i believe Quran and Bible

Dear Airmano,

Quranic Challenge

The challenge is on many different fronts. As mentioned previously the language of Arabic was like technology today ito the WOW of its generation. The Arabs used to compete in Poetry competitions and even the best poets of that day couldnt produce.

As neither of us are Arabic linguist lets pursue other aspects of the challenge offered. Have you read the Quran cover to cover? You will find no contradiction or discrepancy. I assume you agree that the Quran was delivered by Muhammad (SAW=salallah hoe alayhi wasalaal=May God�s peace be upon him). History also shows Him (SAW) being unlettered. He therefore brought this book wherein there are no faults. How could this be without divine intervention? Therein was no revising any of the sentences from day one and he consulted no one.

Preservation of Quran

In the context of the sentence of the Quran even if the word could have two different meanings, only one would make sense. What the orientalist have failed to do is reproduce the manuscripts found and translate into another language and then match with today's.. There would be no difference. Also the fact that of the Companions of that day who memorized was sent with a copy to teach the rest of the muslims. Proof of this via sources already provided.

Sources.

Pleasure, request was from another

Quranic Contributions

Ok lets pursue another avenue. Muslims that via the Quran brought civilization to the dark ages of Europe. Ibn Arabi (philosopher), Ibn Sina (father of modern medicinie), Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (algebra). Can provide more re: contributions to science but sure you will be more knowledgeable on this than I.

Quranic Memorisations

Thank you for allowing me to see this aspect in another way. Yes we muslims are proud of the Quran and Sunnah and perhaps this does come across as boastful. This is definitely not the intention, however we believe these two items will ensure us Paradise so please view in that context.

Protection of Bible/Torah

Yes God allowed man free will to choose whether to accept Him or deny him.

Michael Hart

Apologies, was referring to main stream media. Only quoted him to illustrate significance of 1 Man conquering Arabia (from warring tribes) to still having 2 billion followers today. (Dont believe anyone else can lay claim to this). Also the fact that most historians agree the Prophet (SAW) was an honest and trustworthy person, hence why would he lie about the Quran. Further to this He (SAW) died a poor man, why would he have gone through all this trouble if not for riches?

Treason.

The Bani Qudayfa singed a pact ie the constitution of Medina (first constitution ever) in which they would help and protect one another from foreign invaders (they were citizens of Medina). Not only did they not fight to protect the city, they sent soldiers to massacre innocent woman and children that were seeking refuge away from the conflict. In most western countries today treason in wartime is punishable by death.

Science.

All religion is based on faith. How do I via scientific methods prove to you that an Angel come down to our Prophet (SAW) who conveyed the Quran to him, I cant. Also neither you nor I witnessed the big bang or sat around and watched us evolve from monkeys. So all we have is reason and what our eyes witness. Dont you need some faith to believe evolution or big bang?. But what your science cant do is answer the eternal questions, why are we here, what is the reason for all of this, what happens to us after death. Kind of glum to think things just end when we die, don�t you think?

Ceo3 wrote: Dear Saved, Islam spread rapidly at inception and now not because of language but the beauty of the conduct of its followers. From China to Africa countless examples of people who revert who dnt know arabic (check these discussion groups.) Due to simplicity and common sense Islam represents. Therefore one does not have to know arabic to ascertain truth. All am saying is that in the language of arabic and the way Quran written is a miracle, and for that you need to know the language. Also was translated in all languages for everyone to heed the warnings therein. Just as Bible and Torah revealed in the language of their people at that time, same so Quran. Ta

Islam spread rapidly at the inception with sword and military conquest more like.
You say the language of arabic and the way the Quran is written is a miracle, and for that you need to know the language. So the implication is without knowing Arabic one cannot appreciate the miracle. That means Islam is not a universal religion !

Edited by 2Acts - 06 January 2017 at 11:10am

2Acts wrote: Ceo3 wrote: Dear 2Acts, While i give proof of accepted sources you provide nothing but conjecture. You provide nothing to base you arguments on except what you were told in sunday classes. The only comment worthy of responding to is the one where muslims dnt know arabic. And how many christians know original greek you claim bible was written in? Please provide source of reputable scholars who asert Bible was written before constantine then we can proceed with discussion, Ta Hello Ceo If you can please watch your sarcasm and try to be more respectful in your tone it would be appreciated. You ask how many Christians read the Bible in Greek? Most Christian leaders trained in the scriptures know some Greek. You want sources of reputable shcolars who assert the Bible was written before Consttine. I can do better than that. I don�t need to provide reputable scholars. I can provide proof. See the links to the Diatessaron and the Muratorian canon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

Dear 2Acts,

I do apologise, it is a fault of mine and will try an review my responses more carefully.

How many of the scholars know aramaic? This was the language of Jesus AS. As far as I know the christians of Syria, Assyrians, are the only people to still be using this language. My point being Quran today the original language Quran equal any translation. I havent found Greek and English translation in one book, perhaps you could advise. The reason Iam asking is that the Bible mentions the coming of another prophet, hence Muhhamad (SAW). Therefore to remove any bias would like to see the greek and aramaic orginal bible and its translation of the verses which relate to the coming of Ahmad, Shiloh, The Praised One (SAW).

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.

� Genesis 49:10

Thank you.

@CEO

The challenge is on many different fronts. As mentioned previously the language of Arabic was like technology today ito the WOW of its generation. The Arabs used to compete in Poetry competitions and even the best poets of that day couldnt produce. The Arabs used to compete in Poetry competitions and even the best poets of that day couldnt produce.

After WW_II the West Germans learned English and the East Germans Russian.
This got nothing to do with "Wow" towards the respective language but with political reality.

For the Arabic language it is again a purely intra-Muslimic thing. You extrapolate (subconsciously (?)) that Arabic is/must be great because the Quran is written in this language. To my knowledge there is absolutely no relevant (non-Muslim) study that shows any "superiority" of Arabic to other languages.

Would you know of any ?

I heard about this "competition in poetry" in old Arabia and I guess it is true. So I do recognize this historical fact but don't tell me that you can objectify this kind of competition. In the end it boils down to taste i.a.W. what you like (or not).
Who would you say is the better painter: Dali or Picasso ? Why ?
So again: the Quranic challenge is worthless as long as there are no objective criterias.

Look at Japan for example: They have developed a high standard of Origami, unique in the world and there is no nation on earth which could compete. Is this enough to make you adhere to their shinto religion ?
In your logic Origami is even divine, how otherwise the Japanese could have folded paper centuries ago already in a way that mimics the only recently found protein folding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History also shows Him (SAW) being unlettered. He therefore brought this book wherein there are no faults. How could this be without divine intervention? Therein was no revising any of the sentences from day one and he consulted no one.

There are reasons to doubt the first sentence, but again, not relevant here. The faults are numerous, but again this is something we can discuss elsewhere.

For the last sentence I suggest to consult the Quran, ie. 2:106:

Shakir: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

So in clear terms: This statement is wrong and even Mohamed in person (admits that he) already changed the Quran.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preservation of Quran In the context of the sentence of the Quran even if the word could have two different meanings, only one would make sense. What the orientalist have failed to do is reproduce the manuscripts found and translate into another language and then match with today's.. There would be no difference. Also the fact that of the Companions of that day who memorized was sent with a copy to teach the rest of the muslims. Proof of this via sources already provided.

Sorry to disappoint you again. To disprove a theory it suffices to produce only one counter-example (you call this "falsifiable", a term your brothers in faith tend to (ab-)use when it comes to the theory of evolution):

Here it comes: "Sanaa and the Origins of the Qur'An" from Afzal Sumar.

Q 2:196
The modern Quran says: Do not shave your heads until the offering reaches its destination.
Sanaa says: Do not shave until the offering reaches its destination

Not the same (meaning). Q.E.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quranic Contributions Ok lets pursue another avenue. Muslims that via the Quran brought civilization to the dark ages of Europe. Ibn Arabi (philosopher), Ibn Sina (father of modern medicinie), Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (algebra). Can provide more re: contributions to science but sure you will be more knowledgeable on this than I.

Nobody doubts the strong historic contributions of scientists who lived in the Muslim world (see the difference in wording ?). The last one is 500-700y back, surprisingly just when European science started to emerge.

Why is this so ?

I will make an attempt to explain it: First the Greek scientist -or rather "philosophers"- have laid the foundation "Muslim scientist" have been building upon (why does nobody in the Muslim world acknowledge this fact ?) but even they were influenced by the knowledge that previous powers had left: namely Egyptian and Babylonian knowledge.
Greek science/philosophy (as the Egyptian one) was strong when their pre-roman empire was flourishing. The same applies for the Muslim empire and equally for what is nowadays called the "western world".
I don't think it is a sheer historical accident that Newton developed his theory just in the same period the Europeans went to conquer the world.
Interestingly enough and using you wording: When the European (Christian(?)) world empire developed the Muslim world fell into their dark ages.
I once read the convincing theory that Europe fell into the dark ages (as you call it) once -and because(!)- the Muslims had cut off traditional trade routes, i.e. the silk road. The situation reversed again after Europe had gained supremacy on the Oceans (building improved ships) so that historical trade routes became (much) less important.      
In the end this is not even the core: Trading (and conquering) is a mean to acquire wealth and knowledge (you can 'ask' your prophet about this point). Richness of a nation was historically accompanied by slavery where all -including the Muslims- have indulged on without moral hinderance. This allowed (some) people, i.e. the rich, to not worry about nourishment and clothing but to care about other values like knowledge, art but also religious occupations.
In clear terms: Not the Quran, but the uniting ground the Quran delivered brought people together (which otherwise would have remained stuck in tribal thinking) to form the Arabic empire. The scientists came later, once the wealth and the knowledge brought by the conquests allowed them to do so. It got nothing to do with Islam as such, since it equally happened within other religions.

I specifically had to smile when I read your first sentence: "Muslims that via the Quran brought civilization to the dark ages of Europe".
What the Europeans (and the rest of the world) finally retained and use was the science, not the Quran. Actually the Quran (and even more the Sharia) has a rather poor reputation here.

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

Protection of Bible/Torah [by God] Yes God allowed man free will to choose whether to accept Him or deny him.

I am sure you have perfectly understood my question on why God didn't protect the Bible and Torah but the Quran only. I am also sure that you have felt the conflict my conclusion provoked: "Apparently God sends messages to mankind we are free to ignore (without negative consequences)".

I doubt that you can give me a consistent explanation of this paradox.

BTW. since you mention free will: no Muslim/Christian could ever give me a clear and logic line of reasoning on how an Almighty/All-Knowledgeable God can possibly coexist with human "Free Will".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Hart Apologies, was referring to main stream media. Only quoted him to illustrate significance of 1 Man conquering Arabia (from warring tribes) to still having 2 billion followers today. (Don't believe anyone else can lay claim to this).

Not sure what kind of media you read, but here in Europe Michael Hart is completely unknown. As already mentioned: The reasons that made Hart put Mohamed on #1 are such that I wouldn't necessarily be particularly proud of it.
Regarding your:
"1 Man conquering Arabia (from warring tribes) to still having 2 billion followers today. (Don't believe anyone else can lay claim to this)"

I am sure that you know that this is not true. Like it or not but:
A) Wiki says 1.6 billions for the Muslims, and 2.2 for the Christians. Where did you get your numbers from ?
B) Jesus didn't kill anybody, no warfare, no conquest and still he made it well above the Muslim numbers, impressive isn't it ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also the fact that most historians agree the Prophet (SAW) was an honest and trustworthy person, hence why would he lie about the Quran.

"Most" ? That Muslim historians do so should not come as a surprise to you. Although you may also find some academic historians doing so, I would bet that they are not the majority. It is also not necessarily the job of a historian to distribute labels like 'good' or 'bad'.
If you want my two pence opinion about Mohamed and the Quran: I guess he was a charismatic but also bipolar person. He could sure be grateful and merciful to those he liked or considered as his friends and/or supporters, as much as he could be brutal and immoral to (what he considered as) his enemies (like the Banu Qurayza). The Quran is the written proof of it. I don't think Mohamed freely invented the Quran, but the self serving part is all to obvious. I am sure you won't do what I now suggest, but may be it makes you think:
Just do the exercise and replace the words "wrongdoers", "idolaters" and so on, by "enemies" and then look at the punishment the author would like to inflict upon them . What do you see ?

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

Further to this He (SAW) died a poor man, why would he have gone through all this trouble if not for riches?

If he was a 'poor man' as you wrote, how could he nourish all his women ? Extremely powerful people rarely care about money, they have/can get all they need! It is also widely accepted (to my knowledge even in the Muslim world) that Mohamed insisted on his (personal) 10% from the raids he and his companions conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treason. The Bani Qudayfa singed a pact ie the constitution of Medina (first constitution ever) in which they would help and protect one another from foreign invaders (they were citizens of Medina). Not only did they not fight to protect the city, they sent soldiers to massacre innocent woman and children that were seeking refuge away from the conflict.

This is not what my sources say. Can you tell me where you got this from (I need 'real' sources, i.a.w. the historical ones and not any made up websites). It may be true that the Qurayza "turned around" (and even this is heavily discussed amongst historians) but most likely after Mohamed held some hostile speeches against Jews. What would you do if you were a Jew and your ally starts to talk badly about Jews ?

But even if the "treason-thing" was true, in my moral system it does by no means deliver enough ground to kill a whole tribe, i.e. between 500-900 persons.

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

In most western countries today treason in wartime is punishable by death.

May be for the traitor himself. But if it is for the whole of the people/tribe we call it "Genocide".
Don't you ?

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

Science. All religion is based on faith. How do I via scientific methods prove to you that an Angel come down to our Prophet (SAW) who conveyed the Quran to him, I cant.

I truly appreciate that you are honest enough to admit that you have no proof that angels (and even more Jinns) do exist.
I would also be willing to concede that there may be another reality than the one we can measure and prove.

This does however by no means imply that I'm willing to accept "cheap" models. I do not know much about Buddhism but from what I know I would consider it as the religion which seems the most compatible with modern knowledge. I do not know Judaism well enough to have a real opinion about it at all, but bluntly put (no insult intended) Islam seems to me the most improbable of all Abrahamic religions (I can give you my reasons if you want).

To the point: If I base my belief system on faith only there is no objective reason to stop me to adhere to sects like this. To make a reasonable decision I need at least some evidence and when it comes to "heavyweight questions" I need even more of it, clearly more than the Bible and/or the Quran can deliver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also neither you nor I witnessed the big bang or sat around and watched us evolve from monkeys. So all we have is reason and what our eyes witness. Don't you need some faith to believe evolution or big bang?.

Actually no, faith is the last thing you should rely on in this context. Looking at the Big Bang we do have observations (not belief) to support this theory (google for "4K background radiation" or "expanding Universe" for example).

Same for Evolution: We can follow and watch evolution in the lab, in the genes, in species and in open nature. Proof is the opposite of belief.

When judges condemn a criminal none of the judges has been watching the crime happening. They judge the guilt (hopefully) based on facts and deduction. Would you like a legal system where judges condemn people just because they "believe" (without any facts) that a given person is guilty ?

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

But what your science cant do is answer the eternal questions, why are we here, what is the reason for all of this, what happens to us after death. Kind of glum to think things just end when we die, don�t you think?

True, I can't [fully] answer your questions either and I can throughout understand why people become religious. Most of the (Monotheistic) religions say "God is so great that we can't grasp him" just to come up with a rather precise description on how he has to be in the next line (Merciful, almighty, just, eternal and so on). I would really like to see more honesty from all religions there, by admitting that we can only speculate on whether he exists at all and how he may be if he does.
Most of the Gods look rather human, strikingly like almighty parents from a child's view.

But why should nature/God be the way we want it/him to be ?
And why do most of the people choose the "option" that suits them the most in this context ? as: "When I die I will not be really dead..."

I know that the idea of death is uncomfortable to us, but where have you been before you were conceived ? You have no memory, you were dead !
Is it so difficult (as unpleasant as it is) to imagine that we will go back to the state we came from ?
And even if I get resurrected "who" will get resurrected: The kid I once was ? The Alzheimer debilitated person I may become before I die ? Or as the loving father I hope I was for my children ? The way I think today is so much different from how I thought when I was a kid that you would have to resurrect (at least) two Airmanos to account for that.

Not to talk about the many conflicts the heaven/hell thinking leads to.

I give you some examples:

If I went to heaven and my kids to hell, do you really think I/you could be happy with the thought that my beloved God roasts my kids every day, renews their skin just to roast them again ?

Or: In the Muslim world everybody is born a Muslim. So I guess a newborn child which dies would go to heaven since it had "no occasion" to go astray.
If I push this logic to the end I could conclude that the most altruistic thing I can do is to kill newborn babies. I would enable them to go to heaven even if I had to go to hell for my acting (fair enough).
This is exactly what altruism means: Helping without targeting your own benefit.

As a last one: Can you really imagine that (according to the Muslim logic) Jesus would send his whole fan-club to hell ? Really ?

I have more of those if you wish.

So, try to see the bigger picture and not only the questions you have at (your) heart !

Personally there are two lessons I learned from science:

A) Nature is probably much more different than we can imagine
B) Don't trust (your own) feelings. They almost certainly lead you away from truth.

In essence, science means to see the world as it is and not as we want it to be.

I can of course give you (my) reasons for these points if you wish.



Airmano



Edited by airmano - 10 January 2017 at 12:15am