@Nezan


Pathetic if that is all you could up with after exposing the prophecies falsely attributed to Jesus and TRINITY which you couldnt explain. Your case is not an exception because I remembered tutoring Davidylan on Zechariah when he brought it to deceive me.

Whether you like it or not, the Trinity doesnt act independently. Jesus cannot act outside of the Triune. His actions has to be in complete harmony with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Since you are stubbornly supporting trinity, why not attempt those questions posed at you rather than beating around the bush.

I read that sin against the son of man has forgiveness but that of holy spirit doesnt. Could you explain that if they are equal.

Why was God Jesus that created trees not aware of season to the extent of cursing a fig tree?

Why did Jesus say, 'why called me good, none is GOOD EXCEOT GOD?

Why are you suddenly afraid of discussing satanic verses here?

Well, I can see that you are a newbie hence you response that I became suddenly afraid. If you care to know, Babs has never been because Allah has promised and its happening. Christians say you will never gain paradise unless you become a xtian, Allah says its their vain desire, let them produce their proof if they are honest and you have displayed that for the fact you couldnt defend DOCTRINE OF TRINITY you have been displaying since.

I know you people of diverting threads when you have been corned, let us leave this as it is and create a thread for Muhammed (saw) and I will engage you.

@Nezan

You stubbornly refused to read my earlier post dealing with the Trinity. As an intelligent mind, I dont repeat myself rhetorically but engage new issues.

I didnt not see that sir and you could do a re-poste here. Meanwhile, you could attempt this:

Does your trinity has any biblical backing?

Was it preached by any of the OT prophets?

Did Jesus preach Trinity?

If your Jesus is God, who did he pray to when he learnt that they wanted to kill him?

Now I know you are not been sincere. Even the earliest Church fathers believed in the Trinity:

Let us see who is not being sincere. Was it preached before before and do early christians preach same. Do you care to tell me OT prophets that preached same and when done, I would post here unitarians that didnt support your false and man made doctrines.

In The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, we find that the Holy Spirit is alive and is a person:

As surely as God lives, as Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Ghost also (on whom are set the faith and hope of God’s elect), (The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chapter 58)

You further nailed yourself. You claimed in the first epistle. Do we have that of Clement in the bible/ I thought Davidylan and Noetic claimed that they do not believe what is outside the bible!! If the above holds water, why is it not included in your bible?

Note that this passage tells us that (1) the Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force, but rather is alive (he "also" lives) and (2) the Holy Spirit is a person not an "it" ("on whom" our hopes are set, not "on which".

Hold sir. Holy spirit is God's active force and that is what God strenghtened Jesus with. Jesus couldnt do anything by himself but by God's intervention through sending of Holy spirit and that doesnt mean that Holy Spirit is equal to God, Holy Spirit is God's messenger that carries message for Him.

The introduction to the edition I read explains that this epistle "is one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament,

Further nailing . Why is it outside the bible and not part of the bible since it is very important?

Of the authenticity of this epistle there is no doubt. Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome, The date of the epistle is generally reckoned to be about A.D. 96."

Where is this in the bible so I go read? Why is this important doctrine not included in your book?


Let me stop in order to respond to the claim by Ignatius.

@Nezan


Let us expose Ignatius you have been suporting all these while. Take time to read the truth please and judge yourself.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was a student of the Apostle John. Prior to being martyred in A.D. 107, Ignatius penned or dictated seven letters. His writings drip with language about the divinity of Jesus:

Ignatius, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia; a church, forever united and chosen, through real suffering, by the will of the Father and Jesus Christ our God, Being imitators of God, you have, once restored to new life in the Blood of God, perfectly accomplished the task so natural to you. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, prologue and chapter 1)

Once again, thank you so much for displaying your ignorance here. It was in Antioch the name 'christian' was first given and started. Mind you, Pagan was first called that name before you accepted same

There is only one Physician –
Very flesh, yet Spirit too;
uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in One agreed,
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary’s seed;
At once impassible and torn
By pain and suffering here below:
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.
(Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 7)

Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the Spirit of God, The age-old empire of evil was overthrown, for God was now appearing in human form to bring in a new order, even life without end. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, chapters 18 and 19)

All perfect happiness in Jesus Christ our God, to you who are bodily and spiritually at one with all His commandments, (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, prologue)

Leave me to imitate the Passion of my God. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, chapter 6)

Glory be to Jesus Christ, the Divine One, (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 1)

Farewell always in our God Jesus Christ. (Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp, chapter

This last quotation is especially noteworthy. Here Ignatius is writing to another disciple of the Apostle John, Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna. If Ignatius were making a doctrinal error in calling Jesus God, surely Polycarp would have corrected him. However, we see the opposite occur: after Polycarp received this letter and copies of the other letters penned by Ignatius, Polycarp had them copied and circulated to the various churches in the region – in essence validating their doctrinal content!

WHO IS IGNATIUS SEF?

St. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter and St. Evodius, who died around AD 67. Eusebius records that St. Ignatius succeeded St. Evodius. Making his apostolic succession even more immediate, Theodoret (Dial. Immutab., I, iv, 33a) reported that Peter himself appointed Ignatius to the see of Antioch.

St. Ignatius is one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers). He based his authority on being a bishop of the Church, living his life in the imitation of Christ . Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.

Ignatius DID NOT in anyway states that Holy Spirit was equal to God nor Son equal to father but that Jesus is in subjection to God.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”

Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.” Similarly, Ignatius said: “There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’ and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, ‘by whom are all things.’” He also writes:

“The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, . . . even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Fathe[/b]r. For, [b]says He [the Son], ‘the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.’”

“There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.”

However, are the 15 letters attributed to Ignatius accepted as authentic? In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson state:[/b]

[b]“It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. T[b]hey bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age . . . and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries.”[/b]

The original followers of Jesus were never called Christians. They were called Nazarenes The gospels showed that the Galilean was normally referred to as Jesus the Nazarene (Mark 1:24; John 18:5). Most modern New Testament translations render this as "Jesus of Nazareth" but the former represents the more common form of words in the original Greek version. (online Source)

The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. (1)

The Nazarenes and Ebionites are by all the Church historians unanimously acknowledged to have been the first Christians, or those who believed in Christ among the Jews with which, his own people, he lived and died, they having been the witness of his actions, and of whom were all the Apostles. (John Toland, The Nazarenes, p. 6)

The Jesus movements which started in Galilee during the 30s and 40s were Jewish; they rejected the divinity of Jesus long before Constantine appeared on the scene. Shamoun is referring to the Pauline Christians, who are not the true Christians of Jewish descent.

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held. The doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the official doctrine of the Pauline Church, and one of the consequences of this decision was that out of the three hundred or so Gospels extant at that time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church. The remaining Gospels, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered to be destroyed completely. It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that would found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.

“…With the development, formulation and official acceptance in 325 A.D. of the doctrine of Trinity…The four accepted Gospels were selected and all the other Scriptures written after Jesus’ birth were banned. [/b]

Constantine signed the decree at the Council of Nicea which transformed Jesus into God![b][/b]

The bishop Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Iranaeus were pagan converts to Christianity, it is obvious for them to deify Jesus, because they worshipped a man-god aforetime.

@Nezan

The 12 apostles never heard of the trinity, the Jews rejected the religion of their Roman occupiers, so the apostles rejected the doctrine too.

Evidence PROVING that Ignatius never believed Jesus was God:

But shun divisions, as the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment.

Crocus also, worthy both of God and you, whom we have received as the manifestation of your love to us, hath in all things refreshed me, and "hath not been ashamed of my chain," as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will also refresh.


The Shocking Facts about Ignatius:

(1). He never mentions the four Gospels.

(2). He never mentions the trinity.

(3). He is the first to record a physical resurrection.

(4). He is the first to mention Jesus in physical form.

(5). He is the first to use the word ‘gospel’ outside the NT.

(6). All of his epistles are acknowledged to be forgeries.

The Church fathers rejected the “divinity” of Jesus:

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E.,[/b] called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." [b]He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "One true and only God," who is "supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other."

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E.[/b], called Jesus in his prehuman existence [b]"a creature" but called God "the uncreated and imperishable and only true God." He said that the Son "is next to the only omnipotent Father" but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: "The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone."

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E.,[/b] said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . [b]But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E[/b]., said that [b]"the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence," and that "compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.


Waiting for your rebuttal, Sir Nezan

@babs,

Nowhere in the Quran does one find the orthodox Christian position of the Trinity attacked or defined. Instead, the Quran attacks the belief that God is the third of three and therefore those who believe such must stop saying that God is three. Furthermore, the Quran defines Christian teaching on the Trinity as the belief in God, Mary and Jesus as three gods and accuses Christians of believing in Jesus and Mary as two separate gods apart from the true God.

In fact, according to Ibn Ishaq the Quran was specifically correcting this erroneous belief in God, Mary and Jesus as three separate divinities. In his work, Sira Rasulullah, Ibn Ishaq records that a Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guillaume trans., The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271 )

He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)

Another renowned Muslim commentator, al-Zamakhshari, candidly admitted that this passage was attacking the belief in Father, Mary and Jesus as three gods:


The (word) three is the predicate to an understood subject. If one accepts the Christian view that God exists in one nature (jauhar) with three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and (if one accept) the opinion that the person of the Father represents (God's) being (dhat), the person of the Son represents (his) knowledge ('ilm), and the person of the Holy Spirit represents (his) life (hayat), then one must supply the subject as follows: 'God is three(fold).' Otherwise, one must supply (the subject) thus: 'The gods are three.' ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE QUR'AN, the Christians maintain that God, Christ, and Mary are three gods, and that Christ is the child of God by Mary, AS GOD SAYS (in the Qur'an): 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men: "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?' (Sura 5:116), or: 'The Christians say: "The Messiah is the Son of God"' (Sura 9:30). Moreover, it is well known that the Christians maintain that in Jesus are (combined) a divine nature derived from the Father and a human nature derived from his mother, At the same time these words [Sura 4:171] exclude (the Christian view) that Jesus had with God the usual relationship between sons and (their) fathers, (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, 1996], pp. 126-127; bold, capital and underline emphasis and words within brackets ours)

The errors cited by Ibn Ishaq and al-Zamakhshari on what Christians believe becomes apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. First, orthodox Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. If the Quran were referring to a heretical group of Christians known as the Maryamites, this would serve to strengthen the case that these verses do not address Trinitarians, but apostates that deviated from the true faith. This also calls into question the whole episode of Ibn Ishaq's report on the Christians from Najran and their beliefs. Either these Christians were heretical and if so, then Ibn Ishaq is wrong for claiming that their belief that Jesus was the third of three is the doctrine of Christianity since these Christians do not speak on behalf of all Christendom. Or, the whole story was fabricated to present Muhammad and the Muslims in a favorable light, as well as to present the Christians very negatively.

Second, as we have already indicated the historic Christian teaching has never been that God is three or the third of three which is tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, as we mentioned earlier, orthodox Christians have never taught as part of their doctrine that Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19

Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ, or in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.

Finally, the fact is that the Quran itself teaches that Allah is tri-personal in some sense since it views God's Word and His Spirit as entities that are both distinct from Allah and yet at the same time eternal and inseparable from him. For instance, God's Spirit is personal as well as the instrument through which God grants life to man and strengthens believers:


"When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance to him." S. 15:29
Man was given life by God's Spirit, implying that the Spirit is the source of life.


"She (Mary) placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent Our Spirit (ruh), and he appeared before her as a man in all respects." S. 19:17
God's Spirit assumes the form of a man and is described with masculine pronouns. This indicates that the Spirit is not just some force, but is a divine personality.


"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity." S. 58:22 Y. Ali
Believers are strengthened by a spirit from Himself, i.e. a spirit from God. In order for the Spirit to be able to strengthen believers everywhere implies that the Spirit is omnipresent. Yet, only God is omnipresent which essentially means that the Spirit is God. This is precisely the conclusion one Muslim scholar comes to in his footnote. Yusuf Ali notes:


"Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself'. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God." (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, f. 5365)
Yusuf Ali wasn't alone. Shia writer Irshaad Hussain, in his The Soul: Between Spirit and Clay, says in regards to God's Spirit which was breathed into Adam:

The Spirit, which derives from God, IS A REALITY THAT POSSESSES ALL THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. IT REPRESENTS A DIRECT MANIFESTATION OF GOD. Remember, it is only after this Spirit is breathed into Adam that God orders the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam. It is only after this receiving of the Spirit that Adam is given knowledge of the names of all things. The Spirit then MANIFESTS in some way THE ATTRIBUTES OR NAMES OF GOD. It is luminous, alive, subtle, unseen, knowing, unified etc. The body on the other hand has many parts and is overcome by darkness, ignorance, inanimate matter, and a lack of divine attributes. So spirit and body have no common measure - One is from God who is Unique, who is One. The other is from the material world which is characterized by multiplicity and dispersion. (Source; capital emphasis ours)

Hence, the Spirit is of the divine essence, is incomprehensible, omnipresent, personal, and the source of Life, all qualities that are true of God.

@babs,

Quran and hadiths clearly demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is not Gabriel:


"They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men)!" S. 17:85
According to Sahi Bukhari this verse came down when the Jews questioned Muhammad on the Spirit's identity:


Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:
While I was walking in company with the Prophet in one of the fields of Medina, the Prophet was reclining on a palm leave stalk which he carried with him. We passed by a group of Jews. Some of them said to the others, "Ask him about the spirit." The others said, "Do not ask him, lest he would say something that you hate." Some of them said, "We will ask him." So a man from among them stood up and said, 'O Abal-Qasim! What is the spirit?" The Prophet kept quiet and I knew that he was being divinely inspired. Then he said: "They ask you concerning the Spirit, Say: The Spirit; its knowledge is with my Lord. And of knowledge you (mankind) have been given only a little." (17.85) Volume 9, Book 93, Number 554

Hence, Muhammad did not even know the identity of God's Spirit. Two hadiths from Sahi Muslim affirm that the Spirit is not Gabriel:


"Narrated Aisha: The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to pronounce while bowing and prostrating himself: All Glorious, all Holy, Lord of the Angels and the Spirit." Book 4, Number 0987
This tradition makes a distinction between Angels, of which Gabriel is one, and the Spirit. This indicates that Gabriel is not the Holy Spirit.


"Narrated Aisha:
Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: Satirize the (non-believing amongst the) Quraysh, for (satire) is more grievous to them than the hurt of an arrow. So he (the Holy Prophet) sent (someone) to Ibn Rawahah and asked him to satirise them. He composed a satire, but it did not appeal to him (to the Holy Prophet). He then sent (someone) to Ka'b ibn Malik (to do the same, but what he composed did not appeal to the Holy Prophet). He then sent one to Hassan ibn Thabit. As he entered his presence, Hassan said: Now you have called for this lion who strikes (the enemies) with his tail. He then brought out his tongue and began to move it and said: By Him Who has sent you with Truth, I shall tear them with my tongue as the leather is torn.

"Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: Don't be hasty; (let) AbuBakr who has the best knowledge of the lineage of the Quraysh draw a distinction for you in regard to my lineage, as my lineage is the same as theirs. Hassan then came to him (AbuBakr) and after making inquiries (in regard to the lineage of the Holy Prophet) came back to him (the Holy Prophet) and said: Allah's Messenger, he (AbuBakr) has drawn a distinction your lineage (and that of the Quraysh). By Him Who has sent you with Truth, I shall draw out from them (your name) as hair is drawn out from the flour.

"Aisha said:

I heard Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) saying to Hassan: Verily Ruh al-Qudus (The Holy Spirit) will continue to help you so long as you put up a defence on behalf of Allah and his Messenger. And she said: I heard Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) saying: Hassan satirized them and gave satisfaction to the (Muslims) and disquieted (the non-Muslims). You satirized Muhammad, but I replied on his behalf, and there is a reward from Allah for this. You satirized Muhammad, the virtuous, the righteous, the Apostle of Allah, whose nature is truthfulness.

"So verily my father, his father and my honour are a protection to the honour of Muhammad. May I lobe my dear daughter if you don't see her wiping away the dust from both sides of Kaba. They pull at the reins, going upward. On their shoulders are spears thirsting (for the blood of the enemy). Our steeds are sweating--our women wipe them with their mantles. If you had not interfered with us, we should have performed the Umrah. And (then) there was the Victory, and the darkness cleared away. Otherwise wait for the fighting on the day on which Allah will honour whom He pleases. Allah said: I have sent a servant who says the Truth in which there is no ambiguity. Allah said: I have prepared an army--they are the Ansar whose object is fighting (the enemy). There arrives every day from Ma'add abuse, fighting or satire. Whoever among you satirizes the Apostle, or praises him and helps him it is all the same; and Gabriel, the Apostle of Allah is among us, and the Holy Spirit who has no match." Book 30, Number 6081

According to this hadith, Muslims have both Gabriel and the Holy Spirit assisting them, indicating once again that the Holy Spirit is someone distinct from Gabriel.

The Quran also indicates that the Word of God became a person, with the implication being that this person is both divine and human:


"Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones." S. 3:39 Shakir
John is to bear witness to a Word from God, namely Jesus the Christ. Here, Jesus is the one who is the Word from God. The fact that he is a Word from God implies preexistence, that Jesus preexisted as God's Word. This point is brought out more clearly in the two following passages:


"(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." S. 3:45 Pickthall
According to this passage God's Word is not a mere abstraction but rather a person. This is due to the fact that the Word of God is given a personal name, Jesus. This implies that the Muslim argument that Jesus is only a by-product of God's creative command cannot be sustained. Hence, according to this one passage the Word of God is a person who shall be known as Jesus, implying that Christ is the personal Word of God come down from heaven.


"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not ‘Trinity': desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." S. 4:171 Y. Ali
Jesus is both the Word of God, not just a word from him, given to Mary and a spirit that proceeds from God himself. We discover that in one sense the Quran denies the divinity of Jesus and yet in other places it affirms that he is the divine preexistent Word and Spirit from God.

babs,

Muslims try to evade the fact that Jesus is the very Word of God by indicating that he is called God's Word solely because he was created directly by God's command, kun fayakun - "Be and it is." First, as we have already demonstrated, Jesus is not simply a by-product of God's command, but is the very Word of God to man. This is based primarily on the fact that the Quran clearly teaches that the Word of God is personal and became man in the person of Jesus.

Secondly, if it were true that Jesus is God's word solely because he was created by the command of God then we would expect to find Adam called the Word of God since he was also created by God's command according to the Quran (cf. S. 3:59). Yet, neither Adam nor anyone else is ever called the Word of God.

This implies that the Quran acknowledges that the eternal Word of God became flesh, two aspects (eternal and finite) united in one Person.

In fact, not only is Christ eternal and finite at the same time, the Quran itself is believed by Muslims to be the eternal speech of God in book form. This would imply that the Quran also has a dual aspect, one eternal and one finite. Yusuf K. Ibish, in an article entitled "The Muslim Lives by the Quran," writes:


I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Quran is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is. If you want a comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particular respect would be Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as she was the vehicle , There are western orientalists who have devoted their life to the study of the Quran, its text, the analysis of its words, discovering that this word is Abyssinian, that word is Greek by origin, But all this is immaterial. The Quran was divinely inspired, then it was compiled, and what we have now is the expression of God's Will among men. That is the important point. (Charris Waddy, The Muslim Mind [New York: Longman, 1976], p.14)
In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Seyyed Hossain Nasr writes,


The Word of God in Islam is the Quran; in Christianity it is Christ, To carry this analogy further one can point to the fact that the Quran, being the Word of God therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form of this book, which like the contents is determined by the dictum in heaven, corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself. Arabic is sacred in the sense that it is an integral part of the Quranic revelation whose very sounds and utterances play a role in the ritual acts of Islam. (Op. cit. [London: George Allen & Urwin, 1975], pp. 43-44)
This next author says:


The Quran is eternal, whereas its form (i.e., the Arabic language and the book in which it is written) is temporal. In fact, in early Islamic history it was considered blasphemous to say that the Quran was created, with the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (d. AD 850) going so far as to "decree the death penalty for anyone who taught that the Word of God (i.e., the Quran) is created." (John Alden Williams, ed., Islam [New York: George Braziller, 1962], p. 179)

And another author claims:


"The Qur'an is God's speech, which he uttered, and it is uncreated. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. And who says: 'The Qur'an is God's speech', and stops at that point without adding 'uncreated', speaks even more infamously than the latter. Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur'an recitation would be created, the Qur'an itself, however, God's speech, is a Jahmit, too. And who doesn't declare all these people as unbelievers, is like them." (according to Ibn Abu Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952, vol. I, p. 29; transl. Dr. Christopher Heger)
Noted Islamicist, F.E. Peters, quotes Muslim scholar Ahmad Ibn Hanbal as saying:


The Quran is the Word of God and it is not created. It is not wrong to say, "It is not created," for God's Word is not separated from Him, and there is nothing of Him that is created. Beware of discussing this with those who speak about this subject and talk of the "creation of sounds" and such matters, and those who go midway and say, "I don't know whether the Quran is created or uncreated, but it is God's Word." Such a one is guilty of a religious innovation as is the one who says, "It is created," for it is God's Word and that is not created. (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Creed) [WILLIAMS 1971:29] (Peters, Judaism, Christianity, And Islam: The Classical Texts and Their Interpretation [Princeton Uinversity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990 paperback], p. 47)
Peters quotes another Muslim writer who says:


The Quran is God's speaking, which is one of His attributes. Now God in all His attributes is One and with all His attributes is eternal and not contigent, (so His speaking is) without letters and without sounds, not broken up into syllables or paragraphs. It is not He nor is it other than He, (Ibid.)

Muslim scholar, Mahmoud M. Ayoub, speaking of Muhammad's relation to the Quran, writes:

, that the words that Muhammad conveyed to his people were not his own, but were revealed to him by God. It is also understood to mean that his mind was not contaminated by human wisdom. Rather it was a pure receptacle for the divine word in the same way that Mary's virginity means for Christians that her body was a pure vessel fit to receive Christ, the Word of God.

In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Christ and the Qur'an. Christ is, for Christians, the incarnate Word of God. While the Qur'an is, like Christ, the eternal divine word, it does not play a role in the creation of the world. It is the eternal word of God preserved for moral and spiritual guidance. It is an eternal book: "This surely is a glorious Qur'an, preserved in a well-guarded Tablet" (Q. 85:21-22). (Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History [Oneworld Publications, Oxford England, 2004], p. 41)

One Salafi website writes in answer to a question regarding whether the Quran is created:


The evidence that the Qur'aan is not created is the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

"Surely, His is the creation and commandment" [al-A'raaf 7:54]

So Allaah describes creation as one thing and commandment as another. The conjunction implies that the second thing mentioned is different, and the Qur'aan is part of the commandment because of the evidence of the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

"And thus We have sent to you (O Muhammad) Rooh (a revelation, and a mercy) of Our Command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith? But We have made it (this Qur'aan) a light wherewith We guide whosoever of Our slaves We will"

[al-Shoora 42:52]

If the Qur'aan is part of the command or commandment, which is different from creation, therefore it is not created, because if it were created, this division of categories would not be correct. This is the evidence from the Qur'aan. (10153: The Qur'aan was revealed by Allaah, not created)

The verse which this site posted is actually referring to Allah's Spirit since the Arabic word Ruh (spelled Rooh in the above) means Spirit. Thus, not only have they argued for the Quran being uncreated but also for the Spirit's uncreatedness! After all, if the Quran being part of Allah's command means that it is uncreated, since Allah's commands are not part of creation, then the Spirit must be uncreated as well since the text that is quoted is actually referring to Allah's Spirit. This leaves us with Allah, His Word (the Quran) and His Spirit being all uncreated!

babs,


Annemarie Schimmel writes:


The problem of the nature of Christ, so central in the dogmatic development of the early church, has also influenced, in a certain way, the development of Islamic dogma. Christ's designation as logos, as the Word of God, "born not created," has most probably influenced Islamic theories about the Koran, which is regarded by the Muslim as the uncreated Word of God. Phenomenologically seen, the Koran has the same position in Islamic dogmatics as has Christ in Christianity. Harry A. Wolfson therefore coined the term "inlibration," the "Word become Book," in contrast to the Christian concept of incarnation, "the Word became Flesh." That explains why theologians emphasized the designation ummi for Muhammad; this term, first probably meaning "the prophet sent to the gentiles" was interpreted as "illiterate." The Prophet had to be a vessel unstained by external knowledge for the Word's inlibration, just as Mary had to be a virgin in order to be a pure vessel for the Word's incarnation. That is, the Koran is much more than simply a book , (Schimmel, Islam - An Introduction [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], pp. 74-75; bold emphasis ours)

The Quran is likened to Christ in that, like Christ, it is eternal in one sense (being the eternal speech of Allah), and yet finite in another sense (the book and ink used to record it). In light of the preceding factors, Muslims have no case against the Trinity or the Incarnation since they themselves must affirm that Allah is somehow triune as well as affirming that the Quran, like Christ, is both eternal and finite at the same time.

We, thus, see that Christians weren't the only ones debating and persecuting each other regarding the implications of Jesus being the Word of God. Muslims had to struggle over the issue of the Quran being God's Speech and hammer out the exact implications this had on its nature, i.e. whether it is eternal or created or both! Much like Christianity before it, Islam had, and continues to have, its own Arians, Monophysites and Trinitarians debating and persecuting one another over the exact nature of the Quran.

Hence, if Christians are blasphemers for believing that God is a triune Being or for believing that Jesus is both eternal and finite at the same time, then Muslims themselves are unbelievers. Muslims either believe that there are three distinct eternal beings, implying that there are three gods or must admit that God is a multi-personal Being.

Finally, the orthodox Muslim view of the Quran introduces a rather amusing dilemma or paradox. For example, if we assume that the Quran is eternal then we must assume that the following prayer is eternal since it is part of the eternal Quran:


In the name of ALLAH, the Gracious, the Merciful. All praise is due to ALLAH alone, Lord of all the worlds. The Gracious, the Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment. THEE alone do we worship and THEE alone do we implore for help. Guide us in the straight path, The path of those on whom THOU hast bestowed THY favours, those who have not incurred THY displeasure and those who have not gone astray. S. 1:1-7 Sher Ali
Here is a prayer directed to Allah, and yet this is supposed to be an eternal prayer. This either means that the Quran is a living personal entity or that Allah has been praying to himself from all eternity! We do know from other passages that Allah does pray:


He it is who sends PRAYERS on you (Arabic- yusallii alaykum), as do His angels , S. 33:43
Allah and His angels PRAY for the Prophet (Arabic- yasalluuna alan-Nabiyy): O ye that believe PRAY for him (salluu `alayhi), and salute him with all respect. S. 33:56

Thus, it is quite plausible that Allah has actually been praying surah Fatihah to himself.

babs,

[size=14pt]In closing, I would like to state that the usage of the Quran does not mean I believe in its inspiration or its authority. It is quoted simply to demonstrate to Muslims who do believe in it that if they remain consistent in their methodology they would discover that most of their arguments against Christianity actually discredit their belief as well. [/size]

@Nezan,

You forget to provide us with the link(s) of your "cut and dry" posts--at least for more reading.

Thanks

Nobody should need anything from Nezan for anything! Nezan blindly has proven the statement of the Quran. First the Bible does not contain the word Trinity and in the old testament and in the new, too, the idea of God being One and not three persons or personality is very clear. For one, Jesus cried out "My God, my God, !", instead of My father, my father.

In the time of Muhammad (AS) there was a group that says Christian God is three, hence trinity. He, Nezan had stated a name of a group which he dubbed heretic. The statement of Nezan therefore fly in his own face, since the Christians in general, orthodoxy or not believe in the Bible and the Bible post Jesus postulates that God is Three!

Now if we go back to the Time of the Prophet, where Nezan says there is a Maryiamites, Quran is vindicated. If we turn to the present time, we see the Catholics, which s more orthodox that the heretic Protestants worship or at least Pray to Mary as Mother of God to do this or help in doing that, like talk to God, etc for acceptance of Petitions! Jesus serves the same role as Mary seves with him, when it comes to the Father. Afterall, we hear the Christians say to Father, "in the name of Jesus, !" I wonder if Nezan saying that when "Ruuh" Spirit was mentioned in the verse he had quoted from the Quran describing the Knower of the nature of Ruuh as Allah, means "the Christian ghost/spirit, the 3rd of their Godship?" I am a muslim and I understand Islam more than you, until you become a muslim, then we are equal or you may be better because Allah give you abundant of knowledge.


What the Quran is saying about "Ruuh" there is the spirit of man. It is the spirit that is the "Soul" when a person is alive! But when the person dies, and the soul is removed, in that nature/stage of not being in the body of a person so that the body is alive, the soul is now spirit, "Ruuh" because it has no human housing or shelter!

But also Malaikas are called Ruuh, Spirit, too. At least we see Jibril was called Ruuh, Ruuh Qudus, and many other names. Check it out.


Finally, howver you slice it, Mary is called Hyphenated God, her son is called some other hyphenated God, then Gods the ghost spirit and of course Father God! In all no Christians know the nature of the ghost/spirit God! Or nezan, abi i dey lie? Correct me and give the full nature of ghost/spirit then, with full name, if you think am incorrect! Am pulling your leg, but ready to drag you like ragdoll on the street like the little people of Nigeria do during Easter, with "Judas Iscariot; the sinner and the thief and the killer of Jesus!"

"My God, my God, !", instead of My father, my father.

I think I provided verses where he called God, Father!!

The statement of Nezan therefore fly in his own face, since the Christians in general, orthodoxy or not believe in the Bible and the Bible post Jesus postulates that God is Three!

Trinity does not mean three gods, but one God, manisfesting as a Triune, read my posts very well

I am a muslim and I understand Islam more than you, until you become a muslim, then we are equal or you may be better because Allah give you abundant of knowledge.

The same way I know Christianity and Trinity more than you

What the Quran is saying about "Ruuh" there is the spirit of man. It is the spirit that is the "Soul" when a person is alive! But when the person dies, and the soul is removed, in that nature/stage of not being in the body of a person so that the body is alive, the soul is now spirit, "Ruuh" because it has no human housing or shelter!

Then what happened here:

The orthodox Muslim view of the Quran introduces a rather amusing dilemma or paradox. For example, if we assume that the Quran is eternal then we must assume that the following prayer is eternal since it is part of the eternal Quran:


In the name of ALLAH, the Gracious, the Merciful. All praise is due to ALLAH alone, Lord of all the worlds. The Gracious, the Merciful. Master of the Day of Judgment. THEE alone do we worship and THEE alone do we implore for help. Guide us in the straight path, The path of those on whom THOU hast bestowed THY favours, those who have not incurred THY displeasure and those who have not gone astray. S. 1:1-7 Sher Ali
Here is a prayer directed to Allah, and yet this is supposed to be an eternal prayer. This either means that the Quran is a living personal entity or that Allah has been praying to himself from all eternity!

@Nezan: The prayer, that so much confound you, Surah Fatihah indicates that Allah commands, like every Surah in the Quran to humans, His people, to make prayers by it (Salah). To rememeber Allah by it (dhkir) and to get blessing by its reading (Qari). Allah does not pray to Himself. When the human believer, His acknowledged slaves, His people praise Him by the Praises in the Quran, He praises Himself by other Names that He has, and are not preveleged to human! Like the meaning of Alif, is not known by any, except He, so there are names of His that are known by us on this earth!

Your thinking is a straw man process. You are sinking and you know it. You gave your life to a person who didnt ask for it and could not protect you, anyhow, because according to you, he was killed by ordinary people. That shows that he could not protect his own life. Why trust him with yours, then?

Allah commands, like every Surah in the Quran to humans, His people, to make prayers by it (Salah). To rememeber Allah by it (dhkir) and to get blessing by its reading (Qari). Allah does not pray to Himself.

It therefore imply Allah praying to himself and asking you to do the same? funny

Your thinking is a straw man process. You are sinking and you know it. You gave your life to a person who didnt ask for it and could not protect you, anyhow, because according to you, he was killed by ordinary people. That shows that he could not protect his own life. Why trust him with yours, then?

I hope your imam is listening to that, dont you people refer to him as Prophet who knew no sin? What makes more sense here? trusting in mohammed or Jesus?

Reasons why I believe Mo was a false prophet:

On Entering Mecca

Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

"When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.

"Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours)

One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:

'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours)

And:

'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'

Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?

As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:

'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:

"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari writes:

"While the Messenger of God was writing the document - he and Suhaly b. 'Amr - suddenly Abu Jandal, the son of Suhaly b. 'Amr, came walking with short steps in shackles. He had escaped to the Messenger of God. The companions of the Messenger of God had set out NOT DOUBTING that they would conquer, because of a vision the Messenger of God had seen. Therefore, when they saw what they saw - the peace, the retreat, and the obligations the Messenger of God had taken upon himself - the people felt so grieved about it that they were close to despair. When Suhayl saw Abu Jandal, he went up to him, struck him on the face, and grabbed him by the front of his garment. "Muhammad," he said, "the pact was ratified between me and you before this fellow came to you." "You are right," he replied. Suhayl began pulling and dragging [his son Abu Jandal] by the front of his garment to return him to Quraysh. Abu Jandal began screaming at the top of his vouce, "People of the Muslims, shall I be returned to the polytheists for them to torment me for my religion?" This made the people feel even worse. The Messenger of God said: "Abu Jandal, count on a reward, for God will give you and those who are oppressed with you relief and a way out. We have made a treaty and peace between oursleves and these people; we have given them and they have given us a promise, and we will not act treacherously toward them." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Volume VIII, pp. 86-87; bold and capital emphasis ours)

This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.

Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud:

Book 37, Number 4281:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).

Book 37, Number 4282:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.

Book 37, Number 4283:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.

Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.

Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears.

The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above.

Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood.

Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 - General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours:

"According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qub- Hammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 172-173; emphasis ours)

"According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- al-A'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years." (Ibid.)

"According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd al-Karim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years." (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours)

According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming:

"According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers." (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181)

Similar traditions are found in Sahih Muslim:

Book 41, Number 7044:

This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together).

Book 41, Number 7046:

Shu'ba reported: I heard Qatada and Abu Tayyab narrating that both of them heard Anas as narrating that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this, and Shu'ba drew his forefinger and middle finger near each other while narrating it.

Book 41, Number 7049:

Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger.

At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers:

"Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle finger- preceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years.

"All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world - seven thousand years.

"Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound- namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years- the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!" (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours)

Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.

Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy.

Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad:

[size=14pt]Well, since my posts are been deleted, I think I will not post again. You know I was banned why posting my reply to babs last week.

Cheerz [/size]

Quote Olabs

I am a muslim and I understand Islam more than you, until you become a muslim, then we are equal or you may be better because Allah give you abundant of knowledge

.

True. And I hence wish him (Nezan) all the best.

Nezan:

[size=14pt]Well, since my posts are been deleted, I think I will not post again. You know I was banned why posting my reply to babs last week.

Cheerz [/size]

I didn't know that you were banned. And let me tell ya its not because of that for I know it can't be.

And I want you to please continue. Your words make sense, as says Olabowale. You are, moreover, at least better than the rest.

@Nezan


I thought you would provide rebuttal to my posts particularly on the questions asked and the exposure of the father you ran to without having knowledge of who the guy really is.

When you are able to refute all I posted, I will go into your last posts because I read it centered on the prophet (saw) but I dont want the thread deflected sir.

[size=14pt]babs,[/size]

I thought you would provide rebuttal to my posts particularly on the questions asked

[size=14pt]I answered almost all your questions. You should note that I avoid getting into repetitions, that is why I choose to ignore questions I have answered in previous posts, despite that, your people deleted all my posts that gave sensational answers to your questions and banned me last week, funny, isn't it? [/size]

exposure of the father you ran to without having knowledge of who the guy really is.

[size=14pt]You make me laugh. Which exposure? How do you doubt my father when your prophet was making false prophesies that didn't ever come to pass? so much for a false prophet and his followers. [/size]

When you are able to refute all I posted, I will go into your last posts because I read it centered on the prophet (saw) but I dont want the thread deflected sir.

[size=14pt]Don't run away. When you people are unable to defend your religion, you hide under any excuse to run. Are we no longer discussing the message of the prophets on this thread? I have answered almost all your questions and you are afraid to answer the few I have posted. Dont run, come back. [/size]

@Nezan:

You make me laugh. Which exposure? How do you doubt my father when your prophet was making false prophesies that didn't ever come to pass? so much for a false prophet and his followers.

What prophesy that did not come to pass?

Now tell me who the former Comforter was? And who was/is the another conther Comforter that will abide with you (believers) for ever and will show and tell things that Jesus did not tell the people who had under developed hearts, his listeners, whom he had categorised as such?

And we are expecting to be a nation with 21st century thinking? How can we when we have people like Nezan as our crop of future leaders? He couldnt understand that Surah fatihah and indeed all the Quran is given as guidance, Speech of Allah, for humans to follow, use as how to communicate, one on one wth the Creator? And whats funny is that he used the grinning emocom (I hope thats what they call thse faces), ridiculously!

He is talking about Satanic Verses. I wish he discussed it/them. If only it had been true, the fact that the carrier of the story said he was corrected by Jibril, immediately it happened show that he was a prophet. If it happened. But I say it did not happen!

What prophesy that did not come to pass?

Mohammed is quoted in the Hadiths (Book 37, Number 4282) that the conquest of Constantinople would occur within a specific period of time:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.
 
Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions, Antichrist was to appear in November 1453




Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them.

Now tell me who the former Comforter was? And who was/is the another conther Comforter that will abide with you (believers) for ever and will show and tell things that Jesus did not tell the people who had under developed hearts, his listeners, whom he had categorised as such?


The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed. There is no ambiguity about this. Check this out:

These passages of John are being spoken intimately between Jesus and His disciples there are several key points we can discover concerning the Comforter and His relationship with Jesus’ disciples.

John 14:16 — And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth.

The Comforter will be with these disciples forever. Jesus promised the Comforter would be with these disciples forever. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he wasn't born until over 500 years later - following the deaths of these disciples. He was born around 570 and died around 632 AD.



John 14:17 — But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you.

The Comforter lives with the disciples already now and will later be 'in' them. The Holy Spirit came to the disciples and indwelt them. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because first he wasn't around at the time when Jesus was speaking to his disciples nor second could he ever be in any of the disciples. The Greek word is 'en', and it means 'right inside'. Jesus is saying that the Comforter will be 'right inside' of the disciples.



John 14:26 — The Comforter is specifically described as the Holy Spirit. The Comforter is not a man. Muhammad could not be the Comforter because he was never the Holy Spirit.



John 14:26 — The Comforter will be sent in Jesus' name. The Holy Spirit represented the Lord on earth. No Muslim believes that Muhammad was sent by God in Jesus name. Muhammad did not come in Jesus' name, as the apostle of Jesus, rather he came in his own name with his own questionable “revelations”.



John 14:26 — But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

The Comforter will teach these disciples and remind them of what Christ said to them. As the early Christians grew the Holy Spirit taught them. Muhammad is not the Comforter because he never knew the disciples and he didn't teach these disciples, and Muhammad never reminded the disciples of what Christ said.



John 15:26 — When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

The Comforter would be sent to these disciples. These disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Muhammad was never sent to these disciples.



John 16:13 — But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.

The Comforter will guide these disciples into all truth. These disciples (and others) grew in the knowledge of God through the revelations from the Holy Spirit. Muhammad never guided these disciples into any truth.



John 16:13 — He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Comforter will speak to these disciples. These disciples grew to know the leading of the Holy Spirit, i.e. they knew His voice. Muhammad never spoke to these disciples.



John 16:14 — He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

The Comforter will take from Jesus and make it known to the disciples. Muhammad never knew Jesus and never took from Jesus and made it known to anyone.

And we are expecting to be a nation with 21st century thinking? How can we when we have people like Nezan as our crop of future leaders? He couldnt understand that Surah fatihah and indeed all the Quran is given as guidance, Speech of Allah, for humans to follow, use as how to communicate, one on one wth the Creator? [size=14pt]How is this related to this thread, this forum or this discussion?[/size]


And whats funny is that he used the grinning emocom (I hope thats what they call thse faces), ridiculously!

[size=14pt]Am I exempted from using the emoticons? I hope their were created to be used [/size]


He is talking about Satanic Verses. I wish he discussed it/them. If only it had been true, the fact that the carrier of the story said he was corrected by Jibril, immediately it happened show that he was a prophet. If it happened. But I say it did not happen!

[size=14pt]Are you denying that their did not exist? Then explain why Ayatollah placed a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for merely using it as a title for his novel.[/size]

@Nezan « #90 on: Today at 10:51:10 AM »  

What prophesy that did not come to pass?
1. Mohammed is quoted in the Hadiths (Book 37, Number 4282) that the conquest of Constantinople would occur within a specific period of time:[

What ahadith book please? Who is the collector; Bukhari, Muslim, who and whats the riwaya; chains of naration and how many sets of reporters? Something like this should be heard many, many companions, no? You are a smart man, I would expect that you are smart enough to tell us. Then I will respond to your allegations, and your Webmasters of doom. Those who are leading you by the noose to hell fire and you are following them!

2. Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:
"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."
This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).
On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.
Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)
In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them.

Ummrah is not full Hajj! Ummrah you do not go to Minna and Arafah. Now the Ayah of the Victory of Makka did not happen until after the treaty of Hudaibiya! It was this treaty that allowed the young nation toconcern themselves with others, and worry less about the Makkans, who had a great advantage in the qording of the treaty! Finally, take a special note of the: IF ALLAH WILLS""!

That to me tells every thinking person that when Allah Wills, it happened for Muhammad (AS) and not when Muhammad willed! And my supporting statements are many; First, in Makka period when AbiTalib, his  Uncle was dying, Muhammad (AS) asked him to even just say one time that "There is no God worthy of Worship ecept Allah." His Uncle died without even repeating it to rotest that he will not say it. Allah revealed to His Messenger "It is Allah wWho makes people Muslim by His Mercy." Again, in the battle of Huud, his beloved Uncle Hamzah was matytr, and he was told of the Killer; Waashi, the african slave who was a fierce warrior. Muhammad (AS) was so grieved that he opened his mouth to intend to curse this man. But Jibril came down and stopped him from making sucha pronouncement! Later this man Waashi became a muslim and he and Ali bin Talib killed a great enemy of Islam while the prophet was still alive.

In short, in your lack of knowledge; Muhammad will not be allowed to say whatever will not be granted him. Makka was defeated without a single drop of blood and he showed the greatest mercy that has ever demostrated between humans; he gave a whole city inhabitants wholesale amnesty, when they epected blood bath, since they had treated him and his "makkan" followers so evilly and had to run for shelter in Madina living with the Hepers "Ansar" of madina. I get you idea; some computer www is oing the thinking for you. You just go there to copy. Again my statement about the future crop leadership of Nigeria stands based on you as the poster child!

3.
Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.
Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.

Again Book of ahadith needs to be presented here. A blanketed statement without specificity to verify it will not pass muster! I will, InshaAllah after you failed effort will provide ahadith that will go against yours. My will contain Compiler(s), and the number of times each was reported with the chain of narrators!

@Nezan: I will come to Ayatollah later on. But I do not want to loose a better conversation with a man who may have had his reasons for what he did about his fatawa! I live in USA, and what they do in Iran has no great impact on me even as much as what they do in Nigeria that I do not live in.

Now lets start about the "Comforter" business, with who the "Former Comforter" is or was at the time that Jesus of the Bible was speaking about "another Comforter" to them. There must be a former before an another. No? After you give me the full details of the former; his or his ghostly or human essence, etc, I will take you to school, from the beginning; when Jesus first began to tel his disciples about why he is not telling them higher thngs than the elementary that he had told them. And the "Another" future thing relative to present or past "Comforter" will deal with the advanced stuff; 100% and complete!

What ahadith book please?

Sunan Abu Dawud:

Book 37, Number 4281:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).

Book 37, Number 4282:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.

Book 37, Number 4283:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.