Sunday, June 23, 2013

Quran on previous scriptures.

Are the old and new testament corrupted? and what is the nature of that corruption ?is it tahreef -Lafthi ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) or false Interpretations or both?

There is no reference to the Bible in the Quran whatsoever. The Quran mentions the Taurat and the Injil .

The Taurat is the book given to prophet Moses. This the equivalent of the Torah/Pentateuch of the Jews and Christians, since much of it was not written by prophet Moses. And the Taurat is definitely not the Old Testament since the OT includes dozens of books attributed to other prophets before Jesus.
  • TORAH - "We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).
  • The Taurah of today,tells us " and moses died when..."
    - "We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).
The Psalms of today, there many Prayers from people who are not David! That proves the Psalms of today are corrupt since they have words of other men.

The Injil is translated as the Gospel revealed to prophet Jesus. The Gospel given to Jesus, NOT Matthew, Luke or John.

It is not that the Christians have changed the original, but rather they have the wrong book, altogether.

"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Taurah and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (The Noble Quran, 7:157)"

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment be tween right and wrong). (The Noble Quran, 3:3)"

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it,
and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute
; (The Noble Quran, 5:48)"

"That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the Truth,- confirming what was (revealed) before it: for God is assuredly- with respect to His Servants - well acquainted and Fully Observant. (The Noble Quran, 35:31)"

The previous scriptures, according to the Quran, are partially corrupted:

We can get such fact through both direct accusation and inference :

1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

Jesus was crucified ,according to the bible yet wasn't crucified ,according to the Quran etc.... a huge list of such disagreements between both the books showing the Quran affirms a biblical corruption....

Is there a rational person who would believe that Mohamed believed that Jesus wasn't crucified ,and believed that the new testament is FULLY the word of God ?!!!!

2- Though I think the previous inference should be, and alone, a proof of a Quranic accusation of biblical tampering,yet the Quran talks even directly and accuses the human tampering with the word of God in several ways:

1- attacking the false claims of inspiration:

Holy Quran :

6:21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God.

6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

[003:078] Among them(the Jews) are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.

[002:079] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

In that category we can include Paul who claimed to be inspired 1 Thessalonians 2:13when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men

also the writer of 2 Peter 1:21...

not only with the bible ,the verse could be applied safely with any human being who falsely claimed to be inspired ..

eg; The mormon founder ,the Qadiany sect and their founder who claimed in his book to be receiving inspiration,also the radical Sufi sects and their claims of divine inspiration ...... etc etc etc..

2- Attacking the textual corruption ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) :

[002:075] Do you ( believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish religious figures) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it .

the previous verse could be applied to the textual corruption and the interpretation(comes later) as well..

[004:046] Of the Jews there are some who pervert words from their times and places; and say, we have heard, and have disobeyed.

but the Jews referred to are those Jews living the time of Muhammad or ?

[005:013] But because of their breach of their covenant(the Jews before Islam), We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.

3- attacking false interpretations:

What is that, changing the words from their right times and places? it is to misquote, misinterpret, twist, distort, pervert, misapply , and concoct an existing text..

It is the third category of corruption after 1-providing a text from nowhere divine ,2-altering,adding,omitting the text.

Related topics:

Verses Deleted In Modern Bible Versions

Development of the Christian biblical canon

Canons of various Christian traditions

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Was Jesus God, a son of god , a man, a servant,or a prophet ?

Was Jesus God, a son of god , a man, a servant,or a prophet ?

1) Was Jesus a servant ?

Yes, the Bible says that :
1 ) "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18)
2) "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath glorified his servant Jesus." (Acts 3:13(RSV)
3) "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hast anointed...." ( Acts 4:27(RSV)
The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob (Israel) in Luke 1:54 and translated as "servant "(( Can any father call his son "servant " . Can a servant equal his master ? .Who is supreme in rank ? Who orders who and who obeys who ? ))

2) Was Jesus a man or a son of man?

Yes, the Bible says that :
1)ye men of Israel , hear these word; Jesus of Nazareth, was a MAN approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and signs.(Acts 2:22)
2) the son of MAN came eating and drinking. (Matthew 11:19)
3)  this MAN is really the prophet. (John 7:40)
3) Now ye seek to kill me, a MAN that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God .(John 8:40 KJV)
4) “…so will the son of man be…” Matthew 12:40
5) “For the son of man is going to come…” Matthew 16:27
6) “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 28
7) “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority…” Mark 2:10
       “…because He is the son of man.” John 5:27
9) “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.” (Acts 2:22)
10) “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed” Acts 17:31
(( Jesus testified himself that he is " a man" why didn`t he clearly and openly say: "Now you seek to kill me, God incarnate, who has told you the truth." Is it possible that he was hiding the truth? He denied any divinity to himself .Can a man be god ? The bible says strongly : “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” Numbers 23:19 . ))

3) Was Jesus a prophet or a messenger ?

Yes, the Bible says that :
These are just some of the many Biblical verses which point out that Jesus was a prophet and a messenger of the one true God :
1) this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. (Matthew 21:11)
2)  Jesus said, "A prophet is never accepted in his home town." (Luke 4:24)
3)  I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than
the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
4)  Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the word. (John 24:19)
5) "'What things?' he asked. 'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.'" (Luke 24:19)

4) Was Jesus a god or a son of god ?

Jesus never said he is a god or a son of god Let us see what Jesus himself said :
1) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49)
2) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.(John 5:30)
3) Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" ((and this was the message of all prophets sent by Allah from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them all ) "There is no God but God" and if Jesus (peace be upon him) was a god or a son of god he would declare that strongly ))
4) My father is greater than I (Jesus) (John 14:28)
5) My father, who gave them to me, is greater than all. (John 10:29)
6) What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God,who sent me. (John 5:30) ((In these verses Jesus (peace be upon him) declares his complete submission and surrender to the will of our unique God and didn't impute any power or any strength to himself and that was the matter of all prophets before him ))
7) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10:18) ((Jesus refused to be called "good" although we humanbeings describe ourselves "good" and this was the top of humbleness of Juses. Jesus emphatically corrects any notion that he was God; he does not like to be called even good, as genuine goodness is a quality of God alone. If Jesus were God, his words do not make sense; because, it does not befit God to humble Himself before His creatures.Then we don't believe that he claimed or accepted to be god or a son of god ))

8) No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come neither the angels in heaven, nor the son; only the Father Knows. (mark 13:32) (( If he was god he should have known the time of that day but he said the truth and that does not belittle of his rank as one of the greatest prophets that God sent to the human beings . In fact a sincere seeker of the truth should accept what Jesus says about himself and not make Him God or the equal of God!))

9) *Anyone who says something against the son of man can be forgiven, but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven-now or ever.(Matthew 12:32)
10) I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17) (( Then The father is the father of Jesus and all people ))
11) Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and him only.'" (Matthew 4:10)
12) "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him." (Mark 12:32)
13) "The Lord our God is Lord alone! Therefore, you shall adore the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Mark 12:29-30)

5) Was Jesus the only one who was called the son of God in the Bible ?

No,the Bible doesn't say that :
1) Adam is the son of God. (Luke 3:38)
2) Israel is my first-born son.(Exodus 4:22)
3) The Lord has said unto me, thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7,KJM).
,4) David is another begotten Son
  *Blessed are the peacemaker, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)

((Tracing this title : son of God" in the Bible, we can find many "sons of God" and that Jesus is not the only son.It can be concluded that the Bible uses this title" son of God" figuratively to mean Righteous, pious, selected, or God-conscious.))

6) Can God be a man ?

((Can God be a man,eat as man,feel hungry ,go to toilet ,is crucified,tortured and be seen and be heard ,cry on the cross and be spit on his face and doesn't have the power to destroy his enemies and pray to his god.What god is that ?))

1) “God is not a man...nor a son of man…” (Numbers 23:19)
2) “...For I am God, and not man...” (Hosea 11:9)
3) Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
4) in John 5:32 Jesus told his followers that they have never seen GOD at anytime nor ever heard his voice?
5) "Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." (John 5:37)
6) "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)

(( Finally after discussing evidence from the Bible . In fact that God is one, NOT THREE, that
Jesus is not God or part of God, that he is not equal with God, and that He is not the son of God in the literal sense .The son of god is common in the Bible and it is not underage on Jesus only (peace be upon him )) Please be logical and be rational and don't say what Jesus (peace be upon him) didn't say about himself .He was a model in his faith and in his submission to the will of the only unique God (praise be to him ) . Saying Jesus is a god or a son of god is the biggest sin which God never forgive and Jesus himself prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9). "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Jesus (peace be upon him) in this verse warns his followers from being worshippers to him .He ordered his people not to exaggerate in their love to him .
Thank you .

Re: Don't Make Fun of Muhammad - Refuted, Anti-islamists deception exposed

Commonly repeated lies based on misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of Islam are exposed below:
Qur’an 9:29

Qur’an 9:123
Yusus Ali commented: "When conflict becomes inevitable, the first thing is to clear our surroundings of all evil, for it is only evil that we can rightly fight. To evil we must put up a stout and stiff resistance. Mealy-mouthed compromises are not right for soldiers of truth and righteousness. They are often a compound of cowardice, weariness, greed, and corruptibility."
This is because fighting is essentially carried out in their interest and for their well being, therefore, when it comes to care and concern, kinsfolk have precedence - similar to the command given to the Holy Prophet : (And warn your near relatives against the punishment of Allah - 26:214). He carried out the command by assembling people from his family and conveyed to them the Word of Allah as revealed to him. The circle then became larger. In the second sentence of verse 123: (and let them find severity in you), the word: (ghilzah) means severity or toughness. The sense is that the disbelievers must be confronted in a manner that would not allow them to take their adversary to be weak.
Quran (48:29)

Qur’an 98:6
Qur’an 3:32
The Worst People are Those Who turn away from the evident Truth after being reminded

Sahih Muslim " I have been ordered to fight.."

Qur’an 5:51
 Don't take Jews and the Christians as friends ?!

Sahih Muslim 4366

Qur’an 4:34—Men are in charge of women,

Sahih Muslim 2127

Qur’an 2:223
The verse uses tilth as a metaphor for pregnancy. That metaphor has been used by all cultures throughout the ages.
To this day, medical clinics that help women get pregnant are called fertility clinics. So, that islamophobes should start their attack by protesting in front of a fertility clinic demanding they change their name !

Qur’an 2:282
Nicole Woods, a young American sister who recently embraced Islam; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with her, regarding Noble Verse : "Because women have always been considered inferior and not capable of good testimonies, maybe Allah was concerned that the courts would doubt their integrity. By having two witnesses instead of one, He has assured that we will always be listened to and believed. Maybe one woman can be refuted, but not two!! :) In fact, the more witnesses, the better, but for the sake of convenience, Allah has assured us that two is enough. In a world where we are the losers because of our gender, Islam always provides a way to force others to see us as equals. Sabhunallah [Good Lord]."

Sahih al-Bukhari 4200

Sahih al-Bukhari 6982

Sahih al-Bukhari 5158  The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq -Are they Reliable ?

Read more about Prophet Muhammad:

And Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the worlds.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

Trinity & Elohim !

 Trinitarians, in their trials to find "hidden clues" for the innovated trinity, may come with weird theories like: Elohim is plural so this implies that God is trinity !

The Truth is: In literal translation, Hebrew word for Elohim does signify a plurality, the word Elohim means GODS, this is the literal translation. So if we want to play the Trinitarian game, then we must be honest and translate Genesis 1:1 as follows:

In the Beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth (genesis 1:1)

So we are left with the reality of Gods, and if we go by this approach then they have become polytheists!
This proves that Trinitarians are polytheists, since they believe Elohim simply means a literal plurality, which by definition means they believe in Gods, not a God, but Gods in the plural.

Detailed explanation:

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and appears closely related to El, which usually means "god", "God", or "mighty one".
But IF we were right to translate Elohim as a plural word, the Bible would teach us that in the beginning, "Gods" created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would then support the idea that more than one God created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered Israel from bondage and continued dealing with them, etc., since Elohim is used throughout the "Old" Testament as God(s). But virtually no monotheist would profess that there is more than one God.

In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not necessarily plural in meaning.
For instance, the Hebrew words chayim (chayeem, "life") and panim (paneem, "face", "presence", "countenance") are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. Another word, adon, "lord", "master", is often plural in form. In its plural form it is sometimes used of a single person - Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1) and an anonymous "fierce king" under whose rule the Egyptians were prophesied to come (Isa. 19:4, NRSV). There are instances of other plural Hebrew words employed in the Hebrew Bible with singular meaning.

Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods.
Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness.

Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim.

What all this indicates is that in Hebrew, plural nouns in general and Elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word Elohim, in fact, it would appear as though we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning unless the context indicates that "gods" are referred to.

Scholars are entirely familiar with these facts. The expressions "plural of majesty" or "plural of rank" or "intensive plural" are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon of language where the form of a word can be plural but its meaning is singular.

New International Version Study Bible:
"God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality."

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible :
"The plural Elohim is used frequently, a phenomenon sometimes called the majestic plural. Although the form is plural the one referred to or who is speaking is singular."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The Divine name ('Elohim) most frequently used in the Old Testament, a plural form of Eloah, which appears only in poetical books (34 of the 57 times in Job alone). The form Elohim, when used of the God of Israel, is a plural of majesty, signifying the one God who embodies in Himself all the qualities of divinity, and is almost always accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives."

HarperCollins' Bible Dictionary:
"Elohim is one of the three common generic names for God in the OT, occuring almost 2600 times. The term is a plural, probably of El or Eloah, hebrew words for "god", and on occassions means "gods" (e.g. Exod. 20:3). Most often it is a plural of majesty for israel's "God" (e.g. , Gen. 1:1) and thus is translated in the singular."

Similarly, When Allah in Quran uses the pronoun “We,” it does not mean that Muslims believe in more than one God, because the plural used here is the plural of respect or majesty and not numbers.

This can be clearly seen in the following Quranic verse:

وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدُونِ
And We (i.e., Allah) sent not before you (i.e., Muhammad) any messenger except that We revealed to him that, “There is no deity except Me, so worship Me [alone].” (Qur’an, 21:25)

Re: 1 John 5:7 & refuting trinity

 Alleged Biblical Proof

"For there are three that bear record [ in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one]."
1 John 5:7
Is this not a fair testimony to acknowledge the `Doctrine of Trinity'?

1. The text quoted does appear in the Kings James Version but has been omitted by most of the editors of the recent versions e.g. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Bible, Phillips Modern English Bible, because the quoted text does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts.

Greek manuscripts
About 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin. Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
Ancient writers:
No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period. The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.
Ancient translations:
the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

Conclusion: the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages.

2. Renowned historian Edward Gibbon calls the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book `Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'.

3. Peakes commentary on the subject reads;
"The famous interpolation after "three witnesses" is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
4. The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott."

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era. 8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live.

The New Bible Commentary: Revised:
"Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins" (1970, p. 1269)

Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).
"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,"
"Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate"

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith,
"It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).

Hot Tip:
Notwithstanding the above rejections, the verse that follows the quoted text reads in KJV; "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." (1John5:8).
Are these three witnesses "co-equal"? Can blood be substituted with water? Can water be regarded as the same in any respect with the Spirit? Just as the spirit, the blood and the water are three separate entities, so are the first three witnesses, namely; the Father, the Son (Word, Logos) and the Holy Spirit (Ghost).

Friday, April 12, 2013

Matthew 28:19 & trinity, Is it a valid proof ?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19);
Does this not prove that the `Doctrine of Trinity' and its present day formula was communicated and promulgated in the bible ?

With all due respect, we tend to disagree in view of the following compelling evidences:-

1. `Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, is universally welcomed and considered to be the standard reference book for the students of the Bible. Commenting on the above verse it records;
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."

2. Tom Harpur, author of several bestsellers and a former professor of New Testament, writes in his book `For Christ's Sake';
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptise people using these words - baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone."

3. Early Christians, such as scholars and historians (up to 350 years after Jesus’ departure), in their writings, and when quoting Matthew 28:19, give a different text than what we have today.

For example, when the Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (a.k.a. Eusebius Pamphili) (c. AD 263 – 339), who’s called “Father of Church History,” quoted Matthew 28:19 in his famous Ecclesiastical History, there was no triune formula in the verse.

The verse read,
Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.
He did not quote this verse in this form only once, but no less than 18 times in many of his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, in his Demonstratio Evangelica and in his Theophany.

4. The quoted verse (irrespective of it being authentic or otherwise), does not indicate that the three names mentioned are “co-equal” in their status and were also “co-eternal” in the time frame. Unless these two important qualifications are acknowledged, the verse fails to endorse the fundamental belief and principle of the ‘Doctrine of Trinity’.Regardless of all that, there is nothing in the text which indicates that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one.Regardless of all that, there is nothing in the text which indicates that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. The verse talks about three different essences mentioned together in conjunction, which indicates that they are different, distinct essences.

5. If the Father and His Son were both in "existence" from the Day One, and no one was, a micro second before or after, and, no one was "greater or lesser" in status, than why is one called the Father and the other His begotten Son?

6. Did the act of "Begetting" take place? If YES, where was the "Begotten Son" before the act? If NO, why call him the "Begotten Son"?

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

8. If the US president told someone "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.
If we assumed it's in the original text, we need to read this hint:
De 18:20  But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Trinity, The Pagan Origin

Trinity, The Pagan Origin

The "Dictionary of Religious Knowledge":
"Many say that the Trinity is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

Edward Gibbon says in the preface to the "History of Christianity":
"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure deism of the first Christians[belief in only ONE God]...was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."
Egyptian Trinity [Horus, Isis, and Osiris]

"Origin of Triads and Trinities", Mr.Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures):
"The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt."

The Nouveau Dictionary Universel:
"The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples,appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave rise to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches…This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century BCE]conception of the divine trinity…can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions" (Paris, 1865-1870,edited by M. Lachatre, Vol. 2, p. 1467).

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. That errors and corruptions crept into the church from this source cannot be denied."

The Church of the First Few Centuries":
"The Doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation. It had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

Outlines of the History of Dogma:
"Church doctrine became rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."

Plato(Father of Pagan Trinity):
"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity)

Dr.Walter Martin:
"The Trinity itself is a mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood."

Trinity, The Innovated Doctrine

Trinity, The Innovated Doctrine

The New Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many  controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.
Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective
."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana:
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel:
"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible:
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan), pages 782-3:
"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partnersin the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the [Bible] canon. ... It is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Colin Brown, editor), Volume 2, page 84:
"The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself.. And the other express declarations is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of lthe Church doctrine of the Trinity.' (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 etc.) and homoousias which feature in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote Christ was the same substance as the Father."

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary:
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

The Encyclopedia of Religion:
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman:
"The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."

The Encyclopedia of Religion:
"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

Jesuit Fortman:
"The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine:
"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins:
"To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall:
"Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

The Formation of Christian Dogma (An Hisjtorical Study of its Problems), by Martin Werner, professor ordinarious in the University of Bern:
"The significance of the Angel-Christology for the Post-Apostolic period, from the point of view of doctrinal history, lies in the fact that it stood in the way of lthe developement of a homoousian doctrine of the Trinity in the later rthodox Nicene sense, owing to its fundamentally Subordinationist character. Angel-Christiology and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea were in this respect absolutely incompatiable. (137) Arianism [editor: unitarianism] was doomed. It had indeed, with its reference to Scriptures and the old tradition of the Church, good arguments as its disposal. ... Modalism had criticised the accepted Trinitarian doctrin of the Churchas a doctrine of three gods. (160)
"Every significant theologian of the Church in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented aSubordinationist Christology. (234)
"Consequently one now began to talk of a divine 'Trinity'. In the Nicene confession-formula of A.D. 325 this concept had been, significantly, lacking. 'Tinitas' = Trias did not signify a kind of 'unity of three', but simply 'threeness.' (252)
"By means of the union of the Logos with a complete human being, the three Persons of the Trinity were increased by a fourth, a human Person. From being a Trias it became a Tetras. ... It was seen from Phil. ii, 6 ff. that the Apostle Pul in no way taught in terms of a scheme which differentiated the Two Natures." (266)
"The course of the age-long dctrinal conflicts of the Early Church shows, for example, that the Trinitarian and Christological problems were by no means effectively settled by the doctrinal decrees of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon

Tom Harpur , "For Christ's Sake":
"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three.."

When Jesus was on earth, Judaism was the only purely monotheistic religion in the region, having become surrounded by endless waves of "trinities" from the surrounding nations of the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians. So, why did Jesus (pbuh) chose to allow the very first generations after him live and die never having heard of any "trinity,"till the enlightenment came to the creed-writers and neo-platonic philosophers of the fourth century CE?

Monday, February 25, 2013

Re: hadeeth on sex determination & Genetics !

Another issue is a hadeeth related to Gender determination.

The Main Principles:

a- Quran and Sunnah must be understood according to Arabic langauge after gathering all narrations together as one narration may explain another.

b- In case a hadeeth or an Ayah is proven authentic then we find it contradicting a fact or a sensible event that is agreed on, we reconsider our understanding of the text because an authentic text cannot contradict a fact or agreed on truth.

Scientific Facts:

a. The egg is always the carrier of the X chromosome (X).

b. The spermcell of a man is the carrier of X and Y chromosomes. [i.e. It carries man and women chromosome].

c. a. Determining the gender of children depends solely on the chromosome of the spermcell of the man.

d. The combination of the "X" chromosome of the woman with the chromosome "Y" of the man creates a boy(xy). However, if the "X" chromosome of the woman combine with the chromosome "X" of the man creates a girl (xx).

e. "Y" is manly while X is womanly.

The hadeeth

" ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر . فإذا اجتمعا، فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة ، أذكرا بإذن الله . وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل ، آنثا بإذن الله
قَالَ الْيَهُودِيُّ لَقَدْ صَدَقْتَ وَإِنَّكَ لَنَبِيٌّ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ فَذَهَبَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ لَقَدْ سَأَلَنِي هَذَا عَنِ الَّذِي سَأَلَنِي عَنْهُ وَمَا لِي عِلْمٌ بِشَىْءٍ مِنْهُ حَتَّى أَتَانِيَ اللَّهُ بِهِ ‏"‏

The True Translation:

The water of the man is white and the water of the woman is yellow. When they get together, if the semen of the man become above the semen of the woman, the child is male, by the permession of Allah, and if the semen of the woman becomes above the semen of the woman, the child is a female by the permession of Allah.
The Jew said: What you have said is true; verily you are an Apostle. He then returned and went away. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that.

Study of the Hadeeth:

a. As we know that women has no role in deciding the gender of the child when fertilization takes place and the text appears to state something that seem to contradict this fact, we need to resort to laid down principles in order to guideline our understanding. This principle state that in such case, we reconsider our understanding to the texts. How? I will explain it in the following point.

b. It is important to pay attention to the used words in the hadeeth. The key words we would like to highlight (I will translate the words of the text litterally to explain it further).


a- The word above here means "dominant" as this is one of the known meaning of the word "above" and has been used in Quran to mean "dominant and controlled".

b. The first half of the hadeeth referred to the man and woman liquids as "water" while in the second half he became more specific as referred to it as "semen".

c. We already know that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in other hadeeths that the "water" of women is involved in process of fertilization. Then we realized that this water has a description that does not befit ejaculated fuilds since ejaculated fluids are white in color whereas he described the color as yellow and thin.

d. The sound understanding of this text is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring in this hadeeth to the male and female chromosome of the spermcell of the man (X as the female chromosome and Y as the male chromosome). Based on this, the Prophet meant that when the male factor is dominant then it is a boy but when the female factor is domionant then it is a girl. This is what science states and this is the sound understanding that one should have beacuse the text can be understood in various ways and we know that authentic texts must be in agreement with agreed on facts.

e- He didn't know about that except what Allah told him.

what may be the cause of misunderstanding is that it is because when people "understood" it, they assumed that the word "semen " used in this hadeeth refer to man and woman' water mentioned earlier while as a matter of fact, he صلى الله عليه وسلم was referring to the semen of the man only which is always a carrier of male and female chromosomes. This is supported by the fact that the word "semen" is always exclusively for men while women liquid is always called water only.

In short, it seems according to the words and structure of what was stated, that the issue of "dominance" is purely in targeting the dominance of x chromosome (female) and y chromosomes (male), particularly because women are scientifically not classified as having "sperm"

And Allah knows the best !

Re: Genetics & Hadeeth on resemblance !

Essential introduction:

1. The BASE rule is that an established scientific fact can never contradict an authentic hadeeth or the Qur'an AND vice versa.

2. The realm of contradiction lies in one of the sources as NOT being established, either the scientific theory that is promoted as fact (when in reality it is a theory under a theoretical [phase) or the hadeeth is weak or is not to be understood in the tangent it was mistakenly understood.

3. Conclusively- if there seems to be a contradiction, then most likely the scientific theory that is viewed as a fact in reality is not a fact, or the hadeeth has a flaw in it in terms of its chain back to the prophet, or its understanding was not reached accurately by those who accepted the hadeeth and it is estbalished as correctly attributed to the prophet (alaihi salatu salaam).

4- The Prophet (pbuh)doesn't speak from his own inclination. وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ

Hadeeths touched the topic under discussion:
1- وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَ الْوَلَدَ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَتْ

2- وَأَمَّا الشَّبَهُ فِي الْوَلَدِ فَإِنَّ الرَّجُلَ إِذَا غَشِيَ الْمَرْأَةَ فَسَبَقَهَا مَاؤُهُ كَانَ الشَّبَهُ لَهُ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاؤُهَا كَانَ الشَّبَهُ لَهَا ‏"

3- وَهَلْ يَكُونُ الشَّبَهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ قِبَلِ ذَلِكِ إِذَا عَلاَ مَاؤُهَا مَاءَ الرَّجُلِ أَشْبَهَ الْوَلَدُ أَخْوَالَهُ وَإِذَا عَلاَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَهَا أَشْبَهَ أَعْمَامَهُ ‏

In the first 2 hadeeths the word is "Sabaqa" سبق which means
1- precede -outrun.
2- win - defeat - overpower.

In the third hadeeth the word is "alaa" علا which means:
overpower/take over/be superior.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Let her ask, for i resemblance happens because of it. when her water/discharge is dominant, the born child resembles his maternal uncles but if water/discharge of the man was dominant, the born child should resemble his paternal uncles."

The content of this narration is reported in other narrations as well and despite the slight difference of words, all narrations include the highlighted words.

They key words of this hadeeth are:

a- water [i.e. liquid] of women
b-water of men(semen)
c- dominance
d- resemblance

The topic of this hadeeth is about resemblance.

This narration goes along with the genetic science that resemblance of children is explained through the theory of dominance where only superior genes appear on the child. [This can be one of the interpretations and understanding...]

Water/discharge of women !
One major point that may cause all this confusion about this hadeeth and hence some people find it problemtic is because they tend to immeditaly understand the word "water of women" to mean ejaculated fluid that happens due to intimicay or arousing.

If we pay attention to the words used in this hadeeth we will find outstanding findings i.e. He صلى الله عليه وسلم used the word "water" in reference to the liquid of women and he did not specify it any further.

Well, there is no one better to explain one narration except the one who said it.

For this reason, let's know first what the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم meant with "water of women" since he did not specify it. Well, true that he did not specify it but he actually described it when he said in another narration " the water" of women is yellow and thin. So, what is that fluid that has such description?Simple, it is known that ejaculated discharges due to arousing or intimiacy are white.

The only liquid that is yellow is actually called "Follicuar Fluid" that is discharged at ovulation without being related to copulation or being aroused and it is directly related to preganacy. It comes out with a thin layer called follicle of which inside there is a small egg that supposed to combine with the men sperm during fertilization in order for a child to be created.

Finally, I would like you to understand that these narrations came in response to questions about why? and not to answer a question of how? In other words neither the questioner nor answerer [i.e. the Prophet] intended to explain the howness of this process. Rather, he wanted to explain why children sometimes resemble their fathers and some other times resemble their mothers.
This is proven and well explained in the other hadeeth when the Prophet clearly state that resemblence is a pure genetic when a woman delivered a black boy and the man doubted that his wife may have slept with another man as none of the family was black. When he explained it to the man he told him that a genetics of great grandfather may effect grand children. From this you know that it is obvious that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acknowledged that determining the howness was left for us to discover but the hadeeth only provided us with the key, which is the answer to why this happen.

Allah knows the best !

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Re: quran 22:65 error: Allah hold the sky from falling on earth ?!

He withholds the sky from failing on the earth except by His leave

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful"

God Almighty Says In The Holy Qur'an

(The Holy Qur'an : Chapter: 22, Verse: 65) {Seest thou not that Allah has made subject to you (men) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail through the sea by His Command? He withholds the sky from failing on the earth except by His leave/permission: for Allah is Most Kind and Most Merciful to man.}

To the Time Of "2006" If You asked A Muslim Scholar about that Great Verse He would not know the really Meaning of It as, It is Consider to be one of the most great scientific sight In the "Holy Qur'an"

To the time of "2006" Muslims realized Not the Miracle in that verse as it was not Discovered Yet.

And Was The Question "How That Great Sky Can Fail on this very Small Earth!

Really we could not realize It not Until, That "Research" was Published on "NASA Site" At the Title Of (The Sky is Falling)
{see caption"Every day, more than a metric ton of meteoroids hits the Moon," says Bill Cooke of the Marshall Space Flight Center's Meteoroid Environment Office. They literally fall out of the sky, in all shapes and sizes, from specks of comet dust to full-blown asteroids, traveling up to a hundred thousand mph. And when they hit, they do not disintegrate harmlessly in the atmosphere as most would on Earth. On the airless Moon, meteoroids hit the ground.}

NASA GOV >> Science News >> The Sky is Falling (April 28, 2006: Up on the Moon, the sky is falling.)


And Now, After More Than "1400 Years"
The Holy Qur'an Was Inspired to the "Unlettered Prophet"(Muhammad "Peace BE Upon Him") at the age of no Scientific progress or any source of knowledge, But The Holy Qur'an Reporting one of the most great scientific fact was wasn't Discovered UnTil "2006" And "1400 Years" The Holy Qur'an was Inspired.

So,WE Can Know clear the meaning of the verse now

God Almighty Reminder us Of One of his great gifts on the Earth He Gave Us "The ozone Atmosphere (Which cover the earth) " as with out It "The ozone Atmosphere" The Earth would be the same as the Moon "Susceptible to Meteors Shocks"

And God Almighty say "Sky" Not "Meteors" And this called in Arabic Grammar (Magaz Morasl) (Posted metaphor) which is one of the most great style of Rhetoric In the Holy Qur'an

For Example; (The Holy Qur'an : Chapter: 12, Verse: 82) {
"'Ask at the town where we have been and the caravan in which we returned, and (you will find) we are indeed telling the truth.'"} and it doesn't mean to ask "the town" it self ; but the meaning Is {And ask (the people of) the town} But it is called "Posted metaphor"

And here The Same The Holy Qur'an say "He withholds the sky from failing on the earth " and the meaning is "the Meteors"

the same Name "NASA" Said "The Sky is Falling" On the Moon.

And this is , The Great Mercy Of God Almighty Provided The Earth With "The ozone Atmosphere" To Protect All creature living in

(The Holy Qur'an : Chapter: 54, Verse: 49) {Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure.}

The Same sentence "He withholds the sky from failing on the earth" Mentioned In The Holy Qur'an
at " 7th century" The Greatest Space Agency "NASA" Used In " 21st century" "The Sky is Falling"

Verily The Holy Qur'an Prove Day After Day that It is The Word OF The Creator (the Knower)
God "Allah"

And The Question Now,Who Learned "Prophet Muhammad "Peace Be Upon Him" This Great Information at the Hell of " 7th Century" ?!

Only One Answer :

(The Holy Qur'an : Chapter: 26, Verse: 192) {And truly, this (the Qur’ân) is a revelation from the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists),}

(The Holy Qur'an : Chapter: 53, Verse: 3:4) { (3) Nor does he (Muhammad) speak of (his own) desire. (4) It is only a Revelation revealed.}

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Re: Quran 36:38 scientific error refuted "Quran superiority"

قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى ‏{‏وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَهَا}‏‏"
tajree limustaqarrin laha
Sahih International
And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point. That is the determination of the Exalted in Might, the Knowing.

1- He Almighty says "the sun runs" not moves or walks which is a clear sign that the sun moves in high speed. Today, our scientists say that the Sun moves say that the Sun moves at an estimated speed of about 225 km per second (140 miles per second)

2- If we examine the sun's complex orbit and the course of horses running during race , we would find it similar to that of ships & sun -- For them God used the word "run"

3- We find modern researches on stars talking about "Star Streaming" as if they are like a running river:

stream ( Type: verb - Domain: non-thematic ) : flow, run or flow
اِنْسابَ - جَرَى

Name:  00000000.JPG
Views: 53
Size:  25.3 KB

4 - Although God told us about sun's "mustaqar=resting time/place" in the quran 1400 years ago, we find modern scientists talking about "the solar apex" and define it as
" the direction that the Sun travels with respect to the Local Standard of Rest" In lay terms, it's the "target" within the Milky Way that the Sun appears to be "chasing" as it orbits the galaxy.

5- Science also tells us that the Sun will come to an end:
"The blazing ball of hot hydrogen that warms our planet and provides energy for life won't be around forever. '


"The Sun will gradually die. As a star's core crashes inwards, it eventually becomes hot enough to ignite another of its constituent atoms, helium. Helium atoms fuse together to form carbon. When the helium supply runs out, the centre collapses again and the atmosphere inflates. The Sun isn't massive enough to fully re-ignite its core for a third time. So it goes on expanding, shedding its atmosphere in a series of bursts. The dying core eventually forms a white dwarf - a spherical diamond the size of the Earth, made of carbon and oxygen. From this point on the Sun will gradually fade away, becoming dimmer and dimmer until its light is finally snuffed out."


Now we can realize quran superiority over all arrogant haters and man-made books as it's the word of God Almighty, The Most High .

Related topics:

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Re: hadith error: The sun goes under Allah's chair -The inanimate sun can prostrate like a human-sun prostrates under the throne ?!

The hadeeth :
Narrated Abu Dhar:

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All- Knowing." (36.38)

قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لأَبِي ذَرٍّ حِينَ غَرَبَتِ الشَّمْسُ ‏"‏ تَدْرِي أَيْنَ تَذْهَبُ ‏"‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ أَعْلَمُ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ فَإِنَّهَا تَذْهَبُ حَتَّى تَسْجُدَ تَحْتَ الْعَرْشِ، فَتَسْتَأْذِنَ فَيُؤْذَنَ لَهَا، وَيُوشِكُ أَنْ تَسْجُدَ فَلاَ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهَا، وَتَسْتَأْذِنَ فَلاَ يُؤْذَنَ لَهَا، يُقَالُ لَهَا ارْجِعِي مِنْ حَيْثُ جِئْتِ‏.‏ فَتَطْلُعُ مِنْ مَغْرِبِهَا، فَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى ‏{‏وَالشَّمْسُ تَجْرِي لِمُسْتَقَرٍّ لَهَا ذَلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ ‏}‏‏"‏‏.

The sun prostrates ?!

The sun to prostrate doesn't need to be human-like with head and 4 limbs. It submits to God in its own way.
تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ ۚ وَإِن مِّن شَيْءٍ إِلَّا يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تَفْقَهُونَ تَسْبِيحَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّهُ كَانَ حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا
The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving.” (Qur’an 17:44)

The entire creation of Allah is engaged in worshipping and glorifying Allah, but each has its own separate way of doing it that has already been taught to it just like human beings who have been told how to do their salah and tasbih. Therefore, taking the prostration (sajdah) of the sun to mean that it can take effect only when it places its forehead on some floor like a human being would not be correct. Thus, the truth of the matter turns out to be that the sun at every moment while moving on its orbit keeps offering prostration before Allah the Almighty and keeps seeking permission to move ahead - and it needs no pause or break to make prostration or seek permission.

The word used in the hadeeth is "تسجد" The verb "Sajada= prostrate"has 3 meanings as in the waseet arabic dictionary:
سَجَدَ سَجَدَ ُ سجودًا : خضع وتطامن .
و سَجَدَ وضَع جبهتَهُ على الأَرضِ .
فهو ساجِدٌ . والجمع : سُجَّدٌ ، وسُجُودٌ .
و سَجَدَ السفينةُ للريح : أَطاعَتْها ومالت بميلِها .
المعجم: المعجم الوسيط -
1- put his foehead on the ground
2- submit
3- Obey ( like how ship is driven by the wind)

In Islam everything in the state of "sujood":
أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَسْجُدُ لَهُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَن فِي الْأَرْضِ وَالشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ وَالنُّجُومُ وَالْجِبَالُ وَالشَّجَرُ وَالدَّوَابُّ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنَ النَّاسِ ۖ وَكَثِيرٌ حَقَّ عَلَيْهِ الْعَذَابُ ۗ وَمَن يُهِنِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّكْرِمٍ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَفْعَلُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۩
Sahih International
Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills.

"By using the word "Sajdah" (prostration), it has been declared that all created things, be they living things, minerals or plants, are in obedience and thus submit to the Supreme authority of Allah Ta'ala, thereby mentioning two groups of humans in this respect of 'submission'. One, which obeys Allah and therefore is included amongst the creatures who 'prostrate' to Him, and the other one which is rebellious and refuses to bow before Him, meaning, refusing to submit to His Will. The word "Sajdah" (prostration) has been used here in the broader sense of 'submission' to the will of Allah and obeying His commands, because all created things act upon this submission in their own way. Human beings perform Sajdah by touching the ground with the forehead, while in the case of other created things their Sajdah constitutes their faithful performance of the functions assigned to them by Allah.

The Truth About All Created Things Obeying Allah
Genetically, the entire universe and all created things therein are under the control and subject to the Will of their Creator by virtue of an inherently programmed guidance (guidance of Takwin) by Allah. The 'submission' in this sense is pre-determined, involuntary and instinctive. There is no created being which can escape this universal law of creation, be it a Muslim or a non-believer, a living thing or dead, mineral or plant. The smallest particle and the highest mountain cannot make the slightest movement without His Will. There is, however, another kind of submission to Allah, when a person offers homage to Him voluntarily and without constraint. This is what distinguishes a believer from a non-believer. A believer is obedient and sincere in his submission to Allah, whereas a non-believer repudiates His existence. As this verse deals with the difference between a Muslim and a Kafir (infidel), it is more likely that reference to 'Sajdah' (prostration) does not refer to pre-destined and instinctive obedience alone but covers the voluntary submission as well. Let it not be supposed that only human beings and Jinns who possess intelligence can offer voluntary and unconstrained submission, and animals, plants and minerals being devoid of reason cannot exercise voluntary and intentional obedience. Indeed it can be proved from the text of the Qur'an that every created thing has reason, intellect and intent, and the difference lies only in degree. Human beings and Jinns possess a perfect level of intelligence, which makes them liable to a strict adherence to the laws governing what is permissible and what is forbidden. As regards other creatures, Allah has given them intelligence according to their needs. Animals possess the highest degree of intelligence after humans, then come plants and last of all are the minerals. The intelligence among the animals can easily be perceived, and that possessed by plants can also be observed if one applies one's mind to the task. However, the intelligence given to the minerals is so little and concealed that it is not easily discernible, though Allah has said clearly that they not only possess intelligence but also have the capacity to decide things. The Qur'an says about the sky and the earth (They said, "We come willingly." 41:11) that is, when Allah commanded the sky and the earth that they must submit to His Will either by their free choice or by force, they both replied that they accepted His authority by their own voluntary choice."
Ma'ariful Quran - Mufti Shafi Usmani RA

At time of sunset ?!

(at the time of sunset) is not present in the arabic text. If we assume that it presents, then It's not a problem at all. The sun sets all over the day-24 hours- on different areas on the earth, so the state of sujood mentioned above is of persistent nature.

Underneath the Throne ?!

The Throne of Allah, as understood from the Qur’an and Sunnah, surrounds all that we know as the masses of the land and expanses of the sky. All these masses and expanses along with planets and stars, without any exceptions, are enclosed within the Divine throne.
Ayatul kursi:
وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ ۖ
And His throne extends over the heavens and the earth

Allah knows the best.