Judge a faith by its founder, not by its followers
-
Peace Oneway,all,
For one thing the holy spirit isnt a he according to the Hebrew.The hebrew word is feminine ruach.The Greek is pneuma(breath) which is neuter and the Aramaic which Jesus spoke is also feminine.So calling the Holy Spirit a he in the NT would be wrong grammatically and contradictory from a Christian or Jewish perspective.
As for the Greek paraclete its masculine.
I need to do a little more research on this.But it was Jesus who said according to the NT that a paraclete(masculine) would be sent.So the paraclete cant be the female ruach or pneuma.As for using the OT and NT to show similarites,I dont believe all them are distorted only the parts that contradict the Quran.
-
Peace be upon you,
I understand your post and I appreciate what you are saying...
...but there is no scriptural support for your system.
The SUPPORT is to be found in LIFE EXPERIENCE, not in the message itself. To know truth you must live it.
This is where these metaphysical, all encompassing systems of faith fall short You want to extract truths from some verses while ignoring others somehow believing that you know which ones are right and which are not while simultaneously claiming the source to be divinely inspired or revealed. There are certainly people of all faith backgrounds that end up adopting these views.
What verses have I ignored?
All I can say is that I have no reason to believe that God made this to be a simple anything goes problem for us to solve. Life is hard.
"Hard" and "easy" are subjective views, the difference is TRAINING. If you are TRAINED in something it is easy, if not, it is hard. Life is only "hard" for those who dont take it serious, who take it as amusement. We should be at work in PROGRAMMING our spirit.
I believe it is hard because we have free will to choose or reject God and deal with the consequences as individuals and as societies, but no where have I seen scriptural support in any faith that says we, rather than God
That last statement will keep you from ever understanding, respectfully. God is not some object seperate from Man. The very core of man's being is none other than The God. Thats what the term "He and I are one" means. It doesnt mean that "Jesus" was The God, it means that ALL of mankind are manifestations of the One God.
...have the authority to pick and choose from God's messages that which "feels right" to us while rejecting the parts that make us uncomfortable.
Where have I "picked and chosen"? You have come foward with some accusations that are unfounded. Where do they come from?
You don't have to be a literalist in any particular faith, but if you are not at least consistent in your adoption of the tenets of particular faith then you are just manufacturing a new faith of your own as you go along.
Where is my inconsistency? I think this is the first post you have ever gotten from me, how do you state I am inconsistent from one post? I would be glad to discuss this further with you. We dont have to limit it to "Quran" though, we can open this up to "bible" or scripture before that like the "Book of coming forth by day". The point is, if you are just going to believe a book cause someone else told you to , then you fall into believing stuff like a sea was split in two or a stick turned into a snake, etc.
-
This is a fine argument if the letter is from my Aunt Martha. But if the letter claims to be from God Himself, and, more precisely, it is the mailmain who penned the letter and who proclaims that the letter was revealed to him by God directly, no reasonable person would blindly accept that without evaluating the mailman's trustworthiness.
You missed the point there oneway, let me reiterate... the letter is from God, how you verify that it is, is by reading it, not who brought it. Especially if you never met the messenger, who's not with us to defend himself or state his position. The logic you use is further flawed because you're actually not even finding out who the messenger is (for whatever reason you insist the imprtance of this), you're finding out stories about him from people who never met him themselves nor their fathers, nor their grandfathers. Somehow you've chosen to believe that information as fact, and the message as stories. wowI understand your post and I appreciate what you are saying...
...but there is no scriptural support for your system.
That's nice coming from one who hasn't provided any isn't it? winkPeace be with you
-
Peace be upon you,
I understand your post and I appreciate what you are saying...
...but there is no scriptural support for your system.
The SUPPORT is to be found in LIFE EXPERIENCE, not in the message itself. To know truth you must live it.
This is where these metaphysical, all encompassing systems of faith fall short You want to extract truths from some verses while ignoring others somehow believing that you know which ones are right and which are not while simultaneously claiming the source to be divinely inspired or revealed. There are certainly people of all faith backgrounds that end up adopting these views.
What verses have I ignored?
All I can say is that I have no reason to believe that God made this to be a simple anything goes problem for us to solve. Life is hard.
"Hard" and "easy" are subjective views, the difference is TRAINING. If you are TRAINED in something it is easy, if not, it is hard. Life is only "hard" for those who dont take it serious, who take it as amusement. We should be at work in PROGRAMMING our spirit.
I believe it is hard because we have free will to choose or reject God and deal with the consequences as individuals and as societies, but no where have I seen scriptural support in any faith that says we, rather than God
That last statement will keep you from ever understanding, respectfully. God is not some object seperate from Man. The very core of man's being is none other than The God. Thats what the term "He and I are one" means. It doesnt mean that "Jesus" was The God, it means that ALL of mankind are manifestations of the One God.
...have the authority to pick and choose from God's messages that which "feels right" to us while rejecting the parts that make us uncomfortable.
Where have I "picked and chosen"? You have come foward with some accusations that are unfounded. Where do they come from?
You don't have to be a literalist in any particular faith, but if you are not at least consistent in your adoption of the tenets of particular faith then you are just manufacturing a new faith of your own as you go along.
Where is my inconsistency? I think this is the first post you have ever gotten from me, how do you state I am inconsistent from one post? D I would be glad to discuss this further with you. We dont have to limit it to "Quran" though, we can open this up to "bible" or scripture before that like the "Book of coming forth by day". The point is, if you are just going to believe a book cause someone else told you to , then you fall into believing stuff like a sea was split in two or a stick turned into a snake, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that you had stated some specific inconsistency, only that I believe the views you are forwarding can only be derived from very selective adherence to scripture that cannot be self-consistent with the overall message therein (any holy book you choose, I'm not arguing about the Quran vs. Bible, etc., here).
Your interpretation that we are all essentially God makes some metaphysical sense in that we are all part of God's creation and we could debate whether a creator and his creation are really distinct, and so on, but to follow that path to its logical end moves you to some sort of mystical nature worship where there is no actual unique being that is God, there is only the interconnected universe of which we are all a part. That is obviously contrary to the Quran, the Bible, and any other monotheistic tract you care to study.
I don't think I can clarify my thoughts on this any further except that you asked for an example of a particular scripture that illustrates my point. Ok, how about the Ten Commandments, say "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". If there is no actual separate being that is God, then this commandment makes no sense, so you either have to ignore it or give it a wild interpretation that is so far out of context as to be nonsensical. That would not be a consistent view of the Bible. I'm sure there are many many verses in the Bible and the Quran to which similar logic could be applied to draw the same conclusion.
-
This is a fine argument if the letter is from my Aunt Martha. But if the letter claims to be from God Himself, and, more precisely, it is the mailmain who penned the letter and who proclaims that the letter was revealed to him by God directly, no reasonable person would blindly accept that without evaluating the mailman's trustworthiness.
You missed the point there oneway, let me reiterate... the letter is from God, how you verify that it is, is by reading it, not who brought it. Especially if you never met the messenger, who's not with us to defend himself or state his position. The logic you use is further flawed because you're actually not even finding out who the messenger is (for whatever reason you insist the imprtance of this), you're finding out stories about him from people who never met him themselves nor their fathers, nor their grandfathers. Somehow you've chosen to believe that information as fact, and the message as stories. wowMine is the logical side of this discussion. Yours is the "faith alone" side of the discussion. Only by "faith alone" could someone be given a document by a stranger and, with no external means of validation, accept that the document is God's revelation solely because the document says so.
That you do not understand the complete absence of reason and the complete dependence on faith in this scenario is pretty amazing.
I understand your post and I appreciate what you are saying...
...but there is no scriptural support for your system.
That's nice coming from one who hasn't provided any isn't it? winkPeace be with you )
Hasn't provided any what, exactly? Scriptural support? Then you have not read my posts in their entirety.
Thanks.
/oneway
-
Peace oneway and all. My view is also that we are all parts of the 'all' and interconnected somewhat. We are all parts of the divine. So the commandment you stated means'dont take anyones name in vain'. Not a bad commandment,and one jesus would probably support.
And there is much support in all scripture and life-experience to support this understanding. When i get time i will post the quotes from scripture. Very interesting discussion.
peace all. -
Peace Oneway,
Ok, I accept that you expected a different reaction on hadith than you got here. However, I am constantly surprised by the number of people who come to this website without reading the first page then argue based on assumptions. I do commend you, however, since you have proven to be far more intelligent than the lot that usually strolls through the forum. Anyway, let?s have at our discussion1.Oneway said ? If Jesus was a prophet of God, he must have brought a message for mankind. That's what prophets do. Where and by whom was the message of Jesus documented....In fact, there would have been no need for Jesus since God could just use Mohammed to convey everything at once. So, clearly, there must have been some point in Jesus and the message He brought and surely God would not allow that message to be trivially destroyed and corrupted too easily by men.
My Response? That is incorrect. The earlier prophets before Muhammad brought messages only for their people. Every people had a message that was structured for their place and time, so it was not for all mankind. Jesus was given a message, the Injeel, however it was allowed to be corrupted. Since the message was only for a specific people, it was allowed to be corrupted by their hands. They have the free will to do so. The documents given to Jesus are probably found in the ?Q? source that the gospels are derived from. Scholars think that since the 4 canonical gospels include so much information that is the same and some altered, and considering that they were written at different times, they may have had a common written source called ?Q? or Quelle.2.Oneway said ? Well, unless you believe God is incompetent and could not get His message through the first time around and had to try again with Mohammed, yes, you have to believe that at least some of the truth of God's message through Jesus made it into the New Testament intact in spite of the fallible men who wrote the New Testament.
My Response ? God is only impotent if He indeed wanted to keep the Injeel unaltered but did not succeed. If He did not care to keep it intact, then it makes no difference does it?3.Oneway said ? Now, in their writings, these men, the disciples of Jesus, report what they recall Jesus teaching. The term "Son of God" appears many times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus (47 times in the King James English translation). Is it logical that this important phrase would appear so often, including when Christ is reported to have directly affirmed that he was the Son of God when being interrogated before his crucifixion, if God did not wish that to be part of the message he sent with Jesus?
My Response ? The term ?Son of God? has been misconstrued by modern Christians. If the writers of the New Testament had a Jewish background, then obviously their use of that word would keep to the already established terminology of that term. The term appears many times in the Bible. For example
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them."- Job 16
"And you shall say to Pharaoh Thus says the Lord 'Israel is My son, My firstborn'." - Exodus 422
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son." - Hosea 111
"He said, 'Surely they are my people, sons who will not be false to me'; and so he became their Savior." - Isaiah 639
"I will proclaim the decree of the LORD He said to me, 'You are my Son ; today I have become your Father '." - Psalms 27
The Gospels not only used the expression "sons of God" (or "children of God" in some translations) in the familial sense but to any one who enjoyed a special relationship with God.
- "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
- Matthew 59
"..the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." - Luke 338
Paul and the Gospel of John say that those who believe in Christ would also become Sons of God.
"I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." - 2 Corinthians 617-18
So, as you can see, many people and Israel have been called the ?Sons of God? in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I am not sure what you intended this term to prove for you, but even if the gospel writers all included it, all that it proves is that they had all known the term and used it when they wished. It does not prove that they were all inspired to write it. For ex. Would it be God inspired if a few American writers used the term, ?sexy?? No, it is an American term and does not prove that the writers had anything to do with each other nor that they were inspired to do so.
4.Oneway said ? If God is all knowing, He would know that the message of Jesus would be corrupted in the Bible and He would have either prevented that corruption, because He is all powerful, or He would have waited to communicate through Mohammed, or He would have communicated the Quran through Jesus as Muslims believe he did through Mohammed, or He could have done it any other way He desired, but there is no logic in sending a messenger if it is known a priori that the message will not get through.
My Response ? This is only true if you assume that their message was one and the same.5.Oneway said ? Well, there are other significant contradictions between Quranic teachings and the teachings of Christ in the New Testament that fail by the same logic.
My Response ? You have yet to prove that the Gospels are the teachings of Jesus. Implying that the constant use of a term is enough to prove that is silly. Provide evidence please. Also, which parts of the Quran?s teachings contradict the NT?6.Oneway said ? If you read the Bible understanding that it predates the Quran, and then you read the Quran, its like reading a plagiarized work that borrows heavily from the original and then inserts details that directly contradict the original.
My Response ? So if two things have similar information, one must borrow from another? Please provide a passage from the Quran that is directly plagiarized from the Bible.I?ll respond to the pasting on war later tonight as I do not have a Quran in front of me and I have to go study. Happy posting!
- Job 16
-
All,
I have to move along and it may be several days before I have a chance to return to any of the conversations we've been having here, so I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who have been so willing to engage in solid discussion even though you knew from the outset that I am coming at things from a non-Muslim background with obvious Christian biases.
I very much appreciate both the spirited debates and the personal beliefs that have been shared with me in spite of my admittedly hasty and presumptuous opening message.
I certainly still have issues with Islam and the Quran as I'm sure you do with Christianity and the Bible, but overall I have to say you have made me feel welcome and your willingness to tolerate my perspective while explaining your own has been most encouraging.
Kind regards,
oneway -
Peace be upon you OneWay,
I didn't mean to imply that you had stated some specific inconsistency, only that I believe the views you are forwarding can only be derived from very selective adherence to scripture that cannot be self-consistent with the overall message therein (any holy book you choose, I'm not arguing about the Quran vs. Bible, etc., here).
Depends on what you call "scripture". The Book of coming forth by day, the first "scirpture" is fully consistent with what I am describing. And when "Quran" and "Bible" are translated properly, these same concepts come forth. I do not follow any book except THE BOOK (Universal Law). The word "muslim" onle means one who is peaceful, it is not the title of a person who follows a particular religion.
Your interpretation that we are all essentially God makes some metaphysical sense in that we are all part of God's creation and we could debate whether a creator and his creation are really distinct, and so on, but to follow that path to its logical end moves you to some sort of mystical nature worship where there is no actual unique being that is God, there is only the interconnected universe of which we are all a part.
Yes, the bodiless intelligence willed energy and matter into movement and form.
That is obviously contrary to the Quran, the Bible, and any other monotheistic tract you care to study.
Jesus said "He and I are one"
Quran says "We are God's and to Him we are returning"
Quran says God blew into us of His Energy(ruh), as well the Bible.I don't think I can clarify my thoughts on this any further except that you asked for an example of a particular scripture that illustrates my point. Ok, how about the Ten Commandments, say "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain". If there is no actual separate being that is God, then this commandment makes no sense, so you either have to ignore it or give it a wild interpretation that is so far out of context as to be nonsensical.
Well, you are assuming that the Bible is 100% accurate for starters D My point is that the over all message is consistent with what I am saying.
Know ye not that ye are Gods? D
-
Peace be upon you One Way,
I have to move along and it may be several days before I have a chance to return to any of the conversations we've been having here, so I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who have been so willing to engage in solid discussion even though you knew from the outset that I am coming at things from a non-Muslim background with obvious Christian biases.
I very much appreciate both the spirited debates and the personal beliefs that have been shared with me in spite of my admittedly hasty and presumptuous opening message.
I certainly still have issues with Islam and the Quran as I'm sure you do with Christianity and the Bible, but overall I have to say you have made me feel welcome and your willingness to tolerate my perspective while explaining your own has been most encouraging.
Ahhh, very refreshing brother/sister (?). Its good to see respect and kindness continue to flow when the debating has ended, this is the CHARACTER that we are being instructed to adopt in all "scriptures", to be God-Like. Thank you for the kind words and please come back and discuss with us again.
I leave you with the goal of all of the "religions";
Peace be with you
Salaam
Shalom
Hetepetc.
-
Re Judge a faith by its founder, not by its followers
Do you judge your letters by the mailman who delivers them to you?
Well, I suppose I would if the mailman claimed to be delivering a message revealed to him directly from God. Wouldn't you?
smile
why would anyone ? it is God's message . not the mailman's own words . the mailman only delivers .
Because the mailman is the one claiming the message is from God. God has not communicated that to you separate from the message being delivered by the mailman in this hypothetical setup.
you will decide by reading the message whether the message appears to be from God or not . not by looking at the mailman's record .
if u get the time,please read this testing of the Koran http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/koran.htm . does this message, the Koran, come from God or does it appear to be the mailman's own words ?
This is a fine argument if the letter is from my Aunt Martha. But if the letter claims to be from God Himself, and, more precisely, it is the mailmain who penned the letter and who proclaims that the letter was revealed to him by God directly, no reasonable person would blindly accept that without evaluating the mailman's trustworthiness.
You missed the point there oneway, let me reiterate... the letter is from God, how you verify that it is, is by reading it, not who brought it. Especially if you never met the messenger, who's not with us to defend himself or state his position. The logic you use is further flawed because you're actually not even finding out who the messenger is (for whatever reason you insist the imprtance of this), you're finding out stories about him from people who never met him themselves nor their fathers, nor their grandfathers. Somehow you've chosen to believe that information as fact, and the message as stories. Wow
Mine is the logical side of this discussion. Yours is the "faith alone" side of the discussion.
checkout who is on the logical side and who is on the fait alone side http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/koran.htm
Only by "faith alone" could someone be given a document by a stranger and, with no external means of validation, accept that the document is God's revelation
solely because the document says so.That you do not understand the complete absence of reason and the complete dependence on faith in this scenario is pretty amazing.
it is the Koran that is truely amazing . not solely becasue it says so , but because it proves so .
peace.
-
Welcome to the discussion Someone,
I think your distinction between "intended for all" and "suitable for all" makes an assumption about timing of the message delivery. That a message is intended for all does not necessarily imply that it is intended for all within a particular limited time span that we deem appropriate; rather, the message is intended for all on the timeline of God's choosing.
In fact, "intended for all" as I meant it in my arguments above specifically implies "intended for all people for all time", so that the message is even intended for people who were not yet alive at the time the message was delivered, hence the duties placed on believers to spread the word. This is the common Christian view of the intended audience for Christ's message.
Thanks.
/oneway
"
Peace upon you oneway and all,Let's consider these 2 hypothesis for a moment
-
"Jesus's message was intended for all of mankind"
-
"Mohammad's message was intended for all of mankind"
We know for a fact that both Jesus and Mohammed died before their messages could reach all of mankind. Indeed, all mankind includes all the people from the 5 (or is it 6?) continents, knowing that there was no communication devices at the time to widely diffuse the message.
So basically, based on these hypothesis, we can safely affirm that both Jesus and Mohammed failed in their task, which is verified logically and historically, because many people never heard of Jesus or Mohammed even in these times with all the progress made. And technically, they should have learned to speak the multitude of languages spoken at those times.
Thus, there's 2 possibilities
1- Both Jesus and Mohammad have failed in their role.
2- The hypothesis in the begining is/are false.
Thus, I would like to reword the hypothesis as
"Jesus's and Mohammad's message are suitable for all of mankind"
No one of then had to deliver the message to all the people on earth (which I consider to be humanly impossible). They had to deliver it to their own people, as do/did/are doing the other messengers.
--
Peace oneway,
What you said about the message brought by Jesus is also valid for the message brought by Mohammad, as being "intended for all people for all time".
But, how could I or you prove to any third person that their messages are indeed "intended for all people for all time"?
And what about the other messages brought by other messengers?
Do you think that your position about "jesus" relies on proof, or is it due to your upbringing, or else is it based on a leap of faith?
And last, if you have not read the reading "al-quran", I would recommend you to take some of your time and study it, because judging its content only from what you may have heard about it is far from being constructive.
--
-
-
Peace Oneway,
Thanks for the thanks.
I have one reply to your comments earlier that we can further address upon your return...
You stated
I would politely disagree with your statement that your beliefs do not require a leap of faith You already took that leap when you believed in God.
The way I see it, to answer the question of "where did life come from?", one has 2 choices (a) it was designed by an intelligence, or (b) it manifested randomly and spontaneously.
I don't think option (a) requires a leap of faith, unless one chooses without thought. The universe ceratinly has a design and a pattern to it. However, to choose random manifestation, one will get stuck at the zero point something from nothing <-- now that's a leap of faith wink
Peace,
Tay -
Peace,
Very well. Plainly put, I think the Quranic view on Jesus is illogical and requires a belief that God is neither all knowing nor all powerful. Let me explain.
Your view is a pre-conceived one. You have an a-priori stance on this by taking the bible as being inherently true.
It is similar to the position of someone confronting Einstein's theory of relativity using Newtonian ideas - denouncing the newer, cherishing the former and remaining in error.
Jesus was a human, and only a human; just like any other of us.
That is the truth.
Regards.
-
This is a fine argument if the letter is from my Aunt Martha. But if the letter claims to be from God Himself, and, more precisely, it is the mailmain who penned the letter and who proclaims that the letter was revealed to him by God directly, no reasonable person would blindly accept that without evaluating the mailman's trustworthiness.
if the mailman turns out to be trustworthy , but the message he delivered is full of BS , what then ? will u accept that the message is from God because the mailman has a good record ?
peace.
-
Peace,
The hypothetical scenario of a mailman delivering a letter directly from GOD is not only baseless but ludicrous, regardless of its contents and receiving characteristics. I wonder what envelope would look like, a stamp from heaven, GOD's handwriting, an angel with wings swooshing down at your doorstep on Alladin's magic carpet representing a mailman, GOD's return address and the format of letter, etc. I am sorry to say that some bring about examples beyond recognition, let alone a hypothetical one.
-
Peace all. This thread has got me thinking on another topic. what is the scriptural support for god being the sum total of all that exists? I know some mystics,sufis,hindus,buddhists,gnostics,wiccans,philosophers(and maybe others too.) believe we are all part of the divine. I will start a thread on this in the general section. notewhy did the voice say to moses to take his shoes off? Maybe because he didnt have to journey anymore, he realised the divine is within you as well as external to you. 'God is closer to you than your jugular vein'? 'Wherever you turn there is the face of god'? 'God is with you wherever you are'.
peace all. -
Hello public
Here is something very interesting that came to mind while driving from work yesterday
The Christian brothers and sisters suggest to us that this sick act done by the two daughters of making their father ?the great prophet Lut? drunk then had sex with him to create new generations, otherwise me and you wouldn?t exist today, is noble
Well, we have to consider the followings
-
There were no other humans on earth but prophet Lut and his two daughters, which can?t be because Abraham and his people lived at the same time as Lut, in fact the angels who came down to destroy the city stopped to say hello to Abraham in their way to Lut
-
Allah took Himself by a surprise when He destroyed Lut?s village, it seems He didn?t know that there will be only Lut?s and his daughters left on earth, which can?t be because Abraham and his people lived at the same time and He sent a message to Abraham with the angels
-
Allah cared less to solve the problem above in point 1, therefore, the two daughters took charge to solve this problem, but hey, who are these two daughters?, a name would be appreciated mister Christian, but how those two wise daughters forgot that their father?s uncle ?Abraham? was living somewhere on earth with his people at the time?
-
Somehow the two daughters had Alcohol with them, either they took it with them or they bloody know how to make alcohol, possibly they worked in their father liquor store in Gomorrah?, if this is not the case then imagine one of the daughters shouting to her sister while escaping the village, ?Hey sister, don?t forget the bottle?
-
Now why alcohol was involved, this is a serious question indeed, it seems they knew that the act of sleeping with their father is filthy and immoral but that that was fine with them, their problem was their father, so they made him drunk so when he wakes up, he will not realize, sure he didn?t realized it because on the next day the same filthy act happened with the second daughter, but I got drunk before many times, and when I waked up I never forgot something serious that I done, like sleeping with woman for example, I may forget the details but the incident will never be forgotten, but it seems that they had some heavenly alcohol, that made prophet Lut absolutely forgot it like it never happened, and do it again the following day, unless he acted as such because he enjoyed it
As you can see, this non sense by the corrupt Bible can not pass the common sense of a 10 years old child, in fact the above is a perfect episode of Jerry Springer show, come on, Alcohol was involved, those clever westerners somehow made Alcohol a genuine excuse, this means we are allowed to bloody make our mothers and fathers drunk then bloody have sex with them and on the Judgment Day, we all should say
?Sorry God, we were drunk?
I can imagine the jinns shouting at the back
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry
What a retarded and stupid lie that is about one of the greatest 140 thousands or so prophets sent by Allah, this non sense inserted by sick humans never happened and a clear cut lie
Peace
-