Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Ibn Abu Talib

Interesting article on the Dead Sea Scrolls

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1you accepted the bible is not the word of god.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I said the Bible contains the word of God. It is self evident that it is an historical document, recounting the lives and teachings of a great number of people.

2you now accept that the trinity is confusing and there is only one god ,the god of jesus himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said no such thing. The trinity is a philosophical device. The relationship of jesus to God is complicated by Jesus not being as other men. Jesus was created for a purpose.

3you implicity accept that the prophrts are hypocrites.were they doing it for a reason.or did jesus covered their "mess"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said no such thing. I said that those who are accorded the title of prophet clearly have, at times, behaved in ways which are reprehensible and even in difiance of God's Commandments.

4you accepted that jesus did not copme to innovate but to reaffirm the truth of the 10commandments of which trinity is not part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite. The trinity is a philosophical device used by some to understand the mysteries which others understand in other ways.

so youve accepted the logic which is contrary to christian beliefs .now do you sincerely think yopu are still christian?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing I have said is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Nothing I have said is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians.

you refuted trinity

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did no such thing! The trinity is a philosophical device used by some Christians.

then i swear you will easily become muslim insha Allah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would never even consider joining with any group which defies the Commandments of God.

you will see that the prophet muhammad (pbuh) also did not innovate to contradict his predecessor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but he most certainly did. He supports killing and judging people on behalf of God.

i swear that i never knew about morgan from anyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I accept your word. But I do suggest that before you quote Morgan or anyone else you check what they are actually saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I said the Bible contains the word of God. It is self evident that it is an historical document, recounting the lives and teachings of a great number of people.

I said no such thing. The trinity is a philosophical device. The relationship of jesus to God is complicated by Jesus not being as other men. Jesus was created for a purpose.

I said no such thing. I said that those who are accorded the title of prophet clearly have, at times, behaved in ways which are reprehensible and even in difiance of God's Commandments.

Not quite. The trinity is a philosophical device used by some to understand the mysteries which others understand in other ways.

Nothing I have said is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Nothing I have said is contrary to the beliefs of most Christians.

I did no such thing! The trinity is a philosophical device used by some Christians.

I would never even consider joining with any group which defies the Commandments of God.

I'm sorry, but he most certainly did. He supports killing and judging people on behalf of God.

I accept your word. But I do suggest that before you quote Morgan or anyone else you check what they are actually saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my dear you said and accepted what the muslims have always being trying to say.

1the bible is not the word of god but contain the word of god .did you actually read what i wrote.

2you said the trinity is not accepted by all christians .you also accepted that jesus came to reaffirm the 10commandments taught by those before him.in other words jesus did not come to innovate.you will find out trinity is not part of the 10 commandments but as you said some cxhristians accept it (on thyeir own) for their comfort.

3 you did not answer me whether the prophets acted "badly" for a reason or they were hypocrites ,thus making jesus one of them because he did not oppose them.the purpose of this is over.you have said jesus came to reaffirm in other words not to innovate.

4you will be lieing if you say jesus innovated anything or taught the trinity.if he did christianity would not have witnessed what it did in the days of athanasius.

5you are contradicting yourself.or you have not answered anything.you have to think clearly and consistently.you are talkin with a muslim.i dont accept half arguments just to free your image.

6morgan who you oppose is more convincing than you because vhe cited concrete evidence.can show me the innovations or contradictions of islam or rather your misconceptions ,so that i can clear them.

7when you talk about killing ,its as if you are an atheist.i can proof the righteousness of our prophet only if you can cite your misconceptions.

finally ,lets dont try to twist things to get away from them.lets prove everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
finally ,lets dont try to twist things to get away from them.lets prove everything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus was sent to reaffirm and clarify the 10 Commandments.

Any laws or customs which contradict the 10 Commandments are to be ignored.

The proof is in the Gospels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but he most certainly did. He supports killing and judging people on behalf of God.

That should read as he supported killing people who attacked the Muslims and only in defense and he left the judgement to God. He prayed for forgiveness like all humans, unlike Christianity Islam is very emphatic on forgiveness coming only from He who has created us rather than from His son.

The proof is in the Gospels

Oh, you mean the same Gospels with the whole Genealogy issue between two of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That should read as he supported killing people who attacked the Muslims and only in defense and he left the judgement to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it shouldn't.

Muhammad's teachings support killing people. His reasons are irrelevant. Killing people is forbidden by the 6th commandment. There are no exceptions.

Oh, you mean the same Gospels with the whole Genealogy issue between two of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any issues are in the minds of those who put these ideas into Muslim's mouths.

I appreciate that, like all Muslims, you will try to claim that you thought of this yourself, but the uniformity of the many issues against Christianity endlessly spouted by so many Muslims from so many diverse parts suggests that they are all taught the same things.

You might try asking yourself why it is that your leaders want you to think these things?

What is it they don't want you to know?

Why don't they want you to read the facts for yourself?

What are they frightened of?

What are you frightened of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it shouldn't.

Muhammad's teachings support killing people. His reasons are irrelevant. Killing people is forbidden by the 6th commandment. There are no exceptions.

Any issues are in the minds of those who put these ideas into Muslim's mouths.

I appreciate that, like all Muslims, you will try to claim that you thought of this yourself, but the uniformity of the many issues against Christianity endlessly spouted by so many Muslims from so many diverse parts suggests that they are all taught the same things.

You might try asking yourself why it is that your leaders want you to think these things?

What is it they don't want you to know?

Why don't they want you to read the facts for yourself?

What are they frightened of?

What are you frightened of?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Muslims do not frieghten easily.

What does all of this have to do with the "Dead Sea Scrolls"?

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it shouldn't.

Muhammad's teachings support killing people. His reasons are irrelevant. Killing people is forbidden by the 6th commandment. There are no exceptions.

Any issues are in the minds of those who put these ideas into Muslim's mouths.

I appreciate that, like all Muslims, you will try to claim that you thought of this yourself, but the uniformity of the many issues against Christianity endlessly spouted by so many Muslims from so many diverse parts suggests that they are all taught the same things.

You might try asking yourself why it is that your leaders want you to think these things?

What is it they don't want you to know?

i thank GOD i now know what you meant.you are suprised that muslims are in uniformity in arguing against christians?well if i would have said this to you you might not have accepted it.this is to show you how truthful and straight forward islam is.the truth is constant as is also falsehood.this shows that we dont invent things or make up stories.we continue to support the truth and oppose the falsehood.imagine how stupid it will be if 10 muslims oppose different things and contradict themselves.christians do that against islam.some dont like islamic law while others dont mind.some says its the prophet.and others trivial issues like polygamy and divorce.just to have something to say.you dont know what to accept as right or wrong in uniformity.

concerning the prophet (pbuh) and the wars.i dont know anyone who will just fold hios arms watchin his enemies eliminate him.you know that the previous messengers failed in their missions.non ever was totally successful in his mission.even those of their followers later lost their faith.jesus (as) had to be saved by GOD.the prophet muhammad (pbuh) came to succeed much that the unbelievers may dislike it.and he never killed an innocent soul.in the quran it is forbidden to kill an innocent soul.dont worry lets hope we will be in the second coming of jesus (as) and the mahdi (as) ,then you will see them fighting against the unbelievers.

Edited by mehdi soldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it shouldn't.

Muhammad's teachings support killing people. His reasons are irrelevant. Killing people is forbidden by the 6th commandment. There are no exceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jo,

Didn't we cover this in another thread. The translation of the 6th commandment as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is incorrect, it is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". The Old Testement establishes the principle of capital punishment for certain crimes "An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth..."

Why not just put that one to bed and move on....???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this have to do with the dead sea scrolls?

The "Scrolls" are a good indicater of how the Essenes lived but there is nothing new. They adopted Zoroastrian philosophy some almost word for word.

Zoroastrian is the fountain of semetic religions.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jo,

Didn't we cover this in another thread. The translation of the 6th commandment as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is incorrect, it is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder". The Old Testement establishes the principle of capital punishment for certain crimes "An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth..."

Why not just put that one to bed and move on....???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the 6th commandment says Don't Kill.

This was clarified by Jesus.

Jesus also made a very clear statement on the principal of an 'eye for an eye'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it shouldn't.

Muhammad's teachings support killing people. His reasons are irrelevant. Killing people is forbidden by the 6th commandment. There are no exceptions.

First, since I am not a Christian I am under no obligation to shudder in my shoes at the thought of violating the 6th Commandment. If it coincides with Islam, I'll believe it. Otherwise not.

Second, HIS REASONS ARE IRRELEVANT???

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that he had come to bring the sword, to "set father against son and mother against daughter" (Luke 12:53)

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).

Like Moses and other Prophets as according to the corrupted Old Testament ordered the murder of men as well EVERY WOMAN AND CHILD? Simply because they were non-believers?

Third, "Thou shalt not kill" is rather ambigous.

Thou shalt not kill the suicide bombers.

Thou shalt not kill the Iraqi insurgents or the Wahabi extremists who are intent on killing all things non-Muslim.

Thou shalt not kill the crazy man running at you with an axe, despite the fact that you have a gun in your hand and your one chance at life is to shoot before he reaches you.

Thou shalt not kill the chicken and the goat and the cow and the other meaty things for they are your animal friends.

Therefore, thou shalt also abstain from visiting the unholy grounds of KFC, the butchers or the farmyard.

Thou shalt furthermore refrain from fishing. The fishes are your animal friends.

Thou shalt scorn the use of insecticide and pesticides. Do not kill the little creepy-crawlies.

From a Jew, but a well informed Jew :D :

For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims.

That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag."

However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

It is, of course, not just a question of etymology. Those ideologies that adduce the commandment in support of their gentle-hearted causes are compelled to feign ignorance of all those other places in the Bible that condone or command warfare, the slaughter of sacrificial animals, and an assortment of methods for inflicting capital punishment.

Rashbam concludes his discussion of the topic with the following words:

And this is a refutation of the heretics, and they have conceded the point to me. Even though their own books state "I kill, and I make alive" (in Deuteronomy 32:39) --using the same Latin root as for "thou shalt not murder"--they are not being precise.

From the words of these French Jewish scholars, we learn that the "thou shalt not kill" translation stems from the Latin Bible translation that was in use in the medieval Roman Catholic church. Indeed, the Vulgate (as that translation is designated) employs the Latin verb occidere which has the sense of "kill" rather than "murder." By demonstrating that the Vulgate itself employed the root occidere in Deuteronomy, when the Almighty himself is speaking of his own power over the lives of his creatures--in a context where it cannot conceivably be rendered as "murder"--Rashbam aggressively proved the error of the traditional Christian understanding of the sixth commandment.

It is not surprising, therefore, to hear that his Christian interlocutors acknowledged their error without a fight.

This still raises some difficult questions about the Latin Vulgate translation. The author of that translation, Saint Jerome (died in 420), spent much of his career in the Land of Israel, where he consulted frequently with Jewish scholars whose interpretations he often cites with great respect.

Even the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Bible, translated the commandment with a word that means "murder" rather than "kill."

St. Augustine, basing himself on the standard translations, made it clear that the commandment does not extend to wars or capital punishment that are explicitly ordained by God.

The fact remains, however, that even the Jewish translators were not unanimous in maintaining a consistent distinctions between the various Hebrew roots.

Don Isaac Abravanel and others noted that ratsah is employed in Numbers 35:27-30 both when dealing with an authorized case of blood vengeance, and with capital punishment--neither of which falls under the legal category of murder.

Any issues are in the minds of those who put these ideas into Muslim's mouths.

I appreciate that, like all Muslims, you will try to claim that you thought of this yourself, but the uniformity of the many issues against Christianity endlessly spouted by so many Muslims from so many diverse parts suggests that they are all taught the same things.

I have never once in my seventeen year old life EVER attended a khutbah or sermon by some Islamic leader. My experience is limited to listening to Majlis in Muharram. And using my brains which God saw fit to give all humans, yet so few use.

If the same errors keep being repeated the same solution will always be used to solve it.

If my 5 year old sister says 2 + 2 = 5 I'll show her by taking two pencils and adding two more pencils to them that two added by two makes four. So would anyone else from any other part of the world, due to the simple fact that it takes the same key to open the same lock.

If you are made insecure by the fact that so many people unanimously raise the same questions that you, as I've noticed, HAVE FAILED TO ANSWER, then there is something wrong with your religion.

You might try asking yourself why it is that your leaders want you to think these things?

What is it they don't want you to know?

Why don't they want you to read the facts for yourself?

What are they frightened of?

What are you frightened of?

Why dont they want me to read the facts for myself? What facts? I have read the Bible, I have read books by Christians...what more do you want me to read?

What I am frightened of is winding up as a poor insecure person like yourself who cannot answer the questions put to you. That's why I read and talk to people and keep an open mind.

Why don't you read some facts for yourself?

Why do you respond by changing the subject?

Is the subject I raised too hot for you?

Why can't you give straight answers?

What are you afraid of learning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting.

But two assumptions stand out.

1. That the predicted second messiah was Muhammad.

2. That there is any veracity in the so called Gospel of Barnabas.

The problems with taking Muhammad as being the successor to Jesus is that Muhammad taught so much that was in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus.

Muslims have attempted to counter this by claiming that those parts of the Gospels which contradict the teachings of Muhammad are forgeries or corruptions.

But if the teachings of Jesus, as reviled in the Gospels, are indeed forged, then the question must be asked, who did such a thing and why.

The teachings of Jesus, directly contradict the behaviour and attitudes of almost every institution in existence at that time which could have conceivably been in a position to do such a thing.

A claim of forgery will need a little more evidence than simply claiming contradiction with a much later document.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

Sorry for the late response. The internet was out.

I wouldnt call it an assumption. The documents spoke of two messiahs. The Kingly one refers to none other than Muhammad(pbuh). Jesus(pbuh) was known as the Messiah which is also known as the chosen one. Muhammad(pbuh) was also known as Mustafa which means the chosen one. Thus, the Kingly messiah speaks of Muhammad(pbuh).

Indeed, there were many Christian during his time who were waiting for an Arab prophet. Needless to say, the moment they heard of him, most embraced Islam. Even at the age of 12, Muhamad(pbuh) was foretlod to his uncles that he would become a Prophet by a Christian monk, Bahira. The monk also told his uncles to keep him away from the Jews since they would kill him.

Surah 10:94

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.

This verse was taken to the Christians and Jews. But they did not deny it. This was highlighted by the hostile anti Islamic author, Sir Willaim Muir, who said that the Christians back then probably had a gospel which is now lost. He also wondered why the Christians did not refute the verse and disprove his Prophethood. From that, we can see the many possibilites of Muhammad(pbuh) being the Prophet of God.

The teachings of Jesus in the NT is not entirely original. I can prove that much of what Jesus of the NT said, was said by Pagan sages a 1000 years earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

Sorry for the late response. The internet was out.

I wouldnt call it an assumption. The documents spoke of two messiahs. The Kingly one refers to none other than Muhammad(pbuh). Jesus(pbuh) was known as the Messiah which is also known as the chosen one. Muhammad(pbuh) was also known as Mustafa which means the chosen one. Thus, the Kingly messiah speaks of Muhammad(pbuh).

Indeed, there were many Christian during his time who were waiting for an Arab prophet. Needless to say, the moment they heard of him, most embraced Islam. Even at the age of 12, Muhamad(pbuh) was foretlod to his uncles that he would become a Prophet by a Christian monk, Bahira. The monk also told his uncles to keep him away from the Jews since they would kill him.

Surah 10:94

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.

This verse was taken to the Christians and Jews. But they did not deny it. This was highlighted by the hostile anti Islamic author, Sir Willaim Muir, who said that the Christians back then probably had a gospel which is now lost. He also wondered why the Christians did not refute the verse and disprove his Prophethood. From that, we can see the many possibilites of Muhammad(pbuh) being the Prophet of God.

The teachings of Jesus in the NT is not entirely original. I can prove that much of what Jesus of the NT said, was said by Pagan sages a 1000 years earlier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's funny how everything seems to refer to Mohammed these days. Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

Sorry for the late response. The internet was out.

I wouldnt call it an assumption. The documents spoke of two messiahs. The Kingly one refers to none other than Muhammad(pbuh). Jesus(pbuh) was known as the Messiah which is also known as the chosen one. Muhammad(pbuh) was also known as Mustafa which means the chosen one. Thus, the Kingly messiah speaks of Muhammad(pbuh).

Indeed, there were many Christian during his time who were waiting for an Arab prophet. Needless to say, the moment they heard of him, most embraced Islam. Even at the age of 12, Muhamad(pbuh) was foretlod to his uncles that he would become a Prophet by a Christian monk, Bahira. The monk also told his uncles to keep him away from the Jews since they would kill him.

Surah 10:94

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in nowise of those in doubt.

This verse was taken to the Christians and Jews. But they did not deny it. This was highlighted by the hostile anti Islamic author, Sir Willaim Muir, who said that the Christians back then probably had a gospel which is now lost. He also wondered why the Christians did not refute the verse and disprove his Prophethood. From that, we can see the many possibilites of Muhammad(pbuh) being the Prophet of God.

The teachings of Jesus in the NT is not entirely original. I can prove that much of what Jesus of the NT said, was said by Pagan sages a 1000 years earlier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The internet was out? Funny nobody else had that problem... ;)

So Mohammad was both the Kingly one and the Chosen one? :wacko: Two prophets in one ....

btw Isn't it claimed that Abul Qasim came to confirm the message sent to the previous prophets??? That would mean that his teachings were not entirely original either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The internet was out? Funny nobody else had that problem... ;)

So Mohammad was both the Kingly one and the Chosen one?  :wacko:  Two prophets in one ....

btw Isn't it claimed that  Abul Qasim came to confirm the message sent to the previous prophets??? That would mean that his teachings were not entirely original either....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(bismillah)

From your response, it can be easily concluded that you more devoid of knowledge than the authors of the bible themselves. :lol:

Yes, my internet was out. So what? Just because I had problems with the internet does not make it mandatory that everyone should havve problems as well.

Did you even read my post? I said that Messiah also means the chosen one.

Muhammad(pbuh) was called the chosen one, the trustworthy one,etc.etc. The scrolls said that a kingly messiah will come. in other words, the kingly chosen one will come. And it refers to the final messenger of Allah.

Yes, he came to confirm that which was reveleaed originally to the People of the Book, and he brought new laws. So what's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)

From your response, it can be easily concluded that you more devoid of knowledge than the authors of the bible themselves. :lol:

Yes, my internet was out. So what? Just because I had problems with the internet does not make it mandatory that everyone should havve problems as well.

Did you even read my post? I said that Messiah also means the chosen one.

Muhammad(pbuh) was called the chosen one, the trustworthy one,etc.etc. The scrolls said that a kingly messiah will come. in other words, the kingly chosen one will come. And it refers to the final messenger of Allah.

Yes, he came to confirm that which was reveleaed originally to the People of the Book, and he brought new laws. So what's wrong with that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can easily conclude you have no wit or intelligence...

I was joking about the internet thing. I was pointing out that correctly speaking the internet was not out or yes, everyone would have suffered the same problem. Obviously you had problems with your Internet connection or you haven't paid your bill or whatever....

in other words, the kingly chosen one will come.

Again you confirm that you believe Abul Qasim was 2 prophets in one. It's irrelevant that you claim Christ/Messiah means the chosen one, (it doesn't but thats another point) the fact is you are saying Mohammad was the Chosen one! And the Kingly one!

2 for the price of 1!!

What's wrong with that? Dunno. You were the one who made the comment that Jesus teachings were not 'original'. I was just pointing out the same could be said of Abul Qasim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can easily conclude you have no wit or intelligence...

I was joking about the internet thing. I was pointing out that correctly speaking the internet was not out or yes, everyone would have suffered the same problem. Obviously you had problems with your Internet connection or you haven't paid your bill or whatever....

Again you confirm that you believe Abul Qasim was 2 prophets in one. It's irrelevant that you claim Christ/Messiah means the chosen one, (it doesn't but thats another point) the fact is you are saying Mohammad was the Chosen one! And the Kingly one!

2 for the price of 1!!

What's wrong with that? Dunno. You were the one who made the comment that Jesus teachings were not 'original'. I was just pointing out the same could be said of Abul Qasim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, that's what you meant. Sorry. :P

Being Kingly and being the chosen one can be two features of one Prophet. I don't see how that can be irrelevant.

Jesus came to confirm the Torah and make somethings lawful which were previously forbidden to the Jews (according to the Quran). What I said was that the new teachings which Jesus introduced(according to the NT) has many paralles with pagan teachings.

Edited by Ibn Abu Talib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

The Islam of Abdullah bin Salam

Ibn Is-haaq said: It was narrated by Abdullah bin Salam, as narrated by some members of his family - and he was very intelligent and a scholar -, he said: "When I heard of the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, I knew his characteristics, his name, and his time that we were waiting for, and I had held it as a secret, holding my tongue, until the Messenger, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, came to Madinah. When he stopped in Baqa', with Bani 'Amr bin Al-'Awf, a man came and told us of his coming, while I was atop a date tree of time working on it, and my aunt, Khalidah bint Al-Haarith, was sitting below me. When I heard of the coming of the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, I yelled "Allahu Akbar". Upon hearing my Takbeer, my aunt said to me: 'May Allah disgrace you, by Allah if you had heard that Musa bin 'Imran (Moses) was coming you would not have yelled louder'. So I said to her: 'Yes, auntie, by Allah he is the brother of Musa bin 'Imran, and is on his Deen, sent with what he was sent.' She said: 'Oh son of my brother, is he the same Prophet that we used to speak of who would be sent with the coming of the Hour?' I said: 'Yes'. She said: 'Then it is so.'"

He said: "Then I went out to the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, and I became Muslim, then I went back to my family and told them to become Muslim, so they did."

He said: "I kept my becoming a Muslim a secret from the Jews, then I came to the Messenger, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, and said to him 'Oh Messenger of Allah, the Jews are a slanderous people, and I would like you to bring me into one of your homes, and to keep me from them, then ask them what they think of me, until they tell you about me, before they know about my Islam, for if they knew of my Islam, they would slander me and mock me.

So the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, took me into one of his houses, and they came to him, so they spoke to him and questioned him. Then he said to them: 'What is Al-Haseen bin Salam to your people?' and they replied: 'He is our master, son of our master. He is our wisest and our scholar.' When they were finished what they were saying, I came out to them and said: 'Oh Jewish community, fear Allah and take what he has brought to you. By Allah you know that he is the Messenger of Allah, as is written with you in the Torah, by his name and description, for I bear witness that he is the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam, and I believe in him and know it is him.' They said: 'You lie', and attacked me."

He said: "So I said to the Messenger of Allah, sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam: 'Did I not tell you that they are a slanderous people? They are a people of betrayal and lies and Fujoor (outward sinning).' So I made my Islam, as well as the Islam of the people of my house, public, and my aunt, Khalidah bint Al-Haarith, also became Muslim, and a good one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...