the point of me posting this one, is , I came across something very strange.
the whole Quran is modified, by it's meaning, a lot of people here did efforts, and maybe they're in 50% of understanding the quran, but the major most important things that are related directly to the world order and to the highest enemies of humanity are not understood at all, way from understood. and it is really strange, I am gonna make a test and see whet people thing , and I will post all the meanings of the words of the quran that I came across, it's like the quran of the white house.
Isa is not jesus , and that is what some people agree upon, and some people don't, but this is not the point
the point is, the crucifiction was not mentioned in the quran at all, and Salabouh is not the crucifiction, but make him soluble with fire
it comes from YAssla Naran, meaning burn in fire
Isa son of Miriam had an affair against Zorostariens, They worshiped the trinity, ALLAT MANAT and UZA , and they worshiped fire, and whomever disagree with them, they sacrify him in fire
therefore Aslibana , or noulibanakum, is Burn you and not crucify you.
The crucifiction was never mentioned in the quran, so the quran is older that the new testament books
remember, no one knows the history or what happened before the 18th century, the time the frensh and british colonised the muslim world.
Interesting. Would need more evidence though but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a coverup of the truth. Those in power and authority lie to subjugate people and keep them busy while they do what they got to do to take over the world.
PEACE
Quote from: Prince on March 18, 2011, 10:57:58 AM
Interesting. Would need more evidence though but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a coverup of the truth. Those in power and authority lie to subjugate people and keep them busy while they do what they got to do to take over the world.
PEACE
The whole point is SIHR , as magic, the whole arabic language is regulated by KABALISTS illuminati
the language of arabic is read backward, and no matter how much efforts , no one will ever know the true meaning of the quran, and all the words and the meanings of the quran are right in front of our eyes, and yet, no one can see them.
I never believed in magic, and SIHR in my life, and I read an article of Ayman, abiut magic, and it is a nice article, but he was wrong, close to the truth but wrong
the secret is in the story of Moses, if we nderstand the story of Moses, we will understand what happened to the arabic language and the quran.
remember, AASSA is not a rod, Hayya or thouabane is not a serpent is not a serpent, Tasaa is not walk .
and it's exactly a story about illuminati cabalists.
the key is , the hibale are cables , the throw their cabales and he throw his Aasa and he won against cables.
what happend when Moses came, is axactly what is happening to us and the quran.
the arabic language is mentionned in a male gender, yet in every language, even arabic language is called in a feminine, LOUGHA .
backward,
the word Kana , in the arabic lougha = was in the past, and in the LISSAN ARABI it is the future, also backward.
the quran , we read it backward
Al Aarab are not a race, but people who play with the arabic tongue, as they put regulations called iirab. mostly they are arab christians and specially in the time of the british and the frensh colonies.
the Hadiths are magic. every hadith is calculated, the way it is said, and the way u read it, there is an enchantement in the words, satanic play on the subconciaous of people, so people who are defending hadiths very hard, are people enchanted only, it is not really their fault.
there is a hidden war between the west ( kabalists ) and the rest of the world, arabs are a priority to be destryed, what is happening now, will get worse, and they're the ones provoking the CHAOS, it is a prophecy for them, their belief.
truth will soon be shown to the world, and humanity will realise that no one knows what happend before the 18th century.
I'll give you a hint, the british family, was very primitive before te 18th century, and now, they imitate prophet mohamed in his way of life, the do even the game of hunting like he use to do. they dress like him and try to be eloquent like him, while they gave us a version of him as a desert person, while the charms in the hadiths, so Sidra became a lote tree so we keep thinking he was from the desert, when we all know the Cidra = Ceader.
every scholar muslim translate it a lote tree, and can never see it, because of the enchantement magic ^played on the world. the whole world is in darkness and they don't know it. the only countries that are rising are north africans, and they want to destroy them. the history of europe during and before the 18th century is a stolen history, it is the muslim world history and all pseudo discoveries of the 18th century and early 19th century, were only transfer of technology from the muslim world to europe and weren't inventions of ruropeens at all.
exemple, even theories, read the theory of evolution of charles darwin, and read th e theory of evelution of Ibn Khaldoun, 2 or 300 years before that, and you see copy/ past of that theory, Darwin didn't do any research and Lamakk didn't do any research, they were fighting between them, frensh and british to claim the muslim technology as their discoveries, and they made a compromises, so the frensh invented some, and the british some, while in reality, it was all robed from muslims, while they throw muslims in ignorance by persecuting them , after a few generations, muslims don't know nothing of their past because of ignorance, all cities from north africa before the 18th century were erased, as if muslims didn't build a single house before the frensh colonised everyone.
The first and most obvious proof that the "Isa" mentioned in the Quran is not "Jesus" is in the etymology. These are clearly two distinct Syriac names (or "Hebrew" as the world call it). The blind and brainwashed Muslims think that "Isa" is the Arabic version of "Yeshu" (Jesus). This is what they have been taught since childhood.
The truth is that the name "Isa" (عيسى) is actually the Arabic version of the Syriac name "Esau" (عيسو). Since the letter ى does not exist in the Syriac language, it is replaced by و. This is a very well known Syriac name (or "Hebrew" as the world calls it). The Torah mentions another person by the name of Esau (Isa): One of the two twins of Isaac. In Israel today, the name Esau is also widely knonw. In Arabic, it is "Isa".
The name Jesus, on the other hand, is Yehoshua or Yeshu, a completely different Syriac name. In Arabic, ir is pronounced Yassoo' (يسوع).
The Isa mentioned in the Quran lived shortly after Moses' time, many centuries before Jesus.
Hope that clears the confusion.
Quote from: Pazuzu on March 20, 2011, 05:37:45 PM
The first and most obvious proof that the "Isa" mentioned in the Quran is not "Jesus" is in the etymology. These are clearly two distinct Syriac names (or "Hebrew" as the world call it). The blind and brainwashed Muslims think that "Isa" is the Arabic version of "Yeshu" (Jesus). This is what they have been taught since childhood.
The truth is that the name "Isa" (عيسى) is actually the Arabic version of the Syriac name "Esau" (عيسو). Since the letter ى does not exist in the Syriac language, it is replaced by و. This is a very well known Syriac name (or "Hebrew" as the world calls it). The Torah mentions another person by the name of Esau (Isa): One of the two twins of Isaac. In Israel today, the name Esau is also widely knonw. In Arabic, it is "Isa".
The name Jesus, on the other hand, is Yehoshua or Yeshu, a completely different Syriac name. In Arabic, ir is pronounced Yassoo' (يسوع).
The Isa mentioned in the Quran lived shortly after Moses' time, many centuries before Jesus.
Hope that clears the confusion.
Selam Pazuru
I have one problem with this. The two stories of Isa in the Quran and Esau in the Old testament do not match. Is there something I missed?
Jacob and Esau
The struggle between Jacob and Esau began right from their conception and birth:
"And Isaac entreated The Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and The Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of The Lord. And The Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them." (Genesis 25:21-26 KJV)
Although (fraternal) twins, Jacob and Esau were very different in appearance and personality i.e. Esau was a "hairy man" while Jacob was a "smooth man" (Genesis 27:11 KJV). They were also each a favorite of one parent, a sure formula for trouble.
"And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob." (Genesis 25:27-28)
Then came the day that Esau foolishly sold his birthright to Jacob for that now-infamous pottage:
"And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright." (Genesis 25:29-34 KJV)
By means of a deceptive scheme set up by Rebekah, Jacob next managed to get Esau's blessing from the nearly-blind Isaac, then completing the transfer of the rights of the firstborn from Esau to Jacob (Genesis 27:1-40). Esau's response was a plan to kill Jacob, which was prevented when Rebekah heard of it and sent Jacob away to live with her brother Laban. (see Jacob and Laban).
Esau's family tensions continued with his marriages:
"And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife." (Genesis 28:8-9 KJV)
The reconciliation between Jacob and Esau occurred 30 year later upon Jacob's return to the land that God intended for Israel and his descendants (Genesis chapters 33 and 34). About 20 years later, when their father Isaac died, the two brothers buried him in Hebron. That may have been the last that Jacob and Esau ever saw of each other.
"And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him" (Genesis 35:29 KJV)
Esau then left the God-commanded land of Israel and established himself as a powerful nation in the land of Edom (Genesis 36:1-43).
Peace
Dear hope4
You didn't miss anything.
I was simply pointing out to you the fact that "Esau" ("Isa" in Arabic), is a well-known Syriac name. Of course the Esau mentioned in the OT is not the same Esau of the Quran. They just happen to have the same name. The Quran tells us that the son of Maryam was named Esau also. This Maryam was of the house of Amran, and she lived during the time of Moses.
The story of the twin sons of Isaac is actually an allegory (or metaphor) about the struggle, inside each male, between uninhibited, free sexuality and being monogamous and having responsibility towards one wife (kind of like the family man vs. the womanizer). This is why Yaqoob is shown to be grabbing onto his twin's heel even while they were in the womb).
Isaac had always shown favoritism towards Esau, because he considered Esau to be the true image of masculinity (reddish face and lots of hair).Wild, strong, and uninhibited (and a good hunter). Yaqoob, on the other hand, was a more "gentle" kind of man. The fact that Isaac's wife played a trick on her blind and ailing husband, is a metaphorical story which shows how the female, in the end, favors the "family man" type over the "wild and promiscuous" type.
Selam Pazuzu
Thanks for the explenation, very enlightening. Would you say however, the Jesus in the bible to be the Isa in the Quran?
Peace
Quran clearly says that Messiah accepted as son of God by Christians. (9:30)
So, is there any opposite reason for assuming that the one called "Jesus" by Christians and "Isa Mesih" in Quran are same persons?
Quote from: exodus on May 20, 2011, 06:39:27 PM
Quran clearly says that Messiah accepted as son of God by Christians. (9:30)
So, is there any opposite reason for assuming that the one called "Jesus" by Christians and "Isa Mesih" in Quran are same persons?
Look it up in the Codex Siniticus, it is exactly the same person...
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=17&zoomSlider=0
1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ ┬Greek Transliteration Translation
Ἀρχὴ archē beginning
τοῦ tou of the
εὐαγγελίου euangeliou Injeel/gospel
Ἰησου iēsou Isa/Jesus
Peace
Salaam,
I did a simple experiment with a verse of the Qur'an to see what a pure lexicon translation of just one verse would show, if you consider that the Qur'an has no historical references as that would require external information and this is a complete guide you need no other book, so it can contain no names of any person directly. It is a book for all time, so historical translations must by that logic be corruptions.
The verse chosen has relevance to the topic in this thread:
http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/193/229/
The Welsh call him Iesu.
Now, go figure.
I don't post here often....
But I wish you all peace, just the same.
Real peace ....real freedom.
I believe it does actually begin in the mind, at least as far as humans are concerned.
Quote from: loxbox13 on March 18, 2011, 12:36:17 AM
the point of me posting this one, is , I came across something very strange.
the whole Quran is modified, by it's meaning, a lot of people here did efforts, and maybe they're in 50% of understanding the quran, but the major most important things that are related directly to the world order and to the highest enemies of humanity are not understood at all, way from understood. and it is really strange, I am gonna make a test and see whet people thing , and I will post all the meanings of the words of the quran that I came across, it's like the quran of the white house.
Isa is not jesus , and that is what some people agree upon, and some people don't, but this is not the point
the point is, the crucifiction was not mentioned in the quran at all, and Salabouh is not the crucifiction, but make him soluble with fire
it comes from YAssla Naran, meaning burn in fire
Isa son of Miriam had an affair against Zorostariens, They worshiped the trinity, ALLAT MANAT and UZA , and they worshiped fire, and whomever disagree with them, they sacrify him in fire
therefore Aslibana , or noulibanakum, is Burn you and not crucify you.
The crucifiction was never mentioned in the quran, so the quran is older that the new testament books
remember, no one knows the history or what happened before the 18th century, the time the frensh and british colonised the muslim world.
As salaam o aleikum.
Can you comment on this verse please, and take it in any context:
Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem:
QuoteRejecters indeed are those who have said: ?God is the Messiah,
son of Mary.? Say: ?Who has any power against God if He had
wanted to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and
all who are on the earth!? And to God is the sovereignty of the
heavens and the earth and all that is in-between; He creates what
He pleases. God is capable of all things.
The Messiah or 'Masih' anointed one, was surely Jesus.
also:
QuoteGod said: ?O Jesus, son of Mary, recall My blessings upon you
and your mother, that I supported you with the Holy Spirit; you
spoke to the people in the cradle and middle-age; and I taught
you the Book and the wisdom, and the Torah, and the Gospel;
and you would create from clay the shape of a bird, then blow
into it and it becomes a bird with My permission; and you would
heal the blind and the leaper with My permission; and you would
bring out the dead with My permission. And I have restrained the
Children of Israel from you, that you came to them with proofs;
but those who rejected among them said: ?This is clearly magic!??
It seems clear from double checking with Biblical sources that the Jesus of the Quran was also the Jesus of the Bible. OR are you set to cause trouble and vain talk in Muslims?
Who told you that Isa was crucified? this cross stuff came from the fake history of the bible that is a translation of the contents of the Qur'an :o These are all copies of the contents of the Qur'an translated to other languages and given to humanity as another religion...this Bible/Torah/Talmoud(Talmud) you have today is nothing related to the real ones and the Book of Moses is not the Torah...
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 04, 2011, 01:34:52 PM
Who told you that Isa was crucified? this cross stuff came from the fake history of the bible that is a translation of the contents of the Qur'an :o These are all copies of the contents of the Qur'an translated to other languages and given to humanity as another religion...this Bible/Torah/Talmoud(Talmud) you have today is nothing related to the real ones and the Book of Moses is not the Torah...
Dude. Whoa. That's a pretty heavy allegation, considering the weight of the manuscript evidence and the correspondence of both Jewish and Christian writers with quotes from the existing documents going back to well before the 4th century. I'm not saying those texts are perfect, but you are making a pretty heavy claim. Proof?
Peace,
Joel
Salam,
From what I understood of the gospels(NT) and Qur'an, the messiah is the same person. BUT, just like the God is the same God yet they mixed falsehood with truth and changed the model of God( singular to trinity), the Christians mixed falsehood about the messiah with truth. Like hadith followers, they injected every commonly available hearsay information into their deen and made it into a pagan religion. Many ancient myths have been injected into their deen, and Qur'an claims them to be corruptions by man , not divine truth. The pharisees and the scribes sold out the true Jesus for whatever reason.
PEACE
---------------------- Student of Allah
Quote
The crucifiction was never mentioned in the quran, so the quran is older that the new testament books
remember, no one knows the history or what happened before the 18th century, the time the frensh and british colonised the muslim world.
Lockbox,
You got your historical facts really messed up..
1. The french and the british DID NOT colonized the 'muslim world' on 18th century.
During 18th century.. 1700 - 1800 CE it was THE TURKS who 'colonized' the so-called 'muslim world'.
Within that period they also 'colonized' some part of area which is now called as 'europe' such as Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ottoman_Empire_dominated_territories
Their dominance on the world trade, and their blockade of the trade between eastern region (Taoist China, Buddhist Ceylon, Sunnis Mughal Empire, Hindus Maratha, Sunnis Mysore Kingdom, Sunnis Malaya, Hindus Mataram, Budhist Siam etc..) and western europe spark the urge of 'exploration' among western european nations which starts the age of exploration which eventually lead to age of colonizations by western european nations.
2. The collection of books compiled into 'new testament' are older than the Quran.
3. Jesus Christ a.k.a Iashua Ha Mossiach IS Isa Al Masih in the Arabic Quran.
4. Christians got virtually obsessed with 'crucifixion' and 'Jesus death' (which to me are 'sickening'), just like Mohammedans got obsessed with Muhammad's life and his family. Quran put it into context.. the focus should be on the 'life of Jesus'.... Crucifixion is a horrible way to torture human with slow and painful death, invented by egyptians which imitated by the romans. It sicken me out to see that such thing has turned into a symbol of 'holyness'.... Imagine what would happen if Jesus was being put into electric chair?? The Xtians will put electric chairs in every churches and make a tiny miniature of 'electric chair' and put it in the necklace.
5. Zoroastrian (originally) did not worship fire and / or they have a concept of 'trinity'. Trinity concept was originally came from Egypt (Osiris, Isis. Horus).
Quote from: Student of Allah on August 04, 2011, 10:03:13 PM
The pharisees and the scribes sold out the true Jesus for whatever reason.
Again it was not the Judaism Pharisees who 'invented' this whole confusion of paganism among christianity..
Or neither it was Paul... it was a long and complicated process of cultural insemination between 'Judaism branch of Jesus and John' and Egyptians Paganism + Western Roman Empire Paganism + Native Western Tribes/Nation Paganism.
Salam / Peace
Peace Jafar,
Quote from: Jafar on August 05, 2011, 05:14:44 AM
3. Jesus Christ a.k.a Iashua Ha Mossiach IS Isa Al Masih in the Arabic Quran.
4. Christians got virtually obsessed with 'crucifixion' and 'Jesus death' (which to me are 'sickening'), just like Mohammedans got obsessed with Muhammad's life and his family. Quran put it into context.. the focus should be on the 'life of Jesus'.... Crucifixion is a horrible way to torture human with slow and painful death, invented by egyptians which imitated by the romans. It sicken me out to see that such thing has turned into a symbol of 'holyness'.... Imagine what would happen if Jesus was being put into electric chair?? The Xtians will put electric chairs in every churches and make a tiny miniature of 'electric chair' and put it in the necklace.
Exactly. The cross was not used as a Christian symbol until every Christian who had actually witnessed a crucifixion had died. Prior to that, they used either the icthus or an iota-chi or a chi-rho.
Quote from: Jafar on August 05, 2011, 05:14:44 AM
Again it was not the Judaism Pharisees who 'invented' this whole confusion of paganism among christianity..
Or neither it was Paul... it was a long and complicated process of cultural insemination between 'Judaism branch of Jesus and John' and Egyptians Paganism + Western Roman Empire Paganism + Native Western Tribes/Nation Paganism.
Salam / Peace
True to an extent. But Paul deserves his share of the blame. In his zeal to appeal to the Greek God fearers/believers and monotheistic philosophers, he paved the way for that kind of syncretism. In his sermon on Mars' Hill in the book of Acts, he quotes from pagan poets like Menander to make his point. He also applies language and imagery from the Mithras cult he would have seen in his native city of Tarsus to the death of Jesus. Once that was done, it was only a matter of time.
Personally, I agree with Hyam Maccoby and some of the rabbinical accounts about Paul. Paul was a convert, the son of Galatian God fearers. He was spurned by a Jewish girl, flunked out of the more advanced rabbinical classes, and the only job he could find was as a hired thug working for the high priest. I find some of his writings useful, but he is a bit of a snake oil salesman.
Peace,
Joel
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on August 04, 2011, 02:36:13 PM
Dude. Whoa. That's a pretty heavy allegation, considering the weight of the manuscript evidence and the correspondence of both Jewish and Christian writers with quotes from the existing documents going back to well before the 4th century. I'm not saying those texts are perfect, but you are making a pretty heavy claim. Proof?
Peace,
Joel
From the Arabic Qur'an:
Get me out of the Qur'an that there was a cross and people was going to crucify Isa...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that Moses had the Torah....nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that history is a divine truth...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that the bible and Torah is the same of today...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an the real explanation of the word "The book"...This is mistranslation of the word "the book" to be compatible with history...we are still affected by the history and the hadiths yet we should expel the history and the hadiths from our selves.
Now for a bigger bomb...Why did god in the Qur'an mention that this book is written by an Arabian TONGUE (not language be careful)...Didn't people of the Arabian desert know that they are speaking Arabic? did they need from god to know that there tongue is speaking Arabic? did God need that?Then there must be something else intentioned from this verse...what about the many contradictions of the language grammar and the grammar (if it is grammar) of the Qur'an???Still unknown errors? no it is not an unknown error it is just, we don't want to face it...yes the Arabic language is NOT the language of the Qur'an...Qur'an's language is an Arabian tongue that no one did explain it till now...
I can explain more but will take time, go search in the Arabic Qur'an if you can the word Moses with the Torah....there is nothing...Moses had "the book" which book? The same book God said that it's contents is included in the Qur'an...The same book the man who had some knowledge from it transported the Queen balkees to Solomon in no time..
Same book Isa knew about it with the Engeel and the Torah....the Engeel and Torah is NOT the Bible and Torah of today...Read the Torah and read the Bible of today...Specially the Torah, after reading the Qur'an...it is just a translation of the content of the Qur'an but a fake one...And since the content of the Qur'an is the book, the book was with Moses and it descended upon humanity...here you have the real deal...These people made up new religions from the Book which has the same content of the Qur'an...
History can't be much dirty? no it can... :D
كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ وَأَنزَلَ مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ فِيمَا اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ فِيهِ إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوهُ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ فَهَدَى اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لِمَا اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ مِنَ الْحَقِّ بِإِذْنِهِ وَاللَّهُ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ
"People where one nation God sent prophets as heralds and warnings and he descended with them the book with righteous to judge (judge hear is returning on the book not the prophets) between people in what they became different in it and And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.
This is the real history...
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 05, 2011, 12:26:10 PM
From the Arabic Qur'an:
Get me out of the Qur'an that there was a cross and people was going to crucify Isa...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that Moses had the Torah....nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that history is a divine truth...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an that the bible and Torah is the same of today...nothing.
Get me out of the Qur'an the real explanation of the word "The book"...This is mistranslation of the word "the book" to be compatible with history...we are still affected by the history and the hadiths yet we should expel the history and the hadiths from our selves.
Now for a bigger bomb...Why did god in the Qur'an mention that this book is written by an Arabian TONGUE (not language be careful)...Didn't people of the Arabian desert know that they are speaking Arabic? did they need from god to know that there tongue is speaking Arabic? did God need that?Then there must be something else intentioned from this verse...what about the many contradictions of the language grammar and the grammar (if it is grammar) of the Qur'an???Still unknown errors? no it is not an unknown error it is just, we don't want to face it...yes the Arabic language is NOT the language of the Qur'an...Qur'an's language is an Arabian tongue that no one did explain it till now...
I can explain more but will take time, go search in the Arabic Qur'an if you can the word Moses with the Torah....there is nothing...Moses had "the book" which book? The same book God said that it's contents is included in the Qur'an...The same book the man who had some knowledge from it transported the Queen balkees to Solomon in no time..
Same book Isa knew about it with the Engeel and the Torah....the Engeel and Torah is NOT the Bible and Torah of today...Read the Torah and read the Bible of today...Specially the Torah, after reading the Qur'an...it is just a translation of the content of the Qur'an but a fake one...And since the content of the Qur'an is the book, the book was with Moses and it descended upon humanity...here you have the real deal...These people made up new religions from the Book which has the same content of the Qur'an...
History can't be much dirty? no it can... :D
كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ وَأَنزَلَ مَعَهُمُ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيَحْكُمَ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ فِيمَا اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ فِيهِ إِلاَّ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوهُ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ بَغْيًا بَيْنَهُمْ فَهَدَى اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لِمَا اخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ مِنَ الْحَقِّ بِإِذْنِهِ وَاللَّهُ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء إِلَى صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ
"People where one nation God sent prophets as heralds and warnings and he descended with them the book with righteous to judge (judge hear is returning on the book not the prophets) between people in what they became different in it and And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.
This is the real history...
Salam,
For me, the Injeel and Torah have been mixed with falsehood just like the identity of the messiah has been hijacked and mixed with old pagan ideas. We know that they mixed falsehood with truth and sold the words of truth for worldy gain, so it doesnt matter if Injeel was given to Moses and Torah to Jesus, it simply is totally pointless from a muslim's sniper scope to die observing. In the presence of other scriptures which were present in a language other than Arabic in arabia at the time of Muhammad, I dont see a problem when Allah confirmed this to be an arabic Qur'an (in other words, removing doubt of translation recitation or recitation of the greek/hebrew scriptures in arabic).
PEACE
----------------------
Student of Allah
Peace SeekingYou,
I understand what you are saying, but let's look at this rationally for a moment.
Yes, there is nothing in the Quran that says that the Torah and NT of today is the same as the one mentioned in the Quran. Yes, there is nothing that says that history is a divine truth. But also, there is nothing in the Quran that tells me I need to wear clothes, wipe my butt when I poop, or eat healthy food. God leaves non-revelatory matters to common sense and wisdom.
(1) According to 2:41 and following, the Quran says that the Quran authenticates what the children of Israel had at the time of the prophet. The Quran was revealed sometime around the 7th century. Disagree?
(2) The narratives about Moses and the children of Israel following 2:41 are all (except one) confirmed in modern versions of the Torah AND the oldest complete manuscripts of the Torah. 2:59 refers to Achan's rebellion, and 2:63 shows an understanding of the literal reading of the Hebrew in Exodus.
(3) We have manuscript fragments of the Torah (of Numbers 6:24-27) dating to the 6th century BC. We have complete manuscripts that are almost identical to the modern manuscripts of the Torah dating to the 1st century AD. We have manuscripts of the gospels in fragmentary form going back to the 200s (AD). ALL of these manuscripts predate the Quran, and ALL of them are almost identical to the modern manuscripts.
(4) The Quran uses loan words from Hebrew and Greek that existed prior to the Quran in a number of sources and documents. Taurat is a transliteration of Hebrew "Torah", which means "teaching", and "Injil" is a transliteration of the Greek work for gospel, or good news. The word Sabi'un in the Quran is also probably a loan word from the Greek "sebomenoi"or "believers [in the God of Abraham]", which was used prior to the time of Jesus. These words were used in a LOT of documents, not just Torah and NT manuscripts. For someone to take the Quran and try to translate forgeries backwards into history, they would need to pull off a conspiracy covering many, many miles and many, many years in a coordinated effort.
Again, I see what you are saying. But I do not believe that you can interpret the Quran in a vacuum. I'm sorry, but Occam's Razor points to the simple explanation that prior revelation is confirmed in some places in the Quran (though it is abrogated in other places in the Quran).
Lots of Muslims believe similar things to what you are saying here. But it is not based on evidence or reason. It is based on an irrational, but justifiable, mistrust of the West. It goes all the way back to the crusades, and I fear it will take a very long time for all of us to get over this mutual mistrust so we can arrive at the truth as to how exactly the Torah, Gospel, and the Quran all fit together.
I think the reason why the Quran says it was revealed in its particular language is because the Arabs are children of Abraham, and prior to Mohammed, they did not have a scripture that was revealed to them. It is God's way of saying to his audience, "You are children of Abraham, and I have not forgotten you. Here is revelation in your native tongue." My uneducated guess about the so-called grammar mistakes is that the wording supports the poetry of the Quran.
Just my n00b opinion of course. Peace to you, friend. :)
-Joel
Qur'an is not poetry my friend this is the biggest hoax Sunni made up to justify there writings....and be careful God doesn't speak to Arabs only in the Qur'an to tell them hey you are from Abraham, remember.If he wanted to tell you that you are from Abrahim he would...God doesn't play words with us.
I've told you...This Torah of today and Engeel descent from the Qur'an but "The book"...not anything else...God is speaking to people...humans, that can handle their lives...no need to show you how to shower and stuff like that...don't be like Sunnis now.
I do not ever think that the language of the Qur'an is Arabic, If I am texting you now...Why would I tell you "Hey man, this message is written in English"...But If you sent some one that can speak your language and tells you look in here it is said it is written in Arabic...so you learn Arabic....and start an arabian revolution...now this makes sense...
Speaking of the REAL Torah and Engeel there is no sign about them now...I am not certain if the Qur'an is from 7 centuries or this is another History hoax.
I know what I am telling you sounds irrational...but trust me, God's true way is FOUGHT HARDLY every where and by every mean...this is just us....
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 05, 2011, 07:05:39 PM
Qur'an is not poetry my friend this is the biggest hoax Sunni made up to justify there writings....and be careful God doesn't speak to Arabs only in the Qur'an to tell them hey you are from Abraham, remember.If he wanted to tell you that you are from Abrahim he would...God doesn't play words with us.
I've told you...This Torah of today and Engeel descent from the Qur'an but "The book"...not anything else...God is speaking to people...humans, that can handle their lives...no need to show you how to shower and stuff like that...don't be like Sunnis now.
I do not ever think that the language of the Qur'an is Arabic, If I am texting you now...Why would I tell you "Hey man, this message is written in English"...But If you sent some one that can speak your language and tells you look in here it is said it is written in Arabic...so you learn Arabic....and start an arabian revolution...now this makes sense...
Speaking of the REAL Torah and Engeel there is no sign about them now...I am not certain if the Qur'an is from 7 centuries or this is another History hoax.
I know what I am telling you sounds irrational...but trust me, God's true way is FOUGHT HARDLY every where and by every mean...this is just us....
Salam,
I think I am completely missing the point here. Are you saying that it is unnecessary to say things like "Arabic Qur'an" or "Qur'an in arabic" etc in the Qur'an unless for some other conspiring reason ? I am sorry, I am totally missing the point. I am lost. From what you have written, you do not even think that the Qur'an is in arabic. If I got that right, are you saying that the Qur'an that we have now is some kind of translation into Arabic, or a lost language kind of thing ? I really want to know what you are trying to say.
PEACE
---------------
Student of Allah
My point is, The Qur'an came with the Arabic language, there was no Arabic language before the Qur'an.
But the content of the Qur'an was on earth in the form of another book...but God descended this Qur'an including the content of this book in an Arabian tongue...not Language...
I am still researching this point. And I want people to start researching This "Book" in the Qur'an, without misunderstanding this from history...Without explaining a word with another one outside or inside the Qur'an...Hadithers say the Book is the books of god and the meaning of the book changes from Quran to Torah to Engeel to bla bla bla...No the Book means THE BOOK...nothing more nothing less...
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 05, 2011, 08:15:30 PM
.No the Book means THE BOOK...nothing more nothing less...
What about 2:285? Isn't books plural here?
Peace,
Joel
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on August 05, 2011, 10:35:38 PM
What about 2:285? Isn't books plural here?
Peace,
Joel
Books is not The book...don't exchange places...The book is defined word with the...you can find Book alone, and books also...each one of them has it's meaning.
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 06, 2011, 07:51:57 AM
Books is not The book...don't exchange places...The book is defined word with the...you can find Book alone, and books also...each one of them has it's meaning.
I don't think you can view the Quran like a technical manual or a schematic where everything in the Quran has its own meaning in itself. It appears you do. In that case, I wish you well. :)
-Joel
Peace SeekingYou,
Im my view, "al-kitab" or "the book", where it is defined by "al" to refer to a specific and/or ultimate book, this term points to "kitabo allah" or the god's book. This whole creation is the book of the god, it is available to everyone in order to be studied, to be able to find the correct answers for our questions, and to take benefit from the provisions of the god and to avoid harm for ourselves and others.
This book "the creation" is based on laws put in place by the creator. These laws govern all the interactions between the different constituants of this creation. Also, a book is/can be a complation of many smaller books, each one of these books is specific to a law or system within this creation.
Humanity evolved through the centuries in steps where true laws were intuited and understood by some "nature observers" (what we call prophets or scientists/inventors), and their implications were understood and used to rise the community to higher levels.
...
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on August 06, 2011, 11:18:55 AM
I don't think you can view the Quran like a technical manual or a schematic where everything in the Quran has its own meaning in itself. It appears you do. In that case, I wish you well. :)
-Joel
This Quran holds the very least of the mechanics of this world...the book of God...and these mechanics are shown in The book.
The gate of this knowledge is in Moses and Isa(Specially Isa because he was tough the book and the torah and the engeel...) and these random letters at the start of every surah....
Ibrahim is for choosing the right way...and so on, every prophet is mentioned for a reason...
Mohamed is for knowing how to defend yourself against invaders....
Noah is for how to tell people about this message.
I believe (yet not completely sure) that all of the prophets you can "Be" them or at least choose their way at a point in your life....
And yes this is how deep the Qur'an is...remember it is God's words... He who created this universe, must put a book for this universe a catalog for it....
God said in the Qur'an that the Qur'an is easy to understand...if you wanted a copy of this universe in a book, you wouldn't even be ably to read one letter...but now you can read all the Qur'an...look how simplified it is.
Quote from: Someone on August 06, 2011, 02:02:59 PM
Peace SeekingYou,
Im my view, "al-kitab" or "the book", where it is defined by "al" to refer to a specific and/or ultimate book, this term points to "kitabo allah" or the god's book. This whole creation is the book of the god, it is available to everyone in order to be studied, to be able to find the correct answers for our questions, and to take benefit from the provisions of the god and to avoid harm for ourselves and others.
This book "the creation" is based on laws put in place by the creator. These laws govern all the interactions between the different constituants of this creation. Also, a book is/can be a complation of many smaller books, each one of these books is specific to a law or system within this creation.
Humanity evolved through the centuries in steps where true laws were intuited and understood by some "nature observers" (what we call prophets or scientists/inventors), and their implications were understood and used to rise the community to higher levels.
...
You are VERY close of what I am building up at this moment...my I add to you, if you have Moshaf al madina (You can Google it) and observe the drawings of the word book all over this...observe the drawing of "the book" each time the Torah is mentioned...
Of course I may be wrong...but hey, we are on a road...either we are going backward or forward and one day we will know this, fix the problem and move back right...
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 05, 2011, 08:15:30 PM
My point is, The Qur'an came with the Arabic language, there was no Arabic language before the Qur'an.
But the content of the Qur'an was on earth in the form of another book...but God descended this Qur'an including the content of this book in an Arabian tongue...not Language...
I am still researching this point. And I want people to start researching This "Book" in the Qur'an, without misunderstanding this from history...Without explaining a word with another one outside or inside the Qur'an...Hadithers say the Book is the books of god and the meaning of the book changes from Quran to Torah to Engeel to bla bla bla...No the Book means THE BOOK...nothing more nothing less...
the ehoax is this
I consider myself an arab BUT:
I REALISED THAT THE ARABIC RACE IS A HOAX , it never existed , and arabic language was created along with frensh/english/spanish etc... the arab race is a creation of the frensh and british after colonising every part of the world, 17 , 18 and 19th century, they wrote the whole history
The quran isn't older than 400 years ago
the bible never existed, it was created along with hadiths books , 19th century, when they want tp trick us, they say, before the 19th centuy no one was allowed to read the bible except the higher priests.
ARAB is a language and not a race or a country
THE AARAB in the quran are europeens, and not noth africa and middle east
el ourouba is europa
what do you mean by saying that isa is not jesus ?
Quote from: Nuisance on August 14, 2011, 03:20:48 PM
what do you mean by saying that isa is not jesus ?
يسوع
عيسى
Peace,
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 18, 2011, 10:02:57 PM
يسوع
عيسى
Which you want to go by Hebrew or Greek Enjeel/Euangeliou and Isa/Iesou as was posted earlier?
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=17&zoomSlider=0
1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ ┬
Greek Transliteration English
Ἀρχὴ archē beginning
τοῦ tou the
εὐαγγελίου euangeliou gospel
Ἰησου
iēsou Jesus
Χριστοῦ christou Christ i.e. Messiah
Quote from: S29 on August 18, 2011, 11:31:56 PM
Peace,
Which you want to go by Hebrew or Greek Enjeel/Euangeliou and Isa/Iesou as was posted earlier?
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=17&zoomSlider=0
1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ ┬
Greek Transliteration English
Ἀρχὴ archē beginning
τοῦ tou the
εὐαγγελίου euangeliou gospel
Ἰησου iēsou Jesus
Χριστοῦ christou Christ i.e. Messiah
Isa
Jesus
عيسى
يسوع
do it in every language....names can't be changed...my name is Mohamed...in Arabic it is محمد English is Mohammed not Mohamesus for example....Isa is عيسى not يسوع
Peace,
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 19, 2011, 02:55:52 PM
Isa
Jesus
عيسى
يسوع
do it in every language....names can't be changed...my name is Mohamed...in Arabic it is محمد English is Mohammed not Mohamesus for example....Isa is عيسى not يسوع
Then these are different people?
Albanian Ibrahimin or Abrahami
Arabic إبراهيم Ibrāhīm
English Abraham
Greek Ἀβραάμ Abraam
Hebrew אַבְרָהָם Avraham
Yaq'ub Jacob
Yusuf Joseph
Harun Aaron
Yunus Jonah
Yahya John
Perhaps study a bit on languages.
Quote from: S29 on August 19, 2011, 10:12:37 PM
Peace,
Then these are different people?
Albanian Ibrahimin or Abrahami
Arabic إبراهيم Ibrāhīm
English Abraham
Greek Ἀβραάμ Abraam
Hebrew אַבְרָהָם Avraham
Yaq'ub Jacob
Yusuf Joseph
Harun Aaron
Yunus Jonah
Yahya John
Perhaps study a bit on languages.
If the Qur'an then came right after this hoax the Quranic names of prophets will be like this:
جيسوس
زتشريا
يوحنا او حنا او جون
اخنوخ
ابرام
نواه
إليجاه
جاكوب
جوناه
اهرون او اارون
and so on...Why didn't the Qur'an do this? because all of the other translations and stuff are a big hoax.
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 20, 2011, 10:25:21 PM
If the Qur'an then came right after this hoax the Quranic names of prophets will be like this:
جيسوس
زتشريا
يوحنا او حنا او جون
اخنوخ
ابرام
نواه
إليجاه
جاكوب
جوناه
اهرون او اارون
and so on...Why didn't the Qur'an do this? because all of the other translations and stuff are a big hoax.
What hoax you talking about?
Gather your thoughts and post logical answers not mindless absurd assumptions.
Answer the simple question posted to you; are these the same people or not?
Albanian Ibrahimin or Abrahami
Arabic إبراهيم Ibrāhīm
English Abraham
Greek Ἀβραάμ Abraam
Hebrew אַבְרָהָם Avraham
Yaq'ub Jacob
Yusuf Joseph
Harun Aaron
Yunus Jonah
Yahya John
Perhaps you believe names in all languages use the same grammar and spelling?
Dude these names which came before/after the Qur'an is of deformed and fake history and characters so NO they are not.
The hoax is: (Qur'an leeched from the Torah and Gospel)
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 20, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
Dude these names which came before/after the Qur'an is of deformed and fake history and characters so NO they are not.
The hoax is: (Qur'an leeched from the Torah and Gospel)
So chapters 12 and 19 are talking about whom exactly?
What about chapter 30 who are al-rūmu?
Is that original Arabic or borrowed word?
What's in a name? In which we call 'Isa', by any other name would still be the messenger sent by God.
Seriously.
And yes, names can differ in many languages. My name will sound, and be spelt differently, if I use Japanese/Mandarin etc etc. Same goes with any other names, 'Isa' included.
Selam
I suppose one should focus more on historical evidence rather than names, as names from one language to another may differ, just look at country names from one language to another.
Peace
Quote from: S29 on August 21, 2011, 12:15:36 AM
So chapters 12 and 19 are talking about whom exactly?
What about chapter 30 who are al-rūmu?
Is that original Arabic or borrowed word?
Do the word Al ruum refer to Romans??? who told you that? so this book is a historical book? now this is the hoax...I don't know about you but, I couldn't find any proof that the Arabic language was before the Qur'an so I just made a list of rules and a basic system to extract the meaning of the word from the Qur'an itself....it is very complicated...but I guess I may be standing on a good, proof-able ground...
From what I've concluded every sect or every (Group of people) like (Yahod, nasara, bani Israel) and all of these have concepts not meanings....like Yahod in the Qur'an are the ones who depend on the oldies just like (Salaf) in Islam and so on...each name of any group of people stands for this group AND is a concept of their ideologies and methods of thinking and so on.
Peace,
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 22, 2011, 06:14:06 AM
Do the word Al ruum refer to Romans??? who told you that? so this book is a historical book?
You're not answering simple questions only posting more assumptive questions.
Yes The Romans; history at the time tells us; Qur'an references historical events.
Quote from: S29 on August 23, 2011, 08:09:14 PM
Peace,
You're not answering simple questions only posting more assumptive questions.
Yes The Romans; history at the time tells us; Qur'an references historical events.
Well, All I have to say is the Qur'an is very AWAY of history...but this is your point...that God will send a historical events...
So May I say, what will this aya gives you today? If the historical event in this Aya is in history books in details?
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 25, 2011, 02:21:06 AM
Well, All I have to say is the Qur'an is very AWAY of history...but this is your point...that God will send a historical events...
No, here read...
12:111 لقد truly كان is في in قصصهم their histories عبرة a lesson لأولي for those الألباب the understanding ما not كان is حديثا stories/hadith يفترى invented ولكن and nonetheless تصديق confirmation الذي the One that بين between يديه His hands وتفصيل and detailed explanation كل all شيء everything وهدى and guidance ورحمة and mercy لقوم for people يؤمنون they believe The phrase "between His hands" is non literal meaning straight from The God to clarify past events.
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 25, 2011, 02:21:06 AM
So May I say, what will this aya gives you today? If the historical event in this Aya is in history books in details?
You keep assuming; read history study/look at the world and triangulate with Qur'an for clarity.
Peace
لَقَدْ كَانَ فِي قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِّأُولِي الأَلْبَابِ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَى وَلَكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ
You look, Kasas is not Kesas....
فارتدا على اثارهما قصصا
They turned back searching
Kasasa are mentioned to search in it and investigate ....للتقصى
Kesas are bed time stories 99% of the time are fake and imaginary.
Can I ask what is the thing between his hands, and whose hands? and what is the detailed explanation of every thing?
I am not assuming, I studied and made a method and have researches the only thing preventing me to write it here is that it is really impossible for any one to evaluate my research except if he was Arabic but I will try to open up some roads with mentioning some facts I have found out and let you Judge:
______________________________________
Arabic Language:
__________________
1)Arabic language's dictionaries and Grammar rules-->Written 300 years after Mohamed's death.
2)Arabic Written notes and scrolls--->Was found to be AFTER and WITH the same date of the Qur'ans written.
3)Sunna Narrators gave us the information of the "Poetry before Islam"....
_________________________________________________________
World wide perspective:
_____________________
1)Torah=Stories of the prophets=Ibn kather explanation of the Qur'an
2)Talmud=Book of the dead of pharaohs=Sunna=Ibn abbas ahadith of Mohamed
3)Zohar=Sufism sources.
4)World wide common history of prophets and messengers (Except Mohamed/Jesus)=Torah
5)Most "Stories" in the Quran are not complete or ordered...so it needed Some external Explanations through out the look of the National common Religion history.
____________________________________________________________
Questions to put in mind:
_____________________
1)What did we leave? Only the sunna...and we are still reading the Qur'an by the Eyes of the Torah and sunni stories...linking some unexplained Ayat by these story lines....then we go claim that the Torah has the least corruption.
2)May I ask if you need a عبرة lesson ONLY from these "stories"...what did you get from the Abo lahab sura?May I ask did it need any logic that ANY man who make bad deeds will go to hell...and will be screwed there...why did he give us this surah...we already know that any one either from millions years ago or today will do bad deeds will be sent to hell...why specially this name or this "Abo lahab"??
3)The so called Abraha "as-hab el feel"....what did you learn from this "story"? that god sends down fire birds to destroy any one who goes near the Kabaa??? May I ask where are these fire birds now? May I ask why there are LOADS and LOADS of corruption today even more than that of the corruption a man did from 1440-1480 years ago...where is the fire birds or anything now to be sent down?
4)What is the difference between Ibrahim/Ibrahm(Surat el bakara)
Mohamed/Ahmed
Esa with a little aleph/Esa with out
Mosa with a little aleph/Mosa with out? Am I asked not to pay attention and show any care or interest for that?
______________________________________
The Qur'an is much much deeper.
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 31, 2011, 12:46:16 AM
Can I ask what is the thing between his hands, and whose hands? and what is the detailed explanation of every thing?
Addressed to the last prophet ("say") transmission through Gabriel ...
2:97 قل say من who كان is عدوا an enemy لجبريل to Gabriel فإنه so indeed he نزله decended it على on قلبك your heart بإذن by permission الله Allah مصدقا confirming لما to what بين between يديه His hands وهدى and guidance وبشرى and glad tidings للمؤمنين to the believers
Clarifies "between his hands" is non-literal phrase i.e. from Allah ...
3:1 الم
3:2 الله Allah لا no إله god إلا only هو He الحي The Living القيوم The Sustainer of all
3:3 نزل decended عليك to you الكتاب the book بالحق in truth مصدقا confirming لما to what بين between يديه His hands وأنزل and sent down التوراة the taurat والإنجيل and the injeel
The rest of the questions open separate topics, be precise, provide verse #'s so others may benefit.
Well, I can tell you, between his hands is not the "Books" or the hands of any thing but the Qur'an itself!!
Yes, the Qur'an came to confirm what is between his hands...which is the Whole universe.
Quote from: SeekingYou on August 31, 2011, 12:46:16 AM
I am not assuming, I studied and made a method and have researches the only thing preventing me to write it here is that it is really impossible for any one to evaluate my research except if he was Arabic but I will try to open up some roads with mentioning some facts I have found out and let you Judge:
______________________________________
Arabic Language:
__________________
1)Arabic language's dictionaries and Grammar rules-->Written 300 years after Mohamed's death.
2)Arabic Written notes and scrolls--->Was found to be AFTER and WITH the same date of the Qur'ans written.
3)Sunna Narrators gave us the information of the "Poetry before Islam"....
Salaam brother,
May I ask you why we have to be Arabic to evaluate your research? Do you mean you did your research in Arabic language or do u mean something else?
How can you proof 1 and 2?
Sorry my English is not that good, what do you mean by 3?
Quote
____________________________________________________________
Questions to put in mind:
_____________________
1)What did we leave? Only the sunna...and we are still reading the Qur'an by the Eyes of the Torah and sunni stories...linking some unexplained Ayat by these story lines....then we go claim that the Torah has the least corruption.
2)May I ask if you need a عبرة lesson ONLY from these "stories"...what did you get from the Abo lahab sura?May I ask did it need any logic that ANY man who make bad deeds will go to hell...and will be screwed there...why did he give us this surah...we already know that any one either from millions years ago or today will do bad deeds will be sent to hell...why specially this name or this "Abo lahab"??
3)The so called Abraha "as-hab el feel"....what did you learn from this "story"? that god sends down fire birds to destroy any one who goes near the Kabaa??? May I ask where are these fire birds now? May I ask why there are LOADS and LOADS of corruption today even more than that of the corruption a man did from 1440-1480 years ago...where is the fire birds or anything now to be sent down?
4)What is the difference between Ibrahim/Ibrahm(Surat el bakara)
Mohamed/Ahmed
Esa with a little aleph/Esa with out
Mosa with a little aleph/Mosa with out? Am I asked not to pay attention and show any care or interest for that?
______________________________________
The Qur'an is much much deeper.
I? am interested in you view on these 4 questions. So if you don?t mind then please share your thoughts. Maybe you can start a new thread for every question.
Peace SY.
Ayman has written extensively on your points about the Arabic language in his article "Language Barrier" (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9527.0).
Abdelilah
Quote from: Abdelilah on September 02, 2011, 05:34:36 PM
Peace SY.
Ayman has written extensively on your points about the Arabic language in his article "Language Barrier" (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9527.0).
Abdelilah
salaam abdelilah,
Thanks for the link. At first glance it looks like an interesting article, still reading it, thanks :)
Torah/Qur'an/Engeel didn't have languages...but had tongues then the languages are GAINED from the 3 books..language CHANGES the tongue of the book...
Torah/Engeel/Qur'an are all written in an Arabic tongue...
The word Arabic in the Qur'an means "Sufficient for it self"....
From the old days until today we do not know what God wanted to inform (note I said inform not tell) us...These Messages's point simply is:
Allah created this universe by a system and gave you the ability to have a conscious and levels of knowledge (Al rooh) and you must use this Rooh in order to find him...do not take instruction except from his universal system and law...(The Qur'an is confirming the Universe).
Do not take accompany other people to your believes and ideologies with out a proof (Al mushrekeen) and do not accompany your instruction from any thing other than God from his sources (Mushrek bellah).
In the Qur'an/Torah/Engeel are some thing called prophets (Came from prophecies) and yes they are prophets to you and me, they will give you prophecies and warning of what will happen on earth and they will show you how the illusion and the unreal-ism changes your right path...how illusion and wrong ways will attack your security and peace and kill your Rooh leading you to ignorance and believing ANY THING you receive without a proof or even your knowledge and awareness (Shirk)..and on the other hand show you the right path...and you take a place in this path...you have a rooh either you use it or you kill it...and you will be asked about it. Prophets are not meant to be historical figures doing "miracles"...no.
Isa's miracle My friend shows you that in the future a Woman will have the ability to fertile her self with out the use of the Man or the male.(Note I said Isa's Miracle, only his miracle). Prophet Miracles are future's abilities...Prophets themselves are repeated actions to show you god...Isa specially is a "WORD" of God...meaning he will give you information leading to the knowledge of God.
God created this universe in order to seek his knowledge and search for him....and be aware of his universe and science...it is not a tom and Jerry chase...it is much deeper...
My researches and debates are in Arabic yes...and the method I deal with the Qur'an needs the Arabic Qur'an...
Well, I wanted to do this one by one but well I found out to come with is a result is better so this is my vision about Isa.
______________________________
Speaking by the Quranic tongue now:
_________________________________
1)Isa simply عيسى came from عسى\يسعى which means making effort.
2) Maseh المسيحcame from مسح scanned...making effort to scan...scan what? he created and raised the dead
3)So some one is making effort to scan for X to create and raise from the dead...(With out illusions and religious stupid miracles which have no proof)
-So he is scanning (Ways and information) to create and raise from the dead.
From 1,2 and 3)He is Seeking SCIENCE to create and raise from the dead.
He was binded with Roh al Kodos...I previously defined what is a rooh now this is a higher one...meaning SHARP awareness and knowledge (He learned The book (Al ketab) , Torah, Engeel and wisdom) now this is heavy knowledge and science...
The point in the Qur'an is: people thought he is God...BUT he had extreme scientific facts to create from the dead and people though he is god...he created by using science..Wait
Doesn't that mean that Man will use science in order to create and raise from the dead??!Yes, Biologists can do this by learning and seeking the Rooh al kudus which is the extreme awareness of the Book which the Universe I.E Scientific experiments and science.
Qur'an explains to us this happened by Allah's permission Which is a law in his universe.
So there is an unactivated law in this universe if it is used it will lead man to Create and raise died people back to life...and at this point, people will start worshiping this law (Science) (Atheism) and will say "God did nothing, we are gods"
Here when Isa strikes back in the Qur'an to tell you be careful if you reached this point. Be aware that science only USED a LAW of the universe which allow this to happen and this is Allah's permission...so this doesn't negate God in fact it will let you know a new ability to make you nearer to God...but people used it to let you go away and very far...
This is Isa and this is how you investigate the Kasas in the Qur'an...to give out prophecies and build a vision (رؤيا) not a simple bronze aged myth.
Jesus is a -miracles doing- man, a legend which was repeated in another religions (Horus/Krishna/Attis/Dionysus/Odin/Creat/taut, Baal....etc)
Salaam SeekingYou,
Thank you for your response. I have to reflect a bit on what you wrote, you have a unique understanding of The Quran.
InsjaAllah I will come back to you later, after I have studied a bit more on what you are saying.
Thanks again for your effort brother.
My method simply is:
1)There is not even one word that is equal in meaning to the other, they are all unique.
2)They common root is the key to understand the meaning of a word in the Qur'an...
3)There is no hadith, historical movement, character, bracket such as (Say O xxx) that can be added to the Aya I am studying.
As for the root system:
Let's take قبل (What people said "before")
The common words of قبل is: قبلة \قبل\مقابل
The kebla is an object to head to...meaning you will be like this x is you, y is your Kebla (x---->Y)
Mokabel is parallel to x---Y
So the root ق ب ل always refer to something parallel to the other...so why special قبل was meant to be before? I have no Idea...so let's reform it, مقابل was not mentioned in the Qur'an, قبل and قبلة was
So the 3 words have the same shadow of parallel to...which is parallel to...
so the word of و الذين يؤمنون بما انزل من قبلك means "Those who secure/believe in what was descended parallel to you" I.e if you have a religious holy book, the parallel to this is another religious holy book.
Same goes to بعد
we have بعيد\يبعد\بعد they are all referring to a distance and a far look...
so the root ب ع د is referring to distance and far dimensions
كتاب انزل من بعد موسى this means a Book descended from the "Dimension" of Moses...if it meant after then why didn't they say after Jesus...?! but they meant Moses perspective.
Salaam SeekingYou,
I have a couple of questions.
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 02, 2011, 07:13:10 PM
Allah created this universe by a system and gave you the ability to have a conscious and levels of knowledge (Al rooh)
How did you come to this definition?
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 02, 2011, 07:13:10 PM
In the Qur'an/Torah/Engeel are some thing called prophets (Came from prophecies) and yes they are prophets to you and me, they will give you prophecies and warning of what will happen on earth and they will show you how the illusion and the unreal-ism changes your right path...how illusion and wrong ways will attack your security and peace and kill your Rooh leading you to ignorance and believing ANY THING you receive without a proof or even your knowledge and awareness (Shirk)..and on the other hand show you the right path...and you take a place in this path...you have a rooh either you use it or you kill it...and you will be asked about it. Prophets are not meant to be historical figures doing "miracles"...no.
If I understand correctly then you believe that the prophets were NOT real human beings? And thus you don't believe that the stories told about them really happenend, am I right? If so, then what where they and what are those stories?
What science is needed to resurrect the dead? Do you really think that with science you can resurrect your grand-grand-grandfather? Or even Adam?
Quote
Isa's miracle My friend shows you that in the future a Woman will have the ability to fertile her self with out the use of the Man or the male.(Note I said Isa's Miracle, only his miracle). Prophet Miracles are future's abilities...Prophets themselves are repeated actions to show you god...Isa specially is a "WORD" of God...meaning he will give you information leading to the knowledge of God.
I don?t understand this. Why is it Isa?s miracle and not Meryem?s miracle?
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 02, 2011, 07:37:10 PM
Well, I wanted to do this one by one but well I found out to come with is a result is better so this is my vision about Isa.
______________________________
Speaking by the Quranic tongue now:
_________________________________
1)Isa simply عيسى came from عسى\يسعى which means making effort.
2) Maseh المسيحcame from مسح scanned...making effort to scan...scan what? he created and raised the dead
How did you come to these definitions?
Quote
3)So some one is making effort to scan for X to create and raise from the dead...(With out illusions and religious stupid miracles which have no proof)
-So he is scanning (Ways and information) to create and raise from the dead.
From 1,2 and 3)He is Seeking SCIENCE to create and raise from the dead.
He was binded with Roh al Kodos...I previously defined what is a rooh now this is a higher one...meaning SHARP awareness and knowledge (He learned The book (Al ketab) , Torah, Engeel and wisdom) now this is heavy knowledge and science...
The point in the Qur'an is: people thought he is God...BUT he had extreme scientific facts to create from the dead and people though he is god...he created by using science..Wait
Doesn't that mean that Man will use science in order to create and raise from the dead??!Yes, Biologists can do this by learning and seeking the Rooh al kudus which is the extreme awareness of the Book which the Universe I.E Scientific experiments and science.
Qur'an explains to us this happened by Allah's permission Which is a law in his universe.
So there is an unactivated law in this universe if it is used it will lead man to Create and raise died people back to life...and at this point, people will start worshiping this law (Science) (Atheism) and will say "God did nothing, we are gods"
Here when Isa strikes back in the Qur'an to tell you be careful if you reached this point. Be aware that science only USED a LAW of the universe which allow this to happen and this is Allah's permission...so this doesn't negate God in fact it will let you know a new ability to make you nearer to God...but people used it to let you go away and very far...
This is Isa and this is how you investigate the Kasas in the Qur'an...to give out prophecies and build a vision (رؤيا) not a simple bronze aged myth.
Jesus is a -miracles doing- man, a legend which was repeated in another religions (Horus/Krishna/Attis/Dionysus/Odin/Creat/taut, Baal....etc)
Same question as in the post above, do you really really think men will be able to resurrect the dead? I think that is not what the Quran teaches.
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 06, 2011, 08:29:04 PM
My method simply is:
1)There is not even one word that is equal in meaning to the other, they are all unique.
I agree with this. But do you think that 1 word can have multiple meanings? And do you think that 2 words combined can have a different meaning then each word apart.
Quote
2)They common root is the key to understand the meaning of a word in the Qur'an...
How can you determine the root?
Quote
3)There is no hadith, historical movement, character, bracket such as (Say O xxx) that can be added to the Aya I am studying.
I agree
Quote
As for the root system:
Let's take قبل (What people said "before")
The common words of قبل is: قبلة \قبل\مقابل
The kebla is an object to head to...meaning you will be like this x is you, y is your Kebla (x---->Y)
Mokabel is parallel to x---Y
So the root ق ب ل always refer to something parallel to the other...so why special قبل was meant to be before? I have no Idea...so let's reform it, مقابل was not mentioned in the Qur'an, قبل and قبلة was
So the 3 words have the same shadow of parallel to...which is parallel to...
so the word of و الذين يؤمنون بما انزل من قبلك means "Those who secure/believe in what was descended parallel to you" I.e if you have a religious holy book, the parallel to this is another religious holy book.
Same goes to بعد
we have بعيد\يبعد\بعد they are all referring to a distance and a far look...
so the root ب ع د is referring to distance and far dimensions
كتاب انزل من بعد موسى this means a Book descended from the "Dimension" of Moses...if it meant after then why didn't they say after Jesus...?! but they meant Moses perspective.
Ok nice method but how did you come in the first place to your definition of KEBLA and al the other definitions without violating your own rule 3?
By the way do you study physics ;) The way you understand The Quran about dimensions and parallels reminds me of some theories in physics
Every word has a Root...the root is the repeated words between certain words..
الناس\الإنسان\انسانيه\انس\نساء
The root is: ن س
then we look at all these words, and where was it mentioned...if you pointed out one "Meaning" then it must be have a direct or an indirect connection with the root...
I've taken the انسانيه\انسانى so the ن س have a connection with Forgetting--->general concept
here comes your analysis the general concept...Forgetting something can be delaying it if you remember it once...so the General concept of the Root after analyzing is Delaying/coming late and forgetting for a time/forever.
The General concept can be converted into a meaning in the words that came from the common root
like Nisaa I think it is the delayed/late of it's type (Look for the other thread of women as messengers)
So a word can have many meanings but there must be a rule (The general concept)
a word can't have the same word of the other.
General concepts can't be the same for 2 roots.
As for Kebla, the word kebla is not a man who is praying to the kabaa no, a person who is walking parallel to something...(I am still researching this point)
This is for the first part about the method.
1)Determine the root
2)Determine the general concept and analyze it and investigate it's dimensions.
3)Conclude the meaning of the words with this root from the Aya and the help of the general concept.
In the Qur'an their is no time line/history/men's names and the "names" of the prophets and their kasasa is just a general concept to show you a certain law either psychological (Guidance) or physical and universal (Scientific).
How I came up with Rooh-->Read Adam's rooh and I Will post what I've found later on.
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 07, 2011, 04:49:09 PM
Every word has a Root...the root is the repeated words between certain words..
الناس\الإنسان\انسانيه\انس\نساء
The root is: ن س
then we look at all these words, and where was it mentioned...if you pointed out one "Meaning" then it must be have a direct or an indirect connection with the root...
I've taken the انسانيه\انسانى so the ن س have a connection with Forgetting--->general concept
here comes your analysis the general concept...Forgetting something can be delaying it if you remember it once...so the General concept of the Root after analyzing is Delaying/coming late and forgetting for a time/forever.
The General concept can be converted into a meaning in the words that came from the common root
like Nisaa I think it is the delayed/late of it's type (Look for the other thread of women as messengers)
So a word can have many meanings but there must be a rule (The general concept)
a word can't have the same word of the other.
General concepts can't be the same for 2 roots.
As for Kebla, the word kebla is not a man who is praying to the kabaa no, a person who is walking parallel to something...(I am still researching this point)
This is for the first part about the method.
1)Determine the root
2)Determine the general concept and analyze it and investigate it's dimensions.
3)Conclude the meaning of the words with this root from the Aya and the help of the general concept.
Ok I understand your method, but the main question is: Once you have determined the root how do you give it a definition?
For example you mention this:
Why did you take for your definition that it has to do something with forgetting?
What has for example Rabbi annaas, Malik annaas and Ilahi annaas 114:1-3 to do with forgetting? It doesn?t make sense to me. And in the other thread you mention that it means something like ?frustrated and oppressed in his/her Society? for ?annisaa?, what this has to do with ?forgetting?, I have no clue.
It looks to me that you have the wrong root for
الناس\الإنسان\انسانيه\انس\نساء OR there are 2 different roots OR 1 root can have multiple meanings for the derived words OR something else OR you are right and I'am totally wrong :)
If you mean with kebla the word that is used 2:142-145. Then your definition for Kebla also doesn?t make sense to me. I also don?t think that Kebla is the direction towards the kabaa, but to define it as parallel does also seems a little bit weird. But I?m sure you did a profound research before you came to the definitions you mentioned.
Please brother, could you for the next time please enlarge your arabic text, i hardly can see it. Als please if you are reffering to a word and you write it in phonetic please give a verse number, sometimes it's difficult to understand wich word you are actually talking about. Thanks brother :)
Quote from: SeekingYou on September 07, 2011, 05:58:16 PM
In the Qur'an their is no time line/history/men's names and the "names" of the prophets and their kasasa is just a general concept to show you a certain law either psychological (Guidance) or physical and universal (Scientific).
Maybe it's better to say, that this is your opninion. Unless of course you are 100% sure of what you claiming.
Quote
How I came up with Rooh-->Read Adam's rooh and I Will post what I've found later on.
I have read them and I?m not sure at what you are referring to. Do you mean 38:72 and 15:29 in relation with 2:31-33?
There are different ?ruhs?, do you think they are all meant something like "level of knowledge"? Please note the different writings in the link I gave you.
http://tanzil.net/#search/quran/%20روح
Which writing of "Ruh" are you referring to?
I will reply in details just wait, need to translate/modify my point :/
Isa and Jesus are the same the story is the same and there is no mystery except the Mystery of why the OP wanted to create mischief
my current belief, is that Isa is Jesus or Yeshua...
1) For the name, sometimes names are changed slightly from one language to another. Consider the Arabic Elias... This would be similar to the NT form of Elias... However the correct version in Hebrew I'd Eliyahu.... Yet both are the same people in the Hebrew bible, the NT, and the Quran... He was against those who worshiped Baal, an Idol. With Jesus it is similar. His name is close to Joshua in Hebrew or Yahushua, in the Christian Arabic form Yasoo3.
2) for the Marry, she was not the literal sister of Aaron the brother Moses. The Quran cites that Isa was sent after the messengers have been sent... Consider the wife of ZakariYAH (I think it was she)... She was called a daughter of Aaron... Does that make her the literal daughter of Aaron.
3) consider that both Jesus and ISA are believed to have been the messiahs sent to the children of Israel, and that their narrative of ZakariYAH and his son yahya/John the Baptist is also similar, and that the Quran states that John was confirming a word from God, and that Jesus was also a word from God (kalimat Minho).... And the NT of John the babtist confirming the upcoming of Jesus as a role baptizing with the HOLY spirit....Which in both the Quran and the NT are cited to have aided Jesus/ISA in their Role. moreover, both scriptures cite of new laws given by Jesus/Isa of making lawful what was not and also the mention of the GOSPEL/Injil as a scripture...
4) consider the striking similarity of the description of those who followed ISA in the Quran as being merciful/compassionate, close to the believers in friendship, and that they don't become/fall to arrogance... Compare that with Jesus's teachings of loving thy neighbor, forgive that you may be forgiven, and whoever exalts himself will be debased.
5) Consider Jesus and Isa's Miracles: raising the dead, feeding thousands (sura 5 & feasts), resurrecting the dead, healing the blind, and leprous etc.
6) Consider the end of Jesus & Isa: both are believed/supposed to the point of view of the witnesses to have been killed and crucified.
7) consider the historical perspective of some nazareens/Christians who attributed Jesus/Isa the messiah as the son of the Almighty, and brought up the trinity doctrine in the Quran. Also of how some have taken/worshiped him and his mother as god figures besides the Almighty true God.
8) Consider that Both Jews and nazareens/Christians are cited to us in the Quran as reading the same scripture, and yet criticizing each other for not having a basis. Also of how Isa's followers are on top of the Jews (in dominance/majority etc). Also of how the followers of ISA are broken up into sects where animosity/hatred has been wedged between them.
9) Consider the narrative perspective of the Quran, the Hebrew bible, and the NT, of the coming of Jesus/Isa... In the Quran Isa is cited to have come after the messengers... The Gospels cite the same, and no where in the Hebrew bible do we hear of a Jesus/Isa/messiah figure who was present that did miracles and brought new laws and was allegedly to have been crucified. Moreover, the Quran is cited to have been revealed after the coming of Jesus in sura 2, (read the narrative of the children of israel from 2:40 and on until you get to Isa, then the revealing of the Quran)...
10) consider that Jesus/Isa in both the NT and the Quran spake of an upcoming helper/parcelete and in the Quran as a messenger Called Ahmed.... Again read the narrative of the children of Israel from 2:40 and on till you get to the mention of Jesus and directly after it cites of how a book came/was revealed (ie the Quran)...the chronology fits closely with Jesus and Isa
Otherwise, bring an 1) alternative messiah Figure, who 2) was sent to the children of Israel and 3) did miracles and 4) was assumed to have been crucified by the witnesses and 5) was attributed by some of his later followers as the son of the Almighty and 6) was attributed as a figure in the trinity doctrine, and 7) his true followers are compassionate/merciful, and are close to the believers, and 8) they are broken up into sects which might have animosity/hatred between them, and 9) are on top of the Jews (in dominance) and 10) still read the Hebrew scriptures (translated or not), and 11) say that the Jews are on no bases and Bice versa and 12) taken/worship isa and his mother as god figures besides the Almighty true God.....
Quote from: youssef4342 on April 29, 2012, 03:33:10 PM
my current belief, is that Isa is Jesus or Yeshua...
Thank you for writing this: It saved me the time. Shame it was at the very end of the topic which meant I had to read 6 pages before finding it!
However, it seems the main thrust to separate Isa and Jesus is this:
Quote from: Pazuzu on March 20, 2011, 05:37:45 PM
The Isa mentioned in the Quran lived shortly after Moses' time, many centuries before Jesus.
I think this must be based on the Quran's statement about Mary being the sister of Aaron. However, I think I have adequately answered this in this topic
The Great Miriam Dilemma (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597405.msg320381#msg320381)
Upon reading what I wrote there, are you so sure Isa was at the time of Moses?
Anyway, the Quran when properly read refutes this idea:
Quote
sura 5:
49. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: A guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
50. Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
By referring to the "People of the Gospel" it is clear that this group are Christians. There have been no groups claiming to hold to a Virgin Mother called Mary from the time of Moses all the way into clearly recorded history! (By the way, before printing the books of the New Testament were bound separately. The 4 gospels were called "The Gospel", and the rest of the NT "the Apostle". Observe the use of the singular 'Gospel'.)
Additionally,
Quote5:81. Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: Because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
Here the name David precedes Jesus. (Although in general list of prophets/messengers 4:163, 6:84-86 the names appear in a seemingly random order.)
Is this the end of the matter? Can we now move forward with Isa and Jesus being the same person, albeit with differing approaches to him?
Richard
Salam Richard
Quotesura 5:
49. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: A guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
50. Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
By referring to the "People of the Gospel" it is clear that this group are Christians. There have been no groups claiming to hold to a Virgin Mother called Mary from the time of Moses all the way into clearly recorded history! (By the way, before printing the books of the New Testament were bound separately. The 4 gospels were called "The Gospel", and the rest of the NT "the Apostle". Observe the use of the singular 'Gospel'.)
from the Quote above i understand, that the Gospel must be AN REVELATION from God (including laws) - But the todays Gospel isn't a revelation from God it is a hadith about Jesus life, or i understand something wrong here?
Thank you for clarification and peace
Quote from: mirjamnur on January 31, 2013, 09:37:42 AM
Salam Richard
from the Quote above i understand, that the Gospel must be AN REVELATION from God (including laws) - But the todays Gospel isn't a revelation from God it is a hadith about Jesus life, or i understand something wrong here?
Thank you for clarification and peace
Apart from traditional Islam (which also accepts some very horrible hadith), where do you get the idea that revelation even has to be books, let alone laws? The Quran clearly calls Christians people of the Gospel/Injil. You should free your mind to allow for a wider interpretation of Islam...
This really should be for a different, though related, topic. The Quranic evidence points to Isa being Jesus and the Gospel being the Injil. How to reconcile its un-Islamic sounding contents with the Quran is something I can help with. Nevertheless, are you prepared to first of all listen to the Quran itself?
Peace,
Richard
Quote from: mirjamnur on January 31, 2013, 09:37:42 AM
Salam Richard
from the Quote above i understand, that the Gospel must be AN REVELATION from God (including laws) - But the todays Gospel isn't a revelation from God it is a hadith about Jesus life, or i understand something wrong here?
Thank you for clarification and peace
I think I might have misunderstood your intention in by previous reply: Sorry. Trying to defend the Gospel book in an Islamic forum naturally make for a bit of insecurity! LOL
I'll reply soon with my thoughts.
sura 5:49. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: A guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
Jesus confirmed that the Torah was of God. However, he came to lead us above the idea that God wants to give us laws to follow. We have our own God-given conscience after all, both individually and socially. Therefore he himself bought no 'book'. By saying God gave Jesus the Book, the Quran is just speaking generally. The Book of the Gospel (which exists now, and comprises of the 4 separate gospel books) originated with the mission of Jesus, that is all. I could write more, but let this be all for now.
Sorry, peace!
Richard
Salam Richard
no problem ;)
you are right probably Jesus he didn't receive 'a book'
003:048
"And God will teach him The Book (al-kitaba) and The Wisdom (l-hikmata), and The Torah (l-tawrata) and The Injeel (l-injeel)"
The ?al-Kitab? is strongly equated with the Torah and the Injeel with ?Wisdom?.
5:49. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that he hold between his hand: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: A guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
so the 'law between his hand' could refer to the Torah and the Injeel would have represented the Christian literature being read at the time of Prophet Muhammad's ministry. This would have most likely been teachings (wisdom) by Prophet Jesus and would have comprised of canonical as well as some non-canonical literature. :-\
and the Quran:
The Quran confirmed aspects of the previous scriptures and passed over other areas (5.15)
The Quran remained a guard over the previous scriptures and to discern fundamental truths (5:48)
but one point remains: Quran mentions the name Isa and not Jesus and denies a crucifixion.
peace :peace:
Peace, Richard.
Quote from: easternqibla on January 31, 2013, 12:26:52 PM
Apart from traditional Islam (which also accepts some very horrible hadith), where do you get the idea that revelation even has to be books, let alone laws? The Quran clearly calls Christians people of the Gospel/Injil. You should free your mind to allow for a wider interpretation of Islam...
This really should be for a different, though related, topic. The Quranic evidence points to Isa being Jesus and the Gospel being the Injil.
That ultimately depends on interpretation. There are certain 'non-canonical' books about Jesus (Eisa) that claim that he
did have a book with established laws dictated to his disciples. For example, the Essenic "Gospel of the Nazarenes" claims that Jesus gave his followers twelve laws to adhere to, which supported the pre-established Torah (law) of Moses. They are as follows:
7. AND Iesus said unto them, Behold a new law I give unto you, which is not new but old. Even as Moses gave the Ten Commandments to Israel after the flesh, so also I give unto you the Twelve for the Kingdom of Israel after the Spirit.
8. For who are the Israel of God ? Even they of every nation and tribe who work righteousness, love mercy and keep my commandments, these are the true Israel of God. And standing upon his feet, Jesus spake, saying:
9. Hear O Israel, JOVA, thy God is One; many are My seers, and My prophets. In Me all live and move, and have subsistence.
10. Ye shall not take away the life of any creature for your pleasure, nor for your profit. nor yet torment it.
11. Ye shall not steal the goods of any, nor gather lands and riches to yourselves, beyond your need or use.
12. Ye shall not eat the flesh, nor drink the blood of any slaughtered creature, nor yet any thing which bringeth disorder to your health or senses.
13. Ye shall not make impure marriages, where love and health are not, nor yet corrupt yourselves, or any creature made pure by the Holy.
14. Ye shall not bear false witness against any, nor wilfully deceive any by a lie to hurt them.
15. Ye shall not do unto others, as ye would not that others should do unto you.
16. Ye shall worship One Eternal, the Father-Mother in Heaven, of Whom are all things, and reverence the holy Name.
17. Ye shall revere your fathers and your mothers on earth, whose care is for you, and all the Teachers of Righteousness.
18. Ye shall cherish and protect the weak, and those who are oppressed, and all creatures that suffer wrong.
19. Ye shall work with your hands the things that are good and seemly; so shalt ye eat the fruits Of the earth, and live long in the land.
20. Ye shall purify yourselves daily and rest the Seventh Day from labour, keeping holy the Sabbaths and the Festival of your God.
21. Ye shall do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you.(Source: Gospel of the Holy Twelve, Lection 46)
What's your view concerning this?
Peace,
Ahmad
Quote from: mirjamnur on February 01, 2013, 02:44:42 PM
Salam Richard
no problem ;)
you are right probably Jesus he didn't receive 'a book'
003:048
"And God will teach him The Book (al-kitaba) and The Wisdom (l-hikmata), and The Torah (l-tawrata) and The Injeel (l-injeel)"
The ?al-Kitab? is strongly equated with the Torah and the Injeel with ?Wisdom?.
5:49. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that he hold between his hand: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: A guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
so the 'law between his hand' could refer to the Torah and the Injeel would have represented the Christian literature being read at the time of Prophet Muhammad's ministry. This would have most likely been teachings (wisdom) by Prophet Jesus and would have comprised of canonical as well as some non-canonical literature. :-\
and the Quran:
The Quran confirmed aspects of the previous scriptures and passed over other areas (5.15)
The Quran remained a guard over the previous scriptures and to discern fundamental truths (5:48)
but one point remains: Quran mentions the name Isa and not Jesus and denies a crucifixion.
peace :peace:
In 3.48 it says God will TEACH him al kitaaba al tawrat and the injil. So from that it is clear that the injil was not a new revelation for 3isa but rather something that was already there and was taught to him, exactly like al tawra, al kitaaba y al hikma. So, if the injil has anything at all to do with the gospels, what it was was not something new, just as al tawra was not something new nor the kitaab nor the hikma.
What the Qur'an says about 3isa is plain, He was born of Maryam, father is not known from the Qur'an nor is ever mentioned, Maryam, that Maryam mother of 3isa ibn Maryam, was daughter of the wife of 3imran. Treacherously, translations say "a woman of 3imran" where the original says quite clearly and unambiuously, imra'atu 3imran, and every time the Qur'an says imra'atu anybody, it is the wife of that somebody. There is no question about this nor any reason to contor the Qur'an to make it say what it does not say. What it says is very plain and obvious. That what it means is nto to our liking that is something else, and does not change the text. The Qur'an talks about one 3imran and one 3imran only, not about twenty, so the wife of 3imran must have given birth to the daughter of 3imran, who was also the father of Musa and Harun. That does not fit the Gospels and all Christian literature? Too bad. It does fit to perfection the honourable Qur'an, which came to set things straight and dispel confusion. But it seems that we do not want confusion to be dispelled if it ends some of our pet idols or fancies. Adn too bad that so much ink of "muslims" has gone to uphold the gospels stories even if that makes chopped wood out of the Qur'an.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on February 06, 2013, 12:23:43 AM
In 3.48 it says God will TEACH him al kitaaba al tawrat and the injil. So from that it is clear that the injil was not a new revelation for 3isa but rather something that was already there and was taught to him, exactly like al tawra, al kitaaba y al hikma. So, if the injil has anything at all to do with the gospels, what it was was not something new, just as al tawra was not something new nor the kitaab nor the hikma.
What the Qur'an says about 3isa is plain, He was born of Maryam, father is not known from the Qur'an nor is ever mentioned, Maryam, that Maryam mother of 3isa ibn Maryam, was daughter of the wife of 3imran. Treacherously, translations say "a woman of 3imran" where the original says quite clearly and unambiuously, imra'atu 3imran, and every time the Qur'an says imra'atu anybody, it is the wife of that somebody. There is no question about this nor any reason to contor the Qur'an to make it say what it does not say. What it says is very plain and obvious. That what it means is nto to our liking that is something else, and does not change the text. The Qur'an talks about one 3imran and one 3imran only, not about twenty, so the wife of 3imran must have given birth to the daughter of 3imran, who was also the father of Musa and Harun. That does not fit the Gospels and all Christian literature? Too bad. It does fit to perfection the honourable Qur'an, which came to set things straight and dispel confusion. But it seems that we do not want confusion to be dispelled if it ends some of our pet idols or fancies. Adn too bad that so much ink of "muslims" has gone to uphold the gospels stories even if that makes chopped wood out of the Qur'an.
Salaam
thank you :) :handshake:
You are welcome, Mirjiamnur.
Salaam
Quote from: huruf on February 06, 2013, 12:23:43 AM
What the Qur'an says about 3isa is plain, He was born of Maryam, father is not known from the Qur'an nor is ever mentioned, Maryam, that Maryam mother of 3isa ibn Maryam, was daughter of the wife of 3imran. Treacherously, translations say "a woman of 3imran" where the original says quite clearly and unambiuously, imra'atu 3imran, and every time the Qur'an says imra'atu anybody, it is the wife of that somebody. There is no question about this nor any reason to contor the Qur'an to make it say what it does not say. What it says is very plain and obvious. That what it means is nto to our liking that is something else, and does not change the text.
Peace huruf, the closer more consistent meaning is woman not necessarily wife/spouse.
4:12 ... وان and if كان is رجل man يورث inherited كلاله kalalah او or امراه
im'ra-atun/woman 27:23 اني I indeed وجدت found
امراه im'ra-atan/woman تملكهم ruling them
66:10 ضرب shows الله The God مثلا example للذين of those who كفروا disbelieve
امرات woman نوح Noah
وامرات and woman لوط Lot كانتا were تحت under عبدين two servants من from عبادنا Our servants صالحين righteous فخانتاهما so they both betrayed them فلم so not يغنيا they availed عنهما both of them من from الله The God شيئا whatsoever وقيل and it was said ادخلا enter النار the fire مع with الداخلين the ones who enter 66:11 وضرب and shows الله The God مثلا example للذين of those who امنوا believing
امرات woman فرعون Pharaoh اذ when قالت said رب Lord ابن build لي for me عندك near You بيتا a house في in الجنه the garden/paradise ونجني and save me من from فرعون Pharaoh وعمله and his work ونجني and save me من from القوم the folk الظالمين the wrongdoers
QuotePeace huruf, the closer more consistent meaning is woman not necessarily wife/spouse.
4:12 ... وان and if كان is رجل man يورث inherited كلاله kalalah او or امراه im'ra-atun/woman
27:23 اني I indeed وجدت found امراه im'ra-atan/woman تملكهم ruling them
66:10 ضرب shows الله The God مثلا example للذين of those who كفروا disbelieve امرات woman نوح Noah وامرات and woman لوط Lot كانتا were تحت under عبدين two servants من from عبادنا Our servants صالحين righteous فخانتاهما so they both betrayed them فلم so not يغنيا they availed عنهما both of them من from الله The God شيئا whatsoever وقيل and it was said ادخلا enter النار the fire مع with الداخلين the ones who enter 66:11 وضرب and shows الله The God مثلا example للذين of those who امنوا believing امرات woman فرعون Pharaoh اذ when قالت said رب Lord ابن build لي for me عندك near You بيتا a house في in الجنه the garden/paradise ونجني and save me من from فرعون Pharaoh وعمله and his work ونجني and save me من from القوم the folk الظالمين the wrongdoers
Peace, Noon,
No, no, no. Please, do not play that kind of tricks on us. You can do better than that.
There is such a thing as determinate and indeterminate.
Determinate is just the person or thing known and only that thing known.
Indeterminate can be any of a kind of things.
Imra'atU 3imran, is just THE woman of 3imraan, one woman. The one known as the woman of 3imraan, that is, his wife, just as the woman of Lut is the wife of LuT.
In spanish is just the same thing, the woman of somebody is his wife, if you say somebody's woman, it is his wife not anybody else, and so is the Qur'an and you play tricks when yout transcribe inb arabic and you miss out the short vowels without tanwin that indicate determination, which is unambiguous and present, clearly written and pronounced in the honourable Qur'an. It is
THE woman of Imraan not A woman of 3imraan,
and in 27.23 which you transcribe faithfully, it is imra'atan, that is, indeterminate, A woman, any woman.
But in 66.10, it is determinate, imra'atA, in accusative, NuH, and imra'at
A, determinate, accusative, LuT. Not any woman but only one woman, THE woman of NuH, and THE woman of LuT, not any woman acquainted or known to LuT, but only one woman, THE woman of LuT.
And exactly the very same thing in 66.11, not a woman of Fir3aun, but THE woman of Fir3aun, imra'at
A Fir3aun, DETERMINATE accusative.
And the funny thing you do is that while the translators unfailingly did rightly translate in all these cases as the wife of NuH and the wife of LuT and the wife of Fir3aun, you choose to do away with determination or undetermination in a show to be fair, but obviously, you are not, because written, and spoken it is clearly determinate, no ambiguity or quivocation whatsover is possible. And translators in those cases have not hesitated to translate correctly, but when it comes to imra'atu 3imran, they deviated. Why? Because it presented any uncertainty? Not at all, it is exactly the same as the other cases. They didt it, according to their own explanations, out of subservience to stories straneous to the Qur'an, like the fairy tale of the manger of Bethlehem and so on.
And, one more thing, in the honorable Qur'an there is mention of the progeny,
dhurriyat Ibrahim, of the progeny of muslims, of the progeny of Maryam, of the progeny of NuH, of the progeny of Isma3il and Alyasa3a, and yunus and LuT, of the progeny of Adam, of the progeny of the people of Musa (not of Musa himself), of the progeny of the inhabitants of Janna, of the progeny of prophets in general, of the progeny of those who were in the boat with NuH, and also of the dhurriyat of the prophets mentioned in sura 19, Maryam included, (but no mention in it of 3imraan, though), of the progeny of Ya3qub and of 'IsHaq.
There is mention in the honourable Qur'an of all those progenies, but no mention of the progeny of 3imraan anywhere, and no mention that he was ever a prophet, but there is mention of his family, so there were prophets in his family and they are mentioned in the Qur'an, that is Harun, Musa and Maryam, daughter of Imra'atu 3imraan. Nowhere it is a matter of the descendancy, dhurriyat of 3imraan,
and I cannot remember in the Qur'an at all that there is any instance of somebody being named after some purported title that reports back to thousands or hundreds of years to address them. That is pure fantasy out of nowhere in the Qur'an and attempts to make the Qur'an fit the biblical narrations by hook or crook. If there is an instance or several in the Qur'an of such a way of naming persons or addressing them, please quote. I will be only to willing to study it and set the record straight. The plain, very plain fact is that the Qur'an makes complete and clear sense without such uncalled for atempts to make it get into the OT or NT shoes. The Qur'an stands wholy by itself, it is the Qur'an that is the seal of prophecy not the other way around. It is the Qur'an that sets the standard and parameters of everything else, it is the other "scriptures that should be made to fit the Qur'an, not the other way around. And the Qur'an is clear and uncomplicated. Where is the complication in understanding that Maryam was daughter of 3Imraan's wife and therefore daughter of 3Imraan himself and therefore sister or half-sister of Musa and Harun? What is complicated about that? Nothing, but it gets complicated if besides that we want that she lived in the times of the Roman domain of Palestine and fulfill other requirements of a far fetched and historically completely umproven narration of a Prophet Jesus in Palestine under pontius Pilate. However painful it may feel for the holders of biblical narrations as pure history, the hypothesis put forward by Pazuzu that the character Jesus might have been the leader of a political faction against roman dominance, fits the facts -and for sure the Qur'an- way better than the notion that the sister of Musa and Harun had a child in a manger in times of the Roman soverignty of Palestine.
Why is it so painful to dare read the Qur'an taking what it says, and not what others say it must say?
There are, of course, in the Qur'an many things which arise questions in the mind and that take a lot of study and divine help to understand, but there are plenty of things which are plain, absolutely plain, and what is the reason to contort them so that they are not plain and call for convoluted and ridiculous assumptions that divest the Qur'an of its authority?
This gymnastics to make the Qur'an fit the stories of the Bible has done a lot of harm to the image of the Qur'an as a guidance, because at the same time that the Qur'an is transmitted, it carries a load like a donkey of a whole lot of books that divest it of clarity, that dim its light under things that are completely alien to its contents. The Qur'an should come first. Nobody should read the Bible before the Qur'an, and when they have already done it, they must discard it completely until they have been washed in the clean and running stream of Quranic untarnished waters. nOnce that is done, they may read whatever they wish, they will always have the measure by which to weigh everything purportedly divine.
Salaam
Salam Huruf
Quote from: huruf on February 08, 2013, 03:35:13 AM
Peace, Noon,
No, no, no. Please, do not play that kind of tricks on us. You can do better than that.
There is such a thing as determinate and indeterminate.
Determinate is just the person or thing known and only that thing known.
Indeterminate can be any of a kind of things.
Imra'atU 3imran, is just THE woman of 3imraan, one woman. The one known as the woman of 3imraan, that is, his wife, just as the woman of Lut is the wife of LuT.
In spanish is just the same thing, the woman of somebody is his wife, if you say somebody's woman, it is his wife not anybody else, and so is the Qur'an and you play tricks when yout transcribe inb arabic and you miss out the short vowels without tanwin that indicate determination, which is unambiguous and present, clearly written and pronounced in the honourable Qur'an. It is THE woman of Imraan not A woman of 3imraan,
and in 27.23 which you transcribe faithfully, it is imra'atan, that is, indeterminate, A woman, any woman.
But in 66.10, it is determinate, imra'atA, in accusative, NuH, and imra'atA, determinate, accusative, LuT. Not any woman but only one woman, THE woman of NuH, and THE woman of LuT, not any woman acquainted or known to LuT, but only one woman, THE woman of LuT.
And exactly the very same thing in 66.11, not a woman of Fir3aun, but THE woman of Fir3aun, imra'atA Fir3aun, DETERMINATE accusative.
And the funny thing you do is that while the translators unfailingly did rightly translate in all these cases as the wife of NuH and the wife of LuT and the wife of Fir3aun, you choose to do away with determination or undetermination in a show to be fair, but obviously, you are not, because written, and spoken it is clearly determinate, no ambiguity or quivocation whatsover is possible. And translators in those cases have not hesitated to translate correctly, but when it comes to imra'atu 3imran, they deviated. Why? Because it presented any uncertainty? Not at all, it is exactly the same as the other cases. They didt it, according to their own explanations, out of subservience to stories straneous to the Qur'an, like the fairy tale of the manger of Bethlehem and so on.
And, one more thing, in the honorable Qur'an there is mention of the progeny, dhurriyat Ibrahim, of the progeny of muslims, of the progeny of Maryam, of the progeny of NuH, of the progeny of Isma3il and Alyasa3a, and yunus and LuT, of the progeny of Adam, of the progeny of the people of Musa (not of Musa himself), of the progeny of the inhabitants of Janna, of the progeny of prophets in general, of the progeny of those who were in the boat with NuH, and also of the dhurriyat of the prophets mentioned in sura 19, Maryam included, (but no mention in it of 3imraan, though), of the progeny of Ya3qub and of 'IsHaq.
There is mention in the honourable Qur'an of all those progenies, but no mention of the progeny of 3imraan anywhere, and no mention that he was ever a prophet, but there is mention of his family, so there were prophets in his family and they are mentioned in the Qur'an, that is Harun, Musa and Maryam, daughter of Imra'atu 3imraan. Nowhere it is a matter of the descendancy, dhurriyat of 3imraan, and I cannot remember in the Qur'an at all that there is any instance of somebody being named after some purported title that reports back to thousands or hundreds of years to address them. That is pure fantasy out of nowhere in the Qur'an and attempts to make the Qur'an fit the biblical narrations by hook or crook. If there is an instance or several in the Qur'an of such a way of naming persons or addressing them, please quote. I will be only to willing to study it and set the record straight.
The plain, very plain fact is that the Qur'an makes complete and clear sense without such uncalled for atempts to make it get into the OT or NT shoes. The Qur'an stands wholy by itself, it is the Qur'an that is the seal of prophecy not the other way around. It is the Qur'an that sets the standard and parameters of everything else, it is the other "scriptures that should be made to fit the Qur'an, not the other way around. And the Qur'an is clear and uncomplicated. Where is the complication in understanding that Maryam was daughter of 3Imraan's wife and therefore daughter of 3Imraan himself and therefore sister or half-sister of Musa and Harun? What is complicated about that? Nothing, but it gets complicated if besides that we want that she lived in the times of the Roman domain of Palestine and fulfill other requirements of a far fetched and historically completely umproven narration of a Prophet Jesus in Palestine under pontius Pilate. However painful it may feel for the holders of biblical narrations as pure history, the hypothesis put forward by Pazuzu that the character Jesus might have been the leader of a political faction against roman dominance, fits the facts -and for sure the Qur'an- way better than the notion that the sister of Musa and Harun had a child in a manger in times of the Roman soverignty of Palestine.
Why is it so painful to dare read the Qur'an taking what it says, and not what others say it must say?
There are, of course, in the Qur'an many things which arise questions in the mind and that take a lot of study and divine help to understand, but there are plenty of things which are plain, absolutely plain, and what is the reason to contort them so that they are not plain and call for convoluted and ridiculous assumptions that divest the Qur'an of its authority?
This gymnastics to make the Qur'an fit the stories of the Bible has done a lot of harm to the image of the Qur'an as a guidance, because at the same time that the Qur'an is transmitted, it carries a load like a donkey of a whole lot of books that divest it of clarity, that dim its light under things that are completely alien to its contents. The Qur'an should come first. Nobody should read the Bible before the Qur'an, and when they have already done it, they must discard it completely until they have been washed in the clean and running stream of Quranic untarnished waters. nOnce that is done, they may read whatever they wish, they will always have the measure by which to weigh everything purportedly divine.
Salaam
:bravo: :)
Quote from: mirjamnur on February 01, 2013, 02:44:42 PM
but one point remains: Quran mentions the name Isa and not Jesus and denies a crucifixion.
Regarding denying the crucifixion, please see this topic
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604969.msg319981#msg319981
Regarding Isa being used instead of the expected Yasu ('Jesus'), I think this might be because the name Isa is taken from the Greek Iesous: there is no 'y' sound in Greek. Other names in the Quran are from Greek (e.g. Iblis from Diabolis= devil, Ilyas from Greek Elias from Hebrew Eliyahu). It is interesting that the names Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob in Hebrew are Yishma'el, Yitskhak, and Yaʿakov, but in Arabic are ʾIsmāʿīl, ʼIsḥāq, Yaʿqūb. Observe that only Jacob keeps the 'y' sound, although I remember reading that in pre-Islamic inscriptions Ishmael is written with an initial 'y' like the Hebrew (and probably Syriac).
However, here is a passage I found just a few days ago which jogged my memory:
Quote
The form of the name applied to Jesus in the Qur?an, ?Isa, has long puzzled scholars, for one would expect Yasu? as the Arabic rendition of Hebrew or Aramaic/Syriac Ye(ho)shua?. Yasu? is, in fact, the form regularly used by Arabic- speaking Christians.
...
{The use of Isa was} an attempt to avoid the rare verb sa?a, yasu?u, which has an obscene sense. Horovitz suggested some time ago that the form of the name ?Isa is intended to parallel that of Musa. The existence of other such rhyming pairs of Biblical personal names in the Qur?anic text tends to support this hypothesis. ?Isa ?Jesus? may be paired with Musa ?Moses,? just as the form of Jalut ?Goliath? matches that of Talut ?Saul,? and Harun ?Aaron? matches Qarun ?Korah.? Similar pairs are the names of the angels Harut and Marut, as well as Yajuj ?Gog? and Majuj ?Magog.? Though they are not named in the text of the Qur?an itself, another important rhyming pair in Islamic tradition is that of Cain and Abel, Qabil and Habil. Only in the case of Gog and Magog does the rhyme go back to the Biblical versions of the names, and even in that case, the Arabic versions increase the morphological parallelism between the two. In the other cases, one of the pair of names has been modified quite radically in order to match the other. The equivalent of the ordinary Hebrew form of Cain would be rendered something like Qa?in in Arabic, Korah would be Qurah, and so on. It is therefore not farfetched to suggest that ?Isa is a modified version of Jesus? name the intent of which is to match Musa quite closely. This, among other things, suggests that these Qur?anic forms of Biblical proper names derive from an oral tradition in which the names occurred frequently in pairs.
"THE QUR?AN IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT"
Edited by Gabriel Said Reynolds
p. 235-6
http://acmadtoqueromacarimbang.webs.com/documents/The%20Quran%20in%20its%20Historical%20Context%20-%20Reynolds%20et%20al.pdf
I though that sounded very interesting.
Richard
PS. Sorry for the delay in replying other posts, but I have been quite ill recently, and I have to go now.
Quote from: Ahmad Bilal on February 05, 2013, 07:20:24 PM
That ultimately depends on interpretation. There are certain 'non-canonical' books about Jesus (Eisa) that claim that he did have a book with established laws dictated to his disciples. For example, the Essenic "Gospel of the Nazarenes" claims that Jesus gave his followers twelve laws to adhere to, which supported the pre-established Torah (law) of Moses. They are as follows:
...
15. Ye shall not do unto others, as ye would not that others should do unto you.
...
What's your view concerning this?
There is a difference between a law-code for the good of society, and personal guidelines. Number 15 quoted above could never become a written law backed-up by a legal system of courts and punishments for infringements.
However, if everyone was lifted up to follow their inner guidance then legal law codes would not be needed any more ...
Richard
Quote from: huruf on February 08, 2013, 03:35:13 AM
The plain, very plain fact is that the Qur'an makes complete and clear sense without such uncalled for atempts to make it get into the OT or NT shoes. The Qur'an stands wholy by itself, it is the Qur'an that is the seal of prophecy not the other way around. It is the Qur'an that sets the standard and parameters of everything else, it is the other "scriptures that should be made to fit the Qur'an, not the other way around. And the Qur'an is clear and uncomplicated. Where is the complication in understanding that Maryam was daughter of 3Imraan's wife and therefore daughter of 3Imraan himself and therefore sister or half-sister of Musa and Harun? What is complicated about that? Nothing, but it gets complicated if besides that we want that she lived in the times of the Roman domain of Palestine and fulfill other requirements of a far fetched and historically completely umproven narration of a Prophet Jesus in Palestine under pontius Pilate.
Peace, peace, peace.
"The Qur'an stands wholy by itself": not true, it is necessary to consider how the people hearing Muhammad would have understood it. I'm afraid that Isa is the regular Jesus of Christianity with Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate etc. That is why I am convinced that honestly I can adhere to my Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs and still accept the Quran. I am in this forum to test this assumption, and am open to change.
Richard
Just a little note: it seems the main reason some think Isa lived at the time of Moses is based on the Miriam connection. However, I put my view here which might help clarify things:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597405.msg320381#msg320381
:)
Salam, easternqibla:
QuoteOther names in the Quran are from Greek (e.g. Iblis from Diabolis= devil,
This statement is untrue. The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms. The word "Iblees" is a 100% Arabic word derived from the root-verb
ba-la-sa إبليس - بلس, which means "to despair". It describes the psychological state of being of someone who has lost his proofs or arguments, and his lies have all been exposed, and so he despairs because he has no more card to play, and no place to hide.
The derivatives of the word appear several times in the Quran. (Mublisoon - Yublis - Iblees).
The relation between ba-la-sa / iblees is comparable to that of ka-la-la / ikleel or ba-ra-qa / ibreeq . This is genuine Arabic linguistic structure, and has nothing to do with Greek whatsoever.
Just to clear a misconception.
Peace...
Quote from: easternqibla on February 23, 2013, 07:01:24 PM
Peace, peace, peace.
Quote"The Qur'an stands wholy by itself": not true, it is necessary to consider how the people hearing Muhammad would have understood it.
I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?
QuoteI'm afraid that Isa is the regular Jesus of Christianity with Jesus being crucified under Pontius Pilate etc. That is why I am convinced that honestly I can adhere to my Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs and still accept the Quran. I am in this forum to test this assumption, and am open to change.
You do not need to be afraid of that. It is not true. The Qur'an completely denies it.
Salaam
Quote from: Pazuzu on February 24, 2013, 02:43:29 PM
Salam, easternqibla:
This statement is untrue. The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms.
Salaam,
:handshake:
Quote from: Pazuzu on February 24, 2013, 02:43:29 PM
Salam, easternqibla:
This statement is untrue. The Quran does not have non-Arabic terms. The word "Iblees" is a 100% Arabic word derived from the root-verb ba-la-sa إبليس - بلس, which means "to despair".
I thought that in Semitic languages nouns and proper names do not end in 's', hence perhaps my misunderstanding of Iblis (thought Ilyus is clearly from the Greek Elias form of Eliyahu). Yet the Quran does have non-Arabic terms, e.g. 'Romans' ... NOTE: this does not stop it being an Arabic Quran. Christian polemics which look for instances of words of non-Arabic origin in the Quran merely show that those words were being used by the Arabs at that time. That is all.
I was pointing out regarding Isa and Yeshua. The initial 'Y' goes missing in the Quran, like in the name Ishmael (Hebrew Yishmael: note that the Arabs claim descent from Ismael so his name cannot be Arabic).
The difference in name in the Quran does not imply we can differentiate between the Jesus Christians and Jews talk about and Isa in the Quran.
:peace:
Richard
Quote from: huruf on February 24, 2013, 03:55:32 PM
Quote
"The Qur'an stands wholy by itself": not true, it is necessary to consider how the people hearing Muhammad would have understood it.
I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?
The Quran clearly states,
Quote
10:94. If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
"ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee": in context, these words are indeed spoken about Moses and his brother taking Israel over the sea. We Christians can indeed confirm that the Miriam who was with them was not the virgin mother of Isa/Jesus .
The Quran cannot stand alone, and this verse shows it. If you think you are interpreting the 'Quran alone' then you forget include which unchallenged assumptions you are bringing with you before you even start reading it.
Peace - what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place Isa in about 1500BC (or perhaps Moses in about 30AD?!?)
Richard
Salaam,
1) The Qur'an does have loan words in it. Injil, Taurat, Jahannam. Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to.
2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an. It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.
3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear. But aside from these, a person who follows only the Qur'an as they understand it where it is clear will, insha'Allah, be a more moral and rightly-guided person than someone who follows prior revelation without a sound understanding of the social/cultural/linguistic background of the Torah and Gospel.
Quote from: easternqibla on March 08, 2013, 11:56:11 AM
I do not see why and I can see perfectly why not. I can read the
qur'an now and make perfect sense. Those who heard it contemporaneous to the Prophet are dead. They can tell me nothing. Anything anybody said he said is hearsay. Why should I go to hearsay when I have the Qur'an itself?
The Quran clearly states,
"ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee": in context, these words are indeed spoken about Moses and his brother taking Israel over the sea. We Christians can indeed confirm that the Miriam who was with them was not the virgin mother of Isa/Jesus .
The Quran cannot stand alone, and this verse shows it. If you think you are interpreting the 'Quran alone' then you forget include which unchallenged assumptions you are bringing with you before you even start reading it.
Peace - what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place Isa in about 1500BC (or perhaps Moses in about 30AD?!?)
Richard
What has aya 10.94 to do with asking me now people of the VII century anything about the Qur'an?
First, as I say, I cannot ask them, they are not reading any more and they are not alive any more. What you ask me to do is to read myself whatever anybody might have written on whatever anybody might or might not have said more than 1300 years ago. If I could do that I would ask the Prophet, saws, but he es dead as well and what he left that I can read with gurantee is the Qur'an and just the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an I accpet as authentic, and the Qur'an, which I accept as authentic does not authenticate any other hadith.
Also the aya you mention does it really mean that the Prophet should ask anybody then that was purportedly of the bani Israel to ascertain anything? the same aya says that what is descending of him is pure truth from God. No need to ask anybody, but it is said to him so that He can revisit how those people fell into schism after the revelation was made to Musa, so if anything, the aya you quote is not to do what those people did after everything was clear to them. But what you recommend is that I muddle the Qur0an trying to make it fit all the fancies piled up on it purportedly by the people who listened to the Prophet. Why do that, when the Qur'an is what was revealed to the Prophet. Also youy seem to take for granted that everybody has doubts about the Qur'an and that asking people who are dead will solve those doubts.
?what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place faith on people you do not know anything about and to want me to doubt things just so that I can ask dead people to solve those doubts that I do not have and which they being dead for centuries have not been able to solve wither for anybody before me.
As to your question regarding 3isa, you see for yourself what you do with your thousands of years. I do not do anything with them. I do not have to. The Qur'an does not give dates, but from the Qur'an it is aboslutely clear without a shadow of a doubt that 3isa was the son of Maryam, who was the daughter of THE wife of 3imran. So 3imran is a determinate person mentioned in the Qur'an, his wife only that one such person, unless he had other wives before that one, but the woman who was the mother of 3isa, was Maryam, daughter of the wife of 3imran and therefore daughter of 3Imran. So, if you know the time when 3imran lived, you will know when her daughter lived. I have not given any time nor the Qur'an does, so see for yourself what you do with your years. I do not need to. You want to prove that a prophet 3isa, who was son of Maryam, daughter of 3imran lived at whatever time, do it. Maryam was also sister of Harun. You watn to proove when Harun lived, proove it.
Salaam
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 08, 2013, 12:07:09 PM
Salaam,
2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an. It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.
3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear. ...
MaverickMonotheist - Peace :) :) :) :) I agree with you. I did not bring up the existence of loan words to attack the authority of the Quran. I can accept the authority of the Quran anyway! It is the fact the people were assuming that the Quranic name Isa being different from Yeshua/Jesus implied that he was a separate person.
Point 3 - I, along with others (see http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg296959#msg296959), are providing the 'other evidence' regarding the true identity of Isa being Jesus as known to both Jews and Christians (those living both before and after blessed Muhammad) as living in the Roman Empire about 2000 years ago.
:)
Richard
PS. The later comments in point 3 seem deliberately written to invoke a comparison. All that would happen is that I would point out examples of bad Muslims and good Christians, and you would point out examples of bad Christians and good Muslims. :peace: :peace: :peace:
Quote from: mirjamnur on February 01, 2013, 02:44:42 PM
Salam Richard
no problem ;)
you are right probably Jesus he didn't receive 'a book'
003:048
"And God will teach him The Book (al-kitaba) and The Wisdom (l-hikmata), and The Torah (l-tawrata) and The Injeel (l-injeel)"
The ?al-Kitab? is strongly equated with the Torah and the Injeel with ?Wisdom?.
I was reading a book preserved fully only in Ethiopic (like some many others). It started like this:
Quote
1 The book which Jesus Christ revealed unto his disciples: and how that Jesus Christ revealed the book for the company (college) of the apostles, the disciples of Jesus Christ, even the book which is for all me
EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html
This could well imply that Allah revealed the Quran with language used by the existing Christian communities - hence 'The book' as well as the 'Gospel' ('Wisdom' could well therefore refer to one of the wisdom books around).
Although personally I don't think Jesus did give a book, but so to speak, by teaching the apostles and they writing it down as Book and Gospel and he being the source of these implies it can be said that Jesus brought books.
Just an interesting quotation to bring possible light to this question.
Richard
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 08, 2013, 12:07:09 PM
Salaam,
1) The Qur'an does have loan words in it. Injil, Taurat, Jahannam. Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to.
2) The presence of loan words does not diminish the authority of the Qur'an. It is the criterion over prior revelation, not vice versa.
3) The Qur'an does not stand alone on a few points where some other evidence can make it clear. But aside from these, a person who follows only the Qur'an as they understand it where it is clear will, insha'Allah, be a more moral and rightly-guided person than someone who follows prior revelation without a sound understanding of the social/cultural/linguistic background of the Torah and Gospel.
Excellent point.
Quote from: huruf on March 08, 2013, 03:38:54 PM
What has aya 10.94 to do with asking me now people of the VII century anything about the Qur'an?
First, as I say, I cannot ask them, they are not reading any more and they are not alive any more. What you ask me to do is to read myself whatever anybody might have written on whatever anybody might or might not have said more than 1300 years ago. If I could do that I would ask the Prophet, saws, but he es dead as well and what he left that I can read with gurantee is the Qur'an and just the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an I accpet as authentic, and the Qur'an, which I accept as authentic does not authenticate any other hadith.
Also the aya you mention does it really mean that the Prophet should ask anybody then that was purportedly of the bani Israel to ascertain anything? the same aya says that what is descending of him is pure truth from God. No need to ask anybody, but it is said to him so that He can revisit how those people fell into schism after the revelation was made to Musa, so if anything, the aya you quote is not to do what those people did after everything was clear to them. But what you recommend is that I muddle the Qur0an trying to make it fit all the fancies piled up on it purportedly by the people who listened to the Prophet. Why do that, when the Qur'an is what was revealed to the Prophet. Also youy seem to take for granted that everybody has doubts about the Qur'an and that asking people who are dead will solve those doubts.
?what are your strong emotions which cause you to want to place faith on people you do not know anything about and to want me to doubt things just so that I can ask dead people to solve those doubts that I do not have and which they being dead for centuries have not been able to solve wither for anybody before me.
As to your question regarding 3isa, you see for yourself what you do with your thousands of years. I do not do anything with them. I do not have to. The Qur'an does not give dates, but from the Qur'an it is aboslutely clear without a shadow of a doubt that 3isa was the son of Maryam, who was the daughter of THE wife of 3imran. So 3imran is a determinate person mentioned in the Qur'an, his wife only that one such person, unless he had other wives before that one, but the woman who was the mother of 3isa, was Maryam, daughter of the wife of 3imran and therefore daughter of 3Imran. So, if you know the time when 3imran lived, you will know when her daughter lived. I have not given any time nor the Qur'an does, so see for yourself what you do with your years. I do not need to. You want to prove that a prophet 3isa, who was son of Maryam, daughter of 3imran lived at whatever time, do it. Maryam was also sister of Harun. You watn to proove when Harun lived, proove it.
Salaam
Ur going to go in circles this way.
Quote from: huruf on March 08, 2013, 03:38:54 PM
What has aya 10.94 to do with asking me now people of the VII century anything about the Qur'an?
First, as I say, I cannot ask them, they are not reading any more and they are not alive any more. What you ask me to do is to read myself whatever anybody might have written on whatever anybody might or might not have said more than 1300 years ago. If I could do that I would ask the Prophet, saws, but he es dead as well and what he left that I can read with gurantee is the Qur'an and just the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an I accpet as authentic, and the Qur'an, which I accept as authentic does not authenticate any other hadith.
We can read what they were reading and so can deduce their answers. I am not challenging the authenticity of the Quran, and I cannot see why you think I am doing so. If other Muslims and Quranists can accept that Mary mother of Jesus being called sister of Aaron is symbolic, then why can't you? They are not challenging the authenticity of the Quran either.
QuoteAlso the aya you mention does it really mean that the Prophet should ask anybody then that was purportedly of the bani Israel to ascertain anything?
Was Muhammad in doubt of the truth he was being told? Clearly not, we both agree on that. It is hypothetical: even if he were to doubt (which he didn't) then he should ask those reading the previous scriptures. This of necessity implies that the writings they called scripture were trustworthy in order to have been asked about. Nothing here is against Muhammad or the Quran.
QuoteBut what you recommend is that I muddle the Qur0an trying to make it fit all the fancies piled up on it purportedly by the people who listened to the Prophet.
I am not recommending the need to 'muddle' the Quran. As mentioned in this topic, there are other Muslims and Quranists who accept that Jesus and Moses lived at different times, and 'sister of aaron' (etc) is symbolic.
QuoteAlso you seem to take for granted that everybody has doubts about the Qur'an and that asking people who are dead will solve those doubts.
Peace and gentleness: I cannot see how such allegations can be put against me. I am confused and answer my confusion by reasoning that you think I am an aggressive Christian fundamentalist out to discredit the Quran.
QuoteAs to your question regarding 3isa, you see for yourself what you do with your thousands of years. I do not do anything with them. I do not have to. The Qur'an does not give dates ?
The Quran does not give dates but given that everyone has always accepted that Moses lived at least before 1000BC then why not clarify it once and for all? Why not say that the Christians have made a mistake placing Isa living about 600 years before Muhammad?
But above all else, gentleness. You seem to think I am fighting the Quran, yet there are other Muslims and Quranists who clearly think like me on this subject.
Gentleness,
Richard
Quote
Verse (5:78)
Sahih International: Cursed were those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.
Why is David mentioned before Jesus?
Solomon David's son built the temple with many rooms, 34:13 "They made for him what he desired of enclosures" (Free-minds translation).
Yet it is the same Arabic word for 'enclosures' that is used of Zachariah the father of John the Baptist:
Quote
19:11
So he went out among his people from the temple enclosure, and he indicated to them that they should glorify Him at dawn and dusk.
(Free-minds translation)
So clearly Jesus lived after King Solomon.
Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on March 08, 2013, 12:07:09 PM
1) The Qur'an does have loan words in it. Injil, Taurat, Jahannam. Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to.
{emphasis mine}
I agree, so why are Ethiopic words used to refer to aspects of Isa's life if not so the listeners of the Quran would associate Isa with the Jesus of the Ethiopic Christians? Regarding the word for the 'table' sent down to Jesus (5:117):
Quote
The majority of researchers are agreed that the term is borrowed from Ethiopic; even more, it is the technical term used by the Christians of Ethiopia to signify the Last Supper.
Page 149, "The Qur?an In Its Historical Context"
Edited By Gabriel Said Reynolds
http://acmadtoqueromacarimbang.webs.com/documents/The%20Quran%20in%20its%20Historical%20Context%20-%20Reynolds%20et%20al.pdf
Whatever the researchers think, it is the word used to describe the Christian Eucharist in the Ethiopic language. I've also read that the word for disciples in the Quran (al Haw?riy?n) comes from Ethiopic not from Arabic.
Myself, along with others, have put forward numerous points to ponder. You may be able to ignore everything outside of the Quran but others aren't.
Gentleness,
Richard
Peace be within you, easternqibla
I was from a sunni islam family and I agree with you. From my research and study of the Book of Truth, and from old pictures of crosses found on the internet, I found the name inscribed at the foot of the figure on the cross as Emmanuel. Then searching the old testament, I found the Prophet Isaiah's prophecy about Immanu-el.
Hebrew Names Version_7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanu'el.
Complete Jewish Bible_7:14 Therefore Adonai himself will give you people a sign: a young woman will become pregnant, bear a son and name him 'Immanu-el'.
I made the mistakes of asking those who prefer to hide the Truth during my initial studies. When I search and found the name Immanuel in the on-line library of the Vatican, the meaning was given as "man who is forever". I asked them whether Immanuel and Jesus Christ the same person and whether "man who is forever" is the meaning of his name. I never got any reply, but when I checked back, the meaning was changed to "God is with us".
Then I was guided to the website, link below, which show the exact place of crucifixtion and the blood found on the Ark of the Covenant, and they have tested the blood:
"As we mentioned earlier, the blood on the mercy seat was tested. Human cells normally have 46 chromosomes. These are actually 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. In each pair of chromosomes, one of the pair is from the mother and the other member is from the father. Therefore, 23 chromosomes come from the mother and 23 from the father. In each set of 23, 22 chromosomes are autosomal and one is sex-determining. The sex-determining ones are the X chromosome and the Y chromosome. Females are XX, so they can only contribute an X chromosome to their offspring, whereas males are XY, which allows them to contribute either an X or a Y. If they contribute an X, the child is female, whereas if they contribute a Y, the child is male. The fascinating finding in this blood was that instead of 46 chromosomes, there were only 24. There were 22 autosomal chromosomes, one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. This evidences that the person to whom this blood belonged to had a mother but no human father, because the normal contribution of paternal chromosomes is missing."
http://www.covenantkeepers.co.uk/
From my observation all these years, the influence of man-made doctrines is still visible among quranist/ God aloners. It is important that the mind is purified from the man-made doctrines while searching for the Truth, no matter from which religion one is born into.
I just wanted to share this here, not to prove anything to anyone or expecting anyone to accept it, that is under our Lord's Authority. If anyone ask me if this is proof, then I will ask him/her to commune and ask God alone for the Truth. Our interaction with Him in our daily life, in our research and studies, our stand for the Truth, is of the utmost importance for establishing the bond with our Lord.
Purify the mind and the soul will be resurrected with the light of Truth.
Peace be within you and may God bless you with the Truth.
tauhid101.
Quote from: easternqibla on March 14, 2013, 03:37:54 AM
Why is David mentioned before Jesus?
Solomon David's son built the temple with many rooms, 34:13 "They made for him what he desired of enclosures" (Free-minds translation).
Yet it is the same Arabic word for 'enclosures' that is used of Zachariah the father of John the Baptist:
So clearly Jesus lived after King Solomon.
I agree, so why are Ethiopic words used to refer to aspects of Isa's life if not so the listeners of the Quran would associate Isa with the Jesus of the Ethiopic Christians? Regarding the word for the 'table' sent down to Jesus (5:117):
Whatever the researchers think, it is the word used to describe the Christian Eucharist in the Ethiopic language. I've also read that the word for disciples in the Quran (al Haw?riy?n) comes from Ethiopic not from Arabic.
Myself, along with others, have put forward numerous points to ponder. You may be able to ignore everything outside of the Quran but others aren't.
Gentleness,
Richard
?For God's sake, stop saying nonsense about arabic words! If you do not know, do not speak as if you did. And you surely know "ethiopian" too. ?My God! Your fantasy knows no bounds, and you do not ewven say "I think" or as the question, no you go forth and state whatever nonsense as if it was the most verified truth.
Hawary, plural Hawariyun, is a very simple Arabic word, from the same root as the Hur, usually translated as houris.
Injil is a perfectly arabic word from root n-j-l, and so happens with others. That orientalists or biblical professionals or colonnised muslims have chosen to disregard the logic of the Arabic language is no guarantee that the fancies they perpetrate have a basis on fact.
Salaam
Hawarijun,
{Cursed are those who have rejected from among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and Esau, son of Mary. That is for what they have disobeyed, and for what they transgressed}...[5:78]QuoteWhy is David mentioned before Jesus?
That doesn't prove anything.
Look at the following, for instance:
{We have inspired you as We had inspired Noah and the prophets after him. And We had inspired Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs, and Esau, and Job, and Jonah, and Aaron, and Solomon; and We gave David the Psalms}...[4:163]Why is Esa (which you falsely translate as "Jesus", when it should be "Esau") mentioned before Solomon in the above passage?
{And We granted him Isaac and Jacob, both of whom We guided; and Noah We guided from before; and from his progeny is David, and Solomon, and Job, and Joseph, and Moses, and Aaron. It is such that We recompense the good doers.}...[6:84]Why are David and Solomon mentioned before Moses and Aaron in the above?
Furthermore, regarding the so-called "enclosures" that Solomon built, the word that appears in the Arabic text is "mahareeb", which is the plural form of "mihrab". This is derived from "harb", which means WAR. Hence "mihrab" means a military fort of some sort, or a barricaded place. There could be hundreds of such places, and belonging to different eras. How can you be so certain that the "mihrab" that Zakariah was praying in is the same one that was constructed by Solomon?
I'm sorry to say it, but your argument is weak and very unconvincing.
As for the word "INJEEL", as huruf has pointed out, it is in fact derived from the root n-j-l, which means: good tidings, or news of good things to come. Hence we see that same linguistic structure as with balasa-iblees , baraqa-ibreeq, and kalala-ikleel.
The female proper noun "Najla'" is very common in Arabic, and is also derived from n-j-l.
@tauhid101
You said:
QuoteFrom my observation all these years, the influence of man-made doctrines is still visible among quranist/ God aloners. It is important that the mind is purified from the man-made doctrines while searching for the Truth, no matter from which religion one is born into.
You speak of purifying the mind from manmade doctrines, while you proceed to provide links to a website that speaks of the "discovery"
of the Ark of teh Covenant by Ron Wyatt, who was proven to be a master of fraud.
Allow me to direct you to the following links:
http://tentmaker.org/WAR/
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/seventh-day-adventist/TIVVCTD0F2E9E6SQA
http://bibleandscience.com/otherviews/wyatt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ron_Wyatt
His scam has already been exposed, and he even admitted it himself.
No matter how much you try to twist the clear meanings of the Quranic signs to make them conform, by force, to the previous scriptures, you will not be successful.
Peace..
Peace be within you, bro Pazuzu
Be at peace and be calmed brother.
Yes, I provide the link because I was guided to the name of Immanu-el/ Isa Al-Masih during my research and studies, and to the location of the crucifixion and the Ark of the Covenant. And I did say that if anyone want further proof, to commune and ask God for the Truth. He is the only Witness for me.
All the links you provided are not witnesses for me. To me they are all afraid of the Truth and try to cover up this Signs just to uphold their doctrines. Do you think these people are God aloners?
Now you accuse me of trying to twist the clear meanings of the Book of Truth/ Al-Kitab Al-Haqq, by force??? Please.. read my post again, commune and ask God for the proof, He is our only Witness. And our success or our failure in reaching the goal, that is to be a righteous and truthful person, depends on how much of your soul or my soul is resurrected with the Truth. God alone have the Power and Authority to send down His living words of Truth, the Spirit of Truth into our heart. Our salvation is to be like the Prophet Immanu-el not through him. And it does not depends on how many articles or posts we have written.
Peace be within you, bro.
tauhid101
Salaam tauhid101,
Whether true or not, regarding Ron Wyatt, God bless you for hinting me in the right direction. I am performing my own research on the religion of God and I was glad to receive this input. It helped my progress and I am even more determined to go back to the middle east. There is a subtle call, and despite the warnings and my risks due to my belief system, I am certain that it is my destiny.
Also I believe this article you provided may carry certain truth, even among lies, and may also have been concealed by God Himself.
My destination is Persia, but I do not know where God will take me. I had the thought about investigating about Persepolis, ,Darius and company, their connection to data mentioned in the Old Testament. Also, I seek the old Persia' s connection with Islam, Zoroastrianism and its foundation, and in its turn, connection to Judaism and Christianity. Recent theories hint strongly at a definite relationship and that it took place here both before and after Muhammad. It seems to be more relevant than I thought before.
Several historical sites in today's Iran possess important historical value to the true religion of God. Of course I am not only interested in this site, but it is where God wants me to be for now. It may give evidence which will have me change my views, it is all I can tell at this time.
I am a believer, not affiliated with any sect of the human world. I seek the Truth. And I do it with my life at stake. Showing a different thinking in Iran is risky business, but I will work under cover most of the time. This website (fm) is banned in Iran, became that quite recently, but I may find a way to get online.
Once again, God bless you for the data you provided and the additional philosophical thinking it caused me.
Quote from: huruf on March 14, 2013, 05:12:47 AM
?For God's sake, stop saying nonsense about arabic words! If you do not know, do not speak as if you did. And you surely know "ethiopian" too. ?My God! Your fantasy knows no bounds, and you do not ewven say "I think" or as the question, no you go forth and state whatever nonsense as if it was the most verified truth.
If you read my post (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg323336#msg323336) properly, all I am doing is saying that the same Arabic word occurs in two places, see http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Hrb . Regarding Ethiopian, I actually quote from an academic book. So again, I ask you, why is the word Maida the same as used by the Ethiopians to refer to the Eucharist?
I find your tone to be rude and discourteous. How can you write like that and then wish me peace?
Quote from: Pazuzu on March 14, 2013, 06:37:16 AM
Furthermore, regarding the so-called "enclosures" that Solomon built, the word that appears in the Arabic text is "mahareeb", which is the plural form of "mihrab". This is derived from "harb", which means WAR. Hence "mihrab" means a military fort of some sort, or a barricaded place. There could be hundreds of such places, and belonging to different eras. How can you be so certain that the "mihrab" that Zakariah was praying in is the same one that was constructed by Solomon?
Actually, Solomon's temple was destroyed; Zachariah was praying in the rebuilt temple. There are probably hundreds of places called 'harb', but there is a well known story amongst Eastern Christians how Zachariah looked after Mary in the Temple. This story refers to this event, and everyone knew about it. If
Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg322849#msg322849), then surely the same stories serve the same intention, i.e. to enable identification!
Quote from: huruf on March 14, 2013, 05:12:47 AM
Hawary, plural Hawariyun, is a very simple Arabic word, from the same root as the Hur, usually translated as houris.
Then why not translate it as 'white-eyed ones'? I am merely referring to what I have read, namely that it comes from the Ethiopic word to send, hence 'apostles'-'sent ones' in Greek.
And I don't remember mentioning the word Injil, although the Arabic language could have adopted it to mean 'good news' before Muhammad's arrival. Anyway, probably like 'Iblis', Greek shares some root words with Semetic languages.
The quotation naming David then Jesus is just for illustration. I also know of other verses in the Quran where the names of the prophets are in differing orders. I am relating it to the story of Zachariah living after Solmon (defended just above).
Quote from: Pazuzu on March 14, 2013, 06:37:16 AM
Why is Esa (which you falsely translate as "Jesus", when it should be "Esau") mentioned before Solomon in the above passage?
How can the names Isa and Esau be the same?
Isa is عيسى
Esau is عِيسُو
Esau ends in a Waw, like the Hebrew. I am angry about the way I am ridiculed for not knowing Arabic (when I merely consulted a Quranic dictionary), yet here two different names are said to be the same!!
Regarding the name Isa, again please read my post http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg321983#msg321983
Additionally, thinking about it, on icons the name Jesus is written in shorthand Greek as
~
IC
Which is in English letters
~
IS
Perhaps 'Isa' comes from this? It all depends on how Muhammad was referring to Jesus before the Quran was sent to him. Syriac influence? Ethiopic influence? Etc.
Quote from: Pazuzu on March 14, 2013, 06:37:16 AM
No matter how much you try to twist the clear meanings of the Quranic signs to make them conform, by force, to the previous scriptures, you will not be successful.
No one is twisting. Some things are symbolic, others not. We differ on whether sister of Aaron (etc) is symbolic or not.
Please, take time to consider your response, and write cordially.
Richard
I jump because these things are not the first time that are mentioned or come up and you insist taking Arabic as you please without bearing in mind what has been said before. So what is the use of answering you? And you disregard what is answered to you and responde as if people when they answer you are being dishonest or do not know what they say or they are saying things out the prejudice. So who is being here discourteous. Since you state things as if they were proven when one knows that not only they are not proven but are FALSE, either one shuts up or says it as it comes. You keep repeating the same false asumptions as you were coming up with some new trump, and as I say disregard what others say as if they were stupid or dishonest.
And you keep treating Arabic anyway you like and mix it with hebrew and ethiopian, and do whatever you like so the Qur'an fits your story.
The word mihrab in singular or plural is used in several places, and it is not temple, it is the most elevated, literally or figuratively, therefore the most respected place in a house, and therefore if there is a special place for them, that place, that is the chapel, oratory... It is not a temple.
The temple comes from the idea that Maryam HAD to be in the temple, not from the text of the Qur'an. There is the word for temple in Arabic and it is not that. That has nothing to do with a temple.
QuoteSo again, I ask you, why is the word Maida the same as used by the Ethiopians to refer to the Eucharist?
And why should I know that? I know that is aperfectly Arabic word and it is proper where it comes, nothing wrong or suspicious about it? May be the ethiopian lithurgy took it from Arabic or, since I do not know which language you are referring to since there are several semitic languages in ethipia, it can well be that it is a similar or the same word? What is there suspicious or illogical about it?
QuoteThen why not translate it as 'white-eyed ones'? I am merely referring to what I have read, namely that it comes from the Ethiopic word to send, hence 'apostles'-'sent ones' in Greek.
Well, ask the translators why they translate this as this or that. The Qur'an says what it says.
QuoteAnd I don't remember mentioning the word Injil, although the Arabic language could have adopted it to mean 'good news' before Muhammad's arrival. Anyway, probably like 'Iblis', Greek shares some root words with Semitic languages.
Thsi has already been asnwered, but you choose to disregard it.
QuoteNo one is twisting. Some things are symbolic, others not. We differ on whether sister of Aaron (etc) is symbolic or not.
Ok, bring from from Qur'an more instances where a similar use appears. Because we are talking about the Qur'an, not about anything else.
Salaam
Quote from: easternqibla on March 22, 2013, 05:12:46 PM
If you read my post (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg323336#msg323336) properly, all I am doing is saying that the same Arabic word occurs in two places, see http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Hrb . Regarding Ethiopian, I actually quote from an academic book. So again, I ask you, why is the word Maida the same as used by the Ethiopians to refer to the Eucharist?
I find your tone to be rude and discourteous. How can you write like that and then wish me peace?
Actually, Solomon's temple was destroyed; Zachariah was praying in the rebuilt temple. There are probably hundreds of places called 'harb', but there is a well known story amongst Eastern Christians how Zachariah looked after Mary in the Temple. This story refers to this event, and everyone knew about it. If
Names from prior revelation are carried over phonetically and not according to meaning in order to ensure there is no question as to whom or what is being referred to (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg322849#msg322849), then surely the same stories serve the same intention, i.e. to enable identification!
Then why not translate it as 'white-eyed ones'? I am merely referring to what I have read, namely that it comes from the Ethiopic word to send, hence 'apostles'-'sent ones' in Greek.
And I don't remember mentioning the word Injil, although the Arabic language could have adopted it to mean 'good news' before Muhammad's arrival. Anyway, probably like 'Iblis', Greek shares some root words with Semetic languages.
The quotation naming David then Jesus is just for illustration. I also know of other verses in the Quran where the names of the prophets are in differing orders. I am relating it to the story of Zachariah living after Solmon (defended just above).
How can the names Isa and Esau be the same?
Isa is عيسى
Esau is عِيسُو
Esau ends in a Waw, like the Hebrew. I am angry about the way I am ridiculed for not knowing Arabic (when I merely consulted a Quranic dictionary), yet here two different names are said to be the same!!
Regarding the name Isa, again please read my post http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9602327.msg321983#msg321983
Additionally, thinking about it, on icons the name Jesus is written in shorthand Greek as
~
IC
Which is in English letters
~
IS
Perhaps 'Isa' comes from this? It all depends on how Muhammad was referring to Jesus before the Quran was sent to him. Syriac influence? Ethiopic influence? Etc.
No one is twisting. Some things are symbolic, others not. We differ on whether sister of Aaron (etc) is symbolic or not.
Please, take time to consider your response, and write cordially.
Richard
Brother Salaam
Verily We have revealed the Book to thee in Truth, for mankind. He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: but he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. 39:41
The first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings: 3:96
Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (Between right and wrong). 2:185
Mankind: Naas
If we reflect on the Ayats above it is quite simple to understand that Quran exists from day one as a for mankind. Similarly the first house is for mankind is Kabba and the language of the Quran is Arabic because it is the most detailed and comprehensive language. Now in the light of Quranic Ayats your historical views have no credibility whatsoever. Also, I am wondering that you are not implying that Muhammad forged the Quran "
Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!"10:38 I hope not.
We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom. 12:2
And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail [in our language]? 41:44
Allah further confirms that there no other books before this before this book.
Say: "Do ye see what it is ye invoke besides Allah? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens
bring me a book (revealed) before this, or any remnant of knowledge (ye may have), if ye are telling the truth! 46:4
Peace
Quote from: https://quranguideblog.wordpress.com//?s=Mariam&search=Go
The relationship between man and Allah is obviously not a biological one such as biological father and his biological son but to mean ?everything? as mentioned with the phrase ?Al Rahman Al Raheem? (الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ) in the very beginning and so many other places in the Quran to make us understand that He is the only actual mother and father of everything. This is because everything emerges from Him and merges back in Him on return as He is the only Source of life, Creator, Producer and Owner of everything. Quranic words ?ابن? (Ibn) and ?ابناء? (abna?) do not refer to ?son? or ?sons? but correctly means ?build?, ?made? and ?constituted?. Whereas, according to the linguistic rules the only word ?بن? (Bin) is used in the middle of two names to mean ?son?. Hence, the pashion of taking the word ?ابن? (Ibn), coming between two names, to mean ?son? has been invented and introduced by early Islam Persian Imams who have deliberately destroyed the correct understanding of the Quran by their false translation and fake literature.
Therefore, according to the linguistic rules the word ?ابن? (ibn) coming between ?عیسی? and ?مریم? in the Quranic phrase ?عیسیٰ ابن مریم? does not actually stand for ?Isa son of Mary? but correctly means ?Isa constitution of Miriam? or ?Miriam?s constitution Isa?. The Quran further clarifies the same thing by its phrases such as ?Isa Ruhu Allah? and ?Kalimatullah? to make us understand that Isa is actually Allah?s revelation, Allah?s words, Allah?s sprit constituted, made or build of Miriam. The phrase ?أَبْنَاءُ اللّهِ? of the verse 5:18 also refers to ?Allah?s made?, ?Allah?s build? or ?Allah?s constituted?
There are so many technical things without fully clarification and comprehension of which this subject is difficult to understand for those who learn the Quran by its fake translation or with the false exegesis of their scholars.
This is the reason why I write extensive articles with substantial details of Quranic words so that people can erase from their memory the false meaning of Arabic words of the Quran, which they have memorized from the fake literature of Islam and false dictionaries of the Quran.
Hence, as I have said in my earlier reply that it is not possible to make things clear in one go but we need a series of in depth research articles with substantial information, evidence and references so that people can digest them and understand the truth mentioned in the verses of the Quran.
Also, the translation of the whole Quran is not only wrong but complete false and totally misleading. Therefore, any question with the reference of the false translation will not be understood until we have complete word to word analysis and correct translation of relevant verses of the Quran, which require one full length independent research article for each and every verse of the Quran.
However, in the meantime please conduct some research on the words ?ابن? (ibn) and ?بن? (bin) as to where they are properly used in Arabic language, and in which shape they correctly come with someone?s name to take them to mean ?son? or ?daughter?. You also need to know if ?ابن? (ibn) means ?son? then what is the meaning of popular phrase ?ابن الوقت? (ibn al waqt)? Is it ?son of time??
Moreover, I always reiterate to correctly understand the Quran please read my each and every article and pay attention to the analysis and correct meaning of Quranic words and grammar mentioned in these articles so that you will be able to understand and correctly translate the Quran without taking any help from anyone.
Had you read my article ?CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF QURANIC VERSES 11:77, 11:78 & 11:79 REGARDING THE NATION OF LUT? you would have understood the correct meaning of the word ?بَنَاتِي? (banati) which is falsely translated to mean ?daughters? of Prophet Lut. Whereas, the correct meaning of this Quranic word ?بَنَاتِي? (banati) is ?my constituted?. How can a sensible person hand over his daughters to the corrupt evils to have sex with them without their wishes of going with them?
The ignorant scholars and their blind followers who use ?تصریفِ آیات? (Tasreef-e-Ayat) to balance their lies invented in their translation they use ?بَنَاتِي? (banati) to mean Prophet Lut?s daughters, they don?t ponder upon their evil act of altering the statements of the Quran with their blind aim of taking the same meaning of Quranic words in each and every verse no matter if they clashed with the context. Hence, without taking into account any linguistic rule, the ?Tasrifi evils? translate Quranic words ?ابن?, ?بن?, ?بنات? and their derivatives to mean ?son? and ?daughter? throughout the Quran and fill the translation of the Quran with the pagan myths, false stories of stone-age and ancient polytheist beliefs and pagan rituals.
Actually, the founders of the religions have purposely muddled up the names of the revelations with the names of the prophets. The Quran rarely uses the names of the prophets but it normally and mostly uses the names of God?s revelations and most of them are adjectives of His revelations.
For example, the Quran mainly uses the word Isa (عیسیٰ) for God?s revelation conceived by Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) but in the translation of the Quran Prophet Moses and Aaron?s sister Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) was replaced with Virgin Mary of Christians and she was falsely made the mother of Jesus. If you carefully read the translation of Quranic verses 3:38 to 3:42 you will find for yourself how our liar scholars transferred the pregnancy of Zechariah?s wife to Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) and eventually in the translation of the further verse 3:45 they invented Virgin Mary and her son Jesus. In the mainstream translation of the verse 3:38 Zechariah is shown praying to have his offspring. In the translation of the next verse 3:39 the angels give him a good news of having a son. In the translation of the next verse 3:40 Zechariah is shown unconvinced or not believing in this and argues with His Lord as to how will he be having a son in his old age when his wife is also a barren woman, who cannot conceive a pregnancy. In the translation of the next verse 3:41 unconvinced Zechariah demands from his Lord to show him a sign as if he is really having a son and in the translation of the next verse 3:42 the angels give a news to Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) that she was chosen, and in the translation of the verse 3:45 the angels give the good news to Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) of having a son whose name will be Isa al Maseih (الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى).
Wonderful!?.. Zechariah wanted offspring, he was given a news of having a son, whose wife was not able to become pregnant being a barren woman, Zechariah himself was not able to become a father being an old man and as s token of sign Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) became pregnant and she had a son!
Curse on those evil liars who invented the above mentioned false story from the clear words of the Quran in which Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) conceives, retrieves, constructs or makes God?s revelation Isa al Maseih (الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى), which was the good news given by angels. If a blind layman looks at the words ?اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى? of the verse 3:45 he will correctly translate these words to mean: ?God gives you glad tidings with Word from Him its name will be Isa al Maseih? but in the fake translation the evils invented ?Jesus Christ? and made him a prophet and son of virgin Mary!
What is the meaning of the phrase ?بِكَلِمَةٍ? (bi kalimati hi)? Don?t the evil translators of the Quran know the correct meaning of Arabic word ?کلم? (KLM) and its derivatives such as ?کلام? (Kalam) and ?كَلِمَة? (Kalimah)? They are those who read ?كَلِمَة الشھادۃ? (kalimah ash shadah) when they convert someone into Islam they also read the same Kalimah when they take funeral to the graveyard, and they call ?کلام مجید? (Kalam Majeed) to the Quran or to ?God?s Communication?, to ?God?s words? and to ?God?s Revelation?. They also know the Kalam (کلام) of so an so poet or so and so author but they forgot to correctly translate the same word Kalimah in the phrase ?بِكَلِمَةٍ? of the above verse 3:45. The forthcoming verse 3:49 ?وَرَسُولاً إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ? confirms that it is a message sent towards Bani Israil. The word ?رَسُولاً? (Rasoolan) is a product of ?رسل? to mean messaging, sending consignment, delivery and courier.
If Isa or Jesus was a Prophet then according to the following verse of the Quran all people of the book including Muslims must take him as their prophet instead of Muhammad and Muslims should also be called the followers of Jesus. However, if you correctly take the words ?وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلَمْ يُفَرِّقُواْ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ? of the verse 4:152 to correctly mean: ?and those who adhere with/comply with/take oath with Allah and His sent message they don?t make difference/cut off/take away any of them? in which ?رُسُلِهِ? (rusulihi) is not prophet or their plural (prophets) but the product of ?رسل? (RSL) + ?هِ? (hi) a third person singular objective pronoun of Allah to mean ?His?. Hence, ?رُسُلِهِ? (rusulihi) correctly means ?His sent message?. There is nothing plural in the phrase ?رُسُلِهِ? (rusulihi) but the liar translators falsely took it as a plural word and invented prophets from the singular phrase ?رُسُلِهِ? (rusulihi).
In the next verse 4:153: ?يَسْأَلُكَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ أَن تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ كِتَابًا? question about revealing or bringing down a book itself telling us that it is not the context of the prophets but the context of revelation or bringing down a book, which is also being clarified with the phrase ?رُسُلِهِ? (rusulihi) of the earlier verse 4:152 that does not say ?His prophets? but ?a compilation? or ?a product of His sent message?. The next verse 4:154 is talking about their covenant (بِمِيثَاقِهِمْ) which is again a compliance of the statement of the above verse 4:152 about taking oath, obeying or complying with God and His sent message (آمَنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ). The next verse 4:155 again talks about the compliance of their oath (مِّيثَاقَهُمْ) and declared them ungrateful rejecters who reject Allah?s verses (وَكُفْرِهِم بَآيَاتِ اللّهِ). The further words ?وَقَتْلِهِمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَقَوْلِهِمْ? of the same verse 4:155 refer to the forthcoming incident mentioned in the next verse 4:156 in which Prophetess Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) was accused of having a child without a legal father. Hence, the words ?وَبِكُفْرِهِمْ وَقَوْلِهِمْ عَلَى مَرْيَمَ بُهْتَانًا عَظِيمًا? of the verse 4:156 correctly means: ?and with their rejection and their taunting on Miriam a severe accusation? (word to word correct translation of Quranic verse 4:156) make it clear that the statement ?وَقَتْلِهِمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَقَوْلِهِمْ? of the previous verse 4:155 counts Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) among Prophets and their dilution, attenuation, making them low or degrading of the prophets (وَقَتْلِهِمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ) and taunting or criticising them (وَقَوْلِهِمْ) is not right (بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ). So, the words ?وَقَتْلِهِمُ الْأَنْبِيَاءَ بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ وَقَوْلِهِمْ? of the verse 4:155 correctly means: ?and their degrading of the prophets and their criticism not right? directly refer to their insulting or degrading remark or talk on the severe accusation on Miriam. This verse 4:155 of the Quran not only tells us the true history that Miriam (מִרְיָם/مریم) did not have a child without father but she was accused and Isa (عیسیٰ) which was actually God?s sent message (proven from the above explained context) was rejected by them and they falsely turned it into Miriam?s child Isa (عیسیٰ) born without having his father. Therefore, in the above context the Quran itself reveals and explains how sent message of God or God?s revelation Isa (عیسیٰ) or Isa al Maseih (الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى) was falsely made son of Virgin Mary and how this false belief was established and made viral.
The verse 4:177 urges all people of the book including Muslims as they are also counted among the people of the book: ?لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ? do not yield in your religion and do not press lie on God ?لاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا? except the right which is that ?الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ? The Masheih (observation/thought/retrieval/discovery) Isa constructed by Miriam is sent message of God ?وَكَلِمَتُهُ? and His word ?أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ? revealed/ diction/ thrown/delivered it to Miriam ?وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ? and spirit of its is to be complied with/to be obeyed/to be adhered with God and His sent message ?وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ? and don?t say/invent three gods.
I would like to draw your attention towards the feminine singular pronoun ?هَا? (ha) in the phrase ?أَلْقَاهَا? (alqa ha), i.e. هَا (ha) + أَلْقَا (alqa) = أَلْقَاهَا (alqa ha) in which ?أَلْقَا? (alqa) is a popular word used to mean idea, thought, imagination or anything that comes to someone?s mind or feeling coming in someone?s heart. You might have heard this word ?أَلْقَا? (alqa) is usually used by poets when poetry arrives on them or when poetic thoughts come in their mind, which is also called ?آمد? (aamad), i.e. ?arrival? or ?coming? in Urdu and Persian literature. Whereas, the feminine singular pronoun ?هَا? (ha) in the phrase ?أَلْقَاهَا? (alqa ha) cannot be a pronoun of such a high profiled masculine prophet Isa or Jesus who was supposed to be a man! Hence, the formation of the words of the above verse 4:171 itself discard the lie invented by the liar translators of the Quran, who falsely brought in the translation a man Isa or Jesus by using the feminine pronoun ?هَا? (ha) which has been correctly used as a pronoun of revelation which is feminine. This is the reason why Satan Quranists falsely claim that the Quran was not written according to the grammar and no grammar was used in the Quran so that they can invent in the translation of the Quran whatever they want to spread in the name of the Quran. They should learn Arabic before holding their Quran teaching sessions and stop misguiding innocent people in the name of ?Quran Only? teaching.
Anyway, the word to word correct translation of the above verse 4:171 does not consider that Isa al Maseih or Jesus Christ was a man or human being but God?s revelation constructed or retrieved by Merriam which was reconfirmed by Quranic phrase ?أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ? to correctly mean: arrived, revealed, delivered it to Merriam or its revelation or arrival towards Merriam. Hence, those who are keen to know how revelations used to come to the prophets they should understand the correct statement of the above verse of the Quran in which prophets used to construct or retrieve the words of God. However, in some cases the names of Prophets and their revelation are same just as Newton and Newton?s theory in which the unit of force is also called Newton or someone?s invention or theory is given the name of its retriever or discoverer.
Moreover, the clause ?وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ? and don?t say/invent three gods of the same verse 4:171 depicts that the purpose of inventing Isa al Maseih or Jesus Christ was to worship a man making him god along with his mother who was also declared as a god along with the God. Whereas, the word ?انتَهُواْ? is coming from Hebrew title of God ?YHWH? or ?Ya Huwa? which is also called ?JEHOVAH? in Christianity in which ?Ya? or ?Je? is not a part of God?s title ?Hu?, ?Huwa? or ?Huva?.
Hence, this is another false assumption of the Quranists that the issue of father of Isa or Jesus was not there when the Quran was revealed otherwise the Quran would have clearly said that Isa or Jesus had a father. In fact according to the above verses the issue of Virgin Mary and birth of Isa or Jesus without having father was already there when the Quran was revealed. This is the reason why Quran has made it clear and dealt with this falsification very well in which the Quran states that Isa was a revelation of God constructed by Merriam but the inventors of the theory of 3 gods made Merriam?s revelation Isa or Jesus a man and then turned it into a third god together with its founder Merriam who was falsely made a virgin mother of Isa or Jesus.
Therefore, any argument whether Isa or Jesus had father or born without having father is complete rubbish and non-Quranic. So, those who take up this issue in the favour of their false idea that Isa or Jesus was having father and also those who falsely argue that Isa or Jesus was born without having father they must learn the Quran with open eyes and stop spreading non-Quranic false beliefs. They should follow the words of the Quran instead of following the fake translations of their scholars. Also, the clause ?وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ? of the same verse 4:171 correctly means: ?and spirit of its is to be complied with/to be obeyed/to be adhered with God and His sent message? urges us to obey God and His sent Message, in which ?رُسُلِهِ? (Rusuli hi) is not any human being or prophet but ?sent message of God? which was on purpose replaced with man (prophet) to obey man instead of God?s message.
The words ?ذَلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ الَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ? of Quranic verse 19:34: are also in front of us in which ?عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ?, i.e. Isa construction of Merriam is called ?قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ?, i.e. the true statement. How a man can be a statement???
Hence, the verse 19:34: ?ذَلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّ الَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ? correctly means: ?that Isa construction of Merriam is a true statement in which they dispute?.
The reason of this never ending dispute is that we don?t follow the words of the Quran against our false beliefs.
To prove that Isa was a man the traditionalists invented that Isa was taken up in the heaven without giving him a death and he will be buried right next to Prophet Muhammad in Madina where the place of his grave is already reserved. They follow Ibni Kathir who states that Isa?s demise will take place in Madina, where his Janazah (Burial) Salaat will be performed. He will then be buried beside the holy prophet Muhammad. They also take Imam Tirmizi?s narration in which Trimizi narrates from Abdullah Ibn Salaam, that he said the character of the prophet Muhammad and the fact pertaining to Isa?s burial beside him, was written in the Torah.
Ahmadis, i.e. the followers of Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani have invented Isa?s grave in the locality of Khanyar of the town Srinagar of Indian occupied Kashmir and following the Ahmadis the Quranists (Ahle Quran/Quran Only) also identified Isa?s grave, which is ridiculous. To prove their falsification with their usual style of saying ?this and that? and ?it means this and it means that? they say Isa was not taken up but surely died because Isa used to eat and drink that?s why tasting death was necessary for him.
Where are the clear words of the Quran in which Quran confirms Isa?s death and his burial???
Hence, ?this and that? will not be acceptable anymore and there is no meaning of ?it means this and it means that? we need clear wording from the Quran without any dishonest word engineering as according to the traditional date of revelation of the Quran it was revealed quite after the time of traditional prophet Isa or Jesus. Therefore, the Quran should contain the clear information about the death of Isa or Jesus if he was a human being.
Therefore, it is true that Quran does not mention Mary nor does the Quran talk about her so called virginity. However, our stupid scholars and their nonsense followers have been fighting with each other on the question of Isa?s father!
Traditionalists believe that Isa was born without his father whereas the ?Quran Only?, Quranists or Ahle Quran put their lies together to prove that Isa had a father.
Likewise, Quranic words ?مسیح? (Messih) and ?مسیحا? (Messiah) are adjectives as well as the names of God?s books but they were replaced with persons (human beings) and named them prophets out of which they brought one human in the shape of Jesus or Isa al Maseih and opened the door for another humen ?مسیح? (Messih) to come. This is the reason why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani took a chance and declared himself the ?مسیح? (Messih), who was supposed to come in the world again, near the end of the world! Interestingly, this fake ?مسیح? (Messih) has ended but the world did not end so who will come next, before ending the world is another interesting question!
Whereas, according to the Quran ?مسیح? (Messih) is the title of God?s revelation as we have seen in the analysis of the above verses of the Quran and in my articles on Ablution (وضوء). Hence, if the same ?مسیح? (Messih) will have to come again it will not be any man but God?s next revelation. However, to keep running their perversion and falsification our Satan clergy have closed the door of God?s revelations. This is because they want us to follow the same filth which they follow and gave us the same filth of their filthy pagan beliefs. I have already challenged the whole world to show me any single verse of the Quran in which Allah has ever said that His revelation has been stopped or no more revelation will come to the world again but so far no one turned up with any clear reference of the Quran regarding this issue. Some Quranist friends tried to convince me by saying ?it means this and it means that? but they did not have any clear proof from the Quran except repeating the same crap views of their founder Quranist scholars that man has grown up and he does not need anymore guidance in the shape of any new revelation etc.
In fact revelation has been called ?Rasool? (رسول) in the Quran which is a Divine certification of a true Prophet of God. So, whoever has claimed to be a Prophet without having his own ?Rasool? (رسول), i.e. without his retrieved or constructed message of Nature he is a false liar. This is because ?Rasool? (رسول) and Prophet are integral parts of each other. No prophet can be without his ?Rasool? (رسول) and no ?Rasool? (رسول) is revealed without its Retriever or constructing Prophet, and obeying ?Rasool? (رسول), i.e. ?His message? is obeying God but we are not urged to follow any human being in any shape, no matter who is he. To hide this Quranic order the evils have replaced ?Rasool? (رسول) with Prophet and removed the hurdle of worship of men, which is a severe form of idolatry and paganism.
Therefore, the Quran was translated by such perverted evils who have concealed its actual message and gave us the fake beliefs and filth of polytheist paganism, which we have been carrying in the name of Islam.