Who is the real Gabriel?

Here is a good site to read about the history of Islam and Mohammed
The Chronology of the Quran : Chapter 7, Bell's Introduction to the Quran

Just to quote some materials on it:

Muslim scholars usually accepted the fact that the quran QurŸån had originally been revealed for the most part in short passages. They tended to assume that most of the passages in a sura had been revealed about the same time. On this basis they came to classify the suras as 'Meccan' or 'Medinan', and this description was included in the heading of each sura in the later copies. They were also aware, however, of instances where a few verses had to be classified differently from the rest of the sura. This has now come to be noted in the heading. Thus in the official Egyptian edition the heading of sura 73 reads: 'The sura of Al-muzzammil, Meccan except verses 10, 11 and 20, which are Medinan; its verses are 20; it was revealed after Al-qalam.' The last statement is part of the attempt to arrange all the suras according to the order in which the main part of each was revealed.

European attempts to work out the chronological order of the suras have usually taken internal evidence into account as well, that is, apparent references to known public events, especially during the Medinan period of muhammad Muøammad's career. Attention has also been paid to considerations of style, vocabulary and the like. In short, the quran QurŸån has been subjected to severe scrutiny according to the methods of modern literary and historical criticism.

Several nineteenth-century scholars made useful contributions to the study of quranic QurŸånic chronology; but the most important book by far was Theodor Nöldeke's Geschichte des quran qorans Qoråns, first published in 1860. 1 A second edition, revised and enlarged by Friedrich Schwally and others, appeared in three volumes in 1909, 1919 and 1938, and was reprinted by a photocopying process in 1961. In respect of chronology Nöldeke assumed a progressive change of style from exalted poetical passages in the early years to long prosaic deliverances later. He followed the Islamic tradition in recognizing a division into suras mainly revealed at Mecca and those mainly revealed at Medina, but further divided the Meccan suras into three periods.

The suras of the First Meccan Period are mostly short. The verses also are short, and the language rhythmic and full of imagery. Groups of oaths often occur at the beginning of passages. The suras of this period, in the order assigned to them by Nöldeke are: 96, 74, 111, 106, 108, 104, 107, 102, 105, 92, 90, 94, 93, 97, 86, 91, 80, 68, 87, 95, 103, 85, 73, 101, 99, 82, 81, 53, 84, 100, 79, 77, 78, 88, 89, 75, 83, 69, 51, 52, 56, 70, 55, 112, 109, 113, 114, 1.

he most elaborate attempt so far to discover the original units of revelation in the quran QurŸån and to date these is that incorporated by Richard Bell in his Translation, published in 1937 and 1939. He set out from the position, accepted in a general way by Muslim scholars, that the original unit of revelation was the short passage. He further held that much of the work of 'collecting' these into suras had been done by muhammad Muøammad himself under divine inspiration, and that both in the process of 'collecting' and at other times-always under divine inspiration-he had revised passages.

Some miscellaneous words and ideas which give an indication of date may be briefly mentioned. All passages which recommend fighting or speak of the Prophet's followers being engaged in fighting are necessarily Medinan. It was at Medina too that the maintenance of the morale of the community became of concern to muhammad Muøammad and the Muslims, so that condemnation of fasad fasåd, 'corruption', 'treason', must be Medinan. The word fitna which may have a similar meaning is too ambiguous to be a safe guide, but most of its occurrences are probably Medinan; the same is true of shiqaq shiqåq, 'schism'. Medinan too are the demand to obey the Messenger, the use of the phrase 'God and the Messenger', and the threat of 'humiliation in this world' directed against Jews and other opponents.

The Historical context of Islam, Chapter oneBell's Introduction to the Quran Revised by Montgomery Watt

Chapter 1 is very, IMO concise.
 
Gabriel..

Regarding Waraqah ibn Nawfal...

Here's the issue...Someone might think or suppose Waraka ibn Nawfal was an "Ebionite priest" or they might think he was a "Nestorian Monk"...

The truth is nobody knows for sure.. there's also a difference between an Ebionite priest and a Nestorian monk..if you think about it! He couldn't be both!

First consider Ebionite:

Ebionites, or Ebionaioi (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι; derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian sect or sects that existed during the first centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus as the Messiah[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites.[3] The Ebionites used only one of the Jewish Gospels...

Now Nestorian:

The Church of the East (Syriac: ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ʿĒ(d)tāʾ d-Maḏn(ə)ḥāʾ), also known as the Nestorian Church,[note 1] is a Christian church, part of the Syriac tradition of Eastern Christianity. Originally the church of the Persian Sassanid Empire, it quickly spread widely through Asia. Between the 9th and 14th centuries it was the world's largest Christian church in terms of geographical extent..

If you read Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" all it says is that Waraka ibn Nawfal was a Christian who "read the scriptures and learned from those who follow the Torah and the Gospel". - p. 107 The Life of Muhammad, A translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah by A. Guilaume. You can also read it online at

Sirat-Life Of Muhammad by -Ibn Ishaq : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Click on "Read online"..then enter Waraqa in the search engine...

To assume that the testimony of Waraqah should be set aside because he was "heretical" is based on suppositions.

I'm afraid some of your other points are also from biased sources or suppositions.
 
Hi,

there are a few questions that are being raised here very often, so I'll try to answer them.

Secondly, I wont be answering any terrorsim arguments. Killing innocent civilians isnt some Islamic invention, it has been going on since ever. It was practiced by Europeans and now Americans do the same. Not going into the fact that islam forbids this practice, if the "Modern, Civilized west" can bomb innocent civilians to colonise them, and loot there wealth, whats wrong if muslims do the same, for saving their land and wealth?

anyways

About Gabriel

Gabriel is an angel, angels are made of light, they dont have any solid material form. He appeared to Muhammad in many different forms.
Physical characteristics of Angels- I - Islamweb.net -English
He might have appearwd to mary in a different form. It doesnt matter, and you cant prove from this argument that the gabriel that apperaed to MUhammad was different from the Gabriel that appeared to Mary.

About Revelation

Gabriel came to muhammad and said, IQRA. Now the word iqra means recite. Muhammad replied,"I am illeterate". To recite something one needs to know how to read or write, ie how to understand written word, which muhammad didnt. So "I am illeterate" was a common sence reply. Then Gabriel pressed him three times and "words started coming out of Muhammad's mouth". This is how revelation began. There is no argument here either. Here is the link to a complete hadith (no.3)
Sahih Bukhari : Book of "Revelation"

About warqa

Islamic sources say he was looking for truth, and later on he converted to christianity. Which kind of Christianity, nobody knows. But one thing is for sure, he didnt believe in Pauline Christianity. Most probably he followed Mosiac law and the teachings of Jesus, and not the "Mainstream theology" of Paul.

About abrogation

There is absolutely no evidence that 9:5 actually abrogates anything. The initial verses of Surah 9 are about Meccans once they had broken down the treaty. The portion around 9:29 is about the Byzentine empire, when it was sure thing that Byzentines were going to attack the rising power of Arabs. Show me one proper muslim scholar (not some catholic site quoting some islamophobe quoting some secular islamicist quoting some unkonwn guy in a cave) who says verse 9:5 abrogates anything other than the peace treaty with meccans. Infact if 9:5 abrogates anything, then 9:6 abrogates even that (I can bet you werent told there is a 9:6 too)

Kaaba and black stone

Well acc. to Arab history, Abraham did built it. And neither kaaba nor the black stone is worshiped by any Muslim. Anybody who does that isnt a muslim anyways.

Ibn Ishaq

Ibn Ishaq isnt considered an "authentic source" of information by scholars. mainly because its level of authenticity is of the same level as that of ahem ahem......gospels. Its a collection of weak and fabricated traditions.

About mainstream christianity.


Jesus never said I am God, or worship me, or law was nailed to the cross. (This has been discussed extensively on this site). All these beliefs were later invented by Paul. his views were later on accepted by the king and the church, and became "Mainstream Christianity". Jesus the man had nothing to do with this whole evolution of Paul's religion. So who so ever believes in the "Mainstraem" Christianity is in reality a heretic. Because none of it comes from Jesus.

Gospels were written decades after Jesus. Most of the theologically important material (like beginning of John or ending of Mathew) doesnt exist in earliest manuscripts of gospels. Even these gospels dont record a single word where jesus said I am God or worship me. He did say he was the son of God, in a very hebraic/judiac sense, and there are many such sons of God in the OT. There are a few places where according to English Bible Jesus was "worshiped", but as far as I remember, they too are mistranslations. Most probably people bowed to him, and this was translated as worship.

IN reality Son of God or resurrected saviour has always been a part of roman/greek religions, and this is where the "Jesus Christ, Son of God" thingy comes from. There were at least a dozen sons of God in that region before Jesus.
 
farhan and abdullah,

Thank you for taking the time to answer. It seems to me that the case with sufism is a lot like that with kabblah in Judaism... in that one must be a wholly committed Muslim or Jew as a prerequisite. That makes sense. The "orientalist" definition has always bothered me (I like traditions, even ones I do not susscribe to).
Thanks for your questions

Its not just Sufism or Kaballah. If one wants to follow any mystical/spiritual tradition, he will have to follow the metaphysics and social/ethical laws of that system. Islamic or Mosaic law is a way of diciplining the base self (nafs in arabic) and its cravings and desires, so it has to be followed to advance in spirituality. The same is true with non-judaic/islamic traditions too. Yoga for example is based on Yoga sutra which is a whole lot of complete mind-body disciplining. yoga system is practical mysticism which is itself based on Gita's philosophy and Upanishads' metaphysics. Buddhism has its own laws and philosophy. Taoism has its own disciplining techniques (the neidan stuff). Although Buddhism or daoism have got rather vague boundaries, so one doesnt need to "convert to" them. But to advance in their spirituality, one will be consciously or unconsciously following their laws.

Having just read all of the interveining posts, what (from the Sharia point-of-view) is the evidence (or alledged evidence for tampering with the Quran? I find plenty of allegations, but little proof (in the way Ehrman or other academics have plenty of proof about the inaccuracies in the OT and NT).
There isnt any. Not a single differing manuscript has ever been found. Not a single solid evidence of tampering. There are lots of rumors, lots of theories, but not one shred of evidence.

Muhammad recited Quran, hundreds heard and memorised it. Then they recited it, and thousands heard/memorised it. This is how Quran was mainly transmitted. It was also written on skin/bones/leaves etc (paper technology became common after Battle of talas) in Muhammad's life, which was collected soon after his death, and standard copies written within 30 years of his death. So, no shred of evidence at all.

The language charge (must be read in Arabic) also bothers me because for more than a millenia the HCC forced latin on people (yet did not let the laity read it). The Oriental Orthodox, Armenian and Tewahedo chuches went another way.
In ritual prayer, it has to be recited in Arabic, which has many benifits. One from any part of the world can enter any mosque anywhere and he would know what part of ritual worship is going on. Many of the chapters are memorized by all Muslims, and every Muslim can understand the meaning of a few chapters. One can enter a mosque in turkey or china or angola, and he would know whats going on there.

Apart from ritual prayer, its not obligatory to recite Quran only in Arabic. Translations are available in almost every language, so anybody who wants to understand it can read it in his own language. People converting to Islam always do that. Many people who are interested take Arabic language courses too, to understand/experience Quran in its own language.

But of course, since Quran is considered to be the verbatim word of God, human translations cant be considered equivalent of that. And so Muslims prefer to recite it in Arabic.
 
=farhan;262432]Hi,

About Gabriel

Gabriel is an angel, angels are made of light, they dont have any solid material form. He appeared to Muhammad in many different forms.
Physical characteristics of Angels- I - Islamweb.net -English
He might have appearwd to mary in a different form. It doesnt matter, and you cant prove from this argument that the gabriel that apperaed to MUhammad was different from the Gabriel that appeared to Mary.

About Revelation

Gabriel came to muhammad and said, IQRA. Now the word iqra means recite. Muhammad replied,"I am illeterate". To recite something one needs to know how to read or write, ie how to understand written word, which muhammad didnt. So "I am illeterate" was a common sence reply. Then Gabriel pressed him three times and "words started coming out of Muhammad's mouth". This is how revelation began. There is no argument here either. Here is the link to a complete hadith (no.3)
Sahih Bukhari : Book of "Revelation"
In the Bible, Gabriel in every appearance to his subjects he would introduce himself and his name will be mention in the Bible.

Luke 1: 26 – 27 Gabriel appearing to Mary
26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee namedNazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed[a] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary.

Daniel 8:16
16 And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.”

Daniel 9:21 Gabriel appearing to Daniel
21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.

Luke 1:19 Gabriel appearing to Zechariah
19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.


On the other hand the spirit that appear to Mohammed and Mary did not identify themselves as to be Gabriel. In Mohammed's case, it was Waraqa the Christian (heretical sect) cousin of Mohammed who would told and convince Mohammed that the spirit was Gabriel and for the next 11 years that spirit that will appear to Mohammed several times will not mention his name, I don't think there is any verse that Gabriel or Jibril identify himself to Mohammed.

Sura 96:1 – 4
Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth, [2] Createth man from a clot. [3] Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, [4] Who teacheth by the pen.


Sura 3:45 - 47
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!


If I research correctly, Gabriel’s name will only be mention after Mohammed has relocated to Medina in 622 almost 11 years after he was first visited by the spirit.

Sura 2:97 – 98
97 Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is [none but] he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by permission of Allah , confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."


Is the following verse a translation error or not? it seem to be saying that there are different spirits notice the use of “and” they are Gabriel and Michael are Gabriel and Michael angels or not?, are they different from the angels and His messengers?

98 Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Sura 2:102
And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic and that which was revealed to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut



About warqa

Islamic sources say he was looking for truth, and later on he converted to christianity. Which kind of Christianity, nobody knows. But one thing is for sure, he didnt believe in Pauline Christianity. Most probably he followed Mosiac law and the teachings of Jesus, and not the "Mainstream theology" of Paul.

One thing for sure, Waraqa was a Christian and that Khadija was not a follower of the Arab paganism no mention if she was a Christian or not but from what has been narrated it would seem that Khadija was also a Christian especially when she calm Mohammed and she believe just like Waraqa that the spirit was the angel Gabriel only Christians and Jews have such beliefs. Waraqa's Christian knowledge seem to be wrong because when he told Mohammed that it was Gabriel the same Gabriel that appear to Moses. The problem is, Gabriel never appeared to Moses it was God Himself who appear to Moses.

About abrogation

There is absolutely no evidence that 9:5 actually abrogates anything. The initial verses of Surah 9 are about Meccans once they had broken down the treaty. The portion around 9:29 is about the Byzentine empire, when it was sure thing that Byzentines were going to attack the rising power of Arabs. Show me one proper muslim scholar (not some catholic site quoting some islamophobe quoting some secular islamicist quoting some unkonwn guy in a cave) who says verse 9:5 abrogates anything other than the peace treaty with meccans. Infact if 9:5 abrogates anything, then 9:6 abrogates even that (I can bet you werent told there is a 9:6 too)

This site seem to have a good explanation about abrogation

The Doctrine of Abrogation

A further reference to abrogation is made in the Qur'an where it states that Allah abrogates the interpolations of Satan into the utterances of Prophets (22.51). It is generally believed that reference is made here to the words pronounced by the Prophet when, in the course of reciting Sura 53, he said (following verses 19 and 20) that the three female idols of Arab paganism were acceptable to Allah as intercessors. These words, having been interjected by Satan, were soon withdrawn.

Islamic theology and jurisprudence give the widest scope to the doctrine of abrogation. One commentary (Kashf-al-Asrar in commenting on verse 2.100) says: "The orthodox view is that abrogation applies both to the Qur'an and to tradition. Thus the Qur'an abrogates the Qur'an, tradition abrogates the Qur'an, tradition abrogates tradition, and the Qur'an abrogates tradition. All this is firmly established and is recognised by jurisprudence."

An example of an existing verse held to have been abrogated by another is verse 24.3 which says: "An adulterer may only marry an adulteress, and an adulteress only an adulterer", and which is considered to have been repealed by verse 32 of the same Sura which contains this commandment: "Marry those among you who are single". Incidentally the same abrogation is also indirectly deduced from circumstantial evidence furnished by Tradition: the Prophet is reported to have meant the ruling in 24.3 to apply only to the case of two men who intended to marry two particular women of easy virtue plying their trade in Mecca, the ruling having lapsed after these cases had been disposed of.

Finally, it does not appear that commentators have discussed the question as to how the doctrine of abrogation stands in relation to the Qur'anic affirmation that Allah's word is unchangeable. "No change can there be in the Words of Allah" (10.64).

From Sherif, Faruq. A Guide to the Contents of the Qur'an. London: Ithaca, 1985.

The problem IMO is that every Muslim are left independent to judge for themselves what verses are or needs to be abrogated, plus the fact that the Quran is not arrange in chronological order or in timeline it is very difficult to know which abrogated what verse or which comes first.

Kaaba and black stone

Well acc. to Arab history, Abraham did built it. And neither kaaba nor the black stone is worshiped by any Muslim. Anybody who does that isnt a muslim anyways.

Yes, Arab history state that and that it was Abraham who place the black stone. Unfortunately, this contradicts the Bible because as soon as Abraham send Ishmael and Hagar on their own, the Bible story will concentrate on Isaac the last time Ishmael will be mention is when Abraham died Genesis 25:8 - 11
8Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

9And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;

10The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

11And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.


IMO, it was Ishmale who build the Kabaa in memory to honor God who promise to protect Ishmael as well the problem is after Genesis 25 nothing will be heard of Ishmael and his legacy. Genesis 21: 17And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.

19And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

20And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.


Ibn Ishaq

Ibn Ishaq isnt considered an "authentic source" of information by scholars. mainly because its level of authenticity is of the same level as that of ahem ahem......gospels. Its a collection of weak and fabricated traditions.

About mainstream christianity.


Jesus never said I am God, or worship me, or law was nailed to the cross. (This has been discussed extensively on this site). All these beliefs were later invented by Paul. his views were later on accepted by the king and the church, and became "Mainstream Christianity". Jesus the man had nothing to do with this whole evolution of Paul's religion. So who so ever believes in the "Mainstraem" Christianity is in reality a heretic. Because none of it comes from Jesus.

Before there was Paul there were the 11 Apostles, and Peter and John have wrote many gospels about Jesus Christ. There are many verses that identify Jesus Christ is God and the most powerful is when Jesus commanded Satan to worship Him only. Luke 4: 8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

check out the many gospels of John such as 6:48 I am the bread of life. 10:30 The Father and I are one. 6:41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he."

At the same time, nowhere in the Quran that said anything about the Bible being corrupt or that Mohammed should write a new book instead there are many verses that instruct Mohammed to CONSULT and CONFORM with the revealed Book (Bible).

Gospels were written decades after Jesus. Most of the theologically important material (like beginning of John or ending of Mathew) doesnt exist in earliest manuscripts of gospels. Even these gospels dont record a single word where jesus said I am God or worship me. He did say he was the son of God, in a very hebraic/judiac sense, and there are many such sons of God in the OT. There are a few places where according to English Bible Jesus was "worshiped", but as far as I remember, they too are mistranslations. Most probably people bowed to him, and this was translated as worship.

The most evident and compelling evidence is that Gabriel himself from the beginning proclaim Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that was follow with the throng of angels announcing to the shepherds.

The Quran itself was written 100+ years after Mohammed died, Mohammed and or Allah never gave any instruction to write a book, Muslims took it upon themselves to write under great controversy as to which are Mohammed's true revelation and who can still remember words for words.

IN reality Son of God or resurrected saviour has always been a part of roman/greek religions, and this is where the "Jesus Christ, Son of God" thingy comes from. There were at least a dozen sons of God in that region before Jesus.

That is why God reveal Himself just like He has reveal to Moses that there is only One God, One Holy Spirit and One Son of God. remember, Jesus was not created like Adam, Jesus was born with a human mother and a Father, God and God instructed Moses to write everything he reveal to Him so that no one forgets, that sacred document was pass down to the church fathers as we know it now as the Holy Bible.
 
According to Biblical history Abraham never build the Kabaa.


well here's some biblical as well as historical evidence that Abraham did build the kaaba! :p:

Historical Proof of Abraham Built the Kaaba - YouTube

Paran in the Bible is Mecca today - See the Archeological discoveries that prove Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

??? ????? - The city of Mecca and kaaba

Ka'bah As A Place Of Worship In The History


You forgot to include the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbullah, Iranian regime, Boko-Haram, Abu Sayyaf and Al-Shabaab all of these believe in the same jihad as that of al Qaeda and again, they are the ones you should be educating not us.


and it's amazing how no more 911's happen aint it? :rolleyes:

lets just put it this way, if they were all like Al-Qaida, America will be on its knees by now!
 
No one in the United States Intelligence Community (a group not widely known for their flexibility and tolerance), at least since that kook Boykin left:D, even believes the kind of linkages Gab is making.

No evidence, no rationale, no linakage, and they have enough problems with intercene squabbles.

Salafists accepting Shia as brothers? Yeah, when my IRA-papist Grandmother becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury!
 

Those are actually claims that Abraham build the Kabaa, but as far as Catholic history is concern that is not the case. In fact as I have pointed out when Abraham died he was buried near his wife Sara at Hebron what is known as "Cave of the Patriarchs"

Genesis 25:8 - 11
8Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

9And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;


So far, Muslims have been using the Bible to proof that Abraham did build the Kabaa even though the Bible is very clear that Abraham after he send Ishmael and Hagar away he will spend the rest of his life fulfilling God's promise to settle in Canaan. Surely the Bible is not corrupt and that is why Allah instructed to Mohammed many times to consult the REVEALED BOOK and the PEOPLE of the BOOK.


I can see why Muslims claim that Psalm 84: 1 - 7 as proof that Mecca or Kabaa is the temple the Psalm is talking about because of the word "BACA". Muslims believe that word refers to either Mecca or Kabaa. Again, because Mohammed and Muslims did not listen to Allah to consult with the people of the book they got it all wrong and are interpreting Bible verses according to their own vision.

I am going to copy and paste and this is a very simple explanation to the Psalm 84

[QUOTEThe author of the Old Testament Psalm pinned the destination of the pilgrimage as being "in Zion" which is the name of the easternmost hill in, and synonymous with, Jerusalem - located 1200 kilometers away from Mecca - with Zion being referenced 153 times in the King James version of the Holy Bible.[19] Jerusalem is where YHWH (Yahweh) had his people build his tabernacle, and the temple mount, which still stands today. The above cited Psalms passage refers to Yahweh's people, gathering from around the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, on pilgrimage to Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem.

“The Valley of Rephaim lay southwest of Jerusalem and formed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 15:8). It may correspond to the ‘Valley of Baca’ (Psalm 84:6), due to the balsam trees that were there (1 Chronicles 14:14-15). These are named, literally, ‘weepers’ because of their drops of milky sap.” (Payne) "(Psalm 84:6; R.V., "valley of weeping, " marg., "or balsam trees"), probably a valley in some part of Palestine, or generally some one of the valleys through which pilgrims had to pass on their way to the sanctuary of Jehovah on Zion; or it may be figuratively "a valley of weeping.""[20]
"BACA ba'-ka bakha': In the King James Version in Psalm 84:6, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "the valley of Weeping," with a marginal variant which is best put in the form, "the valley of the balsam-trees." The word is elsewhere used only in the duplicated account of one of David's battles (2 Samuel 5:23, 24 1 Chronicles 14:14, 15). There the translation is "the mulberry trees," with "the balsam-trees" in the margin in the Revised Version (British and American). Conjecturally the word is, by variant spelling, of the stem which denotes weeping; the tree is called "weeper" from some habit of the trickling of its gum or of the moisture on it; the valley of weeping is not a geographical locality, but a picturesque expression for the experiences of those whose strength is in Yahweh, and who through His grace find their sorrows changed into blessings.- Willis J. Beecher"[21]]
[/QUOTE]

Just because it sounds similar BACA and MECCA or KABAA does not mean it is one and the same just like SEE and SEA sound the same but have different meanings.

Ka'bah As A Place Of Worship In The History


and it's amazing how no more 911's happen aint it? :rolleyes:

lets just put it this way, if they were all like Al-Qaida, America will be on its knees by now!
[/QUOTE]

No more 9/11 for now, because we are now more aware, in fact because of 9/11 that I begun my research about Islam at first I was concern why they said Bible is corrupt maybe they are right? So after careful research I learn that all the claims that Muslim have against the Bible, the Catholic church with reason, common sense and practicality answered all their claims. So I switch to check on the Quran because Muslims claim it is the perfect book of God. I guess that would be especially since they claim the Bible is corrupt, but what I learn is that there are many questions almost more than what Muslims have been claiming about the Bible and when it is presented to them their responds are: It is Allah's words, we are Islamophobic, we are anti Islam, we are making things up etc. they never gave a clear reasonable answer with out being agitated. But most of all I learn that nowhere did Allah say anything about the Bible being corrupt, or to write the Quran in a book, so many inconsistency and all I can conclude is to why Muslims react that way is because of what Islam demands Muslims to be and that is SUBMISSION, it is like a good soldier "it is not for us to question why, it is only for us to do and die" (Charge of the Light Brigade)

The reason America has not folded on its knees to al Qaeda because we the none Muslims have decided to fight back, Christians are always like that slow to react war is always our last resort just like in ancient times it took more than 400 years after Christendom in the entire Middle East has been lost and Europe under threat that Christian will finally start to fight back.

It would nice to see Muslims of the Old Quran to start educating Muslims of the New Quran about Allah's true message and that is consult, ally or work with the people of the Book.
 
You forgot to include the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbullah, Iranian regime, Boko-Haram, Abu Sayyaf and Al-Shabaab all of these believe in the same jihad as that of al Qaeda and again, they are the ones you should be educating not us.

Jihad means the same as Israel - to struggle with God.

Have you even read the Old Testament? The Jews have an utterly disgusting history, and the crusades are evidence of what Christians AND Muslims can do. There is no difference in the fanaticism of each group through their histories - all three have converted by the threat of death, all have conquered to spread the faith.

The only difference is that you identify with one side and are against the other. What kind of father has Abraham been that all these years later his two sons are STILL fighting? When will this end, you are brothers! Stop it.
 
I can conclude is to why Muslims react that way is because of what Islam demands Muslims to be and that is SUBMISSION

This is a wrong translation, the word islam means surrender.

This is what all the faiths teach, Christ says it when he command you give up your will and do the will of God. It is the same command Muhammad gives to the Muslims, surrender to the will of God.

That being said, yes, as with all traditions, the exoteric has become something utterly disgusting in some corners. It is no different from the various Skinhead groups throughout the world who are training for a race war - these all get their justifications from the Bible, they are all protestant Christians. They are no less a terror threat than any Muslim group, and probably better armed than the likes of al-Qaida. The evangelical movement is the fundamentalist movement of Christianity, and again it is mirrored in the Muslim world. The vast majority of both are good people though!

There is really no difference, but you see through your hatred, not through your love. You project a certain reality which is not the truth. Do you know that Jesus would have said Alaha when addressing God? Is it so hard to believe the man worshiped the one same Allah, just in another language? For me, all traditions are a waste, they are stuck in the past, but why can you not look at Jesus and Muhammad and Moses and Krishna and Buddha and whosoever and love each? If you cannot do this, how will you ever learn to love anyone, for these are the highest peaks of humanity. All worship the one same God as you, the only difference is your identifications, your choosing who is better.

Turn to God, do not cling to the flesh which has died.
 
No more 9/11 for now, because we are now more aware, in fact because of 9/11 that I begun my research about Islam at first I was concern why they said Bible is corrupt maybe they are right? So after careful research I learn that all the claims that Muslim have against the Bible, the Catholic church with reason, common sense and practicality answered all their claims. So I switch to check on the Quran because Muslims claim it is the perfect book of God. I guess that would be especially since they claim the Bible is corrupt, but what I learn is that there are many questions almost more than what Muslims have been claiming about the Bible and when it is presented to them their responds are: It is Allah's words, we are Islamophobic, we are anti Islam, we are making things up etc. they never gave a clear reasonable answer with out being agitated. But most of all I learn that nowhere did Allah say anything about the Bible being corrupt, or to write the Quran in a book, so many inconsistency and all I can conclude is to why Muslims react that way is because of what Islam demands Muslims to be and that is SUBMISSION, it is like a good soldier "it is not for us to question why, it is only for us to do and die" (Charge of the Light Brigade)

The reason America has not folded on its knees to al Qaeda because we the none Muslims have decided to fight back, Christians are always like that slow to react war is always our last resort just like in ancient times it took more than 400 years after Christendom in the entire Middle East has been lost and Europe under threat that Christian will finally start to fight back.

It would nice to see Muslims of the Old Quran to start educating Muslims of the New Quran about Allah's true message and that is consult, ally or work with the people of the Book.

Rubbish! We Americans are quick to war (we had boots on the ground pretty quickly in A'stan). And we killed one heck of a lot of Taliban before we even had combat troops in there. The Middle East was never ours to lose. And may I point out that when reacted (both in 1100 and 1999) we more or less were pretty uncivilized (look up the Conquest of Jerusalem and think about the SECDEF's comment "we are turning rubble into rubble").

The Muslims never attackes us Salafist fundamentals did. With the exception of Iran (and that I am not too sure about), you can bet your last dollar that every nation in the area provided clandestine support to us.

Your attitude of us versus them is the problem. It is the flip side of the Salafists. You and the Kahanists (I count you as an example of Christian Fundamentalism) are a much bigger threat to we peace-loving non-fundamentalist classic liberal (like Paine and Jefferson) types than all the Salafists.

No, we need to reach out to the Islamic world in this war, we need their help. The alternative is genocide.
 
Abdullah..

Thanks for posting the link:

Historical Proof of Abraham Built the Kaaba - YouTube

There is also a parallel I believe between the case of Jacob setting up a pillar and calling it "God's house""

"....and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God's house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth."..

- Genesis 28:22

And the setting up of stone as a House mentioned in the Qur'an 2:127

"And [mention] when Abraham was raising the foundations of the House and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], "Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed You are the Hearing, the Knowing.
 
Another interesting parallel.. If you consider Bukhari Hadith attributed to Aisha where it says:

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more.

Sahih Bukhari : Read, Study, Search Online

Compare with:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him... Genesis 32:24-28

This "man" turns out is an angel:

4He struggled with the angel and overcame him;
he wept and begged for his favor.
He found him at Bethel
and talked with him there—

Hosea 12:4
 
Compare Surat Al-Alaq and

Hadith attributed to Aisha:

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read!

Sahih Bukhari : Book of "Revelation"



Compare Surat al-Alaq with

Jeremiah first chapter:

6Then I said, “Alas, Lord GOD!
Behold, I do not know how to speak,
Because I am a youth.”

7But the LORD said to me,
“Do not say, ‘I am a youth,’
Because everywhere I send you, you shall go,
And all that I command you, you shall speak.


8“Do not be afraid of them,
For I am with you to deliver you,” declares the LORD.
9Then the LORD stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me,
“Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.

and

Exodus 4:10

10Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” 11The LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him mute or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? 12“Now then go, and I, even I, will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.” 13But he said, “Please, Lord, now send the message by whomever You will.”
 
Rubbish! We Americans are quick to war (we had boots on the ground pretty quickly in A'stan). And we killed one heck of a lot of Taliban before we even had combat troops in there. The Middle East was never ours to lose. And may I point out that when reacted (both in 1100 and 1999) we more or less were pretty uncivilized (look up the Conquest of Jerusalem and think about the SECDEF's comment "we are turning rubble into rubble").

The Muslims never attackes us Salafist fundamentals did. With the exception of Iran (and that I am not too sure about), you can bet your last dollar that every nation in the area provided clandestine support to us.

Your attitude of us versus them is the problem. It is the flip side of the Salafists. You and the Kahanists (I count you as an example of Christian Fundamentalism) are a much bigger threat to we peace-loving non-fundamentalist classic liberal (like Paine and Jefferson) types than all the Salafists.

No, we need to reach out to the Islamic world in this war, we need their help. The alternative is genocide.

Salafist are not Muslims? who else are not Muslims???

We have been reaching out to Muslims, Muslims needs to reach out to us too.
 
Jihad means the same as Israel - to struggle with God.

Have you even read the Old Testament? The Jews have an utterly disgusting history, and the crusades are evidence of what Christians AND Muslims can do. There is no difference in the fanaticism of each group through their histories - all three have converted by the threat of death, all have conquered to spread the faith.

The only difference is that you identify with one side and are against the other. What kind of father has Abraham been that all these years later his two sons are STILL fighting? When will this end, you are brothers! Stop it.

I don't think you really know the history of Catholic or Christianity, what you know is the stereo type that Christianity is the crusade, the inquisition and all the nasty wars that they fought with the Muslims.

Did you know that Christianity was spread and accepted through none violence, through self sacrifice (thousands died without fighting back under Nero and other Roman Emperors from 50 - 200 AD)

The Crusade was the by product of Muslim aggression to defend Christianity it did not happen instantly it happen after more than 200 years of Muslim insatiable appetite for world conquest.

To understand Islam one need to arrange the Quranic verses in chronological order do that and you will discover that from 611 - 621 AD Mohammed's teachings were similar to Christian approach of none violence, none compulsion, respect, etc. Quranic verses from 622 - 632 AD are very vindictive, aggressive, militant and anti Christian and anti Jews. In fact, Christians and Jews from 611 - 621 AD were allowed to worship inside the Kabaa after 622 AD, Mohammed ban them from the Kabaa even though those Christians and Jews in that region were not polytheist.
 
Another interesting parallel.. If you consider Bukhari Hadith attributed to Aisha where it says:

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more.

Sahih Bukhari : Read, Study, Search Online

Compare with:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him... Genesis 32:24-28

This "man" turns out is an angel:

4He struggled with the angel and overcame him;
he wept and begged for his favor.
He found him at Bethel
and talked with him there—

Hosea 12:4

Actually it was not Gabriel it was God, God wrestle with Jacob


Genesis 32:28 - 30

28And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

29And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.


If it was Gabriel he would have identify himself just like he identify himself to Daniel and Mary.
 
Back
Top