Page 2 of 11

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:50 am
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Skenderbeg wrote:Who really care's what the crap Quran says ? its all Mohammeds words and his criminal gang and nothing more..

Mohammed was a sick bastard who enjoyed playing prophet, it was good for him, it got him. slaves, robbing people. killing people. moleseting little girls, fkign slave females. also son's wife, and we care what his crap Quran says ?

Muslims make no sense they sayJesus was not divine but was like adam.....well not really he was nothing like Adam..

for one Adam was created from dust and had no mother died and was buried in the mud.......Jesus on the other hand had a mother unlike Adam, and unlike Adam Jesus was not buried but taken up alive to heaven to be with Allah himself, according to the Quran, so where is Jesus and Adam the same ? Mohammed just made things up and had no idea what the hell he was saying other then to confuse himself and his followers, I don't think Mohammed remembered what he said from one day to the other, much less from year to year.....the Quran was written after his death, his followers put whatever they wanted in their book, the Quran in my opinion is a book put together by Mohammed's criminal gang for personal power..and its not hard to see why they began killing each other as soon as he died, if they really believed he was a real prophet they wouldn't have slaughtered each other right after his death, they were all greedy dirt bags criminal gangsters who followed their Godfather in crime Mohammed :worthy:


I think you will be writing next, "Jesus was a miserable bastard!" Please don't troll in here, Dunce!

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:33 am
by Ghalibkhastahaal
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie.


I thought you were kidding, when you wrote Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. I searched on Google and found one Apple Pie on various forums.

Is this the poster, who thinks it is Jesus in 86:7, who was ejaculated "from between the loins and the ribs"? I read his stupid post here:

http://www.christianforums.net/f23/jesu ... oran-16836

Is that the poster, you were referring to?


Yes he is. He is also called Chicken Lie


Rhymes well and also suits him well.

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:07 pm
by Skenderbeg
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Skenderbeg wrote:Who really care's what the crap Quran says ? its all Mohammeds words and his criminal gang and nothing more..

Mohammed was a sick bastard who enjoyed playing prophet, it was good for him, it got him. slaves, robbing people. killing people. moleseting little girls, fkign slave females. also son's wife, and we care what his crap Quran says ?

Muslims make no sense they sayJesus was not divine but was like adam.....well not really he was nothing like Adam..

for one Adam was created from dust and had no mother died and was buried in the mud.......Jesus on the other hand had a mother unlike Adam, and unlike Adam Jesus was not buried but taken up alive to heaven to be with Allah himself, according to the Quran, so where is Jesus and Adam the same ? Mohammed just made things up and had no idea what the hell he was saying other then to confuse himself and his followers, I don't think Mohammed remembered what he said from one day to the other, much less from year to year.....the Quran was written after his death, his followers put whatever they wanted in their book, the Quran in my opinion is a book put together by Mohammed's criminal gang for personal power..and its not hard to see why they began killing each other as soon as he died, if they really believed he was a real prophet they wouldn't have slaughtered each other right after his death, they were all greedy dirt bags criminal gangsters who followed their Godfather in crime Mohammed :worthy:


I think you will be writing next, "Jesus was a miserable bastard!" Please don't troll in here, Dunce!


Jesus is in Heaven according to your crap Quran alive well and happy and will return unlike your Mohammed who is dead and buried like a dog in a ugly dirty grave in the desert. the real trolling was Mohammed twisting the story of Jesus for his benifit of personnel power and has idiots like you to follow his vile evil brutal cult to helll... :rock:

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:29 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Skenderbeg wrote:Jesus is in Heaven according to your crap Quran alive well and happy and will return unlike your Mohammed who is dead and buried like a dog in a ugly dirty grave in the desert. the real trolling was Mohammed twisting the story of Jesus for his benifit of personnel power and has idiots like you to follow his vile evil brutal cult to helll... :rock:


Jesus remains buried in some unmarked grave in Israel and he is dust and bones.

I suggest you let him rip.

Only the Church benefited and minted money using the hoax of Jesus being killed and resurrected. He will be resurrected only on the Last Day along with all others.

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:28 pm
by The Cat
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I thought you were kidding, when you wrote Apple Pie aka Chicken Pie. I searched on Google and found one Apple Pie on various forums. Is this the poster, who thinks it is Jesus in 86:7, who was ejaculated "from between the loins and the ribs"? I read his stupid post here:

http://www.christianforums.net/f23/jesu ... oran-16836
Is that the poster, you were referring to?

Yes he is. He is also called Chicken Lie

Generally speaking AB always refers to modern Arabic, as most translators do, and so may miss important and crucial meanings,
stemming out from the differences found not only with the Classical Arabic, but with the peculiar dialect of its original recordings.
This can't be done for a sacred text such as the Torah, the Gospels or the Koran, if to be faithful to the ORIGINAL meanings duly
intended. Otherwise, translators (such as AB, or the even the Latin Vulgate) are into much conjectures and factual, plain, errors!

The strength of Apple Pie is that he's relying on the sole lexicon surveying the peculiar former dialect in which the genuine Koran was
first assembled: Edward William Lane's Lexicon! To attack it with modern Arabic (as AB does) is a loosing hand from the beginning.

Thus AP's references are the strongest there is. Let's see what Lane said about modern Arabic, motivating his incomparable Lexicon:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. vii – viii; xxii - xxiii
Every language without a written literature tends to decay more than to development by reason of foreign influences; and the history of the Arabic exhibits an instance of decay remarkably rapid, and extraordinary in degree. An immediate consequence of the foreign conquests achieved by the Arabs under Mohammad’s first four successors was an extensive corruption of their language.

For the nations that they subdued were naturally obliged to adopt in a great measure the speech of the conquerors, a speech which few persons have ever acquired in such a degree as to be secure from the commission of frequent errors in grammar without learning it from infancy….

The classical language they called, by reason of its incomparable excellence, “el-loghah,” or “the language:” and the line between this and the post-classical was easily drawn, on account of the almost sudden commencement, and rapid progress, of the corruption. …

I often have found in my knowledge of modern Arabic a solution of a difficulty; but without great caution, such knowledge would frequently have misled me, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the applications of many words since the classical age.

In short: if someone really wants to refute AP's then he's bound to use Lane's Lexicon to stand the basic criterias of linguistic scholars.

Let us now have a look on the major part of surah 86

--By the heaven and the Morning Star
--Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
--The piercing Star!
--No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid
--That issued from between the loins and ribs.

--Lo! He verily is Able to return him (unto life)
--On the day when hidden thoughts shall be searched out.
--Then will he have no might nor any helper.
--By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
--And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants)
--Lo! this is a conclusive word, It is no pleasantry.

The surah, although allegorical, is a CLEAR reference to the Southern Cross Constellation as the 'Morning Star',
transposed in the earthly context of Jesus' death on the cross (the piercing star being the side little bright one)
Image
Image

The surah clearly states that mankind was determined by Jesus' death (the gushing fluid issue between his loins and ribs).
It then talks about his Resurrection, the Judgment day, where all ''thoughts shall be searched out'' by Allah's Word: Isa !

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:15 pm
by The Cat
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:So I've translated bibatna makkata with: ''in the midst of swindles''.

I wish to comment on above. That is incorrect and you can't do that. In order to understand 48:24, one must read all the verses 48:18-27 and the context becomes clear. There is nothing wrong in using the term, "in the midst" or "in the valleys" or "in the tummy" or "in the belt" or "in the gorges", etc.

Batn means tummy, belly, gorge, etc in Arabic. Bi added to Batn will give the word Bi-batn, which means in the belly or the valley, etc. Mecca has lots of hills and valleys. Please let me try to make it easy using English. When Bi-batn is added to a person or place, an "i" or an "e" is used to connect with the next word, then Bibatni-Makka or Bibatne-Makka would mean in the valley of Makka.

The words in Arabic for Destruction and Swindles, are Tadmeer and fa'amliyat, respectively. Since the name Makka comes within the verse and the verse continues, we read Makkatah and had the name Makka come at the end of the verse, it would still have been written as Makkatah but would be recited or read out as Makkah.

Hope this helped.

Thanks, indeed.
Here is a free-mind forum page discussing over the topic of makkata.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?a ... =9597437.0

If makkata is a locative proper noun or not is a subsidiary matter to me, of which I'm still unsure.
Here's an Edward Lane's page on this: http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/V ... 000127.pdf
The mother of the towns; the metropolis: particularly Mekkeh;
because asserted to be in the middle of the earth; or because it is the Kibleh of all men,
and thither they repair; or because it is the greatest of towns in dignity.

The cemetery, or place of graves.

every plain, or explicit, verse of the Kur-an, of those which relate to laws and statutes and obligatory ordinances.
Religion; one course, which people follow, in religion.

A generation of men; or people of one time: pl. as in the saying, .. Generations of men have passed away. The creatures of God.

One who follows the true religion, holding, or doing, what is different from, or contrary to, all other religions: thus applied to Abraham.

The source, origin, foundation, or basis, of a thing, or of anything;
Anything to which other things are collected together, or adjoined: the place of collection... of a thing;

Convenient, or suitable: both signify an affair, or a case, that is manifest, clear, or plain, not exceeding the due bounds or limits.

Kur-an is called the guide of the Muslim, because it is an exemplar. A road, or way: or a manifest road, or way.

The direction of the Kibleh. -A tract, quarter, or region, of land, or of the earth.

For the moment, it seems inextricable... and depends much on the context of 48.24, as you've said.

But... What I'm SURE OF though is that nowadays Mecca can't be the place of the Koranic pilgrimage!

I am actually to finish a thread in our Resource Center thoroughly dealing with this topic:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of 'Mecca'

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:27 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
The Cat wrote:Generally speaking AB always refers to modern Arabic, as most translators do, and so may miss important and crucial meanings,
stemming out from the differences found not only with the Classical Arabic, but with the peculiar dialect of its original recordings.
This can't be done for a sacred text such as the Torah, the Gospels or the Koran, if to be faithful to the ORIGINAL meanings duly
intended. Otherwise, translators (such as AB, or the even the Latin Vulgate) are into much conjectures and factual, plain, errors!


Almost all translators keep close to the Arabic of Quran. That is why, many add notes within brackets and some add short commentaries. Earlier, I did one example to show you in order to make the message clear, when we discussed the likeness of Jesus with Adam in the sight of Allah and I had translated in contemporary English, which the translators do not do. Anyone, who knows Arabic well, is familiar with the proverbs, idioms and metaphors, etc., can easily understand the message and the context.

I will give you one more example: "Afallaho anka" is mostly translated literally as "Allah forgive you" but it does not really mean that although the translation is correct. It also means "Allah save you or Allah keep you safe." I am sure AB knows that.

Confusions arose from the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint and we have the monstrosity of the triune God and Jesus was turned into God.

The Cat wrote:The strength of Apple Pie is that he's relying on the sole lexicon surveying the peculiar former dialect in which the genuine Koran was first assembled: Edward William Lane's Lexicon! To attack it with modern Arabic (as AB does) is a loosing hand from the beginning.

Thus AP's references are the strongest there is. Let's see what Lane said about modern Arabic, motivating his incomparable Lexicon:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. vii – viii; xxii - xxiii
Every language without a written literature tends to decay more than to development by reason of foreign influences; and the history of the Arabic exhibits an instance of decay remarkably rapid, and extraordinary in degree. An immediate consequence of the foreign conquests achieved by the Arabs under Mohammad’s first four successors was an extensive corruption of their language.

For the nations that they subdued were naturally obliged to adopt in a great measure the speech of the conquerors, a speech which few persons have ever acquired in such a degree as to be secure from the commission of frequent errors in grammar without learning it from infancy….

The classical language they called, by reason of its incomparable excellence, “el-loghah,” or “the language:” and the line between this and the post-classical was easily drawn, on account of the almost sudden commencement, and rapid progress, of the corruption. …

I often have found in my knowledge of modern Arabic a solution of a difficulty; but without great caution, such knowledge would frequently have misled me, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the applications of many words since the classical age.


You will be surprised to know that Muslims do not learn Arabic from lane's Lexicon. I have never referred to his Lexicon at all and I believe that AB also does not need it. I searched Apple Pie's posts on various forums, using Google Search and I can assure you that he cannot be trusted at all. His posts are full of distortion and the man appears to be clueless and ignorant of Arabic.

One cannot write a book or articles in any language by using the lexicons and dictionaries. Even if I used lane's Lexicon to explain 86, it will never lead me to produce a preposterous misinterpretation of the Surah as Apple Pie has wrongly done.

Lane was an Orientalist. Compared with Sir William Muir and Dr. Sprenger, who were both polemicists. Lane was better in the sense that he did a good Lexicon for Arabic and he was not a polemicist. But Lane's Lexicon was done for English-speaking audience. He did it only about 150 years ago and he laerned from Muslim scholars, who had the knowledge of a thousand plus years with them in the form of books and scripts from the early Imams.

The Cat wrote:In short: if someone really wants to refute AP's then he's bound to use Lane's Lexicon to stand the basic criterias of linguistic scholars.


No. Lane' Lexicon is not an authority. I can refute AP's posts without using any lexicons.

The Cat wrote:Let us now have a look on the major part of surah 86

Spoiler! :
--By the heaven and the Morning Star
--Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
--The piercing Star!
--No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid
--That issued from between the loins and ribs.

--Lo! He verily is Able to return him (unto life)
--On the day when hidden thoughts shall be searched out.
--Then will he have no might nor any helper.
--By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
--And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants)
--Lo! this is a conclusive word, It is no pleasantry.


The Cat wrote:The surah, although allegorical, is a CLEAR reference to the Southern Cross Constellation as the 'Morning Star',
transposed in the earthly context of Jesus' death on the cross (the piercing star being the side little bright one)


Is that AP's view? The world always knew that Venus is the Morning Star.

The Cat wrote:The surah clearly states that mankind was determined by Jesus' death (the gushing fluid issue between his loins and ribs). It then talks about his Resurrection, the Judgment day, where all ''thoughts shall be searched out'' by Allah's Word: Isa !


No. That is where AP is wrong. He is just using Lane's work as a dictionary. And by using words from the dictionary, one cannot write passages or explain some.

First, he thinks that the word "Sulb" is the Cross, which is really silly. If you check Lane's Lexicon and concordance or any other dictionary, you will know that Cross in Arabic is Thaleeb (Saleeb). This already demolishes AP's argument. There is no talk of any CROSS in Surah 86.

AP then goes on to the verse "Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ib" and thinks that Jesus comes from between the Sulb and Taraib. What comes out is the semen, not Jesus. That is where AP is mistaken.

There is no talk about Jesus and the cross in Surah 86. The essence of the message in those verse, is that man should think of what he has been created.

Hope this helped. It is a pleasure to discuss with you. I was getting almost bored here but tried my best to entertain other ignorant posters. :lol:

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:30 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:So I've translated bibatna makkata with: ''in the midst of swindles''.

I wish to comment on above. That is incorrect and you can't do that. In order to understand 48:24, one must read all the verses 48:18-27 and the context becomes clear. There is nothing wrong in using the term, "in the midst" or "in the valleys" or "in the tummy" or "in the belt" or "in the gorges", etc.

Batn means tummy, belly, gorge, etc in Arabic. Bi added to Batn will give the word Bi-batn, which means in the belly or the valley, etc. Mecca has lots of hills and valleys. Please let me try to make it easy using English. When Bi-batn is added to a person or place, an "i" or an "e" is used to connect with the next word, then Bibatni-Makka or Bibatne-Makka would mean in the valley of Makka.

The words in Arabic for Destruction and Swindles, are Tadmeer and fa'amliyat, respectively. Since the name Makka comes within the verse and the verse continues, we read Makkatah and had the name Makka come at the end of the verse, it would still have been written as Makkatah but would be recited or read out as Makkah.

Hope this helped.

Thanks, indeed.
Here is a free-mind forum page discussing over the topic of makkata.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?a ... =9597437.0

If makkata is a locative proper noun or not is a subsidiary matter to me, of which I'm still unsure.
Here's an Edward Lane's page on this: http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/V ... 000127.pdf
The mother of the towns; the metropolis: particularly Mekkeh;
because asserted to be in the middle of the earth; or because it is the Kibleh of all men,
and thither they repair; or because it is the greatest of towns in dignity.

The cemetery, or place of graves.

every plain, or explicit, verse of the Kur-an, of those which relate to laws and statutes and obligatory ordinances.
Religion; one course, which people follow, in religion.

A generation of men; or people of one time: pl. as in the saying, .. Generations of men have passed away. The creatures of God.

One who follows the true religion, holding, or doing, what is different from, or contrary to, all other religions: thus applied to Abraham.

The source, origin, foundation, or basis, of a thing, or of anything;
Anything to which other things are collected together, or adjoined: the place of collection... of a thing;

Convenient, or suitable: both signify an affair, or a case, that is manifest, clear, or plain, not exceeding the due bounds or limits.

Kur-an is called the guide of the Muslim, because it is an exemplar. A road, or way: or a manifest road, or way.

The direction of the Kibleh. -A tract, quarter, or region, of land, or of the earth.

For the moment, it seems inextricable... and depends much on the context of 48.24, as you've said.

But... What I'm SURE OF though is that nowadays Mecca can't be the place of the Koranic pilgrimage!

I am actually to finish a thread in our Resource Center thoroughly dealing with this topic:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of 'Mecca'

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527


Thanks very much and I will read it, when you post. No rush and no worries.

Edited to add: Where can I find AP's full collection?

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:40 pm
by Ghalibkhastahaal
The Cat wrote:For the moment, it seems inextricable... and depends much on the context of 48.24, as you've said.


When I have more time, I will do a write up on 48:18-27 to show the actual context and that would give a very clear picture.

By just reading and discussing 48:24, one can never make out the context.

Or, if you are quite clear on that, then please let me know.

There is no need to hurry or rush up. Please write at a comfortable pace.

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:56 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Skenderbeg wrote:
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
Skenderbeg wrote:Who really care's what the crap Quran says ? its all Mohammeds words and his criminal gang and nothing more..

Mohammed was a sick bastard who enjoyed playing prophet, it was good for him, it got him. slaves, robbing people. killing people. moleseting little girls, fkign slave females. also son's wife, and we care what his crap Quran says ?

Muslims make no sense they sayJesus was not divine but was like adam.....well not really he was nothing like Adam..

for one Adam was created from dust and had no mother died and was buried in the mud.......Jesus on the other hand had a mother unlike Adam, and unlike Adam Jesus was not buried but taken up alive to heaven to be with Allah himself, according to the Quran, so where is Jesus and Adam the same ? Mohammed just made things up and had no idea what the hell he was saying other then to confuse himself and his followers, I don't think Mohammed remembered what he said from one day to the other, much less from year to year.....the Quran was written after his death, his followers put whatever they wanted in their book, the Quran in my opinion is a book put together by Mohammed's criminal gang for personal power..and its not hard to see why they began killing each other as soon as he died, if they really believed he was a real prophet they wouldn't have slaughtered each other right after his death, they were all greedy dirt bags criminal gangsters who followed their Godfather in crime Mohammed :worthy:


I think you will be writing next, "Jesus was a miserable bastard!" Please don't troll in here, Dunce!


Jesus is in Heaven according to your crap Quran alive well and happy and will return unlike your Mohammed who is dead and buried like a dog in a ugly dirty grave in the desert. the real trolling was Mohammed twisting the story of Jesus for his benifit of personnel power and has idiots like you to follow his vile evil brutal cult to helll... :rock:


What a filthy, retarded, sharmooot, punk of a daily molested queer.

You have set the rules, you filthy metnak

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:41 pm
by The Cat
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:AP then goes on to the verse "Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ib" and thinks that Jesus comes from between the Sulb and Taraib. What comes out is the semen, not Jesus. That is where AP is mistaken. There is no talk about Jesus and the cross in Surah 86. The essence of the message in those verse, is that man should think of what he has been created.

Hope this helped. It is a pleasure to discuss with you.

Well, the pleasure is partaken. Yet, the cross of surah 86 is the Crux Constellation.
Please see my anthropological thread on this: Happy Resurrection
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1879

Let me be more explicit about the pierced star in the Southern constellation
And the figurative of this in the Christian mythology as I understood it...
Image

--By the heaven and the Morning Star
--Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
--The piercing Star!
--No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid
--That issued from between the loins and ribs.

It's clearly talking about mankind determined by the gushing fluid that came out from Jesus when pierced by a Roman!
The surah clearly states that mankind was determined by Jesus' death (the gushing fluid issue between his loins and ribs).
It then talks about the Resurrection, the Judgment day, where all ''thoughts shall be searched out'' by Allah's Word: Isa !

--Lo! He verily is Able to return him (unto life)
--On the day when hidden thoughts shall be searched out.
--Then will he have no might nor any helper.
--By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,
--And the earth which splitteth (with the growth of trees and plants)
--Lo! this is a conclusive word, It is no pleasantry.

The Southern Cross (or Crux) Constellation is The celestial background behind Christianity. A must to know and study!
In ancient time it was related with spring resurrection, fertility..... then appearing ONLY in Easter' (April's) mornings!
It is still a true guiding light since it does indicate to travelers and sailors almost the perfect south. Not Venus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux (notice how, on some of the flags, the 'piercing star' is shown like that of AB's Australia)
Image

Nor forgetting viewtopic.php?p=135125#p135125
Spoiler! :
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:I have already clarified above that there is no likeness between Allah and Adam and there is also no likeness between Allah and Jesus. I hope it is clear from the way, I moved "`Inda Allāhi " away for the sake of clarification.

Sorry Ghalib but you simply can't restructure a Koranic text like you've done, placing khalimathali before Mathala! For Inda Allahi (with Allah) is clearly after 'Inna Mathala Isa' thus establishing the first similitude. The 2nd similitude is also clearly introduced by 'Khamathali'. The first similitude establish Isa WITH Allah while the second, kha-mathali, differentiates Jesus' human body, made of dust in the likeness of Adam.

Let us see why Adam and Jesus are so differentiated...
In 2.33 and 2.37 Adam is instructed to give names BUT that's way different for Isa, sanctified through the Holy Spirit: 2.87: We supported him with the Holy spirit; 2.253 (idem), 5.110: I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit all are showing that Jesus is sanctified, something not said or given to any other one is he Adam, Abraham or Moses. He's the Massihrullah, the Ruhullah! Adam was instructed, Jesus instructed. See?

3.39, 3.45 and 66.12 all confirm the blessed status accorded to Isa as Allah's Ruhullah (Spirit, Word, Breath), so corroborated in 4.171. Then 3.59 can only emphasize the discrepancy of status between Jesus and Adam consistent with the differences demonstrated above (2.33/2.37). Still the angels were commanded to prostrate to Adam, including Jibril... the more so then with Jesus/Isa!

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:(In 81.19) Innahu refers to Quran in the verse. The translators added Quran in brackets to make the reader understand that. So, there is really no lying pen. You can also see the same in the translation of 81:19 and if you continue reading, you will see in 81:23 that Muhammad saw Gabriel, the noble messenger (rasoolin kareem) coming down over the horizon, but that was not Jesus coming down.

From 81.19-21, 86.13 and 69.40 the same picture arisen: Isa is God's Word in Spirit (Logos)

81.19 Certainly His Word (Jesus) is a Holy message (Innahu laqawlu rasoolin kareemin).

86.13: Lo! this is a conclusive Word (Innahu Laqawlun Faşlun)

69:40 That's indeed the Word of an illustrious messenger (Innahu Laqawlu Rasūlin Karīmin)

This illustrious messenger from birth can only be Jesus, 3.45: Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is
the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
. I don't think
Gabriel is ever called 'illustrious' or a 'honored' messenger in the Koran, nor Muhammad, so all those verses must apply to Jesus.

As an angel, having no Free Will, who had to bow to Adam, Gabriel is an automaton and as such cannot be that illustrious.

Now, Isa is not only made a viceroy in the likeness of Adam (3.59/2.30), but he's a holy one able to abrogate God's words!

43:63
When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom,
and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me.


Here, Isa is not receiving revelations like all the other messengers, he's instructions all by himself (also 3.50)!
The wisdom (Ĥikmati) is not here given... but something he had from the cradle and even from inception...

The Koranic 'Isa' is not even a name but a lordly title...
Isa can only mean: Our Lord, stemming out right from Hinduism like in the Isa Upanishads, yet mixed with the Phoenician sun-god 'IES' (The One Light) at the origin of many Hebrew names, including Yeshua meaning The Healing Light. In short, the very name of ISA used in the Koran confers sovereignty to him, for it wasn't originally a name but a title! In correct Arabic Jesus would have been written: Yashu. Instead the Koran used -a title- indicating his godly, immaculate conception exactly like in Christianity... How's that! The very title of ISA was meant to be much deferential!

Still God doesn't have a biological son (ie. Arabic walid) but a spiritual soul-mate: His Word, Spirit, Logos. Curiously Ibn (of the belonging) isn't use to describe the Allah/Isa filiation, instead we find it to describe his filiation with... Mary, while it should be the other way around! The only way I can interpret this curiosity is that, in his human belonging (Abna Maryama), Jesus isn't to be consecrated but solely through his godly Spirit.

2.253: Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake,
while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary (Īsá Abna Maryama), clear proofs
and We supported him with the holy Spirit (Rūĥi Al-Qudusi).

Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:Leaving aside, for the moment, the controversy of Gabriel being or not the Holy Spirit....
3.45: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

I'm just noting here that angels are plural, thus eliminating Gabriel this far.

There is no need to leave it. There is no controversy. Ruhul Ameen is the title of Gabriel.
Please read 26:103, which says, "Nazala bihi alrroohu al-ameen" ( brought down by the Faithful Spirit)

There's no alrroohu al-ameen in 26.103 and the context is about Noah.

I find Gabriel mixed up and seriously confused in the Islamic tradition. For he ain't the Holy Spirit (as Muslims believe) and, like I've said,
as an angel without a will of his own, he has no more importance than let say the royal seal on a delivered message. Without such will of
his own, Gabriel can't be the 'Faithful Spirit' no more than let say a transmitting computer has spirit (although 'faithful').

But such is not the idea carried behind the notion of the Holy Spirit for anyone blessed by it is transfigured or, like you've said about 5.110:
''I strengthened you with the spirit of holiness". Indeed the Koranic notion of Ruhullah ascribed to Isa is about the same as the Christian
notion of Jesus being the Logos: ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God''. (John 1.1). Best
translated by ''The Word made flesh'', transcribing the idea of Heraclius that the Logos was the Principle of divine order within knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

So we still have a lot to discuss, like if Gabriel and the Koranic Holy Spirit are the same.
Of course I have a Christian background and you a Muslim one. Don't we say: 'Vive la Difference' !

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:24 pm
by AhmedBahgat
Ahmed chose to reply to inmate pussy cat

The Cat wrote:The Southern Cross (or Crux) Constellation is The celestial background behind Christianity. A must to know and study!
In ancient time it was related with spring resurrection, fertility..... then appearing ONLY in Easter' (April's) mornings!
It is still a true guiding light since it does indicate to travelers and sailors almost the perfect south. Not Venus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux (notice how, on some of the flags, the 'piercing star' is shown like that of AB's Australia)
Image



You ignorant and confused inmate, the Australian flag does not show a star, rather a constellation of a few stars. The Quran on the other hand is talking about a single star.

You are dismissed

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:26 pm
by The Cat
Spoiler! :
The Cat wrote:Thanks, indeed.
Here is a free-mind forum page discussing over the topic of makkata.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?a ... =9597437.0

If makkata is a locative proper noun or not is a subsidiary matter to me, of which I'm still unsure.
Here's an Edward Lane's page on this: http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/V ... 000127.pdf
The mother of the towns; the metropolis: particularly Mekkeh;
because asserted to be in the middle of the earth; or because it is the Kibleh of all men,
and thither they repair; or because it is the greatest of towns in dignity.

The cemetery, or place of graves.

every plain, or explicit, verse of the Kur-an, of those which relate to laws and statutes and obligatory ordinances.
Religion; one course, which people follow, in religion.

A generation of men; or people of one time: pl. as in the saying, .. Generations of men have passed away. The creatures of God.

One who follows the true religion, holding, or doing, what is different from, or contrary to, all other religions: thus applied to Abraham.

The source, origin, foundation, or basis, of a thing, or of anything;
Anything to which other things are collected together, or adjoined: the place of collection... of a thing;

Convenient, or suitable: both signify an affair, or a case, that is manifest, clear, or plain, not exceeding the due bounds or limits.

Kur-an is called the guide of the Muslim, because it is an exemplar. A road, or way: or a manifest road, or way.

The direction of the Kibleh. -A tract, quarter, or region, of land, or of the earth.

For the moment, it seems inextricable... and depends much on the context of 48.24, as you've said.

But... What I'm SURE OF though is that nowadays Mecca can't be the place of the Koranic pilgrimage!

I am actually to finish a thread in our Resource Center thoroughly dealing with this topic:
MECCA -Myth vs Reality: In Search of 'Mecca'

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8527


Thanks very much and I will read it, when you post. No rush and no worries.

Edited to add: Where can I find AP's full collection?

Apple Pie's Koranic Bible
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8138

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:32 pm
by The Cat
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:The Southern Cross (or Crux) Constellation is The celestial background behind Christianity. A must to know and study!
In ancient time it was related with spring resurrection, fertility..... then appearing ONLY in Easter' (April's) mornings!
It is still a true guiding light since it does indicate to travelers and sailors almost the perfect south. Not Venus...

You ignorant and confused inmate, the Australian flag does not show a star, rather a constellation of a few stars.
The Quran on the other hand is talking about a single star.

Which is plainly the piercing star within the Crux constellation. Otherwise, you are left with Venus-Lucifer and... Apple Pie !

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:37 pm
by AhmedBahgat
The Cat wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
The Cat wrote:The Southern Cross (or Crux) Constellation is The celestial background behind Christianity. A must to know and study!
In ancient time it was related with spring resurrection, fertility..... then appearing ONLY in Easter' (April's) mornings!
It is still a true guiding light since it does indicate to travelers and sailors almost the perfect south. Not Venus...

You ignorant and confused inmate, the Australian flag does not show a star, rather a constellation of a few stars.
The Quran on the other hand is talking about a single star.

Which is plainly the piercing star within the Crux constellation. Otherwise, you are left with Venus-Lucifer and... Apple Pie !


None of that, inmate; the verse is talking indirectly about any star turning into a black hole. Dismiss yourself

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:53 pm
by The Cat
Ghalibkhastahaal wrote:
The Cat wrote:For the moment, it seems inextricable... and depends much on the context of 48.24, as you've said.

When I have more time, I will do a write up on 48:18-27 to show the actual context and that would give a very clear picture.

By just reading and discussing 48:24, one can never make out the context.

Or, if you are quite clear on that, then please let me know.

There is no need to hurry or rush up. Please write at a comfortable pace.

Well, the plain context is the Hudaibiyah negociations, isn't it? There was almost war, tensions...

Thus the meaning I kept from the CA dictionaries:
Al-Ghani MKK: Sucking; used with an opponent to mean others insisting on requests from him.

Now, if you don't want to translate this idea with ''in the midst of swindles'' with what word would you state the meaning?
You've said: ''The words in Arabic for Destruction and Swindles, are Tadmeer and fa'amliyat, respectively''. But back then?

The Classical dictionaries states that destruction is one of the meaning for MKK. We can't explain makkata with modern Arabic.

___________________
AhmedBahgat wrote:the verse is talking indirectly about any star turning into a black hole. Dismiss yourself

Black hole, indirectly... You took some very good stuff, indeed. Show me where in surah 86? :reading:

--By the heaven and the Morning Star
--Ah, what will tell thee what the Morning Star is!
--The piercing Star!
--No human soul but hath a guardian over it.
--So let man consider from what he is created.
--He is created from a gushing fluid
--That issued from between the loins and ribs.

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 2:26 am
by AhmedBahgat
I will get back to you, inmate pussy, when I have time, but for the mean time enjoy this in your cell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coG1JV-_ ... ature=fvwp

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:48 am
by Centaur
Bible speak of Jesus as son of god in terms of his divinity, or the word of god.But idiot Mohammed thought its literal and added porn to Koran saying Mary kept her private parts guarded until allah blew into it.Only to be confused later with Miriam daughter of imran

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:59 am
by Centaur

Re: Who's the Koranic father of Jesus?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 4:05 am
by Centaur
Qur'an 21:91

* Literal: "her genital parts , so We blew into her"


Qur'an 66:12

ومريم ابنت عمران التي احصنت فرجها فنفخنا فيه من روحنا وصدقت بكلمات ربها وكتبه وكانت من القانتين
Transliteration: Wamaryama ibnata AAimrana allatee ahsanat farjaha fanafakhna feehi min roohina wasaddaqat bikalimati rabbiha wakutubihi wakanat mina alqaniteena
Literal: And Mary Amran's daughter who remained chaste (protected) her genital parts between her legs, so We blew in it

Why is Allah (Mo) feel it so important that he mentions blowing into vagina here and there in his Korand, was he forgetful, that he already mentioned it in 21:91?

As perverted as his sex maniac Paedophet Mo?