i believe Quran and Bible |
Post Reply | Page <1 1213141516 19> |
Author | |||||||||||||
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
@CEO3
Looking at your quote (above) I guess you get trapped by the ambiguity of the word "challenge". Of course, flying to Mars is a demanding task, but here the "challenge" is figurative, i.e. to dare something nobody has ever done before. In the Quranic case the word "challenge" implies to produce something "better". To produce something "better" you would have to define on which criterias it is better than "good". (For instance I have no problems in producing a longer surah than the longest one of the Quran. Does this suffice ?) ...And you can't. So this challenge is worthless. Coming to your "Quran sounds beautiful". To me, "Stairway to heaven" from Led Zeppelin equally sounds really beautiful. Shall I conclude from that that it is divine ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On "The quran being preserved" you wrote
Could we agree on a wording like: "The Quran was preserved to more than 90%". We could leave the last 10% to our (probably differing) individual judgement. - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case: Thanks for the sources you quote, will take me some time to analyze.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We probably disagree here, but I think that there are much more important/useful things to learn "by heart", like learning other languages, biology, handcrafting, and/or mathematics and so on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My be I should comment on your "memorizing the Bible". I stumble over this kind of statement in the Muslim world over and over again. The way I see this is the following: In the Muslim world there is some "pride" for the "Quran not being corrupted" (I very strongly doubt that this is true but this is another subject). The pride builds on "the fact" that even if all Quranic books in the world disappeared from one day to another there would be no problem in reconstructing it because there are enough people who have memorized it. From that Muslims derive the command to learn the Quran by heart to contribute to the preservation process. (Just in case). So far so god. Christians don't have this thinking/problem, they know that the bible was written by man and there are enough (hard) copies of it, so that there is absolutely no reason to memorize it all. Furthermore: If a superpower made all books disappear in one night I guess it would also be able to erase/falsify memories. Bluntly put: Memorizing the Quran is a fully "intra-Muslimic" thing and completely irrelevant to all others. Adding a(-nother) kid who knows to recite the Quran is not adding any value to the world's knowledge. That's why nobody gets impressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my question "why did god not protect the "bible/Torah", you answered:
From what you wrote I can conclude that God sends messages you and I are free to ignore. Think about it ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like the trick with the "growing (fast)" Sure you can find zillions of webpages claiming Islam to be the fastest growing religion. However you also find your competitors claiming the same. There are also counter examples like this or even claims like this one. Several times I read reports on mosques being increasingly empty during Friday prayer (in Iran). But even if the growth rate was true for Islam, it wouldn't be a proof of "truth". In the last century Marxism/Communism was the fastest growing ideology. Look what has happened to it since. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking your logic to the end the allies would have had all moral rights to kill every German and Japanese male (above puberty) -down to the last one- and to enslave all women after WWII. Is this really what you think ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Your reply on my doubts about "Scientific miracles" in the Quran:
I am a scientist. Airmano Edited by airmano - 04 January 2017 at 3:15pm |
|||||||||||||
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|||||||||||||
Ceo3
Groupie Joined: 18 September 2016 Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
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? |
|||||||||||||
2Acts
Senior Member Joined: 22 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
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 |
|||||||||||||
2Acts
Senior Member Joined: 22 March 2015 Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
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 |
|||||||||||||
Saved
Senior Member Male Joined: 22 October 2016 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 190 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
I don't see how Muhammad makes for a universal prophet either, because he is the model all Muslims aspire to follow; therefore, many Muslims marry children even younger than 6 years old. Since the world frowns on such a thing, how can he be a universal prophet? The Apostle Paul and Jesus didn't have this problem. I aspire to be like Paul, because he followed Jesus more closely than anyone I know from Scripture. According to the gospel, no one compares to Jesus in substance, in essence, in nature or character except for only God Himself. Edited by Saved - 06 January 2017 at 8:18pm |
|||||||||||||
Ceo3
Groupie Joined: 18 September 2016 Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
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. |
|||||||||||||
Ceo3
Groupie Joined: 18 September 2016 Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
Dear 2Acts, Yes, and Crusades used like military. The miracle of Arabic as the language is only one aspect. As Jesus AS had the miracle of healing people (medicine was the Wow science of that day) so was the language of Quran miracle to Arabs (no recorded attempt by arabs to produce chapter like Quran). Also like Moses AS magic, the magicians who had to stop him quickly believed in God because Moses magic miracles were superior to theirs. So to did arabs revert to Islam just by hearing the Quran. The Quran as a miracle has something of everything for everyone from cosmology, theoretical physics, philosophy, history, medicine, linguist ect. Thanks. |
|||||||||||||
airmano
Senior Member Joined: 31 March 2014 Status: Offline Points: 884 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||||||||
@CEO
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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
|||||||||||||
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")
|
|||||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 1213141516 19> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |