Monday, March 5, 2012

Surat al-Fatiha

37 comments:

Skýwæłker»» said...

So,what is 786, n why it is so holy in Islam,, whats story behind it?

There is no dough that these holy quran or other Islamic scriptures are written by Muhammad's followers or himself, as a Wahhabi's Muslim towards target to conquer world in name of GOD, In name of religion. who ever dont listen to them,, kill them,, these scriptures are based on two main words Kill n hate.. these innocent people fear n cant do anything other than follow Islam.

there is Muslim person named as "Ali Sina" he claimed Muhammad as Rapist, terrorist, torturer, etc etc,, if any one proves Muhammad is not above,, he pays 50,000 usd,, the challenge is still a big challenge.

lol..

sara said...

Once again proof that Allah is only Muhammad's altar-ego, Muslims are going to feel so ripped off when they get to hell and find out Allah is Muhammad who is in hell with them.

Muslims please open you eyes before its too late and you will see that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Skýwæłker»» said...

@ sara,
"Allah" is not Muhammad's altar Ego.

Allah is name of god in Arabia which exists before Muhammad, If its not in arabia or arabic, then where did Muhammad gets this word? from another region or another religion,i dont think so.

Every word in language must have meaning, if some says its just name means, he dont know meaning,,
Can any one know meaning of "Allah"

Billy said...

I suppose the common absurd responses such as “a Jew wrote it” and “it is a weak hadith” won’t work here. Moe and his companions could not even convincingly fabricate even the first chapter of that second-rate book.

sara said...

@ Skyaelker

He may have the same name but I'm sure he isn't the same god unless you are telling me that Islam was in arabia before Muhammad.

The reason why I say he is Muhammad's altar-ego is because it seems like all who made fun of muhammad or who were his enemy's became allahs enemy's and he was more then happy to grant Muhammads every wish so if you can prove that the Allah who was there before muhammad was the same as the one who muhammad created I stand by my point Allah is muhammads altar-ego.

Deleting said...

sara said, "The reason why I say he is Muhammad's altar-ego is because it seems like all who made fun of muhammad or who were his enemy's became allahs enemy's and he was more then happy to grant Muhammads every wish so if you can prove that the Allah who was there before muhammad was the same as the one who muhammad created I stand by my point Allah is muhammads altar-ego."

I agree 100%. It's also one more reason aside from pattern of speech and fruition of bible prophecies and basically seeing christians all over the world have their butts handed to them for no reason that i had to reject islam.
No prophet in the old testament E-V-E-R got what they wanted. Jeremiah-tossed in a cistern and left to die.
Isaiah-has hot coal pressed to his lips. That...that would hurt. Tender flesh and all that.
He also had to wander naked for a few years as part of an object lesson.
Muhammad-on the other hand-wore eyeliner and I heard there's a hadith that said he stole someone's underwear.
Ezekiel-if there was ever a prophet in the old testament I marvel at, it was him. Jeremiah had nothing on him.
Begins prophecy in Babylon and is told as early as chapter 3 he's being sent to the jews who won't listen to him as opposed to the gentiles who would.
In Ch 24 God tells him he is going to cause his wife to die and don't grieve like everyone else does. Now, add to this the fact that Ezekiel was a stranger in a strange land. He was apart of the diaspora. He'd lost his country. He'd lost his wife. As far as we know he never remarried again (and if someone knows differently, please let me know).

However...Muhammad was allowed to marry a six year old and consumate the marriage when she was the ripe old age of nine.

Let me repeat that again: Ezekiel loses his wife and is restricted in mourning. Muhammad marries child and has sex with a child.

What I want people to take away from this is Muhammad was permitted by Allah many pleasures the old testament prophets,, John the baptist and Jesus were never allowed. Why?
Because the old testament prophets were of the spirit.
Muhammad was of the flesh.

Not every prophet had such an extremely hard time. We don't know much about some of the minor prophets like Gad or Nathan.
Then again, the focus in christianity is not on the prophets it's on Jesus so we're not supposed to know every little thing about them.
But the stark contrast in treatment between biblical prophets and muhammad's treatment is night and day and thus one more reason to reject it.

Deleting said...

sara said, "The reason why I say he is Muhammad's altar-ego is because it seems like all who made fun of muhammad or who were his enemy's became allahs enemy's and he was more then happy to grant Muhammads every wish so if you can prove that the Allah who was there before muhammad was the same as the one who muhammad created I stand by my point Allah is muhammads altar-ego."

I agree 100%. It's also one more reason aside from pattern of speech and fruition of bible prophecies and basically seeing christians all over the world have their butts handed to them for no reason that i had to reject islam.
No prophet in the old testament E-V-E-R got what they wanted. Jeremiah-tossed in a cistern and left to die.
Isaiah-has hot coal pressed to his lips. That...that would hurt. Tender flesh and all that.
He also had to wander naked for a few years as part of an object lesson.
Muhammad-on the other hand-wore eyeliner and I heard there's a hadith that said he stole someone's underwear.
Ezekiel-if there was ever a prophet in the old testament I marvel at, it was him. Jeremiah had nothing on him.
Begins prophecy in Babylon and is told as early as chapter 3 he's being sent to the jews who won't listen to him as opposed to the gentiles who would.
In Ch 24 God tells him he is going to cause his wife to die and don't grieve like everyone else does. Now, add to this the fact that Ezekiel was a stranger in a strange land. He was apart of the diaspora. He'd lost his country. He'd lost his wife. As far as we know he never remarried again (and if someone knows differently, please let me know).

However...Muhammad was allowed to marry a six year old and consumate the marriage when she was the ripe old age of nine.

Let me repeat that again: Ezekiel loses his wife and is restricted in mourning. Muhammad marries child and has sex with a child.

What I want people to take away from this is Muhammad was permitted by Allah many pleasures the old testament prophets,, John the baptist and Jesus were never allowed. Why?
Because the old testament prophets were of the spirit.
Muhammad was of the flesh.

Not every prophet had such an extremely hard time. We don't know much about some of the minor prophets like Gad or Nathan.
Then again, the focus in christianity is not on the prophets it's on Jesus so we're not supposed to know every little thing about them.
But the stark contrast in treatment between biblical prophets and muhammad's treatment is night and day and thus one more reason to reject it.

Traeh said...

Wow. The Qur'an makes a pretty good horror flick, especially with all those sound effects.

Billy said...

To follow up on deleting’s comment, Satan promised Jesus all the earthly dominion if He just fell down and worshiped Satan, but Jesus rebuffed him.

In Buddhism, Buddha was tempted by a demon called Mara, who tried “to seduce Buddha with the vision of beautiful women. Mara personifies unwholesome impulses, unskillfulness, the "death" of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making the mundane alluring or the negative seem positive”(Wikipedia). Buddha also resisted and overcame the temptation.

Similarly, Mohammad was tempted with all the unwholesome impulses (sex with children, multiple wives, slave girls, riches of this world, etc.) and Mohammad failed the spiritual test.

Take a look at Jesus resisting the temptation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhr1VJGXzyE

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Traeh

Actually, the Quran is normally recited amazingly. Clearly, the person in the video was trying to form that impression. Here is some great recitations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTiilSHdIsk&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSi8NYhFIU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qsfCqb5FF4

Take your time and listen to them.


Hadith passage of the day:
In the Hadith Qudsi Allah will say on the Day of Judgment: “O son of Adam I was sick and you did not visit Me. He will say: O Lord how can I visit You. You are the Lord of the worlds? He says: Did you not know that My servant so and so was sick yet you did not visit him? Did you not know that if you had visited him you would have found Me with him?” (Muslim).

Derek Adams said...

I've used this argument for years.

The most common response is:

"It is God teaching us how to pray"

Of course this is problematic for several reasons 1) the arabic word for say(qul) does not appear in this text. meaning God is not telling Mohammed to recite anything, rather this is God's very direct speech to mankind

2) Surah Al Fatiha was not accepted by Ibn Masud (And I'm sure some others). Scholars seem to have been perplexed about whether this is part of the Quran or not

3) Obviously the theology of the verse cannot be dictated by God, unless God has another God

As for "owner/king", this of course is accepted divine variants approved of by the Prophet himself. This is at least the explanation according to our Muslim friends.
Which I take apart here

By the way it would be interesting to note that David Wood (along with most historians) have asserted the prophet was genuine. So "alter-ego" allegations are on thin lines.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Royal Son said...

David, what intrigues me is that Surat al-Fatiha was said to be the Umm al Kitab by Ibn Kathir, Bukhari, and others.

I find it interesting because according to surah 3:7 the clear verses of the Qur'an are the Umm al-kitab. Others are said to be mutashabihat. In that case, one could conclude that there are a grand total of 7 clear verses in the Qur'an, and the rest are known only by Allah himself.

Nakdimon said...

Great vid!

I will be making a video solely on the corruption of the Quran. Have been planning that for a while, but personal stuff keep getting in between me and the video.

But Muslims really need to come to grips with the fact that the Quran is the words of Allah PLUS the words of men, which is the very accusation they level against the Bible. Al Fatiha is merely one example out of many others. When Allah tells others to say something he tells them to “say” something. That is completely absent in Al Fatiha. So for Muslims to claim that this is Allah telling Muslims what to say, comparing it like the Lord’s Prayer, is merely begging the question and nothing other than BIDDAH, innovation, explaining the Quran other than what Muhammad has said.

So Muslims, the questions in the video are completely valid and must be explained in light of the claim that the Quran is the words of ALLAH ONLY! If this is correct, then Allah asks for guidance and to be kept on the straight path and not to be like those that have acquired his wrath (Jews – which would mean that Allah is begging Allah to not be angry on himself) or like those that have gone astray (Christians – which would mean that Allah would mislead himself)

Nakdimon said...

As for the terms “malik” and “maalik”, Muslims tend to glance over this as a “minor difference”. But its in the case of the Quran a MAJOR difference. Muslims claim that the Quran has been preserved to the letter and claim that the difference is merely dialect. But doesn’t different dialect still mean different words yet SAME meaning? Yet this is NOT what we find here. Owner does not equal king! This is a problem in the claim that Muslims make about the prefect preservation of the Quran. It is also fascinating that Muslims always pick this verse as an illustration of how there are minor differences between the readings of the Quran, but don’t mention the other differences in readings, e.g.:

1. 3:146 reads qatala (he killed) in the Hafs reading but qootila (he was killed) in the Warsh reading.
2. 28:48 reads sihraani (two works of magic) in the Hafs but saahiraani (two magicians) in the Warsh reading.
3. According to their sahih hadith the verse of suckling should be in the Quran as it was in the days of Muhammad. It’s not there anymore. Muslims will claim it was abrogated. But says WHO? Muhammad never said it was abrogated and nor did his companions. The Hadith in Sahih Muslim about the abrogation of this verse only talks about an abrogation from 10 sucklings to 5, not that it was abrogated out of the Quran. A goat ate it! That’s how the hadith says it was lost. Nothing else. So claiming that it was abrogated out of the Quran is merely a copout in order to save the Quran from the allegation that it hasn’t been preserved.
4. Another hadith reveals that Surah 92:3 is NOT as Muhammad recited it. Sahih Bukhari vol. 6, hadith 468, book 60 says that companions of Muhammad discussed the verse and agreed that the verse was recited by Muhammad saying “by the male and female” rather than “by him who created the male and the female”, which they rejected. Yet we find the latter reading in the Quran today, which they disputed!

Not to mention all the errors in the Quran about the Trinity being Father Son and Mary (5:73-75), Jews saying Ezra is the Son of God as Christians do the Messiah, Moses telling Israelites that Allah raised among them kings and prophets before him, etc.

Deleting said...

Oh Samatar, samatar, samatar...
1. quote the hadith citation properly. Muslim tells me it came from a sahih muslim hadith and that's about it.

2. In true counterfeit fashion, this was a rip off of Matthew 25:33

"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world


25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.


25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Perhaps you should read the bible, no???

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

"1. quote the hadith citation properly. Muslim tells me it came from a sahih muslim hadith and that's about it.

2. In true counterfeit fashion, this was a rip off of Matthew 25:33."

With regard to your first question, here is the hadith citation along with a site for confirmation. It is a Sahih hadith in muslim.

Sahih Muslim, Book 32, number 6232

http://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/160-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2032.%20Virtues,%20Good%20Manners%20and%20Joining%20Of%20The%20Ties%20Of%20Relationship/15086-sahih-muslim-book-032-hadith-number-6232.html

2. Just because a story is similar, does not mean that it is a counterfeit. You know better then to say something like that.

Deleting said...

Samatar said, "2. Just because a story is similar, does not mean that it is a counterfeit. You know better then to say something like that"

Prove it's not a counterfeit. You can't and you know it and have no reason to chastise me.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

"Prove it's not a counterfeit. You can't and you know it and have no reason to chastise me."

See, the burden on proof is not even on me, rather it is on you. After all, you are in the affirmative. You are saying that because the hadith has a similar teaching, that it has copied the bible. So the onus is on you to show how exactly the prophet (pbuh) copied the teaching from the bible. And I am sorry if you took my rebuke of you offensively. I did not mean any offense by it in any way.

Deleting said...

Samatar said, "See, the burden on proof is not even on me, rather it is on you. After all, you are in the affirmative. You are saying that because the hadith has a similar teaching, that it has copied the bible. So the onus is on you to show how exactly the prophet (pbuh) copied the teaching from the bible. "

No the onus isn't on me. I challenged you to prove it's not copied from the bible.
This came 600 years before your prophet was ever born.

Once again, prove Mohammed didn't copy it from the bible.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

"No the onus isn't on me. I challenged you to prove it's not copied from the bible.
This came 600 years before your prophet was ever born. "

I might be wrong here, but the burden of proof usually lies on the accuser, not the accused. Ever heard of the saying "innocent until proven guilty." So just because something similar is in the hadith that was also in the bible, we cannot jump to conclusions that it was copied from the bible. There are teachings in the bible in religions before it, does that mean that the bible copied those texts, unless there is sufficient evidence, there is no point in making such an accusation.

Deleting said...

So show it. I showed that before your Hadith this was already in the bible. My case was made in full so I have NOTHING left to do. My "burden" of proof has been met. Now YOU show me this saying that Jesus taught existed and was published before he spoke these words. You can't do it, and you know it.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

"So show it. I showed that before your Hadith this was already in the bible. My case was made in full so I have NOTHING left to do. My "burden" of proof has been met. Now YOU show me this saying that Jesus taught existed and was published before he spoke these words. You can't do it, and you know it."

But Deleting, I agree with you that the same teaching occurs between the hadith and bible. You have proved that and I have not argued that. Rather, my argument was on your accusation that the hadith was actually counterfeited from the bible knowingly. That someone who knew that in the bible purposely incorporated that teaching. Hence, why I said that you would have to provide some sort of support or evidence to show that it happened that way. I'll give you a better example of what I mean. According to some atheists, Jesus was actually a myth invented by men in accordance to similarities between him and pagan Gods in the past. Horus would be a good example in this case. Horus was supposedly born of a virgin, baptized in a river, he healed the sick, blind, he cast out demons, walked on water, raised someone from the dead, he had twelve disciples, he was also crucified, and was apparently resurrected. Now, using your methodology, clearly the bible must have stolen the concept of Jesus from earlier pagan Gods. But unless there is some sort of proof, there is no point in claiming counterfeit just because of something similar occurring. Hopefully I conveyed my point clearly.

Deleting said...

I don't know if anyone caught it, but Samatar clipped the original argument, introduced a 'Christianity came from polytheism' to deflect from the actual point.

But I still answered because this is going to be fun.

Samatar said, "Horus would be a good example in this case. Horus was supposedly born of a virgin, baptized in a river, he healed the sick, blind, he cast out demons, walked on water, raised someone from the dead, he had twelve disciples, he was also crucified, and was apparently resurrected. Now, using your methodology, clearly the bible must have stolen the concept of Jesus from earlier pagan Gods. "


No Samatar this point is completely irrevelant because Horus was part of a pagan deity system. Christianity came fron Judism which is monotheistic.

Sorry but I had to start with the 'who got this all from pagan deities' bit. Christianity came from Judism-which is monothestic. Judism was allowed but just barely. The jews were hated for many reasons. One reason is they didn't incorporate roman gods into their worship nor did they embrace them.

And Samatar, horus was an egyptian deity. You need to find a roman or greek ressurection deity to make this argument work since all the area was under the roman empire, not the egyptian.

Okay, going back to the point at hand:

"Rather, my argument was on your accusation that the hadith was actually counterfeited from the bible knowingly. That someone who knew that in the bible purposely incorporated that teaching. Hence, why I said that you would have to provide some sort of support or evidence to show that it happened that way."

So, to make sure I understand, your assertion is that both the bible and hadith came from God, yes?

I posted the chapter in the bible it came from.

Mohammad may have been illiterate but I don't think he was stupid.

He had scribes that could read and write, right? Was the Injil around during Mohammad's time?

Probably so. He also went on caravan trips with his uncle when he was little and when he was older he went on behalf of Khadijah. Would he have encountered christians on these trips? Probably so.

My assertion, to make it clear, is that Mohammad had access to these scriptures long before and even during his ministry.

Critics of islam actually give due respect to mohammad's intellect more than muslims do. He was crafty as a fox, the only ones who don't see that are muslims.

Deleting said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

Again you have misunderstood me deleting. I was establishing your criteria. According to your statements, because the teaching in the bible was before the hadith, then that means the hadith must have stole the teaching from the bible. And that was it, you did not lay out any proof whatsoever, and that is why I told you to bring evidence to support your claim. Now, I decided to use your criteria with regards to the comparisons between pagan deities and Jesus (pbuh). Are their noticeable similarities between Jesus and Horus, the answer is yes. Which deity was described earlier, that would be Horus. Therefore, the bible must have stolen from those earlier descriptions of pagan deities. I do not agree with that radical skepticism, and I was trying to show you the irrationality of your criteria. Now, you seemed to have added to your criteria by trying to show some sort of evidence to show that Muhammad (pbuh) stole ideas from the bible. Which is funny, because that is exactly what I have been telling you all along. Ok, so you admitted that the prophet (pbuh) was illiterate, therefore, he could not have gotten the ideas himself. That means that he would have to have someone there in secret with him so he could get teachings from the bible. The problem I would have with this is that we must remember that the prophet (pbuh) was a very busy man. Me and you could probably find the time to do something like that, but not someone who was a prophet giving advice and teaching the religion to people. He was a merchant, a statesmen, he was a military leader, he was in charge of the economy, he was a judge, he was in charge of his state also. Now how hard must it have been for the prophet (pbuh) to have time to sneak away from everybody, and memorize biblical teachings. I am not saying it is not possible. But you must admit that it is highly unlikely for something like that to happen.

Deleting said...

Samatar, somewhere in the garble said, " And that was it, you did not lay out any proof whatsoever, and that is why I told you to bring evidence to support your claim."

Really? That's what I did. I showed where those statements first appeared in the bible. I also told you he had access to the scriptures and people who could read them, as well as point out the injeel existed in his time.

Buddy, I don't have to prove ANYTHING beyond proof those words existed before mohammad and he had access to them. You have to defend why those are there or present an alternative explanation.
Your explanation "they came from Allah'.

then Samatar said, " Now, I decided to use your criteria with regards to the comparisons between pagan deities and Jesus (pbuh). Are their noticeable similarities between Jesus and Horus, the answer is yes. Which deity was described earlier, that would be Horus. Therefore, the bible must have stolen from those earlier descriptions of pagan deities. I do not agree with that radical skepticism, and I was trying to show you the irrationality of your criteria."

Umm, no. The jews living at the time would have to have access to Horus. There's no evidence they did.
Also, just as a side note, Horus was egyptian, not greek or roman, and he was cut up into pieces and reconstructed as the god of the underworld. That's not even a ressurection because he didn't come back to the world of the living.
Jesus did.
Horus also didn't die for the sins of the world, so how you can correlate that to Jesus or the Jews stealing this and concocting it for their one purposes is stupid.

These were monothestic jews teaching from the jewish scriptures such as Pslam 22, written 1000 before christ, and isaiah. You can see the bereans in ACT 17 and what they did to beleive.
They didn't need to go to horus.

And, as another side note, Muslims believe in ressurection, don't you? Did you get it from the pagans too?

"Now, you seemed to have added to your criteria...

No. You just keep fighting me on this. My criteria has always been the same. Prove he didn't take it from the bible.
"....by trying to show some sort of evidence to show that Muhammad (pbuh) stole ideas from the bible. Which is funny, because that is exactly what I have been telling you all along. Ok, so you admitted that the prophet (pbuh) was illiterate,..."

what is there to admit? That's the muslim claim to fame for Mo.

"...therefore, he could not have gotten the ideas himself. That means that he would have to have someone there in secret with him so he could get teachings from the bible. The problem I would have with this is that we must remember that the prophet (pbuh) was a very busy man. "

Yeah, with war-booty and sexual privileges to boot! Don't make me go to the hadith dude. Seriously.

By the way, did you catch what I wrote earlier? He was on caravan trips on business before islam started. He may have heard these things being said too and it stuck with them.
His being busy with affairs of state and affairs with other women who threw themselves at him doesn't mean he couldn't have had access to these thing either.


Samatar said, " I am not saying it is not possible. But you must admit that it is highly unlikely for something like that to happen."

I'm saying it definately happened Samatar. No ifs, ands, or but about it.

You don't seem to get it. Arguing with me to evoke some reason why i should back down is pointless.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

Ok, here is an important question for you, so I can understand your position better.

1. If a teaching is found in a text, while a text before it had the same teaching, would that mean that it was DEFINITELY a counterfeit assuming that the people of the present texts had access to the prior texts.

So pretty much, if there was a teaching in the bible, where the same teaching was in a text (not the O.T.) prior to it, while the Christians had access to that text, does that mean that the teaching was copied DEFINITELY, PROBABLY, or POSSIBLY. And do not dodge the question, answer it straightforward please.

Billy said...

Mohammad writes the following on his English composition test without giving credit to where credit is due:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Deleting, Moe’s English teacher says: Mo, that is from Shakespeare’s Hamlet act3 scene1

Mo: I swear, I came up with that all my own. Allah revealed that to me.

Deleteing: You get a zero on the test for plagiarizing and a one-semester suspension for academic dishonesty.

Mo: Darn I could easily fool them illiterate Arabs, but it ain’t working with these well-read infidels.

Deleting said...

Sammatar asked, "So pretty much, if there was a teaching in the bible, where the same teaching was in a text (not the O.T.) prior to it, while the Christians had access to that text, does that mean that the teaching was copied DEFINITELY, PROBABLY, or POSSIBLY."

Huh?

Then Samatar ended with, " And do not dodge the question, answer it straightforward please."

Then ask it straightforward.



You question doesn't make sense but more than that, I get the feeling you're trying to shoehorn an argument in here to make the case that christians did 'X' so it's okay for Mohammad to do 'Y'.

Not the same thing.

Christians believed Jesus was God, that he was cruxified and ressurected. They believed evangelists tell them, and they went back and studied scripture and found it to be the case.

They were persecuted for this belief.


I've been VERY clear with you. Mohammad was smarter than you give him credit for.
Mohammad heard the same words first spoken by Jesus in Matthew 25.

He repeated them, claiming this teaching, which was originally Jesus's teaching, as his own.

Whether you accept this or not is irrvelevant.

Deleting said...

lol @ billy.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Deleting

OK, Ill give you a better example. What if the teaching in Mathew 25 was found in a text before it. And christians also had access to the texts prior to the bible with the teaching in Mathew 25. Would you concede that the teaching must have been counterfeited, was probably counterfeited, or might have been counterfeited but not likely.

Deleting said...

Samatar said, " What if the teaching in Mathew 25.....


I had a longer response but I see it's not really necessary here.


You're trying to build an argument that says that the gospel writers didn't write the gospels and christianity is all made up.

That doesn't work here.

The gospel of matthew was written as an eye witness account of Jesus's ministry to the jews, which was a fulfillment of prophecy.

Jesus said those words. I'm not going to playing the 'what if...' game with you because it's a waste of time and ultimately IT STILL DOESN'T EXONERATE MUHAMMAD. HE PLAGERIZED MATTHEW 25 BY CLAIMING THESE WERE HIS WORDS.

Trying to claim 'well what if christians did that..."
They didn't. They went to their deaths believing that jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy, that he is God and trusting in his finished work on the cross.

DONE.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar said: What if the teaching in Mathew 25 was found in a text before it. And christians also had access to the texts prior to the bible with the teaching in Mathew 25. Would you concede that the teaching must have been counterfeited, was probably counterfeited, or might have been counterfeited but not likely.

Samatar, lets examine your scenarios:

1. There was a text similar to Matthew 25 that strongly resembled Matthew 25, but Christians had NEITHER access to that text, NOR did they encounter the people that were familiar with those texts. The likelihood of them having plagiarized that text is slim to none.
2. There was a text similar to Matthew 25 that strongly resembled Matthew 25, but Christians had access to EITHER the actual text OR the people familiar with that text. The likelihood of them having plagiarized that text is possible, but the case for that still should be made.
3. There was a text similar to Matthew 25 that strongly resembled Matthew 25, and Christians had frequent access to BOTH the text and the people familiar with that text. The likelihood of them having plagiarized that text is probable to certain.


Now, honestly, Samatar, do you agree with the above conclusions? If not why not? Because it seems to me that scenario no.3 fits Muhammad’s circumstances in relation to Matthew 25 to a tee. Therefore, my conclusion is that Muhammad must have probably/certainly plagiarized these stories (also including the hoopi-bird story, Cain and Abel story, Queen of Sheba story, Mount Sinai raised over the children of Israel story, clay-bird story, cradle-chat story, etc.) from the works of the Jews and Christians he frequently had access to and frequently encountered. Especially since he constantly appealed to their scriptures AND mistook these fables as part of their scriptures (which they weren’t!!!) and claimed to be in conformity with those scriptures (which he wasn’t!!!), doesn’t that bother you at all?

Deleting said...

Nak-thank you. You articulated this perfectly whereas I couldn't.

Samatar Mohamed said...

I don't know Nakdimon if you hold that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sincere (after studying his life) when he claimed that he was getting revelation from God. Christian apologists such as your own David Wood even hold that Muhammad (pbuh) was a sincere individual. If you agree with him, then you are being inconsistent by saying that he plagiarized stories from the bible. However, if you do not hold that the prophet (pbuh) was a sincere individual, I would like to know your reasons why so we can compare and contrast. Thanks.

Deleting said...

Samatar said, "I don't know Nakdimon if you hold that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sincere (after studying his life) when he claimed that he was getting revelation from God. Christian apologists such as your own David Wood even hold that Muhammad (pbuh) was a sincere individual. If you agree with him, then you are being inconsistent by saying that he plagiarized stories from the bible. However, if you do not hold that the prophet (pbuh) was a sincere individual, I would like to know your reasons why so we can compare and contrast."


Nakdimon didn't ask you to ask him if he thought Mohammad was sincere. He asked if you agreed with his scenarios that he laid out and if not why not.

You keep spitting out either garble or a different question when asked something very clear and basic. I don't know if its because you don't know how to engage in debate or your just are so afraid to be caught saying something negative about your prophet that you divert instead of engage.

Nakdimon is a very skilled debater. Look on youtube. His nic is the same as here. I would say he's better than David...(sorry David). He's good for many reasons: he speaks hebrew and studies koine greek. He knows sentence construction and has a STELLAR handle of hermaneutics from a biblical perspective. Couple this with hadith knowledge and how it applies to the Koran he's very good at handling the muslim objection.


Debate is about criticism, analysis, refutation. But your responses say 'I can't handle criticism about my prophet'. That doesn't bode well. Neither does your inability to think critically and respond.
When David Wood blows up a post about you it's not because you're so wise and awesome, it's because you've said something notoriously stupid. I personally don't believe you're stupid, but what comes out in your posts doesn't reflect someone who can be clear and concise.

I'm this way too. Believe me, I know I have soo many faults California looks like a safe 'earthquake-free- place to live.

But even if I forget my limitations, and I do it often, I know that there are skilled people who can carry on the fight for the cause of the gospel.

You didn't have any of your brothers or sisters in Islam come to your aid and you needed it.

Just. Stop. Take a breather for a bit. Hang back and watch other people do it. Other muslim apologists even. Watch Shabir Ally. Watch Yasir Quadi (sp??) ANYONE BUT AHDMED DEEDAT! Or Zair Naik! That's just the same thing as watching deedat.

Please consider what I said. I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I couldn't do what Nak and David and Sam Shamoun do. I have trouble not completely blowing up at muslims on youtube.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: “I don't know Nakdimon if you hold that the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sincere (after studying his life) when he claimed that he was getting revelation from God. Christian apologists such as your own David Wood even hold that Muhammad (pbuh) was a sincere individual. If you agree with him, then you are being inconsistent by saying that he plagiarized stories from the bible. However, if you do not hold that the prophet (pbuh) was a sincere individual, I would like to know your reasons why so we can compare and contrast. Thanks.”

Samatar, that’s the entire point. He CLAIMED his stories were the same as from the Bible, he THOUGHT they were the same as from the Bible, but they WEREN’T! Samatar, do, pray tell, explain where these stories came from. We KNOW the sources and we KNOW that they are NOT inspired, but mere folklore, UNLESS you’re going to claim that the rabbis and Gnostics received inspiration! But then again, these are the same people that deny Jesus was either the Messiah or a mere human being. So they couldn’t have been inspired.

As for your question if I think Muhammad was sincere. I think that he did receive things from a spirit at times and that he did sincerely think that those were divine messages, but I also believe that he forged a lot of circumstantial revelations that seem so incredibly convenient that it’s almost laughable to think otherwise. Combine that with the earlier mentioned phenomenon that Muhammad recites Jewish and Christian fiction as if these are authoritative and claims that these are from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians when they’re not.

If you have another explanation for these fables being regarded as actual revelation I would like to hear it. Unless you’re going to claim that those stories were part of the original Scriptures but got expunged or “lost” or something of the sort. Those claims are simply untenable if evidence is any indicator for truth. We can go over those as well if you want.