Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
And In the Qur'an, the spirit word is passed in singular form. The word "ervah", which is a plural of spirit, never goes in verses. This gives us another proof of the absence of souls.

Examples of place names ending with -ra [Gk. -ρα; Hb. = רא] are especially supportive and helpful during a tactical analysis for verification of the Hira thesis. I presupposes that in the Hebrew Vorlage it was written almost certainly as חירא which corresponds to the Arabic form حراء

Now, it is interesting to note that the Greek translators of LXX (Septuagint) occasionally preferred a declinable forms of certain proper names. For example, the name Ἔσδρας (Esdras = Ezra) is an ancient Greek rendering of the Hebrew עזרא‎ (ʿEzra), and as we can note, the LXX translators clearly prefers a declinable form [i.e. Ἔσδρας], yet its indeclinable form is also attested in Nehemiah 7:7 as Εσδρα (Esdra).

Thus, based on this one example with the -ρα (= רא) ending, we can deduct (or at least assume) that χιρα (chira) is an indeclinable form, while χιρας (chiras) is its declinable form.

NOTE: if someone will spot other examples of Hebrew place names ending specifically with רא and then transliterated in LXX with -ρας, please let us known here.

Take care,

Salam aleikum everyone,

Being aware that the argument of Hira being mentioned in Isaiah 29:12, sooner or later, will have to face some criticism (especially from Christian apologists), I have figure out or typed several possible objections against this claim along with answers to each objection. I'll be insha'Allah gradually posting here my answers to these objections that will likely be posed by critics.

OBJECTION #1 The website’s inbuilt critical apparatus points to the originality of the sigma letter in the word χιρας

Some critics might say that the critical apparatus designed for the Codex Sinaiticus in the official website (attached to the transcription on the right window, see the link here: indicates that sigma (ς), at the end of the word χιρας (chiras), is original and not a later insertion made by the corrector Cb3. This means that the previous form originally written by scribe B was χιρας (chiras), not χιρα (chira).


First, it is important to ask: does sigma at the end of χιρας represent a lowercase final form, or is it a result of the „letter compression”?
Second, even if sigma was original (i.e. written by scribe B, not Cb3), it does not necessarily discredit the claim that χιρας (chiras) might still be reflecting a proper form name for Hira, and this is simply because in Ancient Greek the letter sigma was usually added at the end of place names. There are many examples in the Septuagint of transliterated proper names with a typical Hellenized ending -ας (as). Perhaps a perfect example is חִירָה (Ḥîrāh) from Genesis 38:1, a name of certain Adullamite person, which is transliterated in the Septuagint as Ιρας (Iras). Here, unexpectedly, for some unknown reasons, authors of the Septuagint chose ι (iota) instead of χ (chi) despite the fact that e.g. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, for example, has transliterated this name as Hiras (applying H not I). Later, in OBJECTION #4, I will show that the Septuagint has, in fact, transliterated many Hebrew names with initial letter ח (ha) using χ (chi) not ι (iota).

Now, as to the ending -ας added to place names, in the Book of Isaiah alone we find many examples: in Isaiah 8:4 we have שׁמרון (Samaria) which is transliterated by Septuagint as Σαμαρείας (Samareias), clearly having sigma at the end. The Greek text of Isaiah 11:11 mentions three place names (though they do not occur in the Hebrew text): Βαβυλωνίας (Babulonias = Babylon), Αἰθιοπίας (Aithiopias = Ethiopia) and Ἀραβίας (Arabias = Arabia), again having sigma attached at the end. Another example is Γομορρας (Gomorras = Gomora) in Isaiah 1:10. For instance, in Isaiah 11:13, the Hebrew personal name יהודה (Judah) is transliterated by the Septuagint as Ιουδας (Ioudas), with the sigma addition.

So yes, linguistically speaking, an ancient textual Greek form for the name Hira may well have had sigma at the end since it was something characteristic for Koine Greek to add this particular letter at the very end of proper names. In other words, the name Hira might well be written in ancient Greek as χιρας (chiras) or even χειρας (cheiras) since, surprisingly, there are orthographical variations of the same proper names, e.g. Χιραμ (Hiram) vs. Χειραμ (Heiram), and these variants are detectable especially when we collate/compare the so-called four great uncial codices: Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi. Regarding the initially proposed text-form χιρα (without sigma), it may be considered as its post-biblical “modernized” version, exactly as it appears in modern Greek literature about Islam, which I already demonstrated in my research here in the blog.

On the other hand, it is equally possible that the variant χιρας (with the sigma ending) is just a declinable form since in Greek proper nouns changes depending on the gender, number, and case (inflection rules). Also, biblical scholars acknowledges certain instances where the Greek translator of the Septuagint employs declinable forms for some "obscure" place names he couldn't recognize.

Take care,
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris and Everyone,

Masha'Allah and may Allah Almighty continue to protect you and bless you with knowledge and skills, akhi, people care a lot about your research.  Your posts on this blog have 10s of thousands of hits, walhamdulillah.

Keep up the great work akhi.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Wa aleikum as-salam wa rahmatullahi wa baraketuh, thank you dear brother Osama for such kind words and dua. Amin! Same to you akhi.
Alhamdulillah, its realy good to hear that. Its certainly encouraging.

Take care
As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris and Everyone,

Masha'Allah and may Allah Almighty continue to protect you and bless you with knowledge and skills, akhi, people care a lot about your research.  Your posts on this blog have 10s of thousands of hits, walhamdulillah.

Keep up the great work akhi.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

How can we tackle this verse in Hebrew

יב  וְנִתַּן הַסֵּפֶר, עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע סֵפֶר לֵאמֹר--קְרָא נָא-זֶה; וְאָמַר, לֹא יָדַעְתִּי סֵפֶר.  {ס}   12

and the writing is delivered to him that is not learned, saying: 'Read this, I pray thee'; and he saith: 'I am not learned.

if we compare it to codex sinaiticus

we can clearly see word Hira, which corrector change into HEIRAS to mean hands

isaih in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus in greek, so if someone say why do we not find word HIra or Hands/Heiras in hebrew bible isaih 29:12?

How do you respond to that?

Salam aleikum brother Dawud,

Well, if by "isaiah in hebrew is older than codex sinaiticus" you mean the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) of Qumran, then I would say don't be naive, and don't let them fool you! This Isaiah scroll is not really ancient as IAA claim to the world. In fact, Solomon Zeitlin (1886-1976) has already proved that it’s a medieval copy (produced sometime after Islam, possibly in the 7th-8th century). Solomon Zeitlin wrote many important publications. He was a distinguished Jewish historian, Talmudic scholar, and in his time the world's leading authority on the Second Temple period, thus he was a scholar whose reputation could hardly be denied (See e.g. Solomon Zeitlin: Scholar Laureate: An Annotated Bibliography, 1915–1970, With Appreciations of His Writings, ed. Sydney B. Hoenig (New York: Bitzaron; Philadelphia: Dropsie University, 1971). He was one of those few brave scholars who "dared" to question the supposed antiquity of DSS. See e.g. S. Zeitlin, "The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls." Jewish Quarterly Review 40/1 (1949), pp. 57-78; Idem, "The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Falsification of History." Jewish Quarterly Review 46/1 (1955), pp. 1-39; Idem, "The Fallacy of the Antiquity of the Hebrew Scrolls Once More Exposed." Jewish Quarterly Review 52/4 (1962), pp. 346-366

Such a well-known and highly reputed scholar certainly would not claim they are medieval fabrication unless convinced it was true. Internal-paleographical evidence from the scrolls themselves indicates toward a medieval production. Some have stressed the fact that many scrolls are written on vellum (about 90% of them), further confirms that these documents are indeed a medieval production. What is even more strange, scholars noted the lack of cinnabar-based metallic deterioration on the manuscripts which normally occurs after just 200 years on ancient materials. Additionally, many of the reading variants that 1QIsa-a shares, and that are not attested by MT, can only be found in the private collections of Kennicott’s and de Rossi's Hebrew medieval manuscripts, thus again potentially betraying the medieval nature of DSS.

Besides Solomon Zeitlin, few other biblical scholars of great reputation such as Louis-Hugues Vincent (1872-1960), a French archaeologist of the École Biblique, and Johannes Petrus Maria van der Ploeg (1909-2004), a Dutch Dominican specialist in Hebrew, Dead Sea Scrolls and Syriac manuscripts, also thought that DSS are medieval, not ancient. See John C. Trever, The Untold Story of Qumran (Chicago: F.H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 108

A couple of years ago, I had an email conversation with a Christian scholar Frederick Peter Miller (1931–2018) who confirmed to me that there are many strange editorial markings and traces of later revisions (altered shapes of letters, numerals, punctuation, etc.) observed in between different DSS publications that seems to be anachronistic since they are more consistent with the Middle Ages rather than the Macabbean or Hasmonean period to which the scrolls are said to come from. He and David Cooper told me about Neil Altman who is an independent researcher and expert on DSS, and who carefully studied the scroll of 1QIsa-a, and he was about to release his findings in a journal of El Paso. Scholars posed many questions to IAA with regard to the existence of these strange markings but they never answered them.

We can delve deeper into some of the "unspoken" controversies (and scandals) surrounding DSS but it’s not the right place to talk about it. However, I will insha'Allah write on it more in another occasion. In any case, this whole Israeli propaganda is a mere deceptive strategy to gain a pre-Islamic attestation (and attention) for the antiquity of biblical writings. They urgently needed a certificate to "back up" and/or predate their masoretic text (written in 10th century AD) by claiming to have found a much older copies, and one of the reasons is that they have realized that the Quranic accusation of corrupting the Hebrew Bible, sooner or later, will be inconvenient, unfavorable, and burdensome to their theo-political interest.

Take care,
Idris (Ahmed)
As'salamu Alaikum Everyone,

Welcome back akhi Idris.  I wanted to point out that we have to be mindful that not every Prophecy is necessarily about Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.  The OT makes prophecies about two Prophets to come, and like the ones about the Prophet who will come from Arabia, and demolish the idols through Holy Wars against the pagans, establish GOD's House and Covenant in Arabia, - who is Prophet Muhammad, - there are also ones about the coming Messiah, who will be born in Bethlehem.  Jesus perfectly fulfilled this:

Micah 5:2
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village among all the people of Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel, whose origins are in the distant past, will come from you on my behalf.

Matthew 2:6
‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are not least among the ruling cities of Judah, for a ruler will come from you who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’”

Matthew 2:1
Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking,

Now Prophet Muhammad certainly has ample Prophecies in the OT and NT:

In regards to Isaiah 53, it doesn't talk about GOD Almighty will come down and be a suffering servant like the invented christianity claims.  All it issaying is that the Prophet-to-come will suffer from the Jews' plots and wickedness, but GOD Almighty in the end will save him from harm and death:

Mary and Jesus thanked GOD:

In Psalm 116:16, Jesus and his mother thanked GOD for saving Jesus from death and harm.  See Psalm 91:3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15.  So Isaiah 53 could be talking about Jesus.  I personally have no issues with it at all, and I don't see in it support for the false religion of satan, christianity; that he will die for our sins and rise on the third day.  The NT and OT thoroughly refute christianity's lies.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
As-salam aleikum wa rahmatullah,

I'm happy to see a brother who have a courage and creative mind to interpret Isaiah 53 as refering to Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). And yes, based on my analysis I can confirm that Isaiah 53 is indeed, paradoxically, about Rasulullah (ﷺ), not Jesus (AS). After I finish Isaiah 29:12 (God willing), I will show insha'Allah in few points how Isaiah 53 actually depicts Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), and especially one detail alludes to him in a truly spectacular way.

Take care,
Idris (Ahmed)
« Last post by QuranSearchCom on December 16, 2022, 08:03:23 PM »
I knew from your boyish name that you weren't from central Arabia.  Bedouins don't name Fadi.  Your name is also quite common among Arab Christians.
 But I don't care.

Also, not only I have read the Glorious Quran, but I have done thorough analysis on Its Holy Words and Topics:

If you can get inside your head that Iblis used to be Iblis peace be upon him before he became the curse satan, then everything I mentioned above will make sense to you.  Otherwise, get lost.  I don't need takfiri monkeys apostatizing when their logic goes bankrupt.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube