Koran a FAKE

Not quite true there undo..............Christ ranted against the traditions of MAN corrupting the law. Your use of the term "old covenant" is the telltale sign. GOD and Jesus are the same, the law is the same, the covenant is the same.

The jews incorporated the traditions of man into the old covenant. That was the problem.

Same thing happened with Jesus. He came and gave us great examples and teaching and then the traditions of men swallowed it up with fluff and froo-froo that wasn't there to begin with.

For example, Paul says women should not allowed to teach because of the sins of Eve.

So the sins of Adam were forgiven, and all is made new, but Eve is still back there living in the old covenant.

It was obviously Paul, dealing with the situation however he could, rather than how Jesus demonstrated. Paul was a great man, but he was not Jesus.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Example, its OK to lie, IF it benefits ISLAM.

Untrue.

Originally posted by heliosprime
It's OK to murder, if it benefits ISLAM.

Untrue

Originally posted by heliosprime
It's OK to set muhammand above Jesus.......

Untrue


This is again my point. These three points are again something that has been addressed time and time and time again all over ATS, but sometimes people feel comfortable in their own ignorance (or they don't want to hear the truth). I wish people were able to differentiate between these two:

1) I do not believe in Islam.

2) I think Islam is full of cholesterol (or something equally absurd and nonsensical).

If you don't wish to believe in Islam, there is really nothing anyone can say to you that will change your mind. But to insert false statements into the concept of Islam, just so you can justify you disbelief in it, that is just lying to yourself.

You can say "I don't believe in Islam because I believe in Christianity, and the two don't match", and there'd be nothing I could say. It might put a hold on debates, but that isn't always a problem. If I felt like debating, I could move the bar further back, to include the Bible, and what your beliefs of Christianity are, or you could move the bar, and discuss the Quran and why it is wrong.

But why include lies? Don't you realise that including non-factual things actually WEAKENS your position? If you've reached a point where you have to USE FALSE INFORMATION to justify the incorrectness of Islam, something is seriously wrong with the strength of your own beliefs?

[edit on 21-1-2008 by babloyi]

Please incarnated go into detail.
I am going to copy-paste my previous post seeing as whenever anybody in this thread gets logical evidence thrown their way they seem to dodge the info at hand. This discussion is about the validity of the Holy Qur'an and not Mohamad over Jesus (which is not preached in Islam by the way. You should be careful incarnated because one error can be used as a basis to throw all your argument off).
So please let us discuss the issue at hand and stop trying to beat around the bush.
I said your claims (the claims of the article for that matter) are weak. Explained a little bit about the Qur'an to you and gave a few examples of scientifically proven miracles.

I still don't see how the HIDDEN DOCUMENTS disprove the credibility of the Qur'an. The revelation was first released in Arabic and remains as such till today.
The Qur'an, unlike the Bible and the Torah which are written mainly with narrations, is thematic. It is not uncommon amongst the Muslim Scholars to come across a multitude of interpretations behind a Qur'anic verse. The first Surah (roughly translated to chapter I suppose) is one page long and has books and books of analysis. Many verses were interpreted in one way and another interpretation was revealed only after certain scientific advances were made. (The Qur'an mentions the riff of saltwater and freshwater between oceans and lakes; the Qur'an mentions that iron was "brought" to Earth - scientific evidence proves that Iron did in fact come from a supernova. Also the numerical value of the word Iron in Arabic - pronounced HAD EED - equates to the atomic number of Iron. Continental drift. How mountains are held in place and its relation to holding masses of land together. The Qur'an also gives an amazingly accurate description of a fetus.)
If you want textual evidence from the Qur'an or proof of the scientific research with regards to whats written above, please let me know. Now either, the Prophet Mohamad (PBUH) had all the scientific developments of the millenium down or the Qur'an is in fact the divine word of God.
ALSO it should be noted that God and Allah are the same term. In Hebrew and Aramaic it was Eloh and it is pronounced the exact same way as Allah. All Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based in the Middle East so please don't be so ethnocentric as to in fact beleive they were written in English.
All in all, the intense analysis going into the Qur'an serves as a point towards its depth and magnitude.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by RAYES]

reply to post by AshleyD


The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and immediately ask the companions to write down the revelation he had received since he himself was an illiterate, as was prophesied in the Bible.

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. [Isaiah 29:12]

And that’s what exactly happened when Gabriel first came to the Prophet and said “Iqra” (read), he replied, "I am not learned".

The third caliph (Usman) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the Prophet from his wife Hafsah. The caliph ordered four companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

Originally posted by Unlettered
The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 22½ years. Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and immediately ask the companions to write down the revelation he had received since he himself was an illiterate...

Thank you for your reply. I understand what some believe but do Muslims believe this because it is explained in the Koran, Hadith, or external source? I keep asking "why" but am only told "what." lol I think Kangjia tried to answer my question but never told me where the information is found. If it is in the Koran or Hadith, I promise not to use the argument "then you're using the Koran to prove the Koran or your own Hadith to prove the Koran!" I'm a bit more open minded than that.

But I am curious to know. You see, everything I have ever read states the Koran was not penned by Mohammad's followers until after his death. This thread is the first time I've heard people say it was penned in his lifetime. This intrigues me and I would like to know why the opinions differ and why some believe it was penned in his lifetime and where this is stated. I promise I will not argue your answer in any way- I truly am simply curious to know why there is two different beliefs for the Koran's creation.

...as was prophesied in the Bible.

And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. [Isaiah 29:12]

Hm. My Bible does not imply such a thing. Here is the context:

"For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this please," he will answer, "I can't- it is sealed." Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read and say, "Read this please." He will answer, "I do not know how to read."

The previous verse states this: "The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep. He has sealed your eyes (the prophets). He has covered your heads (the seers)."

Isaiah 29:10-12

In the context, it is simply stating people who are spiritually blinded are comparable to an illiterate man who will never understand the word or revelation of God.

I'm all for dual interpretation but I do not see this as referring to a future prophet at all and my explanation seems to mesh with other passages in the Bible that refer to the same concept: The word of God is actually sealed from certain people due to their spiritual blindness and hardheartedness. In other words, they might as well be illiterate because they won't understand what they are reading when they read God's revelation to man in the Bible because they have already decided to hate it.

And although you and I have separate faiths, I'm sure you have run into your fair share of "spiritually blinded" people like I have and know the type I am referring to.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by heliosprime
Example, its OK to lie, IF it benefits ISLAM.

untrue
[edit on 21-1-2008 by babloyi]

Then explain this......

Cases in which lying IS permitted
One of the most interesting moral dilemmas for Islam are the cases in which lying is permitted

The Traditions tell us that there are three instances where deception can be used:

Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them). (Sahih Muslim, Hadith number 6303-05; see also Sahih al-Bukhari 3.857)
More information is provided by William Muir's "Life of Mahomet", Volume I, footnote 88:

The common Moslem belief is that it is allowable to tell a falsehood on four occasions:
1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.

To save one's life
The first is borne out by Mahomet's express sanction. Ammar ibn Yasir was sorely persecuted by the pagans of Mecca, and denied the faith for his deliverance. The Prophet approved of his conduct: - "If they do this again, then repeat the same recantation to them again." Katib al Wackidi; p. 227 ½. Another tradition preserved in the family of Yasir, is as follows: - "The idolators seized Ammar, and they let him not go until he had abused Mahomet and spoken well of their gods. He then repaired to the Prophet, who asked of him what had happened." - "Evil, oh Prophet of the Lord! I was not let go until I had abused thee, and spoken well of their gods." - "But how," replied Mahomet, "dost thou find thine own heart?" - "Secure and steadfast in the faith." - "Then," said Mahomet, "if they repeat the same, do thou too repeat the same." Ibid. Mahomet also said that Ammar's lie was better than Abu Jahl's truth.

To effect a peace or reconciliation
The second is directly sanctioned by the following tradition:- "That person is not a liar who makes peace between two people, and speaks good words to do away their quarrel, although they should be lies. Mishcat, vol ii. p.427.

To persuade a woman
As to the third, we have a melancholy instance that Mahomet did not think it wrong to make false promises to his wives, in the matter of Mary his Egyptian maid.
[This article provides more information on this incident.]

On the occasion of a journey or expedition
And regarding the fourth, it was his constant habit in projecting expeditions (excepting only that to Tabuk) to conceal his intentions, and to give out that he was about to proceed in another direction from the true one. Hishami, p. 392; Katib al Wackidi, p. 133 ½.

answering-islam.org.uk...

[edit on 21-1-2008 by heliosprime]

Originally posted by babloyi
.

Originally posted by heliosprime
It's OK to murder, if it benefits ISLAM.

Untrue

[edit on 21-1-2008 by babloyi]

Muhammad's treatment of enemies
Muhammad, on the whole, appeared to be a pious man. There are, however, several interesting contradictions in his own life. One of the most damaging was his relationship with his enemies.


Ka`b bin al-Ashraf
Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafe) (Abu Rafi)
Al-Nadr bin al-Harith
`Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt
`Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-`Aufi
Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan
`Amr b. Jihash
An anonymous man
Ibn Sunayna, Sirat p. 369 + note 580
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Abu `Afak
`Asma' Bint Marwan
The Meccan Ten:
Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl
Habbar Ibn al-Aswad
Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi
Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh (more detail in the above article)
Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh
Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami
Hind Bint Utbah
Sarah the mawlat of `Amr Ibn Hashim
Fartana
Qaribah
Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh, Sirat 665-6

the tribe of Banu Qurayza
Also, excessive cruelty in the cases of

Kinana b. al-Rabi` and
the people from Urayna.
and A Christian perspective on these events.

answering-islam.org.uk...

[edit on 21-1-2008 by heliosprime]

reply to post by AshleyD

I understand what some believe but do Muslims believe this because it is explained in the Koran, Hadith, or external source? I keep asking "why" but am only told "what." lol I think Kangjia tried to answer my question but never told me where the information is found. If it is in the Koran or Hadith, I promise not to use the argument "then you're using the Koran to prove the Koran or your own Hadith to prove the Koran!" I'm a bit more open minded than that.

Some references of Hadiths:

Anas is reported to have said: Four persons collected the Qur'an during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and all of them were Ansar: Muadh Bin Jabal, Ubayy Bin Kab, Zaid Bin Thabit, Abu Zaid. Qatada said: Anas, who was Abu Zaid? He said: He was one of my uncles. (Sahih Muslim, Number 6029)

Abdullah (bin Masud) reported that (he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur'an) and further said: He who conceals anything shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and they said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) more than seventy chapters of the Qur'an and the companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) know that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim, Number 6022)

Masruq reported: We used to go to Abdullah Bin Amr and talk to him. Ibn Numair said: One day we made a mention of Abdullah Bin Masud, whereupon he said: you have made mention of a person whom I love more than anything else. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Learn Qur'an from four persons: Ibn Umm Abd (i.e., Abdullah Bin Masud - he started from him - then Muadh bin Jabal and Ubayy bin Kab, then Salim the ally of Ali Hudhaifa. (Sahih Muslim, Number 6024)

The manuscript on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201)

But I am curious to know. You see, everything I have ever read states the Koran was not penned by Mohammad's followers until after his death. This thread is the first time I've heard people say it was penned in his lifetime.

I’ve also heard this only from here just as the Mahdi as atntichrist episode. Before that I wasn’t even familiar with the opinion that the Quran was not there in the written form in the time of Prophet.

Hm. My Bible does not imply such a thing.

I’ve used the KJV translation in my post, I thought it was famous but didn’t thought it wasn’t the favorite

Thanks for your context. Here are some more references:

Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me".

Thank you for your reply.

Pleasure and privilege.

Originally posted by Unlettered
Some references of Hadiths...

Great. Thank you. That is what I was trying to find out.

I’ve used the KJV translation in my post, I thought it was famous but didn’t thought it wasn’t the favorite

The KJV isn't my favorite but it works. Still, even the context of the KJV would have told us the same thing about spiritual blindness.

Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18

Because this prophecy is in the Old Testament, it is before Jesus. We can reasonably assume it is a reference to Jesus as this prophecy was before He came and is also referring to prophet who would be a Jew (Mohammad was not Jewish).

John chapter 16 verse 12-14

I'll give you my perspective as a Christian using the entire context of the passage. Please do not think I am trying to convert you or argue. The passage is referring to the Holy Spirit and not a human being. We can deduce this from the following:

1) The word "He" in English translates from the original Greek as "it" (a neutral gender commonly used to represent the Holy Spirit).

2) The one who would come is mentioned twice as a Spirit.

3) Jesus is telling His apostles that He must go so this "it" can come. We know the Holy Spirit was poured out on Christians only 40 days after Jesus' ascension at Pentecost. So Jesus went and the Holy Spirit came as promised.

4) The context mentions the tasks this "it" will do. It will counsel, convict, and guide. The Holy Spirit does these things as stated in other passages.

Due all of the above, we can logically assume this is the Holy Spirit.

[edit on 1/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Another interesting thing is this: Right before Jesus mentioned the coming of the Holy Spirit, He tells us other "ones" would come who would kill us. We are told these people will be religious. He also tells us they will believe they are doing a service to "God" by killing us. We are warned not to believe them because the "God" they worship with neither be Jesus or Jehovah. This leads some to believe it is a reference to Islam.

Anyways, it was very nice chatting with you. Thank you for answering my questions, showing me your interpretations, and allowing me to share mine with you.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Then explain this......

....

answering-islam.org.uk...

Explain what an anti-islam site says against Islam? Alright.

First off, a hadith is quoted. I am perfectly willing to accept this hadith. But then, 4 points are made (and I have no idea from where) of when it is okay to lie:

1) To save one's life
I accept this to be true, as can be seen in the Hadith

2) To affect peace or reconciliation
This I also accept to be true, as shown in the hadith

3) To persuade a woman
Now this is just weird. How did the writer go from 'the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)', and change it to 'to persuade a woman'?

4) On the occasion of a journey or expedition
This isn't in the hadith, nor can it be interpreted from it.

So there is nothing about lying to benefit Islam. You can lie to save a life (eg. "I am not a muslim, please don't kill me!", you can lie to bring peace (eg. "No, I don't think you are an ugly git who deserves to be locked up"), and you can lie to save a marriage (eg. "Yes, she said she misses you, you should go back")


As for your list of 'Muhammad's murders', I'm sorry, but you're getting information from the wrong source. More than half of those people were not murdered (some were even devout muslims!) and most of the stories are from the Sirat (which cannot be verified).

[edit on 22-1-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by AshleyD
If it is in the Koran or Hadith, I promise not to use the argument "then you're using the Koran to prove the Koran or your own Hadith to prove the Koran!" I'm a bit more open minded than that.

But I am curious to know. You see, everything I have ever read states the Koran was not penned by Mohammad's followers until after his death. This thread is the first time I've heard people say it was penned in his lifetime. This intrigues me and I would like to know why the opinions differ and why some believe it was penned in his lifetime and where this is stated. I promise I will not argue your answer in any way- I truly am simply curious to know why there is two different beliefs for the Koran's creation.

Out of curiosity, can you tell me where you read that the Koran was not penned by Muhammad's followers until after his death? Even wikipedia agrees that while the Quran did not exist in it's entirety as a complete, physical book, the verses were noted down on parchments, leafs, pieces of wood, etc. (as well as being memorised). Sure, the major source for all this information is the Hadith, but you have to remember that during the period after Muhammad's death, all first, second and third hand accounts of anything Muhammad did or said were collected together to form the Hadith, which were then verified, judged for reliability and categorised. You are unlikely to find contemporary (or near contemporary) account of something Muhammad did that is not in the Hadith or Sirat.

reply to post by babloyi


Ok, how about more murder by Islam........

"

MUHAMMAD'S EARLY TERRORIST ACTS
After moving to Medina, Muhammad began to have conflict with the Jews and pagans in the area. I'll focus on several incidents, not necessarily in chronological order, that illustrate Muhammad as a terrorist.

The first terrorist incident involves Muhammad's command to his followers to "kill any Jew who comes under your power".

From Guillaume, op cit, page 369:
"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew who falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'"

END OF QUOTE

This story is also supported in the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2996:

Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.

END OF QUOTE"

answering-islam.org.uk...




[edit on 22-1-2008 by heliosprime]

reply to post by heliosprime


Can I ask you a clear, open, question? You, being the OP of this thread, did you make it because you were curious as to whether the Quran was fake, or because you wanted to bash Islam? Because your last few posts in your own thread have had nothing to do with the topic. Like the hadith you quoted from that site.

You do realise that the hadith has pretty weak isnad, that Sunan Abu Dawud doesn't hold the same level as Bukhari or Muslim because Abu Dawud admitted that some of his hadith were unauthentic? You do realise that if the hadith were true, there would be more than one small unverified hadith (Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad was declared as an unreliable narrator and he is in the chain of transmission) in the middle of so many cross-referenced multiple hadith?

No, I don't think you do.

You do realise that answering-islam is a biased site, which (as I have shown before on this very page) is less interested in accuracy than in bashing Islam?

I think you do.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by babloyi]

I think the OP may be somehow in his own way trying to convey this about the Koran...

We can all agree that Christianity and the recorded history of Jesus came about much earlier than the Koran and the recorded prophecies of Muhamad.

In the Bible they are aware of the fact that other prophets and religions would spring up over the course of time etc. and they outline a simple method to distinguish between the ones that are right and those that are wrong.

1 John 4: 1-3

Test the Spirits

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

At first it would seem that since Muslims do indeed acknowledge Jesus as having come in the flesh that they must then meet the requirement of "testing the spirits" message.

But as we can see per this very thread Muslims do in fact acknowledge that Jesus has come in the flesh but only as a good man and a prophet certainly not God himself.

If this is what you believe then this drastically changes the entire meaning of the scriptures and basically denies Christ's message and death on a cross for our sins was meaningless etc.

As Ashley has stated multiple times people often attack Christianity with Kudos and walk on eggshells around those of Muslim faith as if merely discussing it were taboo.

The following verses explain that this is also what is to be expected from the world we live in.

1 John 4:4-6

4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So in summary I could be wrong of the OP's intent but it seemed he was able to see the Koran doesent serve to validate that Jesus who was God in the flesh came to earth to be born of a virgin, spread the word, and then sacraficed his life for our sins.

Instead it claims he was no more or less than other prophets therefore the spirits or however Muhamad recieved his divine messages can be seen to be fake or false. (if I am wrong here feel free to qoute source and correct)

I realise my viewpoint is biased for I am not of the world and do not belong to it or subsribe to its point of view.

reply to post by AshleyD

Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18

Because this prophecy is in the Old Testament, it is before Jesus. We can reasonably assume it is a reference to Jesus as this prophecy was before He came and is also referring to prophet who would be a Jew (Mohammad was not Jewish).

The word ‘brethren’ was used in the verse of Deuteronomy. It is generally believed in the Muslim community that the prophecy was precisely used for the Prophet as he was an Arab (The Descendent of Ishmael).

John chapter 16 verse 12-14

I'll give you my perspective as a Christian using the entire context of the passage. Please do not think I am trying to convert you or argue. The passage is referring to the Holy Spirit and not a human being. We can deduce this from the following:

1) The word "He" in English translates from the original Greek as "it" (a neutral gender commonly used to represent the Holy Spirit).

2) The one who would come is mentioned twice as a Spirit.

3) Jesus is telling His apostles that He must go so this "it" can come. We know the Holy Spirit was poured out on Christians only 40 days after Jesus' ascension at Pentecost. So Jesus went and the Holy Spirit came as promised.

4) The context mentions the tasks this "it" will do. It will counsel, convict, and guide. The Holy Spirit does these things as stated in other passages.

Due all of the above, we can logically assume this is the Holy Spirit.

I agree with you here that for the fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus had to go so can the Spirit of truth will come, as was stated in [John 16:7]

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".

But it’s mentioned in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus, in the womb of Elizabeth:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”. [Luke 1:41]

It was also there when Jesus was being baptized.

Now let me give you the perspective of Quran on this:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!' " [Qur'an 61:6]

We are warned not to believe them because the "God" they worship with neither be Jesus or Jehovah. This leads some to believe it is a reference to Islam.

The touchstone of the concept of God in Islam is defined in Surah-Ikhlas. Muslims don’t have any problem in accepting any name that fits to the equation of Ikhlas but it has to be a beautiful name.

Say: He is God, the One and Only God, the Eternal, Absolute. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him. (Al-Ikhlas 112:1-4)

Another interesting thing is this: Right before Jesus mentioned the coming of the Holy Spirit, He tells us other "ones" would come who would kill us. We are told these people will be religious. He also tells us they will believe they are doing a service to "God" by killing us.

For some reason that reminds me of a part of an Urdu poetry called “Shikwa” (The Complaint) By Allama Iqbal (Philosopher, Mystic)

It says:

Rahmatein hain teri aghyaar ke kashano par
Barf girti hai tou bechare Musalmano par?

All of your mercies are towards the different nation
It’s only the poor Muslims that get the damnation?

reply to post by babloyi


Actually you have well answered the original issue raised. The entire track of the Koran, and additional "clarifications" are all "suspect". In your own words you begin to backtrack and deny.

The purpose of this thread is to indicate the false nature of the Koran, in actual text, in application, in general. The greatest conspiracy is a religion totally based on lies that demands absolute devotion of its followers to those lies, to the point of suicide and murder.

The Koran demands death, lies, and murder to follow the "prophet". And yet, its own followers hide the truth of "IF" is was even inspired by their own prophet at all.

The bible has been "picked" appart for centuries, yet still stands with original texts being found dating back 1000's of years.

Reply to heliosprime

The Koran denies that Jesus is the son of GOD.

So if jesus was a son of God than does that mean God was also a human?
Well it must also mean god had a human wife to pull off a jesus son.
Who was that goddess 'mother of jesus'?

My friend heliosprime please bring some evidence to support you views.

You come out with utter BS.

Originally posted by Unlettered
The word ‘brethren’ was used in the verse of Deuteronomy. It is generally believed in the Muslim community that the prophecy was precisely used for the Prophet as he was an Arab (The Descendent of Ishmael).

Thank you for your interpretation and we can see that if we isolate the passage how some would think it was a reference to Mohammad. Christians and Messianic Jews interpret it this way:

"I will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses- a Jew] from among their brothers [a Jew] and I will put my words in his mouth [Jesus said the Father had sent Him and what He said is God's message]. The New Testament also states Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy and compares Him to Moses.

But the solid sign this is Jesus who Moses is referring to comes in another one of Moses' prophecies also found in Deuteronomy. It says this prophet will come before the Jews lose their judicial power. In the Jewish Talmud, the Jews are lamenting the loss of judicial power and are questioning where is the one promised by Moses with the following words:

"Woe to us! For the scepter has departed from Judah but the Messiah has not yet come!"

We know Moses says the Messiah would come before the "scepter departed from Judah" meaning their sovereign judicial power. This was taken away in Jesus' time. He was there- they just didn't believe Him. Forty years later, the Jews were forced out of their homeland and all judicial power was lost to them.

Mohammad came almost six centuries later- too late for him to be the one Moses spoke of. Jesus came at the general time Moses prophesied (while Jews still had judicial power in the Sanhedrin that was lost right after Jesus) and was crucified the exact year Daniel prophesied in 33 A.D.

But it’s mentioned in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was already present on earth...

Yes, the Holy Spirit always was and always will be present because it is omnipresent. However, all believers were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. All throughout the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit was mentioned as being present- but not indwelt. This is precisely what Jesus was referring to. Not just the presence but the indwelling. This happened right after Jesus left as He promised.

Reply to Unlettered

Rahmatein hain teri aghyaar ke kashano par
Barf girti hai tou bechare Musalmano par?

Subhanalah (azawajal),kyaaa Shayr Sunaya hai Aap Nay.

Yeh Kutay kaafir kabhi nahin samjhaygain Islam kO.

Inka raasta sidaa jahanam jata hai

Islam Zindabad,Kufar Murdabad.