First questioner asked:

What has American influence done to your religion and practices? I would like to know why follow Mohammed because he was a prophet and not follow Jesus if he was a prophet also-in the abasence of his teachings (book), no one can follow him (Jesus)? Why do do you make the woman cover everything?

Second questioner asked:

what is the basic, or most important things to believe, that would define one as a muslim, and different from other religions? And how have these basic beliefs changed your lifetyles? What profit, and what loss, if any?

Is it true that in Islam you "hate" those who hate you (i.e., eye for an eye)? And you aslo hate those who are "not like" you (i.e. different beliefs)? Why would Allah teach you to hate other humans, who were created like you? What is your concept of "inner peace" and peace with humanity? Does anyone hear the voice of Allah speaking to them? if so, when do you hear it(e.g., during prayer, or reciting a hadith, etc.)?

Is a Muslim allowed to question the teachings of the Quran or is s/he to follow it to the word?

Muhammad is not the only prophet, there are others, even modern-day prophets (but not so-called). Why, then, does Islam choose only to follow those messages that were received by Muhammad?

Messages of modern-day teachings through messages received in a similar manner clearly state that no human being can interpret the messages 100% accurate and that messages are ALWAYS filtered through a persons belief system. Therefore, Muhammad's messages also reflect the belief system of his times.

How would a Muslim comment to this statement?

The Prophet Muhammad (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the last Messenger and the final Prophet.

Modern-day prophets? lol. Do you believe that you are one? lol.

If the Arabian prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) is to be considered part of the same stream of tradition as the other great prophets of that stretch of desert land, can we identify any mention of him in the Bible texts?

Muslims regard Muhammad as the final prophet, the seal over all who went before him. Can we find any forth-tellings of his coming in the present-day Christian scriptures; or would any such prophecy been a prime candidate for redaction and censorship, so that at best such anticipations today appear in heavily disguised form, legible only to the expert? This is an important matter. For if it is true that Muhammad must be recognised as a Messenger of God by people of Christian or Jewish inheritance, it would surely be strange if their texts included prophecies referring to the penultimate Messenger, but lacked indications of the later Seal who was to come.

In fact, the Old and New Testaments do contain evidence that there existed an expectation not only of a Messiah for the Jewish people, but also of another prophetic figure whose time would come later.[1] One very important prophecy of this type is the one attributed to Moses, and recorded in Deuteronomy 18:

The Lord said to me [Moses] [�] �I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put My word in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.� [�] And if you say it in your heart, �How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?� � when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not to be afraid of him (Deut 18:15-22).

In these words the author, perhaps Moses himself, sets the criterion for knowing the truth of a prophecy. Needless to say, it would also apply to his own prophecy with which he commenced this passage. If Moses himself, as a man who was himself recognised as a prophet of God, was not �speaking presumptuously�, then one should expect the foretold event to come to pass. Did it? Who was the �prophet like unto him�? That description would surely signify a prophet who was called to be a lawgiver to the people, setting out God�s commandments clearly for the masses to listen and understand. Which prophet fits most closely to one who had the words of God put into his mouth, so that he repeated to the people all that he heard from God? A Christian might like to see a reference to the coming of Jesus in these words, but surely none fits the description more closely than the Blessed Muhammad.[2]

The ministry of Jesus was specifically delivered to convince the people that the Kingdom of God would be set up on earth. Muslim scholars maintain that this would come about through a Messenger of the family of Ishmael, the eldest son of Abraham, and thus heir of the original Covenant with Abraham.

They claim it is contentious editing of history that has falsely presented Abraham�s second son Isaac as the heir. Anyone with a knowledge of nomadic sheikhdom would understand that the eldest son was commissioned as �lord� of the tribe (and therefore he and his descendants ruled from the Arabian region around the ancient shrine of Mecca), whereas the youngest son, in this case Isaac, would have had the role of �guarding the hearth� (and staying with his father�s private tents and herds). The latter�s mission is hence local.

Genesis 15 reports the distress of Abraham that he had no son to be his heir, although he had the promise that his �seed� would inherit from him (Genesis 15:4). God �brought Abraham outside and said, �Look toward heaven and number the stars, if you are able to number them.� Then he said to him, �So shall your descendants be�.� Then Abraham asked for some proof, and was told to take three young animals and two birds. The animals were cut in two halves, and Abraham waited as the next day wore on, driving away all the birds of prey that came down on them. At sunset, he fell into a trance-like sleep, and God gave him prophecies about his descendants that would be slaves in Egypt (the descendants of the unborn Isaac). When the sun had gone and it was dark, a smoking fire-pot and a flaming torch passed between the cut pieces of the animal carcasses, and God made a covenant with Abraham: �To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates.� His was the task of subjugating ten different nations between those two rivers (Genesis 15:18-21).[3] This promise of an heir was fulfilled when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16), and in due course, Ishmael�s descendants did subjugate all those peoples, an actual and literal fulfilment of one of the conditions of the Covenant which is usually overlooked.

When Ishmael was thirteen years old a further Covenant was made between God and Abraham: the Covenant of circumcision. Abraham circumcised himself, and his son Ishmael, and all his household that very day. All this took place long before Isaac was born. However, it was true that God had also promised that the barren Sarah would bear a son and that there would be an everlasting covenant with him too (Gen 17:15-19).

Sometimes it is argued that Isaac was Abraham�s true heir, as his mother was the beloved wife, and Ishmael�s mother only a servant, and hence, according to traditional assumptions, to be despised. But Deuteronomy 21:15-17 presents the true legal picture. If a man has two wives, one beloved and the other despised, and each has a son, and if the son of the despised wife is the first-born, that son, and not the son of the beloved wife, is still entitled to the birthright. The prophecy that �by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed�, would therefore more clearly refer to the heritage by birthright of Ishmael, and not Isaac.

The text of Genesis 22 now goes on to talk of Isaac as Abraham�s �only son�, and records Abraham�s famous test of obedience when he was asked to sacrifice him. In the Bible narrative, Isaac is kept in ignorance of what is going to happen until the very last moment. He is saved from the sacrifice when an angel of God stays Abraham�s hand, and a ram caught in a thicket is substituted as the sacrifice.

Professor Dawud, the former bishop who has meditated extensively on these themes, comments that �to efface the name Ishmael from the second, sixth and seventh verses of Genesis 22 and to insert in its place �Isaac�, yet to leave the epithet �the only begotten son� is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael.�[4]

Sura 37:100-113 has rather different emphases: when Ishmael was about fourteen (�the age of serious work�), Abraham had a vision (or dream) that he should sacrifice Ishmael. He asked the boy�s opinion, and Ishmael agreed that he would do whatever was God�s will, and urged his father to sacrifice him, if that was what God required. However, God does not require the flesh and blood of animals (Sura 22:37), much less of human beings: what He requires is the giving of our whole being to Him. The �momentous sacrifice� with which the youth was ransomed is commemorated in the great annual festival of Hajj and Eid ul-Adha. It was as a reward for Abraham�s faith that God granted the son Isaac to Abraham�s barren wife Sarah.

Genesis, true to its generally negative portrayal of Sarah, offers the story of her jealousy of Hagar and Ishmael, and her request that he be cast out: a thing which greatly displeased Abraham, although he complied (Gen 21:10-11). He sent them away into the southerly �wilderness of Beersheba�, where Ishmael nearly died of thirst. However, God sent an angel to save him, and Ishmael survived. He lived �in the wilderness of Paran�, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt, from whence she herself had come (Gen 16:1).[5]

The Qur�anic version does not record a comparable character lapse on the part of either Sarah or Abraham. Ishmael is left with Hagar in the valley-floor of Mecca, where Abraham trusts that God will take care of them. Hagar�s desperate search for water is commemorated in the ritual of the sa�y during the Hajj; the spring of water revealed by the angel still flows today, and is called Zamzam. Sura 2:124-129 tells of Abraham and Ishmael sanctifying the Ka�ba, and raising the foundations of the House.

Ishmael�s firstborn Kedar became the ancestor of the Arabs who from that time until now are the dwellers of the wilderness of Paran. As Dawud notes, this makes passages such as Deuteronomy 33:2 extremely interesting: �The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir[6] unto them; He shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints. From his right hand went forth a fiery law for them.� Dawud identifies that Mount Paran with Mount Arafat near Mecca, and claims this passage as a direct prophecy concerning the �one who was to come�, the Hmd (or �Ahmad�, or �Praised one�). Dawud also picks out many possible Old Testament references to this man known as the �Himada� (from the root hmd), which all point to a Messenger from the line of Ishmael.[7] For example, one prophecy in the ever-enigmatic Book of Habbakuk is that the glory of the Holy One from Paran will cover the heavens, and the earth will be full of his praise.

Other interesting passages occur in the book of the prophet Isaiah: �Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the inhabitants of the rock [Petra?] sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory and declare His praise in the islands. He shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up zeal like a man of war, he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.� (Isaiah 42:11)

Other prophesies concerning Kedar occur in Isaiah 50:7 and 50:13-17. �All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto You, the rams of Nabaioth (the Nabataeans) will minister unto You; they shall come up with acceptance on My altar, and I will glorify the house of My glory.� (Isaiah 50:7)

Ishmael inhabited the wilderness of Paran, where he sired the Arabian patriarch Kedar; and if the �sons of Kedar� received revelation from God and accepted it, and came to a divine altar to glorify �the house of My glory�, then surely the �holy one from Paran� of Habbakuk 3:3 is none other than the Blessed Muhammad. And Mecca is the house of God�s glory where the �flocks of Kedar� came to bow the knee. The �flocks of Kedar� have never come to the Trinitarian church, and have remained impenetrable to any influence of it.

The prophet Haggai, seeing the older generation weeping because of their disappointment that after their exile in Babylon the rebuilt Jewish Temple did not match up to the original one, consoled them with the message: �And I will shake all nations, and the Himada [the treasure?] of all the nations will come; and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of Hosts [�] The glory of My last house shall be greater than the first one, says the Lord of Hosts; and in this place, I will give shalom [cognate with islam].� (Haggai 2:7-9)

The New Testament documents are the work of many hands, many of them quite unknown, and the search for predictions of the world-shaking event of Islam is necessarily fraught with difficulties. However Muslim writers suggest that one should look again at the interpretation of the references of Jesus to the �Son of Man� who would come,[8] and in John�s Gospel to the Counsellor who was to come after Jesus had left them. The Gospel calls this prophesied one a �Paraclete�, with the primary meaning of �counsel for the defence�. This was later supposed to be the �Holy Spirit�, the third entity in the Trinity. However these passages could be no less credibly read as prophecies of the �Himada� or �Ahmad�. Given the defective orthography of the early Gospel texts, it is quite feasible that the Greek word was not parakletos but periklytos, thus corresponding exactly to �Ahmad� or the Hmd, meaning �illustrious�, �glorious� and �praised�.[9]

Therefore Muslims believe that the paraclete spoken of in those �Farewell Discourses� was not the third being in a Trinity, but the future prophet Muhammad. The words clearly show that the Comforter had to come after the departure of Jesus, and was not with him when he uttered these words. Are we to presume that Jesus was devoid of the Holy Spirit, if its coming was conditional on Jesus� leaving? The way in which Jesus describes him makes him a human being, with a particular role to fulfil.

Even if we include the words that Muslims would regard as Trinitarian editing, the prophecy runs: �I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the spirit of truth,[10] whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him [i.e. does not accept him]. You know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you� (Jn 14:16). �These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Counsellor whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you� (Jn 14:25-26). �When the Counsellor comes whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me� (Jn 15:26). �When he comes, he will convince the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgement; of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father; of judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he shall not speak on his own authority, but whatever he shall hear, that he shall speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.� (Jn 16:8-16)

Muslims will recall straight away that the Qur�an consists not of the Prophet�s own words, but that which he heard, which was revealed to him; and it was said of him in the Qur�an: �Nay, he has come with the truth, and shows forth the truth of the Messengers.�

The Prophet Muhammad may have been the one foretold by John the Baptist (Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16). This would certainly explain why John carried on baptising, receiving initiates and disciples and foretelling a coming prophet more powerful than himself, without joining up with Jesus in Galilee. It is accepted by all Christians that Jesus and John had a parallel ministry until John�s martyrdom at the hands of Herod Antipas (Mk 6); but how few have marvelled at the oddness of the fact that John, having spent all his ministry �crying in the wilderness� to prepare the way for the one to come, did not become Jesus� closest and most intimate disciple. Our explanation also accounts for the rather odd remark Jesus made about John when he said that the �least� in the Kingdom of Heaven would be greater than him. This sounds at first sight like an inexplicable and unnecessarily unpleasant derogatory remark; but if the word �least� really meant the �last� in the long line, the �youngest�, then what Jesus meant was that John had been the greatest of the prophets up to that time, but that the last of the prophets, the one who was still to come, would be greater than him: a remark that was in no way intended to belittle the saintly John. The Pshitta Version (the Aramaic version, which is older than the Latin Vulgate) does indeed use the word zira or zeira for �least�, meaning small or young, as opposed to rabba, meaning great or old.

Professor Dawud offers another interesting suggestion: could it be that the persecution of the true faith after the Council of Nicaea might have been prophesied in the enigmatic Book of Daniel? The �four beasts� and the conquering �Son of Man� of the vision in Daniel 7 have always invited speculative identifications; perhaps they represented the Chaldaeans (the eagle-winged lion), the Medo-Persian Empire (the bear), the Empire of Alexander the Great (the tiger with four wings and four heads), and the formidable Roman Empire (the fourth beast, the demon monster). The ten horns might have been the ten Emperors who persecuted the early Christians, down to the time of the so-called conversion of Constantine. So far, the beasts all represented the �Power of Darkness�, or the kingdom of Satan: idolatry itself.

But the nature and character of the Little Horn before which the three other horns fell, and which was finally defeated by a Bar Nasha (Son of Man) is quite different. It springs up after the Ten Persecutions under the Roman Emperors. The Roman Empire was then writhing under four rivals, Constantine being one of them. They were all struggling for the purple, and when the other three died or fell in battle, Constantine was left alone as the supreme sovereign of the vast Empire.

The earlier beasts were brutish, but the Little Horn possessed mouth and eyes: a hideous monster endowed with reason and speech. Maybe this was none other than Constantine, and the traditional presentation of him as �the first Christian Emperor� is really Trinitarian propaganda. He was in fact one of the most dangerous and effective enemies of tawhid. The Little Horn was so diabolical and malignant, and his enmity to the faith the more harmful, because it sought to pervert the truth from within. This interpretation is on strikingly similar lines to that advanced by modern biblical experts who see Paul as the traitor and �Liar� of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This enemy spoke �great things� against the Most High; the unity of God was openly and officially profaned by Constantine and his unbelieving ecclesiastical cronies as the Trinitarian dogmas of the Council of Nicaea were proclaimed and violently enforced by Constantine�s edict, amidst the horror and protests of three-quarters of the Church�s members! This Little Horn waged war against the saints of the Most High; so Constantine persecuted those Christians who, like the Jews, believed in the Absolute Unity of God.

More than a thousand ecclesiastics were summoned to the General Council at Nicaea, of whom only 318 persons subscribed to the decisions of the Council, and these too formed three opposite factions with their respective ambiguous and unholy expressions of �homoiusion�[11] or �homoousion�,[12] �consubstantial� and other terms utterly and wholly strange to the prophets of Israel, but worthy of the �speaking Horn�. The Christians who suffered persecutions and martyrdoms under the pagan Emperors of Rome because they believed in One God and in His servant Jesus were now doomed by the imperial edict of the �Christian� Constantine to even severer tortures, because they refused to adore the servant Jesus as consubstantial and coeval with his Lord the Creator! [13] (Abdul Ahad Daud)

The elders and ministers who opposed Trinitarianism were deposed or banished, their religious books suppressed, and their churches seized and handed over to Trinitarian bishops and priests. Merciless legions in every province were placed at the disposal of the ecclesiastical authorities, and a reign of terror against the unitarians lasted in the East for three and a half centuries: until a �Son of Man� did restore the religion of One God, and Muslims liberated the lands trampled and devastated by the four beasts, from the Pyrenees to the walls of China.

The soul and kernel of what Jesus taught is contained in that famous clause in his prayer: �Thy kingdom come! Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!� Most Christians assume all sorts of illusory or meaningless things about the nature of this Kingdom. It is not a triumphant Catholic Church, nor a regenerated and sinless Puritan State. It is not a kingdom composed of celestial beings, including departed spirits of the believers under the reign of the Divine Lamb. The Kingdom of God on earth is a society of believers in One God equipped with faith to maintain its existence against the Kingdom of Darkness.

Jesus referred frequently to this kingdom which would come, and to the Bar Nasha or Son of Man who would inaugurate it; but Christians have assumed that Jesus meant his �church�, and that he himself was the Son of Man. Could he really have been referring to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad?

These theories also throw light on another religious group commended by the Qur�an along with certain Christians: the Sabians. Dawud interprets these as the followers of John the Baptist (Yahya ibn Zakariyya), adherents of a parallel movement to early Christianity, who were absorbed into Islam when it came. The Subba, or Sabaeans of the marshes are otherwise known as the Mandaeans in Southern Iraq. Significantly, �Mandaean� was the name for the rank and file of these groups, whereas the Nazareans were the priestly elite.[14]

The original Aramaic or Hebrew word for the Greek �baptism� is not certain. The Pshitta (Aramaic) version of the Gospels uses the word ma�muditha, from the verb aa�mid which means �to stand up like a pillar�. Its causative form means �to erect, set up, establish, confirm� and has no signification of bathing or washing. Arabic versions of the New Testament call the Baptist �al-Ma�midan�.

In fact, the Greek baptismos derives from the Aramaic Sab�utha or Sbhu�tha, (Arabic cognate, sabagha), which has the sense of �to dye, tincture or immerse�. These �Masbutheans� (also called �Besmotheans� and �Subba�) existed before the coming of Jesus � as did the Essenes of Qumran � and were either the same as, or strongly similar to, the Daily Bathers/Hermerobaptists and Sabaeans (or Sabuneans) mentioned by Hippolytus, whom we have encountered before. Probably all these names are simply overlapping designations and intertransference of various regions. These �Baptists�, like the Qumraners and Ebionites, led an austere life of self-discipline and prayer. Perhaps they caused their proselytes to stand straight like a pillar in a pool of water or river, in order to be baptised, whence the Pshitta name of Ma�muditha.

Baptism is not a purification (thara) or washing (rahsa) or immersion (tabhala), but a dyeing, a colouring (sab�aitha). Just as a Saba�a or dyer gives a new colour to a garment by dipping it into tincture, so a baptist gives a convert a new spiritual hue. It was a mark of admission into the society of purified penitents who promised loyalty to God and His apostles. It goes without saying that the baptism of John in the river of Jordan was considered sufficient to �dye� the hundreds of Jewish penitents (�all the country of Judaea and the entire region about the Jordan� � Mt 3:5) who were baptised by him while confessing their sins. The idea of the shedding of the blood of a God-Man is superfluous.

There is little doubt that until the arrival of Paul on the scene, the followers of Jesus practised the same baptismal ritual as John. It may be significant that the converts of Samaria who had been baptised in the name of Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit, but had to have an extra ritual: the laying on of hands (Acts 8:16-17). The same was said for John�s baptism in Acts 19:2-7. This appears to indicate that Jesus� baptism was in actual fact precisely the same as that of John, and to provide evidence that the Trinitarian churches wantonly transformed the original rite into a sacrament or mystery. The statement that some twelve persons in Samaria �had not yet received the Holy Spirit, because they were only baptised in the name of our Lord Jesus� (Acts 8:16-17) is surely decisive as evidence.

How was it that the Sabians did not embrace Trinitarian Christianity if their master John had truly and openly declared and presented Jesus as the �more powerful� Prophet than himself who was to come, and whose shoes he was not worthy to unloose? The followers of John might have been excused if Jesus had come a century later; but they were contemporaries, born in the same year. They both baptised with water unto repentance, and prepared their penitent converts for the Kingdom of God that was approaching, but which was not to be established in their time.

The Sabians believed that although Jesus was one of the great Messengers, he was not the one referred to in the prophecy of John as the �one who was to come�; most of them happily recognised and embraced Islam when it came.

It is all too obvious that those who believe in the doctrine that baptism means an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, who believe that the �inspiration� of the Holy Spirit fills the hearts of those who, in their emotional excitement and ecstasy, believe themselves to be �new-born�, are suffering from wishful thinking. These �new-born� frequently slide back and become what they were before. The �miracle� of the �Holy Spirit� is a myth.[15] True baptism is that which comes only from submission to the Divine Will, and requires genuine commitment and a great deal of hard work.

Who turns away from the religion of Abraham but such as debase their souls with folly? [�] �Oh my sons, God has chosen the Faith for you; do not die except in the faith of Islam� [�] They say: �Become Jews or Christians, if you would be guided aright.� Say thou: �Nay! I would rather the religion of Abraham the true � he joined not gods with God. Say ye: �We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow [only] to God. If they believe as you believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism. God will suffice thee as against them, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. [Our religion is] the baptism of God: and who is better than God to baptise? It is He Whom we worship.� (Sura 2:130,132,135-138)

The Baptism of God (sibghatu�Llah) does not move Muslims to believe themselves �made holy�. Every Muslim has to run the race of our short earthly life to the best of his or her ability and effort, in order to win the crown of glory in the next world. Every Muslim needs education and training in accordance with the Word of God: but stands in no need of the intercession of a priest or sacrament. God Himself is quite enough.


Notes
[1] Professor 'Abdu'l Ahad Dawud is an example of a scholar with knowledge and competence who presents many extremely interesting theories on this topic in his book Muhammad in the Bible. The Professor himself is an interesting witness, for he was formally a Christian, the Catholic Bishop of Urmiah in Iran: the Reverend David Keldani, BD.
[2] The New Testament references to the 'one to come, who will speak all that he hears' is discussed later in the chapter.
[3] Notice how the prophecy concerning Isaac's descendants broke into the narrative, and took place while Abraham was asleep.
[4] Dawud, p.32.
[5] Hagar was an Egyptian, possibly of the royal house, and not just a 'servant'.
[6] Seir is usually identified with Petra.
[7] It can surely hardly be a coincidence that of all the names on earth his pagan relatives chose the very name Muhammad. In linguistic terms, Muhammad is cognate with the Hebrew passive particle of what is called the pi'el form of the verb hamad, and the passive participle of the second derived form of the Arabic hamida: its meaning being: 'praise and praiseworthy, celebrity and celebrated, glory and glorious.'
[8] See above, p.oo.
[9] Dawud, pp23-24, 144-145.
[10] 'Spirit of truth' (Ruh al-haqq) is one of the Prophet's titles of honour.
[11] Of like substance, similar but not the same.
[12] Of the one and the same substance.
[13] Dawud, p.67.
[14] Eisenman, op cit. p.836.
[15]Appalling atrocities have been committed by Crusaders, inquisitors and other enthusiasts who were convinced that they were following the Spirit.

Why should one become a muslim. What did muhammad do to prove he was anything other than a regular person? On the other hand Jesus was born of a virgin,raised the dead forgave sins, resurrected from the dead etc.

I had a book which had a better listing but I am away from home at the moment and studying abroad�inshallah when I get back I will post a more complete listing.


There is a great deal of clear evidence for the one who seeks to find out the truth about the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), including the following:

Allaah chose him even though he had grown up as an orphan and was illiterate, knowing neither how to read or write. All good qualities and virtues were perfected in him, to the point of ultimate perfection. All these good qualities were combined and firmly established in him, something which no one else can attain except the Prophets whom Allaah protected and guided. This combination of perfect qualities is one of the greatest proofs of the truth of his Prophethood (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

It was narrated from Khaalid ibn Ma�daan that the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: �O Messenger of Allaah, tell us about yourself.� He said: �I am the answer to the prayer of the father of Ibraaheem, and the glad tidings of �Eesa, (Jesus) and when my mother became pregnant with me, she saw something as if a light came out of her and illuminated the palaces of Busra in the land of Syria.�

This is supported by the hadeeth of al-�Irbaad ibn Saariyah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: �I was the slave of Allaah and the Seal of the Prophets, when Adam was still in the form of mud on the ground, and I will tell you about that. I am the answer to the prayer of the father of Ibraaheem, the glad tidings of Eesa concerning me, and the dream that my mother saw and that the mothers of the Prophets saw. The mother of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw, when she gave birth to him, a light which illuminated the palaces of Syria.


The revelation of Allaah was bestowed upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Angel of Revelation, Jibreel (Gabriel), who is recognized by all the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], came to him, and when he received revelation, there were unusual effects on him that indicated the intensity of the effort involved in receiving the Message of Allaah from Jibreel, upon whom be peace. His Companions witnessed this when he received Revelation, and they believed that the revelation was something that came from an outside source and was beyond his control; it came to him from (Allaah), the Wise and Praiseworthy.

Allaah supported the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with physical miracles, with which he challenged his people. Among the most important of these were the splitting of the moon and the Night Journey to Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). They were unable to match these miracles, and so they were a decisive, divine testimony to the truth of his Prophethood (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Allaah supported him with miracles and evidence for people of reason and understanding, the greatest of which was the Qur�aan. It is called �the living Quran�. There is a verse which I do not have at the moment , which states quite clearly that whilst other Prophets had been given their own miracles ( the Prophet Moses his rod which he threw down and it became a snake�.and the Prophet Jesus the ability to give sight to the blind and give life to the dead by Allahs Will ) the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was given the miracle of the �living Quran�� the Book Of Allah which God Himself has Promised to protect from any distortion. In every page and in every word is a miracle and mercy for the believers.

This was the greatest sign, which contains in its pages miracles of both style and content, which all of mankind cannot match or imitate ( God has challenged the disbelievers to make 10 verses of the same ), even if they gather together for that purpose. This is clear from the statements of the most eloquent of the Arabs, who were completely unable to match it. The Qur�aan was � and centuries later still is, praise be to Allaah � an eternal miracle as is evident in its brilliant style, its information about the Unseen, its fulfilment of the promises of Allaah, the superiority of its laws, and the fact that its rulings are appropriate for every time and place � in addition to the fact that it has such a moving impact on people�s hearts.

His coming was foretold in the Tawraat (Torah) and Injeel (Gospel), and some of the People of the Book saw that these prophecies applied in totality to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which led them to embrace Islam. There are still passages in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, in the versions that are accepted by the People of the Book, that clearly refer to the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) � for example in the Gospel of Barnabas, which is considered by Christians to be the most authentic Gospel.
The Message of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was not unique to him, but was in nature and content similar to the message brought by other Messengers before him. Allaah had sent Prophets and Messengers, such as Moosa (Moses), �Eesa (Jesus) and others, to the Children of Israel, and great numbers had believed in them and borne witness to the truth of their Books, which were similar in general terms to the message brought by the Qur�aan. This was eloquent testimony to the truth of the Message with which he was sent, especially as it belonged to the same type of Message to whose truth they had testified.
When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with the same Message as the Prophets who had come before him, the Qur�aan came to confirm their Books and their Prophethood, and to call people to believe in them. So when the People of the Book disbelieved in him and his Book, it meant that they were disbelieving in their own Books and Messengers. As the Qur�aan contained the same principles as their books, and confirmed them, this meant that it was the least likely to be fabricated or to have come from a source other than Allaah, because all of them came from Allaah, may He be exalted.

�� Indeed, there has come to you from Allaah a Light (prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) and a plain Book (the Qur�aan), wherewith Allaah guides all those who seek His Good Pleasure to ways of peace, and He brings them out of darkness by His Will unto light, and guides them to a Straight Way� [al-Maa�idah 5:15-16].

Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it, (it is) sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise� [Fussilat 42:41- interpretation of the meaning], that it is �a healing and a mercy to those who believe�


�Say: It is for those who believe, a guide and a healing. And as for those who disbelieve, there is heaviness (deafness) in their ears, and it (the Qur�aan) is blindness for them. They are those who are called from a place far away (so they neither listen nor understand)�
[Fussilat 41:44]


�And whenever there comes down a Soorah, some of them (hypocrites) say: �Which of you has had his Faith increased by it?� As for those who believe, it has increased their Faith, and they rejoice.

�And thus We have sent to you (O Muhammad) Rooh (a revelation, and a mercy) of Our Command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith? But We have made it (this Qur�aan) a light wherewith We guide whosoever of Our slaves We will. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are indeed guiding (mankind) to the Straight Path (i.e. Allaah�s religion of Islamic Monotheism).
The path of Allaah to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Verily, all matters at the end go to Allaah (for decision)�
[al-Shoora 42:52-53]


�There is not a moving (living) creature on earth, nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but are communities like you. We have neglected nothing in the Book, then unto their Lord they (all) shall be gathered�
[al-An�aam 6:38]

the miracles which Allaah gave to �Eesa (peace be upon him) were just like the miracles of all the other Prophets, to prove that he was speaking the truth and that he was truly a Messenger from Allaah.


�And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allaah (i.e. this Qur�aan), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allaah�s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allaah makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided�
[Aal �Imraan 3:103]


The Qur'an neither refutes that any other miracle may be shown through the Prophet (pbuh) nor proclaims that any other miracle was shown through the Prophet (pbuh). Nevertheless, one thing, which is quite clear from the Qur'an is that it has declared that no miracle shall be shown through the Prophet (pbuh) to convince the rejecters about his prophethood (Al-An`aam 6: 35). However, miracles may be shown through the Prophet (pbuh) to those, who had already accepted faith on the call of the Prophet (pbuh), specifically for the purpose of giving more strength to their faith.
Keeping the foregoing clarification in perspective, other miracles may have been shown through the Prophet (pbuh), even though the Qur'an has not referred to any of them. Some such miracles have been reported in narratives describing those incidents.

Then there was the miracle of Mi�raaj when Allaah took His Messenger on the Night Journey from al-Masjid al-Haraam in Makkah to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa (in Jerusalem), riding on al-Buraaq and accompanied by Jibrail. He stopped and led the Prophets in prayer, then he was taken up into the lowest heaven, where he saw Adam, with the souls of the blessed to his right and the souls of the doomed to his left. Then he was taken up to the second heaven where he saw �Eesa and Yahyaa; then to the third heaven where he saw Yoosuf; then to the fourth heaven where he saw Idrees; then to the fifth heaven where he saw Haroon; then to the sixth heaven where he saw Moosa; then to the seventh heaven where he saw Ibraaheem. Then he was taken up to Sidrat al-Muntaha (the Lote-tree of the utmost boundary), and his Lord spoke to him and enjoined fifty prayers upon him and his ummah each day and night. Then that was reduced to five prayers to be performed, with a reward for fifty, and the prayer was confirmed to be five prayers each day and night for the ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Then he returned to Makkah before dawn came, and he told them what had happened to him. The believers believed him but the kaafirs did not.


"Who took His slave (Muhammad) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah) to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsaa (in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed, in order that We might show him (Muhammad) of Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs, etc.)�
[al-Isra� 17:1]

One of the features of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that are mentioned in the ancient books is that between his shoulders was the Seal of Prophethood. That was a sign of his truthfulness, and that he was indeed the promised Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The description of the Seal of Prophethood has been narrated in the saheeh Sunnah. It was an area of raised skin the size of a pigeon�s egg, between the shoulders of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

There is no proof that the name of Allaah or the name Muhammad were written on the Seal, or any other words.
Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baari (6/650):
With regard to what has been narrated about it being like the mark of a cupping glass, or that the words �Muhammad Rasool Allaah (Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah)� or �Sir fa anta�l-mansoor (Go forth for you have Divine support)� etc were written on it, none of these reports have been proven.

There was also the incident of water flowing from the Prophet's fingers when his companions stopped for prayers at some occasion and there was just a basin of water from which all of them had to perform abolution (wazuu). He (pbuh) dipped his hands into the water and it came pouring forth in torents . He would move his hands over the eyes of a companion whose eyes were in pain and the pain would leave�there were a lot of other occasions of similar to this.

I hope this helps.

one more thing. one should become a muslim only to save his own soul..to insure his own salvation on the Day of Judgement. God needs His believer to surrender to Him and only Him. If there is one sin God will not forgive, it is the sin of shirk, that is ascribing partners to Him. "be He Glorified against all that which they ascribe unto Him"

don't look to miracles, i wouldn't. i would go with what my heart whispers to be true and that which when i read... causes my eyes fill with tears and gives my heart rest.

I hope I have come to the right place for this...Right now I am a Catholic but I was born into this life and was never given the chance to follow what best fits me. I often find my self questioning my faith and the only religion I always come back too to is that of Islam...Is this a sign? I am totally confused...I always find my self thinking of possibly converting...I may sound crazy but I needed to go somewhere where I could Ask theses questions...Your help is greatly appreciated...Thankyou

Anon, visit http://muttaqun.com/shahada.html to learn about how to become a muslim, see what you think of it.

Anonymous

First of all you need to ask yourelf what the catholic faith is not offering - ie why you feel that the catholic faith is not appropriate for you - the actual reasons - whether you do not belive in Jesus or whether you have problems with the rituals of religion per se.

Anonymous

If you don't believe in a lot of the things the catholic church says you should also look at other christian denominations - Protesetants, Unitarians (who believe pretty much the same as Muslims from what i can gather as far as the trinity is concerned), Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, (although they too can be oppresive) Free churches and many many more. Plus there are also different ways of looking at all these groups.

The catholic church is steeped in the Roman tradition, which is not necessarily the true voice of Christianity. It has just become to appear to be because of the stength of the former Roman Empire postulating it's view of Christianity through such a wide geographical area. However, far better examples are out there.
Try looking for groups that concentrate more on the teachings and less on the rituals, and take a look at some of the other messages on these boards - not the ones from non muslims - but like the women's board that show how oppressive Ilsam is and how ridiculous the excuses for the oppression are, or the other messages - from muslim boys who are ridden with guilt because they noticed an attractive woman on a bus and now think they are damned.

Islam is a religion of extremes. Take a look at other Christian denominations before you get involved in such as oppresive religion as Islam.

�If the Arabian prophet Muhammad is to be considered part of the same stream of tradition as the other great prophets of that stretch of desert land, can we identify any mention of him in the Bible texts?�
The answer is no. And the theories you propose can be demonstratedly shown to be false � by reference to geographical features and known events in history - let alone a better knowledge of the scriptures you quote than you possess.
�To your descendants I give this land�, This statement is very interesting apart from the fact you have failed to note that Moses himself conquered all these tribes on his way to the promised land � all as noted in Exodus, Numbers and Joshua with other battles noted in other intervening books The point is not overlooked � two whole books of the Bible and more besides refer to it. Had you read them rather than just plagurised someone else�s work you would have understood this.
The status of Ishmael:
It is written in the scriptures:
Firstly, that Hagar (ishmeal�s mother) was a concubine, (Genesis 16.3) not a wife, so the wording in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 does not then apply in the first point.
Secondly, Line 3 states that Abraham had been living in CANAAN (also there is a reference to �driving out the Amorites� and I don�t think the Amorites ever got into Arabia) for 10 years at this time, NOT Arabia so the point about Arabian Shieks does not apply. Plus by that time Cannan was not a Nomadic place, unlike Arabia. Canaan and for that end UR in Mesopotamia (where Abraham was originally from) was agricultural land not a desert like Arabia. Customs would have being different than Arabia. Those from agricultural areas tended not to be Nomadic.
Thridly, further testimony is given by the fact that God met Hagar on the road to Shur (16.7) in Cannan not in Arabia. God tells Hagar on the road that Ishmeal will be like a wild donkey - he will be against everyone and everyone will be against him and that he will live apart from all his relatives. In other words, Ishmael will not be amongst God�s chosen people - A figure to be ridiculed and banished from God�s Kingdom.

Fourthly, as you rightly state - Genesis states that all Abraham�s household was circumcised. This included the servants � and Ishmael was the son of a slave girl and was circumcised along with the rest of the household, but Ishmael is not specifically mentioned. Servants where to be circumcised whether the servant was born in the house or bought from a foreigner - Circumcision was to prove that there was a covenant between God and Abraham that took place at that time � it is a remembrance thing � as a reminder to Jews of their faith - not a proof that all circumcised males are legitimate heirs of Abraham and certainly nothing to do with Ishmael.
Line 11 tells us that Abraham was troubled by his wife wishing to send Ishmael away, but God told him to send Ishmael away telling him in line 12 that it is from Issac�s line that the �promised� descendants will come. Quite unequivocal. In line 13 he is told that Ishmael will have his own nation � and you have adopted Ishmael so he does!
Don�t know who Professor Dawud was/is � but his logic seems flawed. From line 17 verse 17 through verse 18 it is clear that Abraham is awaiting the birth of a son. In Verse 22, Isaac is born.
Finally in verse 17 line 15 God tells Abraham that Sarah�s (his wife) Shall be the Mother all nations. Hagar and Ishmael are therefore out of the equation. Isaac was Sarah�s son, therefore it is clear that Isaac is Abraham�s heir in the Covenant not Ishmael.
As for the desert Ishmael was sent to:
Testimony is given by the fact that God met Hagar on the road to Shur (Gen 16.7). Shur was in the old lands of Cannan (modern Israel) not in Arabia.
Futher tesitimony is given by the mention of the Desert of Beersheba, not Paran. Beersheba is west and at the bottom of the Dead Sea, ie in the old lands of Cannan and current day Israel. Nowhere near Mecca. To substitute Beersheeba for Mecca is therefore extremely implausible given that there is at least 500 miles between the two. The Koran was written over 2500 years after events and cannot therefore be considered contemporary with historical facts nor therefore reliable as to the events or places in question.
Damning testimony is given by reference to �The Rock�. The �Rock� is the hill were Solomon�s temple was built (first built @ 950BC). The Rock as you well know is in Jerusalem. The early Muslims built a mosque there remember � the Dome of the �Rock�? Again nowhere near Mecca or even Arabia. So another passage is not that �interesting� after all.
The story of Ishmael is narrated to show that we should have patience in waiting for what God shall give to us, and accept His plan as His Will, even if it goes against our own foolish pride, and also to show that what God wills man cannot put assunder. It shows the effect if we try and interfere in God�s plan (ie by Abraham having a son to a concubine), God will show his displeasure by first of all laying to waste our own interventions in his plan (ie by sending Ishmael away telling Abraham that his son to the concubine will be outcast � ie Abraham�s greed for a son is to be ridiculed) and then testing us (requesting the Sacrifice of Isaac) but finally showing that he can forgive us our earlier sins if we sunmit to his will (by not actually allowing Abraham to sacrifice Isaac). In short Abaraham was desperate for a son and did not trust God to give him one � so he took matters into his own hands by having a son to a concubine. God then gave the son the Abraham wanted by his wife to prove that he had planned to give Abraham a legitimate son when he chose, and Abraham did not need to commit sin (adultery) to get what he wanted most in the world (a son). God then sent the concubine�s son away to the wilderness (also showing the wrath of God on Hagar) before, having taken one son from Abraham (the one thing Abraham desired more than anything else), proceeded to ask Abraham for his remaining son. Abraham�s willingness to submit to God�s will, the one thing he desired most in his earthly life, is then rewarded with God saving one of his sons. The story is tell the triumph of God�s will over man�s desires and foolish pride.
God was waiting for Abraham to sin so he could show His true power over man and his willingness to forgive even the most obstinate diversions against His will, if we truly submit to God�s will, and repent our sin. It also shows that no matter how we subjagate God�s will to our own desires, our efforts shall be in vain and but for God�s will, we could end up with nothing. Surely this is a lesson to Islam over the last 1000 years.
So Ishmael cannot be Abraham�s rightful heir.
Interesting point though - by your contention, all Muslims are firstly Jews (because the Covenant direct with God would take precedence over the word of a prophet) and only secondly Muslim. I am sure a few of your brothers would have something to say about that! A very interesting concept though! What would the argument be then against Isreal today?
Interestingly, this Dawud character, in his discussions about Deuteronomy 33.2, is completely silent on the whole of the events leading from Abraham through to the exile in Egypt and subsequent exodus through Sinai (and subsequently back into Canaan). He also seems not to understand the point that the Isrealite peoples are still Isrealite no matter where they are. Thus, God will appear to Moses in Sinai because the Jewish people were at Sinai. There is therefore nothing �interesting� about Deuteronomy 33.2.
The point about Kedar:
If Kedar was Ishmael�s son, he must have been quite remarkable. Given that (1) the exodus of the Jews from Egypt took place around about 1300bc (2) the Jews where in Egypt for 300-400 hundred years (3) Abraham was around long long before the exodus (estimated at 1800bc) (4) Isiah was believed to have been alive @700bc (5) Isiah implies by the tense of the line 42.11 that Kedar is alive at the time of Isiah. Kedar would have been @ 1100 years old in Isiah�s time. Sounds implausible for Kedar to be Ishmaels son or for there to be even any link. All the time-scales can be proven by reference to which people ruled which other peoples in history.
The Point about Sura:

Sura 37:100-113 has rather different emphases: Well of course it would! Sura was written at least 2500 years after Abraham, by a Muslim, to force men into battle against the Meccans, and cannot therefore be relied upon. Prior to Islam, Arabia was still Pagan and so any reference to re-writing words from the Bible only came with Islam or maybe the Gnostic who were the predessors of the Pagan Mystcism that predate Islam � but either way � there is only 300 or 400 years between the two. Not 2500 years!
Having discounted Ishmael as the line to the The saviour by reference to the scriptures lets look at something a little easier to comprehend as it figures highly in Islam:
Interestingly, this Dawud character, in his discussions about Deuteronomy 33.2, is completely silent on the whole of the events leading from Abraham through to the exile in Egypt and subsequent exodus through Sinai (and subsequently back into Canaan). He also seems not to understand the point that the Isrealite peoples are still Isrealite no matter where they are. Thus, God will appear to Moses in Sinai because the Jewish people were at Sinai. There is therefore nothing �interesting� about Deuteronomy 33.2.
As for Kedar being a Nabataean:
The Nabataean Kingdom included a large area east of Palestine from Damascus to the Red Sea. Its capitol was at Petra near current day Wadi Musa in Jordan. It is well known that the Exodus passed through the area East of the Dead Sea, conquering all the lands in that area. It is known that some of the tribes of Israel settled on the east bank of the dead sea, although after the entry into the Promised Land, these tribes seem to have fallen into worshipping the idols of the people they had deposed. It is also known that Moses, leader of the Exodus died on the east bank of the Dead Sea before Joshua entered the Promised land.
Thus there can be no inference drawn from the fact that Kedar was noted as being a Nabataean, that he was a descendant of any Arabian peoples, especially as Alexander had conquered all these lands - Muhammad is more likely to be descended, like Cleopatra, from the Greeks than Ishmael or Kedar!
Later in Isreal�s history the covenant box was stolen by a tribe on the east bank because they thought that the box was the reason why Israel was so strong a nation � but hurriedly sent it back when God destroyed their own idols near where they had placed the Covenant Box.
An alter was built to remind the Isrealites of this event on the banks of the Dead Sea. The words of Isiah simply infer that the Nabataeans/Kedar shall become subservient to Israel in religion � casting off their own idols in favour of God, and now 99% of the world believes in Israel�s God.
The rock and Hagai
We have already proved that Ishmael did not inhabit the wilderness of Paran and could not possibly have sired Kedar if Kedar is still believed to be Arab. Jerusalem, as noted by your own theory of the Rock - is the House of God�s Glory referred to.
As for the words of Haggai, he was talking about the rebuilding of Solomon�s Temple which was rebuilt on the Rock at Jersuslam in 520bc after the return from exile, 100 years after the first one was destroyed by the first rise of the Babylonian empire under Sennacherib (whom Saddam Hussein wished to emulate).
So your phesis can be shown to be in error as it�s basis is in error. The rest is really superfluous � but I shall continue to correct some of your misstatements for your own benefit.

The �Paraclete� or however you wish to interpret the word is actually the coming of God�s Kingdom on earth, not the coming of a mortal man. This discounts Muhammad as this figure. It refers to the time when their will be peace and harmony between all nations on earth, when all people will worship God without division into sects. When man-made religion is a thing of the past. This is where religious dogma (including Christian, Muslim and Jewish) totally fails to understand the word of Jesus Christ, who he was or why he came.
The Roman church propulgated a vision of Christianity to serve it�s purposes in much the same way that early Muslim Warriors copied that system to propulgate their version of Muhammad�s word. Why else were the majority of early Korans burnt in 650ad other than one group of leading Muslims ie the Warrier Class, wishing their version of the Koran to be propulgated. The Christian Trinity refers to God in a way that could be understood by the people at the time, just as the fire and brimstone of the Muslim Wariers could be understood by the early Musims. Rome used Glory to get men to wage war, Islam used fear � the end result is the same, soldiers fought.
The true meaning of trinity: God the Father being in Heaven, God the son being on earth (ie all God�s People not one man) and the Holy Spirit being the link between the two � the means by which the children on earth feel God�s love. This is the meaning of John
When Jesus said he was the Son of God it was meant in the way that God perceives all peoples who believe in His word are Son of God, because they are chosen by God to receive his word in the same way that a father instructs his children. If Muhammad was the final seal you refer to, there would be no more war on earth, no more hate and all would love in peace and harmony. But as we all know, this is not the case. However you interpret the semantics of the passages you refer to, whether this is Paraclete, Holy Spirit, a man or any other entity, it actually refers to a spiritual awakening, a time when all men on earth will drop their obsessions with earthly religions based on the cult of a mortal man and realise that God loves all his children equally.
I do not disagree that men may come who will show us the way � but it will not be one man but rather the spirit of an age. Men like Martin Luther (the Christian monk who showed the people the hypocracy of the Roman Church) have shown the Roman church to have erred. One day Islam�s Martin Luther will come. Then we have a chance. Today we could look at men like Nelson Mandella, Martin Luther King Jr and Ghandi as showing that peace can prevail even in the darkest of days.
Jesus came to bring knowledge of the time when this would all come to pass, but his word has largely been misunderstood. This is further evidence of Jesus�s word being truth. Jesus brought Knowledge of God. God allows us free will. Therefore it is up to us to choose to follow God�s word � not blindly follow man-made religious dogma. This is how God chooses the people who will eventually enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who follow his Word (and his word is LOVE), can enter the Kingdom � those who continue to follow dogma that makes men hate each other will be cast into the fire of oblivion � both on earth and on the Final Day. No number of rituals will save a man if, when he leaves his place of worship, he does wicked things either born out of hate or to create hate in others. It does not matter whether the man is Christian, Jew Muslim, Hindu Buddhist, Pagan Non- Conformist or any other modern day religion.
You can search scriptures till the Final Day comes trying to prove that a man is the coming to which Jesus referred. History has proven your thought processes outlined above to be in error, both in trying to usurp Jesus with Muhmmad, but also in mis-understanding the meaning of Jesus�s word and of the Kingdom of God.
This is because the final seal will not be a man � but a feeling amongst men that means all can live in harmony. This is the meaning of the term Holy Spirit, Paraclete or whatever else you wish to call it. Arguing semantics, trying to prove that one word has been misinterpreted will not save your soul � in fact it will not only loose you your soul, but the souls of people who read and believe your words. John refers to a time when God will speak directly to His Children, and this is the importance of Jesus�s message � he came to give us the tools to know God. Love. References to a man coming in John are merely a means to make people turn to God in terms they would understand � lets face it you Muslims cannot understand the concept of the Holy Spirit 2000 years on � how could the early Chrisitians? So the concept was made easy for them by the apostles to start the ball rolling in terms they could understand. But Jesus�s exact word remained for later generations who could understand. As you state he did make reference to this in more obvious terms in 14:16 I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Counsellor, to be with you for ever, even the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it neither sees him nor knows him . You know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you� You tried to add a false explantion to this because you misunderstood the passage to mean that Jesus was talking about himself. It is clear that Jesus was not talking about a man � but God�s Love felt through the Spirit of God � that aspect of God which is omnipotent. �for ever� �neither sees him nor knows him� �he dwells within you and and will be in you� Could a man be on earth for ever? Would we not see and know him to be a man even if we did not believe he was a prophet? Could a man dwell with you and be in you? No. The Final Seal is the coming of God himself in each and every one of us as his children.
Not until the day that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and all other man-made religions recognise this will there be peace on earth, and freedom from all the tyrannies that prevent people coming together.
Jesus came to release mankind from the yolk of man-made religious dogma and ritual. So, simply following religious dogma will not gain entry into heaven is the message Jesus brought � he brought the Good News that the way to gain entry to heaven is by a relationship with God. By allowing God within our hearts by loving our fellow man as he does. No current day religion fosters that image because most rely on people being part of their community at the expense of another in order to propogate the institution for it�s own survival. And Islam is the worst in fostering this view.
We will all know the day of the Final Seal because a Christian will go to pray in a building formerly used as a mosque, a Jew in a former church and a Muslim in a former synagogue just as happily as they would all pray in the building of the religion they were born into. I fear that day is a long way off.
God will no longer speak in the Old Testament ways of external voices and angels being sent to one man - but rather that truth will come from within each and every one of us. This is the meaning of John 14:16 to which you refer. Of course this was conditional on Jesus because Jesus brought the Word � the knowledge of every man being able to have a relationship with God: and the only way that Jesus could have known this was by being endowed with the Holy Spirit. Jesus brought the holy spirit and this is why it was not enough for someone to be baptised purely in his name. This was the big turning point � Jesus was the first to have been endowed directly with the Holy Spirit. All previous prophets had heard God or seen God in the shape of an angel or in the shape of fire or some other entity, as with Muhammad and Gabriel - but in Jesus, the word came direct from God.
We will further know this time because all will feel that suffering has to stop. No-one will talk of war, tyranical dictatorship will be a thing of the past, men will have no reason to hate. The number of wars we have had throughout history since Muhammad came; the number of Tyrannical dictators; the number of generally evil people who have inhabited the earth since Muhammad�s time all prove that Muhammad was not the Final Seal and that such a time is a long way off if the world today is anything to go by.
Jesus brought us the Way, but it is our choice to ignore God or do his will.
This time will be marked by a �coming together� when all men can put aside their differences in HOW they worship God in favour of worshipping God as ONE. Not the Resurgance of one man-made religion over another. Given the calls for Jihad throughout the Muslim community, and the terror this brings, and the need to stop this by any means, even war, thus stopping the possibility of men coming together and worshipping God as one: this can hardly fit in with Muhammad being the final seal. The rest of your arguments are again therefore null and void.
Almost every word you say about Constantine and the Roman Empire is true � this is where �Christianity� went wrong. However to say that �Christianity� went wrong assumes that �Christianity� means �Roman Catholic Church�. It does not. Christianity has many followers who are not and probably never were Roman Catholic, as your own discussion about the council of Nicea proves - even at the height of the Holy Roman Empire.
Nor were the Islamic Warriers who invaded the middle east and beyond from the time of Muhammed�s death �liberators � of Christianity in the sense you mean, because Muhammad took God back to a time pre-Jesus, when dogma reigned (and still does in many parts of the world). In this respect the early Muslim Warriers were no better than the Romans. They took over Islam and used the theories to their own ends. They burnt the Early Korans in 650ad and took over Islam in the same way that the Romans did with Christianity at the Council of Nicea. They even murdered the third Caliph in Baghdad in 759ad in the same way that Constantine made life hard for those Christians who would not accept the Trinity.
The big difference is, that today, Christians have seen through Constantine�s version of Christianity. Have Muslims seen through the Koranic Warriers�? Many many attempts have been made throughout the ages admittedly � but all have failed through one fundamentalist sect or another. Today, unlike Muslim sects, the Christian world is re-uniting and reviewing a lot of the false doctrines in favour of doctrines that directly follow bible teachings rather than the dogmas that have been perpetrated. Sects that do not follow this movement are losing numbers in great numbers and the biggest losses are in the Roman church, which has the choice now, like Islam, to change of die.
As for Paul, it is known that he himself was not in agreement with Constantine�s �taking over� of the church. This is why pockets of resistance to Rome remained. John who wrote Revelations is believed to have been foreseeing the end of the Roman Empire. Some say that 666 refers to Nero and others Constantine, either way, Rome is now agreed to be the target of Revelations.
You have to look far later in history than the Islamic Warriers to get the release from tyranny you talk of as far as Christianity is concerned. Starting with Martin Luther, who was the first to challenge the idea of the Roman state religion in the 16th Century, and carry on almost upto modern day when it is only now that people are finally seeing the Roman Empire for what it truly was, and seeing the true message of Jesus� word. Many modern day Christians are no longer happy with the idea of the Trinity in the sense that the Romans saw it and you portray it - and look at it as I have stated earlier, as a means to prove the omnipotency of God. However, despite Rome, Christians have always seen Jesus as a part of God not a separate entity and therefore Islamic ideas of the trinity are misinformed. Jesus has never been seen as separate from God which Muslim leaders seem to have wished to convince Muslims of in order to propogate their own brand of God and their desire to conquer non-Muslim territories.
Your misunderstanding of early Christian Gnosticism and John the Baptist is complete. Gnostics have totally different beliefs than Christians even about how the Universe was formed and cannot rightly be called Christians. Nor can they be attributed to John the Baptist � early Gnostics �like Muslims today, did not understand the words John spoke but thought they did and came up with a totally different belief system than was taught by John or Jesus. It would be far better to link Gnositcs with Islam as they are more in line with your beliefs about creation and the universe than any Christian�s.
In fact given the rise in Gnosicism in the 2nd century in the east, and your earlier assumptions, Gnosticism can probably be cited as the earlier religion that formed Pagan Mysticism (which it is closer to than Christianity) that later formed the basis of Islam. For reference the Sabaeans and the Sabians were different peoples � the Sabaeans came from much earlier in history than the Sabians and were from Arabia not Syria or Iraq. The correct term �Nasoleans� (not to be confused with Nazereans) were the high priests not the everyday Mandaean�s. I wonder if there is any link between your incorrect usage of Nazarean and the basis of not only your argument but also that of the early Gnostics? In any case, the Mandaeans of Syria were supposedly around before either Jesus or John. Hence your discussion of Mandaeans being followers of John is yet another example of history fouling your argument.
The reason for baptism with water and John was to prepare a way for Jesus �in much the same way that baptism today paves the way for a life close to God. John�s baptism began Jesus� work by preparing the way of change � so that when Jesus came his word would be recognised. There is no separate sect of Jesus and John in Christianity. There may be others who believed in John � but they are not Christians � but I find this hard to believe � why would you settle for a Mini when you could have a Rolls Royce?
John�s word was to show that a man was coming that would bring an even better message than John, he could only baptise with water but Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:15). It is John the Baptist who tells us that Jesus is the one he spoke of (John 1:35).
Baptism is a means by which God was now open to all who believed. But, it was only an outward sign of that belief � not the actual means of belief. This could only come by following God�s word as foretold by Jesus.
Jesus did not start his ministry till he was 30, and whilst the two may have been born in the same year, from the word of the Gospels it is clear that John had started his ministry before Jesus. In fact, you have the baptism scenario the wrong way around � it was John who baptised Jesus as a sign of God�s approval of John�s work. John remonstrated that he was not fit to do it but Jesus insisted. This would tie in if John came from a sect such as Mandaeanism � thus bringing earlier non-isrealite believers into the new Church. Just a hunch!
John did not become a disciple as he was imprisoned before Jesus started his ministry as a result of one of his many arguments with Rome after a roman senator stole his brother�s wife. We all know the story of Salem who wanted John�s head on a silver platter ie his untimely early death. The reasons the Samarians were noted as not being baptised in Acts is that the two elements � laying of hands and baptising with water are present in Christian baptism.
Christians do not confess sins at Baptism � how could we � we cannot even talk as we are baptised shortly after birth! What is done whether we are baptised at birth or baptised at some later time is that we �renounce� sin � ie we vow to follow God�s word. Our parents or more importantly our God-parents do it for us if we are infants. If a person becomes a Christian later in life they should have a sponsor to do this for them in place of parents and God-parents. God-parents act as mentors to children and sponsors do the same for new adult Christians.
Today Christians do not receive the laying on of hands until they are of an age (usually in their teens if they are baptised as infants) when they can choose the Christian way of life for themselves in the Sacrament of Confirmation. Similarly, even late converts should receive later Confirmation � though today, to be baptised requires instruction and the two sacraments could I suppose be contemplated together � not having met any adult converts I would not know. I do know that some of the American �born again� Christians have different practices in this stuff than other Christians. I also know that some modern churches do not go in for the Sacraments at all.
Your comments about Jesus�s death show yet another mis-understanding � baptism and Jesus�s death are not related. They may have a common element � sin � but the elements are different.
Baptism is a sign of individual renouncement of sin as a means to be invited into God�s Salvation. Jesus�s death on the Cross was about taking away the sin of humanity � that causal link of our propensity to sin - that kept everyone before Jesus�s death from knowing God. If you were to believe the Gnostics it would be about taking away the demon that created the earth � or in Islam, it is the doctrine of taking away jinn from earth. In Christianity, it is about taking away original sin when Adam disobeyed God and ate the apple. In each case it is the philosophy of removal of barriers to knowing God and the fear that not knowing him creates.
To have the abilty to know God and to be invited into his fellowship are therefore two distinct elements of sin and neither are about confessing. Nor does it state anywhere in the Bible that penitents confessed sins as they were baptised. They may have been asked to renounce sin and the works of the devil, but they did not confess earthly or bodily sins.
Your comments about the �miracle� of the Holy Spirit again show your lack of understanding. Just because someone is baptised does not mean they automatically receive the Holy Spirit! Baptism is only a gateway. As you quite rightly state, it must be worked at � what baptism does, like John before Jesus, is prepare the way for the Spirit. If a person chooses not to live a life that would encourage the spirit to arise in him it will not! And yes, they will slip into their previous ways if they are converts!
The other reasons Jesus had to die on the cross was to show (1) that there would be suffering even for those who believed in God�s word �because Jesus himself suffered (2) to show that many men would have to suffer before the age came when Jesus�s word would be finally heard here on earth (the Resurrection) (3) It was also to be a sign of the ultimate sacrifice so that the dogma of ritual sacrifice (common in many religions upto that time) would no longer have to be undertaken. The ultimate sacrifice had already been made and non greater could be made (4) that no other �man� would come to bring the word � as the death of the human �Jesus� pointed to the death of Cults. In future each one of us could, if we followed God�s word as given to us ny Jesus could know God directly. The term �pastor � meaning �of the land� is ascribed to many Christian religious leaders and refers to a man who takes care of our earthly needs, not our spiritual needs, as only God can do that - not any man on earth.
Islam points to the Jews putting Jesus to death as the reason why Jews are to be hated, but Jesus himself fashioned and foretold his own death, to remove that blockage to knowing God - even choosing who would betray him. Thus, the Jews where playing their part in God�s plan. The fact that Pontius Pilate handed Jesus over to the Jews could also be part of the greater plan. Rome had no argument with Jesus as his message of non-violence was not a threat to them, a nation who believed in war. Perhaps Rome�s part in the Mystery of God�s word was to come in the name of Constantine, to test man to see if man could accept God�s true word � whether man had learnt his lesson and finally seen that the dogmatic rituals of cults were not part of God�s plan for one religion on the earth. Unfortunately man has failed till now to understand Jesus� word and The Cult of Rome was born. The Jews did not have to worry because their salvation is assured by the Covenant.
It was the rest of us including you Muslims who had to take notice. And non of us did, for 2000 years.
The �Least in the Kingdom of Heaven� is a reference to the fact that even though John and Jesus came to bring God�s word, they were no better than you or I, in other words, God did not want a cult of Jesus or John. This is an analogy to the fact that everyone would be able to hear God�s word if they practised what Jesus taught them - loving God and their fellow man.
�Thy Kingdom Come they will be done on earth as it is in Heaven� refers to the fact that peace and harmony will reign on earth as it does in heaven. Many people, have misinterpreted this. Islam particularly. Today, all other religions are moving away from barriers to the �Kingdom of Heaven� a time when ritual will be gone and all will worship together. Islam and particularly the fundamentalists are preserving cults, dogma and ritual. Your own attempts to replace Jesus with Muhammed at the end of the paragraph concerning the Kingdom of Heaven are clear signs of the fact it will be a long time before God�s Kingdom comes, despite the attempts of all democratic societies and all other religions to seek peace on earth.
The �Kingdom�, the �New Jersusalem� refers to a time on the earth that all will worship One God without man-made religion�s rituals. When we will all be free to serve Him, not other men. This is the part that Islam has failed to see in Jesus�s word � that worship of One God is not the only pre-requisite to seeing God�s Kingdom �it is HOW you do it.
God did not make rules other than the Ten Commandments � no other rules are necessary for man to live in peace and harmony. Man made rules are there to keep people in a state of fear that means they would be easy to govern. Look at where that got us �look at the Taliban - look at Iraq today � look how the people have behaved since the downfall of Hussein � like the Ishmael �donkey� referred to in Genesis � because they have been ruled by a dictatorial secular authority backed by a dogmatic religious hierarchy which effectively gave them no say in their own lives. They have never had the opportunity to come to God � the state and the Sunni hierarchy have seen to that. They have had no choices to make as to how they live their lives, so they have no vision of how to make the choices they need to make as to how to behave. They have not had the opportunity to make mistakes � and as the story of Abraham shows us � it is only be making mistakes that we learn what is truly right.
Of course, we may sin in the process� but that is what choice is all about. This is God�s test. If we do not repent of our sins, we will be tossed into the fire on the Day of Judgement. God gave us free will to choose whether we wish to perpetually carry out the same sins or follow His Word. People who have no freedom � because their every action is dictated by rules, who are not given the chance to make choices, will always be sinners because they have not had the chance to choose God rather than have God dictated to them and learnt like a maths equation. Islam seeks to stop people sinning in line with belief before Jesus�s time. But in doing so it makes people sin, because by having so many rules and rituals people do not get the chance to get to know God. How can you get to know God when you are so busy learning the rules or leaning the Koran by heart? And no number of rules could account for every sin man could commit on earth. Where is the rule that says you should not fly planes into office buildings?
The only way to repent sin is to have the kind of relationship with God that allows God to enter you and show you the particular sins you are committing and then to change that behaviour yourself.
There will always be people like Hitler and many more who hear a different voice, as long, that is, as peace and harmony is not the order of the day throughout the whole world. This is further proof that God�s Kingdom is a long way off � there have been far too many wars on this earth and far too many old scores to settle for peace ever to be a probability in our lifetime. The Muslim desire to see the downfall of Isreal is probably the worst threat today, because as long as that is Islam�s aim, there will never be peace in the world, because no free Nation would ever countenance or support Islam in that aim. So whether it is terrorism in the form of state terror as with Hussein or group terror as with the likes of Bin Laden�s fundamentalist threat or the PLO�s internal threat, it can only ever lead us away from God, because it is the major stumbling block to world peace.
Yes other nations like North Korea may threaten peace � but not seriously � they are just flexing their muscle to gain attention on the World stage for their economic aims. The end of the Cold War saw a possibility � but that has been dashed by Islam stepping up it�s war on Israel. A war it will never win, because it is against God�s will and drags so many other peace-loving nations into potential combat.
Evil events and people in history are our means of turning to God, and finding the inner peace that will lead to outer peace. 9/11 is a good example of this, it galvanised the Free World into taking action against a threat to peace that should have been dealt with long before. Now every nation on earth is aware of the fundamentalist threat, and all nations have joined together to defeat it, even some Islamic states.
Going back to my argument �given the above, how then, can this peace be achieved through ritual � the time taken to actually perform the ritual could be spent knowing God. Silent prayer is the way to know God, not the rituals of man-made religion. And Islam is today the most ritualistic, despite your comments about Christian Sacraments - you only have to look at the questions being asked on this site to see that. If God was with these people they would not need to ask the questions �their hearts would tell them. If they choose the right path their lives will be filled with joy and ease, instead of the pain we see in
Islam at this time.
Each and every one of us must act in accordance with God�s word, and as Muhammad tells us we cannot be held responsible for the errors of the group as long as we do not allow the group thinking to be our own. Islam can continue despite the fundamentalists, providing the fundamentalist thought does not become the individual thought. But increasingly, it is. This is every individual Muslim�s big test at this time. How it deals with the test will decide whether it comes through as a strong peace-loving group or falls by the wayside. Mullah�s who teach fundamentalism are not hearing the voice of God.
Your derrogatory comments as to what Christians believe on the Subject of God�s kingdom only shows your ignorance. It is true that we believe that one day we will all meet in God�s Kingdom � but God�s Kingdom in Heaven � not on earth. We also believe that an equal and perfect Kingdom will one day be here on earth _ the New Jerusalem And that in both cases a Final day will dawn � one when we die, and one when the earth dies, (which it one day will). On that day, Heaven and earth will be one in Heaven because all on earth will have died. Unless some catastrophy besieges us - such as a meteorite hitting earth, science has proved the latter unlikely in our lifetime. So Christians await Gods Kingdom in heaven and our time on earth is a means to gain entry to that kingdom by following God�s word as given to us by Jesus.
As you quite rightly say, the path to God is not easy, and it cannot be avoided by ritual, which is what most modern day major religions, including Islam teach.
Your discourse is worthy of merit in terms of it�s denunciation of Rome � and by far the most reasoned argument I have come across on this site - but fatally flawed in trying to usurp Rome with Mecca. Why is Islam so obsessed that it cannot get on with it and leave everybody else alone?
Fear is the answer � as your discourse shows � fear of missing out - because Islam cannot accept change, not only now � but in Muhammad�s time - and Jesus changed things � he took away �fear� from the rest of humanity by replacing it with Love. God�s Love. Your fear comes from not really accepting Jesus�s teachings �because you have never tried to understand them despite Muhammad telling you they are valid.
Instead you have to try and prove Jesus not to be the one spoken of in earlier scriptures, and fail in the process. Your whole thesis � the foundation on which it is built - the Islamic myth of Ishmael can be proved to be in error � thus in this one paragraph destroying your whole thesis by proving that your assumptions about the scriptures pertaining to Ishmael are incorrect and that that can even be proven so by physical geography.
Instead of trying to understand the teachings of Jesus you seek to usurp him with what you think you know about scriptures you plainly do not understand.
To try and usurp Jesus is a heresy that Muhammad forbade. But to then try and say that Muhammad is also the Final Seal proves a flaw in your argument � you try and say that he is two things in one � at the same time � when the scriptures clearly state that this is not that case. It�s almost as if your insecurities are forcing you in desperation to try and usurp previous scripture with Islam somewhere or anywhere instead of just following these scriptures.
If you truly believe that Muhammad was the final seal why are you do insecure about it � why do you need to usurp previous teachings? Why do you not just get on with it? Jesus taught us to pray in silence and alone and not be proud about it � so why do Muslims make such a big thing about how virtuous they and Islam are? God hates pride.
Unlike in Muhammad�s times, just about everybody on earth has heard of the One God � so why do you need to try and convert others to Islam by such wild assertions? Or is it more that you feel you need to stem the rise of dissatisfaction with Islam from within by trying to prove Islam has some basis in earlier scriptures?
Islam is not the Kingdom of God � because like any other sect it�s time is limited as Muhammad himself told you when he described that great nations had come before you and great nations would come after you. Your sect is stalling that day in the same way that the sect of Rome did till Luther.
�If the Arabian prophet Muhammad is to be considered part of the same stream of tradition as the other great prophets of that stretch of desert land, can we identify any mention of him in the Bible texts?�
The answer is no. Quite emphatically. And the theories you propose can be demonstrated to be false � by reference to geographical features and known events in history - let alone a better knowledge of the scriptures you quote.
People may say, in misunderstanding, that I am trying to convert Muslims � I am not. I am simply giving understanding to put right errors in someone else�s script. I am sure of my faith and need not shout about it.
My reason for writing this is simple. The kind of ill-considered rhetoric noted in XXXX;s script � misinterpreting and even trying to defile earlier scriptures to try and justify his own, not only irritates those whose faith you try and defile �creating misunderstandings of Muslims, but also fuels ideas that some Muslims have about Muhammad�s word being the last word of God, and the only one worth reading. An idea Muhammad disagreed with by his word about other great nations before and after Islam � and in direct contravention of God�s desires for all to be as one.
This �true Religion� stuff was probably given by the early Islamic Warriers not Muhammad.
Words in the Koran assert the Koran cannot have been wholly given by Muhammad. The book refers to �this book� (is the Koran) as showing it must have come from God, because no man could have written such a book. Yet the Koran read today was not formed into a book until 650ad � 18 years after Muhammad died � how then could Muhammad have said those words if the book did not exist in his time? If something as fundamental as this could change � what else could?
Your assumptions about Christians and what they believe are just as far off the mark as your postulations on Ishmael, and only go to further prove your lack of understanding.
Your attempts to rely on earlier scriptures when it suits and then disregard them when it does not, is more proof of the delicacy and lack of truth in your argument.
Yours is precisely the kind of rhetoric that breeds hatred and pain. The pain brought about by making people believe they are right to oppress and murder others in the name of God, in their Jihad for the �true� religion, leading fellow Muslims to the eternal fire in the process.
It is also the kind of foolish pride rhetoric that creates Christian, Jewish Hindu and Non-Conformist animosity towards Muslims who follow a peaceful life without the need for all this nonsense.
But most of all it prevents the coming of God�s Kingdom on earth - a time of peace, harmony and love.

In the last message, missed from the text after
Sura 37:100-113 and the point that shouold be easy for Muslims to comprehend
The �Rock� is the hill were Solomon�s temple was built (first built @ 950BC). The Rock, as any good Muslim should know is in Jerusalem. The early Muslims built a mosque there remember � the Dome of the �Rock�. Again nowhere near Mecca or even Arabia. So another passage is not that �interesting� after all.