Satanic verse and Abrogation

[Jin-Roh]

I read Answering Islam's article on the Satanic Verses (http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm) and it does sound as if Muhammad is pulling a Joseph Smith.

But I think that this goes into a large issue of the problem with Abrogation. Apparentley, Satan inspired Muhammad to assert this is as God's word, but then Allah sent an angel to tell him that this was wrong. But if at one point the prophet was fallible, how could you be certain that anything in the Qur'an is true? Doe the Qur'an change when Allah changes his mind or when he thinks it best to tell his followers that he was following something the devil actually said?

I'm current surfing around answering-christians.com for their viewpoint on this.

[Dr T]

I read Answering Islam's article on the Satanic Verses (http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/satanicverses.htm) and it does sound as if Muhammad is pulling a Joseph Smith.

But I think that this goes into a large issue of the problem with Abrogation. Apparentley, Satan inspired Muhammad to assert this is as God's word, but then Allah sent an angel to tell him that this was wrong. But if at one point the prophet was fallible, how could you be certain that anything in the Qur'an is true? Doe the Qur'an change when Allah changes his mind or when he thinks it best to tell his followers that he was following something the devil actually said?

I'm current surfing around answering-christians.com for their viewpoint on this.

I think you will find that the satanic verses and abrogation are two different things.

Despite all the evidence, Muslims deny that the satanic verses ever happened, not that they are abrogated, for the very reason you gave. Once it is clear that any verse could have been from the devil the Koran becomes meaningless.

Mohammed made up the verse on abrogation when he got caught out with too many contradictions in the verses he was making up. He had already given the verse saying that if there were any contradications then the verses couldn't be from God, so he was a bit stuck when some one pointed out the contradictions, but the verse on abrogation got him out of that hole.

[ali420]

"I read Answering Islam's article on the Satanic Verses and it does sound as if Muhammad is pulling a Joseph Smith."But I think that this goes into a large issue of the problem with Abrogation. Apparentley, Satan inspired Muhammad to assert this is as God's word, but then Allah sent an angel to tell him that this was wrong. But if at one point the prophet was fallible, how could you be certain that anything in the Qur'an is true? Doe the Qur'an change when Allah changes his mind or when he thinks it best to tell his followers that he was following something the devil actually said?I'm current surfing around answering-christians.com for their viewpoint on this.

I issue of abrogation regarding the Quranic verses, is so easy to understand and so easy to explain. Let me demonstrate my point.

Apparentley, God inspired Jesus to assert that he is here to confrim the Law of Moses not to destroy it. But when it came to the stoning of woman caught in adultery, Jesus didnt allow her to be stoned to death, stoning to death is according to the law of Moses, thus he was actually destroying to law of Moses. Then devil inspired Jesus to contradict his own words and contradict the Law of Moses. If at one point the Jesus was fallible, how could you be certain that anything in the Bible is true, and how could you be certain that about everything he said is true. The satans inspiration of Jesus is also noticeable when we read the bible, he calls the samritians dogs, and reffuses to heal a sick child, such dispickable, racist, hatred for non-jews, and calling, people abusive names, dogs, swines, bastard generation, all these are insults, and such sick, mentally ill jewish racist had to be Jesus, who allegedly came to die for the sins of mankind.

Jews rightly said that Jesus was impostor, a devil, who lead the Jews astray, because he failed to even stand upon his own words, that is he said he is here to fullfill the law of Moses, yet again and again we see him in the New Testament breaking the commands of Law, should we also label him devil, Satan.

Muhammed (pbuh) is considered to be inspired by satan because some verses of the Quran are abrogated and replaced by another. To only be un-baised, and honest we will have to measure the same criteria to Jesus. He abrogated the stonning to death, he abrogated the verses on divorce, and most importantly he tought triniity, yet no verse in the OT explicitly mentions trinity, nor it is every mentioned, but in the NT the verse, fore there are three that bear record in heaven, father, son, Holy-Spirit, are one. abrogate the Jewish Shema Hear O Israel you Lord is One. He is abrogating the Law of Moses, is it that before Jesus there was One god comprimised of three, but god lied about his being three made into one, but then later changed his mind and told the truth. No where OT explicitly mentions the doctrine of Trinity, yet the NT has mentioned it explicitly, is it because god from one to became three in one.

In short abrogation is also practised by Jesus him self in the Bible, and it is practised by Christians of Today. Let me illustrate my point why dont you have circumcision? Why not keep the sabbath, we not stone the adulteror and adulteress with stones, why not cut the hand of the theif, why no more burnt offerings on altars, why not fasting, why have you started to eat pork, you know pigs, filthy pigs, you eat them, a jew wouldnt walk pass your house (just for expression's sake) if he knew that you are cooking filthy pig for your consumption. Why have you abrogated the law of Moses, isnt it from God, or is it that it wasnt from God, but actually was from satan, and when Jesus came he told you the truth that law of Moses is from Satan. Why have you abrogated the Law of Moses? How would a pig eater know about the Law of abrogation, no i dont expect it.

You have few probs to deal with, I guess you can make a start, please try not to avoid the issue, I know when a missionary gets cornered he always starts saying stupid things, oh your spelling are poor, you cant use the full stops properly, you can make a sentence properly, and so on. An other thing I have come to know that Christians in total dont beleive in the Law of abrogation, thats why they are always saying, oh this verse of the Quran is aborgated, how can you explain that? We can because Quran itself says that Allah abrogates one law for another for a good reason, and each abrogated verse has a brilliant explaination behind it.

Since Christians in total dont beleive in the abrogation of any verse of the OT or NT, there are some probs they can never explain, they never will, until they accept that Law of abrogation is a Law practiced by God him self, and there is nothing wrong with it.

For mean while cook in your own soup, I just love it when a missionary gets cought on his own hook, more you turn that wheel, more heavier the bible mish gets.

Was-salam
Ali

[Jin-Roh]

Ali,

That was big steaming heap of Tu Quoue. Even if these problems existed between the NT and the OT, you have not changed anything for Qur'an. Even at that, I can't think of a single verse (maybe you can show me) where Jesus said that Moses was inspired by Satan.

So back to the Qur'an please.

[ali420]

Did anyone tell you that, "Actions speak louder then words." And tell me one stupid theist, who beleives in god, will say I am inspired by satan, ofcourse Jesus aint going to say I am inspired by satan, his works will prove his satanic inspiration. If a man who is killing people, and takes delight in doing so, and raping woman, tell me can he be inspired by god, and even though he calims to be inspired by God, still his actions speak louder then his words. In the same manner weather Moses declared Jesus a satanist is irelevent, the actions of Jesus, name calling, verbal abuse, and reffusing to heal a non-Jewish child, only proves his inspiration is from satan. And further he is contradicting the book which he claimed that he had come to fulfill.

Now with regards to the Quranic verses which are abrogated, and replaced with other verses, has some said they are contradictory, no they are not contradictory, please find me few abrogated verses, which you think are abrogated, and new verses are also contradicting the old abrogated verses. We will have them analyezed. There are no contradictions, only abrogated verses.

Lastly I do not beleive for a second that Isa the son of Mary was inspired by satan, its only your gosples which prove his satanist inspiration. Quran says the prophets are far above racism, far above calling people pigs, dogs, Quran says they are perfect. But your bible says prophets are sinners, I say thats disbeleife in there prophethood.

Ali

[Jin-Roh]

Did anyone tell you that, "Actions speak louder then words." And tell me one stupid theist, who beleives in god, will say I am inspired by satan, ofcourse Jesus aint going to say I am inspired by satan, his works will prove his satanic inspiration. If a man who is killing people, and takes delight in doing so, and raping woman, tell me can he be inspired by god, and even though he calims to be inspired by God, still his actions speak louder then his words. In the same manner weather Moses declared Jesus a satanist is irelevent, the actions of Jesus, name calling, verbal abuse, and reffusing to heal a non-Jewish child, only proves his inspiration is from satan. And further he is contradicting the book which he claimed that he had come to fulfill.

Context Ali. Context.

Now with regards to the Quranic verses which are abrogated, and replaced with other verses, has some said they are contradictory, no they are not contradictory, please find me few abrogated verses, which you think are abrogated, and new verses are also contradicting the old abrogated verses. We will have them analyezed. There are no contradictions, only abrogated verses.

I've posted the weblink for eveyone to analyze. I never dug up anything at answering-christians, but if you'd like to take a look at it please do so.

While Muhammad was in Mecca, his followers were few, his movement grew painfully slowly and he, too, felt the pain of estrangement from his tribe. According to early and treasured biographical and historical accounts of Muhammad, authored by competent Muslim scholars (such as writings of at-Tabari and Ibn Sa’d), Muhammad longed for better relations and reconciliation with his community. Thereafter, the accounts continue, God revealed Surah 53 to Muhammad up to and including vss. 19, 20. These two verses read:

Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:

These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

The cranes whose intercession was recognized were, of course, the three deities. The same accounts tell us that after this revelation was completed, Muhammad, his followers and the pagan Arabs all prostrated. Tensions eased, reconciliation was at hand, and all were delighted.

[...]

Two other passages from the Qur'an are considered to have reference to the compromise between Muhammad and the Arabs, and Muhammad's eventual rejection of it. The first reads:

And they indeed strove to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We (God) have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.
And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little.
Then had We made thee taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying, then hadst thou found no helper against Us. (17:73-75)

The second passage is intended to comfort Muhammad:

Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;
That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened –Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism. (22:52,53)

On the basis of these verses especially, the contemporary designation "The Satanic Verses" arises.

Lastly I do not beleive for a second that Isa the son of Mary was inspired by satan, its only your gosples which prove his satanist inspiration. Quran says the prophets are far above racism, far above calling people pigs, dogs, Quran says they are perfect. But your bible says prophets are sinners, I say thats disbeleife in there prophethood.

Your argument is circular. You can't just say the Gospel are inaccurrate becuase the Qur'an says so. If I told you the Qur'an was wrong because its different than what the Gospels/NT say would that be a valid argument? No it wouldn't.

And again. You need to address the issue of satanic verses that's brought up in the article.

[ali420]

I didnt understand what you wanted me to understand by stating "Context Ali, context." perhaps you wanted to remind me that I should stick to the conext of discussion.

"I can't think of a single verse (maybe you can show me) where Jesus said that Moses was inspired by Satan."

In response to this demand I wrote: Did anyone tell you that, "Actions speak louder then words." And tell me one stupid theist, who beleives in god, will say I am inspired by satan, ofcourse Jesus aint going to say I am inspired by satan, his works will prove his satanic inspiration. If a man who is killing people, and takes delight in doing so, and raping woman, tell me can he be inspired by god, and even though he calims to be inspired by God, still his actions speak louder then his words. In the same manner weather Moses declared Jesus a satanist is irelevent, the actions of Jesus, name calling, verbal abuse, and reffusing to heal a non-Jewish child, only proves his inspiration is from satan. And further he is contradicting the book which he claimed that he had come to fulfill.

I've posted the weblink for eveyone to analyze. I never dug up anything at answering-christians, but if you'd like to take a look at it please do so.

It is totally unimportant who dug it up, whats important who is preaching what has been dug up by answering-islam, if you dont want to be criticised for writting or copying you should not preach it, and if you preach it, then be ready for criticism. What matters is that you have endorsed the opinions of the author and actively preaching his view without criticising or verifying it your self, thats your problem. I am not going to respond to author, for that there is different platform i.e. www.bismikaallahuma.org .

Comming to the main issue of the disccusion, are there any satanic verses, in the Quran at present, or was there every any such a verse in Quran?

In short the answer is, there never was, nor there is such a verse or verses.
If you read the context it will become clear what the above quoted verse means. It clearly is asking the pagan polythiests to refflect on there deities, and this refflection is not for adoration, but to realise the nature of there deities, realise that they are lifeless stones, unable to benefit, but able to harm.

The original author confesses that: "The Qur'an, as it now reads, obviously rejects these deities." but goes on the produce some bogus evidence to illustrate his point he cites a alleged verse of the Quran "These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries) Whose intercession is to be hoped for.. I am totally stunned to find out that someone can attempt to write such a ridicoulas polemical attack against Islam. Let me point out to you that what a crane is, I checked the dictionary, crane is a bird, and crane is a modern machinary used in construction sites. Now the second one is out of question, but the first, crane the bird can be taken seriouly. The alledged quoted verse states that Cranes intercession is hoped for, but the author himself confesses that "They were even considered to be daughters of God!" these are woman, the Quran 53:21, points out that these alat uzzat, manat are femal godess, it also points out that Arabs didnt like female children, because they considered femal children/woman inferior to male. Allah in the Quran points out that Arabs attributed female children/woman to Allah, indicating that these three, Alat, manat, Uzzat where females. And what does cranes got to do with the three! Lets suppose that these three where cranes just for the sake of argument, I am asking you where did the verse come from "These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)Whose intercession is to be hoped for.? Its not in the Quran. Its clear that this verse never was part of Quran never will be, it was a fraud invented by the polytheists who wanted to keep there polytheistic beleife, so they fabricated a verse hoping that no one will notice there forgery, but Allah has promised that Allah will protect his Revelation. The polytheists failed to add a verse in the Quran, but where they failed, thats where Christians succeeded in adding verses in the Bible ("For there are three that bear record in heaven ... father... son ... spirit are one."), and just recently these forgeries have been expounched from bible.

None of the books of Hadith contain this story, not even the weaker hadith books, leave alone the Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim. The source of the story is well known biography of Ibn Ishaq, and his biography is not a authorative source, he just wrote stories that he heard from others without checking there authenticity, his source is the earliest, but no scholar in the history of Islam has ever stated that his biography is most authentic. Infact some of early scholars nearly declared him a heretic, others considered him as an impostor.

In short this story is a total forgery.

Ali

[soulflame]

How did the Bible copy the trinity from Qu'ran if the Bible was written before it?

[Dan Zebiri]

Yo Ali,

Your answer just shows how desperate you are to cover up the incident of the Satanic Verses in the Quran. Even the Quran itself confesses that Satan did place his own words into the revelations that were coming through 'the angel Gabriel' in Surah 22 v.51ff.

And for the claim that 'apparently' this is only a story found in Ibn Ihsaq's famous Biography of Muhammad, you are either ignorant or trying to pull another fast one on us, because Ibn Ishaq IS NOT the only source for the event! :lol:

Other islamic sources are:

1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY and translated by Watt pages 107 - 113, translated by W. M. Watt, published by SUNY, N.Y., USA,

2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", ('The Book of the Major Classes'), translated by S. Moinul Haq pages 236 - 239, "Book of the Major Classes", by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S. Moinul Haq, published by the Pakistani Historical Society,

3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume pages 165 - 167, ("The Life of the Prophet of God", the most authentic extent biography of Muhammad's life), by A. Guillaume, published by Oxford, London, England.,

4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. "The Life of Mahomet", Volume 2, pages 150 - 152, by W. Muir, quoting "Kitab al-Wakidi", published in London.

5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by Alfred Guillaume.This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes.

6) Additional supporting evidence also from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari.

Of course, traditional moslems like yourself will try defending at all cost that Muhammad was never influenced by Shaitan/Satan in his aifetime, but, history proves that theory otherwise.

As can be seen from the above, its not only Ibn Ishaq who records these facts, but also At-Tabari, Ibn Sad and al-Wakidi, all early Muslim scholars and acknowledged by Islam. :blush:

As for the claim that the Trinitarian verse in John's epistle was 'late', that is incidentally NOT the only place where the Triune formula is found in the Bible. It is also in Matthew's Gospel chap.28, and in the salutations and greetings in the Epistles of the New Testament. No one seriously doubts the authenticity of Matthew and the early Epistles..(except muslim skeptics like yourself - who have a theological axe to grind!).

Rgds, Dan Zebiri.

[jason]

How did the Bible copy the trinity from Qu'ran if the Bible was written before it?
Ssh, don't say that.

Jason

[ali420]

"Your answer just shows how desperate you are to cover up the incident of the Satanic Verses in the Quran. Even the Quran itself confesses that Satan did place his own words into the revelations that were coming through 'the angel Gabriel' in Surah 22 v.51ff."

Read all of the verse, it says that Satan trys to influence the feelings of Prophets, and Satan made attempt to tempt every Prophet of Allah. what is meant here is that Satan uses the human natures of the Prophets to feed them ideas, satan trys to feed ideas to the prophets, hoping that he will mislead them, but Allah is this ayah is saying that Allah will confirm His (Allah's) Signs and establish them over the temptations of Satan. Quran doesnt say Satan managed to intercept Allahs messenger Jibra-el, you are lieing, or unable to understand what you read, Jira-el is not even mentioned in these verses.

I have never met a missionary who reads the Quranic verse in its context, read the few verses after it. All is explained by the Quran itself, try reading from verse 52-54. And there is absolutely no desperation in reffuting your lies, infact you are quite desperate to bring alledged verses of the Quran to make your case against God, so desperate that you twist absolutely normal verse of the Quran to conform to you deviant way, and thats truely satanic.

d for the claim that 'apparently' this is only a story found in Ibn Ihsaq's famous Biography of Muhammad, you are either ignorant or trying to pull another fast one on us, because Ibn Ishaq IS NOT the only source for the event! :lol:"

I dont know how to deal with you people, its quite anoying to find out that the person you are dealing with is far too ignorant to understand, or far too Islamophobic to understand anything. Did you not read that I said THE EARLIEST record of this is Ibn Ishaq's biography, who narated much of the material without verifying anything. What ever he heard from people he wrote it in the Book. Which later became known has the biography of Muhammed (pbuh), infact has far has my knowledge goes his account was just a collection of Isra-elite traditions (or supurious legends) that where circulating about the people of Arabia, he just compiled all of these in a manuscript for what ever reason. His work is the much polemical attacks on Islam, and even is used to promote the prophethood of Muhammed (pbuh), eg, the story of a Bahariya the Christian Monk telling the Uncle of Muhammed (pbuh) that Muhammed will be a Prophet, and if he (Monk) was alive when Muhammed (pbuh) declares his Prophetic message he will fallow him. This story is commonly accepted has the truth, among the general public, but much of the Scholars of Islam reject it has false, due to the fact that this incident is not authenticated any the Hadith experts, such has Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Nisai, Imam Dawood, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Malik, none of these source confirm this, therefore it is rejected, and is classified has "legend". If you accept his one account authentic while you will also reject his account of the Monk has false, anything that goes against you beleife from his sources you will reject it, and anything that will confirm your allegations, you will argue that its authentic, its hardly a logical way forward, either you will have to conceed that Ibn Ishaq recorded totaly false, or total truth, or truth mixed with falsehood, but you can't take the best for your self and leave the worst for you, hardly objective.

The rejection is not of only material that are unfavourable to Islam, but also those which are favourable to Islam. And the reason for rejection of his collections of legends is that he provides all of the stories without quoting his sources, he was not the eye witness to the events which he was writting about, he was i think some hudered years born after the event he is writting about. The Hadith Critics (and it was the Muslims who laid the foundations of textual Criticism, besides the ones I have mentioned by name, other renoune and fathers of Western Orientalism, are Ibn Taymiyah, and the Spanish Ibn Hazm, who's works are guide on Textual Criticism, and there works are used in Study's of Textual Criticism all around the Western Universities.) such have been mentioned above reject his work because it lacks the main ingredient the Isnad, or chain of narators. Secondly the early Hadith Critics of Islam realised that people make lies to champion the religion they fallow, (just has you did with the Surah 22:52-54,) so they laid the foundations of textual criticism, in which they secrutinised every report received and gave their verdicts, and they only confirmed the parts of the Ibn Ishaq's work, by the Hadith which have been undoubtedly been proven authentic. They where so honest in there critcism that they had saved the false hadiths in seperate books, has opposed to the Christian Gospel burning history (burning of the "unauthordox" Gosples), for the purpose that it will be usefull for the feature generations of Hadith Critics. A momentary thought will solve the dispute regarding the sources of Ibn Ishaq. Keeping the Christian Gosple burning practice in mind, and the reasons for which Christians thought the Gosple burning was important. The reasons where that these Gosples where challenging the othordox church, and where threantening the orthordoxy of the established Roman Catholic Church, therefore it became nessecary that the opposing Gosples had to be eliminated. And archeological research is proving the reasons why the orthordox church was hell bent on Gosple burning practice. If your 27 Gospel Bible was the truth, and there was absolutely no way that truth of Christianity could possiably contested or proven wrong, then why was it that offcial Catholic Gosple burning edict was issued, which ironically was still practiced until recently. One can have the fate of Gosple of Barnabas (obviously its a forgery, or atleast some of it is) in mind when it was pulished first time early in 19th centuray, every copy was brought and ... possibly burn. They must have been perserved if those Gosples where false, which could have easily proved the truth of the Christianity, but the historical fact that all these Gosples where not mare forgeries but some where accepted in Roman Catholic church to be genuinely inspired, but later dropped from the canon, and one of the such was Shepard of Hermas.

Islamic scholars infact practiced totally the opposite of what went in the early history of Christianity, they perserved all the accounts false or authentic, all the different versions of Hadith where perserved, including the work of Inb Ishaq. And its a fact that Ibn Ishaq's work was in the hands of the Public, unlike the Christian history where the conflicting works where kept under lock and key. Every Scholar or a layman had the unrestricted access to the works of heretics and Orthordox Scholars. If the Islamic Scholars had even remotely thought that Ibn Ishaq's work will present a threat to Islam wouldnt they had done the same? Wouldn't they have practised the Historical account burning? They knew well that its totally false, and their honesty and integrity and love for the truth could not be overcome by hate of book burning.


"Other islamic sources are:
1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY and translated by Watt pages 107 - 113, translated by W. M. Watt, published by SUNY, N.Y., USA,
2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", ('The Book of the Major Classes'), translated by S. Moinul Haq pages 236 - 239, "Book of the Major Classes", [b]by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S. Moinul Haq, published by the Pakistani Historical Society,
3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume pages 165 - 167, ("The Life of the Prophet of God", the most authentic extent biography of Muhammad's life), by A. Guillaume, published by Oxford, London, England.,
4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. "The Life of Mahomet", Volume 2, pages 150 - 152, by W. Muir, quoting "Kitab al-Wakidi", published in London.
5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by Alfred Guillaume.This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes.
6) Additional supporting evidence also from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari.

Has I said that in my previous message and also this one, that Ibn Ishaq's record was the earliest, and the later where depandent on his account, none of these scholars confirmed the report has authentic, they only transmitted it faithfully. Infact At-Tabri in his work in the intorduction writes that he only marely is transmiting what has been passed down to him from other people. All the later written records that you quote are depandent on this one record, and there is no doubt in that. But there is a strange record attributed to the great Hadith Critic who certifyes this satanic verse, issue is a genuine account, which to me is very unlikely to be authentic, it seems a forgery being attributed to him, but I will do research on this. But even if its proven to be genuine, his opinion is onlyone person with authority has certified it, while the great Scholars or Textual Criticism reject it. Some where I read, possibly the account of Ibn Hajr himself, that while the verse was being recited one of the pagans in the voice of Muhammed (pbuh) recited the next verse regarding the "cranes intercession". Which we know is not impossible, alot of people are capable of imitating the voices of other people. And momentarily Muslims and Pagans where stunned, who thought that it was Muhammed (pbuh) who read out this verse, at that moment Muhammed (pbuh) recited the correct verse. But I will have to check on this.

"As can be seen from the above, its not only Ibn Ishaq who records these facts, but also At-Tabari, Ibn Sad and al-Wakidi, all early Muslim scholars and acknowledged by Islam. :blush: "

It is not important how many times it is recorded, the fact is that all of the other records are depandant on Ibn Ishaq, and have barrowed his account, and knowing the fact that his book was well known among the people, and also the account is word for word same, which clearly proves that it was a coping.

"As for the claim that the Trinitarian verse in John's epistle was 'late', that is incidentally NOT the only place where the Triune formula is found in the Bible. It is also in Matthew's Gospel chap.28, and in the salutations and greetings in the Epistles of the New Testament. No one seriously doubts the authenticity of Matthew and the early Epistles..(except muslim skeptics like yourself - who have a theological axe to grind!)."

Well first of all, its not A CLAIM, its a fact, which if you dispute, you will have to provide, evidence. Augustine a hardcore Trinitarian, had written extensively on the doctrine of Trinity, but this verse was not quoted by him, which explicitly states the doctrine of Trinity, but rather he uses ambiguois verses to prove his case. Secondly most of the new Bible translations do not have this verse in the Bible. Infact according to some scholars it was a side note which was inserted by some scribe has part of the John,s Gosple, and since then without realising this forgery has been in the Bible until recently.

At this moment its irrelevent to the disscusion if the Trinity is mentioned somewhere else or not, whats important that according to Christian God had inspired people to write the. After this Bible was written with inspiration, was it also protected from insertion of forgeries, even if we conceed that it was written under the inspiration, we will have to accept that even if the authors where inspired by holy spirit, but the copiests and the popes, and bishops where not, they where inserting words and verses in the original inspired word of god, falsehoods. You can argue that doctrine of Trinity was is also in the Gosple of Matthew so it might be. But upon the realisation of the fact that NT could be interpolated with verses which the original inspired authors didnt them selves write in, but later were interpolated. Will only deem the entire Gosple of be doubtfull, one argument could be raised against this is that there is documented evidence which proves that Majority of NT is well documented, but refutted with a simple response that documentations of NT does not prove that it was preached by Jesus. Infact the deciples of Jesus did not write anyone of the Gosples, they where written by people who didnt hear or see the incidents they where writting. And if any part of the NT was genuine and NT was supposed to exist after Jesus, then it would have been his deciples if not Jesus himself who would have written the Gosples, and stamped approved them, but there is no evidence at all that either Jesus or his deciples wrote anything. But Mark Matthew John Luke, Paul and others wrote them, infact almost all of the NT was not written by the people who they are ascribed to, according to modern research done by Orientalist Scholars, Matthew didnt write the Gosple of Matthew, Mark didnt write the Gosple that is being attributed to Mark, almost all the Gosples are nameless, the names given to them are just mere assumptions, for which there is no evidnce. And often Christians boast that they have up 24 thousand NT manuscripts, but they fail to inform the reader the actual quote, which also says that out of those 24 thousand copies of NT manuscripts there are not two which are identical.

In conclution no part of the NT could be trusted upon due to the fact that John's Gosple was edited, by other people to conform to the doctrine to Trinity, clearly indicating that, if NT was without Devine protection.

Overall conclution is that all the scholars reject the story of satanic verses, beside Ibn Hajr, who gives a plausiable explanation to explain the incident. But despite his explanation the majority of the scholars reject his opinion.
Further the verses regarding the cranes intercession is not in the Quran, therefore any argument based on legend to disprove the autheticity of Quran is illogical. All the arguements I have presented are either based on the text which is approved by Christians has genuine Bible, or hisotrical manuscript evidence on which allmost all the Orientalist Scholars are unanimous that Bible has been interpolated, which has been backed up with tons of evidence. Yet Christians resort to the rejected sources by Muslims and Orientalists alike to prove there case. Only Orientalist Christian Missionary they quote is William Muir, who was is not a nuetral source, infact he was a missionary who worked in India to convert Muslims, and even was present when Revernd P Fander of Germany debated Shia Heretical Scholar Rahmat-ullah Kairanvi, which explain his bias to Islam. Infact much of the Orientalist world considers him has appologist for Chrisitianity against Islam, and his works are rejected and proved to be out dated, inaccurate and this is the only purpose missionary quote his books, because new research has proven the fact that Quran was and is the same has Muhammed (pbuh) had left it. The use of William Muir works and considering them to be authorative is a deception of the past which gained alot of credence in the days of William Muir, but now days almost all the Orientalists scholars who are studying Islam first person they criticise is William Muir integrity and then his works.

was-salm
Ali

[Dan Zebiri]

Ya Ali,

Jibrael is the messenger angel from God in Islam. It is stated in your Quran that it was Jibrael that sent God's words to Muhammad. So, if Surah 22 v 51 ff. does state that God intercepted Satan's interception and 'abrogated it', it can only occur during the process of the sending down of the Wahy (revelation) to the apostle.. Otherwise why should God take the trouble to intercept and abrogate Satan's suggestions at all?

Your answer itself is one long diatribe of a Christianaphobe, like yourself. Full of polemical statements devoid of any proofs to back up your claims. It is so convenient for you to engage in vain labelling as you have done, but dont forget that Muslims have over the centuries misunderstood and misrepresented Christian teachings and doctrines over and over again, reading them, as you do, through unfounded prejudices and jaundiced eyes.

This is even more so as Muslims missionaries or dai's try to spread their dawaganda & propoganda by making fantastic claims that the Quran is 'scientific' and full of historical truths that are relevant for mankind.

Arguing from silence is a non-starter to begin with, Augustine did not quote WHAT passage about the trinity? That does not make the passage non-existent at all ! Many of the epistles already have trinitarian references eg.Ephesians 1 & 6, 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Thessalonians 1, 1 Peter 1 & 5, Hebrews 13, Jude 1 etc. among others.

Some of these epistles eg.1 Corinthians were written very early indeed, even before the writing down by the Gospel writers. We already had an established oral tradition before the Christian scriptures were penned down. The early church had already acknowledged the Lordship and Sonship of Jesus Christ in the first Century A.D. He was already known as 'Son of God, God Himself, Saviour and Redeemer' as represented in the "ICHTHUS" Fish Acrostic that was circulating among the early Disciples and indeed, in the Kerygma or the proclamation of the early church.

You make another ludicrous CLAIM, by saying that Muslims preserved all the differing records relevant to them. The different verions of the

[ali420]

"Jibrael is the messenger angel from God in Islam. It is stated in your Quran that it was Jibrael that sent God's words to Muhammad. So, if Surah 22 v 51 ff. does state that God intercepted Satan's interception and 'abrogated it', it can only occur during the process of the sending down of the Wahy (revelation) to the apostle. Otherwise why should God take the trouble to intercept and abrogate Satan's suggestions at all?"

I confrim:No doubt Gabra-el is the Messenger of Allah, and Quran also says that he was the one angel given the honour of revealing the Quran to Prophet Muhammed (Pbuh).

I have already explained to you the meaning of the verse:

"Read all of the verse, it says that Satan trys to influence the feelings of Prophets, and Satan made attempt to tempt every Prophet of Allah. what is meant here is that Satan uses the human natures of the Prophets to feed them ideas, satan trys to feed ideas to the prophets, hoping that he will mislead them, but Allah is this ayah is saying that Allah will confirm His (Allah's) Signs and establish them over the temptations of Satan. Quran doesnt say Satan managed to intercept Allahs messenger Jibra-el, you are lieing, or unable to understand what you read, Jira-el is not even mentioned in these verses."

But since you failed/reffused to understand the very basic verse of the Quran, or was unable to understand the Quranic verse. Hopefully this time around I can do a better job in explaining.

22:52 Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:
22:53 That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in a schism far (from the Truth): "

Allah states that: "Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire:" In my very basic English, the verse of the Allah is saying that every Prophet BEFORE Muhammed (pbuh) had a DESIRE (i.e.for doing good) Satan THREW some vanity into his DESIRE. A different way of explaining this would be each time one of the Prophets felt like giving charity, Satan would try to corrupt their this desire, by hinting things like, Satan: "Oh why do you want to give charity to them, why cant they work for their living, and surely you worked hard to earn your money, while they just sit around do nothing, dont give them your money (charity)." To Which Allah says, each time Satan tried to feed such ideas to the heart's of prophets Allah further strenthen their faith, with knowledge and wisdom. Which i already tried to explain to you above.

With regards to "... but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in ..." it is clear that this portion of the verse is reffering to the VANITY OF SATAN, which was thrown in. The disaggreement is on how will Allah cancel the Vanity of Satan, and why? it could be interpreted in two ways, both are consistent with Islamic theology. First interpretation that Satan throws in some bad thought in the heart of a Prophet, but Allah will not hold the Prophet accountable, for this bad thought, he will not be judged on his bad thought, thus cancelling the vanity of Satan. The second interpretation that Allah might send a Revalation to instruct the Prophet to, not to do this action because it is a satanic Vanity, but do this instead.

Two things must be noticed, first and foremost this verse is not reffering to Prophet Muhammed, it is reffering to the fore-runners to Muhammed, eg Jesus, Moses, Ibrahim, Isaac, Ismail, Solomon, David (peace be on all of them) etc; Also this verse is not talking about Allah's message being corrupted, nor it is in any way connected to this, this Ayah simply states the DESIRE of Prophets to do good, but Satan trys to lead them astray. A point to be noticed that in Islam a bad intention is not sin, but a bad action with bad intention is sin, also a bad action with good intention is sin, but a good intention with no action is worthy of reward from Allah. Therefore any prophet before the Muhammed is not sinfull, for being approached by Satan, and trying to mislead them. Has Allah says: "but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:. If the word Satan is taken metaphorically, this portion of the verse perfectly fits you. And Allah has surely proved his Verses (ayah=Signs,verses), with Knowledge and Wisdom.

Your assumptions, your accusations are unfounded, and even if I was to ignore all the above evidence, and accept your totally bogus claim that this verse is reffering to the Angel Gibra-il, you still cant make a point against Muhammed (pbuh) because the verse clearly states that it is reffering to Prophets before Muhammed (pbuh), and not to Muhammed (pbuh). Accusations are totally baseless, and desperate efforts, using hook, or the crook method to prove Islam wrong.

"Your answer itself is one long diatribe of a Christianaphobe, like yourself. Full of polemical statements devoid of any proofs to back up your claims. It is so convenient for you to engage in vain labelling as you have done, but dont forget that Muslims have over the centuries misunderstood and misrepresented Christian teachings and doctrines over and over again, reading them, as you do, through unfounded prejudices and jaundiced eyes."

I am not suffering from ChristianityPhobia, its your assumption. Everything I wrote regarding Christianity is based on evidence either from OT or NT. If I twisted a verse, or twisted the theological understanding, its absolutely your duty to prove me wrong. You misrepresented one verse of the Quran, every effort is made to explain to you the accurate meaning of the verse, but when a Muslim makes the criticism of the Bible, Christians without explaining why the Muslim interpretation of the Biblical verse is inaccurate, quote ten more verses. Just to illustrate my point, in the previous to messages I have written quite extensively on the verse "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father the son and the holy spirit." "Claiming" that it was inserted in the Gosple of John some time after the 10th Century, rather then you attempt to explain to me why this verse was not inserted in the GOSPLE OF JOHN, you are telling me that there are other passages in the NT which support the Trinity. Has I said in my previous two message and I am going to say it again, that it doesnt matter (for the time being) if other passages of the NT confirm the doctrine of Trinity, because I am not questioning the authenticity of the doctrine of Trinity, I am questioning the authenticity of the Gosple of John, I am questioning the authenticity of the verse I quoted above, so dont tell me that other passages of the NT confirm the doctrine of Trinity, I want to know how could a forgery get into the allegedly uncoruppted word of god, or if it was not forgery then why, and bring forward your proof, to support your claim. It is a common practice among the Christian Missionaries that they entirely evade the main issue, and write about totally irrelevent issues, which are not being questioned.

Dont accuse others of Christianphobia, when you, yourself and your Christian brothers are uncapable of explaining your Bible. I have yet to meet one Christian who is able to deal with problems in the Bible directly without evading the issue. Perhaps you could learn a alittle from me, I didnt evade the issue which you raised regarding the satanic verse, but delt with it directly, and systematicly, reffuting your post point by point, line by line, perhaps you could also adopt this practice, and use this in your next response.

With regards to my writtings are being based on without evidence, show me where you are need of evidence, which parts of my discusions require evidence, and I will quote you the refferences and the quotes, each of my points being authenticated by either by Bible or a Textual Criticism Scholars. Most of my writtings are based on intellectual reasoning, for which you dont have to provide evidence, your own intellectual ability can be evidence to that. But not denying that some of them require evidence, and where i thought its nessecary I provided it, and in some places i withheld it back due to the reason that the post gets longer and longer and I have to write up tons. If anything is based on prejudice or bias, or twisted interpretation, then it will be ofcourse more easier for you to expose these twisted interpretations of the Bible and stamp the authenticity of Bible, so far you have not made managed to write a good point.

"Arguing from silence is a non-starter to begin with, Augustine did not quote WHAT passage about the trinity? That does not make the passage non-existent at all ! Many of the epistles already have trinitarian references eg.Ephesians 1 & 6, 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Thessalonians 1, 1 Peter 1 & 5, Hebrews 13, Jude 1 etc. among others."

Totally irrelevent to the disscussion. I am questioning the autheticity of the passage in Gosple of John not Trinity, do you confess that this passage was a for fogery inserted in the Gosple of John?

There are some issues I have deliberately ignored, for the reason that commenting on them will either change the subject to a different, thus it will allow you to evade the subject, which you are deperately trying to.

Ali

[ali420]

How did the Bible copy the trinity from Qu'ran if the Bible was written before it?
Did I write that Trinity is barrowed from Quran, are you nutts!

Ali

[soulflame]

Lastly I do not beleive for a second that Isa the son of Mary was inspired by satan, its only your gosples which prove his satanist inspiration. Quran says the prophets are far above racism, far above calling people pigs, dogs, Quran says they are perfect. But your bible says prophets are sinners, I say thats disbeleife in there prophethood.

Ali
Ali, above you said that prophets are above rascism. Well, just to let you know, Muhammad was a white, rascist, slave owner. In Hadith No. 63 Vol. 1 It states, "Who amongst you is Muhammad?" THe companions of the prophet replied, "This white man reclining on his arm." In Hadith No. 122, Vol. 2, it describes him as being white. In Vol. 2, Hadith No. 141, it says that when Muhammad prayed and raised his arms "the whiteness of his armpits became visible." Hadith Vol. 1 No. 367 also indicates Muhammad of being a white man. Now, in Hadith No. 436, Vol. 6, It talks about Umar visiting Muhammad and seeing "a black slae of Allah's apostle sitting on the first step." And just in case you say he only had one, let me quote the famouse Ibn Qayyirn al-Jawiyya, who's a muslim historian. In his book Zad al-Ma'ad, in part 1, p.160, it states, "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir."
Also, did you know that the Arabic word for black is "Abd," meaning "slave?" I'm sure you're also aware of the Haj, which is a famous Muslim holiday. This is when they buy more slaves.
I would like to once again qoute Mr. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawiyya. He records this, "Mahran was renamed (by Muhammad) Safina (i.e. ship). He himself relates his own story. he says, 'The apostle of God and his companions went on a trip. When their belongings became too heavy for them to carry, Muhammad told me, 'Spread your garment.' They filled it with their belongings, then they put it on me. The apostle of God told me, 'Carry it, for you are a ship.' Even if I was carrying a load of six or seven donkeys while we were on a journey, anyone who felt weak would throw his clothes or his shield or his sword on me so I would carry that, a heavy load. The prophet told me, 'You are a ship.''" This was quoted from Amad 5:222 by Ibn Qayyim.
In Hadith No. 662, Vol. 1 it says Muhammad referred to black people as, "raisin heads." And in Hadith No. 9, Vol. 162, 163, Muhammad talks about how dreaming of a black woman is a bad omen. I don't know about you but that is rascism and name calling on Muhammad's part, the suppossed divine prophet of Allah. I thought you said prophets were perfect? What's up with this evidence then? I would also like to apologize for my ealier post, I mis understood something. If I have again with this post, please let me know. Thank you for your time.

[Dan Zebiri]

Ya Ali,

Here is some clear proof that the satanic verses actually exist in the Quran and that you are merely in denial mode for trying to vainly push it off:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm

and

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/satanic.htm

MUHAMMAD AND THE SATANIC VERSES

Muhammad Spoke the Satanic Verses - The Evidence and Proof

INTRODUCTION

One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.

It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records.

This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word.

In the Old Testament (OT), if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death - as found in Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5:

"This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets.

Think about it, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.

MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF

Muslims frequently use the phrase "bring forth the proof". Well, the proof is presented here.

This event is documented by the four early biographical writers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. The Hadith and Quran also contain direct references. Additionally several other Islamic scholars on Hadith (traditions) support the event's occurrence.

One Islamic book on Muhammad's life provides the following list:

"... many of the traditionalists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn 'Uqba, and Abu Ma'shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on traditions insists on the truth of this report and says, "As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report." [2]

I have found four of the early Islamic biographical sources for this story in English. Therefore, prior to a discussion and analysis of the event, their writings should be reviewed. What first follows are the four accounts related from the 4 early sources:

1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY, and translated by Watt [3],
2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (The Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq [4],
3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume [5],
4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. I have not been able to find Wakidi's entire work in English but Wakidi's work is quoted by W. Muir in "The Life of Mahomet" [6].
5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A.. Guillaume [7]. This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes.
6) Additional supporting evidence will be provided from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari [8].
7) Finally, verses from the Quran will be provided as concurring evidence that Muhammad spoke the Quranic verses [9]


THE EVIDENCE: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SOURCES

TABARI volume 6, page 107

SATAN CASTS A FALSE REVELATION ON THE MESSENGER OF GOD'S TONGUE

The messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was a follows. (170)
Ibn Humayd - Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani - Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:(171)

"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..."

and when he came to the words:

Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?

Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:

"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (172)

When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque (173) likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer orunbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. Al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had hared, saying,"Muhammad has mentioned our goes in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval."

The news of the prostration reached those of the messenger of God's companions who were in Abyssinia and people said, "The Quraysh have accepted Islam." Some rose up to return, while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you." Then the messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consoling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who desired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad's tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed:

"Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. The God established his verses. God is knower, wise. (174)

Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words:

"Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers."

to the words:

to whom he wills and accept (175)

This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God?

When Muhammad brought a revelation from God canceling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His prophet, the Quraysh said,"Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else." Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the messenger of God.

Those of the companions of the messenger of God who had left Abyssinia upon hearing that Quraysh had accepted Islam by prostration themselves with the messenger of God now approached.When they were near Mecca, they heard that the report that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam was false. Not one of them entered Mecca without obtaining protection or entering secretly. Among those who came to Mecca and remained there until they emigrated to al-Madinah and were present with the prophet at Badr, were, from the Banu Abd Shams b. Abd Manaf b. Quasyy, Uthman b. Afafan b. Abi al-As b. Umayyah, accompanied by his wife Ruaqyyah the daughter of the messenger of God; Abu Hudhayfah b. Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abd Shames, accompanied by his wife Sahlah bt. Suhalyl; together with a number of others numbering thirty three men.

Al-Qasim b. Al-Hasan - al Husayn b. Daud - Hajja - Abu Mashar - Muhammad b. Kab al-Qurazi and Muhammad b. Qays: The messenger of God was sitting in a large gathering of Quraysh, wishing that day that no revelation would come to him from God which could cause them to turn away from him. Then God revealed:

"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived..."

and the Messenger of God recited it until he came to:

"Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?"

when Satan cast on his tongue two phrases:

"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be desired. (176)

He uttered them and went on to complete the surah. When he prostrated himself at the end of the surah, the whole company prostrated themselves with him. Al-Walid b. al-Mughirah raised some dust to his forehead and bowed over that, since he was a very old man and could not prostrate himself. They were satisfied with what Muhammad had uttered and said, "We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you."

That evening Gabriel came to him and reviewed the surah with him, and when he reached the two phrases which Satan had cast upon his tongue he said, "I did not bring you these two." Then the messenger of God said, "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to him words which He has not spoken." Then God revealed to him:

"And they indeed strove hard to beguile you away from what we have revealed to you, that you should invent other than it against us...

to the words:

"and then you would have found no helper against us" (177)

He remained grief stricken and anxious until the revelation of the verse:

"Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you... to the words...God is knower, wise. (178)

When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia heard that all the people of Mecca had accepted Islam, they returned to their clans, saying,"They are more dear to us"; but they found that the people had reversed their decision when God cancelled what Satan had cast upon the messenger of God's tongue.

END OF QUOTES

FROM IBN ISHAQ'S "SIRAT RASULALLAH", translated as, "THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD" by A. Guillaume, page 165 - 167.

The third passage is chapter 17, called "The Night Journey", (Al Isra), verses 73 - 75:

"They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us."

All of these verses are mentioned in the biographical material. All of them were revealed in relation to Muhammad speaking Satan's words.

Note how Tabari records Muhammad's admittance of sin and repentance after Gabriel confronted him with his error. Afterwards, God supposedly comforts Muhammad with the verses from chapters 17 and 22. Ibn Sa'd records the same sequence of verses. After he admitted his sinful error, Muhammad was comforted by Gabriel. Who was this Gabriel?

AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR'S COMMENTARY (TAFSIR)

One of the greatest Islamic scholars who wrote a Tafsir was Zamakhshari. He commented on this event as well.Here is his writings, quoted from "The Quran and its Exegesis, by Helmut Gatje, pages 53 - 55, published by Oneworld, Oxford, England [10].

"The faithful rendering of the revelation Zamakhshari on Sura 22:52/51

We have never sent any messenger of prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs - surely God is All-knowing, All-wise.

.. The occasion of the sending down of the present verse is the following: As the members of the tribe of the messenger of God turned away from him and took their stand against him and his relatives also opposed him and refused to be guided by what he brought to them, then, as a result of the extreme exasperation concerning their estrangement and as a result of the eager desire and longing that they be converted to Islam, the messenger of God sheltered the wish that nothing would come down to him that could make them shy away. Perhaps he should have been able to use that for the purpose of converting them and causing them to be dissuaded from their error and obstinacy. Now this wish continued in him until the sura called "The Star" (that is, Sura 53) came down. At that time he found himself with this wish in his heart regarding the members of his tribe. Then he began to recite, and when he came to God's words "and Manat, the third, the other" (Sura 53:20), Satan substituted something in accordance with the wish which the messenger of God had sheltered, that is, he whispered something to him which would enable the messenger to announce his wish. In an inadvertent and misleading manner, his tongue hurried on ahead of him, so that he said: "These (goddesses are the) exalted cranes. Their intercession (with God) is to be hoped for."...Yet, the messenger of God was not clear at this point until the protection of God "isma" reached him and he then became attentive again. Some say that Gabriel drew his attention to it, or that Satan himself spoke those words and brought them to the people's hearing. As soon as the messenger of God prostrated (for prayer) as the end of the sura, all who were present did it with him and felt pleased (that is, the unbelievers felt pleased that their goddesses had been accepted as intercessors with God).


OTHER COMMENTS

A) It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. And these men were devout Muslim scholars. They spent their lives studying, analyzing, and writing about Muhammad and Islam. They were real Islamic scholars, unlike today's amateur "Islamic scholars" like Ahmed Deedat and Jamal Baidawi. Also, these sources provide chains of narration - isnaad, showing that the event is traceable to the earliest Muslims.

Regarding these early Islamic scholars, William Muir writes in "The Life of Muhammad" that:

"Pious Mussulmans of after days, scandalized at the lapse of their prophet into so flagrant a concession to idolatry, would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be impugned. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not founded in truth, could ever have been invented."

B) One of the terms Muhammad used to describe the pagan Goddesses - Manat, Uzza and al-Lat was "gharaniq" translated as "high flying cranes".

In "Muhammad and the Religion of Islam", by John Gilchrist, published by Jesus to the Muslims, page 118, Gilchrist writes: [11]

"The Arabic word "gharaniq" refers to certain cranes which fly at a great height. The pagan Meccans, impressed by the splendor of these birds, therefore described their goddesses by an analogous reference to them. When Muhammad quoted the very words used by the Meccans to exalt their goddesses, they said to one another "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in excellent fashion".

In the area there were cranes that flew at high altitudes. It was quite logical for Muhammad to thus describe the idols as "high flying", metaphorically flying in the heavens close to Allah - to act as intercessors.


CONCLUSIONS

The evidence proves that Muhammad spoke the Satanic verses. The four early biographers of Muhammad's life detail the story. Many traditions (Hadith) also establish it. There are references to it in the Sahih Hadith. Finally, there is specific references to it in the Quran. No one, with an open mind and honest heart, can doubt the event. It may make Muslims uncomfortable that Satan used their prophet, but in the least they should be forthright and honest about it and admit it to themselves. If they wish to follow a man who spoke Satan's words, that is their business.

One Christian writer addressing this question asked:

"Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find."

To this date, a serious Muslim response is still hard to find.


Unless you can point-by-point write a factual rebuttal to the article above (from Answering Islam), all your efforts to deny that satanic verses never existed in the Quran/ Islam are vanity indeed..!

As for your earlier claim that muslims never practised "what the Christians did" by not hiding their scriptures, thats another red herring bummer straw man.

Because, Not only did the muslims hide their differing scriptures/Qurans, the 3rd.caliph, Uthman himself ordered the return of all the different Qurans - in the possession of Ubay bin Kabb, Ali and also the other Sahabah - to be burnt and summarily destroyed.

Not just that! Muslims were going to WAR with each other because of their different Qurans. The Muslims in Iraq, Azerbaijan, Syam/Damascus/Syria were killing one another because of all the different versions of the Quran that were found in these different regions! So does not Islamic history itself teach you these facts, or you would prefer to cover them up and gloss over this mass destruction of the Quran, by Uthman!!?

Anyway, the facts of the matter are here:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Ask/collect.html



BTW, The Text of the Bible is NOT of the same GENRE as your Quran's! So your accusations of so-called 'forgery' is really baseless and invalid. You Muslim dawagandists, missionaries and Christianaphobes expect the Bible to be a "'sacred book' that was dropped down onto a mans lap" directly from heaven! That description is the claim you make for al-Quran! Quran was just one man's testimony - Muhammad. It came just through 1 individual-him...!

Not so the Bible, it is more than 3 times the physical size of al-Quran, and came to us from more than 1,000 years of History. It was NOT COMPOSED or came through to us through just One individual (like Muhd). But many different individuals were involved in its composition. Yet, it has its own miraculous and wonderfully unified THEME. Unfortunately, one cannot say the SAME THING for al-Quran!

So, you are really trying to make the Bible to fit into YOUR narrow definition of sacred text. You are not comparing apples to apples, but bananas to dates, or peanuts to grapes, ya Ali! Try to use your head more widely next time.

Then you proceed to make all sorts of silly claims and bald accusations AGAINST the Bible. When you actually start from a platform that is totally inconsistent with the Genre of the Biblical Text. So, its really you, ya Ali, that has become totally IIRELEVANT in your approach..:tongue:

The Johannine Epistle paranthesis in 1 John, is not the only defining verse that documented the early Church's confession of the Triune God! Matthew's Gospel has one, and so do the other early Epistles that were penned by the other Apostles ("Hawariyun" in arabic) like here: Ephesians 1 & 6, 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Thessalonians 1, 1 Peter 1 & 5, Hebrews 13, Jude 1, John Chapter 1 etc.

So, in the early church, all the Apostles of Jesus Christ-His Hawarii, already acknolwleged the presence and existence of A TRIUNE GOD, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even BEFORE the documenting of the Gospels and the Epistles. Apostles John, Matthew, Jude, Paul and Peter ALL acknowledged this fact and later went on to write about this great truth in their Letters and Epistles.

Thats why I pointed to extra-iblical proofs that show and prove that the earliest Christians & followers of 'Isa all believed in Jesus' Divine nature, as exemplified by the Kerygma, the acrostics and the ICHTUS symbol that represented earliest Christian dogma and teachings.

Go and read up on these facts relating to the early church before jumping around and throwing all sorts of irrelevant and baseless accusations at the Christians here, Ali!

Get a more rounded and complete education before showing, again and again, your islamic missionary dawaganda & propoganda which is nothing more than Christianaphobism!

Rgds, Dan.


Dan, our forum rules do not allow you to argue either by weblink only (such as saying "this proves you are wrong see this link..." - neither does our decorum allow you to post copyrighted material from other web sites without written permission of the copyright holder (answering islam in this instance) If you do wish to post copyrighted material without getting permisstion, you are limited to TWO paragraphs followed by a link to the full article. I had to remove your links and the article from your post.

[jwkenne]

Ya Ali,



Go and read up on these facts relating to the early church before jumping around and throwing all sorts of irrelevant and baseless accusations at the Christians here, Ali!

Get a more rounded and complete education before showing, again and again, your islamic missionary dawaganda & propoganda which is nothing more than Christianaphobism!

Rgds, Dan.

Ali,
Speaking of this, do you care to come back over the "Did the Morning star give the revelations?" thread and defend some of the blatant misleading that I called you on? I'll go "bump" it for you so that you will have no trouble find ing it.

[ali420]

Is there really a point copying chunks and chunks, and when you run out of chunks you copy the entire article from answering Islam? And then demand another explanation regarding the same matter delt in chunks.

You are killing the discusion, If I was willing to copy chunks like you have been doing, I would have copied, them from bismikaalllahuma.org and islamic-awareness.org, and also from Maududi's Tahfimul-Quran, but if copying was any interest to me I would have done it long ago.

When a person copys something he is not using his own brain, so he goes on to copy chunks after chunks, and when these chunks run out, then he has nothing to say, because he didnt research the matter himself, which causes problems.

Another point you must remember is that, the article you have posted is based on Quranic verses, twisted out of there context, and all the conclutions and sumarys, and extra comments and story telling is based on the verses of the Quran. If I disprove your understanding of the Quran, andn prove that you have misunderstood, and twisted, the meanings of the Quran, you entire paper will fall flat on its face. Let me further explain, foundation of your argument is based on Quran, and if i reffute your foundational verses, and correct your understanding of the Quran, then you have foundations removed from your article, therefore entire article will collapse because it was based on your deceptive interpretations.

I have explained to you all the verses of the Quran being quoted in here, and those remain, will be explained on demand, I do not feel necessary to respond to the points I already have commented on, unless you bring new material which has not been already been discussed here.

Also dont copy chunks and chunks no one is going to read it, do a little research your self, it will help you to get the grasp of the matters on a personel level.

I was about the forget, regarding the verse on three in one, in John Gosple, I am not even going to bather asking again regarding it, has I said before, you dont have a grain of honesty in you, your diving and ducking is evidence that you have something to hide, something to be dishonest about. Simple question was being asked was the verse in Gosple of JOhn, "there are three that bear record in heaven ..." a forgery, inserted later own into the Gosple to make the doctrine of Trinity stand out, I am aware that at council of Nicea the doctrine of Trinity was standardised despite majority of the bishops apposed this doctrine, even Athnasius confessed in one of his works that he is loosing his mind while trying to argue for the doctrine of Trinity. I am asking was this verse inserted later on, it was not present in the early has the council of Nicea. Let me answer this for you, its a forgery, forgery, forgery, not present in any of the historical documents earlier then 10th centuray.

Look its totally irrelvent about what you said regarding comparing apples to apples, and apples to peanuts. show me where I said that Bible should be like this because the Quran was revealed like this.

I am giving you the concordance approach to the Bible, lets suppose all of these gosple writers where inspired by holy spirit, but does it prove that after they penned down their inspiration, was their writting still perseved from being interpolated? One verse being interpolated is evidence that after their alleged inspiration, their Gosples were not protected from Error.

And with this I end the discussion, I have nothing to say regarding this and the methodology I used, has been explained.

Ali

[Dan Zebiri]

Yo Ali,

Your last reply is interesting while not at all surprising. Since you start with an accusation, and then now, you want to 'end it' without making any sense of your claims, in light of what the actual literary nature of what the New Testament documents really are.

Apart from your repetitive 'forgery, forgery, forgery..' attacks, there is really nothing of substance in your 'argument'! Your vain repetitions really prove nothing other than just your sheer desperation in trying to anxiously propogandize typical muslim polemics of the anti-Christian kind vis-avis their Scriptures (ie.more dawaganda). But the authenticity of the canonical Christian scriptures still remain intact in spite of the muslims' vain repetitions of dawaganda!

Let me draw you a more appropriate analogy and comparison to make meaningful the point of GENRE in this discussion. First lets ask you Ali, a quesion. Are you a true sunni Muslim?

True as in following the Quran and the Sunnah of your prophet Muhammad? If you say you ARE, then it is incumbant and imperative upon you-and ALL sunni Muslims-to believe in the Quran & HADITH.

Just WHAT is the Hadith?? It is supposed to be the Traditions that,according to Islam, contain the sunnah of your prophet Muhammad and his example for his followers to follow. For instance, the Quran commands people to PRAY, but HOW TO PRAY, IN terms of practicalities, is spelled out in detailed format in your Hadiths. It contains both the sayings of Muhammad on how-tos, as well as his 'esteemed example' in the different areas of muslim life which becomes obligatory for all muslims to follow. If you do not believe in the Traditions of the Hadith, then you cease to be a SUNNI MUSLIM, isnt that true! In other words, the Hadith are supposed to be the faithful records of the words/teachings/comments and deeds of Muhammad.

So that they will be the valid example (sunnah) to be followed by all muslims.

Very well, that is not the Gospels, but is very similar to it. The Christian canonical Gospels is not something that came down in the same way like what Muslims claim al-Quran did. That is supposedly how the Quran CLAIMS the Gospel, Torah and Psalms ought to be, but really the Quranic claims are not quite right, if Muslims expect that these Scriptures all came down in the same way that the Quran did! As the weight of the proof is OTHERWISE.

The canonical Gospels, and indeed the New Testament documents are very much similar in nature and genre to what in Islam is known and embraced as the Hadith collections of its Sunnah. So the more appropriate comparison for you to make, when commenting on or comparing verses in the New Testament is by figuring them out in the similar context of an understanding of the Hadith literature in Islam, as they have similar and analogous genre.

The canonical Gospels are the faithful Historical record of the Life, teachings, ministry and deeds of Jesus Christ. The Hadith, likewise, is supposed to be a 'true record' of the life, ministry and sunnah/example of Muhammad.

In sunni Islam, how many Hadith collections are there? It has: al-Bukhari, al-Muslim, Tarmizi and Sunan of Abu Dawud (just to name the 4 most famous ones) All their contents are supposed to be valid and true. Thats why these 4 collections are also known as the "Hadith Sahih" or the "Valid Hadiths". In the collection and collation of these Hadiths, Bukhari had to filter all the existing 'Hadiths' through a elimination process, in order to determine which were 'valid hadiths' against those which were NOT! How many OTHER KINDS OF HADITH are there? According to historical records, al-Bukhari collected over 600,000 reports, but kept only 7,397 as true!! (the rest are allegedly forgeries and fabrications). Of the six important Muslim collections of hadiths, Bukhari and Muslim are accepted as the most reliable. Their collections are called Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim respectively.

There are other classes of Hadith, are there not?! These are categorised :

"Weak hadiths/Hadith Daif", &

"false hadiths" &

also a 'higher' category called "Hadith qudsi", among others.

Question to Ali: Who decides on these categories? The islamic scholars use a technique or procedure called "Isnad" to determine a Hadiths validity, do they not!?

'Isnad' technically refers to the chain of transmitters, the list of people who successively narrated a given hadith. The text of the hadith itself is called 'matn'.

Early Muslim writers were not too concerned about the isnad. Later on (about two centuries later), debates about what is lawful and what is not lawful intensified among the various schools, so that more and more prominence was given to the isnad that led back to Muhammad for rulings. It was important to Muslims that rulings were made by Muhammad himself. Muslim traditionists concerned themself with making sure that the isnad is made up of reliable people.

Unfortunately, they had no means of ascertaining if the report was really true per se, which led to an explosion of fabricated hadiths - False Hadiths ie.FORGERIES (A WORD Ali likes to use!). As a result, many hadiths were contradictory.

Did Allah give the directions on HOW to implement Isnad?? Did Allah send down a wahy (revelation) establishing isnad?? If so, tell me the surah/chapter and ayah/verse from the Quran that's from Allah which established the Isnad process. How did the men of theology in Islam -eg.Bukhari, Muslim etc, ascertain the so-called Valid Hadiths, for example.

This procedure was MAN-MADE. It was not a divine thing at all! And yet all Muslims MUST believe in it!

Ali, your co-missionary and dawagandist in bismikalluhuma refers to another kind of Hadith-called 'hadith mauquf' or "STOPPED HADITH". This type was even found in Hadith Bukhari! - Supposedly a very valid collection! But (by Definition) THIS particular hadith COULD NOT be traced back to Muhammad at all, according to muslim scholars. Here is what it says:

Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188)
If this is a so-called 'Stopped Hadith', because it is UNTRACEABLE Back to Muhammad by Muslim's own definition, then WHAT BUSINESS IS it Doing in Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari!? Should it not really belong to the Weak/Daif or even the False/Forgery/Fabricated Hadiths Collections!?

And its ridiculous matn (meaning, content) still accepted wholesale.
This is what your co-missionary, Menj from his Islamic propogation site, bismikallahuha states about its particular matn/content :

"While we concede that above hadîth is indeed accepted as authentic, we would also argue that according to the principles of criticism of the hadîth, the matn of the hadîth above would be REJECTED even if it had been ascribed to the Prophet…" (bold emphasis ours)

We are glad that MENJ was honest enough to admit that this hadith passes the test of authenticity. Despite this candid admission, he still seeks to undermine and REJECT THIS HADITH based on its matn (or content). MENJ’s assertion that the hadith would be rejected due to its content is EXTREMELY ODD in light of the fact that THE most stringent hadith collector, Imam Bukhari, had no problem incorporating it in what is considered to be THE most authentic collection of hadiths!

Does MENJ pass himself off as better informed than the scholars who found no fault with Sahih Bukhari, as well as assuming that he is more qualified than Imam Bukhari was in determining what should be accepted and what should be rejected? We highly doubt it and see this as nothing more than MENJ’s desperate attempt of trying to cover up the irrationality and confusion of his religion.

Furthermore, it can be shown that even after the advent of Islam, Muhammad and his Companions were teaching foolish things similar to what 'Amr bin Maimun above, reported.

Examples : Muhammad and his Companions/Sahabah, believed that ants, birds, stones, trees and food could talk, that stones could run, that the sun traveled to God’s throne & sets into a muddy pool after that, that humans were turned to animals etc.

The issue is not only with this isolated hadith. The Qur'an also states three times that some Jews were turned into monkeys (S. 2:66; 5:60; 7:166) and several hadith ascribed to Muhammad himself speak of various people being turned into rats, pigs or monkeys (cf. "Badawi on the Metamorphosis of Jews" in: answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/badawi_lies3.htm#monkey-jews).

Just as those Israelites that were turned into rats still observed the Jewish dietary laws (Sahih Bukhari 4.524), those monkeys may just have been former Jews that still obeyed the command to stone the adulterers among them. The hadith on the stoning of the she-monkey is not contrary to the general teaching of Islam, but it is firmly embedded into the Islamic world view, and thus is mandatory for them to follow and to obey.

This is proof and shows that, even where there are doubtful, questionable and even probably FALSE & FORGED Hadiths in the VALID HADITH Collections (eg.al-Bukhari & Muslim etc), it is COMPULSORY AND IMPERATIVE for Muslims to believe in them, to follow and to abide by them. And the process by which these Traditions/hadiths are determined as 'valid' are not divine but man-made.


If that is the 'basis' for an authoritative sacred text like the Hadith/Traditions of Islam, I would rather prefer the records of the Canonical New Testament, as it still has voluminous textual and documentary evidence to support its factual authenticity and textual integrity.
Unfortunately for the Sunni Muslims, their own co-religionists in Islam, the SHI'A, DO NOT accept ANY OF THE so-called valid Sunni Hadiths.:ahem: The Shi'as reject totally, completely and wholesale, the Six compilations of the "Valid Hadiths" of the Sunni Muslims! In fact, the Shias have in their possession, THEIR OWN COLLECTIONS of Hadiths & Traditions of Muhammad.

And these are totally different from the Sunnis' Hadiths! So, whose is valid and whose ARE FORGERIES? Shias and Sunni muslims constantly trade accusations that the other group have FORGED their Hadiths, and never the twain shall meet. Surely there must be a lot of forged Hadiths between them!

So, Ali, the claim and charges of forgery etc, is actually much more WORSE in Islam - so go back and check your own sources first, and clean up your own house first, before trying to cover them up by making very shallow and baseless claims that the NT contains forgery! :lol: When the very opposite is true.

Wassallam, Dan.

[Catatle]

Jews rightly said that Jesus was impostor, a devil, who lead the Jews astray, because he failed to even stand upon his own words, that is he said he is here to fullfill the law of Moses, yet again and again we see him in the New Testament breaking the commands of Law, should we also label him devil, Satan.

doesn't the koran call Jesus a prophet? are you contradicting it? That's not really a wise thing for you to do.

I thought the traditional Muslim view was that Jesus' followers lead people astray...

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi all,

It is now the third week since my reply to Ali was published. Looks like he wont be bringing up any point to defend the issues with the Hadith that was raised! Thats quite sad, in light of the fact that he was 'spoiling' for a debate, but left that to dry up too !

I would like to confirm that not only do the Shia Muslims reject the valid Hadith collections of the ahli sunna wa'al jemaah (ASWJ) Ie. those from the orthodox Muslim wings, BUT NOT there IS ALSO a movement amongst the orthodox ASWJ muslims, to junk and throw out their 'valid' Hadiths altogether!

That Shi'a Muslims use different Hadiths, look under Moojan Momen's Introduction to Shi'i Islam :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300035314/qid=1092128868/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4167589-1551069?v=glance&s=books

Under the section on the "Hadiths".

And that even conservative, orthodox Muslims want to quit & GET RID Of their Valid Hadiths of Bukhary. Muslim, Tarmizi, Abu Dawud etc TOTALLY; see here:

http://www.submission.org/had-corruption.html , and here:

http://www.submission.org/


Reasons for this : There are too many fabricated ('forged') hadiths and too many nonsensical ones that are an embarrassment to Islam! It becomes irrational to espouse what those valid hadiths espouse!

Its just too bad that, these 'open minded' anti-Hadith Muslims are regularly LABELLED as Kafirs ie. "Infidels" by their fellow-Muslims (of ASWJ color), so much for the promotion of open thought in Islam! Is more like CLOSED Thoughts and sheer Intolerance and bigotry.

Wassalaam, Dan.

Argument via weblink is not allowed

[Jacob-Smith]

Jin-Roh the problem is that we believe everything we read... media, news, anything... we only use what benefits us the most. For example... If I read something that shows that christianity is the righteous religion and this is why Islam is notl... I will take that article and analyze it and use it in my everyday discussion why because its benefiting me in what my faith is. Therefore, I think Ali is making some very good sense and I'm not getting any feedback from you. I am a confused person who needs to know whats right and wrong but you are really failing this test right now. And I need some inspiration here.... hopefully you will come up with something! When you finish making the soup please tell us what kinda soup is it?

[Jacob-Smith]

Yo Ali,

Your answer just shows how desperate you are to cover up the incident of the Satanic Verses in the Quran. Even the Quran itself confesses that Satan did place his own words into the revelations that were coming through 'the angel Gabriel' in Surah 22 v.51ff.



Dan, do me a favor... I am reading the quran right now that section u pointed out. read Surah 22 from beginning to end... and dont reply back until you really really understand what they're talking about it... because i know sometimes you can misunderstand what they're saying the way its put together. But if you read the verse from beginning to end as you come to v.22 you'll see that it talks about satan tries to influence the feelings of prophets and attempted to tempt every prophet... but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that satan throws in... Also i think you AND JI-NOH ARE VERY deseprate to come to force your opinions because so far not even u nor ji-noh has answered Ali's question that he stated awhile back... As you go further into the quran you will read about why muslims do not believe anything that you state about the quran... The prophets were immuned from sinning or any evil. I'm sure you disagree with everything but ignorance is the devils traits linked to mankind... If you people are going to sit here and argue all day you willl not get anywhere... the internet sources will not help neither you (ali) nor you (jinoh) for all we know the devil is playing us all into believing what he wants us to believe... The bible < came about a 100 years after Jesus... I dont understand why we think its 100 % accurate? when we have so many versions of it? a 100 years later we come up with a bible describing JESUS as GOD < enough!

[Jacob-Smith]

Ali I understand where your coming from and I totally agree... the reason why I agree with you is because a few months ago I heard a rumor from christians claiming the quran had said something in Surah 9; V11 about an eagle here is the verse:


Quran (9:11) --For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a
fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of
Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more
rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.



But I looked up the Quran and it had said this from 9:9 to 9:11

Surah 9. Repentance, Dispensation

9. The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done.

10. In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.

11. But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand.

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

There is nothing close to what the accusation was!

So why are people so ignorant and make up stupid bull shit that Islam never practiced nor believes in! I believe there is a war against Islam because Islam holds so much truth muslims are being tortured all over the world because the truth hurts and the punishment for truth is harsh! and this is what happens when you speak the truth your more likely to be abused and looked down upon as a sinner... Jesus when he try to speak the truth to his people they looked down on him! the truth hurt... so they tortured him but according to Islam Allah had something else planned for Jesus.

[Jacob-Smith]

You quoted everything from parts of pages and never really elaborated on any of the above statements... I'm still confused.

Ya Ali,

Here is some clear proof that the satanic verses actually exist in the Quran and that you are merely in denial mode for trying to vainly push it off:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Saifullah/sverses.htm

and

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/satanic.htm

MUHAMMAD AND THE SATANIC VERSES

Muhammad Spoke the Satanic Verses - The Evidence and Proof

INTRODUCTION

One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.

It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records.

This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words. The background to this event is that Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted for attacking the pagan faiths of Mecca, and he did not want to further offend his Arab tribesmen, and, he wanted them to become his followers, i.e. Muslims. In fact Muhammad wished that God would not reveal anything further to him that would further alienate his fellow Arabs. So when opportunity arose, he spoke what Satan put into his heart and mind as God's word.

In the Old Testament (OT), if someone caused the people to worship other gods he was put to death - as found in Deuteronomy 13:1 - 5:

"This is exactly what Muhammad did - he advocated the worship of pagan deities as intercessors with God. Later, after Muhammad admitted his mistake and took back the words, he had the audacity to say that God made light of the event! God has never made light of sin or false prophets.

Think about it, which of the Old Testament prophets ever spoke the words of Satan? Those prophets loved their people, but they persisted in speaking the truth to them, not compromising the word of God to gain peace and converts as Muhammad did.

MUHAMMAD SPOKE THE SATANIC VERSES - THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF

Muslims frequently use the phrase "bring forth the proof". Well, the proof is presented here.

This event is documented by the four early biographical writers of Muhammad's life: Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd, and Tabari. The Hadith and Quran also contain direct references. Additionally several other Islamic scholars on Hadith (traditions) support the event's occurrence.

One Islamic book on Muhammad's life provides the following list:

"... many of the traditionalists have recorded it with reference to the chains of its narrators. Among them more commonly known are: al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Ibn Ishaq, Musa ibn 'Uqba, and Abu Ma'shar. It is all the more strange that Ibn Hajar, a recognized authority on traditions insists on the truth of this report and says, "As we have mentioned above, three of its chains of narrators satisfy the conditions requisite for an authentic report." [2]

I have found four of the early Islamic biographical sources for this story in English. Therefore, prior to a discussion and analysis of the event, their writings should be reviewed. What first follows are the four accounts related from the 4 early sources:

1) Tabari's "History", published by SUNY, and translated by Watt [3],
2) the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", (The Book of the Major Classes), translated by S. Moinul Haq [4],
3) the "Sirat Rasulallah" (The Life of Allah's Prophet) by Ibn Ishaq, translated by A. Guillaume [5],
4) Wakidi's biographical material on Muhammad also includes the story of Muhammad speaking Satan's words. I have not been able to find Wakidi's entire work in English but Wakidi's work is quoted by W. Muir in "The Life of Mahomet" [6].
5) A sub source from #3 above is found in "New Light on the Life of Muhammad", by A.. Guillaume [7]. This source is from a manuscript containing information from other sources as well as Ibn Ishaq. The writer of the manuscript, Yunus ibn Bukayr, heard Ibn Ishaq's lectures at Kufa (located in modern Iraq), and made notes.
6) Additional supporting evidence will be provided from the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari [8].
7) Finally, verses from the Quran will be provided as concurring evidence that Muhammad spoke the Quranic verses [9]


THE EVIDENCE: THE EARLY ISLAMIC SOURCES

TABARI volume 6, page 107

SATAN CASTS A FALSE REVELATION ON THE MESSENGER OF GOD'S TONGUE

The messenger of God was eager for the welfare of his people and wished to effect a reconciliation with them in whatever ways he could. It is said that he wanted to find a way to do this, and what happened was a follows. (170)
Ibn Humayd - Salamah-Muhammad b. Ishaq - Yazid b. Ziyad al-Madani - Muhammad b. Ka'b al-Qurazi: When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:(171)

"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..."

and when he came to the words:

Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?

Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:

"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (172)

When Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque (173) likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer orunbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. Al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had hared, saying,"Muhammad has mentioned our goes in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval."

The news of the prostration reached those of the messenger of God's companions who were in Abyssinia and people said, "The Quraysh have accepted Islam." Some rose up to return, while others remained behind. Then Gabriel came to the Messenger of God and said, "Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God, and you have said that which was not said to you." Then the messenger of God was much grieved and feared God greatly, but God sent down a revelation to him, for He was merciful to him, consoling him and making the matter light for him, informing him that there had never been a prophet or a messenger before him who desired as he desired and wished as he wished but that Satan had cast words into his recitation, as he had cast words on Muhammad's tongue. Then God cancelled what Satan had thus cast, and established his verses by telling him that he was like other prophets and messengers, and revealed:

"Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you but that when he recited (the Message) Satan cast words into his recitation (umniyyah). God abrogates what Satan casts. The God established his verses. God is knower, wise. (174)

Thus God removed the sorrow from his messenger, reassured him about that which he had feared and cancelled the words which Satan had cast on his tongue, that their gods were the high flying cranes whose intercession was accepted with approval. He now revealed, following the mention of "al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other," the words:

"Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division! They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers."

to the words:

to whom he wills and accept (175)

This means, how can the intercession of their gods avail with God?

When Muhammad brought a revelation from God canceling what Satan had cast on the tongue of His prophet, the Quraysh said,"Muhammad has repented of what he said concerning the position of your gods with God, and has altered it and brought something else." Those two phrases which Satan had cast on the tongue of the Messenger of God were in the mouth of every polytheists, and they became even more ill-disposed and more violent in their persecution of those of them who had accepted Islam and followed the messenger of God.

Those of the companions of the messenger of God who had left Abyssinia upon hearing that Quraysh had accepted Islam by prostration themselves with the messenger of God now approached.When they were near Mecca, they heard that the report that the people of Mecca had accepted Islam was false. Not one of them entered Mecca without obtaining protection or entering secretly. Among those who came to Mecca and remained there until they emigrated to al-Madinah and were present with the prophet at Badr, were, from the Banu Abd Shams b. Abd Manaf b. Quasyy, Uthman b. Afafan b. Abi al-As b. Umayyah, accompanied by his wife Ruaqyyah the daughter of the messenger of God; Abu Hudhayfah b. Utbah b. Rabiah b. Abd Shames, accompanied by his wife Sahlah bt. Suhalyl; together with a number of others numbering thirty three men.

Al-Qasim b. Al-Hasan - al Husayn b. Daud - Hajja - Abu Mashar - Muhammad b. Kab al-Qurazi and Muhammad b. Qays: The messenger of God was sitting in a large gathering of Quraysh, wishing that day that no revelation would come to him from God which could cause them to turn away from him. Then God revealed:

"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived..."

and the Messenger of God recited it until he came to:

"Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?"

when Satan cast on his tongue two phrases:

"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is to be desired. (176)

He uttered them and went on to complete the surah. When he prostrated himself at the end of the surah, the whole company prostrated themselves with him. Al-Walid b. al-Mughirah raised some dust to his forehead and bowed over that, since he was a very old man and could not prostrate himself. They were satisfied with what Muhammad had uttered and said, "We recognize that it is God who gives life and death, who creates and who provides sustenance, but if these gods of ours intercede for us with him, and if you give them a share, we are with you."

That evening Gabriel came to him and reviewed the surah with him, and when he reached the two phrases which Satan had cast upon his tongue he said, "I did not bring you these two." Then the messenger of God said, "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to him words which He has not spoken." Then God revealed to him:

"And they indeed strove hard to beguile you away from what we have revealed to you, that you should invent other than it against us...

to the words:

"and then you would have found no helper against us" (177)

He remained grief stricken and anxious until the revelation of the verse:

"Never did we send a messenger or a prophet before you... to the words...God is knower, wise. (178)

When those who had emigrated to Abyssinia heard that all the people of Mecca had accepted Islam, they returned to their clans, saying,"They are more dear to us"; but they found that the people had reversed their decision when God cancelled what Satan had cast upon the messenger of God's tongue.

END OF QUOTES

FROM IBN ISHAQ'S "SIRAT RASULALLAH", translated as, "THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD" by A. Guillaume, page 165 - 167.

The third passage is chapter 17, called "The Night Journey", (Al Isra), verses 73 - 75:

"They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us."

All of these verses are mentioned in the biographical material. All of them were revealed in relation to Muhammad speaking Satan's words.

Note how Tabari records Muhammad's admittance of sin and repentance after Gabriel confronted him with his error. Afterwards, God supposedly comforts Muhammad with the verses from chapters 17 and 22. Ibn Sa'd records the same sequence of verses. After he admitted his sinful error, Muhammad was comforted by Gabriel. Who was this Gabriel?

AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR'S COMMENTARY (TAFSIR)

One of the greatest Islamic scholars who wrote a Tafsir was Zamakhshari. He commented on this event as well.Here is his writings, quoted from "The Quran and its Exegesis, by Helmut Gatje, pages 53 - 55, published by Oneworld, Oxford, England [10].

"The faithful rendering of the revelation Zamakhshari on Sura 22:52/51

We have never sent any messenger of prophet before thee, but that Satan cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God confirms His signs - surely God is All-knowing, All-wise.

.. The occasion of the sending down of the present verse is the following: As the members of the tribe of the messenger of God turned away from him and took their stand against him and his relatives also opposed him and refused to be guided by what he brought to them, then, as a result of the extreme exasperation concerning their estrangement and as a result of the eager desire and longing that they be converted to Islam, the messenger of God sheltered the wish that nothing would come down to him that could make them shy away. Perhaps he should have been able to use that for the purpose of converting them and causing them to be dissuaded from their error and obstinacy. Now this wish continued in him until the sura called "The Star" (that is, Sura 53) came down. At that time he found himself with this wish in his heart regarding the members of his tribe. Then he began to recite, and when he came to God's words "and Manat, the third, the other" (Sura 53:20), Satan substituted something in accordance with the wish which the messenger of God had sheltered, that is, he whispered something to him which would enable the messenger to announce his wish. In an inadvertent and misleading manner, his tongue hurried on ahead of him, so that he said: "These (goddesses are the) exalted cranes. Their intercession (with God) is to be hoped for."...Yet, the messenger of God was not clear at this point until the protection of God "isma" reached him and he then became attentive again. Some say that Gabriel drew his attention to it, or that Satan himself spoke those words and brought them to the people's hearing. As soon as the messenger of God prostrated (for prayer) as the end of the sura, all who were present did it with him and felt pleased (that is, the unbelievers felt pleased that their goddesses had been accepted as intercessors with God).


OTHER COMMENTS

A) It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. And these men were devout Muslim scholars. They spent their lives studying, analyzing, and writing about Muhammad and Islam. They were real Islamic scholars, unlike today's amateur "Islamic scholars" like Ahmed Deedat and Jamal Baidawi. Also, these sources provide chains of narration - isnaad, showing that the event is traceable to the earliest Muslims.

Regarding these early Islamic scholars, William Muir writes in "The Life of Muhammad" that:

"Pious Mussulmans of after days, scandalized at the lapse of their prophet into so flagrant a concession to idolatry, would reject the whole story. But the authorities are too strong to be impugned. It is hardly possible to conceive how the tale, if not founded in truth, could ever have been invented."

B) One of the terms Muhammad used to describe the pagan Goddesses - Manat, Uzza and al-Lat was "gharaniq" translated as "high flying cranes".

In "Muhammad and the Religion of Islam", by John Gilchrist, published by Jesus to the Muslims, page 118, Gilchrist writes: [11]

"The Arabic word "gharaniq" refers to certain cranes which fly at a great height. The pagan Meccans, impressed by the splendor of these birds, therefore described their goddesses by an analogous reference to them. When Muhammad quoted the very words used by the Meccans to exalt their goddesses, they said to one another "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in excellent fashion".

In the area there were cranes that flew at high altitudes. It was quite logical for Muhammad to thus describe the idols as "high flying", metaphorically flying in the heavens close to Allah - to act as intercessors.


CONCLUSIONS

The evidence proves that Muhammad spoke the Satanic verses. The four early biographers of Muhammad's life detail the story. Many traditions (Hadith) also establish it. There are references to it in the Sahih Hadith. Finally, there is specific references to it in the Quran. No one, with an open mind and honest heart, can doubt the event. It may make Muslims uncomfortable that Satan used their prophet, but in the least they should be forthright and honest about it and admit it to themselves. If they wish to follow a man who spoke Satan's words, that is their business.

One Christian writer addressing this question asked:

"Muslims today who simply dismiss the account of these writers as fabricated and unhistorical must at least answer the question why such reputable persons would fabricate it. The question is not new. But, it seems, a serious Muslim response is hard to find."

To this date, a serious Muslim response is still hard to find.


Unless you can point-by-point write a factual rebuttal to the article above (from Answering Islam), all your efforts to deny that satanic verses never existed in the Quran/ Islam are vanity indeed..!

As for your earlier claim that muslims never practised "what the Christians did" by not hiding their scriptures, thats another red herring bummer straw man.

Because, Not only did the muslims hide their differing scriptures/Qurans, the 3rd.caliph, Uthman himself ordered the return of all the different Qurans - in the possession of Ubay bin Kabb, Ali and also the other Sahabah - to be burnt and summarily destroyed.

Not just that! Muslims were going to WAR with each other because of their different Qurans. The Muslims in Iraq, Azerbaijan, Syam/Damascus/Syria were killing one another because of all the different versions of the Quran that were found in these different regions! So does not Islamic history itself teach you these facts, or you would prefer to cover them up and gloss over this mass destruction of the Quran, by Uthman!!?

Anyway, the facts of the matter are here:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Nehls/Ask/collect.html


BTW, The Text of the Bible is NOT of the same GENRE as your Quran's! So your accusations of so-called 'forgery' is really baseless and invalid. You Muslim dawagandists, missionaries and Christianaphobes expect the Bible to be a "'sacred book' that was dropped down onto a mans lap" directly from heaven! That description is the claim you make for al-Quran! Quran was just one man's testimony - Muhammad. It came just through 1 individual-him...!

Not so the Bible, it is more than 3 times the physical size of al-Quran, and came to us from more than 1,000 years of History. It was NOT COMPOSED or came through to us through just One individual (like Muhd). But many different individuals were involved in its composition. Yet, it has its own miraculous and wonderfully unified THEME. Unfortunately, one cannot say the SAME THING for al-Quran!

So, you are really trying to make the Bible to fit into YOUR narrow definition of sacred text. You are not comparing apples to apples, but bananas to dates, or peanuts to grapes, ya Ali! Try to use your head more widely next time.

Then you proceed to make all sorts of silly claims and bald accusations AGAINST the Bible. When you actually start from a platform that is totally inconsistent with the Genre of the Biblical Text. So, its really you, ya Ali, that has become totally IIRELEVANT in your approach..:tongue:

The Johannine Epistle paranthesis in 1 John, is not the only defining verse that documented the early Church's confession of the Triune God! Matthew's Gospel has one, and so do the other early Epistles that were penned by the other Apostles ("Hawariyun" in arabic) like here: Ephesians 1 & 6, 1 Corinthians 1, 1 Thessalonians 1, 1 Peter 1 & 5, Hebrews 13, Jude 1, John Chapter 1 etc.

So, in the early church, all the Apostles of Jesus Christ-His Hawarii, already acknolwleged the presence and existence of A TRIUNE GOD, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even BEFORE the documenting of the Gospels and the Epistles. Apostles John, Matthew, Jude, Paul and Peter ALL acknowledged this fact and later went on to write about this great truth in their Letters and Epistles.

Thats why I pointed to extra-iblical proofs that show and prove that the earliest Christians & followers of 'Isa all believed in Jesus' Divine nature, as exemplified by the Kerygma, the acrostics and the ICHTUS symbol that represented earliest Christian dogma and teachings.

Go and read up on these facts relating to the early church before jumping around and throwing all sorts of irrelevant and baseless accusations at the Christians here, Ali!

Get a more rounded and complete education before showing, again and again, your islamic missionary dawaganda & propoganda which is nothing more than Christianaphobism!

Rgds, Dan.

[Jacob-Smith]

I can also cut and paste very intersting debates for you to answer... So i will do that since you have not yet answered any of the questions ALI had asked at the beginning of this debate.... and quick to assume things.

Something the bible mentioned, something that never took place in christian history something that the muslims did accomplish... here it is:

The liberation of Mecca (Paran) by 10,000 Muslims in the Bible:

Let us look at the following Verse from the King James Version Bible: "And Enoch [Idris in Arabic, one of Allah Almighty's Prophets peace be upon all of them to the people of Israel.] also, the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15)"

Let us also look at the following Verse: "And he said, The LORD came from Si'-nai, and rose up from Se'-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa'-ran [Mecca in Arabic], and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (The King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)" According to Islam's history, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his followers faced hostility from the people of Mecca (Paran), they had to leave the city. They fled to the City of "Yathrib" which was called later "Madina" where Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him continued to spread Islam to all of the Arabs and then later to the countries near by.

(Click here) See Proof that "Paran" in the Bible is "Mecca".

When Islam became complete and the number of the Muslims grew up, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him decided to liberated the Holy City of Mecca, the city of our beloved father Abraham the father of Ishmael and Isaac peace be upon all of them who built the black cube building of Kaaba in the same city, the Holy House of GOD Almighty.

The army of the Muslims that conquered Mecca without any blood shed (peacefully) were exactly 10,000 men (From the book of "Muhammad the Prophet" by Maulana Muhammad Ali, pages 128-129). The Bible calls them "ten thousands of saints".

Also, the movie "The Message", which talks about the life of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, mentions that Mecca was liberated by 10,000 Muslim men.

As brother Abdul Haleem mentions below:

"Muhammad In World Scriptures," Volume I, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (New USA Edition, 1999), p. 73.

"Paran" is a biblical name for the part of Arabia called Hejaz where prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was born. When prophet Ishmael and his mother were driven out by Sarah; they settled in the "Wilderness of Paran" (Genesis, 21:21). Prophet Ishmael happens to be the progenitor of prophet Muhammad [pbuh]. . . ."Muhammad [pbuh] In the Bible," Mohd Elfi Nieshaem Juferi, http://members.xoox.com/_XMCM/lordxarkun/Islam/habakkuk.html.



Internet links that have references and proofs of the 10,000 Muslim men liberating the city of Mecca in the Islamic history:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3016/tenthousand.htm

http://www.alislam.org/library/history/chap13.htm

http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/prophets/biblemuh.htm

http://global.globale.net/~heritage/histoire/history03/history328.html (http://global.globale.net/%7Eheritage/histoire/history03/history328.html)

It's quite interesting to see how the Bible in both the Old Testament and the New Testament predicts this event to occur in the city of Paran (Mecca).



Two questions for Jews and Christians:

If the prophecies above from the Bible were not referring to our beloved Prophet peace be upon him and his army, then who else are they referring to?

Would you please bring me one Christian or Jewish event that took place in the Holy City of Paran (Mecca), or any city or event in the Bible that involved 10,000 Christian or Jewish saints? I searched and asked found nothing!

The Biblical number 10,000, and the Prophecy of the 10,000 men of GOD Almighty executing the Judgement of GOD in an ungodly place is only linked to Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

Embrace Islam and you will be saved!



Further from brother Haleem, a new convert to Islam; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:


Notes from me, Osama Abdallah, regarding using SONG OF SONG 5:10: As to using SONG OF SONGS 5:10 below to show that Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was foretold, the reason why I posted it is because the ENGLISH Bibles had been known to be NOTORIOUS in mistranslation [1] [2] [3].


Also please visit: Obvious mistranslations of the Hebrew Manuscripts. See proofs of alterations and deceptions done by the Jews and Christians to disprove Islam in the Bible.


I wanted to introduce the possibility that the book of Song of Songs was either:

1- Altered and much of the porn was added to it as the NIV Bible's theologians themselves clearly admit:

From www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm: (http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm:)

The book of Song of Songs:

"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"

"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"


2- The book was mistranslated from the original Hebrew, and GOD Almighty still preserved His Divine Revelations in it, if it was indeed GOD Almighty's True Revelations.


Because the bible is weird and corrupt, then it is only normal to see strange ways to seek out the Truth in it. I care about the Bible and I want to know the Truth from falsehood in it. That is why I decided to post this piece on my site, because SONG OF SONGS 5:10 below so strangely refers to "THE UNCLE", not the lover in the Hebrew letter. It is also weird to find the word "MUHAMMAD" in it as well.

So could it be possible that the whole letter could've been mistranslated? Or man's alterations had entered it, which explains why we have so much graphic porn in this book. Only time will tell.


Anyway, here is brother Abdul Haleem's article....

It is a well-established tradition, that:

The Prophet [pbuh] left Medina [for Mecca] in the company
of ten thousand in Ramadan.

Saheeh Bukhari, 5:574, emphasis added.

In both Old and New Testaments - despite the corrupted nature of the texts - the appearance of Muhammad with an army of 10,000 is prophesied. In Deuteronomy 33:2, the appearance of a prophet with "ten thousands of saints" is predicted by Moses:

And he said The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto
them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten
thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

Bible (King James Version), Deuteronomy 33:2, emphasis added.

That this reference is to the prophet Muhammad [pbuh] is unmistakable:

"Paran" is a biblical name for the part of Arabia called Hejaz
where prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was born. When prophet
Ishmael and his mother were driven out by Sarah; they settled
in the "Wilderness of Paran" (Genesis, 21:21). Prophet Ishmael
happens to be the progenitor of prophet Muhammad [pbuh]. . . .

"Muhammad [pbuh] In the Bible," Mohd Elfi Nieshaem Juferi, http://members.xoox.com/_XMCM/lordxarkun/Islam/habakkuk.html.


Not only the history of the Israelite prophets, but the
annals of the world point out but one person - that of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] as being the holy one accompanied
by ten thousand saints. . . .

"Muhammad In World Scriptures," Volume I, Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi (New USA Edition, 1999), p. 73, emphasis added.

In order to obscure this prophecy, the New Living Translation, Douay and some other English translations of the Bible, purposely mistranslate Deuteronomy 33:2, to eliminate all references to "ten thousand."

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi comments on this mistranslation as follows:

There is an important word ribeboth - which occurs in the text
which we have translated as ten thousands. This word has
occurred at many places in the books of the Prophets, and is derived
ribboth which means ten thousands. The dictionary A Hebrew
and English Lexicon by Gesenius and Brown has shown ribboth
to mean a myriad, ten thousands, and shte-ribboth to mean
twice ten thousand. Sometimes ribboth is used without the final
letter th with the same meaning. [see e.g. 1 Chronicles, 29:7; Ezra, 2:64;
Niemiah, 7:66, all using ribbo]

Id., at p. 74, emphasis in original, footnotes and Hebrew text omitted, footnote 97 partially reproduced in ellipses.

Significantly , in both the New Living Translation and Douay Bible, 1 Chronicles 29:7, which talks about offerings of "ten thousand darics gold" and "ten thousand talents of silver," the Hebrew number term that is not translated "ten thousand" in Deuteronomy 33:2 is translated as "ten thousand."

It also should be noted that the Revised Standard Bible, Websters Bible, World English Bible and New American Standard all include the number "ten thousand" in their translations of Deuteronomy 33:2.

Todays English Version attempts to obscure the prophecy contained in Deuteronomy 33:2 another way, by translating the Hebrew as saying "ten thousand angels," rather than "ten thousand saints."

Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi also has commented on this mistranslation:

The next important word in this regard is qodesh, which is now
being translated into angels. Its primary meaning is pure and holy and
is applied to every pure and holy thing, person or people or even to a place,
e.g. admath-qodesh, [Exodus 3:5] holy ground; meqom-ha-qodesh, [Leviticus,
10:7] holy place; am-ha-qodesh, [Daniel 12;7] holy people; har-qodeshi,
[Psalms 2;6] my holy hill.

Hence, me-ribeboth-qodesh, according to the dictionary and usage of the Bible means with then thousands of saints.

"Muhammad In World Scriptures," supra, at p. 74, emphasis in original, footnotes omitted, footnotes 98, 99, 100 and 101 reproduced in ellipses.

Here, again, most English translations of the Bible agree that the "ten thousand" are "saints" or "holy ones," not "angels." See e.g. Revised Standard Version ("holy ones"); Websters Bible ("saints"); New American Standard ("holy ones"); Douay ("saints").

The predictions of a Prophet appearing with a host of "ten thousand saints" are repeated in the New Testament.

In Jude 1:14-15, Jude writes of a then-unfulfilled prophecy by Enoch [Idris in the Arabic, see Quran, 19:56-57]:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from
Adam prophesied, saying, "See, the Lord came with ten thousands
of his saints, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of
all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed
in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Bible (The New Revised Standard Version), Jude 1:14-15, emphasis added.

This prophecy of Enoch clearly refers to the Holy Prophet [pbuh] for the following reasons:

1. Only the Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] had ten thousand
saints with him. We have shown elsewhere that these saints accompanied
the Prophet [pbuh] at the conquest of Makka.

2. The Holy Prophet [pbuh] executed judgment upon all the
unbelievers at the conquest of Makka and convinced ungodly Makkans
of their ungodly deeds.

3. The Christians kept waiting for the coming of the Lord
even after Christ had come, for this epistle of Jude was written long
after Christ and the Christians knew that it referred to come other
personage who, from the time of the Prophet Enoch up to the time
of Christ, had not appeared. The prophecy was therefore clearly for
the Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] and for none else.

"Muhammad In World Scriptures," supra, at p. 24.

Because of the clarity of this prophecy, many of the English translations of the Bible purposely obscure it, by omitting the number reference to "ten thousand" or by claiming that the prophet announced was accompanied by "angels" rather than "saints" or "holy ones." See New Living Testament, Todays English Version, Douay, and New American Standard.

However, the King James and New Revised Standard Version translate the passage in Jude 1:14 as referring to "ten thousands of his saints" (King James) or "ten thousands of his holy ones" (New Revised Standard).

An examination of the original Greek supports the latter interpretation:

The word translated "ten thousand" is murias, which in Greek usually means "ten thousand," though it may also mean "an innumerable multitude" or :innumerable hosts." Strongs Concordance, No. 3461.

The word mistranslated in Todays English Version as "angels" is hagios which means in Greek "most holy thing" or "saint," not "angel." Strongs Concordance, No. 40.

Once we get past the deliberate mistranslations of Deuteronomy 33:2 and Jude 1:14-15, we find that these prophecies not only refer unequivocally to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) , but that they are corroborative of the much-discussed prophecy in Song of Songs, 5:10-16.

According to the well-researched work of Mohd Elfi Nieshaem Juferi and Maulana Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, the original Hebrew version of Song of Songs 5:16, if correctly translated, predicts the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) by name:

His mouth is most: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my
(paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters
of Jerusalem.

"Muhammad [pbuh] In the Bible," supra, http://members.xoox.com_XMCM/lordxarkun/Islam/songs5_10-16.html, emphasis in original; see also "Muhammad In World Scriptures," supra, at pp. 100-111.

Significantly, in Song of Songs 5:10, this same prophet - expressly identified in the Hebrew as "Muhammad," is described as being "the chiefest among ten thousands" (ibid., emphasis added) (King James Version).

This reference to the "ten thousands" indicates that the Prophet referred to must be the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)!

uh, Dan was breaking the rules when he cut and pasted that whole article and used arguments by web link. Also he posted that over a YEAR Ago. I didnt notice it before because that was before I was moderator of this area and nobody reported it. Anyway, I must also edit out your cut and pastes for the same reason. I assumed everythign you posted after your admission to do a cut and paste job was exactly that, so I appologize if I accidentally got anything original.

[The Creep]

Ali

Don't look for fairness from Christians. They killed their fore fathers and they will kill you.

Allah ak Bar and rock on,

The Creep

[Christian2]

Did I write that Trinity is barrowed from Quran, are you nutts!

Ali

A more accurate statement is that the Qur'an borrowed the concept of the Trinity from the Bible.

PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

In this verse, you see that God has a personality – "messenger of Allah"
He also has a word – "and His word"
He also has a spirit – "and a spirit from Him"

This is the creed of the Trinity and what Christians believe. It does not proclaim three gods, but it proclaims that there is One God and no God but Him.

Take a look at this verse in the Qur'an:

PICKTHAL: (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). Sura 3:45

Again God has a Word.

Also take a look at this verse in the Qur'an:

Sura al-Ma'ida 5:110, "Allah said to Jesus, 'Jesus, son of Mary, remember the favour I had bestowed on you and your mother, how I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you preached to men in your cradle and in the prime of manhood."

Here the Holy Spirit of God is active and proceeding from God: "I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit."

Quote from: the theological scholar Al-Shaikh Muhammad al- Hariri al-Bayyumi who said, "The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Allah (Kitab al-Ruh wa Maiyyyatuha).

What do we have here? God, God's Word and God's Holy Spirit. Not three Gods, but One God. Basically that is the concept of the Holy Trinity.

Shalom

[Christian2]

Jacob-Smith,

If the prophecies above from the Bible were not referring to our beloved Prophet peace be upon him and his army, then who else are they referring to?

The army of the Muslims that conquered Mecca without any blood shed (peacefully) were exactly 10,000 men (From the book of "Muhammad the Prophet" by Maulana Muhammad Ali, pages 128-129). The Bible calls them "ten thousands of saints".

I am going to use the Tanakh that English-speaking Jews would use. The English translation is from the ancient Hebrew. This is Deuteronomy 33:2 from the Tanakh:

"He said: The LORD came from Sinai; He appeared from Mount Paran, and Approached from Ribeboth-kodesh, Lightning flashing at them from His right."

Notice that there is no mention of 10,000 anything—angels, saints, or men. Notice also that it says that the LORD came from Sinai, not a man.

An interpretation of Deuteronomy 33:2 translated from the Greek is this:

2 And he said: “The LORD came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came with ten thousands of saints; From His right hand Came a fiery law for them. (NKJV)

Notice again that it is the LORD who came from Sinai and not a man.

2He said, "The Lord came from Mount Sinai. Like the rising sun, he shone on his people from Mount Seir. He shone on them from Mount Paran. He came with large numbers of angels. He came from his mountain slopes in the south. (New International Reader's Version)

Commentary on the 10,000 angels or saints:

"And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousand of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."

Muhammad (SAS) was at the head of ten thousand followers at the time of the conquest of Mecca.

Sadly we see here a common Muslim way of corrupting the scriptures where it fits their agenda: The text isn't as quoted above, but it says "...with ten thousands of saints" (meaning the angels). Likely this is poetic hyperbole (while common in semitic culture) and not to be understood literally. Nevertheless, if you do insist to take it literally, then observe that it says "ten thousands" not "ten thousand", i.e. it is in the plural and hence it has to be at least 2 x 10,000 and so it is not fulfilled by Muhammad. He came up short by at least 50% problably more.

Furthermore, it is not a man who comes, but the LORD, and it is the name of God that is used here, YaHWeH. This is like taking a passage in the Qur'an that speaks about Allah and applying it to Muhammad or any other human being.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/deut33-2.html

Why would you base your argument that it was Muhammad from the KJV and not from the Hebrew Tanakh?

Jude 1:14-15 does not refer back to Deut 33:2.

Where is Paran or the Wilderness of Paran. We must find out by using an ancient map. You will find one here:

http://www.bible.ca/maps/maps-the-exodus.htm

The Wilderness of Paran is where Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael and it is not Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

(The Wilderness of) Paran: Paran is the area where Israel camped after leaving Sinai on their way to Canaan (Num.10:12; 12:16); the spies were sent into Canaan from there (Num.13:3,26); David went there after the death of Samuel (I Sam.25:1); and when Hadad the Edomite revolted against Solomon, he stopped there on his way to Egypt (I Kings 11:18). All of these clearly show that Paran could not be as far south as Mecca.

PARAN: A WILDERNESS SITUATED IN THE EASTERN CENTRAL REGION OF THE SINAI PENINSULA, north-east from the traditional Sinai and south-south-east of Kadesh, with the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqabah as its eastern border. It was to this wilderness that Hagar and Ishmael went after their expulsion from Abraham's household (Genesis 21:21). It was crossed by the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt (Numbers 10:12; 12:16), and from here Moses dispatched men to spy out the land of Canaan (Numbers 13:3, 26). The wilderness was also traversed by Hadad the Edomite on his flight to Egypt (1 Kings 11:18).

Song of Songs 5:10

Let's look again at the Tanakh and see what it says:

"How sweet is your love, My own, my bride! How much more delightful your love than wine, Your ointments more fragrant Than any spice!"

Where do you see "THE UNCLE"? Where do you find the word "MUHAMMAD" in this verse?

Please see this article about Muhammad's name being in the Song of Songs:

http://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/songs5-16.html

Clips:

Some refer chapter 5:16, of the Song of Songs, to Muhammad, simply because in the Hebrew the word mahamaddim, "delights," "delightfulnesses," occurs there, and is derived from the same root ([1], [2])

But we find that the word in Hebrew is a common, and not a proper noun (i.e. not a name), as the use of the plural here shows.

The same word occurs again as a common noun in Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25. In the last passage (Ezekiel 24:16, "the desire of thine eyes") it is applied to a woman, Ezekiel's wife (compare verse 18), and to the sons and daughters of the idolatrous Jews (verse 25). It would be just as wise to apply the word to Muhammad HERE as in the Song of Songs.

Song of Songs 5:16 shyr hshyrym 5,16

his mouth is sweets Hkw mmtqym
and all of him is delights wklw mHmdym
this is my love zh dwdy
and this is my darling wzh r`y
daughters of Jerusalem bnwt yrwshlm

Song of Songs 5:16 is no more a reference to Muhammad than it is to
Mumattaq or to David. Finding the name of Muhammad is child's play.

Because Arabic and Hebrew share a cognate word [Hmd], there are of
course several other similar occurrences in the Hebrew scriptures.

The New Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew & English Dictionary lists...

Hmd (yHmwd) p covet, lust after
Hmd z delight, loviness
Hmdh n desire, object of desire
Hmdnwt covetousness, lustfulness

******

My advice to you is to stop reading Osama Abdallah. He is leading you astray. If you do not believe me and what I have presented in this post then I suggest that you ask the Jews on this site in the Judaism section of TWEB for their opinion.

Shalom

[Jacob-Smith]

If the source above is so accurate... if jews really knew so much about what is right and what is wrong... and if christianity was really as accurate as what everyone made it seem based on the replies on this topic. Why is it that they tortured Jesus? and why is it that you believe Jesus is god? when you mentioned that God is One!!! Did man make this world? Did man make seeds? Did man make the mountain? Did man started this circle of what we call human race? Why would you sit there and claim that you are right based on ur source and believe it so throughly and yet everything you read almost every article presented to you people in this page was false from the muslims! nothing was acceptable why? because even when Jesus came to this world and said he is the Messiah! the jews did not accept him why because of ignorance... why because they fail to understand the truth they didn't want to know the truth because they were scared of lossing what they admire the most!!! They couldn't see a change in their world... So Jesus was tortured because of our sins? look! I dont blame no one here for supporting their own sides and staying strong with what they believe... but if you think about it man kind never existed until god said "BE" to adam! if there was a son of god then it would have been ADAM < the first man created... God wishes to be known as one! the master, the beneficient! the most merciful! His whole purpose of this world was to be known! Jesus was a prophet < Even mormons believe that but they are looked down upon because they believe a new prophet had come which according to all religion is false. But why? why do they believe Jesus is a prophet? The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do- destroy evil and all their enemies, in this case the Romans, and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 described a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus on those prophecies that discussed His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus' right and left in His Kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out "Hosanna, save us" when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people quit believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note: Moses never spoke of any gods son coming to this world for some sort of fellowship he spoke of a prophet... note that the jews believe that the messiah would come and deliever them from roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers... but that didn't happen so they rejected him because what they wished for their enemies ill being never took place.... they rejected him because he did not deliver what they had in mind... Yet, Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the quran! indeed today the number of jews believing in christ is increasing without a doubt.

All this mixed together is soup!!! those who read the above that believe it will like what is said those who are against Islam will dislike it. In all reality... the whole idea here is why would Jews treat him as a messiah and then reject him? and christians on the other hand accept him as Gods son! I know that you guys are going to give me very good explainations and use a lot of words from the bible and very strong facts from other sources... but this question can never be answered not for me... christianity came about 60-100 years after Jesus's death

How accurate is it? plus we all know about the burning of the bible that took place in history! I am sure you all read this topic from page 1 to learn more about it... I am not going to elaborate on this but why did it happen i have no idea?
My whole point is this world is a test for mankind with how we live our lives and how we praise God! not a world where a god would watch his own child get crucified not at all... God has no childrens! nothing... the sources you mentioned up above are as blurry and murky as the facts on who jesus really was? Jews believed he was the prophet, the messiah, Muslims believe he is the prophet... Moses did mention a prophet will come from amongst the brothers of the Isrealites!

Abraham had two sons! Isaac and Ishmail ... The arabs are descendants of Ishmail and Jews are from Isaac... now linking the prophets...

Moses a descendant of Isaac! stated that there will be a prophet one day from amongst the brothers of Isrealities (note brothers) who will look very similar to Moses. Now who are the brothers of Isrealities, they are those from the ishmailies... Prophet Muhammod is a descendant of Ishmail... Who introduced Islam to the world a messenger of Allah... Note also that he did not rule the world as a king nor did he live a rich life he walked around in the desserts with a long stick as his kane and lived in a house where he would sit on the ground and treat his guests. Prophet Muhammod introduced the Quran which stated who jesus was and his true identity adn his return to this world to unite the believers... If you look at Islam, I'm still wondering how there is no religion after Islam? No Prophet like Prophet Muhammod to come to this world after Islam was complete... Becuase Islam was the complete religion? Moses died after fullfilling his duty, prophet muhammod also died after fullfilling his duty they led the same life! As for jesus he was lifted up to the skies for a reason! he was rejected by those who once called him the Messiah the prophet! and his work was left half way. It is here that those who believe with an open mind will accomplish some sense of what the truth is and those who disbelief that will hold their guard up and put up a fight for the sake of the positions they value in their life. This is why jesus will return to clear up the fog in our minds and open up our brains to what is reality?

[Christian2]

If the source above is so accurate... if jews really knew so much about what is right and what is wrong... and if christianity was really as accurate as what everyone made it seem based on the replies on this topic. Why is it that they tortured Jesus? and why is it that you believe Jesus is god? when you mentioned that God is One!!! Did man make this world? Did man make seeds? Did man make the mountain? Did man started this circle of what we call human race? Why would you sit there and claim that you are right based on ur source and believe it so throughly and yet everything you read almost every article presented to you people in this page was false from the muslims! nothing was acceptable why? because even when Jesus came to this world and said he is the Messiah! the jews did not accept him why because of ignorance... why because they fail to understand the truth they didn't want to know the truth because they were scared of lossing what they admire the most!!! They couldn't see a change in their world... So Jesus was tortured because of our sins? look! I dont blame no one here for supporting their own sides and staying strong with what they believe... but if you think about it man kind never existed until god said "BE" to adam! if there was a son of god then it would have been ADAM < the first man created... God wishes to be known as one! the master, the beneficient! the most merciful! His whole purpose of this world was to be known! Jesus was a prophet < Even mormons believe that but they are looked down upon because they believe a new prophet had come which according to all religion is false. But why? why do they believe Jesus is a prophet? The Jews rejected Jesus because He failed, in their eyes, to do what they expected their Messiah to do- destroy evil and all their enemies, in this case the Romans, and establish an eternal kingdom with Israel as the preeminent nation in the world. The prophecies in Isaiah and Psalm 22 described a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but they chose to focus on those prophecies that discussed His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

The Jews believed that the Messiah, the prophet which Moses spoke about, would come and deliver them from Roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers. Two of the disciples, James and John, even asked to sit at Jesus' right and left in His Kingdom when He came into His glory. The people of Jerusalem also thought He would deliver them. They shouted praises to God for the mighty works they had seen Jesus do, and called out "Hosanna, save us" when he rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:9). They treated Him like a conquering king. Then when He allowed Himself to be arrested, tried and crucified on a cursed cross, the people quit believing that He was the promised prophet. They rejected their Messiah (Matthew 27:22).

Note: Moses never spoke of any gods son coming to this world for some sort of fellowship he spoke of a prophet... note that the jews believe that the messiah would come and deliever them from roman bondage and set up a kingdom where they would be the rulers... but that didn't happen so they rejected him because what they wished for their enemies ill being never took place.... they rejected him because he did not deliver what they had in mind... Yet, Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the quran! indeed today the number of jews believing in christ is increasing without a doubt.

All this mixed together is soup!!! those who read the above that believe it will like what is said those who are against Islam will dislike it. In all reality... the whole idea here is why would Jews treat him as a messiah and then reject him? and christians on the other hand accept him as Gods son! I know that you guys are going to give me very good explainations and use a lot of words from the bible and very strong facts from other sources... but this question can never be answered not for me... christianity came about 60-100 years after Jesus's death

How accurate is it? plus we all know about the burning of the bible that took place in history! I am sure you all read this topic from page 1 to learn more about it... I am not going to elaborate on this but why did it happen i have no idea?
My whole point is this world is a test for mankind with how we live our lives and how we praise God! not a world where a god would watch his own child get crucified not at all... God has no childrens! nothing... the sources you mentioned up above are as blurry and murky as the facts on who jesus really was? Jews believed he was the prophet, the messiah, Muslims believe he is the prophet... Moses did mention a prophet will come from amongst the brothers of the Isrealites!

Abraham had two sons! Isaac and Ishmail ... The arabs are descendants of Ishmail and Jews are from Isaac... now linking the prophets...

Moses a descendant of Isaac! stated that there will be a prophet one day from amongst the brothers of Isrealities (note brothers) who will look very similar to Moses. Now who are the brothers of Isrealities, they are those from the ishmailies... Prophet Muhammod is a descendant of Ishmail... Who introduced Islam to the world a messenger of Allah... Note also that he did not rule the world as a king nor did he live a rich life he walked around in the desserts with a long stick as his kane and lived in a house where he would sit on the ground and treat his guests. Prophet Muhammod introduced the Quran which stated who jesus was and his true identity adn his return to this world to unite the believers... If you look at Islam, I'm still wondering how there is no religion after Islam? No Prophet like Prophet Muhammod to come to this world after Islam was complete... Becuase Islam was the complete religion? Moses died after fullfilling his duty, prophet muhammod also died after fullfilling his duty they led the same life! As for jesus he was lifted up to the skies for a reason! he was rejected by those who once called him the Messiah the prophet! and his work was left half way. It is here that those who believe with an open mind will accomplish some sense of what the truth is and those who disbelief that will hold their guard up and put up a fight for the sake of the positions they value in their life. This is why jesus will return to clear up the fog in our minds and open up our brains to what is reality?


Jacob-Smith,

What post are you responding to? If mine, then you are off-topic. Please respond to what I posted about Muhammad being foretold in the Bible in the noted relevant scriptures.

After you have, I will address the off-topic points you are trying to make above.

Thanks.

[Christian2]

Jacob-Smith,

This particular sentence of yours is on topic which is "Is Muhammad foretold in the Bible?" By your comments below you seem to think that it was Muhammad that Moses refers to in Deuteronomy 18.18:

18 "I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him."

Abraham had two sons! Isaac and Ishmail ... The arabs are descendants of Ishmail and Jews are from Isaac... now linking the prophets...

Moses a descendant of Isaac! stated that there will be a prophet one day from amongst the brothers of Isrealities (note brothers) who will look very similar to Moses. Now who are the brothers of Isrealities, they are those from the ishmailies... Prophet Muhammod is a descendant of Ishmail...

Let's look at Deuteronomy in context:

1 “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His portion. 2 Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as He said to them.

3 “And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it is bull or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach. 4 The firstfruits of your grain and your new wine and your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. 5 For the LORD your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons forever.

6 “So if a Levite comes from any of your gates, from where he dwells among all Israel, and comes with all the desire of his mind to the place which the LORD chooses, 7 then he may serve in the name of the LORD his God as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the LORD. 8 They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what comes from the sale of his inheritance.

9 “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.

15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

17 “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Who are the "brethren"? In verse 1 you will see the Levites—all the tribe of Levi – are excluded—the prophet like Moses would not come from that tribe, but Israel had 12 tribes. The rest of the tribes are brothers or brethern from which the prophet like Moses would come. It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow that Deuteronomy 18.18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi and the remaining tribes of Israel.

It is Jesus Christ who is the prophet like Moses. Jesus said that Moses spoke of Him. Where but in Deut. 18? Jesus' disciples said that Jesus was this promised prophet like Moses.

Take a look at this verse:

"But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel." Judges 20.13

Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18.18, therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of the tribe of Levi. Again in Numbers 8.26 the tribe of Levi is commanded to minister to "their brethren", that is, the remaining tribes of Israel. In 2 Kings 24.12 the tribe of Judah is distinguished from "their brethren", once again the remaining tribes of Israel. (Further scriptures proving the point are Judges 21.22, 2 Samuel 2.26, 2 Kings 23.9, 1 Chronicles 12.32, 2 Chronicles 28.15, Nehemiah 5.1 and others).

In Deuteronomy 17.15 we read that Moses on one occasion said to the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one from among your brethren" - no foreigner, be he Ishmaelite, Edomite or whoever he may be, could be made King of Israel because he was not one of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel.

Muhammad was an Ishmaelite and accordingly is automatically disqualified from being the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse. The prophet was obviously to come from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. Jesus was descended from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1.2, Hebrews 7.14). He is therefore ably qualified to be the prophet who would be raised up from among the brethren of the Levites.

The bible also refers to Ishmael's brethren.

Genesis 25: 12 Now this is the genealogy of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore to Abraham. 13 And these were the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. 16 These were the sons of Ishmael and these were their names, by their towns and their settlements, twelve princes according to their nations. 17 These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people. 18 (They dwelt from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt as you go toward Assyria.) He died in the presence of all his brethren.

In addition to all of the above, Jesus was uniquely like Moses whereas Muhammad was not.

Shalom

[Jacob-Smith]

Jacob-Smith,

This particular sentence of yours is on topic which is "Is Muhammad foretold in the Bible?" By your comments below you seem to think that it was Muhammad that Moses refers to in Deuteronomy 18.18:

18 "I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him."



Let's look at Deuteronomy in context:

1 “The priests, the Levites—all the tribe of Levi—shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and His portion. 2 Therefore they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; the LORD is their inheritance, as He said to them.

3 “And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from those who offer a sacrifice, whether it is bull or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach. 4 The firstfruits of your grain and your new wine and your oil, and the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. 5 For the LORD your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons forever.

6 “So if a Levite comes from any of your gates, from where he dwells among all Israel, and comes with all the desire of his mind to the place which the LORD chooses, 7 then he may serve in the name of the LORD his God as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the LORD. 8 They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what comes from the sale of his inheritance.

9 “When you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you.

15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

17 “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. 20 But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Who are the "brethren"? In verse 1 you will see the Levites—all the tribe of Levi – are excluded—the prophet like Moses would not come from that tribe, but Israel had 12 tribes. The rest of the tribes are brothers or brethern from which the prophet like Moses would come. It is abundantly clear from these two verses that "they" refers to the tribe of Levi and that "their brethren" refers to the remaining eleven tribes of Israel. This is an inescapable fact. No honest method of interpretation or consistent method of exposition can possibly allow that Deuteronomy 18.18 refers to anyone else than the tribe of Levi and the remaining tribes of Israel.

It is Jesus Christ who is the prophet like Moses. Jesus said that Moses spoke of Him. Where but in Deut. 18? Jesus' disciples said that Jesus was this promised prophet like Moses.

Take a look at this verse:

"But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel." Judges 20.13

Here "their brethren" is specifically stated to be the other tribes of Israel as distinct from the tribe of Benjamin. In Deuteronomy 18.18, therefore, "their brethren" clearly means the brethren in Israel of the tribe of Levi. Again in Numbers 8.26 the tribe of Levi is commanded to minister to "their brethren", that is, the remaining tribes of Israel. In 2 Kings 24.12 the tribe of Judah is distinguished from "their brethren", once again the remaining tribes of Israel. (Further scriptures proving the point are Judges 21.22, 2 Samuel 2.26, 2 Kings 23.9, 1 Chronicles 12.32, 2 Chronicles 28.15, Nehemiah 5.1 and others).

In Deuteronomy 17.15 we read that Moses on one occasion said to the Israelites "One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother". Only an Israelite could be appointed king of Israel - "one from among your brethren" - no foreigner, be he Ishmaelite, Edomite or whoever he may be, could be made King of Israel because he was not one of "their brethren", that is, a member of one of the tribes of Israel.

Muhammad was an Ishmaelite and accordingly is automatically disqualified from being the prophet whose coming was foretold in that verse. The prophet was obviously to come from one of the tribes of Israel other than the tribe of Levi. Jesus was descended from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1.2, Hebrews 7.14). He is therefore ably qualified to be the prophet who would be raised up from among the brethren of the Levites.

The bible also refers to Ishmael's brethren.

Genesis 25: 12 Now this is the genealogy of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore to Abraham. 13 And these were the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadar, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. 16 These were the sons of Ishmael and these were their names, by their towns and their settlements, twelve princes according to their nations. 17 These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; and he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people. 18 (They dwelt from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt as you go toward Assyria.) He died in the presence of all his brethren.

In addition to all of the above, Jesus was uniquely like Moses whereas Muhammad was not.

Shalom



Thank you! So Jesus is the PROPHET! not the son of GOD!


THat helped..

[Jacob-Smith]

Isaac and Ishamil are brothers! Whether ur from the isreali tribe or an arab you are after all related to these two brothers!

[Christian2]

Thank you! So Jesus is the PROPHET! not the son of GOD!


THat helped..

Jesus is a prophet, the Messiah, the son of God and the Son of God.

[Christian2]

Isaac and Ishamil are brothers! Whether ur from the isreali tribe or an arab you are after all related to these two brothers!

Isaac and Ishmael are half brothers. The scripture is quite clear. The "brethern" spoken of in them are the brethern of the remaining tribes. Why would you elminiate them as a possibility for this coming prophet and insist that this prophet would be Muhammad? As I said, Jesus is uniquely like Moses whereas Muhammad is not.

[Jacob-Smith]

Jesus is a prophet, the Messiah, the son of God and the Son of God.

So you believe he is a prophet, a messiah, the son of god, and the son of god?

[Christian2]

So you believe he is a prophet, a messiah, the son of god, and the son of god?

Yes. I would correct "a" messiah with "the" messiah-- "son of god" and "son of man" are other titles for the Messiah. The Jews were looking for the Messiah to come and the prophet like Moses to come. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and the prophet like Moses.

[A.AngelAnthony]

islam was better off without Mohammed, the later part of the Quran
is bad they need to turn away from it. When supposedly a follower of Mohammed wrote in the Quran and that person perversed the Quran.