> Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.

[salman]

^brother, first Zakir Naik is not a scholar of Islam but he is very good at compartive studies and has done lots of good for Islam. May Allah Ta'ala preserve him and bless him, ameen!. However, some of his views are not in totaly harmony with orothdox position. But I've heard that he has changed those views. As far concerning the stretching part and "egg-shaped", I was also under that impression as I learned from a shaykh, but there is an opinion from ealriest exegsis in favour of "egg-shaped", i.e Abdullah ibn Abbas, Imam Jarir ibn Tabari (may Allah be pleased with them). Search in forum for "flat earth", you may come accross it, insha'Allah.

[salamfromrom]

Thank you, I have edited my post. It was not my intention to attack Dr. naik but as I said before, Unfortunately I'm not that eloquent and I sometimes come across as rude.

Salam

[TheBoxer]

Dr. Naik's reasoning has been refuted already. Completely. Please read David Wood's essay titled Muhammad in the Bible? An Analysis of the Muslim Appeal to Biblical Prophesy which can be found on the Answering-Islam website.

There is no reason to believe that an Arab who descended from pagan tribes was a prophet 'like' Moses, a descendent of the tribes of Israel. Jesus was also a descendent of the tribes of Israel. Moses was nearly killed in infancy as was Jesus. Whenever the word "brethren" is used in the Torah regarding the Israelites, it always means a fellow Israelite. It never means someone from another nation such as the Ammorites, Ishmaelites, etc. Moses was the intermediary between the Israelites and God, just as Jesus is the intermediary between Man and God. In Muhammad's case, he was the Arabs' intermediary with Gabriel.

It's interesting to note that although Muslims will be quick to quote Deuteronomy 18:15-19, one very rarely sees them quote the next verse in the passage:

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 18:20 NIV)

Perhaps it is because Muhammad did not come in the name of the LORD that was given to Moses when he came upon the burning bush.

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am.[1] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM [2] has sent me to you.' "
God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD,[3] the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation." (Exodus 3:13-15 NIV)

Explanations from the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh:

[1] Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh: Meaning of Hebrew uncertain; variously translated: "I Am That I Am"; "I Am Who I Am"; "I Will Be What I Will Be"; etc.
[2] Ehyeh: "I Am" or "I Will Be"
[3] The Name YHWH (traditionally read Adonai "the LORD") is here associated with the root hayah "to be".

　
Perhaps it is also because he violates the Torah despite the fact that the Quran claims to confirm the Torah (Quran 2:40-41 & Quran 2:89) and instructs people to follow it's teachings (Quran 5:43).

Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 26:1 NIV)

Muhammad set up the black stone in the Ka'aba WITH the pagans when the pagans were still using it as a place of worship (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, quoting Ibn Ishaq). After he destroyed most of the idols in the Ka'aba, he kept the black stone and even kissed it. Now it is an important aspect of the hajj. Muslims circumambulate the Ka'aba and point at the stone if they are unable to kiss it.

Whatever the reasons, Muslims rely on a few verses completely taken out of their historical and scriptural context in order to back up the claim that Muhammad was prophesied in the Torah--a book that Muslims now claim has been corrupted since the Quran contradicts many things in the Torah and Gospel. The illogical thinking required to rely on a corrupted book in order to confirm a claim that a man came to confirm that book is mind-boggling.

~TheBoxer

[Bassam Zawadi]

Dr. Naik's reasoning has been refuted already. Completely. Please read David Wood's essay titled Muhammad in the Bible? An Analysis of the Muslim Appeal to Biblical Prophesy which can be found on the Answering-Islam website.

Rebuttal to David Wood's Article "Muhammad in the Bible?: An Analysis of the Muslim Appeal to Biblical Prophecy"

Perhaps it is also because he violates the Torah despite the fact that the Quran claims to confirm the Torah (Quran 2:40-41 & Quran 2:89) and instructs people to follow it's teachings (Quran 5:43).

Refuting The Argument Regarding The Qur'an Being A Confirmation Of The Bible

Muhammad set up the black stone in the Ka'aba WITH the pagans when the pagans were still using it as a place of worship (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, quoting Ibn Ishaq). After he destroyed most of the idols in the Ka'aba, he kept the black stone and even kissed it. Now it is an important aspect of the hajj. Muslims circumambulate the Ka'aba and point at the stone if they are unable to kiss it.

Was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) An Idol Worshipper?

[TheBoxer]

Bassam Zawadi,

Ibn Abbaas said in his commentary on Surah 2:79:
(Therefore woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in Hell (be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) change the description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book (and then say, " This is) in the Book that has come (from Allah " , that they may purchase) through changing and altering it (a small gain therewith) a small gain in terms of means of subsistence and surplus of property. (Woe unto them) theirs is a severe punishment (for what their hands have written) have altered (and woe unto them) and theirs is a severe punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful earnings and bribes. (Ibn Abbaas, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn 'Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)

This is interesting. What this tells us is that the Jews (because that is the historical context of this verse) DELIBERATELY changed the description and traits of Muhammad in the Torah they had with them. This means that prior to the 7th century Jews, the Torah was not changed. Why would Jews hundreds of years prior to Muhammad deliberately change the text about the long-awaited Messiah and the later prophet--Muhammad?

Early Qur'anic commentator Muqatil bin Sulaiman says in his commentary on Surah 2, Verse 79:

ÑÁæÓ ÇáíåæÏ ÈÇáãÏíäÉ ãÍæÇ äÚÊ ãÍãÏ Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ãä ÇáÊæÑÇÉ¡ æßÊÈæÇ Óæì äÚÊå

The leaders of the Jews in Medina erased the descriptions and traits of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah, and they wrote other traits and descriptions (Source)

Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 A.H.), the well known Hanafi scholar in his commentary of the Qur'an known as Bahr al-'Ulum on Surah 2, verse 79 quotes Az-Zajjaj as saying:

æÐáß Ãä ÑÄÓÇÁ ÇáíåæÏ ãÍæÇ äÚÊ ãÍãÏ - Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã - Ëã ßÊÈæÇ ÛíÑ äÚÊå¡

The leaders of the Jews erased the traits and descriptions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, then they wrote things besides his traits and descriptions.

This confirms that the Jews of Medina changed the scriptures that they had. But then that means the scriptures the Jews had hundreds of years prior to this were not changed. And the Torah we read today is not based on the scriptures of the Jews of Medina; it is based on the much older, unchanged scriptures...which means we should be able to find clear proofs of Muhammad within them. The problem is, we don't.

But here comes the Islamic disclaimer...

Imam ar-Razi said:
As for the third evidence it is with reference to what is maintained in the Torah and gospels concerning the Prophethood of Muhammad. The objection to this evidence (on the Jewish and Christian side) is whether you (Muslims) say that the description of Muhammad was written in these books in detail; namely that Allah Almighty, made manifest that he shall come in the coming years and in such and such country, a person whose description shall be such and such, and so know you that he is my messenger. On the one hand; or they say: 'No, but rather Allah has merely referred to him briefly, without specification due to time, place or personality.' And so if you hold on to the first claim it false and faulty: (O, you Muslims.)" (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Muhassal Afkar Al-Mutaqadimin Wal Mut'akhrin (Cairo, Maktabat al-Kuliyyat al-Azhariyya) p. 211 and Fakhr ar-Razi, Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Cairo, Dar al-Ghad al-'Arabi, 1412 A.H. 1991 A.D. vol.3, pp.186 f, vol.9, 233, cited here)

Imam ar-Razi was a 12th century Muslim theologian. His argument here sounds good, but it is simply just his opinion and has no basis in fact.

This statement here:

Thus, it is not a surprise for a Muslim to find that the predictions of Muhammad (peace be upon him) are vague and some how isolated from the context of the entire Bible.

is based solely on a 12th century Imam's opinion.

I really lost respect for the author of the rebuttal when I read this:

I will agree that David is making a somewhat reasonable point over here. However, I do have to insist that this is not conclusive evidence that the term "brethren" could not be referring to anyone else instead of the Israelites.

Just because Deuteronomy 17 (which the verse itself makes explicitly clear by saying that a foreigner must not be their king) or Deuteronomy 18:2 (which is clearly referring to the Israelites if one reads verse 1) have the term "brethren" to mean Israelites this does not necessarily imply that Deuteronomy 18:18 is limiting the term "brethren" to the Israelites, since it could very well be referring to their cousins as well. No reason could be shown why brethren in Deuteronomy 18:18 could only be speaking about the Israelites.

Christians have no problem interpreting the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to not be referring to the state of Israel, even though the passages before it clearly were. Similarly, I have no problem with stating that the word "brethren" could be referring to non-Israelites even though the word was referring to Israelites a few verses earlier.

In other words, "based on the context of Deut. 18:18 we can reasonably conclude that brethren refers to fellow Israelites; however since Christians do such-and-such then that means I can do such-and-such." This is an ad hominem argument (tu quoque), and not logical. I expected more from someone claiming to have a strong argument against David Wood's explanations.

The author also failed to explain why Muhammad never used the name of God known to the Jews.

We don't believe that the entire Gospel of John today is authoritative, but that some truth might have found its way into it.

In other words, Muslims are cherry-pickers who work backwards in time to prove history rather than work forward. Taking the Quran as the unadulterated truth of things that happened hundreds of years prior to Muhammad, Muslims then tear apart any ancient document that describes things happening a different way claiming that those are corrupted parts. There is a reason that historians and archaeologists do not use the Quran when studying ancient history of early Christians, Jesus Christ, the Jews (Israelites, Hebrews), and the ancient Egyptians.

When David Wood said, "Third, as we just saw, Jesus says that the Comforter would be with his disciples forever. In no sense was Muhammad ever with Jesus' disciples, let alone with them permanently."

The author responded with:

This can easily be resolved by interpreting Jesus' statement to mean that the Prophet will be with us in his teachings since they have remained intact and still influence us. It does not require him to be here in person.

But then that means you have distorted the meaning of the Comforter to actually be the Quran and not Muhammad. This is a blatant case of deliberate misinterpretation.

As we see, the author does it again:

What does it mean when Jesus told the disciples that the Comforter "dwelleth" with them? Well, I don't find it radically impossible to understand this as meaning that the Comforter dwells in their knowledge and understanding. It doesn't necessarily imply that he literally lives with them (again, remember that Jesus was known to speak in a figurative way). Thus, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being predicted to these people is "dwelling with them" because they have foreknowledge of his coming.

Secondly, it could also be understood that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) "dwells with the people" because he is alive through his teachings. When the Qur'an in Surah 3:101 says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is in our midst we understand this as him being alive in his teachings (see Imam Qurtubi's commentary on that verse).

So why can't we say that Jesus is saying the same thing here, especially since he is known to have spoken figuratively?

Someone may object to the fact that Prophet Muhammad's teachings weren't around at that time and Jesus said "dwelleth with YOU" and that this shows he was speaking to the disciples.

However, this shows the misunderstanding of the use of the word 'you'. Christians have no problem claiming that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to Jesus even though the verse says 'you' to a specific group of people at least a thousand years before the birth of Jesus. So as we can see the usage of the word 'you' could seem to be referring to future generations to come.

The Quran was not with the disciples. Muhammad's spirit was not with the disciples. The author is tying himself into knots trying to get out of this one.

Jesus didn't mean that the Comforter was living in people's houses and eating dinner with them as would be the LITERAL meaning of "dwells with." He was speaking figuratively already. The author wants us to take an even more figurative meaning of Jesus' already figurative meaning.

And those "future generations" were not Christians. Muhammad came from a group of pagan Arabs and spent a decade preaching to the pagans. Jesus most certainly was not talking to pagans in these scriptures.

David shows how he has a problem taking things too literally especially when Jesus was known to have spoken figuratively pretty often (John 16:25). For the Comforter to be "in the people" does not necessarily entail that he will be in them in the literal sense. For instance, we see that the disciples could possibly be 'in' Jesus and the Father (John 17:21), yet no one takes this literally. This fact comfortably allows other possible meanings for the text under discussion.

This still doesn't explain how Muhammad is in people, even if it only means his spirit. Is Muhammad's spirit in people like the spirit of Christ is in people?
　
The article was not a strong rebuttal, Mr. Zawadi. I'd hate to see what the others are like. Perhaps when I have some time....

~TheBoxer

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

Dr. Naik's reasoning has been refuted already. Completely. Please read David Wood's essay titled Muhammad in the Bible? An Analysis of the Muslim Appeal to Biblical Prophesy which can be found on the Answering-Islam website.

bassam blasted this right into the dumpster that it belongs I .

There is no reason to believe that an Arab who descended from pagan tribes was a prophet 'like' Moses, a descendent of the tribes of Israel. Jesus was also a descendent of the tribes of Israel. Moses was nearly killed in infancy as was Jesus. Whenever the word "brethren" is used in the Torah regarding the Israelites, it always means a fellow Israelite. It never means someone from another nation such as the Ammorites, Ishmaelites, etc. Moses was the intermediary between the Israelites and God, just as Jesus is the intermediary between Man and God. In Muhammad's case, he was the Arabs' intermediary with Gabriel.

this is just another testament of the baffoonery that makes up the basis of your "knowledge" of chrisianity, and more importantly jewsih religion and the semetic composition of the Arabs and the Israelites

1. Firstly all of the sons of Abraham where called brethren, and te Arabs were not pagans until much later when one of them brought idols from Syria and took them to the peninsula.
2. Secondly, look how muc of an inconsistant liar you are.

Here, you affirm Moses as being the man between the Israelites and Allah, and then you boldly lie with your lying teeth that jesus alaihi Salam was the man between Man (like in all of mankind) and Allah , and then again flatly lie that Muhammad was only a man of god for the Arabs (between the Arabs and Allah).

Firstly Jesus was ONLY sent to the lost tribe of isreal and he vehemently denied that any part of his message was for anyone outside of them, so as far as anyone of reason is concerned, you Christians are a bunch of suckers for following a message that was not intended fo you to begin with.
Further more, I think your jeoulous of Muhammad and of the completion of the religion of Jesus that he finalized for ALL of humanity and not just for the arabs. Your jeoulous because Muhammad was the man fo the whole universe and jesus's message alaihi salam had nothing to with you or your invented faith originally concocted by Paul.

It's interesting to note that although Muslims will be quick to quote Deuteronomy 18:15-19, one very rarely sees them quote the next verse in the passage:

it interesting that you quote this. The reason why Muslims leave off that verse is becuase they are only tryig to prove that Muhammad was real, they were not concerned with exposing the disbelief of your pagan faith.

The verse you quoted is an evidence for us and an anihalation for your drowning religion.
The verse clearly sets the criterion of truth by informig you about what is false. Since it says that falsehood is when a person commands in the name of Allah and Allah did not give him permission for that, then such is the case of a class prophet. And likewise thr one who called the people to worship others besides Him, then likewise is he false.

Glory be to the Lord of the universe who made Muhammad free from those characteristics for he commanded everything and ONLY what Allah commanded he our religion is more rampant and entrenched with beliefs, concepts, and practices and the strongets in the preservaion of ultimate monotheism and is the fiercest against idolatry and it's people and with more knowledge of how to combat it than anything on earth.

However your religion espouses the worship of other than Allah. Your religion deemed Allah to have incarnated into a man. Your religion claims Allah is three. Who is more false than who.

If took our relgion and Muslims to save the name of Jesus from the idolatry that is done in his name.




Perhaps it is because Muhammad did not come in the name of the LORD that was given to Moses when he came upon the burning bush.
　
Perhaps it is also because he violates the Torah despite the fact that the Quran claims to confirm the Torah (Quran 2:40-41 & Quran 2:89) and instructs people to follow it's teachings (Quran 5:43).


Muhammad set up the black stone in the Ka'aba WITH the pagans when the pagans were still using it as a place of worship (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, quoting Ibn Ishaq). After he destroyed most of the idols in the Ka'aba, he kept the black stone and even kissed it. Now it is an important aspect of the hajj. Muslims circumambulate the Ka'aba and point at the stone if they are unable to kiss it.

Whatever the reasons, Muslims rely on a few verses completely taken out of their historical and scriptural context in order to back up the claim that Muhammad was prophesied in the Torah--a book that Muslims now claim has been corrupted since the Quran contradicts many things in the Torah and Gospel. The illogical thinking required to rely on a corrupted book in order to confirm a claim that a man came to confirm that book is mind-boggling.

~TheBoxer[/QUOTE]

[TheBoxer]

al-boriqee,

You wrote:

this is just another testament of the baffoonery that makes up the basis of your "knowledge" of chrisianity, and more importantly jewsih religion and the semetic composition of the Arabs and the Israelites

1. Firstly all of the sons of Abraham where called brethren, and te Arabs were not pagans until much later when one of them brought idols from Syria and took them to the peninsula.
2. Secondly, look how muc of an inconsistant liar you are.

Here, you affirm Moses as being the man between the Israelites and Allah, and then you boldly lie with your lying teeth that jesus alaihi Salam was the man between Man (like in all of mankind) and Allah , and then again flatly lie that Muhammad was only a man of god for the Arabs (between the Arabs and Allah).

First of all, provide some conclusive evidence that Arabs are indeed descendents of Ishmael. Secondly, provide some conclusive evidence that the Ishmaelites were ever referred to as the brethren of the Israelites. Thirdly, I said Muhammad was an intermediary between the Arabs and GABRIEL. Get it? There was an additional presence in the intermediary chain. Exchange "human beings of the world" for Arabs if you want, but you've still got GABRIEL.

Firstly Jesus was ONLY sent to the lost tribe of isreal and he vehemently denied that any part of his message was for anyone outside of them, so as far as anyone of reason is concerned, you Christians are a bunch of suckers for following a message that was not intended fo you to begin with.

Jesus never said that his message was only for the Israelites. He said he was only sent TO them. (He wasn't sent TO the Chinese or the Russians, was he?) While on earth, his mission was to minister TO the Jews in order to bring them back to God. Of course, he always knew that he would be rejected by most of them and condemned to die by their request at the hands of the Romans. The prophecies foretold this. Please do not confuse the word "to" for the word "for." They are two very different words with two very different meanings. I can send a package to someone. It doesn't necessarily mean I sent the package FOR him. The package could be intended FOR his wife as well. Get it?

Further more, I think your jeoulous of Muhammad and of the completion of the religion of Jesus that he finalized for ALL of humanity and not just for the arabs. Your jeoulous because Muhammad was the man fo the whole universe and jesus's message alaihi salam had nothing to with you or your invented faith originally concocted by Paul.

Weak.
　

it interesting that you quote this. The reason why Muslims leave off that verse is becuase they are only tryig to prove that Muhammad was real, they were not concerned with exposing the disbelief of your pagan faith.

What?
　
If Muhammad was a real prophet, he would have come in the name of God. Instead, he came up with a new name--Allah. That was never God's name. God's name was never "the God." God is just a title like "king". That's not a name.
　

The verse you quoted is an evidence for us and an anihalation for your drowning religion.

What?
　

The verse clearly sets the criterion of truth by informig you about what is false. Since it says that falsehood is when a person commands in the name of Allah and Allah did not give him permission for that, then such is the case of a class prophet. And likewise thr one who called the people to worship others besides Him, then likewise is he false.

Um, the criterion is the NAME OF GOD. Muhammad did not come in the NAME OF GOD.

Glory be to the Lord of the universe who made Muhammad free from those characteristics for he commanded everything and ONLY what Allah commanded he our religion is more rampant and entrenched with beliefs, concepts, and practices and the strongets in the preservaion of ultimate monotheism and is the fiercest against idolatry and it's people and with more knowledge of how to combat it than anything on earth.

But he violated the Torah on several occasions.
　

However your religion espouses the worship of other than Allah. Your religion deemed Allah to have incarnated into a man. Your religion claims Allah is three. Who is more false than who.

You're right. My religion doesn't worship Allah at all. My religion worships the Almighty I AM Who I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who sent Christ Jesus into the world to save us from our sins.
　

If took our relgion and Muslims to save the name of Jesus from the idolatry that is done in his name.

But Muhammad never once used His name. That was my whole point.

~TheBoxer

[amar_labedi]

Originally Posted by Qatada

Asalamu alaikum wr wb.


continued here (part 2):

http://www.idawah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67

Assalamalikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Jazakallah for positng this detailed description about the Prophesy in various scriptures.

'Whomsoever guides towards a goodness, will get virtues equal to the one who
performs that goodness.' [Muslim]

Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the worlds.

:

[LionOfAllah]

[QUOTE=TheBoxer;11032]al-boriqee,


First of all, provide some conclusive evidence that Arabs are indeed descendents of Ishmael. Secondly, provide some conclusive evidence that the Ishmaelites were ever referred to as the brethren of the Israelites. Thirdly, I said Muhammad was an intermediary between the Arabs and GABRIEL. Get it? There was an additional presence in the intermediary chain. Exchange "human beings of the world" for Arabs if you want, but you've still got GABRIEL.

Christians are funny in there arguments and are extremely incoherent in their stance against Islam. No one in the scholarship and priesthood within Christianity disputed the fact that some arabs are descendants of Ishmael (alayhisalam) who was said to become a "Great nation" in the bible and what nation is great other than the one who holds up God like the Israelis used to and enjoy the right and forbid the wrong? This is where the Christians have a problem with so they say "no you are wrong!" and they disregard a fact that even Jews affirm. Now let me expose you from the sources of Islam on the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him




notice right after Ishmael it says "Haider" that is Arabic for Kedar. Now know the people in his lineage, all the people where The Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was living were illiterate and not versed in the Biblical stories, let alone the never ending (sometimes contradictory) lineages in the bible. The tribe and lineage was one of the things the people memorized along with poetry. Abu Bakr the companion of the Prophet is well known to be very well versed in almost all tribes lineages and to this day you have people in Somalia and in the Arabian Peninsula memorizing lineages that run thousands and thousands of years. This is no different than Jewish people with their oral traditions.


Genesis 25:13

These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,

Now lets see what was said in Isaiah about Kedar

Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you islands, and all who live in them.
Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops. Let the whole world glorify the LORD; let it sing his praise.
The LORD will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal; with a shout he will raise the battle cry and will triumph over his enemies.

Look at these from Isaiah 42 (there is more and you can read it yourself) Sing to the Lord a new song, his praises. Who sing more praises in the way the Jews do like the Muslims? Who say There is no one worthy of worship but Allah! let the people of SELA sing for joy. Who are Sela? Sela are the Jordanians and they are 99% muslim! How about the inhabitants of Kedar? This is clearly talking about Mecca and look at Mecca now! Every day, every, hour, every minute, every second there is someone either praying towards it as a focal point or are in it worshipping the Lord, who is One Alhamdulillah.
And the battle cry has been called and we answered our Lord in multitudes against the band of ungodly men!

This verse is another proof from the bible

"Then God opened her [Hagar] eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. At that time Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his forces said to Abraham, "God is with you in everything you do. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 21:19-22)"

Everyone knows that Faran is another name for Mecca among the Muslims, and so is Bacca. There is no letter P in the semetic languages so the correct translation is actually Faran. None the less there is archaeological proof to this as well answered in this website

Paran in the Bible is Mecca today - See the Archeological discoveries that prove Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia.

Jesus never said that his message was only for the Israelites. He said he was only sent TO them. (He wasn't sent TO the Chinese or the Russians, was he?) While on earth, his mission was to minister TO the Jews in order to bring them back to God. Of course, he always knew that he would be rejected by most of them and condemned to die by their request at the hands of the Romans. The prophecies foretold this. Please do not confuse the word "to" for the word "for." They are two very different words with two very different meanings. I can send a package to someone. It doesn't necessarily mean I sent the package FOR him. The package could be intended FOR his wife as well. Get it?

Is that why Paul and the disciples differed and James (may Allah have mercy on this Muwahid) refused to do what paul was doing and claimed we should only go to the lost children of Israel?


Weak.
　

What?
　
If Muhammad was a real prophet, he would have come in the name of God. Instead, he came up with a new name--Allah. That was never God's name. God's name was never "the God." God is just a title like "king". That's not a name.

This is answered

Allah = One True God (From a Jew) - YouTube

Allah = One True God (From a Jew) - YouTube

and as well this is a poor poor argument. In the bible Allah is used many times in the original Aramaic look at this article.

The word "Allah" does exist in the original Bible:
and this specific article
The New Testament itself proves that we don't have to call GOD as "Yahweh" in all languages.

I can't find the hebrew/aramiac one it was a gem. When I find it i'll post it

　

What?
　

Um, the criterion is the NAME OF GOD. Muhammad did not come in the NAME OF GOD.


But he violated the Torah on several occasions.
　

You're right. My religion doesn't worship Allah at all. My religion worships the Almighty I AM Who I AM, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who sent Christ Jesus into the world to save us from our sins.
　
This is blasphemy. The only Good one is God
But Muhammad never once used His name. That was my whole point.
This point is totally flawed. The Bible never says there is only one name of God. the criterion should not be the name of God rather it should be does this coincide with the belief of the bible's most important concept the concept of One Illah. Which it does and it corrects you, none the less the proofs and the corrections the Quran makes on the bible are vast.