₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
The Pharisees follow Mosaic laws religiously. Anything that contradicts God's laws as given by Moses is fake. So a virgin getting pregnant and giving birth will not be viewed as a miracle as you think but as evidence of adultery. A baby speaking from the cradle (and using such term as Allah which is coined from Canaanite eloha) will be termed sorcery and idolatry based on Mosaic law. The mother will be summarily put to death for adultery. It speaks to Muhammad's ignorance of Jewish laws that he thought a miracle will change the mind of Jews to an obvious sin against Moses' law. Why then did they kill Jesus of miracles can change their minds? At least even the Qur'an accepts that they claimed to kill Jesus despite the miracles he performed.
I don't know where you got your idea from but Mary was not living with Zakarriya even in your quran. And Jews never called God "Allah" as Jesus was reported to have done in the Qur'an. Allah would have been very strange to Jews. You have to show me where Jews culturally refer to their ancestors as their brothers or sisters cause I've never seen that anywhere. It seems only Mary had such description reserved for her.
So you're claiming it's simply a coincidence that Mary in the Qur'an was called sister of Aaron even when the gap between both is about 2000 years and her father happened to have the same name as Miriam? Note that Mary in Christianity does not have her father's name as Imran or Amram. Rather, her father's name is given as Joachim. So it is obviously a confusion to allot Mariam's father's name to Mary mother of Jesus as was done in the Qur'an. If you have the historical context of Imran being Mary's father, share it.

AntiChristian:
So Did Jesus teach trinity?

Can you show clear references for trinity that is not dubious nor ambiguous?

Heavenlydemon:
Are there cases of ambiguity
Yes

But it doesn't mean that it can't be explained

AntiChristian:
So underline where i said brighter grammar?

Is "Brighter grammar" synonymous to "book of grammar" to numbskulls?

AntiChristian:
I don't think such should need any explanation!

Think about this clear verse which the Israelites of Moses and Jesus understood very well!

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One. Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29!.

Have you heard the expression three persons, one essence/ substance

I'm sure you've heard of the expression three persons, one essence/ substance

Moses said it - Our God is one!

Jesus said - Our God is One!

Not three!

No explanation needed!

Ohyoudidnt:
No that isn't a Fatwa. Who gave the Fatwa?

Ohyoudidnt:
That the European monarchies adopted and documented a Royal we in the 12th century doesn't mean it was not in use there or elsewhere around the world before that time.

Is the Royal we referred to here the same as the Majestic we Allah uses to refer to himself sometimes in the Quran?

The majestic plural we is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah: “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the ayah: ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [Soorah al-Fath 48:1], and other similar ayat. But Allah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.”
Classical Arabic, also sometimes referred to as Quranic Arabic or Koranic Arabic.
Developed around the 6th-7th centuries AD in the Arabian Peninsula.
Served as the standardized literary language for centuries, used in:
Pre-modern Arabic literature (poetry, prose)
The Quran, the holy book of Islam.

Classical Arabic is no longer a spoken language in everyday communication. It is primarily used for:
Religious purposes (reciting and understanding the Quran)
Studying early Islamic texts and literature.


It is has a more complex grammar and vocabulary compared to Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It lays its emphasis on rich vocabulary and eloquent expression.
Different verb conjugations and noun declensions compared to MSA.

Ohyoudidnt:
The Pharisees are Jews and to a large extent the Jews didn't like Jesus or see him as their messiah. It is documented in the new testament how he referred to them for their hypocrisy and the dislike they had for him.
Indeed they would have been sceptical of his speaking as a baby but does that mean there was much they could do about it at the time.
Were other prophets not killed by the Jews despite the miracles they showed?

If I may ask why are the reports of the early years of Jesus basically not there in the Bible?

You make reference to Joachim which is good but do you know anything about the miraculous birth of Mary herself? Did the Pharisees question It?

Perhaps you should read Quran 3:37 to know the relationship between Zakaria and Mary. Your bible even refers to Mary being a cousin or relative of Elizabeth.

In Israelite culture, it was common for names to be reused across generations. Names often held significant meaning and were sometimes passed down to honor ancestors or signify familial connections.

Kukutente23:
It is not a problem if you seek to contend that Royal We has existed before it was codified by the English from Latin writings in the 12th century. All you have to do is to place it in history as to who used it before then and where. But it is obvious from all indications that the We in the Quran cannot be a royal We because there was no such thing as royalty in Mecca and the Southern Arabic Peninsula in the time of Muhammad. So how can they employ something that never existed in their culture? There are so many borrowed words and concept in different languages. Yorubas have no word for rice. They call it "iresi" which is an adaptation of the original English word. So if royalty was strange to the Arabs, how could they have used a royal We?
Also, for your claim on classical Arabic, it was codified from the Hajiz texts and mostly used by the Bedouin tribes which implies that it had various forms and dialects. This is important to note because the Quran was originally written in different dialects, and the royal We was obviously used in all the different reductions. What this implies as well is that the language used today in the quran is totally different from the original dialects used for its writing. The question then still remains out of which of the dialects the royal We sprang from since Muhammad's tribe had no royalty. So your story about classical Arabic adds nothing to this discourse. It does not explain where the tradition of royal We appears from in Arabic language and where it has been used before and after the Quran in those times.

Dsimmer:
Says the one who champions the stupidity of a camel urine drinking Arab Pedophile lunatic criminal Mohammad. The irony.

Like I stated, if you want to champion the stupidity of a dumb camel urine drinking lunatic Pedophile Mohammad, then focus on the lunatic criminal lineage which is Ishmael's descendants. Stop using the Jewish history (Jacob and Jacob's descendants) which had nothing to do with the lunatic Mohammad who's Ishmael's descendant📌

Qasim6:
Sorry

Take good care of yourself.

Says the one who champions the stupidity of a camel urine drinking Arab Pedophile lunatic criminal Mohammad. The irony.

Like I stated, if you want to champion the stupidity of a dumb camel urine drinking lunatic Pedophile Mohammad, then focus on the lunatic criminal lineage which is Ishmael's descendants. Stop using the Jewish history (Jacob and Jacob's descendants) which had nothing to do with the lunatic Mohammad who's Ishmael's descendant📌

IslamVIRGINS:
Sorry about this, its really touches

Kukutente23:
It is not a problem if you seek to contend that Royal We has existed before it was codified by the English from Latin writings in the 12th century. All you have to do is to place it in history as to who used it before then and where. But it is obvious from all indications that the We in the Quran cannot be a royal We because there was no such thing as royalty in Mecca and the Southern Arabic Peninsula in the time of Muhammad. So how can they employ something that never existed in their culture? There are so many borrowed words and concept in different languages. Yorubas have no word for rice. They call it "iresi" which is an adaptation of the original English word. So if royalty was strange to the Arabs, how could they have used a royal We?
Also, for your claim on classical Arabic, it was codified from the Hajiz texts and mostly used by the Bedouin tribes which implies that it had various forms and dialects. This is important to note because the Quran was originally written in different dialects, and the royal We was obviously used in all the different reductions. What this implies as well is that the language used today in the quran is totally different from the original dialects used for its writing. The question then still remains out of which of the dialects the royal We sprang from since Muhammad's tribe had no royalty. So your story about classical Arabic adds nothing to this discourse. It does not explain where the tradition of royal We appears from in Arabic language and where it has been used before and after the Quran in those times.

Kukutente23:
You did not get my point. If Mary appeared with a child while unmarried, she is automatically an adulteress. Adultery is punishable by stoning to death in Mosaic laws. Muhammad made allowance for this by claiming in the quran that the baby spoke up for his mother by declaring himself a servant of "Allah" sent to carry out a message. In Muhammad's account, this scenario, prevented the stoning of Mary. But I am disputing that by telling you that the working of miracles does not stop Jews from carrying out the requirement of Moses' laws. I gave you an example of Jesus himself. The Jews killed him despite the many miracles he showed them. So it is totally unbelievable that they would have spared Mary and accepted her back into society just cause the fruit of her adultery spoke up. That idea does not correlate with the knowledge we have of Pharisees and Jews. They believed in the strict interpretation and implementation of Moses' laws and nothing ever stands in their way of implementing it, not even Jesus.

The miraculous birth of Mary is irrelevant. Her mother did not birth her out of wedlock. Mary and Elizabeth being relative does not automatically make Mary a Levite. Her father Joachim was reputed to be a rich man and Levites are not rich since they do not own properties.

No one is disputing the reuse of names in Jewish culture. What I am disputing is calling descendants brothers or sisters of their ancestors as is being claimed in the quran. There is no historical evidence to that ever happening.

Qasim6:
So was every case of adultery in the Bible punished by stoning?
At least It is in your Bible that David committed adultery and murder and I can't recall him been stoned.
There is another forged story about Jesus preventing the stoning of an adulteress.

The fact that Jesus spoke in cradle was the reason Mary was believed to not have committed adultery. If you find it unbelievable so be it.

What proof do you have that Mary's father's name was Joachim and not Imran? Because I believe that only appear in Gospel of James that you guys consider apocryphal and you also believe that was the source of the story of Mary and Jesus in the Qur'an.
Are u suggesting that while Prophet Muhammad was copying the gospel of James he did not notice that the name of Mary's father is Joachim and not Imran?

Qasim6:
Are u guys kindergarten pupils? For how long are we going to keep explaining to you guys? that kinda plural is a rhetoric in Arabic. Because u find it absurd in your language does not take away the fact that some languages used that.

I already gave you example of how Elohim a plural word was used for Moses, Hebrew language accommodate that, hence it was used that way.

Why exactly do you have a problem with its usage?

Kukutente23:
The name is already given. Why do you enjoy going back and forth on this? You quoted from same text earlier but you are making ridiculous arguments about it here. If you dispute the fact that some Islamic scholars claimed that the We in Quran stood for Allah and Jibreel his Angel, kindly come out and say so

Kukutente23:
No. Elohim is plural of god and it is used to refer to Moses not as a sign of royalty or respect but as a distinction between Moses and the gods of Egypt. The statement there is that "I have made you like a god unto Pharaoh..". Since Pharaoh had his own gods represented by his magician, Elohim is adopted to make a distinction between the God of Israel whom Moses represents and the gods of Egypt. I have explained this to you before. Elohim is an Hebrew word and is not borrowed.

Kukutente23:
Your attempt at normalizing the use of We in Arabic falls flat because Arabic existed as a language before Muhammad and there is no record of usage of such We to describe any royalty or majesty. Even in the quran and hadiths, there is no explanation for the use of "We" in referring to Allah. The explanation you're giving is simply an hypothesis put forward by scholars and there are other scholars with differing ideas about it like I showed you before.

Kukutente23:
One of the problems you face is that Muhammad summarily destroyed any historical article of his Arab tribes once he obtained power in the peninsula. So accounts of the pre-Islamic Arabia is obscure. That is why you are as confused as you are today.

Kukutente23:
In fact, if not for the presence of Jews, a lot of you never knew that Muhammad came in contact with a lot of Jews and Christians and was aware of their religious beliefs beofre he declared himself a prophet, copying straight from their religions

Kukutente23:
Let me quickly correct some ignorrance from you based on your very limited knowledge of Jewish history and culture.
David was a King. A King in biblical times is usually anointed as seen by Samuel anointing both Saul and David in his days and Nathan anointing Solomon as King. Now in Psalms, it is clearly written that "Touch not my anointed". In other words, the anointed one of God is not to be touched by the people even if they commit sin. It is for that reason that Miriam was stricken with leprosy for condemning Moses, Eli's sons were left untouched even when they offered profane sacrifices, David numbered the people and Kings led Israelites to idolatry but were never punished by the people because the general belief is that prophets, priests and Kings have immunity from Moses' laws. I hope that explains your misconception of why David was not punished for adultery by stoning.
In the case of Jesus and the harlot, Jesus did not prevent the men who were ready to stone her. He only told them to stone her if they were also without sin at which they ran away probably because they were her customers themselves and Moses' law required that both the male and female adulterers were to be stoned together. It is this awareness that made them leave the scene cause they couldn't stone her without carrying out same on themselves.
If you insist that Mary was exempted from the charge of adultery because baby Jesus spoke up, then it also implies that Jesus should have been exempted from the charge of blasphemy levied against him by the Jews since he performed many miracles in thier presence. Instead, the Jews accused Jesus of using Beelzebub to cast out demons in Matthew 12. You need to know that the Jews' grouse with Jesus was his rejection of their interpretation and practice of Moses' laws without any mercy or temperance. So it is not about being dogmatic. In every narration, you have to look at the historicity and the possible reasons. Swallowing anything told you just makes you a blind follower. Muhammad did not explain to anyone how Jews accepted Mary as an unmarried woman with child!! He simply waived it aside due to his ignorance.
I'm happy you are aware of the general conception that it was the gospel of James that Muhammad was influenced by in his narration of the life of Jesus and Mary. However, note that Muhammad did not read them himself. He only repeated the parts that are well known in oral renditions. You need to know that Jews give oral rendition of accounts and they sometimes differ based on the sect the teacher belongs to. What is obvious though is that Mary's father was not Imran. Whether you go with Luke's genealogy or James's, Imran was the father to Moses and Miriam and not Mary. If Mary's father's name was Imran, then the gospel of James would have registered it. The obvious thing is that Muhammad confused Miriam with Mary. That's why there is so much similarity between the two as it concerns the quran

Qasim6:
Why should I care for the reason a plural word was used for a singular Moses?

The fact is that it was used because the language allows that and for obvious reason the word is not translated into English as Gods.

So do you have records of it not been used pre-Islam? Or u have records of Muslims during the life time of the prophet been confused about its usage?

Why would there be explanation in Qur'an or Hadith when they knew what it meant and there are no scholar that believe or believed otherwise concerning it's usage, I am not sure u even read the copy and paste evidence you brought yesterday.

[/quote]Hogwash.



Another loads of hogwash.

Ohyoudidnt:
Well I can't see any named person giving this Fatwa unless salad of the early generations did.
This is vague and names no one in particular.
What was the agreed view and how is this related to when Allah resolved in relation to Allah referring himself in the singular in the Quran.

It should be pointed out that in pre-Islamic literature, and during the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, pronouns do not appear to have been used as indicative of status; they did not change with social status, and the plural of majesty, in particular, does not appear to have been used by, or for addressing or referring to, kings or chiefs. The Prophet and his early successors did not use it for themselves nor in their letters to address kings or governors. It was clearly in the Qur'an that such usage was introduced, as has been shown, on the basis of a highly sophisticated application of the concept of plurality.

Qasim6:
All I can see here is just too much talk and no ingredient.
You guys just want to talk from every side of your mouth.

When the Qur'an confirms the Biblical narratives.
---- He copied the Bible

When the Qur'an go against the Biblical narratives.
--- He made a mistake

When historical evidence proof the Qur'an narrative to be true and the biblical narrative to be false for the same event.
--- He must have heard it somewhere else.

Kukutente23:
It is not a problem if you seek to contend that Royal We has existed before it was codified by the English from Latin writings in the 12th century. All you have to do is to place it in history as to who used it before then and where. But it is obvious from all indications that the We in the Quran cannot be a royal We because there was no such thing as royalty in Mecca and the Southern Arabic Peninsula in the time of Muhammad. So how can they employ something that never existed in their culture? There are so many borrowed words and concept in different languages. Yorubas have no word for rice. They call it "iresi" which is an adaptation of the original English word. So if royalty was strange to the Arabs, how could they have used a royal We?
Also, for your claim on classical Arabic, it was codified from the Hajiz texts and mostly used by the Bedouin tribes which implies that it had various forms and dialects. This is important to note because the Quran was originally written in different dialects, and the royal We was obviously used in all the different reductions. What this implies as well is that the language used today in the quran is totally different from the original dialects used for its writing. The question then still remains out of which of the dialects the royal We sprang from since Muhammad's tribe had no royalty. So your story about classical Arabic adds nothing to this discourse. It does not explain where the tradition of royal We appears from in Arabic language and where it has been used before and after the Quran in those times.

Kukutente23:
Well, you are wrong. The language does not allow for that. In reality, it is like a grammatical blunder but the reason for it is well known. The reason for Allah's We is disputed because it is not known. It is not congruent with any other cultural usage of the word that is known in the pre-Islamic Arabia and you have to rely on English usage that is totally unrelated to attempt an explanation. Note that even the English royal we is grammatically inconsistent. But it is understood just as the Elohim usage is understood. That is the simple thing that we require from you guys on this thread. This is page 5 and nothing is forthcoming from you guys.




There is no such usage pre-Islam. The southern Arabian tribes of which Muhammad's Quraysh is one never had any royalty not to mention having a pronoun reserved for their royalty. The northern tribes who had Kings were never organized enough to have written texts and organization. How many things did his followers know or understand? Even the Miriam/Mary debacle was raised by the Jews not his followers. When he claimed that a child resembles who first achieved orgasm among his parents, none of his followers is known to have questioned him. Heck!! When he told them to drink camel urine, they did not question him. Questioning or doubting the prophet is viewed as unbelief not so?

AntiChristian:
Where did I say that O liar for Jesus?

Kukutente23:
You did not get my point. If Mary appeared with a child while unmarried, she is automatically an adulteress. Adultery is punishable by stoning to death in Mosaic laws. Muhammad made allowance for this by claiming in the quran that the baby spoke up for his mother by declaring himself a servant of "Allah" sent to carry out a message. In Muhammad's account, this scenario, prevented the stoning of Mary. But I am disputing that by telling you that the working of miracles does not stop Jews from carrying out the requirement of Moses' laws. I gave you an example of Jesus himself. The Jews killed him despite the many miracles he showed them. So it is totally unbelievable that they would have spared Mary and accepted her back into society just cause the fruit of her adultery spoke up. That idea does not correlate with the knowledge we have of Pharisees and Jews. They believed in the strict interpretation and implementation of Moses' laws and nothing ever stands in their way of implementing it, not even Jesus.

The miraculous birth of Mary is irrelevant. Her mother did not birth her out of wedlock. Mary and Elizabeth being relative does not automatically make Mary a Levite. Her father Joachim was reputed to be a rich man and Levites are not rich since they do not own properties.

No one is disputing the reuse of names in Jewish culture. What I am disputing is calling descendants brothers or sisters of their ancestors as is being claimed in the quran. There is no historical evidence to that ever happening.

Kukutente23:
Where does historical narrative prove the Quran narrative of Jewish history to be true? I challenge you to give just one example. Do you know why you guys are in conflict with Jews today, because they believe Muhammad was a fake prophet who came and distorted their history and books. You know nothing.
Again, nothing Muhammad wrote in his quran about Jewish narrative was unknown at the time he was born. There were Christians as well as Jews in Mecca. Even his uncle Waraqah was a Christian. Do you dispute these facts?

Qasim6:
The guy is a lunatic. I'm suprise you are associating with a lunatic.

Just take a look at his comments, he has been doing the copy and paste for years.

Or you both share the same ward?

Dsimmer:
Says the one championing the stupidity of a camel urine drinking Pedophile foreign Arab criminal Mohammad. The irony. You're wailing because I always whoop you with facts which you can't debunk. You can't do taqiya with me. Lol.

As a matter of fact, Mohammad plagiarized the Jewish history which he muddled up in Quran, even as the Jewish history had nothing to do with him to begin with, considering Jacob and Jacob descendants are not the ancestors of Mohammad. Mohammad is an Ishmael's descendant. But since he had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors, he had to write the Jewish history but then, why muddle up the names and events of the Jewish history which had nothing to do with him to begin with? Meanwhile, you can't even find the sequence of events in the Quran which is muddled up. It's only in the Bible that people can find the sequence of the Jewish history.

Meanwhile, Have your dumb self drank your own camel urine like the dumb camel urine drinking Arab Pedophile criminal Mohammad asked dumb people like him to drink camel urine?

Qasim6:

Na just this copy and paste every where
Sorry dear, u'll be okay.

Dsimmer:
Because you can't debunk my fact. You can't do taqiya with me with a foreign Arab religion 😅

I reiterate, Arab pedophile Mohammad had nothing to write about the exploits of his Arab ancestors (Ishmael's ancestors) hence the reason why he had to plagiarize the Jewish history which he muddled up in his Quran without sequence 😂 The camel urine drinking dumb Pedophile.

Btw, Have you drank your own camel urine today? 😅