Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...

Ali_Omar

Dear Apple Pie,

Thank you for your demonstration of a vivid imagination. That is a gift that can open unpredictable doors, sometimes leading to further understanding, sometimes leading away from facts into a world of conjecture.

The Qur?an is better understood in the original language, yes I quite agree, but a good command of the Arabic language doesn?t give you an automatic understanding of the message. However there are ways to find the message that the Qur?an is giving, some of which we may still not have found, even though some of us are somewhat familiar with the Arabic language.

In general, and very simplified

?Malaikat? = angels
?Rasuul? = messenger
?Nabi? = prophet

2.98 speaks of angels and messengers in general and Gabriel and Michael in particular.
2.285 mentions angels and messengers separately.
22.75 says that messengers are chosen among angels and amongst men.
5.83 talks about something that was sent down to the messenger

There are more verses pointing to the same, namely that messengers could be angels and they could be men.
Messenger is not describing a certain ?species? it is a function amongst various species, namely to deliver messages ?sent down?.

2.248 mentions that their prophet spoke to the people
33.56 says that the angels support the prophet
3.79 mentions that God had blessed humans with prophethood

This point to something similar to what you have concluded, that a prophet is a physical human being inspired and/or helped, by angels as representatives of God.

66.1 mentions that the Prophet was warned against forbidding what God has allowed, and that he had wives.
66.3 again repeats that the prophet had wives.
3.146 indicates that there were more than one prophet
4.163 mentions Noah an the prophets after him

According to this, and other verses, there was more than one prophet.
And, as far as I understand, the prophet mentioned with wives can not be Jesus or any of the others who, reportedly, had no wives.

7.157 mentions a messenger and a prophet who was not learned in ?holy? scriptures, one who was mentioned in the scriptures prior to the Qur?an

This excludes those prophets knowledgeable in ?holy? scriptures as such, and he existed after the Injeel, or Gospel, came to us.
This excludes all prophets until after Jesus.

8.65-onwards, seem to indicate that the prophet was also a leader in armed conflicts
33.7 mentions prophets and also seems to speak directly to the receiver, saying ?you?, and as this verse was given to Muhammad it seems to indicate him as one of them
33.40 mentions Muhammad, specifically, and says that he was a prophet

This seems to indicate that the one who received the verses we read in the Qur?an was called a prophet.

3.80 mentions that angels and prophets are not to be taken as lords
19.30 says that Jesus told people that he was a servant of God and a prophet

This seems to indicate that there is a distinction between God and the prophets. And as Jesus was a prophet, both according to the Bible and to the Qur?an, he could not be God. To say that he could be God because God can come to us in any form is to stretch the messages a bit, and read into it what is not there. Or rather, to read into it the opposite of what it says.

All-in-all we may conclude that both angels and men can be messengers, that there were many prophets, and that one of these was Muhammad.
We also see that none on the prophets were God; they were, as you rightfully pointed out, men inspired by God.
That God chose means to communicate called angels, Gabriel, or ?Holy Spirit?, is insignificant, the inspiration was from God.

This all goes to indicate that to regard Jesus, or ?the Holy Spirit?, as God, is stretching reality a bit. They are/were just means that God use/used to communicate with humans, just like any other angel, prophet, messenger or signs around us.

The important thing here is that God communicates with us, and that we learn how to see and receive the messages given. Who/where/what is insignificant, including Jesus, Muhammad, Gabriel, Moses or whoever/whatever else.
It is reality and the Universe around us we should be observant of, what God is showing us, not to make anything besides God as objects to distract us from this reality.
The messages related to us should only be used as guides. Period!

Best regards

Ali Omar

unknownuser

Greetings Ali Omar,

Thanks for your reply?

Dear Apple Pie,

Thank you for your demonstration of a vivid imagination. That is a gift that can open unpredictable doors, sometimes leading to further understanding, sometimes leading away from facts into a world of conjecture.

Please feel completely free to verify what I state as truth?..

The Qur?an is better understood in the original language, yes I quite agree, but a good command of the Arabic language doesn?t give you an automatic understanding of the message. However there are ways to find the message that the Qur?an is giving, some of which we may still not have found, even though some of us are somewhat familiar with the Arabic language.

Since the authors of the Koran loudly proclaim that they used prior Jewish and Christian scriptures, then it should come as no surprise the Koran contains the Biblical message?

In general, and very simplified

?Malaikat? = angels
?Rasuul? = messenger
?Nabi? = prophet

2.98 speaks of angels and messengers in general and Gabriel and Michael in particular.
2.285 mentions angels and messengers separately.
22.75 says that messengers are chosen among angels and amongst men.
5.83 talks about something that was sent down to the messenger

There are more verses pointing to the same, namely that messengers could be angels and they could be men.
Messenger is not describing a certain ?species? it is a function amongst various species, namely to deliver messages ?sent down?.

So far so good?.

2.248 mentions that their prophet spoke to the people
33.56 says that the angels support the prophet
3.79 mentions that God had blessed humans with prophethood

This point to something similar to what you have concluded, that a prophet is a physical human being inspired and/or helped, by angels as representatives of God.

This would refer to the Holy Spirit in the Holy Bible?

66.1 mentions that the Prophet was warned against forbidding what God has allowed, and that he had wives.
66.3 again repeats that the prophet had wives.
3.146 indicates that there were more than one prophet
4.163 mentions Noah an the prophets after him

According to this, and other verses, there was more than one prophet.
And, as far as I understand, the prophet mentioned with wives can not be Jesus or any of the others who, reportedly, had no wives.

OK?.

7.157 mentions a messenger and a prophet who was not learned in ?holy? scriptures, one who was mentioned in the scriptures prior to the Qur?an

This excludes those prophets knowledgeable in ?holy? scriptures as such, and he existed after the Injeel, or Gospel, came to us.
This excludes all prophets until after Jesus.

And?.you feel that this describes Islam?s ?prophet??.?

8.65-onwards, seem to indicate that the prophet was also a leader in armed conflicts
33.7 mentions prophets and also seems to speak directly to the receiver, saying ?you?, and as this verse was given to Muhammad it seems to indicate him as one of them

?Seems to indicate??.?

You don?t sound too sure of yourself?

33.40 mentions Muhammad, specifically, and says that he was a prophet

Does it?.?

Please bring forth the Arabic of that ayah for exegesis?

This seems to indicate that the one who received the verses we read in the Qur?an was called a prophet.

Do ?prophets? then copy from previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?.?

3.80 mentions that angels and prophets are not to be taken as lords
19.30 says that Jesus told people that he was a servant of God and a prophet

Ahhh yes?..the talking Jesus ayahs?..from heretical Christian sources?.

This seems to indicate that there is a distinction between God and the prophets. And as Jesus was a prophet, both according to the Bible and to the Qur?an, he could not be God. To say that he could be God because God can come to us in any form is to stretch the messages a bit, and read into it what is not there. Or rather, to read into it the opposite of what it says.

Why do you ignore ALL of the scriptures (both Biblical and Koranic) that proclaim the divinity of Jesus?

You don?t even bother to mention them at all?

In typical Muslim fashion, you are failing to look at scripture as a whole before drawing conclusions?

You have fallen into the Islamic propaganda machine?

All-in-all we may conclude that both angels and men can be messengers, that there were many prophets, and that one of these was Muhammad.

Actually?..by using your book of faith?we CANNOT verify Islam?s claim of a prophet.

To say otherwise is wishful thinking.

We also see that none on the prophets were God; they were, as you rightfully pointed out, men inspired by God.

None except for Jesus?as mentioned in both the holy Bible and the Koran?.

That God chose means to communicate called angels, Gabriel, or ?Holy Spirit?, is insignificant, the inspiration was from God.

Actually, all Koranic ?inspiration? came from the authors who translated the Biblical Hebrew and Greek into Arabic?

How ?inspired? do you think they were?.?

This all goes to indicate that to regard Jesus, or ?the Holy Spirit?, as God, is stretching reality a bit. They are/were just means that God use/used to communicate with humans, just like any other angel, prophet, messenger or signs around us.

Then the authors of the Koran ?stretched reality??.

The important thing here is that God communicates with us, and that we learn how to see and receive the messages given. Who/where/what is insignificant, including Jesus, Muhammad, Gabriel, Moses or whoever/whatever else.
It is reality and the Universe around us we should be observant of, what God is showing us, not to make anything besides God as objects to distract us from this reality.
The messages related to us should only be used as guides. Period!

Best regards

Ali Omar

If you believe that Islam?s ?prophet? is insignificant, then you are in good company?.

Thanks?

Ali_Omar

Dear Apple Pie,

What you state as truth, is mainly from the hand of Paul and the hands of the ancient Jewish priests. To take that as truth instead of weighing what they write against reality is quite pathetic.

It seems that you are also ignorant of greater parts of the Qur?an, among other things that it says it is confirming what God has informed of earlier, not that it confirms all the existing Bibles or Thora, therefore you find in the Qur?an what has been lost from those previous messages.

If I were sure of all the meanings of everything in the Qur?an, at all times, I would probably not be a common human being; I would have had to be a prophet or a messenger. Maybe unlike you, I do not think I am.
I further think it will do you good to open the Qur?an, and it should not be too difficult to find 33.40. Since you think the verse says something else than what I have come to understand, I may be mistaken, and would like you to advise me.

I also still fail to find Jesus described as God in the Qur?an. On the contrary, I find 3.80, amongst others, telling that none of those we refer to as prophets were God.
Again I have to ask for advice, as I may have failed to take some of the facts into consideration, I have been learning for many years, and hope to continue learning till the end of my days, Illa an yasha'a Allah.
To call Jesus ?God? I believe is ?stretching reality?, and as I mentioned, as far as I can understand, the Qur?an does not do that. However, someone else does, wherever that idea came from.

Everything is insignificant compared to God and God?s system, including you and me, my friend.
The prophets? persons were not significant compared to God and God?s system; neither were/are the messengers, or the angels, in this respect. They are merely means of communication between God and us, or, if you would, servants of God.

What you seem to fail grasping, as do most religious and/or self-righteous, people, is that it is God and God?s system that are important to us. If we find a way to live in balance with the rest of the Universe, so that we are doing our bit for everything, and everyone around us, to exist in a most fulfilling way for all, then the rest is of no importance whatsoever. This is what God is telling us, but we keep altering the words of God to suit our perspective which is very shortsighted most of the time.

All what I have said is to the best of my own understanding, therefore please do not regard it as anything but my own ?truth?, but I hope my knowledge will grow. I am very grateful if you can contribute

Best regards

Ali Omar

unknownuser

Greetings Ali Omar,

Thanks for your comments..

Dear Apple Pie,

What you state as truth, is mainly from the hand of Paul and the hands of the ancient Jewish priests. To take that as truth instead of weighing what they write against reality is quite pathetic.

Comparison is the name of the game?.where have you been?.?

It seems that you are also ignorant of greater parts of the Qur?an, among other things that it says it is confirming what God has informed of earlier, not that it confirms all the existing Bibles or Thora, therefore you find in the Qur?an what has been lost from those previous messages.

I would venture to say that I am more cognizant of Koranic scriptures than most Muslims are?

In addition, you are correct in acknowledging that the Koran is merely a repository for the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Unfortunately, your last comment regarding the Koran replacing what has been lost, is without Koranic support?

I further think it will do you good to open the Qur?an, and it should not be too difficult to find 33.40. Since you think the verse says something else then what I have come to understand, I may be mistaken, and would like you to advise me.

I will take this as an admission that you don?t (or can?t) take the time necessary to discover what your book of faith truly states on the matter?

Now you are to the point in which you are asking a Christian to inform you on what it states?.?

I also still fail to find Jesus described as God in the Qur?an.

Perhaps you would like to comment on the ?first and the Last? example that I presented before you?.

On the contrary, I find 3.80, amongst others, telling that none of those we refer to as prophets were God.
Again I have to ask for advice, as I may have failed to take some of the facts into consideration, I have been learning for many years, and hope to continue learning till the end of my days, Illa an yasha'a Allah.
To call Jesus ?God? I believe is ?stretching reality?, and as I mentioned, as far as I can understand, the Qur?an does not do that. However, someone else does, wherever that idea came from.

Here is more Koranic evidence that Jesus is God?

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28737#28737

What you seem to fail grasping, as do most religious and/or self-righteous, people, is that it is God and God?s system that are important to us. If we find a way to live in balance with the rest of the Universe, so that we are doing our bit for everything, and everyone around us, to exist in a most fulfilling way for all, then the rest is of no importance whatsoever. This is what God is telling us, but we keep altering the words of God to suit our perspective which is very shortsighted most of the time.

How would you know if you can?t be bothered in understanding the mother-tongue of your book of faith?.?

Thanks?

unknownuser

Comparison is the name of the game?.where have you been?.?

Only when its tit-for-tat, that is, talmud > bible > ahadiths. Where have YOU been??? Bibles cannot be compared to Quran, but Torah and Gospel can, if you can bring them forth.

In addition, you are correct in acknowledging that the Koran is merely a repository for the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Only ahadiths by Bukhari, Malik, Saleh, Dawood, etc., acknowledges Paul, John, Mathew, Luke, etc.

Unfortunately, your last comment regarding the Koran replacing what has been lost, is without Koranic support?

The Quran supports itself by virtue of its own original script unchanged, whereas the bible, talmud and ahadiths are several-handed manipulations.

I will take this as an admission that you don?t (or can?t) take the time necessary to discover what your book of faith truly states on the matter?

From studying your viewpoints, I sincerely doubt that you have little knowledge of your own various editions/versions of your bible, similar to talmud and ahadiths; talk about Torah, Gospel and the Quran.

Now you are to the point in which you are asking a Christian to inform you on what it states?.?

A common trait in which a blind looks upon a seer.

Here is more Koranic evidence that Jesus is God?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28737#28737

The "evidence" is your own pre-conceived biblical/hadithic heresies, NOT Quranic.

How would you know if you can?t be bothered in understanding the mother-tongue of your book of faith?.?

What makes you think that YOU have? Where is your Gospel, the mother-tongue of your book of faith in its original language? Are you relying upon what John, Mathew, Luke and Paul are spreading about in English? Did you know that Jesus never spoke English.

unknownuser

Greetings Danish,

Thanks for your reply?

Apple Pie wrote

Comparison is the name of the game?.where have you been?.?

Only when its tit-for-tat, that is, talmud > bible > ahadiths. Where have YOU been??? Bibles cannot be compared to Quran, but Torah and Gospel can, if you can bring them forth.

First of all, we all can see that you are dissed, however, we are discussing Islam?s alleged prophet in this thread? wink

Secondly, the authors of the Koran made it known that they simply copied Biblical material?

Quote
In addition, you are correct in acknowledging that the Koran is merely a repository for the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Only ahadiths by Bukhari, Malik, Saleh, Dawood, etc., acknowledges Paul, John, Mathew, Luke, etc.

Don?t forget to mention the authors of the Koran, as well?

Quote
Unfortunately, your last comment regarding the Koran replacing what has been lost, is without Koranic support?

The Quran supports itself by virtue of its own original script unchanged, whereas the bible, talmud and ahadiths are several-handed manipulations.

The only redeeming feature of the Koran is that it mainly copied Biblical material?

Even as such?..the Koran is still second-hand re-translated scriptures?

Who wants to settle for second-hand information when we have its source, the Holy Bible? wink

Quote
Here is more Koranic evidence that Jesus is God?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28737#28737

The "evidence" is your own pre-conceived biblical/hadithic heresies, NOT Quranic.

Actually, it?s all Koranic?..but?.how would you know??you are presently consumed with rage at the truth that I speak?

Take good care of yourself?

unknownuser

Peace,

Comparison is the name of the game?.where have you been?.?

Only when its tit-for-tat, that is, talmud > bible > ahadiths. Where have YOU been??? Bibles cannot be compared to Quran, but Torah and Gospel can, if you can bring them forth.

First of all, we all can see that you are dissed, however, we are discussing Islam?s alleged prophet in this thread? wink

That goes for your alleged god, Jesus, the dissing part of the dead which mankind have witnessed first hand. wink

Secondly, the authors of the Koran made it known that they simply copied Biblical material?

Acutally, the authors of the biblical materials made it known that they simply copied talmudic materials, similar to ahadiths, unlike Quran (the original and final revelation still in existance).

Quote
In addition, you are correct in acknowledging that the Koran is merely a repository for the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Only ahadiths by Bukhari, Malik, Saleh, Dawood, etc., acknowledges Paul, John, Mathew, Luke, etc.

Don?t forget to mention the authors of the Koran, as well?

The Quran speaks for itself and we all know too well the Author of the Quran, unlike the bible and talmud.

Quote
Unfortunately, your last comment regarding the Koran replacing what has been lost, is without Koranic support?

The Quran supports itself by virtue of its own original script unchanged, whereas the bible, talmud and ahadiths are several-handed manipulations

The only redeeming feature of the Koran is that it mainly copied Biblical material?

Redemption of the Quran can only be distinguished by previous ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES, not biblical and talmudic materials written by unscrupulous men. Unfortunately, the previous ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES (Torah and Gospel) are non-existant, hence the Quran takes the precedence.

Even as such?..the Koran is still second-hand re-translated scriptures?

Must be the second-hand various re-invented versions (testaments) of bible in comparison to the one and only Quran, not to mention the one and only Gospel. Perhaps you are referring to the various translations/interpretations of it in various languages, which are not original, or even ahadiths of biblical nature.

Who wants to settle for second-hand information when we have its source, the Holy Bible? wink

You do, like your many versions of bibles, copied and penned from talmudic sources, in contrast with ahadiths.

Here is more Koranic evidence that Jesus is God?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28737#28737

The "evidence" is your own pre-conceived biblical/hadithic heresies, NOT Quranic.

Actually, it?s all Koranic?..but?.how would you know??you are presently consumed with rage at the truth that I speak?

Your 'truth' is revered by conjectural, inconsistant and heretic copied materials (bibles), NOT by Jesus himself. Check out the link I posted in Christianity section of this forum and try refuting your own book of faith.

Take good care of yourself?

You too and be sincere and true to yourself.

Ali_Omar

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.

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)

It would be interesting to know how you came to the conclusion that I don?t have any understanding of Arabic.
By the way, how do you know what my mother-tongue is?

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

Best regards

Ali Omar

Ali_Omar

Dear Apple Pie,

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.

One thing that is beyond doubt is that you assume the Bible (whichever version you are holding) is divine. Therefore it would be of interest to know exactly which version do you use?
Was the original of it written before, or after the Qur?an?
Where can I find the original of it?

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

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.

Best regards

Ali Omar

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.