BMZ
|
CAN WE DO THE APPLE_PIE HERE?Hello, All_Brains
Apple_Pie tries to show Jesus coming out from between the loin and the rib of a man.
The fact is that Jesus never came out from the interaction of a man and woman. He was not created using semen. The other problem is that the Jews have clearly determined that Jesus has no place at all in their Scripture. It is thus quite clear that there was no Jesus as far as the Jews are concerned.
Now, where would the Evangelist, clinging to a straw, swim to, to justify the Christian Jesus. The only people, who acknowledge Jesus the man and son of a woman, are Muslims. That is where the Christian has to go in quest of his/her Jesus.
Last time, the Christians tried the He Haw series by taking every word 'he' to mean 'He" but that could also mean Satan, the Devil, the man, the Demon and any Tom, Dick and Harry.
The book of Revelation, the 13th Chapter, an unlucky number in itself, the mother of all nonsense, has destroyed the minds of the Christian freaks and little do they realise that the book of Revelation ridicules their god and the gospels. 
Is it all right if we discuss Apple_Pie and his stuff here? Please advise.
Thanks in anticipation 
BMZ
|
AhmedBahgat
|
LOL mate
and you can sicuss it on FI too
we need such clowns man
Take care
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | LOL mate
and you can discuss it on FI too
we need such clowns man
Take care |
LOL! Mate. I did not do on FI because I did not want the FFI goons to flood up FI.
If it is okay with you, I will do that. My pleasure.
FFI and CARM are the only two places left for Apple_Pie to convinve folks that he finds Jesus coming in from between the loins and the rib of a man. Nobody listens to his crap at other sites and he has been declared a bigot even by Christians.
Hope to see him here.
BMZ
|
All_Brains
|
Dear BMZ
Please go ahead and post your rebuttal of Christianity in this particular forum "Christianity".
Kind regards
All_Brains
|
BMZ
|
| All_Brains wrote: | Dear BMZ
Please go ahead and post your rebuttal of Christianity in this particular forum "Christianity".
Kind regards
All_Brains |
Dear A_B,
Thank you very much. I was waiting for your approval. I shall greatly appreciate your interjections in matters related to Arabic of Qur'aan.
Matters which Christians like Apple_Pie distort and misinterpret to find the Christain Jesus in Qur'aan. Fathom, being an ex-Christian and an ex-Muslim did interject very well at FFI.
Thanks, once again.
Best Regards
BMZ
|
1Angelfire
|
| BMZ wrote: | | All_Brains wrote: | Dear BMZ
Please go ahead and post your rebuttal of Christianity in this particular forum "Christianity".
Kind regards
All_Brains |
Dear A_B,
Thank you very much. I was waiting for your approval. I shall greatly appreciate your interjections in matters related to Arabic of Qur'aan.
Matters which Christians like Apple_Pie distort and misinterpret to find the Christain Jesus in Qur'aan. Fathom, being an ex-Christian and an ex-Muslim did interject very well at FFI.
Thanks, once again.
Best Regards
BMZ |
Hey BMZ, I see your being as big a asshole here as you were on FFI......cant wait for apple pie to come along and cut you into tiny
pieces as he usually does.... You and asshole Braggart, what a pair.
|
BMZ
|
| 1Angelfire wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | All_Brains wrote: | Dear BMZ
Please go ahead and post your rebuttal of Christianity in this particular forum "Christianity".
Kind regards
All_Brains |
Dear A_B,
Thank you very much. I was waiting for your approval. I shall greatly appreciate your interjections in matters related to Arabic of Qur'aan.
Matters which Christians like Apple_Pie distort and misinterpret to find the Christain Jesus in Qur'aan. Fathom, being an ex-Christian and an ex-Muslim did interject very well at FFI.
Thanks, once again.
Best Regards
BMZ |
Hey BMZ, I see your being as big a asshole here as you were on FFI......cant wait for apple pie to come along and cut you into tiny
pieces as he usually does.... You and asshole Braggart, what a pair. |
Oh! Yes, please. Both of you will be welcome. Call Apple_Pie here. We will plug your arses and throats to relieve your oral diarrhoea. Cheers.
Are you a Jesus freak also?
BMZ
|
AhmedBahgat
|
Bring chicken lies here, let brother BMZ and myself humiliate his conning arse really hard, LOL
can't wait like you BMZ
let the show begin
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | Bring chicken lies here, let brother BMZ and myself humiliate his conning arse really hard, LOL
can't wait like you BMZ
let the show begin |
Sure, Ahmad. I want to begin with Apple_Pie's posts made at a Christain Forum, where the non-Muslims noticed and confirmed his bigotry. Did you follow the thread at FFI, where Fathom grilled and screwed Apple_Pie and his Tonto?
Will do in the evening.
Salaams
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
Apple_Pie brought backHello all,
This is a post from Apple-Pie, posted at the link provided below and every cognizant reader can see how the verses are distorted. After reading the entire post, all are free to comment.
http://www.bible-discussion.com/m...oard-forum/about3455-0-asc-0.html
| Quote: | Apple Pie
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 178
Location: Houston
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: Koran:...Jesus is the Son...
يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan
4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and certainly they say against “allah” except the truth , only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, a message ; “allah” and his Word cast forth to her Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and certainly they say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah”one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his child, truly his; what not in the heavens and not in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.
All,
Is there a cognizant Muslim out there that can please explain how it is that 4.171 plainly states that Jesus is the Son….?
Further, how is it that 4.171 proclaims all the elements of the Biblical Trinity…
• Father
• Son
• Spirit
Thanks… |
|
BMZ
|
Latest Joke from Apple_PieJust read in the topic Qur'aan and Hadith on FFI. Ahmad, better get Apple_Pie here fast. Tell him All_Brains' forum is a better
turf and he should not be scared at all to come here. 
| Quote: | Apple Pie
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 634
Location: Houston
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:
More Koranic evidence that Jesus is God Almighty...
قل إن كان للرحمن ولد فأنا أول العبدين سبحن رب السموت والأرض رب العرش عما
يصفون فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا حتى يلقوا يومهم الذي يوعدون وهو الذي في السماء إله وفي الأرض إله وهو الحكيم العليم
Qul in kana lilrrahmani waladun faana awwalu alAAabideena subhana rabbi alssamawati waal-ardi rabbi alAAarshi AAamma yasifoona fatharhum yakhoodoo wayalAAaboo hatta yulaqoo yawmahumu allathee yooAAadoona wahuwa allathee fee alssama-i ilahun wafee al-ardi ilahun wahuwa alhakeemu alAAaleemu
Say: "Indeed on account of the most Merciful Son, so I myself the worshippers' first.” Glory be to the Lord (of) the heavens and the earth, the throne's Lord, from what they ascribe. So leave them alone; they indulged and they jest until they meet their day whom they were threatened. And He, whom upon the cloud, God, and upon the earth, God, and He, the wise, the one who knows. (43.81 – 84)
These ayahs proclaim that the Son is worshiped directly as deity.
They also proclaim that the Son is God, not only upon the earth, but in the Cloud upon which he returns...just as copied from the Holy Bible...
_________________
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Koranic_Bible |
|
Tvebak
|
Hi BMZ
I haven't read much of Apple_Pies writings. Though I have understood that one of his claims is that there's no proof in the Quran that the prophet of islam was named Muhammed. There's something about HMD meaning "praised" and that the 4 or 5 times "muhammad" is mentioned there's an ending "-un" which suggest that it is not a name.
I might have misunderstood or misrepresented some of it, but anyways would you care to comment on occurences of "muhammadun" in the Quran?
Cheers
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | Hi BMZ
I haven't read much of Apple_Pies writings. Though I have understood that one of his claims is that there's no proof in the Quran that the prophet of islam was named Muhammed. There's something about HMD meaning "praised" and that the 4 or 5 times "muhammad" is mentioned there's an ending "-un" which suggest that it is not a name.
I might have misunderstood or misrepresented some of it, but anyways would you care to comment on occurences of "muhammadun" in the Quran?
Cheers |
Hello Tvebak,
Thanks for putting your good question well. Not only Muslims but learned Christians and Jews, who know Arabic, laugh at Apple_Pie's posts.
The so-spelled word HMD is actually written as HAMD, pronounced in the style of HUMP but the last letter is a D. Thus, it is not pronounced as Hammed. It is pronounced as HUMD.
Hamd means Praise. Muhammad means "the praised one" or "one who was praised". Muhammad's name has been mentioned only four times in Qur'aan.
I will give you the four locations where Prophet's name is clearly written:
In verse 144 Surah 3 Ale Imraan: "Wa ma Muhammad-un illa rasulun" and translated literally in English, we would write it as "Muhammad is no more than a messenger of God" or "Muhammad is just a messenger of God."
I will explain in very simple words. Muhammad is the name. You must have noticed that in the English translation, I did not write his name as Muhammad-un. "un' is only required as a conjunction with the next word.
Let us take a look at a Muslim's shahada (witnessing to God)
"Laa ilaha il-lal-lah, Muhammad-ur-rasulul-lah" which means that there is no god beside Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muahammad in above became Muhammadur, so that it could be connected with the word Rasul-ul-lah. And note the word Rasul-ul-lah which is Rasul and Allah connected with ul, not "un" here.
Next, we take a look at Prophet's name in Verse 2 Surah 47 Muhammad. The name is again connected to another word and with the conjuction "wau". Here his name is not pronounced as Muhammadun. It is written and read as Muhammad-in and when we read we will pronounce it as Muhammadiun to connect with the "wau".
Next, Verse 40 Surah 33 Al-Ahzaab: "Ma kaana Muhammad-un abaa ahaadim-mir-rijaa-lay-kum", meaning "Muhammad is not the father of any of you." You can see the connecting words.
Next in Verse 29 Surah 48 Al-Fatah: "Muhammad-ur-Rasul-ul-lah.
Hope this helped.
I am discussing a topic "The Absurdities of Christianity" at the site of ex-Muslims. Adverse evangelical and polemic Christians like Apple_Pie have double standards, which can be seen from the following: The name Emmanuel or Immanuel means God lived with us. Jacob, meaning the one who was clinging to the heel, Ishamel, who was heard and seen, and so on.
They haven't got even the name of Jesus right. His name is reported to be Yeshua or Yehushua or Yashua or Yahashua, Saul became Paul and yet they have the audacity to challenge our Prophets name. LOL!
Thanks
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi BMZ
I haven't read much of Apple_Pies writings. Though I have understood that one of his claims is that there's no proof in the Quran that the prophet of islam was named Muhammed. There's something about HMD meaning "praised" and that the 4 or 5 times "muhammad" is mentioned there's an ending "-un" which suggest that it is not a name.
I might have misunderstood or misrepresented some of it, but anyways would you care to comment on occurences of "muhammadun" in the Quran?
Cheers |
Hello Tvebak,
Thanks for putting your good question well. Not only Muslims but learned Christians and Jews, who know Arabic, laugh at Apple_Pie's posts.
The so-spelled word HMD is actually written as HAMD, pronounced in the style of HUMP but the last letter is a D. Thus, it is not pronounced as Hammed. It is pronounced as HUMD.
Hamd means Praise. Muhammad means "the praised one" or "one who was praised". Muhammad's name has been mentioned only four times in Qur'aan.
I will give you the four locations where Prophet's name is clearly written:
In verse 144 Surah 3 Ale Imraan: "Wa ma Muhammad-un illa rasulun" and translated literally in English, we would write it as "Muhammad is no more than a messenger of God" or "Muhammad is just a messenger of God."
I will explain in very simple words. Muhammad is the name. You must have noticed that in the English translation, I did not write his name as Muhammad-un. "un' is only required as a conjunction with the next word.
Let us take a look at a Muslim's shahada (witnessing to God)
"Laa ilaha il-lal-lah, Muhammad-ur-rasulul-lah" which means that there is no god beside Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muahammad in above became Muhammadur, so that it could be connected with the word Rasul-ul-lah. And note the word Rasul-ul-lah which is Rasul and Allah connected with ul, not "un" here.
Next, we take a look at Prophet's name in Verse 2 Surah 47 Muhammad. The name is again connected to another word and with the conjuction "wau". Here his name is not pronounced as Muhammadun. It is written and read as Muhammad-in and when we read we will pronounce it as Muhammadiun to connect with the "wau".
Next, Verse 40 Surah 33 Al-Ahzaab: "Ma kaana Muhammad-un abaa ahaadim-mir-rijaa-lay-kum", meaning "Muhammad is not the father of any of you." You can see the connecting words.
Next in Verse 29 Surah 48 Al-Fatah: "Muhammad-ur-Rasul-ul-lah.
Hope this helped.
I am discussing a topic "The Absurdities of Christianity" at the site of ex-Muslims. Adverse evangelical and polemic Christians like Apple_Pie have double standards, which can be seen from the following: The name Emmanuel or Immanuel means God lived with us. Jacob, meaning the one who was clinging to the heel, Ishamel, who was heard and seen, and so on.
They haven't got even the name of Jesus right. His name is reported to be Yeshua or Yehushua or Yashua or Yahashua, Saul became Paul and yet they have the audacity to challenge our Prophets name. LOL!
Thanks
BMZ |
Hi BMZ
Thanks for your answer. I have some follow-up questions.
| Quote: | Let us take a look at a Muslim's shahada (witnessing to God)
"Laa ilaha il-lal-lah, Muhammad-ur-rasulul-lah" which means that there is no god beside Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muahammad in above became Muhammadur, so that it could be connected with the word Rasul-ul-lah. And note the word Rasul-ul-lah which is Rasul and Allah connected with ul, not "un" here. |
Where is this in the Quran?
And to the endings: -un, -in. I did not know that that was possible. I tried to look up some of the other names in the Quran, but could not find another name ending in the same way (I haven't tried them all).
| Quote: | I am discussing a topic "The Absurdities of Christianity" at the site of ex-Muslims. Adverse evangelical and polemic Christians like Apple_Pie have double standards, which can be seen from the following: The name Emmanuel or Immanuel means God lived with us. Jacob, meaning the one who was clinging to the heel, Ishamel, who was heard and seen, and so on.
They haven't got even the name of Jesus right. His name is reported to be Yeshua or Yehushua or Yashua or Yahashua, Saul became Paul and yet they have the audacity to challenge our Prophets name. LOL! |
Alright enjoy with that.
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
BMZ is talking Tashkil not actual letters
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ is talking Tashkil not actual letters |
Bold emphasis within your quote is mine.
I don't think many would understand that either. Good you mentioned that.
Salaams, bro
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ is talking Tashkil not actual letters |
Sure I know, but this is still not applied to any other name in the quran as far as I know.
Cheers
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | Hi BMZ
Thanks for your answer. I have some follow-up questions.
| Quote: | Let us take a look at a Muslim's shahada (witnessing to God)
"Laa ilaha il-lal-lah, Muhammad-ur-rasulul-lah" which means that there is no god beside Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muahammad in above became Muhammadur, so that it could be connected with the word Rasul-ul-lah. And note the word Rasul-ul-lah which is Rasul and Allah connected with ul, not "un" here. |
Where is this in the Quran? |
It is not there in Qur'aan in exactly the same words. It is a declaration made by a Muslim. Qur'aan tells us that there in no other God besides Allah and it also tells us Muhammad is Rasul. Combining the two we get that.
| Tvebak wrote: | | And to the endings: -un, -in. I did not know that that was possible. I tried to look up some of the other names in the Quran, but could not find another name ending in the same way (I haven't tried them all). |
Nuh (Noah) when connectsed with the word rabbahu (his LORD), becomes Nuh-ur-rabbahu in V45 Surah 11 Hud and in V25 of the same surah, Nun becomes Nuhan.
Shoaib becomes Shoab-un in V177 Surah 26 Ash-sho'ara: "Iz qaala lahum Shoaib-un ala tat-taqoon?"
If it were "Shoaib told them.", it would be "Qala lahum Shoaib."
Musa (Moses) in V29 Surah 28 Al-Qasas, becomes Musal when connected with ajal: "Fa-lamma qadaa Musal-ajala wa saara bay-ahlayhe"
This only happens in Arabic language and that is how names get additional letters for connection with the next word, where it is required.
Hope this helped.
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi BMZ
Thanks for your answer. I have some follow-up questions.
| Quote: | Let us take a look at a Muslim's shahada (witnessing to God)
"Laa ilaha il-lal-lah, Muhammad-ur-rasulul-lah" which means that there is no god beside Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muahammad in above became Muhammadur, so that it could be connected with the word Rasul-ul-lah. And note the word Rasul-ul-lah which is Rasul and Allah connected with ul, not "un" here. |
Where is this in the Quran? |
It is not there in Qur'aan in exactly the same words. It is a declaration made by a Muslim. Qur'aan tells us that there in no other God besides Allah and it also tells us Muhammad is Rasul. Combining the two we get that.
| Tvebak wrote: | | And to the endings: -un, -in. I did not know that that was possible. I tried to look up some of the other names in the Quran, but could not find another name ending in the same way (I haven't tried them all). |
Nuh (Noah) when connectsed with the word rabbahu (his LORD), becomes Nuh-ur-rabbahu in V45 Surah 11 Hud and in V25 of the same surah, Nun becomes Nuhan.
Shoaib becomes Shoab-un in V177 Surah 26 Ash-sho'ara: "Iz qaala lahum Shoaib-un ala tat-taqoon?"
If it were "Shoaib told them.", it would be "Qala lahum Shoaib."
Musa (Moses) in V29 Surah 28 Al-Qasas, becomes Musal when connected with ajal: "Fa-lamma qadaa Musal-ajala wa saara bay-ahlayhe"
This only happens in Arabic language and that is how names get additional letters for connection with the next word, where it is required.
Hope this helped.
BMZ |
Hi
Yes that helped. I was sure that I searched Noahs name on the matter, must had made a typo. But that answers the matter of the ending. I tried to search where i read on the topic by Apple_Pie and I found this:
| Quote: | All,
This is a study encompassing the understanding of the Koranic “Muhammad”.
Like most things that Christians (and Muslims!) are told by Islam, the truth of the matter, as written in their scripture set, is usually in diametric opposition.
So it is with Islam’s “prophet Muhammad”.
Let’s begin our exegesis by examining the classic Arabic definition for “Muhammad”; how frequently the term (by itself) is used; and how its root and all derivatives are utilized in the Koran.
محمد = “muhammadun”
“muhammadun” definition:
Passive participle. A man praised much, or repeatedly, or time after time; endowed with many praiseworthy qualities. Praised one.
It comes from the root “hamida”, which means he praised, eulogized, or commended him; spoke well of him; mentioned him with approbation; sometimes because of favor received. Also implies admiration; and it implies the magnifying, or honoring, of the object thereof; and lowliness, humility, or submissiveness, in the person who offers it. He declared the praises of God or he praised God much with good forms of praise.
References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 638 – 640
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 135 - 136
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 38
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 56
Occurrences of “muhammadun” & “muhammadin” in the Koran: 4
Locations: 3.144, 33.40, 47.2, 48.29
Occurrences of the root “hamida” and its sixteen derivatives in the Koran: 68
Locations: 1.2, 2.30, 2.267, 3.144, 3.188, 4.131, 6.1, 6.45, 7.43, 9.112, 10.10, 11.73, 13.13, 14.1, 14.8, 14.39, 15.98, 16.75, 17.44, 17.52, 17.79, 17.111, 18.1, 20.130, 22.24, 22.64, 23.28, 25.58, 27.15, 27.59, 27.93, 28.70, 29.63, 30.18, 31.12, 31.25, 31.26, 32.15, 33.40, 34.1(2x), 34.6, 35.1, 35.15, 35.34, 37.182, 39.29, 39.74, 39.75(2x), 40.7, 40.55, 40.65, 41.42, 42.5, 42.28, 45.36, 47.2, 48.29, 50.39, 52.48, 57.24, 60.6, 61.6, 64.1, 64.6, 85.8, 110.3
Observe the Koranic usages…
• 1.2…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 2.30…praise to the lord
• 2.267…“allah” is praiseworthy
• 3.144…a MAN praised much – praised one
• 3.188…they are praised – painful torture
• 4.131…praise to “allah”
• 6.1…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 6.45…and the praise belonging to “allah”, lord
• 7.43…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 9.112…the praise to “allah”
• 10.10…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 11.73…“allah” is praiseworthy
• 13.13…on account of the praise, “allah”
• 14.1…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 14.8…“allah” is praiseworthy
• 14.39…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 15.98…lord’s praise
• 16.75…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 17.44…on account of his praise, “allah”, lord
• 17.52…on account of his praise, lord
• 17.79…lord praised
• 17.111…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 18.1…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 20.130…lord’s praise
• 22.24…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 22.64…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 23.28…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 25.58…on account of lords praise
• 27.15…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 27.59…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 27.93…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 28.70…the praise to “allah”
• 29.63…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 30.18…the praise, “allah”
• 31.12…“allah” is praiseworthy
• 31.25…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 31.26…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 32.15…lord’s praise
• 33.40…a MAN praised much – praised one
• 34.1…the praise belonging to “allah”(2x)
• 34.6…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 35.1…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 35.15…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 35.34…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 37.182…and the praise belonging to “allah”, lord
• 39.29…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 39.74…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 39.75…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 39.75…lord’s praise
• 40.7…lord’s praise
• 40.55…lord’s praise
• 40.65…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 41.42…praiseworthy, lord
• 42.5…lord’s praise
• 42.28…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 45.36…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 47.2…a MAN praised much – praised one
• 48.29…a MAN praised much – praised one
• 50.39…lord’s praise
• 52.48…lord’s praise
• 57.24…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 60.6…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 61.6…a MAN praised
• 64.1…the praise belonging to “allah”
• 64.6…“allah” is praiseworthy
• 85.8…the praiseworthy – one of the names of “allah”
• 110.3…lord’s praise
Summarizing this data, we have the following premises upon which to build our understanding of the Koranic “Muhammad”:
• The word itself is not a proper name
• The word is a participle…i.e. it combines the functions of both adjective and verb
• It applies to one man
• This man is praised
• He is the only man praised
• The root “hamida”, from which “Muhammad” is derived, refers to the praising of God
• Surveying all 68 Koranic occurrences of the root “hamida” and its sixteen derivatives, demonstrates the overwhelming usage in direct relation to Koranic deity (i.e. “allah”, lord)
• The only Koranic instance of a derivative not pertaining to deity is in 3.188 - in which people are tortured for accepting praises – thus, reserving “praise” for deity only
• This leaves us with 5 ayahs that “appear” to buck the trend
• All 5 of these ayahs refer to a man
• All 5 ayahs refer to a man that is praised
Thus…
This begs the question…
1) How could the “praising” (that is reserved only for Koranic deity) be applied to a single man?
Feel free to join in with your feedback… |
Source
And The Cat also put something together on the matter:
Source
And another one said the following:
| Quote: | There's no such person by the name of Muhammad written in al Qur'an. What we have is a person/messenger having an attribute of HMD (praise). Muhammad as a common name is an invention by the Arabs to elevate their status among other believers.
In Al Qur'an there's only muhammadun (Q3:144, Q33:40, Q48:29) and any word with prefix mu+...+un cannot signify common name. |
Source
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
TV
That crap regardng Hamd was slam dunked over 3 years on the Kyffar web site free-minds.org, many in there who claim to be Muslims believe that Mohammed is a metaphor
the cat stole their ideas
Now the Quran clearly identifed Mohammed as a human who was a messenger of Allah and the last prophet, i really donlt want to waste more time to reply to such idiotic argument that have nill merit
|
BMZ
|
Hello, Tvebak
If you happen to exchange posts with Apple_Pie, please let him know that the Prophet was named Muhammad 40 years before the arrival of Qur'aan.
Ahmad has rightly said that Apple_Pie's material is crap. We should not waste time on that.
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | Hello, Tvebak
If you happen to exchange posts with Apple_Pie, please let him know that the Prophet was named Muhammad 40 years before the arrival of Qur'aan.
Ahmad has rightly said that Apple_Pie's material is crap. We should not waste time on that.
BMZ |
Hi BMZ
Hmm interesting you start a thread about Apple_Pie's crap and now you don't want to waste time on it? Just a thought.
Could you tell me where I can read that Muhammad was named Muhammad 40 years before the allegded arrival of the Quran?
Cheers.
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | TV
That crap regardng Hamd was slam dunked over 3 years on the Kyffar web site free-minds.org, many in there who claim to be Muslims believe that Mohammed is a metaphor
the cat stole their ideas
Now the Quran clearly identifed Mohammed as a human who was a messenger of Allah and the last prophet, i really donlt want to waste more time to reply to such idiotic argument that have nill merit |
Hi Ahmed
Alright. I will try and find the specific debate to se what they have to say about it. Thanks for the reference. If I find it I will link it here.
Cheers
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | Hello, Tvebak
If you happen to exchange posts with Apple_Pie, please let him know that the Prophet was named Muhammad 40 years before the arrival of Qur'aan.
Ahmad has rightly said that Apple_Pie's material is crap. We should not waste time on that.
BMZ |
Hi BMZ
Hmm interesting you start a thread about Apple_Pie's crap and now you don't want to waste time on it? Just a thought.
Could you tell me where I can read that Muhammad was named Muhammad 40 years before the allegded arrival of the Quran?
Cheers. |
By Apple_Pie's crap, I meant his 'grammatical' analysis, junk and stuff which he copies and pastes from the junk and stuff of Wikilislam of FFI. I will do one of his posts later as a sample for you.
Regarding 2nd para of your post, You can't read it anywhere as I wrote that myself. Others may have drawn the same conclusions and might have written similar elsewhere.
He was forty when the revelations started. It means Qur'aan was revealed when he was forty, which in turn shows that he was named forty years before Qur'aan.
Cheers
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
Tvebak, Cooments on Apple_Pie's Misleading PostLet me quote this from Apple_Pie. Also note that he quotes, copies and pastes all the material from Wikiislam. The link is at the bottom of his post. He wrote this on FFI:
| Quote: | Apple Pie
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 634
Location: Houston
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:
More Koranic evidence that Jesus is God Almighty...
قل إن كان للرحمن ولد فأنا أول العبدين سبحن رب السموت والأرض رب العرش عما
يصفون فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا حتى يلقوا يومهم الذي يوعدون وهو الذي في السماء إله وفي الأرض إله وهو الحكيم العليم
Qul in kana lilrrahmani waladun faana awwalu alAAabideena subhana rabbi alssamawati waal-ardi rabbi alAAarshi AAamma yasifoona fatharhum yakhoodoo wayalAAaboo hatta yulaqoo yawmahumu allathee yooAAadoona wahuwa allathee fee alssama-i ilahun wafee al-ardi ilahun wahuwa alhakeemu alAAaleemu
Say: "Indeed on account of the most Merciful Son, so I myself the worshippers' first.” Glory be to the Lord (of) the heavens and the earth, the throne's Lord, from what they ascribe. So leave them alone; they indulged and they jest until they meet their day whom they were threatened. And He, whom upon the cloud, God, and upon the earth, God, and He, the wise, the one who knows. (43.81 – 84)
These ayahs proclaim that the Son is worshiped directly as deity.
They also proclaim that the Son is God, not only upon the earth, but in the Cloud upon which he returns...just as copied from the Holy Bible...
_________________
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Koranic_Bible |
Now, look at the wrong translation that he provided in his post and distroted the whole meaning and the truth. The correct translation should be, in my own simple words:
"If the LORD really had a son, I would be the first one to worship him. What do they ascribe? Glory be to the LORD of Heavens, the Earth and the Throne. "
In other words, the verse is saying that if God had a son, God would have told and would not have hidden or kept that a secret. God would have told many millenia before to Noah, Abraham and Moses, Jesus and Muhammad later.
The verse is clearly refuting and rejecting the Christians' claim that God has a son. That is why we reject the absurdity that Jesus was a son of God.
You have some ex-Muslims and speakers of Arabic here. Please ask them if the verse is saying what Apple_Pie is presenting. I hope you can now see the bigotry of Apple_Pie. I will do some of his absurd posts later.
Cheers
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | Hello, Tvebak
If you happen to exchange posts with Apple_Pie, please let him know that the Prophet was named Muhammad 40 years before the arrival of Qur'aan.
Ahmad has rightly said that Apple_Pie's material is crap. We should not waste time on that.
BMZ |
Hi BMZ
Hmm interesting you start a thread about Apple_Pie's crap and now you don't want to waste time on it? Just a thought.
Could you tell me where I can read that Muhammad was named Muhammad 40 years before the allegded arrival of the Quran?
Cheers. |
By Apple_Pie's crap, I meant his 'grammatical' analysis, junk and stuff which he copies and pastes from the junk and stuff of Wikilislam of FFI. I will do one of his posts later as a sample for you.
Regarding 2nd para of your post, You can't read it anywhere as I wrote that myself. Others may have drawn the same conclusions and might have written similar elsewhere.
He was forty when the revelations started. It means Qur'aan was revealed when he was forty, which in turn shows that he was named forty years before Qur'aan.
Cheers
BMZ |
Well it's all a part of his argumentation, right? Besides I think that you will find that Apple_Pie is the author of the "Quranic Bible" on "Wikislam".
Concerning the name "muhammad" I see that you have no prove that the man we are talking about was named "muhammad" forty years before the Quran. You are assuming it. As the Quran itself states the "messenger", Isa (according to the quran) is talking about, "ismuhu ahmad" and not muhammed. It says "ismuhu" right? So the "muhammed" could very well just be a verb connected to the "prophet"/"messenger"/"warner" of the quran and not a name. That is if we just look at the quran as evidence.
Cheers.
|
Tvebak
|
Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
You made me when you wrote | Tvebak wrote: | | In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion |
Well, that is your opinion. Right?
| Tvebak wrote: | | It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. |
Why should there be anything in Qur'aan to explain the construction of his name Muhammad? The names of others like Moses and Jesus were not analysed and clarified by the past scriptures. Muhammad was already there, known to his people many years before the arrival of Qur'aan.
| Tvebak wrote: | | On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa. |
That is another subject. When talking about Ahmad, Qur'aan is not saying and suggesting that Ahmad is supposed to be correct name and Muhammad isn't. lol! That is not the topic.
In order to understand that, we have to keep in mind that Jesus was not foretold in the past scriptures. You can never find any prophecy for Jesus in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. He just isn't there.
Muhammad was foretold in the past. Even Qur'aan does not say that Jesus was foretold. It just says that Jesus was sent to Bani Israel.
Here, I must clarify that Ahmad means highly praised while Muhammad means the praised one. Instead of talking about prefixes, roots, participles, etc., just look for the verb for praise. The verb is not hmd. Check with Apple_Pie on that and let me know please.
Ahmad is mentioned in the following translated verse:
"When Jesus said,'Children of Israel, I am Allah's messenger to you, verifying the truth of Torah and giving you the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name highly praised."
If we go back to the biblical Jesus, note that he was even unable to give a clear name and did not give one. Moses also said very clearly and his statement is quite close to what Qur'aan says.
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | As the Quran itself states the "messenger", Isa (according to the quran) is talking about, "ismuhu ahmad" and not muhammed. It says "ismuhu" right? So the "muhammed" could very well just be a verb connected to the "prophet"/"messenger"/"warner" of the quran and not a name. That is if we just look at the quran as evidence.
Cheers. |
Muhammad is not a verb, please. You are cracking me up. Read my post above, please.
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers |
Hi Ahmed
Sure I'm ignorant on the matter of arabic. I've just started to learn the language.
You state theres no "such crap called prefix Mu in arabic"? But putting a "mim" in the beginning of a word means "one who is/does" right? or would you apply some other?
Cheers
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
You made me when you wrote | Tvebak wrote: | | In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion |
Well, that is your opinion. Right? |
Yes that's my opinion I don't want to hide that. But your are welcome.
| Quote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. |
Why should there be anything in Qur'aan to explain the construction of his name Muhammad? The names of others like Moses and Jesus were not analysed and clarified by the past scriptures. Muhammad was already there, known to his people many years before the arrival of Qur'aan. |
How do you know that?
| Quote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa. |
[i]That is another subject. When talking about Ahmad, Qur'aan is not saying and suggesting that Ahmad is supposed to be correct name and Muhammad isn't. lol! That is not the topic.
In order to understand that, we have to keep in mind that Jesus was not foretold in the past scriptures. You can never find any prophecy for Jesus in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. He just isn't there.
Muhammad was foretold in the past. Even Qur'aan does not say that Jesus was foretold. It just says that Jesus was sent to Bani Israel. |
It says "ismuhu", but I see your point on the translation you put forward below.
| Quote: | Here, I must clarify that Ahmad means highly praised while Muhammad means the praised one. Instead of talking about prefixes, roots, participles, etc., just look for the verb for praise. The verb is not hmd. Check with Apple_Pie on that and let me know please.
Ahmad is mentioned in the following translated verse:
"When Jesus said,'Children of Israel, I am Allah's messenger to you, verifying the truth of Torah and giving you the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name highly praised." |
So you argue that that verse does not say that "his name Ahmed" but says "his name highly praised". You are pulling the same argument as those who does it about "muhammad".
| Quote: | | If we go back to the biblical Jesus, note that he was even unable to give a clear name and did not give one. Moses also said very clearly and his statement is quite close to what Qur'aan says. |
This is somewhat off topic but alright show me.
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers |
Hi Ahmed
Sure I'm ignorant on the matter of arabic. I've just started to learn the language.
You state theres no "such crap called prefix Mu in arabic"? But putting a "mim" in the beginning of a word means "one who is/does" right? or would you apply some other?
Cheers |
Hello
Putting a mim in front of a verb makes the verb something called Ism makan, i.e. the name of a place
for example, Laaba = play , Mlaaba = Playground
now apply this to the verb, Hamada, then it should be Mhamada, and that is in Muhammed btw, in fact the word Mhamada does not exist in Arabic
cheers
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers |
Hi Ahmed
Sure I'm ignorant on the matter of arabic. I've just started to learn the language.
You state theres no "such crap called prefix Mu in arabic"? But putting a "mim" in the beginning of a word means "one who is/does" right? or would you apply some other?
Cheers |
Hello
Putting a mim in front of a verb makes the verb something called Ism makan, i.e. the name of a place
for example, Laaba = play , Mlaaba = Playground
now apply this to the verb, Hamada, then it should be Mhamada, and that is in Muhammed btw, in fact the word Mhamada does not exist in Arabic
cheers |
Hello
Don't understand your argument here about "hamada" and "mhamada". I've seen other examples where the word changes form, at least in the transliteration, for the matter I found the following on the net:
on "mim"
| Quote: | | Adding the letter mim to the beginning of a word in Arabic means "one who is/does", "that which is/does", or "in a state of" the word that follows it. Junun is mad, and majnun is "one who is mad" or "in a state of madness"; baraka is a blessing, and mubarak is "one who is blessed" or "in a state of blessedness"; Islam is submission, and Muslim is "one who submits" or "in a state of submission". |
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"
| From the root-project on studyquran.org! example: "shiin"/"ra"/"kaf" wrote: | | Shiin-Ra-Kaf = to be a companion, be sharer/partner. shirkun - share, participation, polytheism, idolatry, making associate/partner with Allah. shariik (pl. shurakaa) - associate, partner, sharer. Nouns of the second declension when followed by the affixed pronouns take the three inflexions thus shurakaa, shurakaa'i, shurakaa'a. shaarak (vb. 3) - to share with. ashraka (vb. 4) - to make a sharer or associate, give companions (e.g. to God), be a polytheist or idolater. ashraktumuuni - you associated me as partner. mushrik - one who gives associate to God, polytheist. mushtarikun (vb. 8 ) - one who partakes or shares. |
Besides this is Lanes entry on "muhammad" From page 640 Book I.:
A man praised much, or repeatedly, or
time after time: endowed with many
praisworthy qualities.
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers |
Hi Ahmed
Sure I'm ignorant on the matter of arabic. I've just started to learn the language.
You state theres no "such crap called prefix Mu in arabic"? But putting a "mim" in the beginning of a word means "one who is/does" right? or would you apply some other?
Cheers |
Hello
Putting a mim in front of a verb makes the verb something called Ism makan, i.e. the name of a place
for example, Laaba = play , Mlaaba = Playground
now apply this to the verb, Hamada, then it should be Mhamada, and that is in Muhammed btw, in fact the word Mhamada does not exist in Arabic
cheers |
Hello
Don't understand your argument here about "hamada" and "mhamada". I've seen other examples where the word changes form, at least in the transliteration, for the matter I found the following on the net:
on "mim"
| Quote: | | Adding the letter mim to the beginning of a word in Arabic means "one who is/does", "that which is/does", or "in a state of" the word that follows it. Junun is mad, and majnun is "one who is mad" or "in a state of madness"; baraka is a blessing, and mubarak is "one who is blessed" or "in a state of blessedness"; Islam is submission, and Muslim is "one who submits" or "in a state of submission". |
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"
| From the root-project on studyquran.org! example: "shiin"/"ra"/"kaf" wrote: | | Shiin-Ra-Kaf = to be a companion, be sharer/partner. shirkun - share, participation, polytheism, idolatry, making associate/partner with Allah. shariik (pl. shurakaa) - associate, partner, sharer. Nouns of the second declension when followed by the affixed pronouns take the three inflexions thus shurakaa, shurakaa'i, shurakaa'a. shaarak (vb. 3) - to share with. ashraka (vb. 4) - to make a sharer or associate, give companions (e.g. to God), be a polytheist or idolater. ashraktumuuni - you associated me as partner. mushrik - one who gives associate to God, polytheist. mushtarikun (vb. 8 ) - one who partakes or shares. |
Besides this is Lanes entry on "muhammad" From page 640 Book I.:
A man praised much, or repeatedly, or
time after time: endowed with many
praisworthy qualities.
Cheers |
Hello
I can't afford this ping pong game that you are always professional in it based on arrogance and ignorance, before you dispute that Mohammed was a man why don't you read these verse first:
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things
[The Quran ; 33:40]
مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا (40)
-> See: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets
Slam dunk # 1
And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels!s, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.
[The Quran ; 3:144]
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (144)
-> See: And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?
Slam dunk # 2
And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.
[The Quran ; 47:2]
وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَآمَنُوا بِمَا نُزِّلَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَهُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَفَّرَ عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَأَصْلَحَ بَالَهُمْ (2)
-> See: and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad
Slam dunk # 3
Hmmm, believe me pal, using the free-minders stupid allegations and evidences won’t take you now where but the ignorant hole like them
Cheers
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | Hi everyone
I guess that the "refutation" that Ahmed talked about earlier is this thread on "free-minds":
The prefix "MU"
There are other on the subject of "muhammadun" or "mhmd" which can be found here:
Search muhammadun
In my opinion there arent presented a "refutation", it is rather a matter of opinion. It comes down to wether you think "muhammad" was a name or not. There's really nothing clear on that in the quran. On the other hand "ahmed" is being mentioned as the name of the prophet to follow Isa.
Cheers |
Stop being ignorant as the confused free-minders, those who suggested this Mu crap KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ARABIC, there is no such crap called prefix Mu is arabic, this is so funny indeed
well I guess you are as ignorant as they are
good luck with clearing your ignorance
Cheers |
Hi Ahmed
Sure I'm ignorant on the matter of arabic. I've just started to learn the language.
You state theres no "such crap called prefix Mu in arabic"? But putting a "mim" in the beginning of a word means "one who is/does" right? or would you apply some other?
Cheers |
Hello
Putting a mim in front of a verb makes the verb something called Ism makan, i.e. the name of a place
for example, Laaba = play , Mlaaba = Playground
now apply this to the verb, Hamada, then it should be Mhamada, and that is in Muhammed btw, in fact the word Mhamada does not exist in Arabic
cheers |
Hello
Don't understand your argument here about "hamada" and "mhamada". I've seen other examples where the word changes form, at least in the transliteration, for the matter I found the following on the net:
on "mim"
| Quote: | | Adding the letter mim to the beginning of a word in Arabic means "one who is/does", "that which is/does", or "in a state of" the word that follows it. Junun is mad, and majnun is "one who is mad" or "in a state of madness"; baraka is a blessing, and mubarak is "one who is blessed" or "in a state of blessedness"; Islam is submission, and Muslim is "one who submits" or "in a state of submission". |
And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik"
| From the root-project on studyquran.org! example: "shiin"/"ra"/"kaf" wrote: | | Shiin-Ra-Kaf = to be a companion, be sharer/partner. shirkun - share, participation, polytheism, idolatry, making associate/partner with Allah. shariik (pl. shurakaa) - associate, partner, sharer. Nouns of the second declension when followed by the affixed pronouns take the three inflexions thus shurakaa, shurakaa'i, shurakaa'a. shaarak (vb. 3) - to share with. ashraka (vb. 4) - to make a sharer or associate, give companions (e.g. to God), be a polytheist or idolater. ashraktumuuni - you associated me as partner. mushrik - one who gives associate to God, polytheist. mushtarikun (vb. 8 ) - one who partakes or shares. |
Besides this is Lanes entry on "muhammad" From page 640 Book I.:
A man praised much, or repeatedly, or
time after time: endowed with many
praisworthy qualities.
Cheers |
Hello
I can't afford this ping pong game that you are always professional in it based on arrogance and ignorance, before you dispute that Mohammed was a man why don't you read these verse first:
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things
[The Quran ; 33:40]
مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا (40)
-> See: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets
Slam dunk # 1
And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels!s, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.
[The Quran ; 3:144]
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (144)
-> See: And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?
Slam dunk # 2
And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.
[The Quran ; 47:2]
وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَآمَنُوا بِمَا نُزِّلَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَهُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَفَّرَ عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَأَصْلَحَ بَالَهُمْ (2)
-> See: and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad
Slam dunk # 3
Hmmm, believe me pal, using the free-minders stupid allegations and evidences won’t take you now where but the ignorant hole like them
Cheers |
Hello
I did not use others stupid allegation and evidences, but after looking at it I see that the free-minders also talked about "mushrik". It might be that you where refering to. I'm not either trying to be "professional timebandit", I see this as a valid issue in relation to the Quran.
The point about "muhammad" is that it is not clear without doubt, from the Quran, that the prophet of islam was named "muhammad. Your own rendering of "muhammad"= "the praised one" from free-minds. Try putting it in instead of "muhammed".
The praised one is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things
[The Quran ; 33:40]
مَّا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا (40)
And the praised one is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels!s, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.
[The Quran ; 3:144]
وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ (144)
And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to the praised one, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.
[The Quran ; 47:2]
وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَآمَنُوا بِمَا نُزِّلَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَهُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ كَفَّرَ عَنْهُمْ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ وَأَصْلَحَ بَالَهُمْ (2)
And also the last place 48.29:
The praised one is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other
It makes perfect sense. And so far I don't think you have provided anything that put this conundrum to the grave.
Cheers
|
AhmedBahgat
|
Hello ignorant TV
again, names in Arabic can not be translated you fool
you are dismissed too
|
Tvebak
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | Hello ignorant TV
again, names in Arabic can not be translated you fool
you are dismissed too |
The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers.
|
BMZ
|
| Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ |
Hey bro
He does not know that he word Mohammed has no other use in Arabic but a human name, I have never seen or heard any Arab using the word Mohammed in any other use but to mean a human name
how desperate they are man
Take care
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | Hello ignorant TV
again, names in Arabic can not be translated you fool
you are dismissed too |
The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
hmmm, there is no any other use to the following two human names:
1) Ahmed
2) Mohammed
some names however may have other uses, for example:
Hassan = Human name (male)
Hassan = Good
another example is like this:
Jamal = Human name (male)
Jamal = Beauty
a third example goes like this:
Aya = Human name (female)
Aya = Sign
now, for Ahmed & Mohammed, I have never heard of any other meaning but human names (males)
Please stop being desperate and confused
cheers
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ |
Hey bro
He does not know that he word Mohammed has no other use in Arabic but a human name, I have never seen or heard any Arab using the word Mohammed in any other use but to mean a human name. |
Indeed. What you wrote is correct. Muhammad was the name of the Prophet.
It cannot be used as a verb or adjective for anything.
Do you think Apple_Pie has heard of Mustafa?
I guarantee you the man will go crazy in writing dictionary definitions, talk about articles, all kinds of participles, copulative conjunctions, active and passive voices with a prefix Mu again. lol!
BMZ
|
All_Brains
|
| BMZ wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ |
Hey bro
He does not know that he word Mohammed has no other use in Arabic but a human name, I have never seen or heard any Arab using the word Mohammed in any other use but to mean a human name. |
Indeed. What you wrote is correct. Muhammad was the name of the Prophet.
It cannot be used as a verb or adjective for anything.
Do you think Apple_Pie has heard of Mustafa?
I guarantee you the man will go crazy in writing dictionary definitions, talk about articles, all kinds of participles, copulative conjunctions, active and passive voices with a prefix Mu again. lol!
BMZ |
I agree with you and Ahmad and disagree in linguistics sense!
There is something in Arabic called "Seghat Mubalagha" or Exaggeration form!
Any verb can be formatted to reflect that including the verb to praise "Hamada".
Ahmad is on the weight/form of (Afa'l)
Muhammad is in the form of (Ism Maf2oul) or the form of (Mufa'2l).
Indeed all these names have meanings, whether they are used or not, but linguistically the do have a meaning.
I don't think though that Muhammad was a fictional character or was given this name later on! Why?
There are simply no historical records, Islamic or otherwise, that suggests that!
I am not big on conspiracy theories.
|
BMZ
|
| All_Brains wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ |
Hey bro
He does not know that he word Mohammed has no other use in Arabic but a human name, I have never seen or heard any Arab using the word Mohammed in any other use but to mean a human name. |
Indeed. What you wrote is correct. Muhammad was the name of the Prophet.
It cannot be used as a verb or adjective for anything.
Do you think Apple_Pie has heard of Mustafa?
I guarantee you the man will go crazy in writing dictionary definitions, talk about articles, all kinds of participles, copulative conjunctions, active and passive voices with a prefix Mu again. lol!
BMZ |
I agree with you and Ahmad and disagree in linguistics sense!
There is something in Arabic called "Seghat Mubalagha" or Exaggeration form!
Any verb can be formatted to reflect that including the verb to praise "Hamada".
Ahmad is on the weight/form of (Afa'l)
Muhammad is in the form of (Ism Maf2oul) or the form of (Mufa'2l).
Indeed all these names have meanings, whether they are used or not, but linguistically the do have a meaning.
I don't think though that Muhammad was a fictional character or was given this name later on! Why?
There are simply no historical records, Islamic or otherwise, that suggests that!
I am not big on conspiracy theories. |
That is why, I had earlier asked the poster to go and find the verb but did not tell him about the verb Hamida. Yes, the names have meanings. Immanuel, Ishmael, Issac, Jacob and others in Hebrew have exactly meanings in the same style, too.
However, it is not right to suggest that the name Muhammad came after Qur'aan as the poster suggested.
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
| BMZ wrote: | | All_Brains wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
Don't you think how silly is the point?
BMZ |
Hey bro
He does not know that he word Mohammed has no other use in Arabic but a human name, I have never seen or heard any Arab using the word Mohammed in any other use but to mean a human name. |
Indeed. What you wrote is correct. Muhammad was the name of the Prophet.
It cannot be used as a verb or adjective for anything.
Do you think Apple_Pie has heard of Mustafa?
I guarantee you the man will go crazy in writing dictionary definitions, talk about articles, all kinds of participles, copulative conjunctions, active and passive voices with a prefix Mu again. lol!
BMZ |
I agree with you and Ahmad and disagree in linguistics sense!
There is something in Arabic called "Seghat Mubalagha" or Exaggeration form!
Any verb can be formatted to reflect that including the verb to praise "Hamada".
Ahmad is on the weight/form of (Afa'l)
Muhammad is in the form of (Ism Maf2oul) or the form of (Mufa'2l).
Indeed all these names have meanings, whether they are used or not, but linguistically the do have a meaning.
I don't think though that Muhammad was a fictional character or was given this name later on! Why?
There are simply no historical records, Islamic or otherwise, that suggests that!
I am not big on conspiracy theories. |
That is why, I had earlier asked the poster to go and find the verb but did not tell him about the verb Hamida. Yes, the names have meanings. Immanuel, Ishmael, Issac, Jacob and others in Hebrew have exactly meanings in the same style, too.
However, it is not right to suggest that the name Muhammad came after Qur'aan as the poster suggested.
BMZ |
Hi all
The point I was trying to put forward is that if we don't trust the later muslim sources for early islamic and pre-islamic times we can't 100 % for sure know that "muhammad" was the name of the prophet mentioned in the Quran. It comes down to how we think of the word and not what we know for certain. This thread was opened to discuss some of Apple_Pies "allegations", as far as I understood, and one of these is that ""muhammad" is not the name of the prophet". Now he goes along to make completely other conclusions. The only thing I wanted was to see wether any of you could establish without doubt that "muhammad" was the name of prophet. In my opinion you did not manage to do this. What you posted was a matter of opinion that might rest on (lets say) that "muhammad" has by now established itself, and did quite early, as a name, a quite holy name if one might add.
Unfortunately we have little sources on arabic from pre-islamic times. The sources we have suggesting that "muhammad" was a name already in usage at the time our Muhammad alledgelly lived, is written a long time after.
Cheers
|
Baal
|
| Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood.
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
Hello baal
Again mister manipulater,
Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names
what you are taling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised
please dismiss yourself
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
Hello baal
Again mister manipulater,
Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names
what you are telling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised
please dismiss yourself |
Now you have added torture to Baal by telling him about Mahmud or Mahmood. Do you think he would be able to understand that?
This is the first time, I have seen Baal writing more than a few lines. Give him three bananas, bro. lol!
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
| Baal wrote: | | Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. |
Helloooo!
Where did you see Ahmad claiming that?
BMZ
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| BMZ wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. |
Helloooo!
Where did you see Ahmad claiming that?
BMZ |
Salam bro
That's a clear cut lie, I never claimed that even any arabic word is not an aranbic word, this is plain stupidity and desperation by the kafirs
also bro, i bet the ignorant don't even know that Mahmoud or Mahmood which if taken as an adjective, it can apply to anything, even Jamad, i.e. non humans
Remeber the verse yhta syas something similar to Yabathaka Allah Maqaman Mahmouda
Salam mate
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | BMZ wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. |
Helloooo!
Where did you see Ahmad claiming that?
BMZ |
Salam bro
That's a clear cut lie, I never claimed that even any arabic word is not an aranbic word, this is plain stupidity and desperation by the kafirs
also bro, i bet the ignorant don't even know that Mahmoud or Mahmood which if taken as an adjective, it can apply to anything, even Jamad, i.e. non humans
Remeber the verse yhta syas something similar to Yabathaka Allah Maqaman Mahmouda
Salam mate |
Salaam, Ahmed
Off course, I know that Baal lied as usual. That is why I asked him and placed the laughing emoticon.
Baal still thinks he is entertaining everyone on FFI and he is still in the FFI Mode. lol!
I don't think Baal would be able to understand Maqaam-am-Mahmuda.
Cheers, mate
BMZ
|
Tvebak
|
Hi BMZ
Maybe we should move the discussion on "muhammad" to the Quran-section and then you can continue on the matter of Apple_Pies other works here. What do you say?
Cheers
|
brainout
|
I posted to Apple Pie to come here, since neither of you can read what he wrote. Every schoolchild knows kana means "to be", and HE SAID THAT in the "Jesus is God says Koran" thread; but you ERRONEOUSLY took it as meaning a pronoun, lol. FIFTEEN POSTS on that, Ahmed, me trying to SHOUT that no, it's the verb "to be". At first I thought maybe you couldn't read because you were viewing on your Blackberry. Now I realize you just wanted to lie. Which you're doing here, both of you.
Now all the world can see that, too. Yeah, you prove what a fraud Islam really is. Thanks.
|
brainout
|
Re: Tvebak, Cooments on Apple_Pie's Misleading Post | BMZ wrote: | Let me quote this from Apple_Pie. Also note that he quotes, copies and pastes all the material from Wikiislam. The link is at the bottom of his post. He wrote this on FFI:
| Quote: | Apple Pie
Joined: 30 Apr 2004
Posts: 634
Location: Houston
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:
More Koranic evidence that Jesus is God Almighty...
قل إن كان للرحمن ولد فأنا أول العبدين سبحن رب السموت والأرض رب العرش عما
يصفون فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا حتى يلقوا يومهم الذي يوعدون وهو الذي في السماء إله وفي الأرض إله وهو الحكيم العليم
Qul in kana lilrrahmani waladun faana awwalu alAAabideena subhana rabbi alssamawati waal-ardi rabbi alAAarshi AAamma yasifoona fatharhum yakhoodoo wayalAAaboo hatta yulaqoo yawmahumu allathee yooAAadoona wahuwa allathee fee alssama-i ilahun wafee al-ardi ilahun wahuwa alhakeemu alAAaleemu
Say: "Indeed on account of the most Merciful Son, so I myself the worshippers' first.” Glory be to the Lord (of) the heavens and the earth, the throne's Lord, from what they ascribe. So leave them alone; they indulged and they jest until they meet their day whom they were threatened. And He, whom upon the cloud, God, and upon the earth, God, and He, the wise, the one who knows. (43.81 – 84)
These ayahs proclaim that the Son is worshiped directly as deity.
They also proclaim that the Son is God, not only upon the earth, but in the Cloud upon which he returns...just as copied from the Holy Bible...
_________________
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Koranic_Bible |
Now, look at the wrong translation that he provided in his post and distroted the whole meaning and the truth. The correct translation should be, in my own simple words:
"If the LORD really had a son, I would be the first one to worship him. What do they ascribe? Glory be to the LORD of Heavens, the Earth and the Throne. "
In other words, the verse is saying that if God had a son, God would have told and would not have hidden or kept that a secret. God would have told many millenia before to Noah, Abraham and Moses, Jesus and Muhammad later.
The verse is clearly refuting and rejecting the Christians' claim that God has a son. That is why we reject the absurdity that Jesus was a son of God.
You have some ex-Muslims and speakers of Arabic here. Please ask them if the verse is saying what Apple_Pie is presenting. I hope you can now see the bigotry of Apple_Pie. I will do some of his absurd posts later.
Cheers
BMZ |
YOU DO NOT PROVE that "in kana" means the NEGATIVE. I asked that repeatedly in the "Jesus is God says Koran" thread, and got no answer. I don't debate the idea that it could mean EITHER positive or negative, but what's the GRAMMAR PROOF? You don't answer that, but merely assert it.
I asked, what's the equivalent of the subjunctive, for kana, or what particle in the sentence justifies an "if and it's NOT true" conclusion? No answer from you or Ahmed. So you again make no answer here. So you disprove nothing.
BTW, I don't agree with everything Apple Pie claims, either. I'm dead certain "Muhammed" references a real person, even though the name is not grammatically correct, as often in Hebrew names are made from doctrinal statements, in Bible. So they aren't proper names in Hebrew, either, but are instead applied to persons to communicate meaning. My own real name is not really a name but a sentence, given by my mother. So probably are your own real names. So I think Apple Pie is wrong here, to claim that no one named "Muhammed" actually existed. I've said that too, in that thread. He's not happy with my answer. So what? Doesn't matter. We don't have to agree.
But you guys take mere disagreement as a threat. So you come here. And you still don't prove anything. It would be nice if you did prove something. Ahmed has occasionally proved something quite well. For I do care WHAT GRAMMAR RULES justify a translation you or Ahmed provide, versus someone else. And so far, you BMZ never provide anything useful in that thread. Ahmed at least has tried to do so, despite his critics. Sometimes he's right and the critics are not. Sometimes, they are right. Ok, no big deal. But at least he tries. All you do, BMZ, is spew pointless assertions.
But Ahmed, you never answered the question on this "in kana" meaning, either. So answer it now or let the world know you have no answer.
For others, the subthread in question begins at FFI, "Jesus is God Says Koran", page 56.
|
AhmedBahgat
|
Here is how I did AP two years ago on www.free-minds.org, he pissed off straight after and never came back:
January 04, 2006, 07:29:02 PM
| Apple Pie wrote: |
Thanks for affirming that Jesus is God.....!!! |
I replied to him as follow:
January 04, 2006, 07:47:16 PM
| AhmedBahgat wrote: |
you are a manipulator and a liar, firstly I didn't say that, secondly PROVE YOUR CALIM THAT JESUS IS GOD FROM THE QURAN but not from the hebrow rubbish you post
now the onus is on your neck to prove that the Quran said jesus is god, and if you don't you will be classified in my books as a manipulator, a liar, a fabricator, a confused being and a lost soul
your call |
He came back later with this proof:
January 04, 2006, 08:21:40 PM
| Apple Pie wrote: |
Sure thing...
ذِي قُوَّةٍ عِنْدَ ذِي الْعَرْشِ مَكِينٍ |
Obvioulsy he is an idiot to claim that the Quran says jesus is god then come back with the above line, here is what I told him:
January 04, 2006, 08:32:58 PM
| AhmedBahgat wrote: |
Excuse me sir
what that suppose to tell me exactly?, I could not see Isa's name any where in the verse neither I read that he is god
here is a the verse and the one before it:
إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ (19)
ذِي قُوَّةٍ عِندَ ذِي الْعَرْشِ مَكِينٍ (20)
[The Quran ; 81:19-20]
-> Verse 81:19 "Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger, "
-> Verse 81:20 "Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne"
Are you suffering from low IQ or somethin bro?, the verses are clear as light it is talking about prophet Mohammad, and even if you dispute that Mohammad was not mentioned, that is fine, you must at least concede, it was about one of Allah messnegers as 81:19 CLEARLY STATES "Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger, "
NEXT AP |
He came back with the following rubbish:
January 04, 2006, 08:39:00 PM
| Apple Pie wrote: |
Now....try exegeting what it states...
Summary of 81.19
إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ
Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin
81.19 Certainly His Word is a Holy message.
> Revelation tells us that the ?logos?, or Word, of God, is Jesus
> 81.19 begins by informing us of something that is ?inna?, or certain
> This thing that is certain is applied to ?qawlu?, or Word, via the personal pronoun ?hu?, or His, and possessive affirmative particle ?la? ? thus giving the Word as an inherent attribute of Him
> ?laqawlu? occurs three times in the Koran, and in each occurrence it is beyond any reasonable doubt that it directly refers to Jesus
> 81.19 also informs us that His Word is a ?kareemin?, or holy, ?rasoolin?, or message
> Sura 81 acknowledges Jesus as the Word of God
Summary of 81.20
ذِي قُوَّةٍ عِنْدَ ذِي الْعَرْشِ مَكِينٍ
Thee quwwatin AAinda thee alAAarshi makeenin
81.20 Lord of power in the presence and possession of the throne, the established one.
> Revelation tells us that the Jesus occupies the Throne of God
> 81.20 builds upon 81.19 by informing us that His Word (i.e. Jesus) with the Holy Message, is ?thee? (genitive case) in possession of ?quwwatin? (singular), or the one (and only) power
> Amazingly, in addition to ?quwwatin? referring to power or strength, it also has the meaning ?and separately twisted portion of two or more which, being twisted together, compose the whole of a rope, and of a string, or thread?
> Thus, ?quwwatin? conveys the idea of two (or more) things intertwined to become one thing
> Revelation informs us that the Lamb is in the ?mesos?, or midst of the ?thronos?, or throne
> Likewise, 81.20 tells us that He is ?inda? (A particle used as a preposition to denote time and place), or in the presence of ?alAAarshi?, or the throne
> There are numerous Koranic examples where allah is ?Lord of the throne?; thus, when the Word (i.e. Jesus) is referred to as Lord of the Throne ? there can be no doubt that Jesus is God
> 81.20 specifically utilizes ?thee? twice in this one ayah; the first is to signify possession of the singular power of the Word, and the second is used to signify the possession of the throne by the Word
> Revelation tells us that the one sitting on the throne is of the appearance of ?sardinos?, or a reddish brown variety of chalcedony
> Interestingly, 81.20 describes the ?arshi?, or throne as ?a red sapphire, which glistens with the light of the supreme?
> 81.20 closes by mentioning ?makeenin?, or the established one, from the root ?makuna? (meaning he made Him to have dominion) which clearly indicates that the Word (from 81.19), is God Almighty
> The authors of the Koran copied the Book of Revelation, and, more importantly, they understood who the Biblical Jesus is. Revelation clearly shows us the deity interchangeability between God and Jesus, as they are one in the same. Ironically, this ayah also demonstrates the same exact thing by showing that the two are, in fact, one in the same |
I replied as follow:
January 12, 2006, 12:24:42 AM
"Apple Pie" : Now....try exegeting what it states...
"AhmedBahgat" : Sure, but I hope you don?t mean ?try manipulating what it states...?
Look bro, I don't have time to waste, I will give you a max of 3 lies and if reached, I have to terminate my discussion with you, that is what my book says bro, sorry.
"Apple Pie" : Summary of 81.19
إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ
Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin
"AhmedBahgat" : Good, you pronounced it right, did you do it, or you just copied it then pasted it?
"Apple Pie" : 81.19 Certainly His Word is a Holy message.
"AhmedBahgat" :I guess this is the proposed translation by you to 81:19, thank you for that, let's now examine your translation word for word:
إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ, you translated it as : Certainly His Word is, oh please AP, you can fool a non Arabic speaker, but what makes you think that you can fool an Arabic speaker like me?, well here is your first lie, the verse never related the Qawlu to any entity, why the hell you added his to it?, this is how it should be : Most surely it is the Word of
1 lie lost, 2 lies left
رَسُولٍ, you translated it as : message, LOL bro, I guess with this one you can't even fool the NON Arabic speakers because they know very well what Rasoolin means, which surely means Messenger, so to translate it as Message has to be considered a clear cut lie
2 lies lost, 1 lie left
كَرِيمٍ , you translated it as : a Holy, bro what non sense is this, what makes you hallucinate thinking there is sense in what your post?, the Arabic word MUST be translated as : An honoured
You've just lost your last lie bro, bad luck
Let's recap your lies:
You translated the following Arabic verse:
إِنَّهُ لَقَوْلُ رَسُولٍ كَرِيمٍ
[The Quran ; 81:19]
To this:
Certainly His Word is a Holy message ٍ
[Misleading and wrong translation by AP]
BUT IT SHOULD BE:
Most surely it is the Word of an honored messenger
[The Quran ; 81:19]
Your 3 clear cut lies are highlighted in red and the correct translation are highlighted in blue
As I said AP, you are allowed 3 lies only per comment, and you consumed it all in a sentence that is 6 words, wow this means 50% of what you say is nothing but lies, this is no good bro, you will look very bad like this, I'm sure you lost creditability already, I tell you what bro, try to be honest and you may gain it back, did Santa come to you this Xmas?, I'm sure Santa does not visit liars, can you please confirm?
The rest of you comment MUST be ignored bro, too many lies by you and I hate dialoguing with liars
| Apple Pie wrote: |
? Revelation tells us that the ?logos?, or Word, of God, is Jesus
? 81.19 begins by informing us of something that is ?inna?, or certain
? This thing that is certain is applied to ?qawlu?, or Word, via the personal pronoun ?hu?, or His, and possessive affirmative particle ?la? ? thus giving the Word as an inherent attribute of Him
? ?laqawlu? occurs three times in the Koran, and in each occurrence it is beyond any reasonable doubt that it directly refers to Jesus
? 81.19 also informs us that His Word is a ?kareemin?, or holy, ?rasoolin?, or message
? Sura 81 acknowledges Jesus as the Word of God
Summary of 81.20
ذِي قُوَّةٍ عِنْدَ ذِي الْعَرْشِ مَكِينٍ
Thee quwwatin AAinda thee alAAarshi makeenin
81.20 Lord of power in the presence and possession of the throne, the established one.
? Revelation tells us that the Jesus occupies the Throne of God
? 81.20 builds upon 81.19 by informing us that His Word (i.e. Jesus) with the Holy Message, is ?thee? (genitive case) in possession of ?quwwatin? (singular), or the one (and only) power
? Amazingly, in addition to ?quwwatin? referring to power or strength, it also has the meaning ?and separately twisted portion of two or more which, being twisted together, compose the whole of a rope, and of a string, or thread?
? Thus, ?quwwatin? conveys the idea of two (or more) things intertwined to become one thing
? Revelation informs us that the Lamb is in the ?mesos?, or midst of the ?thronos?, or throne
? Likewise, 81.20 tells us that He is ?inda? (A particle used as a preposition to denote time and place), or in the presence of ?alAAarshi?, or the throne
? There are numerous Koranic examples where allah is ?Lord of the throne?; thus, when the Word (i.e. Jesus) is referred to as Lord of the Throne ? there can be no doubt that Jesus is God
? 81.20 specifically utilizes ?thee? twice in this one ayah; the first is to signify possession of the singular power of the Word, and the second is used to signify the possession of the throne by the Word
? Revelation tells us that the one sitting on the throne is of the appearance of ?sardinos?, or a reddish brown variety of chalcedony
? Interestingly, 81.20 describes the ?arshi?, or throne as ?a red sapphire, which glistens with the light of the supreme?
? 81.20 closes by mentioning ?makeenin?, or the established one, from the root ?makuna? (meaning he made Him to have dominion) which clearly indicates that the Word (from 81.19), is God Almighty
? The authors of the Koran copied the Book of Revelation, and, more importantly, they understood who the Biblical Jesus is. Revelation clearly shows us the deity interchangeability between God and Jesus, as they are one in the same. Ironically, this ayah also demonstrates the same exact thing by showing that the two are, in fact, one in the same |
"AhmedBahgat" : The above MUST be ignored
|
AhmedBahgat
|
Re: Tvebak, Cooments on Apple_Pie's Misleading Post | brainout wrote: | | But Ahmed, you never answered the question on this "in kana" meaning, either. So answer it now or let the world know you have no answer. |
Look sir, normally, I don't answer freaks, however I always reserve my right to answer them when I choose, and in this case I have chosen to answer you
In kana: only means something called Istifham, i.e. a sort of a qeustion
i.e. If there is a child to Allah then Mohammed is going to be the first believers in such because Allah would have told him as such, now the Quran answered the question to mohammed that Allah never have had any children nor He will ever have one, i.e. Mohammed is sort of mocking them because he knew the answer in advance that it is not appropriate for the God to have children, however the confused christians keep deluding themselves and it will take them no where, this is because nor the bible neither the Quran suggest the slighest that jesus was a son of god
you are too confused pal, you need to face your truth then handle it
Salam
|
brainout
|
Ahmed, stop telling me what I already know. What you have NOT proven is the question I asked about "in kana" in Sura 43.81. "In kana" is VERY common in the Qu'ran, appearing 43 times, at least (per islamcity's search engine). And in those 43 times, it's used to mean BOTH
"if, and it's true" and
"if, and it's not true".
You have not demonstrated where in 43.81 that there is any grammar or verb mood or other particle to show that "in kana" means "if and it's NOT true". Instead, you ran away from the thread. And you've still not demonstrated it, but as usual brought up a lot of other stuff which is NOT germane.
If you can't answer why, just say so. I'm not at all sure that "in kana" must be interpreted affirmatively, either. I'm not siding with Apple Pie on this. But I have no reason to reject that translation of YES, it's true -- and you're not providing any proof to say it's not. Instead, you are condescending, supercillious, just like your movies.
So if you choose not to answer again, just fine. I'm tired of your posturing and fake love of the Qu'ran. You love your ego, and you love telling everyone how they will go to hell, and you love hating. That's now patently obvious, given how you trash Apple Pie with ZERO ATTENTION to what he was saying.
If he's wrong, you should be able to explain why without acting like a two-year old and making silly videos that only a teenager would enjoy.
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| brainout wrote: | Ahmed, stop telling me what I already know. What you have NOT proven is the question I asked about "in kana" in Sura 43.81. "In kana" is VERY common in the Qu'ran, appearing 43 times, at least (per islamcity's search engine). And in those 43 times, it's used to mean BOTH
"if, and it's true" and
"if, and it's not true".
You have not demonstrated where in 43.81 that there is any grammar or verb mood or other particle to show that "in kana" means "if and it's NOT true". Instead, you ran away from the thread. And you've still not demonstrated it, but as usual brought up a lot of other stuff which is NOT germane.
If you can't answer why, just say so. I'm not at all sure that "in kana" must be interpreted affirmatively, either. I'm not siding with Apple Pie on this. But I have no reason to reject that translation of YES, it's true -- and you're not providing any proof to say it's not. Instead, you are condescending, supercillious, just like your movies.
So if you choose not to answer again, just fine. I'm tired of your posturing and fake love of the Qu'ran. You love your ego, and you love telling everyone how they will go to hell, and you love hating. That's now patently obvious, given how you trash Apple Pie with ZERO ATTENTION to what he was saying.
If he's wrong, you should be able to explain why without acting like a two-year old and making silly videos that only a teenager would enjoy. |
Well, it seems you totally know no arabic, and for me, I donlt waste my time with such people, nor that I want you to even know what it means
now you have baal and a_b on this web site who will be aboe to slam dunk ya with ease, that is if they are noot hypocrites
again and for the final, I'm not intetested to discuss the Arabic Quran with confused freaks like you and AP, I'm only interested to keep laughing at ya guys and at the same time keeping my time not wasted
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | now you have baal and a_b on this web site who will be able to slam dunk ya with ease, that is if they are not hypocrites
again and for the final, I'm not intetested to discuss the Arabic Quran with confused freaks like you and AP, I'm only interested to keep laughing at ya guys and at the same time keeping my time not wasted |
I am not sure about Baal, Ahmed but I am sure that All_Brains will slam dunk straightaway.
Salaams
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
| brainout wrote: | Ahmed, stop telling me what I already know. What you have NOT proven is the question I asked about "in kana" in Sura 43.81. "In kana" is VERY common in the Qu'ran, appearing 43 times, at least (per islamcity's search engine). And in those 43 times, it's used to mean BOTH
"if, and it's true" and
"if, and it's not true".
You have not demonstrated where in 43.81 that there is any grammar or verb mood or other particle to show that "in kana" means "if and it's NOT true". Instead, you ran away from the thread. And you've still not demonstrated it, but as usual brought up a lot of other stuff which is NOT germane.
If you can't answer why, just say so. I'm not at all sure that "in kana" must be interpreted affirmatively, either. I'm not siding with Apple Pie on this. But I have no reason to reject that translation of YES, it's true -- and you're not providing any proof to say it's not. Instead, you are condescending, supercillious, just like your movies.
So if you choose not to answer again, just fine. I'm tired of your posturing and fake love of the Qu'ran. You love your ego, and you love telling everyone how they will go to hell, and you love hating. That's now patently obvious, given how you trash Apple Pie with ZERO ATTENTION to what he was saying.
If he's wrong, you should be able to explain why without acting like a two-year old and making silly videos that only a teenager would enjoy. |
Brainout,
You just don't realise what pickle you are in by parroting out "in kaana", "in kaana" and "in kaana".
Do you think "in kaana" is one word? What is the meaning of the Arabic word "in" and another Arabic word "lau"?
Do you think German, Arabic, Urdu, Thai, Malay/Indonesian grammars are exactly the same as that of English?
Let me give you some simple translations of only this part of the vesre "In kaana lir-Rahmane walad"
Note that Rahman is the name of God Almighty in the verse.
1. If Rahman had a son
2. If there were a son of Rahman
Which words have I used for kaana here in my translations, given above?
In kaana is not a word on its own.
The verses under discussion simply mean: "If God had a son, I would have worshipped him straightaway." In other words, the verse is clearly saying that God has no son. It does not mean God has a son.
Qur'aan clearly, bluntly and flatly rejects the Christians' CLAIM that Jesus is the son of God. Qur'aan calls Jesus as an obedient slave of God.
BMZ
|
BMZ
|
Re: Tvebak, Cooments on Apple_Pie's Misleading Post
Thanks for the link you provided here.
Through this link, I am able to access and read the junk and stuff of FFI, Apple_Pie and other Christbots and No-bots. I can copy their material and paste anywhere now. This link allows me to get in but I can't post.
BMZ
|
All_Brains
|
I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!
"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"
If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!
The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).
The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!
The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!
I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!!
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| All_Brains wrote: | I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!
"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"
If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!
The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).
The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!
The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!
I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!! |
Oh please A_B, do you think I will waste my time with a detailed comment to such ignornat freaks AP and brainout?, think again
now to reply to what you said above that Allah subject Himself to the word IF,
you are wrong because the argument was said to the Kafirs, who think that Allah has a child,
it is not like Allah is talking about himself, RATHAR, Allah TOLD Mohammed to SAY to them such argument , i.e. If there is a son to Allah then I (Mohammed) will be the first worshipper
please donlt act desperate as those fools
Salam
|
brainout
|
| All_Brains wrote: | I have been watching this thread for a while and I find it weired that both camps of Muslims & Christians reject eachother yet they still search for their vailidity in one supposedly corrupted scripture and another fake one authored by a fake prophet!!!
"Lau kana lee ajneha, la hawalt al-tairan"
If there WERE wings for me, I would have attempted to fly!
The above is a literal translation of (Lau and kana) combined. Kana is verb to be in the past tense (was or were).
The above structure does indeed indticate that God does not have a son, but that would have happened if he had one!
The above does raise the eye brows though, as God uses the very human defensive argument of "If I had"!!!
I thought God should have not subjected himself to the IF word, after all it's from Satan!!! |
Thanks, All-Brains. That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out: in kana can be read two ways, positive or negative. I'm not trying to claim that Qu'ran buttresses or supports Bible. That's what Apple Pie wants to claim, and he and I part ways there. He wants to show that it's really a Christians' workpiece, and I don't agree on that.
My latest hypothesis is that Muhammed himself was a Christian, went bad and the demonboys messed with him, just as he first suspected and reported to Khadija, according to the hadiths.
For the Qu'ran CLAIMS itself as another wanna-be-Bible, like the Book of Mormon claims. There is very much in common within the doctrines, tenets, and rhetorical styles of BOTH sets of alleged "scripture" -- and the lifestyle of their leaders.
- Both leaders are held up as paragons of virtue, and you imitate the leader in even the smallest detail, that's the law for you. Mormonism however is more like Calvin, preferring to go off to itself and establish its own ruling territory, not take over others, which is why they went west and settled in Utah, after Joseph Smith died. They didn't war on Washington.
- Though their leaders' histories are preserved (and slavered over); those histories prove both leaders were NOT as 'advertised'.
- Both leaders were avowedly sex-crazy, practiced polygamy and child marriage is a big feature of both faiths, notoriously so.
- Both practiced trickery and took money/property from people.
- Both practiced false agreements. Things were more civilized in Joseph Smith's day, and at that point you didn't use a sword to conquer, you used chicanery. Worked, just as well.
- Both sects' holy texts unabashedly REWRITE PAST HISTORY even though you could, AT THAT TIME, prove the rewrite, patently false.
- Both sects' holy books are anti-semitic, even claiming to replace the Jews, albeit with variations on how (BOM asserts its people are the true Jews, and that's why Mormons are so hung up on genealogy).
- Both sects' holy texts use derisive and Delphic-Oracle language so the verses are just vague enough to be read in opposing ways.
- Both sects' holy texts claim their definition of "God" AND the prophet must be believed, else you go to hell.
- Both sects prescribe an iffy gotta-work-your-buns-off method of salvation, so are alike extremely legalistic, full of right and wrong weird clothing, food taboos, days, ceremonies which don't make sense.
- Both sets of holy texts engender honor killing and prescribe their own versions of jihad, though Mormonism favors political means, true support of the current country and not military takeover, so it's not a threat to civilization.
- Both sects prescribe a strict yet weird form of morality,
- and if you leave, you can be killed.
- Most of all, both sects' holy books are fixated on Christ and Bible heroes, SUBSTITUTING a DIFFERENT Christ from the one in the Bible, but claiming it's the same 'guy'.
The list of similarities is larger than I depict here, but you can see there is something of a pattern to at least investigate.
So what gives? For there are 1200 years and thousands of miles between both books (Qu'ran and Book of Mormon plus the associated holy texts for each faith) -- yet they are sooooo similar? LOL I must focus on rhetoric, grammar, and so forth. For if the SAME MIND is behind both sets of books, then it's NOT human, and it's NOT God. That's the focus of my interest.
Joseph Smith didn't know anything about Islam. It wasn't a faith America understood. So he's not copying Islam, and in fact as you review what he writes, it's entirely Bible-centric, and it resembles Christian Gnosticism and Kabbalah, the most. Idea is, God the Father is more like a Greek god, but an alien from another planet, and Christ is his son (naturally propagated), who wars with his brother (yes, brother) Satan over the human race. The classic souls-sent-to-earth thingy, but with a distinctly-modern "alien" twist. Nice aliens, of course (excepting Satan).
So why the SAME WEIRD TENETS as in Islam, which you'd have to be an Islamic scholar (at that time), to even know? Granted, being 1200 years later, modern conveniences like toilet paper are not forbidden. But much of the moral code is the same, especially with respect to women.
Hence my pendantry about kana. As for others' interest in comparing Qu'ran and Bible, well -- there are many reasons to do that. Biggest one, is that the Qu'ran, like Book of Mormon, claims to be THE ULTIMATE book, and both claim that the Bible is corrupt. So if either one is really THE ULTIMATE REVELATION it must pass the same tests as you would use on Bible.
That's what I'm doing. Others are also doing it, and for their own interests. I do find the translations Apple Pie renders sometimes quite hard to dispute. Maybe you would also, maybe you would not.
But it's really the Qu'ran which begs this question, as it claims the BIBLE is valid, but somehow read wrong or interpreted wrong (it never quite says the TEXT is corrupted, as Mutley pointed out in an FFI thread, providing if I recall 21 ayahs to prove that).
So if the Qu'ran claims to update/improve/be the last word of the Word of God, then it must be compared to the very set of books it claims to 'correct' or 'update'. So that's the reason for the comparison: Qu'ran itself demands it.
That those believing in the Qu'ran throw out the Bible and scurriliously abuse it to make the Qu'ran look good, well -- that's their problem. Christians don't do their homework well in Bible either (else you'd have NO prolife movement, for example). So it's not only Muslims who are sloppy.
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
It always interests me to see which passages of the Bible muslims consider ‘valid’ and uncorrupted, especially when using them to prove the validity of their own Qur’an. For example, passages in the New Testament about Jesus referring to God as though talking about someone not him seem safely uncorrupted. Those detailing his crucifixion, however, have fallen foul of editors, apparently.
|
brainout
|
Agreed, Pazuzu. You put it well!
We Christians tend to make that same error. Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.
The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text. That's what I'm testing for. Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight. So agreement tells me nothing. It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.
I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing. And it's a kind of autograph, really.
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
Agreed — in principle. Unfortunately, as plenty of contemporary Islamic scholars keep pointing out (tellingly, none of them actually muslims or from a muslim background), the traditionally accepted (in other words, orthodox muslim) view of the Qur’an and its construction simply does not hold up! Taking separate strands together it seems that the final version (like the kinds that circulate today) only turned canon a couple of centuries after Muhammad, and certainly not during his lifetime.
|
Baal
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Tvebak wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | Hello ignorant TV
again, names in Arabic can not be translated you fool
you are dismissed too |
The point is that "muhammed" might not originally have been a name. It might be a construction of later times.
Anyways so when a word is taken as a name it cannot be used anymore to express anything?
Cheers. |
hmmm, there is no any other use to the following two human names:
1) Ahmed
2) Mohammed
some names however may have other uses, for example:
Hassan = Human name (male)
Hassan = Good
another example is like this:
Jamal = Human name (male)
Jamal = Beauty
a third example goes like this:
Aya = Human name (female)
Aya = Sign
now, for Ahmed & Mohammed, I have never heard of any other meaning but human names (males)
Please stop being desperate and confused
cheers |
Sorry Ahmed but your entire comparison is to be dismissed.
First: Of all these names Ahmad is the least used and it is unfair to lampoon it with Mohammad.
Second: Hassan is hardly ever used. MAybe Hassana but not Hassan.
Third: Those are Arabic words. They fit the Weight from the root (Masdar). Mohammad for example is on the same weight as Moghaffal. As such they are Arabic words and are fair games to be used.
Fourth: As for Mohammad not being used in any other form, who would dare use it in any other form? Who would dare even naming their teddy bear Mohammad? That does not mean it can not be used in other form.
So sorry, your examples are lacking and biased.
|
Baal
|
| brainout wrote: | Agreed, Pazuzu. You put it well!
We Christians tend to make that same error. Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.
The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text. That's what I'm testing for. Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight. So agreement tells me nothing. It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.
I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing. And it's a kind of autograph, really. |
We have to teach people at an early age that a valid argument is just an argument that does not contain fallacies. That a valid argument can still be True or False. Validating an argument before accepting it or refuting it is a minimum before a person can go around claiming to have a free will.
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
Spot–on, Lord . As anyone versed in Logic can point out, a ‘valid’ argument does not necessarily equate to a ‘sound’ argument — as the hilarious argument proving the moon’s construction from green cheese (using contradictory premises but a valid argument) goes to show…
|
Baal
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
Hello baal
Again mister manipulater,
Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names
what you are taling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised
please dismiss yourself |
[Sifa - Adjective] is NOT the only form of meaningful Arabic. Claiming that "Mohammad is NOT a Sifa therefore it has no utilization in Arabic" is a Fallacy. First it has a meaning other then being a Sifa. Second, it CAN be used as a Sifa in the right context.
Now which part of this sentence did you miss:
"Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually."
You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.
Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night.
|
brainout
|
BMZ, you too keep telling me what I already know. I've known for decades that the verb "to be" is NOT A COMPLETE VERB IN ANY LANGUAGE EVER INVENTED. Every language has alternate verbs it uses to establish a complete idea. Duh.
I'm not parrotting anything, and I don't claim or need to say that Qu'ran teaches that Jesus Christ is God. I don't believe in the Qu'ran, it's no support for anything divine. It ridicules God Himself, doesn't even deem God worthy of being paid for sin, so all I need to figure out is if it's human, or demonic in its origin. Is+lam means it is NOT from God, period.
You seem to think I need to support Apple Pie or he me. He and I do not agree either, and it doesn't matter. I'm asking a grammar question, that's all. I don't care what the answer is, I just want to know what it is. And you and Ahmed are most unhelpful, because every question seems to threaten you both. So you resort to chicanery.
Never mind. I finally got what I needed from Apple Pie, ex-jinni and now from All-Brains (whose understanding I value the most).
For the last time, the question is a technical one, has to do with conditional clauses and the meaning of "if and it's true" being discerned by which grammatical devices. It is NOT about what "kana" even means. I knew that, just as anyone knows. It's EASY.
But since you and Ahmed STILL do not read I cannot go on with you. You don't know how silly it makes you both look that you don't even read the questions posed, and post irrelevancies in reply.
|
brainout
|
| Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
This is really helpful, Baal. Thank you.
All-Brains, do you have any remarks on the morphological comments made here by Baal? Thanks in advance!
|
Baal
|
| brainout wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
This is really helpful, Baal. Thank you.
All-Brains, do you have any remarks on the morphological comments made here by Baal? Thanks in advance! |
I noticed a typo: The last word "Met-Sharrak" should have read "Met-Hammad"
|
brainout
|
| Baal wrote: | | brainout wrote: | Agreed, Pazuzu. You put it well!
We Christians tend to make that same error. Basically if we see the text of the 'other side' agreeing with our own, we call it "valid", and if it doesn't, then the other side is wrong.
The deeper issue is WHOSE CHARACTER is displayed in the text. That's what I'm testing for. Because, agreement can be had from either a demon writer or a Divine writer -- or, a human who had his facts straight. So agreement tells me nothing. It's the character of the author of the book, which is determinative.
I submit you can tell character of the author from a large piece of writing. And it's a kind of autograph, really. |
We have to teach people at an early age that a valid argument is just an argument that does not contain fallacies. That a valid argument can still be True or False. Validating an argument before accepting it or refuting it is a minimum before a person can go around claiming to have a free will. |
Agreed, Baal. And always keep questionning the premise, even when you're sure you've got the right answer, for there will always be details and dimensions of it, yet to revise or learn. 
|
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
|
Sounds familiar… | Baal wrote: | You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.
Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night. |
Coming from a muslim and South Asian background this sounds VERY familiar to me. I have grown up getting taught ridiculous things like this by folks. For example, the name ‘A’ishah (however you want to transliterate it into English) means ‘alive’ in ‘Arabi. Yet people kept telling me it simply meant ‘Prophet’s wife’. I exposed the absurdity of this when someone told me that Khadijah (Muhammad’s first wife, and many years his senior) also meant prophet’s wife! Ridiculous…
|
brainout
|
Ok, but in defense (lol I can't believe I'm doing this) to make a name out of a participle, verb+implied noun, is a very common practice in the Hebrew names of the Bible. It's done by concatenation. Ezekiel, Dawid, especially blatant sentences like Methusaleh -- these are all doctrinal statements, given as names to people. A reminder.
Even YH+WH is a concatenation of two verbs, to make God's Most Holy Name which no Jew will pronounce -- so they say, "Adonai" (-oi, today).
So wouldn't that be a similar Arabic practice?
|
brainout
|
Baal -- I'm still thinking over your morphologizing post reply to Ahmed. In Qu'ranic Arabic, I take it an adjective can be used as a substantive? If "yes", must the adjective be restricted to plural or verbal forms/meanings in order to become a substantive? Or are the rules more complex than that? Thanks.
|
AhmedBahgat
|
| Baal wrote: | | AhmedBahgat wrote: | | Baal wrote: | | Quote: | And what about the appearence of the root "sad"/"dal"/"qaf" and "musaddiqan"
Or one of your favourite-words "mushrikeen". These a examples of words with the prefix "mim". As I understand you on "hamada"/"mhamada" you want "sadaqa" to become "msadaqa" and "shariik" to become "mshariik" |
Hello Ahmed,
You seem to ignore that there is severeal weights to apply that started with "M".
You used: Mosh-re-keen. So let us use Mushrik. From the verb "Sha-ra-ka"
Mo-shrik - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-sharrik - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-shrak - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-shraka - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-sharrak - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
ex: If I say someone is Mo-sharrad, then I could imply *someone* orphaned him, but if i say Met-Sharrad, I simply imply he got orphaned.
Let us apply the same weights on the verb hamada: praised.
Mo-hmid - the one who commits the verb habitually.
Mo-hammid - someone who applies the verb habitually.
Ma-hmad - A place or process that makes the verb.
Ma-hmada - A tool the verb is done with.
Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually.
Met-sharrak - Same as above, but implies lack of consent.
Now Ahmed. I think I saw you claim that Muhammad is not an Arabic word. Any word, that fits the weight being applied to a source, is an arabic word. Even if you never saw it written before, it still is an Arabic word and if some writer was to use it, his context will be understood. |
Hello baal
Again mister manipulater,
Mohammed and Ahmed are nouns to only mean human names
what you are taling about is Mahmoud, which is a human name and another Ism Sifah to indicate someone that is praised
please dismiss yourself |
[Sifa - Adjective] is NOT the only form of meaningful Arabic. Claiming that "Mohammad is NOT a Sifa therefore it has no utilization in Arabic" is a Fallacy. First it has a meaning other then being a Sifa. Second, it CAN be used as a Sifa in the right context.
Now which part of this sentence did you miss:
"Mo-hammad - someone or something who has the verb applied to him habitually."
You claiming that Mo-hammad is only a noun is directly implying that the word is not an Arabic word, just an Arabic name.
Easy on the manipulation there Ahmed, your conscience will cause you more trouble sleeping a night. |
why don't you put it both words in a common sentecne you freak where the words don't mean human names
btw, be careful with the tashkil as I will hold it against you, fool
|
BMZ
|
| AhmedBahgat wrote: |
why don't you put it both words in a common sentecne you freak where the words don't mean human names
btw, be careful with the tashkil as I will hold it against you, fool |
Salaams, bro
It is a good thing you warned Baal on tashkeel. That would be a torture for Baal, bro!
Now Baal will be contacting Applie_Pie or would be googling for Tashkeel or Tashkil. lol! I guess he will now come up with Mu-hamidah. lol!
Cheers, mate
BMZ
|
|
|
|