View Full Version : The Quran.....
1. The Muslim approach depends upon secondary sources which were put together generations after Muhammad died. The Sira and the Hadith supply the Muslim with the official answers to these questions. Thus while the Qur'an an does not answer the questions above, the Hadith does.
Note: Muslims are guilty of circular reasoning at this point: They prove the Qur'an an by the Hadith and then prove the Hadith by the Qur'an!
2. The secular approach focuses on the issue of primary sources. It questions the veracity of the Traditions as well as the veracity of the Qur'an. It does not want material written in the ninth or tenth century telling them what was written in the seventh century. They want actual material from the seventh and eight century. The failure of the Muslims to come up with anything has great implications.
Part I The Muslim Approach
The Hadith is sometimes called the second inspiration with the Qur'an being the first inspiration. The Hadith claims to be the record of the Muhammad's exposition and application of the Qur'an, biographical material on Muhammad, and the history of the writing, collection, and composition of the text of the Qur'an. (Bukhari vol. VI, no. 564). The authority and authenticity of the Qur'an depends entirely upon the integrity and teachings of the Hadith. In other words, the Qur'an is valid only if the Hadith is true. If it is false, then the Qur'an is automatically false.
A. The Integrity of Muhammad
The integrity of Muhammad is all important. He was either whom he claimed to be, a liar or a nut case (mentally insane or demon possessed).This is why the Traditions went to such great lengths to create a model of Muhammad that depicts him as a "super man" as well as a prophet. What do we find in the Hadith?
1. Muhammad's credentials for prophethood are unacceptable. The two prominent Hadithic "proofs" of his prophethood came from pagan ideas of what a shaman would look like and the manner in which he would be inspired.
A. The Hadith explains that when the Qur'an an refers to the seal of prophethood being upon Muhammad (Surah 33:40), the seal was a large hairy mole on his back. This is found in both Bukhari (vol. I, no. 189; vol. IV, no. 741) and Muslim (vol. IV, no. 5790,5793). This mole was the physical proof that Muhammad was a prophet according to Tabari and other later Muslim authorities. They even claimed that the mole was a fulfillment of such Scriptures as Isa. 9:6. We cannot accept this proof. While such ideas can be found in pagan traditions from many primitive cultures, it is not a part of the religion of Abraham, the prophets, the apostles or Jesus.
B. Both the Bukhari and Muslim Hadiths describe what happened to Muhammad when inspiration came upon him. He heard ringing in his ears, fell to the ground, turned red, sweated profusely, made moaning sounds, spit ran from his mouth, etc.. While ancient pagans placed a great deal of importance on such things, they were never a part of the biblical prophets.
2. He failed a direct test of his claim to prophethood. He was asked to explain why a child will look like one parent as opposed to looking like the other. He claimed that Gabriel came and gave the inspired answer. See Bukhari vol. IV: no. 546. So, we are dealing with revelation and not just his personal opinion. He said that the child will look like which parent reaches his or her sexual climax first. The study of genetics and DNA forever disproves this idea.
3. He believed in magic, the evil eye, amulets, omens, spells, etc. He was superstitious about many things and made up weird rules about bathroom duties (Bukhari vol. I, no. 144; vol. IV, nos. 110, 111; vol. VII, nos. 636, 648, 649, 650; Muslim vol. I, no. 458; vol. III, nos. 5424, 5427 ). He was afraid whenever a strong wind blew (Bukhari vol. II, no. 144) and of eclipses (Bukhari vol. II, no. 167).
While this is bad enough, the Hadith tells us that Muhammad was at times under magical spells, i.e., bewitched, and told lies and did things while under those spells. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 400, 490; VII, no. 660; Muslim vol. III, no. 5428) Once it is admitted that he told lies and did things while under satanic influence, then the entire Qur'an could be satanic in origin.
Later Muslim authorities even went so far as to say that he was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur'an. They were later removed because they were Satanic verses. (Surah 53:19,20)
4. The Hadith tells us that "Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests." (Bukhari III: no. 495). Was he was in it for the money? Some Muslims are ignorant of this Hadith and claim that Muhammad was poor like Jesus.
5. He did not keep the rules he imposed upon others. He had more wives that four (Bukhari vol. I, no. 268) and did not write a will (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 3,4).
6. He commanded that anyone who fell away from Islam should be murdered. (Bukhari vol IV, no. 260; vol. V, no. 630) Volume IX is filled with death threats against apostasy (pgs. 10,11, 26, 34, 45,50, 57, 341,342).These Hadiths contradict other Hadiths which say that no one ever leaves Islam (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 6, 48).
The punishment of apostates reveals that he did not believe in the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of the press. The fact that he commanded that no churches or synagogues be allowed in Arabia is a telling argument that he was not a man of peace.
7. The Hadith reveals that Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for sin more than seventy times a day. (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 711; 78; vol. V, no. 724) Since Muslims believe that prophets must be sinless, this means that Muhammad was not a prophet.
8. He was guilty of false prophecies.
1. The 100 yr. Prophecy. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 539)
2. The end of the world predictions. (Bukhari vol. IV, no.401)
9. He kissed and caressed the idol of black stone set into the wall of the Kabah. (Muslim vol. II, no. 2912,2916) We cannot imagine Abraham or Jesus kissing a pagan idol and then commanding their followers to do so.
10. While Muslims claim that Muhammad was illiterate order to make the Qur'an a miracle, the Hadith records that he could in fact read and write. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 393)
II. The Teachings of Muhammad
Just as the Hadith gives us good reasons to question the integrity of Muhammad, his teachings recorded in the Hadith give us even more reason to doubt he was a prophet. The following is a brief list of some of the strange and absurd teachings of Muhammad.
1. Adam was 60 cubits tall! (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 543) Then how tall was Eve? If they were that tall, how did we get here? Is it medically possible for him to be that tall?
2. Muhammad was a dog hater. He thought that angels could not enter a house if a dog was there and that black dogs were devils. Thus he ordered dogs to be killed and forbid the selling of dogs. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 539, 540; Muslim vol. I, nos. 551,552; vol. II, nos. 3803, 3829)
3. Satan lives in the nose over night. He can be flushed out if you snort water up and then out the nose. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 516; Muslim vol. I, no. 462) How big is Satan? Is he in everyone's nose? is he omnipresent?
4. Muhammad forbade the game of chess! (Muslim vol. IV, no. 5612) This makes no sense to me.
5. People turn into rats, pigs and monkeys. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 524, 627; Muslim vol. IV, no. 7135). Abraham's father was turned into an animal (Bukhari vol. IV, no.569)
6. Muslims have one intestine while non-Muslims have seven! (Muslim vol. III, no. 5113-5115)
7. If you lift up your eyes towards heaven while praying, your eyes will be snatched out! (Muslim vol. III, nos. 862-863)
8. One wing of a fly has poison but the other wing has the antidote to it. (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 537)
9. We should drink camel urine as a medicine. (Bukhari vol. 1, no. 234)
10. Fevers are from the fire of hell and can be cooled by water. (Bukhari vol. IV, nos. 483,486)
III. The Text of the Qur'an
Who wrote out the Qur'an? On what materials? Who put the Qur'an together? Where did he find the materials to do this? Why did he do this? Were others putting together their own Qur'ans? Did these Qur'ans contradict each other? How did one text gain dominance over all the others? What happened to the other Qur'ans? Only the Hadith gives us answers to these questions.
1. From Bukhari vol. VI, no. 509 we learn the following things:
a. Muhammad did not collect the fragments of the Qur'an and make them into a manuscript.
b. Some of the Companions of Muhammad were killed in battle and whatever surahs they had memorized died with them.
c. Abu Bakr asked Zaid to collect the fragments of the Qur'an and arrange them into a manuscript.
d. Zaid hesitated because the task was harder than sifting through an entire mountain.
e. The task was difficult because of:
1. the fragile nature of the fragments: palm leaves, stones, bones, etc.
2. the faulty memories of men (vol. VI, no. 527)
3. the false claims of men (vol. VI, no. 523)
4. conflicting versions of the Qur'an ( vol VI, no. 510, 514, 523)
5. contradictory orders of the surahs (vol VI, no. 515, 518)
6. God caused verses to be abrogated or forgotten. (vol. IV, nos.57,
62, 69, 299, 393; VI, nos. 510, 511, 527,
7. Muhammad himself forgot and missed various parts of the Qur'an
(vol. VI, no. 558, 562)
2. Even after the manuscript was put together, they found that they had missed some verses (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 62; VI, no. 510).
3. They tried to burn all the other Qur'anic fragments and manuscripts. (VI, no. 510)
4. Uthman is usually credited for making the present text. (vol. I, no. 63; vol. IV, no. 709; vol. VI, nos. 507, 510)
It is clear that the text of the Qur'an was not perfect and that conflicts arose which made it necessary to make one uniform text. That Uthman tried to burn all the other Qur'ans is clear. Yet, there are thousand of variant readings and there remains controversies about verses such as the one about stoning which were omitted by mistake.
IV. The Contradictions and Variant Readings in the Hadith
One problem all Muslims face is that there are contradictions in the Hadith, conflicting readings and abrogations of Hadiths (Bukhari vol. I, nos. 42, 47, 74, 78, 80, 81, 86, 102, 107, 112, 159 vs 160, 161, 179, 180; vol. III, nos. 159,161; Muslim vol. I, nos. 682,685, 689,699; vol. II, nos. 2547,2548)). The footnote on Bukhari vol. III, no. 159 says, "Hadith no. 159 contradicts the Hadith of Al-Hassan" Evidently Allah was not capable of preserving a perfect text of the Hadith. On what grounds then can we assume that the Qur'an was kept perfect?
V. The Inspiration of the Qur'an
The mistakes in the Qur'an are well known. I list over one hundred such problems in Islamic Invasion. The following is a few of the more glaring problems that the average person has no problem seeing. All we need is ONE factual error to disprove the Qur'an. We are not talking about conflicts with theories but with brute facts.
1. Theological errors: The Qur'an is mistaken about what Christians and Jews believe. (Surah 5:73,75; 9:30).
2. Historical mistakes: the Samaritans (Surah 20:85,97), Alexander the Great, etc.
3. Grammatical errors: Arabic scholars point out errors in Surahs 2:177, 192; 3:59; 4:162; 5:69; 7:160; 13:28; 20:66; 63:10, etc.
4. Linguistical errors: Even though the Qur'an claims to be in pure Arabic (12:2; 13:37; 16:105; 41:44;42:7 ), it has foreign words.
5. Scientific errors: sun in muddy pond (Surah 18:86), mountains never shake (Surah 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6,7; 88:19)
6. Moral errors: Muhammad justifying the taking of his daughter-in-law Surah 33:36,38)
7. Mathematical errors: Did creation take six days (Surahs 7:51; 10:3) or eight days (Surah 41:9, 10, 12)?
8. Chronological errors: Puts Muslim vocabulary put into mouth of Patriarch, prophets, etc. (Surah 2:128133; 7:124,126, etc.). The words did not exist in Hebrew or Arabic at that time.
9. Biblical errors: The convolution of names, places, events and times. Couldn't even get the name of Jesus right. He was the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross according to the Bible. The Qur'an contradicts this.
10. Political errors: Commands Jihad against apostates and non-Muslims (Surahs 4:91; 5:33; 9:5)
Conclusion
The Hadith and the Qur'an stand or fall together. The facts are clear that they are not from God and are false works.
Part II The Secular Approach
Modern scholars such as Crook, Crone, Wansbrough, Rippin, etc. are giving us a totally different model of the origins of Islam and the Qur'an. Once you put aside the Qur'an and the Hadith, you begin to see that Islam created the Qur'an instead of the Qur'an creating Islam. Islam created a mythological Muhammad who is nothing like the historical Muhammad, if that was his true name. The Qur'an had multiple authors from various locations who combined different legends and materials to make the stories found in it. It took 150-200 years for the Qur'an to appear. Muhammad never saw the present Qur'an and would disown it if show it. He is not the source of it. This explains the contradictions and mistakes in it.
Time line
570 Muhammad's birth
7th Century
610 Muhammad's call to prophethood
632 Muhammad's death
650 Calif Uthman
691 Dome of the Rock
8th Century 700 legends myths
9th Century 800 traditions
700,000 Hadiths
850 Bukhari's Hadith
10th Century
923 Tabari's Commentary
1. No references to Muhammad as a prophet have been found incontemporary literature, rock inscriptions or coins.
2. No manuscripts of the Qur'an exist before 150-200 years afterMuhammad. This allows opportunity for myths and legends to arise.
3. The claim that Uthman complied the Qur'an has no evidence tosupport it.
4. The claim that two "original" Uthman Qur'ans can be seen atTopkapi, Turkey and in Tashkent, Russia is false. The manuscripts arein the Kufic script which did not exist in the 7th Century. They are clearly fron the 9th Century and are in "landscape" format which was not used in the 7th century.
5. The present text of Qur'an came from multiple authors usingerroneous legends, myths, and stories. It has many additions, deletions,variant readings, and no primary source materials to support it. It isthus a corrupt text and cannot be trusted to tell us what Muhammadreally taught or did.
6. The text and stories of the Hadith are as corrupt as the Qur'an. Where is the evidence to support its claims?
Om_Mohammed
20-05-2001, 00:35
I knew, before posting the various contradictions found in the Bible...that it would finally result in this. Human nature itself is too strong to fight against, sometimes. It was only predictable, actually, that a retaliation from you, firefly, or any of the other frequenting christians here attempt a refute like this. It is only a natural defense-mechanism. However, that is all that it is...for your complaints or suggestions against islam really have no basis.
Asif has taken the time to point out several of the miraculous scientific relations revealed in the Quran...things which are not revealed in the bible, mainly the mention of the mountains, as well as the oceans (the combination of two oceans into one), as well as human embryo development, among many other things of nature. Things which modern day scientists have only discovered recently, within the past century or two, yet were revealed in the Quran 14 centuries ago, and by an illiterate, uneducated man.
You have also mentioned several things about Muhammed...things which are lies, and as well have no basis. For instance, in your mention of his belief in magic, etc...it is not his own belief, but the revelation in the Quran itself that magic does exist. That was the extent of his belief in magic...that it exists, and that there are people evil enough in this world who may deal in such things. The belief in God that God is all-powerful above all things and all creations, is what overturns any kind of magic. Also, you have mentioned that he believed in amulets...that is an absolute un-truth, for he did not believe in any such thing, and there are many hadiths to refute such a statement. OH...and ur mention that he was at once possessed by satan, and that satan inspired him with some verses which were later abrogated...that is also false, and something which has been spread by the enemies of islam.
Well, I hope that you are happy now, firefly...refuting all the many contradictions in the bible with such a retaliation...something which has no basis, and no validity.
Like I have said over and over again...the truth is there for those who will search for it...in the quran. However, if you go about only searching for untruths, or to pick apart the Quran, then that is all that you will get.
I have found many other discrepencies within the bible, other than what was listed here...I only copy-pasted it for your benefit, for my own ease in copy-pasting. Like I said...it is something which I really hate to do...for it only encourages people like you, firefly to retaliate in the manner which you have done. That only goes to show your own mentality and your outlook towards Islam. It is evident that you have not come here to learn anything about Islam...for I have never once seen you ask us anything about Islam. You have come here with your own pre-conceptions of Islam, and have gone on from there, only accusing muslims of this or that, without seeing your own behaviour and your own style of preaching to us here of christianity.
I have seen you, firefly, or others (sorry if I am getting the finger pointed at the wrong person here)...but it is a general quality of all christians (I am speaking from the voice of experience here, for I myself was once a christian, coming from a christian family)...that you try to explain the trinity as something simple and logic...in stating that there is one Deity...God...yet in three persons. You claim that it is simple, logical, yet it is not. God is One...not an eminence of three. If you cannot see that, then there is little else that we can help you with here.
I am truly sorry for your retaliation...for yourself, and not for us...for you have only shamed yourself, attacking Mohammed and his integrity here, as you have. You will never find any muslim attacking the Jesus or his integrity as you have attacked Mohammed. We respect Jesus much, his mother, as well as all the other prophets. We pay them all their due respect, unlike what non-muslims show to Mohammed. It is quite an insult for us that you attack him in such a manner. However, there is no shame upon us for that, it is only upon you who have done so.
As for the bible and all other scriptures...I truly believe and accept them...as they were revealed by God to His slaves at the time of the revelation. However, as they are in the state that they are today...there has been too much human tampering with them to pay them the due that they should be paid. Sorry...but I have shown you only a small portion of the many discrepencies within the bible, not to mention the other scriptures. There is nothing remaining of the original language in which it was revealed, and too much has been lost, changed, admitted, and remitted, in the passage of time, and the changing over into other languages which it was not revealed in. I read the Quran in Arabic, and learn from that source, the original text-form of the revelation which was revealed to Mohammed. As for his legitimacy as a prophet, well...if you choose not to recognize the signs of his prophethood, nor to accept the message which he brought to mankind...then that is your loss, and not mine.
Also...BTW...you mentioned about his marriages...and made mention that he did not 'keep to the rules he imposed upon others'. This quote in itself is proof enough that you know very little of Islam, and even littler of the Quran. For...it is not his rules which he is trying to impose upon mankind, but the laws of God. These are commandments, directives, guidance, given by God...a divine source, not Mohammed's whims and wishes. Also...all of the marriages of Mohammed were something by which he was directed by God...and all were for a particular purpose...not merely a physical relationship. And...for the limitation given to men that they are permitted to take up to four wives...that is something that was directed after Mohammed had already married the wives that he had. He was not then directed to divorce any of them, but to keep them on, yet all men were directed after that time...that the limitation would be four at a time.
Hmmm...in light of all the false claims here, and the continuence of misunderstanding and seeming non-inclination towards understanding or even wanting to understand...then I wonder even at myself...why do I continue to even bother to explain?
May Allah forgive me for any mistakes I have made, and help those seeking knowledge and guidance to find it.
Om Mohammed.
tsk tsk.. Firefly you should be careful what you choose to read when it comes to islam. Robery Moorey is known for his outright hatred, not just of islam and muslims but of arabs in general. His book "the islamic invasion" i've read.. and had to laugh. He contradicts himself and even posese questions to supposed "problems" in islam.. such as the issue of Gabriel.. but than provides the solution of the problem in a latter chapter which he uses as evidence against another teaching. I just don't get it.
for the muslims who don't know who i'm talking about.. this is the same dude with the "Allah the moon god" theory.
No worries I'll get to this jibberish in the next day or two.
Nzingha
Om Mohammed......
Your statement: I knew, before posting the various contradictions found in the Bible...that it would finally result in this. Human nature itself is too strong to fight against, sometimes. It was only predictable, actually, that a retaliation from you, firefly, or any of the other frequenting christians here attempt a refute like this. It is only a natural defense-mechanism. However, that is all that it is...for your complaints or suggestions against islam really have no basis.
--> Yes, I agree with you Om Mohammed. In the current debates that raged in this forum, I knew sooner or later, someone will put up the alleged contradictions Muslims so believe about regarding the Bible. Well, I will like to extend what you said to me back to you. Through the replies that I have received in this forum, it comes clear to me about how Muslims view the Scriptures & though maintaining a strict emphasis on the term understanding, it is quite clear that the term has been constructed in a way to suite the views of Islam. This is no means at all to justify claims of Muslims being open-minded. Please bear in mind, that as Christians, we experience God's love directly. It is the assurance as said in the Scriptures that we acknowledge that the love & grace we received are from God. It is in fact, the Muslims who approaches Christianity the way as this forum has been going on. It was because of Muslims arguments & "rationalisation" that prompted me to began my interest in this earthly form of debate.
Your statement: You have also mentioned several things about Muhammed...things which are lies, and as well have no basis. For instance, in your mention of his belief in magic, etc...it is not his own belief, but the revelation in the Quran itself that magic does exist. That was the extent of his belief in magic...that it exists, and that there are people evil enough in this world who may deal in such things. The belief in God that God is all-powerful above all things and all creations, is what overturns any kind of magic. Also, you have mentioned that he believed in amulets...that is an absolute un-truth, for he did not believe in any such thing, and there are many hadiths to refute such a statement. OH...and ur mention that he was at once possessed by satan, and that satan inspired him with some verses which were later abrogated...that is also false, and something which has been spread by the enemies of islam.
--> I read your explaination with interest. You have come about to justify something that happened so long ago with the actual truth might be far from your explaination. Lies....is that your conclusion?? Let me illustrate a bit. If I were to say,"A is having an affair" & people asked me the basis of my accusation, & I reply none..That would be a lie. However, please note that in the my posts, it is supported by the very verse from the Hadith & Quran. Enemies? As Christians, our only enemy is Satan. He is the one who is the master of lies. I have never regarded Muslims or Islam as a threat to Christianity. Everything is in the hands of God.
Your statement: Well, I hope that you are happy now, firefly...refuting all the many contradictions in the bible with such a retaliation...something which has no basis, and no validity.
--> You believe without understanding those so-called contradictions...You even.."hoped I am happy now". Ok, I leave it as to that. Just for your infomation, I don't look things in only one perspective. I too look through the explaination given by Muslim scholars pertaining to the known verses & there is one good advise written on a Muslims website & I quote,"JUDGE for yourselves" unquote. You see, certain explainations given fail to explain certain verses. OK, just for argument sake, I shall explain one.
Will Christians enter Paradise or go to Hell? (*) Surah 5:69 says "Yes", Surah 5:72 (just 3 verses later) says "No".
Verse 5:69 refers to those Christians who believe in God and the day of judgement and do good deeds. Anyone who ‘believes’ means believe without associating partners with God. Verse 5:72 clearly talks about those who associate partners with Allah.
Above, as you can see is the explaination given by Muslims pertaining the verse. Please observe the explaination. To be called a Christian would mean that the person has accepted Christ as the Son of God & his Saviour & Lord, acknowledges that Christ died on the cross for our sins & rose again 3 days later. Thus, the above statement is not valid.
Your statement: Like I have said over and over again...the truth is there for those who will search for it...in the quran. However, if you go about only searching for untruths, or to pick apart the Quran, then that is all that you will get.
--> A subjective view. I have no comments.
Your statement: Asif has taken the time to point out several of the miraculous scientific relations revealed in the Quran...things which are not revealed in the bible, mainly the mention of the mountains, as well as the oceans (the combination of two oceans into one), as well as human embryo development, among many other things of nature. Things which modern day scientists have only discovered recently, within the past century or two, yet were revealed in the Quran 14 centuries ago, and by an illiterate, uneducated man.
--> I have read about errors pertaining thses scientific discoveries. I would post them when I find them.
Your statement: I have found many other discrepencies within the bible, other than what was listed here...I only copy-pasted it for your benefit, for my own ease in copy-pasting. Like I said...it is something which I really hate to do...for it only encourages people like you, firefly to retaliate in the manner which you have done. That only goes to show your own mentality and your outlook towards Islam. It is evident that you have not come here to learn anything about Islam...for I have never once seen you ask us anything about Islam. You have come here with your own pre-conceptions of Islam, and have gone on from there, only accusing muslims of this or that, without seeing your own behaviour and your own style of preaching to us here of christianity.
--> Om Mohammad, why do you accuse me of "retaliating" Muslims? Like what you have done, some of the articles I have found on the Net I will click-paste them here. It presents facts, arguments relating to Islam. Do you know how difficult it is for me to find a good Islamic website with good facts??? Most of what I have found merely contained vulgarity, baseless accusations(Can I quote without getting banned?) without supporting arguments..etc.etc..It is not Christians who are retaliating..it is the Muslims. I have watched debates involving people like Mr. Ahmad Deedat & I observe his manners of presenting his topics. His arrogance, his manners doesn't portray his clothings as a follower of Islam & the religion itself(or maybe he is reflecting his religion the way it is). Not to mention, his "facts", which mostly I could answer by myself even before the Christian side takes it up. If I were here to strictly preach Christianity, then I would have gone to other forums you have here on this website. Remember my first posting? It was in the topic, "Can Salvation Be Reached Through Christ?" which was posted by a Muslim! I have defended my faith in my own personal way & if you call that preaching & since this is your site..then I am sorry but I stand for what I believe in.
Your statement: I have seen you, firefly, or others (sorry if I am getting the finger pointed at the wrong person here)...but it is a general quality of all christians (I am speaking from the voice of experience here, for I myself was once a christian, coming from a christian family)...that you try to explain the trinity as something simple and logic...in stating that there is one Deity...God...yet in three persons. You claim that it is simple, logical, yet it is not. God is One...not an eminence of three. If you cannot see that, then there is little else that we can help you with here.
--> Ok, that is your testimony. I will not question it as to fear accusations of "preaching Christianity" will befall unto me.
But one thing, I said that language is a barrier of describing God. I said that the words used to describe God is insufficient to portray our Creator. We tried..Yes, I agree, to explain the Trinity but are words enough??? You speak as though we are referring God in literal sense(in three persons), which I disagree..there is a word for it & it is called blasphemy!
Your statement: I am truly sorry for your retaliation...for yourself, and not for us...for you have only shamed yourself, attacking Mohammed and his integrity here, as you have. You will never find any muslim attacking the Jesus or his integrity as you have attacked Mohammed. We respect Jesus much, his mother, as well as all the other prophets. We pay them all their due respect, unlike what non-muslims show to Mohammed. It is quite an insult for us that you attack him in such a manner. However, there is no shame upon us for that, it is only upon you who have done so.
--> Yes, I admit that once I questioned Mohammed's intregity in a way that may have insulted Muslims. I am sorry for it & I won't let that happen again but please see the postings. Most of my postings are responces to accusations Muslims put forth. Mostly of what you have said in this particular statement is subjective again to which I won't comment.
Your statement: As for the bible and all other scriptures...I truly believe and accept them...as they were revealed by God to His slaves at the time of the revelation. However, as they are in the state that they are today...there has been too much human tampering with them to pay them the due that they should be paid. Sorry...but I have shown you only a small portion of the many discrepencies within the bible, not to mention the other scriptures. There is nothing remaining of the original language in which it was revealed, and too much has been lost, changed, admitted, and remitted, in the passage of time, and the changing over into other languages which it was not revealed in. I read the Quran in Arabic, and learn from that source, the original text-form of the revelation which was revealed to Mohammed. As for his legitimacy as a prophet, well...if you choose not to recognize the signs of his prophethood, nor to accept the message which he brought to mankind...then that is your loss, and not mine.
--> The Bible is confirmed through thousands of manuscripts in different languages. This is the basic acheological methods of determining the authencity of a certain historical book. The Quran fails this test in that manner. Your ignorance is revealed when you state, "and too much has been lost, changed, admitted and remitted..." I can't say much if you believe that.
Well, we shall see on Judgement Day.
Your statement: Also...BTW...you mentioned about his marriages...and made mention that he did not 'keep to the rules he imposed upon others'. This quote in itself is proof enough that you know very little of Islam, and even littler of the Quran. For...it is not his rules which he is trying to impose upon mankind, but the laws of God. These are commandments, directives, guidance, given by God...a divine source, not Mohammed's whims and wishes. Also...all of the marriages of Mohammed were something by which he was directed by God...and all were for a particular purpose...not merely a physical relationship. And...for the limitation given to men that they are permitted to take up to four wives...that is something that was directed after Mohammed had already married the wives that he had. He was not then directed to divorce any of them, but to keep them on, yet all men were directed after that time...that the limitation would be four at a time.
--> I see & I shall look into it.
Your statement: Hmmm...in light of all the false claims here, and the continuence of misunderstanding and seeming non-inclination towards understanding or even wanting to understand...then I wonder even at myself...why do I continue to even bother to explain?
--> Well, your "defence-mechanism" theory comes handy in light to your question. I am for the Truth(whether you want to believe my statement or not is up to you).
Words of Christ,
Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
Firefly....
alhamdliyesu
21-05-2001, 20:05
It could be legend for all I know. Proove me wrong please. I'm seeking to know not to argue.
illiteracy....
I'll have to break this into sections and deal with each one seperately. Time being an issue when inlaws are visting :) so I will hopefully get to all of the issues presented in the article by Moorey.
Personally i don't see much benefit in cut and paste jobs unless the intent is to seek answers in what is presented. This goes for both christians and muslims. I know this article was pasted here out of retaliation, if you will, for Om Muhammad pasting the 101 contradictions. And I do understand that Om Muhammad pasted it here out of the request of the young christian to present such things. I however would hope that we would all be a bit more origninal in our thoughts on these issues, such as christians presenting their personal questions or understandings of islam and Muslims, and Muslims posting contradictions which they have found in the bible. one can easily just recall the contradictions in the "easter" story alone. But that is me.
I would hope that if one is true in seeking an "understanding" on any level one would be a bit more careful of the sources. And not just read opposing views. While I do read opposing views on christianity and the bible, I also read views of christians on the same issues in order to seek a balanced understanding. not that this means one would have to agree necessarily but at least get both sides.
That said i'll deal with a section that requires me to do less research :)
THE CLAIM
1. Theological errors: The Qur'an is mistaken about what Christians and Jews believe. (Surah 5:73,75; 9:30).
MY RESPONSE
No mistakes at all
5:73 They disbelieve who say Allah is one of three, for there is no god except one
Christians do believe in a trinity
5:75 says nothing more than Mary was an ordinary woman and that Jesus pbuh was no more than a messenger
this is in relation to Christians who say that Jesus pbuh was more than that, and that Mary was more than that.
I would like to point out that some Christians have claimed that Qur’an states that Mary is believed to be part of the trinity. There is no such verse in the Qur’an.
9:30 The Jews call ‘Uzair the son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah that is a saying from their mouth they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say
This is true Christians do take Jesus pbuh as the son of God and there are Jews who took Uzair to be the son of God as well. There is more detail on this point at this link http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html
It is not the Qur’an that is wrong but Moorey who is wrong for he doesn’t know such things.
THE CLAIM
2. Historical mistakes: the Samaritans (Surah 20:85,97), Alexander the Great, etc.
MY RESPONSE
Alexender is never mentioned in the Qur’an. Some commentaters however do think that he was “dhulqurnaint” the two horned one, but I will discuss this in more detail below.
As for the Samaritans, I tend to disregard some Muslims who feel that this is in relation to the actual Samaritans. I, by the text, do regard this as being an individual
The mention of this is in reference to the time of Moses pubh while he was on the Mount there was the issue of the golden calf that his followers chose to take for worship.
20:85 (Allah) said (to Moses) “We have tested thy people in thy absence The Saameree has led them astray
20:86 So Moses returned to his people in a state of anger...<rest omitted for brevity>
20:87 They said: We broke not the promise to thee, as far as lay in our power but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the whole (people) and we threw them (into the fire) and that was what the Saameree suggested
In the Tafsir (commentary) of Yusuf Ali states the following:
“who was this samiri? If it was his personal name, it was sufficiently near the meaning of the original root word to have the definite article attached to it. What was the root for “Samiri”? If we loo to the old Egyptian, we have Shemer= a stranger, foreigner. As the Israelites had just left Egypt, they might quite well have among them an Egyptianised Hebrew bearing that nickname.”
“If the Egyptian origin of the root is not accepted we have a Hebrew origin “Shomer” a guard or watchman, sentinel. The Samiri may have been a watchman, in fact or by nickname.”
There are other muslims who do take this in the sense of the Samaritans this link will give more information on their view
THE CLAIM
3. Grammatical errors: Arabic scholars point out errors in Surahs 2:177, 192; 3:59; 4:162; 5:69; 7:160; 13:28; 20:66; 63:10, etc.
MY RESPONSE
Some of the “grammatical” errors in Qur’an have been explained and dealt w/ in detail by Muslim scholars. I would suggest that those seriously looking into such issues to consult authors such as Suyuti who deals with such things in detail. There is a website that deals with this as well http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/quran/geitq.htm.
That said, considering that it was not the hand of Allah that wrote the Qur’an which we have, but it was written by scribes. And that Qur’an is in fact an oral revelation and not some tablets like that of Moses pbuh. Add in that arabic grammatical rules were determined many years after the compilation of Qur’an and even based on Qur’an I find little substance to some supposed 20 grammatical errors. I would personally assume that if the Qur’an was what is claimed below and i’ll qoute
“The Qur'an had multiple authors from various locations who combined different legends and materials to make the stories found in it. It took 150-200 years for the Qur'an to appear. Muhammad never saw the present Qur'an and would disown it if show it.”
Than certainly this Qur’an which was created over a period of “150-200” years would at least not have any grammatical mistakes. Certainly this doesn’t seem logically that things would have been changed so much.. that forgery would have gone to such lengths through so many people and so many years that they wouldn’t leave behind some supposed 20 grammatical errors.
THE CLAIM
4. Linguistical errors: Even though the Qur'an claims to be in pure Arabic (12:2; 13:37; 16:105; 41:44;42:7 ), it has foreign words.
MY RESPONSE
Loan words were incorperated prior to Qur’anic revelation and already in common every day use among the Arabs. Like other languages of course. This is one of the most misunderstood things about Qur’an and non mulsims, is the assumption that because there is loan words and the Qur’an which says it is Arabic pure that it should be deemed as false. But what would happen if Allah had revealed pure arabic terms, not known among the arabs of this region for different Names, places, and terms that were commonly used among them? This of course would have been refuted by those who were enemies to Muhamamd pbuh and islam. And it would actually contradict what Allah has said Quran was sent in Arabic, among other reasons, so that the people can find wisdom that the can understand it. Now what would have happened if Allah had decided to give the actual language that other prophets used when relating their stories say he used Aramaic with Jesus pbuh or Hebrew with Abraham pbuh We already know what would be said then.
41:44 Had We sent this Qur’an other than Arabic, they would have said “Why are not its verses explained in detail! What a foreign (language) and a (Messenger) an Arab?
People would have had issues, here an arab prophet having Qur’an in Hebrew what madness.
THE CLAIM
5. Scientific errors: sun in muddy pond (Surah 18:86), mountains never shake (Surah 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6,7; 88:19)
MY RESPONSE
The Jews at one point came to Muhamamd pbuh and asked him to relate to them about Dhulqurnain, then this was revealed to him in response to their questioning.
From this story we see several things, one is that there is a discription of where this Dhulqurnain came to be in his travels
"he reached the place where the sun set"
the sun sets in the west, he was in the west of his region
"he found it going down into muddy black waters"
this is reference to the black sea. and then reference is given about the people whom he found there. there is also reference to him being an important person with some standing in order to be able to have the ability to punish or forgive the people who do wrong.
he than travelled again "until he reached the land of the rising sun"
this of course is the east, and this is where people lived as well
"for whom we provided no shelter for it"
this is in reference to a desert where there is no shelter from the sun. this desert is in reference to Sind and Baluchistan
again Dhulqurnain travelled and found himself
"between two mountains"
this is north by the caucasus mountains
at this time he comes amongst people who asked to pay him in order for him to build a barrier between them and the Gog and Magog. Of course you know these people, they were tribes of people that lived in this region. And of course the barrier is what is known as the Caucasian wall or aka "Alexander's wall". It is 50 miles long and had a height of 29 feet and a thickness of about 10 feet with numerous watch towers.
You'll also notice that in the Qur'an there is mention of Dhulqurnain requesting Iron amd molton brass. Just to mention the Caucasian wall has iron gates.
This has lead many to believe that Dhulqurnain was non other than Cyrus who ruled over this empire during the 5th century. This would also explain why the Jews who had asked about Dhulqurnain, it was he who freed them and due to this the Jews lived on, if he hadn't they would be a people of the past.
As far as the mountains in Qur’an depicted as “pegs” and fixed “fimrly” and dont “shake” this is rather true.
http://home.att.net/~azawawi/The_Quran_on_Mountains.html
http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANMOUNTAIN.htm
THE CLAIM
6. Moral errors: Muhammad justifying the taking of his daughter-in-law Surah 33:36,38)
MY RESPONSE
She was actually not his daughter in law, for adopted children are not litteral children. Take it from one who has born children no matter how much I would love an adopted child, no matter how many years I raise them, no matter what I do for them, they would never be MY children. They would always have parents who had more rights over them than I ever could, they would always have family and a lineage that did not come from me. The mistake that many make today (especially westerners) is to cut off the lineage of adopted children this does nothing more than harm society in many ways.
THE CLAIM
7. Mathematical errors: Did creation take six days (Surahs 7:51; 10:3) or eight days (Surah 41:9, 10, 12)?
MY RESPONSE
This is another often qouted thing about Qur’an by non muslims, because they don’t necessarily understand the text.
41:9 says that the earth was created in two days.. 41:10 goes on to say that things on the earth such as mountains and other blessings were bestowed on the earth in a total of four days. than 41:12 goes on about the creation of heaven in 2 days. The four days mentioned in verse 41:10 is not in ADDITION to the two days mentioned in 41:9 but it is including the two days previously mentioned, the same discussion is going on the earth and all that is within it was a total of four days.
example: I make bread (pita of course) and in telling someone how long it took.. i mention that the dough took 2 hours to make.. i then go on and give some detail detail.. such as rolling it and baking it and of course adding a special touch, it taking 4 hours. It doesn’t take me six hours for the bread.. just 2 hours for the dough and 2 hours for rolling, special touch and baking.
THE CLAIM
8. Chronological errors: Puts Muslim vocabulary put into mouth of Patriarch, prophets, etc. (Surah 2:128133; 7:124,126, etc.). The words did not exist in Hebrew or Arabic at that time.
MY RESPONSE
I have explained this above about the Arabic in Qur’an. Allah used Arabic in order for people to understand not to mention Muhammad pbuh was an arab prophet.
THE CLAIM
9. Biblical errors: The convolution of names, places, events and times. Couldn't even get the name of Jesus right. He was the Son of God who died for our sins on the cross according to the Bible. The Qur'an contradicts this.
MY RESPONSE
I’m leaving the debate of christian beliefs of Jesus pbuh alone for I don’t think it is an appropriate time to deal with this. but as for the name ISA the following link may help explain.. http://www.answering-christianity.com/name_of_jesus.htm
THE CLAIM
10. Political errors: Commands Jihad against apostates and non-Muslims (Surahs 4:91; 5:33; 9:5)
MY RESPONSE
Quran never states to fight apostates and if one actually read the verses pointed out here they may find something different than assumed.
In 4:91 which was pointed out.. we learn several things. First starting from 4:88 there is a discussion about the hyprocrites whom a group of believers had a dispute about and divided amont themselves. Allah stars
4:88 why should ye be divided into two parties about the hyprocrites...
allah continues that these hyprocrites do nothing more but
4:89 wish that y should reject faith as they do
we are further told
4:89 so take not protectors (friends) from their ranks until they flee
this is a warning for how muslims are to deal with such people, because they have such ill intentions in regards to us we should not take them close to us
we are further told
4:89 but if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye find them
But with all aspects of law and war there are conditions layed upon muslims
4:90 EXCEPT those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty, or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people.
So we are told that with the renegades we are not to go after those who have taken rescue up with those whom we have a treaty with.
Allah goes on that He could have made them having power over us and fighting us so we should be mindful of our guidelines in such manners
4:90 there for if they withdraw from you but fight you not and instead send people than Allah hath opened no way for you (against them)
so if they seek peace we are OBLIGATED to conduct peace between them.
In the next verse Allah is addressing these hyprocrites who don't withdraw from fighting and don't seek peace and what we should do with them.
4:91 if they withdraw not from you nor give you peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever y get them. in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.
So this is not some open war and kill anyone we want among, hyprocrites, apostates and non Muslims. This is rules of engagement against those who seek to bear arms against the Muslims and the Islamic state. If they seek peace we will give it.. if they seek to harm us we are to fight against them until they can no longer harm our society. This is not an error, this is very reasonable, and smart politics. What country does not want to protect its state and its people?
We also see the same reasonable actions in 5:33
This starts out with Allah tells us what is the punishment for those guilty of treason and those who pillage the land of Muslims
5:33 the punishment for those who wage war on Allah and His messenger and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution or crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet from the opposite sides, or exile from the land
but there is also a condition
5:34 EXCEPT for those who repent before they fall into your power, in that case know that Allah is oft forgiving most merciful
So for those who, before capture, repent for what they have done we have no rights over them to harm them in any way. They are forgiven for their crimes.
9:3 is a continuation of 9:1 which is abuot the war the muslims were in with the pagans, first mentioned is not fighting those whom there is an alliance, next is that fighting should not happen in the prohibited months but once these prohibited months were over the fighting would resume and muslims are told to
9:5 fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every strategy (of war)
this is not something bad, this is people at war. We are not told to make a self sacrafice and stand and be slain, we are told to defend our selves in a time of war. but again there are conditions to acts of war
9:5 BUT if they repent and establish regulars prayers and pay zakat then open the way for them for Allah is forgiveing and most merciful.
It is known that any pagan that was fought and uttered la illah ill allah (there is no god but Allah) was to be left alone. And those who sought protection amongst the muslims were to be given it. This is certainly not unreasonable.
Inshallah i can get to some of the other material tomorrow and cover all the issues raised. I do hope that this clears some up, I don't expect all to agree, i'm just putting the other side of the coin out there.
Nzingha
- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i
Belief, this is how you know. When all is said and done it is simply based on faith. I can of course tell you of the miracle of Qur'an given to an illiterate man, how such a thing holding such knowledge, even fortelling some of the future and the past which he could not have possibly known proves he is a prophet. Or I could tell you how he is fortold in the bible just as jesus pbuh was fortold. I could tell you of his character and how he recieved revelations in order to show he was a prophet. But in reality.. it comes down to faith.
If you have some specific questions by all means ask.. but personally I'm not here to prove anything to you. I "know" based on my faith..
Nzingha
- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i
Om_Mohammed
22-05-2001, 05:00
There is evidence to this in the Quran:
'Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), in the Taurat and the Gospel;-for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure): he releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him,-it is they who will prosper.' s 7, v.157.
And:
'Whatever is in the heavens and on earth, doth declare the praises and glory of Allah,-the Soverign, the Holy One, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
It is He Who has sent amongst the unlettered a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to purify them, and to instruct them in The Book and Wisdom,-although they had been, before, in manifest error;-' s.62, v.1-2.
Om Mohammed
>
>There are other muslims who do
>take this in the sense
>of the Samaritans this link
>will give more information on
>their view
>
It would help if i added the link
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html
THE CLAIM
1. From Bukhari vol. VI, no. 509 we learn the following things:
a. Muhammad did not collect the fragments of the Qur'an and make them into a manuscript.
MY RESPONSE
Correct, Muhammad pbuh did not collect the entire Qur'an in one book. However this does not mean that it wasn't done by others. there were four ansars who had done just that.
THE CLAIM
b. Some of the Companions of Muhammad were killed in battle and whatever surahs they had memorized died with them.
MY RESPONSE
This is not to assume that these companions had surahs that only they themselves had memorized. for such a conclusion has no basis at all.
THE CLAIM
c. Abu Bakr asked Zaid to collect the fragments of the Qur'an and arrange them into a manuscript.
MY RESPONSE
Abu Bakr and Umar asked Zaid to collect all of the Qur'an into one book.
THE CLAIM
d. Zaid hesitated because the task was harder than sifting through an entire mountain.
MY RESPONSE
There was hesitation with Zaid as there was originally with Abu Bakr when Umar came to him with the idea. This was a very important project, and these men feared Allah and certainly did not want to make any mistakes.
THE CLAIM
e. The task was difficult because of:
1. the fragile nature of the fragments: palm leaves, stones, bones, etc.
MY RESPONSE
Zaid never made mention of this being an issue, what was an issue was the task in itself. He gathered from these sources as well as the hearts of men.
THE CLAIM
2. the faulty memories of men (vol. VI, no. 527)
MY RESPONSE
I'm at a loss of why Moorey chose this hadith. It simply relates the following
Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said: ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of quran) yet we leave some of what he recites. Ubai says "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's apostle pbuh and will not leave for anything whatever" but Allah said: "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similiar" <2:106>
What this hadith means is that Ubai still recited verses that were of the abrogated verses. This is not "fualty" memory but a very good memory.
THE CLAIM
3. the false claims of men (vol. VI, no. 523)
MY RESPONSE
The choice of this hadith had me baffled as well.
Narrated alqama: While we were in teh city of Hims (syria) ibn Mas'ud recited Surah Yusuf> A man said" It was not revealed in this way" Then Ibn Mas'ud said "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle pbuh and he confirmed my recitation by saying "well done" Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and drink alcohol as well?" Then he lashed him according to the law.
A Drunk came and accused Ibn Mas'ud of reciting Surah Yasin wrong. This has nothing to do w/ the collection of Qur'an. Also please note that this happened in Syria which was conquested by Muslims during the reign of Umar this is after the Qur'an was collected. Why is this used?
THE CLAIM
4. conflicting versions of the Qur'an ( vol VI, no. 510, 514, 523)
MY RESPONSE
The hadith # 510 which is VERY long is during the reign of Uthman when he burned out variant readings of Qur'an in different regions. He got the exact Qur'an which was collected during the time of Abu Bakr which was given to Umar after his death and than to Hafsa daughter of Umar wife of Muhammad pbuh after him. Hafsah gave it to Uthman who had several scribes copy what was contained and than presented to different regions.
#514 long as well, narrates a time durnig the life of Muhammad pbuh when Umar heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting surah Furqan differently than what he had recited. He brought him forward to Muhammad pbuh and than both recited, after which Muhammad pbuh said both were correct because Qur'an was given in seven modes. Quraysh dialect being one. This again has zilch to do w/ Zaid compiling Qur'an.
#523 is repetative, it is the drunk who accused Ibn Mas'ud of reciting wrong.
THE CLAIM
5. contradictory orders of the surahs (vol VI, no. 515, 518)
MY RESPONSE
#515 Is long, it is basically Ysuf bin Mahk who went to Aisha wanting to see a copy of her Qur'an. When she asked why he stated that he wanted to know what surah arrangement she had. She basically told him it was of no consquence, because it didnt much matter. She went on to relate to him the different themes of mekkan revelations and madinan revelations. The ordering of the surahs wasn't at issue, because it was not devinely inspired they were arranged from the longest to shortest, although the fatihah is the opening chapter.
#518 relates an arrangement of Ibn Mas'ud which again due to the order of surahs not being of much issues is irrevalent.
THE CLAIM
6. God caused verses to be abrogated or forgotten. (vol. IV, nos.57,
62, 69, 299, 393; VI, nos. 510, 511, 527,
MY RESPONSE
Yes, but this is a deeper debated topic that I doubt the poster is on any level to get at the moment.
THE CLAIM
7. Muhammad himself forgot and missed various parts of the Qur'an
(vol. VI, no. 558, 562)
MY RESPONSE
It is related in these hadith that a man reciting such and such verses reminded Muhammad pbuh of them that he was caused not to remember. How one understands this is based on the reader.. recall when Muhammad pbuh died and Umar was stating that he had simply gone as Musa pbuh had gone and that he too would be back. Abu Bakr recited a verse of Qur'an that Umar stated that it was like the first time that he had heard it.
THE CLAIM
2. Even after the manuscript was put together, they found that they had missed some verses (Bukhari vol. IV, no. 62; VI, no. 510).
THE RESPONSE
#510 states that after the copying during the time of Uthman that Zaid said " a verse of the Qur'an was missed by me when we coppied the Qur'an" so after searching he found the verse with Khuzaima bin Thabit al Ansari. If it was so forgotten how could Zaid remember it?
THE CLAIM
3. They tried to burn all the other Qur'anic fragments and manuscripts. (VI, no. 510)
MY RESPONSE
During the reign of Uthman, due to such variant readings a standardized text from the original held with Hafsa, collected during the time of Abu Bakr, was sent to all providences. This was to avoid problems.
THE CLAIM
4. Uthman is usually credited for making the present text. (vol. I, no. 63; vol. IV, no. 709; vol. VI, nos. 507, 510)
'
MY RESPONSE
Not so, again the collection of the Qur'an was during the time of Abu Bakr, suggested by Umar, and overseen by Zaid bin Thabit. A copy that was kept with Abu Bakr was kept with Umar after his death than it was kept by Hafsa Umars daughter wife of Muhamamd pbuh after his death. This copy was used for the standardized texts given to all the providences. This is what the ahadith relate.
THE CLAIM
It is clear that the text of the Qur'an was not perfect and that conflicts arose which made it necessary to make one uniform text. That Uthman tried to burn all the other Qur'ans is clear. Yet, there are thousand of variant readings and there remains controversies about verses such as the one about stoning which were omitted by mistake.
MY RESPONSE
the verse of stonning is one which Umar felt was part of the Qur'an no one out of hundreds agreed with him. It was "missed" it was Umar himself that ponited out that he believed it to be part of the Qur'an and he brought it to the attention of others. Yet this was "missed" and if it was to be in the Qur'an Umar being the Khalif at the time, being a part of the project to collect Qur'an, and definately not being a very meak fellow to say the least than this would have been added but it was not.
Inshallah I'll have to get to the matter of ahadith at a latter time, there is so much to cover in this one posting that I don't have the time for at the moment. but it was asked.
THE QUESTION
On what grounds then can we assume that the Qur'an was kept perfect?
MY RESPONSE
that is quite simple to answer FAITH.. this is what it all comes down to in the end.
for those interested in checking out the translation of the hadith on your own..
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html
- Never do I argue with a man with a desire to hear him say what is wrong, or to expose him and win victory over him. Whenever I face an opponent in debate I silently pray - O Lord, help him so that truth may flow from his heart and on his tongue, and so that if truth is on my side, he may follow me; and if truth be on his side, I may follow him.
al-Imam Al-Shafi'i
Hakima Ahmed
30-06-2001, 02:41
To Firefly, I do not mean this to be a lengthy reply. I just want to say that you keep mentioning how you are not here to "preach about Christianity".
If you want a good, honest, well-meaning debate you will justify your points clearly with the words of God, as you claim is in the bible. You will also justify them with the teachings of Jesus [as].
Is it that you cannot justify your points because you have no religious basis for them or you know that they will contradict each other. It is a well known fact that many verses in the bible contradict...tell me how do you choose which is the correct one? Do you toss a coin?
BTW why do Christians today eat pork when Jesus forbade it? Who do you think Jesus was referring to when he mentioned the coming of another Prophet? Gabriel? Hellllooooooo, but Gabriel already exsisted and is an angel[ra] not human.
Salam all,
i know this reply is pretty late, but i wanted to point out some things to FireFly here.
1st, the "grammatical" errors in the Quran. I dont really see the logic in this. Indeed, many Arabic scholars will say that the Quran has improper grammer. But it is a narrow-minded attempt indeed because they fail to see the vastness and the history of the Arabic language.
I am not a fluent speaker of Arabic. Yet, I know enough of it and being a resident of an Arab country, I can tell you that Arabic exists in different dialects, written ones as well as spoken ones. The Arabs in the gulf region will have a slightly different Arabic that the Arabs of Egypt or elsewhere. Example, some Arabs prefer to pronounce the Arabic letter "jeem" with a G sound, instead of the conventional J sound, but this is not regarded as erroneous grammar, it is just a different dialect. This is not suprising, judging by examples of the different dialects of the English Language.
For example, the phrase "isn't it" is the abbreviated form of "is it not". Both are proper examples of English. Yet, American slang uses "ain't it". The meaning is same, and the phrase "ain't it" is so widely used, that it has been accepted into dictionaries. Similarly, the phrase "innit" used in British slang has a similar meaning, and it is widely used as well all over the world.
And this is just ONE EXAMPLE of ONE PHRASE in ONE LANGUAGE in ONE ERA. Imagine how many other such examples like these exist, or have existed in history, in all the languages that ever existed, in all the eras in which humans used languages.
So it is pretty common sense that the Arabic of today is quite different from the Arabic of the 7th Century. And the arabic scholars now would indeed, see a different arabic in the Quran, which, relative to them, is erroneous in grammar. But wouldnt the Arab Scholars of the 7th century, if they were brought into the 21st century and shown the Arabic that is there now, observe a different arabic relative to theirs, wouldnt they say the same thing, that it has grammatical errors?
Another point is Moorey's statement about "Muslims regarding Prophets as sinless". I do believe he has never ever read the Quran because there are many examples in it of Prophets making errors and mistakes and minor sins. Surah Al Abasa is one of them, which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) when he rudely turned away a blind man who needed guidance and instead entertained some other people. The Surah starts with Allah showing his disapproval of this act. Another example of a Prophet sinning is Prophet Musa or Moses (Peace be upon him) acting proud that he was the most knowledgeable man alive, afterwhich Allah humbles him by informing him of another man, Al Khidr, who was more knowleledgable than Musa (Peace be upon him).
I dont see how Moorey could have missed this surah, Surah al Abasa. If he can say so much about all those so-called "errors" in the Quran, then how could he have missed out on a whole Surah and not read it? This shows his own lack of credibility. You know what I think? I think he cut-pasted all that stuff from various sources himself, and published it. So that other people we know here can cut-paste that illogical stuff again on certain Islamic forums.
Moorey is a real example of how rage and hatred can cloud the mind of logical thought, as sister Nzingha has said.
If he uses baseless and illogical arguments like these to prove his opinions about the Quran, without even properly reading through it himself, then it is perfectly logical to question his integrity as a scholar of comparitive religion.
As moderator of this forum, I request all people who enjoy cut-pasting things without backchecking, to refrain from this habit. If you MUST cut-paste, then do it after checking the credibility of the real author and after reading through the matter yourself to see if it is sensible or not. What FireFly has posted at the beginning of this thread is not worth the handful of bytes of webspace that it is occupying here.
I will not delete it though, since the refutations to it by Asif, Nzigha and Om Mohd are quite useful to non-Muslims.
Wassalam
Sameer Arshad
Salam again.
I'd like to point out somethings else, about what Moorey said about Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) character.
1st, about marrying more than four wives. Most of the marriages that he made were for noble causes, to rescue, assist or honour women who were widows, poor or captured as prisoners of war. The rule of marrying only 4 wives was given by Allah after the Prophet had married more than 4. What was he to do? Divorce all but 4 of them? Where would the divorced ones go? Sure, he would have to pay alimony, but you tell me, in volatile times like that, with so many enemies of Muslims running amok, where would those women go? What would they do to become secure? You tell me. Islam is a religion of sensibility and compassion, it does not teach us to leave wives out in the cold.
Plus, it would not be an easy task of "ranking" the best 4 wives. Even any normal fan of romantic novels will tell you that.
2nd, the point about the Prophet (Peace be upon him) faking Islam for the money. Another foolish point given because of ignorance of historical facts. Moorey quotes sources from the Sahih books of Hadith. I can tell you that there are NUMEROUS examples where the Prophet preferred to remain middle-class and lead a simple life of eating bread, meat, dates and olive oil, like the rest of the people and giving lots of acquired wealth to charity, from gifts by foreign officials to wealth accumilated from defeated enemies. There are so many incidents where this has been done, and they are all documented in the Sahih books of Hadith. If Moorey used these same books as sources, why did he not mention anything about these incidents of giving wealth to charity. They are mentioned there precisely, as well as many other numerous acts of gentlemanly conduct, as well as many eyewitness accounts of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) simple life without luxury.
Moorey thinks that no one will backcheck these books and look up the sources, certainly not non-muslims, so why bother with the truth? Its so easy for him to lie about the Prophet's (peace be upon him) character isnt it?
So i'm asking you, FireFly, did you even care to look up the sources of moorey's claims? there arent many.. just 6 books, and they can be found in any good library. The Quran, and 5 Sahih books of hadith. Did you look them up at all? Or are you just taking one arrogant scholar's word for it?
Another silly statement about the prophet not being depicted on coins, or stones and whatever. It is not an Islamic practice to carve animate objects into statues or carvings. And plus, there are so many diplomatic documents and letters sent by the Prophet (peace be upon him), though they were written by literate people since he was illiterate, he merely dictated the letters. These letters are still preserved today, I believe there is one in a Turkish museum where it was placed during the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Plus, many other eye-witness accounts of the Prophet (peace be upon him) documented by travellers who travelled to the Muslim lands, meeting with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and writing about his character.
Moorey didnt consider all this, in fact, judging from what should be considered, he considered relatively nothing, which is improper scholarly conduct.
I am suprised that you put that much faith in his work, FireFly. It reflects poorly on you and your credibility, though i know you are sensible and not of that sort. But for your own reputation, I suggest you dont use the arguments made by unprofessional and non-qualified scholars who dont properly read (and quote) their sources.
Sameer Arshad
>BTW why do Christians today eat
>pork when Jesus forbade it?
>Who do you think Jesus
>was referring to when he
>mentioned the coming of another
>Prophet?
When did he do so??? He fortold of the coming Holy Spirit and His own return. The only prophet yet to come was the false prophet in Revelations.
This post appears to be blocked and copied from the Chick Publications website. While some of the accusations are silly, some I think are quite valid.
What do you think?
Please point out the arguments that you deem as silly, so that we dont end up refuting them instead of refuting the ones that you deem as valid.
BTW why do Christians today eat pork when Jesus forbade it? Who do you think Jesus was referring to when he mentioned the coming of another Prophet? Gabriel? Hellllooooooo, but Gabriel already exsisted and is an angel not human.
Greetings to all,
Much have changed since I have been away. Anyway, getting back now, I would need the time to go through all that has been presented here. However, I would just like to state a bit to Hakima & ask a few questions.
Your statement:Is it that you cannot justify your points because you have no religious basis for them or you know that they will contradict each other. It is a well known fact that many verses in the bible contradict...tell me how do you choose which is the correct one? Do you toss a coin?
--Hakima, my points stated in past postings all have been justified. However, Muslims do not accept the meanings of these verse & they translate it to a way which they see fit. Therefore, by now, the actual original posting of mine which is actually based on Isaiah 53 has lead to other topics due to further explainations, "retaliations"(as you call it) and others.
Your statement: BTW why do Christians today eat pork when Jesus forbade it? Who do you think Jesus was referring to when he mentioned the coming of another Prophet? Gabriel? Hellllooooooo, but Gabriel already exsisted and is an angel not human.
--I find that it is no point answering these questions of yours, Hakima. First, have you read the Bible?? It is no point of someone explaining it & then along the way comes 1 guy who repeats the same question and expects the question to be answer all over again. However, if you really seek to know the Truth, you may email me.
Why do I have to keep stating that "I am not here to preach Christianity"..well, along the way, some of my discussions here have been intrepretated by Muslims here as preaching. Therefore, I have to leave a reminder and explain the postings that I put forth in order to assure that I am not preaching.
Firefly....
>I agree with Brother Sameer that
>it would be better if
>Mr. Ender pointed out the
>arguments he deems as correct
>and appropriate, so that we
>can give an appropriate reply
>Insha Allah, and do not
>end up wasting our time.
Specifically the charges that Muhammad was not a prophet. There is a lot of damning (no pun intended) evidence that he could in no way be a prophet.
Furthermore that there is no surviving manuscriptes of the Qur'an until 150 years AFTER Muhammad died. It calls into question if he even wrote it.
The reason I can never accept Islam is that Muhammad did not behave like a true prophet of God and there is simply no historical evidence that the Qur'an is inspired text.
Hello Ender
Your Statement:
Specifically the charges that Muhammad was not a prophet. There is a lot of damning (no pun intended) evidence that he could in no way be a prophet.
-----
Hmmm, okay how about the precise visual descriptions of the development of the human embryo written in the Quran? I forget the exact chapter, perhaps Asif or Om Mohd will specify it here. But leading Chrisitan embryologists agree that the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran are very precise in their imagery. The descriptions are in the form of "what is seen by the eye". Check it out.
Now my argument is, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) is not a real prophet, how did he know all this about embryology? and big bang theory? and so many other scientific points made in the Quran? What do you think? You think its guesswork?!?!? You think Muhammad (peace be upon him) kept little laboratories hidden in caves, and found all these scientific discoveries himself?
-------
Your Statement:
Furthermore that there is no surviving manuscriptes of the Qur'an until 150 years AFTER Muhammad died. It calls into question if he even wrote it.
-----
Um, Ender. Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not "write" the Quran. The Quran was written by Allah. In fact, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an illiterate man. He could not write. And every revelation of his was recorded by him dictating it to his companions who stayed beside him at all times for this very purpose.
They were all recorded on any media that could be found immediately. Leaves, stones etc. And the records kept carefully with the companions.
Your statement again:
Furthermore that there is no surviving manuscriptes of the Qur'an until 150 years AFTER Muhammad died.
Well, there are no Aramaic scripts of the Bible that have survived. I can use your argument here to ask you, how come you believe in the bible when the original scripts are no where to be found? And not even in the revealed language too!
Whether compilation happened before or after Muhammad's (peace be upon him) death, it doesn't matter. Neither does it matter if the bible was compiled before or after Isa's death (peace be upon him). What matters, is that they were compiled properly without error. The fact that no Aramaic scripts of the bible exist today, and that Arabic ones of the Quran do exist, is not a coincidence. It is fate.
Your statement again:
There is a lot of damning (no pun intended) evidence that he could in no way be a prophet.
-----
And the dozens of eye-witness accounts of Muhammad's miracles (peace be upon him) cannot be ignored.
Just like modern historians take Samuel Pepy's diary as a true description of 17th century British life, the same way you can take so many other accounts by ordinary people about Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his life and miracles (refer to the Sahih books of Hadith for these eye witness accounts)
Yet, if you do NOT wish to believe in these accounts and undeniable truths, and instead you believe other sources, then feel free to do that. There is no compulsion in religion, as the Quran says.
Sameer Arshad
>>BTW why do Christians today eat
>>pork when Jesus forbade it?
>>Who do you think Jesus
>>was referring to when he
>>mentioned the coming of another
>>Prophet?
>
>When did he do so???
>He fortold of the coming
>Holy Spirit and His own
>return. The only prophet
>yet to come was the
>false prophet in Revelations.
Jesus according to your own text actually stated that he was to uphold the law and not to destroy it. Jesus was very much Jewish and of course didn't eat pork. What has happened is a misunderstanding of words about consuming impurities doesn't make one impure lead to the allowance, not by jesus, to eat pork.
>
>Specifically the charges that Muhammad was
>not a prophet. There
>is a lot of damning
>(no pun intended) evidence that
>he could in no way
>be a prophet.
>
I would prefer if you specifically say this "evidence". Stop beating around the bush ender it gets boring. :)
>Furthermore that there is no surviving
>manuscriptes of the Qur'an until
>150 years AFTER Muhammad died.
> It calls into question
>if he even wrote it.
>
First Muhammad pbuh didn't write the Qur'an and i don't think any Muslim claimed he did Qur'an is an inspired actual word of Allah.. not created by Muhammad pbuh.
Second you don't know manuscripts very well. There is actually a manuscript in the Egypt museum that dates back to 688 AD 58 yrs after Muhammad pbuh died.
For more information on early manuscripts the following link is helpful http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
>
>The reason I can never accept
>Islam is that Muhammad did
>not behave like a true
>prophet of God and there
>is simply no historical evidence
>that the Qur'an is inspired
>text.
And what behaviour do you accept is the behavior of a Prophet? are you looking for all to be like Jesus pbuh? or are you looking for them to be like David pbuh? Or Solomon pbuh? You'd have to be more specific on what your references are to assert Muhammad pbuh did not act like a Prophet. What character traits do you take issue with specifically please no more beating around the bush.. we east coast people can't stand it :) what behaviour do you hold objection to?
As for historical evidence.. what would that be? perdictions of battles to be won in the future in Qur'an? nations of the past in which christians didn't even know about? true accounts of history that are not mentioned in the bible? What historical evidence do you think counters quran? again specifics not anything vague.
Nzingha
vancouver
20-03-2002, 15:11
In the Psalms as well as an embryo being mentioned DNA is referred to even though it was not formally acknowledged until the 1920's by mankind. :-
Psalm 139:13-18 ***
13 For you yourself produced my kidneys;
You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother.
14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.
17 So, to me how precious your thoughts are!
O God, how much does the grand sum of them amount to!
18 Were I to try to count them, they are more than even the grains of sand.
I have awaked, and yet I am still with you.
Note verse 16 :- "All its parts(embryo)were down in writing"(DNA).
vancouver
20-03-2002, 15:17
I'm pleased that you say the prophets were sinful. That is what the bible also says. The only man who came to this earth after Adam and Eve without sin and died without sin was the Messiah Jesus Christ. The only way this was possible was for him not to have been born of human parents. That is why it was necessary for him to come from heaven and be transferred as an embryo into Mary's womb. Mary was imperfect and thus a sinner so Jesus could not have come from her genes.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.