malvisguy212:
Mohammed was not a true prophet. And I say that because, you see, the true prophet must receive a direct call from God, especially if he will be the founder of a religion. Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Moses received a direct call from God. Mohammed didn't receive a direct call from God. The story is very interesting. He was in the cave of Hira, outside of Mecca, and there, a spirit appeared to Mohammed. And then, the spirit squeezed Mohammed very tightly, that he thought that he was going to die.
And the spirit said to Mohammed,
"Read." Mohammed was illiterate, he
could not read. And he said, "I cannot
read." Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly that he thought he was
going to die. And the spirit said to him,
"Read!" "I cannot read," Mohammed
answered. Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly. He was afraid that he was
going to die. And he said, "Read!" He
said, "What shall I read?" The words
should be recited because he could not
read. How could you command someone who doesn't know how to read, read? You say to him, "Recite!" And then he said, "What shall I read?" And he said, "Read, in the name of thy Lord, who created man from the clot," etc, etc. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. The Quran was given to him by that spirit who appeared to him at the cave of Hira.
The Muslims say, that the spirit was
Gabriel the angel. They say the angel
Gabriel is the spirit who appeared to
Mohammed at the cave of Hira , and he
squeezed him tightly.

But listen, when you go the Bible, Gabriel appeared to many people. Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and Daniel was scared. And he said, "Do not be afraid, Daniel." Then he appeared Zecharia, the father of John the Baptist. And he was afraid, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, do not be afraid." Then he appeared to Mary. And Mary was troubled, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid." But that spirit who met
Mohammed and squeezed him, left him
very troubled. He was scared to death.
And when he went back to his wife
Khadigah, he said, "I am scared, I am
scared! I am trembling?" She said,
"What?" He said, "I don't know, I don't
know. I am afraid that I am possessed."
Then she took him to a bishop in Mecca,
by the name of Waraka Bin Nawfal, who
was her cousin, and she told him about
what happened. And this Waraka, the
bishop of the Amunit cult in Mecca said
to her, "Oh, be quiet. Be quiet.
Mohammed will be the prophet of the
Arabs." So the one who declared Mohammed a prophet was the bishop of Mecca. And that is the historical fact. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. It was dictated to him by that spirit. And I want to tell you something, it's not a miracle, because any book would not be a miracle. Any book, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad, and Odyssey, it's not a miracle. Shakespeare wrote many books, it's not a miracle. Plato wrote many books, not a miracle. The books cannot be a miracle because if I cannot understand the language, I cannot confirm if it's a miracle or not. The miracle is to raise somebody, to heal somebody, to give the sight to somebody, these are miracles! But to tell me that a book is a miracle, I don't buy that!

This is what your own bible says about Muhammad.



Here is some other prophecies about the coming of the holy prophet of God , Muhammad(SAW), and pilgrimage in Bible.

Isaiah 60
60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
60:4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.
60:5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.
60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.
60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

In Isaiah 60:1-7, A prophecy about a Holy man (prophet) bringing the light of God to the world. This holy man would appear in a time of darkness filling the world and covering the earth, He would appear to eliminate the darkness and spread the light of God and his praises.

In Isaiah 60:3 we read "And the Gentiles shall come to thy light ", and that means this Holy Prophet would arise among the Gentiles and his Light would fill his place where the nations would come and visit.

In Isaiah 60:4, we find the people would come from far, the sons and daughters, all would come together for the Light.

In Isaiah 60:5-6 it keeps telling us about the coming of the people from all over the world to the Light.

In Isaiah 60:7, is the clear meaning, it's Kedar (Mekka) , Where its flocks and tribes would be gathered together under the light of God, "they would come up with acceptance on mine altar" (Note: Muslims during the Hajj "pilgrimage" they slaughter the sacrifices as one of the ceremonies and Muslims all over the world share that from their places which is called Eid Al Adha).

"And I Will glorify the house of my glory", and it refers to the Ka'ba in Mekka , the Sacred House for God's glory."

And this prophecy is mentioned in Qur'an :

Surah Al Hajj (the pilgrimage) 22,

26. Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).

27. "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways; "


Let's talk about the Prophet who is like Moses:


Aside from the thorough articles in this section below, I demonstrated in my debate how Prophet Muhammad was Prophesied in the Bible [1] [2], and how he is the Final and Special Prophet that was going to be sent to all of mankind, according to the Bible itself. The Bible in the Old and New Testaments made DIRECT Prophecies about:

The Prophet who will come from the "EAST". The Bible defined "EAST" to mean Arabia, and the lands of Kedar and Teman (Saudi Arabia today).
The Prophet who will come from "Arabia".
The Prophet who will come from the lands and "tents of Kedar" and "lands of Teman". Kedar and Teman (also called "Tema" in the Bible) are two of Ishmael's sons: Genesis 25:13-15.
The Prophet who will "crush the idols of the deserts of Kedar".
The Prophet who will "fight the idol worshipers" in the deserts of Kedar.
The people of Kedar will Glorify GOD Almighty, and GOD will Glorify His Holy Temple "in Kedar".
"Arabia will rejoice and blossom".
The Prophet who will come from the "Desert". Again, the Bible also defined the "Desert" to mean the lands of Arabia, Kedar and Teman.
The Prophet of the "New Law" & "New Covenant", whom the Jews "must not fear".
The Prophet who is "like Moses". Both Muhammad and Moses brought new Laws. There is the Law of Moses, which the entire Bible is built on, and there is the Law of the Holy Quran, which Islam is built on.
Also in the New Testament, Christ is recorded to have said this to the Jews: "So [For this reason; Therefore] I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to people [a nation] who do the things God wants in his kingdom [will produce its fruit]." (Matthew 21:43). Jesus Christ here spoke about foreign people; non-Jews. Jesus was a Jew and was speaking with Jews.


Muhammad is like Moses because they share the following similarities...


Prophet Like Moses
Having recited the verse in Afrikaans, I apologised for my uncertain pronunciation, The dominee assured me that I was doing fine. I enquired:

Three Unlikes
So staying, I reasoned with him: "In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you - 'JESUS IS A GOD', but Moses is not God. Is this true?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses! SECONDLY, according to you - 'JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD', but Mose s did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?" He again said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses! THIRDLY, according to you - 'JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE DAYS', but Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?" He answered meekly: "Y-e-s." I concluded: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!" "But dominee," I continued: "these are not hard facts, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if your little ones are called in to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty in following it, shall we?" The dominee was quiet happy at the suggestion.

Father and Mother
(1) "Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?" He said: "Yes." I said: "DAAROM IS JESUS NIE SOOS MOSES NIE, MAAR MUHUMMED IS SOOS MOSES!" Meaning: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is lik e Moses!" (By now the reader will realise that I was using the Afrikaans language only for practice purposes. I shall discontinue its use in this narration).

Miraculous Birth
(2) "Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St.Matthew 1:18".....BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER,(Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST.' And St.Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announded to her, Mary reasoned:'.......HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE:......'(Luke 1:35). The Holy Qur'an confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus, in nobler and sublimer terms. In answer to her logical question:

" O MY LORD! HOW SHALL I HAVE A SON WHEN NO MAN HATH TOUCHED ME? "
The angel says in reply:
"EVEN SO:
ALLAH CREATETH WHAT HE WILLETH:
WHEN HE HATH DECREED A PLAN,
HE BUT SAITH TO IT "BE,"
AND IT IS " (9) (HOLY QUR'AN, 3:47).

It is not necessary for God to plant a seed in man or animal. He merely wills it and it comes into being. This is the Muslim conception of the of birth of Jesus.
(When I compared the Qur'an and the Biblical versions of the birth of Jesus to the head of the Bible Society in our largest City, and when I enquired: "Which version would you prefer to give your daughter, the QUR'ANIC version or the BIBLICAL version?" The man bowed his head and answered: "The Qur'anic." In short, I said to the dominee: "Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhummed?"He replied proudly:"Yes!" I said:"Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" (Like You, Like Moses) and Muhummed is like Moses."

Marriage Ties
(3) "Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses."

Jesus Rejected by his People
(3) "Moses and Muhummed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too made Muhummed's life imposs ible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the Bible: 'He (Jesus) CAME UNTO HIS OWN, BUT HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT.' (John 1:11). And even today, ofter two thousand years, his people- the Jews, as a whole, have rejeted him. Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I said: "THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT LIKE MOSES, BUT MUHUMMED IS LIKE MOSES."

"Other-Wordly" Kingdom
(5) "Moses and Muhummed were prophets as well as kings. A prophet means a man who receives Divine Revelation for the Guidance of Man and this Guidance he conveys to God's creatures as received without any addition or deletion. A king is a person who has the power of life and death over his people. It is immaterial whether the person wears a crown or not, or whether he was ever addressed as king or monarch: if the man has the prerogative of inflicting capital punishment - HE IS A KING. Moses possessed such a power. Do you remember the Israelite who was found picking up firewood on Sabbath Day , and Moses had him stoned to death? (Numbers- 15:13). There are other crimes also mentioned in the Bible for which capital punishment was inflicted on the Jews at the behest of Moses. Muhummed too, had the power of life and death over his people. There are instances in the Bible of persons who wer e given gift of prophecy only, but they were not in a position to implement their directives. Some of these holy men of God who were helpless in the face of stubborn rejection of their mesage, were the prophets lot, Jonah, Daniel, Ezra, and John the Baptist. They could only deliver the message, but could not enforce the Law. The Holy Prophet Jesus (Peace b.u.h) also belonged to this category. The Christian Gospel clearly confirms this: when Jesus was dragged before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, Charged for sedition, Jesus made a convincing point in his defence to refute the false charg e: JESUS ANSWERED, "MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD': IF MY KINGDOM WERE OF THIS WORLD, THEN WOULD MY SERVANTS FIGHT, THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEWS; BUT NOW IS MY KINGDOM NOT FROM HENCE"(John 18:36) This convinced Pilate (A Pagan) that though Jesus might not be in full possessio n of his mental faculty, he did not strike him as being a danger to his rule. Jesus claimed a spiritual Kingdom only; in other words he only claimed to be a Prophet. Is this true?" The dominee answered:"Yes." I said:"Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

No New Laws
(6) "Moses and Muhummed brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Moses not only gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, but a very comprehensive ceremonial law for the guidance of his people. Muhummed comes to a people steeped in barbarism and ignorance. They married their step-m others; they buried their daughters alive; drunkenness, adultery, idolatry, and gambling were the order of the day. Gibbon describe the Arabs before Islam in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", THE HUMAN BRUTE, ALMOST WITHOUT SENSE, IS POORLY DISTINGUISHED FROM THE REST OF THE ANIMAL CREATI ON.' There was hardly anything to distinguish between the "man" and the "animal" of the time; they were animals in human form.

"From this abject barbarism, Muhummed elevated them, in the words of Thomas Carlysle, 'into torch-bearers of light and learning.' 'TO THE ARAB NATION IT WAS AS A BIRTH FROM DARKNESS INTO LIGHT. ARABIA FIRST BECAME ALIVE BY MEANS OF IT. A POOR SHEPHERD PEOPLE, ROAMING UNNOTICED IN ITS DESERTS SINCE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. SEE, THE UNNOTICED BECOMES WORLD NOTABLE, THE SMALL HAS GROWN WORLD-GREAT. WITHIN ONE CENTURY AFTERWARDS ARABIA WAS AT GRANADA ON ONE HAND AND AT DELHI ON THE OTHER. GLANCING IN VALOUR AND SPLENDOUR, AND THE LIGHT OF GENIUS, ARABIA SHINES OVER A GREA SECTION OF THE WORLD. ...' The fact is that Muhummed gave his people a Law and Order they never had before.

"As regards Jesus, when the Jews felt suspicious of him that he might be an imposter with designs to pervert their teachings, Jesus took pains to assure them that he had not come with a new religion - no new laws and no new regulations. I quote his own words: 'THINK NOT THAT IAM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, OR THE PROPHETS: IAM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL. FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, ONE JOT OR ONE TITLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.'(Mathew 5:17-18). In other words he had not come with any new laws or regulation he came only to fulfil the old law. This what he gave the Jews to understand- unless he was speaking with the tongue in his cheek trying to bluff the Jews into accepting him as a man of God and by subterfuge trying to ram a new religion down their throats. No! This Messenger of God would never resort to such fo ul means to subvert the Religion of God. He himself fulfilled the laws. He observed the commandments of Moses, and he respected the Sabbath. At no time did a single Jew point a finger at him to say, 'why don't you fast' or 'why don't you wash your hands before you break bread',which charges they al wasy levied against his disciples, but never against Jesus. This is because as a good Jew he honoured the laws of the prophets who preceded him. In short, he had created no new religion and had brought no new law like Moses and Muhummed. Is this true?" I asked the dominee, and he answered: "Yes." I said:"Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

How they Departed
(7) "Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but according to Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the cross.(10) Is this true?" The dominee said: "Yes." I averred: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

Heavenly Abode
( "Moses and Muhummed both lie buried in earth, but according to you, Jesus in heaven. Is this true?" The dominee agreed. I said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses."

malvisguy212:
Mohammed was not a true prophet. And I say that because, you see, the true prophet must receive a direct call from God, especially if he will be the founder of a religion. Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Moses received a direct call from God. Mohammed didn't receive a direct call from God. The story is very interesting. He was in the cave of Hira, outside of Mecca, and there, a spirit appeared to Mohammed. And then, the spirit squeezed Mohammed very tightly, that he thought that he was going to die.
And the spirit said to Mohammed,
"Read." Mohammed was illiterate, he
could not read. And he said, "I cannot
read." Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly that he thought he was
going to die. And the spirit said to him,
"Read!" "I cannot read," Mohammed
answered. Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly. He was afraid that he was
going to die. And he said, "Read!" He
said, "What shall I read?" The words
should be recited because he could not
read. How could you command someone who doesn't know how to read, read? You say to him, "Recite!" And then he said, "What shall I read?" And he said, "Read, in the name of thy Lord, who created man from the clot," etc, etc. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. The Quran was given to him by that spirit who appeared to him at the cave of Hira.
The Muslims say, that the spirit was
Gabriel the angel. They say the angel
Gabriel is the spirit who appeared to
Mohammed at the cave of Hira , and he
squeezed him tightly.

But listen, when you go the Bible, Gabriel appeared to many people. Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and Daniel was scared. And he said, "Do not be afraid, Daniel." Then he appeared Zecharia, the father of John the Baptist. And he was afraid, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, do not be afraid." Then he appeared to Mary. And Mary was troubled, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid." But that spirit who met
Mohammed and squeezed him, left him
very troubled. He was scared to death.
And when he went back to his wife
Khadigah, he said, "I am scared, I am
scared! I am trembling?" She said,
"What?" He said, "I don't know, I don't
know. I am afraid that I am possessed."
Then she took him to a bishop in Mecca,
by the name of Waraka Bin Nawfal, who
was her cousin, and she told him about
what happened. And this Waraka, the
bishop of the Amunit cult in Mecca said
to her, "Oh, be quiet. Be quiet.
Mohammed will be the prophet of the
Arabs." So the one who declared Mohammed a prophet was the bishop of Mecca. And that is the historical fact. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. It was dictated to him by that spirit. And I want to tell you something, it's not a miracle, because any book would not be a miracle. Any book, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad, and Odyssey, it's not a miracle. Shakespeare wrote many books, it's not a miracle. Plato wrote many books, not a miracle. The books cannot be a miracle because if I cannot understand the language, I cannot confirm if it's a miracle or not. The miracle is to raise somebody, to heal somebody, to give the sight to somebody, these are miracles! But to tell me that a book is a miracle, I don't buy that!

Here you go exhibiting your ignorance again, as for Muhammad's miracles, read my most recent post before this. Are you trying to claim Jesus saw God? Do you remember what happened to Moses when he tried to have a glimpse? All prophets receive revelations from Angels, except for Moses who had the uniqueness of speaking to God directly! Do not forget Muhammad's journey and ascension to heaven where he met several prophets including Jesus (RA)! Is this not a miracle? Or is this the doing of that spirit alone? Or are you saying this spirit has access to heaven? This is the true story of Muhammad, read it with an open mind, don't be biased.


Muhammad (pbuh) was born on Monday the 12th of the month of "Rabi-AlAwwal" "The Year of the Elephant" ("A'am al-Feel" in Arabic) which corresponds roughly to April 20, 571. The reason it was given this name was because it was the year when Abraha Al-Ashram, the local governor of the Ethiopian protectorate of al-Yemen, mounted his elephant and lead his army in an attempt to storm Makkah and destroy the Kaaba.

Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah and his mother's name was Amina the Daughter of Wahab. His full name was Muhammad the son of Abdullah the son of AbdulMuttalib the son of Hashim the son of AbdulManaf the son of Kusai the son of Kilab the son of Murrah the son of Kaab the son of Luai the son of Ghalib the son of Fihir the son of Malik the son of Al-Nadhar the son of Knana the son of Khuzaima the son of Mdraka the son of Ilias the son of Mudir the son of Nizar the son of Ma'ad the son of Adnan. The ancestry of Adnan goes back to Ishmael the son of Prophet Abraham (pbut). Muhammad's grandfather, AbdulMuttalib, was the leader of the tribe of Quraish, the noblest of the tribes of the region, and his mother was a woman of prominent nobility and ancestry in the same tribe.

Muhammad's father, Abdullah, died before he was born and never saw him. Just before his birth, Muhammad's mother Amina had a dream wherein she saw a light issuing forth from her and illuminating the palaces of Basra. As was the custom in that day, upon his birth Muhammad's mother Amina sent him to live the first years of his life in the desert in order to learn the pure uncorrupted classical Arabic and to breathe the fresh desert air far from the boundaries of the city of Makkah. For the first two years of his life he nursed from Halima Al-Saadia. At the end of the two year term Halima asked his mother to allow him to remain with her a while longer and she consented.

Muhammad's (pbuh) mother Amina died when he was six years old and was followed shortly thereafter by his grandfather AbdulMuttalib when he was eight years old. At this point, he went to live with his uncle AbuTalib and his three cousins Ali, Jaafar, and Akeel. Under the guidance of his uncle he learned to be a sheepherder and a tradesman. As he grew up he earned a reputation for honesty, fairness, humbleness, and integrity. It was not long before the people of Quraish gave him the nickname of "Al-Ameen" ("The Trustworthy".

When Muhammad (pbuh) was about sixteen years old he entered into the employ of Khadeejah the daughter of Khuwailid, a widow, a prominent businesswomen, and one of the nobles of Quraish. Upon reaching the age of twenty five, he married her. It is estimated that she was approximately forty years old when he married her. She became the mother of all of his children except Ibraheem. Their children were Al-Qasim, Abdullah (Al-Tahir/ Al-Tayyib), Zainab, Rukayyah, Um-Kalthoom, and Fatima. After the death of Khadeejah, Muhammad married Maria the Coptic who gave birth to his last child, Ibraheem.

One of the first signs of Muhammad's wisdom and diplomacy came when he was thirty five years old. The tribes of Quraish found it necessary to rebuild the Kaaba in order to prevent it from collapse. When they got to the point in the construction when it was necessary to insert the "Black Stone", the tribes began to contend with one another for the honor of placing the stone in its place. This continued for a number of days until the situation became extremely volatile. Blood pacts were consummated between the various tribes to fight to the death and all-out war was on the verge of breaking out between them over this matter. At this point they came to a peaceful compromise. They agreed that the first person to enter the door of the holy mosque shall choose the one who shall receive this honor and they shall all abide by his judgment.

As it happened, the first person to enter the holy mosque was Muhammad (pbuh). Upon seeing him the tribes all breathed a sigh of relief and proclaimed: "It is Al-Ameen (The trustworthy), we accept him! It is Muhammad!."

Muhammad called for a garment, laid it upon the ground, and then placed the stone in the middle of it. He then asked all of the tribes to select a single representative from their tribe who was then asked to grasp an edge of the garment. All of the chosen representatives then carried the stone together to the Kaaba. When they reached it Muhammad (pbuh) rolled it in place.

The Beginning of the Prophethood:

It is narrated that the first signs of Muhammad's prophethood was a series of visions he would receive at night which would then come true exactly as he had envisioned them.


The story of the first visit of the angel Gabriel to Muhammad (pbuh) has been narrated in detail in section 6.2. Immediately after receiving this visit, Muhammad (pbuh) ran back home to his wife, trembling and in a state of terror crying "Cover me! Cover me!".

When he had had a chance to calm down, Khadeejah asked him what had happened and he told her the whole story. Muhammad's wife Khadeejah was very well acquainted with his character and when this story was narrated to her and she saw the terror in his eyes she said: "No, by Allah! God shall not disgrace you. You do good by your kin, carry the burdens of others, give to the needy, aid the weak, and assist in all good things." However, as she did not know exactly what to make of this matter, she decided to ask the advice of her Christian cousin, Waraka the son of Nawfal.

When Waraka heard what had happened he said: "By Him in who's hands my soul rests, you are the prophet of this nation, and the one who visited you is none other than the chief of the angels who visited Moses. Verily, your people shall call you a liar, abuse you, expel you, and wage war against you."

When Muhammad (pbuh) heard these words he was bewildered, for he knew of his noble standing with his people, their great respect and admiration for him, and how they called him "The Truthful, the Trustworthy," so he asked Waraka: "Will they expel me?." Waraka replied "Yes! Never has there come a man before you with similar to that which you have come with except his people fought him and waged war against him. If I were to live to that day, I shall stand by you and assist you mightily." However, Waraka died shortly thereafter.

The first people to believe in Muhammad (pbuh) were his closest of kin and some of his close friends. Among them were his wife Khadeejah, his cousin Ali ibn Abi-Talib, his close friend Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, and his adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha, as well as many of the poor and weak such as Bilal the Ethiopian, and Abdullah ibn Masood, among others. Some of those who accepted Muhammad's call were nobles and leaders in the tribe of Quraish, such as Uthman ibn Affan, Abdulrahman ibn Auf, Saad ibn Abi-Wakkas, and Talha ibn Ubaidallah. However, Muhammad's call to Islam continued in secret for a period of three years at which point the following verse was revealed to him:

"Therefore expound openly that which you are commanded, and be heedless of those who associate partners with God."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijir(15):94

Upon receiving this command, Muhammad (pbuh) climbed to the top of the hill of Al-Safa and shouted at the top of his lungs: "Ya sabaha!." This call was well known to be a call of dire distress and impending peril. It was usually reserved to warn of a siege by a hostile army.

Immediately the citizens clamored around him to learn what alarming news he had to reveal to them. When they had assembled around him he proclaimed:

"O children of Abdul-Muttalib, O children of Fihr, O children of Kaab, if I were to warn you that at the bottom of this hill are horses [of war] about to attack you, would you believe me? ."

The people replied: "Yes!."

Then Muhammad said: "Then [be notified that] I am a warner, before me is a terrible punishment."

Everyone fell silent and did not know what to say until one of the nobles, Muhammad's uncle Abu Lahab, blurted out: "Damn you the rest of the day! Is this why you assembled us?"

From that day forward, Muhammad (pbuh) called to Islam openly and without fear. With time, more and more people began to accept this call and became Muslims. Most of them, however, were of the poor, the weak, and the destitute of Quraish. In the beginning, the nobles did not pay him much heed until they learned that he was deriding their idols. This is when their animosity and their campaign of retribution began.

At first, the nobles tried to convince Muhammad's followers that he was a lunatic or a magician. However, when this method did not succeed they resorted to physical abuse and torture. Those of them who had no clan to protect them were subjected to the worst of this torture. Many were whipped, stoned, beaten, starved and burned. The nobles took great pains to come up with new and innovative ways to torture them. Among these was the method employed by Umayya against his slave Bilal the Ethiopian. He would take him out to the desert at the hottest time of day, lay him on his back under the scorching sun, then order that a large boulder be rolled onto his stomach. All the while Bilal remained resolute, repeating: "[God is] one, [God is] one."

At the same time, the tribe of Makhzoom would take the family of Yasir, the father the mother and the son, out to the desert during the midday heat and torture them severely. While this was going on, Muhammad (pbuh) would pass by them and say: "Have patience family of Yasir. Your appointment is with heaven."

malvisguy212:
Mohammed was not a true prophet. And I say that because, you see, the true prophet must receive a direct call from God, especially if he will be the founder of a religion. Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Moses received a direct call from God. Mohammed didn't receive a direct call from God. The story is very interesting. He was in the cave of Hira, outside of Mecca, and there, a spirit appeared to Mohammed. And then, the spirit squeezed Mohammed very tightly, that he thought that he was going to die.
And the spirit said to Mohammed,
"Read." Mohammed was illiterate, he
could not read. And he said, "I cannot
read." Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly that he thought he was
going to die. And the spirit said to him,
"Read!" "I cannot read," Mohammed
answered. Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly. He was afraid that he was
going to die. And he said, "Read!" He
said, "What shall I read?" The words
should be recited because he could not
read. How could you command someone who doesn't know how to read, read? You say to him, "Recite!" And then he said, "What shall I read?" And he said, "Read, in the name of thy Lord, who created man from the clot," etc, etc. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. The Quran was given to him by that spirit who appeared to him at the cave of Hira.
The Muslims say, that the spirit was
Gabriel the angel. They say the angel
Gabriel is the spirit who appeared to
Mohammed at the cave of Hira , and he
squeezed him tightly.

But listen, when you go the Bible, Gabriel appeared to many people. Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and Daniel was scared. And he said, "Do not be afraid, Daniel." Then he appeared Zecharia, the father of John the Baptist. And he was afraid, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, do not be afraid." Then he appeared to Mary. And Mary was troubled, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid." But that spirit who met
Mohammed and squeezed him, left him
very troubled. He was scared to death.
And when he went back to his wife
Khadigah, he said, "I am scared, I am
scared! I am trembling?" She said,
"What?" He said, "I don't know, I don't
know. I am afraid that I am possessed."
Then she took him to a bishop in Mecca,
by the name of Waraka Bin Nawfal, who
was her cousin, and she told him about
what happened. And this Waraka, the
bishop of the Amunit cult in Mecca said
to her, "Oh, be quiet. Be quiet.
Mohammed will be the prophet of the
Arabs." So the one who declared Mohammed a prophet was the bishop of Mecca. And that is the historical fact. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. It was dictated to him by that spirit. And I want to tell you something, it's not a miracle, because any book would not be a miracle. Any book, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad, and Odyssey, it's not a miracle. Shakespeare wrote many books, it's not a miracle. Plato wrote many books, not a miracle. The books cannot be a miracle because if I cannot understand the language, I cannot confirm if it's a miracle or not. The miracle is to raise somebody, to heal somebody, to give the sight to somebody, these are miracles! But to tell me that a book is a miracle, I don't buy that!

Hers the continuation of the holy prophets story in summary.
When the torture of Quraish became unbearable, Muhammad (pbuh) authorized his companions to emigrate to Ethiopia (Abyssinia) . At this point eighty three Muslims fled Makkah and traveled to Ethiopia. When Quraish received news of their emigration they sent a delegation to Negus (Al-Najashi) the Christian king of Ethiopia with many gifts in the hope that they might persuade him to return the emigrants to them. A famous exchange occurred between the three parties with the outcome being the refusal of the king to deliver the Muslims back into the hands of Quraish. This could be deemed the first strategic victory of the Muslims against their persecutors, so let us hear this story.

When the nobles of Quraish saw that the Muslims had found a reprieve from their torture and abuse in Abyssinia and that they were allowed to practice their religion freely there, these nobles decided to send a delegation to the King of Abyssinia consisting of Abdullah the son of Rabia and Amr the son of Al-Aas, and with them they sent many gifts for the king and his generals.

When this delegation arrived in Abyssinia, they first presented their gifts to the king's generals and received passage to speak to the king. When they stood before the king they said:

"There has come to your land a scrapping lot of our most ignorant juveniles. They have departed from the religion of their fathers and have not accepted your religion, rather, they have invented a completely new religion which neither we nor you have heard of before. The nobles among their people, their fathers, their uncles, and their clan have sent to you to return them to them, for they are best acquainted with them and closer in bond to them." The king's officers then spoke up saying: "They have spoken the truth O king so let us return them to their people."

Upon hearing this the king became very angry and refused to accept their words or to return those who had sought sanctuary with him to this delegation. He then commanded that the Muslims be assembled before him as well as his Bishops. When they had all assembled before him he asked the Muslims:

"What is this religion which has caused you to relinquish the religion of your fathers and not to accept our religion nor any of these other faiths?" Ja'far the son of Abu-Talib, the cousin of Muhammad (pbuh) then arose and said: "O King of Abyssinia, We used to be a people of ignorance, worshipping idols, eating dead animals, performing indecencies, casting off family bonds, doing evil to our neighbors, and the strong among us would eat the weak. This remained our common trait until God sent to us a messenger. We knew his ancestry, his truthfulness, his trustworthiness, and his chastity. He called us to Allah that we might worship Him alone and forsake all that which we had been worshipping other than Him of these stones and idols. He commanded us to be truthful in speech, to keep our trusts, to strengthen our family bonds, to be good to our neighbors, to avoid the prohibitions and blood, and to avoid all indecencies, lying, theft of the orphan's money, and the slander of chaste women. He further commanded us to worship Allah alone, not associating anything in worship with Him. He commanded us to pray, pay charity, and fast (and he listed for him the requirements of Islam). So we believed him, accepted his message, and followed him in that which he received from Allah, worshipping Allah alone, not associating any partners with Him, refraining from all prohibitions, and accepting all that which was made permissible for us. For this our people greeted us with animosity and vindication. They tortured us and persecuted us in our religion in the hope that they might turn us from the worship of Allah to the worship of idols, and that we might accept that which we had accepted of old of our evil deeds. So when they overcame us, dealt unjustly with us, restricted us, and bared us from our religion, we fled to your land and chose you above all others, hoping for your sanctuary, and hoping that we would not fear injustice in your presence. "

The King listened to Ja'far's words patiently and quietly then he said: "Do you have with you any of that which your companion has brought to you?" Ja'far replied "Yes." The King said: "Then recite it before me." So Ja'far recited to him the verses of the chapter of Maryam (chapter 19). It reads:

"Kaf, Ha, Ya, Ain, Saad. [This is a] recital of the mercy of your Lord to His slave Zachariah. When he called unto his Lord a call in secret. Saying: 'My Lord, indeed my bones have grown feeble, and my head glistens with gray hair, and I have never been unblessed in my supplication unto you my Lord. And verily, I fear [what] my relatives [shall do] after me, and my wife is barren, so grant me from Yourself an heir. Who shall inherit me, and inherit from the family of Jacob, and make him O Lord one in whom You are well pleased.' [Allah said:] O Zachariah! Verily We give you glad tidings of a son whose name is Yahya(John). We have granted this name to none before him. He said: 'My Lord, whence can I have a son when my wife is barren, and I have grown quite decrepit in old age?' He said: 'So has your Lord said. It is trivial upon Me. [Indeed,] I had created you previously when you were nothing..."

(For the rest of this chapter please obtain one of the acceptable English translations of the Qur'an as outlined in the book list at the end of this book)

When the king heard these verses he wept till he soaked his beard, and with him his Bishops also wept. The king then said: "Verily, this and that which was brought by Jesus have indeed come from the same burning light." He then turned to the emissaries of Quraish and said to them: "Return to your people, for I shall never deliver them to you"

Then next morning, Amr the son of Al-Aas returned to the king and said: "They say a most monstrous thing regarding Jesus the son of Mary." At this the king summoned the Muslims again and asked them: "What do you have to say regarding Jesus the son of Mary?"

Ja'far the son of Abu-Talib replied: "We say in his regard that which our prophet says: That he was the servant of God and his messenger, a spirit from Him, and His Word which He bestowed upon Mary the chaste, the pure."

Upon hearing this the king struck the ground with his hand and lifted up a stick. He then said "Verily, Jesus the son of Mary did not surpass what you have just said even so much as this stick." The king granted the Muslims sanctuary and the emissaries of Quraish returned with empty hands.

This king of Ethiopia later passed away during the lifetime of Muhammad (pbuh). When Muhammad learned of his death, he commanded the Muslims to assemble for a congregational "prayer upon the deceased" (funeral prayers) on the king's behalf.

While all of this was going on in Ethiopia, Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions who had chosen to remain behind in Makkah continued to endure the punishment and torture of Quraish. However, their numbers continued to increase with every passing day in spite of the best efforts of Quraish. Many of those who converted to Islam were nobles among them such as Umar ibn al-Khattab.

In the seventh year of Muhammad's (pbuh) message, the nobles of Quraish became desperate to stop the growth of Islam in their city, so they all met together and wrote the "Sanction of Hashim and Banu Muttalib." In this pact, the nobles all agreed to neither buy the goods of the sons of Hashim and Banu Muttalib (the tribe of Muhammad), nor to sell to them. They further agreed not to marry from them nor to allow them to marry from their tribes. This document was then hung inside the Kaaba. This sanction continued for three years. During this period, the children of Hashim and AbdulMuttalib suffered severely until they were reduced to eating the leaves off of the trees. They could neither buy nor sell goods from Quraish and Quraish prevented all other merchants from dealing with them except at exorbitantly high prices.

malvisguy212:
Mohammed was not a true prophet. And I say that because, you see, the true prophet must receive a direct call from God, especially if he will be the founder of a religion. Mohammed is the founder of Islam. Moses received a direct call from God. Mohammed didn't receive a direct call from God. The story is very interesting. He was in the cave of Hira, outside of Mecca, and there, a spirit appeared to Mohammed. And then, the spirit squeezed Mohammed very tightly, that he thought that he was going to die.
And the spirit said to Mohammed,
"Read." Mohammed was illiterate, he
could not read. And he said, "I cannot
read." Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly that he thought he was
going to die. And the spirit said to him,
"Read!" "I cannot read," Mohammed
answered. Then the spirit squeezed him
more tightly. He was afraid that he was
going to die. And he said, "Read!" He
said, "What shall I read?" The words
should be recited because he could not
read. How could you command someone who doesn't know how to read, read? You say to him, "Recite!" And then he said, "What shall I read?" And he said, "Read, in the name of thy Lord, who created man from the clot," etc, etc. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. The Quran was given to him by that spirit who appeared to him at the cave of Hira.
The Muslims say, that the spirit was
Gabriel the angel. They say the angel
Gabriel is the spirit who appeared to
Mohammed at the cave of Hira , and he
squeezed him tightly.

But listen, when you go the Bible, Gabriel appeared to many people. Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and Daniel was scared. And he said, "Do not be afraid, Daniel." Then he appeared Zecharia, the father of John the Baptist. And he was afraid, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, do not be afraid." Then he appeared to Mary. And Mary was troubled, and Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid." But that spirit who met
Mohammed and squeezed him, left him
very troubled. He was scared to death.
And when he went back to his wife
Khadigah, he said, "I am scared, I am
scared! I am trembling?" She said,
"What?" He said, "I don't know, I don't
know. I am afraid that I am possessed."
Then she took him to a bishop in Mecca,
by the name of Waraka Bin Nawfal, who
was her cousin, and she told him about
what happened. And this Waraka, the
bishop of the Amunit cult in Mecca said
to her, "Oh, be quiet. Be quiet.
Mohammed will be the prophet of the
Arabs." So the one who declared Mohammed a prophet was the bishop of Mecca. And that is the historical fact. So the Quran is not the invention of Mohammed. It was dictated to him by that spirit. And I want to tell you something, it's not a miracle, because any book would not be a miracle. Any book, you know, Homer wrote the Iliad, and Odyssey, it's not a miracle. Shakespeare wrote many books, it's not a miracle. Plato wrote many books, not a miracle. The books cannot be a miracle because if I cannot understand the language, I cannot confirm if it's a miracle or not. The miracle is to raise somebody, to heal somebody, to give the sight to somebody, these are miracles! But to tell me that a book is a miracle, I don't buy that!

I really need you to read this as well
Asim the son of Omar the son of Qutadah narrated that an elder from the Jewish tribe of Bani-Quraidah said to him:

"Do you know the story of how Thalaba the son of Sa'iah, Usaid the son of Sa'iah, and Asab the son of Ubaid, the children of the tribe of Hadal the brethren of Bani-Quraidah, became Muslims?" He said "I replied: No I do not." He said: "There was once a man from the children of Israel who came to us from the land of Al-Sham (Babylon, Palestine, etc.). His name was Ibn-Alhai'iban. He came to us two years prior to the beginning of Islam. As he lived among us we never before saw a man better or more devout in his daily worship than he. Whenever rain would be withheld from us we would go to him and say to him: Go out O Ibn-Alhai'iban and pray to God to grant us rain. He would reply: I shall not do so unless you agree to pay out of your harvest a charity [to the needy]. We would ask him, how much? And he would reply a 'Saa' (weight) of dates or two 'Muud' (weights) of wheat. He said: So we would pay this charity and he would accompany us out to the edge of town and beseech God on our behalf. Before he would rise to leave a cloud would overshadow us and the rain would begin to pour. He did this for us not once, or twice, or even three times [but more]. When he was on his death bed and he knew that he was about to pass away, he said: O children of Israel, what do you think drove me to leave the land of wine and leavened bread to come to the land of wretchedness and hunger?. They replied: 'You know best' He said: Then know that I only came to this land in anticipation of a prophet of God whose time has drawn near, and this land is the destination of his emigration (see chapter 6). I had hoped that his time might come so that I might follow him. So do not allow anyone to beat you to him O children of Israel for he shall be sent to spill blood and to take as spoils the women and children of those who oppose him. Therefore do not allow that to prevent you from him. When Muhammad was sent, and when he surrounded Bani-Quraidah, these young men who had attended his speech told their people: 'By Allah!, this is indeed the prophet which Ibn-Alhai'iban told you of.' They replied: 'It is not him.' They returned: 'But it is!, and it is his description.' So these [three] young men left their people and accepted Islam."

The Emigration to Al-Madinah:

When the Muslims received authorization from Muhammad (pbuh) to emigrate to Al-Madinah, they began to flee in droves under the cover of night for fear that they might be discovered by Quraish. Those who fled Makkah were from that day forward named "Al-Muhajireen" (The Emigrators). When they departed from Makkah they left behind all of their wealth, their livestock, and their homes. The people of Quraish wasted no time in claiming this property and their zeal in amassing their newfound wealth helped to occupy them from setting out in pursuit of the Muslims who had fled with only the clothes on their backs, enough provisions for their trip, and an undying love of God burning brightly in their hearts.

Although the Muslims had forsaken all of their worldly possessions to the people of Quraish, still, this did not prevent many of them from being captured and tormented by Quraish.

Hind the daughter of Abi-Umayya Huthaifah ibn Al-Mugeerah Al-Qurasiyya Al-Makhzoomiyya (more popularly known as Um-Salama) was one such victim. She was married at the time to Abdullah ibn Abdulasad, one of the first ten converts to Islam. They had a son named Salama. Upon receiving the authorization to emigrate to Al-Madinah, Abdullah collected some provisions, placed his wife and son on the back of their camel and set out for Al-Madinah.

As they reached the outskirts of the city some of the men of the tribe of Makhzoom (the tribe of Um-Salama), saw them. They came running and said: "Although we may be powerless to stop you, still, you shall not be allowed to take our daughter and travel throughout the land with her," and they wrenched the reins of the camel from his hands.

As this was going on, a group of men from the tribe of Um-Salama's husband Abdullah, the tribe of Abdulasad, became enraged by this display and shouted: "By God, if you take her you shall not take his son, the son of our tribe" and they wrenched the boy away. Both tribes then began to pull on the boy until they dislocated his arm. Finally, the tribe of Makhzoom took Um-Salama and the tribe of Abdulasad took her son Salama, and they both left Abdullah with no recourse but to flee to Yethrib alone.

After that, Um-Salama would go out every day to the edge of the city and weep over the loss of her son and her husband until well into the night. This continued for about a year until the tribes finally had mercy upon her, returned her child to her and allowed them to catch up with her husband.

Another example is that of Suhaib Al-Roomi of the Arab tribe of Numair. As a child he had been taken captive by the Romans in one of their raids on the city of Al-Thani in Iraq. After spending many years as a slave in the service of the Roman nobles he escaped and returned to Arabia. He came to Makkah as an emigrant barely remembering a single word of Arabic. Due to his heavy accent and his bright red hair he was given the nick-name of "Al-Roomi" (The Roman). Suhaib spent many years in Makkah bartering and trading, and eventually he managed to amass substantial wealth. During his stay in Rome, Suhaib had once heard a Christian priest commenting to a Roman noble that the time was near when a final prophet of God would be coming from the land of Arabia and would confirm the message of Jesus (see chapter 6). When Suhaib later heard of Muhammad's message he inquired after him and ultimately, he accepted Islam.

When Muhammad (pbuh) authorized the emigration to Al-Madinah Suhaib collected his belongings, and set out for Al-Madinah. However, the nobles of Quraish had heard of his intentions and prevented him from leaving the city. They then set up a continuous guard to ensure that he would not leave the city, nevertheless, through his cunning he later managed to elude them and leave.

It was not long after that Quraish learned that Suhaib had tricked them and escaped, so they sent out their best riders on their fastest horses in heated pursuit of him. Somewhere along the road to Al-Madinah they caught up with him. Upon seeing them Suhaib dismounted, pulled out his bow and arrows and called to them: "O people of Quraish. By Allah, you know that I am a very skilled archer. By Allah, you shall not reach me until I kill with each arrow in my quiver a man among you, and then I shall smite you with my sword until it falls from my hand."

The detachment of Quraish replied: "You came to us as a lowly emigrant with no money. Now that you have prospered by way of us you wish to leave? By Allah, we shall not allow you to leave with your life and your wealth!" Whereupon Suhaib replied: "If I were to deliver my wealth to you, will you let me be?" They replied "Yes." So Suhaib revealed to them the location where his wealth was buried and they retrieved it and let him go.

When Suhaib reached Quba (a city located two miles from Al-Madinah), Muhammad (pbuh) saw him and hastened to greet him saying: "You have indeed prospered in your trade O father of Yahya, you have indeed prospered in your trade."

When Suhaib heard these words he replied: "By Allah, no one has beat me to you [with this news]. You have not been informed of it except by way of [the angel] Gabriel."

All of the Muslims in Makkah emigrated in secret and under the cover of night out of fear of the persecution of Quraish. All, that is, except Umar ibn Al-Khattab. Umar was a powerful man and greatly respected by Quraish. He was ambidextrous and highly skilled in matters of war. When he resolved to emigrate he stood up in the middle of the holy mosque in Makkah in front of its nobles and proclaimed: "I have resolved to emigrate. Let he who wishes his parents to lose their child or wishes to make his children orphans, let him meet me behind this hill," and he departed. Of course, no one followed him.

After Muhammad (pbuh) authorized the Muslims to emigrate to Al-Madinah, all able bodied Muslims departed until there was no one left behind except himself, his close friend Abu-Bakr, his cousin Ali, and those who had been persecuted and imprisoned.

When Quraish saw that Muhammad (pbuh) had found a strong ally and a tribe that would protect him and his followers from their persecution they began to fear that he might leave and join them. They decided that extreme measures were necessitated in order to prevent this from happening. It was time for Muhammad to die.

The nobles of Quraish met in "Dar-Alnadwa" and plotted as to how they shall execute this deed. They decided that the best strategy was to choose a young and capable representative from each of their tribes and to dispatch these representatives to his home. They would all then strike Muhammad (pbuh) with their swords simultaneously such that his blood would be distributed between all of the tribes. In this manner, the children of AbdulManaf would not be able to take vengeance against all of the tribes of Quraish combined.

Gabriel visited Muhammad (pbuh) and informed him of this plot, so Muhammad requested from his cousin Ali that he take his place in his bed and he informed him of this plot. He consoled him not to worry, no harm shall befall him.

When the young men of Quraish collected outside Muhammad's home, Allah momentarily took away their sight. Muhammad (pbuh) then scooped up a handful of dust, sprinkled it upon their heads, and then departed. As he did this he read the first verses of Yaseen(36):

"YaSeen. By the Qur'an full of Wisdom, Truly you [O Muhammad] are one of the messengers. On a straight path. [This is] a Revelation sent down by the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful, that you may warn a people that which their forefathers were warned, but they are heedless"

until he reached the verse "And We have set a barrier before them and a barrier behind them, and [thus] we have covered them so that they see not."

A man then passed by them and said "what are you waiting for here?" They replied "For Muhammad" He responded "He has already departed and left dust on your heads." They then placed their hands upon their heads and found the dust. So they peered inside the house and saw Ali in the bed and thought he was Muhammad The next morning Ali got up out of the bed and they realized that Muhammad (pbuh) had indeed escaped just as that man had told them. They quickly set out in his pursuit.

Muhammad (pbuh) set out with Abu-Bakr towards Yethrib. When the two reached the cave of Thor at the edge of Makkah, Abu Bakr said: "Wait O messenger of Allah while I inspect it [for dangerous creatures]." Once he had inspected it he asked Muhammad (pbuh) to enter. While they were inside the cave, the dispatchment of Quraish reached them. As they walked about all around the cave Abu Bakr became terrified and said: "O Messenger of Allah, if one of them were but to look beneath his feet he would see us." Muhammad (pbuh) turned to him and said:

"O Abu Bakr, what shall you think of two [men] the third of whom is God? [through guidance and protection]"

In this regard the following verses were later revealed:

"If you help him not [it matters not], for Allah helped him when those who disbelieved drove him forth, the second of two; when they two were in the cave, when he said unto his comrade: Grieve not. Verily! Allah is with us. Then Allah caused His peace of reassurance to descend upon him and supported him with troops you did not see, and made the word of those who disbelieved the nethermost, while Allah's Word is the highest. For Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise."

The noble Qur'an, Al-Tawba(9):40

Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu-Bakr remained inside the cave for three days while Abdullah the son of Abu-Bakr brought them news of the plotting of Quraish. His daughter, Asma, would also bring them food every day. After three days, they took a guide by the name of Abdullah ibn Arqat and set out for Makkah. At times Abu-Bakr would walk behind Muhammad (pbuh) and at others he would walk in front of him. Finally, Muhammad (pbuh) asked him about that and Abu-Bakr explained that at times he would fear that an attack would come at Muhammad from behind, so he would walk behind Muhammad (pbuh) to protect him. At other times he would fear an attack from in front of them so he would walk in front of him for the same reason.

When Quraish realized that Muhammad (pbuh) had eluded they announced a reward of one hundred camels for anyone who would capture him and return him to them. Suraqa ibn Malik ibn Ju'ushum heard of this reward and set out in pursuit of Muhammad (pbuh).

Suraqa was a skilled tracker and Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu Bakr had spent three days in the cave before departing, eventually he caught up with them. However, as he began to close in on them his horse tripped and fell. He then got up and mounted his horse, and again it tripped and fell. When this happened a third time his horse began to sink into the ground and a strong wind began to blow. When Suraqa saw this he realized that he would not be allowed to capture them. So he called out to them: "I am Suraqa ibn Ju'ushum. Will you allow me to speak to you? By Allah, I promise not to harm you" They asked him what he wanted and he replied: "I want you to write a pact for me that shall be a sign between me and you." Muhammad (pbuh) commanded that this pack be written and Suraqa took it and left. As he departed, Muhammad said to him: "conceal our location" and they parted ways.

Suraqa never spoke to anyone about what had happened until many years later, after the Muslims captured Makkah. At that point, Suraqa returned to Muhammad (pbuh) with the pact in his hand and embraced Islam.

When Muhammad (pbuh) drew near Al-Madinah, he came upon the city of Quba (two miles away from Al-Madinah). Ever since the beginning of the emigration of the Muslims to Al-Madinah, the citizens of the city had been waiting with the utmost anticipation for his arrival. They had received word that he had left Makkah and was en route to them. Every day a party of them would go out to the outskirts of the city at daybreak and look for him, they would stay there waiting for him until the midday heat would force them indoors.

Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu Bakr first arrived on Monday the 12th of Safar (the third lunar month). Muhammad was fifty three years old at the time. When they arrived the citizens had already returned home for the afternoon. The first person to see him called out at the top of his lungs announcing his arrival.

Muhammad (pbuh) and Abu Bakr were men of similar age. Most of the citizens of Al-Madinah had never seen Muhammad (pbuh) in person, so they could not tell which one was him. When Abu Bakr realized this he stood over Muhammad (pbuh) and shaded him with his coat whereupon the people recognized Muhammad (pbuh).

It is estimated that about five hundred people greeted them on that day and the people clamored on the roof tops trying to get a glimpse of him and crying: "Which one is him? Which one is him?" while the children and the slaves filled the streets shouting "God is great! God's messenger has come! God is great! Muhammad has arrived!"

malvisguy212:
EzioAuditore you copied from the hadith to proved to us that muhammed performed a miracle? Sahih bukari and muhammed, who is lying here? Muhammed say he could not performed miracle sahih bukari say he did.

More than twenty Qur’anic passages
show that whenever Muhammad was
asked by his contemporaries to perform
a single miracle, he either remained
silent or said that he could not do so
because he was no more than just an
ordinary human being. The most explicit of these passages is in Surah 17:90-93:
They said, “We will not believe you
unless you cause a spring to gush out
of the ground. “Or unless you own a
garden of date palms and grapes,
with rivers running through it. “Or
unless you cause masses from the
sky, as you claimed, to fall on us. Or
unless you bring GOD and the angels
before our eyes. “Or unless you own
a luxurious mansion, or unless you
climb into the sky. Even if you do
climb, we will not believe unless you
bring a book that we can read.” Say,
“Glory be to my Lord. AM I ANY MORE THAN A HUMAN MESSENGERS?”(Khalifa)

Exactly mate! Further emphasis that he is but a messenger and it also shows that no one can do anything but with the will of God, this is also to warn them against worshipping like you Christians started worshipping Jesus, son of Mary. There are certain times when he performed miracles like feeding a bunch of people to their satisfaction from a single pot, and splitting the moon in half like they forced to do and surely through the will of Allah, he also healed a mans eyes after it almost fell off, he did all those things after they said if he did some of those, they would believe but some of them still refused to accept.

malvisguy212:
your post is full of error, the bible is not about Jesus, Jesus did not write any book, he preach and the disciples and witnesses wrote it down, but muslims claimed the quran is a revelation from Allah, how can you write a story which everybody know very well and you called that a revelation? Revealed what we already knew ? Read the story of Isaac and ishmael from the bible and quran and judge which is more understanding.

That's my point! Muhammad did not write the Quran either but my point is the parts of his life the witnesses wrote down, what's your assurance that they are correct?thats why we separate those sort of witness reports and sort them out separately, rather than taint the true words of God with what we're not sure of, the Quran is the Quran. As for the story of Abrahams sons, by God when I read the bibles version I couldn't help but burst into laughter, here are some inaccuracies you overlook because like I said, the Jews who compiled your bible hate Ishmael and Arabs, Ishmael, the son of the prophet of the lord who is himself a prophet? How can you who claim to do the will of God banish and condemn a whole bloodline? Where is the accountability and fairness in that? Was it Ishmael or Isaac who was almost sacrificed? Please read this:






1) First, let us look at Genesis 16:3, “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 16:3)” Clearly this tells us Abraham (PBUH) Married Hagar.



2) Next let us analysis at why and what age Allah (SWT) commanded Abraham (PBUH) to take Ishmael and Hagar to settle in Arabia (Paran)

“Was Ishmael and Hagar sent to the desert before or after the birth of Isaac? If we were to accept the Biblical version, we would encounter a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is clear from the story in Gen. 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a little baby at that time. For example according to Gen. 16:16 Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Gen. 21:8-19 the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us the child was probably weaned at about the age of three. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a full-grown teenager, seventeen years old. However, the profile of Ishmael in Gen 21:14-19 is a small baby and not a full-grown teenager. Why?

Genesis 21:14-21

14 Early next morning Abraham took some food and a full water-skin and gave them to Hagar. He set the child on her shoulder and sent her away, and she wandered about in the wilderness of Beersheba. 15 When the water in the skin was finished, she thrust the child under a bush, 16 then went and sat down some way off, about a bowshot distant. How can I watch the child die? she said, and sat there, weeping bitterly. 17 God heard the child crying, and the angel of God called from heaven to Hagar, What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid: God has heard the child crying where you laid him. 18 Go, lift the child and hold him in your arms, because I shall make of him a great nation. 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well full of water; she went to it, filled the water-skin, and gave the child a drink. 20 God was with the child as he grew up. He lived in the wilderness of Paran and became an archer; 21 and his mother got him a wife from Egypt. (The Revised English Bible)

1st) First, the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 is " and put the bread and water on her shoulder AND the boy." Anyone fluent in Hebrew can confirm this! This reading is still rendered in the Revised English Bible; however, other Bible publishers possibly aware of the discrepancy decided to translate the verse slightly different; however, we can see their trick! How would a mother carry a seventeen-year-old teenager on her shoulder? Certainly he was probably strong enough to carry his mother. Ishmael must have been a baby!
2nd) Second, in Gen 21:15 we are told that Hagar put the child under one of the bushes. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
3rd) Third, in Gen 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so she did not have to see the child die before her eyes. Is this the profile of a husky seventeen-year-old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
4th) According to Gen 21:17-18, the angels told Hagar lift the child and hold him in your arms. Is a seventeen-year-old man the object of being lifted up and held in one's arms by a woman while CRYING? Or is it the reference of a small child. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
5th) According to Gen 21:19 we are told that Hagar filled the bottle with water and gave the child a drink. One would expect a seventeen year old to bring water to his mother instead. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
6th) According to Gen 21:14 Abraham puts the food and water on Hagar's shoulder. Why doesn't the strong husky seventeen-year old Ishmael offer to carry the food and water? Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!
7th) According to Gen 21:20-21?? Ishmael grew up, became an archer and got married. Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager!

The above analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the Bible contains some truths as explained earlier, there is also evidence of human additions, deletions and interpolations which only a subsequent authentic revelation could clear. The Islamic version of the story is fully consistent and coherent from A to Z; Ishmael was a baby and Isaac was not born yet when this incident took place. This proves that the real reason behind their settlement in Arabia (Paran) was not the dictation, jealousy, ego or sense of racial superiority on the part of Sarah. It was rather God's plan, pure and simple!”
Of course let us remember the Corrupted bibles own statement; “ ‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:”
As we can clearly see the Jews tampered with their scripture, and some of the jewish scribes were obviously racist towards Ishmael and believe the jews were the only true human beings (just like the racist zionist jews of today) although we ALL come from the SAME person, Adam!

3) Proof that Ishmael (PBUH) was the child who was to be sacrificed by Abraham (PBUH).
“SACRIFICE OF ABRAHAM'S ONLY SON: ISHMAEL OR ISAAC?”


“The following quotes are taken from the Bible.

The Bible Genesis 22:2

"Take now your son, your only son, whom you love,_______, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains".

The Bible Genesis 22:12

"Since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."



The important question is who was this only son of Abraham that was offered for sacrifice? Ishmael the eldest son or Isaac the second son? The Bible writers have placed the name of Isaac in the blank space above. Muslims believe Ishmael was around thirteen years old when Abraham was asked to sacrifice him. In both the above quotations the Lord uses the word your only son. Obviously, the logical answer is that the incident must have taken place before the birth of Isaac, the second son of Abraham. So, what could be the reason that the name of Isaac appears in the blank space, as the only son of Abraham? Bible scholars explain that anomaly by putting forward the following two arguments.

The first argument is that after the birth of Isaac, Ishmael lost his status of being a son of Abraham, since he was not born of a wife of Abraham but born to a handmaid of Abraham's wife. However, this argument is false because Hagar was a wife of Abraham otherwise the Lord would not have used the word wife in the following verse.

Genesis 16:3 So after Abraham had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.

Moreover, Jews and Christians contend that only Isaac, the one that was born to Sarai was a son. However the biblical passage below tells us that Ishmael never lost his status as a son, not even after the birth of Isaac. If Ishmael had lost the status, the Lord would not have used the word sons in the following verse.

Genesis 25:9 Then his sons Isaac and Ishmael, buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah.

A second argument presented is that because Ishmael was born to a handmaid he would qualify as a seed or a descendant of Abraham, but not as a son. This argument is nullified because prevailing Nuzi Laws of marriage (exhibit A) tell us that such marriage contracts were legal in the days of Abraham and the child born of a handmaid or slave-girl would have the same status as one born to the wife, even if the wife had a child of her own later. There can be no doubt concerning the validity of the Nuzi laws of marriage. For example, when one traces the maternal side of the children of Israel, Genesis tells us that Jacob (later called Israel Gen 32:28) had four wives. He married Leah (Gen 29:22-23), Rachel (Gen 29:28), a slave-girl Bilhah (Gen 30:4), and another slave-girl Zilpah (Gen 30:9). From these four wives came the twelve Children of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naptali, Gad and Asher (Gen 35:23-26 & 1 Chronicles 2:1-2). All twelve of these children make up the Israelites and are all referred as a combined group, see (Exodus 1:1-9). Four of the twelve children (Gad, Dan, Naphtali and Asher) were sons of the slave-girls. Thus, it follows that about one third of all Israelis are children of slave-girls! Will a third of all Jews stand up and say they are illegitimate? Moreover, further evidence that the Bible clearly includes the slave-children as part of the combined group of Israelis is the Bible's tracking of their genealogy in (1 Chronicles 5:18; 1 Chronicles 7:12, 13, 30). Moreover, we are told that the children of Asher were leading princes.

1 Chronicles 7:40 "All these were descendants of Asher, heads of families, picked men of ability, leading princes."

Consequently, the entire Abrahamic family tree is tracked in 1 Chronicles, including Abraham's children from his first wife Hagar (1 Chronicles 1:29), his second wife Sarah (1 Chronicles 1:34) and his third wife Keturah (1 Chronicles 1:32 - see family tree at main web page).

Moreover, there is a very similar incident in the Bible (Ruth 1-4). In this story a child born to a handmaid is indeed recognized as a son. For example, Boaz, a landowner of Bethlehem, meets a handmaid named Ruth (Ruth 3:9) and marries her. Ruth was a young widow and a handmaid of Moabite descent (Ruth 1:4); the Moabite people were descendants of an act of incest by Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:36-37). Boaz and Ruth latter had a son named Obed. Later on, Obed became the founder of the royal line of Israel (Ruth 4:17-22), an ancestor of both king David and of the great prophet Jesus. If the son of a maidservant of questionable heritage could have the honor of being the progenitor and forbearer of the most important lines of descent for both Jews and Christians, then why cannot Ishmael, a son of a handmaid, be offered by his father for a burnt offering as his only son? Moreover, this argument cannot be correct because if it were, Sarah would have never said. (Gen 16:2) The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her. Abraham agreed. It is certain that Sarah and Abraham knew the law and did not want to waste their time during their old age building an illegitimate family that would serve them no good!

So, is it out of tribal rivalry that the descendants of Isaac (Jews) are concealing these facts and depriving the preeminence due to the descendants of Ishmael (Arabs)? In Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, volume 9, under the heading Ishmael it is written:

"It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from Qurayza tribe and another Jewish scholar who converted to Islam, told Caliph Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who was bound (sacrificed), but they concealed this out of jealousy."- THE JEWS JUST HATE THE ARABs!

The thing is the jokers who wrote that nonsense and amazingly controversially contradictory words couldn't even cover their tracks.

malvisguy212:
your post is full of error, the bible is not about Jesus, Jesus did not write any book, he preach and the disciples and witnesses wrote it down, but muslims claimed the quran is a revelation from Allah, how can you write a story which everybody know very well and you called that a revelation? Revealed what we already knew ? Read the story of Isaac and ishmael from the bible and quran and judge which is more understanding.

The thing is, are you Christians even sure you are worshipping Jesus or a pagan freemasonry God? Have you heard of One eyed Horus, the Egyptian God? Born of a virgin? On December 25th? Also known as the SUN god? You go to church on SUNday? Horus was also CRUCIFIED! Horus the one eyed God, symbol of the anti Christ and the free masons! Wake up! You're worshipping a false god! Or is it Krishna, the Indian God! Born on December 25, also born of a virgin? Lmao! Don't even think that they came after Jesus, all these Gods precede Jesus' existence. Clearly for you, there is a difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is not the same as Jesus of Nazareth. Why is there always a SUN behind the image of Jesus in churches? Why are you worshipping a pagan Sun GoD? Please read this beautifully written article from a neutral point of view and if you're still a Christian afterwards then I pity your life. Please click on the link below, are you ready to see the truth about the fake Jesus you worship, or will you continue to dwell in your darkness, if you're ready and that you're confident about Jesus being your lord, read this.


God: Attis

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
God: Krishna

Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Performed miracles
Resurrected
God: Dionsyus

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Performed miracles, including turning water into wine
Referred to as the "King of Kings"
Referred to as "Gods only begotten son"
Resurrected
God: Mithra

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
12 Disciples
Performed miracles
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
Sunday is day of worship for Mithra
And the most striking and seemingly the base for all other mythologies:

God: Horus

Born on December 25th
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Adored by 3 kings
Teach at 12
Baptized at 30
12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Known as "Lamb of God", "The Light"
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected


All these pagan Gods came before Jesus! Is the Jesus Christ you worship a fictional lie and different from Jesus of Nazareth? The most striking similarity is that which he shares with Horus, the one eyed SUN god. I smell the Devils work in your religion, deception is his strong suit, just like that he has you worshipping a pagan God! Shame on you! @ me if you're still a Christian.

malvisguy212 is shivering right now with counterclaims from EzioAuditore. He met his "oga at the top" . malvisguy212 dare not decipher EzioAuditore's posts. It will take him 40 days and 40 nights.

@malvis, you need "ewe orijin" to stop schivering

Empiree:
malvisguy212 is shivering right now with counterclaims from EzioAuditore. He met his "oga at the top" . malvisguy212 dare not decipher EzioAuditore's posts. It will take him 40 days and 40 nights.

@malvis, you need "ewe orijin" to stop schivering

What nonsense are you talking here? You are parading the forum telling all sorts of lies and you aren't ashamed. You will cry, you will wail by the time you will discover islamic allahh is satan in disguise. I pity you.

truthman2012:


What nonsense are you talking here? You are parading the forum telling all sorts of lies and you aren't ashamed. You will cry, you will wail by the time you will discover islamic allahh is satan in disguise. I pity you.

What lies? You can refer to youir bible and other sources and research everything I've posted here, why do I need to lie to ridicule something that ridicules itself? Whenever someone brings truth and reasoning to people, they call him a liar for indeed it is true, only those that Allahs grace falls upon them will accept the true religion. And what you christians don't seem to understand is that going by your reasoning and based on your religion, even if you're right (and clearly you're not) one can argue some muslims will go to heaven and some christians will perish in hell and to prove it, let's refer to that joke you call the bible:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."-Matthew 7:21, look it up before you accuse me of lying.

But our religion is clear! If you don't refrain from shirk (Associating Allah with partners or other deities) and accept that there is only one God, and Muhammad like Jesus was his messenger when you've been called to it, you've earned a first class ticket to hell! No two ways about it.

Empiree:
malvisguy212 is shivering right now with counterclaims from EzioAuditore. He met his "oga at the top" . malvisguy212 dare not decipher EzioAuditore's posts. It will take him 40 days and 40 nights.

@malvis, you need "ewe orijin" to stop schivering

mock me , the time is coming when you will know that you have been worshipping satan in disguise.

malvisguy212:
mock me , the time is coming when you will know that you have been worshipping satan in disguise.

Do you not have a response to my posts? Did you not read my last post? You're the one who's worshipping a pagan god so who is the acolyte of satan here? I don't argue with people like pastors because deep down, they don't care about the truth, they know the truth but they bury it for their personal gains but I'd like to think you're truly a lost soul looking for Allahs salvation, you seek the truth, just read my posts again and ponder for yourself, and then choose which path you want to follow, forget all the lies you've heard from the enemies of God. Islam is the only true faith.

[quote author=EzioAuditore post=32804578]

The thing is, are you Christians even sure you are worshipping Jesus or a pagan freemasonry God? Have you heard of One eyed Horus, the Egyptian God? Born of a virgin? On December 25th? Also known as the SUN god? You go to church on SUNday? Horus was also CRUCIFIED! Horus the one eyed God, symbol of the anti Christ and the free masons! Wake up! You're worshipping a false god! Or is it Krishna, the Indian God! Born on December 25, also born of a virgin? Lmao! Don't even think that they came after Jesus, all these Gods precede Jesus' existence. Clearly for you, there is a difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is not the same as Jesus of Nazareth. Why is there always a SUN behind the image of Jesus in churches? Why are you worshipping a pagan Sun GoD? Please read this beautifully written article from a neutral point of view and if you're still a Christian afterwards then I pity your life. Please click on the link below, are you ready to see the truth about the fake Jesus you worship, or will you continue to dwell in your darkness, if you're ready and that you're confident about Jesus being your lord, read this.


God: Attis

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
God: Krishna

Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Performed miracles
Resurrected
God: Dionsyus

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
Performed miracles, including turning water into wine
Referred to as the "King of Kings"
Referred to as "Gods only begotten son"
Resurrected
God: Mithra

Born of a virgin
Born on December 25th
12 Disciples
Performed miracles
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
Sunday is day of worship for Mithra
And the most striking and seemingly the base for all other mythologies:

God: Horus

Born on December 25th
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Adored by 3 kings
Teach at 12
Baptized at 30
12 Disciples
Performed Miracles
Known as "Lamb of God", "The Light"
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected


All these pagan Gods came before Jesus! Is the Jesus Christ you worship a fictional lie and different from Jesus of Nazareth? The most striking similarity is that which he shares with Horus, the one eyed SUN god. I smell the Devils work in your religion, deception is his strong suit, just like that he has you worshipping a pagan God! Shame on you! @ me if you're still a Christian.
[/quote1. Mithra was born of a virgin on
December 25th in a cave, and his
birth was attended by shepherds.
This claim is a mix of truth and
obfuscations. Let's begin with the
December 25th part by noting Glenn
Miller's reply, which is more than
sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of
no relevance to us--nowhere does
the NT associate this date with Jesus'
birth at all." This is something the
later church did, wherever they got
the idea from -- not the apostolic
church, and if there was any
borrowing at all, everyone did it, for
Dec. 25th was "universally
distinguished by sacred
festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that
it was (at the time) the winter
solstice.
Next, the cave part. First of all,
Mithra was not born of a virgin in a
cave; he was born out of solid rock,
which presumably left a cave behind
-- and I suppose technically the rock
he was born out of could have been
classified as a virgin!
Here is how one Mithraic scholar
describes the scene on Mithraic
depictions: Mithra "wearing his
Phrygian cap, issues forth from the
rocky mass. As yet only his bare
torso is visible. In each hand he
raises aloft a lighted torch and, as
an unusual detail, red flames shoot
out all around him from the petra
genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born
a grown-up, but you won't hear the
copycatters mention this! The rock-
birth scene itself was a likely
carryover from Perseus, who
experienced a similar birth in an
underground cavern. (Ulan.OMM,
36)
I'll add here that it is no help to
appeal to similar abuses of the term
"virgin" by church writers who tried
to force an illicit parallel between
Jesus and Adam. All they're doing is
abusing and misusing the term the
same way that "copycat" theorists
are. So likewise, later instances of
syncretism are of no value for the
case (e.g., the infant Jesus depicted
within an egg shape, which reflects
the church's assumption of symbols
as the "winner" in an ideological
struggle -- see below on art).
That leaves the shepherds, and this
is one that is entirely true; although
the shepherds did more than
"attend" (unlike Luke's shepherds,
they were witnesses to the birth;
there was no angelic mediator), they
also helped Mithra out of the rock,
and offered him the first-fruits of
their flock -- quite a feat for these
guys in any event, considering that
Mithra's birth took place at a time
when (oops!) men had supposedly
not been created on earth yet.
[Cum.MM, 132]
But the clincher here is that this
scene, like nearly all Roman Mithraic
evidence, dates at least a century
after the time of the New Testament.
It is too late to say that any
"borrowing" was done by the
Christian church -- if there was any,
it was the other way around; but
there probably was none.
]2. He was considered a great traveling
teacher and master.
Aside from the fact that this is what
we would expect from any major
leadership figure, especially in a
religious context ("He was a great
god -- he taught us nothing!", I have
to say that this looks to be the first
of several outright "ringers" in the
set. I have found nowhere any
indication that Mithra was a teacher,
traveling or otherwise. (He probably
could be called a "master," but what
leading figure would not be? And a
master in what sense? This is rather
a vague parallel to draw!)
At any rate, since there is no
evidence for this one in any of the
Mithraic literature, we issue our first
challenge to the pagan-copycat
theorists: How is it shown that
Mithra was a "great traveling
teacher"? What did he teach, and
where, and to whom? How was he a
"master" and why is this a similarity
to Jesus?
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
I have seen this claim repeated a
number of times, almost always (see
below) without any documentation.
(One of our readers wrote to Acharya
asking for specific evidence of this
one...she did not reply, although she
had readily replied to a prior
message.) The Iranian Mithras, as
we have seen, did have a single
companion (Varuna), and the Roman
Mithra had two helper/companions,
tiny torch-bearing likenesses of
himself, called Cautes and
Cautopatres, that were perhaps
meant to represent the sunrise and
sunset (whereas "Big Daddy" Mithra
was supposed to be noon), spring
and autumn, the stars Albedaran
and Antares [Beck.PO, 26] or life and
death.
(Freke and Gandy attempt to link
these twins to the two thieves
crucified with Jesus! - Frek.JM, 51 -
because one went to heaven with
Jesus [torch up] and one went to hell
[torch down]!) Mithra also had a
number of animal companions: a
snake, a dog, a lion, a scorpion -- but
not 12 of them.
Now here's an irony. My one idea as
to where they got this one was a
picture of the bull-slaying scene
carved in stone, found in Ulansey's
book, that depicts the scene framed
by 2 vertical rows with 6 pictures of
what seem to be human figures or
faces on each side. It occurred to me
that some non-Mithraist perhaps
saw this picture and said, "Ah ha,
those 12 people must be
companions or disciples! Just like
Jesus!"
Days later I received Freke and
Gandy's book, and sure enough --
that's how they make the
connection. Indeed, they go as far as
saying that during the Mirthaic
initiation ceremony, Mithraic
disciples dressed up as the signs of
the zodiac and formed a circle
around the initiate. [Frek.JM, 42]
Where they (or rather, their source)
get this information about the
methods of Mithraic initiation, one
can only guess: No Mithraic scholar
seems aware of it, and their source,
Godwin, is a specialist in "Western
esoteric teaching" -- not a Mithraist,
and it shows, because although
writing in 1981, well after the first
Mithraic congress, Godwin was still
following Cumont's line that Iranian
and Roman Mithraism were the
same, and thus ended up offering
interpretations of the bull-slaying
scene that bear no resemblance to
what Mithraic scholars today see in
it at all.
To be fair, though, Freke and Gandy
do not give the page number where
Godwin supposedly says this -- and
his material on Mithraism says
nothing about any initiation
ceremony. However, aside from the
fact that this carving is (yet again!)
significantly post-Christian (so that
any borrowing would have had to be
the other way around), these figures
have been identified by modern
Mithraic scholars as representing
zodiacal symbols. Indeed, the top
two faces are supposed to be the
sun and the moon! (See also a
similar carving herein)

EzioAuditore:


What lies? You can refer to youir bible and other sources and research everything I've posted here, why do I need to lie to ridicule something that ridicules itself? Whenever someone brings truth and reasoning to people, they call him a liar for indeed it is true, only those that Allahs grace falls upon them will accept the true religion. And what you christians don't seem to understand is that going by your reasoning and based on your religion, even if you're right (and clearly you're not) one can argue some muslims will go to heaven and some christians will perish in hell and to prove it, let's refer to that joke you call the bible:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."-Matthew 7:21, look it up before you accuse me of lying.

But our religion is clear! If you don't refrain from shirk (Associating Allah with partners or other deities) and accept that there is only one God, and Muhammad like Jesus was his messenger when you've been called to it, you've earned a first class ticket to hell! No two ways about it.

Although the post was not directed to you but Empiree but the truth remains that all muslims are permitted to lie as they say the end justifies the means.

Friend, when you begin to see many unanswered questions, it should put you on notice that something is wrong somewhere. Muslims are incapable of refutting the LIES of allahh. Check below the links to some important questions over which muslims are speechless. Why?

https://www.nairaland.com/2253144/islam-among-arabs


https://www.nairaland.com/2260353/muslims-why-did-fail-probe


https://www.nairaland.com/2249230/lessons-muhammads-ascension-heaven

https://www.nairaland.com/2250267/death-muhammad-end-allah-speaking

My interest is not in argument but showing muslims why I believe allahh could not be the true God because he doesn't possess the character of the true God.

EzioAuditore
4. Mithra's followers were promised
immortality.
This one is no more than a guess,
although probably a good one: As
one Mithraic scholar put it,
Mithraism "surely offered its
initiates deliverance from some
awful fate to which all other men
were doomed, and a privileged
passage to some ultimate state of
well-being." [MS.470]
Why is this a good guess? Not
because Mithraism borrowed from
Christianity, or Christianity borrowed
from Mithraism, or anyone
borrowed from anyone, but because
if you don't promise your adherents
something that secures their
eternity, you may as well give up
running a religion and go and sell
timeshares in Alaska!
In practical terms, however, the only
hard evidence of a "salvational"
ideology is a piece of graffiti found
in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum (a
Mithraist "church" building, if you
will), dated no earlier than 200 AD,
that reads, "And us, too, you saved
by spilling the eternal
blood." [Spie.MO, 45; Gor.IV, 114n;
Verm.MSG, 172] Note that this refers
to Mithra spilling the blood of the
bull -- not his own -- and that
(according to the modern Mithraic
"astrological" interpretation) this
does not mean "salvation" in a
Christian sense (involving freedom
from sin) but an ascent through
levels of initiation into immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
Mithra did perform a number of
actions rather typical for any deity
worldwide, true or false, and in both
his Iranian and Roman incarnations.
But this is another one of those
things where we just say, "What's
the big deal?" We agree with Miller:
It must be remembered that
SOME general similarities MUST
apply to any religious leader.
They must generally be good
leaders, do noteworthy feats of
goodness and/or supernatural
power, establish teachings and
traditions, create community
rituals, and overcome some
forms of evil. These are
common elements of the
religious life--NOT objects that
require some theory of
dependence...The common
aspect of homo religiosus is an
adequate and more plausible
explanation than dependence.
Of course, our pagan-copycat
theorists are welcome to try and
draw more exact parallels, but as yet
I have seen no cited example where
Mithra turned water into wine or
calmed a storm.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra
sacrificed himself for world peace.
This description is rather spun out
into a sound-alike of Christian
belief, but behind the vagueness
lies a different story. Mithra did not
"sacrifice himself" in the sense that
he died; he was not the "great bull
of the Sun", but rather, he killed the
bull (attempts to somehow identify
Mithra with the very bull he slayed,
although popular with outdated
non-Mithraists like Loisy and
Bunsen, were rejected by
Vermaseren, who said that "neither
the temples nor the inscriptions give
any definite evidence to support this
view and only future finds can
confirm it" [Verm.MSG, 103]; it was
not for the sake of "world
peace" (except, perhaps, in the
sense that Cumont interpreted the
bull-slaying as a creation myth
[Cum.MM, 193], in which he was
entirely wrong).
Mithra could only be said to have
"sacrificed himself" in the sense that
he went out and took a risk to do a
heroic deed; the rest finds no
justification at all in modern
Mithraic studies literature -- much
less does it entail a parallel to
Christ, who sacrificed himself for
atonement from personal sin (not
"world peace".
7. He was buried in a tomb and after
three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated
every year.
I have to classify these two as
"ringers" -- I see no references
anywhere in the Mithraic studies
literature to Mithra being buried, or
even dying, for that matter [Gordon
says directly, that there is "no death
of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96] and so of
course no rising again and no
"resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!)
to celebrate. Freke and Gandy
[Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic
initiates "enacted a similar
resurrection scene", but their only
reference is to a comment by
Tertullian, significantly after New
Testament times!
Tekton Research Assistant Punkish
adds: The footnote is for Tertullian's
Prescription Against Heretics,
chapter 40 which says, "if my
memory still serves me, Mithra
there (in the kingdom of Satan), sets
his marks on the foreheads of his
soldiers; celebrates also the oblation
of bread, and introduces an image
of a resurrection, and before a
sword wreathes a crown"...so their
argument relies on Tertullian's
memory, and it isn't the initiates but
Mithra who does the celebrating and
introduces an *image* of a
resurrection! How is that at all
related to initiates acting out a
scene?
Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf.
Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church
writer of the fourth century,
Firmicus, who says that the
Mithraists mourn the image of a
dead Mithras -- still way too late! --
but after reading the work of
Firmicus, I find no such reference at
all.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"
and identified with both the Lamb
and the Lion.
Only the third aspect has any truth
to it as far as I can find from
Mithraic studies sources: The lion
was regarded in Roman Mithraism
as Mithra's "totem" animal, just as
Athena's animal was the owl and
Artemis' animal was the deer
[Biv.PM, 32]. Since Mithra was a sun-
god, there was also an association
with Leo, which was the House of
the Sun in Babylonian astrology.
But aside from this evidence all
being post-Christian, one may ask
what the big deal is. Do we expect
the Christians or the Mithraists to
say, "Darn, we can't use the lion, it's
already taken by the other guys?"
Should Exxon give up their tiger
because of Frosted Flakes? But if you
really want to get technical, Jesus
owned the rights to the lion symbol
as a member of the tribe of Judah
long before Mithras even appeared
in his Iranian incarnation (Gen. 49:9)
.
There are other associations as well:
In the Roman material, one of
Mithra's companions in the bull-
slaying scene is a lion; the lion is
sometimes Mithra's hunting and
feasting companion; Mithra is
sometimes associated with a lion-
headed being who is sometimes
identified as the evil Zoroastrian god
Ahriman [MS.277]; one of the seven
stages of initiation in Mithraism is
the lion stage.
Mithra is only called a lion in one
Mithraic tale (which is part of
Armenian folklore -- where did the
writers of the NT pick that up?)
because as a child he killed a lion
and split it in two. [MS.356, 442]

EzioAuditore
10. He was considered the "Way, the
Truth and the Light," and the
"Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and
"Messiah." Acharya now adds in her
latest work the titles creator of the
world, God of gods, the mediator,
mighty ruler, king of gods, lord of
heaven and earth, Sun of
Righteousness.
We have several titles here, and yes,
though I searched through the works
of Mithraic scholars, I found none of
these applied to Mithra, other than
the role of mediator (not, though, in
the sense of a mediator between
God and man because of sin, but as
a mediator between Zoroaster's
good and evil gods; we have seen
the "sun" identification, but never
that title) -- not even the new ones
were ever listed by the Mithraic
scholars.
There is a reference to a "Logos" that
was taught to the Mithraic initiates
[MS.206](in the Roman evidence,
which is again, significantly after the
establishment of Christianity), but
let it be remembered that "logos"
means "word" and goes back earlier
in Judaism to Philo -- Christians
borrowed the idea from Philo,
perhaps, or from the general
background of the word, but not
from Mithraism.
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the
"Lord's Day," hundreds of years
before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of
what was later to become Easter.
We'll consider these two together.
The Iranian Mithra had a few special
celebrations: a festival on October 8;
another on September 12-16, and a
"cattle-pairing" festival on October
12-16 [MS.59]. But as for an Easter
festival, I have seen only that there
was a festival at the spring equinox
-- and it was one of just four, one for
each season.
In terms of Sunday being a sacred
day, this is correct [Cum.MM, 190-1],
but it only appears in Roman
Mithraism, and the argument here is
apparently assuming, like Cumont,
that what held true for Roman
Mithraism also held true for the
Iranian version -- but there is no
evidence for this. If any borrowing
occurred (it probably didn't), it was
the other way around.
13. His religion had a eucharist or
"Lord's Supper," at which Mithra
said, "He who shall not eat of my
body nor drink of my blood so that
he may be one with me and I with
him, shall not be saved."
It took me some digging to discover
the actual origin of this saying.
Godwin says that the reference is
from a "Persian Mithraic text," but
does not give the dating of this text,
nor does he say where it was found,
nor is any documentation offered. I
finally found something in
Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the
source of this saying is a medieval
text; and the speaker is not Mithras,
but Zarathustra!
Although Vermaseren suggested that
this might be the formula that Justin
referred to (but did not describe at
all) as being part of the Mithraic
"Eucharist," there is no evidence for
the saying prior to this medieval
text.
Critics try to give the rite some
ancestry by claiming that it derives
from an Iranian Mithraic ceremony
using a psychadelic plant called
Haoma, but they are clearly grasping
at straws and adding speculations of
meaning in order to make this rite
seem similar to the Eucharist. This
piece of "evidence" is far, far too late
to be useful -- except as possible
proof that Mithraism borrowed from
Christianity! (Christianity of course
was in Persia far earlier than this
medieval text; see Martin Palmer's
Jesus Sutras for details.)
The closest thing that Mithraism had
to a "Last Supper" was the taking of
staples (bread, water, wine and
meat) by the Mithraic initiates,
which was perhaps a celebration of
the meal that Mithra had with the
sun deity after slaying the bull.
However, the meal of the initiates is
usually seen as no more than a
general fellowship meal of the sort
that was practiced by groups all over
the Roman world -- from religious
groups to funeral societies. [MS.348]
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover
of the Magi, a symbolical atonement
or pledge of moral and physical
regeneration."
This is rather a confused statement,
for it compounds an apparent falsity
(I have found no indication that
Mithra's "sacrifice" was annual,
rather than a once-in-the-past
event); it uses terms from Judeo-
Christian belief ("passover",
"atonement" to describe a rite from
Mithraism, without showing any
similarities at all. I see this as little
more than a case of illicitly applying
terminology, and until more detail is
provided, it can be regarded as little
else.
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying
that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to
those found in the Mithraic
scriptures, except that the name
Mithra is used instead of Christ."
In response to this, I need to say
that if Golding had some Mithraic
scriptures in his possession, he
needs to turn them over to Mithraic
scholarly community at once,
because they will want to know
about them. Ulansey [Ulan.OMM, 3]
tells us that "the teachings of the
(Mithraic) cult were, as far as we
know, never written down" and we
"have been left with practically no
literary evidence relating to the cult
which would help (us) reconstruct its
esoteric doctrines."
So where is Golding getting this
from? (A reader also noted that Paul
is alluding the the Old Testament
book of Numbers; so how does that
square with a Mithraic origin for this
verse?)
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted
as saying that Mithraic services were
conduced by "fathers" and that the
"chief of the fathers, a sort of pope,
who always lived at Rome, was
called 'Pater Patratus.'"
Other critics add their own idea: Like
Christians, Mithraic initiates called
each other "brother" [Frek.JM, 67].
Both claims are true, but quite
simply, so what? The use of familial
terms within religious societies is a
universal, and that's no surprise,
because familial terms are the most
useful for expressing endearment or
commitment. Indeed, "kinship
terminology" was used in Greco-
Roman antiquity for fellows of the
same religion or race, as well as of
friends, allies, and even prospective
guests [Keener commentary on
Matthew, 370n].
(I have seen no evidence that the
Pater Patratus "always lived" at
Rome, but even if he did, this would
be of no moment: As the leading city
of the Empire, where else would this
person most likely have
headquarters? This means no more
than mainline churches all having
headquarters in New York, or all
foreign countries having embassies
in Washington. Beyond that, we
hardly need to defend "borrowing"
when what is at stake is a church
organizational structure that came
into being many years after
apostolic times.)

EzioAuditore:



Do you not have a response to my posts? Did you not read my last post? You're the one who's worshipping a pagan god so who is the acolyte of satan here? I don't argue with people like pastors because deep down, they don't care about the truth, they know the truth but they bury it for their personal gains but I'd like to think you're truly a lost soul looking for Allahs salvation, you seek the truth, just read my posts again and ponder for yourself, and then choose which path you want to follow, forget all the lies you've heard from the enemies of God. Islam is the only true faith.

to your post or to copy and paste post from conspiracy theory? Uptil today Christianity will always have enemy,if I should copy and paste muhammed evil deed from the quran and hadith this thread will be to small.

malvisguy212:
EzioAuditore
4. Mithra's followers were promised
immortality.
This one is no more than a guess,
although probably a good one: As
one Mithraic scholar put it,
Mithraism "surely offered its
initiates deliverance from some
awful fate to which all other men
were doomed, and a privileged
passage to some ultimate state of
well-being." [MS.470]


Why is this a good guess? Not
because Mithraism borrowed from
Christianity, or Christianity borrowed
from Mithraism, or anyone
borrowed from anyone, but because
if you don't promise your adherents
something that secures their
eternity, you may as well give up
running a religion and go and sell
timeshares in Alaska!
In practical terms, however, the only
hard evidence of a "salvational"
ideology is a piece of graffiti found
in the Santa Prisca Mithraeum (a
Mithraist "church" building, if you
will), dated no earlier than 200 AD,
that reads, "And us, too, you saved
by spilling the eternal
blood." [Spie.MO, 45; Gor.IV, 114n;
Verm.MSG, 172] Note that this refers
to Mithra spilling the blood of the
bull -- not his own -- and that
(according to the modern Mithraic
"astrological" interpretation) this
does not mean "salvation" in a
Christian sense (involving freedom
from sin) but an ascent through
levels of initiation into immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
Mithra did perform a number of
actions rather typical for any deity
worldwide, true or false, and in both
his Iranian and Roman incarnations.
But this is another one of those
things where we just say, "What's
the big deal?" We agree with Miller:
It must be remembered that
SOME general similarities MUST
apply to any religious leader.
They must generally be good
leaders, do noteworthy feats of
goodness and/or supernatural
power, establish teachings and
traditions, create community
rituals, and overcome some
forms of evil. These are
common elements of the
religious life--NOT objects that
require some theory of
dependence...The common
aspect of homo religiosus is an
adequate and more plausible
explanation than dependence.
Of course, our pagan-copycat
theorists are welcome to try and
draw more exact parallels, but as yet
I have seen no cited example where
Mithra turned water into wine or
calmed a storm.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra
sacrificed himself for world peace.
This description is rather spun out
into a sound-alike of Christian
belief, but behind the vagueness
lies a different story. Mithra did not
"sacrifice himself" in the sense that
he died; he was not the "great bull
of the Sun", but rather, he killed the
bull (attempts to somehow identify
Mithra with the very bull he slayed,
although popular with outdated
non-Mithraists like Loisy and
Bunsen, were rejected by
Vermaseren, who said that "neither
the temples nor the inscriptions give
any definite evidence to support this
view and only future finds can
confirm it" [Verm.MSG, 103]; it was
not for the sake of "world
peace" (except, perhaps, in the
sense that Cumont interpreted the
bull-slaying as a creation myth
[Cum.MM, 193], in which he was
entirely wrong).
Mithra could only be said to have
"sacrificed himself" in the sense that
he went out and took a risk to do a
heroic deed; the rest finds no
justification at all in modern
Mithraic studies literature -- much
less does it entail a parallel to
Christ, who sacrificed himself for
atonement from personal sin (not
"world peace".
7. He was buried in a tomb and after
three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated
every year.
I have to classify these two as
"ringers" -- I see no references
anywhere in the Mithraic studies
literature to Mithra being buried, or
even dying, for that matter [Gordon
says directly, that there is "no death
of Mithras" -- Gor.III, 96] and so of
course no rising again and no
"resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!)
to celebrate. Freke and Gandy
[Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic
initiates "enacted a similar
resurrection scene", but their only
reference is to a comment by
Tertullian, significantly after New
Testament times!
Tekton Research Assistant Punkish
adds: The footnote is for Tertullian's
Prescription Against Heretics,
chapter 40 which says, "if my
memory still serves me, Mithra
there (in the kingdom of Satan), sets
his marks on the foreheads of his
soldiers; celebrates also the oblation
of bread, and introduces an image
of a resurrection, and before a
sword wreathes a crown"...so their
argument relies on Tertullian's
memory, and it isn't the initiates but
Mithra who does the celebrating and
introduces an *image* of a
resurrection! How is that at all
related to initiates acting out a
scene?
Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf.
Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church
writer of the fourth century,
Firmicus, who says that the
Mithraists mourn the image of a
dead Mithras -- still way too late! --
but after reading the work of
Firmicus, I find no such reference at
all.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"
and identified with both the Lamb
and the Lion.
Only the third aspect has any truth
to it as far as I can find from
Mithraic studies sources: The lion
was regarded in Roman Mithraism
as Mithra's "totem" animal, just as
Athena's animal was the owl and
Artemis' animal was the deer
[Biv.PM, 32]. Since Mithra was a sun-
god, there was also an association
with Leo, which was the House of
the Sun in Babylonian astrology.
But aside from this evidence all
being post-Christian, one may ask
what the big deal is. Do we expect
the Christians or the Mithraists to
say, "Darn, we can't use the lion, it's
already taken by the other guys?"
Should Exxon give up their tiger
because of Frosted Flakes? But if you
really want to get technical, Jesus
owned the rights to the lion symbol
as a member of the tribe of Judah
long before Mithras even appeared
in his Iranian incarnation (Gen. 49:9)
.
There are other associations as well:
In the Roman material, one of
Mithra's companions in the bull-
slaying scene is a lion; the lion is
sometimes Mithra's hunting and
feasting companion; Mithra is
sometimes associated with a lion-
headed being who is sometimes
identified as the evil Zoroastrian god
Ahriman [MS.277]; one of the seven
stages of initiation in Mithraism is
the lion stage.
Mithra is only called a lion in one
Mithraic tale (which is part of
Armenian folklore -- where did the
writers of the NT pick that up?)
because as a child he killed a lion
and split it in two. [MS.356, 442]

Hahahahaaha! Very soon, you'll start speaking Chinese! What is this rubbish? You still haven't explained why these pagan gods that predate Jesus share similarities with him! And Mithras? Is that who you picked? What about Krishna? What about Horus,the SUN God you clearly worship? Please, next time, post something that won't make you and your religion look like a joke, but then it is a joke so...I guess that's unavoidable.

malvisguy212:
to your post or to copy and paste post from conspiracy theory? Uptil today Christianity will always have enemy,if I should copy and paste muhammed evil deed from the quran and hadith this thread will be to small.

Hahaha! Conspiracy theory? Without conspiracies there won't be conspiracy theorists mate! Call it whatever you want but you can't explain it! As for you threat? Bring it on! You can't taint the truth no matter how hard you try! I'm waiting for your "copy and pastes". At least may be now you'll start to challenge me.

truthman2012:


Although the post was not directed to you but Empiree but the truth remains that all muslims are permitted to lie as they say the end justifies the means.

Friend, when you begin to see many unanswered questions, it should put you on notice that something is wrong somewhere. Muslims are incapable of refutting the LIES of allahh. Check below the links to some important questions over which muslims are speechless. Why?

https://www.nairaland.com/2253144/islam-among-arabs


https://www.nairaland.com/2260353/muslims-why-did-fail-probe


https://www.nairaland.com/2249230/lessons-muhammads-ascension-heaven

https://www.nairaland.com/2250267/death-muhammad-end-allah-speaking

My interest is not in argument but showing muslims why I believe allahh could not be the true God because he doesn't possess the character of the true God.

You just described an argument mate! You can't bring up such topics and say you're not looking to argue that's just dumb! Because people will always show you evidences to the contrary! As for those unanswered questions, bring them to me, you're the one seeking knowledge! Islam is clear and simple except if you choose to complicate it for yourself. Bring on the questions! I am waiting!

malvisguy212:
to your post or to copy and paste post from conspiracy theory? Uptil today Christianity will always have enemy,if I should copy and paste muhammed evil deed from the quran and hadith this thread will be to small.

How can you read something like the bible and call it the pure word of God. Forget the lies and contradicting verses but what about the erotic x rated pornography in the bible?




X-Rated Pornography in the Bible:


(a)- She wished if he were her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret!

Some Jews and Christians claim that the praised graphical pornography in the Bible is actually a conversation between a husband and his wife. They know well that claiming otherwise would bring total shame to the gospel of porn, because of the (literally) x-rated and low-life graphical pornography. There is ample evidence that proves their claim to be bogus and desperate. Let us look at this example from the many below:

Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."

She wished if he were her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret. Now if he were truly her husband, then what would prompt her to wish that he was her brother? Were husbands back then not allowed to live with their wives? If so, how did they then consummate and have children and raise generations and societies? Were they allowed to live with each others for a while?

The obvious answer is that they were not a husband and a wife. And still, let us assume for the sake of the desperate and ridiculous argument that they were a husband and a wife, then what about her wishes about him being her brother?! What about this pornography? Are we now going to also argue that it's ok for the sister to sexually fantasize about her brother, and to make inappropriate references about him like this?!

Furthermore, according to "Sex in the Bible" documentary film, which hosted many renowned Bible-theologians and Ph.D. professors, the two were "a maiden (virgin) and her lover" and not husband and wife. Listen to this for yourself.

"maiden" means virgin; an unmarried woman; a single girl, etc...




An unmarried girl or woman.
A virgin.
A machine resembling the guillotine, used in Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries to behead criminals.
Sports.
A racehorse that has never won a race.
A maiden over.
Also, in the 4th section below, I've proven with ample verses from the gospel of porn that "bride" was referring to either fiancée or girlfriend or boyfriend and not husband or wife. The terms girlfriend and boyfriend didn't exist back then. Also, the term bride was used metaphorically along with "sister" consecutively. The verses below say "my sister, my bride." We can't take "bride" literal and not "sister" when they came right after each others! Also, not only the verses that I provided below prove this point, but also the AUDIO clip itself from the "Sex in the Bible" documentary film, which hosted many renowned Bible-theologians and Ph.D. Professors, clearly and indisputably proves my point, because it says "between a maiden and her lover" and not "between a wife and her husband."





(b)- She would literally have sex with her brother, and the bible sings glory-songs about it!

Let us now look at the following verses about incestuous fantasies:

Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."

This was the NIV English translation. Many other English translations say "....were a brother to me...." [1] [2] [3]. Others say "....were as a brother to me...." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

Aside from the fact that the girl is being very inappropriate and can't keep her sloppy hormones under control and to herself, but the most ironic thing of all is that the bible sings praises about her feelings, words and actions and is giving her the ok to do it and to "be herself".

There are few important points to notice here:

1- She wished if the sexy man was her brother or as her brother who was nursed from her mother's breasts. This means that she had to wish if he were her actual and biological brother, since in the Bible, people don't become brothers and sisters through breast-feeding.

2- It is needless to say that if she actually had a sexy-looking brother, then she would lust after him, and the Bible is ok with that, since the whole book praises the sexual relationship between the girl and her lover.

3- They were not a husband and a wife, because:

Why would it be be wrong for the wife to kiss her husband, whether in open or in secret?

Why would a wife wish if her husband was her brother if she could have him anytime?

Why would a wife live with her mother and not with her husband in a separate home of theirs?
4- Furthermore, we read in

Song of Songs 7:10-12
10 I belong to my lover, and his desire is for me.
11 Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the villages.
12 Let us go early to the vineyards to see if the vines have budded, if their blossoms have opened, and if the pomegranates are in bloom— there I will give you my love. (have sex in other words!)
Clearly, the relationship was between a girlfriend and a boyfriend, and not between a wife and a husband. Otherwise, why would they need to sneak to the field to make sex when they have their home to be alone in? And worst of all, the Bible is ok with all of this throughout this book!

As to the lie about her being his bride, please visit Section #4, below, to see how I have thoroughly exposed this desperate lie using ample verses from this book.

So in a nutshell, if you're a pornified Bible-following male who happens to have a hot looking and very beautiful female-sister, then thinking sexually about her and her hot curves, body and how wonderful she'd be in bed is not only NOT condemned in this gospel of porn, but it is also praised. Similarly, if you are a professional pornified female bible-follower who is an expert (sorry about the language) in cum-licking and sucking [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] as it is the case here in the West and everywhere else in the world where Christians are the majority, then having incestuous thoughts about your brother and giving him "blow jobs" in your dreams isn't something wrong after all according to this verse from the Bible.

Pornography is clearly praised in the bible. This is no cheap statement from me. It is a clear-cut and indisputable fact! The bible sings glory songs about not only incestuous relationships, but also about women's vaginas and breasts tasting like "WINE".

If you wouldn't call this pornography, then what else would you honestly and with your clear conscious and integrity call it?

Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"



Here is the alarming question:

I don't care what the pornified whores of the corrupt and man-altered bible say and do, because they are irrelevant to me. As far as I am concerned, they can all get lost to Hell where they belong. But the burning question and the ultimate question is this:

Is this whoredom and garbage really from GOD Almighty? I mean, would GOD Almighty really say something like this, and approve of something like this? Her boyfriend like her brother?! And in her mother's house?!

Again, Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran:



"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"



Please visit: What is Islam, and how will Allah Almighty Judge the Muslims and non-Muslims?

What is the status of the Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims in Islam?

The Overwhelming Scientific Miracles in the Noble Quran.

Incestuous fantasies are allowed and praised in the gospel of porn (bible).





2- Women's breasts are important sexual objects, especially for licking and sucking!


Her sexy breasts are quite "satisfying":

Let us look at Song of Solomon 8:10 "Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied."

She is a virgin with full swelling breasts. When her lover meets her, he will be satisfied from those swelling breasts! Obviously, she is referring to licking, sucking and other pornographic things that I can't mention here. Believe me this verse is not talking about them worshiping GOD Almighty together when they meet!! It is clearly and indisputably referring to graphic sex that involves her swelling breasts and other things such as intercourse.


Let us look at Song of Songs 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies."

Let us look at Song of Songs 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."

Praising the bed that they had sex on: Let us look at Song of Songs 1:16 "How handsome you are, my lover! Oh, how charming! And our bed is verdant"

Let us look at Song of Songs 1:2-4 "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! Take me away with you--let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love (i.e., semen) more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" I don't think this would be appropriate for a kid under 18 to read. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to have such open sexuality in a divine book anyway.

His right arm sexually feeling her body: Let us look at Song of Songs 2:6 "His left arm is under my head, and his right arm embraces me."

Let us look at Song of Songs 3:4 "Scarcely had I passed them when I found the one my heart loves. I held him and would not let him go till I had brought him to my mother's house, to the room of the one who conceived me." So in other words, she was not married to him, and when she found him, she took him back to her bed room to have illegal sex with him? If she were married to him, she wouldn't take him to her "mother's house". She would take him to their house.

Let us look at Song of Songs 3:10 "Its posts he made of silver, its base of gold. Its seat was upholstered with purple, its interior lovingly inlaid by the daughters of Jerusalem." Why does the Bible teach young men to spend all of their time and effort to try to impress all of the girls in their town so they can possibly end in bed with them?







3- Fantasizing about a girl he calls his "sister". Her vagina tastes like wine for him. And they had sex all night long. After he satisfied her really good, she wished if he were her brother (her biological brother nursed by her "mother's breast" as she said) so she doesn't have to take him home secretly:

Note: Even though she may not be his biological sister, but calling her a "sister" in a pornographic and sick situation as shown in details below is not proper, and may suggest that the sick pervert would fantasize about his biological sister if he had one.

Let us look at Song of Songs 4:9 "You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace." Fantasizing about his sister? at least he shows in this verse that he would!.

Let us look at Song of Songs 4:10 "How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!" Making love to his own sister? "pleasing is your love (making) than wine"?

Let us look at Song of Songs 4:12 "You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain."



Showing off her breasts and vagina to him:

Sleeping with his sister: Let us look at Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.' I have taken off my robe (i.e., she showed his breasts and vagina to him. Underwears and bras didn't exist back then!) must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him." What a disgusting way for someone to talk so pervertly about his sister and/or about her brother like that!!

Let us look at Song of Songs 5:8 "O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you-- if you find my lover, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love." Teaching women to be sexually too open.

These people are not only liars, but apparently they are perverts too? And you people just believe all that crap? Shame on you!

malvisguy212:
to your post or to copy and paste post from conspiracy theory? Uptil today Christianity will always have enemy,if I should copy and paste muhammed evil deed from the quran and hadith this thread will be to small.

And BTw, the things I copy are mostly verses from the bible. But hey, tell me, have you read my post about Ishmael and Isaac? Who amongst them was almost sacrificed? Can you see the contradictions in your book of lies? That is the result of Jewish concoction of hatred and mayhem.

EzioAuditore:


You just described an argument mate! You can't bring up such topics and say you're not looking to argue that's just dumb! Because people will always show you evidences to the contrary! As for those unanswered questions, bring them to me, you're the one seeking knowledge! Islam is clear and simple except if you choose to complicate it for yourself. Bring on the questions! I am waiting!

Bring them to you? You are funny. Go there and say what you have to say, if any? But mind you, don't go there and tell lies. You have to support your statement with quranic evidence as did I. Click on the links and it will be brought to you live.

EzioAuditore.

The Song of Songs is a poem about love.it was not a spiritual book infacte God name was only mention once in it,the reason is in the bible is because it hold the perfect idea of a married couples.
The main speakers are a man, and the
woman whom he loves.
At the start, the couple are not yet
engaged. The woman is not sure about
the man. She twice sends him away. She
does not want to share his life.
But in the end, she learns to trust him.
They marry. She is ready to become a
mother. And she is glad to work with him.
Her attitudes have become mature.
Actually, Solomon was not a good model
for a husband. He had many wives. He
married these women for political
reasons. For example, he wanted his
country to be at peace with Egypt. So he
married the daughter of the king of
Egypt. We do not know whether Solomon really loved all these women. But the woman in the Song of Solomon was different from these other women.
Solomon loved her deeply. She really was special to him.

truthman2012:


Bring them to you? You are funny. Go there and say what you have to say, if any? But mind you, don't go there and tell lies. You have to support your statement with quranic evidence as did I.

Are you scared? Don't chicken out on me! And by now you must know I always back up my claims with evidences. If you are confident you know what you're doing, bring the questions to me.

EzioAuditore:


Are you scared? Don't chicken out on me! And by now you must know I always back up my claims with evidences. If you are confident you know what you're doing, bring the questions to me.

Are you new on nairaland? Click the links and you will see them live.

EzioAuditore:


And BTw, the things I copy are mostly verses from the bible. But hey, tell me, have you read my post about Ishmael and Isaac? Who amongst them was almost sacrificed? Can you see the contradictions in your book of lies? That is the result of Jewish concoction of hatred and mayhem.

jumping from one question to another?okay
this verse disqualified muhammed as a prophet;

Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham),
We bestowed upon him Isaac and
(Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused
PROPHETHOOD and revelation to
continue among his offspring.


Surah 29:27 mentions that Prophethood
and Scriptures came uniquely through
the seed of Isaac and Jacob. It speaks of
the prophetic office as having been
entrusted to Isaac and Jacob and their
descendants. And Allah also declared in
the above Qur’anic verse, that the
prophethood would “remain” in the
lineage of Isaac and Jacob. In other
words, anyone claiming to be a prophet
of God must be born in the Prophetic
Race. Since the Qur’an states that prophethood belongs exclusively to the lineage of Isaac and Jacob, we must then ask whether Muhammad was born in the line of the prophets. In other words, was he born in the Prophetic Race? Muslims scholars claim that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. But Ishmael is entirely excluded in the prophetical line in Surah 29:27. If Allah intends to include Ishmael, his name would be placed before Isaac, as he was older than
Isaac by fourteen years. But as it can be
noted, Surah 29:27 completely omits any reference to Ishmael, raising the
question as to why he was totally ignored if he was as important as Muslims claim him to be. Thus, the Qur’an clearly teaches that the prophetic line came through Isaac – not Ishmael.

If Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael, then he cannot be a descendant of Isaac at the same time,
given the fact that Ishmael and Isaac are half-brothers. Thus, it is evident that
Muhammad is not a descendant of Isaac. As Muhammad was neither a Jew nor a descendent of Isaac and Jacob, this automatically disqualifies him as a
prophet of God.

Since according to both the Bible and the Qur’an, all the true prophets came in the line of Abraham through Isaac, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet of the true God. In fact, this is in harmony with the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:21.

Genesis 17:21: “However, my
covenant I shall establish with
Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at
this appointed time next year.”

If Ishmael rather than Isaac was chosen
or included in the origin of the prophets, why was there only one alleged prophet from the line of Ishmael? Guess who that lone prophet was? Yes, it was Muhammad – a non-Israelite. The rest – Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, Jesus and many others – were all Israelites.

All these prophets were descendents
of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
just as it is sworn in Surah 29:27. Why
did all these prophets come from the line of Isaac, with the exception of
Muhammad who descended from
Ishmael? Why was Ishmael’s name left
out at the most significant moment when the Qur’an revealed the lineage of the prophethood? Did not Allah know that his greatest prophet would be born
through the lineage of Ishmael? The
following Surahs also concur with Surah
29:27.

Surah 45:16: And verily We gave the
Children of Israel the Scripture and
the Command and the Prophethood,
and provided them with good things
and favoured them above all peoples.
(Pickthall)

truthman2012:


Are you new on nairaland? Click the links and you will see them live.

That's what I thought. You my friend are a coward! You have disgraced yourself and your religion.

malvisguy212:
jumping from one question to another?okay
this verse disqualified muhammed as a prophet;

Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham),
We bestowed upon him Isaac and
(Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused
PROPHETHOOD and revelation to
continue among his offspring.


Surah 29:27 mentions that Prophethood
and Scriptures came uniquely through
the seed of Isaac and Jacob. It speaks of
the prophetic office as having been
entrusted to Isaac and Jacob and their
descendants. And Allah also declared in
the above Qur’anic verse, that the
prophethood would “remain” in the
lineage of Isaac and Jacob. In other
words, anyone claiming to be a prophet
of God must be born in the Prophetic
Race. Since the Qur’an states that prophethood belongs exclusively to the lineage of Isaac and Jacob, we must then ask whether Muhammad was born in the line of the prophets. In other words, was he born in the Prophetic Race? Muslims scholars claim that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael. But Ishmael is entirely excluded in the prophetical line in Surah 29:27. If Allah intends to include Ishmael, his name would be placed before Isaac, as he was older than
Isaac by fourteen years. But as it can be
noted, Surah 29:27 completely omits any reference to Ishmael, raising the
question as to why he was totally ignored if he was as important as Muslims claim him to be. Thus, the Qur’an clearly teaches that the prophetic line came through Isaac – not Ishmael.

If Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael, then he cannot be a descendant of Isaac at the same time,
given the fact that Ishmael and Isaac are half-brothers. Thus, it is evident that
Muhammad is not a descendant of Isaac. As Muhammad was neither a Jew nor a descendent of Isaac and Jacob, this automatically disqualifies him as a
prophet of God.

Since according to both the Bible and the Qur’an, all the true prophets came in the line of Abraham through Isaac, then Muhammad cannot be a prophet of the true God. In fact, this is in harmony with the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 17:21.

Genesis 17:21: “However, my
covenant I shall establish with
Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at
this appointed time next year.”

If Ishmael rather than Isaac was chosen
or included in the origin of the prophets, why was there only one alleged prophet from the line of Ishmael? Guess who that lone prophet was? Yes, it was Muhammad – a non-Israelite. The rest – Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jonah, Joel, Jesus and many others – were all Israelites.

All these prophets were descendents
of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
just as it is sworn in Surah 29:27. Why
did all these prophets come from the line of Isaac, with the exception of
Muhammad who descended from
Ishmael? Why was Ishmael’s name left
out at the most significant moment when the Qur’an revealed the lineage of the prophethood? Did not Allah know that his greatest prophet would be born
through the lineage of Ishmael? The
following Surahs also concur with Surah
29:27.

Surah 45:16: And verily We gave the
Children of Israel the Scripture and
the Command and the Prophethood,
and provided them with good things
and favoured them above all peoples.
(Pickthall)

MORE IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART MALVIs!


Let us look at Noble Verse 29:27 "And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the Righteous."

Let us look at Noble Verse 16:36 "For We assuredly sent amongst every People an apostle, (with the Command), 'Serve Allah, and eschew Evil': of the People were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably (established). So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who denied (the Truth)."

There is no contradiction in the Noble Verses above.

Where in Noble Verse 29:27 does it state that all prophets came from Abraham's seed ??!! There is a little fraud on your part mate. I hope that you do actually read the Noble Verses that you attack.

For Noble Verse 29:27 above, Isaac was Abraham's son and Jacob his grandson, and among his progeny was included Ishmail the eldest son of Abraham. Each of these became a fountainhead of Prophecy and Revelation. Isaac and Jaacob through Moses, and Ishmail through Muhammad. Jacob got the name of "Israel" at Bethel (Genesis 32:28, and 35:10), and his progeny got the title of "The Children of Israel".

For Noble Verse 16:36 above, even though Allah Almighty's signs are everywhere in nature and in men's own conscience, yet in addition Allah has sent human messengers to every people to call their attention to the good and turn them from evil. So they can not pretend that Allah Almighty has abondoned them or that He does not care what they do. His divine grace always invites their will to choose the right. Let us look at Noble Verse 10:47 "To every people (was sent) a messenger: when their messenger comes (before them), the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged."

Also let us look at Noble Verse 35:24 "Verily We (Allah) have sent thee (Muhammad) in truth, as a bearer of glad tiding, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past)."

In Noble Verses 10:47 and 35:24 above, we clearly see that Allah Almighty had sent to all people on earth Messengers of God to spread the good news and the truth to their people. Allah Almighty is very fair and He certainly would not judge a nation or a group of people if they did not recieve His Noble Words.

That verse only asserts that indeed Isaac was a prophet of Allah and so was his son, that doesn't mean there weren't other prophets from other nations. In the future, read and understand such verses before you go about embarrassing yourself.

EzioAuditore:



That's what I thought. You my friend are a coward! You have disgraced yourself and your religion.

You are not qualified to be on this forum if you cannot click a link. Or are you pretending because you can't refute your god's lies? It a shame on you if you don't know how to get to a link. Smh!

Go to islam section and check threads by truthman2012. Can't you understand this again? Serious!

truthman2012:


You are not qualified to be on this forum if you cannot click a link. Or are you pretending because you can't refute your god's lies? It a shame on you if you don't know how to get to a link. Smh!

Then put me to shame and bring the questions to me, then I will have no excuses, stop giving me an excuse! Your "lord" is with you, have no fear.