Array
there was a challenge in another thread to prove the qur'an is not the word of god, but it put the burden of proof on the wrong person. the burden of proof is upon you to prove something, not on someone else to disprove. a defendent doesn't have the burden of proof the prosecuter does. therefore, i challenge you to prove the qur'an is the word of god.
Hello Turin,
While some of the aspects I have listed entail a certain degree of subjectivity, this is not true for a number of them, which are concrete and objective.format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
For example, memorization of the Qur'an by so many people is a simple fact. There is no other book that can compare in this regard.
Actually, I had the Bible in mind when I wrote these arguments, and you will notice that I mentioned the Bible already. Christians cannot claim that the Bible is universal since they have abandoned the laws of the old testament, and they are now under the 'new testament'. The Bible also falls behind the Qur'an when we come to inerrancy. The message of the Bible is also not coherent, unlike the message of the Qur'an. And different Chruches have different Bibles anyway. The Bibel is filled with irrelevant historical details that are of no concern to anyone, such as the long lists of names and numbers of people listed in many chapters. We can go on and on.I own both a Bible and a Quran and I find the first more universal, more practical, more logical, etc.
You didn't read carefully. The verse I was discussing said that the LIKENESS/SIMILTUDE (mathal) of Eesa is that of Adam. But noweher in the verse you mentioned does it say the similutde of God is hearing and knowing. Moreover, from the examples we have given it is clear that the Qur'an has a numerical order to it. Thus, you can't disprove that by trying to find examples that you think should appear a certian number of times, because there is already another order in place. For example, the number of times hearing and seeing is already in a specific order, and the number of times God appears is already in a specific order.For example, I saw your post about the number of times the words “Adam” and “Eesa” appear in the Quran. You say that they both appear 25 times, and since there is a verse (3:59) that refers to the “likeness” of Adam and “Eesa”, somehow this verse proves that the Quran is the true word of God.
Once again, you are only using it as a proof once you have seen that it will work in your favor. In order to show you what I mean I opened my Quran completely at random and I found 6:115 “And the words of thy Lord are perfect in truth and justice: none can change his words: He is the Hearing, Knowing”
So clearly this verse is saying that God is Hearing and Knowing. So the words “God”, “Hearing” and “Knowing” should appear the same number of times, exactly as the words “Adam” and “Eesa” appear the same number of times. Is that so?
You've tried to explain the numerical fact away by coincidence! That may work for one or two of the examples, but not for all of them! If you've studied probability, then you know that with each word repeition, the probability that it could have occured by coincidence reduces it to an infinitesimal number.
Because the book already has the most perfect system of rules. Allow me to illustrate with a hypothetical example.Why is it that I cannot suggest a rule and THEN you see if the book satisfies the rule?
Suppose we have a book that talks about nature. You think that the book should repeat the word 'dog' the same number of times as the word 'eagle' because they are both animals. Yet, the book on the other hand is even superior to that, because it repeats the word 'dog' as many times as other MAMALS, and 'eagle' as many times as other BIRDS! So the rule you conjure would not be a suitable tool to evaluate the ordered system of the book. Instead, one must evaluate the already confirmed repetitions in the book. And clearly, in the case of the Qur'an, it is not possible to dismiss them ALL as coincidence.
Coming back to Prophet Muhammad pbuh, I would like to ask you - do you think he is a liar, insane, or actually a Prophet of God?
Btw, I'm only sharing with you a few out of the vast collections of proofs, to save time. If you want to read more, purchase the book The First and Final Commandment by Dr. Laurence Brown MD.
Peace
Greetings All
Well if Allah said that nebulae are red, he was only partially correct. The image above was artificially coloured by nasa in order to show the composition of the nebula, light from hydrogen atoms is shown in red, light from oxygen is shown in blue, and light from nitrogen is shown in green.mean if you look at this thing:
In the Quran Allah(swt) describes when our solar system will come to an end and judgment day will begin. The verse is as follows:
Al-Quran, Chapter 55 Ar-Rahman, Verse 37
And when the sky is torn apart and becomes (rosy) red like ointment
1500 years later using the Hubble telescope scientists at NASA discovered how a dying star system looks like (Figure 1).
Figure 1: October 31, 1999
The Cat's Eye Nebula
Credit: J.P. Harrington and K.J. Borkowski (U. Maryland), HST, NASA
Three thousand light-years away, a dying star throws off shells of glowing gas
How could have Mohammed(pbuh) have known about such a fact when such powerful telescopes as the Hubble didn't even exist in those days?
Allah(swt) created the universe and all that it contains and it is he who can best describe such phenomenon with such perfection in his revelation to mankind, yet another proof!
this site shows how it was done.
The actual colour of nebulae varies quite a lot, and while the one above is actually red the colour all depends on the chemical composition of the nebula and how much it has been ionized. Red is the most common, but blue and green nebulae also exist
Also how exactly does "And when the sky is torn apart" have anything to do with space anyway? last time I checked the word sky did not mean space and even if it did a supernova does not tear space! Once the stars core is primarily iron (which will not undergo nuclear fusion), it collapses releasing a massive shock wave which which propels the outer materials into space creating a nebula like the one above, nothing is "torn", and "sky" does not come into it, how can you tear sky anyway? That implies it is like an solid.
I definately don't think that the verse you posted has anything to do with nebulas, supernovae or any other celestial phenomenon but I'm willing to be proved wrong!
Ansar Al-'Adl
It is great to hear from you again, but I couldn't post because your system was down for a while...
You presented some counter-arguments to what I said about the numerical miracles. I have answers to that but I prefer to leave it for a while because you asked something that is much more important in my opinion. You asked me about my opinion of your prophet. I will answer you with all sincerity and civility. It will be kind of long but please read it. I did my best.
Many Christians begin their conversation with Muslims by saying that Muhammad was an “evil man”. I think that a very rude and stupid remark for several reasons but the most important is that by saying that you lose all possibilities of continuing a conversation with a Muslim. What Muslim will keep listening to you after you say something like that.? So don’t worry because I am not going to say anything like that. I just don’t think it is true.
But there is something more. That kind of remark, besides being offensive, makes no sense to Muslims, because they are used to see all that is good in Muhammad. And I DO see a lot that is good in him according to my readings of the Quran and the Hadith. The problem is that I also see some things that are not so good.
So, what is my opinion. I think that Muhammad was a human being with good and bad characteristics, as we all are. Probably he was at the beginning a very good person, worried about the dismal moral state of the Arabs of that time and an admirer of the better qualities exhibited by Jews and Christians around him. He probably started preaching without any intention of founding a completely new religion. He just wanted people to behave in a better way and he told them to do so. He had heard some of the stories that were told by Jews and Christians so he used some of them in his own speeches. I am sure that at this time he wasn’t consciously trying to deceive anybody. He probably saw himself as a moral reformer. He knew intuitively that polytheism was one of the roots of the Arab “malaise” of the times so he preached strongly about it. Because of that he was expelled from Mecca as we all know.
Then in Medina things started to change. He was still a good man but he had to resort to some drastic measures because the circumstances forced him to. He led his followers in what were, at least form the standpoint of the victims, little more than caravan raids. Probably he didn’t have any option, blockaded as he was by the polytheists who wanted to crush the new movement. But still at this point he was mostly a good man and he manifested it by preaching noble moral maxims. But he had to resort to increasingly forceful measures to guarantee his own survival and that of his group.
At a certain point he realized that he needed to assume full political leadership in Medina in order to survive. And he also felt (and he was probably right) that he could be a more just and efficient ruler than most. It is somewhere at this point when the prophetic utterances became closer to outright deception. At the beginning, in Mecca, he probably claimed that he was “inspired” by God, when he preached things like “all men are brothers”. That is a thought that actually comes from God, so in a sense he was inspired exactly as we Christians believe the prophets of the Old Testament were. At that point in Mecca there was no intention to deceive. But now in Medina circumstances were very different. He needed obedience and discipline from his followers in order to survive. The “inspiration” from God became “dictation” from God. You can claim that God “inspired” in you the thought that “all men are brothers” but you cannot claim that He merely “inspired” the detailed legal and military rulings that Muhammad now needed. So, whenever he needed something done, he would claim to have received it from above. Even at this point it is difficult to determine whether he was consciously lying or not. By now, after everything he had been through, he was probably convinced that he did in fact have a special link with God so in a sense everything he did and said was “divine” in origin. But was he “hearing” an angel recite specific words to him? If he claimed that, I think he was lying. His goals were still for the most part noble, he wanted to build a safe community for his followers and for that he needed to organize them. But something had changed.
He was human, and it is said that power corrupts. So, for instance, he began to show more and more intolerance for anybody who opposed him, even by mere words. He enjoyed (as most men would) his newly found power. And there were women. After being faithful to the same woman all his life, he enjoyed the new opportunities. But even at this point I DO NOT think that he was a wholly evil man. Certainly not. He still preached many good moral maxims and he wanted his community to be successful. He was like all of us, a mixture of good things and bad things. He was a great man but even great men have sometimes important moral failings as we can see in many historic examples.
And that is my problem with Islam, that it is a mixture of good things and bad things. Most of it is good, probably 80% of it. Most Muslims in the world follow only this part and it makes their lives better than those lives would be if they were pagans. But there is the other 20%, which can be used to organize a society but also to show intolerance (even against other Muslims) and to wage war. And unfortunately this 20% will always be in Islam. It is part of the whole package, because it is part of what Muhammad preached and part of his own personality. And because of a series of historic circumstances that is the part that is now becoming more influential in the minds of Muslims. And that is why we are all, Muslims and non-Muslims, suffering today.
I feel that I have so much more to say! But by now you are probably bored, so I will let you rest…
Hmm I think that anyone here askng for the proof of the Quran really should be asking with an open mind rather than just for the sake or argumentation, otherwise no matter what proof is brought forward its not going to matter.
I'll use tenets in both Christianity and Atheism (NOT comparing the two, or joining them together in a group, please don't take it that way
I'll just do one proof at a time, i'll make some statements, if you want more backing or references or proof for whatever I say please PM me. Also, instead of just reading and arguing, think deeply about each point I make here so that you know where I;m coming from at least (please bare with me, its really hard to do this typing, much easier in real-time or in real life.
k, so regarding the proof of the Quran, (without actually using the Quran
what is the major tenet that Atheists usually use to question God's existance? Evolution right?
What is evolution? A theory. So just there you have something that is not firmly established (look up the definition of a theory in a dictionary.) What evolution has to do to stay true is to constantly readapt the theory to keep it valid and up to date with scientific findings, which it has done. This is just like any other scientific theory, finding, paper or experiment, its the whole null-hypothesis rule in the scientific method.
Of course its how we humans understand things and perfect them. We go on a trial and error basis and thats how we've come to have such a modern society.
Now, I'm going to assume that there is no doubt here that the Quran contains scientific findings confirmed by both Muslims and Non-Muslims.
How many times has it been revised? (I'll let you answer that....look at other posts on this thread for proof of that).
And yet, it contains accurate (undiscovered at the time) scientific information.
The word of God does not need to be revised.
-------------------------------------------------------
Now, what about the bible? Is it not too the word of God?
Basically as a Christian, if you are attempting to disprove the Qur'an you're really disproving what you, yourself already believe in.
The Quran confirms tenets of Christianity such as the Viginity of Mary (peace be uopn her) and the Miracles of Jesus (Peace be on him) and that Jesus was sent by God and a Prophet of God. It also clarifies that God has no son or daughters (He Begets not, nor is He Begotten). Also, keep in mind I am not attempting to disprove the Bible originally, nor am I attempting to disprove Christianity, as they are both confirmed in the Quran, but rather the current practice of Christianity and the Bibles currently used to support this)
However, I'm not supposed to use Quranic content to prove this, so just keep this in mind.
Now, what language was the Bible originally written in, something close to Armaic? Is the language still in existance? no. Do we have an original copy of the Bible? no.
The Quran not only maintained the original words and language but also the intonations and rhtym of recitation that was used, as it was not only preserved in writing but memorized by many of the companions of the prophet (peace be upon him) and still thousands of people today.
In the Quran, God (Al-Ilah in Arabic, translated to English this means "The God" pronounced "Allah) states that the word of the Quran will never be changed. All those enemies of Islam across time, starting from the time of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to do was change one line of the book or disprove it (which, again has never been done...PM me for more info).
I want to keep this short cuz nobody likes long posts
disclaimer: this proof really stinks because of the limited space here, but honestly for more details (if you're sincere in looking for info rather than just for the fact of argumentation, PM me).
In Arabic the word for universe is also translated into "skies" since theyre not distinguished in the language, when you refer to skies "Samawat" its in reference to the sky we see and the one we don't (the universe) since essentially they are the same thing. Just one problem with using the translation in another language to prove somethingformat_quote Originally Posted by Alasdair
Hi Turin,
The problem with your account is that it is inconsistent with the Prophet's biography and some obvious facts. Allow me to illustrate. You made the following points concerning why Muhammad pbuh took up this call:format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
-he saw corruption in Makkans from their pagan beliefs
-wanted to bring about moral reform
-took ideas from the Jews and Christians
-wasn't conciously trying to decieve anyone
However, your account misses some very important points! The following key facts negate your above hypothesis:
-he said he was a Prophet of God recieving revelations from an Angel! Now, either he was truthful here, or he was lying, or he was insane. How can you assert that he wasn't conciously trying to decieve anyone?
-Muhammad pbuh was from a very noble family (grandson of Abdul-Muttalib, a Makkan chief). He was well-respected in his community, and regarded very highly (eg. black-stone dispute). They used to call him Al-Amin (the trustworthy) and would always consider his advice. Now if he simply wanted to bring about moral reform, why didn't he accept the position when they offered to make him a tribal chief?? They told him that if he abandoned his call, they would make him one of their biggest chieftains, give him all the money he desired, and marry him to whomever he desired. But he refused all that, and refused to abandon his call. Note also, that he and his followers were being persecuted!! Why would he do that?!
-Muhammad pbuh preached in Makkah for 13 years. During that time, most of his revelations contained the stories of previous Prophets. Yet he only came into contact with Jews and Christians in Madinah! But in Madinah, his revelations were no longer about previous prophets but primarily on subjects of religious legislation! How can we say that he borrowed ideas from jews and christians when he preached those ideas before he met Jews and Christians?
Please see http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/
-you said that he started preaching without any intention of founding a new religion. Yet right from the beginning he started preaching Islam! He started right from the beginning by disowning and denouncing the Makkan idols and the other polytheistic deities that were worshipped and called people to the worship of One God.
So the key point here is that he went through so much suffering because of his claim that he was a prophet of God and was recieving revelations from God. The question I am asking you is why would he go through all this? Was he a liar, insane, or was he truthful?
Let's speak abotu concrete historical facts, not personal conjecture. Mention specific examples and we will examine the historical context.Then in Medina things started to change. He was still a good man but he had to resort to some drastic measures because the circumstances forced him to. He led his followers in what were, at least form the standpoint of the victims, little more than caravan raids.
Okay, so you're claiming that he became a liar. There are a number of reasons why this position is irrational.At a certain point he realized that he needed to assume full political leadership in Medina in order to survive. And he also felt (and he was probably right) that he could be a more just and efficient ruler than most. It is somewhere at this point when the prophetic utterances became closer to outright deception.
-the vast amount of Qur'anic verses and Ahadith which condemn lying. eg. liars will have blackened faces on the day of judgement (39:60), God guides not the liars (40:28), who is more oppressive than the one who invents a lie against God (29:28), From the Ahadith: "stay away from lies for lying leads to depravation and sin, which leads to Hell-fire", "make truth mandatory upon yourselves", "stay away from falsehood and lies", "a believer can adopt any habit for himself but not the habit of lies and deceit", "when a person lies, the angels shun him for miles because of that lie", the Prophet symbolically illustrated the magnitude of the sin of lying by describing the punishment of the one who spread falsehood as "ripping the face with an iron rod", "anyone who falsely attributes a saying to me will have an abode in hell-fire" (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi). I can keep quoting but I think I've illustrated my point.
-If Muhammad pbuh didn't lie in Makkah, there would be no reason for him to lie in Madinah. Aside from the fact that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was known to be the most trustworthy and truthful of his people, no new beliefs were introduced in Madinah, only legislation and guidance on day-to-day affairs. And the Prophet's most extraordinary claims, such as the night ascension to heaven, were made in Makkah, not Madinah.
-Keeping in mind that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's time of preaching spanned over more than two decades, note the point that "liars must have good memories!"
-note also that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's revelation was not in tune with personal desires. For example, when the Prophet Muhammad pbuh's wife Aisha was slandered, the Prophet pbuh waited for an agonizing period before the revelation came declaring her innocence. And the Prophet Muhammad pbuh is also reprimanded in various places in the Qur'an! Doesn't fit with the liar theory. Note also that the Prophet's personal interests and emotions are not reflected in the Qur'an. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh continually spoke in the Ahadith about his love and preference for his first wife, Khadija, who had passed away. Yet the Qur'an makes no mention of her, but instead praises women like Mary and the believing wife of Pharoah.
This is the problem I pointed out in a previous discussion to czgibson. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh didn't claim that he had been inspired with the principle or that principle - he said that God had sent an angel with specific REVEALED (not inspired) words, that differed from his own words, and he recorded the revelation seperately, and had it memorized by his companions. Now if it was just a matter of inspiration, I would agree with your argument of delusion. But it wasn't. How can somone be so deluded as to believe that an angel appears before them and recites specific verses to them. The Qur'anic revelation was recited in prayer, but the Prophet's sayings were not. There was also a distinction between the two. The Prophet's Ahadith were inspired, but the Qur'an was revealed.At the beginning, in Mecca, he probably claimed that he was “inspired” by God, when he preached things like “all men are brothers”. That is a thought that actually comes from God, so in a sense he was inspired exactly as we Christians believe the prophets of the Old Testament were.
Are you saying that none of the Qur'an was revealed in Makkah??!The “inspiration” from God became “dictation” from God.
Yet we find that at the peak of his power, when he returned to Makkah with a massive army, and before him were all the oppresive tyrants who had persecuted him and his followers when he was in Makkah, he said "Go. You are forgiven." And to the end of his life, he lived in poverty, sleeping on a straw mat that left marks on his back, and always preferring to give to others over himself. His greatest enemies, like the arab chieftain Thumamah, when captured and taken prisoner, he forgave them and released them, which showed them the beauty of Islam, and eventually they chose Islam for themselves.He was human, and it is said that power corrupts. So, for instance, he began to show more and more intolerance for anybody who opposed him, even by mere words.
Actually, there is very little in the life of this world that he recieved to enjoy.He enjoyed (as most men would) his newly found power.
Yet almost all of them were widowed-middle-aged women! And in every case he married them for important sociopolitical purposes.And there were women.
After reading all of your post, I feel that all your points have been addressed by my above response. The question I would like to pose again is:
Liar, Insane, or truthful?
Peace!
This is no argument. And at a time, Islam was much smaller than christianity.-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.
Claim: It is practical and logical. Yet you offer no evidence to back it up.-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.
Writing a long and comprehensive book doesn't make it true. If I write a longer book than yours, is mine divinely inspired?
Clear, consistent? I disagree.
"
4:110
Yet whoso doeth evil or wrongeth his own soul, then seeketh pardon of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful.
39:153
Say: O My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. "
---------------------------------------------------
So, he forgives everything..... Or?
"
4:48
Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him.
4:116
Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him.
4:137
Those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them.
4:168
Those who disbelieve and deal in wrong, Allah will never forgive them.
9:80
Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger.
47:34
Those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and then die disbelievers, Allah surely will not pardon them.
63:3-6
They believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so that they understand not. ... Whether thou ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them is all one for them; Allah will not forgive them. "
For the "deep" part, I daresay I have read many deep things in the bible as well. And this is highly subjective, anyways.
Interactive - Actually, most people I have heard/read about whom has read it says it is rather boring.-it is Interactive, the text seems alive as it responds to the very questions that arise in one's mind at that moment. It speaks to the reader and delivers specific yet universal advice.
-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
-it is Memorizable; the Qur'an is the only book in the world which is continuously being memorized by millions of people and recited daily. No other book has been committed to memory by so many followers, as though it fits in one's mind as a key in a lock.
-its Language, the Qur'anic arabic is a stunning miracle in itself, its style is powerful and its recitation is melodious. More info: Here, Here, Here.
Language - See above. And anyways, this is very subjective as well.
Memorizable - I can't see how people memorizing it makes it the word of God. OR are you saying that, if people didn't memorize it, it is no longer the word of God? The only thing this tells us is that muslem culture focuses alot on memorizing....
Inerrant - This is discussed so many other places in this forum...
Preserved - No proof. What about the Torah, isn't it pretty preserved as well?-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.
-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, which could not have been known by any normal human being 14 centuries ago. (see here). Many Muslims have also found the Qur'anic perfection extends even to various mathematical miracles within the text (see here (Word repetitions in the Qur'an) for discussion of word repetitions). As well, there are the Qur'anic Prophecies.
-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.
It's remarkable features, well - religious texts can be interpreted so many ways.... For the mathematical miracles, this is a very silly argument. A friend of my father has made a computer program that finds mathematical miracles in all texts... It is easy.
Authorship - In what context was it revealed? And what are the proofs of it?
Hmm I have a question for all the Christians here.
Do you all deny the prophesy of Jesus (peace be upon him) of a man to come that will confirm him and his message? ("The Comforter")
Assalam Alaikum,format_quote Originally Posted by muslimahh
This Comforter A.K.A. the Holy Spirit is actually Muhammed (peace be with him).
For centuries, based on the King James’ Version, Christendom has translated “Paraclete” as “the Comforter” though that is not precisely what “Paraclete” means. Even so, “Comforter” would be an acceptable title for the one who is the Mercy of all creatures. What “Paraclete” means, though, is an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, one who counsels or advises. The word points to one who would be an advocate for and counselor to mankind, who, as the Qur’an puts it, would be harisun alaikum, ‘solicitous for your welfare’. (Likewise, in English “solicitor” is synonymous with “advocate” in the legal sense). Another indication which acts as a safeguard for the true meaning of these verses is that the “Paraclete” is also given the title “Spirit of Truth” (Greek to pneuma tees aleetheais ). This is clear when one realizes that in New Testament Greek, pneuma can mean “possessor of a spiritual communication”, i.e., an inspired person , as well as a “spirit” per se. (A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, by Rev. Thomas S. Green). Thus, to pneuma tees aleetheais “the inspired truthful one”, means that the “Paraclete” would be so truthful and trustworthy in discharging his responsibilities to the Divine Revelation that “the Truthful” or “the Trustworthy” would be identifying titles for him. The Greek aleetheais corresponds exactly with the Arabic Amin, and “Al-Amin”, “the Trustworthy”, which was an early title of Mohammed, peace be upon him.
Some hasty editor was not satisfied with the expression “spirit of truth”, or did not understand it, and assumed that this must be the same as the “Holy Spirit”. The words at John 14:26 which identify the “Paraclete” as the Holy Spirit are the result of this. Such words are found nowhere else and are obviously an addition to the text. Yet, this premature interpretation, unsound textually, is the one generally acceptable by the Church for explaining who the “Paraclete” is! But Jesus has spoken of someone who would dwell physically with mankind, advising and counseling them, in effect, “pleading their case” with God and showing them the sure way of return, by adherence to the truth, to the Divine Judge. He was not someone who was already present, but someone yet to come. As for the Holy Spirit, the angel of revelation, his presence was already manifest. David knew him, and asked God, “take not Thy holy spirit for me.” (Psalms 51:11). The holy spirit was present already during the ministry of Jesus, a fact which the New Testament acknowledges abundantly (cf. Matthew 3:16,17; 12:27-33, etc.). It would have been ridiculous and redundant for Jesus to speak of the future coming (‘He shall/will give you . . .’) of what presently existed.
Jesus points to a fundamental distinction between the “Paraclete” and all other prophets: “that he may abide with you for ever.” This is the same as saying: ‘the Last Prophet whose mission has permanence, voiding the need of any additional prophets.’ In plain English, Jesus is saying: ‘Look, I must go away soon, my mission among you having been completed. But I will ask our Lord to send for all of you another counselor, the prophet who will stand as your guide until the end of time.’
To prove conclusively that “John” understood the “Paraclete” to be a flesh and blood person, not a disembodied spirit or an angel, in another New Testament book attributed to him (1 John 2:1) he used the same term with reference to Jesus: “We have and advocate (Greek parakleetos, the same word rendered ‘Comforter’ earlier) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”. Jesus, as God’s messenger, was considered to be a “Paraclete”; the term was thus not understood by early Christians to mean someone supernatural. The fact is that “Paraclete” or “Counselor” or “Advocate” refers to a human being, an inspired person – which is a legitimate meaning of pneuma – not a “spirit” per se. In practical terms, the meaning of “Paraclete” is nearly synonymous with “prophet”, with emphasis on the teaching and counseling aspects of prophethood. If Jesus said ‘another Paraclete’ at John 14:16, the significance is ‘another prophet, outstanding for his teaching and counseling.’ Furthermore, Jesus qualifies this “Paraclete” by terming him the one to ‘abide . . . for ever’, the last or permanent one.
There is yet another possibility for the serious researcher. There are numerous instances in the history of biblical textual transmission wherein words have been added inadvertently to the Hebrew and Greek texts; likewise, there are instances wherein words, indeed, complete sentences, have been omitted inadvertently from those texts by copyists, especially where the letters of the omitted word were similar to another word which preceded or followed it. In the ancient texts, the letters were all run together, without spacing, so that Jesus’ words at John 14:16 would have looked like this in the Greek text:
KAIEGOEROOTEESOOTONPATERAKAIALLONPARAKLEETONDOOSEI MIN.
Later, words were spaced so that we have:
KAI EGO EROOTEESOO TON PATERA KAI ALLON PARAKLEETON DOOSEI UMIN.
(And I will ask the father, and he will give you another Paraclete.)
The point is that the received Greek text’s “Paraclete” may not be a corruption of “Periclyte”. The original text might well have contained both words, but one became omitted in later copying because of being so close in position and in spelling to the other. Only further research can resolve the matter, but it is quite possible that what Jesus said originally was along these lines:
“I will request our Lord, and He will send you another Counselor, the Praised One, who will be permanent for you until the end of time.”
This is not entirely hypothetical; it has actually happened with other words and sentences of
the Greek New Testament.
Nevertheless, there is no one else in all of history that John 14:16 et seq. could refer to but Mohammed bin Abdullah, peace be upon him. Christians admit that these verses do not refer to Jesus himself, and the premature identification of the “Paraclete” with the Holy Spirit is untenable in view of other verses of the Bible. Further, no one else has come as a prophet giving due recognition to the mission of Jesus (“He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine . . .”) (John 16:14). No one else has led mankind into “all truth” (John 16:13). Only one man has received God’s Revelation since the time of Jesus, and only one man stands as Counselor and Advocate (“Paraclete”) for mankind for all the ages to come, Praised (“Periclyte”) by God and some 1000 millions of the human family.
:sister:
I was trying to get a Christian to answer this one....
Anyone with any disputes as to what the sister said? and if you dont accept Muhammad (peace be upon him) as that prophesized man, where is he?
Hello Herostratos,
If you had paid close attention you would have noted that the list was of qualities that make the Qur'an unique/special.
While it may not be a direct proof of the Qur'an's divine authorship, it is certainly an indisputable point of distinction above all other systems of regulation.format_quote Originally Posted by Herostratos
Your point? Universality has been demonstrated over time.And at a time, Islam was much smaller than christianity.
The list was meant to be brief and concise, although I have plans to expand it into a full article in the future inshaa'Allah. With regard to the point about being logical, I am of course referring to the doctrines of Islam which are free from the self-contradictory ideas which plague other religions like Christianity. Islam offers a coherent and logical explanation for our existence.Claim: It is practical and logical. Yet you offer no evidence to back it up.
Show me where I said anything about length.Writing a long and comprehensive book doesn't make it true. If I write a longer book than yours, is mine divinely inspired?
What's this?Clear, consistent? I disagree.Someone actually wants to debate me on alleged contradictions in the Qur'an?!! Be my guest! We'll even make a new thread for it! But you might want to prepare by reading through the 42 rebuttals I've written, available in the above link!
The allegation you've made concerning forgiveness is the one I have answered here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...forgive_Shirk/
That clarifies the verses on Shirk. As for the other verses you posted where it says that Allah will not forgive particular groups, I'm surprised anyone could even think that a contradiction! Where in the Qur'an did God ever say that everyone has automatic forgiveness i.e. they can do whatever they want? He says that He forgives those who turn to Him in sincere repentance.
While it is true that 'deep' is subjective, the existence of more commentaries on the Qur'an than any other book in the world, is not.For the "deep" part, I daresay I have read many deep things in the bible as well. And this is highly subjective, anyways.
Do you think you know even half as many people who have read it as me?! Making claim concerning 'most people' to a Muslim is quite funny, indeed. Anyway, I never claimed that everyone who read the Qur'an would automatically agree. It is for the intellectual and enlightened mind, you know. Read the following article I have posted here to find out just exactly what I mean:Interactive - Actually, most people I have heard/read about whom has read it says it is rather boring.
http://www.islamicboard.com/188288-post1.html
I did provide links, but for someone who doesn't know arabic, I know that arguing this point will be of little benefit.Language - See above. And anyways, this is very subjective as well.
As mentioned first, these are attributes which distinguish the Qur'an from any other book. There is no book ever that has been so widely memorized as the Qur'an.Memorizable - I can't see how people memorizing it makes it the word of God.
Err...yes..a whole lot of proof actually!Preserved - No proof.
See the above link. A decisive refutation.What about the Torah, isn't it pretty preserved as well?
Really? I would love to discuss this further with you. I am speaking specifically of word repetitions. Do you think it is easier for the author of the Qur'an to maintain a computer program that keeps track of the exact amount of times a word has been repeated in the text, while still putting together a coherent book?! For a human, no. For God, yes.For the mathematical miracles, this is a very silly argument. A friend of my father has made a computer program that finds mathematical miracles in all texts... It is easy.
This is what I am discussing with Turin Turambar. Please see my last post and you will know exactly what I am referring to.Authorship - In what context was it revealed? And what are the proofs of it?
Peace.
Concerning the argument from the life of the Prophet we can examine several incidents in his life. The following quotation from Shaykh Muhammad Mohar Ali examines the initiation of the revelation:
That the coming of revelation was a sudden and unexpected development to Muhammad (peace be upon him) is evident also from the famous tradition recording his immediate reaction to the event. He hurried back home from the mount Hirâ' bewildered and trembling in terror and asked his wife to cover him. Then he narrated to her what had happened to him in the cave expressing his fear that something untoward was perhaps going to happen to him, perhaps he was going to die. She comforted and assured him, saying that Allah could not mean any harm to him since he was so good and honest a man, always speaking the truth, entertaining guests and helping relatives and the needy, etc. After the initial shock was over she took him to her knowledgeable cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal to ascertain the significance of her husband's experience in the cave of Hirâ. Waraqah, after having heard about the incident, expressed his studied opinion that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had received a commission from Allah similar to what had been previously received by Prophet Mûsâ and that this would involve him (Muhammad (peace be upon him)) in trouble with his own people. This last remark caused further surprise in him. (fn. Bukhari, no. 3. See also infra, pp. 369-373.)
Now, as Maududi points out (fn. Sîrat-i-Sarwar-i'Âlam, ch.II), several aspects of this report need to be noted carefully. In the first place, the spectacle we get of the Prophet here is that of a person who is clearly bewildered and confused at some unexpected and extraordinary development. Had he ever entertained any ambition, made preparations for playing the role of a Prophet or religious leader and expected or solicited any divine communication being made to him, his reaction would have been quite different. He would not have been bewildered and terrified, but would rather have returned from mount Hirâ' happy and confident in the success of his endeavors and expectations, not needing consolation and assurance from anyone else, and would have straightway proceeded to proclaim his commission and mission.
Secondly, the reaction of Khadîjah (r.a.) is equally significant. Had her husband been ambitious and making any preparation for playing the role of a social or religious reformer, that fact, of all persons on earth, would have at least been known to her. Hence, when the Prophet returned from mount Hirâ' with his new experience, she would have simply congratulated him on the ultimate success of his exercises and expectations and, instead of taking him to her cousin to obtain his opinion, would have taken other appropriate steps to embark her husband on his new role.
Thirdly, the attitude of Waraqa is similarly noteworthy. He was a close relative of the Prophet and knew him and his background well since his boyhood. Waraqah was also conversant with the Christian scripture and the fact of divine revelation. With that knowledge he instantly came to the conclusion that the stranger who had appeared to Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the cave of Hirâ' could not be anyone but the angel who used to bring God's message to Mûsâ. Had the Prophet been ambitious and desirous of becoming a religious leader and had he been in the habit of receiving instructions in the teachings of Christianity from Waraqah, as is often alleged, the latter's reaction and attitude would have been different. He would have either informed Muhammad (peace be upon him) that he had obtained what he had long been seeking or, likelier still, would have exposed his preparations and pretensions to the public. That Waraqah did neither of these is in itself an evidence that neither imparted lessons in Christianity to Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor was aware of any ambition and preparation on his part to become a socio-religious reformer. On the contrary, Waraqah's reaction clearly shows that by his study of the previous scriptures he had come to learn that the advent of a Prophet was foretold in them, that his advent was expected shortly and that Muhammad (peace be upon him) answered the scriptural descriptions of that awaited Prophet. It may further be pointed out that the orientalists, more particularly Watt, state that Waraqah's assurance gave Muhammad (peace be upon him)confidence in his mission. (fn. Watt, M. at M., 50; Muhammad's Mecca, 59). This acknowledged lack of confidence on the Prophet's part at the very inception of his mission further belies the assumption of ambition and preparation on his part., To these may be added the well-known facts of his denial of any desire for material gains out of his mission and, more particularly, his turning down of the Quraysh leaders' repeated offers of wealth, leadership and power to him in lieu of his abandoning his mission. (M. Mohar Ali, Sîrat Al-Nabî and the Orientalists, pp. 237-239)
Sister Khadija says:
"Praised (“Periclyte”) by God and some 1000 millions of the human family."
But 2000 millions say that he is not.
We win
its funny how you guys only respond to the points that you want to and ignore the other ones
muslimahh,
I can assure you that I wasn't trying to ignore any arguments. It was late at night and I couldn't resist the temptation of a joke. It is in my nature, I guess.
Regarding the identification of Muhammad with the Holy Spirit or the Paraclete I think I have read about that somewhere but Sister Khadija's post was a very good summary of the position.
It is really difficult to argue about the spelling of words in Greek two thousand years ago so I will not even try it.
I will go for common sense.
If Jesus was really telling his disciples that they should wait for the next and final human prophet, how is it that NONE of the primitive Christians EVER thought of anything like that? In the 600 years that elapsed between Jesus and Muhammad we never find anybody saying : "I believe in Jesus so I will follow his original message and wait for the next prophet" How is it possible that they all got his message wrong? We have many documents written by early Christians and not one mentions anything of the sort. According to the Muslim view people who were tortured to death to make them renounce Christianity kept repeating to the end a falsehood for no reason at all.
For me that makes no sense.
And I think that resorting to common sense is much better than trying to understand the real meaning of "KAIEGOEROOTEESOOTONPATERAKAIALLONPARAKLEETONDOOSE I MIN."
Peace,
Organized Chaos please view the following videos, which will prove that the quran is God's words.
Is The Qur'an God's Word 1of4
Is The Qur'an God's Word 2of4
Is The Qur'an God's Word 3of4
Is The Qur'an God's Word 4of4
Hope this Helps....
Alhamdulliah! Thank you for the compliment!format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
Do not forget the Christians are the ones that saved Muhammed on his flee to Medina becasue the Christian King believed his Companions.format_quote Originally Posted by Turin Turambar
They did not get the message wrong. When the Bible was finally created as a Book with Constatine at the Council of Nicea, he knew of all the power and money that would be lost.
Think of it this way. Imagine you are Constatine. You have all the Christian power etc. But, lets say you of the Qur'an and know its the truth and know Jesus was leading the people to Muhammed by his prophecies in the original writings. Wouldn't you say, I can't tell people to follow Muhammed becasue they will leave my Christian ways, take a new book, and we will loose the religion, power, and money.
If no one saw the originals anymore, would you get rid of the evidence becasue you were so scared of loosiong all your followers becasue when your followers read it it will be so obvious to them to accept Jesus and Muhammed? You will now ive your life by the Qur'an?
Same reason the Pagans in Mecca fought so hard because they were scared to loose the caravans of people coming to worhsip their Gods.
Samething happens in every company these days. It's all bad for business.
Salaam,
sister Khadija
Sister Khadija,
The Council of Nicea took place in 325. That is approximately three hundred years after the life and death of Jesus. During all that time many Christians preached and wrote. NONE of them says anything about "waiting for another prophet". We have many documents dating from those years.
So it is simply not true that Constantine destroyed everything that came before him. The documents are still there. It is the prophecy about Muhammad that cannot be found anywhere.
I think its well documented, no? Let me get you the references that I've heard.
(didnt mean to be patronizing btw
Ansar al'adl
My point was that the qualities you think is so unique about the koran arehighlysubjective.
For the "clear" part of it, no, I am not interested in debating the koran with you, as I have not even read it, but:
A Norwegian muslem wrote to a newspaper that it was against Islam to punish blasphemers, while there's millions of people whom disagree loudly. Obviously, both of these views cannot be true. The Koran wasn't so clear about this, it seems.
Of course, I am sure you bare able to post a long post, with a link to an even longer explanation on an islamic website, about how obvious it is that blasphemy shall/shall not be punished, but there is easy for everyone to see that there are a lot of different interpretions of the koran. Obviously it is not so clear.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks