Hamzi423:


The comparison of Muhammad & Jesus here is baseless... No Muslim is denying the prophethood of Jesus so ur comparison is baseless..

But ur claims are mere hearsay... There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation.... In its 1400 years of existence why is it that only one Arabic Quran is been used by every Muslim in the world?

And the idea of compilations yes the Quran wasn't compiled as book during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.. But He taught the Quran word for word to his people & as at then there were reciters & writers... The prophet had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right by then all the Islamic nations have their own reciters they learned.. They then recorded them on bones & animal skins.. When the reciters were been killed in battle that was when the caliph ordered that they must put them in writing...

On Jesus’ ministry:
You seem to be closing your eyes and mind to EVIDENCE. See some more:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.

On Jesus:
Do you agree that Jesus is all those things the quran said about him? If the quran says he is the CHRIST or MESSIAH and NEVER said so of any other prophet, and you still think that TITLE was is irrelevant and does not make him UNIQUE then it again shows you just want to accept what you wish in spite of the EVIDENCE. If Mohamed was never any of those things Jesus was and Mohamed never did any of those things Jesus did nor lived the SINLESS LIFE Jesus lived but you still prefer to think Mohamed is greater by calling on him daily in your prayer then it simply shows where your values and morality lies.

On the Holy Spirit:
What Moslems like you do is try to force your meaning into words of the Bible. The portion you’re holding to IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE Holy Spirit was mentioned either by Jesus Christ or in the Bible. If you truly want to use the Bible to UNDERSTAND who the Holy Spirit is why are you STUCK WITH one verse which you are trying to use your Islamic reinterpretation to convince us about. Hundreds of years before Islam came how did the people of the BOOK understand this? And now you 21st century Moslems think you know better?
On the quran: I have stated it over and over again – You people are quick to ask for “PROOF” and when a hadith is quoted you put DISCLAIMERS. I quoted hadiths for you and the next you say is “ur claims are mere hearsay … There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation”
Please tell me one that is “reliable” and I promise you I will work with that. Can you take me up on this?

Thank you for being truthful enough to admit that the quran wasn’t compiled as a book during the time of Mohamed. Some other Moslems will vehemently say the opposite.

So, it is clear that it was third parties that documented the recitations.

Now, a question for you: were these men who put down the recitations and those who compiled them INSPIRED?

If so, can we safely say that Allah commissioned them as his messengers after Mohamed?

If not, how can we accept that what these people who were not INSPIRED to write down the quran by Allah should be accepted as divine?

Lastly, for now, show me PROOF that Mohamed “had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right” and PROOF that they never forgot some of the things they memorised and that what they eventually put down in writing contained ALL that Mohamed received. PROOFS PLEASE!

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” : Sometimes I wonder why you guys have been fed with so much lies.

Mohamed initiated offensive UNPROVOKED wars against peaceful communities in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundant wealth. If you say that Mohamed only fought defensive or those who fought him, it’s either that you do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history.

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’.
Look at these too: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

If you hold anything to the contrary, please show PROOFS!

Surely you must know about the battle of Khaybar. It’s one battle every Moslem ought to know because that was were Mohamed eventually encountered what later killed him. Here is an account of it:
“One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him. (According to the hadith, he also yelled "Allahu Akbar" amid the violence - a tradition passed down to modern-day Islamic terrorists - Sahih Bukhari 52:195).

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops. They were eventually altogether for their faith:

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." (Malik 45:18)
The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.” (Thereligionofpeace.com)

Hamzi423:


The interpretation of “the sun setting in a spring of black muddy water”, in the books of Tafseer is the following: Dhul-Qarnain went towards the direction of the West until he reached the farthest place in the West. There he found as if the sun was setting in a black muddy water. If a person among ourselves stands at the shore (sea-side) at sun set, he will see the sun as if it is falling into the sea, or setting into the sea.
But the reality is otherwise, when the sun sets in one place, it is still rising on another place
Therefore, what is meant by the verse “he found the sun setting in a muddy water” means when someone looks at it, that is what he/she would think and see.
Perhaps, Dhul-Qarnain arrived to a place where a river in deluge meets with the sea. The water of the river may contain mud, and when the sun sets, it would appear to a person looking at it as if it sets in a muddy water.

Actually that is not what the tafseer says. I have read both Ibn Kathir and Tabari and there is nowhere in any of those tafseer where time of the setting of the sun is mentioned. Rather, the koranic verse in Qur’an 18:83-86 deals with the place where the sun sets, and not the time when it sets.

Consider this Sunnah of your "intelligent" "prophet":

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets?

I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Your "wise" 'prophet" asks his gullible follower: "Do you know "where" it (the sun) sets?" and not "Do you know "when" it (the sun)sets?"

And the ever "wise" MOOhaMAD has a "clever" answer for his companion:

"It sets in a pool of water"

I'm surprised that you disagree with your prophet when even your sheiks, imams and maulanas agree with him.

HajimeSaito:


Actually that is not what the tafseer says. I have read both Ibn Kathir and Tabari and there is nowhere in any of those tafseer where time of the setting of the sun is mentioned. Rather, the koranic verse in Qur’an 18:83-86 deals with the place where the sun sets, and not the time when it sets.

Consider this Sunnah of your "intelligent" "prophet":

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets?

I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Your "wise" 'prophet" asks his gullible follower: "Do you know "where" it (the sun) sets?" and not "Do you know "when" it (the sun)sets?"

And the ever "wise" MOOhaMAD has a "clever" answer for his companion:

"It sets in a pool of water"

I'm surprised that you disagree with your prophet when even your sheiks, imams and maulanas agree with him.

He is trying to come up with the "Marvel of Islamic reinterpretation"!

The Statements are clear but because they just must fit anything into their Islamic worldview they engage in all kinds of rigmarole to explain simple issues. And all these for the quran that claims to be a CLEAR book!

plainbibletruth:

He is trying to come up with the "Marvel of Islamic reinterpretation"!

The Statements are clear but because they just must fit anything into their Islamic worldview they engage in all kinds of rigmarole to explain simple issues. And all these for the quran that claims to be a CLEAR book!

That is the MOOslime dilemma! They have absolutely no idea on how absurd they sound when they use Taqiyya to challenge common sense.
That is why violence is usually their last resort because Islam can never be defended from an ethical, moral or rational perspective.

HajimeSaito:


Actually that is not what the tafseer says. I have read both Ibn Kathir and Tabari and there is nowhere in any of those tafseer where time of the setting of the sun is mentioned. Rather, the koranic verse in Qur’an 18:83-86 deals with the place where the sun sets, and not the time when it sets.

Consider this Sunnah of your "intelligent" "prophet":

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets?

I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

Your "wise" 'prophet" asks his gullible follower: "Do you know "where" it (the sun) sets?" and not "Do you know "when" it (the sun)sets?"

And the ever "wise" MOOhaMAD has a "clever" answer for his companion:

"It sets in a pool of water"

I'm surprised that you disagree with your prophet when even your sheiks, imams and maulanas agree with him.

Even till this day if u look at the sunset from a water view u will see what he was trying to describe... It's a simple explanation... U either take it or leave it......

I repeat again for the last time... Make ur point & don't throw insults... I've never insulted anyone since this discussion began...

Hamzi423:


Even till this day if u look at the sunset from a water view u will see what he was trying to describe... It's a simple explanation... U either take it or leave it......

I repeat again for the last time... Make ur point & don't throw insults... I've never insulted anyone since this discussion began...

Sigh. So MOOSlims refuse to believe ISLIME's teachings?

The "noble" "prophet" will be suffering from erectile dysfunction and won't be able to "perform" on his 72 virgins when he finds out how his followers have lost faith in him.

plainbibletruth:


On Jesus’ ministry:
You seem to be closing your eyes and mind to EVIDENCE. See some more:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.

On Jesus:
Do you agree that Jesus is all those things the quran said about him? If the quran says he is the CHRIST or MESSIAH and NEVER said so of any other prophet, and you still think that TITLE was is irrelevant and does not make him UNIQUE then it again shows you just want to accept what you wish in spite of the EVIDENCE. If Mohamed was never any of those things Jesus was and Mohamed never did any of those things Jesus did nor lived the SINLESS LIFE Jesus lived but you still prefer to think Mohamed is greater by calling on him daily in your prayer then it simply shows where your values and morality lies.

On the Holy Spirit:
What Moslems like you do is try to force your meaning into words of the Bible. The portion you’re holding to IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE Holy Spirit was mentioned either by Jesus Christ or in the Bible. If you truly want to use the Bible to UNDERSTAND who the Holy Spirit is why are you STUCK WITH one verse which you are trying to use your Islamic reinterpretation to convince us about. Hundreds of years before Islam came how did the people of the BOOK understand this? And now you 21st century Moslems think you know better?
On the quran: I have stated it over and over again – You people are quick to ask for “PROOF” and when a hadith is quoted you put DISCLAIMERS. I quoted hadiths for you and the next you say is “ur claims are mere hearsay … There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation”
Please tell me one that is “reliable” and I promise you I will work with that. Can you take me up on this?

Thank you for being truthful enough to admit that the quran wasn’t compiled as a book during the time of Mohamed. Some other Moslems will vehemently say the opposite.

So, it is clear that it was third parties that documented the recitations.

Now, a question for you: were these men who put down the recitations and those who compiled them INSPIRED?

If so, can we safely say that Allah commissioned them as his messengers after Mohamed?

If not, how can we accept that what these people who were not INSPIRED to write down the quran by Allah should be accepted as divine?

Lastly, for now, show me PROOF that Mohamed “had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right” and PROOF that they never forgot some of the things they memorised and that what they eventually put down in writing contained ALL that Mohamed received. PROOFS PLEASE!

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” : Sometimes I wonder why you guys have been fed with so much lies.

Mohamed initiated offensive UNPROVOKED wars against peaceful communities in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundant wealth. If you say that Mohamed only fought defensive or those who fought him, it’s either that you do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history.

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’.
Look at these too: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

If you hold anything to the contrary, please show PROOFS!

Surely you must know about the battle of Khaybar. It’s one battle every Moslem ought to know because that was were Mohamed eventually encountered what later killed him. Here is an account of it:
“One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him. (According to the hadith, he also yelled "Allahu Akbar" amid the violence - a tradition passed down to modern-day Islamic terrorists - Sahih Bukhari 52:195).

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops. They were eventually altogether for their faith:

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." (Malik 45:18)
The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.” (Thereligionofpeace.com)

I didn't write that verse.... Ur bible recorded it... And for a man that continuously say I've been sent... I can of my own self do nothing.... A man that said clearly that his message was for the lost sheep of the house of Israel... Which clearly means he was sent by GOD Almighty to save his own people from sin through his message... I still don't understand why u want me to disregard that... If in another verse he says otherwise does that mean he was contradicting himself?

The journey of the Quran, which began to be revealed to Prophet Muhammad during the month of Ramadan in 610, in its original form to the present day is a characteristic that none of the previous sacred books have.

The companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were great people, played an important role in the compilation of the Quran, leaving an interesting story behind.

12 People

During the 23 years of Muhammad's time as a prophet, the verses of the Quran were memorized as they were revealed, and about 42 scribes wrote the verses on different materials such as paper, cloth, bone fragments and leather.

In ancient times, literacy was a skill that few people had and Muhammad himself did not know how to read or write.

During the time of Caliph Abu Bakr, when 70 people who knew the Quran by heart (qari), were killed in the Battle of Yamama, Umar ibn al-Khattab became concerned and appealed to Abu Bakr in order to compile the Quran into a book.

Abu Bakr formed a delegation under the leadership of Zaid ibn Thabit, one of the leading scribes.

This delegation of 12 people, including famous figures such as Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Talha ibn Ubaydullah, Abdullah ibn Masood, Ubayy ibn Kab, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Hudhaifah and Saleem, came together in Umar's house and collected all the materials on which verses from the Quran were written.

In addition, the verses memorized by the companions were heard as well. Each of them was asked to show two witnesses for the verse they read.

Mushaf

Thus, all the verses of the Quran that describe the creation of the universe and people, judgment day, exemplary stories of the people who lived before and the beliefs, worship, morals and legal bases that believers should obey were collected together into a single-volume book. Each of the verses was taught by the archangel Gabriel and declared by Prophet Muhammad. The verse is the name given to each sentence of the Quran and the surah is the name given to each part of the holy book. There are 6,236 verses, 114 surahs and about 323,000 letters in the Quran.

Saeed ibn al-Aas, who was renowned for the beauty of his handwriting, wrote them down on gazelle skin. The writing used was the Arabic script of the time, which was already old and used commonly at that time in Hejaz.

The companions reached a consensus that this writing, which was used by Prophet Ismail in Hejaz, is the writing of Muslims.

The copy of the Quran was recited to the companions at a general meeting. There was no objection. So, a book called "mushaf" emerged, which means written verses.

A total of 33,000 companions agreed that every letter of the Quran was in the right place. Then this mushaf was sent to Umar ibn al-Khattab. After his death, this book passed on to Hazrat Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and a wife of Prophet Muhammad.

Dialect of Quraysh

A difference was observed in the recitation of the Quran in the Armenia battles between Muslims from Damascus and Iraq during the period of the third caliph, Uthman.

Hudhaifah, one of the companions, went before the caliph on his way back from an expedition and asked him to prevent this.

On the 25th year of the hijra (647), Uthman gathered a delegation attended by Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, Saeed ibn al-Aas and Abd al-Rahman ibn Harith under the leadership of Zaid ibn Thabit. All of them, except for Zaid, were from Quraysh. Uthman said that the dialect of Quraysh should be preferred if they were to fall into conflict with Zaid regarding the dialect, since Muhammad was from the Quraysh tribe. The Quran had been revealed in seven dialects of the Arabic language of the time.

The first Muslims who were literate could easily read the writing of their own language, but somewhat differently, since at the time the Arabic script did not have diacritical marks to differentiate letters or vowel symbols.

For example, those from the Tameem tribe pronounced the letter "sin" as "te" and read the word "nas" as "nat." It was diverse and convenient, and did not change the meaning.

The delegation brought the original mushaf from Hafsah. In this mushaf, the surahs were not separated from each other. The surahs were sorted according to the order of their descent in Ali's manuscript and according to their lengths in the manuscript of Abdullah ibn Masood.

Now the verses were written in the Quraysh dialect. The surahs were arranged in rows, separated from each other regarding their length and alignment with each other. The order of the surahs was not based on the order the archangel Gabriel gave them to Prophet Muhammad, but on the consensus of the companions.

Seven copies

The old copies were destroyed to prevent future conflicts. Because of this, there are some Shia sects that accusing Uthman of changing the Quran.

From the new copy, some mushafs were also written on parchment and sent to different places such as Bahrain, Damascus, Basra, Kufa, Yemen and Mecca, accompanied by a qari. There are also rumors that copies were sent to Egypt and Jazeera.

The copy that stayed with the caliph was called al-Mushaf al-Imam (the head mushaf). There is no difference between the mushafs recited around the world today since they were all copied from original copies.

Thus, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime, while its compilation was done during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and it was copied during the caliphate of Uthman.

Uthman also established special schools for the correct recitation and writing of the Quran. During the caliphate of Ali, saw the introduction of diacritical marks. During the time of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, vowel marks were also added.

Since then, countless Muslims have memorized the Quran. In the month of Ramadan, the entire Quran is recited in the Tarawih prayer at the Kaaba. Even the slightest mistake can stand out to Muslims who know it well from all around the world.

Original mushafs

Some of these first seven mushafs have disappeared over time. Today, in Topkapı Palace and the Museum of Turkish-Islamic Arts in Istanbul, there are mushafs from Uthman and Ali's period. One of them was handwritten by Uthman, and the other two by Ali.

While the copy in Egypt was in the Mosque of Amr ibn al-Aas, it was presented to Ottoman Sultan Selim II and brought to Topkapı Palace after the conquest of Egypt.

Some claim that this is in fact the copy from Medina and that the last survivor of the Abbasid family took it with him while escaping to Egypt from the Mongol massacre. It is said that due to a blood-like stain on it, this is the mushaf that Uthman read while he was martyred.

Other mushafs belonging to the first period of Islam are displayed in Al-Hussein Mosque in Cairo, the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, the British Library in London, Hast Imam Library in Tashkent and other museums.

A newly opened museum in Mecca also features verses of the Quran written on bones and stones. The verses written on rocks and stones in the seventh century in Arabia have also survived to the present day.... This was how the written Quran existed...

Only the fabrication that Muhammad pbuh initiated war... That's a blatant lie..

It is narrated from Malik that he said it was not permissible to initiate war against the Abyssinians or the Turks because of the saying of the Prophet: leave the Abyssinians alone as long as they leave you alone. Malik was asked about the authenticity of this tradition, and although he did not recognize it, he said: the people continue to avoid attacking them.

Source: Al-Bidayat Al-Mujtahid, Kitab Al-Jihad

Therefore, the Prophet had forbidden the Muslims from initiating war against the Turks or the Abyssinians if they did not attack first. This is the practical application of the non-aggression principle mentioned in the verse 2:190 and others

plainbibletruth:


On Jesus’ ministry:
You seem to be closing your eyes and mind to EVIDENCE. See some more:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.

On Jesus:
Do you agree that Jesus is all those things the quran said about him? If the quran says he is the CHRIST or MESSIAH and NEVER said so of any other prophet, and you still think that TITLE was is irrelevant and does not make him UNIQUE then it again shows you just want to accept what you wish in spite of the EVIDENCE. If Mohamed was never any of those things Jesus was and Mohamed never did any of those things Jesus did nor lived the SINLESS LIFE Jesus lived but you still prefer to think Mohamed is greater by calling on him daily in your prayer then it simply shows where your values and morality lies.

On the Holy Spirit:
What Moslems like you do is try to force your meaning into words of the Bible. The portion you’re holding to IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE Holy Spirit was mentioned either by Jesus Christ or in the Bible. If you truly want to use the Bible to UNDERSTAND who the Holy Spirit is why are you STUCK WITH one verse which you are trying to use your Islamic reinterpretation to convince us about. Hundreds of years before Islam came how did the people of the BOOK understand this? And now you 21st century Moslems think you know better?
On the quran: I have stated it over and over again – You people are quick to ask for “PROOF” and when a hadith is quoted you put DISCLAIMERS. I quoted hadiths for you and the next you say is “ur claims are mere hearsay … There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation”
Please tell me one that is “reliable” and I promise you I will work with that. Can you take me up on this?

Thank you for being truthful enough to admit that the quran wasn’t compiled as a book during the time of Mohamed. Some other Moslems will vehemently say the opposite.

So, it is clear that it was third parties that documented the recitations.

Now, a question for you: were these men who put down the recitations and those who compiled them INSPIRED?

If so, can we safely say that Allah commissioned them as his messengers after Mohamed?

If not, how can we accept that what these people who were not INSPIRED to write down the quran by Allah should be accepted as divine?

Lastly, for now, show me PROOF that Mohamed “had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right” and PROOF that they never forgot some of the things they memorised and that what they eventually put down in writing contained ALL that Mohamed received. PROOFS PLEASE!

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” : Sometimes I wonder why you guys have been fed with so much lies.

Mohamed initiated offensive UNPROVOKED wars against peaceful communities in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundant wealth. If you say that Mohamed only fought defensive or those who fought him, it’s either that you do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history.

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’.
Look at these too: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

If you hold anything to the contrary, please show PROOFS!

Surely you must know about the battle of Khaybar. It’s one battle every Moslem ought to know because that was were Mohamed eventually encountered what later killed him. Here is an account of it:
“One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him. (According to the hadith, he also yelled "Allahu Akbar" amid the violence - a tradition passed down to modern-day Islamic terrorists - Sahih Bukhari 52:195).

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops. They were eventually altogether for their faith:

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." (Malik 45:18)
The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.” (Thereligionofpeace.com)

On the Jesus being the Christ and the Messiah as recorded in both the bible & the Quran...
Jesus Christ is the Messiah the saviour for his people... If u read through history & ur bible u will know that they were expecting 3 different entities....

In John 1:19 to 21 Art thou the christ,he answered no And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. He rejected all 3..
I dunno why he did that though a story for another day..
So that means his people were expecting a Messiah... Only for them. Not for everyone..... I keep reminding you that we don't compare Jesus Christ to Muhammad they are all mighty men of God & we revere them.. We don't worship Muhammad we only send peace & blessings upon him like we do all other prophets.... It's not Muhammad alone..
Everything about Jesus Christ was not by his own making... He continuously say I can of my own self do nothing... So i dunno what u are trying to prove there.

HajimeSaito:


Sigh. So MOOSlims refuse to believe ISLIME's teachings?

The "noble" "prophet" will be suffering from erectile dysfunction and won't be able to "perform" on his 72 virgins when he finds out how his followers have lost faith in him.

U are just here for mockery & insults... I thought u were mature enough to use ur brain... �

ogatboy:


What was Mohammed's message

Worship one GOD... And associate no one to HIM.... The same message as Moses and Jesus Christ

plainbibletruth:


On Jesus’ ministry:
You seem to be closing your eyes and mind to EVIDENCE. See some more:
1. Jesus preached to the Samaritan woman and her people during his time here on earth. Strictly speaking they were not Israel. But Jesus still preached to them. If, like you keep insisting, Jesus was only for the Jews how come he preached to these ones?

2. Jesus said in John 10: 16 – “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” The English here should be clear to you that Jesus was here telling his immediate audience that he had other sheep he was going to bring into his fold and not just only Israel. He said “I must bring them also”. Not ‘another messenger will come after me’. He emphasised that there would then be ONLY ONE SHEPHERD.

On Jesus:
Do you agree that Jesus is all those things the quran said about him? If the quran says he is the CHRIST or MESSIAH and NEVER said so of any other prophet, and you still think that TITLE was is irrelevant and does not make him UNIQUE then it again shows you just want to accept what you wish in spite of the EVIDENCE. If Mohamed was never any of those things Jesus was and Mohamed never did any of those things Jesus did nor lived the SINLESS LIFE Jesus lived but you still prefer to think Mohamed is greater by calling on him daily in your prayer then it simply shows where your values and morality lies.

On the Holy Spirit:
What Moslems like you do is try to force your meaning into words of the Bible. The portion you’re holding to IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE Holy Spirit was mentioned either by Jesus Christ or in the Bible. If you truly want to use the Bible to UNDERSTAND who the Holy Spirit is why are you STUCK WITH one verse which you are trying to use your Islamic reinterpretation to convince us about. Hundreds of years before Islam came how did the people of the BOOK understand this? And now you 21st century Moslems think you know better?
On the quran: I have stated it over and over again – You people are quick to ask for “PROOF” and when a hadith is quoted you put DISCLAIMERS. I quoted hadiths for you and the next you say is “ur claims are mere hearsay … There are numerous weak & non reliable hadiths in circulation”
Please tell me one that is “reliable” and I promise you I will work with that. Can you take me up on this?

Thank you for being truthful enough to admit that the quran wasn’t compiled as a book during the time of Mohamed. Some other Moslems will vehemently say the opposite.

So, it is clear that it was third parties that documented the recitations.

Now, a question for you: were these men who put down the recitations and those who compiled them INSPIRED?

If so, can we safely say that Allah commissioned them as his messengers after Mohamed?

If not, how can we accept that what these people who were not INSPIRED to write down the quran by Allah should be accepted as divine?

Lastly, for now, show me PROOF that Mohamed “had to make the reciters go over recitations continuously until they get it right” and PROOF that they never forgot some of the things they memorised and that what they eventually put down in writing contained ALL that Mohamed received. PROOFS PLEASE!

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” : Sometimes I wonder why you guys have been fed with so much lies.

Mohamed initiated offensive UNPROVOKED wars against peaceful communities in order to impose Islam by force as well as to seize the abundant wealth. If you say that Mohamed only fought defensive or those who fought him, it’s either that you do not understand Islam and have not read sufficient history.

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):
"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: ‘Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.’ Khalid told them: ‘Accept Islam and spare your life.’ They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: ‘Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"’.
Look at these too: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s book was published in Saudi Arabia (second edition) in 1981. In part 5, p. 90, this famous scholar tells us the following:
"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina, God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the chapter of Repentance was revealed, God commanded His prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim from among the Arabs, whether (that person) fought him or not. He did not command him to take the poll-tax from infidels."
This means that Arabs did not have a choice. They either had to embrace Islam or die by the sword. It is obvious then that God (according to the above interpretation) had ordered His prophet to fight anyone from among the Arabs who refused to become a Muslim whether he fought against Muhammad or not. This is overt aggression and unjustified attack against peaceful people.

Ibn Hisham: - Al Sohaily
In his book, "al-Rawd al-Anaf" which is the most famous book about Muhammad’s life (part 4, p. 194), we read the following text:
"When Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Arabs realized that they were not able to wage war against Muhammad, they accepted the Islamic faith. But some of the infidels continued to be as they were. (They used to make pilgrimages also because this practice was in vogue among the people hundreds of years before Muhammad). Then suddenly Muhammad sent someone to announce to the Tribe of Quraysh that no pilgrimage would be allowed for the infidels after that year (9H); none would enter paradise unless he were a Muslim. Muhammad was going to give the infidels a respite for four months, and after that there would not be a covenant except the covenant of the sword and war (lit: piercing and the strike of the sword). After this period, people entered Islam by hook or by crook, and anyone who did not become a Muslim fled the Arabian Peninsula."
Ibn Hisham already quoted Muhammad’s famous words:
"No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula" (pp. 50, 51).

If you hold anything to the contrary, please show PROOFS!

Surely you must know about the battle of Khaybar. It’s one battle every Moslem ought to know because that was were Mohamed eventually encountered what later killed him. Here is an account of it:
“One of the best documented examples of Muslim aggression during the lifetime of Muhammad is the attack on the peaceful community of Khaybar. This followed the treaty of Hudaibiya between the Muslims and Meccans, which called for a period of peace between the two groups. The treaty was controversial with Muslims, not only because it contradicted Allah’s prior mandate to “drive out” the Meccans with violent force (2:191), but also because Muhammad agreed not to be recognized as a prophet in the document (Muslim 4401).

Muhammad decided that it was prudent to attack the Jews at Khaybar in order to regain the respect of his people and placate their grumbling with military victory and (especially) the stolen wealth that followed. This is embarrassing to modern-day Muslim apologists, who try to justify the siege by imagining that the sleepy farming community, located about 100 miles outside of Medina, posed some sort of necessary threat.

Unfortunately for contemporary apologists, not only is there no supporting evidence that the Muslims were under attack by the Khaybar, there are at least three historical references that flatly contradict any notion of self-defense on the part of Muhammad. The first is a description of the initial attack by Ibn Ishaq/Hisham:

We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, “Muhammad with his force,” and turned tail and fled… The apostle seized the property piece by piece… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
The people of Khaybar were not attacking Muhammad. They were farming their land with shovels and buckets, not even knowing that they were supposed to be at war:

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)
Muhammad attacked only after waiting to see if the people of Khaybar issued a morning call to prayer. This would have no possible relevance had they already been at war with him. (According to the hadith, he also yelled "Allahu Akbar" amid the violence - a tradition passed down to modern-day Islamic terrorists - Sahih Bukhari 52:195).

Perhaps the best proof that Muhammad was not acting in self-defense is the fact that his own people did not understand why they were marching to war. His son-in-law, who was in charge of the military expedition, had to ask for justification:

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)
The question Ali posed would have been unnecessary had the Muslims been under attack by the Khaybar or if the answer to the question were obvious. As it is, Muhammad’s reply underscores the ostensible purpose of the campaign, which was to force the Jews into acknowledging the superiority of Islam.

Muhammad’s men easily captured Khaybar and divided up the loot. The prophet of Islam tortured the community’s treasurer to extract information, then had him killed (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 764). Muhammad then took the man’s widow, Saffiya, as his wife after trading two other captured women to one of his lieutenants (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 758). The surviving Jews were allowed to stay on their land provided that they gave their Muslim masters half of their crops. They were eventually altogether for their faith:

"Allah's Messenger said, 'Two deens [religion] shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar." (Malik 45:18)
The rule of aggression in Islam is thus proportionate to the power held by Muslims, and not the persecution that they are under. The rare verses of peace in the Qur'an were "revealed" in Mecca, when true oppression existed (in some cases). The verses of violence that are revealed later correspond to Muslim military might even as any persecution of Muslims had largely dried up.” (Thereligionofpeace.com)

No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself... And Muhammad further affirms that in how he handles all his affairs during his lifetime... Muhammad never took anybody's wife.... All these fabrications from story tellers are lies........

Just like some narrations that called Mary Magdalene a prostitute... Some even called her Jesus's mistress ,while some even called her his wife...

Other narrations accused Jesus of having homosexual relationship with his disciples..... That's how false ur stories are....

I believe u must have come across a story about Muhammad.... When the representatives of Najran visited...
How can an absolute ruler of the whole of Arabia that u said only recognizes Islam & compel others to follow his faith be as generous as allowing Christians to use his mosque to worship?....

Hamzi423:



U are just here for mockery & insults... I thought u were mature enough to use ur brain... �

And I thought you were MOOslim enough to believe in the "noble" "prophet"...

Hamzi423:


http://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/279-death-of-the-messenger-of-allah-the

Read up

Leave sunnahonline, tell me urself.

Hamzi423:


Why would i lie?


Aisha's marriage to Muhammad pbuh was consummated when she was 18...

alaaye, u are a liar ur prophet slept with the girl at 9 yrs old.

Hamzi423:


No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself... And Muhammad further affirms that in how he handles all his affairs during his lifetime... Muhammad never took anybody's wife.... All these fabrications from story tellers are lies........
....

I repeatedly asked for PROOF from you but unfortunately you provided none.

You talk of fabrication of lies without showing how they so and evidence to the contrary.

Simply making a statement dismissing what I stated does not amount to proof or a refutation of my proven conclusion.

Let's look at the issues again:
On Jesus -
1. Jesus preached in Israel, yes. But his message, like I've shown you, was not for Israel alone.
You have been picking on only one verse to insist on it but I've shown you a number of places in the Bible to the contrary.
Let me explain it this way: "I am sent only to Israel" refers ONLY to his MINISTRY. It is not the same as if he had said "My MESSAGE is ONLY for Israel alone" You ought to understand that there is a vast degree of difference between the two.

On Jesus & Mohamed -
You Moslems claim you revere all the prophets equally but when scenarios are placed before you your real position is revealed.
Can you sincerely answer these:
1. If you do not mention Mohamed in your prayer on any given day do you feel you have satisfied Islam?
2. On the other hand if you never mention Jesus in your prayers do you feel you've missed out on anything?
If not, where is the so called equal reverence?
3. Can a person believe in only ONE GOD without adding Mohamed and still be a true believer in your understanding?

On the quran -
You keep making outlandish statements like " No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself.."
Are the following about friendship or self-defence? :
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Moslems are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (did you see 'journey' there?).
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Is ' when we wish to destroy a town' self-defence?
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” -
I pointed out Mohamed's UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Khabar.
Please show us how that was in self-defence.
Just limit your response to this particular case

Hamzi423:


Worship one GOD... And associate no one to HIM.... The same message as Moses and Jesus Christ

And when Jesus comes he will bring the same message. Still my point that Mohammed is not the last prophet.

Hamzi423:



U are just here for mockery & insults... I thought u were mature enough to use ur brain... �

[img]https://media1./images/0b755f628985465ed889c4b517c41199/tenor.gif?itemid=4425782[/img]

Hamzi423:


Why can't the Jews pray in another language?
Why does the Pope need to recite in Latin? Why only Latin?
Why Was The gospel revealed to Jesus in his own language?
Why did Jesus teach in his own Language alone?
When was the Bible translated from its original form?

We don't have any commandment to use one language in praying to God.

Your Allah on the other hand only understand arabic.

Hamzi423:


Praying in a single dialect is a way of unifying the Muslims...
All Muslims are one & the same in the sight of GOD, He chose a particular way of life & a particular language to give his revelations.... It's as simple as that.

No..your Allah only understand arabic

Hamzi423:

The companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were great people, played an important role in the compilation of the Quran, leaving an interesting story behind.

THEY PLAYED NOT JUST AN IMPORTANT ROLE BUT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN COMPILING THE QURAN; MOHAMED NEVER COMPILED THE QURAN HIMSELF.

A total of 33,000 companions agreed that every letter of the Quran was in the right place. Then this mushaf was sent to Umar ibn al-Khattab. After his death, this book passed on to Hazrat Hafsah, the daughter of Umar and a wife of Prophet Muhammad.

Whao! 33,000 people all examined EVERY LETTER of the quran and confirmed they were all in the right place? Really?

The first Muslims who were literate could easily read the writing of their own language, but somewhat differently, since at the time the Arabic script did not have diacritical marks to differentiate letters or vowel symbols.

The first Moslems could read but Mohamed could not? And he used to be in charge of his first wife’s business? They had no business records?

The delegation brought the original mushaf from Hafsah. In this mushaf, the surahs were not separated from each other. The surahs were sorted according to the order of their descent in Ali's manuscript and according to their lengths in the manuscript of Abdullah ibn Masood.

Now the verses were written in the Quraysh dialect. The surahs were arranged in rows, separated from each other regarding their length and alignment with each other. The order of the surahs was not based on the order the archangel Gabriel gave them to Prophet Muhammad, but on the consensus of the companions.

Again, this confirmed that it was the followers of Mohamed that DECIDED how the quran was going to be – right?

The old copies were destroyed to prevent future conflicts. Because of this, there are some Shia sects that accusing Uthman of changing the Quran.

Is it not obvious that if the destroyed copies were no different from the final compilation there was no reason to destroy them in the first place?

The copy that stayed with the caliph was called al-Mushaf al-Imam (the head mushaf). There is no difference between the mushafs recited around the world today since they were all copied from original copies.

‘No difference’ is what Moslems want the world to believe but the reality is far from that.

Thus, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime, while its compilation was done during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and it was copied during the caliphate of Uthman.

After telling us that some portions of the quran was only in the MEMORY of some followers during Mohamed’s time and you now turn round to state that ‘the QURAN WAS WRITTEN DURING Muhammad’s lifetime is not only CONTRADICTORY but also DECEITFUL. IF (and that is a big ‘IF’) the quran was written during the lifetime of Mohamed why did it take the companions so much trouble to produce a single acceptable volume?

Uthman also established special schools for the correct recitation and writing of the Quran. During the caliphate of Ali, saw the introduction of diacritical marks. During the time of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, vowel marks were also added.

You are again confirming that CHANGES – diacritical marks, vowel marks were made to the quran – recall that this is supposed to be a book which has a copy in heaven; isn’t it? So then, it is not exactly a carbon-copy of the one in heaven such that the one on earth has to be changed or was not revealed with all the content of the one in heaven?

Some of these first seven mushafs have disappeared over time. Today, in Topkapı Palace and the Museum of Turkish-Islamic Arts in Istanbul, there are mushafs from Uthman and Ali's period. One of them was handwritten by Uthman, and the other two by Ali.

The lack of dates in this your source and write-up may create a picture in the minds of the casual reader that the quranic compilation dated very close to Mohamed’s time but let it be known that this was not so. The disagreements on the exact texts of the quran which continues till today has been carefully ignored too in your write-up.

Again, I ask: Were all these people involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation and compilation into bound volumes INSPIRED by Allah?

Hamzi423:


Why would i lie?


Aisha's marriage to Muhammad pbuh was consummated when she was 18...

Show us the hadith that says the marriage was consummated at 18, or forever remain a liar. If the marriage was consummated when she was 18, wasn't that the same year Muhammad died after a huge sickness from poisoning? Stop lying..

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. Book 8, Number 3309.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Book 8, Number 3310

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Book 8, Number 3311

plainbibletruth:

THEY PLAYED NOT JUST AN IMPORTANT ROLE BUT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN COMPILING THE QURAN; MOHAMED NEVER COMPILED THE QURAN HIMSELF.


Whao! 33,000 people all examined EVERY LETTER of the quran and confirmed they were all in the right place? Really?


The first Moslems could read but Mohamed could not? And he used to be in charge of his first wife’s business? They had no business records?


Again, this confirmed that it was the followers of Mohamed that DECIDED how the quran was going to be – right?


Is it not obvious that if the destroyed copies were no different from the final compilation there was no reason to destroy them in the first place?


‘No difference’ is what Moslems want the world to believe but the reality is far from that.


After telling us that some portions of the quran was only in the MEMORY of some followers during Mohamed’s time and you now turn round to state that ‘the QURAN WAS WRITTEN DURING Muhammad’s lifetime is not only CONTRADICTORY but also DECEITFUL. IF (and that is a big ‘IF’) the quran was written during the lifetime of Mohamed why did it take the companions so much trouble to produce a single acceptable volume?


You are again confirming that CHANGES – diacritical marks, vowel marks were made to the quran – recall that this is supposed to be a book which has a copy in heaven; isn’t it? So then, it is not exactly a carbon-copy of the one in heaven such that the one on earth has to be changed or was not revealed with all the content of the one in heaven?


The lack of dates in this your source and write-up may create a picture in the minds of the casual reader that the quranic compilation dated very close to Mohamed’s time but let it be known that this was not so. The disagreements on the exact texts of the quran which continues till today has been carefully ignored too in your write-up.

Again, I ask: Were all these people involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation and compilation into bound volumes INSPIRED by Allah?

Thanks for busting hamzi423 and his lies.

He just proved how false the talk of the Quran being in its original state is. He even reminded me of the Topkapi which is a version of Quran. I will look for other versions too to stop the lies from Muslims.

[quote author=alBHAGDADI post=69449605]Show us the hadith that says the marriage was consummated at 18, or forever remain a liar. If the marriage was consummated when she was 18, wasn't that the same year Muhammad died after a huge sickness from poisoning? Stop lying..

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. Book 8, Number 3309.

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Book 8, Number 3310

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Book 8, Number 3311[/quote

http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

Read through... Then argue with me

plainbibletruth:

THEY PLAYED NOT JUST AN IMPORTANT ROLE BUT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN COMPILING THE QURAN; MOHAMED NEVER COMPILED THE QURAN HIMSELF.


Whao! 33,000 people all examined EVERY LETTER of the quran and confirmed they were all in the right place? Really?


The first Moslems could read but Mohamed could not? And he used to be in charge of his first wife’s business? They had no business records?


Again, this confirmed that it was the followers of Mohamed that DECIDED how the quran was going to be – right?


Is it not obvious that if the destroyed copies were no different from the final compilation there was no reason to destroy them in the first place?


‘No difference’ is what Moslems want the world to believe but the reality is far from that.


After telling us that some portions of the quran was only in the MEMORY of some followers during Mohamed’s time and you now turn round to state that ‘the QURAN WAS WRITTEN DURING Muhammad’s lifetime is not only CONTRADICTORY but also DECEITFUL. IF (and that is a big ‘IF’) the quran was written during the lifetime of Mohamed why did it take the companions so much trouble to produce a single acceptable volume?


You are again confirming that CHANGES – diacritical marks, vowel marks were made to the quran – recall that this is supposed to be a book which has a copy in heaven; isn’t it? So then, it is not exactly a carbon-copy of the one in heaven such that the one on earth has to be changed or was not revealed with all the content of the one in heaven?


The lack of dates in this your source and write-up may create a picture in the minds of the casual reader that the quranic compilation dated very close to Mohamed’s time but let it be known that this was not so. The disagreements on the exact texts of the quran which continues till today has been carefully ignored too in your write-up.

Again, I ask: Were all these people involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation and compilation into bound volumes INSPIRED by Allah?

Still doesn't change anything...

plainbibletruth:

THEY PLAYED NOT JUST AN IMPORTANT ROLE BUT PLAYED THE MAJOR ROLE IN COMPILING THE QURAN; MOHAMED NEVER COMPILED THE QURAN HIMSELF.


Whao! 33,000 people all examined EVERY LETTER of the quran and confirmed they were all in the right place? Really?


The first Moslems could read but Mohamed could not? And he used to be in charge of his first wife’s business? They had no business records?


Again, this confirmed that it was the followers of Mohamed that DECIDED how the quran was going to be – right?


Is it not obvious that if the destroyed copies were no different from the final compilation there was no reason to destroy them in the first place?


‘No difference’ is what Moslems want the world to believe but the reality is far from that.


After telling us that some portions of the quran was only in the MEMORY of some followers during Mohamed’s time and you now turn round to state that ‘the QURAN WAS WRITTEN DURING Muhammad’s lifetime is not only CONTRADICTORY but also DECEITFUL. IF (and that is a big ‘IF’) the quran was written during the lifetime of Mohamed why did it take the companions so much trouble to produce a single acceptable volume?


You are again confirming that CHANGES – diacritical marks, vowel marks were made to the quran – recall that this is supposed to be a book which has a copy in heaven; isn’t it? So then, it is not exactly a carbon-copy of the one in heaven such that the one on earth has to be changed or was not revealed with all the content of the one in heaven?


The lack of dates in this your source and write-up may create a picture in the minds of the casual reader that the quranic compilation dated very close to Mohamed’s time but let it be known that this was not so. The disagreements on the exact texts of the quran which continues till today has been carefully ignored too in your write-up.

Again, I ask: Were all these people involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation and compilation into bound volumes INSPIRED by Allah?

I dunno what's difficult to understand here.... Languages grow, they evolve... The only thing the writers did was make it easier for the modern day readers...
The diacritical marks & vowel marks didn't change the meanings.... They only make it easier for the modern day readers... And if u believe otherwise, then bring fort the two & let's differentiate...

If a child of 10yrs in today's time can memorize the Quran then talk more of knowledgeable men of that time......
Pick a learned Yoruba Muslim, a learned igbo Muslim & a learned Hausa Muslim... Today ask them to recite the Quran... U will get exactly the same recitation... Maybe only tribal tongues might differ.. But their recitations will be exactly the same.. If this can happen in today's time how difficult will it be for 33,000 different people to examine compilations?

What's the point of keeping old writings on bones, animal skins that has already been transferred & made into a book which was unanimously agreed upon by the entire Muslim nation as at that time?...

There's no single way that out 33,000 people would agree on a single book if they all have different views in it... This undoubtedly proves that for 33,000 people to unanimously agree with every chapter recorded, it proves that it's not their words at all...... It proves that it was accurate.


Not some portions of the Quran sir... The whole Quran in its entirety was memorized by sahabas...... It was when they agreed on compiling it to a book they referred to the written verses on animal skins & bones etc for confirmation...

Yes all of them were involved in the memorisation, writing down, collation & compilation of the book we now use today..

Maamin:


No..your Allah only understand arabic

If that's what u pick in all I've said then fine...

Maamin:


We don't have any commandment to use one language in praying to God.

Your Allah on the other hand only understand arabic.

Yes because the true teachings of Jesus has been destroyed by the church...

ogatboy:


And when Jesus comes he will bring the same message. Still my point that Mohammed is not the last prophet.

He's not bringing any new message... I dunno what's difficult to understand.... He has already fulfilled his prophethood.

plainbibletruth:


I repeatedly asked for PROOF from you but unfortunately you provided none.

You talk of fabrication of lies without showing how they so and evidence to the contrary.

Simply making a statement dismissing what I stated does not amount to proof or a refutation of my proven conclusion.

Let's look at the issues again:
On Jesus -
1. Jesus preached in Israel, yes. But his message, like I've shown you, was not for Israel alone.
You have been picking on only one verse to insist on it but I've shown you a number of places in the Bible to the contrary.
Let me explain it this way: "I am sent only to Israel" refers ONLY to his MINISTRY. It is not the same as if he had said "My MESSAGE is ONLY for Israel alone" You ought to understand that there is a vast degree of difference between the two.

On Jesus & Mohamed -
You Moslems claim you revere all the prophets equally but when scenarios are placed before you your real position is revealed.
Can you sincerely answer these:
1. If you do not mention Mohamed in your prayer on any given day do you feel you have satisfied Islam?
2. On the other hand if you never mention Jesus in your prayers do you feel you've missed out on anything?
If not, where is the so called equal reverence?
3. Can a person believe in only ONE GOD without adding Mohamed and still be a true believer in your understanding?

On the quran -
You keep making outlandish statements like " No verse in the Quran infers violence... None.. It only gives u right to defend urself.."
Are the following about friendship or self-defence? :
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Moslems are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (did you see 'journey' there?).
Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Is ' when we wish to destroy a town' self-defence?
Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.

On your “Mohamed never initiated any war” -
I pointed out Mohamed's UNPROVOKED ATTACK on Khabar.
Please show us how that was in self-defence.
Just limit your response to this particular case

U highlighted plenty verses out of context to make ur claim...

We can go over those verses 1 by 1 & u will see that u were bias for cutting out a verse & ignoring what the chapter was talking about... Like for example

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.

If u can see it clearly said "turn them out from where they have turned you out"
Meaning do them what they have done to u. (in battle)
"BUT IF THEY DESIST, THEN LO! ALLAH IS FORGIVING AND MERCIFUL"

This simply means "fight those who fight u, turn out those who turn u out" but if they desist & deal peace, then u live them alone & forgive them for Allah is forgiving and merciful.... This is just 1.

And the point..
Let me explain it this way: "I am sent only to Israel" refers ONLY to his MINISTRY. It is not the same as if he had said "My MESSAGE is ONLY for Israel alone" You ought to understand that there is a vast degree of difference between the two...

� this point is funny...
Not long ago u debunked my explanation & insisted we follow direct translations of the sunset verse & now u are adding ministry & message in a Bible verse to make ur point?
And again Matthew 1:21 said.
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins"

Meaning his only mission in earth is to save HIS people from sin... Not by dying but through his message...

On Jesus & Mohamed -
You Moslems claim you revere all the prophets equally but when scenarios are placed before you your real position is revealed.
Can you sincerely answer these:
1. If you do not mention Mohamed in your prayer on any given day do you feel you have satisfied Islam?
2. On the other hand if you never mention Jesus in your prayers do you feel you've missed out on anything?
If not, where is the so called equal reverence?
3. Can a person believe in only ONE GOD without adding Mohamed and still be a true believer in your understanding?

Answer...
It is u Christians that are comparing the 2 mighty men of GOD. Muslims will never.
I've said this a million times here.. Jesus Christ pbuh was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel as he clearly said... We Muslims respect & revere him because we acknowledge the fact & adore him as a messenger of GOD.
But Muhammad pbuh was sent to the whole world & he is the last & final messenger, that's the reason why we honor him & send peace, blessings & salutations upon him... Plus we also honour other messengers of GOD by sending peace, blessings and salutations upon mentioning their names.. So i don't see anything wrong there.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Explanation.
Islam has designated war as the last resort and only in cases of sheer necessity, in order for us to defend the rights of ourselves and others. Also, when we take into consideration the historical context of the revelation. The historical context on verse 2:217:
The intolerance and persecution of the Pagan clique at Mecca caused untold hardships to the holy Messenger of Islam and his early disciples. They bore all with meekness and long-suffering patience until the holy one permitted them to take up arms in self-defence.

In light of the above post means fighting has been especially ordained in conditions of severe persecution and hardship. Consequently, the Muslims are required to defend themselves from oppression and establish justice. To abstain from helping those under oppression is cowardice... Simple.

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

U are at war with people & u know that they'll kill you if they get the slightest of chance... U should just lie down & form weakness so that they can kill you abi?... Dude stop pretending. How is that inititiating war? In fact Quran 2:193 said if they desist then "FORGIVE THEM".

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

This verse was revealed at the time when the pagan Arabs persecuted the Muslims & sent them out of their homes that they had to flee & find refuge in Madina After sometime the Muslim Arabs then grew in strength and wanted to take back their city & go home but, there are holy months in which Wars are not allowed not even retaliations are allowed... But if they were to be attacked again in their new refuge then they can protect themselves... That verse gave them go ahead to reclaim their homes after those holy months have passed... Read the whole chapter u will understand More.

[quote author=Hamzi423 post=69478101][/quote]He died when she was 18, doesn't mean that was when he had sex with her.

Hamzi423:


He's not bringing any new message... I dunno what's difficult to understand.... He has already fulfilled his prophethood.

If he's already done that, then what's the need to come back again? According to your Quran he's coming back to tell people that he is not God.

Isn't that a message as well?

You are just doing everything to make Muhammad the last messenger, which still gives no value to anyone.

Hamzi423:


Yes because the true teachings of Jesus has been destroyed by the church...

What is the true teachings of Christ? That an Arabian man knows more than the Jews who walked with him?