Comment on Islamic belief

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Alexander the Great Q&A Forum : One Thread

Hi, Your website is wonderful however the page that involves Alexander the Great has a common mistake....Many people assume that Muslims believe Alexander the great to be Zul qarnain( Dhul-Qarnain is the proper Arabic pronunciation)...it is clearly a mistake..Dhul-Qarnain was king of Yemen during the time of Arabham...as you can see there is a clear difference in the time line..Abraham lived 2000 BC ... Alexander the great lived 325 BC...one of the reasons why people mistake Dhul-qarnain to be Alexander is because Dhul-qarnain was such a great ruler...he conqured a vast area of land...and built the wall of Gog and Magog...since then...he inspired many rulers to build walls around their cities as a means of protection..in Persia it was common to name a ruler Dhul-Qarnain, Zul-Qarnain or Zur-Qarnain it was as if the king or ruler was given a title of honor since he was a great...hence since Alexander was fond of Persia somewhere along history people assumed Alexander was Dhul-qarnain...however the Qur'anic Arabic that has been translated from Surat-al-Kafh (18th chapter) has been translated correctly..there is no mistake other than stating that Zulqarnain is a messanger and that he is Alexander..Dhul-Qarnain was simply the king of Yemen during Abraham's time, he conqured so much..to state that muslims believe him as a prophet is completely false.. even if you thought about it logically..if Abraham is alive therefore he is the prophet(according to muslim belief)..you can not have two prophets at the same time...the can be alive at the same time however only can have prophethood...i would appreicate it if you took down the page ...please do not take this e-mail as an insult...i have no intention of offending you Thank You Fahmida Butt

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2002

Answers

this link gives a good answer with credible evidence to who zul qurnain might have been.
www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-028.htm

-- Anonymous, March 28, 2004

I have always wondered as to why different people are frustrated with beliefs of other people. I think their frustations stems out of the fact that their own faith does not give them enough confidence or food for soul and hence in order to convince themselves of what they belive is the rightful path, they start the blame game on others. Mr.Ibrahim duru is an exception to this.. he though being born a muslim(which i doubt) started cursing his own faith. Well i guess snakes never loose their character of biting the milk feeder. Anyways, i would have thought that if Mr.Ibrahim does really think that islam is bad, then i guess he should be happy,that so many followers of prophet muhammed(pbuh) wont enter heaven. Just like nobody wants too much of a crowd anywhere, he too should be happy that we muslims(since according to him are following the wrong religion) wont be entering heaven.. well Mr.Ibrahim you are doing exactly the opposite , your anger towards islam, just vindicates my stand that you are actually afraid that we are right and u are wrong and that you cannot do anything about it. I am sorry to say that ur whole fiasco and uproar againts islam has just fallen on ur own face. hope to see u in heaven :-)

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2004

Muhammad IN THE BIBLE ?????????? DONT BELIEVE ME THEN READ THIS!!! just to be sure i always google everything so i searched in google.com "16 of Chapter 5 in Shir Hashirim" and i got many links and this one prooves the accuracy of the verse excerpt from The Song of Songs written by Prophet Solomon (pbuh) and dont take it from me check it out either in google or copy paste the direct hebrew link interprating this verse: "http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Song_of_Songs5.htm#16
This is the most controversial part of the text. When discussing the "Machamad" in verse 16 of Chapter 5 in Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs), most of the emphasis is placed on the first half of the verse. However, this has caused a major disregard for the rest of the verse in Hebrew which has extremely seriously connotations when properly translated. They may be even more serious then the usage of the name "Muhammad" in itself. May the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet Muhammad. Allow me to repost the verse in English as well as Hebrew:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."
"Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
Now let us break up this verse into parts and deal with each aspect separately.
1. MACHAMMADIM - From "MACHAMAD" which in this particular verse, the words "altogether lovely" was translated from mahmad (). is translated into "lovely". "Altogether" is added as a contextual reference to "v'chulo" which means "in entirety" or "absolutely". "MACHAMAD" means "desirable, praiseworthy, beautiful, etc". Though it is archaic, it is found elsewhere in the Bible to describe precious and coveted items. The fact that this "MACHAMAD" evidently may well be the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) has already been thoroughly outlined and established.
To add further weight to these argument, let us take a closer look at this four character word. The way this word is written is Hebrew is . That happens to be the EXACT same way Muhammad's name is written in Hebrew.
Now, when writing in Hebrew, there is no difference between the word mahmad () and Muhammad (). The only difference is in the vowels used when pronouncing this word. Hebrew is an ancient language, and there are no vowels. It is made up of 22 consonants. In ancient times, the reader decided on his own which vowels to add in. It was not until the 8th century that vowels were introduced, in the form of dots and lines. However, this has nothing to do with real Hebrew. The word mahmad () in ancient times would most likely have been pronounced "mahamad".
According to Ben Yehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary, is correctly pronounced "mahamad" (not mahmad) which is very close to Muhammad.
Ben Yehuda's Hebrew-English Dictionary defines "" as "lovely, coveted one, precious one, praised one". The correct way to say "praised one" in Arabic is Muhammad, so this is the same word!
As was stated before, the name Muhammad () and the word mahmad () are spelled exactly the same way in Hebrew, and both have the same meaning. The only reason they are pronounced different is because of vowels (dots and lines) introduced in the eighth century.
2. DODEE - From "DOWD" (pronounced d - long "o" - d). In this particular verse it is translated into "beloved". However, "DOWD" also means "paternal uncle", that is to mean the father's brother, in Hebrew. This complicates the verse and makes it all the more interesting. In the book of Leviticus the word "dowd" is found 5 times [10:4, 20:20 (twice in this verse), 25:49 (twice in this verse)] and used as "paternal uncle" only and not used any other way. The verse Numbers 36:11, where it is said "..were married unto their FATHER'S BROTHERS' sons", the word used is "DOWD". There are many other examples where "DOWD" is used as "paternal uncle" (father's brother) and not "beloved".
3. RA'EE - From "RAY'AA" which is translated in this particular verse into "friend". However, "RA'YAA" in Hebrew means "co-worker in same area, field or margin". It is translated as "neighbor" 102 times in the Old Testament. Actually, it is translated as "neighbor" more than any other definition in the Old Testament. It is used to mean one member of the same organization or group. In chapter 11 of Genesis it is used in reference to the group of builders raising the Tower of Babel. Co-workers, comrades, etc. would all be considered "RAY'AA".
Thus, if the "MACHAMAD" in this verse 5:16 of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) is a mere reference to some love sick girl's object of desire why is this "MACHAMAD" called the girl's "PATERNAL UNCLE" as well as "COMRADE" or "CO-WORKER"? If a girl was merely describing her obsession why would she use such utterly unromantic terms such as these which allude to a male co-worker who is possibly a paternal uncle?
The Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) was a direct descendant from Ishmael (peace be upon him) who is the paternal uncle of the Nation of Israel who are descended from Ishmael's younger brother, Isaac (peace be upon him). Thus, calling an Arab a paternal uncle would not be an erroneous idiom at all.
The Prophet Muhammad (May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon him) came with the same message as the Israelite prophets such as Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, David and Solomon (among others). Thus, he would have been a "RA'YAA" of the Prophets. Not using the shallow definition of "friend" but the true and proper definition as it is found 102 times in the Bible as "neighbor".

So the correct translation would be:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Correct translation of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
This is definitely not erroneous if weighed against any work of scholarship regarding the Hebrew language. There are many, many, serious implications when these outlined words are taken in context as they were understood based upon the Bible's own usage in its other books.
"Abu Musa al Ash`ari reported that Allah's Messenger (May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) mentioned many names of his and said, 'I AM MUHAMMAD, AHMAD. Muqaffi, Hashir, the Prophet of Repentance, and the Prophet of Mercy." [Saheeh Muslim, 30:5813]
Note: Haggai 2:7 states "And I will shake all nations, AND THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory saith the Lord of hosts."
In the Hebrew text it says "CHMD" pronounceable as "ACHMAD" (which is "AHMAD" in Arabic) in the place of "desire of all nations". Thus, the translation would be, "And I will shake all nations, AND AHMAD SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory saith the Lord of hosts."
Immediately after that, Haggai 2:9 says "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than the former: and in this place will I give PEACE, saith the Lord of hosts."
So which latter house? Since the last temple was destroyed by the Romans there has been no Jewish temple rebuilt there. There only stands the Dome of the Rock and Masjid al-Aqsa which is certainly a place of "Peace" or Islam.
"...and never have I seen anyone more handsome than Allah's Apostle (May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." [Saheeh Muslim, 30:5770]

IN CONCLUSION:
"Describing the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who passed by her tent on his journey of migration, Umm Ma'bad Al-Khuza'iyah said to her husband,
'He was innocently bright and had broad countenance. His manners were fine. Neither was his belly bulging out nor was his head deprived of hair. He had black attractive eyes finely arched by continuous eyebrows. His hair glossy and black, inclined to curl, he wore long. His voice was extremely commanding. His head was large, well formed and set on a slender neck. His expression was pensive and contemplative, serene and sublime. The stranger was fascinated from the distance, but no sooner he became intimate with him than this fascination was changed into attachment and respect. His expression was very sweet and distinct. His speech was well set and free from the use of superfluous words, as if it were a rosary of beads. His stature was neither too high nor too small to look repulsive. He was a twig amongst the two, singularly bright and fresh. He was always surrounded by his Companions. Whenever he uttered something, the listeners would hear him with rapt attention and whenever he issued any command, they vied with each other in carrying it out. He was a master and a commander. His utterances were marked by truth and sincerity, free from all kinds of falsehoods and lies." [Zad al Ma`ad 2:45]
If Songs 5:10-16 is discussing a man to come after that time, it is without a doubt Song of Muhammad (peace be upon him), as it not only describes him but also mentions his name. As I have shown, it is obviously not "reading into the text what they wish was there" that Muhammad is in the Bible. It is quite evidently there. Even if one chooses not to accept it, one must maintain that this is definitely not an absurd issue from any perspective. To say that all these people who described the Prophet (the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) read Song of Songs in the Old Testament and may plotted to make the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sound like this "Machamad" in Song of Songs is outright ridiculous. Then one would also have to say that the plot predated even the Prophet's (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) birth as the name "Muhammad" was given to him by his parents whom I seriously doubt were in on the conspiracy while these companions were babies at the time, as one can see such vain skepticism delves into the area of folly and imbecility.
These verses may or may not refer to the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) of Mecca and Medina who preached Islam in the 7th century AD and led to a quarter of humanity calling themselves "Muslims". We may never know for sure. However, this evidence is far from dismissed or even dismissable. It can't be ignored. If the objective reader weighs the evidence, I know, and you all know as well, there is some serious consternation at hand for the skeptic. Any Christian surely should take into account what they had just read here, and consider the Qur'an before making a decision.
~THINK ABOUT IT AND U DO THE JUDGING...AT LEAST DO SOME MORE IN- DEPTH RESEARCH ON UR OWN AND SEE WHAT U'LL COME UP WITH!~

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2004

Isaiah: Chapter 29: Verse 12
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
the above verse fits our HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) like a glov.if not tell me who this verse is reffering to?the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) was not learnerd and when he was told to read the QURAN he said i am not learnerd. --------------------------- Gospel of Saint John: Chapter 16: Verse 7.....13
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Proof of verse 12: Mathew 8,28 mathew 14,31 mathew 16,3 mathew 17,20
now if a christian is asked about this verse he will say that this prediction is about the holy ghost coming to the world,but according to the scriptures the holy ghost was already there even before jesus was born and even after his birth he helped the disciples:
Gospel of luke 1,15 luke 1,41 mathew 12,28
so who are these verses referring to? -----------------------------------
Page 171 of 1189 Deuteronomy 18 :I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
now if i ask a christian he will say this verse is about JESUS.he will say "a prophet like you meaning a prophat like MOSSES"is JESUS as they were both JEW and PROPHETS.right? but this will fit every prophet that came after mosses. if you ask me i will say that JESUS was not like mosses,for three reasons: 1)you say JESUS is GOD,but MOSSES was not 2)you say that JESUS died for the sins of people but MOSSES did not die for that 3)you say JESUS was sent into hell for 3 days(imagine GOD going to hell for 3 days)but MOSSES was not sent hell before reading more make a decision weather that was like or unlike. that was UNLIKE my friend. now check this out, 1)both MOSSES and MUHAMMAD(P.B.U.H) had a father and mother but JESUS had only a mother 2)both were born through a natural course(man and woman coming together)but JESUS was born by a miracle 3)they were both married and had children but JESUS remained a bathcelour 4)both were acknowledge as prophets later but about JESUS JOHN 1:1 denies that 5)both were acknowledged as prophets and kings(i.e they had power of life and death over their people)while JESUS was not 6)they both brought new laws while JESUS did not (MATHEW 5 18,19) muslims got control because of these laws in a very little time as compared to ALEXANDER THE GREATS'S people which took thousands of years to do that 7)they both died natural deaths while JESUS did not 8)they both lie on earth but according to christians JESUS is in heaven
now this was only the talk about the phrase like and unlike.when the whole verse is read it also says "among the brotheren".it does not say among you.PROPHET IBRAHIM had two wives SARA and HAGR. SARA was a jew while HAGR was an egyption princess from whom HAZRAT ISMAIL was born from whom the arabs decended.the jews decended from SARA.can you make the connection of the word brotheren now.the HOLY PROPHET(P.B.U.H)was also from the brotheren of jews. also when verse 19 is read it says "IN MY NAME".if you pick up the QURAN you will see every new surah begining in the BENEFACTORS name. now if you read JOHN 1:19 you will come to know that the jews were waiting for this PROPHET.the had a prediction of actually 3 prophets coming JESUS,ELIAS,AND THAT OF VERSE 18 AND 19.so they went to john the baptist who was in jail and asked him if he was jesus or elias or that prophet but he said no. you might not believe it be the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD(P.B.U.H)is even mentioned by name,but that is in the original hebrew "Chikko mamtakeem, v'chulo MUCHAMADIM, ze DODEE v'ze RA'EE, bano Yarushalaym" [Hebrew transliteration of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16] note that im is used for respect but when translated in english it is altogether changed into lovely.here is what should really be the translation:
"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is MUHAMMAD. This is my (paternal) UNCLE, and this is my COMRADE, O daughters of Jerusalem." [Correct translation of Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs) 5:16]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Muhammad

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2004

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924 : "I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life."

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2004

Suggested reading for those who bow each day towards a friggin' metorite: "Why I Am Not a Muslim" by Ibn Warraq, and Paul Fregosi's "Jihad." Read these before recklessly popping-off at the mouth.

-- Anonymous, December 21, 2003

(quote)"As is Islam----regressionary and primitive; a philosophical pestilence---a cancer upon the progression of the human spirit."
Mr.IBRAHIM: BEFORE SAYING ANYTHING THAT SENTENCE RESUMES THE ONLY SICK AND DARK MOTIVATION BEHIND YOUR SO-CALLED OPEN-MINDEDNESS!
(THANK YOU FOR ONCE AGAIN HAVING SHOWN US UR TRUE DARK SIDE AND THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS EATING YOU ... At first, I wasn't even going to try to assess your foolish response but then again, I'm having fun while reading ur CONTRADICTORY "assessments"! You always seem to disguise yourself as a democratic theocrat, suddenly your true vanity resurfaces along with all the racism that's kept up inside you all along your preaching! One might have the illusion that you seem to have ~some~ knowledge when it comes to Jesus (pbuh) but when it comes to Islam and PROPHET Muhammed (pbuh) all you do is redeem yourself to an even lower degree of ignorance...For a man who wants us to believe he is a peaceful thinker and a critical one too, you don't seem to bare any of those qualities when you blatantly stereotype muslims as "cattle"! (quote)"NO; I do not foolishly accept both's authority at face value like sheep do!" [Hmmm...I might need a persuasive shepherd down at my ranch...hey ma! why don't I b'com a cowboy like Dabiyya Bush, he'ven maydit to president of da U-nited States O'America! yi-pi-ka-ye!]~there goes my dry sarcasm again!~
You say that Mohammed was a murderer/thief/dictator and that Islam is based on bloodshed simply because you are too feeble to research a single fact about islamic history ... TELL ME, HOW DID "MECCA" FALL to the hands of prophet Muhammed??? History had never witnessed and has not yet seen a "conquest" of a city so peacefully carried out without a single drop of blood except for that of Muhammed's! He even avoided strife and offered all those who opposed him and who had persecuted him to repent and to live peacefully in Mecca(i.e:Abu Sufyan)... DO YOU NOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT MUHAMMAD WAS IN ALLIANCE WITH THE JEWISH TRIBES IN MEDINA AND ITS SURROUNDINGS??? DID YOU RESEARCH THAT MUHAMMAD PREACHED KINDNESS TOWARDS HIS JEWISH NEIGHBOURS AND THAT HE LATER EXILED 2 JEWISH TRIBES BECAUSE THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE ALLIANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRIBES AND SINCE THEY HAD CAUSED COMMOTION TOWARDS THE MUSLIMS OF MEDINA (AND THAT YOU WILL FIND IS PROUDLY DISPLAYED IN ALL ACCOUNTS OF THE HISTORY OF ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION REPORTED BY MOST IF NOT ALL MEDIEVAL, CONTEMPORATE AND MODERN WESTERN NON-ISLAMIC SCHOLARS/HISTORIANS?!
http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml (JUST SO YOU DONT SAY THAT MY INFO IS BIASED--->THIS IS PBS NOT SOME MUSLIM WEBSITE!!! READ WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MUHAMMED'S INTERVENTION IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEDINA JEWS AND THE PAGANS THERE: "Muhammad arrived in Medina in 622 believing the Jewish tribes would welcome him. Contrary to expectation, his relations with several of the Jewish tribes in Medina were uneasy almost from the start. This was probably largely a matter of local politics. Medina was not so much a city as a fractious agricultural settlement dotted by fortresses and strongholds, and all relations in the oasis were uneasy. In fact, Muhammad had been invited there to arbitrate a bloody civil war between the Khazraj and the Aws Allah, in which the Jewish clans, being their clients, were embroiled.
At Muhammad's insistence, Medina's pagan, Muslim and Jewish clans signed a pact to protect each other, but achieving this new social order was difficult. Certain individual pagans and recent Medinan converts to Islam tried to thwart the new arrangement in various ways, and some of the Jewish clans were uneasy with the threatened demise of the old alliances. At least three times in five years, Jewish leaders, uncomfortable with the changing political situation in Medina, went against Muhammad, hoping to restore the tense, sometimes bloody-but predictable-balance of power among the tribes.
According to most sources, individuals from among these clans plotted to take his life at least twice, and once they came within a bite of poisoning him. Two of the tribes--the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa--were eventually exiled for falling short on their agreed upon commitments and for the consequent danger they posed to the nascent Muslim community. (...) Some individual Medinan Jews, including at least one rabbi, became Muslims. But generally, the Jews of Medina remained true to their faith. Theologically, they could not accept Muhammad as a messenger of God, since, in keeping with Jewish belief, they were waiting for a prophet to emerge from among their own people.
The exiled Banu Nadir and the Banu Qaynuqa removed to the prosperous northern oasis of Khaybar, and later pledged political loyalty to Muhammad. Other Jewish clans honored the pact they had signed and continued to live in peace in Medina long after it became the Muslim capital of Arabia."
THERE IS NO MENTION OF SLAUGHTER BUT RATHER RECONCILIATION, HIS PRESENCE WAS CONFLICTING TO SOME BUT HE WAS A MEDIATOR OF PEACE IN MOST OCCASIONS,HE MADE THEM ABIDE BY NEW ALLIANCE TERMS! AND EVENTHOUGH THERE HAD BEEN CLASHES AMONG THE JEWISH TRIBES AND AMONG THE MUSLIMS SOME POINT ON, AT THE END IT IS CLEAR THAT BY RE- PLEDGING ALLIANCE AND POLITICAL LOYALTY TO HIM...HMMM IF MUHAMMED TRULY HAD "FORCED" HIMSELF AND ISLAM BY USE OF WAR AND FEAR ONTO THE JEWS AND THE PAGANS AS YOU CLAIM, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE PREFERRED REVOLTING? WEREN'T THEY FREE TO ATTACK HIM ONCE AGAIN? WHY DID THEY FREE-WILLINGLY PLEDGE POLITICAL ALLIANCES TO HIM THEN? TRUE THERE WERE TIMES WHERE BATTLES TOOK PLACE BETWEEN SOME JEWISH TRIBES BUT DO NOT FORGET THAT THERE ALWAYS ALLIED JEWISH TRIBES WHO ALSO BATTLED ALONG WITH MUHAMMED! WHY CAN'T MUHAMMED RESOLVE HIS "PREACHING OF ISLAM" WITH NO WARS AT ALL WHATSOEVER JUST LIKE JESUS? EVEN JESUS RECURRED TO LEGITIMATE NON-PEACEFULL ACTION SOMETIMES LIKE IN THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE:
CALL US SHEEPS, CALL US CATTLE, BUT TELL ME WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU? HEHEHEHEH U ARE SO PITIFULL FOR EVEN A MEAGER HYPOCRIT WHO HIDES BEHIND THE IMAGE OF "an enlightner"!!! BAH At least admit it proudly that you despise Islam, there's nothing to it son! At least be brave enough to say that you simply cannot understand it or that you thrive on lies which YOU have created in order to console your tormented spirit! I admit that I proudly am insulting you, so what? Why don't you at least admit that you are proudly insulting islam, Judaism,Muhammad, God , Gabriel, and especially Socrates! For all I know, anything else that doesn't fit your characterization of NON-CONTRADICTORY or rather EGO-SATISFACTORY would also be called designated as dangerous! I thank you for your sad & pitiful entertainment and for having displayed how your methods of persuasion disgrace Socrates' idealistic code of honorable, just conduct, strictly in accordance with one�s Moral Conscience. (quote)"I shall say that my technique of disrespect is appropriate, for cattle must often be shocked to get their attention. I am glad to anger Muslims, for in so doing, they may wish to research my assertions." Your allegory of muslims or whomever disagrees with ur viewpoint to cattle truly reveals your sentimental disturbance when it comes to others who do not share your ideology. So spare me your advice about Socratic training since you are in no position to remove your feet from your mouth!!! By the way,Ben Ladin is hated as much by muslims and arabs as he is by all mankind...just like Saddam, he is a but a mere puppet of the new world order concocted by the US, time will show how fake this guy was used to tarnish the name of islam. So don't try linking him to islam...he is a coward actor following the script he was handed over by the superheroes of the new empire! And you're not going to tell me that you that Ben Ladin is not your idol! Come on, weren't you selling a BenLaden memorabilia on Ebay the other day! hahahaha
Mr.Duru, allthough it was definately not ur purpose, I'm still really glad that you brought this whole issue to our attention and that this way, critical people will beable to discern between disguised hate-propaganda as much as to research the TRUE concepts Islam...
I do incite people to remit their beliefs in doubt and to research all ideolgical and philosophical doctrines before advocating such beliefs. If all muslims knew how to do that instead of simply email- bombing u, i think that u would have a lot more cattle-sheep to herd umm... I mean a lot more people to LOVE oh yeah that's it, to LOVE and to preach it in your LOVING MANNER! hahhahaha man, this just cracks me up! LOOOOOOOOOOL
P.s: Try not to entangle yourself into your web of lies! Tell me where exactly does Allah, the Quran, Muhammed or Jesus state this: "Without killing, a Muslim is not fulfilling his duty of adherence to muhammad." ??????????? Last time I checked, no muslim has to fulfill any adherence TO MUHAMMAD!! THEY ADHERE TO GOD! Do I always have to tutor you?! And next time you feel like going on a killing spree, please notify me so I can put on my Killing cap!
Oh yeah and do say hi to ur fellow talibans for me won't ya! @;~�

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2003

Insinuations that our Prophet (Sallalaahu alyhi wa Sallam) is a false prophet.
Most attacks against Islam implicitly accuse the Great Prophet Muhammad, Salla llaahu Alaihi Wasallam, of being a liar. This issue will be discussed inshaa'a llaah as the subject arises in other topics, but the following is adapted from a debate (hundreds of years ago) between Hafiz Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah and a priest. Each time Ibnul Qayyim mentioned a point, the priest "retreated". The last day the priest said: We admit that Muhammad was not lying, but he was not sent to us. The next day, he did not show up. Here is our adaptation of the debate. The original text is not currently at our disposal, but we will present an exact translation as soon as possible inshaa'a llaah:
Ibnul Qayyim mentioned the great Aayaat in the Quran (Sura 69): 44 - And if he (Muhammad, PBUH) were to invent any saying in Our name, 45 - We should certainly seize him by his right hand, 46 - And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: 47 - Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our reach). Ibnul Qayyim said, based on these Aayahs (and we second him): If you accuse Muhammad (PBUH) of being a liar, you are bound by one of the following:
You absolutely do not believe that God exists (to answer such "lies" and "challenges" by this "imposter").
Or you believe that God exists, but you believe he is totally impotent: He hears such challenges (and promises) BUT CAN DO NOTHING about them. He sits and watches while the promises of the "imposter" come true, driven by a force stronger than His own.
Or you believe that God exists, and you believe that He is Most- Powerful, but you believe that He is a silly God ("sakheef": unwise and unjust), who misleads people to the utmost, by "swallowing" the challenges of "imposters" while He can actually stop them. Not only that, He also executes all their promises for them.
البلاغ

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2003

Frankly, as a Randsian Objectivist, I don't care who I offend in the pathology of truth! To believe Muhammad was real prophet is a staggering joke when one takes Islam and examines it in context with ALL history and philosophy. The "Ahmad Problem" alone, has long been known to prove that he fabricated a prediction from Jesus, in order annoint himself...for no such prediction ever existed in the historical record until Muhammed created it! I'm a historian and have researched this thoroughly---it is just one of many reasons I do not any longer hold respect for Islam (much to the consternation of family). Adding such absurdities like talking birds in the story of the Queen of Sheba, when again; the writings preceeding Muhammad by thousands of years do not reflect his bizare additions. Why would Allah present Jesus to the world as a prophet, and then bring an individual who's message is completely anti-thetical to vertually everything Jesus said?!? Can you explain THAT, or did you never consider it? They both can't be true prophets as Islam claims, or God is contidictory! God can not be against himself. Rarely have I encountered a Muslim that knows much about his own religion, or had the courage to question it. Any who studies Aristotle, and then the religions of "the book," see the gaping logic holes that riddle through Islam; for Muhammad did a shoddy job in constructing his militant faith. Those who choose to live in his footsteps, imperil civilization with ignorance; and the violence he himself advocated by conduct (a killer and a robber). Were Muhammad legitimate, this world would be damned to perpetual bloodbath! Had he been appropriately beheaded the first time he killed an innocent person, this would be a more enlightened planet in which to live. Likewise, next time Muslims whine about the Crusades being the catalyst of friction between faiths, I'd suggest they read some history (like that of Tariq) and see ON THE RECORD, that Islam had been conducting war upon Europe for a full 400 years before Pope Urban's call to war. Didn't know that? Check it out! But, a good Muslim follows his orders, and fears finding truth by looking outside the parameters of what Islam tells him. Keep you head stuck as deeply in the sand as possible and be the arrogant primitive pea wits that threaten the discourse of civilization or join me in abdicating a false faith. It is no coincidence that the symbol of Islam is a world being plunged into darkness! Learn to THINK!!! You people are debating details of who is and isn't a prophet--- but do you have the courage to place Muhammad himself into such examination? If one were not a coward, one would do so...but if you did, how in your deepest mind could you still follow him? You are angry for you don't yet know my words resonate in truth and reason. Yes, I was once like you....but was not satisfied to swallow what a philosophy without credibility. I confidently urge you to study outside Islam and then see what it looks like afterwards, for upon so doing, there was utterly no way I could reconcile the issues, without denying the very mind Allah gave to me. I pray to God that one day that veil that fogs so many good people's brains is removed so that they can seek relationship with a loving deity; and no longer offer loyalty to the vulgar barbarity that Muhammad's life represents. It is a black mark against our species that many have chosen to consecrate a butcher! Those who have no sentient argument, will threaten. But my spirit only belongs to myself and whatever the Creator of the universe may be. I wish you well, brothers and sisters; and hope my ascerbic words rattle you enough to begin a path towards epiphany. Then do as I've done here, and council others to research and think for themselves. With such a blessed process, Islam will naturally implode upon itself, and the species can begin a new age of benevolence.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2003

I have come accross a more precise answer, hope this enlightens some of us - regardless of our religious background , be it sunni or shi'i we are all 1!! - ; i've copied and pasted the following msg from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imammahdishiaclub/message/1309?source=1
>>BISSMILLAH-HIR-RAHMANIR RAHIM
All praises are to Allah, the lord of the universe, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be one the Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W), his family, and his noble companions.=20
Bis-mil-laah-ir-rah-maa-nir-raheem
As-Salaam-u-alaikum wa rahmat-ul-laahi wa barakaatuhu
Gog and Magog are two nations, and are from the descendants of human beings, and there numbers exceed the numbers of human beings.
Gog and Magog are amongst the most wild and barbaric people, and there numbers will be the most in the fire of hell. With the mercy of Allah, they are in a place, where they cannot come out from, and are behind a special wall, which is made from liquid iron, and that wall is so strongly built, in order for them not to cross it, or break it. Gog and Magog try there best to break through the wall, until the time that is set for them does not come, and then they will be unable to approach human beings. But when the promise time will come, the wall will become like pieces of dust, and the wall will be leveled on the ground.
The following are verses from the Holy Qur'an, surah al-kahf (18), regarding Gog and Magog (Ya'juj wa Ma'juj)
So (it was)! And We knew all about him (Dhul-Qarnain). (18:91)
Then he followed (another) way, (18:92)
Until, when he reached between two mountains, he found, before (near) them (those two mountains), a people who scarcely understood a word. (18:93)
They said: "O Dhul-Qarnain! Verily! Ya'j=FBj and Ma'j=FBj (Gog and Magog)[] are doing great mischief in the land. Shall we then pay you a tribute in order that you might erect a barrier between us and them?" (18:94)
He said: "That (wealth, authority and power) in which my Lord had established me is better (than your tribute). So help me with strength (of men), I will erect between you and them a barrier. (18:95)
"Give me pieces (blocks) of iron," then, when he had filled up the gap between the two mountain-cliffs, he said: "Blow," till when he had made it (red as) fire, he said: "Bring me molten copper to pour over it." (18:96)
So they [Ya'j=FBj and Ma'j=FBj (Gog and Magog)] were made powerless to scale it or dig through it. (18:97)
Dhul-Qarnain) said: "This is a mercy from my Lord, but when the Promise of my Lord comes, He shall level it down to the ground. And the Promise of my Lord is ever true." (18:98)
And on that Day [i.e. the Day Ya'j=FBj and Ma'j=FBj (Gog and Magog) will come out], We shall leave them to surge like waves on one another, and the Trumpet will be blown, and We shall collect them all together. (18:99)
And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view, (18:100)
In today's world, when we leave Islamic law and the Prophet's examples behind, and every person is after only achieving goals, and that means that the time of Dajjal and other calamities are close. If one is smart, should train himself and his children in the best manner. We should not take this as a story, this event will really happen, so we should prepare ourselves and our future generations, inshallah.
Being a Muslim we are so lucky to have indication of events such as this one in the Qur'an and in the hadeeth, so we must prepare ourselves and our children, inshallah.
May Allah keep us all on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and save us from these kind of calamities, Ameen.=20

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2003

*In the name of Allah, the merciful, the most beneficient* As stated in Sura 18 (al-Kahf) of the Holy Qur'�n:
"They will ask you about Dulqarnein. Say: "I will give you an account of him. "We made him mighty in the land and gave him means to achieve all things. He journeyed on a certain road until he reached the West and saw the sun setting in a pool of black mud. Hard by he found a certain people. (...) "He then journeyed along another road until he reached the East and saw the sun rising upon a people whom We had utterly exposed to its flaming rays. So he did; and We had full knowledge of all the forces at his command." "Then he followed yet another route until he came between the Two Mountains and found a people who could barely understand a word. " Dhulqarnein", they said " Gog and Magog are ravaging this land. Build us a rampart against them and we will pay you tribute."
--As we clearly see here,none other than Allah's words in the Quran can better explain this issue although it might have multiple meanings nonetheless; we can understand that DhulQarnain had at his reach the East and the West and therefore he miht strongly have been a ruler of the East and the West (two crowns). He obviously came upon the evil people of Gog and Magog between two mountains...Allah knows where that might be, for all we know it could be hidden to us humans - FOR NOW - until the AntiChrist shows up! ZulQarnain had such great power vested in him by Allah to beable to build a dam of some sort or to block the mountains as a tunnel - I ignore the precise facts in this matter but regardless - the Quran says:
"He dammed up the valley between the Two Mountains, and said: "Ply your bellows." And when the iron blocks were red with heat, he said: "Bring me molten brass to pour on them."
"Gog and Magog could not scale it, nor could they dig their way through it. He said: "This is a blessing from my Lord. But when my Lord's promise is fulfilled, He will level it to dust. The promise of my Lord is true."
On that day We will let them come in tumultuous throngs. The Trumpet shall be sounded and We will gather them all together.
On that day Hell shall be laid bare before the unbelievers, who have turned a blind eye to My admonition and a deaf ear to My warning.
After having read all of ur comments on nabiullah (messenger of Allah pbuh)"DhulQarnain" and after researching in the Quran and on the net, I found that one individual made sense in terms of logical and islamic arguments. He stated that zulqarnain meant the bearer of either 2 horns=>2crowns=>2 peoples/nations=>the ruler of the East+the West or either he had lived during two centuries. In fact, "Qarn" in traditional arabic is defined as a period of time (a century) where the word Qoroon (centuries) is derived in plural. We can all agree that he was a King and that according to the Quran (forget the islamic scholars since many of them are often disregarded by muslims, let us base our arguments upon common ground as they say: as muslims we refer to the Quran and to logical thesis.
In light of all these debates, the end of times is close, the beginning of the end is near...let us not forget that we are getting closer and closer to the point where Al-Mahdey almuntazar and Sayyidana Issa (Jesus) (peace be upon both of them) will appear upon us to end the suffering and the sins of humanity...and to bid this world once and for all of the treacherous dictators and of Satan's minions & their accomplices from Bush to Bin Laden to Saddam to Sharon to all the pre-antichrists & zionists in this world...
wassalat wassalam 3ala sayyidina Mohammad wa alihi al tahireen al akhyar...(peace be upon our prophet Mohammed and his Progeny and upon our awaited Mohammad Al-Mahdey 3ajala ta3ala farajah/zuhurih)

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2003

Allah knows best who is dhul qarnain. Our quest is not to know who he was, but to prepare our souls for our real mission, and to prepare ourselves of what lies behind those copper/iron barrier, gog and magog

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

what is wrong with you people. zol qarnain is non other than. cyrus the great. may ahuramazda be with his soul. there are proof's that i will not mention. cuz there are alot of them.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2003

dhul qurnain was in the time of prophet ibrahim (abraham) which historians have traced to somewhere around 2300bc-2000bc so he cannot be alexander the great 325bc and cyrus around 600bc.
now we know that king nimrod (namrud) was alive during prophet ibrahim in what is now modern day iraq he was either a amorite or a sumerian or an akkadian some people identify him as the later god of marduk.
so around 2000bc the sumerians were on the decline and other people taking over AKKADIANS 2370bc and amorites 2000bc.

prophet abraham migrated to egypt where he met the ruling pharoah and then migrated to the palestine area where he had a son ismail and took prophet ismail ishmael and hajirah hagar to MECCA and left them there and abraham returned back to sarah and had jacob who the jews are decended from. in mecca hagar met the jhuram tribe from yemen and they settled in mecca where ismail married a jhuram woman. the arabs, prophet muhammad (pbuh) are decended from ismail.
so my opinion is that dhul qurnain was from arabia and the yemen area
and during the akkadian era around 2300bc-2100bc sargon the great there was a babaric tribe from the zagros mountains called the GUTI quti or gutians these could be the yajuj and majuj because the gutians lived in an area of four mountain ranges. and were ruthless babarians. caucasus ararat elburz and zagros mountains and dhul qurnain under the request of the people of the area in iraq he built a wall against these gutians.
well that's my 2cents

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2003

Zhul Qarnain, the "lord of two horns". Egypt queen sheheput, queen of amon ra, ruler of upper and lower egypt, two horns, two centuries, two peoples, the east and the west are two, the north and the south are two. In this respect Zhul Qarnain is definately a ruler of both the east and the west, or the north and the south, as were many monarchs in their kingdoms, using egypt as an example, upper and lower egypt, the two, the two horns, the two crowns, the crowns of the east and west or the crowns of upper and lower egypt.
So who was the king of the east and west?
He was definately not Alexander the great, what can be said is that he was a good ruler, a just ruler, a kind ruler, and above all a muslim. Any one point which contradicts one of these attributes by default will make any theory of any false zhul qarnain void, thus at the time when zhul qarnain was said to have lived, which king ruled the east and the west, was just was kind and had submitted to God? U find that king u find dhul qarnain.
Personally i believe Zhul Qarnain was a semite, decended from shem son of Noah, so which semitic kingdoms were powerful during 2000bc, there were two, egypt and saba. Zhul Qarnain was definately not a pharoah, so thus by default he must have been from the land of saba. Saba being the land of Abu Shams, the land of queen sheba, the land of Qataan, the land of yemen.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2003

Zul quarnein is Cyrus the Great, the Achamenid king of Persia and Media. He was the ruler of two peoples (or two nations). You will not accept this truth now, but in time, you will...

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2003

What a pity that so many followers of the Prophet M. have forgotten His respect for Alexander...

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2003

Salaam, I must respectufully say that you are all wrong in what you say about Zulqarnain Zulqarnain was not a contempary of Abraham and he was not Alexander as he was not even a muslim. He was not from Yeman as the name Zulqarnain is used as a title even today in Yeman.
I am writing a book on this subject that will clear up everything.
watch this space

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2003

And all this makes how much difference to anyone alive today?

-- Anonymous, September 26, 2002

Dear Fahmida,
I must respectfully disagree. According to my information, most serious scholars of Islam and Alexander, such as Maulana Yusuf Ali, and many Islamic poets, such as Jami and Firdousi, believed that Zul- qarnain in Qur'an is none else but Alexander the Great. In the East Alexander was known as Iskandar Zulqarnain (the Two-Horned) because on all coins with his image which were widely circulating in Asia for several hundred years after his death, he was depicted with ram's horns to show his filial relationship with Zeus (Jupiter) Amun, the supreme God of the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians who was associated with ram.
Now the issue of Alexander being a prophet in the Muslim sense. We have not used this term. We used the term "messenger of God". How else would you interpret this Qur'anic verse:
"Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and means to all ends..."?
If God established Alexander on Earth and gave him all the ways and means, is Alexander not his messenger?
Take a look at this link for more information:
http://www.islamexposed.com/Essays/zulqaranain.htm
here's an excerpt: "Many Islamic thinkers and intellectuals consider that the said Zul- Quarnain mentined in Quran is the Greek conqueror Alexander the great. Here are some source from where Islamic thinkers perhaps got this idea of Quranic Zul-qarniain as Alexander the great. The famous Quranic translator maulana A. Yousuf Ali gave a long story as Appendix Vll (titled: Who was Zulqarnain; page 760-765) detailing the facts and figures why most Islamic scholars including himself considered very strongly that, Quranic Zulqarnain was nobody but Alexander the Great."

Good luck in your research!
Oleg

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2002

There surely is an explaination...if you go to Hadith (which is historically recorded teachings of prophet Muhammad,a SOURCE used second to the Qur'an for muslims)and look up gog and magog (yajoj majod) you will find that Dhul-qarnain is a learder during abraham's (ibrahim) time..Abraham was born in Ur of chadles which is present day An Nasiriyya,Iraq..he settled in Cannon (present day southern palestine-Israel) and died in Hebron..historians have come as close as 2000 BC as to when abraham was alive...in the Hadith it clearly stated that dhul-qarnain was a ruler of ibrahim's time...2000 BC is not equivalent to 325 BC....furthermore as far as Alexander during his time rulers had a tendency to see themselves as Gods...it is said that before he died he wrote a letter stating that he would like to be worshiped as a God..a muslim would surely not believe that... therefore alexander the great can not be dhul-qarnain..im not in anyway trying to insult alexander the great..i personally think he was a great ruler..one of the reasons why i liked him is because when he conqured he would spare the lives of his enemies it takes a great and just ruler to do so..especially in 300 BC it was rare to see such yet alexander did so...im surely not making this up..i wouldnt go well out of my way to write to a professional website to correct them..i have done extensive research on this matter therefore IM POSITIVE when i say that muslims do not believe that dhul-qarnain was a prophet nor was he alexander the great or cyrus...as far as the comparison to aliens and elvis..people can believe in that but im providing you with "historical evidence" therefore my arguement is strong... forgive me if i have offended anyone take care be well and safe

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2002

That's all cobblers boy, and well you knows it.
Alexander (properly: Allychnddru y Craydd) was Welsh, as anyone round yere will tell you, isn't it?
As for your so-called 'Gog and Magog', they was clearly stolen from the Welsh mythology about the Mabdignogg, look you.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2002

Although many people wrongly assume that Muslims believe Alexander the great to be Zul qarnain, you may be sure that no amount of rational explanation is likely to correct this misconception. After all, many people believe they were abducted by aliens and that Elvis is alive.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2002

Moderation questions? read the FAQ