Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 - xxiiiIt 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?
-
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 -
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,
TayI 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?
-
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,
Tayp.s. let me know if you ever find an Arabic Bible that predated Islam wink
-
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. 2590Please 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,
TayFirst 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?
-
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 -
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 -
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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? winkWell, 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.
-
Greetings St?phane,
Thanks for your reply?
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...Well?.thanks for acknowledging that your Aramaic assertion has no support?
The NT was written in Greek.
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.
Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??
Thanks?
-
Well?.thanks for acknowledging that your Aramaic assertion has no support?
The NT was written in Greek.
I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.
Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.
As for the quranic claim of Jesus as "al-masiih", I will raise this question in another thread.
Kind regards,
S -
Greetings St?phane,
Thanks for your reply?
I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.
Yes you are?
You have had plenty of opportunity to bring forth extant manuscript evidence to back your assertion?
You have declined? wink
Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?
Of course?
Check out what your brothers have to say?
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/codexlist.html
Apple Pie wrote
Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.
Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition?
Thanks?
-
I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.
Yes you are?
You have had plenty of opportunity to bring forth extant manuscript evidence to back your assertion?
You have declined? wink
Ok, whatever. I still don't see no support that the NT would be written in greek but it seems we've reached a dead end situation here anyway.
Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?
Of course?
Check out what your brothers have to say?
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/codexlist.htmI belive that the documents you just refered to are not from the time of Jesus. They are no different from any other word of mouth as it is in the case of "hadiths".
Besides, the people that you've linked to are not my brothers, so don't lump me with them especially since we don't share believes. I have one sister and she's 13 years old. Period.
Apple Pie wrote
Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.
Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition?
I'm not concerned about the biblical definition of Jesus. And by biblical definition I assume you mean NT one?
However, if you wish to invoke the quranic definition of Jesus as "The Messiah", I just started this thread which you're more than welcome to join in discussion.