Who Is Allah?

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

this whole world, has an antiG-D mental problem here in TheStory of Creation again. and the problem is, the whole world refuses to admit to there insane mentality.

since half of the problem, of having a problem, is being able to see and admit you all have an unhealty defiant mental condition.

[bmz]

Buford wrote:

There are two ways to approach a study of Muhammad. One is with reverence and the other is with skepticism. Thinking persons choose they latter. They are not influenced by the number of Muslim believers in the world today or by their force of belief because these are meaningless for determining truth. They care only about fact.

That is why I, being a thinking person, chose Muhammad over the Biblical Jesus. The man himself was an skeptic and was also not so sure about himself.

He did not really have any clue about himself and would go and ask idiots to find who people thought he was, when he should have been the one to tell people, who he was. This shows a lack of self-confidence and a lack of self-esteem.

I am also not really influenced by the large number of ignorant fools, known as Christians, who also do not know who he really was. So, it appears to be the case of a blind Jesus, who led the blind and the clueless.

Here, I would like to stress that Jesus was a 29-30 years old young man, who could not convince men twice his age. Perhaps that was the main reason he failed to get any recognition.

Another important point is that he was not coherent. Thinking people want to hear a coherent person, who lays down everything straight. That is why thinking Christians are now grilling their own scripture and religion, which make no sense. They make fun of the doctrines fabricated and that thinking process is a sign of the Cult of Christianity going down the hill.

Muhammad was extremely coherent, reasoned with folks and convinced them. Muhammad talked only about God, while Jesus talked about the Father, as if he was his own father. That must have pissed off the thinking people.

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

and this is the third time, this whole world and their grandmother. have all refused to believe, we are all here in TheStory of Creation just again from HaShem G-D.

and before this, there was another batch of talking critter idiots and their grandmother, making all the same mistakes, and expecting different results. precisely no different than you, have all errantly chosen to say. because you had rather all, speak for the same old devil than G-D.

[bmz]

rabbee yehoshooah adam wrote:

and this is the third time, this whole world and their grandmother. have all refused to believe, we are all here in TheStory of Creation just again from HaShem G-D.
and before this, there was another batch of talking critter idiots and their grandmother, making all the same mistakes, and expecting different results. precisely no different than you, have all errantly chosen to say. because you had rather all, speak for the same old devil than G-D.

Rabbee,

Do you have any place for this critter trinity, created by the subtle beasts of the fields, in your TheTorah? Please advise.

[uhuh]

Frijoles wrote:

Can you post any sources that support this (that he was inclined to a karaitic point of view)?

no assertion, just educated assumption,
because Karaim flourished in that era, and unlike the Rabbaniyim (who followed the "frozen version of Judaism"), they have a more lenient attitude toward Jesus and Muhammad; the former a Samaritan prophet, the latter an Arabian prophet
they even adapted islamic Kalam philosophy

Frijoles wrote:

The guy was an obscure rabbi in an obscure closed kingdom. I would be suprised if there was any detailed volume of work about him.

therefore his view on gentile prophets was not mainstream
what he wrote was virtually unknown until 1908

[uhuh]

Frijoles wrote:

http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet. htm
What is a Prophet?
Many people today think of a prophet as any person who sees the future. While the gift of prophecy certainly includes the ability to see the future, a prophet is far more than just a person with that ability.
The Talmud teaches that there were hundreds of thousands of prophets: twice as many as the number of people who left Egypt, which was 600,000.
A prophet is not necessarily a Jew. The Talmud reports that there were prophets among the gentiles (most notably Balaam, whose story is told in Numbers 22). And some of the prophets, such as Jonah, were sent on missions to speak to the gentiles.

apparently jewfaq is misleading the gentile readers

"It has been taught: Many prophets arose FOR Israel, double the number of the Israelites who came out of Egypt" (Megillah 14a)

Balaam was a "prophet" only in the sense that he could prophesy

Jonah was SENT to gentiles, he himself was a Hebrew (Jonah 1:9)

[Frijoles]

uhuh wrote:

<quoted text>no assertion, just educated assumption,
because Karaim flourished in that era, and unlike the Rabbaniyim (who followed the "frozen version of Judaism"), they have a more lenient attitude toward Jesus and Muhammad; the former a Samaritan prophet, the latter an Arabian prophet
they even adapted islamic Kalam philosophy
<quoted text>therefore his view on gentile prophets was not mainstream
what he wrote was virtually unknown until 1908

Agreed that he was obscure (not that there is anything wrong with that!)

But others might hold similar views. I almost do. Convergent evolution.

[Frijoles]

uhuh wrote:

<quoted text>
apparently jewfaq is misleading the gentile readers
"It has been taught: Many prophets arose FOR Israel, double the number of the Israelites who came out of Egypt" (Megillah 14a)
Balaam was a "prophet" only in the sense that he could prophesy
Jonah was SENT to gentiles, he himself was a Hebrew (Jonah 1:9)

Misleading is a matter of opinion.

Its been my experience among modern Judaism that there is a breadth of diversity on this and other subjects.

For what its worth, very little in the Talmud stands without a counter opinion.

[Frijoles]

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12...

This pretty much sums it up - in a more detailed manner

It depends, in part, upon one's definition of prophecy

on one hand

"...Prophecy was not regarded as confined to Israel. The "nations of the world" had seven prophets (B. B. 15b; comp. Eccl. R. iii. 19). Before the building of the Tabernacle, the nations shared the gift with Israel (Lev. R. i.; Cant. R. ii. 3). The restriction of prophecy to Israel was due to Moses' prayer (Ex. xxxi. 16; Ex. R. xxxii.; Ber. 7a). To "the nations" the prophets come only at night (Gen. R. lii.; Lev. R. i.) and speak only with a "half" address (Lev. R. ix.); but to Israel they speak in open daylight. The distinction between the manner in which God speaks to the prophets of Israel and those of the "nations" is explained in a parable about a king who spoke directly to his friend (Israel), but to strangers only from behind a curtain (Gen. R. lii.). Again, to the "prophets of the nations" God discloses His will only as one stationed afar off; to those of Israel as one standing most close (Lev. R. i.). Balaam is regarded as the most eminent of the non-Jewish prophets (see Geiger's "Jüd. Zeit." vol. i.)...."

on the other hand

"...Modern Jewish theologians have contributed but little to the elucidation of the phenomenon of prophecy. Most of the catechisms are content to repeat Maimonides' analysis (so with Einhorn's "Ner Tamid"); others evade the question altogether. Maybaum ("Prophet und Prophetismus im Alten Israel") has not entered into a full discussion of the psychological factors involved. The views of the critical school, however, have come to be adopted by many modern Jewish authors..."

[rabbee yehoshooah adam]

bmz wrote:

<quoted text>
Rabbee,
Do you have any place for this critter trinity, created by the subtle beasts of the fields, in your TheTorah? Please advise.

rabbee: well we are actually here in TheLittle Book of Parashas Bereeshees actually again. and i do not see any of you, talking critters, acting any idoly different than the last two times. so no! you all have not gotten out of being here, in This Same Again Story of Creation again from G-D.

so no! you all don't really know TheTorah, for being here in IT thrice again. with the whole world, just as mentally screwed up, as your all twice before. as if you are ever, going to get out of being here in TheStory of Creation agains'es. you may be able to mentally avoid being here in TheTorah. but physically you can never actually, get out of being here in IT.

[Mahmood]

bmz wrote:

<quoted text>
I have the names and I have already told you that I will not give the names.
I want you to do some research. My point was that the history of Islam and the Prophet did not come only from Ibn Asshaq 130 years later, as suggested by you.
It is so silly to suggest that. Go and study.

You are not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well. You have proven that men of religion are guilty of all kinds of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanor. Your problem is that you have no names, no authors, and no books. It's not that you dont want to give out the names, you do not have the bloody names. Not only that, you run down all material outside the Koran. That has been your habit all along, and now all of a sudden you are relying on pre-Ishaq biographies on Mohammad...is that not double standard hypocricy?

There could have been people who narrated anecdotes about Mohammad, however, they are not documented...at least not in a book form. Talk about research, I have read so many books on Islam that your head will spin.

[Buford]

bmz wrote:

That is why I, being a thinking person, chose Muhammad over the Biblical Jesus. The man himself was an skeptic and was also not so sure about himself.
He did not really have any clue about himself and would go and ask idiots to find who people thought he was, when he should have been the one to tell people, who he was. This shows a lack of self-confidence and a lack of self-esteem.
I am also not really influenced by the large number of ignorant fools, known as Christians, who also do not know who he really was. So, it appears to be the case of a blind Jesus, who led the blind and the clueless.
Here, I would like to stress that Jesus was a 29-30 years old young man, who could not convince men twice his age. Perhaps that was the main reason he failed to get any recognition.
Another important point is that he was not coherent. Thinking people want to hear a coherent person, who lays down everything straight. That is why thinking Christians are now grilling their own scripture and religion, which make no sense. They make fun of the doctrines fabricated and that thinking process is a sign of the Cult of Christianity going down the hill.
Muhammad was extremely coherent, reasoned with folks and convinced them. Muhammad talked only about God, while Jesus talked about the Father, as if he was his own father. That must have pissed off the thinking people.

Give it up. You are an embarassment.

[El Morales]

the only sources I have found pre-dating Ishaq are the following:

Aban b.`Uthman al-Bajkali
(640-718 C.E.), son of the caliph who wrote a book on maghazi which has not survived, nor has it been cited by Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidi.

`Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam
(643-712 C.E.) the cousin of the Prophet and referred to the founder of Islamic history. There is doubt that he authored anything, but there are many traditiions that have been handed down in his name.

Urwah wrote many books but, fearing they might become sources of authority alongside the Qur'an, destroyed them the day of the Battle of al-Harrah. He later he regretted that, saying "I would rather have them in my possession than my family and property twice over."

Therefore it seems clear that there is no trace of any written works before Ishaq

[Buford]

Truth be told, Jesus' enemies at the time of his appearance in Israel thought that he was a demon possessed and empowered bastard, being certain that his mother Mary was a fornicater who, for whatever reason, was rescued from the penalty of death, as specified in the law of Moses as it applied to fornicaters, by some lawbreaking guy named Joseph who decided to marry her anyway, according to Luke.

The idea that Jesus could have been miraculously conceived was evidently NOT in their program guide. I mean, was the Messiah SUPPOSED to make such a dramatic entrance?

[Buford]

CORRECTION:

Truth be told, Jesus' enemies at the time of his appearance in Israel thought that he was a demon possessed and empowered bastard, being certain that his mother Mary was a FORNICATOR who, for whatever reason, was rescued from the penalty of death, as specified in the law of Moses as it applied to FORNICATORS, by some lawbreaking guy named Joseph who decided to marry her anyway, according to Luke.

[bmz]

Truth be told, no Messiah was promised by God to the Hebrews and others through Moses and the Torah.

Truth also be told, the Messiah was never supposed to be the so-called 'Son of God'. No such thing as "the Son of God" was ever mentioned or promised
to the Hebrews and the Jews.

Truth also be told, God never told anyone that God would come down as the Messiah.

Truth again be told, the Messiah for whom the Jews were and still are waiting for, was and is supposed to be a man coming from the line of David. And we don't know if there is a person, who can claim that he is truly from David's line. Even DNA and other methods would not be of any help.

Truth be finally told, God can create anything that God wishes to. So, God created a man by the name Jesus, without any man touching his mother. That was no problem for God. No big deal!

End of the story.

[bmz]

El Morales wrote:

the only sources I have found pre-dating Ishaq are the following:
Aban b.`Uthman al-Bajkali
(640-718 C.E.), son of the caliph who wrote a book on maghazi which has not survived, nor has it been cited by Ibn Ishaq or al-Waqidi.
`Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam
(643-712 C.E.) the cousin of the Prophet and referred to the founder of Islamic history. There is doubt that he authored anything, but there are many traditiions that have been handed down in his name.
Urwah wrote many books but, fearing they might become sources of authority alongside the Qur'an, destroyed them the day of the Battle of al-Harrah. He later he regretted that, saying "I would rather have them in my possession than my family and property twice over."
Therefore it seems clear that there is no trace of any written works before Ishaq

I beg to disagree. Please continue with your search.

Even the so-called books of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham have not survived. They do not exist.

[bmz]

Buford wrote:

<quoted text>Give it up. You are an embarassment.

I really enjoy your silly one-liners, when you are embarrassed and are totally unable to refute anything. I find that amusing and entertaining.

That reminds me of Thomas asking Jesus something like this: "Lord, we do not know the way, show us the way."

And instead of showing him the way, Jesus is reported to have offered the one-liner saying, "I am the way", but doesn't tell him that he has to die first in order to go back to God.

[Buford]

bmz wrote:

<quoted text>
I really enjoy your silly one-liners, when you are embarrassed and are totally unable to refute anything. I find that amusing and entertaining.
That reminds me of Thomas asking Jesus something like this: "Lord, we do not know the way, show us the way."
And instead of showing him the way, Jesus is reported to have offered the one-liner saying, "I am the way", but doesn't tell him that he has to die first in order to go back to God.

I suppose that in your circle of friends, you are regarded as the most brilliant...

[MUQ]

Frijoles wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree
...

The Talmud states that the writings of the prophets will not be necessary in the World to Come, because in that day, all people will be mentally, spiritually and ethically perfect, and all will have the gift of prophecy.

Well the Talmud has got that wrong, because the Last of Prophet has come and the world till its end shall need the sayings and actions of the last prophet.

But there are many things in your post with which I agree.