Ramadhan
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,469
- Reaction score
- 1,053
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
It is your conjecture.
Would you like to back up your theory with some evidence and proof?
Maybe a little knowledge about the sirah would be suffice to help you.
Non Muslims, how do you explain the existence of the Quran/Sincerity of the Prophet?
- Thread starter Tyrion
- Start date
- Replies 313
- Views 36K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
It is your conjecture.
Would you like to back up your theory with some evidence and proof?
Maybe a little knowledge about the sirah would be suffice to help you.
I was informed that Aisha was one of the most knowledgeable people of Islam so I am surprised with what you tell me here.
Al-Tabari narrated a hadith in his commentary:
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } اِخْتَلَفَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل فِي السَّبَب الَّذِي مِنْ أَجْله قِيلَ لَهَا : يَا أُخْت هَارُون , وَمَنْ كَانَ هَارُون هَذَا الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ اللَّه , حَدَّثَنَا اِبْن حُمَيْد , قَالَ : ثنا الْحَكَم بْن بَشِير , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , عَنْ سِمَاك بْن حَرْب , عَنْ عَلْقَمَة بْن وَائِل , عَنْ الْمُغِيرَة بْن شُعْبَة , قَالَ : أَرْسَلَنِي النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي بَعْض حَوَائِجه إِلَى أَهْل نَجْرَان , فَقَالُوا : أَلَيْسَ نَبِيّك يَزْعُم أَنَّ هَارُون أَخُو مَرْيَم هُوَ أَخُو مُوسَى ؟ فَلَمْ أَدْرِ مَا أَرُدّ عَلَيْهِمْ حَتَّى رَجَعْت إِلَى النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , فَذَكَرْت لَهُ ذَلِكَ , فَقَالَ : " إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا يُسَمُّونَ بِأَسْمَاءِ مَنْ كَانَ قَبْلهمْ " . وَقَالَ بَعْضهمْ : عَنَى بِهِ هَارُون أَخُو مُوسَى , وَنُسِبَتْ مَرْيَم إِلَى أَنَّهَا أُخْته لِأَنَّهَا مِنْ وَلَده , - حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى , قَالَ : ثنا عَمْرو , قَالَ : ثنا أَسْبَاط , عَنْ السُّدِّيّ { يَا أُخْت هَارُون } قَالَ : كَانَتْ مِنْ بَنِي هَارُون أَخِي مُوسَى
The people of commentary and interpretation have differed on the reason why it was said "O sister of Harun!" (Of Sura 19:28), and who this Harun was that Allah mentioned…It was narrated by Ibn Hamid, narrated by Al Hakam Ibn Bashir, narrated by Amr, narrated by Simak Ibn Harb, narrated by Alkama Ibn Wa’il, narrated Al Mughira Ibn Shu’ba who said, "The prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, sent me to fetch some of his needs from the people of Najran who said, "Doesn't your prophet claim that Harun the brother of Mary is the brother of Moses?" I did not know how to respond to them until I returned to the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him. I related to him all what was said and he replied, ‘They used to name themselves after the names of those who came before them.’"
Others said the Harun referred to is the brother of Moses, and Mariam was classified as his sister for she is a (descendent) of (his) son.
It was narrated by Musa, narrated by Amr, narrated by Asbat, narrated by Al Suddi who said regarding "O sister of Harun!" (Of Sura 19:28) that (Mariam) was a descendent of the tribe of Harun, the brother of Moses.
(From the Arabic commentary of Al-Tabari on Sura 19:28)
Now let me ask you: why did commentators differ as to the meaning of Surah 19:28 and as to who is meant by "Aaron" in that verse? Was this problem not resolved immediately? And also why did all of this debate and confusion not take place before the Christians of Najran blew the whistle, if Muslims then were quite settled as to the meaning of "sister of Aaron"?
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
For evidence of the claim that Mohammed "knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval" surely you have to look no further than the early history of Islam which is packed full of just such social upheaval! There is, of course, no 'proof' of any such link.. nevertheless in a historical context something being 'just' conjecture does not make it untrue or even particularly implausible.
Personally, I think this poster hits the nail on the head, though;
Excellent! Of course, it is always very difficult in threads such as this - it was addressed to non-muslims who really find it impossible to reply without offending someone. If we were able to say what muslims would agree with on this topic, we would be muslims ourselves!
Ramadhan
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,469
- Reaction score
- 1,053
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I did not dispute the fact that there were HUGE social upheavals after prophet Muhammad SAW received the Qur'an.
you claimed that "prophet Muhammad KNEW that religion would be VERY USEFUL TOOL in causing social upheavals"
I am merely asking how do you know that the prophet KNEW that, because this is the first time I hear such allegation, so I asked you for evidence/proof.
Also, it can be implied in your statement that prophet SAW wanted to cause social upheaval. Want to back it up with some evidence?
It is very interesting to note that you agree with K.Venugopal's statement which essentially agrees in the existence of God, because I previously thought you did not believe in the existence of God.
It would be a very welcoming surprise if you indeed have changed your view about it.
Last edited:
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
We are not talking mythology, we are talking history.. you can either validate your points in a historically accurate manner or your dispensing with opinion and making up stories!
all the best
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Aisha (ra) wasn't born knowledgeable, it was acquired, and she had an excellent memory hence she gave us a massive amount of ahadith .. but ahadith are sayings of the prophet not the knowledge of Aisha.. is there a reason you choose to ignore all the posts linked for your perusal to hammer in the same point that has been answered multiple times?
all the best
Trumble
IB Expert
- Messages
- 3,275
- Reaction score
- 389
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Buddhist
No I didn't. I just commented that Lynx's conjecture was supported to some extent by the occurence of such social upheavals. I stated specifically (and you quoted it!) that there is no proof of such a link. I assume you are confusing me with him. The 'motive', had there been one, is obvious I would have thought; the beneficial changes in society that such upheavals brought about.
I have not, but such a change of mind is not required to agree with K.Venugopal's statement, which was that ;
I would, of course, place the Buddha in exactly the same lineage, although while he discovered and embodied 'ultimate truth' his much deeper understanding enabled him to dismiss any association of same with God or gods which are, of course, just as illusory as everything else we conceive. I don't expect you to agree with that, of course!!
Last edited:
The honest truth is, I have very little time to devote to the discussion and I don't always have access to the internet. Also I suddenly have a lot of questions to reply to and these take time to research. Doing my best.τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1351466 said:
Fair enough. But he did not say that Mary was a descendent of Aaron as many have suggested.
Your link cites the research of Dr. A. T. Robertson who proposed that Joseph had both a legal father and a biological father and that this is the reason for the variances in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. I will look into this. The article notes that Matthew is written from the point of view of Joseph and Luke from that of Mary. I would take this as an indication that, rather, Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph.
I think that Muhammad Asad's explanation is really quite sufficient. The others on this forum have also dealt with this issue very well, but I have to just add that Mary's (P) genealogy is not dealt with in the NT in my view. I know that you probably think that Luke 3 gives her genealogy but it doesn't. The Matthew and Luke accounts give both a legal father and biological father account for Joseph's genealogy that ties Jesus (P) with the seed of David and the throne of David. Nowhere does it state that Luke 3 is Mary's (P) genealogy.
See the following link in this regard:
The fact that Elizabeth is of Aaron and Mary is her cousin is significant evidence of Aaronic lineage IMHO.
M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774) says: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).”
This is sufficient reason for Joseph to be called "son of Heli" at Luke 3:23 even if Heli was in fact the father of Mary.
Salaam, YusufNoor.
Not at all. I find her a most charming person to debate things with.
I believe that Jesus had no human father as the Qur'an agrees I think. But the accounts of newly born Jesus speaking as an infant and performing other miracles whilst still a child do not agree with the bible. John 2:11 states that Jesus performrd his first miracle when he was an adult.
Please see my post number 50 on this thread. Also note that Hebrews 7:11-14 would exclude Mary from having any Levitical or Aaronic blood at all in her.
Insaanah
★ Islam is THE way ★
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 1,918
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
One's desperation is becoming increasingly apparent! One who searches through hadeeths to find anything that may enable them (wrongly) to say the Qur'an contains an error, such a person cannot hope to succeed here. May I ask, what are your motives to be here exactly? Is it to point out to us supposed "errors" in the Qur'an (which quite frankly is a waste of your time), or, is it to learn about Islam? If you want to learn about Islam, we should start off with the basics and the main beliefs, such as the trinity vs the oneness of God.
Wordplay! It doesn't say anywhere that he was under that impression. All it says was that he came back and asked about their question. As to explaining "the problem", there wasn't one!
That was good of you to find all the details there. Then you also found the second paragraph, which reads, and I quote: "If vv. 1 to 34 were, as tradition states, revealed on the occasion of the deputation from the Christians of Najran, which took place in the tenth year of the Hijrah ("the year of deputations," as it is called), then they are of much later date than the rest of the surah, but it seems possible that they were only recited by the Prophet on that occasion, having been revealed before."
The very source you have used has demolished your own argument (if it is even remotely worthy of being called one!)
Lets go back to Pickthall's introduction to Surah 19 and see what he says. This is starting from the penultimate paragraph: "Then the Negus asked him: Hast with thee aught of that which he brought from Allah? Ja'far answered: Yes. Then the Negus said: Relate it to me, and Ja'far recited to him the beginning of Kaf, Ha, Ya, A'in, Sad" the Arabic letters with which this Surah begins, such letters being generally used instead of titles by the early Muslims."
He was a far more knowledgable Christian than any of nowadays; strange how he didn't raise an objection nor question it, and carrying the story from where Pickthall leaves it off, the Negus wept until his beard was wet, listening to the Qur'an. Then he said, "What you have just recited and that which was revealed to Moses must both have issued from the same source. Go forth into my kingdom; I shall not deport you at all." Thus the spiteful efforts of the pagans against the Muslims were doomed to failure once again.
That last sentence is really ringing true here and now as well!
Wordplay, dramatisation, creation of non-existent problems and non-existent confusion, blowing of whistles, what next? There was no problem, nor any "blowing of whistles". Those who weren't sure about a particular verse, asked about them. Unlike with other holy books, people did not try to render their own meanings to the verses, however common an expression might have been then, until it was thus explained to them by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Which is why the Qur'an is the only untampered with book in both it's word and its message and will remain so until the end of time.
Peace.[/FONT]
Wordplay! It doesn't say anywhere that he was under that impression. All it says was that he came back and asked about their question. As to explaining "the problem", there wasn't one!
That was good of you to find all the details there. Then you also found the second paragraph, which reads, and I quote: "If vv. 1 to 34 were, as tradition states, revealed on the occasion of the deputation from the Christians of Najran, which took place in the tenth year of the Hijrah ("the year of deputations," as it is called), then they are of much later date than the rest of the surah, but it seems possible that they were only recited by the Prophet on that occasion, having been revealed before."
The very source you have used has demolished your own argument (if it is even remotely worthy of being called one!)
Lets go back to Pickthall's introduction to Surah 19 and see what he says. This is starting from the penultimate paragraph: "Then the Negus asked him: Hast with thee aught of that which he brought from Allah? Ja'far answered: Yes. Then the Negus said: Relate it to me, and Ja'far recited to him the beginning of Kaf, Ha, Ya, A'in, Sad" the Arabic letters with which this Surah begins, such letters being generally used instead of titles by the early Muslims."
He was a far more knowledgable Christian than any of nowadays; strange how he didn't raise an objection nor question it, and carrying the story from where Pickthall leaves it off, the Negus wept until his beard was wet, listening to the Qur'an. Then he said, "What you have just recited and that which was revealed to Moses must both have issued from the same source. Go forth into my kingdom; I shall not deport you at all." Thus the spiteful efforts of the pagans against the Muslims were doomed to failure once again.
That last sentence is really ringing true here and now as well!
Wordplay, dramatisation, creation of non-existent problems and non-existent confusion, blowing of whistles, what next? There was no problem, nor any "blowing of whistles". Those who weren't sure about a particular verse, asked about them. Unlike with other holy books, people did not try to render their own meanings to the verses, however common an expression might have been then, until it was thus explained to them by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Which is why the Qur'an is the only untampered with book in both it's word and its message and will remain so until the end of time.
Peace.[/FONT]
Last edited:
My motive is to answer the question posed by this thread. And in just a short time I have learned a considerable number of new things, thanks to the knowledgeable people on this forum. I never knew before that the name "Jesus" was not in use until just 400 years ago.
The trinity doctrine is nonsense. I agree with that.
Peace, my friend.
My thinking is a bit woolly right now. I can't see how this demolishes the argument. Please explain.
Keep in mind the social context though. It's been around 1400 years since Muhammad was among the living. 1400 years in which criticism directed towards him was essentially considered blashpemous and, consequently, illegal in Muslim-controlled areas. It is unclear how much of what we know about him now provides a fair and balanced picture of how he truly was.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
You can know of people through their work and the legacy they leave behind, certainly from Islam's very inception the venomous tirades against Islam, the messenger and Muslims in general has always existed, it isn't a new thing courtesy of a 'free west'
2:214 Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried: "When (will come) the help of Allah" ah! verily, the help of Allah is (always) near!
as you can see from the up Quranic verse, that adversity has existed from the beginning and it existed for other messengers as well can be easily inferred from the same verse..
What I personally consider blasphemous is building an opinion based on personal persuasions and seething hatred rather than correct accurate historical facts.. and living in the west has taught me indeed that only scandals sell, the worse it is the higher the sell.. westerners so admire their opinion for what it is worth when it is in fact worthless and love to impose that sort of lowness on the world under some guise of inalienable rights... and it is no wonder to me that the population at large are zonked out on prozac and suffer anxiety and are very un-trusting and un-neighborly toward one another .. they've created that environment for themselves and continuously reap its 'benefits'
all the best
Lynx
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 29
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Agnosticism
I never claimed my suggestion was the 'right' explanation. I merely pointed out a possibility that reconciled the sincerity of the Prophet & the existence of the Quran which is what the OP was challenging non-Muslims to do. Obviously I don't have a letter of the Prophet where he said "today I am going to invent a religion cause I think i have good ideas for society" lol but this isn't the point of the OP. The mere *possibility* of my claim suffices! As for the claim of whether Prophet Muhammed knew religion would cause social upheaval..well I don't know; I think anyone who read or heard of any of the stories of the prophets before, would quickly realize how great of an influence religion can have!
Ramadhan
IB Legend
- Messages
- 6,469
- Reaction score
- 1,053
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
If this is the standard on which you operate (ie. making conjectures, offer explanations, etc), then I have nothing more to say.
Lynx
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 29
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Agnosticism
the point of my post was to show there is at least one other possibility that takes into account that muhammed was sincere but at the same time he wasn't a prophet. In other words, i presented a motive for muhammed to make up Islam that keeps his sincerity intact. this is what the OP was asking for: an 'explanation' since the OP presumes that non muslims hold contradictory beliefs if they a) believe in the sincerity of the prophets charater and b) reject the message he brought. the explanation i offered reconciles the apparent contradiction in beliefs
re-read the OP and try to imagine it as an argument; it makes things a lot clearer!
Last edited:
Tyrion
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,049
- Reaction score
- 212
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
I honestly don’t think this is a possibility, because if those were his intentions then he would be a liar, and if he was a liar then he could no longer be considered sincere. We know he was sincere and therefore not a liar, so I don’t see how this would possibly reconcile anything, as you claim it does.
I think the sincerity of the Prophet is backed up by history (I know you might argue about the validity of Islamic history, but I’ll let someone more qualified deal with that.) and most people (Muslim and non Muslims alike) seem to agree on this point. It seems very unlikely that he would deceive his people to that extent…
On a side note, I want to express my thanks to everyone who has replied to this thread so far. I’m learning quite a bit, so please keep the comments coming.