miracles of numbers(repitition

"Day (yawm)" is repeated 365(exactly the number of DAYS that make up a YEAR) times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times.

The number of repetitions of the word "month" (shahar) is 12

The number of repetitions of the words "plant" and "tree" is the same: 26(each)

The number of times the words, "world" (dunya) and "hereafter" (akhira) are repeated is
also the same: 115(each)

The word "satan" (shaitan) is used in the Qur'an 88 times, as is the word "angels" (malaika).

The statement of "seven heavens" is repeated seven times. "The creation of the heavens (khalq as-samawat)" is also repeated seven times.


The words "paradise" and "hell" are each repeated 77 times

The words "wine" (khamr) and "intoxication" (saqara) are repeated in the Qur'an the same number of times: 6

Sun" (shams) and "light" (nur) both appear 33 times in the Qur'an
In counting the word "light" only the simple forms of the word were included

The words "man" and "woman" are also employed equally: 23 times(this one
amazes me more, think of 23 chromsomes each from male and female )

The number of times the words "man" and "woman" are repeated in the Qur'an, 23, is at the same time that of the chromosomes from the egg and sperm in the formation of the human embryo. The total number of human chromosomes is 46; 23 each from the mother and father.

EVEN MORE AMAZING, IS THIS,

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.238

MORE ETO COME INSHA ALLAH

ismailys:

"Day (yawm)" is repeated 365(exactly the number of DAYS that make up a YEAR) times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times.

how does the quran account for a leap yr?

ismailys:

The number of repetitions of the words "plant" and "tree" is the same: 26(each)

based on this "miracle" a plant = tree? So an egusi shrub is the same thing as a baobab tree?

ismailys:

The word "satan" (shaitan) is used in the Qur'an 88 times, as is the word "angels" (malaika).

thus by a "miracle" . . . satan = angels.

ismailys:

The words "paradise" and "hell" are each repeated 77 times

by another divine "miracle" heaven = hell.

ismailys:

The words "wine" (khamr) and "intoxication" (saqara) are repeated in the Qur'an the same number of times: 6

even though wine and intoxication is frowned upon by the quran . . . still by a miracle . . . wine = intoxication/drunkeness.

ismailys:

Sun" (shams) and "light" (nur) both appear 33 times in the Qur'an
In counting the word "light" only the simple forms of the word were included

thus by a miracle . . . sun = light.

ismailys:

EVEN MORE AMAZING, IS THIS,

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.238

wait oh mr "miracle" . . . 45/13 = 3.462
45/32 = 1.406

Dear ismailys,

Please carefully make the research yourself into these matters you're projecting. I know it sounds "scientific" - but before I left Islam, it dawned on me that many of the things which Muslim scholars regard as the "scientific miracles" of the Qur'an are simply deliberately sculpted to make it feel that way.

You will do yourself a huge favour to not propagate these ideas as factual, because in most cases, they are NOT!! If you care, the evidence from within the Qur'an itself will be presented for your consideration. An example:

ismailys:


"Day (yawm)" is repeated 365 (exactly the number of DAYS that make up a YEAR) times in singular form, while its plural and dual forms "days (ayyam and yawmayn)" together are repeated 30 times.

That is not true - UNLESS you are reading ANOTHER Qur'an!!

Let me first ask you to go find out how many days there are in a month of the Muslim calendar. When you work it out, you will find that whoever is telling you the above has simply cheated you - free of charge!

The weekend is almost here and I may be quite busy in the next couple of days. . . but I'll be glad to share how your ideas are untennable if you care. Fair enough?



_{Hehe. . . this is one example where I intend to wake some Muslims up from the garboil of people like Naik Zakir! By the time we get into this subject, Muslims who have been recycling and plagiarizing his materials will simply look elsewhere.} 

HISTORICAL MIRACLE OF THE GLORIOUS QURAN
                                                     
                                                       NUH'S FLOOD

We sent Nuh to his people and he remained among them for fifty short of a thousand years; yet the Flood engulfed them while they were wrongdoers. (Qur'an, 29:14)

The Prophet Nuh (as) was sent to his people by Allah. They had distanced themselves from the commandments of the Lord and ascribed partners to Him. The Prophet Nuh (as) warned them that they should serve Allah alone and abandon the false worship which they had established in their community. Although the Prophet Nuh (as) called on his people with great eloquence and wisdom, and warned them against the punishment of Allah, they rejected the Prophet and continued to associate partners to Him. At this, Allah told the Prophet Nuh (as) that He would punish the deniers by drowning them. But He also informed His Messenger that His mercy would save the believers, those who embraced true religion and worshipped the One and Only God. The destruction of the people of Nuh and the salvation of the believers is described thus in the Qur'an:

But they denied him so We rescued him and those with him in the Ark. And We drowned the people who denied Our Signs. They were a blind people. (Qur'an, 7:64)

When the time of punishment came, the water in the ground combined with violent rains to cause a giant flood. (Allah knows best.) It is revealed that before the flood came, Allah spoke to the Prophet Nuh (as):

We revealed to him: "Build the Ship under Our supervision and as We reveal. When Our command comes and water bubbles up from the earth, load into it a pair of every species, and your family-except for those among them against whom the word has already gone ahead. And do not address Me concerning those who do wrong. They shall be drowned." (Qur'an, 23:27)

Apart from those who boarded Prophet Nuh's (as) Ark, the entire tribe was drowned. The dead included the Prophet's son who thought he could escape by seeking shelter on a mountain.

It was said, "Earth, swallow up your water!" and, "Heaven, hold back your rain!" And the water subsided and the affair was concluded and the Ark came to land on al-Judi. And it was said, "Away with the people of the wrongdoers!" (Qur'an, 11:44)

Compared to the flood accounts contained in Jewish scriptures, and indeed the various cultural beliefs of other peoples, the Qur'anic account, which was revealed by Allah and is the only divine text to have remained uncorrupted, stands as the most reliable of all these accounts. The Torah, a corrupted text, says that this flood was universal and covered the whole world. On the contrary, it appears from the relevant verses that the flood was a regional one and punished not the whole world but only the tribe that rejected the Prophet Nuh (as). Those who were destroyed in it were the people who rejected the message of the Prophet Nuh (as) and persisted in their denial. There is no indication in the Qur'an that the flood was universal. The verses on the subject read:

We sent Nuh to his people: "I am a clear warner to you. Worship none but Allah. I fear for you the punishment of a painful day." (Qur'an, 11:25-26)

But they denied him so We rescued him and those with him in the Ark. And We drowned the people who denied Our Signs. They were a blind people. (Qur'an, 7:64) So We rescued him and those with him by mercy from Us, and We cut off the last remnant of those who denied Our Signs and were not believers. (Qur'an, 7:72)

As we have seen, we are told in the Qur'an that only the people of the Prophet Nuh (as) were destroyed, not the whole world. The corrected states of the corrupted accounts in Christian and Jewish scriptures in the Qur'an prove that it is, in its entirety, a book sent down by Allah.

Excavations in the region where the flood is believed to have occurred also show that the flood was not a universal event, but a wide-scale disaster that affected part of Mesopotamia.

When the waters subsided, the Ark came to rest. As revealed in the Qur'an, the resting place of the ark was al-Judi. The word "judi" is sometimes taken to mean a particular mountain, although the Arabic word itself means "high place, hill." From that point of view, the word "judi" can refer to the waters reaching only up to a certain height and not to the covering of all the land. In other words, we learn from the Qur'an that the flood did not swallow up all the land and all the mountains on Earth-as is related in Jewish scriptures and other legends-but only one particular region.

                                Archaeological Evidence for the Flood

According to the archaeological findings, Nuh’s Flood took place on the Mesopotamian Plain, the shape of which was very different to that of today. The present-day limits of the plain are shown with a dotted red line in the above diagram. The wide region beyond that line is known to have been part of the sea at that time. 
If a natural disaster, sudden migration or war, for example, should result in the destruction of a civilisation, traces of that civilisation are well-protected. The houses people lived in and the objects people used in their daily lives are quickly buried under the earth. These are thus conserved for long periods without being touched by human hands. For students of the past, they provide invaluable clues when they are finally brought to light.

In recent times, the discovery of a large amount of evidence concerning Nuh's Flood has come to the attention of the world's most prominent archaeologists and historians. The Flood, believed to have occurred around 3000 B.C., destroyed an entire civilisation and allowed an entirely new one to be founded in its place. That evidence of the Flood was preserved for thousands of years provides a deterrent to those people who have come after this punishment of the wicked.

Many excavations have been carried out to study the flood, which was localised on and around the Mesopotamian Plains. Digs in the region have encountered traces of a flood in four main cities on the Mesopotamian Plain: Ur, Erech, Kish and Shuruppak. Excavations in these cities have shown that these cities were hit by flooding around 3000 B.C.

The oldest of the remains of the civilisation in the city of Ur-today known as Tell al Muqqayar-date back to 7000 B.C. The city of Ur, one of the oldest human civilisations, was a settlement region in which consecutive civilisations were born and died.

The archaeological discoveries which came from study of Ur unearthed information which clearly informs us that a civilisation there was interrupted by a terrible flood and that new civilisations gradually sprang up in its place. Leonard Woolley led a joint excavation by the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania in the desert area between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf. Woolley's excavations are described by the German archaeologist Werner Keller as follows:



"The graves of the kings of Ur" - so Woolley, in the exuberance of his delight at discovering them, had dubbed the tombs of Sumerian nobles whose truly regal splendour had been exposed when the spades of the archaeologists attacked a fifty-foot mound south of the temple and found a long row of superimposed graves. The stone vaults were veritable treasure chests, for they were filled with all the costly goblets, wonderfully shaped jugs and vases, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, lapis lazuli, and silver surrounded these bodies which had mouldered into dust. Harps and lyres rested against the walls…

When after several days some of Woolley's workmen called out to him, "We are on ground level", he let himself down onto the floor of the shaft to satisfy himself. Woolley's first thought was "This is it at last". It was sand, pure sand of a kind that could only have been deposited by water.

They decided to dig on and make the shaft deeper. Deeper and deeper went the spades into the ground: three feet, six feet - still pure mud. Suddenly, at ten feet, the layer of mud stopped as abruptly as it had started. Under this clay deposit of almost ten feet thick, they had struck fresh evidence of human habitation…

The Flood - that was the only possible explanation of this great clay deposit beneath the hill at Ur, which quite clearly separated two epochs of settlement…217


Excavations in the Mesopotamian Plain revealed the presence of a layer of mud and clay at a depth of 2.5 metres (8 feet). This stratum in all probability consisted of clay carried by the waters of the Flood, and is to be found only under the Mesopotamian Plain.
Microscopic analysis revealed that this great clay deposit beneath the hill at Ur had accumulated here as a result of a flood, one so large and powerful as to annihilate ancient Sumerian civilisation. The epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Nuh were united in this shaft dug deep under the Mesopotamian desert.

Max Mallowan related the thoughts of Leonard Woolley, who said that such a huge mass of alluvium formed in a single time-slice could only be the result of a huge flood disaster. Woolley also described the flood layer, which separated the Sumerian city of Ur from the city of Al-Ubaid whose inhabitants used painted pottery, as the remains of the Flood.218

These facts demonstrated that the city of Ur was one of those places affected by the Flood. The German archaeologist Werner Keller also described the importance of the excavation in question. He has gone on record to say that the yield of city-remains beneath a muddy layer in the archaeological excavations made in Mesopotamia proves that there was indeed a flood in the region.219

Another Mesopotamian city to bear the traces of the Flood is the "Kish of the Sumerians," the present-day Tall Al-Uhaimer. Ancient Sumerian records describe this city as the "seat of the first postdiluvian dynasty."220

The southern Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak, the present-day Tall Fa'rah, also bears evident traces of the Flood. Archaeological investigations were carried out in this city between 1920 and 1930 by Erich Schmidt of the University of Pennsylvania. These excavations uncovered three layers of habitation which stretched from the late prehistoric period to the 3rd dynasty of Ur (2112-2004 B.C.). The most distinctive finds were ruins of well-built houses along with cuneiform tablets of administrative records and lists of words, indicating a highly developed society already in existence toward the end of the 4th millennium B.C.221

When one examines the opinions of these learned scientists, it is clear that they believe that the evidence which supports the Flood account is overwhelming. According to this opinion, this terrible flood took place in or around 3000-2900 B.C. According to Mallowan's account, 4-5 metres below the earth, Schmidt had reached a yellow soil layer (formed by flood) made up of a mixture of clay and sand. This layer was closer to the plain level than the tumulus profile and it could be observed all around the tumulus. Schmidt defined this layer made up of a mixture of clay and sand, which remained from the time of Ancient Kingdom of Cemdet Nasr, as "a sand with its origins in the river" and associated it with Nuh's Flood.222

In short, the excavations in the city of Shuruppak once again revealed the traces of a flood around 3000-2900 B.C. Together with the other cities, Shuruppak was in all probability struck by the Flood.223

The last settlement containing evidence of being struck by the Flood is the city of Erech, south of Shuruppak. Today, it is known as Tall Al-Warka. As in the other cities, a flood layer was also discovered here. Like the other cities, this flood layer has been dated to 3000-2900 B.C.224

The Euphrates and Tigris rivers divide Mesopotamia from one end to the other. It appears that in the era in question, these two rivers overflowed, together with all other water sources, great and small, combining with rainwater to create an enormous flood. This phenomenon is reported in these terms in the Qur'an:

So We opened the gates of heaven with torrential water and made the earth burst forth with gushing springs. And the waters met together in a way which was decreed. We bore him on a planked and well-caulked ship. (Qur'an, 54:11-13)

When the clues obtained from the research are evaluated, they indicate that the Flood covered all of the Mesopotamian plains. When we look at the succession of cities-Ur, Erech, Shuruppak and Kish-that bear the traces of the Flood, we see that they all lie in a line. In addition, the geographical structure of the Mesopotamian Plain was very different in around 3000 B.C. compared to its constitution today. At that time, the bed of the River Euphrates was much further to the east than it is today, lying on a line passing through Ur, Erech, Shuruppak and Kish. It therefore appears that the Euphrates burst its banks in this region and destroyed the four cities. (Allah knows best.)


REFERENCE   
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_06.html

of course the flood took place!

Mohammed simply stole the accounts in the Bible and plagiarized them to link them to Islam somehow.

what is meant by the 'whole world' is subject to debate, it may have been the known world at the time, so claiming authenticity for an essentially 'remixed' version of the actual accounts as written in Genesis is a tad silly.

"HAMAN" AND ANCIENT EGYPT MONUMENTS

The name "Haman" was not known until the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the 19th century. When the hieroglyphics were decoded, it was understood that Haman was a close helper of the Pharaoh and was "the head of the stone quarries.

The most important point here is that Haman is mentioned in the Qur'an as the person who directed construction work under the command of the Pharaoh. This means that information that could not have been known by anybody else at that time was given in the Qur'an, a point most worthy of note.

The Qur'an relates the life of the Prophet Musa (as) with great clarity. As it tells of the conflict with the Pharaoh and his dealings with the Children of Israel, the Qur'an reveals a wealth of information about ancient Egypt. The significance of many of these historical points have only recently come to the attention of the learned people of the world. If one considers these points with reason, it quickly becomes clear that the Qur'an, and the fountain of information contained within it, has been revealed by the All-Wise Allah for it correlates directly with all major scientific, historic and archaeological finds in recent times.

One such example of this wisdom can be found in the Qur'anic references to Haman: a character whose name is mentioned in the Qur'an, along with the Pharaoh. He is mentioned in six different places in the Qur'an, in which it informs us that he was one of Pharaoh's closest allies.

Surprisingly, the name "Haman" is never mentioned in those sections of the Torah pertaining to the life of the Prophet Musa (as). However, the mention of Haman can be found in the last chapters of the Old Testament as the helper of a Babylonian king who inflicted many cruelties on the Israelites approximately 1,100 years after the Prophet Musa (as).The Qur'an, far more in tune with recent archaeological discoveries, does indeed contain the word "Haman" in reference to the life of the Prophet Musa (as).

[b]The criticisms thrown at the book of Islam by some non-Muslims have disappeared by the wayside as an Egyptian hieroglyphic script had been deciphered, approximately 200 years ago, and the name "Haman" discovered in the ancient scripts. Until the 18th century, the writings and inscriptions of ancient Egypt could not be understood. The language of ancient Egypt was made up of symbols rather than words: hieroglyphics. These pictures, which tell stories and keep records of important events in the same way that modern words do, was usually engraved on rock or stone and many examples survived through the ages. With the spread of Christianity and other cultural influences in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Egypt forsook its ancient beliefs along with the hieroglyphic writing which was synonymous with that now defunct belief system. The last known example of the use of hieroglyphic writing was an inscription dated 394. The language of pictures and symbols was forgotten, leaving nobody who could read and understand it. Naturally, this made historical and archaeological study virtually impossible. This situation remained-until just over two centuries ago. [/b]

In 1799, much to the delight of historians and other learned people, the mystery of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics was solved by the discovery of a tablet called the "Rosetta Stone." This amazing find dated back to 196 B.C. The importance of this inscription was that it was written in three different forms of writing: hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified form of ancient Egyptian hieratic writing) and Greek. With the help of the Greek script, the ancient Egyptian writings were decoded. The translation of the inscription was completed by a Frenchman named Jean-Françoise Champollion. Hence, a forgotten language and the events related in it were brought to light. In this way, a great deal of knowledge about the civilization, religion and social life of ancient Egypt became available to mankind and this opened the way to greater knowledge about this important era in human history.

Through the decoding of hieroglyph, an important piece of knowledge was revealed: The name "Haman" was indeed mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. This name was referred to in a monument in the Hof Museum in Vienna. This same inscription also indicated the close relationship between Haman and the Pharaoh.

In the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers."201

The result revealed a very important truth: Unlike the false assertion of the opponents of the Qur'an, Haman was a person who lived in Egypt at the time of the Prophet Musa (as). He had been close to the Pharaoh and had been involved in construction work, just as imparted in the Qur'an.

Pharaoh said, "Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Musa's god! I consider him a blatant liar." (Qur'an, 28:38)

The verse in the Qur'an describing the event where the Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower is in perfect agreement with this archaeological finding. Through this brilliant discovery, the irrational claims of the opponents of the Qur'an were demonstrated to be false and intellectually worthless.

In a miraculous way, the Qur'an conveys to us historical information that could not have been possessed or understood at the time of the Prophet (saas).

Hieroglyphics could not be deciphered until the late 1700s so the information could not have been ascertained from Egyptian sources. When the name "Haman" was discovered in the ancient scripts, it was further proof of the infallibility of Allah's Word.

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_01.html

@ismailys,

Thanks for sharing.

Again, this effort is merely trying to force the idea that the Qur'an is a "scientific miracle" - and it won't be enough for me to say it is not, until I share the reasons why those points you posted are not helping your argument. Take for example the one about Haman:

ismailys:


"HAMAN" AND ANCIENT EGYPT MONUMENTS

The name "Haman" was not known until the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the 19th century. When the hieroglyphics were decoded, it was understood that Haman was a close helper of the Pharaoh and was "the head of the stone quarries.

I'd like to ask just 3 questions here:

(a) which "Haman" are you referring to here?

(b) did you check to verify that the name "Haman" was unknown until the 19th century?

(c) what is the cultural identity of that name?

Of course there are many more simple test questions to help you see how very fradulent are your "scientific" claims. For example, before the 19th century, the name "Haman" was well known and had been used in Esther 3 in the 1611 edition of the KJV translation of the Bible - that was way back in the 17th century! How could the translators have come to that name if nobody ever knew the name "Haman" until your Muslim "scientists" deviced the mechanical hat-trick to claim what you posted?

These are some of the simple issues that make me wonder why anyone would want to remain in a system where the "scholars" are deliberately making false claims.


Meanwhile, did you check out the simple test of the number of times the word "day" (yawm) appears in the Qur'an? It is NOT 365; and secondly, I requested you to check how many days there are in the Muslim calendar!

I look forward to your responses. . . and then I hope to take the time (no matter how long it takes me) to list out the number of occurences of that word in the Qur'an for you. Perhaps then, you would see for yourself that the claims of the "scientific miracles of the Qur'an" are false.

Cheers.

@Debosky;

what is meant by the 'whole world' is subject to debate, it may have been the known world at the time, so claiming authenticity for an essentially 'remixed' version of the actual accounts as written in Genesis is a tad silly.

Debosky, etc, apply the same 'whole world,' to the claim(s) you have for Jesus, son of Mary, about salvation, message, absortion of sins, etc! And of course, show me how essentially 'remixed,' version could be so better than the Original? Then I will show you, using Music Studio's metaphor, the original lacks the full flavor, whereas the remixed really had used some latest technology to turn out a Masterpiece. The Qur'an is that Masterpiece, while Torah and Sabur and the Bible (Good News) in total is that production that lacks the full flavor, because of lack of good and genuine efforts, both in the manpower and equipments usage.

ismailys:

miracles of numbers(repitition

Ha ha ha ha ha! The only miracle here is that anybody could have really believed that any of that is miraculous. Ha ha!

olabowale:

@Debosky; Debosky, etc, apply the same 'whole world,' to the claim(s) you have for Jesus, son of Mary, about salvation, message, absortion of sins, etc! And of course, show me how essentially 'remixed,' version could be so better than the Original? Then I will show you, using Music Studio's metaphor, the original lacks the full flavor, whereas the remixed really had used some latest technology to turn out a Masterpiece. The Qur'an is that Masterpiece, while Torah and Sabur and the Bible (Good News) in total is that production that lacks the full flavor, because of lack of good and genuine efforts, both in the manpower and equipments usage.

If the Koran is that masterpiece, then the Book of Mormon is the super, super, Masterpiece. And the scripture of the Bahai faith, the Kalimat-i-Maknunih? It's totally out of this world.

@KAG: Unfortunately, you did not put into consideration that the Mormon is a christian sect; has the same Jesus and all the other thing, then it has in addition Joseph Smith and 'angel' Moroni! Finally, God covenant with Ibrahiim is that all the Prophets after him will come from his bloodline: We see that all of those sects and religions that you mentioned above, none of their, using the term very very loosely, 'Prophet,' is from the Progeny of Ibrahiim. Take for example, the Mormons, their man is Joseph Smith, of Upstate New York. Joseph Smith, if you take him and try to apply him in the way you are suggesting, you will destroy the total Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant sects. Joseph Smith is their Saul/Paul. Both are less in God's eyes to Jesus. But a mere deviation of the Mormons from the main stream Christians, the orthodox sects, catholic and protestant put it at loggerhead as it goes against the grain of what it is accepted within Christianity up until Joseph Smith. Say, the difference is nothing less than 1000 years! Unless you will tell us that your Bible has been a lie until Joseph Smiths. Yet he copied its style. So both of them must be lying! No wonder the Republican conservatives in the USA are declaring that the Mormon is not from the Christian religion. Yet you are using it to malign your own Bible.

The other folks/groups that you mentioned, does any of their main personalities come from Ibrahiim's bloodline? If not, then you have the same condition of fakery as it applies to Mormon! Now, Islam happens to be a revealed religion. Its Book is from God directly. Its last and final prophet who received the revelations that the Qur'an is made up of, is directly from the bloodline of Ibrahiim. You see how your assertions are shredded apart like the lace attire of Ishola Folorunsho during his Bar beach last appearance! Don't worry this is beyond you.

olabowale:

@KAG: Unfortunately, you did not put into consideration that the Mormon is a christian sect; has the same Jesus and all the other thing, then it has in addition Joseph Smith and 'angel' Moroni! Finally, God covenant with Ibrahiim is that all the Prophets after him will come from his bloodline: We see that all of those sects and religions that you mentioned above, none of their, using the term very very loosely, 'Prophet,' is from the Progeny of Ibrahiim. Take for example, the Mormons, their man is Joseph Smith, of Upstate New York.

I doubt God's covenant with Abraham was that all the prophets will come from his bloodline. In any case, no matter, yes Jospeh Smith is a descendant of Abraham. Don't let the location of his birth fool you; several Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel moved to America and a few found their way to Britain, so Joseph Smith was born from Jewish descendants of Abraham. What may be confusing you is that some of the people in the tribe in America turned and killed the other Jews, which meant that God had to punish them by turning their skins red - those are the people you know as the Red Indians today. I know it's all true because it says so in the Book of The Latter Day Saints, and if it says so in the book, it must be true.

Joseph Smith, if you take him and try to apply him in the way you are suggesting, you will destroy the total Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant sects. Joseph Smith is their Saul/Paul. Both are less in God's eyes to Jesus.

No, no, you're mistaken. Joseph Smith didn't come to destroy Christianity, he came to perfect aspects of it. Sure he's less than Jesus in God's eye, but only marginally.

But a mere deviation of the Mormons from the main stream Christians, the orthodox sects, catholic and protestant put it at loggerhead as it goes against the grain of what it is accepted within Christianity up until Joseph Smith. Say, the difference is nothing less than 1000 years!

How old is Islam again?

Unless you will tell us that your Bible has been a lie until Joseph Smiths. Yet he copied its style. So both of them must be lying! No wonder the Republican conservatives in the USA are declaring that the Mormon is not from the Christian religion. Yet you are using it to malign your own Bible.

Then by your logic, Islam must also be a lie. Oh dear!

The other folks/groups that you mentioned, does any of their main personalities come from Ibrahiim's bloodline?

Obviously.

If not, then you have the same condition of fakery as it applies to Mormon! Now, Islam happens to be a revealed religion. Its Book is from God directly.

Um, both the LDS and the Bahai faith are revealed religions. Both their books come from God just as directly as that of Islam.

Its last and final prophet who received the revelations that the Qur'an is made up of, is directly from the bloodline of Ibrahiim.

So are Joseph Smith and the Bab.

Edited to add: Mohammed wasn't the last prophet. The Kalimat-i-Maknunih says he most definitely isn't. And since the Kalimat-i-Maknunih is the word of God and came after the Koran, we know that Muslims are mistaken in believing Mohammed was the last prophet. The scriptures have corrected one of several Mohammedian errors.

You see how your assertions are shredded apart like the lace attire of Ishola Folorunsho during his Bar beach last appearance! Don't worry this is beyond you.

Yeah, thanks for waiting for my response to your made up claptrap before drawing your conclusion.

So Mohammed added 'flavour' to make up the Quran?

finally you subtly admit that Mohammed added figments of his own imagination to 'perfect' what in his own mind was wrong, e.g. making Aaron (or Harun) as you call him infallible - he could not have made the golden calf because 'Allah didn't'

Mo couldn't comprehend how that would happen, a priest sinning, so he remixed it.

@ Kag

don't even mention the mormons, obviously the grail message of abd-rushin is the ultimate masterpiece

Who cares about Allah or muhammed ,all of them are false even the quran

@Debosky, KAG and Jayon: Gentle we have some problems!

I doubt God's covenant with Abraham was that all the prophets will come from his bloodline. In any case, no matter, yes Jospeh Smith is a descendant of Abraham. Don't let the location of his birth fool you; several Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel moved to America and a few found their way to Britain, so Joseph Smith was born from Jewish descendants of Abraham. What may be confusing you is that some of the people in the tribe in America turned and killed the other Jews, which meant that God had to punish them by turning their skins red - those are the people you know as the Red Indians today. I know it's all true because it says so in the Book of The Latter Day Saints, and if it says so in the book, it must be true.

Do you how wrong is if Mormon sect is the correct sect one. Therefore, all of the 'humanities,' that had passed away in the all the other are now in the lake of fire. Unfortunately, foryou and your idea, Joseph Smith happens not to be a 'Native American,' but a white man, 'WASP,' until after he had his Saul/Paul like encounter, which made him leave the Older Christian sect to formulate a new One! The failure in your theory also, is that God Almighty have confirmed that there will never be another Prophet, because the office of messengership ended with Muhammad. Finally there 'East European,' Jewry, is a convert to Judaism, but not Jew or 'Children of Israil,' by its ethnicity! That knocks it out the Box; possibility that the 'Red Indian,' are not ethnically Jew! Finally, your God punishes for all kind of infractions, yet by you, the same God will still have Israil as His people and all of you are praying for her success! Are you guys, the Christians taking into considerations, all Israil's evil deeds, even killing your god the son? In every case, however you slice it, your God will always be an unfair God, condoning others while he punishes a lot more for even a lesser sin; leaving Aaron alone, unpunished while He killed many in the scenario of the golden calf! If you do not believe the covenant with Ibrahiim as I provided it, yet you are using it to explain a possible authenticity of Joseph Smith and his sect! See how incredulous you are, flowing with whatever may look good. Your resentation has to 'Backbone!' Finally, was this not the same as the core of the covenant, from the Jews and christians looking glass? Except they are restricting it through Sarah! Obviously you do not know the history of the Red Indians! You need to go to the Reservations.

No, no, you're mistaken. Joseph Smith didn't come to destroy Christianity, he came to perfect aspects of it. Sure he's less than Jesus in God's eye, but only marginally.

And your Lord/God had allowed a horde of those people in the past before Joseph Smith worshipped Him, under the wrong Christian practices! Wow, a good god/lord he is! If all of this perfection of aspects ot it, I wonder what happens to the other aspects that Joseph Smith did not perfect? Somebody will come and perfect it, but somewhre where the 'world power' shifts at that time, say China, India? Take your pick! It can even be Obodo Nigeria, afterall, there used to be The CAC, started the Ijesha man by the name of Joseph Babalola! You see everybody is clinging to be Joseph! The capenter or son of Jacob, which one gongon? I remember Odumosu nicknamed Jesu Oyingbo in the days!

How old is Islam again?

Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!

Then by your logic, Islam must also be a lie. Oh dear!

If your idea is just simply cancel out old by new, then the Nation of Islam or the Ten Percenters of America would be the true religion then, and the rest are lies! See how ridiculous the premise you have put forward?

Um, both the LDS and the Bahai faith are revealed religions. Both their books come from God just as directly as that of Islam.

Just because a group says it has a religion and a book does not mean that it is authentic. See how many fakes that are around since Creation of Adam? Your thoughts needed to be ignored because it fluctuates between false premises to outright fantasy!

So Muhammad added 'flavour' to make up the Quran?

Just like how Igbo will make Egusi soup or Ogbonor soup, in different flavors from the Yorubas! But has a better outcome? The One who has a better recipe, with ful ingredient! Think about that, for a moment.

finally you subtly admit that Muhammad added figments of his own imagination to 'perfect' what in his own mind was wrong, e.g. making Aaron (or Harun) as you call him infallible - he could not have made the golden calf because 'Allah didn't'

Think about it, again. Jewish God punished so much for the littliest of offenses, eg the guy who fell or stumbled while carrying the ark of the covenant, a new covenant different frm what God had earlier with Ibrahiim, yet the same God left Aaron alone, while he punished the multitude for worshipping what Aaron made in the first place! Aaron role was many. Yes, the people asked him for a god to worship, he could have resisted their temptations in the request. The same fault that Judas Iscariot had later in betraying Jesus, according to the Bible. Aaron could also had not lead or participated in the making of this evil thing. Aaron was not reported to not have ben involved in the worshipping of this golden calf. So his offenses were at least 3, while the others have at most 2. But Aaron was with Moses in all the victories of Moses from the beginning when he emerged as a Messenger to demand for the freedom of his people from Egypt. He Aaron should have been strong in faith. Yet your God commanded the killing of many and did nothing to Aaron, even as little as a scratch of his skin! It is either that your God is ridiculously partial and unfair to all mankind, because He obviously set one separate to be favored here or that Aaron didnot lead nor even participate in the bringing about the golden calf. See how easy to come to the truth directly, instead of a lie that can be explained every which way till Wednesday, yet there will be more ways to explain further?

Mo couldn't comprehend how that would happen, a priest sinning, so he remixed it.

Your effort is so ridiculous that it deserve an award; stinking award for its stench!

Who cares about Allah or muhammed ,all of them are false even the quran

Outburst. Pop goes the whizzle!

@olabowale,

Two things, please:

olabowale:

@Debosky, KAG and Jayon: Gentle we have some problems!Do you how wrong is if Mormon sect is the correct sect one.

I don't think anyone has tried here to pass the Mormons off as the "correct" sect; hence, your pointer here is an ineffective mechanical device skit round the gist in the entries you were replying to.

olabowale:

The failure in your theory also, is that God Almighty have confirmed that there will never be another Prophet, because the office of messengership ended with Muhammad.

God Almighty did not "confirm" that there would be no other prophet - it was rather Muhammad who made that claim for himself without acknowledging the prophecies in the revelations of the Biblical prophets. This failure on Muhammad's part throws his idea completely out of the ambit of a prophetic discourse.

Meanwhile. . . @ismailys,

It would be interesting to see you come back and help clarify your assumptions for the mistaken idea of the "scientific miracles" of the Quran.

Nothing much, as I'm not requesting you to go through every single point. That is why I limited my query to just the few as regards these repeated request:

(a)

pilgrim.1:

Meanwhile, did you check out the simple test of the number of times the word "day" (yawm) appears in the Qur'an? It is NOT 365;

(b)

pilgrim.1:

and secondly, I requested you to check how many days there are in the Muslim calendar!

Just those two will do for now.

Shalom.

@pilgrim

[td]Meanwhile, did you check out the simple test of the number of times the word "day" (yawm) appears in the Qur'an? It is NOT 365;[/td]

of course there are approximately 360 days in the islamic lunar calendar(which has more spiritual meaning to muslims of the world).

but that does not mean islam does not recognize the solar calendar.
perhaps the 365 days was GOD'S way of doing HIS things , so that people
like you who are outside the fold of islam will realise its authenticity.

U said the number of times "day" occured in the noble Quran was not 365, i think u should
post the one u have and let see, remember i said "DAY".

and i expect u to contradict others too with proof, please

i tell you the truth , all these can NEVER be coincidence as some of you will postulate.

any way insha Allah i will post more , you havnt seen anything YET

@jayon

Who cares about Allah or muhammed ,all of them are false    even the quran

you are never going to care because the quran is too much for u to comprehend , but very soon you will care , nobody is going to force you , but then it will be too late.

Q 10:38 Or do they say, "He FORGEd it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"

Q11:13 Or they may say, "He FORGEd it," Say, "Bring ye then ten suras FORGEd, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah.- If ye speak the truth!

Q11:35 Or do they say, "He has FORGEd it"? Say: "If I had FORGEd it, on me were my sin! and I am free of the sins of which ye are guilty!

na you go carry your own cross yaself o. no deceive yourself,

@ismailys,

Many thanks for replying. How bodi?

ismailys:

@pilgrim

[td]Meanwhile, did you check out the simple test of the number of times the word "day" (yawm) appears in the Qur'an? It is NOT 365;[/td]

of course there are approximately 360 days in the islamic lunar calendar(which has more spiritual meaning to muslims of the world).

Okay, but your "approximate" figure of 360 is still far apart from the widely accepted figure of 354 (or perhaps 355 depending on what Muslim authority is doing the counting). The reason why I requested your view on that was to understand where you were coming from regarding the idea of the numbering system among Muslim apologists - because those who offer a "360 days" also have this idea of attributing it to a "perfect circle or degree" (since a full revolution is 360°).

Not that it would have mattered anyway, but just to be sure that I don't misread you was the reason why I requested your view. Following that, I'll share a few things with you consequently - using your prefered figure of approximately 360 days.

ismailys:

but that does not mean islam does not recognize the solar calendar.

I didn't say Islam disregards the "solar" calendar - and perhaps you anticipated me when you stated immediately that:

ismailys:

perhaps the 365 days was GOD'S way of doing HIS things , so that people
like you who are outside the fold of islam will realise its authenticity

. . . which would mean that this whole idea is predicated on a religious context rather than merely concerns with other worldviews. As long as you introduce it upon the basis of "GOD'S way of doing HIS things", there's no doubt that you're asking your reader to assume a religious leaning when examining the claims you reposted from whereever you harvested them.

Secondly, to assume that people outside the fold of Islam who may be reading those claims would then try to figure out the "authenticity" of the Qur'an, is asking to skate a bit off the rink. WHY? Because that would be asking people outside the fold of Islam (such as the Jews) to examine the claims you posted under a different calendar system (the Hebrew calendar) - and by that alone, your premise would be wrong.

ismailys:

You said the number of times "day" occured in the noble Quran was not 365, i think u should post the one u have and let see, remember i said "DAY".

I am particular about "DAY" (singular) and not "day[b]s[/b]" (plural). I'll take my time to post them for your careful consideration.

ismailys:

and i expect u to contradict others too with proof, please

Well, my point is not to "contradict" anything, but as stated earlier - to show you that such ideas adduced for "proof" for a so-called "scientific miracle" of the Qur'an are wrong. Ultimately, in the course of sharing my views with you, there would be clear pointers to contradict you post - but more than that, my aim is to help you see that your researchers have manipulated the figures. Fair enough?

ismailys:

i tell you the truth , all these can NEVER be coincidence as some of you will postulate.

I think it would be too early for me to counter that statement; because my persuasion is that UNTIL I have shared my points, any claim to those posts not being "coincidental" is a bit preposterious. When we get there, you should be able to find that they are more than a coincidence - because the authors manipulated the figures.

ismailys:

any way insha Allah i will post more , you havnt seen anything YET

If the "more" you intend to post is not another string of manipulated figures and claims (like the false claim for "HAMAN", then there's nothing new there.

Cheers.

olabowale:

@Debosky, KAG and Jayon: Gentle we have some problems!

A quick glance at your response shows that you certainly do have some problems.

Do you how wrong is if Mormon sect is the correct sect one. Therefore, all of the 'humanities,' that had passed away in the all the other are now in the lake of fire.

Huh, what? No, humans that died before Joseph Smith aren't necessarily in hell: Joseph Smith wasn't Jesus. Furthermore, there are provisions for those that died prior to Jesus.

By the way, what's the Muslim view of what happens to people that were born before Muhammad?

Unfortunately, foryou and your idea, Joseph Smith happens not to be a 'Native American,' but a white man, 'WASP,' until after he had his Saul/Paul like encounter, which made him leave the Older Christian sect to formulate a new One!

Look, pay attention: I explained this in my previous post. The people we call "Native Americans" were the people whose skin was turned red by God as a sign that they were being punished for rising up against the rest of the tribe of Israel. So, yes, Joseph smith was White, but that's because he didn't descend from the tribe of Israel that was cursed by God. It says so in ancient slowpoke theology, so it must be true.

The failure in your theory also, is that God Almighty have confirmed that there will never be another Prophet, because the office of messengership ended with Muhammad.

No, no, you're wrong. Like I mentioned in the previous post, that wasn't God's saying: that's an error on the part of either Mohammedians or Muhammad himself. Both the LDS and, especially, the Bahai faith make it clear that prophets are supposed to come after Muhammad. In fact, the Koran predicts the coming of the Bab.

Finally there 'East European,' Jewry, is a convert to Judaism, but not Jew or 'Children of Israil,' by its ethnicity! That knocks it out the Box; possibility that the 'Red Indian,' are not ethnically Jew!

That's a load of nonsense. Okay, let's get serious for a second. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jews residing in Eastern Europe are also Jews; however, none is more compelling than that of the genetic testing of the Ashkenazi. Genetics have shown that they are indeed Jews that descended from ancient - very anient - Jews.

Also, I don't se how your claim knocks the possibility of Red Indians being ethnically Jewish out of the box. Your two statemnets don't logically follow. Look, I'll do you a solid and inform you that you can present a genetic argument against the idea, but what you have above ain't it.

Finally, your God punishes for all kind of infractions, yet by you, the same God will still have Israil as His people and all of you are praying for her success!

Woah, way to introduce a red herring. I think that it isn't a particular red herring makes it ever slightly offensive. By the way, which God are you talking about?

Are you guys, the Christians taking into considerations, all Israil's evil deeds, even killing your god the son? In every case, however you slice it, your God will always be an unfair God, condoning others while he punishes a lot more for even a lesser sin; leaving Aaron alone, unpunished while He killed many in the scenario of the golden calf!

I'm still not sure I know what you're on about, and looking at it, I pretty much doubt you know what you're talking about either.

If you do not believe the covenant with Ibrahiim as I provided it, yet you are using it to explain a possible authenticity of Joseph Smith and his sect! See how incredulous you are, flowing with whatever may look good. Your resentation has to 'Backbone!'

Don't be silly! That I don't agree with the authnecity of your assertation doesn't mean that I can't show that the people I presented meet the standards. For example, an argument could be presented that to be the president of the US, you have to be a White male. I may not agree with the argument, but I can certainly show that several people meet that criteria.

Basically, get real and present a half decent rebuttal.

Finally, was this not the same as the core of the covenant, from the Jews and christians looking glass? Except they are restricting it through Sarah! Obviously you do not know the history of the Red Indians! You need to go to the Reservations.

You don't seem to understand. If the book of Mormon says something, because it' the word of God, that omething has to be true.

And your Lord/God had allowed a horde of those people in the past before Joseph Smith worshipped Him, under the wrong Christian practices! Wow, a good god/lord he is!

Oh Dear! Are you saying Allah is a terrible god/lord because he allowed people to worship under the wrong practices before sending Muhammad? That's epic, man. So should I just take it that you're living the religion of that terrible, unjust god of yours?

If all of this perfection of aspects ot it, I wonder what happens to the other aspects that Joseph Smith did not perfect?

He perfected what he was supposed to perfect, because Muhammad didn't do everything.

Somebody will come and perfect it, but somewhre where the 'world power' shifts at that time, say China, India? Take your pick! It can even be Obodo Nigeria, afterall, there used to be The CAC, started the Ijesha man by the name of Joseph Babalola! You see everybody is clinging to be Joseph! The capenter or son of Jacob, which one gongon? I remember Odumosu nicknamed Jesu Oyingbo in the days!

Not really. By the way, the Bab came and managed to do a great deal.

Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!

You dodged the question. Not nice and not subtle.

If your idea is just simply cancel out old by new, then the Nation of Islam or the Ten Percenters of America would be the true religion then, and the rest are lies! See how ridiculous the premise you have put forward?

I didn't put that premise forward, YOU did. Now that we know that you think your implication is ridiculous, need we continue this torture?

Just because a group says it has a religion and a book does not mean that it is authentic.

Good, because I was always had my doubts about Islam/Mohammedianism.

See how many fakes that are around since Creation of Adam? Your thoughts needed to be ignored because it fluctuates between false premises to outright fantasy!

No, the false premises and outright fantasies have come from the Muslim camp so far (look at the original post for a quick and obvious example). By the way, I know these things are sometimes hard to detect, but my premises have followed the same line presented by yourself and other Muslims. If they are false, then it stands to reason that the Muslim premises are just as wrong - or worse. That does put us into a sticky bind, doesn't it.

@KAG

KAG:  
    A quick glance at your response shows that you certainly do have some problems.

I am going to show how wrong, rather dishonest you are in your responses to me. Watch.

KAG:
Huh, what? No, humans that died before Joseph Smith aren't necessarily in hell: Joseph Smith wasn't Jesus. Furthermore, there are provisions for those that died prior to Jesus.
By the way, what's the Muslim view of what happens to people that were born before Muhammad?>

The view of the Islamic religion are in the Qur'an and hadith, hence my only sources of information. All prophets were Muslims. From Adam all the way to Muhammad (as jami'ah). All prophets had the same functions, bringing guidance, from God the Almighty to their generations. Those who accepted guidance and followed the prophet of whom they lived under his prophethood, will go to Paradise. Those who did not follow their prophet under whose prophethood they lived will go to hellfire. Let me show you. For illustration of this view, those who continued to believe in Moses, but rejected Jesus, when Jesus proclaimed his prophethood, have really rejected Moses as well, but they just did not know it, because of the ignorance that remained in their hearts. Now, those people are destined for hell. From the time that Muhammad received the first 5 verses of Surah Alaq, the time of Jesus came to an end. Please give me the view of those who died before Jesus, the obedients and the disobedients among them? And how do you clacify obedience and disobedience before Jesus?

KAG:
Look, pay attention: I explained this in my previous post. The people we call "Native Americans" were the people whose skin was turned red by God as a sign that they were being punished for rising up against the rest of the tribe of Israel. So, yes, Joseph smith was White, but that's because he didn't descend from the tribe of Israel that was cursed by God. It says so in ancient slowpoke theology, so it must be true.>

Rubbish you speak Mr. KAG! First you fail to provide us even to buttress your own argument, what is the sin of the "RED SKINNED"Native Americans? They travelled all the way from whereever the 'tribe of Israel' was when their skinned changed to Red, and all of them settled in the Americas! Wow, there is not even a single one that remained within the group of non red skinned tribe of Israel. We may just conclude as well that the red skinned people's punishment must include their separation from the rest of Israel tribe. Yet God of the Israelite (That God is the same that the Christian claimed before the 3 in 1 god concept became the thing under the umbrella of TRINITY), turned skin into red as a means of punishment, yet He did not punish Aaron for disobeying part of the 10 commandments, by his involvement in the golden calf! A just God indeed, except that it did not happen as theChristian/Jew put it! You see again, the Prophets are people who do not commit sins like you and me. For example another man would have gone astray in the trial of Joseph from the wife of his master in Egypt. So I will leave you alone to go think about it. However your retuttal above is very weak.

KAG: No, no, you're wrong. Like I mentioned in the previous post, that wasn't God's saying: that's an error on the part of either Mohammedians or Muhammad himself. Both the LDS and, especially, the Bahai faith make it clear that prophets are supposed to come after Muhammad. In fact, the Koran predicts the coming of the Bab.>

Please give me the Chapter and Verse in the Qur'an that predict the coming of th Bab, the folks who believed that the office of prophethood is not sealed, with Muhammad? And there is nothing called Mohammedians. I aught to know. I am a Muslim and you are not. Maybe you put forward the idea, in the same way TRINITY is put forward. The difference is that we in Islam do not work on faith that does not see, with the inner eye (Good reflection) and/or physical eyes (Verification of nature and the elements in it). Blind faith is with the Christians and thats how TRINITY could be acceptable, even though it does not pass muster! You trying to hard to second guess your Creator. You are neither a prophet nor Messenger from Him. Jesus did not say what you said about seal of prophethood. The only prophet that came after him, Muhammad (as) said it and you suddenly you have problems with it!

KAG: That's a load of nonsense. Okay, let's get serious for a second. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jews residing in Eastern Europe are also Jews; however, none is more compelling than that of the genetic testing of the Ashkenazi. Genetics have shown that they are indeed Jews that descended from ancient - very anient - Jews.
Also, I don't se how your claim knocks the possibility of Red Indians being ethnically Jewish out of the box. Your two statemnets don't logically follow. Look, I'll do you a solid and inform you that you can present a genetic argument against the idea, but what you have above ain't it

Just the other day, they showed that Ishaq Shemiah is from the Eastern European Jews, which includes the Russian Jewry. It was stated that they are not really Jews, but a convert under the king in the ancient time who converted with all his nation. In that program where Shemiah was discussed, they show the opposite, Shemon Perez, who was not from Eastern block Jewry, to be a true bloodline of what is known as Israelite. Go and do your own research. maybe you should result to google and or widipedia and others. Already you have batted zero for three. But I will continue to allow you to even remain on the mound. You have not proven the red indians to be from the Chikldren of Israel. There is no evidence of it. Even the Falasians of East Africa have their evidences. The few who claim Jewry/Children of Israel descendancy in West Africa, have the evidences to proof it. We have not seen the Golbal Jewry or the American Jews accepting the Red Indians about what you present. Finally, do your own research, you will see that Joseph Smith was not from the Children of Isreal, either.

KAG: Woah, way to introduce a red herring. I think that it isn't a particular red herring makes it ever slightly offensive. By the way, which God are you talking about?>

Not the true God the Creator, who I worship. I am talking about your made up god! That god could have been the idol/image or the conceptualised god that you have. The god that was limited by knowledge to kow the total/complete condition of its subject that he had to come learn their ways, in order to give mercy/justice! Yet, according to you some people will end up in the lake of fire, even after this god learnt first hand how difficult it is to live a life of human. See how weak that god is? A true God knows everything. Thats the God I worship. Your concept of god is not different from the hamandiola (I read it from +osisi's post. I may be wrong about the spelling, but am going to assume it is an igbo religion. Same as Shongo of Yoruba).

KAG: I'm still not sure I know what you're on about, and looking at it, I pretty much doubt you know what you're talking about either.

  I am teaching you your Bible, silly (thats just to say that you should know, duh. I am not saying it as an offensive statement). Unless you are pretending not to know. Maybe you truly do not know. Read how unfair is your god is in the Bible! Let me even tell you, your bible god said braham should send out his young son and the mother of the son out. Both mother and son did not put up even an argument. Then your god cursed the child that he will be a wild man. Remember it was the little boy who was cursed to be a wild man. This boy turned out to be a descent man and there was no report that he was ever wild or made anybody uncomfortable, throughout his life! Now tell we did the curse come to pass on the boy? No! It is because there was no god cursing the boy! The curse was just a made up argument to bring this man, Ischmael down! It did not work. And if you respond with anything other than Ischmael, expect me to respond in the same manner of your response. I have to warn you first. Stand upon the truth, even if the truth will prove you wrong.

KAG: Don't be silly! That I don't agree with the authnecity of your assertation doesn't mean that I can't show that the people I presented meet the standards. For example, an argument could be presented that to be the president of the US, you have to be a White male. I may not agree with the argument, but I can certainly show that several people meet that criteria.
Basically, get real and present a half decent rebuttal.>

I do not get your joke here. But I will try to laugh with you, anyway. lol. I do not want to upset you, but explain yourself! To be a prophet is not just claiming the title it has a tremendous amount of valued/parts/responsibility and proveability. Joseph Smith would never have passed the muster of Prophethood, it any of the core litmus was applied. 

KAG: You don't seem to understand. If the book of Mormon says something, because it' the word of God, that omething has to be true.>

You are a Mormon. I see. Just like Mitt Romney. Sorry, man. I am now aware of your reason to argue the case for Mormon, and for Protestants, Catholics, the same people the mormon have a common relationships, vis a vis, Bible, however different, Jesus regrdless of who is doing the talking, and religion, Christianity. Let me ask you this though, is Jesus at least also son of man and a prophet who did not have dignity in his own land, in the Book of Mormon? I smile bashfully, covering my mouth with my hand.

KAG: Oh Dear! Are you saying Allah is a terrible god/lord because he allowed people to worship under the wrong practices before sending Muhammad? That's epic, man. So should I just take it that you're living the religion of that terrible, unjust god of yours?>

  KAG, you are so dishonest, its scary! Are you truly a believer in something or you are just arguing for the purpose of participation? If you believe in anything at all, you would have known, at least from this board that the Muslims are very consistent it their claims, that God Almighty Allah had sent Prophets and Messengers to makind, starting from Adam, who was aprophet and the first man to be created. His prophethood covered his wife and him, at the beginning and then their children when they began to have them. The generations continues and the prophethood of Adam stopped when the next prophet began his prophethood. This is the chain links of all prophets/messengers, one succeeding the other, until the last that was sent to all mankinds; The whole earth human and jinn. That prophet/messenger was Muhammad (as). So you see God in Islam never left any human group without providing guidance source. And the core message is Always Laa ilaha ilallah! (No god except 'The God').

KAG: He perfected what he was supposed to perfect, because Muhammad didn't do everything.>

KAG, what did Joseph Smith do? And what didnt Muhammad perfect; any aspect at all, from cradle to grave? Please quiz me and the muslims. This should be interesting. Our answers will not be localized, but universal. Unlike any answer you will provide when we quiz you. That is if you will strong enough to handle the truth.

KAG:
Not really. By the way, the Bab came and managed to do a great deal.>

Are you a cultist? You seem to be so facinated by these cult like groups. Are they like heavens gate of the 80s in America, the group that killed themselves by taking poison?

KAG: You dodged the question. Not nice and not subtle.>

I am going to find his question. I will answer it if it is true that I dodge it. Or just simply quote it for his own reference to show that i did not dodge it.


(KAG's question which he asked me and I answere him with the one liner below. How old is Islam again?
Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!)


Now I will do better I will answer you that Islam started for mankind at the time that Adam became a living soul. See as a living man, he was not a spirit. But his soul is a spirit. Now, up to the time of the receipt of revelation, by Muhammad, Islam was in this developing stage(s), but becoming formented into maturity. So when in the hand of Adam, it was in its earlies infancy. When it got to Ibrahiim, it had taken up the name Muslim for those who pracice it. And Ibrahiim was the first in his generation, afterall he was the prophet. When it got to Jesus, it was a lot advance, call it in graduate school at that time. Finally, during the prophethood od Muhammad, in the time of his only Hajj, in his last year full year on earth, Allah Completed the religion, by perfecting it as a favor bestowed upon mankind and chose that RELIGION, in this perfect stage as the only religion acceptable by Him. There fore if you are talking about its perfect stage it is over 1400 years. If you are taling about when it transferred to Muhammad as the steward then it is hijra plus 13 years. If you are talking about it started with mankind, then you have to go to Adam himself. calculate from there. Definately, it is older than Judaism and Christianity.

KAG:
I didn't put that premise forward, YOU did. Now that we know that you think your implication is ridiculous, need we continue this torture?>

KAG, what is shameful here is that you even deny your own statements! The below is what you said when I responsed to Debosky about his 'remix,' allegation against the Qur'an. I said, in a nutshell,how could the remixed be so better than the original, and I used the Music studio allegory/metaphor to support my argument with him. But you were the one that responded instead. Anyway your response is as noted. Who is not sincere here, putting forward that the New Must be the better? Definately not me. My idea is for certain that Qur'an did not copy a corrupt material text!
(Here is what you said, KAG, which you are trying to forget)If the Koran is that masterpiece, then the Book of Mormon is the super, super, Masterpiece. And the scripture of the Bahai faith, the Kalimat-i-Maknunih? It's totally out of this world.)

KAG: Good, because I was always had my doubts about Islam/Mohammedianism.>

You are action like our former Defense Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumfeld. Repeat a lie so many times long enough, and it be taken as the truth. KAG, there is no Islamic word known as Mohammediansm. Just as there is no word in Christianity called TRINITY, eventhough you develop an Idea on this phantom. Your premise of doubt can be applied to every religion by one or more of the others. Today, Mitt Romney is being flatly rejected by other Christians, who are claiming that Mormon is a cult What do you say to that? Today alone Barack Obama is stating that he is not a Muslim. People forgets that his mother is white, but all they see is the Kenyan in him. So you see we can cancel each other out, all day and all night. But non o that effort will change God's about his religion.

KAG: No, the false premises and outright fantasies have come from the Muslim camp so far (look at the original post for a quick and obvious example). By the way, I know these things are sometimes hard to detect, but my premises have followed the same line presented by yourself and other Muslims. If they are false, then it stands to reason that the Muslim premises are just as wrong - or worse. That does put us into a sticky bind, doesn't it`

 

The one who is in a sticky bind is none less than you. In the first place, the Bible (New Testament) is fighting the Toral (Old Testament) Then the New Testament turns around and fights itself. It fights itself by putting up Mark 12 verse 29 up against the concept of Trinity> By the way, which one do you take to be true, because they cannot both be true? It fights the Torah on one hand by its concept of Trinity as well and the agrees with it by Mark 12 Verse 29. What we have then are two fights and 2 agrements! This is confusing.

@ Olabowale

All prophets were Muslims. From Adam all the way to Muhammad (as jami'ah).

That is essentially false as there is no proof of this besides the empty and unreliable words of a "prophet" who lived thousands of yrs after all these Jewish prophets of Yahweh died. I continually ask for quranic proof of these . . . where are their "revelations" in the quran?

All prophets had the same functions, bringing guidance, from God the Almighty to their generations.

This is miserably hollow and is an indication that the quran is sadly ignorant about what the biblical prophets were all about. The bible indicates that all the jewish prophets had specific functions . . . all their clearly defined and separate messages are recorded in the bible . . . surprisingly all these are absent in the quran. Moses had a clearly different function from Joshua or Elisha or Jeremiah.
I ask again . . . why did allah spend so much effort on Jewish prophets? Where are the ishmealite prophets?

Those who accepted guidance and followed the prophet of whom they lived under his prophethood, will go to Paradise. Those who did not follow their prophet under whose prophethood they lived will go to hellfire.

this is another clear difference between mohammed and the biblical prophets he so cluelessly tries to align himself with. NONE of the prophets of the bible asked the people to follow under their prophethood . . . their messages were about turning to the ways of Jehovah and not themselves.

For illustration of this view, those who continued to believe in Moses, but rejected Jesus, when Jesus proclaimed his prophethood, have really rejected Moses as well, but they just did not know it, because of the ignorance that remained in their hearts.

Moses never asked the jews to believe in him. Not even once.

From the time that Muhammad received the first 5 verses of Surah Alaq, the time of Jesus came to an end.

Based on the empty words of mohammed? Where did allah say this?

@ olabowale

You see again, the Prophets are people who do not commit sins like you and me.

another false statement from a liar. Moses failed to reach the promised land because of sin . . . all biblical prophets were humans like you and i and were vulnerable to sin too. Not once does the bible regard them as sinless.
Mohammed could not claim to be sinless either . . . he is see several times in the hadiths praying for forgiveness of sins.

The generations continues and the prophethood of Adam stopped when the next prophet began his prophethood. This is the chain links of all prophets/messengers, one succeeding the other, until the last that was sent to all mankinds; The whole earth human and jinn. That prophet/messenger was Muhammad (as).

Just one question . . . who was the prophet that mohammed claimed to have succeeded or did allah leave his precious muslims without a prophet for a long period?

In the first place, the Bible (New Testament) is fighting the Toral (Old Testament)

The old testament is part of the bible . . . does the above make sense even to a 3yr old?
Where is the torah from allah? Has he found his lost copy?

@Dawid: Nko to ba wu e ni ko pe re e. The voice is like the voice of jakobu, and the skin (The hairy arm) is that of Esau. But the attitude, is all davidylan! Oh boy, whats going on? Doing your Hoodini, again? What sin did Moses commit? Yet, his Lord never stop having an audience with him. Dafidi, Iro wa le nue, Oye ka wa ma ta ni Gbanjoo! You never will change, liar today, liar tomorrow, liar always! Ti nba nue, ma loo enu e yen. No wonder you refused to call. Trickster!

On one hand you said the prophets are vulnerable to sin, and your Bible never referred to them as sinless not one time. Good. Since Jesus was also a prophet, i am certain that he was also in their group! Finito. You made your bed lumpy, laydown and wake up with backache! So it is no surprise to you to see Muhammad, also a human and a prophet supplicating to his Creator for forgiveness.

However the difference between Islam (Qur'an and the prophets) is that God protects his prophets from sins, given them the ability to fight it. Again The case of Joseph comes to mind> How he preferred to go to Prison instead of committing fornicatio with the woman, whereby the woman will be committing adultery. Muhammad was reported to respond to Aisha that he is praying so much to thank his God who had confirmed that his sins of the future is already forgotten him! And you know from just going 'back' to the future that he could not have committed the future sins until he gets there. Yet we never will see in the report of hadith that he committed any sins. You will know that Allah will tell him, if he had committed any.

Afterall, we see in Surah Ahzah where Allah say He is not shy. We also see in Surah Abasa where Allah tell Muhammad to respond to the blind man, who he had told to hang on until he finished his conversation with a nobility he was talking with about Islam. Muhammad never hid anything revealed to him and heeded all commands. Afterall Allah thretened that the punishment would have been doubled. (This here reminds me that if Jesus were to have claimed lordship any time, his punihment would have een double; Because he was given a prophethood and there was no need to not deliver the message as he was given, exactly!) So, when Muhammad was asking for giveness in the Hadith, it was because he was a sinner. It was his sunnah that he should not be arrogant, puff up and then this was a good example for us, to seek forgiveness endlessly.

Between Muhammad and Jesus (as Jami'ah) there is no prophet. Muhammad succeeded Jesus. You should have known that since by religion Jesus was a Christian and we know that he was not in Judaism. No prophet was a Jew or Christian, by religion.

Since you now revert to addition Torah as part of the mother Bible, the bible parts are fighting and agreeing with ech other. Thern One particular part, the New Testament, is fighting itselg; One God/Lord on One hand, then 3 god heads in 1 god on another hand. Silly.

The core issue of every revelation , before Moses, and to Mose and jesus and finally Muhammad (AS jami'ah) is that ther is no god except the GOD. Check the Qr'ah every prophet abide by this. Now can you give me the revelation of Adam, Jonah, Job, to me from the Bible and postulates Trinity, Dafidi?

So if the prophets of the Bible were saying turn to the way of Jehovah,did they themselves were the first among their community to do so and those who followe or they Jusr said it but they themselve never have to do so? Either way i wonder how Jesus oldly declare to his community that he was under the Lordship of God, just the same way they all were. Since it was Jesus that was telling them and they taking it to heart, jesus have known it somewhat sooner than before it was coming out of his mouth to their ears.

Let me tell you something david, didn't Moses lead the way out of Egypt, under his instructions? Didnt Moses lead the way into the sea, meaning undr his instructions, the Israelites went into the sea? Believed in Moses, as a prophet Davidi, thats what I meant! Believed in Jesus as a prophet! Afterall the companions of Jesus asked himto giv them a sign: What was the purpose of the sign? To believe him as a prophet. Read the Qur'an. Thats all she wrote.

Afterall, in the Hadith, after the first revelation, the first 5 Verses of Surah Alaq, Jibril said to Muhammad, I am Jibril and you are the Messenger of Allah.

olabowale:

@KAG; I am going to show how wrong, rather dishonest you are in your responses to me. Watch.

Uh, not really, no. by the way, thanks for the courtesy of of posting a big block of quote, you jerk.

The view of the Islamic religion are in the Qur'an and hadith, hence my only sources of information.

And the view of Mormons and the adherents of the Bahai faith are in the LDS scripture, the Kalimat-i-Maknunih and other Bahai faith scriptures, and in fact, the scriptures of other faiths too; hence, their ability to point out the flaws in your views.

All prophets were Muslims. From Adam all the way to Muhammad (as jami'ah).

Yeah, that's nonsense. Islam as initially a cult and afterwards a religion didn't exist before the 6th-7th century, where Mohammed inspired the new religion. To claim that people that preceded a relligion were adherents of the religion is to introduce a meaningless concept - one that should be disregarded because it's nonsensical rhetoric. What's more, the "prophets" that precede Islam most certainly had practices alien to that of Muslims and would never have been able to conceive of themselves as followers of a former moon God, so it follows from that as well, that they cannot be encompassed in your redefined term. By the way, you need to watch your generalities: I'm sure when you say "all prophets", you don't actually mean all prophets.

All prophets had the same functions, bringing guidance, from God the Almighty to their generations. Those who accepted guidance and followed the prophet of whom they lived under his prophethood, will go to Paradise. Those who did not follow their prophet under whose prophethood they lived will go to hellfire. Let me show you. For illustration of this view, those who continued to believe in Moses, but rejected Jesus, when Jesus proclaimed his prophethood, have really rejected Moses as well, but they just did not know it, because of the ignorance that remained in their hearts. Now, those people are destined for hell. From the time that Muhammad received the first 5 verses of Surah Alaq, the time of Jesus came to an end.

You know, that's exactly what the Bahai faith states - apart from the God sending people to hell because of ignorance bit, that is. I don't know why you have to be so stubborn, don't you know that by rejecting the prophets of the Bahai faith, you're also rejecting Mohammed, talkless of Moses? The time of Mohammed has come to end. The Kalimat-i-Maknunih says so, therefore, it's true.

Please give me the view of those who died before Jesus, the obedients and the disobedients among them? And how do you clacify obedience and disobedience before Jesus?

From a Christian Universalist view, all are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus whether they lived before the coming of Jesus, or after his death. Those who were/are "disobedient" will eventually find redemption too. From a more hardline Christian view, those who died before Jesus are judged by their works and their intentions. there are several middle grounds between the two, including what seems like a Calvinistic proclaimation in Hebrews 9:15

Rubbish you speak Mr. KAG! First you fail to provide us even to buttress your own argument, what is the sin of the "RED SKINNED"Native Americans? They travelled all the way from whereever the 'tribe of Israel' was when their skinned changed to Red, and all of them settled in the Americas! Wow, there is not even a single one that remained within the group of non red skinned tribe of Israel. We may just conclude as well that the red skinned people's punishment must include their separation from the rest of Israel tribe. Yet God of the Israelite (That God is the same that the Christian claimed before the 3 in 1 god concept became the thing under the umbrella of TRINITY), turned skin into red as a means of punishment,

Dude, seriously, pay attention! Their sin was butchering the other tribes of Israel that came to the land with them. The sign that they were being punished was the "red" skin. I've said all this before.

yet He did not punish Aaron for disobeying part of the 10 commandments, by his involvement in the golden calf! A just God indeed, except that it did not happen as theChristian/Jew put it!

Red herring. I'm not big on fish at the moment.

You see again, the Prophets are people who do not commit sins like you and me. For example another man would have gone astray in the trial of Joseph from the wife of his master in Egypt. So I will leave you alone to go think about it.

Well, yeah, not like me, at least. I'm not the type to marry a six (!!!) year old girl. I'll leave you to think about that. One can only hope it'll limit further red herrings.

However your retuttal above is very weak. Just the other day, they showed that Ishaq Shemiah is from the Eastern European Jews, which includes the Russian Jewry. It was stated that they are not really Jews, but a convert under the king in the ancient time who converted with all his nation. In that program where Shemiah was discussed, they show the opposite, Shemon Perez, who was not from Eastern block Jewry, to be a true bloodline of what is known as Israelite. Go and do your own research. maybe you should result to google and or widipedia and others. Already you have batted zero for three.

Look, enough of this idiocy. It's probable that you don't know what the term "Jew" means as an ethnicity, but really, get a grip.

One quick example of the genetic history of one subset of European Jews, the Ashkenazi:

"DNA clues

Efforts to identify the origins of Ashkenazi Jews through DNA analysis began in the 1990s. Like most DNA studies of human migration patterns, these studies have focused on two segments of the human genome, the Y chromosome (inherited only by males), and the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA, DNA which passes from mother to child). Both segments are unaffected by recombination. Thus, they provide an indicator of paternal and maternal origins, respectively.

A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al[14] found that the Y chromosome of some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East. The male admixture proportion in Ashkenazi Jews (roughly 0.5% per generation), indicating that they remained, to a large extent, genetically isolated throughout their history and that the Ashkenazim possibly have a small number of male founder ancestors.

The first research on Ashkenazi maternal ancestry was less conclusive. A 2002 study by Goldstein et al[15] found that "the women's origins cannot be genetically determined". Nonetheless, recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, and that the other 60% are descended from other 150 women, most of them, at least, are probably from the Middle East. These four "founder lineages" were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE. According to the authors, "The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past millennium.[1][16][17]

In a study by Almut Nebel et al[18] attention has been brought to a chromosome haplogroup, which is to be found in Ashkenazi Jews, even if to a very limited extent that does not exceed 12% of the present day Ashkenazim, that predominantly present in East Europe and in Central Asia. The fact may support vestiges of the mysterious Khazars, a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, since this haplogroup is also found at moderate to high frequencies in Central Asia and southern Russia/Ukraine, and so, this haplogroup could have been present in the Khazars. Also, the results from this study support the hypothesis of a single male founder who introduced R-M17 haplogroup (which is almost 3 times fold more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in Sephardic Jews) into the Ashkenazi gene pool at the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe, about 1600 years ago."

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi#DNA_clues)

But I will continue to allow you to even remain on the mound. You have not proven the red indians to be from the Chikldren of Israel. There is no evidence of it.

The evidence is in the book of Mormon. You can read it here: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormon.php?selection=bom&cat=bom

Since the book of Mormon is the word of God, then we know it's true.

Even the Falasians of East Africa have their evidences. The few who claim Jewry/Children of Israel descendancy in West Africa, have the evidences to proof it. We have not seen the Golbal Jewry or the American Jews accepting the Red Indians about what you present.

Ha ha ha. Did you just say those who claim to be West African Jews have evidence to support their claim? Ha ha. In any case, like I said, all the evidence you need is in the book of Mormon.

Finally, do your own research, you will see that Joseph Smith was not from the Children of Isreal, either. Not the true God the Creator, who I worship. I am talking about your made up god! That god could have been the idol/image or the conceptualised god that you have.

I doubt a former moon God is the true God, but that's just my feeling. Look, Joseph Smith did descend from Israelites. Joseph Smith didn't worship any idols either.

The god that was limited by knowledge to kow the total/complete condition of its subject that he had to come learn their ways, in order to give mercy/justice! Yet, according to you some people will end up in the lake of fire, even after this god learnt first hand how difficult it is to live a life of human. See how weak that god is? A true God knows everything. Thats the God I worship. Your concept of god is not different from the hamandiola (I read it from +osisi's post. I may be wrong about the spelling, but am going to assume it is an igbo religion. Same as Shongo of Yoruba).

Hmm, I haven't explicitly given an opinion about hell. What's more, until this post, I didn't even give a view about people going to hell. Strange, no?

Interestingly, though, your God that knows everything is all too happy to castigate many of his creatures to hell, many of whom's choices in life are not on par with the paradise bound Muslims who bomb and kill people. It's almost like you're subconsciously bent on disproving Islam with your posts. I'd look into that if I were you.

I am teaching you your Bible, silly (thats just to say that you should know, duh. I am not saying it as an offensive statement). Unless you are pretending not to know. Maybe you truly do not know. Read how unfair is your god is in the Bible!

Um, no, you're teaching me that Muslims have to resort to red errings to divert attention away from their pathetic attempts to explore religious concepts. In fact, I'm just going to use a picture each time a red herring appears. It'll save time in the long run.

Let me even tell you, your bible god said braham should send out his young son and the mother of the son out. Both mother and son did not put up even an argument. Then your god cursed the child that he will be a wild man. Remember it was the little boy who was cursed to be a wild man. This boy turned out to be a descent man and there was no report that he was ever wild or made anybody uncomfortable, throughout his life! Now tell we did the curse come to pass on the boy? No! It is because there was no god cursing the boy! The curse was just a made up argument to bring this man, Ischmael down! It did not work. And if you respond with anything other than Ischmael, expect me to respond in the same manner of your response. I have to warn you first. Stand upon the truth, even if the truth will prove you wrong.

Don't be silly! That I don't agree with the authnecity of your assertation doesn't mean that I can't show that the people I presented meet the standards. For example, an argument could be presented that to be the president of the US, you have to be a White male. I may not agree with the argument, but I can certainly show that several people meet that criteria.
Basically, get real and present a half decent rebuttal.

I do not get your joke here. But I will try to laugh with you, anyway. lol. I do not want to upset you, but explain yourself!

It wasn't a joke, it was an analogy. You said that my use of a criteria I disagreed with was "incredulous". I showed, though an example, that one doesn't have to agree with the principle of a criteria to show that several candidates do fulfill said criteria. So, in very much the same way I may not agree with the claim that all presidents have to be white to be president, but still show that, for example, Bill Clinton meets the standards, I can show that Smith and the Bab meet the standard of prophets have to be descendants of Abraham, even though I don't agree the criteria insisted on is valid.

To be a prophet is not just claiming the title it has a tremendous amount of valued/parts/responsibility and proveability. Joseph Smith would never have passed the muster of Prophethood, it any of the core litmus was applied.

But he did. The book of Mormon attests that.

You are a Mormon. I see. Just like Mitt Romney. Sorry, man. I am now aware of your reason to argue the case for Mormon, and for Protestants, Catholics, the same people the mormon have a common relationships, vis a vis, Bible, however different, Jesus regrdless of who is doing the talking, and religion, Christianity. Let me ask you this though, is Jesus at least also son of man and a prophet who did not have dignity in his own land, in the Book of Mormon? I smile bashfully, covering my mouth with my hand.

I didn't say I'm a Mormon. According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the son of God. Why?

KAG, you are so dishonest, its scary! Are you truly a believer in something or you are just arguing for the purpose of participation?

Um, I believe in several things, like truth. By the way, engaging in sophism is not [necessarily] dishonesty.

If you believe in anything at all, you would have known, at least from this board that the Muslims are very consistent it their claims, that God Almighty Allah had sent Prophets and Messengers to makind, starting from Adam, who was aprophet and the first man to be created. His prophethood covered his wife and him, at the beginning and then their children when they began to have them. The generations continues and the prophethood of Adam stopped when the next prophet began his prophethood. This is the chain links of all prophets/messengers, one succeeding the other, until the last that was sent to all mankinds; The whole earth human and jinn. That prophet/messenger was Muhammad (as). So you see God in Islam never left any human group without providing guidance source. And the core message is Always Laa ilaha ilallah! (No god except 'The God').

Good! So, wouldn't that same principle apply to faiths like Christianity? By the way, you're still making the same mistake: Mohammed wasn't the last prophet.

KAG, what did Joseph Smith? And what didnt Muhammad perfect; any aspect at all, from cradle to grave? Please quiz me and the muslims. This should be interesting. Our answers will not be localized, but universal. Unlike any answer you will provide when we quiz you. That is if you will strong enough to handle the truth.

Joseph Smith brought several doctrines in Christianity into harmony. The Bab did even more, he brought several dctrines of various faiths into harmony. Just examples of What Mo didn't.

Are you a cultist? You seem to be so facinated by these cult like groups. Are they like heavens gate of the 80s in America, the group that killed themselves by taking poison?

No, they are just like Islam.

I am going to find his question. I will answer it if it is true that I dodge it. Or just simply quote it for his own reference to show that i did not dodge it.
(KAG's question which he asked me and I answere him with the one liner below. How old is Islam again?
Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!) Now I will do better I will answer you that Islam started for mankind at the time that Adam became a living soul. See as a living man, he was not a spirit. But his soul is a spirit. Now, up to the time of the receipt of revelation, by Muhammad, Islam was in this developing stage(s), but becoming formented into maturity. So when in the hand of Adam, it was in its earlies infancy. When it got to Ibrahiim, it had taken up the name Muslim for those who pracice it. And Ibrahiim was the first in his generation, afterall he was the prophet. When it got to Jesus, it was a lot advance, call it in graduate school at that time. Finally, during the prophethood od Muhammad, in the time of his only Hajj, in his last year full year on earth, Allah Completed the religion, by perfecting it as a favor bestowed upon mankind and chose that RELIGION, in this perfect stage as the only religion acceptable by Him. There fore if you are talking about its perfect stage it is over 1400 years. If you are taling about when it transferred to Muhammad as the steward then it is hijra plus 13 years. If you are talking about it started with mankind, then you have to go to Adam himself. calculate from there. Definately, it is older than Judaism and Christianity.

What a joke! You're revising history and that's bad.

From the bottom up. First, it's laughable to claim that Islam is older than Judaism and Christianity. Both those religions clearly and historically precede the advent of Islam. There are several ways this can be shown, both logically and historically:

1) It's induspitable from an historical perspective that those religious existed well before Islam. what's more the practices, faith and deity of Islam didn't exist as an independent category within a self-standing body until Mohammed. That is, it's meanningless to say a religion existed prior to its formation.

2) The prevalent claim amongst Muslims, including you, is that Mohammed came to correct errors in the Bible. The Bible contains the Christian and Jewish scriptures. It's, therefore, logically impossible for Mohammed to correct the scriptures of religions that came after his own to "perfect" his religion.


Secondly, no, God didn't choose Islam as the only religion acceptable to him. The Bahai faith says otherwise. And since their scripture was revealed by God himself then their evidence trumps whatever you may present from the Koran to counter their point.

KAG, what is shameful here is that you even deny your own statements! The below is what you said when I responsed to Debosky about his 'remix,' allegation against the Qur'an. I said, in a nutshell,how could the remixed be so better than the original, and I used the Music studio allegory/metaphor to support my argument with him. But you were the one that responded instead. Anyway your response is as noted. Who is not sincere here, putting forward that the New Must be the better? Definately not me. My idea is for certain that Qur'an did not copy a corrupt material text!
(Here is what you said, KAG, which you are trying to forget)If the Koran is that masterpiece, then the Book of Mormon is the super, super, Masterpiece. And the scripture of the Bahai faith, the Kalimat-i-Maknunih? It's totally out of this world.)

I'm guessing English is not your first language. Your implication was that the New religion: Islam, is the better religion because its scripture, the Koran, is a masterpieced reformation of earlier scriptures. In case you haven't realised it, that's the premise (newer is better) that you accused me of creating. So back to the top, now that you realise the premise is ridiculous, can we move on?

You are action like our former Defense Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumfeld.

I am action? That doesn't sound so bad, I guess. I didn't know Rumsfeld was action, though.

Repeat a lie so many times long enough, and it be taken as the truth. KAG, there is no Islamic word known as Mohammediansm.

There may not be an Islamic word known as Mohammedianism, but the word does exist outside the Islamic world. I hope you know that there's a world outside of Islam.

Just as there is no word in Christianity called TRINITY, eventhough you develop an Idea on this phantom.

Actually, the word does exist not only in Christian culture, but also in the English language. Many examples of trinities are also in existence outside of the English language. Like for example, Ceberus, the three headed dog of Greek mythology.

<Olabowale's statement>Just because a group says it has a religion and a book does not mean that it is authentic.>
<Response from KAG>Good, because I was always had my doubts about Islam/Mohammedianism.>

Your premise of doubt can be applied to every religion by one or more of the others.

No, really?

Today, Mitt Romney is being flatly rejected by other Christians, who are claiming that Mormon is a cult What do you say to that? Today alone Barack Obama is stating that he is not a Muslim. People forgets that his mother is white, but all they see is the Kenyan in him. So you see we can cancel each other out, all day and all night. But non o that effort will change God's about his religion.

The one who is in a sticky bind is none less than you. In the first place, the Bible (New Testament) is fighting the Toral (Old Testament) Then the New Testament turns around and fights itself. It fights itself by putting up Mark 12 verse 29 up against the concept of Trinity> By the way, which one do you take to be true, because they cannot both be true? It fights the Torah on one hand by its concept of Trinity as well and the agrees with it by Mark 12 Verse 29. What we have then are two fights and 2 agrements! This is confusing.

Well, that was fun. We should do this again sometime.

Adjoinder. I could have sworn that you asked somewhere for verses that adherents of the Bahai faith have been able to point to as evidence that the Islamic scriptures predict the coming of the other prophet. Or maybe I imagined it. In any case, here are a few:

“‘Prophethood (meaning himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up wherever he wills to raise it up . . . Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain.’ Then he fell silent.” (Hadiths)

More: http://www.maitreya.org/english/PIslam.htm

Further study: http://bahai-library.org/articles/theology.state.html