Islam's Incorruptible Qur'an Is Corrupt

It is a common held belief that epilepsy only starts when you are younger. This is false. Epilepsy can begin at any age caused by various things. This is not to say, Muhommed, may he rest in peace, had epilepsy. I do not know, butit seems very likely detractors and those who oppose Islam, might make up such an idea to discredit the prophet.

Diagnosis and causes of epilepsy

Cirque

reply to post by EricD

Certainly none before his Prophethood. I believe he was in 1 battle in his childhood, and his participation was limited to collecting arrows on the battlefield (or something like that, I don't have the reference in front of me). No injuries.

As to your question to maes, he has just replaced the term that you'd usually see in your Bible (generally assumed and thus translated to "Comforter" or "Helper" or even "Holy Spirit") with the original greek "Paraclete". Many muslims believe this is referring to Jesus talking about Muhammad.

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

Hey Cirque!

Fromabove specifically mentioned Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, which DOESN'T really begin at any age. Also, as I mentioned, no trauma occurred that would have set it off, and given his condition and long life after his Prophethood began, no degenerative disease was present.

Originally posted by babloyi

As to your question to maes, he has just replaced the term that you'd usually see in your Bible (generally assumed and thus translated to "Comforter" or "Helper" or even "Holy Spirit") with the original greek "Paraclete". Many muslims believe this is referring to Jesus talking about Muhammad.

Is there a tradition in Islam of referring to Mohammed as 'the Spirit of Truth' or 'Comforter'?

Eric

reply to post by EricD

One of his titles (he had even before assuming Prophethood) was "The Truthful/Trustworthy" because of his fair and honest dealings as a trader. But the point is, "Paraclete" doesn't translate to "The Spirit of Truth" at all. It could be "Comforter" or "Uplifter" or "Helper" or "Advocate/Interceder".

Some muslims say the original greek was "Periklytos", which was then mixed up with "Paraclete". Periklytos means "Praiseworthy", which would be a direct translation of Muhammad's name.

reply to post by babloyi


Thank you, but I was referencing the next line in the quotes, such as John 15:27 and John 16:8 that add context to who is being referred to.


Eric

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by maes2

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me John 15:26

But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you John 16:7

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever John 14:16

He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran(mountains around Mecca). He came with myriads(ten thousand) of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes Deuteronomy 33:2

Hi,

I'm curious about what translations you are using. I just checked a few and it seems very clear (to me at least) that the Holy Spirit is being referenced. Are you interpreting these quotes as referring to Mohammed?

Thanks,

Eric

edit on 20-8-2013 by EricD because: Poor quoting skills.

thank you for your attention.
we believe that Muhammad is the Paraclete who shone forth in Mecca, taught many things, he was like Moses and gave testimony of Jesus and he was from brothers of children of Israel !

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by babloyi

As to your question to maes, he has just replaced the term that you'd usually see in your Bible (generally assumed and thus translated to "Comforter" or "Helper" or even "Holy Spirit") with the original greek "Paraclete". Many muslims believe this is referring to Jesus talking about Muhammad.

muslims recognize the holy spirit as well.

Say, [O Muhammad], "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believed and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." Koran 16:102

Since leaving Islam, I have never once looked back. The religious superiority complex that once blinded me with notions of “us separate from them” and “Muslims differentiated from non-Muslims” has been lifted, and I now see only fellow humans, and strive towards universal brotherhood based upon love, compassion, and understanding, free from the separations of religion, race, nationality, culture, belief, ideology, wealth, intellect, or class/caste.

From this qoute it would seem to me you havent left any religion, I would say you have discovered what is meant to be at the core of them all.

It could not have been easy doing what you did but I applaud you

Now if we could only help the 3 billion odd other deluded religious types we may actually and ironically come close to living in a world they all aspire to

reply to post by maes2


Muhammad means "praised one". He was later called "As-Saddiq" (the Truthful) by all of those who knew of his truthful and honest nature. He always said only the truth. He was also called "Al-Amin" (the Trustworthy) due to his integrity and always upholding any trust given to him.He is also the Wali (friend, helper, guardian) of the believers as it says in the Quran and also intercedes for the believers as well.

That is the Prophet. Let move backward to the Bible:

We are not therefore quite satisfied with the rendering the translators gave in our English Bible to the Greek, word. "Paracletos." They translate it "the Comforter." But it literally means, one "called upon," "kala," to call, and "para," for or upon. Perhaps we should say "The Called Upon." One who has come into our world to help needy humanity, and stands ready, at every human door, to help those who want his assistance and ask for it. If, for example, we are in sorrow, and ask for sustaining grace, and He comes and wipes away the tears; then He is our Comforter. If in perplexity, and know not what to do or whither go, and He takes our hand and leads us out, then He is our Guide. If we are sorely tempted and feel our feet sliding and call for help, and He comes to the rescue and delivers us from our strong enemy, then He is our Deliverer, the Captain of Salvation. If as a student, I need stimulus and illumination, to acquire the mental discipline and knowledge I am in pursuit of, and He comes to my aid, then He is my Teacher. If I feel my soul is polluted and unfitted for His Holy residence, and I
call on him to come and cast out the unclean thoughts and desires, which like unclean spirits cling so fondly there, and he comes and drives them away, then He is my Sanctifier. If the book of God is largely sealed to me,
and fails to give comfort as it should, and He comes and breaks the seals, and makes it luminous, then He is the Interpreter. In short, the Holy Spirit fills so many offices, beside that of Comforter, that we prefer the more general term of Patron or Helper, as more fitly expressing the work He does for men.

www.davidcox.com.mx...

There is nothing in the definition that I quoted that is not fulfilled in the Prophet Muhammed (saww)




AND, if we are to go one further and say that this Comforter in the bible is also representative of the 7 spirits of God in revelation then you have all the Masumeen (saww)...14 persons, 7 names......

Revelation 3:1 - And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars ; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Revelation 5:6 - And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

although you may not like to agree...

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by maes2

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me John 15:26

But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you John 16:7

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever John 14:16

He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran(mountains around Mecca). He came with myriads(ten thousand) of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes Deuteronomy 33:2

Hi,

I'm curious about what translations you are using. I just checked a few and it seems very clear (to me at least) that the Holy Spirit is being referenced. Are you interpreting these quotes as referring to Mohammed?

Thanks,

Eric

edit on 20-8-2013 by EricD because: Poor quoting skills.

thank you for your attention.
we believe that Muhammad is the Paraclete who shone forth in Mecca, taught many things, he was like Moses and gave testimony of Jesus and he was from brothers of children of Israel !

edit on 20-8-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

Ok your way off base here let me start with john 16:7 since you said this refers to Mohammad This was Jesus talking to his disciples explaining to them what will happen. In fear they realize Jesus wont be there and are afraid of being lost. So John 16:7
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.says John 16:7
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

This is in no way a refrence to Mohammad in fact Jesus lets them know who it is :

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

And even has a final command for them
Acts 1:4
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

So unless Mohammad was in Jerusalem during the crucifixion it isnt him.

So where right back to where we started the Koran as mentioned said Mohammad is mentioned in the Bible he is not So the Koran is wrong right? But if its wrong then it cant be the word of god right? However it is but its wrong? So were right back into that catch 22.

reply to post by EricD


Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

( ** There are still many posts and points I must reply to, which will be forthcoming as time permits, including replies to logical7 and mideast. However, as a member seconded a request to reply specifically to babloyi, I will do so now. ** )

reply to post by babloyi

Assalaamu alaikum brother.

I've never spoken to a Bait al-mal before

I was not calling myself a bayt al-mal. I called myself a "Treasurer" and hyper-linked to "bayt al-mal" so that non-Muslims could learn a bit about the system of how a Muslim community governs its funds.

If you don't mind me asking, what WAS the actual level you reached in your Islamic studies before abandonning the faith?

I learned the proper understanding and pronunciation of Arabic from tutelage with an Egyptian-born, Hanafi sheikh.

From then, I memorized the Arabic recitation of 20-something odd surahs, and memorized several important and personal favorite ayah (verses).

I have read the entire volume of Sahih al-Bukhari and memorized many ahadith. I hand-copied the entire volume of "Al-Lu'lu'wal-Marjan" (Pearls and Corals). This is a compilation of all sahih ahadith (authentic traditions of Muhammad) that are found in both Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari.

I've learned so much from sheikhs, muftis, and knowledgable Muslims from many different sects and different communities. Took too many classes and workshops to count anymore. And I have an extensive personal library of Islamic literature from varying schools of thought.

I've lead congregational prayers often, and presented jummah khutbah (Friday Sermon).

Additionally, I was an often-featured writer for the newspaper of our community. In fact, the headlining article of our first edition featured an article of mine regarding the mindfulness of one's words.

Consistently, I offered 3 to 5 prayers in the masjid (mosque) daily. I was one of the "go to" guys of our community when brothers had questions about the religion. I gave much financial, time, and energy charity towards the community.

Several of them aren't universally (or even majority) accepted sources, and many of them are far out of the bounds of the timeframe of what a Salafist would consider follow-worthy, and some of them are at the level of presenting a thesis that hasn't even been reviewed. Please note, I am talking about your sources, and not your opinions.

I use sources from different schools of thought because I am no longer a Salafi or Muslim. I am no longer bound to a strict adherence to certain Imams, theologians, or writings.

I used sahih ahadith where most crucial and pertinent, while using lesser than sahih-rated sources as supplemental support and to enrich the content.

There are millions of Muslims around the world who follow different sources. If you have ideological issues with the source material, that is between you and other sects of Islam, because I did not use any grossly fabricated or blatantly incorrect sources.

I am curious why a person as studied as yourself would need answering-islam as a source

I sourced answering-Islam one time and one time only, and that is because I could not find any free uploads or PDFs of the facsimile works and published editions of the textual content of the Qur'ans I listed in the op.

The answering-Islam source is (although I now see it is a broken link in the op):
Chapter IX: Samarqand VS. 1924 Edition - ‘The Same’?

It is a great and accurate work comparing the difference found within the Tashkent/Samarkand Qur'an. This Tashkent/Samarkand Qur'an is heralded by Muslims for its age, but fail to acknowledge the discrepancies outside of vowel-usage and the variation found within the 7 traditional qira'at (recitations).

Now about your claim that the Quran is only the Quran when spoken, I have to disagree, considering the Quran calls itself "The Book".

The very first word revealed to Muhammad was "Iqra" which means "to recite".

Allah calls the Qur'an a kittab (book) because it is a collection of verses.

However, Muhammad never penned the Qur'an. Muhammad never authorized the creation of a fully compiled Qur'an in book form. If the prophet of the religion never penned the book, never authorized the creation of a book, and never had a physical book,... how is it a physical book?

At the time of Muhammad, literate scribes only wrote down fragments for their own individual keep-sake.

Before the printing-press, before mass literacy,... any story passed on through oral tradition could be called a "book."

If it is truly a "book" instead of a "recitation", then surely more emphasis would have been put on the literary content of the Qur'an instead of the recitation of the Qur'an.

Also, you mention the kufic script as a much later creation, a common argument I see in criticism of the Quran online, but it existed and was prevalent enough even to be used for the inscriptions during the building of the mosque at the Dome of the Rock!

You misunderstood the content I posted about the Kufic script, and you falsely attributed a saying to me.

I did not say Iraqi Kufic was a much later creation. I said that it perfected its vocalization during the end of the 7th century and became popular with Islamic officials in the 8th century. Kufic was in use prior, but its progress from a defective script into a proper script culminated in the 7th century.

• Muhammad died in 632 AD/CE.

• Uthman, who compiled the standardized Qur'an, died in 656 AD/CE.

• The Kufic script inscribed at the Dome of the Rock occurred in 692 AD/CE.


Additionally, all of the "ancient" Qur'ans that I posted in the op are clearly 8th century examples of the progressive Kufic script. Islamic and non-Islamic researchers involved with those manuscripts unanimously agree that they illustrate an 8th Century stylization.

Finally, out of curiousity, how would someone confuse the "J" with "B", "T", "N" in the original script?

Because these letters share the same "shape" and are only differentiated by the later advent of diacritical marks and dots.

Take away the dots and they appear to be the same letter:

bā’ b /b/ ـب ـبـ بـ ب

tā’ t /t/ ـت ـتـ تـ ت

thā’ th ـث ـثـ ثـ ث

nūn n /n/ ـن ـنـ نـ ن

jīm j ـج ـجـ جـ ج

ḥā’ ḥ /ħ/ ـح ـحـ حـ ح

khā’ kh /x/ ـخ ـخـ خـ خ

reply to post by dragonridr



There is a divided crowd, 50/50 split, on who may have authored Acts...

Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[3] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

en.wikipedia.org...

If. as many scholars suggest, Acts was not in fact written by any eye witness to the events, then you have a problem with that command....

Originally posted by Sahabi
Assalaamu alaikum brother.

Walaikum salaam!

Originally posted by Sahabi
I was not calling myself a bayt al-mal. I called myself a "Treasurer" and hyper-linked to "bayt al-mal" so that non-Muslims could learn a bit about the system of how a Muslim community governs its funds.

My mistake! The way you hyperlinked "Treasurer" gave me that impression. The "Bayt al-mal" of the mosques I have frequented has always simply been a box with a slit to slip in money .

Originally posted by Sahabi

If you don't mind me asking, what WAS the actual level you reached in your Islamic studies before abandonning the faith?

Apologies again for my lack of clarity. I meant officially. For example, "sheikh" is generally a title given to someone who has done at least 7 years of study of Islam, if I am not mistaken. Since you were jokingly called "Young Sheikh", I thought perhaps you might have been on the track of an alim. I take it you are/were not a hafiz? Purely out of curiousity, what was the situation that lead to you hand-copying Kabbani's book? Again, I ask because of your Salafi leanings vs the very Sufi outlook of the book (I have not read it, but is it really just a compilation of Sahih Hadith? Or am I confusing it with something else?).

Originally posted by Sahabi
I use sources from different schools of thought because I am no longer a Salafi or Muslim. I am no longer bound to a strict adherence to certain Imams, theologians, or writings.

So you came across them after you abandoned the faith?

Originally posted by Sahabi
I used sahih ahadith where most crucial and pertinent, while using lesser than sahih-rated sources as supplemental support and to enrich the content.

There are millions of Muslims around the world who follow different sources. If you have ideological issues with the source material, that is between you and other sects of Islam, because I did not use any grossly fabricated or blatantly incorrect sources.

As I said, I have no idealogical preference, I usually go for the consensus opinion. And while I mean no offence to any Shia believers here, a narration from a Shia collection that gives more than usual praise to Ali, or more than usual ire to Umar or Abu Bakr...it makes me a little suspicious that it could be playing favourites.

Originally posted by Sahabi
The very first word revealed to Muhammad was "Iqra" which means "to recite".

And alternatively, "Read".

Originally posted by Sahabi
However, Muhammad never penned the Qur'an. Muhammad never authorized the creation of a fully compiled Qur'an in book form. If the prophet of the religion never penned the book, never authorized the creation of a book, and never had a physical book,... how is it a physical book?

At the time of Muhammad, literate scribes only wrote down fragments for their own individual keep-sake.

I could, for an example, put all those things and switch it with "New Testament". Nobody denies that the New Testament is a book. Muhammad was illiterate. He could not write, so he never penned the Quran. Scribes (including, as you mentioned in your summary, Ibn Thabit, who was his personal scribe) wrote down whatever verses were revealed to him. If it wasn't meant to be collected like that, you don't think he would've stopped them? Or not encouraged them? Zaid was hardly noting it down for his own keepsake.

Originally posted by Sahabi
You misunderstood the content I posted about the Kufic script, and you falsely attributed a saying to me.

I did not say Iraqi Kufic was a much later creation. I said that it perfected its vocalization during the end of the 7th century and became popular with Islamic officials in the 8th century. Kufic was in use prior, but its progress from a defective script into a proper script culminated in the 7th century.

Again, my apologies for misunderstanding, but I fear I still do not get what you mean. What has vocalisation got to do with anything? I'd think that arab speakers would know how to read their own words (and any deviations in the qiraat would still come under the several allowed)- the diacritic marks were added to the arabic for the non-arabs.

Originally posted by Sahabi
Additionally, all of the "ancient" Qur'ans that I posted in the op are clearly 8th century examples of the progressive Kufic script. Islamic and non-Islamic researchers involved with those manuscripts unanimously agree that they illustrate an 8th Century stylization.

Again, pardon my confusion. The Samarkand codex you talked about is certainly not progressive Kufic, it features no diacritic marks. You said so yourself. And previous criticism of it again was based off the idea that "Kufic script came later, so it can't have been before the 8th Century", but I (in my previous response to you) showed otherwise, and there are some scholars, who specifically investigated the Kufic script who say it actually PREDATES the Quran by a century.

Originally posted by Sahabi
Because these letters share the same "shape" and are only differentiated by the later advent of diacritical marks and dots.

So much confusion on my part!
In this case, because of your grouping of those letters together, when you said:

Originally posted by Sahabi
To illustrate letter sharing in English, this would be similar to not being able to differentiate between the letters [B, T, N, J] as they would share the same letter but represent a different phoneme sound.

It read to me like you thought J/jim could be confused with the others, when its shape was completely different.

Originally posted by old_god
reply to post by EricD

 

Eric,

Hi, from my limited knowledge the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not referred to as the spirit.

That title is for "Jesus, Son of Mary". Jesus is often referred to in Islam as the "Spirit of God".

If that is so, then we have a direct contradiction in the Quran itself concerning Isa (Jesus). Because that would make him the Son of God because God was in Him and he was the Son of Mariam (Mary), and having no earthly father, God would then be His Father.

reply to post by Fromabove


Jesus (as) is referred to in Islam as "Kalimat Allah", or the "Word of Allah"... not the spirit of God...

If you take the fact of Jesus (as) not having a father as making him the "Son" of God then you must think Adam (as) who has no mother or father as being God himself? No....

And do you not think God can create, create being the key word, with only a word?


Adam (as) Had no mother or father

Moses (as) had both a mother and a father although he was raised by other than them

and Jesus (as) had a mother and no father....

and Muhammed (saww) was orphaned and raised by other than them....

Who is more like Moses in this picture? and Does Adam indicate that God has the ability to create with only a word spoken?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by dragonridr

 

There is a divided crowd, 50/50 split, on who may have authored Acts...

Many modern scholars have expressed doubt that the author of Luke-Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century.[3] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text.

en.wikipedia.org...

If. as many scholars suggest, Acts was not in fact written by any eye witness to the events, then you have a problem with that command....

Ok who authored acts really has nothing to do with what it says. And it clearly explains who jesus was talking about to his disciples and it wasnt Mohammad. Since you have a problem with acts how about this when you tried to attribute John 14:16 to the bible referencing Mohammad you left out something which im sure you didnt mean to.

"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever ; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

As we can see hes obviously talking about the holy spirit because there is no way for Mohammad to be in them especially since they were long dead before he got there.So where is Mohammad mentioned in the bible as i said the Koran states he is,So is the Koran wrong?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Jesus (as) is referred to in Islam as "Kalimat Allah", or the "Word of Allah"... not the spirit of God...

If you take the fact of Jesus (as) not having a father as making him the "Son" of God then you must think Adam (as) who has no mother or father as being God himself? No....

And do you not think God can create, create being the key word, with only a word?


Adam (as) Had no mother or father

Moses (as) had both a mother and a father although he was raised by other than them

and Jesus (as) had a mother and no father....

and Muhammed (saww) was orphaned and raised by other than them....

Who is more like Moses in this picture? and Does Adam indicate that God has the ability to create with only a word spoken?

The difference is that Adam was created from the earth (dust), and Jesus (The Word of God) was born in the womb of a woman.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Jesus (as) is referred to in Islam as "Kalimat Allah", or the "Word of Allah"... not the spirit of God...

If you take the fact of Jesus (as) not having a father as making him the "Son" of God then you must think Adam (as) who has no mother or father as being God himself? No....

And do you not think God can create, create being the key word, with only a word?


Adam (as) Had no mother or father

Moses (as) had both a mother and a father although he was raised by other than them

and Jesus (as) had a mother and no father....

and Muhammed (saww) was orphaned and raised by other than them....

Who is more like Moses in this picture? and Does Adam indicate that God has the ability to create with only a word spoken?

Trust me i am in no way a bible scholar but you really dont understand it do you. Ok Lets start with Jesus not having a father he did according to the bible it was God. Adam was created by God the twisted logic there makes no sense. Now to hit the core part God could have sent Jesus down created him much like adam but that destroys the reason for him being here in the first place.It was important for Jesus to be a man and be born to a woman and of the flesh. If he was not he could not be the sacrifice mankind needed to absolve us of our sins. He was sacrificed so man could enter the kingdom of heaven he was literally a key to the gates.

Here was the problem god cannot be around sin. As man we have free will and we do commit sins in fact pretty much by just being of the flesh.Well this automatically bared us from his presence. However do to the sacrifice Of Jesus he absolves those sins when jesus died a man he made it possible to leave the sins of the flesh behind and stand before god.

Now you can choose to believe Jesus wasnt god or the son of god according to the bible. Your punishment is simple eternal separation from him. Notice no fire or brimstone you simply aren't allowed in the presence of god.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by maes2

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by maes2

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me John 15:26

But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you John 16:7

And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever John 14:16

He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran(mountains around Mecca). He came with myriads(ten thousand) of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes Deuteronomy 33:2

Hi,

I'm curious about what translations you are using. I just checked a few and it seems very clear (to me at least) that the Holy Spirit is being referenced. Are you interpreting these quotes as referring to Mohammed?

Thanks,

Eric

edit on 20-8-2013 by EricD because: Poor quoting skills.

thank you for your attention.
we believe that Muhammad is the Paraclete who shone forth in Mecca, taught many things, he was like Moses and gave testimony of Jesus and he was from brothers of children of Israel !

edit on 20-8-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2013 by maes2 because: (no reason given)

Ok your way off base here let me start with john 16:7 since you said this refers to Mohammad This was Jesus talking to his disciples explaining to them what will happen. In fear they realize Jesus wont be there and are afraid of being lost. So John 16:7
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.says John 16:7
But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

This is in no way a refrence to Mohammad in fact Jesus lets them know who it is :

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

And even has a final command for them
Acts 1:4
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

So unless Mohammad was in Jerusalem during the crucifixion it isnt him.

So where right back to where we started the Koran as mentioned said Mohammad is mentioned in the Bible he is not So the Koran is wrong right? But if its wrong then it cant be the word of god right? However it is but its wrong? So were right back into that catch 22.

Dragonridr, if you could please dedicate 8 minutes to that video in which Ahmed Deedat addresses John 16:7 and give your input I would appreciate it.

As for the OP, I am still trying to absorb all the info. For now I can applaud you for the time and effort you put into your research.