Moron that is not my words but from article and irrufatable so •••• off goof

Picture that fooled the world.This is documented turk so do not even stsrt spewing

By x ( - 142.194.249.64) on Friday, February 11, 2000 - 08:08 pm:Faiz Sorry, Maddona is not my Maddona...She's a BITCH...BUT BETTER THEN MOHAMMED...

So, Madonna is not yours. How do you know that she is and better?

"""By IGOR ( - 206.47.244.62) on Friday, February 11, 2000 - 09:05 pm:

Picture that fooled the world.This is documented turk so do not even stsrt spewing."""

Ok, let's assume the assertion is correct, ie. these jurnalists have fooled the world as claimed in the article. This makes them an uncredible witness. If they lied once, they can lie twice. So why we should believe them this time around.

Igor, you dumbo, you believe in everything when it suits you.

By the way, what do you think about the article I posted?
http://www.russiatoday.com/features.php3?id=132899

Mate, there is nothing you can defend about Russia. Any person who is worth his salt would be ashamed to be associated with such a regime. I think Russia have to have a new peoples revolution to get rid of these leaches.

Were there prophecies concerning Muhammad?

We now come to this third and final category in our paper where we ask the question of whether the former prophets ever spoke about Muhammad? To begin with, let's ask that question of Moses, and see whether Muhammad is spoken of in the Taurat (Torah, or Old Testament of the Bible).

Let's begin with a hypothetical situation. For instance, what would you say if I were to stand up and claim that I was the final prophet, in a long line of prophets; that whatever I said came straight from God, and therefore was to be believed as authoritative? You would obviously question my credentials as a spokesman from God; as a prophet. With a name like Joseph Smith, the same name as the founder of Mormonism, I wouldn't be the first to make this claim. And like him, all I would have to do is write a book which prescribed a new way of life, a new revelation for humanity, and then look around for some disciples who would believe me willingly.

There is another prophet who made such a claim, one who came a few hundred years before my namesake; you all know him as Muhammad, born in 570 C.E.

At the onset he received visions via the angel Gabriel in the Hira cave, outside Mecca, when he was 40 years old. Interestingly, it was his Nestorian Christian uncle who first told him that his visions were authoritative. Yet initially there were few people who took him seriously, or believed in him as a prophet. In fact, when he finally fled to Medina 8 years later, in 622 C.E. (known as the Hijra), he had less then 100 followers with him (not even a good-sized church by today's standards).

It was only when he attained political power, which afforded him economical might and control, that he was taken seriously, from a religious standpoint. This was especially so following the battle of Badr, when he turned against the Jews in Medina, with whom he had earlier made security alliances.

One might say, then, that his religious credibility was in direct proportion to his political ascendancy, culminating in his triumphal entry into Mecca 8 years later, after which a true theocracy was instilled, which by its very nature neutralized any criticism or suspicion of his religious credibility.

Because of his power-base in Medina and Mecca, Muhammad's authority was in no doubt 1,300 years ago, but it is in doubt today. There are many who are now asking where exactly Muhammad received his authority as a prophet? Previous prophets were authoritative first of all because they belonged to the line of prophets (the Israelite tribe), and secondly, because what they revealed coincided with what had been revealed before; and indeed, continued the same theme, which was: the promise of a Messiah who would come to save the world from sin, and thereby bring God's children back in relationship with Him.

Yet, when we look at the revelations which Muhammad gave the world, we find many contradictions with the scriptures which preceded him. Some of the more common ones you know quite well:

1.the claim that Ishmael instead of Isaac was the son who was to be sacrificed by Abraham, and the two of them then building the Ka'ba in Mecca 2.the erroneous burial account of Abel by Cain 3.the rather humorous account of king Solomon meeting the queen of Sheba by talking to a Hoopoo bird 4.the miraculous birth of Jesus, which according to the Qur'an took place under a palm tree 5.and even the story of Jesus speaking as a baby 6.and later breathing life into birds of clay.

But probably the most damaging contradictions in the Qur'an is 7. its refusal to accept not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but to reject the divinity of Jesus as well as his crucifixion and resurrection. These are absolutely central to the Biblical testimony.

Because so much of that which is important is at a variance with that which came before one has to ask for proof of his authority in making such claims. And this is being done today. It is for this reason that Muslims are attempting to come up with a ready defense.

Initially, Muslims held the view that the differences between the Bible and the Qur'an could be blamed on the Jews and Christians, who, they believed, conspired to corrupt their scriptures in order to reject the claims of the prophet of Islam. One must ask how the Jews and Christians would have known what to change considering they would have had to do their work hundreds of years before the arrival of the Qur'an, as we have thousands of manuscripts which predate the Qur'an in our possession today, all of which remain true to the scripture which we hold in our hands today.

The Qur'an itself, in Suras 5:47-51, 6:34, and 10:64 say that God cannot change his word, and that the Qur'an was sent to guard the former revelations. Thus many Muslim scholars have been forced to deny the possibility of corruption in the Word of God contained in the Bible. Consequently, they have turned their endeavors in other directions, looking for predictions of Muhammad within those preceding scriptures. And it is this assertion which concerns us here.

The Muslim Agenda
Muslims will point out that in the Qur'an there are two ayas (verses) which speak of a prediction of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospels). They are:

1.Sura 7:157: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Taurat and the Injil..." 2.Sura 61:6:"Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Taurat, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is Ahmad (the Praised One)."

These two ayas say specifically that Muhammad was referred to in both the Taurat and the Injil (the Torah and the Gospel). Our concern here is to ascertain whether this is true, whether there are any predictions concerning Muhammad outside the Qur'an?

In other words, we are interested in finding out whether there is any evidence that the previous Jewish and Christian scriptures spoke about his coming?

Most Muslims believe that in the Taurat (specifically in Deuteronomy 18:18) there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and Sura 61:6 concerning Muhammad. So it is to that passage that we will first focus our enquiry.

D1: Is there a prediction of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?

In Deuteronomy 18:18 we read:

"I (the LORD) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) and he will tell them everything I command him."

D1i: Comparison: Who is the prophet like Moses?

Our inquiry here is to ascertain what evidence supports the Muslim claim that it is Muhammad who is "a Prophet like you [Moses]." Is it he who is referred to in these verses? If it is then this would contradict the claim by Christians that the verse refers to the prophet Jesus, the promised Messiah.

In order to support their claim, Muslim apologists have tried to write a list of criteria pertaining to Moses and Muhammad, saying that: both were married and had children, both led battles, and both were leaders, etc... What they fail to take into consideration is that any prophet could claim many of these parallels for himself.

A handier tool would be to identify those comparisons which Moses fulfilled which are unique to his ministry, and which would, therefore, be unique to him who is: "a prophet like you (Moses)." In other words, compare apples with apples.

D1ii: Contrast: This prophet cannot be Muhammad

Can we, therefore, say that Muhammad is the promised one, this "prophet like Moses"? From what we have just read, we find that Muhammad was not born in the prophetic line of Moses, had no personal relationship with God, nor was he established in authority by God, as were both Moses and Jesus.

More importantly, the mission of Muhammad was nothing like that of Moses and Jesus, for it was Moses and Jesus who offered themselves as a sacrifice for the sins of their people (Exodus 32:30-32; Deuteronomy 34:10-12; and Matthew 26:28).

Most significantly, however, is the fact that, beginning with Moses and concluding with Jesus, the means of forgiveness and reconciliation with God were brought about (Leviticus 4:2; 6:24,25; 14;13 and Hebrew 19:22). This is the real criteria for "a prophet who is like you (Moses)." Many prophets can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of human reasoning. Only one can claim to be like Moses from the standpoint of God's reasoning. His desire to save mankind, which Moses first began by bringing the Children of Israel out of captivity from Egypt, and which Jesus finally accomplished by bringing all believers out of captivity from sin 2,000 years ago.

D1iii: Consideration: This prophet must be Jesus:

Muhammad can never claim to parallel the essential and unique aspects of Moses' ministry on earth, as Jesus can. Those who worked alongside Jesus, and who predated Muhammad by nearly 700 years came to this same conclusion. Consider the following witnesses from John and Luke:

John 1:45: "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law."

John 5:46: "If you believed Moses you would believe me [Jesus], for he wrote about me."

John 6:14: "Surely this [Jesus] is the prophet who is to come into the World."

Acts 3:22: "Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people...'." (i.e. own brothers=sons of Israel.)

D1iv: Conclusion: Without a prediction where is Muhammad's authority?

In order to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, the Qur'an stipulated that in the Taurat and the Injil predictions concerning him could be found (Refer to Suras 7:157 and 61:6 above). Yet we find none of these prophecies in either the Taurat, or the Injil (i.e. John 16:7 which we will deal with later). What does this say for the authority of Muhammad?

At the heart of the argument, for a Muslim, is the desire to find any external predictions for the coming of Muhammad in the Taurat and the Injil (as referred to in Sura 7:157). Without it, the only criteria for Muhammad's authority is the Qur'an; while the only authority for the Qur'an is Muhammad. This is circular reasoning, which is not a valid scholarly argument. Since the evidence for any prediction by Moses concerning Muhammad does not exist in the Taurat, this creates a problem for Muslims who must produce external criteria for the authenticity of their prophet.

Without it, Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. Furthermore, the Qur'an itself claims, in Sura 29:27, that prophethood belongs solely to the line of Isaac and Jacob, to which Muhammad has no part.

Consequently, the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims then hangs on the single testimony of one finite man. (note: a man who himself admits his lack of power in Sura:Ta Ha 20:49, and his sinfulness in Sura: Ghafir 40:55, in contrast with the claim by Jesus to have all power in Matthew 28:18, and to be without sin in I Peter 2:22, which we also find in Sura 19:19).

As we read these verses and consider what has been written, it is easy to conclude that this prophecy by Moses in Deuteronomy 18 can only belong to Jesus the Christ. It is He who was born in the line of Moses, and it is He who had a relationship with God, as He was God. It was He who was established in authority with God, and it was He who, like Moses, offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of others (in His case for all of humanity). It is this last criteria which sets these two off from the rest. Only Moses and Jesus had the unique mission: to bring about a renewal of relationship with God; the one, Moses, out of the captivity of slavery in Egypt, and the other, Jesus, out of the captivity of sin in our hearts, for eternity.

D2: Are there further predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament?

We now come to the question of whether there are any other predictions of Muhammad in the Old Testament? According to Muslims there are a number of other instances where their prophet can be found. We need to know how to answer them on these issues as well.

D2i: Do we find Muhammad in the Old Testament?

According to Suras 7 and 61 Muhammad is supposedly predicted somewhere in the former scriptures (i.e. Taurat). For a long time now, Muslims have tried desperately to find these predictions for their prophet in those scriptures which preceded the Qur'an (the Taurat, Zabuur and the Injil), but to no avail. It is ironic that Muslims are now compelled by their own scripture to establish the credibility of their prophet in the Old Testament, the very book which they claim elsewhere to be corrupted and of no real worth.

Muslims and Christians alike agree that Christ's coming was predicted often in the Old Testament. Yet, if God had intended to send another prophet far greater than He, we should naturally find predictions concerning him there as well. Yet, none are to be found. Therefore, without a prediction the sole criteria for Muhammad's authority rests entirely on the Qur'an, whose sole authority rests on Muhammad, and for obvious reasons this is unworkable.

D2ii: Muslims find Muhammad in the Old Testament

Due to the predicament which Muslims find themselves in, they have, after a hurried perusal of our Bible, come forward with a series of twelve passages from the Old Testament which they believe point to Muhammad. Outside of the Deuteronomy 18 passage (dealt with above), all of these passages, which supposedly refer to a messenger, falls into four general categories.

a.This person is someone who used the sword (Psalm 45:2-5; 149; Isaiah 63).

However, when we read further, the context in these passages clearly points out that the sword-wielder is not only God, but the Creator, the Lord of Israel and the Lord of Hosts. I know of few Muslims who would be willing to equate these titles with Muhammad.

b.This person is someone whose life-style parallels that of Muhammad's day (i.e rides a camel, lives in a desert) (Isaiah 21:7 and 53).

Yet the context again refers to both a messenger from Babylon, and a servant who was crushed, pierced, and wounded for others, hardly analogous to Muhammad's life.

c.This person is someone whose geographical location coincides with that of Muhammad (Deuteronomy 33:2; Isaiah 63; Habakkuk 3:3).

Yet the Mount Paran which they claim to be in Mecca is rather on the Sinai Peninsula, while Bozrah is not Basrah, but modern-day Al-Busairah, situated in Edom, south of the Dead Sea.

In Habbakuk 3:3 we read, "God comes from Teman." Muslims maintain that Teman refers to Islam. To be consistent they must also adhere to the other prophecies concerning Teman. In Jeremiah 49:7 God questions whether there is any wisdom in Teman. Verse 20 says the people of Teman will be aghast at their fate. Ezekiel 25:13 promises that God will lay waste the people of Teman, and God will send fire and consume them (Amos 1:12), and there will be no survivors (Obadiah 8-10). This would suggest that there is no wisdom in Islam, and that there awaits all Muslims a destruction by fire which will consume them!

Fortunately for the Muslims, we know that this fate has no place in reality. For when we refer to the Biblical account we find that Teman is not Islam at all, but a town close to Jericho, in the territory of Edom.

d.This person is someone whose name has a common root to that of Muhammad.

In Genesis 49:8-10 it is Judah; in the Song of Solomon 5:16 it is Ahmad; and in Haggai 2:7 it is Hemdah. This fourth category needs further discussion as it is adhered to more resolutely by the Muslims as real proof for a prediction than the others.

D2iii: Names which point to Muhammad:

Muslims believe that all of these three passages use names which can be translated as "praise" (Judah, Ahmad, and Hemdah), and are semantically similar to "Muhammad," which means "the praised one." However, in Arabic the verb "Hamada" (to praise) is the root for many words, yet one does not find Muslims substituting "Muhammad" and "Hamada" interchangeably.

Take for instance the very first Sura of the Qur'an. In the second ayya (verse) we find, "Praise (al-hamadi) be to Allah." Do we dare change this to Muhammad? Of course not! That is sacrilege!

In Haggai 2:7 Muslims believe "Hemdah" (the desire of nations) comes from the same root as the word "Muhammad." Yet they must certainly cringe when this word is again used in Daniel 11:37 to refer to a person "desired by women" who is a false god of the heathen.

D2iv: Song of Solomon 5:16

But perhaps the best example to illustrate the difficulty in exchanging one word for another is found in the Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. In this passage Muslims claim that the Hebrew word "Machmad" (altogether lovely) can be translated "praise" or "Ahmad." Following is the text of the passage as translated in the New International Version Bible:

"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

The book of Song of Solomon is a poetic love story between the Beloved and her Lover. It is a piece that explores the beauty of a marriage relationship between a king and his wife.

Muslims believe that the adjectival clause "altogether lovely" can be changed to a proper noun, "Muhammad." The text should then read, when translated into English:

"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my lover, this my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

This rendering, however, begs a number of difficult questions according to the context of the entire book.

a.Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? Did Muhammad ever court one of his many wives in Jerusalem? b.If this is Muhammad, which of his wives is speaking? Was Muhammad ever married to a dark woman he wooed from Lebanon? c.Did Muhammad ever claim kingship?

What, then, is this prophecy saying? The underlined words in the text above are the English renderings of the Hebrew word, machmad. Strong's concordance defines machmad as: desire, desirable thing, a pleasant thing.

So, can Machmad signify Muhammad? Wise men allow that when one verse is in doubt it is justified to explain one passage of the Bible by another. The word machmad appears twelve more times in the Old Testament. Since Muslims are so intent on finding the name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word "machmad," it is important that they remain consistent. Therefore, we have printed these twelve prophetic verses below and leave it to you to ascertain whether they fit. Note that we have been consistent in now translating this word as the long-neglected "proper noun" which they claim it to be.

1 Kings 20:6: "Yet I will send my servants to thee tomorrow about this time, and they shall search thy house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, [that] whatever is Muhammad in thy eyes, they shall take [it] in their hand, and carry [it] away."

2 Chronicles 36:19: "And they burnt the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all its palaces with fire, and destroyed all its Muhammad vessels."

Isaiah 64:11: "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire: and all our Muhammad things are laid waste."

Lamentations 1:10: "The adversary hath spread out his hand upon all her Muhammad things: for she hath seen [that] the nations entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command [that] they should not enter into thy congregation."

Lamentations 1:11: "All her people sigh, they seek bread; they have given their Muhammad things for food to relieve the soul: see, O LORD, and consider; for I am become vile."

Lamentations 2:4: "He hath bent his bow like an enemy: he stood with his right hand as an adversary, and slew all [that were] Muhammad to the eye in the tabernacle of the daughter of Zion: he poured out his fury like fire."

Ezekiel 24:16: "Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the Muhammad of thy eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down."

Ezekiel 24:21: "Speak to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will profane my sanctuary, the excellence of your strength, the Muhammad of your eyes, and that which your soul pitieth; and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword."

Ezekiel 24:25: "Also, thou son of man, [shall it] not [be] in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the Muhammad of their eyes, and that on which they set their minds, their sons and their daughters." Hosea 9:6: "For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the Muhammad [places] for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns [shall be] in their tabernacles."

Hosea 9:16: "Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay [even] the Muhammad [fruit] of their womb."

Joel 3:5: "Because ye have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried into your temples my Muhammad things."

If this mutilation of Scripture seems to you ridiculous, it is meant to be as it shows the quality of the theory behind such an idea.

When taken to its logical conclusion it makes a mockery of Hebrew grammar. Why should an adjectival clause be translated a proper noun? Machmad already has a proper noun counterpart, but more closely related to the clause -- Chemdan (or Hemdan), the eldest son of Dishon of Anah the Horite. If machmad should have been written as a proper noun the author would have written Chemdan.

D2v: The problem with this exercise

This claim is quite similar to the issue of the paraclete in the book of John (which we will refer to later). Many Muslims contend that it is another prophecy of Muhammad. Yet this prophecy in John 14 and 16 has been shown for what it is - a prophecy of the Spirit of God. We find it peculiar that Muslims will, in one text, base their claim on the meaning of one word at the expense of its pronunciation (paracletos versus periclytos) and yet with another text base their claim on the pronunciation of a single word at the expense of its meaning (desire versus praise)!

If these techniques of hermeneutics are just, then wouldn't it be quite in line to expect to find as a substitute for the word paracletos a prophet named "Perry Clinton," whose name really means "the desired one?" Absurd? Yes! That is the point. Using this technique one can conjure up a prophecy for nearly any prophet one happens to fancy, or even make up one on the whim.

Conversely, a Hindu could claim that in Sura 30:1, the word "al-rum" (for Romans), which can be written "Ram," must be referring to the Hindu God "Rama."

A further irony in this whole exercise is that Muhammad is not even the name which the prophet grew up with. According to Muslim tradition, in his youth Muhammad was called Amin, a common Arab name meaning "faithful, or trustworthy." Amin was his given name, a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name "Amina."

We understand the desire by Muslims to find any prophecy which will give credence to Muhammad, for without it Muhammad has no outside evidence to prove his prophethood. That then leaves the authority for the beliefs of over one billion Muslims hanging on the single testimony of just one finite man. We ask, however, that Muslims not twist or attack the scriptures in order to gain their own agenda. We are constantly amazed that Muslims should be at once both critics and stewards of the Holy Scriptures of Christians and Jews. It would be better to be of one mind.

If Muslims firmly believe the scriptures are inadequate then they should behave as such and abstain from picking and choosing what they like from what they deem a hopelessly inadequate book. We will not insult them for bravely allying with other enemies of the Bible. But it is hypocrisy to use data from a book they claim is crude and inferior to support an already illogical argument.

If we truly believe the scriptures and desire to find prophecies within them, then we need to read them all and learn with an open mind. We need to truly submit ourselves to the authoritative and COMPLETE teachings of Scripture as has been diligently preserved throughout the ages.