Jesus Will Return - Site

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 11 May 2010 at 4:11pm

Prophet Muhammad's proof was simply the Quran.He was given no other proofs of his Prophethood.And he cudn't have possibly shown anything in the previous scriptures regarding his arrival becoz he simply didnot know anything in the previous scriptures.The below verses refutes your claim.

[4:79] Anything good that happens to you is from GOD, and anything bad that happens to you is from you. We have sent you as a messenger to the people,* and GOD suffices as witness.

*4:79 Muhammad was not given any proof of prophethood. Hence the expression "God suffices as a witness".

Quran: Muhammad's Miracle*

[29:48] You did not read the previous scriptures, nor did you write them with your hand. In that case, the rejectors would have had reason to harbor doubts.

How was the Quran a proof of Muhammad if he did not even know how it was miraculous? You are uttering some of the most nonsensical statements I have ever heard!

If he was a prophet, he would have made prophecies. Otherwise, he would not be a prophet. And since he was a messenger, he had to be a prophet as well.

By the way, the Quran says to the people of the book of Muhammad's time to look in their books for signs pointing to his arrival. Even RK says this:

"follow the messenger, the gentile prophet (Muhammad), whom they find written in their Torah and Gospel. He exhorts them to be righteous, enjoins them from evil, allows for them all good food, and prohibits that which is bad, and unloads the burdens and the shackles imposed upon them. Those who believe in him, respect him, support him, and follow the light that came with him are the successful ones."" 7:157

Another example of how the "messenger of God" was inconsistent.

The Quran does point out to the advent of God's messenger of the covenant.Surah 3: 81 clearly provides the definition of a messenger and a Prophet.Prophets are given the book and wisdom so there you have the definition of a Prophet.A messenger comes to confirm the scripture and so there uve the definition of a messenger.These are the correct definitions of a Prophet and a messenger.YOuve simply made up your own interpretations of a messenger and a Prophet which simply is not how the Quran defines them.Surah 33:77 shows that the covenant in 3:81 includes Prophet Muhammad.There have been claims by some that the covenant in 33:77 is a different one.However,if u look at the beginning of the verse it says "Recall" and the only other covenant taken from Prophets by GOD that u can see in the Quran is in 3:81.Rashad Khalifa proved the authenticity of and confirmed the Quran therefore he was God's messenger of the covenant as prophecised in 3:81.

You sound like a pouting child who just wants to repeat the same nonsense over and over again. I already refuted your bogus claim regarding 3:81.

What a shock that God did not mention the "messenger" who would ultimately reveal the great miracle contained in the Quran! Shocked

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Quote islamispeace

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 11 May 2010 at 4:30pm

Yeah if u take it totally out of context.

There is nothing in the context that would suggest death. Actually, the context would suggest that Jesus was in danger and thus in need of God's protection and help. To say that this suggests that he died is simply a non-sequitur.

There is no nonsense in this.Nonsense is thinking that GOD would reveal a mathematical code to the Prophet and his people when actually there were no proper numbering system during his tym.

That is why encoding the Quran with a numerical miracle does not make any sense. The Arabs were master poets and that is why the Quran was a miracle, as these Arabs could not imitate it.

Prophet Muhammad made no challenges it was GOD who made the challenge in the Quran.And its not just verse 52:34,you should also ask what Muhammad was thinking when GOD revealed the mysterious initials in 29chapters,when GOD spelled Mecca as Becca in the Quran,when GOD chose not to put Bismillah in Surah 9 while he put it in the beginning of all the other Surahs.Where are your answers to these questions??Why are the scholars clueless on many of these questions??Why isnt there any clear records of the Prophet's interpretations on these ??Are u saying GOD put those in the Quran for just the sake of it??

But Muhammad (pbuh) recited those verses to the unbelievers. If he was unaware of the code, than he would have been clueless as to what the challenge actually was.

The meanings of the initials have been conjectured upon, but their ultimate meaning is left to God. Obviously, they were not meant to be clear.

The word in 13:1 is "ayat" which does not mean "letters" but "verses". This is another example of Khalifa altering the meaning to fit his own views.

Your own Hadiths say the following :)

"This was apparently the view of the four Right-Guided Caliphs summarized in these words of Abu Bakr: "In every divine writ (kitab) there is [an element of] mystery ? and the mystery of the Qur'an is [indicated] in the openings of [some of] the surahs."

First of all, where is your reference? Which hadith is this? Also, according to Ibn Kathir (commentary of 2:1):

"The individual letters in the beginning of some Surahs are among those things whose knowledge Allah has kept only for Himself. This was reported from Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, `Ali and Ibn Mas`ud. It was said that these letters are the names of some of the Surahs. It was also said that they are the beginnings that Allah chose to start the Surahs of the Qur'an with. Khasif stated that Mujahid said, "The beginnings of the Surahs, such as Qaf, Sad, Ta Sin Mim and Alif Lam Ra, are just some letters of the alphabet.'' Some linguists also stated that they are letters of the alphabet and that Allah simply did not cite the entire alphabet of twenty-eight letters. For instance, they said, one might say, "My son recites Alif, Ba, Ta, Tha... '' he means the entire alphabet although he stops before mentioning the rest of it. This opinion was mentioned by Ibn Jarir."

They agreed that there was some mystery in the letters, but to say that it is referring to a code is a leap of faith and a non-sequitur.

This mystery was solved through GOD's messenger of the covenant.

...who was not even mentioned in the Quran. What a shock.

The common belief so far was that it was the literary excellence of the Quran that was the challenge.However many like Taha hussein have claimed to have made Surahs similar to those in the Quran.So clearly the challenge is the math in the Quran.God reveals what he chooses to whomever he pleases and only teaches what he chooses to teach.Its as simple as that.

They can claim it, but is it true? Every time a comparison is made between the Quran and the alleged "imitators", the imitators are shown to be inferior to the Quran. The Quran's literary excellence was its miracle, which makes sense as the Arabs were masters at linguistics and poetry, not mathematics.

Concerning 10:20, it is yet another mistranslation. The key word is "Ghaib", which means the "unseen" not the "future".

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 May 2010 at 5:41am

Wrong, I said "some translations" are unclear and ambiguous". Way to twist my words. This is typical.

Well.. i think u actually called atleast 6 out of 9 translations you presented initially as unclear and ambiguous and thats not "some" to me.Besides that, you were forced to admit that they are unclear and ambiguous only becoz you couldnt provide a logical explanation as to why jesus would be a witness against the POB when all of them would eventually believe in him.You simply came up with your own interpretation of the translations in a desperate attempt to make sense to them.And as if to cover up the exposure of the nonsense in these translations, you then decided to divert the topic of discussion here from Jesus's return to Rashad's messengership and the math miracle.

MY QUESTION

Several translators seem to follow this understanding and their translations say something to the effect that "everyone from the People of the Book will (certainly) believe in him ...". ". However, why would Jesus be a "witness against them" when they believe in him? Should he not be a witness against those who do NOT believe in him?

YOUR ANSWER

Yes, some translations are unclear or ambiguous. What the ayat is actually saying is that Jesus will be a witness of what actually happened on the day of the crucifixion, and since the majority of the people of the book believe that he was killed,he shall be a witness against them.

And when most of the translations were exposed as "unclear or ambiguous",you picked up a few other translations which does not contain "will or shall believe" but "must believe" and came up with a different interpretation.

I disagree. Let's look at some of the most well-known translations [my comments in bold]:

Yusuf Ali: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment

he will be a witness against them;- [this says plainly that the people of the book must believe in Jesus, and if they don't, he will be a witness against them]

Those translations are indeed much more reputable than the virtual rewrite of RK. That is why is he rightfully rejected as a heretic. He purposefully tried to alter the meanings of various verses to fit his own views.

Much more reputable???On what basis??majority opinion??Or becoz they all some how validate centuries old hearsays??.One would only require the words " Wa-in min and "illalayu/minanna" from the verse to understand that the translators have clearly mistranslated the verse.The word"illalayu/minanna" as correctly pointed out by one of the forum members(seeks hidayath) is in imperfect tense.

The imperfect tense is a simple (i.e. a single word) past tense for describing repeated actions in the past or conditions that last for an indefinite time or for descriptions in the past.

In English specifically, the equivalent tense is the continuous past or the structure used to.... Here are some examples of the tense in English:

I was listening to some music.
My parents were watching television.
I used to play football when I was younger.
The weather was beautiful, the sun was shining, the birds were singing.
The imperfect is used to describe many different things in the past such as:

your age (when I was 12)
the weather (it was raining)
describing a scene (It was a cold and dark night)
what you were doing ( I was eating when)
what you used to do ( I used to go there all the time)
what time it was (It was 5:00 when.......)
what somebody looked like (he was short and mean looking)

So from the definitions and the examples given above it is quite easy for anyone to see that the translations done by the majority refering to something in the future is nothing but false.

[4:159] Everyone among the people of the scripture was required to believe in him before his death. On the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

Edited by haris30432 - 13 May 2010 at 3:46am

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 May 2010 at 5:54am

Yeah, it shows that RK's claim is a simple revisionist attempt, as the traditional view is that the verse is talking about the future.

Yeah but to many now it seems as RK's translation clearly exposes how the traditional interpretation of the Quran has nothing to do with the Quran itself but with heresays and stories written down hundreds of years after the Prophet's departure.

What happened to the body then?

How is that any relevant?? What do u think normally happens to a dead body??

Perhaps because He had more planned for Jesus. He chose him to be the Messiah. But, even then, he will be a follower of Muhammad (pbuh).

Ah guess work! Now thats typical!

Edited by haris30432 - 13 May 2010 at 5:09am

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 May 2010 at 6:22am

You wrote the below.

Again, you are only speculating. It is perfectly possible that some people would still refuse to believe in him.

Well your conclusions contradicts most of the translations you presented coz they say "EVERYONE" WILL BELIEVE meaning no one will be left amoung the POB who wouldnt believe in him after Jesus returns.The contradiction in these translations are very clear to those who are not blinded by the idolization of scholars ,hearsays and stories.

Pickthall: There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -

Shakir: And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

Arberry: There is not one of the People of the Book but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them.

Bewley: There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them.

Palmer: And there shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death; and on the day of judgment he shall be a witness against them.

Sale: And there shall not be one of those who have received the scriptures, who shall not believe in him, before his death; and on the day of resurrection he shall be a witness against them.

Edited by haris30432 - 13 May 2010 at 1:47am

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 May 2010 at 11:59am

Listen to you! Ego? Where is the ego of the person who claims to be a messenger of God who had to finish the job of the greatest messenger, Muhammad (pbuh)? Now that is an egotistical person.

Your statement shows not just ur EGO but also your ignorance as well.RK was not sent to finish any unfinished business of Prophet Muhammad.His mission was something different which ofcourse you have not studied at all.And with the atittude that u are displaying im pretty much sure you wouldnt be interested or even understand it.And so i dont wish to elaborate this matter here at this point and waste my precious time.

You have further displayed your EGO ,ignorance and disobedience to GOD by calling Prophet Muhammad the greatest messenger of GOD when GOD clearly commands believers not to make any distinction amoung the messengers of GOD(2:136,2:285,3:84,4:150,152).God alone has the right to give ranks to his messengers not his servants.

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 May 2010 at 12:14pm

Sure, is that why he claimed that Satan had inserted verses into the Quran, even though God says in the Quran that He would protect it from corruption (Al-Hijr: 9)?

Is that why he translated Al-Baqarah:30 in the following way:

Recall that your Lord said to the angels, "I am placing a representative (a temporary god) on Earth." They said, "Will You place therein one who will spread evil therein and shed blood, while we sing Your praises, glorify You, and uphold Your absolute authority?" He said, "I know what you do not know."

Since you have bothered to research some of RK's material ,i would also advice you to take the same enthusiasm and interest in finding the reasons to why the above was preached by RK.Over 70 reasons atleast hav been presented as proofs to support the exclusion of the false verses which also includes non mathematical ones.As for the temporary GOD thing, reasons for that also have been included in the appendices of RK's translation and is also easily available for verification online.

ONE GOD ONE SOURCE OF LAW!

haris30432 View Drop Down

Senior Member

Male
Joined: 23 January 2010
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 145

Post Options