Fact [1024x614 - 520KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (52).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Now, here is what it says in Surat al-Ahzab 56: الله وملاءكته يصلون على النبي

This can be rendered as: Allah and his angels pray UPON the prophet.

And because this is a disaster, al-Tabari and later on Ibn Manzur in his dictionary Lisan al-'Arab had to play al-tabrir game and they tell us that the word Yusalun really does not mean "They Pray" but it means: Mercy, blessing and forgiveness.

Here is Tafsir al-Tabari

http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura33-aya56.html

There is a famous verse in the Qur'an that says: وشهد شاهد من اهلها and to make it simple this verse means that the best witness is he/she that belongs to the family. In other words the best witness here to the meaning of this disaster is the likes of Mr. Mohamed Hijab and this is what he says at minute 3:20 in the linked video, that Allah really prays "For, not to the prophet." So he translates the word Yusali as he prays!

Here is the video and it was a debate with a Christian apologist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvB8alwJdYc&t=211s

Not my words so I challenge any Arabic speaking Muslim or non Muslim to prove him, the Muslim apologist, wrong.

By the way the على means "upon" (as you shall see later) and not "for" or "to"

Now let us check Mr. Khattab's translation:

"Indeed, Allah showers his blessings upon the prophet"

Let us stop here:

There is no "showers" in the verse.
The word blessings is: بركاته (as in السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته) and not Yusalun (or they pray) as was confirmed by Mr. Hegab! What a disaster
Then he translates the word على as "Upon" which is the correct translation
But how about the angles? Oh there is more! Mash'allah!

"And his angels pray for him."

So he translates the word Yusalun here as: They pray which is the correct translation. Then more disaster. He translates the word على as: "for" and not "Upon"!!

He cannot make up his mind

But the ultimate disaster is that the verse says: Allah AND his angles pray upon the prophet! It does not say Allah provides blessing and his angles pray. He is making things up!

And why would the angels pray for a mere human being that was born and died 1400 years ago. I thought that the Qur'an is uncreated or am I missing something here.

So this tabrir ala Mr. Khattab.

Here is his translation:

https://quran.com/33/56

The word يصلي or Yusali or he prays (singular masculine) means he prays back then and now.

Now, here is what it says in Surat al-Ahzab 56: الله وملاءكته يصلون على النبي This can be rendered as: Allah and his angels pray UPON the prophet. And because this is a disaster, al-Tabari and later on Ibn Manzur in his dictionary Lisan al-'Arab had to play al-tabrir game and they tell us that the word Yusalun really does not mean "They Pray" but it means: Mercy, blessing and forgiveness. Here is Tafsir al-Tabari http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/tabary/sura33-aya56.html There is a famous verse in the Qur'an that says: وشهد شاهد من اهلها and to make it simple this verse means that the best witness is he/she that belongs to the family. In other words the best witness here to the meaning of this disaster is the likes of Mr. Mohamed Hijab and this is what he says at minute 3:20 in the linked video, that Allah really prays "For, not to the prophet." So he translates the word Yusali as he prays! Here is the video and it was a debate with a Christian apologist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvB8alwJdYc&t=211s Not my words so I challenge any Arabic speaking Muslim or non Muslim to prove him, the Muslim apologist, wrong. By the way the على means "upon" (as you shall see later) and not "for" or "to" Now let us check Mr. Khattab's translation: "Indeed, Allah showers his blessings upon the prophet" Let us stop here: 1. There is no "showers" in the verse. 2. The word blessings is: بركاته (as in السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته) and not Yusalun (or they pray) as was confirmed by Mr. Hegab! What a disaster 3. Then he translates the word على as "Upon" which is the correct translation 4. But how about the angles? Oh there is more! Mash'allah! "And his angels pray for him." So he translates the word Yusalun here as: They pray which is the correct translation. Then more disaster. He translates the word على as: "for" and not "Upon"!! He cannot make up his mind But the ultimate disaster is that the verse says: Allah AND his angles pray upon the prophet! It does not say Allah provides blessing and his angles pray. He is making things up! 5. And why would the angels pray for a mere human being that was born and died 1400 years ago. I thought that the Qur'an is uncreated or am I missing something here. So this tabrir ala Mr. Khattab. Here is his translation: https://quran.com/33/56 The word يصلي or Yusali or he prays (singular masculine) means he prays back then and now.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Let's just pretend that David Wood's interpretation and analysis of "prayers" is correct.

Why did Muhammad never tell his followers to worship him? Surely if you believe that Muhammad told his followers that God/Allah worships Muhammad, would he not command the mere human followers of his to worship him?

Interesting. He never told anyone to worship him...

Wow no surprise because elsewhere in the Quran, the exact same word is used:

They (the believers) are granted 'Salawat' (plural of Salat) and mercy from their Lord, and they are the guided ones. (2:157)

Oh wow! And the same wording is used in a command to the Prophet to bless those who believe in Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wasalam):

خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَتُزَكِّيهِم بِهَا وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ ۖ إِنَّ صَلَوٰتَكَ سَكَنٌ لَّهُمْ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

Take a charity from their money to cleanse and purify them with it, and 'salli alayhim'. Your 'Salawat' (plural of Salat) provides them with tranquillity. God is Hearer, Knowledgeable. 9:103

But salat is also worship! Is God commanding Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wasalam) to worship his followers??? No. He is not.

Salat has only two meanings:

1) heartfelt support and spiritual acknowledgement

2) the action of prayer, exaltation and worship (due to God alone, not to any of his messengers - like Jesus the son of Mary or Muhammad - peace and blessings of God be upon them both)

There is no ambiguity.

https://rayyaninstitute.com/virtues-of-salat-and-salam/

How does it make intuitive sense to you to worship a collection of atoms? Did Jesus not exist in the flesh? Did he not bleed? Can the mind of Jesus answer the prayers of billions? Does Jesus know what you're doing now?

Rather you're hemmed in by a title "I'm a Christian" and a community to which you belong. You would be better off calling yourself a Christian, and worshiping God as a singular entity (as Jesus did), than believing in a trinity which was not mentioned in the Bible, except vaguely:

Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5

The sad truth for you is that even if every false allegation on a David Wood video regarding the Quran, especially preservation, were true, today (at least) it's a better book to follow than the Bible, which as it is now, is a confused illogical mess with a variety of versions. Why even tack on the Old Testament if Paul is just going to claim that everything is annulled?

Whether the original recitation of Jesus is "better to follow" than the Quran, God only knows. I don't dare make comparisons like that. I simply want to convey that the "Bible" preservation debate is more of a "what was even preserved" question, as compared to the Quran.

Let's just pretend that David Wood's interpretation and analysis of "prayers" is correct. Why did Muhammad never tell his followers to worship him? Surely if you believe that Muhammad told his followers that God/Allah worships Muhammad, would he not command the mere human followers of his to worship him? Interesting. He never told anyone to worship him... Wow no surprise because elsewhere in the Quran, the exact same word is used: >They (the believers) are granted 'Salawat' (plural of Salat) and mercy from their Lord, and they are the guided ones. (2:157) Oh wow! And the same wording is used in a command to the Prophet to bless those who believe in Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wasalam): خُذْ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ صَدَقَةً تُطَهِّرُهُمْ وَتُزَكِّيهِم بِهَا وَصَلِّ عَلَيْهِمْ ۖ إِنَّ صَلَوٰتَكَ سَكَنٌ لَّهُمْ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ >Take a charity from their money to cleanse and purify them with it, and 'salli alayhim'. Your 'Salawat' (plural of Salat) provides them with tranquillity. God is Hearer, Knowledgeable. 9:103 But salat is also worship! Is God commanding Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wasalam) to worship his followers??? No. He is not. Salat has only two meanings: 1) heartfelt support and spiritual acknowledgement 2) the action of prayer, exaltation and worship (due to God alone, not to any of his messengers - like Jesus the son of Mary or Muhammad - peace and blessings of God be upon them both) There is no ambiguity. https://rayyaninstitute.com/virtues-of-salat-and-salam/ How does it make intuitive sense to you to worship a collection of atoms? Did Jesus not exist in the flesh? Did he not bleed? Can the mind of Jesus answer the prayers of billions? Does Jesus know what you're doing now? Rather you're hemmed in by a title "I'm a Christian" and a community to which you belong. You would be better off calling yourself a Christian, and worshiping God as a singular entity (as Jesus did), than believing in a trinity which was not mentioned in the Bible, except vaguely: Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Corinthians 12:4-5, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2 and Revelation 1:4-5 The sad truth for you is that even if every false allegation on a David Wood video regarding the Quran, especially preservation, were true, today (at least) it's a better book to follow than the Bible, which as it is now, is a confused illogical mess with a variety of versions. Why even tack on the Old Testament if Paul is just going to claim that everything is annulled? Whether the original recitation of Jesus is "better to follow" than the Quran, God only knows. I don't dare make comparisons like that. I simply want to convey that the "Bible" preservation debate is more of a "what was even preserved" question, as compared to the Quran.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Christian theology is quite clear. The Trinity are different personas of the same divinity. As a human, Jesus, according to Christian theology, had all the attributes of a human, and hence prayed to the father. This doesn't conflict that he was of the father and the Word made flesh, in Christian theology.

Anyways, anyone who wants more information can always watch Bob of soco films, Hatun DCCI ministry, Jay Smith Pfander films, Christian Prince, Sam Shamoun, Apostate prophet, David Wood.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

The epithet for Jesus as "the word" comes from the fact that God said "be" and he came into being in the womb of Mary. How does this make him the "only begotten son" of God if Adam was made even more amazingly out of earth?

Both men were the miraculous creation of God. Eve is the third miraculous creation of a person (out of the rib bone of Adam). Why is she not the "begotten daughter" according to your logic?

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Christian theology is quite clear. The Trinity are different personas of the same divinity.

🤔😬

parent
link