baheerah, the monk from syria who briefly met prophet muhammad when he was a young boy (before his prophethood and the receiving of revelation), salmaan al-faarisee (prior to his conversion to islam), as well as waraqah bin nawfal (another who recognised the signs of prophethood from prophet muhammad) were all christians. 'abdullah bin salaam, one of prophet muhammad’s companions from the city of al-madeenah (al-yathrib) was a jew prior to becoming muslim.
So back to the original question. Which faith taught about this mark that signified a prophet, and where is the teaching about it recorded?
no, not those forms of torture in particular, but some of his companions experienced similar things. some where gutted alive, others were pinned under boulders left in the desert sun to roast or tied up in the desert sun while wearing plates of armour, such that the heat from the sun would fuse the metal armour to the skin on their backs… and there are more.
uhh. yeah, sure.
A kaafirah is not someone who is not muslim(by this i refer to the religion) my freind, I suggest you look up the meaning or ask someone who is more knowledgable than you in these matters.
I suppose calling people kaafirs is defending your faith?
And a fine job of it you are doing too!
uhh… being that the first eye witness account i posted was from baheerah, and the second from salmaan al-faarisee, i would have thought you’d put 2 and 2 together after i mentioned that they were christians… i guess not.
The only thing I’m putting together is that for the second time you’ve failed to answer the question put forth and tell us where this teaching is recorded.
This is true, however they were not persecuted in the same way Christians were, ie to the death.
Salmaan al-faarsee was a faarsee…I think he was a cnvert to christianity, trying out different things.
perhaps you should do the same… and btw, the word kaafirah is the feminine for kaafir. i know the meaning of the word very well.
with this comment, it seems like you never really knew the religion you left. f.y.i. islamically, anyone who is not a muslim is a kaafir - this includes ahl al-kitaab. every non-muslim on this site is considered a kaafir islamically, you on the other hand are a murtadd, a different kind of kaafir.
no, it’s speaking matter of factly. do you expect me to refer to them as muslims or mu’mins?
actually, no. what i did say, however, is that from the statement you made on that thread, it seemed to me that you were shee’ah, regardless of whether you denied it or not. and i further commented that if that was the case, i’m not surprised that you left islam. if you doubt this, do a search on my posts…
not true at all… look up what happened to yaasir and his wife sumaiyah - who were the first two martyrs of islam. and they’re just two examples.
quite right
Show me proof of this statement.
No I think they are quite happy being called kaafirs.
I dont doubt this, by the same token you are Ahle Hadith, i imagine, since the word kaafir comes quick to you.
no, the question’s been answered. ghostly asked what faith believed in this mark and recorded it before muhammad’s coming showing that they were expecting it. i had previously quoted two eye witness reports from those who said they were looking for that mark. they were baheerah the syrian monk and salmaan al-faarisee. i mentioned the faiths they adhered to at the time they were looking for it. you’d think that from that one would gather that they learned of this mark through their studies of their religion and scriptures… but like i said in my previous reply to you, i guess not.
i think i understand the arabic language a whole lot better than you do… but that’s also besides the point. f.y.i., i understand the meaning of the word perfectly fine - as well as its usage in the sharee’ah and the meaning it carries with respect to both the wordly life and meaning it carries with respect to the life of the hereafter… yes, hawk, there is a difference there. but you wouldn’t really know that, now would you?
not when it comes to other muslims… just when it comes to those who are kuffaar in this wordly life, like non-muslims.
Call them signs of prophethood all you want, but that won’t make it so. The fact that these teachings cannot be found anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture speaks for itself. You can’t cite them yourself, so you resort to assuming they must “obviously” be in there somewhere.
You’re saying that these marks of prophethood were a part of Christian faith? You are very, very mistaken if that is the case. There is no evidence that Christians ever believed this. In fact, Christians believed that there would be no more prophets, and this CAN be demonstrated.
Assalam Alaikum Brother jcaz;
On the contrary, the problem I’m finding is that it doesn’t challenge me at all. I did not come into the Church by accepting Jesus as God, nor did I come in because the Bible told me that Jesus died for my sins. I came in because outside history showed me that the Church maintained the honest, fundamental faith of the Apostles, who knew this man who may have been the Messiah. I didn’t have to accept a single aspect of faith to come to the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church did not expect me to accept any aspect of faith at first.
on the contrary, despite the corruption of the christian and jewish texts there still exist within them signs and indications that prophet muhammad was to be sent. you can deny them all you want, but they are there for whoever wants to open their eyes to them.
The first article in the link here is very, very bad in its linguistics, I’m afraid. It says that Himdah (in Haggai 2:7-9) should be understood to mean Amhed, a variation on the name of Muhammed. The problem is that the word actually means “treasures”, and the same passage describes the gathering of silver and gold. In the Jewish translation of the same passage it says:
or
That the Hebrew root *kh-m-d *has a similar/identical cognate in Arabic should come as no surprise to anyone. Hebrew, Arabic & Aramaic share a great many roots with similar meanings in all 3 languages. But to assert that it refers to Muhammad is a matter of Islamic faith, not comparative linguistics. On a Muslim’s faith I cannot comment. But to me asw a Jew, the plain meaning of the verse is clear. Haggai (along with Zechariah) was sent to kickstart the lagging construction of the 2nd Temple (not to prophesy about events obver 900 years later), In 2:2, God instructs Haggai to go give a pep talk to Prince Zerubbabel & High Priest Joshua and not be disheartened by comparing the 2nd Temple to the magnificence of Solomon’s (First) Temple. Reading verses in context, not in isolation, always helps.
