The scientific miracles of the Quran.

[- Qatada -]

Shalom Fi,

I would kindly like for you to clear up a possible misunderstanding I may have drawn from your posts. Are you suggesting that Mohammad never met up with any Jews at all? Nor was in any position to speak to Jews, or learn about Judaism.

In the Makkan era, no. And that was the time when many surahs were revealed regarding the previous prophets and righteous people of God, i.e.

- Prophet Jonah [Yunus] [Surah 10],

- Yusuf [Joseph] (Surah 12),

- Maryam [Mary] (Surah 19),

- Ibrahim [Abraham] (Surah 14),

- the narratives of what happened to Prophet Moses (many surahs throughout the Qur'an which go into depth i.e. Surah 20, 28, ),

- Nuh [Noah] (Surah 71)


​

You can check all the info up from here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/



Regards.

 

[rav]

Shalom FI,

Can you present me the years the "Makkan era" was?

Thank you in advance.

 

[- Qatada -]

Shalom FI,

Can you present me the years the "Makkan era" was?

Thank you in advance.

The Makkan era was about 13years, the Madinan Period was about 10 years.

The Makkan period was roughly between: 610 - 622 CE



Regards.

 

[rav]

The Makkan era was about 13years, the Madinan Period was about 10 years.

The Makkan period was roughly between: 610 - 622 CE



Regards.

Shalom,

And to become more clear on your point of view, you believe Mohammad did not have any contact with Jews or Jewish teachings before or during this period, not considering that the account of many stories in the Torah is far different in the Quran.

 

[Trumble]

^^^Jesus (PBUH) -- had no intent to "spread the message"
'I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)[1]

I suspect you know perfectly well that the standard commentary on that is to the effect that it stood only until the crucifixion, upon which the disciples gained a new commission, as it were.

As to a 'pious fraud', possibly. But 'considered' by whom? It was Edward Gibbon's opinion that has, of course, been repeated ad nauseam on assorted Islamic websites but I've been unable to find any evidence that opinion is widely shared elsewhere, let alone as universally as you suggest.

As to the only one, no, it isn't.

And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Mark 16:15-16

All of which, again, is beside the point, which was why Jesus' words were recorded in Greek and not Aramaic. Whether Jesus wished to "spread the message" is not the question at issue. The authors of the gospels certainly did.

The whole speaking in Greek, is nothing but a subjective opinion to perpetuate a popular fraud -- by the end of another century.. Christianity I have no doubt will mutate yet again to fit the tides...

Not quite sure of your point. It is a widely shared opinion based on both historical and Biblical evidence and is no more 'subjective' than any other opinion on any similar matter. Nobody is claiming that Jesus preached in Greek, only that he in all probablity was able to speak it.

 

[- Qatada -]

Shalom,

And to become more clear on your point of view, you believe Mohammad did not have any contact with Jews or Jewish teachings before or during this period, not considering that the account of many stories in the Torah is far different in the Quran.

Yes, he never.

 

[Trumble]

Yes, he never.

I have to ask, how can you possibly know that? We know there was a substantial Jewish presence in Medina which is what, all of 250km away? None of them ever travelled to Makka?!

 

[- Qatada -]

I have to ask, how can you possibly know that? We know there was a substantial Jewish presence in Medina which is what, all of 250km away? None of them ever travelled to Makka?!

Why would they need to? They never needed to since it wasn't of benefit to them, there was no produce in Makkah so they never needed to trade there, they knew it was filled with pagans [since the arabs had added innovations to the religion of Prophet Abraham and started associating partners with God i.e. stone idols.] The people there were illiterate, so they never needed to go there to gain knowledge.

So there wasn't really a purpose for them to go there anyway. Infact it would be a waste of time for them.



Regards.

 

[rav]

Yes, he never.

Shalom Aleichem Fi,

I see that no quantity of proof nor logic will convince you otherwise, but I must express my concern, that your claim is highly illogical and contradicts many things I have read, but since I am not here to dispute Islam, but instead defend Judaism against some vicious attacks here, I will therefore, not wholly voice my concern nor will I begin an intellectual dispute with you in view of the fact that the belief you hold in this matter is exclusively rested upon faith.

 

[- Qatada -]

Shalom Aleichem Fi,

I see that no quantity of proof nor logic will convince you otherwise, but I must express my concern, that your claim is highly illogical and contradicts many things I have read, but since I am not here to dispute Islam, but instead defend Judaism against some vicious attacks here, I will therefore, not wholly voice my concern nor will I begin an intellectual dispute with you in view of the fact that the belief you hold in this matter is exclusively rested upon faith.

Is there any authentic literature which states that he (peace be upon him) met and conversed with jews within Makkah? If there is, could you quote it and its authenticity so i could get a better understanding?



Regards.

 

[جوري]

I suspect you know perfectly well that the standard commentary on that is to the effect that it stood only until the crucifixion, upon which the disciples gained a new commission, as it were..

you are always presumptuous, which is mildly amusing--And I question which disciples were those? Does Barnabas count? certainly had a different opinion from what is "commonly found" in your typical (Hotel Bible) -- whether or not you care to acknowledge him as a disciple the versions I have here speak differently from what you describe as after math of "gaining a new commision"!

As to a 'pious fraud', possibly. But 'considered' by whom? It was Edward Gibbon's opinion that has, of course, been repeated ad nauseam on assorted Islamic websites but I've been unable to find any evidence that opinion is widely shared elsewhere, let alone as universally as you suggest. .

By many--You merely have to rummage through old biblical texts.. I am sure you can purchase an old copy and compare-- it isn't so difficult..

As to the only one, no, it isn't.

Mark 16:15-16

All of which, again, is beside the point, which was why Jesus' words were recorded in Greek and not Aramaic. Whether Jesus wished to "spread the message" is not the question at issue. The authors of the gospels certainly did..

Sure "his words" were recorded in Greek... which leads me to believe much is lost by (Chinese whispers)-- I notice, though I don't wish to bring it up again our dear member Thirdwatch states

"then you show 1 corinthians 6:9-10.. you show a version that say "nor homosexuals." well, just like arabic translated in English, there will be problems with the translation.".

so why is it that there are problems with translation only when fits a particular mood? Besides you were the one who brought about the idea of "spreading the message" why is it all of a sudden "Not the Question at issue"?

Not quite sure of your point. It is a widely shared opinion based on both historical and Biblical evidence and is no more 'subjective' than any other opinion on any similar matter. Nobody is claiming that Jesus preached in Greek, only that he in all probablity was able to speak it.

If you are not quite sure, then why do you participate in a topic?
it was a widely shared opinion to use troglitazone for DM just a few years ago, and now it is withdrawn off the market for reasons that I don't wish to get into as per this topic...however as relates to this topic, where there are humans, there will be human error! Also, subjective means (belonging to reality as perceived by your person )in other words an opinion... when you can't prove it as in passing a statement with bravado as a fact when it is not!... evidenced by you using the term "probably was able".

peace!

 

[rav]

Is there any authentic literature which states that he (peace be upon him) met and conversed with jews within Makkah? If there is, could you quote it and its authenticity so i could get a better understanding?

Regards.

Shalom Fi,

I personally would not know, but it is an incredible leap of faith, given that there was quite a Jewish presence in Arabia to claim that Mohammad never knew any Jews or Christians.

If you wish, I'll do some research. Just can you define "authentic" sources before I start. Are the only "authentic" sources of this era Islamic ones? If so, I will have to chuckle and walk away.

 

[- Qatada -]

Shalom Fi,

I personally would not know, but it is an incredible leap of faith, given that there was quite a Jewish presence in Arabia to claim that Mohammad never knew any Jews or Christians.

If you wish, I'll do some research.

I know there were jews within arabia, infact there were many within Medina and also Khaybar [which were up north, closer to Greater Syria/Al-Shaam] However, i stated before that they wouldn't be in Makkah since it wasn't of any benefit to them. And this is why i mentioned that many surahs regarding the previous prophets were revealed in Makkah, which proves that they weren't forgeries or copies of what the jews or christians had. Along with that, there are many evil things said about the Prophets of Allaah in the previous scriptures, and we know that God wouldn't choose evil people to convey His Message, and none of that evil is in God's final revelation since it is the Criterion - to distinguish between truth and falsehood, good and bad etc.

The jews were rich and had many orchards within Medina and Khaybar, since they believed that the final Prophet would come in that area - thats why they settled there. Here's where we differ, and this is why the majority of the jews never accepted him either - since he wasn't a child of Israeel. However, we know that God sends the message to all of mankind so it's not hard for us to accept that.


PS: Yes they are Islamic ones, infact there much more authentic than any others, and its a whole science of its own:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-sources/37234-rules-governing-criticism-hadeeth.html



Regards.

 

[rav]

Shalom,

I know there were jews within arabia, infact there were many within Medina and also Khaybar [which were up north, closer to Greater Syria/Al-Shaam] However, i stated before that they wouldn't be in Makkah since it wasn't of any benefit to them. And this is why i mentioned that many surahs regarding the previous prophets were revealed in Makkah, which proves that they weren't forgeries or copies of what the jews or christians had.[/qoute]

So you are claiming that no Jews were in Mecca? Not one, they would not come because they had no use for it? That seems like a very odd claim to rest your belief on. I believe that the state of Montana in the USA has no use for me, since no Jews are there, and the majority of the people are intolerant towards Jews, but I go there sometimes. It is just relaxing, with few people.

The jews were rich and had many orchards within Medina and Khaybar, since they believed that the final Prophet would come in that area - thats why they settled there. Here's where we differ, and this is why the majority of the jews never accepted him either - since he wasn't a child of Israeel. However, we know that God sends the message to all of mankind so it's not hard for us to accept that.
Regards.

I'm sorry Fi, but I will have to call you on your statement which I bolded. I am not sure how rich the Jews were there, but I can tell you with 100% certainty, that no Jew ever settled in that area because a "final prophet" was there. They were in exile from the land of Israel. No prophet has ever been written about in Jewish text that even suggests what you are claiming, let alone the "final" one. G-d sent a message to mankind through the prophet Noah. Then a seperate one to the Jewish people. A message to mankind is not what we dispute. We dispute that you claim the Jewish people no longer should follow the Torah, Sabbath, etc, which is contrary to our teachings that show very clearly that the mitzvot of the Torah are eternal.

 

[- Qatada -]

That's when the difference of opinion comes in. We believe the torah to be edited, since the message of Moses was the same as other prophets - worship none but God Alone and shun all false deities. Those who obey the Messenger are rewarded for their good in the real life of the hereafter - gardens beneath which rivers flow in the presence of their Lord, and those who disobey and disbelieve will be punished in the hellfire for their evil and disbelief in God and His Message.

That was the message of all the prophets of God, from Prophet Noah, to Abraham, to Prophet Israeel [Ya'qub/jacob], to Moses, to Jesus son of Mary, to Muhammad (peace be upon them all.) There were over 124,000 prophets which came to mankind. As is authentically recorded in Musnad Ahmad.


The final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) just confirmed the message and this message would be for all of mankind, whether it was whites, blacks, jews, asians etc.


Again, to you your beliefs and to me mine.



Regards.

 

[Trumble]

By many--You merely have to rummage through old biblical texts.. I am sure you can purchase an old copy and compare-- it isn't so difficult..

You've done it, have you? Just which pre Vulgate copy did you manage to get your hands on? Please. Names, not waffle, are required. How about some links to Biblical scholars who share that opinion? The possibly exists, but it is also quite possible that the verses came from authentic sources, or at least as near to an authentic source as there are. There is also a literary explanation for the change to the longer version but I'm afraid my command of Greek is not really up to explaining it. You could always look it up.

Sure "his words" were recorded in Greek... which leads me to believe much is lost by (Chinese whispers)

Are you really just trying to dismiss Mark 16:15-16 by claiming that somehow they have mutated into something completely different? And you complain about me not 'proving' anything! At least that would kill the argument. If your position on the whole NT is is that any verse could have originally meant something completely to what is does now there seems little point in discussing any of it.

If you are not quite sure, then why do you participate in a topic?

I was not sure because you went swanning of at a tangent to that topic. The issue was why Jesus' words were recorded in Greek, not Aramaic.

Also, subjective means (belonging to reality as perceived by your person )in other words an opinion... when you can't prove it as in passing a statement with bravado as a fact when it is not!... evidenced by you using the term "probably was able".

I don't see how I can make it any clearer than what I said previously.

It is a widely shared opinion based on both historical and Biblical evidence and is no more 'subjective' than any other opinion on any similar matter

Can you not understand that? I am not attempting to 'prove' anything - you are quite happy to cry "fraud" on the basis of something far less substantial. In the case of events that happened two thousand years ago, 'probably' is a good as you get. We don't know that Jesus spoke Greek. It is however probable that he did. Unless you can produce some historical, or indeed Biblical evidence that indicates the opposite, you are merely waffling (again).

Is there any authentic literature which states that he (peace be upon him) met and conversed with jews within Makkah?

Is there any authentic literature that states he didn't? In what everyone keeps saying was an illiterate society both seem equally unlikely. The point surely is that he might have done. A complete denial of that possibility can only be a faith based position. And before PA starts off again, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with faith based postions!

 

[جوري]

You can start with this The Barnabas bible (ISBN: 0060641282) .. there is quite a huge literary work accompanying it started by one of the brothers who founded Al-Ahram news paper in 1875 the two Lebanese-Christian brothers, Salim and Bisharah Taqla. had absolutely nothing to gain from proving the current versions of the bible wrong as he in fact died a Christian, but did quite an expose on the heresy of the church.

here is quite a bit on "Mark"-- admittedly not my work, but worth a thought nonetheless-- Do I personally dismiss the whole Gospel?.. .. I'll say this, it doesn't affect my beliefs one way or another. I find it rather, hypocritical the current state, where everything is interpreted at whim.. Jesus was sent but to the Jews, seems negligible, to say his stance on homosexuality which is apparently lost to us in translation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmmark.html

The Gospel of Mark:

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.

Removing Mark 16-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the Bible remains.

We can be absolutely certain now that the above quotes prove without a doubt that the Bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc... It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".

To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy

I hope that keeps your inquiring mind busy while I have my dinner... what amazes me about you, are the extremes you are willing to go through to prove a point-- you water it down and dance around, until you are not sure from whence you started... I am not happy crying anything... I couldn't careless, what you do with your life or what butter statue you worship.. don't delude yourself into thinking engaging you holds some remote worth in my life. If I were really interested in such topics as the intensity you display, I'd most likely make birds fly around your head. That level of dedication and research wouldn't belong on a forum, but in a book, and I have no interest in writing one on LI

peace!

 

[rav]

Shalom Aleichem Fi, you wrote:

Again, to you your beliefs and to me mine.

Fair enough, I just wanted to point out the fact that no Jewish group, has ever held that a final prophet would come from Arabia, and no Jewish group, recorded in secular, or religious texts has ever even subscribed to the notion that the laws were not eternal. We are speaking about secular recording on Jews hundreds of years before Islam as well.

Shalom Aleichem PurestAmbrosia, you wrote:

I couldn't careless, what you do with your life or what butter statue you worship.. don't delude yourself into thinking engaging you holds some remote worth in my life. If I were really interested in such topics as the intensity you display, I'd most likely make birds fly around your head. That level of dedication and research wouldn't belong on a forum, but in a book, and I have no interest in writing one on LI

May I suggest with the hope that I do not enrage your temper more; that you try and calm yourself down. Hurling verbal abuse does not do anything to assist your position; all it does is give the section of your post that is actually on the issue, a lot less meaning, and reverence.

 

[Philosopher]

Fair enough, I just wanted to point out the fact that no Jewish group, has ever held that a final prophet would come from Arabia, and no Jewish group, recorded in secular, or religious texts has ever even subscribed to the notion that the laws were not eternal. We are speaking about secular recording on Jews hundreds of years before Islam as well.

Secular records? We know that the Jewish religious texts have been corrupted, but what secular texts are you talking about?

 

[جوري]

Deuteronomy 18:18 “I (God) will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.”

what does this mean from a Jewish perspective then?