View Full Version : Jesus using the word "Muslim" in Luke 6:40
http://answering-christianity.com/luke6_40.htm
Hi Asif,
I looked at the article. It would seem to me that all Tamer has done here is shown that Aramaic and Arabic are related. If all the transliteration is right, which I'll assume it is, so what? What's the point?
What I'm also wondering, Jesus is thought to have spoken Hebrew and Aramaic (with some saying Greek too, but that's besides the point). So how do we know Jesus was speaking these particular things in Aramaic, not Hebrew? If it was Hebrew, then it means nothing.
But there is another, bigger problem. Most of the page is made up of a big list of Aramaic translated into English. I can't see the point in doing so, perhaps you can inform me. It would seem he's filling up the page with words that Jesus never said, whether Greek, Aramaic, or whatever. For example, Buddhist?
Included in this list he says that "Mishilmaanaa" means Muslim, while at the top he says at the top the word is "Mushlam." I don't know any Aramaic, but this seems to be a problem, maybe a contradiction, maybe not, but I definitely think the issue needs more detail before any conclusion can be made.
And as I said before, what's the point that Aramaic is similar to Arabic? Let's say there was a man who lived in Palestine around Jesus' time and called himself a prophet of God. However, he's promoting Roman mythology with it's polytheism. Now he speaks Aramaic, as is common, so he also is using the same language as Jesus. But! He's using words like "Mushlam" and many other's on Tamer's list. Do we take this to be a prophecy of Muhammad!? Certainly not, he's a false prophet, he couldn't be speaking prophetically. Now the orginal arguement becomes: Jesus prophesied Muhammad by using Arabic-like words, and this other prophet ISN'T prophecying Muhammad by using Arabic-like words. Where's the logic in that?
I want to repeat the linguitics aren't a good area for me at all, I would much rather someone acquainted with the science answer this instead. (Jcecil seems to have some experience with quite a few languages.) All I can do is use common sense. But again, what's purpose in proving Jesus in the New Testament spoke similarly to Muhammad? Muhammad spoke with similar words as Jesus in the NT, is Muhammad proving the authenticity of the NT?
Blessings,
JBJ
Hi Asif,
I'm still confused, now even more. Is there a point to the article? What did you mean by refering to it? I inferred that it was meant as a Muhammad prophecy because there seemed to be nothing else the article could mean. I will try contacting the author myself.
As for the Aramaic site, it claims to be totally Christian (supporting the Bible) but even from the little I've seen of it, contradicts this by some Muslim ideas, I'm really not sure what to make of it.
JBJ
Hi Asif!
I agree with the article that the pre-Greek Aramaic may have used a word related to the Arabic "Muslim", and that Aramaic and Arabic are related languages. I also agree that Jesus' primary language, if not sole language, was Aramaic. But with JBJ's opening statement in his first response, I have to ask what the significance of this is supposed to be?
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Even in the original Scriptures man can find in Songs of Songs 5:16, the word 'Muhammadim' which has been translated now into 'beloved'.
The Bible confirms on many ways the comming of a prophet after Isa(a.s) and other (islamic) issues such as that the prophet Isa(a.s) is not the son of God, about the crucification, etc. and still people try to find many outways by some 'snake manoevres' to ignore the message.
May Allah(swt) give guidance to these blasphemers who still believe in these kind of pagan stories, and if not may they keep wandering around in their blind faith.
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day to all.
AstaghfurAllah...astaghfurAllah...astaghfurAllah.
Dearest brother Jalaal...please kindly try to review the life and sayings of our beloved prophet...I cannot recall a time when he ever called any supplication as such against a person or group of persons. Rather, he always remained patient and most kind, and would always ask Allah for His guidance for ppl...never the opposite!
May Allah guide us all to that which is best. Ameen.
For surely, without His mercy and His guidance, we are all lost.
Lulua.
Salaam Alaikom,
Brother Asif maybe you can use this very valuable site in your further debates with christians:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/contents.html
or use this chart:
http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/chart.html
Good luck !
Wassalaam.
Hi Jalaal,
Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy the prophets, but to fulfill them" Meaning that Jesus makes the prophets complete, meaning Muhammad nor anyone else after him needed to.
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Gospel of Luke) But more interesting, it was more common for Jesus' enemies to call him the son of God, demons and Jewish priests.
It was the third hour when they crucified him. (Gospel of Mark)
It doesn't seem to me that Christians are manuevering to make these ideas, they're stated plainly, the message is plain. If you think Isa prophesied Muhammad, then write were he does and we can discuss it, and we can see the truth. The same thing concerning blind faith, or pagan stories.
If I may ask, what does 3.93 of the Qur'an mean when it says the Torah was still unchanged at Muhammad's time? I'm sure you won't "try to find many outways by some 'snake manoevres' to ignore the message."
His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. (Song of Songs 5.16)
I think you were refering to "lovely" not beloved. In any case, "lovely" is an adjective, not a noun as "Muhammad" is.
The word is "mahamaddim" meaing delights, which moved into Arabic to mean praised. All that's been proven is that the two languages are similar.
Another point is the verse given to the prophet Ezekial that says, "I am about to take away the mahamaddim of your eyes." and then, "in the evening my (Ezekial's) wife died." If this means Muhammad, then he must have had more than one birth, in one of which he was a woman! Is this not silly?
God Bless!
JBJ
Hi Asif,
Thanks for the site, I looked at it but it ignores the fact that the word is an adjective, not a noun. He says "dodee" means lover or uncle, but instead of recognizing that both are correct, he reads into the text and uses neighbor in his translation. Then he uses the translation "comrad" after he says that neighbor is the more common translation. He also makes the (rather irrelevant but interesting) remark that Hebrew had no vowels which is a silly idea, no language can exist without vowels. Vowels were always prounced but not written. And the reader does not decide what vowels to use, as the author says, the reader would have to be familiar enough with the passage to know what vowels to use. In other words, I thought Osama's words were insufficient and self-defeating.
The Aramaic site says it supports the Christian scriptures, but you know as well as I that this is impossible if it accepts Muhammad because his words contradicts some in the Bible. I don't choose to deny the truth, I've been denying what has seemed to me to be falsehood for spiritual and rational reasons.
What definition of ahadith did I give that was shocking? And what did you mean, "you thought that Muslims believed the Torah was lost"? Some Muslims believe it was partially lost, and a rare few that all of it was, (lost meaning not present) or am I wrong?
I did contact the webmaster of the answering-christianity site. I'd contacted him some time ago on a different issue, but he never responded. (Which isn't surprising with his large audience.) Hopefully he will this time.
I'm glad you've keeping up on the 3.93 problem, what scholars did you get your info from, just out of curiousity? They said:
There is no doubt that all types of corruptions had entered these books Torah and Injeel.
There is at least a little doubt, if there wasn't, we would've been able to solve this problem a long time ago.
The Quraan Shareef commands that the Torah be produced as evidence and recited.
Here lies the very problem. These scholars say the Torah is told to be brought, the Torah was given to Moses. The Qur'an says the Torah was given to Moses, then it says to bring it to Muhammad. I feel redundant saying this over and over. If it was partially changed, the Qur'an would say "bring ye the ayat" or "bring ye part of the Torah" but it says "bring ye the Torah." "The" is a definite article, meaning there is only one Torah being refered to.
Hence verse pertaining to foods etc., were in their pure form at the time of the revelation of the Quraan and clear proof for this is that if this was altered they would have an argument in their favour to counter the challenge of the Quraan. They remaining silent shows that they don't dispute this. "
The scholars are correct, the Jews did believe these verse weren't changed. Another question is, if Muhammad taught the Books had been changed, is there any place where Jews are arguing against this? If there is, it would be proof that changes were being charged against them.
If I may be so flattering, Asif, I respect what you've been doing on this forum. Your ideas and attitudes are (in my opinion) the most consistently mature of anyone here, no doubt including myself. I always look forward to your responses and hope you'll keep on as you've been doing. Take your time now, and good luck with your tests! Salaam.
JBJ
Hi Asif!
By the hadith being a record of the Word of God, I meant that the hadith tells the situations (record) many ayat (Word of God) were revealed in. The Bible tells the situations Jesus' words and action were in. Am I mistaken about something?
About the Torah being lost, we just use different meanings for "lost." I was meaning that many details have been lost in the corruption.
What you say over here seems to suggest to me that you agree with me when i say that the Bible of today is corrupted.
When something is corrupted, the meaning changes and are done purposefully. First, it isn't known that the addition was on purpose. Second, the meaning of the NT is the same with or without the last chapter.
"Verses 9-11 record that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene which is confirmed in John 20.16. Verses 12-13 record an appearance to two of Jesus' disciples as they were walking into the country, a brief reference which is confirmed Luke 24.13-35. Verses 14-18 record Jesus' appearance to all his disciples (the sequence being confirmed in Luke 24.36-43 including the reproach they received from Jesus) and his commission to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, confirmed in Matthew 28.19...the ascension mentioned in verse 19 is confirmed in Acts 1.9. Verse 20 concludes the passage by mentioning the fact that the disciples went out and preached everywhere while the Lord confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."
And as I've said before, the Bible is a historical record. Not every hadith is authentic, but that doesn't disqualify every individual hadith as being likely of error. Now, if there was a change in meaning, an ancient scrap of Mark or anything in the NT saying Jesus isn't God, or that he didn't rise from the dead, then the Muslim arguement would have weight.
So is the Gospel corrupted? I'd say no. The present TEXT not the Gospel has been CHANGED but not corrupted. The true Word of God, Jesus, and the NT view of him, the true Gospel (Gospel means Good News) is exactly the same, there isn't a ms anywhere to show the view is different. And the Gospel is still by far the best historical record of Jesus.
I also agree with Jcecil saying that this half chapter is inspired. Those who organized the canon of the NT were guided by God's Spirit, and so God had a reason in including it in the NT, probably so that Mark doesn't end mid-sentence. I shouldn't have said the half chapter isn't Biblical, I was wrong. Please accept my apologizes.
Now about 3.93. I agree the verse is talking about food, my point is that it has further implications beyond food. Perhaps I can organize the problem this way:
Was the Torah given to Moses God's Word?
Does 3.93 mention the same Torah?
If the answer to each question is yes, then the conclusion is that the Torah at the time the Qur'an was revealed was still God's Word. If a Book is God's Word, then it must be the truth. Is our mistunderstanding with the first question, the second, or the conclusion?
If the answer to the second question is No, then to which Torah does it refer? Is there more than one, or more than one version? It is "al Taurat" as 3.93 says. The definite article means that it refers to the one mentioned before. For example, if I say, "I read the verse," I'm refering to 3.93, because no other verses have been mentioned. In the Qur'an, there are no other Torahs or versions of it, so it must be refering to the version given to Moses, right?
I think if you respond to each question I raise then I'll be able to best understand. Go ahead and quote your ahadith. Thanks!
JBJ
Hi Asif!
By the hadith being a record of the Word of God, I meant that the hadith tells the situations (record) many ayat (Word of God) were revealed in. The Bible tells the situations Jesus' words and action were in. Am I mistaken about something?
About the Torah being lost, we just use different meanings for "lost." I was meaning that many details have been lost in the corruption.
What you say over here seems to suggest to me that you agree with me when i say that the Bible of today is corrupted.
When something is corrupted, the meaning changes and are done purposefully. First, it isn't known that the addition was on purpose. Second, the meaning of the NT is the same with or without the last chapter.
"Verses 9-11 record that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene which is confirmed in John 20.16. Verses 12-13 record an appearance to two of Jesus' disciples as they were walking into the country, a brief reference which is confirmed Luke 24.13-35. Verses 14-18 record Jesus' appearance to all his disciples (the sequence being confirmed in Luke 24.36-43 including the reproach they received from Jesus) and his commission to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, confirmed in Matthew 28.19...the ascension mentioned in verse 19 is confirmed in Acts 1.9. Verse 20 concludes the passage by mentioning the fact that the disciples went out and preached everywhere while the Lord confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."
And as I've said before, the Bible is a historical record. Not every hadith is authentic, but that doesn't disqualify every individual hadith as being likely of error. Now, if there was a change in meaning, an ancient scrap of Mark or anything in the NT saying Jesus isn't God, or that he didn't rise from the dead, then the Muslim arguement would have weight.
So is the Gospel corrupted? I'd say no. The present TEXT not the Gospel has been CHANGED but not corrupted. The true Word of God, Jesus, and the NT view of him, the true Gospel (Gospel means Good News) is exactly the same, there isn't a ms anywhere to show the view is different. And the Gospel is still by far the best historical record of Jesus.
I also agree with Jcecil saying that this half chapter is inspired. Those who organized the canon of the NT were guided by God's Spirit, and so God had a reason in including it in the NT, probably so that Mark doesn't end mid-sentence. I shouldn't have said the half chapter isn't Biblical, I was wrong. Please accept my apologizes.
Now about 3.93. I agree the verse is talking about food, my point is that it has further implications beyond food. Perhaps I can organize the problem this way:
Was the Torah given to Moses God's Word?
Does 3.93 mention the same Torah?
If the answer to each question is yes, then the conclusion is that the Torah at the time the Qur'an was revealed was still God's Word. If a Book is God's Word, then it must be the truth. Is our mistunderstanding with the first question, the second, or the conclusion?
If the answer to the second question is No, then to which Torah does it refer? Is there more than one, or more than one version? It is "al Taurat" as 3.93 says. The definite article means that it refers to the one mentioned before. For example, if I say, "I read the verse," I'm refering to 3.93, because no other verses have been mentioned. In the Qur'an, there are no other Torahs or versions of it, so it must be refering to the version given to Moses, right?
I think if you respond to each question I raise then I'll be able to best understand. Go ahead and quote your ahadith. Thanks!
JBJ
Hi Asif,
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up my knowing about hadith, it seems pretty pointless. But if you want to be sure I know ahadith are, I'll tell you what I've known and you can correct me wherever I need correction.
Ahadith are the records of the Prophet. They were first carried orally and passed from person to another. Eventually Muslim scholars made collections of ahadith, Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawud are among the most well known of these collectors. The ahadith are organized in volumes, books and numbers. Ahadith have isnads, the chain going from the person who heard or saw Muhammad do something until the person the collector recieved the info from. (Though I've read many hadith without them, I'm not sure where their isnads are or if they have them.) The rest of a hadith is a narrative (with a narrator) telling either the situation a verse (or verses) were revealed in, something Muhammad said, his lifestyle (sunna), or (very rarely) some piece of history after Muhammad. I didn't use a dictionary or anything for this, I have had the same concept of hadith for a long time. If there's anything wrong in this, please correct me. Maybe you thought I assumed that ahadith are ONLY about the context of ayat; I didn't, I was only pointing that part out because it's related to the Bible.
But enough of that.
That is why Muslims do not follow unauthentic ahadith, but only the authentic ones...Also, Muslim scholars have mentioned which ahadith are authentic and which not.
Simple question, which are authentic, which aren't? What scholars? But maybe that question's for a seperate thread.
An addition or deletion or alteration definitely causes corruption of a text (Perhaps what I mean by corruption over here is that it is not in its original form).
I'm you wrote what your definitino of corruption is, that helps things. So no, unless someone printed a Bible without the end of Mark 16, no present Bibles are just like original words that God inspired to its writers.
It doesn’t matter to me whether the meaning of the NT remained the same or not. All I am saying is that you yourself accepted that it was not there originally, but was added later on.
Now we get into some clear disagreement. Are you proposing that every word of a Book must be the same as the original to be worthy of following? If the Qur'an were not word-by-word the same as it was for Muhammad, would you stop following it? Here are my thoughts on the subject:
For a any book to be followed, several things must be established. First, the prophet must have been a true prophet of God. Second, the meaning of what that prophet said must match the meaning of the present day book. If these two are true, I think that God would be take care of the details, they certainly aren't out of his control.
We agree Jesus was truthful. So does the Gospel have the same meaning? For example, did he atone for sins, discontinue the Mosaic Law, die, rise from the dead, embody God, believe in a fatherly relationship with God, promise the Spirit of God for his followers, perform the miracles that he did, claim to return and rule the world, etc.
First, as the messiah, the Jewish scriptures say he would do many of the above. Second, most of these things are in the rest of Mark's book as well as each of the three other Jesus narratives, and are themes in the letters of the NT. Mark 16 covers nothing that isn't already known, so the meaning of Mark, of the Gospel, of the NT, and of the Bible is the same. But I don't think much care about that. I think you question is only
I wonder how anyone can trust a book that is like that, and its adherents accept that it is like that.
I accept it first because the original copy shows extensive prophecies that I think could only come from God. I know you don't agree, but just enter my head for a moment.
If the original mss of the OT, the Gospels, and letters are from God, then they contain the only true religion of God. (When I say originals, I'm refering to the orginals of Matthew, Mark, etc, not the Injil that Muslims believe in. The Injil orginals were probably totally different ms than those in the NT.) If that's true, then the change in meaning of these books means that the true religion has been lost forever.
From there I say that God would not allow us to lose his only true religion. Muslims believe that he won't, and it's a completely logical idea for a benevelent God. The logic doesn't extend for God to protect every word, (after all, Muslims say that every word of the Torah and Gospel wasn't kep) so it's very possible for there to be small changes, anything that doesn't disrupt the meanings I wrote above.
But let's say that someone argue that he would. Then either the mss had a change in meaning, or they haven't. If they have, then why follow any religion at all? They'd all be false then. If they haven't been changed, then obviously the Bible should be followed.
Of course, you can only follow that logic if you believe the original Bible to be true and that God hasn't sent anything after it like the Qur'an, so I wouldn't expect a Muslim to agree with my conclusions. However, you asked you I can accept a book with any change, and this is it. In short, I accept it because it reflects the meaing of the originals, and I trust it because I trust God. Is all of that clear?
Do Christians believe that Mark 16:17-18 is biblical and is from God? Once I get your final reply then we can proceed. There is no point in me proceeding right now, since you may later on change your arguments.
You're right, and I apologize again for the complexication. In truth, I hadn't thought about Mark 16 in depth before, so my arguement changed as I found my old one was wrong.
This gets a little complicated because word like Bible come to have more than one meaning. (Like with Torah, which means one set of books for Christians, another for Muslims, another for Jews, and another for other Jews.) From here on, I'll use "Bible" to ONLY mean the accepted library of modern Christians.
From there, the end of Mark 16 is Biblical. It's been inspired by God although the original author isn't known. But because the whole of Mark was accepted by prayer to God, every sentence is inspired and usefull for good teaching. Ok?
This is getting long.
“Does 3.93 mention the same Torah? “
This is why I always ask people to kindly read everything I post. I shall once again quote Shaykh Imran on what he said:
“When Allah says that they (the Jews) have with them the Torah, He is referring to precisely that which has survived of His word in that book!”
I read this quote last time I responded about half a dozen times before writing. I keep bringing it up because I don't understand it. I only wanted a Yes or No. Correct me again if I'm wrong, but Imran is meaning No, that the Torah refered to is not the original but several verses concerning diet. Right or not?
With this I very much disagree with this interpretation. (I know I must be annoying, but what else were you expecting?) Anyway, 3.93 says "the Torah." It doesn't say "verses" or "some" or "part." If it even said "bring ye Torah" without the "the" this interpretation would make sense. The definite article means just what it's called, the subject is "definite," the subject is there in the context. (The context being the Qur'an.) As I said before:
"The definite article means that it refers to the one mentioned before. For example, if I say, "I read the verse," I'm refering to 3.93, because no other verses have been mentioned. In the Qur'an, there are no other Torahs or versions of it, so it must be refering to the version given to Moses, right?”
How do you answer that? But if you still aren't convinced, what about 5.43?
And how do they (the Jews) make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers. (Shakir)
They have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of God (Yusuf Ali)
They have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? (Pickthall)
Notice the present tense, "have." These say that the Jews who Muhammad speak to currently have the Torah, the Torah which contains God's judgement and command?
But still, even if they aren't any verses that say the Torah is true at Muhammad's time, there are none saying that the Torah was changed. Why would the Qur'an overlook such a momentous fact? God bless,
JBJ
seekeroftruth
27-12-2001, 02:19
>
>That is why Muslims do not
>follow unauthentic ahadith, but only
>the authentic ones...Also, Muslim scholars
>have mentioned which ahadith are
>authentic and which not.
>
>
>Simple question, which are authentic, which
>aren't? What scholars?
>But maybe that question's for
>a seperate thread.
>
If i may put my 'nose' on this thread, i just want to help JBJ on this issue of hadith!!
These are few questions asked on 'this' site and answers can be viewed by clicking the link and observing the 'correct' answer.
----------------------------------------
THE POSITION OF HADITH
Question;
How should the hadiths be considered?
The Holy Qur'an is absolute. I feel that the hadiths, because they are accounts of the Prophet (pbuh) that were related indirectly, therefore, they cannot be considered absolute because what the Prophet (pbuh) may have said may have been confused or altered. Furthermore, some hadiths may be purposefully false.
Should we hold hadiths to be absolute and binding? Or not?
I know that many blessed scholars researched the hadiths after the Prophet 's (pbuh) death, but there is still a margin for error there.
ANSWER; http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/questions.jsp?point=3&id=331
------------------------------------------
HADITH = Authentic/weak
Question;
I was wondering how one can distinguish between an authetic hadith, and a weak one.
ANSWER; http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=2521
-------------------------------------------------
The second answer is very simple and 'helpfull'. i hope JBJ, you! learn islam from islam, meaning, the site, which you use (answering-----) is not made by muslims, the main thing is that the site is made to 'corrupt' the true teachings of islam. Now being a man of great wisdom on this site, please go to sites which tell islam, the way it should be told.
i hope the above articles or 'answers' SHOULD help you and please carry on your research of islam.
sadiQ!!
alhamdliyesua
05-02-2002, 20:46
don't trust the internet for info
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.