Magus55

Hmm, yet the Hadith says this about Jesus:


The Prophet said, "Allah will gather the believers on the Day of Resurrection in the same way (as they are gathered in this life), and they will say, 'Let us ask someone to intercede for us with our Lord that He may relieve us from this place of ours.' ...They will go to Abraham who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'But you'd better go to Moses, a slave whom Allah gave the Torah and to whom He spoke directly' They will go to Moses who will reply, 'I am not fit for this undertaking,' and mention to them the mistakes he made, and add, 'You'd better go to Jesus, Allah's slave and His Apostle and His Word (Be: And it was) and a soul created by Him.' They will go to Jesus who will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, but you'd better go to Muhammad whose sins of the past and the future had been forgiven (by Allah).' So they will come to me and I will ask the permission of my Lord, and I will be permitted (to present myself) before Him." Volume 9, Book 93, Number 507. Narrated Anas. Also, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 236.

Odd how the spirit of God isn't worthy enough to intercede, yet Mohammed, a mere prophet is. Sounds to me like Muhammed wrote this because he had a huge ego and saw himself as the only one fit to intercede.


Whenever Ibn 'Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves."


How can the Spirit of God, be just a slave, unworthy of worship? That makes no sense.

River

-Magus55

Everything ...that emanates from G-d is subservient or muslim to G-d.

Jesus Christ (pbuh) is given the title " Spirit of G-d" , because he was made directly from G-d's Spirit similar ( but not identical) to the formation of Adam.


Muhammad is given the title " The Prophet". This title is the summation of Prophets before him. He is also called " Ahmad of all Nations " in Biblical Scipture. Muhammad was sent to all of humanity as well as Jinns. Thus, he could very well speak in behalf of all people. (as stated in the Hadith you illustrated)

Doctor X

My question, grammatical or not, applied to both individuals.

--J.D.

EstherRose

Show me where Mohammed is ever mentioned in the Bible. I can find references to beware of false prophets, but nothing about Mohammed.


Doctor x grammatical or not, since it applies to both of us, I'll get back to you with an answer.

River

Yes, I made a whole thread on where Muhammad appears in the New Testament (as well as the name " muhammadim " which appears word for word in the Song of Solomon). I gave you both examples from both Muslim and Christian websites. And I even provided a logical deduction by Maurice Bucaille. However, you do not want to believe in ...nor do you even want to come close to imagining the possibility. Thus, I can not help you further.

River

I believe a True Scripture should stand the test of Time . It is unanimously agreed upon that the Qur'an is one. There are no versions of the Arabic Qur'an . The oldest Quran in existence and the newest Quran in existence are identical in the Arabic ( down to the last syllable). Missionaries have stated the opposite but they never provided proof or cited examples to support their theory. Thus, the Qur'an is the only known scripture on Earth that stayed pristine for over 1400 years.

However, I can not say the same of the Bible. People have differing and conflicting outlook on it. Some camps say it has always been koine greek. Others say the aramaic is a more faithful translation. And on top of all this , there exists thousands of noncanonical Apochrypha. I do not know on what basis , the Apochrpha has been declared false or the exact methodology that was utilized to canonize the 4 gospels ( mark , matthew , john and luke).

Doctor X

River:

By that criteria you should honor the various Summerian and Babylonian texts which, indeed, have stood the test of Time.

What do you define as "test of Time"--that they exist for a long period? That they are true?

Ipse dixit I am afraid. That a religious movement proved more efficient at suppressing disenting opinions and versions does not make the final product "true." Indeed, it avoids the issue . . . that only ONE version of something like the Protocals of the Elders of Zion--which has been passed all over the world, and, perhaps, have "stood the test of Time."--exists does not make it "true." It remains racist propaganda.

Nevertheless:

Lack of witnesses is not evidence of purity. No matter, I do not think you claim survives given what other posters have linked on the variants and:

Variants of the Koran

As well do individuals with regards to the Koran.

Does not legitimize the standardization process for the Koran.

Thus, I am left with the same question:

BY WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU CONSIDER TEXTS FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES AND AGES, VALID, AND CONGRUENT?

Now you may argue that "different cultures and ages" does not apply to the Koran, however, I would note that the discovery of variants and the fact the text is based on earlier works and traditions--such as the OT and NT texts applies rather well.

Let me be very clear: you have a right to hallow whatever you wish, you cannot expect others to share in your belief based on such subjective criteria. As well, others cannot expect to change your belief based on their subjective criteria.

--J.D.

[Edited to quote from the link and redact the text to the Textus Recepticus.--Ed.]

Magus55

Hmm, but what was Adam actually made from? The Quran mentions 5 different things.

And how could Muhammed be in the Bible? He wasn't born until 500 years after it was written.

ex-xian

Irony Alert! How could Jesus be spoken of in the OT?

EstherRose

And I provided you with a long drawn out fully supported proof from many sources why this is not so. Yet you still insist upon spreading these unsupported fallacies.