Prophecy in the Quran and Suras

[Curious Christian]

In this area of study, a book called "The Prophecies of the Holy Qur'an," written by Q.I. Hingora, suggests 22 predictions in the Koran --as generally, among Koranic scholars, there are said to be 22 predictive prophecies in the Koran. (Note: A chapter in the Koran is called a "Sura"). Those 22 predictions are cited as being found in: Sura 2:23-24; 3:10,106,107,144; 5:70; 8:7; 9:14; 15:9,96; 24:55; 28:85; 30:2-4; 41:42; 48:16-21, 27, 28; 54:44-48; 56:1-56; and Sura 110:1-2.


--So, let's look at the first of those 22 predictions:


Sura (chapter) 2:23-24 states: "And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot -and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, -which is prepared for those who reject Faith." ---Just like this passage from Sura 2 of the Koran, the Bible also has a good number of verses which are predictive in a similar way, such as the passage in Matthew 13:41-42 in which Jesus says, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."


Now, both of the above passages (from Sura 2 and Matthew 13) are predictive, however, neither of them can be used today to determine whether either the Bible or the Koran are authored by God, because the fulfillment would occur at the time of the great judgment at the end of world history. ----Therefore, the above Quranic passage (as well as the Bible passage in Matthew) does not qualify as fulfilled predictive prophecy which would indicate that the Quran is truly inspired words from God, because it is a declaration of what Allah will ultimately do to people after they die, or after the end of world history, and it is not now verifiable from facts of history available today.


More Suras:


Similar to the above two passages (from Sura 2 and Matthew 13), out of the 22 Koranic predictions cited above, most of them declare the final destiny of non-believers (divine judgment and punishment) and/or the destiny of Muslim believers (divine reward and blessing) at the end of world history, in eternity...


...to be specific: Of the 22 predictions cited, the Koranic predictions of divine judgment and blessing at the end of history are found at: Sura 2:88-89; Sura 3:10, 106, 107, 144; Sura 8:7; Sura 9:14; Sura 28:85; Sura 48:16-21, 28; Sura 54:44-48; and Sura 56:1-56. --These Quranic verses have not yet happened in history; therefore, they do not qualify as fulfilled predictive prophecy, and they do not (yet) verify that Mohammed is a true prophet, nor that the Koran is truly from God.


--In the same manner, there are similar predictions from the Bible (concerning not-yet-fulfilled judgment and blessing) which also do not yet qualify as historically fulfilled predictive prophecy. Some of these not-yet-fulfilled prophecies are found at: Psa. 9:7-8; 9:9-10; 96:13; Ezek. 38:1-39; Zech. 14:1-21; Matt. 12:36-37; 13:43; 24:14,31; 25:41-16; Jn. 3:36; 5:28-29; 6:39-40; Rom. 2:5-8, 16; 8:18-25; 2Cor. 5:10; 1Thes. 4:14-17; 2Thes. 1:9-10; 2:8; Heb. 10:27; 11:13-16; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10-15 and Rev. 21:1-22:5. ---These prophecies do not (yet) verify that these writers of the Bible are true, nor that the Bible is truly from God.


The problem is this: None of these sorts of passages from the Koran or the Bible are any more adequate than the passages cited from Matthew 13 and Sura 2, because they are not yet fulfilled. Even if they supposedly will be true, the fulfillment is future to us today, and therefore, they do not (yet) verify the divine origin of the book they are in --either the Bible or the Koran. Such verses (from both the Bible and the Koran) are inadequate for the purpose of proving authorship by God. They do not (yet) demonstrate the working of divine power to predict events ahead of time, so as to indicate a divine origin for the book they are in. In light of such passages we cannot assume that either Allah or YHWH may have the power to do any such thing as judge, punish or reward people, unless there is demonstrable evidence of divine power to prophetically predict the deeds of specific people in specific places during a specified time-frame (like the Bible prophecy of Jeremiah given above).


More Instances


Some people have said that predictive prophecy is found in Sura 5:70, which states: "We took the covenant of the Children of Israel and sent them apostles, every time, there came to them an apostle with what they themselves desired not - some (of these) they called impostors, and some they (go so far as to) slay." --- The problem here is: there is not even a future-tense verb in this sentence. It must be considered history, however there is no prediction in it. --- This passage is very similar to Matt. 24:37, where Jesus said: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." This Bible verse is also history, without prediction in it. ---Despite the clear similarities of these two verses from the Koran and the Bible, neither one of them is predictive, and thus, neither one is useful for our purposes in trying to demonstrate the presence of the power of God to predict future events, which would be evidence that the speaker is a true prophet or that book is from God.


Sura 15:9 says, "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." --So, here we find a promise to guard the message of the Koran. This verse is fairly similar to the declaration of Jesus in Mat. 24:35, when he said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." --Despite the admittedly predictive nature of both of these passages, neither one can yet be said to be truly and completely fulfilled, since we have not yet reached the final consummation of history, where God finally confirms the eternal nature of his word --therefore neither passage can yet be said to be fulfilled, nor can they yet be cited as demonstrating the power of God to predict the future.


Going on, Sura 41:42 (which makes a statement about the Quran similar to Sura 15:9) says: "No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise." This statement is also not fulfilled predictive prophecy of a specific future event, but rather it is a theological assertion --and many such similar assertions are found in the Bible as well. But then, if the issue in these two verses is said to be the preservation of the writing from any corruption, both Christians and Muslims have a good deal to say about the supposed corruption of each other's books ---therefore (for the purposes of this article) we must "call it equal" for now, and we must let the present form of both books (as found in a major modern version, such as the NIV or NAS Bible) speak for themselves. If either the Bible or the Koran are actually corrupted words of God, then they would manifest even less of God's power to be accurate and true, and a corrupt text would be less able (or unable) to predict the future. --So, let's proceed.


Sura 15:96 is a warning against adopting another god besides Allah. Of course, this warning stands to reason, assuming the Quran's Allah is truly God. However, the Bible has virtually the same sort of statements about YHWH-God ---and neither statements in the Koran nor the Bible are predictive prophecy which shows the power of God to predict the future, so, we must go on.


Sura 24:55 says that Allah has promised to bless (with land? and inheritance?) those who believe, and to establish the authority of their religion and give them security and peace. --This "prediction" might seem to be fulfilled in some sense, but it is quite general, since it does not clearly or specifically name the person(s) who will be blessed nor the specific land-mass they will inherit: Is it every Muslim? What is the specific name of the land? How soon will they have peace and security, and how long will it last? --It is because of these unclear and non-specific qualities of this "prediction" in Sura 24, that therefore, it does not qualify as predictive prophecy which is specific enough that we can confirm it from history. --The Bible has many such promises as well.


--Besides, if you are just talking about the amount of land and wealth controlled by nations where a certain religious persuasion predominates, then Christianity comes out on top.


Sura 48:27 is thought to be a prediction that the "Prophet" (Mohammed) would enter the "Sacred Mosque" (the Ka'aba) to worship... however this "prediction" is conditional, using the phrase "if Allah wills." That is a very big "if." --Whatever the result, it is "if" Allah wills.


Thus, it wouldn't matter whether Mohammed did or did not enter the Mosque to worship, one could say this is "prediction" is fulfilled either way, because that could be said to be what Allah willed. This makes it a failsafe prediction. It can't fail. It can't be proven false either way.


Therefore, Sura 48:27 is not true predictive prophecy, since it can't fail and be shown to be false.


Sura 54:44-48 may be seen as a threatened militant action by one group of people against a group of "unbelievers," which some take to be the people of Quraish. If this happened in history, however, it would not be a prophecy, but an action which humans planned to do, and then carried out. This would be a self-fulfilling prediction (or threat), and not a predictive prophecy. If we can call it predictive prophecy when militant leaders give "pep-talks" to their followers (or "threats" to their foes), then most of the US Generals, who led troops to conquer Sadam Hussein's regime in Iraq in 2003, are "prophets." But they are not. ---There are probably more such declarations in the Quran, and there are similar human statements and threats in the Bible too, but such declarations are not necessarily predictive prophecy either book, ...so, we must go on.


Similarly, Sura 110:1-2 promises help and victory from Allah. --And again, this promise may be seen as being generally fulfilled in many lives, but it is too general because it does not name specific people or nations or time-frames; and the Bible also has many such promises which could be cited... but neither in the Koran nor in the Bible do such promises qualify as specifically predictive prophecy to demonstrate that they are truly from God

[Curious Christian]

The above is an article by an atheist.


My question is this:


What prophecies in the Quran can be shown to be true?

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

The above is an article by an atheist.

it is strange that you quote an atheiest. do you know how much hate they carry for Christianity? will you accept that i roam around the internet and quote from an atheist about what did he say about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity?

My question is this:
What prophecies in the Quran can be shown to be true?

will answer this later after answering your claims about contradictions in the Qur'an. although am sure you have just copied and paste from the internet and you did not even bother to open the Qur'an to examine those things by yourself.

But since you brought up the topic of unfullfilled prophecies I must respectfully ask you about your Quran.
yeah you are totally free to ask about the Qur’an. but did you find those verses while reading the Qur’an or only you picked them up from the internet? (The anti Islamic websites).


Koran 20:85 and 20:87 state that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mt. Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The word "Samaritan" was not coined until 722 B.C.--several years after the events recorded in the Exodus?

Am aware of this claim which made by the Christian missionaries. Ok if you are really interested to know the answer then read this:

Now we will cover the usage of the terms "Samaritan" and "Samarian" as well as the opinions of Judaeo-Christian scholars in light of recent historical investigations. We will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.
1- The "Samaritan" Error


Henri Lammens stated that in the Qur'an one of


<b>"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf..."</b>


Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:


The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.


And furthermore:


How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.


These claims have been repeated by a host of Christian missionaries. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:


The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.


Ergum Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:


The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.


Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:


As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.


Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur'an. Archer says:


Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger, foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer ("watchman") - in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.!


Similar claims were also made by `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.


Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of an argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur'an. He says:


At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an 20. 85-95).


According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and tranferring "Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person."


Almost all these claims (except for Jomier's and Newman's) can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall: the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the "Samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,


But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.


It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. Let us now examine whether Judeo-Christian scholars share this view of the origin of the Samaritans as put forward by the Christian missionaries and apologists. We will also make a brief mention of the genetic study which traces the origins of Samaritans.


2- The Traditional View Of Samaritan Origins


The Hebrew word Shomronim or Shomeronim translated as "Samaritans" is underlined in the Hebrew text below. This example is taken from II Kings 17:29:


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam3.gif


But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)



Who is a Samaritan? The traditional view of the origins of the Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary[14] informs us that the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. They were so despised by full-blooded Jews for being of mixed blood:


Because of their intermarriage with foreigners the people of Samaria were shunned by orthodox Jews. Situated between Galilee and Judea, Samaria was the natural route for travelling between those two provinces. But the pure blooded Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans (John 4 9). They would travel east cross the Jordan River and detour around Samaria Even the Jewish historian Josephus displays some contempt towards these people. He says:


The Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Samaritans were also opportunists. When the Jews enjoyed prosperity, the Samaritans were quick to acknowledge their blood relationship. But when the Jews suffered hard times, the Samaritans disowned any such kinship, declaring that they were descendants of Assyrian immigrants.


According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the Samaritans today number little more than 500, and are almost extinct:


Samaritan, member of a community of Jews, now nearly extinct, that claims to be related by blood to those Jews of ancient Samaria who were not deported by the Assyrian conquerors of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BC. The Samaritans call themselves Bene-Yisrael ("Children of Israel"), or Shamerim ("Observant Ones"), for their sole norm of religious observance is the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament). Other Jews call them simply Shomronim (Samaritans); in the Talmud (rabbinical compendium of law, lore, and commentary), they are called Kutim, suggesting that they are rather descendants of Mesopotamian Cuthaeans, who settled in Samaria after the Assyrian conquest.


Jews who returned to their homeland after the Babylonian Exile would not accept the help of the dwellers of the land, who were later identified as the Samaritans, in the building of the Second Temple of Jerusalem. Consequently, in the 4th century BC, the Samaritans built their own temple in Nabulus (Shechem), at the base of Mount Gerizim, some 25 miles (40 km) north of Jerusalem. The low esteem that Jews had for the Samaritans was the background of Christ's famous parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).


Since the 1970s their population has held at about 500; they are somewhat evenly distributed between Nabulus, which is also the residence of the high priest, and the city of Holon, where a synagogue is maintained, just south of Tel Aviv-Yafo. All live in semi-isolation, marrying only within their own community. They pray in Hebrew but adopted Arabic as their vernacular after the Muslim conquest of AD 636.


3- Samaritans Or Samarians?


The Encyclopaedia Judaica (one of the largest and most famous of all Judaic sources) provides some interesting information about the name "Samaritan":


Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam1.gif . The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29,


but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam2.gif ; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).


Further, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:


... the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam1.gif i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Con...ternal/sam2.gif i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."


In his book The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect, J. A. Montgomery asserts that the Samaritans:


.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law.


Thus the use of term Samarians in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of Samaritans. It can safely be said that there are no unambiguous references to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Bible, and part of the support for this argument is the very fact that none of the terms descriptive of the Samaritan community are found there.


4- What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Own Origins?


The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") states that until the middle of the 20th century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on the study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans[21] has led to a re-evaluation of their origins:


Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account of in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.


According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.


If the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses! Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:


The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.


5- The Origin Of The Samaritans - An Analysis Of The Jewish & Samaritan View


An analysis of the Jewish and Samaritan view of the origins of Samaritans, from The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible (Under "Samaritan Origins"), is quoted below:


The Jewish view. This view identifies the Samaritans as the descendants of the colonists whom Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, is said to have brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign parts after he had conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. and deported the native population (II Kings 17). These colonists, it is added, were later supplemented by others, introduced by Shalmaneser's successors, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, alias "Osnappar" (Ezra 4:2, 10). Whatever knowledge of Judaism they possess is dismissed as purely superficial. The first settlers, runs the story, were beset by an invasion of lions. Thereupon they appealed to the authorities to repatriate one of the priests of Yahweh, that they might learn from him the proper procedure of the traditional local cult. The result, however, was a grotesque syncretism; Yahwism served only as a thin veneer spread, for convenience, over an essential and deep-seated heathenism. It was for this basic reason, in fact, that the Samaritans obstructed the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem and re-establish the sanctuary of Yahweh (cf. Ezra 4:2 ff; Neh. 2:19; 4:2 ff)


In accordance with this view, the Jews dub the Samaritans contemptuously "men of Cutha", or - in slightly more charitable vein - speak of them as "lion converts" (Kid. 75a-76a), regarding them, at best, as one degree nearer than Gentiles, but still not as full-fledged members of the house of Israel.


The Samaritan view. The Samaritans, for their part, dismiss this story as a vile Jewish canard. The deportation in 722, they say, was neither total nor final; the exiles were, in fact, repatriated after fifty-five years! It is the descendants of these native Israelites that they claim to be. According to their version, the breach with the Judeans goes back to the time of Eli, who took it upon himself to set up an apostatic sanctuary of Yahweh at Shiloh, whereas the true "chosen place" prescribed in the law of Moses was Mount Gerizim. This infamy was later reinforced by the "accursed Ezra," who falsified the sacred text and thereby seduced the people, on their return from the Babylonian exile, to erect the second temple beside the Judean capital. Admittedly, pagan colonists were introduced by the Assyrian monarchs; but these must not be confused with the true, native Israelites.


In harmony with this view, the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."


Critical appraisal. There is something to be said for each of these views, and the truth probably lies between the two extremes.


The biblical story of successive exchange of population, following the fall of Samaria in 722, is confirmed, in its broader outlines, by the Assyrian records.


It is plain from these documents, however, that the Hebrew historian has confused and "telescoped" his data. In the first place, it was not Shalmaneser, but his successor Sargon (who, in fact, completed the siege), that effected the exchange in question. Secondly, it seems more probable that the colonization mentioned in II Kings 17:24 actually took place over several years and under successive monarchs. Thus, the Hamathites were probably transported to Samaria only after Sargon had quelled a revolt in that city in 721 - a revolt in which the Samaritans indeed participated; while the deportation of the Israelites to Media would seem to have counterbalanced one of the Medians to Samaria, following a successful campaign against them in 714. Similarly, the introduction of Babylonians and Cutheans is more plausibly assigned to Ashurbanipal than to Shalmaneser, for it may well have been an act of retribution for their share in the civil war raised by the former's rival, Shamashshumukin.


Such confirmation of the biblical account does not prove, however, that the Jews are right in regarding the Samaritans as the mere offspring of the colonists rather than the true scions of Israel; and there is, in fact, much to support the Samaritan claim.


In the first place, Sargon himself says distinctly that he deported only 27,290 persons, whereas a computation based on a contemporary record in II Kings 15:19 shows that wealthy landowners alone then numbered 60,000! Furthermore, in II Chr. 34:9, we indeed hear of a "remnant of Israel" still resident in Ephraim and Manasseh about a century later, in the days of Josiah; and the analogy of what happened at the fall of the Southern Kingdom (II Kings 24:14) would suggest that, while more influential citizens may, indeed, have been driven into exile, the proletariat were left where they were. Lastly, it should be pointed out that there is, in fact, nothing in subsequent Samaritan doctrine which betrays any indebtedness to Assyrian ideas, and that the attitude of the Samaritans toward the Jews is wholly and most naturally explicable as a continuance of the inveterate hostility between Israel and Judah.


The most plausible conclusion is, then, that after the fall of Samaria in 722, the local population consisted of two distinct elements living side by side - viz., (a) the remnant of the native Israelites; and (B) the foreign colonists. For tendentious reasons, however, the Jewish version ignores the former; the Samaritan version the latter.


This actually shows how trustworthy the Bible is in recording the history of its own people as well as the others. It can be said that the books of Kings cannot be regarded simply as an "objective history".


In order to confirm some of the claims of the Samaritans about their origins, let us turn our attention to a recent study involving genetics.


6- A Genetic Perspective


The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus, near their holy site of Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans, according to their origins, are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Kohanim). As for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the tribe of Levi.


Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that about 84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population. This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Shen et al. concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis shows descent from Assyrians and other foreign women. This effectively validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:


Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.


Furthermore, they conclude:


This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture... [T]he data ... indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan... Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages..., while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences... Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci..., underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.


According to this study, the origins of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancester in the Cohen or the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. Although this study establishes a common ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans as well as the mixed descent of Samaritans due to marriages with foreign women, we still have to look in Samaritan Chronicles to understand the how they originated and how far their ancestry goes. As we have seen earlier, the Samaritans claim to be the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh.


7- Conclusions


Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722-721 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to Cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.


The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the 100 year old claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation.


The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect.


And Allah knows best!

hope this clarify your doubt.

Koran 2:29 state that Allah created the earth first and then the heavens.
Koran 79:27-30 state that Allah created the heavens and then the earth.

The verses as follows:


He it is Who hath created for you all that is on earth.


Then He turned to the heaven, and made them into seven heavens. -- Sura 2:29


Sura 41:9-12 also gives details on the creation process and confirms that the earth was created first and then the heavens. But then we read also:


Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built?


He raised the height thereof and ordered it;


and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof.


And after that, He spread out the earth. -- Sura 79:27-30


The problem is your lack of understanding to the Arabic words. Because many a times some words have got more than one meaning.


First, the word translated "then" is the Arabic word "thumma". It can either mean "Moreover/Furthermore". It is also true that "thumma" can be rendered "then" (as in a subsequent "and").


Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", “he has turned", or "he had turned". The implication being a past action has occured. See "Written Arabic - An Approach to the Basic Structures" by A.F.L. Beeston Chapter 3, note 22.


So what does this mean with respect to the verses quoted by you.


It means that Surah 2:29 may be read as follows:


He it is Who created for you all that is on the Earth. Furthermore, he had turned to the heaven and had made them into seven heavens.


That is an acceptable translation of the Arabic and it does not conflict with Surah 79:27-30. In fact if we assume it "thumma" means "then", the sentance could potentially be awkward. (i.e. "...then he had turned...")


So which is the most accurate rendering? I assume there is no contradiction in the Qur'an and so if I can find a legitimate context that renders all the data coherent, I accept that as a proof that contradiction has not been proven. I don't think anyone can claim "contradiction" on anything unless there is no alternative explanation which legitimately explains why a proposed contradiction is not a contradiction.

(Koran 96:2)
Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood.


(Koran 21:30)


...WE made EVERY (including man) living thing


from water...


(Koran 15:26)


He created man from sounding clay, from mud


moulded into shape...


(Koran 3:59)


...He created him from dust, then said to him


Be and he was.


(Koran 19:67)


But does not man call to mind that WE created


him before out of nothing.


Was man created out of a blood clot, dust, clay, water or nothing??? I didn't post the verse but the Koran also says that man was created from a sperm drop??

1. Man created from sperm and dust


The Qur’an refers to the lowly beginnings of a human being from a drop of sperm, in several verses including the following verse from Surah Al-Qiyamah:


“Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)”? [75:37]


The Qur’an also mentions in several places that human beings were created from dust. The following verse makes a reference to the origin of human beings:


“(Consider) that We created you out of dust”. [Al-Qur’an 22:5]


We now know that all the elements present in the human body (i.e. the constituent elements of the human body) are all present in the earth in small or great quantities. This is the scientific explanation for the Qur’anic verse that says that man was created from dust.


In certain verses, the Qur’an says that man was created from sperm, while in certain other verses it says that man was created from dust. However this is not a contradiction. Contradiction means statements, which are opposite or conflicting and both cannot be true simultaneously.


2. Man created from water


In certain places the Qur’an also says that man was created from water. For instance chapter 25 it says:


“It is He Who has created man from water”. [25:54]


Science has proved all the three statements to be correct. Man has been created from sperm, dust as well as water. So you can do your homework to find out those discoveries.


3. It is not a Contradiction but a Contradistinction


Suppose I say that in order to make a cup of tea one needs water. One also needs tealeaves or tea powder. The two statements are not contradictory since both water and tealeaves are required in order to make a cup of tea. Furthermore if I want sweet tea I can even add sugar.


Thus there is no contradiction in the Qur’an when it says that man is created from sperm, dust and water. It is not a contradiction but a contradistinction. Contradistinction means speaking about two different concepts on the same subject without conflict. For instance if I say that the man is always truthful and a habitual liar, it is a contradiction, but if I say that a man is always honest, kind and loving, then it is a contradistinction.


Another interpretation is given by one of the Muslims scholar as follows:


The word translated as 'created' is misunderstood here. It is better to translate khalaqa as ‘made’ in many instances. There are several stages to creation (71:14) through which man went and still goes through in the womb. It is well understood that one stage of creation of man follows another. The stages are well recognised in the sciences of embryology.

(Koran 21:76)
Noah, when he cried to US, aforetime: We listened


to his paryer and delivered him and his family


from great distress.


(Koran 11:42-43)


...And the waves came between them, and the son was


among those overwhelmed in the Flood.


??

The first verse does not say all his family were saved. But simply ‘his family’. The detail that his son was not saved is tackled in the longer more detailed passage; this is hardly a contradiction. Here again the principle of the unqualified statement being qualified in other parts of the Qur’an. Please also note that if you had read just a few verses further, the verses 11:45-46 strongly assert that the 'family' of Noah doesn't include his son because of his behavior. These verses emphasise that the concept of 'family' is not narrowly defined as all those with blood relations.

What about this?
(Koran 2:62)


Those who believe in the Quran...and the


christians...shall have their reward with their


Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor they shall


grieve.

this verse talking about the Christians who believe in God and WORSHIP HIM ALONE NOT HIS SON OR ANOYONE ALONG WITH HIM AND DON CALL HIM TRINITY) and the day of judgement and do good deeds. Anyone who ‘believes’ means believe without associating partners with God. Verse 5:72 clearly talks about those who associate partners with Allah.

Granted...those aren't necessarily unfullfilled prophecies in the Quran rather contradictions. I started a new thread here to ask about specific unfullfilled prophecies in the Quran.

Alhamdulelah I’ve proven that none of what you have shown is wrong and that you can never find find in this glorious book any mistake or contradiction. Alhamdulelah.


Salam


Wael

[wel_mel_2]

My question is this:


What prophecies in the Quran can be shown to be true?

just to mention few.


<b>The defeat of the Persians by the Romans within a number of years</b>


Allah said: “The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians).” [Ar-Rum 2-4]


The scholars of Tafseer said: the Persians defeated the Romans, and the disbelievers of Makkah rejoiced because of that and said, “Those who do not have a Book have defeated those who do have a Book,” and they gloated over the Muslims and said, “We will also defeat you as the Persians defeated the Romans.” The Muslims wanted the Romans to prevail over the Persians because they were People of the Book… “and they, after their defeat, will be victorious” means that the Romans, after having been defeated by the Persians, would defeat the people of Persia.


Al-Zajjaj said: This is one of the verses that prove that the Qur’an is from Allah, because it is foretelling something that was yet to come, and this is something which no one could know except Allah.


<b>Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection</b>


Allah said: “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah’s Book, disobeyed Allah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah’s disobedience); and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.” [Al-Ma’idah: 14]


Ibn Katheer said: “So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection” means, We sowed amongst them enmity and hatred of one another, and they will remain like that until the Hour begins. Hence the Christian groups, no matter what their types, will continue to hate one another and denounce one another as disbelievers and curse one another. So each group forbids the others to come to its place of worship, and the Byzantines denounced the Jacobites as disbelievers, and the Nestorians denounced the Arians, and so on. Each group denounces the others as disbelievers in this world and will do so on the Day of Judgment.


<b>Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others.</b>


Allah said: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions” [At-Tawbah: 33]


Al-Qurtubi said: Allah indeed did that. Whenever Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sent his armies out on a campaign, he would remind them of what Allah had promised them, that He would cause His religion to prevail, so that they would be confident of victory and certain of success. `Umar used to do likewise, and their conquests continued east and west, by land and sea.


<b>The Conquest of Makkah</b>


Allah says: “Indeed Allah shall fulfill the true vision which He showed to His Messenger [i.e. the Prophet saw a dream that he has entered Makkah along with his Companions, having their (head) hair shaved and cut short] in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al Masjid Al Haram, if Allah wills, secure, (some) having your heads shaved, and (some) having your head hair cut short, having no fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted besides that a near victory.” [Al-Fath: 27]


At-Tabari said: Allah says: Allah is confirming as true the vision which He showed to His Messenger Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he and his companions would enter the sacred House of Allah in very truth, not fearing the mushrikeen (polytheists), some of them having their heads shaved and some of them with their hair cut short.


<b>The Battle of Badr</b>


Allah said: “And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy, i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours; you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).” [Al-Anfal: 7]


Ibn Al-Jawzi said: What this means is: Remember when Allah promised you one of the two parties. The two parties were: Abu Sufyan and the wealth that was with him, and Abu Jahl and the people of Quraysh who were with him. When Abu Sufyan went ahead with the wealth that was with him, he wrote to Quraysh saying, if you have already gone out to save your caravan, I have already saved it for you (i.e., so go back). Abu Jahl said, By Allah, we will not go back. Then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out, heading for the people (i.e., to confront the disbelievers’ army), but his companions were not happy about that, wishing that they had caught up with the group from whom they could capture the booty without fighting. Hence Allah said, “you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours”.


<b>ABU LAHAB THE ENEMY OF ISLAM.</b>


this prophecy is sufficient enough to prove the Qur’an to be God’s words, there is a small chapter addresses the Uncle of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh called ABU LAHAB. This small chapter mentioned that ABU LAHAB will never become a Muslim and he will die as a disbeliever and hell will be his place. ABU LAHA main purpose in life was to destroy Islam and to prove that the Qur’an is wrong. and yet he was not able to declare <b>EVEN BY LIES TO CREATE CONFUSION AMONG THE MUSLIMS</b> that he is a Muslim. <b>It was so easy for him </b> to prove that the Qur’an is wrong by saying "hey listen every body I am a Muslim now and I believe in Muhammad to be the last messenger and therefore the Qur’an is wrong because it says that am never going to embrace Islam". 10years before his death this small chapter was revealed and he heard many times <b>and yet he died exactly as the Qur’an said as a disbeliever</b>.


time does not permit to mentioned the miracles and scientific subjects that was discussed in the Qur'an. but i guess we have another thread discussing this issue.


Salam


Wael.

[Curious Christian]

Wel Mel. THANK YOU for you well thought out answers. One of them was "copy and paste" from the internet, but I won't fault you for it....


<i></i>

<i></i><i>it is strange that you quote an atheiest. do you know how much hate they carry for Christianity? will you accept that i roam around the internet and quote from an atheist about what did he say about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity?</i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
The point is that the atheist was examining both texts subjectively. If I had posted the same exact article from a Christian you would of said something like, "Oh, the Christian hates the Quran and thus is trying to distort it's truths." I know this because you blamed the problem with the word Samaritan on Christian missionaries. I thought that posting from a non-partisian source may actually carry more weight in the discussion. And yes, I know what atheists believe about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity. I also know what Muslims say about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity and it is equally incorrect and offensive.
But, Lo, here I am trying to gain a better understanding of Muslims and what they believe.


The article about the Samaritan origen is interesting. It requires more study on my part for understanding. Thank you for revealing it to me.


<i></i>

<i></i><i>Second, the Arabic word for "he turned" can be rendered as "he turned", “he has turned", or "he had turned".</i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
That makes sense. I speak Spanish and English. I don't know much about Arabic. Many things in the Bible are also misconstrued by people's misunderstanding of original language and things can always get lost in translation. I can believe that the same about the Quran.


<i></i>

<i></i><i>Thus there is no contradiction in the Qur’an when it says that man is created from sperm, dust and water. It is not a contradiction but a contradistinction.</i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
Oh I see...if that is the case than I can see what you are saying. As a side note, in Mohammed's time people knew that sperm from a man caused a woman to be pregnant and created life. They also knew that blood, dust and water were present in our bodies. I can't give credit to Mohammed for discovering this.


<i></i>

<i></i><i>The first verse does not say all his family were saved. But simply ‘his family’. The detail that his son was not saved is tackled in the longer more detailed passage; this is hardly a contradiction. Here again the principle of the unqualified statement being qualified in other parts of the Qur’an. Please also note that if you had read just a few verses further, the verses 11:45-46 strongly assert that the 'family' of Noah doesn't include his son because of his behavior. These verses emphasise that the concept of 'family' is not narrowly defined as all those with blood relations</i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
Interesting. Where let me ask you this. The story of Noah and the flood first appeared in the Bible generations and generations before Mohommed. Why the re-telling of this already widely known and revered account by Mohammed?


<i></i>

<i></i><i>this verse talking about the Christians who believe in God and WORSHIP HIM ALONE NOT HIS SON OR ANOYONE ALONG WITH HIM AND DON CALL HIM TRINITY) and the day of judgement and do good deeds. Anyone who ‘believes’ means believe without associating partners with God. </i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
<b>That answer makes no sense.</b> "Christian" by definition means a follower of Christ. People who as you say, "Worship Him Alone NOT HIS SON OR ANYONE ALONG WITH HIM AND DON'T CALL HIM TRINITY" wouldn't be Christians AT ALL. Jews reject the trinity and don't worship the son will they be in Paradise? <b>In your answer you also said upon closer observation, "Worship Him Alone NOT HIS SON", so I see you agree that Jesus IS the son of God.</b>


NOW Concerning your post in response to what prophecies in the Quran are true......


Concerning the prophecy about the defeat of the Persians by the Romans. Yes, I cannot deny that this happened. The interesting part about your post was when you wrote this:


<i></i>

<i></i>
<i>Al-Zajjaj said: This is one of the verses that prove that the Qur’an is from Allah, because it is foretelling something that was yet to come, and this is something which no one could know except Allah.</i><i>
</i>

<i></i>

<i></i>

<i></i>
The bible...as I pointed out in great detail does a lot of foretelling things yet to come. Is this too proof that the Bible's versus are from God? If not why not? You didn't address a single prophecy in the bible which I pointed out which has been confirmed by history. Why not?


<i></i>

<i></i>
<i>Enmity among the Christian sects until the Day of Resurrection</i><i>
Allah said: “And from those who call themselves Christians, We took their covenant, but they have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. So We planted amongst them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection (when they discarded Allah’s Book, disobeyed Allah’s Messengers and His Orders and transgressed beyond bounds in Allah’s disobedience); and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.” [Al-Ma’idah: 14]</i>

<i></i>

<i></i>

<i></i>
In Mohammed's time there was already enmity among Christian sects. The apostle Paul writes about various disagreements throughout the New Testament. This is hardly a prophecy because it was already going on. Why is there enmity amoung Christians? We, like all mankind, are sinfull and effected by the fall. <b>Is there not enmity amoung Muslim sects???? SHIA or SUNNI???? </b> Also...I didn't know that Muslims believed in a day of Resurrection. Tell me about it.


<i></i>

<i></i>
<i>Allah promised His Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, that his religion would prevail over all others.</i><i>
Allah said: “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions” [At-Tawbah: 33]</i>

<i></i><i>
</i>

<i></i>

<i></i>

<i></i>
That doesn't qualify as a prophecy. How many battles in the course of history have Muslim armies lost? Look how fast the Muslim community in Africa is shrinking and how fast the Christian church is growing in Africa. Surely we won't know which religion is superior over all religions until the end of times or we perish (I of course know that Christ is the answer)


<i></i>

<i></i>
<i>The Conquest of Makkah</i><i>
Allah says: “Indeed Allah shall fulfill the true vision which He showed to His Messenger [i.e. the Prophet saw a dream that he has entered Makkah along with his Companions, having their (head) hair shaved and cut short] in very truth. Certainly, you shall enter Al Masjid Al Haram, if Allah wills, secure, (some) having your heads shaved, and (some) having your head hair cut short, having no fear. He knew what you knew not, and He granted besides that a near victory.” [Al-Fath: 27</i>

<i></i>

<i></i>

<i></i>
Was that verse written <i>AFTER</i> the conquest of Makkah????


<i></i>

<i></i>
<i>The Battle of Badr</i><i>
Allah said: “And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy, i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours; you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).” [Al-Anfal: 7]</i>

<i></i>

<i></i>

<i></i>
I cannot accept this at all. You added the <i>" (i.e. in the battle of Badr).”</i>


<i></i>

<i></i><i>This small chapter mentioned that ABU LAHAB will never become a Muslim and he will die as a disbeliever and hell will be his place. </i>
<i></i>

<i></i>
Can you quote the actual chapter?


Thanks for the discussion again Wel Mel. I hope to keep things civil. I am learning a lot. AND like before, I didn't copy and paste one single answer.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom


Wael, jazakum Allah khairan for the post about Al Sameri, I never knew that people had this point against the Quran. May Allah Reward much those who made the research. Sobhan Allah, surely scholars do compliment each other in their work.


curious, u didnt copy and paste, of course u did. I mean the points regarding the creation of mankinds...etc. I think I already read only on this board more than 4 times, leave alone on other places and of course I know the source.


But I dont take this against u. U read points in anti Islamic sites. u feel that u want to know how Muslims live with it. I understand.


U almost didnt accept all the replies Wael broughtforth, but u didnt even comment on the Surah of Abu Lahab. U will not find on the Internet any reply to it. Because this man could have actually destroyed the call in its inception, by just going out after the revelation of this Surah and declare his Islam. But he didnt because the Quran is true.


Let me take a different approach and tell u how Quran predicted our future as Muslims.


The Ayah saying:


"You shall certainly be tried and tested in your wealth and properties and in your personal selves, and you shall certainly hear much that will grieve you from those who received the Scripture before you (Jews and Christians) and from those who ascribe partners to Allah
" (Quran 3:186).


With all due respect to the translator, but I d rather say for the underlined part, you shall certainly hear harmful or what will cause harm and grieve.


If some of the non Muslim visitors on this site or any other Islamic site didnt come on and start criticise Islamic teachings harshly, slander Allah on TV channels, or those Nasarah (note that I dont use the term Charistian because it was never mentioned in Quran, Allah Never ever once called them Christians but rather Nasara) priests who devoted much of their time to slander the Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam - which certainly fall under the description harm and what will cause harm and grieve. If they dont adopt this approach, the Quran will not be true.


On a totally different approach, Allah in Quran Say:


"40:79


"Allah, it is He Who has made cattle
for you, that you may ride on some of them and of some you eat."


"And Who has created all the pairs and has appointed for you ships and cattle on
which you ride,"


(Quran 43:12).


Curious, just take an in depth look at the above mentioned two verses and see how Allah Confirms that we will ride on animals.


At our current time, when people ride space ships, cars, aeroplanes including super sonic..etc, there are still people in some countries, like mine, Pakistan, Kenya...etc. do still ride cattle. I mean not only for pleasure which might be the case in places like the US, but to move from one place to another.


In any case, either for pleasure or not, which is even a more strong evident, that in places like the US people do still ride horses which are categorised as cattle of course. If they did cease to do so and only used automative means of transportation, still in other countries this verse is standing clear and shall be so till the day after. Mankind will continue using cattle as means of trasportation or will continue to ride them because Allah Say so. Allah Could have skipped the ride part, Knowing the techonoligical revolution that will occur. But Allah Did confirm that mankind will ride cattle and we do Curious even in the most develped countries.


Hope u got the point.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


Praise be to Allah, prayer and peace be upon His Messenger Mohamed and all Prophets and Messengers


I invoke upon Allah to Assist me much in this explanation, and may Allah Forgive me for not putting this on the above one, may Allah accept it for both posts and any other one Insh aAllah I m going to make.


Curious, actually your question is a very good one and helps us Muslims dig deep in our book to help u understand more.


Look at this verse:


"Evil
(sins and disobedience of Allah, etc.) has appeared on land and sea
because of what the hands of men have earned (by oppression and evil deeds, etc.), that Allah may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return (by repenting to Allah, and begging His Pardon)."


(Quran 30:41)


With a very quick thought, you will realize that this Ayah refers to disasters like Tsunami, and the recent earthquake that took place in Indonesia. Didnt Tsunami start in the sea so is the recent earthquake. Actually, the first word does not refer to the sins and evil deeds, but rather the destruction. If such disasters didnt occur, people would have said O the Quran is talking about disasters in the sea, how can they even occur. Glory be to Allah, volcanos erupt from under the water carrying lava and putting places in fire. Isnt this destruction and disasters? and yes be bring it because of what we do of evil dees. In this area of the world, which is supposed to be a muslim country, if u study more, you will find out that prostitution is widely spread even among young children. I dont want to prolong the post. But i m sure u got the point.


Look at this:


"O assembly of jinns and men! If you have power to pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, then pass (them)! But you will never be able to pass them, except with authority (from Allah)!" (Quran 55:33)


How did the illiterate man Prophet Mohamed prayer and peace be upon him in his wildenst dreams think for a moment that mankind may ascend beyond the boundaries of eath into other planets using space ships?


Mind u Allah, here mentioned both mankind and jinn putting jinn in the order of the sentence before mankind. Simply because they did penetrate into the above skies. jinn are another creation, they can see us while we cannt see them. They are created from fire.


But as for mankind, they did pass beyond the zoes and pls note that Allah precisely said the zones of heaves (skies) and earth. Because for those who go into space ships, they must pass first out of the earth gravity in order to be able to continue into other planets.


Glory be to Allah, this took place in the 20th century. Something like 1400 years after Mohamed's prayer and peace be upon him time, how can he make this up?

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


More on the same line:


"And (He has created) horses, mules and donkeys, for you to ride and as an adornment. And He creates (other) things of which you have no knowledge." (Quran 16:8)


At the time of the Messenger prayer and peace be upon him, it was only logical to take horses as an adornment or to be more accurate a source of showing social class. But at our time, when we can ride a Mercedes, wear 10 carat diamond ring, how can this Ayah still stand? It should have been annuled.


But no, because Allah Didnt leave a tiny detail without refering to it. Till our present time, people like Prince Charles of UK still own extremely expensive kinds of horses that require extra treatment. Poeple still go after the pure Arabian horses and actually hold acutions to be favored of owning one as a sign of high social class...Isnt this the case?


Glory be to Allah.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


if u compare the verses I posted which are talking about riding cattle, u will notice that Allah mentioned riding cattle in general and using them in other forms. Yet when Allah Talked about taking a certain animal as adornment or let us say source of pride, Allah specifically mentioned horses which was and still is the case.


Just thought to further underline this point.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

Oh I see...if that is the case than I can see what you are saying. As a side note, in Mohammed's time people knew that sperm from a man caused a woman to be pregnant and created life. They also knew that blood, dust and water were present in our bodies. I can't give credit to Mohammed for discovering this.

first of all we dont give credit to Muhammad pbuh for discovering any of the scientific miracles in the Qur'an, we give all credit to the Lord of the worlds, Allah.


if we agree on your statement that Arabs <i>in Mohammed's time knew that sperm from a man caused a woman to be pregnant and created life. They also knew that blood, dust and water were present in our bodies</i> then you will have to ask <b>Dr Keith Moore </b> and follow the same steps that were taken by a group of men in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, they collected all of the verses in the Qur'an which discuss <b>embryology</b> - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, "Here is what the Qur'an says. Is it the truth?" In essence, they took the advice of the Qur'an: "Ask the men who know." They chose, as it happened, <b>a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, </b> and he is the author of textbooks on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said, "This is what the Qur'an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?"


And he was so surprised at what he found <b>that he changed his textbooks</b>. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called Before We Are Born... in the section about the history of embryology, he included some material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur'an was ahead of its time and that those who believe in the Qur'an know what other people do not know.


Brother Gary Miller had a meeting with Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being <b>were not known until thirty years ago</b>. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage (Surahs al-Hajj 22:5; al-Mu'minun 23:14; and Ghafir 40:67) - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks.


Although the aforementioned example of man researching information contained in the Qur'an deals with a non-Muslim, it is still valid because he is one of those who is knowledgeable in the subject being researched. Had some layman claimed that what the Qur'an says about embryology is true, then one would not necessarily have to accept his word. However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars, one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on that research, then the conclusion is valid.

In your answer you also said upon closer observation, "Worship Him Alone NOT HIS SON", so I see you agree that Jesus IS the son of God.

Yes i do agree on the term SON OF GOD. Because i did understand what the Jews meant by saying son of God. in their language every human being is son of God, which means servant of God. and not literally SON.


NOW Concerning your post in response to what prophecies in the Quran are true......

The bible...as I pointed out in great detail does a lot of foretelling things yet to come. Is this too proof that the Bible's versus are from God? If not why not? You didn't address a single prophecy in the bible which I pointed out which has been confirmed by history. Why not?

I said if prophecies and historical events that found in the Bible are the test, then we should also follow the other scriptures of Hindus etc.. Because they also contains great details about prophecies and historical events.


what I mean CC is that I do believe that the Bible does contain part of God's words, but it also contains the word of prophets, the words of historians and also contains some statements which I will never accept to be inspired by God. But if you read the Qur'an you will realize immediately that the speaker in the first place is God Almighty. ALONE.

Was that verse written <i>AFTER</i> the conquest of Makkah????

if it was written after the conquest of Makkah then i would not mention it as a prophecty.

I cannot accept this at all. You added the " (i.e. in the battle of Badr).”

To add something between brackets is something normal when translating the original text to any other foreign language; we find that in the Bible too. For example we read verses like "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph". You know well that since the words (as was supposed) are between brackets means that they were not inspired by God, (and by the way they are not found in the original text) but for the translator to clarify the meaning and not to create any doubt. he puts his own words in brackets, otherwise the whole meaning will change and we will face a big problem.


Same manner when reading the Arabic text of the Qur'anic verse we have no problem in understanding that the verse talking about the battle of Badr. But when translating it into English the translator wanted to make the meaning more clear and so he adds those brackets.

Can you quote the actual chapter?

it is chapter 111 called ABU LAHAB.


Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause.


How could Muhammad pnuh possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been <b>so confident </b> as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.

Thanks for the discussion again Wel Mel. I hope to keep things civil. I am learning a lot. AND like before, I didn't copy and paste one single answer.

you are most welcome CC, and i hope you dont mind if i hurt your feeling at anytime, it was not my intention.


Salam


wael.