Roger Pearse

I've not heard of it; but one would want to know more. Such as which manuscript? Presumably it would be against a passage about false prophets. But of course manuscripts were produced down to the 17th century; and one would also want to know whether the supposed marginalium was in the same hand as the main text, or a later hand.

Roger Pearse

There are people who go around saying, "I don't find the story in the history books convenient. I don't know anything about it. I hate these people anyway and I'm going to try and rile them up. So I'm going to demand people prove it all to me while I sit here and think of excuses to ignore them and cheap shots and generally behave like a jerk." Most adults don't find such childish behaviour acceptable, whoever the victim of it is. Nor do we spend much time on those who do it.

We can call such stupidity "questioning", if you like. Those who seek to abuse our understanding will certainly flatter us if we do. In general it is best to reserve "questioning" for investigating things we do wish to believe, and not just those we have already decided that we find inconvenient.

You certainly need not read what I wrote if you don't want to.

Duvduv

Roger, I read your replies. You did not explain why we must accept the standard interpretation of the Sunni Muslims about their origins, and you did not provide substantive responses to my questions.

Roger Pearse

I have been unable to find a web page making this claim: do you have any links?

Toto

Islamic-awareness has a web page devoted to early mentions of Mohammed. I don't see a mention of the gospel of Mark.

There might be some confusion with the Gospel_of_Barnabas.

Duvduv

If I recall correctly Spencer addresses all of these, as do some other authors.
Anyway, the website Islamic Awareness is not an objective source in relation to each of the items listed, especially whereby the individual, who we know was held to be the last Prophet and revealer of the holy Quran of Islam is mentioned only in passing, and often under the spelling of MHMT, which as we know reflects the Arabic and Hebrew script that does not use vowels, and the name of the Prophet is MHMD.

MHMT could also be MEHMET, MAHMUT, just as MHMD without vowels (as often was the case in early times) could be MAHMUD etc.

And of course MHMD was not the "first king of the Arabs" - or at least the MHMD of Islam. Notice too that this person is never mentioned in conjunction with the explicit revelation of the Holy Quran of Islam from the angel Gabriel.

It is always possible that a mono-theistic leader existed named Muhammed, but is not the prophet/nabi/rasullah of Islam and the Quran, just like Yeshu ben Pandera is not the Jesus of the NT.

The biographical material should have emerged long before Al-Tabari (and the alleged Ibn Yishaq) if there existed established Islamic caliphates who followed the Quran they believed was revealed to them by Mohammed.

DCHindley

Ron68 Offline
Religion: Moslim
Title:Freshman Member
Arrival Of Muhammad Is Mentioned 34 Times In Bible

26. Mark 1:2-3:- According to Gospel of Mark it says:- "It is written in Isaiah (the prophet): I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way." "A voice of one calling in the desert. Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him."
Explanation:-

(a) Here the Command of God is to all Prophets who were asked to prepare the way for the coming of the Last Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H.
(b) We know Jerusalem is not a desert. John the Baptist and Jesus both were born in the same year. They were contemporaries. The stay of first was 31 years and of the other was 33 years.
(c) A voice is calling in the desert of Arabia applies to Muhammad and not to any other Prophet. And Muhammad prayed all his life- "Show me the straight way." Surah Fatiha 1:6.

27. Mark 1:7-8:- Mark writes about a confession that was made by John the Baptist- And this was his message- "After me will come one more powerful than 1, the thongs (strips) of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with holy spirit."
Explanation:

(a) Here John the Baptist is talking about the coming of a prophet somewhere in future. Some interpret it to mean that it refers to Jesus. No, this is wrong, because Jesus was already there. John the Baptist and Jesus were contemporaries. In fact John the Baptist is talking about the coming of the Last Prophet Muhammad.
(b) John the Baptist used to baptize with water but Muhammad will baptize you with the colour of ALLAH. See Surah Al-Baqarah 2:138 "And who can give a better hue (colour) than ALLAH."

I'm pretty sure the source is this PDF: ARRIVAL OF MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him) IS MENTIONED 34 TIMES IN BIBLE, by Abdul Waheed Khan (1999)



DCH

Minimalist

Isaiah also says: That did not happen, either.

Duvduv

Seeing what is going on in Syria and Damascus now it's ironic that this verse should be quoted!

Duvduv

If someone would ask why certain sects would venerate or even deify Ali ibn Taleb who is not even mentioned in the Quran and was not the person who revealed the Quran from Gabriel, and has preeminence over Muhammad, what would the answer be?

One logical answer is simply that Ali veneration preceded the formalization of Islam in the Abbasid caliphate among syncretic or gnostic type sects in Lebanon. Indeed, it is said that Ismail the first Safavvid king brought Shia teachings from Lebanon to Persia.

This is especially significant given the fact that there are no records even among the Shia variety of Imamism of the existence of Shia communities, armies, leaders, etc. prior to the Safavvids. All one reads about are "rebellions" and occasionally the alleged Ismaili regime in Egypt about which no evidence exists that they were actually Shia.

Otherwise, how could someone who is not even associated with the Quran and its revelation acquire a role greater than that of Muhammed himself?
Here is an interesting article that discusses the Druze:
http://rbedrosian.com/Ref/Moosa/mmdruze1.htm