I have a question directed towards Muslims

[smaneck]

So who wrote the Quran and how was it received from god?

Muslims believe that Muhammad recited it as He received it from the Archangel Gabriel. Sometimes those hearing it wrote it down, more often His words were memorized by those hearing it. It reaches its final compilation less than a generation after Muhammad's passing, something unprecedented in the history of religion.

There are around a dozen Arabic fables

And this has what to do with Hinduism? You realize that Hindus are from India, not Arabia?

that are in the Quran - for example, Surah 2:65 and 7 163-166 (about people being turned in to apes) was a contemporary myth

That's a reference to Jews who failed to observe the Sabbath. Hardly a Hindu tale!

For example?

Belief in the devil, heaven and paradise, the resurrection of the dead and the Judgement Day. None of these concepts were found in the Tanakh (with the possible exception of Daniel) but play a prominent role in the Apocrypha and in the New Testament.

So what is the source(s) of the accounts of Isa in the Quran?

How does that question relate to what I said about translations not being the Qur'an?

So, you need to define who Muhammad actually is then

Not really. I don't have to make an assessment as to Jesus' station in order to assess the likelihood that He existed historically.

 

[Robban]

Killing people who don't convert is a direct violation of the shariah. That's not to say it never happened but it happened a good deal less in Islam than it did in Christianity.



Finish who off? All Muslims? Most of them don't need cooling off, and the ones who do belong in prison.



The Seljuk Turks invade Anatolia (Turkey without Turks) around 1000 A.D., around the same time as they invade Abbasid territory. Conversion proceeded slowly from there as did the adoption of the Turkish language by those who previously spoke Greek. There was still a significant Christian minority in Turkey until well into the 19th century. It was the growth of Turkish nationalism and the secularism of the Young Turks Revolt that eventually led to the genocide of substantial Christian populations there. The final blow was the exchange of Greek and Turkish populations at the end of WWI.

I did not mention all muslims,

Isis is who I was referring to and their accomplicies,

I don,t side with anyone who commits atrocities,

Maybe you would change tune if they took you as a sex slave,

Heard they were not fussy about age, even grandmothers are eligable

 

[smaneck]

I did not mention all muslims,

Isis is who I was referring to and their accomplicies,

As I recall you were suggesting that ISIS was the 'real McCoy."

I don,t side with anyone who commits atrocities,

Neither do I.

Maybe you would change tune if they took you as a sex slave,

About what? That ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult whose beliefs should not be confused with more orthodox forms of Islam?

 

[Robban]

As I recall you were suggesting that ISIS was the 'real McCoy."



Neither do I.



About what? That ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult whose beliefs should not be confused with more orthodox forms of Islam?

You recall wrong,

I said I know nothing of Islam, that is why I asked if Isis was the real deal,

cannot see how that is a suggestion.

 

[ianb321red]

We are talking about historical evidence, remember?

You didn't say historical evidence specifically ("What evidence do you have outside of the Bible that Jesus even existed?")
Regardless, are you therefore saying that the Quran is NOT a historically reliable text?

Someone who lived during Jesus' time but was not one of the writers of the NT. For instance, if we had something from Pontius Pilate, King Herod or the Sanhedrin that supposedly tried him.

We don't have contemporary non-biblical accounts for Jesus, but we have non-biblical accounts for Jesus which was my main point. There is nothing contemporary for Muhammad, so this isn't neccessarily a key requirement.

More importantly in my view, is that we have multiple NT authors rather than a singleauthor for the Quran

The Qur'an at least is contemporary with Muhammad. We now have fragments that can be dated to Muhammad's own time. The Gospels on the other hand, are more like ahadith.

We have this with Pauls NT writings - someone who knew Jesus when he was still alive.
I can't find any examples of Quran manuscripts that can be accurately dated back to before AD 632 when Muhammad was still alive.

 

[smaneck]

You didn't say historical evidence specifically ("What evidence do you have outside of the Bible that Jesus even existed?")
Regardless, are you therefore saying that the Quran is NOT a historically reliable text?

More so than the NT, especially now that we have a fragment of a manuscript that dates back to Muhammad's own time. We don't have anything close to that for the NT.

More importantly in my view, is that we have multiple NT authors rather than a singleauthor for the Quran

Is that really an advantage? The only NT author we can be relatively sure about is some of Paul's epistles.

We have this with Pauls NT writings - someone who knew Jesus when he was still alive.

Uh, Paul didn't know Jesus while He was alive.

I can't find any examples of Quran manuscripts that can be accurately dated back to before AD 632 when Muhammad was still alive.

You aren't going to find a full manuscript because that was compiled by Uthman, but we do have fragments:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

 

[ianb321red]

More so than the NT, especially now that we have a fragment of a manuscript that dates back to Muhammad's own time. We don't have anything close to that for the NT.

Okay, so do you therefore accept the Quran as a historical record of Jesus/ Isa also?

Is that really an advantage? The only NT author we can be relatively sure about is some of Paul's epistles.

I think it'a an advantage because they offer multiple perspectives. The alleged contradictions and discrepancies, if anything increase authenticity, rather than having 4 exact copies of the gospel account. When you consider, that the NT gospels writers had no idea at the time that what they were recording was eventually going to develop in to a major religion, then the idea of any collusion or agenda other than simply recording the facts as they saw them is very implausible

Uh, Paul didn't know Jesus while He was alive.

Who did he meet on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5)?
Okay, that's a slightly flippant answer - you're correct, Paul didn't physically meet Jesus, but Paul was of course alive at the same time as Jesus was

You aren't going to find a full manuscript because that was compiled by Uthman, but we do have fragments:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

But this fragment doesn't date back to when Muhammad was alive, which was your original point?

 

[smaneck]

Okay, so do you therefore accept the Quran as a historical record of Jesus/ Isa also?

I wouldn't as a historian and as a believer I wouldn't necessarily take it literally, although I do accept accept its Christology.

One of my favorite books is Miracles and Metaphors which is a series of essays written by the 19th century Baha'i scholar Mirza Abu'l-Fadl. He outlines the following principles which I believe is essential to understanding the proper relationship between religion and science:

"The Prophet Muhammad said, "We, the concourse of Prophets, were
commanded to address the people according to the capacity of their
minds," and, likewise, "Speak to the people of that with which they
are familiar. Do you wish God and His Messenger to be accused of
lying?" Thus was it related by the learned judge Muhammad ibn Ahmad
Rushd al-Andalusí [Averroes] "It is well known that the Prophets and
Manifestations of the Cause of God were sent to guide the nations, to
refine their characters, and to bring the people nearer to their
Source and Ultimate Goal. They were not sent as historians,
astronomers, philosophers, or natural scientists the Prophets indulged
the people in regard to their historical notions, folk stories, and
scientific principles and spoke to them according to these. They
conversed with them as was appropriate to their audience and hid
realities behind the curtain of allusion." (p. 39)"It has, then, been
established that the historian cannot depend for historical knowledge
upon the outward meanings of Qur'anic verses and that Noah and his
like are not mentioned in the rest of the ancient histories." (p. 40)

I think it'a an advantage because they offer multiple perspectives.

There are some advantages to this, but since none of the Gospels can with any certainty be traced to a particular author all it gives is the various perspectives of the early church, whereas the Qur'an can be directly associated with Muhammad.

When you consider, that the NT gospels writers had no idea at the time that what they were recording was eventually going to develop in to a major religion, then the idea of any collusion or agenda other than simply recording the facts as they saw them is very implausible

Oh, each one clearly had an agenda and any many cases they borrow from one another and probably from an additional source which scholars refer to as Q.

Who did he meet on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5)?

I am willing to concede that Paul's is the only eyewitness we have in the Bible to having seen the Resurrected Jesus, but I would argue that his description is the least physical.

But this fragment doesn't date back to when Muhammad was alive, which was your original point?

The parchment dates from 568 and 645. The Prophet dies in 632, well within that period.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think it'a an advantage because they offer multiple perspectives. The alleged contradictions and discrepancies, if anything increase authenticity, rather than having 4 exact copies of the gospel account. When you consider, that the NT gospels writers had no idea at the time that what they were recording was eventually going to develop in to a major religion, then the idea of any collusion or agenda other than simply recording the facts as they saw them is very implausible

You do realize that three of them are nearly identical, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

 

[afishamongmany]

You do realize that three of them are nearly identical, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

Hello - it is helpful when reading any of the four gospels to know that each one is showing The Lord from a different perspective. Matthew = as King, Mark = as Servant, Luke = as Man, John = as God.

Pity there are not more Muslims to bring their responses to the opening post. The crucial disagreements between The Koran and The Bible are
1- The Koran states categorically that Jesus is not the son of God and that there is no such thing.
2- It also states categorically that He did not die on the cross.
In the Koran there is no redemption, no redeemer, no good news.
><>

 

[LoAmmi]

Hello - it is helpful when reading any of the four gospels to know that each one is showing The Lord from a different perspective. Matthew = as King, Mark = as Servant, Luke = as Man, John = as God.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with the fact that three of them are nearly identical. A claim that they are different and more reliable for it must be evaluated when in many sections they appear to identical with a few phrases thrown in.

Pity there are not more Muslims to bring their responses to the opening post. The crucial disagreements between The Koran and The Bible are
1- The Koran states categorically that Jesus is not the son of God and that there is no such thing.
2- It also states categorically that He did not die on the cross.
In the Koran there is no redemption, no redeemer, no good news.
><>

I'm not Muslim. But, hey, I agree with #1 and have no opinion on #2. Thousands of Jews were killed by the Romans using crucifixion so telling me a Jew died that way is like telling me that it's warm in the summer.

 

[smaneck]

You do realize that three of them are nearly identical, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

Often where they differ is the circumstances in which the things

Hello - it is helpful when reading any of the four gospels to know that each one is showing The Lord from a different perspective. Matthew = as King, Mark = as Servant, Luke = as Man, John = as God.

I'm not sure who formulated that thesis, but I don't buy it. Each gospel has its agenda, it is true but I think it goes more along the lines of Mark being the most straightforward Gospel, Matthew is seeking to tell the church how to be the church, Luke has certain fascinations which the others don't share such as the status of women, and John seeks to place Jesus within a more Greek philosophical context much as Philo of Alexanderia had done with Judaism.

Pity there are not more Muslims to bring their responses to the opening post. The crucial disagreements between The Koran and The Bible are
1- The Koran states categorically that Jesus is not the son of God and that there is no such thing.

It is true that God in the Qur'an is not seen in anthropomorphic terms in the Qur'an that He could begat a child. However, the annunciation made to Mary is virtually identical to what is in the Bible.

2- It also states categorically that He did not die on the cross.

That is the way in which most Muslims have understood the verse "they killed him not neither did the crucify him but God raised him unto Himself." I think that needs to be understood in the context of verses such as "Say not of those who die in the path of God that they are dead, nay verily they are alive." It should also be understood in the context of the words the Qur'an represents Jesus as saying while he is still a babe in his mother's arm: "Blessed am I on the day of my birth, the day of my death and the day I come again." Now a lot of Muslims interpret that to mean Jesus will be killed on his return, but if that were the case, it would be mentioned before the day of his death.

In the Koran there is no redemption, no redeemer, no good news.

Not so. Every surah but one begins with the words "the Merciful, the Compassionate." And God is frequently referred to as the "oft-forgiving." Like Christians Muslims believe that as soon as they convert (revert) all their sins are forgiven. What they don't believe is that a once and never again event is necessary for that redemption, rather this has been the nature of God's activity throughout history.

 

[afishamongmany]

afishamongmany said: ↑
Hello - it is helpful when reading any of the four gospels to know that each one is showing The Lord from a different perspective. Matthew = as King, Mark = as Servant, Luke = as Man, John = as God.
I'm not sure who formulated that thesis, but I don't buy it.

Hi Smaneck – the “thesis” has been around a long time. Ok so don't buy it. But maybe you're interested enough to find out a bit more about it?
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/four_gospels.html
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
2- It also states categorically that He did not die on the cross.
That is the way in which most Muslims have understood the verse "they killed him not neither did the crucify him but God raised him unto Himself." I think that needs to be understood in the context of verses such as "Say not of those who die in the path of God that they are dead, nay verily they are alive."

Muslims are taught not to believe that Christ died on the cross (because of what is written in the Koran). Sometimes they say he was replaced by another person or sometimes that he was drugged to look as though he had died. As Christ's real death together with the incarnation and resurrection are the core of The Lord's saving work for humanity it is impossible for me to accept that the Koran is of divine origin.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
In the Koran there is no redemption, no redeemer, no good news.
Not so. Every surah but one begins with the words "the Merciful, the Compassionate." And God is frequently referred to as the "oft-forgiving." Like Christians Muslims believe that as soon as they convert (revert) all their sins are forgiven. What they don't believe is that a once and never again event is necessary for that redemption, rather this has been the nature of God's activity throughout history.
Merciful and compassionate God certainly is but He is that without in anyway compromising His justice and holiness. The redemption that Christ speaks of, as in, “I've come to give my life as a ransom for many” (Mark10v45), is something where there is a payment made and a satisfaction of justice achieved. As I understand it (again, pity there are not some Muslims in the discussion) Islam gives no assurance of salvation. God may forgive or not as and when He pleases. This is not good news.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Smaneck, What is your understanding of redemption vis à vis us and God?
Go well
><>

 

[ianb321red]

I wouldn't as a historian and as a believer I wouldn't necessarily take it literally, although I do accept accept its Christology.

.

So what was the source used for the Quran account of Jesus/ Isa?
For example, in my Bible Jesus was in a manger (Luke 2). In the Quran he was born under a palm tree (Surah 19)
In the bible, Jesus died on a cross (Matthew 27 etc). In the Quran, he escaped crucifixion (Surah 4:157-158)

Who wrote this differing account? Was it given directly to Muhammad? Or has been taken from the same source as the known fraud that is the Gospel of Barnabas?

There are some advantages to this, but since none of the Gospels can with any certainty be traced to a particular author all it gives is the various perspectives of the early church, whereas the Qur'an can be directly associated with Muhammad.

I don't think that's the case though. You've only got one first-person singular mention of Muhammad in the entire Quran so there's virtually nothing at all that ties him in with the Quran with certainty.
When you compare this versus the bible, and the NT in particular, there's not even the slightest doubt over the passages referring to Jesus - indeed, you can find Jesus in every single book of the entire bible..

Oh, each one clearly had an agenda and any many cases they borrow from one another and probably from an additional source which scholars refer to as Q.

What would have been their agenda?

I am willing to concede that Paul's is the only eyewitness we have in the Bible to having seen the Resurrected Jesus, but I would argue that his description is the least physical.

Jesus appeared to many other people aside from Paul post-resurrection. Or were you referring to other NT writers?

The parchment dates from 568 and 645. The Prophet dies in 632, well within that period.

Sure, it's possible - but ultimately meaningless is the sense of what was being written in terms of accuracy

 

[Limo]

That would not be enough by itself, but it would be a step in the right direction, from your perspective. Perhaps you should go ahead and do so, then ask again.

I'm sure that it wouldn't be enough. I doubt also that you'll accept the explanation. It's a ready-made debate and exists on many sites and there are many responses. anyway
Prophet Mohamed was asked the same question in his life and has answered it.

Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: "When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun (Aaron)" (i. e. Mary) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The people of the old age used to give names after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them. (Sahih Muslim, The Book on General Behaviour )"

References are made to Old Testament ancestors even in the Bible; example: Jesus is called son of David, despite the fact that David predated Jesus by a long time. Elizabeth, who is related to Mary, is called a descendant of Aaron (son of Amram/Imran)

On the other hand, this is normal in Arabic area till date and even in many areas of the world

No mistakes in Quran

 

[Limo]

Sorry I forgot about this post and it is an important question. How do you know that God exist or that your faith is right and not another faith. What drives you to worship God and not be a person who sees God as a figment of a wanting person afraid of death and what many beleive to be a permanent goodbye

Islam has a few unique characteristic that no other religion have.
The Quran, The prophet, covenant(Sharia) and the definition of god Allah.
The story of birth of Islam and rising of it is unique and can't happen with a false religion


When I look to the Quran and as a book not the subjects, you'll find many themes that have never been applied to any other book all over the history of man kind: (It's from Allah)
- the writer (Allah) : 17:88 "Say, "If mankind and the jinn gathered in order to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to each other assistants.""
- the writer (Allah) : 4:82 "Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction."
- the writer (Allah) : 15:9 "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian."
- It never changed. Millions have memorized it by heart and handed over from generation to another
- It's in the same language as it's said/written in the first time. and It's read by the same way

Which human writing be like this?
Is/Was there at any time of history even one person memorized any holybook fully from A to Z?

It's a life miracle that proofs that there is a god (Allah)

to be continued.....

 

[Limo]

Having investigated this issue previously, I actually would argue that it is questionable whether Muhammad even existed as an historical figure.

If you're in doubt that prophet Mohamed existed , you need to explain the existence of Quran, 1.6 billion Moslims alive and many be same number lived and died since 1500 years, and strong civilized governments controlled the world till before 300 years

And even if he did exist, he was meant to be illiterate.

Yes he was illiterate. He never went to school or someone to teach him any relegion or any holybook (It it's really holy). to be illiterate answers all allegations that says Quran is "drawing/ and prolifically plagiarising from numerous prevalent sources"

For me, Islam is a total man-made invention and a false religion - although it does still have some truth in it which is enough to deceive people.
I think the Quran can be clearly shown to be drawing/ and prolifically plagiarising from numerous prevalent sources - Hindu myths, Jewish Midrash tales, Zorastrian writings and Gnostics gospels such as Barnabas (which is virtually universally considered to be fake).

I believe that it's for you (as you said) and for all people who never read Quran or read any fair writing or read any Islamic writing and just read allegations and debates.
If you read Quran yourself from A to Z, I'm sure you'll change your false thoughts about Quran

The main "proof" however, is what the Quran says about Isa/ Jesus and the differences versus our bible. I do not see how any right-minded person, can consider the Quranic account of Isa/ Jesus as even remotely plausible when you consider who wrote the account, when it was written, where it was written and what evidence supports what was written. If you consider the biblical accounts along the same lines (who, when, where etc etc) you'd have to be very optimistic to think that the Islamic account is anything other than something lifted from one of the aforementioned Gnostic gospels.

If Quran is "aforementioned Gnostic gospels" and If it's written by a human being, I'm sure it would be considered the 5th Gospel.
If it's Gnostic bible, it was better for him to agree with previous ones.

Tell me, till date all who do call themselves Christians who are reading same books:
- Do you have one definition of Who is Christian?
- Do you have one defiition who is Christ?
- Do you have one definition who is god? how is he?

IF answer of all above question is "No" then there is real need for the "Spirit of Truth" who shall "guide you into all the truth", "He will glorify and honor Me","take from what is Mine and will disclose it to you"

 

[Limo]

.

So what was the source used for the Quran account of Jesus/ Isa?
For example, in my Bible Jesus was in a manger (Luke 2). In the Quran he was born under a palm tree (Surah 19)
In the bible, Jesus died on a cross (Matthew 27 etc). In the Quran, he escaped crucifixion (Surah 4:157-158)

Who wrote this differing account? Was it given directly to Muhammad? Or has been taken from the same source as the known fraud that is the Gospel of Barnabas?

Gospel of Barnabas date is 16th century while prophet Mohamed is 6th century
Also, Prophet Mohamed was illiterate and never learnt any region or book

 

[Limo]

I do not know Ian, I do not know.

I'm not even sure I have seen a Koran in real

life let alone pick one up and open it.

I do not believe that stoning someone to death means stoning someone to death either, not literaly absolutely not, it is absurd, horrific.

But such is the condition of man we are born with an evil inclination,

but we also have be given the ability to reason too,

so that we can overcome the evil inclination.

and choose Life.

Robin !!!!! Realy stoning is evil , absurd and horrific???
Have you ever read Torah / OT your book?


Enjoy reading your holly book
Deut 22:20
20 “But if this charge is true that the evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring her out to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed a deliberate sin in Israel by playing the prostitute in her father’s house. So you shall remove the evil from among you.

 

[Limo]

Hello - it is helpful when reading any of the four gospels to know that each one is showing The Lord from a different perspective. Matthew = as King, Mark = as Servant, Luke = as Man, John = as God.

Pity there are not more Muslims to bring their responses to the opening post. The crucial disagreements between The Koran and The Bible are
1- The Koran states categorically that Jesus is not the son of God and that there is no such thing.
2- It also states categorically that He did not die on the cross.
In the Koran there is no redemption, no redeemer, no good news.
><>

let me ask you another question: Among people who calls themselves Christian, Do you have a common understanding/agreement about the nature of Jesus a god or son of god or one of three? how the divine part is mixed with human part???? many many disagreements
The crucifixion story is told differently in the different gospels and very weak to the level that some "Christians" don't believe in it

Allah told us in Quran a simple easy to digest belief about sin of Adam and nature of Jesus that there is no doubt or debate about the 2 stories