earn/gather except on it, and no sinner/burdener carries/bears (the) load/weight (of) another, then to your Lord (is) your return, so He informs you with what you were in it differing/disagreeing ."

5338-39
No sinner/burdener bears/carries another's sin/burden. And that there is nothing to man except what he strived/endeavored.

No need for a saviour because nobody can help anyone else in the Day
2123
And fear a day/time, no self rewards/reimburses (removes) from a self a thing, and no redemption/ransom (is) to be accepted/received from it, and nor mediation benefits it, and nor they be given victory/aid.

Perhaps you need to be briefed on the Koranic source material?

What material Adam was created from
Dust 3.59
Earth 11.61; 18.37; 22.5; 30.19; 35.11; 40.67
Loam 23.12
Nothing 19.67
Water 22.5; 23.13-14; 25.54; 40.67; 71.14; 75.37-38; 96.2
The formation of the first Human Being 7.11; 15.29; 32.9; 38.72; 40.67; 64.3; 82.7-8
The original appearance of Adam 95.4-6
Adam's choice 3.33
Adam names everything 2.30-33
Worship of Adam. Satan's Fall 2.34; 7.11; 15.28-38; 17.61; 1850; 20.116; 38.71-82
Satan's profession 4.118-119; 7.16-17; 14.22; 15.39-43; 17.62-65; 36.60-62; 38.83-84
The creation of Eve 4.1; 7.189; 30.21; 39.6; 42.11
Allah gives Adam the interdiction 2.35; 7.19
The constitution of the prohibited tree 23.20; 24.35; 95.1-2
Allah's covenant with Adam 20.115
Allah exhorts Adam 20.116-119
Seduction by Satan 7.20-21,27; 20.120
The fall of man 7.22-23; 20.121
The curse 2.36; 7.24-25; 20.55; 22.66
Adam's repentance and restitution 2.37; 7.23; 20.122
Eve's pregnancy. The fall of the first human beings 7.189
Expulsion from paradise 2.36; 7.24; 20.123

Ref Light of life

Sound familiar?..?

Looks like you need to become more cognizant of what your Koran teaches instead of what Islam is force-feeding you?.

Thanks?

Andya_Primanda

Sura 112 is once again a Biblical confirmation that there is only One God.

This is what makes Christians seem so illogical to me. You said there is only one God. But you claim that God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. What part of '1 does not equal 3' do you not understand?

Or, if you agree with our monotheism, you should know that there is only one God, and Jesus is not God.

Additionally, the authors who penned this text have used the Biblical gospel material and are stating that the ?god allah? of the Koran was not created, and that he does not give birth?.which is a clear knock ? off of the Book of Luke in which the Koran also states that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Irrelevant. What counts is surah 112 said that God has no offspring. So we don't buy the Xtian 'Jesus-Son-of-God' nonsense.

Perhaps you need to be briefed on the Koranic source material?

What material Adam was created from
Dust 3.59
Earth 11.61; 18.37; 22.5; 30.19; 35.11; 40.67
Loam 23.12
Nothing 19.67
Water 22.5; 23.13-14; 25.54; 40.67; 71.14; 75.37-38; 96.2
The formation of the first Human Being 7.11; 15.29; 32.9; 38.72; 40.67; 64.3; 82.7-8
The original appearance of Adam 95.4-6
Adam's choice 3.33
Adam names everything 2.30-33
Worship of Adam. Satan's Fall 2.34; 7.11; 15.28-38; 17.61; 1850; 20.116; 38.71-82
Satan's profession 4.118-119; 7.16-17; 14.22; 15.39-43; 17.62-65; 36.60-62; 38.83-84
The creation of Eve 4.1; 7.189; 30.21; 39.6; 42.11
Allah gives Adam the interdiction 2.35; 7.19
The constitution of the prohibited tree 23.20; 24.35; 95.1-2
Allah's covenant with Adam 20.115
Allah exhorts Adam 20.116-119
Seduction by Satan 7.20-21,27; 20.120
The fall of man 7.22-23; 20.121
The curse 2.36; 7.24-25; 20.55; 22.66
Adam's repentance and restitution 2.37; 7.23; 20.122
Eve's pregnancy. The fall of the first human beings 7.189
Expulsion from paradise 2.36; 7.24; 20.123

Ref Light of life

Sound familiar?..?

Looks like you need to become more cognizant of what your Koran teaches instead of what Islam is force-feeding you?.

Gone through every verse you quoted. I can't find any original sin there.

I am now more cognizant of what the Qur'an teaches. It teaches me 'That there is no such thing as the original sin.'

Get it? No original sin, no need for a saviour.

No need to worship Jesus.

unknownuser

Greetings Andya Primanda,

Thanks for your reply?

I trust, from your lack of a response regarding the sura 5 concept of the trinity, that you are now cognizant of the meanings that the authors who penned the text, were attempting to convey?

Apple Pie wrote
Sura 112 is once again a Biblical confirmation that there is only One God.

This is what makes Christians seem so illogical to me. You said there is only one God. But you claim that God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. What part of '1 does not equal 3' do you not understand?

It appears that you are attempting to make 1+1+1 = 1

Now try 1x1x1 = 1

Or, if you agree with our monotheism, you should know that there is only one God, and Jesus is not God.

Islamic monotheism has absolutely nothing to do with Koranic monotheism.

Koranic monotheism proclaims Jesus as God Almighty.

Quote
Additionally, the authors who penned this text have used the Biblical gospel material and are stating that the ?god allah? of the Koran was not created, and that he does not give birth?.which is a clear knock ? off of the Book of Luke in which the Koran also states that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

Irrelevant. What counts is surah 112 said that God has no offspring. So we don't buy the Xtian 'Jesus-Son-of-God' nonsense.

Actually, since the authors of the Koran borrowed copious amounts of material from the Book of Luke?.then we should not at all be surprised when the Koran proclaims many of the same things as the Holy Bible does? wink

Quote
Perhaps you need to be briefed on the Koranic source material?

What material Adam was created from
Dust 3.59
Earth 11.61; 18.37; 22.5; 30.19; 35.11; 40.67
Loam 23.12
Nothing 19.67
Water 22.5; 23.13-14; 25.54; 40.67; 71.14; 75.37-38; 96.2
The formation of the first Human Being 7.11; 15.29; 32.9; 38.72; 40.67; 64.3; 82.7-8
The original appearance of Adam 95.4-6
Adam's choice 3.33
Adam names everything 2.30-33
Worship of Adam. Satan's Fall 2.34; 7.11; 15.28-38; 17.61; 1850; 20.116; 38.71-82
Satan's profession 4.118-119; 7.16-17; 14.22; 15.39-43; 17.62-65; 36.60-62; 38.83-84
The creation of Eve 4.1; 7.189; 30.21; 39.6; 42.11
Allah gives Adam the interdiction 2.35; 7.19
The constitution of the prohibited tree 23.20; 24.35; 95.1-2
Allah's covenant with Adam 20.115
Allah exhorts Adam 20.116-119
Seduction by Satan 7.20-21,27; 20.120
The fall of man 7.22-23; 20.121
The curse 2.36; 7.24-25; 20.55; 22.66
Adam's repentance and restitution 2.37; 7.23; 20.122
Eve's pregnancy. The fall of the first human beings 7.189
Expulsion from paradise 2.36; 7.24; 20.123

Ref Light of life

Sound familiar?..?

Looks like you need to become more cognizant of what your Koran teaches instead of what Islam is force-feeding you?.

Gone through every verse you quoted. I can't find any original sin there.

I am now more cognizant of what the Qur'an teaches. It teaches me 'That there is no such thing as the original sin.'

Get it? No original sin, no need for a saviour.

No need to worship Jesus.

Let?s quickly review your Islamic-based claims?

You now realize that the Koranic concept of the ?trinity? was to denounce the false claim that Jesus, Mary, and ?allah? where the ?third of three??hence paving the way for the Koran to correctly proclaim other elements of the Biblical Trinity?
You claimed ?We don't believe in the fall of humankind.? However, I showed you several ayahs from your Koran that clearly show the fall of mankind?.same as its source, the Holy Bible?
You claimed ?We don't believe in the doctrine of original sin.? However, it is clear that the Adamic story has its roots in the Book of Genesis, where it is clear that Adam sinned and all offspring are sinners. Additionally, the zaboor proclaims that we are born into sin.
You claimed ?No need to worship Jesus.? However, sura 86 states that Jesus is God, and that He is worshiped as God.

Hence?.if you are denying these things, then you are calling into question the authors of the Koran?

What?s it going to be??Islam?..or your book of faith?..?

Thanks?

Andya_Primanda

Apple Pie,

Your last reply to me contains a flaw, namely, assuming the Bible is true in the first place.

Since I don't believe that the Bible is 100% true, and I use the Qur'an to verify what parts of the Bible that is/was true and what is not, I see the whole matter in a different way.

Whatever you may think about my thoughts on surah 5 verses, the message is There is only One God. Claiming that God is someone other than God is equating partners with God, and this is blasphemy. So I would not say that 'God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God'.

The Qur'an never say Jesus is God. At many instances it is shown that Jesus is God's messenger. A messenger is not God. And I am not convinced your exegesis of surah 86, which you claim proves the divinity of Jesus. Everyone here know that Jesus wasn't even mentioned in surah 86, and you just twist words to suit your agenda.

You say that the Qur'an approves the concept of the original sin. I show verses that say Adam has been forgiven, and we do not carry the burden of others. But you ignore these and come up with the idea that if parts of Genesis show up in the Qur'an, it must be the same as in the Bible. I don't give a damn to what Genesis says. What matters to me first is how the Qur'an tells the story--and it tells me, 'No original sin, no fall of humankind, no need for a saviour'.

Yes, I am denying your claims, and I base my stance on the verses of the Qur'an.

It is apparent that we are using different standards of truth here, I use the Qur'an, and you use the Bible. Hence our differing viewpoints. I see no way out, except leaps of faith. Therefore furthering this argument may be pointless.

We don't need Jesus as our saviour. We will work towards our salvation ourselves. Don't bother selling Jesus to us.

unknownuser

Greetings Andya Primanda,

Thanks for your reply?

Your last reply to me contains a flaw, namely, assuming the Bible is true in the first place.

Why deny the authors who penned the Koran??

They understood the truth of the Holy Bible?.that leaves you the odd one out? wink

Since I don't believe that the Bible is 100% true, and I use the Qur'an to verify what parts of the Bible that is/was true and what is not, I see the whole matter in a different way.

Since the Koran never once mentions that the written word of the Holy Bible to be in error in any way, shape, or form?.and since the Koran never once claims to ?correct? any of its source material?..you really have no leg to stand on?.and you are letting Islam do the talking for you?.again?

Whatever you may think about my thoughts on surah 5 verses, the message is There is only One God. Claiming that God is someone other than God is equating partners with God, and this is blasphemy. So I would not say that 'God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God'.

Looks like you want to continue to turn your head and cough?.totally ignoring the context of the same sura which tells us of Jesus, Mary, and ?allah? as the third of three?

The Qur'an never say Jesus is God.

Wrong.

The Koran is overflowing with the proclamation that Jesus is God.

At many instances it is shown that Jesus is God's messenger. A messenger is not God.

Jesus is known by many attributes?.as a messenger, a prophet, as well as God Almighty in BOTH the Holy Bible and the Koran.

If you want to understand who Jesus is, then you have to look at the totality of His attributes?

Unfortunately, Islam has a stranglehold on most Muslims and totally discourages their freethinking on the matter?including looking at all the available evidences?

Islam is a classic dictatorship faith?

Ignorance and oppression is the name of the Islamic game?

And I am not convinced your exegesis of surah 86, which you claim proves the divinity of Jesus. Everyone here know that Jesus wasn't even mentioned in surah 86, and you just twist words to suit your agenda.

Feel free to directly rebut ANY portion of my sura 86 exegesis?.if you are confident in what you just stated.

Unfortunately?.you are not very confident?as you understand that my exegesis is absolutely unimpeachable?

You say that the Qur'an approves the concept of the original sin. I show verses that say Adam has been forgiven, and we do not carry the burden of others. But you ignore these and come up with the idea that if parts of Genesis show up in the Qur'an, it must be the same as in the Bible. I don't give a damn to what Genesis says. What matters to me first is how the Qur'an tells the story--and it tells me, 'No original sin, no fall of humankind, no need for a saviour'.

The Arabic of the Koran loudly and proudly copies the Holy Bible, and proclaims the fall of mankind and original sin.

Unfortunately, you don?t bother to study the classic Arabic of your book of faith.

Yes, I am denying your claims, and I base my stance on the verses of the Qur'an.

You deny because Islam is pulling your puppet strings?

It is apparent that we are using different standards of truth here, I use the Qur'an, and you use the Bible. Hence our differing viewpoints. I see no way out, except leaps of faith. Therefore furthering this argument may be pointless.

I am using ayahs from your very own book of faith to buttress the Biblical position.

This is no ?leap of faith??..

Unless, of course, you are in denial of your book of faith?

We don't need Jesus as our saviour. We will work towards our salvation ourselves. Don't bother selling Jesus to us.

Sura 86 is already packaged in your book of faith as a constant reminder to all Muslims that they require Jesus as their lord and Savior?

If you deny this, then you are denying your own ?prophet??.

Thanks?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

Please provide your evidence that an Arabic Bible existed prior to the advent of Islam.

Thanks,
Tay

Andya_Primanda

You say that the Qur'an approves the concept of the original sin. I show verses that say Adam has been forgiven, and we do not carry the burden of others. But you ignore these and come up with the idea that if parts of Genesis show up in the Qur'an, it must be the same as in the Bible. I don't give a damn to what Genesis says. What matters to me first is how the Qur'an tells the story--and it tells me, 'No original sin, no fall of humankind, no need for a saviour'.

The Arabic of the Koran loudly and proudly copies the Holy Bible, and proclaims the fall of mankind and original sin.

Unfortunately, you don?t bother to study the classic Arabic of your book of faith.

I want to focus on this part, because the rest is just a shouting match (you always resort to that when you ran out of verses).

Unlike your allegations, I do read and study the Qur'an in classical Arabic, I can read Arabic letters and I use the Qur'an as primary souce for word meanings.

Return to the verses I quoted before, you will see that the Qur'an said that Adam has been forgiven (237, 20122), and we do not carry sins of others (4111, 6164, 5338-39), and nobody will redeem anyone (2123). No original sin, no need for a saviour, no need to worship a man as God.

If you insist that the Qur'an endorses the Christian concept of original sin, then why do the Qur'an contain verses that negates original sin? We can start a new thread on this one.

tux

Peace Apple Pie

Sura 112 is once again a Biblical confirmation that there is only One God.

The authors who penned the false bible did not believe in one God.

unknownuser

Greetings Tay,

Thanks for your query?

Please provide your evidence that an Arabic Bible existed prior to the advent of Islam.

Why would I need to do that?.?

Observe...

Waalkitabi almubeeni

43.2 And The Book, the clear/evident.

What is clear and evident??

The Book.

What is ?The Book??..?

Reviewing the classic definition?

= ?alkitabi?

?alkitabi? definition

Lane references sura 22 in his definition

Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (22)

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590

?The Book? is the Holy Bible.

Period.

The Holy Bible is proclaimed as being clear & evident.

So much so, that look what happens...

Inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona

43.3 Verily we have made it an Arabic Koran, maybe/perhaps you reason/comprehend.

What is the Koran?..?

is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters.

Look at what has occurred.

The Holy Bible ?alkitabi? (OT & NT ? written in Hebrew and Greek), is proclaimed as clear and evident
The Holy Bible is made into ?jaAAalnahu? an Arabic ?collection? or Koran

Thus?

It is obviously stated in the Koran itself, that the Holy Bible was converted into Arabic by its authors?

But?

Who were the authors that made this bold proclamation?.?

Observe these interesting comments by Lane?

Every language without a written literature tends to decay more than to development by reason of foreign influences; and the history of the Arabic exhibits an instance of decay remarkably rapid, and extraordinary in degree. An immediate consequence of the foreign conquests achieved by the Arabs under Mohammad?s first four successors was an extensive corruption of their language; for the nations that they subdued were naturally obliged to adopt in a great measure the speech of the conquerors, a speech which few persons have ever acquired in such a degree as to be secure from the commission of frequent errors in grammar without learning it from infancy?.

Such being the case, it became a matter of the highest importance to the Arabs to preserve the knowledge of that speech which had thus become obsolescent, and to draw a distinct line between the classical and the post-classical languages. For the former language was that of the Kur-an and of the Traditions of Mohammad, the sources of their religious, moral, civil, criminal, and political code? and they possessed, in that language, preserved by oral tradition, - for the art of writing, in Arabia, had been almost exclusively confined to Christians and Jews?.

The classical language they called, by reason of its incomparable excellence, ?el-loghah,? or ?the language? and the line between this and the post-classical was easily drawn, on account of the almost sudden commencement, and rapid progress, of the corruption.

?.I often have found in my knowledge of modern Arabic a solution of a difficulty; but without great caution, such knowledge would frequently have misled me, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the applications of many words since the classical age.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. vii ? viii; xxii - xxiii

It is quite inescapable that Islam?s ?prophet??.which is not even mentioned in the Koran? did NOT write the Koran?

Moreover?the authors, who did finally put pen to paper, and translated the Hebrew and Greek into Arabic, were more than likely Christians?..!!!

Simply amazing?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

You asked,

Why would I need to do that?.?

Because to claim that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible, you must first establish that a Bible existed in a language understandable by the alleged authors. You claim that they were Christians and Jews, yet you provide no reference for their references.

Since you failed to provide evidence of a written Bible prior to Islam, from where do you presume your alleged authors received their information?

Thanks,
Tay

unknownuser

Greetings Tay,

Thanks for firing-off a reflex reply?

You asked,
Quote
Why would I need to do that?.?

Because to claim that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible, you must first establish that a Bible existed in a language understandable by the alleged authors. You claim that they were Christians and Jews, yet you provide no reference for their references.

Since you failed to provide evidence of a written Bible prior to Islam, from where do you presume your alleged authors received their information?

Thanks,
Tay

I have to ask did your vision fail you after you read the very tippy-top of my reply??

I provided irrefutable evidence from your very own book of faith, as to where the Koranic material emanated from?

Don?t turn and run away now?. o

Perhaps others who can handle the truth will take the time to verify what I posted as truth?

Perhaps brother Wakas?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

Holy Moly!

You are truly amazing- a spin doctor if I've ever seen one.

How you take "as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures"

to mean

"The Book? is the Holy Bible. Period."

is beyond me.

I wonder if English is your native tongue?

I'd like to have a crack at this spin game. I take it all I have to do is bold-face the part that I want the reader to pay attention to and then make any connection I want from the many meanings the Almighty Lane has given us? It shouldn't be too hard...

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

So there you have it bro...432 is saying that the appointment for the fatal decree is evident.

I happen to agree. We all gotta die some time, right?

May peace be upon you,
Tay

p.s. let me know if you ever find an Arabic Bible that predated Islam wink

unknownuser

Greetings Tay,

Thanks for your reply?

How you take "as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures"

to mean

"The Book? is the Holy Bible. Period."

is beyond me.

Repetition helps.

Let?s review the classic definition?

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590

Please inform us what book (besides the Koran) includes

The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law
and the Gospel
or Book of the Gospels
the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians

I'd like to have a crack at this spin game. I take it all I have to do is bold-face the part that I want the reader to pay attention to and then make any connection I want from the many meanings the Almighty Lane has given us? It shouldn't be too hard...

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

So there you have it bro...432 is saying that the appointment for the fatal decree is evident.

I happen to agree. We all gotta die some time, right?

May peace be upon you,
Tay

First of all, by ?taking a crack at this spin game?, you have just admitted to the authority of Lane?s definition?.as you have not produced (nor can you) any other authoritative definition(s)?.but are content to use the one that I posited?

Secondly, it really does not matter what part of Lane?s definition you use, as the one that you highlighted indicates something that was written down?which, the Koran was supposedly ?oral? during this time; thus it would have to be referring to something other than itself.

Thirdly, 43.3 specifically tells us that it was made into ?jaAAalnahu? an Arabic ?collection? or Koran.

This specific Arabic clarifier is not necessary if the original ?prescript? (as you now want to call it) was already written in Arabic?

p.s. let me know if you ever find an Arabic Bible that predated Islam

Please let us know when you can begin to trust what your book of faith is blatantly telling you?

Perhaps you will learn to stop asking us questions when you keep running away from the answers?

Thanks?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

You stated

Repitition helps.

In this case, it doesn't, as you it's clear you don't understand the meanings of "as though" and "excellences of".

But, I don't know, maybe if you keep re-reading Lane's explanation it will help in the long run. Let me know how that works out for you.

Please inform us what book (besides the Koran) includes...

Umm...no. Remember, I'm playing your game. In this case, I didn't choose the term "book" as my understanding. Is that OK or should we change the rules?

First of all, by ?taking a crack at this spin game?, you have just admitted to the authority of Lane?s definition?.

Perhaps in your fanciful world of 1=3 this would be true. But in reality, all I did was work with what you put forward. Had you quoted from "The Star" magazine, my working with your quote would do nothing to authenticate your quote. Get it?

Secondly, it really does not matter what part of Lane?s definition you use, as the one that you highlighted indicates something that was written down?

Wrong. Do you understand what "or" means?

Thirdly, 43.3 specifically tells us that it was made into ?jaAAalnahu? an Arabic ?collection? or Koran.

OK, so "the appointment for the fatal decree" was made into an Arabic collection. What's the problem?

This specific Arabic clarifier is not necessary if the original ?prescript? (as you now want to call it) was already written in Arabic?

Are you OK? It seems you're troubled with tunnel vision. Let me reiterate my sample conclusion to clarify

"the appointment for the fatal decree is evident"

Hope that helps.

Please let us know when you can begin to trust what your book of faith is blatantly telling you?

Sure. Is now a good time?

Perhaps you will learn to stop asking us questions when you keep running away from the answers?

How very witty of you.

Perhaps you will learn that selective reading amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In the meantime, let me know about that Arabic Bible.

Take care,
Tay

el-Aziz

Good day Apple Pie!

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

kind regards,
St?phane

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for adding your comments?

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Please show us the extant manuscripts that support your position?

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

The more appropriate question would be ?.where is it not?.?

?The Book? i.e. ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, is directly mentioned 151x in the ?Collection?, i.e. the Koran?

Hope this helps?

el-Aziz

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for adding your comments?

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Please show us the extant manuscripts that support your position?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

The more appropriate question would be ?.where is it not?.?

?The Book? i.e. ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, is directly mentioned 151x in the ?Collection?, i.e. the Koran?

Hope this helps?

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things? For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Again?.

Please bring forth the extant Aramaic manuscript evidence for your assertion?

It appears that you are having difficulty in backing up your assertion? wink

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things?

Yes?.and both comprise the Holy Bible?

For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

The authors of the Koran constantly refer to their source material.

Many times it is under the guise of ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, as a catch-all term.

Other times they simply break it down to different Biblical books, or sets of Biblical books?i.e. Torah, Injill, Zaboor, Books of Wisdom, Revelation, etc, etc?

One fact remains clear?.and that is the Holy Bible comprises ~99% of the Koranic material?.the other 1% comes from heretical Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Put it all together?.and you have the ?Collection??i.e. the Koran?

Take care?

el-Aziz

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Again?.

Please bring forth the extant Aramaic manuscript evidence for your assertion?
It appears that you are having difficulty in backing up your assertion? wink

Well, neither can't I prove to you that the Edda was written in ancient Icelandic or Danish tongue - but I would suspect that "It was originally typed down in french" is not true since theauthors were native Icelandic speakers.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can't keep up much longer as for the Greek/Aramaic debate matters. Anyway for now...

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things?

Yes?.and both comprise the Holy Bible?

For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

The authors of the Koran constantly refer to their source material.

Many times it is under the guise of ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, as a catch-all term.

Other times they simply break it down to different Biblical books, or sets of Biblical books?i.e. Torah, Injill, Zaboor, Books of Wisdom, Revelation, etc, etc?

One fact remains clear?.and that is the Holy Bible comprises ~99% of the Koranic material?.the other 1% comes from heretical Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Put it all together?.and you have the ?Collection??i.e. the Koran?

There are some things in the gospels that I cannot declare as correct as for your attempt to claim that "alkit?b" is The Bible. Namely that it identifies Jesus as The Messiah and "son of God" at the same time, which is not consistent with the messianic tradition.