Where does "allah" say...

[Montalban]

Now...directly address the ayah in question.

You seem to be confused over the onus of proof, and who has that burden.

You've not addressed any of my points. You've whined about people not engaging you in debate, and when they do you demand that they prove the opposite of what you claim

I simply have demonstrated to account for the 'missing' period. You maintain that it must be so as to connect a group of words with Jesus in the same sentence. You have not proven this, except to repeat your commitment that it just must be so.

I also rasied the issue about the change in person and you've ignored that.

 

[Montalban]

No.

That claim is never made.

Do you think it's inspired?

The authors just claim to have copied the previous divinely inspired Jewish and Christian scriptures...

For what purpose? Seems a bit like taking a black and white polaroid of the Mona Lisa and hanging that up in your house - a poor imitation.

 

[ApplePie7]

I simply have demonstrated to account for the 'missing' period.

Demonstrate this with an Arabic example...not Greek...

You maintain that it must be so as to connect a group of words with Jesus in the same sentence. You have not proven this, except to repeat your commitment that it just must be so.

We have shown verifiable references for our position.

You have shown nothing.

Now...you avoid the Arabic altogether...

I also rasied the issue about the change in person and you've ignored that.

So...you are feeling neglected...?

What is your question?

 

[ApplePie7]

Do you think it's inspired?

No.

Do you?

For what purpose? Seems a bit like taking a black and white polaroid of the Mona Lisa and hanging that up in your house - a poor imitation.

It appears to have a two-fold purpose.

To deliver a Christian message to the learned that Jesus Christ was crucified until death upon the cross; was singularly resurrected, will return on a cloud, will redeem His Elect, and directs the readers attention to its source, the Holy Bible.

Secondly, it also portrays "allah" as the Devil in sheeps clothing.

 

[Montalban]

Demonstrate this with an Arabic example...not Greek...

Where did I demonstrate with Greek?

We have shown verifiable references for our position.

You have shown nothing.

You've shown what?

Now...you avoid the Arabic altogether...

What do you mean 'now'? I've never used Arabic. I don't speak Arabic. I raise an issue about missing periods and you've demanded that I demonstrate this, when it's actually up to you the so-called Arabic expert to say something like "That's not the case in Arabic" or something like that. I don't know Arabic. I'm simply saying "Perhaps they did it this way". You don't say "No that's not the case because they never used period markers" or "They had a clear way of indicting where the period was and it matches where I say it should go".

All you do is demand that I prove a point when all I'm doing is discussing options.

I've raised the issue of the person used in the Koran, and you still have avoided that, now demand that I state the question. That's too weird.

So...you are feeling neglected...?

What is your question?

Do you have problems with English? I've re-stated another issue here for your benefit.

You seem to have problems with 'time' as you say 'now' I avoid Arabic when I've not used it. And with Greek, as I've not used it.

 

[Montalban]

No.

Do you?

No.

It appears to have a two-fold purpose.

To deliver a Christian message to the learned that Jesus Christ was crucified until death upon the cross; was singularly resurrected, will return on a cloud, will redeem His Elect, and directs the readers attention to its source, the Holy Bible.

Secondly, it also portrays "allah" as the Devil in sheeps clothing.

So some group not inspired by Christ wanted to deliver a Christian message? You have some odd ideas.

 

[ApplePie7]

Where did I demonstrate with Greek?

From your NT example...

You've shown what?

The rational for our position...

What do you mean 'now'? I've never used Arabic. I don't speak Arabic.

No kidding...

I raise an issue about missing periods and you've demanded that I demonstrate this,

We don't demand anything...you reply because you want to...

when it's actually up to you the so-called Arabic expert to say something like "That's not the case in Arabic" or something like that.

Done.

Did you read this thread through before feeling neglected..?

I don't know Arabic.

No kidding...

I'm simply saying "Perhaps they did it this way".

Then be prepared to show us why...don't run away...

 

[ApplePie7]

So some group not inspired by Christ wanted to deliver a Christian message? You have some odd ideas.

Since you repeatedly claim Arabic ignorance...how odd is it...?

 

[elwill]

So it's not about differences in grammer. I can write the word lieutenant and an American will pronounce it loo-ten-ant and I will pronounce it lef-ten-ant. The differences in pronouciation have nothing to do with grammar. Grammar is in the end about the structure of sentences

first of all , i wanna for you to try to distinct between grammer and dialect
the differs in dialect may be happens with the same word
i mean that for example of talban word it written as طالب so yemen may be read it talban and qurishi read the same word by taleb
so , the word , dialects in different way

grammar in arabic not about just the structure of sentence , let me remind you by the allah example which may be you pronounce it as allaho or allahi or allaha although all of them is written in the same letters الله

so the pronounce of the word differ according to the grammar
let me give an example from verse from quran , the blue letters isn't exist in the arabic letters , it's just pronounced by this way in arabic according to position of this word in this sentence

Akana lilnnasi AAajaban an awhayna ila rajulin minhum an anthiri alnnasa wabashshiri allatheena amanoo anna lahum qadama sidqin Ainda rabbihim qala al[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]oona inna hatha lasahirun mubeenun

so these blue letters , you can find it just in the pronouncing of verses , if you have simple knowldge in reading arabic you will read it without these blue letters , but the grammer teach you when and why you pronounce the word by these additions

You've not shown why one form of Arabic is more proper, other than it is; because one was adopted by the majority after the Koran was kept in that lanuage above the others... so it was chosen because it was chosen. You said yourself grammar hadn't been set down.

it wasn't like you imagine


During the period of the Caliph Uthman, Islam spread to many areas. The Muslims who were not Arabs, couldn't read the Qur'an as it should have been read. They changed the meanings of the verses, and many variant readings sprung out, because the people were ignorant of Arabic.

Old Arabic was written as lines, and now one can distinguish such and such alphabets easily by marks(part of the grammer) . But this was not the case in older times. That's why, the Caliph Uthman immediately told a committee of scribes to write the Qur'an in the dialect of the Quraysh, because that was how the Qur'an was revealed. When the scribes had prepared many copies from the one which Abu Bakr (ra) had compiled, each copy was sent to each city under Muslim rule. Other copies which were not from Uthman were burned. Then, from the standard copies, more copies were made and this time there were also teachers of the people to teach them how to recite the Qur'an.

 

[ApplePie7]

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect.

Brother Elwill,

Could you please provide us the Koranic ayah(s) which state that the Koran was "revealed" to someone named "Muhammad".

Most Muslims puts this out there, but, when pressed to show where it comes from, they, themselves are unable to produce a single solitary Koranic verse.

Can we chalk this up as yet another islamic myth?

 

[dnihila]

If this is the case, then where in all of the Koran is anything like the following written…


“I, Muhammad, wrote this here Koran”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, dictated this here Koran”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, was inspired by an angel”

Or…

“I, Muhammad, was divinely inspired”
Allah/God is the Only One who can say I cause He is the Creator of everything.
And do you think that Allah/God will choose an arrogant person to be a prophet and a messenger.Don't you remember the reason why the devil was dismissed from heaven, it was his arrogance of not obeying Allah/God to bow down to a creature made of dust.
If the prophet is chosen by allah/God, he must be humble and have you ever heard that prophet Muhammed( peace be upon him ) was a king Or at least wealthy? He died and his spear was mortgaged with a Jewish trader.
read the following in red to see how arrogant was the devil saying I and by the way he ( the devil) was not the only one who was created from fire, all the jin were:
Surah 18. The Cave

50. Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!
Surah 7. The Heights


11. It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down.
12. ((Allah)) said: "What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay."
13. ((Allah)) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)."
14. He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up."
15. ((Allah)) said: "Be thou among those who have respite."
16. He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:
17. "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)."
18. ((Allah)) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.
19. "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
20. Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever."
21. And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.
22. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"
23. They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."
24. ((Allah)) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood,- for a time."
25. He said: "Therein shall ye live, and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be taken out (at last)."
26. O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness,- that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition!
27. O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith. 28. When they do aught that is shameful, they say: "We found our fathers doing so"; and "(Allah) commanded us thus": Say: "Nay, Allah never commands what is shameful: do ye say of Allah what ye know not?"

Fact is, the Koran never once mentions who wrote the text, or that it was divinely inspired.

It was not written cause our prophet can't read and can't write and this Holy Book ( the Quran ) was inspired.



What it does claim, however, is that it merely copied and translated the previous inspired Jewish and Christian scriptures into Arabic.

Oh. So as long as it is an Arabic translation from Judasim and Christianity then you for sure must believe in it, right? And we just came back to the first point of saying that the three Holy religions are the same but the only difference is that the Holy Quran was not corrupted and won't be Insha Allah cause allah promised us that He will keep the Holy Book save from corruption.

You may need also to read the following:
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/47.htm

Surah 47. Muhammad


1. Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah,- their deeds will Allah render astray (from their mark). 2. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

Thank You Allah/God for giving me the faith and for everything.

 

[beamishboy]

[/u]

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/47.htm

Surah 47. Muhammad


1. Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah,- their deeds will Allah render astray (from their mark). 2. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

Thank You Allah/God for giving me the faith and for everything.

If I may ask respectfully, in a practical sense when you look at the real world, what ills of Muslims has Allah removed or what conditions of theirs has Allah improved that will show you that that Surah is true and prophetic?

 

[ApplePie7]

It was not written cause our prophet can't read and can't write and this Holy Book ( the Quran ) was inspired.

Wrong.

It was not written that "Muhammad" had anything at all to do with the text because he didn't...and it was not inspired.

Pure and simple.

This is islamic myth.

Surah 47. Muhammad


1. Those who reject Allah and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah,- their deeds will Allah render astray (from their mark). 2. But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

Thank You Allah/God for giving me the faith and for everything.

Observe...

والذين ءامنوا وعملوا الصلحت وءامنوا بما نزل


على محمد وهو الحق من ربهم كفر عنهم


سيءاتهم وأصلح بالهم​

Waallatheena amanoo waAAamiloo alssalihati waamanoo bima nuzzila AAala muhammadin wahuwa alhaqqu min rabbihim kaffara AAanhum sayyi-atihim waaslaha balahum

47.2 And whom they believed and they did the righteous deeds, and they believed on account of that which was sent down according to (the) Praised One, and He, The Truth, from their Lord, to forgive them of their evil, thou pay, and He did that which was good, right, or just (in) their heart.


How is it that "Muhammad" is called "The Truth" same as Jesus Christ?

How is it that "Muhammad" has the power to forgive sins?


Is "Muhammad" a God-man?

 

[Montalban]

Since you repeatedly claim Arabic ignorance...how odd is it...?

What a laugh! It's nothing to do with the Arabic language, but logic.

You claim some Chrisitan group decided to spread Christianity using a non-inspired work.

It's illogical.

You've been caught out!

 

[Montalban]

From your NT example...

I didn't cite Greek though. I cited English. Perhaps you can't tell the two apart?

No kidding...

How am I kidding when not only have I always freely admitted it I don't give you an argument from Arabic. I mean, you're crying about no one debating you and you raise such 'points' that were never an issue. What are you going to cry about next?

We don't demand anything...you reply because you want to...

Who's 'we'?

Done.

Did you read this thread through before feeling neglected..?

That's just your aggression. You cry about people not responding, and Elwill had done so. I did so too. I point this out and you simply project your falsehood back as this arrogance.

No kidding...




Then be prepared to show us why...don't run away...

Well if you want to advertise you can't debate this, then that's entirely up to you.

I know beamishboy is much impressed.

You still haven't shown why the 'royal we' was not in use.

It's up to you to discuss this. I've been trying to for some time.

 

[Montalban]

If I may ask respectfully, in a practical sense when you look at the real world, what ills of Muslims has Allah removed or what conditions of theirs has Allah improved that will show you that that Surah is true and prophetic?

Why don't you see if you can get your mate to answer any of my questions.

 

[ApplePie7]

So a verse might read
(Matthew 10:29-30)
ARE NOT TWO SPARROWS SOLD FOR A PENNY YET NOT ONE OF THEM WILL FALL TO THE GROUND APART FROM THE WILL OF YOUR FATHER AND EVEN THE HAIRS OF YOUR HEAD ARE NUMBERED
(if in fact spacing existed, I don't know if it did)

Now simply because a period doesn’t exist between FATHER and AND doesn’t mean that a person reading this would not know that it is in fact a point to stop as one does at the end of a sentence. Unless you're to argue that scholars arbitrarily split these up into sentences.

This is quintessential reason why you need to study the original languages of scripture.

The Holy Bible was not written in English.

The Koran was not written in English.

When you fail to study the original languages, you are missing out on a much deeper insight than what the popular English renderings can provide to you.

Your example was originally written in Greek, as thus…

ουχι δυο στρουθια ασσαριου πωλειται και εν εξ αυτων ου πεσειται επι την γην ανευ του πατρος υμων υμων δε και αι τριχες της κεφαλης πασαι ηριθμημεναι εισιν

Observe that the Greek shows us a clear and distinct separation via the usage of the second person, personal pronoun, genitive plural “humon” - which has been written not once, but twice.

Each word juxtaposed.

“Humon”, being in the genitive, shows possession that “you” have…and is rendered as “your” in these verses.

Just as it refers to “your” Father in Mathew 10.29; it likewise refers to the hairs of “your” head…not the hairs of your father.

Thus, your example is one from complete ignorance of Biblical Greek.


Moreover, you already pleaded complete and utter ignorance of Arabic…thus, how is it that you can ever hope of pleading your case for a “period” if all you understand is English?

You have nothing.

 

[Montalban]

This is quintessential reason why you need to study the original languages of scripture.

The Holy Bible was not written in English.

You mean it was not originally written in English. It is written in English. It was written in English. And, God grant us many years we'll see where it continues to be written in English.

The Koran was not written in English.

I never made that claim either

When you fail to study the original languages, you are missing out on a much deeper insight than what the popular English renderings can provide to you.

Such as?

Your example was originally written in Greek, as thus…

ουχι δυο στρουθια ασσαριου πωλειται και εν εξ αυτων ου πεσειται επι την γην ανευ του πατρος υμων υμων δε και αι τριχες της κεφαλης πασαι ηριθμημεναι εισιν

Observe that the Greek shows us a clear and distinct separation via the usage of the second person, personal pronoun, genitive plural “humon” - which has been written not once, but twice.

Each word juxtaposed.

“Humon”, being in the genitive, shows possession that “you” have…and is rendered as “your” in these verses.

Just as it refers to “your” Father in Mathew 10.29; it likewise refers to the hairs of “your” head…not the hairs of your father.

Thus, your example is one from complete ignorance of Biblical Greek.

Where does it say in the original Greek where the period should go? Does it in English?

Moreover, you already pleaded complete and utter ignorance of Arabic…thus, how is it that you can ever hope of pleading your case for a “period” if all you understand is English?

You've yet to show that a period would not be known to those reading it in the original Arabic.

In essence your whole reply is one of missing the point.

I ask you to show where they would not know this in the orignal Arabic. Your reply is to ignore that at first, crow about a point that's already accepted by us both - that I don't read Arabic. You choose to raise this a couple more times snidely. I give an example of how two verses were written in English NOT GREEK and in English they followed the same example of running whole verses without the period. I can readily concede that this was a bad example, I just arbitrarily picked any two verses from the Bible to demonstrate how it was written, when they did not put separators in it. You've still not shown that in the case of the Koran a person would make a mistake based on them not knowing which case one word refers to.

The Arabic speakers here all disagree with your version. And your version is inexorably tied to your own disproven ideas that the Koran was written by Christians. For you, it seems that this separation must be along the lines you believe because it must refer to Jesus, because of the aximoatic stance you've made on who wrote the Koran.

You have nothing.

You've still also yet to show that the royal we does not exist in Arabic, and in fact you gave an example that would suggest that it did. I'm not saying it does, that's never my case. I'm not making the case either that Arabs would know where a period would exist, simply questioning your presumptions made in both cases.

And in reply you avoid one altogether and snidely argue that I just wouldn't understand it without understanding Arabic. That's false too, I can 'understand' the grammar of a language by for instance knowing word order in a language, even if I can't speak it. People study linguistics all the time without having to learn dozens of languages to do so.

You've offered nothing but just-so statements, evasion and derision. You have not shown why a Christian group would use a book we both acknowledge is not divinely inspired either.

You whinge about people not debating you, well you give so much evasion it's no small wonder why most people have got fed up with you.

I'm still here though. I'd like some answers.

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

What a laugh! It's nothing to do with the Arabic language, but logic.

You claim some Chrisitan group decided to spread Christianity using a non-inspired work.

It's illogical.

You've been caught out!

 

[Montalban]

ApplePie7 has invited people here to discuss him.

I humbly admit that I don't understand Arabic.

He says that their Koran has their god speaking in first person plural. That is, he's saying "We did this, and we did that" etc.

Not knowing Arabic I asked if they don't have a 'royal we' in Arabic.

In point of face he seems to suggest that they do because he cited some verses that, when Al-lah is supposed to be speaking it's as 'we', but when people speak to him it's 'you' (singular). He ignores this.

He replies not by addressing what I asked but deriding me for not knowing Arabic. I can keep admitting this as it's true. However he keeps reminding me, when it's not an issue of contention - except the way he's using this 'fact'. And all the while he does not address the point I made.

At the same time he cries no one is debating him.

He also makes a claim that a passage in the Koran has been misrepresented because two words exist to refer to Jesus, whereas in the Koran they place the period between these words and Jesus, separating them.

He also has an amazing theory that Christians, rather than use the Bible, which is divinely inspired preferred to make up a non-inspired book to spread Christianity by taking the straight-forward message of the Bible and changing it to a highly metaphorical one which also states that Christians believe that Mary was part of the Trinity!