Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in other scriptures

[inJESUS]

Yes DeMaria that's my point.

[hamba2han]

Originally Posted by De Maria

Since the Arabic language preceded the Quran, the word for bee would already exist and be female gendered.

The language used in the Qur'an, such is it's eloquence, had a truly tremendous influence in shaping the further development of the Arabic language.

There are certain English words which by history and tradition has defined their gender bias.

For example, words like 'nurse' and 'secretary' are strongly associated with the female gender.

One normally does not need to specify a nurse or secretary as being female but when a "male nurse" or "male secretary" is mentioned, they usually have to be specified as such.

Likewise, normally one also has to specify a "female blacksmith" or a "female construction worker" when mentioning them because these professions are very strongly associated with the male gender.

And just because the Qur'an does not mention male bees, this does not mean at all that the Qur'an is explicitly stating that they do not exist.

When it comes to bees, the males of the species are extremely few in numbers and their only function is to mate with the queen.

[Rodrigo Bivar]

There is nothing special about the feminine word for bee (nahl) since it is feminine in Arabic anyway.

Denis Giron already showed that the Jews knew that worker bees are female.

First, with the issue of the bee, what Aristotle actually said was that others... Now he came to dispute - excuse me - he tried to dispute the belief that bees were females and drones male. And the issue, however, is that he started out by saying: it is asserted by others that bees - worker bees - that these bees are female and drones are male. This is what he said. He said also that they copulated. "It is asserted by others that these insects copulate, and that the bees are female and the drones male." So Aristotle starts out by saying that this is asserted by others. This was said before he wrote his book and then he gave his reasons for why he disagrees. Now, of course, as history bares out, Aristotle was wrong. But nonetheless, he was debating with somebody - maybe someone who was not alive anymore at his time, but nonetheless he was debating with somebody who claimed that the worker bees were female and the drones were male. So this was said before the Qur'an was written - the issue of the gender of worker bees. So that in itself proves that it is possible for a mere human being to argue such.

Actually, I would like to also bring another piece of evidence with regard to this, which is a lot more clear on this issue. And this is actually from the Talmud, from tractate Bava Bratra, which is a tractate in the Babylonian Talmud - it is section 18a. There is a verse where there is a debate about plants and bees - if one man owns bees and another man owns plants - and at one point one of the people in the debate says to another one - this is in the Talmud - I will give you the Hebrew and the Aramaic first. He says: charcheq d'vorakh min chardla'ee, which means "distance your bees from my mustard plant". Now the word that he used for "your bees" is d'vorakh, and it is from the Hebrew word for bee and the Aramaic word - well actually Aramaic has two words for bee, but this particular word for bee is feminine. So starting right away they are saying keep your bees away from my mustard plants, but he is using a feminine word for bee. So already bee is in the female. And then he explains why he wants the bees to be kept away from his plant, and he says: she-ba'ot v'okhlot lighlooghei chardla'ee - which means "they are coming and eating the flowers," or "coming and gnawing on the flowers of my mustard plant."

Now here is where it gets even more interesting. The first part, "they are coming," is she-ba'ot - ba'ot is actually conjugated in the female plural. "They are coming". And this is an interesting point about Hebrew grammar: "they are coming," being plural femine is interesting because it is stating - well let me explain something about Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew grammar, if you have a group that is plural - let us say you have all boys - if you have all boys you refer to them in the masculine plural. If you have a mixed group of boys and girls, males and females, you refer to them, again, as masculine plural. So that means that if you have one hundred women and one man, and you want to say something that the group is doing, like let us say you want to say they are writing - that the group is writing - if a hundred girls and one man, you will say kotevim. So even if the males are out numbered a million to one, nonetheless you treat mixed groups as masculine plural. The only time you use feminine plural, which is used here in the Talmud, is if the entire group is feminine - there is not a single male in the bunch. And again, in this verse in the Talmud it says: she-ba'ot - masculine feminine, they come - v'okhlot - again, mascu... I'm sorry(!), feminine-plural. I apologize, feminine plural, she-ba'ot, "they come," and then v'okhlot, again feminine plural, "they gnaw on" or "they eat," and then it goes on to say "my flowers". So what this verse is saying in the Talmud, which was written before the Qur'an - it predates the Qur'an, it is essentially saying that it takes it for granted that the bees that come to the flowers are all female. Now I have given two points: One, before Aristotle, someone said that the bees are female and the drones are male. Also, in the Talmud, it essentially treats bees, in this particular tractate - there's another tractate that does it differently, but in this particular tractate it takes it for granted that bees - the ones that comes to the flowers and gnaw on the flowers - are feminine.
http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/

[hamba2han]

The fact of the matter is that the people living in Shakespeare's time were still unaware that only female honeybees go out to search for food and it was only a few hundred years later that modern science confirmed this to be true.

Is there anyone disputing this?

[Rodrigo Bivar]

Originally Posted by hamba2han

The fact of the matter is that the people living in Shakespeare's time were still unaware that only female honeybees go out to search for food and it was only a few hundred years later that modern science confirmed this to be true.

Is there anyone disputing this?

How can that be when Aristotle's buddy knew that drones are males and worker bees are females,

and


the Jews who wrote the Talmud also knew this.

These are before Islam.

[hamba2han]

Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar

How can that be when Aristotle's buddy knew that drones are males and worker bees are females,

and


the Jews who wrote the Talmud also knew this.

These are before Islam.

Then how come Shakespeare got this completely wrong in his play 'Henry the Fourth' and why didn't anyone who lived in his time correct him?

[Rodrigo Bivar]

So Shakespeare was the bee expert, was he? He was a playwright.

The fact is that the ancient Jews and Greeks already knew that worker bees are female. What does it matter if an English playwright didn't know?

Why should anyone 'correct' Shakespeare? He wrote plays. Not science.

[birdsong]

Amazing, ain’t it? that muslim geniuses such as hamban try to prove the celestial origin of the koran by pointing to the limitations of Shakespeare …. While wholly ignoring the fact that Jews and Greeks already knew that worker bees are female ….



I am so impressed by such a display of logic and reason that I am going to "revert" to islam right now !!! …

Originally Posted by Rodrigo Bivar

So Shakespeare was the bee expert, was he? He was a playwright.

The fact is that the ancient Jews and Greeks already knew that worker bees are female. What does it matter if an English playwright didn't know?

Why should anyone 'correct' Shakespeare? He wrote plays. Not science.

[De Maria]

Originally Posted by hamba2han

The language used in the Qur'an, such is it's eloquence, had a truly tremendous influence in shaping the further development of the Arabic language.

There are certain English words which by history and tradition has defined their gender bias.

For example, words like 'nurse' and 'secretary' are strongly associated with the female gender.

One normally does not need to specify a nurse or secretary as being female but when a "male nurse" or "male secretary" is mentioned, they usually have to be specified as such.

Likewise, normally one also has to specify a "female blacksmith" or a "female construction worker" when mentioning them because these professions are very strongly associated with the male gender.

And just because the Qur'an does not mention male bees, this does not mean at all that the Qur'an is explicitly stating that they do not exist.

When it comes to bees, the males of the species are extremely few in numbers and their only function is to mate with the queen.

Does the Quran ever mention the male bee and its place in the bee hive?

Please provide the chapter and verse.

Otherwise, the Quran is simply mentioning bees in general and would assign the female gender as is assigned to this animal in other languages. For instance in Spanish, la abeja:

Note below the confusion of genders:
Obviamente Uds. tendrían infinidad de hechos comprobables por la ciencia de que el .... Es como cuando una abeja soldado, vive en función de proteger
http://www.google.com/search?q=Scien...ient=firefox-a


Since in Spanish, the bee is normally spoken of in the female gender, it is designated as "una" or "one female", yet the word soldier is normally designated in the male gender, thus the "o" endng, "soldado". If this person had said, "una abeja soldada" using the female "a" ending, the meaning would have changed, he would have said, "one female bee "fused" (the meaning of soldada) and it wouldn't make sense.

So, unless you can provide a scientific treatise on the function of the male bee in the Quran, there is nothing special in the Quran's mention of the bee in the female gender.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Roy5]

Hm! This whole hostility that seems to be flourishing between Islam and Christianity is sad and even tragic. Our faiths resemble one another in so many ways. Islam borrowed much from Christianity, such as the virgin birth of Jesus. In fact, there is more about Mary in the Koran than in the New Testament. And Islam recognizes Christ as a great prophet and even believes he will return to lead the victorious forces of righteousness at the battle of Armageddon.

Islam may be even closer to Judaism. Take the kosher laws as an example. Or even some Islamic practices that Christians think are primitive. The Old Testament clearly calls for stoning to death of those caught in adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24) - and killing those who deny the one true God (along with other acts of genocide - e. g., Deut. 20:13-17). Like Judaism, Islam sharply condemns graven images (e.e., religious statues), which many Protestants do as well. And it condemns alcohol, an attitude still shared by many conservative Protestants. Islam condemns abortion, homosexuality, etc. - all positions taken by most conservative Christians.

I have a bumper sticker on my car. It reads: "We will not be enemies." Below in smaller print: "Muslims, Jews and Christians united for peace and justice." I sometimes wear a button which reads: "God bless the whole world. No exceptions."

My problem is with any religion which boasts that it is the one faith which proclaims all truth. We have much to learn from others religions. And there is so much that none of us know or will know while residents here on earth. I Cor. 13:12. We need to respect other faiths and those who practice them. Religious prejudice has done enormous damage over the centuries. Can you imagine Christ encouraging it?

[De Maria]

Originally Posted by Roy5

Hm! This whole hostility that seems to be flourishing between Islam and Christianity is sad and even tragic. Our faiths resemble one another in so many ways. Islam borrowed much from Christianity, such as the virgin birth of Jesus. In fact, there is more about Mary in the Koran than in the New Testament. And Islam recognizes Christ as a great prophet and even believes he will return to lead the victorious forces of righteousness at the battle of Armageddon.

Islam may be even closer to Judaism. Take the kosher laws as an example. Or even some Islamic practices that Christians think are primitive. The Old Testament clearly calls for stoning to death of those caught in adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24) - and killing those who deny the one true God (along with other acts of genocide - e. g., Deut. 20:13-17). Like Judaism, Islam sharply condemns graven images (e.e., religious statues), which many Protestants do as well. And it condemns alcohol, an attitude still shared by many conservative Protestants. Islam condemns abortion, homosexuality, etc. - all positions taken by most conservative Christians.

I have a bumper sticker on my car. It reads: "We will not be enemies." Below in smaller print: "Muslims, Jews and Christians united for peace and justice." I sometimes wear a button which reads: "God bless the whole world. No exceptions."

My problem is with any religion which boasts that it is the one faith which proclaims all truth. We have much to learn from others religions. And there is so much that none of us know or will know while residents here on earth. I Cor. 13:12. We need to respect other faiths and those who practice them. Religious prejudice has done enormous damage over the centuries. Can you imagine Christ encouraging it?

Is the Truth absolute?

[Roy5]

To DeMaria:

You ask: is the truth absolute?

Perhaps it is, but can we be positive that we have the absolute truth? A a Christian, I believe as a Christian, but I well understand that Jews, Muslims and others have a different perspective. I doubt if God judges us by our theology or our church affiliation. Most of us inherit them anyway, so if we do belong to the one, true church, why are we to be congratulated?

What is annoying are Catholics and Protestants and Muslims, etc., who think that there is only one way, and it is their way. Great men and women with brilliant minds have embraced a wide variety of faiths. It strikes me as boasting, lack of Christian humility, for any of us to attack other faiths. The only 'religious' people I am ready to assail are those who claim that they have all the truth because they possess the only correct interpretation of scripture or they have a unique pipeline to God (e. g., Pope). Herein lies much of the problem in the world today and through history.

Trying to convert others is legitimate, but in an intelligent, reasonable and understanding fashion, and not our of arrogance or fanaticism. I believe that is the democratic and American way. Bigotry of any variety should have no place among us, and religious bigotry is no better than any other bigotry.

[De Maria]

Originally Posted by Roy5

To DeMaria:

You ask: is the truth absolute?

Correct.

Perhaps it is,

It is.

but can we be positive that we have the absolute truth?

Yes.

A a Christian, I believe as a Christian,

As a Protestant Christian, you believe in a manner inconsistent with Scripture and with Christian Tradition through the centuries. In essence, you are your own pope.

but I well understand that Jews, Muslims and others have a different perspective.

So do I. But different doesn't mean correct.

I doubt if God judges us by our theology or our church affiliation.

Does God judge us by the doctrines we keep?

Ephesians 4
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.

Romans 6

17 But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered.

Most of us inherit them anyway, so if we do belong to the one, true church, why are we to be congratulated?

If we were born into that faith and we persevered in that faith, then God will reward our perseverence. And if we were called into that faith and we persevere into that faith into which we were called, God will reward our perseverence:

Matthew 10
22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

What is annoying are Catholics and Protestants and Muslims, etc., who think that there is only one way, and it is their way.

Please provide the Catholic doctrine which you interpret as only one way. As I know it, there is the "little way", "the way of purgation", the "way of the cross", the way of "perpetual union" with God, the theology of St. John of the Cross, the theology of St. Catherine Siena, the theology of St. Theresa of Avila, and the imitation of Christ and many other ways and examples which Saints have explained and set throughout Christian history. They are all different techniques for achieving the same result, union with Christ or union with God.

Great men and women with brilliant minds have embraced a wide variety of faiths.

Great men and women have made a geat variety of mistakes as well.

Cont'd

[De Maria]

Cont'd

It strikes me as boasting, lack of Christian humility, for any of us to attack other faiths.

As you attack the Catholic faith below, by belittling our Pope?

The only 'religious' people I am ready to assail are those who claim that they have all the truth because they possess the only correct interpretation of scripture or they have a unique pipeline to God (e. g., Pope). Herein lies much of the problem in the world today and through history.

Then you don't believe the Bible. Because the Bible tells us that we have the fullness of Truth in the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the Bible tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ and that we should hear the Church, he who does not hear the Church should be treated as the heathen (Matt 18:17).

The problem throughout history is the lack of humility in people who refuse to obey the Word of God which says:

Hebrews 13
17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Trying to convert others is legitimate, but in an intelligent, reasonable and understanding fashion,

Show me where I or any Catholic on this forum have deviated from this fashion?

and not our of arrogance or fanaticism.

Apparently, you call arrogance and fanaticism anything which disagrees with your world view.

I believe that is the democratic and American way. Bigotry of any variety should have no place among us, and religious bigotry is no better than any other bigotry.

The Scripture says "4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?" (Matt 7).

Protestants have been the biggest bigots in this country by the mere fact that they have been the greatest number in this country. The only Catholic province, Maryland, when this country was founded had the only Constitution which allowed freedom of religion.

That is the Catholic way.

However, you are a Protestant on a Catholic website, defending not Protestantism, but Islam. So, please show where Islam permits freedom of religion anywhere in the world? You say that our faiths resemble each other, show me where and how? Provide the Quranic teaching or the Islamic teaching which contradicts the actual reality of violence which is displayed everyday in Islam.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[swariffin]

Originally Posted by Roy5

To DeMaria:

You ask: is the truth absolute?

Perhaps it is, but can we be positive that we have the absolute truth? A a Christian, I believe as a Christian, but I well understand that Jews, Muslims and others have a different perspective. I doubt if God judges us by our theology or our church affiliation. Most of us inherit them anyway, so if we do belong to the one, true church, why are we to be congratulated?

What is annoying are Catholics and Protestants and Muslims, etc., who think that there is only one way, and it is their way. Great men and women with brilliant minds have embraced a wide variety of faiths. It strikes me as boasting, lack of Christian humility, for any of us to attack other faiths. The only 'religious' people I am ready to assail are those who claim that they have all the truth because they possess the only correct interpretation of scripture or they have a unique pipeline to God (e. g., Pope). Herein lies much of the problem in the world today and through history.

Trying to convert others is legitimate, but in an intelligent, reasonable and understanding fashion, and not our of arrogance or fanaticism. I believe that is the democratic and American way. Bigotry of any variety should have no place among us, and religious bigotry is no better than any other bigotry.

Dear Roy5,

Welcome to the Forum, you are basically correct I think. But, may be you have not following enough. Quite often that we hear accusations in this (perhaps these forum). I don't know how far the forum modulators are following us. I did find several threads were closed due to outrageous postings by some. Some of us was labeled as "banned" or "account under review". Sometimes I tried to cool down some of our brothers. Sometimes it was succesfull, sometimes it was no avail. But still, I agree with you. This is a Catholic forum, and this is where the Catholics are supposed to explain our belief regardless how hostile other people may be. The Catholics by definition should be the defender.