Non Muslims, how do you explain the existence of the Quran/Sincerity of the Prophet?

[glo]

As for motives, who knows. He was able to gain political power and more because of his teachings, but nobody can truly know what his motives were.

Please take none of this post as an insult. It is not intended as such.

Not wanting to take this thread off topic, but your comments remind me of something I have pondered before:
The difference between Jesus and Muhammad in that context.

Jesus never intended to take political power. He always spoke very clearly of the kingdom of God not being 'of this world'. Those who had hoped that he would overthrow the Romans and get rid of their occupation of Israel were sorely disappointed. He never sought power of that kind. He spoke and preached to the simple people and sought to change people's hearts from the inside, rather than 'change the system'.

Muhammad, on the other hand, became quite a social reformer and a man of political and military power and standing. Islam, taken to its full extend, is much more than just a 'change on the inside' - it aims to change systems, societies and politics. It very much is a worldly power as well as a religion.

(I am not making a value judgement here, it is just a marked difference which I thought was worth mentioning)

 

[جوري]

The Jews refer to Mary in Surah 19 as "O sister of Aaron!"

This actually makes pretty good sense to me. Her cousin was Elizabeth who the NT tells us was of Aaronic descent. Hence, it is likely that Mary was also of Aaron. She is also mentioned as being pious and in the temple frequently. Also consistent. "Sister of Aaron" could be referring to her Aaronic priesthood lineage, I don't see it as a direct statement that she had an actual brother named Aaron.

My two cents.

:wa:

akhi, they said it to her to be caustic and sardonic, for the obvious reason, however Allah swt exonerated her there and then, as Jesus (p) spoke as an infant.

and Allah swt knows best

 

[Pygoscelis]

in general, Westerners could give a crap about Rasoolullah, PBUH. thanks to Muslims as a whole, they see Islam a cause of beheadings, women "opressed" by the niqab, freeking honor killings, suicide bombers who want to trade their life for some real estate and cash for the family, guys who want to "buy" little children to marry, etc...

as for the Qur'an, English translations can be dreadful, EVEN IN books by Muslims [interpreters who first language ISN'T English], leading to crap this:


in my neck of the woods, we have Muslims lying to get govt benefits in large numbers, men with multiple wives, but don't support them or their kids. the list goes on and on. [don't even ask about ticking off the neighbors at Jummuah, Fajr, Isha]

MAYBE, just MAYBE a few will be exposed to some decent Muslim, might even be exposed to some dawah. the SINCERE ONES, Allah guides [In Sha'a Allah], leaving us with the haters.

SINCERITY should begin with the Muslims, but it appears that Muslims have much different goals than spreading Islam.

May Allah Subhannahu wa Ta Aala guide us all.

:wa:

I think this is mostly a very vocal minority of muslims, and a media that fixates on them. It leads to the impression of Islam you note and builds hate against muslims that leads to things like the ban on the face veil in France.

 

[Zafran]

Not wanting to take this thread off topic, but your comments remind me of something I have pondered before:
The difference between Jesus and Muhammad in that context.

Jesus never intended to take political power. He always spoke very clearly of the kingdom of God not being 'of this world'. Those who had hoped that he would overthrow the Romans and get rid of their occupation of Israel were sorely disappointed. He never sought power of that kind. He spoke and preached to the simple people and sought to change people's hearts from the inside, rather than 'change the system'.

Muhammad, on the other hand, became quite a social reformer and a man of political and military power and standing. Islam, taken to its full extend, is much more than just a 'change on the inside' - it aims to change systems, societies and politics. It very much is a worldly power as well as a religion.

(I am not making a value judgement here, it is just a marked difference which I thought was worth mentioning)

You forget something major about christ (pbuh) - when he comes back he will be political in christainty - furthermore In chirstainty Jesus pbuh is God - so that confuses things even more. Your also seeing him as only a prophet here who wants to change Isreal within - In the bible thats enough for the romans to see him as threat and try to kill him. Which is ultimatly political.

By the way christainty is just as much a worldy power as preety much any religion - the pope and the catholic church is a great example of that.

The big difference is that Jesus pbuh was rejected by most of the people he was sent to (Isreal) - with prophet muhammad pbuh all the people accepted him at his time.

 

[aadil77]

hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran

 

[Tyrion]

hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran

I think that most of the "mistakes" in the Quran have been dealt with before, and a simple search through the forum should suffice for him. I don't think a new thread is necessary.

 

[espada]

As for me personally, I believe Mohammed was a prophet of God, sent to bring the people back to him, and the qur'an is given by inspiration from God.

So are you saying that there is one God, and that Muhammad is His Messenger?

....

Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain ...

 

[PouringRain]

So are you saying that there is one God, and that Muhammad is His Messenger?

....

Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain ...

Yes, I do believe there is one God, and Mohammed is a messenger of him.... but this thread is not about me.

I think you are the first person who has been inspired by my username to sing.

 

[Rabi Mansur]

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").

شكرا

 

[Hiroshi]

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").

شكرا

Hi Rabi Mansur.

Luke 1:5 does indeed call Elisabeth, Mary's relative, one of the daughters of Aaron. And it is very tempting to suggest that this explains everything. But it doesn't.

Most importantly, Mohammed's explanation in the Hadith stated, and please corect me if I am wrong, that Mary's brother was not Aaron the high priest, but a different man with the same name (and so named simply because high priest Aaron was a pious man). Btw, this still leaves unexplained how Mary's father also has the same name as Aaron's father and also how Mary happens to have the same name (in Arabic) as Aaron's sister.

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.

 

[Hiroshi]

hiroshi - start a new thread with your alleged 'mistakes' in the Quran

As you wish.

 

[Hiroshi]

as for the Qur'an, English translations can be dreadful, EVEN IN books by Muslims [interpreters who first language ISN'T English], leading to crap this:

"When this Muslim went to speak with the Christians of Najran he was under the impression that Mary was the actual sister of Aaron. And when the Christians objected he could not explain the problem."

:wa:

Please explain if my statement was incorrect.

 

[جوري]

Hi Rabi Mansur.

Luke 1:5 does indeed call Elisabeth, Mary's relative, one of the daughters of Aaron. And it is very tempting to suggest that this explains everything. But it doesn't.
.

Did you not read anything I'd written at all? You actually contradict yourself especially so by the ahadith you've brought as evidence.
You were supposed to prove that it was a popular belief amongst Muslims that she was the literal sister of Aaron and that your orientalist 'scholars' have shown the Quran in error. I'll be waiting for you to do that!

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

Did you not read anything I'd written at all? You actually contradict yourself especially so by the ahadith you've brought as evidence.
You were supposed to prove that it was a popular belief amongst Muslims that she was the literal sister of Aaron and that your orientalist 'scholars' have shown the Quran in error. I'll be waiting for you to do that!

all the best

Sorry if I don't always reply immediately. I don't get very much time to spend on the internet.

As you have seen in my two quotes, the Muslims of that time (including Aisha!) believed that Aaron was Mary's literal sister. This was up until the time when an objection was raised by the Najran Christians. Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.

 

[YusufNoor]

Please explain if my statement was incorrect.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i'm not sure i have the time to deal with all of your misconceptions, Sister Vales Lily is usually correct when she addresses these issues. you could actually deal with her, but your probably taken aback by her manner of posting. her manner of dealing with insincerity is to meet it head on, if you would like her to take a different approach, use some sincerity yourself.

you probably won't learn the Qur'an or Islam reading Pickthall. you will need multiple translations AND sincerity.

the Quran was delivered to a people of whom few could read or write, therefore the Qur'an doesn't contain dates and long genealogies like the Bible does. your comment ONLY reveals that Jafaar[i'm guessing] had an incorrect opinion on a matter, but Jafaar[RA] wasn't the Prophet. the same with Aisha[RA], she had a misconception, we don't hide those. they were humans, they were capable of error, so what? IF the section you are discussing WERE about genealogy, which it isn't, your misconception would have some merit. however the section of the Qur'an we are dealing with is about the miraculous birth and infancy of Jesus, PBUH and his mother Mary. AS A CHRISTIAN, you don't believe in the miraculous infancy, do you? odd....

FWIW here is what Muhammad Asad says in his commentary on 19:27.

"In ancient Semitic usage, a person's name was often linked with that of a renowned ancestor or founder of the tribal line. Thus, for instance, a man of the tribe of Banu Tamim was sometimes addressed as "son of Tamim'' or "brother of Tamim." Since Mary belonged to the priestly caste, and hence descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, she was call a "sister of Aaron" (in the same way as her cousin Elisabeth, the wife of Zachariah, is spoken of in Luke i, 5 as "one of the daughters of Aaron").

Asads footnote is all that is needed here. IF we were to write ALL of the "misconceptions that the Sahabah[RA] or even just Aisha[RA] had, it would take alot of time and space.

i'll deal with the other Hadeeths later, In Sha'a Allah. perhaps you would like to enlighten us on this little ditty:

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.

WHERE does the New Testament CLAIM to show Mary's geneology, PBUH?

Salaam

 

[Insaanah]

Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.

Although though it may be well-known, Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) decided to take the verse literally, on the side of caution, until instructed otherwise.

Bizarrely some missionaries are also attempting to pad their claim by utlizing the understanding of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) concerning this issue as “evidence” for their claim.

Aisha’s understanding of the issue was only due to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor her fellow companions (students of Muhammad peace be upon him) had yet explained this issue to her. So Aisha took the verse literally (until instructed otherwise) as she had not yet heard of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of it to be an idiom.

The fact is, in this reference, Ka’b confirms Muhammad (peace be upon him) had not said that Mary (peace be upon her) was the (literal) sister of Aaron is enough to pour cold water on critics baseless claims. Thus we further realise that the Quran is not claiming Mary (peace be upon her) to be the literal sister of the brother of Moses i.e. Aaron (peace be upon them both).

Moreover, this tradition also shows that Ka’b himself knew there was a huge difference of years between Mary (peace be upon her) and Aaron prior to Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation.

In addition Aisha’s silence points to her acknowledgement of her taking it literally, her taking it literally was only due to the fact that at this instance Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) had not had the verse explained to her by the Prophet (peace be upon him) or any student of the Prophet but once the verse was explained to her by Ka’b (using the teachings of the Prophet she accepted the explanation and acknowledged it (inferred by her silence).

It is hardly scholarly to jump on one Muslim's (Aisha's) personal understanding of the verse before it is explained to them, and their subsequent acceptance of the explanation, and try to build a case of “Quranic error” based on this despite Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) explanation of the verse to be an idiom. Such is the desperation of some critics, sadly the critics who have gone to this length are the Christian missionaries. Hardly the most Christian or honest method of reason!

 

[جوري]

Sorry if I don't always reply immediately. I don't get very much time to spend on the internet.

As you have seen in my two quotes, the Muslims of that time (including Aisha!) believed that Aaron was Mary's literal sister. This was up until the time when an objection was raised by the Najran Christians. Aisha's reaction: "You have lied!" indicates that she was surprised and incredulous. Muslim apologists today insist that it was quite natural to take Surah 19:28 in a non-literal sense, as if using a well known and customary idiom. But the evidence that we can see indicates quite the opposite.

I find you to be hanging on to strawmen with every subsequent post and that is fine and I can understand you want to milk it for all you can, however, what I dislike is totally ignoring all the material I have provided in the other suras with the lineage and sequence of events which like the ahadith that you yourself have posted completely invalidate everything you have written. I have asked you to show me where in Islamic literature, exegesis, the Quran or ahadith that Aaron is taken to be the literal brother of Mariam, not what folks have thought while the prophet was in their midst to correct but in accordance to your orientalists hopes, that we are all ignorant of that fact until one of you pointed out!

if you can't do that and it is obvious you won't, then there is no point wasting your time and ours, what do you think?

[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

you are entitled to your beliefs, but don't come and teach Muslims about what their beliefs ought to be!

all the best[/SIZE]

 

[Rabi Mansur]

Most importantly, Mohammed's explanation in the Hadith stated, and please corect me if I am wrong, that Mary's brother was not Aaron the high priest, but a different man with the same name (and so named simply because high priest Aaron was a pious man). Btw, this still leaves unexplained how Mary's father also has the same name as Aaron's father and also how Mary happens to have the same name (in Arabic) as Aaron's sister.

So the idea that Mary was some descendant of Aaron the high priest doesn't help. In fact, although Mary was Elisabeth's relative, her genealogy shows that she descended from Judah, not Levi, Aaron's tribe. In any case, if Aaron had been her ancestor then she would have been called his daughter, not his sister.

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:

http://biblestudies.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_genealogy_of_jesus_two_fathers_for_joseph

The fact that Elizabeth is of Aaron and Mary is her cousin is significant evidence of Aaronic lineage IMHO.

 

[K.Venugopal]

What I want to know is, as nonbelievers, how do you explain Muhammad, and the Quran? If you claim it to be his word, why is that? What motives were there? What about all the signs that point to his sincerity? I’m really interested in your responses, and my intention here really is to learn. I apologize in advance if this question has already been tackled in the past, and I hope my post was clear.

I would place Mohammad in the lineage of spiritual masters who discovered themselves and thereby discovered the ultimate truth or God. I would take his starting point in this quest for self-discovery as his meditations in the mountains of Hira. As he discovered his higher self, he started expressing it when he came out of his meditation. His subsequent meditations and expressions resulted in the Quran over a period of time. To say that the Quran is the word of God is not wrong at all because a man's higher consciousness and its expressions touch the ultimate truths of existence.

 

[Lynx]

Hello
i think your question is similar to C.S Lewis' famous argument for why Jesus is who he says he is because if it wasn't then he'd either be a liar or a crazy person and he clearly wasn't either. ultimately i think we don't know enough about these particular individuals to give an accurate response. i mean there are hadith that talk about the miracles performed by the prophet such as creating water from his fingers (bukhari) so naturally I don't buy the entire collection of hadith (and i presume no non muslim would because taht would pretty much clinch the veracity of his claims!) but even if we grant that things happened roughly as Muslims think they did then I think there are always different possibilities. for example, it's quite possible that mohammad, being the great mind that he was, knew that religion would be a very useful tool in causing social upheaval. the same can be said about other religious figures so i think you are oversimplifying the psychology of these prophets...