Islam Did Mohammed exist?

[Limo]

There is an official statement by the Mormon church which says; " The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, .... and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals". We believe God sent many prophets to all nations with varying degrees of light and understanding.

There are some Mormons who do believe Mohammed was a prophet sent to Ishmael's family and those who were descendants of Abraham outside of Israel. But, they feel Islam has gone into apostasy just as the Jews and Christians did before them.

The Jews went into apostasy and began worshiping "the daughter of a strange god" see Mal 3. They squished El and Yahweh into one being. The Christians went into apostasy when they did the same thing and created the Trinity. Islam did when they reject Jesus as being the Son of God.

We feel that the true God is El/Allah, from him all light and power flows. He created/organized everything spiritual first "before it was in the earth and before it grew" Gen 2. Yahweh was his first born of the spirits or souls and then El created the rest of us spiritually also, we are called his children because He created us.

What we call angels are these spirits, often in the Old Testament Yahweh is referred to as "the angel of the Lord" meaning the spirit of Yahweh. In your Quran it says;

“And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: ‘I am going to create a human (Adam) from sounding clay of altered black smooth mud. So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me, then you fall down prostrate to him.” (Quran 38:71-72)

that fits very nicely into Mormon doctrine.

The spirits exist in heaven as angels, El called us together to explain how he was going to create the earth and we would be sent down to it to become men and women in order to learn good and evil. The angel/spirit Michael became Adam and head of the human family.

Yahweh was the first and greatest of all these angels, he was perfectly righteous in all his thoughts. El chose him to be his second in command, to be 'Lord of Host'. He instructed Yahweh on how to create and then allowed him to created or organize all things physical. It was He who created the physical earthly body of Adam and put Michael's soul into it.

But we always have to remember Yahweh acts in behalf of and under the authority of El/Allah. He is El/Allah's mediator or messenger between man and Himself.

In the Arberry translation of 4:171 it says
"...say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him...."

The Spirit of Yahweh left El's presence and entered the body of baby Jesus, that body was created by El. Yahweh is the Messiah, he lived a perfect life and died on the cross for our sins. His body went into the tomb and his Spirit returned to El. After three days His Spirit returned to his body and lifted it up unto life everlasting to never die again. He opened the path so that we all can be resurrected and return to the presence of El/Allah.

Once again Arberry translation of 4:171
"...God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

In Jesus intercessory prayer he says;
" These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.." John 17

The Son brings glory to the Father/El, Allah

Thank you for explaining the Mormon belief.
I've only one note that creates ambiguity

Once again Arberry translation of 4:171
"...God is only One God. Glory be to Him -- That He should have a son! To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian."

If someone reads Arberry translation, he'll jump to a wrong conclusion that It's written in Quran "That He should have a son!". the "To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian"
Which is not true interpretation of the verse
The verse is denying completely that Allah can have a son.

Let us see other translations that make it clear cut: It's not suitable for Allah to have a son
Sahih International : Exalted is He above having a son.
Pickthall: : Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son
Yusuf Ali: far exalted is He) above having a son.
Shakir:far be It from His glory that He should have a son,
Muhammad Sarwar:There is only One God. He is too glorious to give birth to a son.
Mohsin Khan:Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son.

Thanks

 

[Limo]

Regarding the Aramaic origins of significant parts of the Quran. The initial research was done by Theodor Noeldeke in 1890 and expanded on by Guenter Lueling in the 1960s. The school of thought that is arguing this view today is the Saarbrucken school which is a part of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies.

The central thesis of this school includes the following arguments:

"Besides the discussion of the historicity of Muhammad as a historical person and the Quranic text attributed to him, Islam has to engage in the following debates:

• Traditional texts which had shaped Islam for centuries - yet not from the beginning - are not true.
• The Quranic text has not been handed down to our times unharmed.
• Even in the Quran, God's word is in many respects clothed in human words.
• Muhammad did not live in Mecca.
• The relationship between Muhammad and Jews and Christians was different than always thought it had be."

I asked you to provide evidences not references to nonscientific illusions.
Write claims with reasons not just stiffed copied words

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you for explaining the Mormon belief.
I've only one note that creates ambiguity

If someone reads Arberry translation, he'll jump to a wrong conclusion that It's written in Quran "That He should have a son!". the "To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; God suffices for a guardian"
Which is not true interpretation of the verse
The verse is denying completely that Allah can have a son.

Let us see other translations that make it clear cut: It's not suitable for Allah to have a son
Sahih International : Exalted is He above having a son.
Pickthall: : Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son
Yusuf Ali: far exalted is He) above having a son.
Shakir:far be It from His glory that He should have a son,
Muhammad Sarwar:There is only One God. He is too glorious to give birth to a son.
Mohsin Khan:Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son.

Thanks

Well I think that is my point, back there during the wars with the Christians instead of just rejecting the Trinity they rejected Jesus as the Son of God altogether. I think the Arberry is the correct version if not then that makes Mohammed a false prophet and the anti Christ which the New Testament warns about.

2:136 Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

John the Baptist is one of the prophets revered in the Holy Quran

When he preformed Jesus' baptism the voice of El/Allah said; "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


A short time later the Baptist says to his own followers "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

When Nathanael first met Jesus his first response was, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh." John 1

Jesus speaking to the apostate Jews said,
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man (meaning the mortal Mary) be lifted up:
.....For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3

Many years later John the Beloved wrote
1John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit(prophet), but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

14 And we have seen and dotestify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

Now I either accept the Arberry translation that the Son brings glory to God or I have to believe Mohammed was a false prophet and the prophesied anti Christ to come.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm fairly certain Mohammed started out as a mascot for the Mecca Chamber of Commerce's tourism initiative, and things just got out of hand.

Don't want to derail the thread, but ancient tourism to Mecca is a serious subject of inquiry. At the time of Muhammad, Mecca had the pagan Kaaba with its 360 pagan gods which all the pagans of Arabia would visit and spend money, and, anyway, it still has the Kaaba and the tourism, under new management. It's an interesting topic to look into.

 

[mindlight]

I asked you to provide evidences not references to nonscientific illusions.
Write claims with reasons not just stiffed copied words

The following list foreign words found in the Quran. The Quran is far from being just Arabic.

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm

http://www.1000mistakes.com/1000mistakes/index.php/index.php?Page=002_003_001_001


http://muslimmatters.org/2008/05/21/the-arabic-quran-and-foreign-words/


http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/borrowing.htm

The following link describes extensive doctrinal influence and repeating of earlier stories in the Muslim Quran. Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism have all been borrowed from.

http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/books/origins-koran/

The point being that if Mohammeds unique Arab revealed prophecy is actually derived from earlier sources and written using foreign words how can his claim to speak for God be trusted? If his account cannot be trusted then how can we trust that the descriptions we have of him from the Quran and from the even more unreliable Hadiths are accurate. Indeed how do we know he existed at all if the only sources used here cannot be trusted to be what they claim to be?

 

[Limo]

Well I think that is my point, back there during the wars with the Christians instead of just rejecting the Trinity they rejected Jesus as the Son of God altogether. I think the Arberry is the correct version if not then that makes Mohammed a false prophet and the anti Christ which the New Testament warns about.

Absolutely, Arberry translation is wrong as per the understanding of Quran in Arabic.

If son of God means righteous human, then all prophets and good people are Sons of God. Many prophets in Old Testimony called themselves Son of God.

If son of good means "begotten " then not only Prophet Mohamed who didn't believe in this but all Old Testimony prophets as well.
Nevertheless, Jesus himself never said "I begotten from El". He called EL his father as many Israelis prophets in Old Testimony.

2:136 Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

True, We believe in true versions of previous books. We believe in El-Messiah's Injiil only, neither Mark, Matheo, John, nor Luke Gospels.

John the Baptist is one of the prophets revered in the Holy Quran

When he preformed Jesus' baptism the voice of El/Allah said; "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


A short time later the Baptist says to his own followers "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

When Nathanael first met Jesus his first response was, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel/Yahweh." John 1

Jesus speaking to the apostate Jews said,
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man (meaning the mortal Mary) be lifted up:
.....For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3

Many years later John the Beloved wrote
1John 2
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit(prophet), but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

14 And we have seen and dotestify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

If I cope with you and discuss what is written in Gospels, I can tell that all of the above are words of the writers of Gospels not words of El-Messiah.

From Islamic perspective :

• We believe in human El-Messiah who born mercurially without a father from a virgin (Mariam). He wasn't neither crucified nor died on cross, nor put in a tomb. He has been raised alive to heaven. He'll come in the last days to lead the all the good people against all bad people in a big fight. All Muslims will follow him
  
• We believe in El-MEssiah book Injill which it's original version doesn't exist today.We don't believe in Gospels which might contains some remains of El-Messiah Injiil.
• We don't know Mark, Luke, Mathew, John, and Paul.

Historically :

• There is no original copies of Gospels, their writers are not known, the names were given a long time after these writings were circulating
• We're sure according to Gospels itself that neither Luke nor Mark were disciples and never seen El-Messiah. Same is for Paul.
• There is no chain of transformation of these books from the original writers to the copiers
• There are hundreds of thousands of variations among the scripts

So, There is no assurance that the books (New Testimony) you're referring are connected to El

Now I either accept the Arberry translation that the Son brings glory to God or I have to believe Mohammed was a false prophet and the prophesied anti Christ to come.

I and any Moslem can tell you that Arberry translation is wrong.

On the other hand, There is no evidences that Prophet Mohamed is a false prophet or even the Anti Christ.
Prophet Mohamed never told anything that didn't happen (a sign for a false prophet)
Prophet Mohamed doesn't talk on his own but tells the words that are sent to him from Allah.
He glorified El-Messiah and his mother. He cleared all the myths that have been attached to El-Messiah. He uncovered the true belief of early Christianity i.e. the monotheism not the Trinity one.

 

[Limo]

The following list foreign words found in the Quran. The Quran is far from being just Arabic.

http://answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm

http://www.1000mistakes.com/1000mistakes/index.php/index.php?Page=002_003_001_001


http://muslimmatters.org/2008/05/21/the-arabic-quran-and-foreign-words/


http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/borrowing.htm

The following link describes extensive doctrinal influence and repeating of earlier stories in the Muslim Quran. Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism have all been borrowed from.

http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/books/origins-koran/

The point being that if Mohammeds unique Arab revealed prophecy is actually derived from earlier sources and written using foreign words how can his claim to speak for God be trusted? If his account cannot be trusted then how can we trust that the descriptions we have of him from the Quran and from the even more unreliable Hadiths are accurate. Indeed how do we know he existed at all if the only sources used here cannot be trusted to be what they claim to be?

You've provided 2 contradicted claims. You can't put both together in one claim:

• First: he didn't exist
• Second : Quran is derived from many resources Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Hebrew, Greek, and other languages. Quran is full of linguistic mistakes

As I said earlier, the first one about his existence doesn't have any scientific bases at all. Companions recorded his genealogy, grand fathers history, father and mother history, birth, infantry, childhood, youth, before proficiency and after, clothes, words, stops/moves, sleep/awaken, wards, body language,,,,
I challenge you if it happened ever in human history someone shared his personal affairs even how to go to toilet, how to take care of your body (nails, hairs,,,)

In light of Gospels, What do you know about history of Jesus-Christ ? What do you know about period from infantry till 12 years old ? What do you know about Jesus before become 30 years old ?
What do you know about disciples' father/family names or genealogy ? What do you know about Jews Christians ?

Second point is a real proof that Prophet Mohamed is a true prophet as you're wondering how Quran contains words from many religions/languages/nations ?:

• He was illiterate (can't read or write), he never get into school or guided a master. He grown up in Mecca where there is no Jews and about 2-3 Christians. Arabs at that time were illiterates a few people all over peninsula who could read/write. There is no trace for any Arabic writings before Islam
• Quran contains some history about many prophets and nations from an illiterate person means that it's from The Creator
• Non-Arabic words in Quran are used in names of people and places. It's normal if you're telling about non-Arabic nations. Nevertheless, Quran also told about Pharaohs and mentioned some Pharaohs names
• Quran is free of mistakes. If you're talking about mistakes in Quran, we should agree about the reference. If you take Bible as a reference, I would reject it. If you take real history or stabilized scientific fact then I agree (If you've examples, just submit it here, don't refer me to thousand pages books)

If Prophet didn't exist or a false prophet:

• Did anyone succeeded to write a comprehensive book contains wards from many sources ?
• Dis any nation succeeded to invent a character that didn't exist and that nations succeeded to beat the greatest empires and extended for more than 14 century ?

Even invented character Jesus-Christ (different from El-Messiah) failed ,arrested, crucified, his followers are divided, no agreement about his nature, no agreement about the books

This is hat happens with invented charecters

 

[withwonderingawe]

If I cope with you and discuss what is written in Gospels, I can tell that all of the above are words of the writers of Gospels not words of El-Messiah.

Mohammed didn't leave us with any of his own actual writings and between the Shia and the Sunni there are two different stories lines as to how it was put together. Basically first people listening to Mohammed memorized then scribes wrote and copied and then gathered them in and compiled. Apparently different copies went different directions and new converts spoke different langues. The story goes that 20 years after Mohammeds death Uthman around gathered up all of the known copies complied and then burned the rest.

Uthman had no right to do that! It leaves a big hole and questions about how truthful the translations are that we have today. Did he allow his own feelings to dictate what went into the text, we will never know for sure.

This is from Wiki;
"The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time (as Arabic writing styles have progressed through time) and the Quran was preserved through memorization and written references on different materials. As Arab society started to evolve into using writing more regularly, writing skills evolved accordingly. Early Quranic Arabic lacked precision because distinguishing between consonants was impossible due to the absence of diacritical marks (a’jam). Vowelling marks (tashkil) to indicate prolongation or vowels were absent as well. Due to this there were endless possibilities for the mispronunciation of the word. The Arabic script as we know it today, the scripta plena, which has pointed texts and is fully vowelled was not perfected until the middle of the 9th century"

To discount all of the Gospels is to discount all of the words of Jesus who Mohammed said he was a true prophet. How could he be a true Prophet and not leave us his words?

Jesus called 12 men to be his apostles and he told them;
40 ¶He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

Now I could understand rejecting Luke, Mark and Paul because they were not part of that original calling. But that leaves Matthew, John, Peter and James. There is also the little book of Jude who was the brother of Jesus.

Mark was a scribe for Peter so many feel the Gospel of Mark was taken from Peter's stories and sermons, the oldest actual text we have dates to before 90 ad.

The oldest text of John dates to before 125 ad. John was promised by Jesus " he tarry till I come" so some believe he is still walking the earth. I believe he stayed long enough to help the New Testament be collected in to one volume.

 

[Limo]

Mohammed didn't leave us with any of his own actual writings and between the Shia and the Sunni there are two different stories lines as to how it was put together. Basically first people listening to Mohammed memorized then scribes wrote and copied and then gathered them in and compiled. Apparently different copies went different directions and new converts spoke different langues. The story goes that 20 years after Mohammeds death Uthman around gathered up all of the known copies complied and then burned the rest.

Uthman had no right to do that! It leaves a big hole and questions about how truthful the translations are that we have today. Did he allow his own feelings to dictate what went into the text, we will never know for sure.

Unfortunately the above information is not accurate.
Let me tell you, the real story.
In the beginning, I like to tell you that any Moslem must memorize some of the Quran to use in Salah (prayer). Transformation of Quran is manly by memory and a few copies as reference.

Quran writing started during the Prophet's life. He was always making sure that Quran is written by several people not one. So, When Prophet died:

• All Quran was memorized by hundreds of companions
• Many companions were having most of Quran written on different materials

The first caliph who ruled after Prophet death, within his first year assigned a committee to compile a complete 100% copy of Quran in one place. The committee was reviewing Quran verse by verse with all companions in Madina at that time.

This copy is kept till Uthma era which started 12 years after prophet's death.

During Uthman era, he created 6 copies from the original one and distributed to the main cities as a reference Madina, Mecca, Baghdad, Cairo, Yemen,,,
He ordered all people who has their copies to burn it, for a simple reason. Abubakr's copy which is written after Prophet's death by one year and his copy are reviewed by all companions but other personal copies are reviewed but no one except for the writer himself.

So, Uthman did nothing more than :

• Created 6 copies from the master copy that is collected during the first year after Prophet's death
• As the master and the 6 copies are reviewed and verified by all companions, it became the only certified copies
  
• Asked all people to burn any personal copy that might not be complete or having errors

This is from Wiki;
"The Arabic script as we know it today was unknown in Muhammad’s time (as Arabic writing styles have progressed through time) and the Quran was preserved through memorization and written references on different materials. As Arab society started to evolve into using writing more regularly, writing skills evolved accordingly. Early Quranic Arabic lacked precision because distinguishing between consonants was impossible due to the absence of diacritical marks (a’jam). Vowelling marks (tashkil) to indicate prolongation or vowels were absent as well. Due to this there were endless possibilities for the mispronunciation of the word. The Arabic script as we know it today, the scripta plena, which has pointed texts and is fully vowelled was not perfected until the middle of the 9th century"

If you know Arabic language. it doesn't have diacritical marks but it has "dots" to distinguish between similar characters. It has vowels and vowiling marks.

For your info, we can read without neither "dots", nor vowels, nor vowels marks especially if you're memorizing what you're reading.

Uthman's 6 copies were written without any dots or vowels or vowels marks.

After the dots, vowels, and vowel's marks were invented, Moslems kept the same Uthman's characters shape but added these signs on top of the writings.

One of Uthman's copies is now in Turky as is without signs till date.
There is a great portion of Quran in Brimingham universty that is written during Prophet's life before even Uthman's copies.
Both are 100% identical and 100% identical with all certified copies exist now.

To discount all of the Gospels is to discount all of the words of Jesus who Mohammed said he was a true prophet. How could he be a true Prophet and not leave us his words?

Jesus called 12 men to be his apostles and he told them;
40 ¶He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

Now I could understand rejecting Luke, Mark and Paul because they were not part of that original calling. But that leaves Matthew, John, Peter and James. There is also the little book of Jude who was the brother of Jesus.

Mark was a scribe for Peter so many feel the Gospel of Mark was taken from Peter's stories and sermons, the oldest actual text we have dates to before 90 ad.

The oldest text of John dates to before 125 ad. John was promised by Jesus " he tarry till I come" so some believe he is still walking the earth. I believe he stayed long enough to help the New Testament be collected in to one volume.

Give one single evidence that Matthew, John, Peter and James, Jude have really written the books that are called by their names.

Give the chain of people who memorized/wrote from these people till the oldest copy of their books exist today ?

What do you call "oldest actual text we have dates to before 90 ad.The oldest text of John dates to before 125 ad" which is known as P52 is 3.5 by 2.5 inches has John 18:31–33, and 37–38 in the back.

Surprise is, it never been checked against carbon to certify it's exact date.
The original proposed date range of 100-150 CE
While exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, said it's of 125-175 CE

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament....

 

[withwonderingawe]

One of Uthman's copies is now in Turky as is without signs till date.

Wik;
The Topkapi manuscript is an early manuscript of the Quran dated to the late 1st century / early 2nd century AH (i.e. early to mid 8th century AD)

This manuscript is kept in the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, Turkey. It was wrongly [1] attributed to Uthman Ibn Affan (d. 656), but judging from its illumination, the Topkapi manuscript does not date from the period (early first century AH) when the copies of the Caliph Uthman were written. The manuscript contains decorative bands separating the chapters and small ornamental circles separating the verses.

Quran in Brimingham universty that is written during Prophet's life

Wik
Dr Saud al-Sarhan, Director of Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, has been more sceptical; questioning whether the parchment might have been reused as a palimpsest,(reused) and also noting that the writing had chapter separators and dotted verse endings – features in Arabic scripts which are believed not to have been introduced to the Qur'an until later.[16] Dr Saud's criticisms have been backed by a number of Saudi-based experts in Quranic history who strongly rebut any speculation that the Birmingham/Paris Quran could have been written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad. They emphasize that while the Prophet was alive, Quranic texts were written without any chapter decoration, marked verse endings or use of coloured inks; and did not follow any standard sequence of surahs. They maintain that those features were introduced into Quranic practice in the time of the Caliph Uthman, and so it would be entirely possible that the Birmingham leaves could have been written then, but not earlier. [17]

Ya might call that a forgery. There are a lot of examples of people going into libraries and cutting out blank pages found at the back of bound books written in the 16 and 17 hundreds. Then manufacturing ink to similar time periods and forging documents. Now in this case someone found an old animal skin and wrote on it, it might be a simple palimpsest but it calls into question a lot of the history of the Quran. People in the 800s could be just as deceiving as they are today and their deceptions are still with us.

Now your problem is you only have Uthaman's witness that things were done as he claimed or someone else saying Uthaman said that he did thing thusly. There are no other writings from that time period which say I sat by Uthaman's side and made sure he did it correctly, all you really have are myths. None of it would stand up in a court of law.

Now the New Testament dates 600 years before Mohammed was even born so the documents were being passed down for a much much long time. What we have in the New Testament are stories and teachings of Christ with enough similarities to know they are true and just enough variances to know that each man was writing from his own experience. There is a feeling that there is a missing document from which the others quoted from, Jesus probably had scribes writing down his sermons and keeping a record of his travels. This would fall inline with Mohammed's experience of having scribes or even our modern Prophet Joseph Smith who was under commandment to have scribes keeping track of his revelations and his movements.

There is another witness to the authenticity of the New Testament found in the early Church fathers. In their writings they quoted from the gospels considering them canonized and from God. In Ignatius(c.35 – c.108) letter to the
Ephesians he quotes from John, Matthew and Paul's letters to Timothy. Polycarp (AD 69 – 155) quotes from Paul, Luke, Matthew and Peter extensively. Clement of Rome died in 99 ad and in his Letter to the Corinthians he quotes a great deal from the Old Testament and the New. He uses Paul a great deal along with Peter and Luke, Matthew and James. What impresses me is that he assume you the reader will recognize the passages he is quoting. *So we have three of the first Christian men who knew Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, John and Luke personally and quoting from their Gospels and letters as if they were already considered scripture.

Now back to my question

To discount all of the Gospels is to discount all of the words of Jesus who Mohammed said he was a true prophet. How could he be a true Prophet and not leave us his words?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Islam was not an Arabic Christian sect. This is a lie. If it were true, then what trappings of a Christian sect are there, for example, vestments, liturgies, Churches? Why would the founder of the religion risk his life and live a life of severe hardship,

I'm not sure I'm following your complaints, but once again I'm a Mormon writing on a thread that is suppose to be between "christian" and Muslims so if you desire delete me and I will completely understand. Actually I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

There is a book by Daniel Peterson called Mohammed Prophet of God where he explains that Mohammed's wife was Christian. It is felt she would not have married him if he weren't also.

Non Sequitur Logical Fallacy. Seriously, where did you pull that out from?

Logic says if John the Apostle says to deny Jesus is the Son of God makes you an anti Christ and Mohammed says God did not have a son then he is preaching exactly what John calls an anti Christ.

 

[withwonderingawe]

As and example of Quran misunderstandings
4:157
Sahih International: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

At this website http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=158
they show 7 different translations of the same verse. Four of which says "but [another] was made to resemble him to them" and from this Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross.

But three of the translations only say "they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them" It seems there is some creative translating going on.

Jesus says in John 10
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

and at the cross he says in Luke 23
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

The Jews did not kill him, he laid down his own life when he accomplished all that God wanted him to do. And yes "God raised him up to Himself. God is Majestic and All-wise." Jesus rose up from the grave " (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens)" Mohsin Khan & Muhammad Sarwar translations of 4:158

 

[withwonderingawe]

I don't care. I've already proven that you are dishonest.

My you are full of yourself.

 

[withwonderingawe]

True, We believe in true versions of previous books. We believe in El-Messiah's Injiil only, neither Mark, Matheo, John, nor Luke Gospels.

I looked up the Messiah's Injiil and found at wic the following;
"The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Quran and refers to the book given to Jesus. Muslim scholars[who?] generally agree that Injil refers to the true Gospel, bestowed upon Jesus by God. The word Injil is used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer specifically to the revelations made by God to Jesus. Muslims reject that Jesus or any other person wrote the Injil, instead crediting its authorship to God. Many Muslim scholars believe that the Gospel has undergone alteration, that the words and the meaning of the words have been distorted, with some passages suppressed and others added. The Islamic principle of the oneness (Tawhid) and wholeness of God's divinity means that in their view it is impossible for Jesus to be God incarnateor the Son of God, and that the worship of Jesus by Christians is due to later additions. The Quran says of the Gospel:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."

Could you explain to me how you decide just what has been distorted and what has not.

Jesus did says
John 12:49
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

There is the theory of a missing Q document which would have been use to formulate both Luke and Matthew. I feel there was a there was more than that, as I said before I think Jesus had scribes writing his words, keeping track of his healings and travels. The apostles drew from this source as they wrote their Gospels.

Now I don't believe the Gospels themselves have been distorted but the interpretation has. The word Elohim is plural in the Old Testament and it says let 'us' make man in 'our' image. I noticed that the Quran also uses the word 'we'.

21:107
We sent thee not save as a mercy for the peoples.

How do you explain the We?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Non Sequitur Logical Fallacy: as has been explained to you time and again, it doesn't follow that what is in your scripture is the truth. And you have done nothing to argue for it being the truth. I surmise it is because you are short on actual arguments, based on your immense tally of logical fallacies (you objectively score a logical falsehood at every turn).

I start this conversation with the idea that everyone including our Muslim friend Limo already assumed the Bible to be the word of God at least to some point and there was no need to defend it.

Also you explained this to me time and time again?, as far as I know I've never spoken to you before so why are you jumping on me and calling me a liar?

 

[Limo]

One thing l notice about these types of polemical debates is that you get the most ferocious anti-Islam debaters when the opponent's first language is not English. They will keep you talking on and on. It seems easy because you're held back (slightly) by a language barrier.

By the way, when you say nobody can understand the Quran if they don't understand Arabic, you're ridiculing your own stance, because this entire debate is in English and you are effectively saying there is no debate. Worse, you then continue to debate in English, the extrapolation being that your own words are not the true Islam because they do not convey the true Qur'an because you're speaking in English.

To top it all off, you then quote 6 English Qur'an translations.

Your English is very good and some of your posts on this thread have been really enlightening, and l thank you for your guidance. Still, you'll need to stop niggling about translations per se, and just make use of the translated fragments as this is an English debate, and also be aware when somebody is just pulling your leg and clearly being intellectually dishonest with you (just my opinion). I look forward to reading more of your posts, you're clearly knowledgeable.

I really accept and recognize your truly accurate notes about my posts. I'll take your advice into consideration.

Very well said, thank you. Your posts have the quality of clear, cold mountain water, whereas certain other posters' are briny, muddy.

Thank you

Apologies to all if l've been unfair to anybody. I've tried my best to be fair, l've checked and double checked what l've written.

Now come ppl. Don't disappoint me. Argue

It's amazing notes.
I think you're high academic person.

 

[Limo]

Wik;
The Topkapi manuscript is an early manuscript of the Quran dated to the late 1st century / early 2nd century AH (i.e. early to mid 8th century AD)

This manuscript is kept in the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, Turkey. It was wrongly [1] attributed to Uthman Ibn Affan (d. 656), but judging from its illumination, the Topkapi manuscript does not date from the period (early first century AH) when the copies of the Caliph Uthman were written. The manuscript contains decorative bands separating the chapters and small ornamental circles separating the verses.



Wik
Dr Saud al-Sarhan, Director of Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, has been more sceptical; questioning whether the parchment might have been reused as a palimpsest,(reused) and also noting that the writing had chapter separators and dotted verse endings – features in Arabic scripts which are believed not to have been introduced to the Qur'an until later.[16] Dr Saud's criticisms have been backed by a number of Saudi-based experts in Quranic history who strongly rebut any speculation that the Birmingham/Paris Quran could have been written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad. They emphasize that while the Prophet was alive, Quranic texts were written without any chapter decoration, marked verse endings or use of coloured inks; and did not follow any standard sequence of surahs. They maintain that those features were introduced into Quranic practice in the time of the Caliph Uthman, and so it would be entirely possible that the Birmingham leaves could have been written then, but not earlier. [17]

Ya might call that a forgery. There are a lot of examples of people going into libraries and cutting out blank pages found at the back of bound books written in the 16 and 17 hundreds. Then manufacturing ink to similar time periods and forging documents. Now in this case someone found an old animal skin and wrote on it, it might be a simple palimpsest but it calls into question a lot of the history of the Quran. People in the 800s could be just as deceiving as they are today and their deceptions are still with us.

Now your problem is you only have Uthaman's witness that things were done as he claimed or someone else saying Uthaman said that he did thing thusly. There are no other writings from that time period which say I sat by Uthaman's side and made sure he did it correctly, all you really have are myths. None of it would stand up in a court of law.

Ok perfect, Do you believe in the results you've shared above ?

We can read 2 facts there:

• Both manuscripts are dated between late 1st century and early 2nd Hijri century
• There is no single difference with current Quran copies

Now the New Testament dates 600 years before Mohammed was even born so the documents were being passed down for a much much long time. What we have in the New Testament are stories and teachings of Christ with enough similarities to know they are true and just enough variances to know that each man was writing from his own experience. There is a feeling that there is a missing document from which the others quoted from, Jesus probably had scribes writing down his sermons and keeping a record of his travels. This would fall inline with Mohammed's experience of having scribes or even our modern Prophet Joseph Smith who was under commandment to have scribes keeping track of his revelations and his movements.

You've highlighted an excellent point that I'm searching in it all the time:

• "a missing document from which the others quoted from" and "Jesus probably had scribes writing down his sermons and keeping a record of his travels"

Scholars call it "Q source" and now they're talking about "M and L sources"

This somehow agrees with what Allah told in Quran about El-Messiah book which is Injiil.
If "each man was writing from his own experience" is true (I believe that it's the case ) about Gospels then it's not a revelation from Allah and there is no guarantee that this is exactly El-Messiah wards and teaching.

In addition, we're not sure that these books have been written by someone directly connected to El-Messiah, it misses the chain of narrations to these connected men

Scholars say that these books were circulating for centuries before it's given its known names. The names have been chosen among the names of the disciples. It was that time tradition to do so. It's agreed that according to the New Testimony itself neither Mark nor Luke were disciples.
There are evidences that even Mathew and John Gospels are not written by disciples Mathew and John. Same about the letters.

There is another witness to the authenticity of the New Testament found in the early Church fathers. In their writings they quoted from the gospels considering them canonized and from God. In Ignatius(c.35 – c.108) letter to the
Ephesians he quotes from John, Matthew and Paul's letters to Timothy. Polycarp (AD 69 – 155) quotes from Paul, Luke, Matthew and Peter extensively. Clement of Rome died in 99 ad and in his Letter to the Corinthians he quotes a great deal from the Old Testament and the New. He uses Paul a great deal along with Peter and Luke, Matthew and James. What impresses me is that he assume you the reader will recognize the passages he is quoting. *So we have three of the first Christian men who knew Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, John and Luke personally and quoting from their Gospels and letters as if they were already considered scripture.

If someone in early ages writes something that came in others books, it doesn't mean that he has read these books unless he explicitly refer to these book.

You should know that Mark, Mathew, and Luke are called "Synoptic Gospels" because of high similarities but no one of them gave a single reference to the others.

It looks like there were stories and sayings flying here and there among early Christians. Some are true, some are false, and some are myths.
The books writers collected it blindly without any scientific or verification of chain of narrations.
The good evidence about that is there were hundreds of books similar to the 4 Gospels. The 4 Gospels are called canonized not because it's creditably connected to El-Messiah or his near circle but because it has been chosen in Nicaea among hundreds. That's it.

To discount all of the Gospels is to discount all of the words of Jesus who Mohammed said he was a true prophet. How could he be a true Prophet and not leave us his words?

If the book of a certain prophet is disappeared or changed, it doesn't change the fact that he's a true prophet. Ibrahim's book for example is totally lost.
Even in Old Testimony Jeremiah told about "lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?". So, Old Testimony is saying that Old lying pens has handled Old Testimony.

Allah told in Quran that previous prophets had revealed books. We believe in them all although their books are lost.

Same happened with El-Messiah and the Injiil.

 

[Limo]

As and example of Quran misunderstandings
4:157
Sahih International: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

Pickthall: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

At this website http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=158
they show 7 different translations of the same verse. Four of which says "but [another] was made to resemble him to them" and from this Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross.

But three of the translations only say "they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them" It seems there is some creative translating going on.

It depends on the way of translation. someone is translating literaly and another is translating explanatory. There are 2 facts in the verse :

• Explicit negation of neither Crucifixion nor killing
• How El-Messiah survived in 2 ways:
  • Literal translation"appeared so unto them"
  • explanatory translation "resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man"

Jesus says in John 10
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

and at the cross he says in Luke 23
"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

The Jews did not kill him, he laid down his own life when he accomplished all that God wanted him to do. And yes "God raised him up to Himself. God is Majestic and All-wise." Jesus rose up from the grave " (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens)" Mohsin Khan & Muhammad Sarwar translations of 4:158

There is nothing in translations say that El-Messiah was crucified or burred or resurrected

 

[Limo]

I looked up the Messiah's Injiil and found at wic the following;
"The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Quran and refers to the book given to Jesus. Muslim scholars[who?] generally agree that Injil refers to the true Gospel, bestowed upon Jesus by God. The word Injil is used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer specifically to the revelations made by God to Jesus. Muslims reject that Jesus or any other person wrote the Injil, instead crediting its authorship to God. Many Muslim scholars believe that the Gospel has undergone alteration, that the words and the meaning of the words have been distorted, with some passages suppressed and others added. The Islamic principle of the oneness (Tawhid) and wholeness of God's divinity means that in their view it is impossible for Jesus to be God incarnateor the Son of God, and that the worship of Jesus by Christians is due to later additions. The Quran says of the Gospel:

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."

Could you explain to me how you decide just what has been distorted and what has not.

For the seek of good discussion, please decrease copy-past, just use your own wards after reading articles.
Allah told us in Quran about 2 main things El-Messiah and his revealed from Allah book names Injiil.
El-Messiah in Quran is a totally different character from the Nicaea created character Jesus-Christ (This is not our subject - we can discuss it later in other threads. by the way it's not an Islmaic view only but many modern scholars share the same)
Now the attributes of the book Injiil is totaly different from books on hand you call it Gospels, following are a few differences:

• You'll never find any linguistic connections between the words Injiil and Gospel. Any translation substitutes the ward Injiil to Gospel is false
• Injiil is literal wards of Allah to El-Messiah via Gabriel - not the case for Gospels
• El-Messiah tough the book, wrote it or asked scribes to write -not the case for Gospels
• Injiil is like Quran and first 5 books in Torah
  
• Gospels are history like, someone writes what he learnt about Jesus (not El-Messiah) life
• Gospels belongs to their writers without any clear connection to El-Messiah

Back to your question to decide what is really from Injiil and what is distorted :

• Good sayings or beautiful story about Jesus. We don't know. We can't accept or deny. Prophet told us not to comment
• Any theological belief identify El-Messiah more than a human being prophet is for sure not from Injiil. by the way, you'll not find an explicit Jesus sayings "Jesus said :...." in Gospels that El-Messiah is God or Creator or asked people to worship him
• Any story about crucifixion, death, and resurrection for sure is not from Injiil. Simply, all these were happened after El-Messiah is raised. So, It can't be told by him

Jesus did says
John 12:49
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

There is the theory of a missing Q document which would have been use to formulate both Luke and Matthew. I feel there was a there was more than that, as I said before I think Jesus had scribes writing his words, keeping track of his healings and travels. The apostles drew from this source as they wrote their Gospels.

Now I don't believe the Gospels themselves have been distorted but the interpretation has. The word Elohim is plural in the Old Testament and it says let 'us' make man in 'our' image. I noticed that the Quran also uses the word 'we'.

21:107
We sent thee not save as a mercy for the peoples.

How do you explain the We?

I was wondering all the time by this question and even wrong interpretation of Old Testimony to support the Trinity belief.

It's simple.
Even in English culture it's called "Royal we" when a single person speaks about himself as plural. Lastly used by UK x-prime minster Margaret Thatcher. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/401700.html



Even in Arabic area till date Kings, royal family, presidents,,, are talking in plural.
If we need to express a great respect to someone we talk to him in plural "you". In Arabic there is different between singular "you" and plural "you.

So It's normal that Allah uses Royal-We when speaking in Quran. It has nothing to do with the belief that Allah is The One, The Unique, No father, No Son, No wife, Nothing like him

 

[withwonderingawe]

In addition, we're not sure that these books have been written by someone directly connected to El-Messiah, it misses the chain of narrations to these connected men

Much of the doubt thrown at the Bible is done by men who are atheist, their desire is to destroy the word of God and the faith of those who believe in it. They run around claiming "you can't prove that!" having set the standard to an impossible high. Even where it can be shone that men who lived and walked with the Apostles and quoted from them they refuse to accept it because they have an humanist agenda.

For the Muslims it's more of my scriptures are better that your's argument.

Peter wrote
2 Peter 1:21
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

We have to have the faith that God is powerful enough to preserve his word.

On the other hand Paul speaking to the Elders of the Church warned:
Acts 20
28 ¶Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Jesus also warned that there would be false prophets (see Matt 24) and Peter said
2Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people/the Jews, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

and that's why the Trinity concept came into being. When I learned 1 John 5:7 was added to the Bible " 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" I knew for sure the Trinity was false. The newer translations have removed that verse.

Our Prophet Joseph Smith said "8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;.."

With the influence of the Spirit Joseph went though the New Testament making some corrections, some small and some rather major. He changed John 1:1 to read this way.

"1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word,and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

It gets rid of that idea of the logos of God or the incarnation of God.

about Gospels then it's not a revelation from Allah and there is no guarantee that this is exactly El-Messiah wards and teaching.

Again I think we have to have faith that God can preserve his word. In John 17 He preserves Jesus' intercessory prayer, which probably has more actual doctrine than any other part of the Gospels.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus was a personage of glory before the world was!

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word..... And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them."

First we belonged God the Father but we live in a world full of sin and are lost to him. He gives us to the Son and if we keep his word he returns us to the Father/El.

There is a lot packed into that one chapter and there is one point that both you and the Trinity believers miss.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

Adam and Eve were told that they should be one flesh but God never meant they should one 'being' but one in purpose and unity. Yes there is one God the Father but he is not alone, he uses the words 'us', 'our' and 'we' in the Quran. The royal we does not mean one person. It means 'We' as in a dynasty or long line of kings. The Queen of England represent all of the kings before her.

Although Jesus said the Father is greater than I he also taught that he had been glorified by the Father before the world came to be and after his resurrection he told John;

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

As Stephen was being stoned he looked up into heaven and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Again they are not one being but to separate beings with El/Allah being the superior.