Sacred Numbers 666 and 19 in Islam

Sacred Numbers 666 and 19 in Islam​

The numbers 666 and 19 represent “sacred” numbers in Islam. According to Muslims, the number 666 refers to the Quran, Allah and Muhammad.

At first, we will discuss the number 19 and, then, we will discuss the number 666.


19 represents a very significant number for Muslims because this number was specifically mentioned in the Quran.

Based on this verse in the Quran, Muslims claim that “19” is a miraculous number and they made many attempts to “prove” it – see links below:

http://answering-islam.org/Nehls/Ask/number19.html

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Miracle_of_19


The bottom line is that, for Muslims, “19” is a miraculous number. Because of that reason, there were 19 Muslim terrorist participating in the attack on the USA on September 11, 2001.


Trying to prove the “miracle” of number 19, Muslims always quote Quran 74:30, but they never quote the very next verse, Quran 74:31, which explains that 19 is the exact number of angels (or demons) in Hellfire:

Quran 74:30-31 – Yusuf Ali Translation:

"27. And what will explain to thee what Hell-Fire is

28. Naught doth it permit to endure, and naught doth it leave alone!-

29. Darkening and changing the colour of man!

30. Over it are nineteen.

31. And We have set none but angels as Guardians of the Fire; and We have fixed their number only as a trial for Unbelievers,- in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty, and the Believers may increase in Faith,- "

http://www.chronquran.blogspot.com/2011/02/4th-chapter-muhammad-produced-sura-74.html




As for the number 666, below is what Muslims themselves say:


"The number 666 is highly publicized all over the world and it is associated with evil and danger.

However, it is not what it seems. It was a Satanic trick.

The trick was to prevent the people approaching the 666.

Satan knew that the 666 is the book of GOD and the people should be kept away from it.

According to his plan, he placed a bad image to the number 666. "


"The truth is that This Quran is the 666 , The Book from The Lord of the Universe. "

"GOD made His Messenger [Muhammad] a witness with the letter Qaf and the number 666. "



Below are the links to the articles where you can read about the number 666 in Muslims’ own words:

http://www.universalunity.org/6.html

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/islam__quran_and_666.htm

 

Concerned,

Have you ever seen this video. I think there was a longer version posted on here once before and it was very interesting.

 

To Andy3:

Yes, I’ve seen this video and many other videos and articles claiming (in a very persuasive way) that the Mark of the Beast is the Islamic phrase: “Bismillah” or “In the name of Allah”.

Multiple articles and videos, pertaining to this issue, can be found everywhere on the Christian websites. And in my thread above I showed that Muslims themselves consider 666 as a “sacred” number of the Quran, Allah and Muhammad.

People on the Catholic websites may say that they will listen to the arguments which come only from the Catholics. I must say that such attitude represents a famous “ad hominem” fallacy. The truth is that the worst person on the face of the earth may have a very strong and valid argument. The argument stays absolutely separately from the person who brought this argument. This person’s faith, behavior, affiliations, habits, etc. play no role whatsoever in the assessment of the validity of his argument.

Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim terrorist, was the first who was credited with deciphering of the meaning of the Mark of the Beast. Walid Shoebat may be a Protestant, I do not know this for sure. What I do know is that he is a great defender of the Roman Catholic Church.

Below, between two dotted lines, I placed two excerpts from Walid Shoebat’s articles taken from his website shoebat.com :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“But how could Catholics be saved, especially with all the icons, statues, saints, Mary worship, chalices and especially the dreaded “salvation by works”?

Perhaps it’s best to answer this question with a question; I had asked Dave my anti-Catholic Sunday school teacher to:

“Show me a single church in history that had existed with church beliefs, style and practices of ecclesiology, liturgy and theology in the history of the first centuries, all the way to the sixteenth century that was identical to what we see in the typical Evangelical church setting of today?”

I hope you have contemplated the question carefully.

Dave spent some time researching and came up empty handed. All orthodox churches prior to the sixteenth century whether we examine archeology or history all look Catholic; everything I have examined had icons along with statues and decorated liturgical elements, such as chalices with the image of Christ engraved upon them. A simple crawl through the Roman catacombs or the remains of Dura Europos (Syria) would provide a pointed demonstration.

All of them were more Catholic in style, worship, arts, liturgies, spices, and veneration of saints …


…To say that Jesus is God only is heresy.
To say that Jesus is man only is also heresy.


Likewise is our salvation.

Is it by faith or works? Well, it is not by isolated faith and neither is it by works.

Catholics object on the Evangelical use of sola-fide, faith alone. But Evangelicals do not expect to go to Jesus and say “I must enter the Kingdom because I believed in faith alone; common Jesus, let me in, and so what if I did not produce any fruit!”

The Evangelical’s, “by faith alone” does not exist in a vacuum, Evangelicals believe that faith must produce fruit.

Catholics do not like the use of “alone” with the word “faith” because James says, “man is not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).

But does that mean that all Catholics believe in salvation by works alone?
No. The whole of Catholic salvation is by “grace” and by grace alone.

Would any true Christian dare deny the following formula for salvation: “If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.”

Do you know who penned this? It was the Catholic Church (see Canon 1).


…in America we denounce all prejudices except to be anti-Catholic.
When will we ever search the log in our eye before we poke at those of the Catholic? ”

http://shoebat.com/2014/01/01/will-catholics-protestants-go-hell-jews-go-heaven/

---------------------

“The libel and slander which the Nazis once did, and what the Muslims are doing now, against the Jews, is ubiquitously known and condemned. But the lies and feigned accusations against Catholics, is almost universally accepted in America, thanks to the innumerable and artless books of many pastors and reverends, even though they are following the same slanderous logic against the Jews which they themselves condemn.

What is also amazing is how so few are willing to inquire in these lies, because evangelicals are continuously listening to sermons and reading books that are void of the careful and meticulous regard to historic sources. It is this that has been the major problem, that is, pastors all of a sudden have made themselves into historians, without even referencing any reputable historians.”

http://shoebat.com/2013/10/25/john-hagee-tim-lahaye-john-macarthur-know-nothing-history/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, frankly, it does not matter who Walid Shoebat is. His faith is totally irrelevant to the validity of his argument. His argument stays on its own, absolutely disconnected with Walid Shoebat personally.

In order to start to understand the Beast of the Revelation, which is Islam and in order to start to understand the Islamic Antichrist, it is absolutely obligatory for everybody to read the book “God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible” written by Walid Shoebat.

This book must be read by everybody.


God Bless!

 

So what do you think about it though. Do you think it is the mark?

 

Of course, it is. In fact, I have no doubts about this. The Mark of the Beast IS "Bismillah" or "In the name of Allah".

 

Some of us are already aware of Walid and his theories. You seem to be according him total infallibility. He is an Evangelical Protestant who has some interesting theories about the end times which I have mentioned more than once on this forum but he also believes absolutely in some things that we Catholics would totally reject such as the 'rapture'. Why not just provide the links to his Youtube videos with a brief outline of what they contain? I think that this would be more effective in persuading people to consider his personal conclusions about various matters. He does not himself claim any prophetic or mystic powers. The fact that you are personally so impressed is no reason to duplicate his every theory on this forum, surely.

 

To Steve D:

You wrote:

In my previous comment, I wrote, that the argument stays absolutely separately from the person who brought this argument. This person’s faith, behavior, affiliations, habits, etc. play no role whatsoever on the validity of his argument. The worst person on the face of the earth may have a very strong and valid argument. Your emphasis on who Walid Shoebat is or on his beliefs is absolutely irrelevant to our assessment of the validity of his argument. Such emphasis is a classic example of “ad hominem” fallacy.

And your statement that I “seem to be according him total infallibility” is far removed from the truth. It does not matter whether Walid Shoebat, as a human being, is “fallible” or “unfallible”. What does matter is whether his argument falls or stays. The argument is absolutely separated from the person who brought this argument.



Regarding to Walid Shoebat, you wrote:

A person does not need to have “any prophetic or mystic powers” in order to have a strong and valid argument. Not at all! Your statement above is just another example of “ad hominem” fallacy.



You wrote:

The context of my thread has nothing to do with the presentations or the books of Walid Shoebat. In fact, Walid Shoebat never mentioned what was written in my thread. So, your accusation has no ground whatsoever.



You wrote:

If you sincerely want me to give you some links to Walid Shoebat’s presentations, I will do so. It is not a problem for me. Just let me know that you sincerely want it.

But, as I already mentioned, in order to start to understand the Beast of the Revelation, which is Islam and in order to start to understand the Islamic Antichrist, it is absolutely obligatory for everybody to read the book “God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible” written by Walid Shoebat. I am sure that this book must be read by everybody. In this book, you will find much more information that in all of Walid Shoebat’s presentation combined.


God Bless!

 

STEVE SAID...'He is an Evangelical Protestant' ,

Enough said Steve, thanks for the heads up.

 

To Mac:

I am very sorry that you feel this way. The arguments or new discoveries made regarding to the context of the Bible should be viewed in the same way as the arguments or new discoveries made in the science. Religious affiliations of the scientists should have no impact whatsoever in acceptance or in rejection of their theories or discoveries.

If you accept scientific discoveries made only by Catholic Christians, you may willingly restrict yourself in a progress. The same pertains to the Orthodox Christians and to all other Christian denominations and to all other religions.

You clearly stick to the ad hominem fallacy, no matter what. It is very regrettable.


God Bless!


concernedforusa

 

concernedforusa said...The arguments or new discoveries made regarding to the context of the Bible should be viewed in the same way as the arguments or new discoveries made in the science.

HORSESHIT [pardon my English]

I will only trust the Deposit of Faith to Rome.

 

One cannot persuade ALL people to think outside the box. One cannot teach the old horse new tricks – such attempts will result in HORSESHIT [pardon my French].

 

And some people are full of it,.. The day is coming,..and is here,..when we will have to choose between our own logic and the truths of the Catholic faith, and that comes through prayer and educating oneself of the Apostolic Tradition handed down through
the 21 Councils, and through approved revelations of mystics, especially through Our Lady.
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
Notice the last Vll did not define anything new, but has through ambiguous wording, caused much confusion rather than clarity. I'm not knocking the it,..but can anyone tell me there have been good fruits since the last Council? There are enemies within the Church who are determined to prevail against Her. We need to be strengthened in the truth of the One True Catholic Apostolic Church. The Popes has been warning us what we need to look out for. Our Lord said,..My people perish for lack of knowledge. Will we be willing to die for the True Church, paid for in blood?

 

Concerned, I'm not sure what's your point here but it seems like you want to make us reconsider the meaning of the number 666 as a holy number.
I'm not going to waste my time reading Muslims belifs on something that our Scripture is very precise about its meaning, namely, the number 666 (Rev. 13:18).

Your post sounds to me like a close parallel to another Scripture passage that I think we should keep in mind very especially at this time when there ara so very many "wise" people who know better than Scripture or than the Church official authority. Let us not forget this dialog: Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

To: Woman Clothed With the Sun

You wrote:

I was definitely misunderstood. In was not my intention to make anyone reconsider the meaning of the number of 666. This is a satanic number, and nothing holy is in this number.

This my paper is really a continuation of my previous 4-parts paper “Revelation 17, Zechariah 5 and the Satanic Verses of Muhammad”. It was my mistake that I did not make it clear in the beginning of this thread, and I apologize for that.

The argument of my paper “Revelation 17, Zechariah 5 and the Satanic Verses of Muhammad” is that the Beast from the Sea in Revelation 13 is the satanic religion of Islam. The number 666 represents “Bismillah” or “In the name of Allah”, it is a satanic number.

In the Quran everything is upside-down comparing to the Bible. Allah, the god of the Quran is Satan in the Bible. The “good” guy in Islam is the Antichrist in the Bible. Likewise, the satanic number 666 in the Bible is the holy number for the Muslims.

That was my point. Many Christians already pointed out to the fact that the Islam is the religion of the Antichrist, that the Beast of the Revelation is the Satanic Beast, and that the satanic number 666 represents “Bismillah” or “In the name of Allah”.

Proclamation by Muslims that the number 666 is actually the “holy” number only confirmed the above conclusion. Everything that is satanic in the Bible is holy in Islam and vice versa. Islam IS that satanic Beast of Revelation 17!


This was all what I was trying to say. I hope that I clarified the meaning of my thread.


God Bless!


concernedforusa

 

A Doctor of the Church... from the 15min mark...http://www.romans10seventeen.org/audio-files/20030105-The-End-Times-part-1.mp3

 

Thanks for your clarification, ConcernedFU.

 

This is a problem. Our forum is not a place for the presentation of papers.

 

I argue it is not a problem. the phrase 'presentation of papers' is a turn of phrase.

 

Sorry. I've read lots of papers. These are papers.

 

To Kathy K:

You may call them "collection of thoughts", "essays", "papers" or whatever. Does it make any difference? Isn't every thread posted here represents a "collection of someone's thoughts"? Nobody can force someone else to read a thread which this person does not want to read. So, to read or not to read - the choice is yours.

God Bless!

concernedforusa