Mohammad in the Bible...

[rosends]

Well, in Islam, Allah doesn't choose adulterers or drunkards to spread His messages. Don't understand why translated works have to demean such things...it's like saying Allah is crazy (God forbid) to put these men in charge. It is belittling Allah.

So Judaism must have changed all of its scripture to reflect a God who chooses all the wrong people because the goal of Judaism is to say that God is crazy.

Got it.

 

[MyM]

so a not Jewish website shows that you spell an English name in a way in Hebrew which is different from a word listed in Song of Songs. And from this you conclude that a Jewish website shows that the different Hebrew word in Song of Songs means the English name.

there is a difference isn't there with usage in regard to plural of respect?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, in Islam, Allah doesn't choose adulterers or drunkards to spread His messages. Don't understand why translated works have to demean such things...it's like saying Allah is crazy (God forbid) to put these men in charge. It is belittling Allah.

What about saying Allah sends people to Heaven for supporting execution of deconverts, punishment of homosexuals, and demonization of other religions by making inaccurate claims about them? Is that belittling too?

 

[MyM]

So Judaism must have changed all of its scripture to reflect a God who chooses all the wrong people because the goal of Judaism is to say that God is crazy.

Got it.

that's on you I don't call my God crazy. I call him perfect and gives perfect messages

 

[MyM]

What about saying Allah sends people to Heaven for supporting execution of deconverts, punishment of homosexuals, and demonization of other religions by making inaccurate claims about them? Is that belittling too?

that is Allah's rules...in all the Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is not accepted. He is the one that sent the messages and those that demonized them were the people who disbelieve in them.

 

[MyM]

so a not Jewish website shows that you spell an English name in a way in Hebrew which is different from a word listed in Song of Songs. And from this you conclude that a Jewish website shows that the different Hebrew word in Song of Songs means the English name.

'Mahammaddim' (Hebrew: מַחֲמַדִּים, consonant letters: m-ħ-m-d-y-m) is found

 

[Debater Slayer]

that is Allah's rules...in all the Abrahamic religions, homosexuality is not accepted. He is the one that sent the messages and those that demonized them were the people who disbelieve in them.

No, there are many Christians and Jews whose beliefs have no issues with LGBT people or deconverts. Trying to speak on their behalf isn't respectful either.

By the same logic you're using, a Jew could say "that is G-d's will" that he chose a sinner to be a prophet. What makes you appeal to this logic for your religion but not others' religions?

 

[MyM]

No, there are many Christians and Jews whose beliefs have no issues with LGBT people or deconverts. Trying to speak on their behalf isn't respectful either.

By the same logic you're using, a Jew could say "that is G-d's will" that he chose a sinner to be a prophet. What makes you appeal to this logic for your religion but not others' religions?

But you see, am not talking "beliefs" people have soooooooooooooo many beliefs...it's because they interpret their own way. In Islam, there is only ONE WAY-Allah's way...those that go against that, are not following Allah's way.

It appeals because messengers of Allah do not commit adultery or drink alcohol or worship more than one God etc. ...they are tellin people to NOT DO THAT...it's simple, a beautiful creator will not pick things that go against his message. Very simple.

 

[rosends]

there is a difference isn't there with usage in regard to plural of respect?

Show me where that "plural of respect" is used in regards to any other word or name related to Moses. Or, related to God (and don't use "Elohim" because that isn't a plural of respect).

 

[rosends]

'Mahammaddim' (Hebrew: מַחֲמַדִּים, consonant letters: m-ħ-m-d-y-m) is found

Let's try this again. A plural word is found -- that Hebrew plural is not the name of your prophet (as a reminder, the word is makh'a'madim). When you type in the name into some translation engine, you get מוחמד (mookhmad) which isn't either the word in the verse, or the singular form of the word in the verse.

So, again, the verse doesn't have the name, in any form, and the name isn't the word found in any form.

 

[rosends]

that's on you I don't call my God crazy. I call him perfect and gives perfect messages

But do you disagree with my summary of your position vis-a-vis Jewish texts?

 

[MyM]

Show me where that "plural of respect" is used in regards to any other word or name related to Moses. Or, related to God (and don't use "Elohim" because that isn't a plural of respect).

Why should I do that?
Everyone knows that Allah when speaking does use the plural of respect when he wants.

When yall use ELOHIM, "the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called 'plural of majesty/respect.'" It is BOTH singular and plural.

I am NOT a master of the Hebrew language and I never claimed to be.

 

[MyM]

Let's try this again. A plural word is found -- that Hebrew plural is not the name of your prophet (as a reminder, the word is makh'a'madim). When you type in the name into some translation engine, you get מוחמד (mookhmad) which isn't either the word in the verse, or the singular form of the word in the verse.

So, again, the verse doesn't have the name, in any form, and the name isn't the word found in any form.

I only copy what the hebrew word says.

Song of Solomon 5:16, the signification of ""im"" I think this is the site I also used.


In Song of Solomon 5:16, the verse in Hebrew transliteration is:

ḥikkōw mamṯaqqîm wəḵullōw maḥămaddîm zeh ḏōwḏî wəzeh rê‘î, bənōwṯ yərūšālim
חִכּוֹ֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלּ֖וֹ מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דוֹדִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנ֖וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם

 

[rosends]

Why should I do that?
Everyone knows that Allah when speaking does use the plural of respect when he wants.

When yall use ELOHIM, "the form of the noun is plural, but the referent is singular. This is sometimes called 'plural of majesty/respect.'" It is BOTH singular and plural.

I am NOT a master of the Hebrew language and I never claimed to be.

If you don't know that a certain form of language exists in hebrew, why do you insist that this is an example of it? You are quick to speak about all the things you don't know, but this doesn't stop you from parroting claims.

As for the name "Elohim" no, it is not a plural of respect. Telling us what we all are doing is arrogant of you.

The -im suffix isn't always about plural, first of all. Second, the understanding for those who see the -im as a plural signifier here means "master of all forces" and the plural is on the "forces" not anything to do with respect.

So if you don't know, I recommend that you stop making claims unless you can back them up. But if your attitude is "why should I do that" along with "I am not a master" then maybe you should think about what you are doing here.

 

[MyM]

But do you disagree with my summary of your position vis-a-vis Jewish texts?

have no idea what you mean

 

[rosends]

I only copy what the hebrew word says.

Song of Solomon 5:16, the signification of ""im"" I think this is the site I also used.


In Song of Solomon 5:16, the verse in Hebrew transliteration is:

ḥikkōw mamṯaqqîm wəḵullōw maḥămaddîm zeh ḏōwḏî wəzeh rê‘î, bənōwṯ yərūšālim
חִכּוֹ֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלּ֖וֹ מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דוֹדִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנ֖וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם

ah, a non-Jewish website that has in the question a claim of this phantom "plural of majesty" but provides no actual sources. If you put such weight on that site, you should read the answers which deflate the majesty/respect claim.

 

[MyM]

If you don't know that a certain form of language exists in hebrew, why do you insist that this is an example of it? You are quick to speak about all the things you don't know, but this doesn't stop you from parroting claims.

As for the name "Elohim" no, it is not a plural of respect. Telling us what we all are doing is arrogant of you.

The -im suffix isn't always about plural, first of all. Second, the understanding for those who see the -im as a plural signifier here means "master of all forces" and the plural is on the "forces" not anything to do with respect.

So if you don't know, I recommend that you stop making claims unless you can back them up. But if your attitude is "why should I do that" along with "I am not a master" then maybe you should think about what you are doing here.

and if you will stop being so mean you will KNOW I apologized but you won't stop. You are trying to find me faulty when I already said I don't know. Now I am starting to understand and now I see my religion more.

 

[rosends]

have no idea what you mean

I'll spell it out.
Jewish texts include prophets who have personal/behavioral flaws. Moses disobeys God, for example.
You insist that Allah would never choose anyone who is less than perfect because that would be belittling Allah.

Therefore, you have to say that jewish texts are either intrinsically wrong or have been altered to INCLUDE sub-perfect prophets.

Is that your position?

 

[rosends]

and if you will stop being so mean you will KNOW I apologized but you won't stop. You are trying to find me faulty when I already said I don't know. Now I am starting to understand and now I see my religion more.

and yet for each "apology" you keep insisting the same erroneous position. That's not much of an apology...

 

[MyM]

If you don't know that a certain form of language exists in hebrew, why do you insist that this is an example of it? You are quick to speak about all the things you don't know, but this doesn't stop you from parroting claims.

As for the name "Elohim" no, it is not a plural of respect. Telling us what we all are doing is arrogant of you.

The -im suffix isn't always about plural, first of all. Second, the understanding for those who see the -im as a plural signifier here means "master of all forces" and the plural is on the "forces" not anything to do with respect.

So if you don't know, I recommend that you stop making claims unless you can back them up. But if your attitude is "why should I do that" along with "I am not a master" then maybe you should think about what you are doing here.

But the Hebrew does use the plural of respect LIke in the book of Psalms.

I'll spell it out.
Jewish texts include prophets who have personal/behavioral flaws. Moses disobeys God, for example.
You insist that Allah would never choose anyone who is less than perfect because that would be belittling Allah.

Therefore, you have to say that jewish texts are either intrinsically wrong or have been altered to INCLUDE sub-perfect prophets.

Is that your position?

In Islam, we believe that all the Muslims are unanimously agreed that the Prophets (peace be upon them) – especially Muhammad pbuh – are infallible and protected from error in that which they conveyed from Allah.

1 – Infallibility in conveying the message

2 – Infallibility from human error such as major sins like adultery etc.

The Prophets were infallible in conveying the message from Allah. They did not conceal anything that Allah had revealed to them, and they did not add anything from themselves. Allah says, “O Messenger (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allah will protect you from mankind”
al-Maa'idah 5:67
“And if he (Muhammad) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah),
We surely would have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might),
And then We certainly would have cut off his life artery (aorta),
And none of you could have withheld Us from (punishing) him”
al-Haaqqah 69:44-47

All the Muslims are unanimously agreed that the Prophets (peace be upon them) are infallible and protected from error in that which they conveyed from Allah.

The verses which point to the Prophethood of the Prophets indicate that they are infallible with regard to the message that they convey from Allah, so what they convey from their Lord can only be true. This is the meaning of Prophethood and this implies that Allah tells [the Prophet] of the unseen and he tells the people of the unseen. So the Messenger is commanded to call people and to convey the message to them.


With regard to the Prophets as people, they may make mistakes.

1 –They do not commit major sins

With regard to major sins, the Prophets do not commit major sins at all, and they are protected from such major sins both before their missions began or afterwards.

The Prophets were infallible in conveying the message from Allah, so their words could not be but true and they did not make any mistake, whether deliberate or otherwise, in conveying the message.

They were also infallible and protected from committing major sins such as zina (adultery) and theft.

They were also infallible and protected from committing minor sins that are indicative of baseness, such as stealing a morsel of food or giving short measure.


Some of them may have made mistakes in minor issues that are not indicative of baseness, but they did not persist in that; rather Allah, may He be exalted, pointed that out to them and drew their attention to that, so they corrected their mistakes.