What is the Christian perspective of Muhammed (pbuh)?

[Quahom1]

No. They do not come from any root for "lack". Swedish "klaan" is the same word, but means "delicate". The point I was trying to make is that in related languages, the meaning of a word can somewhat drift: German "tapfer" is English "dapper" and German "brav" is English "brave"; however "tapfer" means "courageous" and "dapper" means "well-dressed", while "brav" means "well-dressed" although "brave" means "courageous". The root for "brav" and "brave" is borrowed from the Romance languages, and actually meant "well done" (BRAVO!); the root for "tapfer" and "dapper" is native Germanic, but apparently meant originally "of the upper classes".

THE POINT BEING: Hebrew "shalom" and Arabic "salaam" are, in fact, the exact same word, that is correct, and the same root that is found in "Islam; Muslim". However, that cannot be taken to guarantee that the finer shades of meaning applied to that root have stayed the same in Hebrew as in Arabic, and it is not safe to draw subtle conclusions about one language's usage of the root based on what the other language does.

The term must be taken into context in it's original entirety. And one must be able to think like the speaker, and to do that one must be able to speak the language as everyday communication with others that speak the same language.

Attempting to impose a dictionary definition to a foreign concept is, well less than "fluent" but I digress.

v/r

Q

gotta go...I gotta get the dog and bone... (answer the phone). ;-)

 

[sonoman]

Sorry to be pedantic but .....

The word Islam is a verb not a noun and comes from the root word salama (SLM) and has 5 accepted meanings:

Surrender, Submission, Obedience, Purity/Sincerity and Peace.

May I ask why you think the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) would speak Hebrew and use it's given meanings? (I believe the word Shalom is from Hebrew coming from the root shin-lamed-mem .... right?) and I don't believe it was spoken by the Arabians, either then or now.

Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't Hebrew a complex language like Arabic and therefore the root of shalom has various meanings, one being peace but also including well being of an individual or group, complete or nothing broken.

The Hebrew language is a dialect of the Canaanite language which originated the alphabet that others used, like the Greeks. My point here is that it does seem Muslims do not know about the history of the meaning of "Islam" where it derives originally from the worship of the god of peace Shalom at Jerusalem, probably on Mt. Zion, because the history of sacred sites in the Near East is that they exchange hands with differing religious group ownership, e.g. Jerusalem under Canaanite confederation rulership vs. Jewish, e.g. Mecca under Arabic Vedic control vs. Mecca under Muslim control.

I do hope Muslims learn about "Shalom" and how this Venus god became the symbol of peace. It is important because one of the reasons Jerusalem will always be "special" in the world is due to the fact that it was at Jerusalem that God as peace was first worshiped. To not know this, to not know that peace was worshiped at Jerusalem is a huge loss of knowledge for the betterment of humankind.

 

[dailogue is the best]

That's fine, however the first question remains:

If pharoh was a believer and a Muslim before the incident at the Red Sea, then why would Pharoh admit that the "Hebrew God" was the one true God, and why not "Allah". And if he already believed that they were both the same God, why would God not accept Pharoh's plea and instead made an example of him (unless Pharoh was not Muslim, or Allah, is not the same as the Hebrew God)?

The answers are very simple, Quahom1:

1- Pharoah wasnt a believer. He refused to listen to Moses and Haraun. He refused to submit to the only God. According to the Quran, it is Pharoah who declared himself as the God of hsi people. He said to his people :" I m your God" and that there was no God but he. Though Moses came with miracles like turning stick into serpant, and though even Pharoah's magicians believed in God after seeing that what Moses did was a miracle and not magic, Pharoah refused to believe and kill the magicians, and everyone dared to declare his belive in God.

Pharoah knew that what Moses came with was right, but his arrogance forced him to disbelieve. He submitted to his ego. At the moment Pharoah was drowning, he said that he was now a submitter to God. God didnt accept his plea because Pharoah knew from the very beginning that there is God, but he was arrogant and too boastfull to submit to Him. That made his crimes worse. He knew of God's existence, but he refused to obey.

God says:
[10:90] We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, "I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter."
[10:91] "Too late!* For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor”.

God says in other verses about the condition of repentance to be accepted:

[4:17] Repentance is acceptable by GOD from those who fall in sin out of ignorance, then repent immediately thereafter. GOD redeems them. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. [4:18] Not acceptable is the repentance of those who commit sins until death comes to them, then say, "Now I repent.

Further more, why would not Jewish scripture, or Christian OT not mention the preservation of the Pharoh's body as a promise by God (when their scripture is 700 to 1300 years earlier than the Q'uran?

This is one of the questions that worried Dr. Baucaille, too. He was so excited with his discovery that this mummy of Pharaoh drowned. He was so excited to tell this in public as it would his own discovery, when his friends told him that this wasn’t a new discovery, for Muslims have this mentioned in their Book. Dr. Baucaille got troubled and shocked: “How come?!!!”. He looked up in the Bible, and he didn’t find any mention of preserving Pharaoh’s corpse. and Even Pharoah's corpse was found at 1898., and the Quran did exist one thousand and 400 years earlier?!! He was really troubled with a lot of questions.

God did mention this prophecy in the Quran so that it is a proof that Quran is God’s Word, and that God of the Quran is the same God that Moses and all the prophets asked their people to worship. Furthermore, and this very important, it is a proof against all those who think that Muhammad pace be upon him forged the Quran by copying what was in the Torah and the Bible: If the Quran tells of information from the past that has proved to be true, and neither the Torah or the Bible tell of this information, then how could the Quran be a mere copy of them??

And finally, if such a promise was made to Pharoh by God, who was there to hear it and record it? Remember, Pharoh's army a scribes were dead or on the other side of the water.

Quran is God’s Word to muhammed (pbuh). It was sent down to him by the angel Gabriel. It is God, Quahom1, who revealed the Quran to Muhammed (pbuh). God was there, and He was everywhere, and He is everywhere. Adam’s God, Abraham’s God, Jacob’s God, Joseph’s God, Moses’s God, Jesus’s God, Muhammed’s God and all the prophets’ God is One and the same God.

Pharaoh's Body Preserved*​

God says: “[10:92] "Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations." Unfortunately, many people are totally oblivious to our signs. »

 

[dailogue is the best]

Dialogue, "Islam" does mean more than "submission". I believe it is one of histories great misfortunes that Muhammad did not understand the word he was using "Islam", to describe surrendering to the will of God because Muhammad left out the whole meaning of the word "shalom" or "salaam" which is at root in "Islam". In other words, Muhammad has taught Muslims to surrender to God but not to surrender to the will of God as peace. "Shalom" was originally the name of the evening star god worshiped at Jerusalem. Shalom stands for peace and it does not stand for "submission". Submission to God as peace. Not to submission to God as war. Why isn't the full meaning of "Islam" taught to Muslims? Do they not know it?

Salam, Sonoman

First of all, Sonoman, let me say that it "seems that you bear a great deal love in your heart to Muslims and their prophet". I hope you understand what I mean, Sonoman?

The accusation of Islam and its prophet of terrorism, violence and hatred is the picture that Orientalists in the 18/19 century wrote about so that the colonialization used as an excuse to bring civilization and light to the barbarious, savage peoples who were living in the Islamic countries. Orientalism was just a tool in the the hands of European countries to give their colonialization a civilized picture. While the reality was far from that. They cam there to kill and destroy, and skin people from dignity. It was Edward Said, With his book Orientalism, that revealed this fact, and proved that Orientalism is everything, but a scientic study of the people of Orient.

Now, in the twentieth century, the media is playing the same role that Orientalists played before. And the US/Isreal are playing the role of Europe. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe in the American media whom a lof of activisits from the US itself warn people of. Look at what this video is showing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1on1ia3riE&feature=related


Coming back to the word "Islam", I am Arabic, and I know what my language means very well. It means submission and obeissance as Muslimwoman said.

Why is Islam called so? Any religion is named according to a person, or a nation. Therefore, Christianity comes from Christ, "Yahodiya"(Judaism) comes from "Yahuda" (a tribe), Buddism from Buddha, and so on. Except Islam, it refers neither to a person nor to a nation, it refers to a trait/ adjective (Muslim). So that, it shows that it isnt a man who is concerned about spreading this religion, and it isnt for special nation. It shows that anyone who enjoys this treat is a Muslim (submitter) either in the past, the present or the future.

Here we can differentiate between a Muslim as a trait, and a Muslim as a creed (holding to Islam as a religion).

 

[sonoman]

In other words Muhammad defined "Islam" his way to exclude the root meaning of shalom, salaam, peace, from the word's meaning. And now you accept it without questioning how or why "peace" has been replaced by "submission"?

That is a sad fact for I do have great love for Muslims, believing most all of them to be trying very hard to be good people and doubly so because of the religious war going on now between Zionist Jews, Zionist Christians and Muslims. I have great hopes for Muslims because while I do heavily criticize Muhammad I have to respect his inclusion of telling Muslims to seek rational truth within his teachings that will eventually save Muslims--if they can recognize spiritual truth and overhaul Muhammad's Islam to create a true Religion of Peace (Salaam). Like Jews and Pauline Christians, Muslims too must now face the fall of spiritual authority, the end of Abraham as foundational for Abrahamic believers that backed Judaism, Pauline Christianity, and Muhammad's Islam. We are going into post-Abrahamic times.

 

[dailogue is the best]

In other words Muhammad defined "Islam" his way to exclude the root meaning of shalom, salaam, peace, from the word's meaning. And now you accept it without questioning how or why "peace" has been replaced by "submission"?

First of all, I would like to tell you that the name of "Islam" came from God, not from Muhammed (pbuh), and even through the Quran we are told that "Islam" is mentioned with all the prophets.

I dont run away from truth, Sonoman. On the contrast, I welcome anyone has something new and accurate to tell.

Look, Sonoman, you seem that you bear prjudice that I fear to hinder you from letting truth reach you. There is a BIG difference between Islam and Salam. Here, I find my self obliged to explain in details.

Islam comes from the verb "Asslama". "Asslama" to someone or something means he/ submitts to him/it. So, we find in the Quran statments which say: "Asslimo (submit) to God"

Salam comes from the word "Sallama". "Sallama" means greet. Muhamed peace be upon him said that the greeting of Islam is "Sallamo alaykom warahmato Allahi wabarakatoh" = peace, mercy and blessing of God be upon you. It is the greeting of the angels in paradise as it is described in the Quran. Muslims greet each other by this greeting.

L

That is a sad fact for I do have great love for Muslims, believing most all of them to be trying very hard to be good people and doubly so because of the religious war going on now between Zionist Jews, Zionist Christians and Muslims. I have great hopes for Muslims because while I do heavily criticize Muhammad I have to respect his inclusion of telling Muslims to seek rational truth within his teachings that will eventually save Muslims--if they can recognize spiritual truth and overhaul Muhammad's Islam to create a true Religion of Peace (Salaam). Like Jews and Pauline Christians, Muslims too must now face the fall of spiritual authority, the end of Abraham as foundational for Abrahamic believers that backed Judaism, Pauline Christianity, and Muhammad's Islam. We are going into post-Abrahamic times.

Oh! Sonoman. You are late, man. Modernism has proved its narrowness. Post- modernism is still troubling, and society is witnessing soul's/ spirit's crisis.

How can you show care and mercy for man while you are skinning him/ her from spirituality? a part of him/her? God's breath inside him/her?!!! Your solution isnt the right one, Sonoman.

May God show us all the straight path, Sonoman

 

[Quahom1]

The answers are very simple, Quahom1:

1- Pharoah wasnt a believer. He refused to listen to Moses and Haraun. He refused to submit to the only God. According to the Quran, it is Pharoah who declared himself as the God of hsi people. He said to his people :" I m your God" and that there was no God but he. Though Moses came with miracles like turning stick into serpant, and though even Pharoah's magicians believed in God after seeing that what Moses did was a miracle and not magic, Pharoah refused to believe and kill the magicians, and everyone dared to declare his belive in God.

Pharoah knew that what Moses came with was right, but his arrogance forced him to disbelieve. He submitted to his ego. At the moment Pharoah was drowning, he said that he was now a submitter to God. God didnt accept his plea because Pharoah knew from the very beginning that there is God, but he was arrogant and too boastfull to submit to Him. That made his crimes worse. He knew of God's existence, but he refused to obey.

God says:
[10:90] We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, "I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter."
[10:91] "Too late!* For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor”.

God says in other verses about the condition of repentance to be accepted:

[4:17] Repentance is acceptable by GOD from those who fall in sin out of ignorance, then repent immediately thereafter. GOD redeems them. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise. [4:18] Not acceptable is the repentance of those who commit sins until death comes to them, then say, "Now I repent.




This is one of the questions that worried Dr. Baucaille, too. He was so excited with his discovery that this mummy of Pharaoh drowned. He was so excited to tell this in public as it would his own discovery, when his friends told him that this wasn’t a new discovery, for Muslims have this mentioned in their Book. Dr. Baucaille got troubled and shocked: “How come?!!!”. He looked up in the Bible, and he didn’t find any mention of preserving Pharaoh’s corpse. and Even Pharoah's corpse was found at 1898., and the Quran did exist one thousand and 400 years earlier?!! He was really troubled with a lot of questions.

God did mention this prophecy in the Quran so that it is a proof that Quran is God’s Word, and that God of the Quran is the same God that Moses and all the prophets asked their people to worship. Furthermore, and this very important, it is a proof against all those who think that Muhammad pace be upon him forged the Quran by copying what was in the Torah and the Bible: If the Quran tells of information from the past that has proved to be true, and neither the Torah or the Bible tell of this information, then how could the Quran be a mere copy of them??




Quran is God’s Word to muhammed (pbuh). It was sent down to him by the angel Gabriel. It is God, Quahom1, who revealed the Quran to Muhammed (pbuh). God was there, and He was everywhere, and He is everywhere. Adam’s God, Abraham’s God, Jacob’s God, Joseph’s God, Moses’s God, Jesus’s God, Muhammed’s God and all the prophets’ God is One and the same God.

Pharaoh's Body Preserved*​

God says: “[10:92] "Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations." Unfortunately, many people are totally oblivious to our signs. »

Just becuase the Q'uran states something, and a body shows up that makes it look like something is real, we do not know yet if the 'salted' corpse has anything to do with the time or event in question.

I'd like to know where, when, how, the "body" of the "pharoh" was found. (reasonable request). I'd like to know all precautions that were taken to prevent this "discovery" from being a hoax.

And personally, one day, I would like to discuss comparrisons between Mohammad as opposed to Jesus. But that is for another time.

As of right now, the "prophecy" isn't yet set in my mind. I guess you could consider me like "Nicodemous".

 

[dailogue is the best]

Just becuase the Q'uran states something, and a body shows up that makes it look like something is real, we do not know yet if the 'salted' corpse has anything to do with the time or event in question.

I'd like to know where, when, how, the "body" of the "pharoh" was found. (reasonable request). I'd like to know all precautions that were taken to prevent this "discovery" from being a hoax.

And personally, one day, I would like to discuss comparrisons between Mohammad as opposed to Jesus. But that is for another time.

As of right now, the "prophecy" isn't yet set in my mind. I guess you could consider me like "Nicodemous".

Well, Quahom1, all the questions you posed are very reasonable. They are the same questions I asked myself at the beginning. The prophecy is right, and all the facts support it. I did a research and here are the findings:

1) The name of Moses’s pharaoh is Merneptah, and not Ramses II, and here are the full information about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

Dr. Baucaille said that Merneptah’s corpse was mummified immediately after his drowning. That’s why, all his body kept preserving the salt of the sea.

2) How, where and when the body was found? Here is the story:

In 1898 the French Egyptologist, Loret, was excavating in the Valley of the Kings and found the tombs of Thutmose III (which was empty) and the tomb of Amenhotep II, which to his surprise, was not.

In the sarcophagus, Loret discovered the mummy of Amenhotep II. Like the other royal mummies, it had been robbed, re-wrapped and given a replacement coffin, but in this instance the priests who restored the burial considered the location of the tomb to still be secure. Amenhotep was, at that time, the only king to be found still in his original tomb. His mummy remained there for a few years, before it was finally moved to the Cairo Museum to join the other royal mummies there.
But there were more surprises for Loret; in two side chambers of the tomb were more mummies. He paid little attention to them initially, thinking they were probably minor members of Amenhotep’s family. When he finally brushed away the dust from the coffins in one chamber, like Brugsch before him, Loret was amazed to find royal cartouches. Here were many of the "missing" royal mummies, including, Amenhotep III, Seti II, Siptah … and Merneptah. (Quick as ever to rally, the Biblical scholars now argued that the discovery of the body of Merneptah was conclusive proof that the Exodus had taken place, as it was covered in salt).

Source: http://www.ancientegyptmagazine.com/findpharaoh02.htm

Where is the body now?

The Royal Mummies can be viewed in the Cairo Museum today, but there is a separate entrance charge. To look into the faces of these people is a unique and humbling experience…the ultimate reminder, if we need it, of our own mortality.

Source: the same as above



The prophecy is real, Quahom1. It is historically and scientifically proved.

 

[dailogue is the best]

Pharoah Merneptah, Moses's Pharoah, The king of egypt during Moses period.

(Glory is to God alone)



God says in the Quran:

[10:90] We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, "I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter."
[10:91] "Too late! For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor.
[10:92] "Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations." Unfortunately, many people are totally oblivious to our signs.

 

[Quahom1]

Well, Quahom1, all the questions you posed are very reasonable. They are the same questions I asked myself at the beginning. The prophecy is right, and all the facts support it. I did a research and here are the findings:

1) The name of Moses’s pharaoh is Merneptah, and not Ramses II, and here are the full information about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah

Dr. Baucaille said that Merneptah’s corpse was mummified immediately after his drowning. That’s why, all his body kept preserving the salt of the sea.

2) How, where and when the body was found? Here is the story:



Source: http://www.ancientegyptmagazine.com/findpharaoh02.htm

Where is the body now?

Source: the same as above



The prophecy is real, Quahom1. It is historically and scientifically proved.

1898...this is 2008.

In 1898 scientists said a man's neck would break past the speed of 60 miles per hour (in 1960, man reached the speed of 17,000 miles per hour without a broken neck. In 1969 man reached the speed of 24,000 miles per hour, landed on the moon and then came back).

In 1898, the argument of evolution vs. Creationism and the accuracy of either was in question. In 2008 the argument continues, with neither side advancing over the other.

Has anyone bothered to continue to test further on this mummy to determine where and when he came from?

There is an object on Mt. Aarratt that many think is the remains of Noah's Ark...we've known about this "object" for decades, but still can't get permission to go physically verify or debunk the claim.

The "Shroud of Turrin" is claimed to be the burial wrap of Jesus, yet science can't verify with certainty it's age (let alone where it was made).

We have pulled whole Wooly Mammoths from the Siberian ice (body, bone, flesh, fat, vegetation in stomach, everything), but still can't determine if it is 5000 years old or 50,000 years old...

Einstein proved nothing can exceed the speed of light, yet we've done it with particles. (he never got quantum physics quite right, much to his chagrin).

Your "physical/materialistic" prophecy fulfilled, is not fulfilled at all. It is just more questions.

Unlike the Q'uran, the Bible and Judaec scriptures do not leave me scrambling to make sense of what God is saying.

Christ said "if they do not accept you, walk from the town and kick the dust from your sandals". (leave the town alone).

Mohammad said "if they do not accept you, they are to be subjugated". (take the town over).

For what?

As far as I can see (and I have a good imagination), there is no proof of a prophecy fulfilled here, yet.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Pharoah Merneptah, Moses's Pharoah, The king of egypt during Moses period.

(Glory is to God alone)



God says in the Quran:

[10:90] We delivered the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh and his troops pursued them, aggressively and sinfully. When drowning became a reality for him, he said, "I believe that there is no god except the One in whom the Children of Israel have believed; I am a submitter."
[10:91] "Too late! For you have rebelled already, and chose to be a transgressor.
[10:92] "Today, we will preserve your body, to set you up as a lesson for future generations." Unfortunately, many people are totally oblivious to our signs.

You realize you have just set yourself up for a fall. By your own Q'uranic verses God is "WE" (more than one, or the Trinity), and your scripture clearly claims the God of the children of Israel to be the only true God...

So why hate the Children of Israel, if they are the apple of God's eye?

 

[dailogue is the best]

1898...this is 2008.

In 1898 scientists said a man's neck would break past the speed of 60 miles per hour (in 1960, man reached the speed of 17,000 miles per hour without a broken neck. In 1969 man reached the speed of 24,000 miles per hour, landed on the moon and then came back).

In 1898, the argument of evolution vs. Creationism and the accuracy of either was in question. In 2008 the argument continues, with neither side advancing over the other.

Has anyone bothered to continue to test further on this mummy to determine where and when he came from?

There is an object on Mt. Aarratt that many think is the remains of Noah's Ark...we've known about this "object" for decades, but still can't get permission to go physically verify or debunk the claim.

The "Shroud of Turrin" is claimed to be the burial wrap of Jesus, yet science can't verify with certainty it's age (let alone where it was made).

We have pulled whole Wooly Mammoths from the Siberian ice (body, bone, flesh, fat, vegetation in stomach, everything), but still can't determine if it is 5000 years old or 50,000 years old...

Einstein proved nothing can exceed the speed of light, yet we've done it with particles. (he never got quantum physics quite right, much to his chagrin).

Relook again at this quotation I provided you before, Quahom1:

Here were many of the "missing" royal mummies, including, Amenhotep III, Seti II, Siptah … and Merneptah. (Quick as ever to rally, the Biblical scholars now argued that the discovery of the body of Merneptah was conclusive proof that the Exodus had taken place, as it was covered in salt).

Source: http://www.ancientegyptmagazine.com/findpharaoh02.htm

You know what, Quahom1? After your reply, I come to wonder if those Biblical scholars mentioned in the above quotation came to "step back" their argument thatthe discovery of the body of Merneptah was conclusive proof that the Exodus had taken place only because there is a Quranic verse which clearly states that the body of Moses' pharoah would be preserved.

Dr. Maurice Bucaille is a very expert in his specialization, egyptylogy:

Bucaille's later book, Mummies of the Pharaohs, was laureated with a silver medal for the "Prix Diane Potier-Boès 1988", one of the history prizes from the French Academy[13]. In 1991, Bucaille won prize from the French National Academy of Medicine .[1] as well. The New York Times, in its review, considered the book "so severely flawed that neither specialist nor casual reader will find much to savor."[14]

In his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, Mr. Baucaille claimed that "
in Islam, science and religion have always been "twin sisters". He also stated that that "the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs.

the source: Maurice Bucaille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, Quahom1, it is the tomb that was found in 1898, but the discovery of the salt on the body was during the reign of the French president Mr. Francois Meteran, and Dr. Bucaille was one of those who were elected to do their experiments on the mummy of Merneptah.

Your "physical/materialistic" prophecy fulfilled, is not fulfilled at all. It is just more questions.

As far as I can see (and I have a good imagination), there is no proof of a prophecy fulfilled here, yet.

v/r

Q

It would have been better if you have added in the above statements "in my own opinion" because here you are just expressing yourself, Quahom1. A lot of people around the world believe that this prophecy is fulfilled and real, and one of them is Mr. Bucaille himself.

God says:
[22:46] Did they not roam the earth, then use their minds to understand, and use their ears to hear? Indeed, the real blindness is not the blindness of the eyes, but the blindness of the hearts inside the chests.
<A name=47>[22:47] They challenge you to bring retribution, and GOD never fails to fulfill His prophecy. A day of your Lord is like a thousand of your years.

Also, He says:

[35:27] Do you not realize that GOD sends down from the sky water, whereby we produce fruits of various colors? Even the mountains have different colors; the peaks are white, or red, or some other color. And the ravens are black. [35:28] Also, the people, the animals, and the livestock come in various colors. This is why the people who truly reverence GOD are those who are knowledgeable. GOD is Almighty, Forgiving.

 

[dailogue is the best]

You realize you have just set yourself up for a fall.

Are you sure, Quahom1?

By your own Q'uranic verses God is "WE" (more than one, or the Trinity),

Is a king/queen/president/ man-woman of authority more than one person when they talk about themselves, using the pronoun "We", and terms like "Our highness/majesty/excellency". The use of "We" is for showing greatness, and high status, and there is no one greater than God. He is the greatest, and the most high.

and your scripture clearly claims the God of the children of Israel to be the only true God...

You made me wonder, Quahom1, if you have attentively read my previous posts. I told you earlier that we Muslims believe that Moses's God, Jesus's God, Muhammed's God and all the prophets' God is one and the same God. There is no Hebrew God, Christian God, or Muslim God. All the prophets were sent by the same God, they were sent by the same message (worshiping God only), and they were given Holy Books by the same God.

So why hate the Children of Israel, if they are the apple of God's eye?

First, let me define who is Israel. Israel is Jacob, the son of Isaac, Abraham's son. In other words, Jacob is Abaraham's grandson, may God blessing be upon them all. The children of Israel refers to all the children after him. Jacoob had 12 children, one of them is Joseph, peace be upon them all.

Of course, the children of Isreal were blessed for God chose some of them to be His Prophets, and they were chosen among their people at that time.
God says:
[2:122] O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I blessed you more than any other people."

They were chosen to fulfill God's Word, and submit to Him only.
(They were not chosen because they were special race. NO.) And that was Israel (jacoob)'s exhortion to his sons.

God says:[2:133] Had you witnessed Jacob on his death bed; he said to his children, "What will you worship after I die?" They said, "We will worship your God; the God of your fathers Abraham, Ismail, and Isaac; the one God. To Him we are submitters".

Now, we come to the important question: Did the children of Israel kept stick to God's teachings. Unfortunately, they didnt. They deviate from God's teachings, and they made their religion so narrow by giving special interpretation to the term "chosen people", which means according to the Quran the fact that God chose from them prophets and messangers.

Anyone is the apple of God's eye if he/she is stick to His real teachings, and devout Him only with sincere worship.

 

[17th Angel]

Is a king/queen/president/ man-woman of authority are more than one person when they talk about thmselves, using the pronoun "We", and terms like "Our highness/majesty/excellency". The use of "We" is for showing greatness, and high status, and there is no one greater than God. He is the greatest, and the most high.

We are not amused......


It is used by those whom are pompus In my opinion lol....I wasn't aware that Arabic language used any of the "correct old English" Could you show me what word is translated to "we" from the original arabic Quran please? You sure it isn't just a really old English translation of the book you are quoting?

Because I was purtty sure that it comes from the German language... (Hence our royalty is of German blood and culture) And this word was brought in from there... Learn something new everyday huh?
Thanks in advance.

 

[dailogue is the best]

You are welcome, Alex

"we" in Arabic means "nahno". "nahno" is normally follwedy by a noun. For example: "nahno asdikaa" = "we are friends". But when we use a verb to indicate pulral, we start with "n" at the beginning of a verb. Example; "nonajika" = "we preserve you". In the singular case, we use the "o" before the verb. Example: "onajika" = "I prserve you".

(I hope I m a good teacher, Alex. haha)

That was the language of Arabs by whom the Quran was revealed to The Prophet Muhammed peace be upon him. Any knowledgeable of Arabic language understands that "we" is sometimes used for the purpose of showing greatness and high status.

 

[Quahom1]

It would have been better if you have added in the above statements "in my own opinion" because here you are just expressing yourself, Quahom1. A lot of people around the world believe that this prophecy is fulfilled and real, and one of them is Mr. Bucaille himself.

"As far as I can see" is another way of saying "in my opinion".

And I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong in this matter. I'm saying there is not enough conclusive evidence to link the mummy to Moses, "as far as I can see".

 

[dailogue is the best]

"As far as I can see" is another way of saying "in my opinion".

And I'm not saying you or anyone else is wrong in this matter. I'm saying there is not enough conclusive evidence to link the mummy to Moses, "as far as I can see".

Well,Quahom1, I m not going to "fight" to make you believe in the Quran's prophecies. For as far as I can see, whenever I present you a Quranic prophecy, you are going to say: "This isnt a fulfilled prophecy, as far as I can see"....

May God let our hearts fully opened to His truth

See you

 

[17th Angel]

I had learnt some Arabic and I was never aware of that thank you for sharing that

 

[dailogue is the best]

I had learnt some Arabic and I was never aware of that thank you for sharing that

You are welcome, Oscar Wilde. I m very curious to know for what purpose you had learnt Arabic, Alex? if you need any help in this matter, you can PM me, Alex.

 

[Ahanu]

Re: The traditional Muslim interpretation of Surah 4:157

Salam Ahanu,

I see that the author has ignored many important Quranic verses in his trying to support Jesus's death on the cross. What I would like to attract your attention to is that when the Quran talks about Jesus's death, it doesnt talk about his death on the cross. He died a long time after the crucifixion accident. I dont know on what basis do you relate Jesus's death to his death on the cross.

Look at the following Quranic verses:

"Behold! the angels said: " O Mary! God 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 God 46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. and he shall be of the company of the righteous.(3:45-46)

The Arabic word of "in maturity" is "kahlan", and the right translation of "kahl" is an old man. you can check that by yourself..

Jesus is believed to be crucified at the age of 30 or near that age. So, he wasnt "an old man"..

The fact that the Quran talks about Jesus death, it is not at all contradictory to the Quran denial of Jesus crucifixion. Jesus died after the crucifixion accident. We find in the Quran Jesus talking about his death:" So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"(19:33)

To sum up, those who support Jesus's death on the cross will find that the Quran dont support their claim. The Quran clearly declares that Jesus wasnt crucified,and not killed. Also, it doesnt deny that Jesus died (but nobody knows when, but for surely after the crucifixion accident as the Quran states he wasnt crucified).

salamo alaykom

I looked up the term kahl, meaning "of full age, i.e. from about thirty to fifty. A man beginning to grow gray." This definition is from an Arabic and English dictionary by Joseph Catafago dated 1873, and it was one of the first sources that pop'd up in my online search. Can you prove that in 6th-7th century Arabic culture, the term kahl refers to a senior citizen (or elderly person), or someone well over thirty years of age? I sure can't find it.


I have multiple reasons to believe Jesus, according to the Koran, died on the cross.

(1) Whenever the Koran mentions crucifixion, it means a certain death:

"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross" (7.124).


Said (Pharaoh): "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? surely he is your leader, who has taught you sorcery! but soon shall ye know! Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will cause you all to die on the cross!" (26:49)


There’s no place in the Koran where you can find somebody surviving crucifixion—only in that one verse the majority of Muslims (yet not all Muslims!) quote to support the assertion Jesus didn’t die on the cross.

(2) Sadly, Muslim exegetes can’t agree on a simple historical detail: what happened at Jesus’ crucifixion? Did Jesus die, survive, or was he even there?

http://christianthinktank.com/4157.html

I site this source because it uses Todd Lawson’s 2009 text Crucifixion and the Qu’ran: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought as a source; thus making it a legit source. Here’s a list of a few Muslim thinkers that would reject the substitution view: Ja’far Ibn Muhammad Al-Sadiq (a pretty big name in the Muslim world, by the way!), Yahya Ibn Ziyad Al-Farra, Abu Hatim Al-Razi, Al-Nasafi, Al-Sijistani, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali Abu Al-Futuh al-Razi, and Mansur Al-Hallaj.

Here’s an example from Abu Hatim Al-Razi, a Muslim:

“ABU HATIM AL-RAZl (d. 322/933-4). This contemporary of al-Tabari was one of the most important early spokespersons for the Isma'ili intelligentsia. His debates with Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya al-Razi, 'Rhazes' (d. ca. 313/925 or 323/935), are a seminal chapter in the history of Islamic thought. … The problem of the crucifixion is encountered in the text when the Isma'ili philosopher responds to the great sceptic and physician, who in his Kitab makhariq al-anbiya ' had attacked the Qur'an precisely for denying the cru&shy;cifixion and contradicting the unanimous view of both Christians and Jews (cf. above the argument of Ibn al-Rawandi) as a proof that revealed religion is untrustworthy and probably causes more problems than it solves. How, he asks rhetorically, can we be expected to honour such books as holy and revealed if they cannot agree on a simple matter of history and, though not stated explic&shy;itly but in the context implied, one that is so pivotal in the respec&shy;tive identities of their followers. It is of extreme interest here that Abu Hatim, the Isma'ili missionary, does not invoke the easily available doctrine of textual corruption - tahrif- to explain the difference. Rather, his response is based on a much more subtle and radical hermeneutic. He holds that the key to understand&shy;ing the verse is in its sequel, 4:158: and they did not really (yaqina) kill him, god has raised him up to himself. This must be read in conjunction with two other important verses in which it is promised that martyrs do not die, but rather remain alive with God (Q. 2:149 and 3:169), inasmuch as Jesus died a martyr. … He then points out to Rhazes that in fact both scriptures, the Qur'an and the Gospels, agree in letter and spirit. He refers to the Gospel of John (Bushra Yuhanna), which he quotes as 'the Messiah died in the body [bi-al-jasad], whereas he is alive in the spirit [bi-al-ruh]. So they thought that he who died in the body was delivered from sin.' He also quotes the Gospel of Luke (Bushra Luqa), where Jesus is quoted as follows: 'I say to you, oh my dear friends [awliya’i], do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot do more than that.' This is similar to his next quotation from the Gospel of Matthew (Bushra Mata): 'Do not fear those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul, and do fear the one who can [both] destroy the soul and cast the body into the fire [of hell].’ It is important to note that al-Razi also denies the crucifixion in another work. In that work al-Razi is arguing against another formidable Isma'ili scholar, al-Nasafi. While the exact details of this dispute need not detain us, it has been argued that al-Razi's apparent turnabout must be understood in the con&shy;text of the particular ad hominem debate he is engaged in with his fellow Isma'ili disputant. It is also important to observe that this highlights the important fact that al-Nasafi himself believed in the historicity of the crucifixion. Unfortunately, the original work in which such an affirmation occurs is known only to us through quotation of select passages. … Quite apart from some minor discrepancies in the exact word&shy;ing and numbering of verses from the Gospels, Abu Hatim demon&shy;strates that both the Qur'an and the Gospels agree that Jesus was crucified when the problematic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum is properly understood. That which appeared to be crucified was precisely the body, what others will refer to as 'the human dimen&shy;sion' (al-nasut), while the spirit or true reality of Jesus was 'raised' to his Lord. Thus, according to Abu Hatim, 'these passages from the Gospels are consistent with the Qur'an in terms of their actual meaning, since both the scriptures attest that Jesus could not be killed in the full sense, that is, in both body and soul'. [WR:CAQ, 81-83]

(3) The Koran only says that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, not that Jesus was not crucified. Therefore, once one has read the Koran and concluded the prophets are slain wrongfully by non-believers and that one should not say of those slain in the path of Allah that they are dead, then the prophet Jesus must have also been slain wrongfully and that the Reality of Jesus was not killed, and so the Koran reads the Jews killed him not, but it only appeared to them to be so, because they were spiritually blind. Also, I would like to add that the earliest interpretation of 4.157 that we know of is not from a Muslim; Todd Lawson writes:

“A factor that is frequently overlooked in discussions of the crucifixion is the history of the ‘negative interpretation’ – that is to say, the interpretation that holds that the Qur’an in 4:157 actually denies the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. It is important to recognize that the earliest textual evidence for such an interpretation is not Muslim at all; rather it is from the pen of none other than the last great Church Father, John of Damascus (d. 749).This fact has also not been sufficiently noticed in previous studies. It is not entirely clear that John ‘knew that Muslims denied that Jesus had been crucified’. Indeed, it is equally possible that John was offering his own original exegesis of the verse in order to present Islam to his audience as yet another heresy that in this instance offered yet another variation on what is probably the oldest heretical Christian doctrine, Docetism. Robinson observes in a very important rhetorical question, ‘How accurately this reflects Qur’anic interpretation in John’s day is impossible to tell.’ But at the same time, he seems not to notice the contradiction between this and his assertion, immediately following, that John ‘knew’ that Muslims denied the crucifixion. We know that John presented the Qur’an to his flock in a language Muslims did not understand – Greek – and could afford to say what he thought would best protect his community from this new, powerful and perhaps otherwise persuasive religion. The possible influence of John’s interpretation on later Muslim exegesis is an extremely interesting question, but one that cannot be pursued here.”

http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Crucifixionandthe% 20Quran_text.pdf