Book : Trinity in the Qur'an.

Book Title         : Trinity in the Qur'an.

Author              : Steiner Budiman.

Publisher          : Angel Publisher.

Pages                :

Price                 : US$ 7.00 ( BUY HERE ).

                           Buy at Google Play and Kobo writing Life with cheaper price is U.S. $ 1.99

BOOK NOW FINISHED YET DONE, FINISHED EXPECTED

Most people including Muslims would never know this. 

There are 3 Trinity in the Qur'an, namely:

1. Trinity as in the Bible. Muslims will always deny this. Once they justify it then Islam will be destroyed because Muslims flock will follow Jesus.

2. Trinity false charges against Christians.The Koran says that the Trinity is God, Mary and Jesus the Son of Mary. This false accusation proves that Muhammad, Jibrail and Allah SWT does not know anything. Ha ... 7x 

3. Trinity of the devil. No one is aware of the Trinity from the devil until the author disassemble it through this book.

This book is based on the verses of the Bible and the Koran. Therefore, accuracy may be accounted for.

Articles that discuss the same topic.

TRITUNGGAL MENURUT BIBLE N ALQURAN.http://antikrismuhammad.blogspot.com/2014/05/tritunggal-menurut-bible-n-alquran.html

SIAPAKAH YANG DIMAKSUD DENGAN KAMI DALAM QURANhttp://antikrismuhammad.blogspot.com/2012/04/siapakah-yang-dimaksud-dengan-kami.html

See our other books in http://angel-publisher.blogspot.com/2013/11/buy-our-ebooks-here-and-get-1-million.html


=====================

Judul Buku        : Tritunggal dalam Alquran.

Author              : Steiner Budiman.

Publisher          : Angel Publisher.

Pages                : 

Price                 : Rp. 21.000,-

SAAT INI BUKU BELUM SELESAI DIBUAT, DIPERKIRAKAN SELESAI

Sebagian besar manusia termasuk umat Islam tidak pernah tahu akan hal ini.

Ada 3 Tritunggal dalam Alquran, yaitu :
1. Tritunggal seperti dalam Alkitab. Umat Islam selalu menyangkal akan hal ini. Sekali mereka membenarkannya maka Islam akan hancur sebab berbondong-bondong umat Islam akan mengikuti Yesus.
2. Tritunggal palsu yang dituduhkan kepada orang kristen. Alquran mengatakan kalau Tritunggal adalah Allah SWT, Maryam dan Isa Putra Maryam. Tuduhan palsu ini justru membuktikan kalau Muhammad, Jibril dan Allah SWT tidak tahu apa-apa. Ha...7x
3. Tritunggal dari setan. Tidak ada seorangpun yang sadar akan Tritunggal dari setan ini sampai penulis membongkarnya lewat buku ini.

Buku ini dibuat berdasarkan ayat-ayat Alkitab dan Alquran. Oleh karena itu keakuratannya bisa dipertanggungjawabkan.

Artikel yang membahas topik yang sama.
TRITUNGGAL MENURUT BIBLE N ALQURAN.http://antikrismuhammad.blogspot.com/2014/05/tritunggal-menurut-bible-n-alquran.html

SIAPAKAH YANG DIMAKSUD DENGAN KAMI DALAM QURANhttp://antikrismuhammad.blogspot.com/2012/04/siapakah-yang-dimaksud-dengan-kami.html

See our other books in http://angel-publisher.blogspot.com/2013/11/buy-our-ebooks-here-and-get-1-million.html

MOHAMMAD AYATOLLAHI TABAAR : Muhammad is the author of the Qur'an.

Who Wrote the Koran?

By MOHAMMAD AYATOLLAHI TABAAR

For more than two decades, Abdulkarim Soroush has been Iran’s leading public intellectual. Deeply versed in Islamic theology and mysticism, he was chosen by Ayatollah Khomeini to “Islamicize” Iran’s universities, only to eventually turn against the theocratic state. He paid a price for his dissidence. Vigilantes and other government-supported elements disrupted his widely attended lectures in Iran, beat him and reportedly nearly assassinated him. In a country where intellectuals are often treated like rock stars, Soroush has been venerated and reviled for his outspoken support of religious pluralism and democracy. Now he has taken one crucial step further. Shuttling from university to university in Europe and the U.S., Soroush is sending shock waves through Iran’s clerical establishment.

Enlarge This Image

Alexandra Boulat/VII

Related

TIMES TOPICS: THE KORAN

The recent controversy began about eight months ago, after Soroush spoke with a Dutch reporter about one of Islam’s most sensitive issues: the divine origin of the Koran. Muslims have long believed that their holy book was transmitted word for word by God through the Prophet Muhammad. In the interview, however, Soroush made explicit his alternative belief that the Koran was a “prophetic experience.” He told me that the prophet “was at the same time the receiver and the producer of the Koran or, if you will, the subject and the object of the revelation.” Soroush said that “when you read the Koran, you have to feel that a human being is speaking to you, i.e. the words, images, rules and regulations and the like all are coming from a human mind.” He added, “This mind, of course, is special in the sense that it is imbued with divinity and inspired by God.”

As Soroush’s words spread thanks to the Internet, Iran’s grand ayatollahs entered the battlefield. In their rebuttal, the clerics pointed to the Koranic verses that state “this is a book we have sent down to you (O Muhammad).” They ask, Don’t these verses imply that God is the revealer and Muhammad the receiver? They also point out that there were times when Muhammad waited impatiently for the revelation to come to him and that in more than 300 cases the prophet is commanded to tell his people to do one thing or another. This demonstrates, the argument goes, that the commands are coming from elsewhere rather than from the heart or the mind of the prophet himself.

Soroush, in turn, responds by saying that the prophet was no parrot. Rather, Soroush told me, he was like a bee who produces honey itself, even though the mechanism for making the honey is placed in him by God. This is “the example the Koran itself sets,” says Soroush, citing the Koran: “And your Lord inspired to the bee: take for yourself among the mountains, houses . . . then eat from all the fruits . . . there emerges from their bellies a drink . . . in which there is healing for people.”

Soroush has been described as a Muslim Luther, but unlike the Protestant reformer, he is no literalist about holy books. His work more closely resembles that of the 19th-century German scholars who tried to understand the Bible in its original context. Case in point: when a verse in the Koran or a saying attributed to Muhammad refers to cutting off a thief’s hand or stoning to death for adultery, it only tells us the working rules and regulations of the prophet’s era. Today’s Muslims are not obliged to follow in these footsteps if they have more humane means at their disposal.

Soroush’s latest views have not endeared him to the powerful conservative wing of Iran’s establishment. Some have accused him of heresy, which is punishable by death. There have been demonstrations by clerics in Qom, the religious capital of Iran, against his recent work. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unexpectedly warned against feeding the controversy. He said those who are employing “philosophy or pseudo-philosophy” to “pervert the nation’s mind” should not be dealt with “by declaring apostasy and anger” but rather countered with the “religious truths” that will falsify their arguments.

In Iran today, many opponents of the government advocate the creation of a secular state. Soroush himself supports the separation of mosque and state, but for the sake of religion. He seeks freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Thus he speaks for a different — and potentially more effective — agenda. The medieval Islamic mystic Rumi once wrote that “an old love may only be dissolved by a new one.” In a deeply religious society, whose leaders have justified their hold on power as a divine duty, it may take a religious counterargument to push the society toward pluralism and democracy. Soroush challenges those who claim to speak for Islam, and does so on their own terms.

Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar is an adjunct lecturer at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/magazine/07wwln-essay-t.html?src=tp&_r=0

Nothing "Muhammad" in the Qur'an. HA...7X

Sunday, 2 June 2013

Tiada "muhammad" dalam Al Quran

By Saim Bakar

Even the proper noun “muhammad” is not in the Quran

Yes it is true. The proper noun ‘muhammad’ is not found written in the Quran. This means the Quran does not recognise ‘muhammad’ as the name of the Prophet of Islam. This is a very big claim but as usual it is easy to prove this point from the Quran.

First here is a simple lesson in arabic. In arabic all proper nouns are prefixed with ‘al’. So in arabic it should be al-muhammad. But there is no ‘al muhammad’ in the Quran. In arabic a proper noun is called an isme ma’rifah. When it is NOT a proper noun, without any prefix “al” then it becomes a simple noun. In arabic a simple noun is known as a nakirah.

But here is the catch : there is no mention of a simple noun ‘muhammad’ in the Quran either. What is found written in the Quran are the adjectives “muhammadoon”, “muhammadeen” and “ahmadoo”. These are all adjectives in the arabic language and are definitely not proper nouns (isme ma’rifah) nor simple nouns (nakirah).

“Muhammadoon” and “muhammaddeen” are adjectives meaning a ‘praiseworthy person’. Similarly ‘ahmadoo’ is an adjective meaning someone ‘who shall be praised’. We will relook all these five verses shortly to see how these adjectives fit perfectly into the context and meaning of these five verses.

How did I stumble upon this? The four verses in the Quran where the scholars misinterpret and mistranslate the adjectives “muhammadoon” and ‘muhammadeen” to become the proper noun ‘muhammad’ are 3:144, 33;40, 48:29 and 47:2. The scholars are being dishonest.

The fifth verse which the scholars misinterpret and mistranslate is 61:6 where the adjective ‘ahmadoo’ is twisted around to become the noun ‘ahmad’. Then they twist the meaning once more by saying that this imaginary noun ‘ahmad’ also refers to ‘muhammad’. So first they magically invent the nouns ‘ahmad’ and ‘muhammad’ from thin air and then say that these created nouns are interchangeable. This is just more dishonesty. The verse 61:6 only mentions the adjective “ahmadoo.”

After undertaking such linguistic gymnastics the scholars say that the Quran has five references to the Prophet’s name. There is no such thing. There are only five different mentions of the adjectives “muhammadoon”, “muhammadeen” and “ahmadoo”.




When I studied the Quran, minus any preconceived notions or prejudices, I realised there was something not right with the traditional understanding of the following verse in the Quran.

33:40 Ma kana muhammadoon abaa’a ahadin min rijaali-kum wa laakin rasoolul laahi wa khaatama al nabiy-yeena wa kaanallaahu bi kulli shay-in aaleeman

Here is the traditional translation by A Yusuf Ali:

33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your men (sons), but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

The first question that popped into my head was why would God NOT make the Prophet the father of any sons? Why deny the Prophet the joy of being the father of sons?

Then the scholars say that the Prophet did have one son – Ibrahim – who died as an infant. Even if this story was true, it simply means that this verse in the Quran has been disproven – it becomes a historically false statement because at a point in time in history, the Prophet did have a son.

If the scholars retort that the verse was revealed after the baby Ibrahim had died, it raises even more doubt. Surely God knew he would be revealing this verse at some point in history. So was God condemning the baby Ibrahim to an early death just so that this verse would stand? Asides from trying to potray God as very cruel, it is also illogical.





Then I realised that there was no proper noun ‘muhammad’ in this verse at all. ‘Muhammadoon’ is an adjective which means ‘praiseworthy’. Only then the true meaning of the verse fell into place:

33:40 It is not praiseworthy to be the father of sons from among you, but it is so to be the Messenger of God, and to be the last of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things.

Obviously this verse addresses a culture which prefers sons over daughters. Not only Arab but Chinese, Indian and other cultures have a distinct preference for sons over daughters. This verse seeks to correct this misconception. It is not praiseworthy to have sons over daughters. The meaning of this verse then fully tallied with other verses in the Quran which chastises the wicked custom of burying female infants alive. Here are the verses:

81:8 And when the female (infant) buried alive shall be questioned.
81: 9 For what sin she was killed?

So it is not praiseworthy to prefer sons over daughters.

Once I realised this simple truth, the three other verses that mention “muhammadoon” and “muhammadeen” fell into place too.

3:144 : Wa maa muhammadoon illa rasoolun qad khaa-lat min qablihi al rasoolu afaa-in maata au qutila in qalabtum ala iqaa bikum waman yan qalib ala aqi bayhi fa lan yadurra Allaaha shay-an wa sayaj-zee Allahu al shakireena.

Here is the traditional translation by A Yusuf Ali:

3:144 Muhammad is no more than a messenger: Many were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God; but god (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.

Here is the more accurate translation:

3:144 There is no (bigger) praiseworthiness than to be a messenger: Many were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God; and God will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.

And here is 48:29

48:29 Muhammadun rasoolullaahi wallatheena ma’ahu ashaddoo ala alkuffari ruhmaai baynahum tarahum rukka’an sujjadan yabtaghoona fadlan minallaahi wa ridwaanan seemahum fee wujoohihim min athaari as sujoodi thaalika mathaaluhum fee al tawraati wamathaaluhum fee al-injeeli kazara akhraja shataa-hu faazarahu faistaghlatha faistawa ala sooqihi yu aajibi al zura’a li yagheetha bihim al kuffaara wa’adallaahu allatheena aamanoo wa’amiloos saalihaati minhum maghfiratan wa ajran atheeman

Again here is Yusuf Ali’s translation:
48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward

Rephrasing just the beginning of this verse, it sounds like this:

48:29 It is praiseworthy indeed to be the messenger of God...

This tallies exactly with verse 3:144 above. Here is the last one which mentions ‘muhammadeen’

47:2 Wal-lathee na amanoo wa’aamiloos saalihaati wa amanoo bimaa nuzzila ala muhammadeen wahuwa al haqqu min rabbihim kaffara anhum sayyi-aa tihim waslaha balaahum

Yusuf Ali translates it as :

47:2 But those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and believe in the (Revelation) sent down to Muhammad - for it is the Truth from their Lord,- He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

The more acccurate translation is : And those who believe and work righteousness and believe in what was sent down upon praiseworthiness – and it is the truth from their Lord – He will remove from them their ills and improve their condition.

Finally lets look at the adjective “ahmadu” which is mentioned in 61:6 and which meaning has been twisted to become a noun ‘ahmad’.

61:6 Wa-ith qaala eesa ibnu maryama ya banee isra-eela innee rasoolul laahi ilaykum musaddiqan lima bayna yadayya min al tawraati wamubashiran bi rasoolin ya’tee min ba’dee ismuhu ahmadu falamma jaa ahum bil bayyinaati qaloo haatha sihrun mubeenun

Here is A Yusuf Ali’s translation :

61:6 And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!

Here first I would like to show you two other translations of this verse by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall and Rashad Khalifa.

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall : And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.

Rashad Khalifa : Recall that Jesus, son of Mary, said, "O Children of Israel, I am GOD's messenger to you, confirming the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be even more praised." Then, when he showed them the clear proofs, they said, "This is profound magic."

Please note that both Pickthall and Khalifa do not use any noun form “ahmad” – because they both acknowledge that it is not a noun. They stick to the adjective ‘ahmadu’.





Then in 2009 Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a native German born Muslim and a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Munster in Germany made a statement that was quite startling to many people. Professor Kalisch said that there was no evidence to support the existence of a historical “Prophet Muhammad”. I did smile when I first read this. Here is an English translation of an extract from Professor Kalisch’s paper.

Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.

I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments. It also deals with the question of what implications historical-critical research has for the Islamic theory and how I deal with my research results as a theologian.

With regard to the historical existence of Muhammad ... I consider my position simply as a continuation of the most recent research results. It appears so spectacular only because it has been said by a Muslim ... Most Western scientists turn down such an hypotheses out of respect for Islam or because they are afraid of the reactions of their Muslim friends or because they think it is speculative nonsense.

The word "respect" sounds wonderful but it is completely inappropriate here because one really refers to the opposite. Whoever thinks that Muslims can't deal with facts puts Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy.

Whoever really bases his thoughts on the equality of all human beings must expect the same intellectual performance. Really treating Muslims with respect would imply that they are strong enough to deal with their religion on the basis of our modern level of knowledge. "Islamophobes" think we Muslims are barbarians, the "kind-hearted" take us for "noble savages"... The result is the same: Muslims are seen as different from the rest of the world -- they either belong in a "petting zoo" or in cages for wild animals, but by all means they belong in a zoo.

The final argument is even more awful because it can only be described as cowardly. Religious fundamentalists are spreading out (not only Islamic fundamentalist) and freedom of thought must be defended no matter what. There must not be any compromise on this otherwise we set the track for a retreat into the Middle Ages and this can happen much faster than many people think.

My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven. I, however, lean towards the non-existence but I don't think it can be proven. It is my impression that, unless there are some sensational archeological discoveries -- an Islamic "Qumran" or "Nag Hammadi" -- the question of Muhammad's existence will probably never be finally clarified.

Some people have said that by denying the name ‘Muhammad’ I am denying the very existence itself of a Prophet of Islam. I beg to differ. There was a Messenger or Rasool sent to us who was also a Prophet or Nabi. He was no doubt an Arab because he delivered to us the Quran which is in Arabic. We therefore cannot deny that God did send a Messenger. But his name was not Muhammad – at least not in the Quran.





Is the identity of the Messenger important? Lets listen to the Quran (4:163-166)

4:163 We have inspired you, as we inspired Noah and the prophets after him. And we inspired Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, the Patriarchs, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon. And we gave David the Psalms.

4:164 Messengers we have told you about, and messengers we never told you about. And GOD spoke to Moses directly.

4:165 Messengers to deliver good news, as well as warnings. Thus, the people will have no excuse when they face GOD, after all these messengers have come to them. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.

4:166 But GOD bears witness concerning what He has revealed to you; He has revealed it with His knowledge. And the angels bear witness as well, but GOD suffices as witness

God lists many Messengers or Rasools who were despatched to mankind. Noah, Abraham, Ismail, Jacob, Jesus were just some of them. But in 4:164 above, God says that there were also other messengers “we have told you about, and messengers we never told you about.”

So the exact history and identities of all the Messengers is not important. What is really important is the content of the message which the Messengers brought. This is made clear in 4:165 and 4:166 above. “Thus, the people will have no excuse when they face GOD, after all these messengers have come to them. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise”.

Whether we know the Messenger’s identity or not, the message has been delivered. We, the people have no more excuse. And all the Messengers from Abraham, Moses right down to the last Messenger have delieverd the same message. Here is the Quran:

87:18 Surely this was also recorded in the earlier books.

87:19 The books of Abraham and Moses.

So the teachings of the Quran are exactly the same as what was revealed to Abraham and Moses. This is simple logic – the same God cannot be teaching different things to different people. The Message is certainly more important than the messenger.

source : http://antishirikmalaysia.blogspot.com/2013/05/mitos-al-buraq-adalah-ajaran-sesat.html