Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Did Jerome not say that the Gospel in Cæsarea was not identical with the one in Greek and therefore he did not use it?  Do linguistics not testify Mathew Gospel can not be a translation from Hebrew? We know there existed Jewish-Christian Gospels like the Hebrew, Nazarean and Ebionite Gospels, but why did the church fathers not use or preserve them? Probably because they did not accept them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your arguments against the Scriptures are always based on what men did, --- but in the writing and preserving of Scripture it was God that used holy men. --- Prophecy and fulfillment are the proof of the Scriptures. --- Isaiah prophesied in 53 over 700 years before Jesus came, and Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

The Apostle Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

And Paul explained the difference between the natural and the spiritual in 1 Corinthians 2:

But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your arguments against the Scriptures are always based on what men did, --- but in the writing and preserving of Scripture it was God that used holy men. --- Prophecy and fulfillment are the proof of the Scriptures. --- Isaiah prophesied in 53 over 700 years before Jesus came, and Jesus fulfilled the prophecy.

The Apostle Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 

21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

And Paul explained the difference between the natural and the spiritual in 1 Corinthians 2:

But as it is written:

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, placid said:

Your arguments against the Scriptures are always based on what men did, 

I was questioning your claim that the copy in Cesarea was the Biblical Mathew Gospel in Hebrew. As usual you are avoiding my arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

Did Jerome not say that the Gospel in Cæsarea was not identical with the one in Greek and therefore he did not use it?  Do linguistics not testify Mathew Gospel can not be a translation from Hebrew? We know there existed Jewish-Christian Gospels like the Hebrew, Nazarean and Ebionite Gospels, but why did the church fathers not use or preserve them? Probably because they did not accept them.

  .  .  .  with regard usage of Classical Old Testament Greek, usage of Hebrew in matters concerning new testament characters in John Matthew Luke Mark as the writings that come down to us today:

 

 read :

 

Nicodemus respectfully greets Jesus as "Rabbi" and marvels at the sēmeia ("signs") that Jesus does. However, Jesus seems to change the subject by delivering an apparent warning of a prerequisite for seeing the "reign of God." That term does not surprise us if we are used to the language of the first three ("synoptic") Gospels, where Jesus' message and ministry are summarized as proclaiming the reign of God. In the Fourth Gospel, the term is rare, in addition to not being what Nicodemus's polite comment was about. Our puzzlement grows when the prerequisite is identified as that one must be born anōthen (3:3).

This Greek adverb can mean either "again" or "from above," with nothing in the way the word is written to indicate which way the meaning is to go. Nicodemus clearly hears it as "again" , as his questions indicate, while Jesus' continuing commentary shows he meant it to be heard as "from above." In the theology of this Gospel, one's identity depends on the place from which one comes and the place to which one goes. Thus, one's participation in the new reality Jesus brings and represents depends on being born "from above."

That particular play on words works only in Greek, not in the Hebrew or Aramaic of Jesus' daily life in Palestine. In contrast, the analogous wordplay on "wind" and "spirit" (3:8), which both translate the Greek word pneuma and the Hebrew word ruāh, would be effective in either setting. The key word anōthen, however, makes it clear that whatever the historical core of the story may be, it received its theological polish in one of the Greek-speaking communities of the early church. That point is driven home even more dramatically when Jesus goes on the offensive with his question in 3:10, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" What exactly should Nicodemus have understood, and why?

Using a classic rabbinical argument from the lesser ("earthly things") to the greater ("heavenly things"), Jesus sends Nicodemus back to Torah, which as a teacher of Israel he ought to understand. Specifically, he recalls the story of the plague of venomous serpents that were threatening the Israelites (Numbers 21:6-9). The anti venom to the bites of the "fiery" poisonous serpents was to look at the "fiery" bronze serpent that Moses lifted up on a "pole" (Numbers 21:9). We should imagine a vertical pole with a cross-bar at or near the top and a bronze serpent entwined around it, like a caduceus. In Greek, the word for the "pole" is sēmeion, which can also mean "sign." With that final riddle, the theological importance of this passage becomes clear.

 

 This [ABOVE COPIED] is a wonderful elaboration on the general topic [i.e. matter of speech between Nicodemus, Jesus] curtesy of Sharon Ring   of  Wesley Seminary   Washington  https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=270

  see full text follow above address

 

 

 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Injil was never a written Text; on the contrary, it was an oral doctrine preached by John the Baptizer (AS) as and Jesus (AS)- Return for the Kingdom of God has arrived. In fact, every historian and Christian scholar readily admitted that Jesus (AS) never wrote a book; the Gospels of the Christians are second hand narratives.

I find it very interesting that John the Baptizer (AS) and Jesus (AS) had the same message- Repent for the kingdom of Heave/God is at hand. The verb used in these passages are all 3rd perfect- this means the action had already been completed. These passages should read "repent for the kingdom of Heaven [or God] has come near." The verb used is eggiken- the 3rd perfect from eggizo- to approach, to come near. This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew QaRaV. In the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text, the most common Greek verbs used for the Hebrew QaRaV are proserchomai [to come before] and prosphero [to lead before]. The idea of the verb is to be brought or led to a position of nearness to someone, someplace, or something- basically, something has come or arrived.

This gives a somewhat different meaning to the words of John (AS) and Jesus (AS); the Kingdom of Heaven [or God] is not approaching or about to come, it has already arrived.

The idea of repentance has been misunderstood by many English speakers; this is due to the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew Shuv- to return. The Greek always used the word metanoeo- from meta [to change] and noieo [the mind]. While the Greek has the idea of changing one's mind- or opinion, the Hebrew has the meaning of returning to a prior place or position; in the Hebrew Text, the verb translated as repent always meant to return to the Torah God gave to Israel.

Understanding these concepts is crucial to understand what John (AS) and Jesus (AS) meant by "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven [or God] is at hand." The Israelites were meant to be a Kingdom of Priests:

And now if listening you will listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall become a kingdom of priests for Me, a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel. Exodus 19:5-6

It was by obeying the Torah, the Covenant that God gave to Israel, that the Israelites were to become a Kingdom of Priests- a Heavenly Kingdom. This is why Jesus (AS) explained that those who taught men to put away even the smallest of the Torah would be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Do not think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to annul, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law until all comes to pass. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I say to you, If your righteousness shall not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of God, never! Matthew 5:17-20

To enter into the Kingdom of God one must go to the Kingdom or, in this case, return to the Kingdom. At the time Jesus (AS) spoke these words, the Israelites were under the dominion of the Roman Empire; they were in this state because they violated their covenant with God- to keep the Torah. By returning to the Torah, they would bring about the restoration of the Kingdom:

If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them....I will set My tabernacle in your midst, and I shall walk always in your midst, and shall be God to you, and you, you shall be people to Me...Leviticus 26:3, 11-12

This is echoed in the Qur'an وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ اذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنْبِيَاءَ وَجَعَلَكُمْ مُلُوكًا وَآتَاكُمْ مَا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَدًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنْقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ 

5:20-21

What would they lose? The right to the Holy Land which was promised to them. In fact, the Qur'an explained that they lost the Land twice because of their rebellion against Torah- the Covenant between God and Israel at Sinai 

وَقَضَيْنَا إِلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي الْكِتَابِ لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ أُولَاهُمَا بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَنَا أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ فَجَاسُوا خِلَالَ الدِّيَارِ ۚ وَكَانَ وَعْدًا مَفْعُولًا

17:4-5

And if you will not listen to Me, and do not do all these commands and if you reject My statutes, and if your soul hates My judgments, so as not to do all My commands, to the breaking of My covenant... I shall set My face against you, and you shall be smitten before your enemies; and those who hate you shall rule over you, and you shall flee, and there will be no one pursuing you. Leviticus 26:14-15; 17

The Torah of YHWH is perfect, returning [a causative participle- making return] the soul. The Testimony [eduth] of YHWH is sure, making the simple wise. The precepts [piqudim] of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart. The commands [mitzwah] of YHWH are pure, giving light to the eyes. The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring forever. The judgments [mishpatim] of Jehovah are true, they are righteous altogether. Psalm 19:8-10

The Torah of YHWH is perfect, returning [a causative participle- making return] the soul. This is how repentance is accomplished- by obeying the Torah.

In this verse, Torah, eduth, and mitzwah are all singular as they are the same- the Two Tablets of Stone given to Moses.

And YHWH said to Moses, Come up to Me to the mountain, and be there. And I will give to you the tablets of stone, and the Torah, and the commandment [mitzwah] which I have written, to teach them. Exodus 24:12

The Qur'an made it very clear that Jesus (AS) came confirming the Torah and calling Israel to return to the Covenant- which is also the same message Muhammad (SAAWAWS) was given to deliver to Israel.

 

 

 

Edited by Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
misspelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

The Qur'an made it very clear that Jesus (AS) came confirming the Torah and calling Israel to return to the Covenant- which is also the same message Muhammad (SAAWAWS) was given to deliver to Israel.

Deliver to Israel??

When the Quran was given to Muhammed, Israel no longer existed. Israel disapeared 1.300 years earlier. 10 of the 12 tribes were asimiliated in neighbouring tribes. Palestinians probably to a large degree are descendants of Israelis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, andres said:

Deliver to Israel??

When the Quran was given to Muhammed, Israel no longer existed. Israel disapeared 1.300 years earlier. 10 of the 12 tribes were asimiliated in neighbouring tribes. Palestinians probably to a large degree are descendants of Israelis.

 

Apparently, you misunderstand what Israel is. Israel is the name of Ya'aqov (AS); hence we are called benei Yisrael [children of Israel]. As an Ummah [a nation] we are called Israel. Ummah, originally, referred to a people related by blood- from the same root as Umm- mother. In fact, the English word nation came from the Latin verb natio- which indicated a birth [from this verb we have also native and nativity, et.]. I agree with your statement about the Palestinians- they, for the most part, are also descendants of Israelites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yaaqov

I guess your name means son of Jacob. So you mean the  Quran was delivered to Muhammed to forward to the descendants of Jakob/Israel, mainly living in diaspora far from the arabs in the desert. This was not a success. Most of the jewish and christian converts was converted with the sword, as was the custom all over. Besides from maybe the Quran, I am not aware of any indication that the religion Muhammed preached, existed before his birth. To me it is evident that Islam builds on the personalities and stories in the Bible. Muslims initially praying in direction Jerusalem also indicate a strong bound to Judaism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Hi Yaaqov

I guess your name means son of Jacob. So you mean the  Quran was delivered to Muhammed to forward to the descendants of Jakob/Israel, mainly living in diaspora far from the arabs in the desert. This was not a success. Most of the jewish and christian converts was converted with the sword, as was the custom all over. Besides from maybe the Quran, I am not aware of any indication that the religion Muhammed preached, existed before his birth. To me it is evident that Islam builds on the personalities and stories in the Bible. Muslims initially praying in direction Jerusalem also indicate a strong bound to Judaism. 

 

The Qur'an was sent to a people which had not received a book- the Qahtani. Muhammad (SAAWAWS) was a descendant of Ishmael- through Adnan- and his grandmother was Salma bint Amr; Amr was from the bani Najjar- a well known Jewish tribe. He was from the Abrahamic lineage from two lines- Ishmael and Ya'aqov. He was sent to reform the world from polytheism- including the Israelites who were in the diaspora because of idolatry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Thursday, June 09, 2016 at 5:52 PM, shiaman14 said:

NT Gospel Mark has a note in Chapter 16:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] (NIV)

Mark 16:9 The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.(ASV)

Mark 16:9 Later mss add vv 9-20 (NASB)

 

What is this all about?

Salam, wow I didn't know this, does this mean that the Bible is not entirely preserved? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular commentators and historians, Ishmael was not the father of the Arabs. Ishmael married into the Jurhum, a Qahtani tribe from Yemen; it was from this tribe Ishmael learned Arabic- he originally spoke Aramaic or Hebrew.

Abraham was called a Hebrew Ivri, not because he crossed a river, but because he was descended from Ever. Ever had two sons, Peleg and Yoqtan [Qahtan in Arabic]. The original Arabs descended from Qahtan while the Israelites descended through Peleg.

An interesting thing happens in Semitic; many North Semitic words have their radicals displayed in South Semitic- this is called metathesis. For instance, in Hebrew there is KaRa' [כרע] which became RaKa'A [ركع] in Arabic- both mean to bow. The Arabic preposition MaA' [مع] is 'AM [עם] in Hebrew- both mean with. This same thing happened in relation to the word Hebrew and Arab; Hebrew is Ivri [עברי] while Arab is Araby [عرَبي]- both words from the same radicals Ayin Ba Ra [the final Y indicates an origin- like an ethnonym].  

Ever's two sons separated; Peleg remained in the North and Yoqtan moved toward the south. However, the two sons were from Shem and thus Semitic as well as from Ever and thus Hebrews. This is true linguistically, traditionally, as well as genetically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

The Qur'an was sent to a people which had not received a book- the Qahtani. Muhammad (SAAWAWS) was a descendant of Ishmael- through Adnan- and his grandmother was Salma bint Amr; Amr was from the bani Najjar- a well known Jewish tribe. He was from the Abrahamic lineage from two lines- Ishmael and Ya'aqov. He was sent to reform the world from polytheism- including the Israelites who were in the diaspora because of idolatry.

The Quran is a collection of revelations to Muhammed and there never was an original in other languages than Arabic. The Quran did not exist before Muhammed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Melvind said:

Salam, wow I didn't know this, does this mean that the Bible is not entirely preserved? 

It was explained a couple pages back. 

Nothing is entirely preserved.

It all goes back to the Injil. Consider that every true Prophet was given the same revelation from Adam to Muhammad, call it the Injil, note it was never given in physical form, other than the commandments written on stone, which were not preserved. Each Prophet taught his people how to live according to that same revelation, in relation to their demographics. Many of the OT books are written by the Prophets, or Kings, or dictated to someone who could write. The NT is more often from the perspective of the observer of the Prophet. Of course the Prophet of the New Testament is Jesus. I believe the closest we'll get to the Injil is in His teachings, more specific, The sermon on the mount, even more specific,

the Beattitudes. This site breaks them down rather well. I think what you will find is that they touch on the Pillars of Islam, they are intertwined with the levels of jihad, what is expected of us, and they include a reason for worship similar to Islam, and if there is actually anything on this link offensive to Islam, I'm sorry, I missed it. If you can see those relationships on the link and in your own belief system you will better see the Injil in Islam. 

While organization of scriptures can lead to misunderstandings it's not accountable for the actual text. There's a really big rule about changing scriptural text. OT to NT to Qur'an. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

The Quran is a collection of revelations to Muhammed and there never was an original in other languages than Arabic. The Quran did not exist before Muhammed. 

 

I never said the opposite. The Qur'an was sent to a people who had never received a book- the Qahtani Arabs; Muhammad (SAAWAWS) was not a Qahtani- he was Adnani and also descended through Ya'aqov (AS) through his great grandmother Salma bint Amr- he was both Ishmaelite and Israelite [at least partially]. The Qur'an was delivered in the language of the people it was sent to- Arabic. Ishmael, who was also not Qahtani, learned Arabic from the Jurhum tribe and married among them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Melvind said:

Salam, wow I didn't know this, does this mean that the Bible is not entirely preserved? 

Of course you knew, you are just being ironic. God gave the Bible to the Jews, but since it does not always match the Quran, it must have been corrupted. The convictio  that Quran is perfect is so strong, that even when a consequense of the Quranic law in special cases is that 1/3+2/3+1/8=1/1, this must be correct. Because the Quran cant be wrong! The Bible can, in cases where the Bible contradicts the Quran. Yes, there are passages in the Bible which originality are disputed. However this doubt cannot make the Bible match the Quran. Because the original did not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, andres said:

Of course you knew, you are just being ironic. God gave the Bible to the Jews, but since it does not always match the Quran, it must have been corrupted. The convictio  that Quran is perfect is so strong, that even when a consequense of the Quranic law in special cases is that 1/3+2/3+1/8=1/1, this must be correct. Because the Quran cant be wrong! The Bible can, in cases where the Bible contradicts the Quran. Yes, there are passages in the Bible which originality are disputed. However this doubt cannot make the Bible match the Quran. Because the original did not. 

Wait a minute here, who here is talking about whether the Qur’an is identical to the Bible and vice versa? You’re on fire dude, calm down! There are many ignorant people who doesn’t know about the Bible, so I’d advice to stop being arrogant!  We are having a discussion about the Bible and the verses that the OP alleged (by quoting something called from niv) were added later and don’t exist in the earliest and most authentic manuscripts. I never said that the Bible is corrupted, I asked IF it means that it’s corrupted because these verses doesn't exist in earlier manuscripts-  I asked a question! Seems your sentiments got hurt.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Melvind said:

Salam, wow I didn't know this, does this mean that the Bible is not entirely preserved? 

Actually the Qur'an mentions often, confirming past scripture, and invites you to read it for guidance and light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Melvind said:

... as an Arab, I've never heard of Qahtani Arabic. Perhaps, this bro can elaborate what he means my Qahtani. 

http://idealmuslimah.com/turn-to-Allah/loving-Allah/543-basic-introduction-of-10-recitations-and-ahruf

 

The debate, historically, has been the identification of Qahtan. According to Ibn Ishaq, he was descended from Ismael (AS), but according to others, he was the son of Abir ibn Sam.

http://www.dnaarab.com/showthread.php?t=4241

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, andres said:

So the Quran is written in Qahtani arabic and not the dialekt that Muhammed spoke? Never heard this before.

The Qur'an is written in Arabic, perhaps the Qureishi dialect of Arabic- the Qahtani were the original Arabs [العرب العاربة] as opposed to the Adnani who were assimilated [العرب المستعربة]. Ishmael (AS) married a daughter of the Jurhum tribe and learned Arabic from them- he did not originally speak Arabic.

The Qur'an was sent to the Arabs in Arabic- regardless of the dialectic differences. That would be like saying the Torah was given only in Tiberian Hebrew- which is dialectic. The Torah, as well as the Qur'an, was written without vowel signs [harakat/niqqudim]. The Texts were vocalized much later than the revelations. The written Texts, however, remain and no matter the dialectic vocalization.

Hebrew is a branch of Cana'anite- among which is Moabite, Phoenician, and Ugaritic- all are mutually intelligible to those who know Hebrew grammar; this is because the differences between them are only dialectic. This would be the difference between Brittish or American English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

The Qur'an is written in Arabic, perhaps the Qureishi dialect of Arabic- the Qahtani were the original Arabs [العرب العاربة] as opposed to the Adnani who were assimilated [العرب المستعربة]. Ishmael (AS) married a daughter of the Jurhum tribe and learned Arabic from them- he did not originally speak Arabic.

Perhaps? I always heard the Quran is written in Qureishi dialect. Why would it not be written the way Muhammed refered to what he heard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam, How are mentally challenged and insane people handled in lsIamic Courts when charged with serious offenses such as murder ?
    • It is better to have separate schools. Co-education is always a risk of falling into sin. 
    • 9867 Oooops The Pentagon has snooped at least 1.8 BBillion social media posts. Who has time to process them all, much less read and understand them all. http://fortune.com/2017/11/20/pentagon-amazon-web-services-facebook-twitter/  Oh, well. Korr-up-ed biG Muther Guv-ern-mint = mint rice (Korr is a brand name) Mint Rice has wasted time and money again. Question: How many social media posts and Amazon orders do you think occurs in North Korea (DPRK).
    • Let's ask Mr. Science/Ms. Nature . At what age you have designed their physical bodies to start getting attracted to each other for procreation?
    • At one of these meeting, is it possible to ask, listen beloved friends, I have a question. This verse in the quran, النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۖ  [Shakir 33:6] The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, 
      [Pickthal 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves,
      [Yusufali 33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, What is your understanding, since we are gathered here for a Unity meeting, lets really unite and learn from each other. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny) used it, as a question at Ghadir Khum and asked  "Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?"   People cried and answered: "Yes, O' Messenger of God." "For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)." No Muslim disagrees till this point?  So, this should be a easy thing for you, only thing you are asking,  in which capacity do you see the Prophet Muhammad( peace be upon him and his progeny) as Mawla?  What is your understanding of " Greater Right " or as per the verse 33:6 "greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves, " You are only reciting the Qur'an and asking for their valued opinion and understanding.  Why would this not be possible? 
×