Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/24/03 at 11:57:30
I am a Christian studying Islam to find out more about it.  Am interested in Muslim's views on the proofs of the Quran.  I understand that it is viewed as the most sacred and holy of all books and I don't mean any disrespect but I have not seen anything, in much study, that PROVES the Quran's origins.   In truth, any body can show up with a book and say "This is from God."  Many have done so.  I mean no disrespect but how do Muslims know the Quran is from God?  The two proofs I've read so far are (1) it's so beautiful (which is so subjective and proves nothing) and (2) some scientific foreknowledge arguments which seem incredibly weak and making way more out of a verse than is really there. Am I missing something?  Do Muslims accept the Quran simply because every other Muslim does?  Would be interested in hearing more about how Muslims are SURE the Quran really is from God. Thank you very much.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Yasmeena
05/24/03 at 13:46:37
[slm] I understand your questions.  I had them also until a year ago when I embraced Islam. I was definately a seeker after truth.  It started in my teens and culminated in my embracing Islam in my late 40's, we won't discuss how late in my 40's.  I had almost become resigned in being a seeker until the day of my death. I have read many books also.  The one that proved to me the authenticity of the Qur'aan was "The True Message of Jesus Christ" by Dr. Bilal Philips.  On page 33 under the subheading "Scriptural Criticism" he states, "The same principals of analysis which were applied to Bible manuscripts by Bible scholars which exposed the flaws and changes, have been applied to Qur'aanic manuscripts gathered from around the world.  ...  The result of all such studies confirm that there has not been any change in the text from its original writing."  It is also stated in the book that the Qur'aan was memorized verbatum during the prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime after the revelation of the Qur'aan and since his death.  Millions of Muslims can recite the entire Qur'aan as revealed to Muhammad (pbuh). If the Qur'aan was of man's device, there would be changes in it.  Who, after all wants to write a book that spells out mankinds flaws so perfectly and then tell of the only way out of sin and it's dire consequences is to seek forgiveness in God, Allah ta 'ala.  What human would go out of his way to spell out the depravity of mankinds desires and designs in such unattractive ways so that there is no way to misinterpret the meanings and consequences of those desires and designs.  It can only be from Allah ta 'ala. Biblical scholars have proved that when the Bible said something that was unwanted it was removed by revisionists only to be replaced at a later date by another group of Biblical scholars who though it needed to be there. A book written by so many different people, as the Bible has been proved to be, has contradictions in it.  These contradictions are due to "personal conceptions" of the various writers.  There are no such contradictions in the Qur'aan. As I said at the beginning of this, I had been a seeker after truth for 30-some years.  I studied the various different faiths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, New Age, Witchcraft and even Satanism.  All, and I mean all, of them had their lures/enticements to draw people.  The differing faiths just within Christianity is a maze of conflicting doctrines/dogmas/tenets.  They can not even agree on which Bible is the right one!  :o  In Islam we have one Qur'aan - read, believed and followed by all Muslims.  What WE choose to do with the information explains the different sects within Islam.  WE are the imperfect, not the Qur'aan! Yasmeena [wlm]

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
momineqbal
05/24/03 at 13:52:22
[slm], The best way is to read the Quran for yourself and judge if it can really come from a human source. I would recommed Abdullah yusuf Ali's "Meaning of the Glorious Quran" in english if you dont know arabic. But I am including some links for your reference. There is a 32 part lecture series on the authenticity of the Quran and its miracles here. But I think it would require you to become a member of the site to view this. [url=http://islamicity.com/multimedia/radio/ch200/default.asp?inc=5.htm#Series-Ja:_The_Qur'an:_Ultimate_Miracle]The Quran: Ultimate miracle[/url] Another link: http://www.islam.org/Video/ibts3.ram Article: http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm
05/24/03 at 13:55:01
momineqbal

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
05/24/03 at 14:07:28
[slm] I'm getting late, but there are many, many things that show that the Quran is from God.  The scientific proofs mentioned in the Quran are incredible. Visit this site, it has expert non-Muslim scientists in their field, commenting on verses in the Quran.  Actually its a whole book (its all online there) http://www.it-is-truth.org/it-is-truth/Index.shtml Besides the ones listed there, there are many more, such as the sun having an orbit, the miracle of bees, etc.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/24/03 at 17:41:31
Let me respond to the kindly folks who responded to my original post. One noted “the same principals of analysis which were applied to Bible manuscripts by Bible scholars which exposed the flaws and changes, have been applied to Qur'aanic manuscripts gathered from around the world. ... The result of all such studies confirm that there has not been any change in the text from its original writing.” Let me respond to that carefully. 1.  This is emphatically not so.  One of the first things all Muslims and Muslim writing affirms is that the Quran is complete and perfect AS IT IS in its original form.  There are not “manuscripts” with “variants” to compare or check anything by, I am assured.  It’s all perfect.  In fact this respondent went on to note that the Quran was memorized verbatim during the Muhammed’s lifetime, thus assuring no variants. 2.  There are serious questions, still, that there have been changes in the Quran, e.g. the Satanic verses, the stoning verse, etc. 3.  MOST IMPORTANTLY : Proof that the Quran doesn’t change/hasn’t been changed/is self-consistent doesn’t prove that it is from God.  It just means it is well written.  Many many books are written without errors in them - does that make them from God too?  I’ve read many works of fiction that are self-consistent and error free – but they are still fiction.  ARGUING THAT THE QURAN IS ERROR FREE IS NOT A PROOF OF INSPIRATION.   This respondent also noted “Biblical scholars have proved that when the Bible said something that was unwanted it was removed by revisionists only to be replaced at a later date by another group of Biblical scholars who though it needed to be there. “ this is very unfair.  The kind of scholars you are citing would not accept the Quran either because it purports to be an inspired word of God as well.  They reject all that is divine or that claims to be as their first  presupposition.  It is very selective pleading to cite “Bible scholars” who claim the Bible has been revised (something I emphatically deny) when those scholars would use their same techniques to say the Quran has also been revised. Then it was said “In Islam we have one Qur'aan - read, believed and followed by all Muslims. What WE choose to do with the information explains the different sects within Islam. WE are the imperfect, not the Qur'aan! “ friend, the very same thing can be said about the differing sects in Christianity!  If the Quran is not at fault for Sunni and Shiite divisions then why is it the Bible’s fault for Catholics and Protestants?  It is what WE have chosen to do with the Bible’s information that “explains the ‘different sects.’  We are the imperfect, not the Bible!” A second respondent said the way to tell the Quran is inspired is by reading it for yourself.  I think not!  The prophet Jeremiah tells us “I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23).  Solomon says “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12).  This is EXACTLY what Mormons say about the Book of Mormon: read it and you’ll see.  So what?  So I read it and it “feels right” or “I like it” - what does that prove?  I am a fallible human being.  I am not capable of discerning right from wrong without the guidance of God.  What then would make me think that I am prepared to sit in judgment on His book?  If the Quran is from God then whether I think so after reading it makes no difference: it still is an inspired book.  Thus there must be a STRONGER proof of the Quran’s inspiration than my subjective feelings. To sum up: 1.  One offered the perfection of the Quran as proof, while attacking the Bible.  This is not a real proof.  Many books are self-consistent and perfectly written.  Further, the attack on the Bible was based on incorrect information. 2.  Another offered that I should read it for myself and see.  My decision on the Quran simply doesn’t prove it is inspired (or not inspired). A third respondent offered scientific proofs.  I need to look at those and do more investigation. Thanks for the responses and I continue to look for more evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.  Let me know what you think!

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
a_Silver_Rose
05/25/03 at 00:24:39
[slm] (Peace be to you) Please chek out this site  :) http://www.thetruereligion.org/revelation.htm#miracle

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
sofia
05/25/03 at 00:25:22
Peace - There's a passage in the Qur'aan that is summed up as: The Qur'aan either moves someone further away, or draws him/her closer. There is no Qur'aan without the original Arabic text (ie, its inherent and contextual meaning, its rhythm, etc). All divinely-inspired books were originally perfect, and later completed by the message of the Qur'aan. Muslims cannot disbelieve in the true teachings of Jesus or Moses or David (peace be upon thei all),  their books, etc, and call themselves a Muslim. Also, all of the previous Abrahamic faiths originally taught not only the coming of the next Prophet, but also the coming of the last Prophet (besides slaves and the poor, some early converts to Islam were Jewish and Christian scholars). The Qur'aan does not negate any previously inspired books, but calls people back to the original message. It does not reflect any previous prophet or book in a negative light, but reminds us of their original teachings, which all stem from the same source -- God. Because it is the last revealed book, the Qur'aan had better be well preserved, and could only be preserved for over 1,400 years by God. Not due to mankind or by virtue of Muslims, but to [i]preserve the message[/i]. But it's not the preservation of the Qur'aan or the scientfic theories it mentions, that were only proven centuries later -- it's the sum of all things; ie, the message. The Qur'aan is not really a book of stories, but a provocative question posed at the heart. If you read enough of it, you'll find you'll have to answer it. Whether or not blind faith exists, is a different question, and not exclusive to any belief. In the end, there is no compulsion in religion, and blind faith is not enough. It's definitely a "journey" and no one can prove it for you, even if we were to give you a dozen proofs. Feel free to ask as many questions about Islaam as you want, however. And try to focus on primary sources. "…A book which We have revealed to you, so that you may lead the people from out of darkness into light by their Lord's leave to the path of the All-Mighty, the Praiseworthy." [Translation of the Qur'aan, Chapter of Abraham 14:1] See: http://www.islamworld.net/WTQ/ http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/dyktb.html
05/25/03 at 00:36:15
sofia

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Abu_Hamza
05/25/03 at 03:56:23
[slm] Welcome to the board my friend.  I pray that your questions are aptly answered while you are here.  I also hope that you are sincere in your study of Islam, in which case you are most welcome to ask anything that you like.  We will not be offended, God willing, if your intent is not to do that. Regarding the question about the origin of the Qur'an, there are really only two possibilities looking at historical evidence.  One, that the Qur'an is God's word.  Two, that it is authored by Muhammad (peace be upon him).  Therefore, if it can be proven that it was not Muhammad's writing, then it follows that it must be God's word. Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not be the author of the Qur'an for several reasons: 1. He did not possess the poetic ability required to compose such a composition.  He was known among the tribes of his area as an eloquent man of prose - a brilliant speaker who could summarize entire concepts into small sentences.  However, he was never known to compose poetry while other great men (and women) were. 2. His traditions - known as hadith (pl. ahadith) - are very different in style from the Qur'an, clearly composed by two different authors.  If the hadith is his words and advice, and its style clearly differs from that of the Qur'an - Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not have authored the Qur'an. 3. Muhammad (peace be upon him) could not read or write.  An illiterate man could never learn so much about the beliefs of the Jews, Christians and old nations of Arabia to have "written" about them in such great details as they appear in the Qur'an.  Furthermore, an illiterate man could not come up with complex legal solutions to run a society on his own as they are mentioned in the Qur'an (ex. laws of inheritence). 4. Muhamad (peace be upon him) could not have known of things that would happen in the future, whereas there are several prophecies mentioned in the Qur'an - some that have already occurred (ex. the victory of the Romans over the Persians, the fact that his uncle Abu Lahab would never accept Islam until his death, the fact that the believers would soon liberate Mecca, the fact that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was about to die, etc.) and some that have yet to occur (the decent of Jesus (peace be upon him), etc). 5. It seems odd for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to discipline and criticize himself through a book that he wrote himself!  That is, the Qur'an disciplines, criticizes and corrects him in more than one place for having done something that he shouldn't have done.  (Examples are when he told the Chrisitans that he would answer their questions without saying "God willing", him frowning at the blind man when he came to inquire about something, him considering to never visit one of his wives, him continuing to pray for forgiveness for his uncle after he died in a state of disbelief, etc). There may be more, but these are some that I can think of from the top of my head.   Furthermore, I think another way to prove the fact that The Qur'an is God's word is to prove first that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was God's Messenger and Prophet.  If this is proven, then the other claim needs no further proof, for a Messenger never lies. Therefore, one may also look into the biography of this man - Muhammad (peace be upon him) - to conclude whether a man like him could be a Prophet or not.  Some proofs of his prophethood: 1. He fulfills several Biblical prophecies of the awaited Prophet of the Jews, which many Jews recognized during his lifetime and accepted Islam. 2. He fought and struggled throughout his life to spread his message.  He was offered wealth, women and rule to desist but he never did.  Why then was he so adamant in preaching his message if he knew it wasn't true? 3. He was known to be of the most truthful, honest and noble men by his worst enemies.  Why would a man like him lie about being a Prophet? 4. He performed numerous miracles in his lifetime, never taking credit for any of them, but always referring them back to God.  Examples are the splitting of the moon by his hand signal, the rocks gushing forth springs of water, his journey to Jerusalem (and the heavens) in a single night, his knowledge of the assasination plot of the Jews, etc (there are many more). 5. His numerous prophecies, including the advent of cars, cell phones and walkmen.  His prophecies of the conquest of Constantinople, the assassination of the 3rd caliph (Uthman), and the fight between his wife (Aisha) and the 4th caliph (Ali).  His prophecies about the end of times, about the spread of musial instruments, competition in the building of tall buildings by the bedouin Arabs, etc. (there are tens of these). 6. Why did so many people of his time believe in him?  Poor people, rich people.  Old people, young people.  Men, women.  Either he was a mastermind who was able to convince a whole nation in 23 years, or a true Prophet.  If he was simply a mastermind, what was it that he was trying to achieve? Again, these are a few that I can come up with off the top of my head.   I wish you success in your research. Take care. Abu Hamza

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
05/25/03 at 17:46:31
[slm] I'd like to add that the criticism that, ''The Qur'an cannot be considered to be from Allaah simply because it is very well written, because such a judgement is highly subjective'' is minimised somewhat by the fact that the best and most highly respected poets of ancient Arabia gave up writing poetry forever because they felt they could not compete against the Qur'an. For example: A Qureishi pagan by the name of Labeed ibn Amri made a name for himself as a leader of poetic composition, as well as being proficient in the sciences of the Arabic language. When it came to his attention that Muhammad was challenging the pagans to produce a work similar to that which had been revealed in the noble Qur'an, Labeed decided to answer this challenge. Without even listening to the Qur'an, he immediately set about employing his considerable skills towards composing a complex work which he then hung on the door of the Kaaba in the middle of the city. It must be observed that the privilege of hanging one's literary works on the door of the Kaaba was considered the most eminent of honors and a supreme testimony to that person's ability and accomplishment which was reserved only for the chosen few. When Labeed had completed his work and hung it up on the door of the Kaaba for all to admire in awe and reverence, a Muslim from the city saw it. During this period the Muslims were still being severely persecuted and tortured by the pagans and could not openly speak out without fear of severe retribution or much worse. Despite this fact, he was able to transcribe some verses of the noble Qur'an onto a parchment and steal into the holy mosque to hang it up next to Labeed's work. The next day when Labeed passed by the Kaaba he saw this parchment and read it. This was his first exposure to the words of the Qur'an and he was awe-struck by what he read. Such was the impression that these verses had upon him that he immediately proclaimed: "By Allah! This is not the work of man, and I submit." Some years later, when Umar asked him to recite some of his own verses, Labeed replied, ''By God, I have lost all taste for poetry.'' Another example is: When, roughly a century later, a group of agnostics and atheists tried to answer the Qur'an. Towards this end they enlisted the aid of one of the most prominent men of Arabic literature of that age, Abdullah ibn Al-Muqaffa. Abdullah accepted this challenge and informed them that this task would require of him a full year's dedication, during which he would require them to provide for all of his material needs and provision. After six months had passed, the men returned to him to check on his progress only to find him sitting in the middle of the room, pen in hand, caught up in deep thought, his room littered with various crumpled half written pieces of paper strewn throughout, and Abdullah himself sitting in the middle of this chaos in utter disarray. When they inquired after his progress he was forced to admit that during the last six months he was unable to come up with a single verse equal to the verses of the Qur'an. He then conceded defeat and terminated his attempts. I think it's pretty conclusive that the source of the Qur'an was not an illiterate shepherd. It seems that there is a ''Science'' to the Arabic language -- judging a piece of Arabic writing is not as open and difficult to judge as a piece of English composition. Perhaps someone who's studied this can elaborate? ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nomi
05/25/03 at 19:02:44
peace Others have answered your question quite well but i'd like to add one more thing "Behold! The angels said: "O Mary! God has chosen you and purified you -Chosen you above the women of all nations." Qur'an-3:42            THE SOURCE OF HIS MESSAGE "Chosen you above the women of all nations." Such an honour is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! ........... Knowing full-well, and believing as we do, that the whole Quran is the veritable Word of God, we will nevertheless agree, for the sake of argument, with the enemies of Muhammed (pbuh) for a moment, that he wrote it. We can now expect some cooperation from the unbeliever. Ask him, "Have you any qualms in agreeing that Muhammed (pbuh) was an Arab?"  Only an opinionated fool will hesitate to agree. In that case there is no sense in pursuing any discussion. Cut short the talk. Close the book! With the man of reason, we proceed. "That this Arab, in the first instance, was addressing other Arabs. He was not talking to Indian Muslims, Chinese Muslims, or Nigerian Muslims. He was addressing his own people - the Arabs. Whether they agreed with him or not, he told them in the most sublime form - words that were seared into the hearts and minds of his listeners that Mary the mother of Jesus -A JEWESS- was chosen above the women of all nations.  Not his own mother, nor his wife nor his daughter, nor any other Arab woman, but a Jewess! Can one explain this? Because to everyone his own mother or wife, or daughter would come before other women. Why would the Prophet of Islam honour a woman from his opposition!  and a Jewess at that! belonging to a race which had been looking down upon his people for three thousand years? Just as they still look down upon their Arab brethren today.                   SARAH AND HAGAR The Jews get their cock-eyed racism from their Holy Bible, where they are told their father, Abraham, had two wives -Sarah and Hagar. They say that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah, his legitimate wife; that their Arab brethren have descended through Hagar, a "bondwoman", and that as such, the Arabs are inferior breed. Will anyone please explain the anomaly as to why Muhammed (pbuh) (if he is the author) chose this Jewess for such honour? The answer is simple - HE HAD NO CHOICE - he had no right to speak of his own desire. "IT IS NO LESS THAN AN INSPIRATION SENT DOWN TO HIM." (Qur'an, 53:4).

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
UmmWafi
05/26/03 at 00:52:28
Engaging the mind in our endeavours is a healthy enterprise but what we need to realise is that the mind is, unfortunately, a very very limited thing.  If we are to accept "truths" only based on the mind, then we are in some kind of trouble because we could possibly end up with not being certain of our own existence.  Some might  want to throw in cogito ergo sum at this juncture however, as much as the conclusion is desirable, the logic behind that is flawed.  So, then the question now is, what make us certain we are alive ? Manyquestions : What is YOUR truth ? How do you know you are even alive ? How do you ascertain the truth of Christianity (I mentioned this particular religion cos you mentioned being Christian :) Otherwise I restrain from singling out any religion). Why I am Muslim and accept the Qur 'an ? Well..................
05/26/03 at 00:53:59
UmmWafi

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
panjul
05/26/03 at 01:16:40
[slm] From what you have written you seem to believe in the Bible? Why do you think it is inspired by God? Why do you believe in it's authenticity?

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
faisalsb
05/27/03 at 03:52:37
[slm] Well it's interesting and very old discussion and such questions has been raised since beginning of Islam but as Sister UmmWafi said who are going to believe they will believe like Abu Baker (RAU), Khadija (RAU) and Warka bin Noufal (RAU) without any doubt. But who are not going to believe like Abu Jehal they are not going to believe even when stones start reciting shahada or when moon is split in to two pieces. I have few questions which might answer to those questions raised by manyquestions: 1) If there is any book in this world which has as many copies as Quran and which is published by as many publishers of the world as Quran and still all the copies are identical ? 2) If there is any person in this world who can write even a single verse like Quran which is equivalent in meaning? (Once I asked the same question to one of my Arab Christian colleague who had read Quran and he replied atleast I can't, I asked why can't you? since arabic is your mother language and he was answerless) 3) If there is any person in this world who can claim that he has memorized a book other than Quran which is as big as Quran? (For instance Oxford dictionary, Old testament or New Testament word by word) If answer to all upper mentioned questions is "NO" then isn't it live miracle of Quran? If we take it without prejuidice.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Abu_Hamza
05/27/03 at 21:04:04
[slm] In order to be objective, and with all due respect to the Muslim brothers and sisters who have responded in this thread, I must say that some of your posts do not answer the question of manyquestions.  Not only do they digress away from the topic at hand (which translates to "disappointment" for a sincere questioner and "victory over the defeated Muslim" to a hostile one), some of the responses actually try to work with premises that themselves are false. It is true that what true faith and certainty ultimately requires is a seat in one's heart, not only the mind.  However, it is the mind where the process must begin.  It is for this reason why Allah (swt) challenges mankind again and again to ponder over the creation around them, to *think* and *reflect*.  It pleas to humanity repeatedly "do they not possess aql [intellect]"?  Islam is not a faith which one follows blindly and without reason.  It does not require people to simply believe, without asking any questions.  Islam never discouraged sincere questioning about its tenets, especially for one who is still searching for the Truth.  The Prophet [saw] had frequent sittings with the polytheists, the Jews and the Christians where he answered them their questions, removed from their minds any doubts that they had, and dialogued with them about virtually anything that they asked. Believing in a way of life and implementing it is no trivial matter, especially for a theist who believes his entire afterlife depends on his making the right choice.  And making that choice begins with using the intellect, making sure there are no biases as one performs his analysis, and then letting faith find a seat inside your heart and become firm.   Disregarding reason and intellect, and to say that one cannot be certain about anything in life, may translate into "the Muslims simply follow their faith blindly, only with their hearts (which they themselves claim can be diseased and inclined towards falsehood because of their sins), without assurity in their minds that what they believe in is the Truth" to a questioner. Furthermore, what is the use of asking the questioner why he beileves in what he believes in response to his query?  Surely your question does not answer his question!  And if it is meant to, then why don't you elaborate instead of leaving a sincere questioner to come up with what you're trying to say by himself?  What has the poor man done to you for him to deserve such treatment from you?  Why must you put him on the defensive and now he must defend his faith and religiion in front of you.  Not only is it impolite but a big no-no for a daa'ee - because by redirecting the discussion this way you turn an inquisitive, potentially interested seeker into a defensive, turned off individual who would now try his best to convince you that his faith is really the Truth and everything else is false (including your Faith which he initially was interested in learning more about). Moreover, to say that anyone who wishes to beileve will believe, and anyone who wishes not to believe will not believe shows (although I'm sure the writer did not *mean* to do this insha Allah) a complete neglect of Tawheed al-Uboodiyyah.  We do not just say whatever has to hapen will happen.  That is Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyah.  But Uloohiyyah/Uboodiyyah requires us to do our part as well.  Did all the sahabah accept Islam on their own?  Read the stories of the ten who were promised Paradise and ask yourselves how many of them came to Islam through the efforts of others?  Read the stories of those who died as polytheists and be amazed at how much various companions and the Prophet himself [saw] tried until their death to bring these people to the Light. To say to a sincere questioner - that if it's not meant for him to believe, he will not believe, and if it's meant for him to believe he will - translates into "why bother?!"  This argument can turn an interested, inquisitive, sincere questioner into an apathetic, disinterested human being who no longer needs to learn anything about your Faith because afterall if it's meant to enter his heart, it will!  And if not, why waste your time?! Finally, a word of caution.  Make sure the proofs that you provide to the questioner are strong, convincing and make sense to a person who does not possess faith (yet), and thus does not have the same perspective as you do.   For example, [quote]If there is any person in this world who can claim that he has memorized a book other than Quran which is as big as Quran? (For instance Oxford dictionary, Old testament or New Testament word by word) [/quote] We all should know that before writing became a commonly used medium of communication between people, oral tradition was extremely strong.  Memorizations was the only way to transmit legends and poetry from generation to generation.  Therefore we have great literary works like the Iliad, the Odyssey, and many many others which were transmitted through the tongue for ages.   However, those were the days of old.  Even in the fairly modern times, Muslims themselves have produced examplary memorisers who memorized entire volumes of hadiths, books of fiqh, and tafsirs.  To this day you will find people in Mauritania and other places where people can recite to you *many* books - most of which are longer than the Qur'an - from cover to cover.  They will even tell you which text appears on what page number, and what footnotes appear along with that text!   So this phenomenon is not specific to the Qur'an, and nor does it have to be to make it a divine revelation. [qutoe]If there is any book in this world which has as many copies as Quran and which is published by as many publishers of the world as Quran and still all the copies are identical ? [/quote] The answer to this question, again, is yes.  The King James Version of the Bible is simply one example, which has seen more copies than the Qur'an - especially considering the fact that the Qur'an was not even allowed to be printed until the latter Ottoman period because of the running fatwa that it was disrespectful for the Word of Allah to be slammed onto sheets of paper by the printing machines! My point here is not to criticize the brothers and sisters.  Neither is the point to belittle the arguments that have been put forward.  It is simply to advise, from experience insha Allah, to be more cognisant of how our responses may be interpreted by someone who does not share the same perspectives as we do.  Our purpose here is to help people in the best way that we can to find the Truth and be firm upon it.  And if a few hints can improve our skills in providing that help to the people, please don't be offended by it but take the best from it and leave the rest. And Allah knows best.   Wamaa ubarri'u nafsee.   I do not absolve myself from blame.  So please feel free to correct me wherever I'm mistaken. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/28/03 at 00:18:32
ANOTHER RESPONSE TO THE RESPONSES Again, I appreciate so much those who are answering my questions, and I especially appreciate the good attitude that everyone has shown.  It is good to disagree without being disagreeable! Now, my further thoughts, beginning with the response of “sofia.” 1.  Why must the Quran be read in Arabic to truly understand it?  What is it about the Arabic language that defies translation to other books?  Perhaps a very pointed question would be “why did God so limit His word to only one language? 2.  How can the Quran be reconciled to other divine books?  Sofia writes about “calling people back to the original message.”  Are you saying that the Bible is corrupt?  Others have said this in their posts, but don’t many verses in the Quran say there is no corrupting the words of Allah?  How can God’s word be corrupted? Abu_Hazma then wrote about Mohammed’s inability to compose a document such as the Quran as proof of the Quran authenticity and inspiration.  This argument will not do.  None of have met Mohammed.  We do not know what he was like.  Is it possible that such is all a smokescreen?  A critic of the Quran would say Mohammed was a brilliant faker who fooled people.  How can we know otherwise? We do know that Muslim histories say he was illiterate and unlearned.  Yet, even if that is so, that does not mean he couldn’t dictate well!  There are plenty of stories of illiterate businessmen running multi-million dollar corporations while being unable to read.  They rely on secretaries, etc.  Mohammed’s supposed illiteracy may be amazing, but it doesn’t make him inspired. Abu_Hazma notes that Mohammed criticized himself in the book.  Wouldn’t a brilliant faker do just that to throw us all off?  Surely there must be more proof than that! He also noted that Mohammed fulfills Bible prophecies.  I don’t know the Quran that well but I know the Bible VERY well and that just isn’t so.  I’ve studied these “proofs” carefully and they are absolutely barren of any merit whatsoever.  Be assured: the Bible says zippo about Mohammed.  In the NT Jesus is the FINAL prophet.  Muslims may not like that, disagree with it, say that is corrupted, etc. but that is what the NT teaches. By the way, isn’t it circular reasoning to say that we need the Quran because the Bible is corrupted and then argue that the Bible prophesies of Mohammed?  When we don’t like the teachings of the Bible we say it is corrupted, but when we do like its teaching we’ll cite them?  If the Bible is corrupted then maybe the parts prophesying of Mohammed are corrupt too! Abu_Hazma also noted that Mohammed was persecuted in his life.  What does this prove?  Hitler was persecuted too.  He endured it because he believed he could overcome it and finally rise to power.  Maybe Mohammed did too.  He certainly ended up in power. Abu_Hazma asks about why so many people believed him if he was a fake. Well, maybe he was a really good fake!  Millions believed Hitler.  Having a big following proves nothing.  It only proves you can convince people to follow you, not that you are from God. Abu_Hazma also mentions miracles.  Yet I was told by a Muslim that Mohammed did no miracles.  Doesn’t the Quran say so? In all that Abu_Hazma wrote only his appeal to the prophecies of Mohammed really bear on this discussion, and I’ve not seen any prophecy of Mohammed that was clear, specific and definite so as to be able to know that he was an inspired spokesman for God. Lady_murasaki_sa wrote that we can know that Mohammed was a prophet of God because the poetry in the Quran is so great that the best poets gave up ever writing poetry after they saw it.  She asks if anyone can come up with a verse to equal the Quran.  Yet what does this prove? Shakespeare is beautiful writing and I’m sure many have given up writing plays after reading his great works. Does that make Shakespeare inspired? And what of this call to produce something equal to the Quran?  That proves nothing!  What if I go and get a very fine writer to write something in Arabic that I think will be better than the Quran?  Who will judge this contest?  Who gets to say what is “better” and what standard will they use?  In other words, if two women are beautiful who can say which is “more beautiful?”  Truly beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  THIS IS AN APPEAL TO SOMETHING SO SUBJECTIVE AS TO PROVE NOTHING.  The beauty of the Quran argument has been made twice now and it has no bearing on proving the Quran’s authenticity at all. One asked why Mohammed honored a Jewish women if he was making it all up.  The answers are several.  One, it might be a clever strategy to deceive.  Second, by the time of Mohammed the Christian story was so well known that if he had assigned a different mother to Jesus people would have thought him to be a fool.  He may not have liked it but the historical fact of Jesus’ mother was known and he echoed it in his writing.  So there are explanations of this other than “he is inspired.”  I expect I can find history books written in the south by southern authors that acknowledge the defeat of the south at the hands of the north in the American Civil War.  That’s not popular and many people in the south don’t like it but since it is so it must be written.  Writing what everyone knows to be true doesn’t make you inspired. Finally, one asked if there is any book with so many copies as the Quran, and then asked about memorizing the Quran.  Does that mean if I print more copies of the Yellow Pages than exist of the Quran you will accept the Yellow Pages as inspired?  If I memorize a book longer than the Quran does that make that book inspired? Sorry this is so long but that was much to comment upon.  There is much fuzzy thinking going on here I think.  What is at stake is NOT is the Quran beautiful, or popular, or the guide book for millions, or even Mohammed’s illiteracy.  What is being asked is HOW DO WE KNOW IT’S FROM GOD?  There is a book about Christianity called THE PASSOVER PLOT that says Christianity is a hoax because it was all made up by some scheming conspirators.  Without trying to offend, what if someone wrote THE MECCA PLOT and said that while Mohammed was a wonderful person after he died some evil people concocted to deceive the world with evil purposes and cooked up the Quran for their nefarious purposes and the whole thing is a hoax?  Again, I don’t want to offend but it is a fair question.  Muslims offer the world the Quran and say “This is a message from God.”  I began my posts by saying ANYONE can do that, and in fact, many have.  What evidence is there that the Quran really is from God?  How do Muslims KNOW that it is God’s book and not the work of men? After writing much of this Abu_Hazma posted again, a post that was very thoughtful and helpful.  Be assured, however, that I do not take offense at any of the questions directed to me or any responses.  In fact, I’m fairly mortified that I’m offending by even suggesting the Quran not be inspired, or that Mohammed didn’t receive it from God.  So I say again: I mean no offense, only to probe carefully and find truth. Thanks for your patience and kindness. Mark

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
a_Silver_Rose
05/28/03 at 00:26:38
[slm] well I believe its truth simply by reading it. I encourage you to read Yousuf Ali's translation.  Its just something I feel/ know just (kind of like the precense of God) ofcourse after studying/talking/researching, ect. Also plz check out that site I gave you. Many articles there have answered the questions/ statements that you have brought out. There is one called 'The amazing Quran' and there are many more that will help insh'Allah (God-Willing) here is the site I gave:   http://www.thetruereligion.org/revelation.htm#miracle Please also check out the sites I gave here: http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/madina/YaBB.pl?board=lighthouse;action=display;num=1053006520 May Allah (swt) guide us all to the straight path. Am'een.
05/30/03 at 16:20:52
a_Silver_Rose

002.00Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
faisalsb
05/28/03 at 03:54:39
[slm] Well let me accept that I am not an expert to talk about the topic but I shared with my friends what ever I knew. Where ever terminologies of Tawheed Al-Uboodiyah or Tawheed Ar-Raboobiyah are concerned they are too technical for me but what ever I said was derived from following mentioned verses of Quran: 002.006 YUSUFALI: As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. PICKTHAL: As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. 002.007 YUSUFALI: Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). PICKTHAL: Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. SHAKIR: Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. Well if my arguments regarding authenticity of Quran were not good enough to prove anything then I'll say it's due to my limited knowledge but just wondering why no body replied to my following mentioned question?       [i]2) If there is any person in this world who can write even a single                verse like Quran which is equivalent in meaning? (Once I asked              the same question to one of my Arab Christian colleague who had              read Quran and he replied atleast I can't, I asked why can't you?              since arabic is your mother language and he was answerless)[/i]

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
eleanor
05/28/03 at 07:38:01
[slm] peace Mark :) Funny you said that the Bible says Jesus is the final prophet. Don't you believe then, like Christians do, that he is the Son of God, not a prophet? This is namely what we believe; that Jesus was an esteemed prophet of Allah. Anyhow I have only read this thread for the first time today, but rest assured I will respond soon. I will outline one example now however, which made me believe in the Qur'an's authenticity (I am not a born Muslim). You will find this on the net, I am just paraphrasing what I read. There is a Canadian doctor, non-Muslim, who had done a lot of research into the Qur'anic science stuff. Anyhow what interested him was the description of how a foetus looks in the early stages of pregnancy - like a chewed lump of chewing gum. Now while giving a press conference, one lady journalist stood up and said "Well we all know the Arabs are barbaric. What was to stop Muhammad &Co. slicing up pregnant women in order to see how things look on the inside and to use their findings as 'proof'." The doctor replied that the stage of pregnancy described cannot be seen by the naked eye, only with the aid of a microscope. So unless Muhammad had invented a microscope in the 6th/7th century and was hiding it under his bed, there was no way a human could describe so aptly what the foetus looked like. A lucky guess you think? What man in his right mind would describe a human being to look like a lump of chewed chewing gum?? Food for thought. Later..

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/28/03 at 10:28:26
[i]  2) If there is any person in this world who can write even a single      verse like Quran which is equivalent in meaning? (Once I asked      the same question to one of my Arab Christian colleague who had      read Quran and he replied atleast I can't, I asked why can't you?      since arabic is your mother language and he was answerless) [/i] I have replied to this line of reasoning twice, but will be glad to do so again.  This is not a proof of the Quran's inspiration because it is not OBJECTIVE.  Who is to judge this contest of writing a surah like the Quran?  What if I study Arabic for many years, learn it well, and then write something that I believe is better than the Quran?  Will that then disprove the inspiration of the Quran to millions of Muslims?  I think not!  They will just say "No, it's not better."  Others might say "yes it is."  What then? BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER -- but it is not an objective, verifiable, test-able standard to determine anything.  Again, if a man says a woman is beautiful and his friend says "No she isn't" who is to settle the argument? Many people who can read Arabic say the Quran is NOT beautiful, that it's a mess.  Many people who can read Arabic say it is beautiful, the most beautiful book in the world.  Who gets to judge and decide who is right? The beauty of the Quran does not prove its inspiration because it is too subjective to prove anything. manyquestions

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nistar
05/28/03 at 13:49:17
[slm] all, I too have just read this thread today -- but I mainly scanned it, so I will try to stick to whatever observations I can make.  Apologies if I repeat ideas or if I misunderstood anything. I just want to point out that this thread will continue to move in circles -- we will continue to bang heads -- because we are all speaking from a mixture of our hearts and minds.  Rational arguments tempered with faith.  Not that there is anything wrong with this. [quote]In the NT Jesus is the FINAL prophet.  Muslims may not like that, disagree with it, say that is corrupted, etc. but that is what the NT teaches.[/quote] The argument that The Prophet (pbuh) was found in the Bible drew me to Islam.  I didn't believe it then and I continue to not believe it (but it caused me to research the religion, and God gave me other clear signs as to why Islam is for me, Alhamdulillah).  I will not go up against the great scholars, like Ahmed Deedat, because I certainly do not have the knowledge to do so.  However, no amount of rational argumentation (at this point in the development of my faith) will convince me, and I've done enough research in this area to be satisfied with where I stand.  You only see what you believe.   I don't need our Prophet to be found in any other sacred text for a kind of validation.  But that's just me and my opinion :)  I don't deny miracles and there are plenty of other proofs to see that Islam is a part of the Prophetic Chain.  It is interesting to note however, that the same verses for this proof are also employed by Christian Scholars to illustrate the coming of Jesus -- but are only re-worded prophesies found in the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically referring to the coming of Elijiah.  But I digress... I would like to address this aspect of the quote: "what the NT teaches" The Jewish Tradition maintains that the Torah (the 5 books of Moses) was given in a pure, unalterable form on Mount Sinai.  This knowledge was tempered with the Oral tradition.  Both are claimed to be unalterable and allow for Divinely Guided commentary and elucidation upon the text.  The other books of the Scriptures (writings and the books of the Prophets) are recognized as being recorded by men. The NT is predominantly a collection of writings by Paul and the first Apostles, and is seen as a Divine, sacred, and unalterable collection of writings.  It includes the recorded sayings of Jesus, as well as the Divinely Guided commentaries of Paul.  Moreover, it contains books of the apocalyptic genre -- where God has directly given revelation to certain authors. Why is it difficult to also accept analogous arguments, when Muslims claim to have Divine revelation? If one is not prepared to recognize the faith system of a community as a validating factor, then these discussions will continue to be deadlocked.  If you want purely "Objective" reasonings, perhaps you should stay within the realm of Sociology or Religious Studies -- where you can find objective *theories* as to why and how a faith community maintains a sacred text, and employs authority to create a bulwark against anomy.  A system to protect the sacred from the profane.  Arguing Theology is an entirely different ballgame. I believe that the original question has been answered.  Which is essentially, "why do Muslims think/believe/prove that the Qur'an is from God?"  This thread is filled with answers.  And yet these answers are being pulled apart by further argumentation.  Effectually, only resulting in an exercise of rhetoric and nothing more. Mark -- you have asked why Muslims are *sure* the Qur'an is from God, and you have received answers that are rational as well as motivated by belief.  If you are looking for one inherent, verifiable point of proof that cannot be disproven under *any* circumstance, you are treading into faith.  And faith cannot be disproven. Leaving the academic view, and entering opinion...I feel that the posts have provided ample proofs.  God spoke through the Angel to the Prophet, as is recoded in the Qur’an and explained through the hadith collections.  That is proof enough for me.  All other secondary scientific and rational arguments related to this, are wonderful nuances that make life exciting to discover. With peace, Nistar

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Maliha
05/28/03 at 13:56:43
[slm] hmmm..i am a bit confused Mark. What are your intentions? No one can ever convince you that the Quran is authentic. It is a matter of belief. Faith. The articles of Faith state that You believe in God, His Prophets, His books, The angels, The Day of Judgement and the issue of Destiny (Qadar). There is a reason why they are called the articles of Faith. Because we have signs around us about the Onness of Allah and His existence, but by an extension of your argument..How do we know HE exists? How do we KNOW that the Prophets were sent at all? Angels??? what's that, I have never seen one? Day of Judgement...highly unlikely. (these are not my views but just an extension of the same fallacy in the argument of pure rationality). We believe in the unseen realm. I believe in the Quran simply because I am Muslim. I accept that the Message of Truth has been sent over and over again through different Prophets (including Jesus), yet the message was altered throughout time. After each span another Messenger was sent, to gather people's attention to the Submission to God only. I believe that the culmination of this Message was sent by the Last Messenger Muhammad  [saw] to the last wave of mankind on earth. There is nothing in my experiences so far that has contradicted this belief that I have. Muhammad  [saw]  and the Quran emphasize the point of surrendering to Allah alone. It makes sense to me in a deeper spiritual way than any rational answer I can give you. Belief is far to complex to explain to someone, and it goes way deeper than the limited realm of the mind. There is a difference between belief and blind following or imitation. For belief is centered around a core of experiences that make us who we are, and seeing the way the whole universe bends to the same Eternal Law, makes me want to surrender to Allah too. This is why the actual Guidance of one's soul is really up to Allah alone. None of us can compel someone to surrender to God. None of can infuse belief in another. If you are actually a seeker of truth, pray to God to lead you on the Straight path and illuminate the way for you. May He ease your journey. Sis, Maliha :-) [wlm]

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
sofia
05/28/03 at 16:19:46
As-salaamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah, Nistar: Good point about not needing to be convinced of biblical prophesies about future prophets. However, all previous books foretold coming prophets, and only the Qur'aan clearly states that Prophet Muhammad (S) would be last; the seal of the Prophets. Even early accounts of Arabian history show us that groups of Jewish tribes had settled in Medina before Qur'aanic revelations, because they were waiting for the next prophet, and their scholars deduced it would happen there. As a child, Muhammad (S) would be seen travelling/grazing animals with a cloud that continually shaded him against the harsh conditions of the desert. A group of Christians witnessed this when he travelled to Syria with his uncle (or grandfather, can't recall). They asked about him, although he was still young and did not yet receive the revelations. They knew he was going to be influential and gave him special treatment during his stay there. And the first person the Prophet (S) was taken to after he was given the first revelation, [i]"Read, in the name of your Lord, Who created..."[/i] -- was Waraqa, Khadija's (the Prophet's wife) cousin, a Christian and scholar. His famous words to Muhammad (S) were: "I wish I could be with you when they turn you out." When asked what he meant, Waraqa explained, he was getting old and didn't expect to live much longer to see the progression of his mission. And all Prophets were turned out and viciously harassed by their people, at least at first. The Prophet (S) and his early followers was persecuted for 13 years, before he and his followers migrated to Medina. Maliha - your post reminded me of something Ahmed Deedat once said to a Muslim-Christian forum. Something to the effect of, despite various measures taken by Christian missionaires to spread the teachings of Jesus, upon him be peace -- it only took one man (Prophet Muhammad) to deliver the message of God and the previous prophets, to have all Muslims onward throughout history (today alone, we're talking over 1 billion) believe in Jesus and his teachings. Abu Hamza: Good points; this religion is a deen of reasoning, no doubt. What I was getting at in my first post, however, was the issue of sincerity (which, admittedly, is not my call to make). There are cases of individuals [i]during[/i] the Prophet's time (and any other prophet's time) who never became believers, although they saw the Prophet (S), his miracles, and heard the revelations as they were being revealed -- they still refused. Some would even admit that they knew he was a prophet, but would persist in gratuitous debate and mockery. Yet others believed simply by hearing only a few verses of the Qur'aan. In fact, I know a sister who converted just based on Surah Ikhlaas (chapter 112) alone, 4 verses! Having said that, it wasn't meant to discourage debate, or focus simply on tawheed ar-ruboobiyyah. In fact, we need more qualified people to spread the truth about Islaam in the manner of our predecessors, inshaa'Allah. [quote]I don’t know the Quran that well but I know the Bible VERY well and that just isn’t so. I’ve studied these “proofs” carefully and they are absolutely barren of any merit whatsoever. Be assured: the Bible says zippo about Mohammed.[/quote] Mark--Related to the above, few people these days are actually up for a real debate, particularly concerning religion. I'm glad you are. One recent Muslim scholar that's already been mentioned, Ahmed Deedat, studied both the Qur'aan and the Bible. He's an old-school debater, which I wish we saw more of these days. I'm sure there are Christians who have heard of him, since he had done a televised debate with Jimmy Swaggart years ago. In any case, some of his books are on-line, which I'd highly recommend. What the Bible Says About Muhammad http://jamaat.net/muhinbible/intro.html Muhammad: The Natural Successor to Christ http://jamaat.net/muh-christ/intro.html Christ in Islam http://jamaat.net/cis/christintro.html To briefly answer some of your other questions: [quote]1. Why must the Quran be read in Arabic to truly understand it? What is it about the Arabic language that defies translation to other books? Perhaps a very pointed question would be “why did God so limit His word to only one language? [/quote] Mark--Clearly, God did not limit His message to one language or one people. The issue is not about Arabic or any particular language, but is inherent whenever languages and/or their translations are discussed. Have you ever studied another language or heard the term: "the meaning gets lost in the translation"? My point was, there is no barrier between us and the Qur'aan. It would simply be more advantageous to learn any text in its original language, its history and context, etc. Every Muslim (and anyone else who attempts to try to learn the Qur'aan) should strive to do that, that's all. Translations will do, but to a certain extent. Interestingly, some of the most well-known classical scholars in Islaam were not originally Arab. Another point: a "Qu'raan" is actually what is recited and/or written in the Arabic it was revealed in. Out of curiosity, have you ever studied the Old or New Testament in its originally revealed language? ie, is it common? [quote]Abu_Hamza also mentions miracles. Yet I was told by a Muslim that Mohammed did no miracles. Doesn’t the Quran say so? [/quote] Mark--The miracles of the prophets were by the will of God, and not by their own will or power. Prophet Muhammad (S) consistently told his followers that the real miracle of Islaam is the Qur'aan. He also consistently told them not to take him out to be more than a man. However, that did not detract from the miracles he was given, such as the ability to have water flow from his fingers in the desert when water was needed for ablutions, etc; to multiply a limited amount of food that was shared among hundreds of his followers at one sitting so that they could all eat, to cure the diseased, to have the physical strength to do what none of his companions could do, to speak to and understand some animals, to have others around him hear/witness pebbles glorify God in his hands, etc. The list goes on, and is not unlike the list of miracles given to other prophets, who all had miracles to testify to the divine message sent to them. Humanity, unfortunately, is sometimes more keen on miracles than reason, and God knows best our condition. [quote]Lady_murasaki_sa wrote that we can know that Mohammed was a prophet of God because the poetry in the Quran is so great that the best poets gave up ever writing poetry after they saw it. She asks if anyone can come up with a verse to equal the Quran. Yet what does this prove? And what of this call to produce something equal to the Quran? That proves nothing! What if I go and get a very fine writer to write something in Arabic that I think will be better than the Quran? Who will judge this contest? Who gets to say what is “better” and what standard will they use? In other words, if two women are beautiful who can say which is “more beautiful?” Truly beauty is in the eye of the beholder. THIS IS AN APPEAL TO SOMETHING SO SUBJECTIVE AS TO PROVE NOTHING. The beauty of the Quran argument has been made twice now and it has no bearing on proving the Quran’s authenticity at all. [/quote] Mark--You keep mentioning this. :) Maybe you or someone who knows Arabic can give it a try, rather than simply rely on conjecture regarding subjectivity. The Qu'raan challenges anyone who doubts it is an inspired text, to try to produce (only) 10 verses like it. So far, no one has. It's been 1400+ years. Those who have attempted to do so were harshly criticized by even non-Muslims for not even coming close, and forgotten throughout history. Unlike the Qur'aan, which is well-known, memorized and taught -- to this day. Not simply an issue of its "beauty." So my point is, rather than hypothesizing of someone doing it successfully (which hasn't been proven yet) -- try to actually do it. And if one were to argue that the Qur'aan was actually written by a man, wouldn't logic tell us it would be even [i]easier[/i] to try to produce something like it? [quote]Finally, one asked if there is any book with so many copies as the Quran, and then asked about memorizing the Quran. Does that mean if I print more copies of the Yellow Pages than exist of the Quran you will accept the Yellow Pages as inspired? If I memorize a book longer than the Quran does that make that book inspired? [/quote] Mark -- That's clearly not an argument for the authenticity of the Qur'aan. What would be more telling is: what other book is memorized in the exact same way (meaning, word for word, with no change or no other version memorized/taught), of comparative length and age? Wasn't one of my original questions, but thought I'd re-word someone else's. [quote]How do Muslims KNOW that it is God’s book and not the work of men? [/quote] Mark--For some (as Eleanor mentioned), it's the scientific knowledge put forth in the Qur'aan, that no one but God could have put forth. Who, at the time of the Prophet (S) in the 7th century discovered these things: -That there is a barrier in between the salty and sweet seas/waters, that prohibits the mixing of the two? Scientists didn't "discover" this fact until centuries later. [i]"It is He who has caused to mix freely the two great bodies of water, this one pleasant-tasting and sweet and this one salty and bitter, and He made between them a barrier." [Translation of the Qur'aan, 25:53] [/i] -That a human embryo goes through stages that are are well-described as a clot, a leech-like clinging thing, a chewed piece of flesh, then clothed with flesh, etc? You'd clearly need a microscope to see these early stages of development. [i]"...We made the drop into an ALAQAH (leech-like structure), and then We changed the ALAQAH into a MUDGHAH (chewed-like substance), then We changed the MUDGHAH into IDHAAM (bones, skeleton), then We clothed the IDHAAM with LAHM (flesh, muscles), then We caused him to grow and come into being as another creation." [Translation of the Qur'aan, 23:14] [/i] -That humankind and animals are made up of mostly water? Again, recent discovery. [i]"God has created every animal of water." [Translation of the Qur'aan, 24:45] [/i] This is just the beginning, there are many more, with little ambiguity in meaning. You mentioned you had wanted to look into the scientific proofs/theories of the Qur'aan. I'd encourage this, particularly the issue Eleanor brought up regarding Professor Keith Moore, the leading embryologist of his time, who relied on passages from the Qur'aan to update his study and text books. To my knowledge, he is not even a Muslim (altho I hope I'm wrong about that). Some additional sources on Islaam and science can be found under the recent author, Harun Yahya, as well as Dr. M. Bucaille, whose books are also on-line. Miracles of the Qur'aan http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php For Men of Understanding http://www.harunyahya.com/understandingintro.php "The Bible, The Quran and Science" by Dr. Maurice Bucaille Extracts: http://www.islam101.com/science/bucaille.html **Also, see Zakir Naik's study of Islam and Science** The Qur'aan and Modern Science: Compatible or Incompatible - by Zakir Naik http://free.freespeech.org/sultan/qms.pdf [quote]I mean no offense, only to probe carefully and find truth.[/quote] Mark--none taken, and likewise, hope you weren't offended by our counter-arguments. Again, check the links mentioned above; I haven't attempted to reproduce Deedat's debate. Above all, continue to read the Qur'aan, since it is the main subject of your question. May God guide us all to truth and increase us in wisdom, aameen.
05/29/03 at 12:31:44
sofia

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
05/28/03 at 16:58:54
[slm] I'd like to add my reply as well :) Ive arranged mine into subheadings taken from brother Marks posts. If you refer back to his posts it shouldnt be too difficult to follow insha allaah. This Post is about the Quran:- Why must the Quran be read in Arabic to truly understand it? In every language, whenever a work is translated from language to another, meaning is lost in the translation. In a language that is as rich and complex as Arabic, this is especially true. For example: in Arabic, every word has a root word. The root word for Islam is S-L-M.  The word ‘salaam’ (peace) is also derived from this word. There are a total of 5 derived words for the root S-L-M. Each word may or may not ‘influence’ the meaning of another word, or it may do so in a certain context. This is what gives the Arabic Quran its profound ‘layers of meaning’, hence the importance of seeing the Quran as an ‘’Arabic Quran.’’ Why did God limit his word to only one language? For this, I cannot give you a definite answer which I guarantee as correct, simply because the Quran does not tell us why. However, we maybe able to tentatively assume that it maybe for reasons of unity; to have everyone, no matter where they are in the world to turn to the same point on Earth 5 times a day, and pray to the same God in the same language is a strong bind that cuts across divides of language, race and class. But, as I say, this is in no way confirmed – any one else have any suggestions? Are you saying the Bible is corrupt? Yes. Many Bible scholars see the ‘inauthorship’ of the bible as a fascinating study of the sketchy details of who authored which book and so on. It is a historical ‘mystery’ to be unravelled, but it is not seen as a problem faith-wise. It is quite freely admitted that they simply don’t know who wrote which books when, that it is all unverified tradition. How can the Word of Allaah be corrupted? It cannot. The Quran is described as ‘Lauh Mahfooz’ – the Tablet Preserved, which Allaah swt will protect from corruption. It is the Quran specifically which will be protected from corruption, not the Torah or Injeel. Hence the need for the Quran to call people back to the original message as Sister Sofia said. Literary Beauty of the Quran. You can never have a completely objective view of anything, but I really do feel that the failure of these two recognised poets in Arabic literature to give up their art on the account if the Quran tells us something. I appreciate your point about Shakespeare, but no ‘great’ or recognised playwrights have ever read a line from Twelfth Night and   forsaken their craft. Pagan Arabs were very proud of their language. The Arabic word for ‘foreigners’ who could not speak Arabic translates to ‘dumb’ – someone who cannot speak. Ancient Arabia was a region steeped in oral tradition. Poetry was used as contests (poets would meet up and ‘duel’ using their verses) and was used as a tool to satirise or overtly praise people. Such a rich oral history gave a very unified feel of what beautiful poetry actually was. There was ‘good’ Arabic, and there was ‘bad’ Arabic, and the Quran was deemed to be ‘excellent’ Arabic by all. Even today it is taught in literary Arabic classes across the world as an example of excellent Arabic. Memorising the Quran I don’t think it is the fact that you can memorise the Quran that makes it special – after all you can memorise anything once you put your mind to it. But rather, it is the ease with which you can memorise the book makes the Quran special. Science in the Quran. I agree, people do sometimes seem to read too much into a particular verse. However, a lot of the time you can judge for yourself whether the Quran is being metaphorical or not, and sometimes the Quran makes such pointed statements about science (i.e. they can be interpreted in no other way), that if science contradicted it, the Quran would be proved wrong. I think its worth taking note of the fact that this does not happen. I could provide a list of refernces about science in the Quran and you could decide for yourself if you’re interested. ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
05/28/03 at 17:01:39
[slm] Muhammed p.b.u.h. Infact, we have an excellent idea of what Muhammed p.b.u.h is like, despite the fact we have never met him! There are many narrations (ahadith) that tell of his life as a Prophet, and before the advent of his prophethood. We have a very clear picture of his looks, morals, personality and mannerisms. Every hadith has an ‘isnad’ which is backing, meaning the chain of narrators can be traced back to the lips of the Prophet himself or or someone in a position to observe the Prophet like his wives or a companion and so on. The chain of narrators is scrutinised for their moral characters whether they have lied before and so on. This is how we know that Muhammad p.b.u.h is not a fake, since his life is documented pretty extensively. A cursory glace over his life would disprove the notion that he was a very good fake that fooled people. Muhammads p.b.u.h father died before he was born, and his mother died when he was 6 years old. He was given to the care of paternal uncle and became a shepherd. Young Muhammad p.b.u.h joined the ‘hilf ul fuduul’ an organisation which pledged to protect the oppressed of Makkah. In his later years Muhammad p.b.u.h used to say that if some one called on him for help, he would respond by virtue of his pledge. Muhammad p.b.u.h earned the title ‘Al Amin’ the trustworthy for his fair and honest dealings with his customers. Muhammad p.b.u.h began working for Khadija – a wealthy business woman – by over seeing her merchant caravans. She was so impressed by him that she proposed, and they were married. She was 40 and he 25. Muhammad received his first revelation at 40 years of age. He ran home to his wife frightened. For his beliefs Muhammad was persecuted for 13 years, and eventually had to flee with his followers. To assume that Muhammad p.b.u.h was a fake would mean that you believe that since his boyhood he was so calculating, so conniving that he managed to build up a façade of chivalry and courtesy, so that when he was 40 years old he could pretend to be a Prophet of God. This is ridiculous. The idea that he could have endured the persecution to obtain greater power in the long run doesn’t hold water either. When his uncle came to Muhammad p.b.u.h and told him that the Makkans were ready to make him their leader, give him wealth beyond anything ever imagined, and marry him to the most beautiful of women, Muhammad p.b.u.h. replied even if they put the sun my right hand and the moon in my left, I would never be give up my mission. So why would he undure 13 years of persecution when he could have had it all much earlier? I don’t think the point about Hitler applies here. That’s like saying that the Iraqi people went out year after year and voted for Saddam because they believed in him. You ‘believed’ in Hitler because if you didn’t, you were finished. You ‘believed’ in Saddam because if you didn’t you were finished. There was no such threat from Muhammad – infact the opposite was true,  if you believed in Muhammad, you would be finished. Again, this does not directly prove that the Quran is the Word of God, but it does indicate that Muhammad p.b.u.h. was genuine, and so the Quran must be genuine also.  I say indicate because no matter how much objective evidence exists, a certain degree of faith is also needed to believe in it. If you are a sceptic about the Quran, then nothing, no matter how objective it is will convince you unless you receive the revelation yourself! So, I would argue that always a degree of faith is needed. Misc Bible Prophecies: I don’t think they apply either – either the Bible is corrupt and so the prophecies are also corrupt, or the Bible is not corrupt in which case the Quran is useless. BUT :D I did find this argument interesting: http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html Also – The idea of a MECCA PLOT makes it a conspiracy. Of copurse – anythings possible, as they say, but it is not likely. If you begin with the mindset of a conspiracy theorist, not only will you be robbed of any objectivity you may have, but every minor event will gain an overwhelming importance, every fact will be sucked down into  a kind of theoretical ‘black hole’ where everything is significant, and twisted to fit the theory, instead of the theory twisted to fit the facts. I would argue that since this is certainly a novel thought, the burden of proof is upon you to produce your evidence. ma asalaamah and take care
05/28/03 at 17:10:46
Nabila

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
ascetic
05/28/03 at 17:51:58
Hello Mark. How're you doing? I've noticed that you didn't respond to some of the proofs (like the science-like description of embryology, the concept of the big bang and much more, in the Quran). It maybe that you are still researching these topics to frame an answer but I do hope that you will eventually accept these arguments or provide cogent rebuttals (to simply ignore these arguments whilst refuting others will not be productive for either of us, if it is the truth we seek). Having said that, I think you are really asking two questions: 1. How do we know that the Quran is a divine revelation? 2. How do we know that the Quran was not altered and exists in the exact shape (to the letter) as it was first narrated to the Prophet Muhammed, Peace be upon him (PBUH)? Firstly, I'll attempt to provide you a proof using inductive reasoning for the first question (because without 1, 2 is really useless. As you suggested, if you accept 2 you can, at best, reason that Muhammad wrote the Quran and that version has not been altered to this day. Once we both agree on 1, we can move on to 2. (Note that this is definitely not the only way to realize the divine revelation of the Quran. There are most likely other paths to get to the same conclusion.) There are two ways you can believe in something: 1. Either you observed the event directly (ie. perceived it via your senses); 2. Was told about the event from a credible source(s); You will surely agree with 2. above because if you didn't, then I can ask you questions like: Did the holocaust ever occur? Was Gandhi a peaceful man preaching non-violence? Neither you (I'm assuming) nor me has witnessed the holocaust first-hand nor have we ever seen Gandhi in person, so how do we know that the holocaust was a fake and that Gandhi wasn't bloodthirsty? The answer is that both these events have been well documented from several sources that we deem credible. For most purposes, it is sufficient if 3 or 4 independent sources confirm the occuring of an event to acertain it's veracity. Even criminal investigations often rely on 2 independent sources to confirm an alibi. So now you will agree that if there is a chain of credible sources reporting an event, then it must be true. So the question becomes, who is a credible source? The answer to that is not objective. You look at the historic trend of what a person said and see how often his story is corroborated by another person's account of the same event. This is essentially the basis of collecting and verifying Hadith[2] (sayings of the Prophet (PBUH)). There are hundreds of sayings of the Prophet, which have been meticulously analyzed over the years and given a "ranking" on how strong the chain of narration is. Even the most strict of historians will agree that this strategy is sufficient to figure out the authenticity of an account. Now if you really seek the truth, the onus is on you to read about the life of the Prophet (PBUH) and decide whether he was an honest man or he was just "bluffing" about most of the things he said. Once you decide that, based on what you have read about the account of Muhammad, that he was an honest person who had never lied about even the most trivial thing, you cannot reject his claim that the Quran was from God. This certainly requires a "leap of faith". Because, technically, it is possible for a person to say the truth about 99.999% of the time, he could be lying about the one thing that mattered most. However human experience teaches us that this is never true (we are given a lifetime to realize this). I think it is necessary that you believe that Muhammad was an honest person[1] because without that, IMHO, you cannot believe that the Quran was revealed by God because our only source of this fact is Muhammad (PBUH). I agree with others that, essentially, the search for the truth starts in the mind but ends in the heart. You can reason all you like, but at the end of the day you have to put together your reasoning and personal experiences to come to a conclusion. Just to take an example, a Raelian would reply to the claim about embryology being discussed in such an old book by saying that we were all created by aliens so isn't it possible that the scientifically-advanced aliens told Muhammad about the embryo who then documented it? Whilst the mind says that this is technically feasible (if one were to believe in aliens), the "heart" will tell you that this is not what happened because based on accounts of the Prophet's sayings, you believe in his account of divine revelation. If you are really seeking to learn more about Islam and clear some of the doubts you have, then what I've written will certainly not be the one account that convinces you. I personally don't believe that many of us are fortunate enough to have an "Eureka!" moment when everthing falls into place but we go through a gradual process of "believing". Hopefully this  is a step in the right direction. Peace. --Zahid. [1] There are *many* accounts of how honest and trustworthy Muhammad was. Even before he was given the Prophethood, people called him "Al-Amin" (The honest one). [2] One excellent source for learning more about Hadith (or sayings of the prophet) is http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/ . This includes topics such as the science of colletcting hadith and the science of classifying 'ahadith' (plural of hadith). ]
05/28/03 at 17:59:10
ascetic

So I rRe: questions about the Quran's authenticity
mr-bean
05/29/03 at 14:17:17
Please don't mind if my responses are bit direct.  You were hard-hitting and it is only fitting that responses are as well :) :) [quote author=manyquestions link=board=lighthouse;num=1053788250;start=0#14 date=05/28/03 at 00:18:32]  So I read it and it “feels right” or “I like it” - what does that prove?  I am a fallible human being.  I am not capable of discerning right from wrong without the guidance of God.  What then would make me think that I am prepared to sit in judgment on His book?  If the Quran is from God then whether I think so after reading it makes no difference: it still is an inspired book.  Thus there must be a STRONGER proof of the Quran’s inspiration than my subjective feelings. [/quote] While meaning no offense, this is difficult to understand.  Our only power of discrimination is our brain.  You are saying -- don't use it.   In that case you cannot believe in anything. Consider the universe as a giant code.  For every species, e.g. chimps, zebras, gorrillas, etc., this code is too hard to break.  We are the only species able to break it and understand the laws and physics of the universe.   It did not have to be like this.  The universe could have been far too complex for our brain to  comprehend.  However, it is not.  What does this tell you?  It should impress upon you that our intellect is special, that it was given for a purpose, that is God's special gift to us.  And for what?  To reason about the world, to discriminate between right and wrong, and for example to understand his scriptures and deduce  which  is true and which is  false.   It is silly to say that we don't have the faculties to discriminate between that which is true from that which is false. You seem to want some some outrageous  miracle like a number theory miracle where verses are coded in prime numbers or something similar to prove the quran is true.  Something like that would remove the veil between the unseen and seen.  Is this what you really want?   [quote] 1.  Why must the Quran be read in Arabic to truly understand it?  What is it about the Arabic language that defies translation to other books?  Perhaps a very pointed question would be “why did God so limit His word to only one language? [/quote] The quran was revealed in arabic.  Every arabic word may have over a dozen meanings.  The quran was meant was to serve mankind forever and hence there are likely to be many hidden/subtle meanings which later generations will best be able to understand  -- [i] if [/i]  they retain the original scripts and understand arabic extremely well.  Muslims really scratch their heads when christians claim that for example, the King James version is the real bible.  That is a translation -- in effect an  interpretation by the translators of the bible, a commentary by certain humans -- it is not the real thing.  How could it be?! [quote] 2.  How can the Quran be reconciled to other divine books?  Sofia writes about “calling people back to the original message.”  Are you saying that the Bible is corrupt?  Others have said this in their posts, but don’t many verses in the Quran say there is no corrupting the words of Allah?  How can God’s word be corrupted? [/quote] Every moral message in previous scriptures is also found in the quran.  The message of the bible and the torah is a subset of the message of the quran.  Muslims believe that the book which today is called the bible -- is not the real bible -- it is a corruption of the original -- which is divine. [quote] Abu_Hazma then wrote about Mohammed’s inability to compose a document such as the Quran as proof of the Quran authenticity and inspiration.  This argument will not do.  None of have met Mohammed.  We do not know what he was like.  Is it possible that such is all a smokescreen?  A critic of the Quran would say Mohammed was a brilliant faker who fooled people.  How can we know otherwise? [/quote] Don't so callously dismiss the literary uniqueness of the quran.  Most modern academic scholars of classical arabic, whether muslim or non-muslim have agreed that the quran is stylistically very unique and exceedingly eloquent.  This is a fact you cannot run away from.  If you wish, consult the academic literature.   For example, all of arabic grammar is derived from the quran, and still after 1400 years the stylistic eloquence of a work is judged in comparison to the quran.  Why is this?  If this is not the mother of the arabic language, what is? In fact, the disbelieving arabs were so mesmerized by the quran that they thought it was magic, and branded the prophet a sorcerer.  Why? If you are interested,  a readable  but scholarly  account of the stylistic uniqueness is that by the SOAS Professor of Arabic M. Abdel Haleem,   Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style,  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1860646506/qid=1054230335/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_3/002-1132321-5288005?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 [quote] We do know that Muslim histories say he was illiterate and unlearned.  Yet, even if that is so, that does not mean he couldn’t dictate well!  There are plenty of stories of illiterate businessmen running multi-million dollar corporations while being unable to read.  They rely on secretaries, etc.  Mohammed’s supposed illiteracy may be amazing, but it doesn’t make him inspired. [/quote] Why do people doubt shakespeare actually wrote what is credited to him?  It is because his works  were so extraordinarily well-written that  it is very difficult to believe that a half literate man like shakesphere could have written them.  That is why for example, Francis Bacon (i think) is thought to be the real Shakespeare.   Being illiterate may allow you to become rich, but it will not allow you to compose one of the greatest works of literature in human history.   [quote] Abu_Hazma notes that Mohammed criticized himself in the book.  Wouldn’t a brilliant faker do just that to throw us all off?  Surely there must be more proof than that! [/quote] You should  read the parts where the quran criticizes the prophet --- they are  very touching.  If muhammad (pbuh) were an imposter -- do you really think his holy book would mention his mistakes?  Have you ever heard an official person in power freely admit his mistakes? It doesn't happen.  For example, when have G.W. Bush or Tony Blair or Putin, or whoever,  publicly criticised themselves?  Never....as far as I can tell. [quote] He also noted that Mohammed fulfills Bible prophecies.  I don’t know the Quran that well but I know the Bible VERY well and that just isn’t so.  I’ve studied these “proofs” carefully and they are absolutely barren of any merit whatsoever.  Be assured: the Bible says zippo about Mohammed.  In the NT Jesus is the FINAL prophet.  Muslims may not like that, disagree with it, say that is corrupted, etc. but that is what the NT teaches. [/quote] You only know your own version of the bible well.  Do you know aramaic or greek or hebrew?  Can you read the bible as the earliest generations read it?  If not, you only know one set of scholars interpretation of the bible -- and not the real thing. [quote] By the way, isn’t it circular reasoning to say that we need the Quran because the Bible is corrupted and then argue that the Bible prophesies of Mohammed?  When we don’t like the teachings of the Bible we say it is corrupted, but when we do like its teaching we’ll cite them?  If the Bible is corrupted then maybe the parts prophesying of Mohammed are corrupt too! [/quote] Sacred texts have been gradually given to humanity over eons.  Moses was given a text,  and so were Solomon, David, John the Baptist, Jesus and countless other prophets.  Muhammad's (pbuh) text was a conclusion and  summary of these texts.  New texts arise because human conditions change and they invent new corruptions.  For example, Christians deified Jesus.  This is viewed by muslims as outrageous --  and the Quran was revealed to warn people in very stark terms that  God is perfect, devoid of human frailties, that he is not like human beings or, that he transcends the creation, that defying any human and anthropomorphising God is utter blasphemy. [quote] Abu_Hazma also noted that Mohammed was persecuted in his life.  What does this prove?  Hitler was persecuted too.  He endured it because he believed he could overcome it and finally rise to power.  Maybe Mohammed did too.  He certainly ended up in power. [/quote] Why are you comparing Hitler to Muhammad (pbuh)?  If you did it to Moses (pbuh), Jews would call you anti-semitic.  Muhammad before islam was known to be exceedingly upright, honest and unambitious.  He was persecuted because he preached the message that: (1) God is pure and one.  There is only one God and not the hundreds which the Arabs invented to make money off of. (2) That human worth is measured by honesty, charity, compassion and good morals -- and not by wealth, lineage, or social standing.  He threatened to wreck the social structure of a very stratified and uncharitable society.  That is why the arabs tried to genocide the early muslims and kill him.  He did not seek power or the riches of this world.  For example, in a famous incident, when the prophet was under immense physical danger, the arabs told him that  if he stopped preaching that they would make him their king, bestow him with immense wealth, and marry him to the most beautiful women of arabia.  If he didn't it was implied that they would kill him.  He replied, "if they place the moon in my right hand and the sun in my left -- i will never give up this message."  So what does tell you about his character?  How can you compare him to Hitler who sought only power, wealth and prestige? [quote] Abu_Hazma asks about why so many people believed him if he was a fake. Well, maybe he was a really good fake!  Millions believed Hitler.  Having a big following proves nothing.  It only proves you can convince people to follow you, not that you are from God. [/quote] Does it not bother you that those who were his worst enemies, and schemed and plotted to wipe out the early muslims later became muslims and became so awestruck of him that they would almost fight with others for a locke of his hair, a glass of the water he used for abulution, and beseech him pray to God for them?  Everybody in central arabia, whether they were friend or foe became his follower by the end of his lifetime.  Does it not bother you that those who sought to murder the prophet sought only his protection afterward; that before islam they were immensely conceited, dismissive of the poor, violent,  but after islam they suddenly became shockingly humble, charitable and lived ascetic lives?   How do you explain such a transformation of an entire generation? [quote] Abu_Hazma also mentions miracles.  Yet I was told by a Muslim that Mohammed did no miracles.  Doesn’t the Quran say so? [/quote] The centerpiece of Jesus's (pbuh) mission was the public performance of miracles.  He cured lepers, brought the dead to life, etc.  The prophet did not do such things publicly.  When among his companions and the muslims he did do extraordinary things -- miracles.  I.e. miracles were used by the prophet to confirm the faith of the believers.  It was not meant to convert the disbelievers.  The Arabs were not a people who would accept or respond to  miracles.   They would have called it sorcery.  And in fact they that is exactly what the claimed whenever the prophet did perform miracles publicly.  They were a very stubborn people.  I.e. a different strategy for a different people.  The quran was the prophet's miracle -- something which the poetry obsessed arabs could not deny. [quote] Without trying to offend, what if someone wrote THE MECCA PLOT and said that while Mohammed was a wonderful person after he died some evil people concocted to deceive the world with evil purposes and cooked up the Quran for their nefarious purposes and the whole thing is a hoax?   [/quote] Muslims after muhammad differ from Christians after Jesus because muslims set up an immensely detailed and meticulously confirmed historical record.  That historical record is one the crowning achievements of 1400 years of Islamic civilization.  Muhammad and early islam are the most historically reseached subjects in human history.  This is because,  hordes of muslims memorized his sayings, other hordes questioned whether their memorizations were accurate and meticulously checked these memorizations  by comparing them with other sayings with  different chains of narration.  Early muslims were a very scholarly bunch, and they recorded everything, and they tried very, very hard to check everything.  There is no similar recording of history.  You cannot simply invoke christian and other ways of compiling history and then say muslims acted in the same way.  Muslims were deeply paranoid about recording the correct historical record -- and they worked very hard at doing it. Lastly,  I deeply suggest that you read the following book: Remembrance and Prayer by  Mohammed al-Ghazali http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0915957612/qid=1053524298/ sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5938497-5693724?v=glance&s=books If you really want to understand islam and why muslims believe what they believe, you have to read this book.
05/30/03 at 07:56:28
mr-bean

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
sofia
05/29/03 at 16:29:23
Some more thoughts came to mind. [quote]Most modern academic scholars of classical arabic, whether muslim or non-muslim have agreed that the quran is stylistically very unique and exceedingly eloquent.  [/quote] Side comment -- There were non-Muslims at the time of the Prophet (S) who adamantly wanted him and his companions to stop reciting the Qur'aan in public. Every time they did so, people would be drawn to the words. Certain points in the Qur'aan are particularly inspiring and result in total awe. Some listeners are/were moved to bow down and prostrate to God while/after listening to it. To the extent that at one point, there was a verse recited by the Prophet (S) in Mecca, right after which he and his followers prostrated, [i]and some of the unbelievers, themselves, prostrated with them[/i]. Despite themselves, Subhan'Allah (God is above all imperfections). [quote]In fact, we have an excellent idea of what Muhammed p.b.u.h is like, despite the fact we have never met him![/quote] To add onto the sister's comments, I was listening to a H. Yusuf lecture the other day, where he gave the reminder that there is so much detail regarding how the Prophet (S) looked (alone), that a consistent police sketch could easily be drawn of him. Alhamdulillah, Islaam forbids iconography, otherwise we'd have statues of him and start worshipping him or something, astaghfirAllah. The Prophet (S) (and previous ones) prohibited this. Throughout history, mankind has made statues of noble men as a tribute to them, but eventually, that tribute sometimes led to idol-worship. Secondly, was at a lecture (could have been M. AlShareef) where he also reminded us - not only do we know what the Prophet (S) recited from the Qur'aan and the order in which he recited it (let alone his non-Qur'aanic traditions/sunnah that complement the Qur'aan), but we also know *how* he recited the Qur'aan. There are various ways in which to pronounce the Arabic language (as proven by hearing Arabs from different areas speak), but there is a distinct way to pronounce Qur'aanic Arabic (ie, the study of tajweed). Subhan'Allah, I had never really thought about it that way before. Anyhow, just a reminder for Muslims on topics we've studied before. Btw--we also have the Prophet's (S) description of what Musaa/Moses and Eesa/Jesus looked like and some of their words, upon them be peace. Of course, one would have to believe in God and Muhammad's prophethood before one could believe in his Night Journey where he saw them, but my question is, is there any comparable type/amount of detailed information given about previous prophets from other credible sources, that's still preserved? Anyone can study the authentic sayings of the Prophet, his description, etc.] [quote]Is it possible that such is all a smokescreen?  A critic of the Quran would say Mohammed was a brilliant faker who fooled people.  How can we know otherwise? [/quote] [quote]Abu_Hazma also noted that Mohammed was persecuted in his life.  What does this prove?  Hitler was persecuted too.  He endured it because he believed he could overcome it and finally rise to power.  Maybe Mohammed did too.  He certainly ended up in power. [/quote] Mark--do you know of any other prophet of God who came after him, who you'd consider false, that is as well-known, studied, and followed? Hiding behind the "smokescreen" excuse completely ignores the fact that Islaam continues to grow to this day, alhamdulillah. NOI (founder=Elijah Muhammad) failed - they've recently made the switch to orthodox Islam (apparently). A fake prophet who made the claim immediately after the Prophet's (S) death is known today (and throughout history) as Musaylamah al-Khadhaab (Musaylamah, the Liar). The founders of various neo-Pagan religions are virtually unknown throughout the world. Yet, the most common first name in the world is "Muhammad." Liars were foretold to come until the end of time, but who is still "standing"? The Hitler comparison makes little sense (it goes without saying how he is remembered throughout history). Here are some accounts/thoughts by others: What they say about Muhammad: Accounts by non-Muslims http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/otherscholars.html http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/additionalsayings.html And somewhat related to this thread: The Basis of Islamic Belief - by Dr. Gary Miller, a former Christian missionary http://www.thetruereligion.org/basisbelief.htm
05/31/03 at 21:46:50
sofia

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
05/29/03 at 17:00:55
[slm] Dont mean to put a damper on anyones fun here, but I think we better let up a little before poor Mark drowns in our flood of replies    :D Lets await his answer before posting anymore... :) ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
UmmWafi
05/30/03 at 01:43:44
[slm] More of my pesky thoughts on the matter  ;D [quote]However, it is the mind where the process must begin.[/quote] I find this a singularly interesting statement because to me it represents several thing.  First of which is the implication that we know the process of the conception of faith.  I have personally found it laden with mysteries.  Secondly, it implies that we know the position of faith in connection with the ruh as a consciousness or something else (for more confusion on this matter, read Fakhrudin ar-Razi).  Thirdly, it implies that we can dictate where and how faith should begin. [quote]Furthermore, what is the use of asking the questioner why he beileves in what he believes in response to his query?  Surely your question does not answer his question!  And if it is meant to, then why don't you elaborate instead of leaving a sincere questioner to come up with what you're trying to say by himself?[/quote] Ahh but mayhap what you don't see as useful is clear to some.  As far as a question answering another question goes, well, a question sometimes is an answer in itself.  Elaborating naturally makes things easier but sometimes deprive the seeker of the process of seeking.   [quote] What has the poor man done to you for him to deserve such treatment from you?  Why must you put him on the defensive and now he must defend his faith and religiion in front of you.[/quote] Indeed, what has he done ?  I speak for myself when I say I did not think he has done anything beyond asking and in the same line, I should ask "What have I done ?" aside from merely asking ?  I wasn't aware that asking a question is comcommitant with putting another person on the defensive.  Perhaps I misunderstood the matter but when he asked us the question on the validity of the Qur'an, were we also supposed to "defend" Islam ? [quote] Not only is it impolite but a big no-no for a daa'ee[/quote] Pardon me if I transgress, I must bow to experience and knowledge. [quote]who would now try his best to convince you that his faith is really the Truth and everything else is false (including your Faith which he initially was interested in learning more about).[/quote] I see that we are in no danger of [i]that[/i] happening in this case :) In my earlier post, I believe that the message I was trying to put across wasn't the nullification of reason in the process of ascertaining faith.  Indeed, I am very much aware that the word 'aqala is most repeated in the Qur'an than some other words put together.  However, in all matters, one has to be careful when one is answering a question.  Take for example the classic rhetoric "Can God make a square round since He can make anything ?".  Naturally, it makes for some interesting coffee-table discussion but in all seriousness, how many of us can handle that kind of argument ?  Even then, we may differ in the style of answering.  Some, Alhamdulillah, prefer to quote scholars and imams while others choose to engage themselves in mental sparrings. Alhamdulillah, I personally think Bro Abu Hamza has done a very good job with his last post.  There are many kernels of wisdom one can cull from it.  that said, I await with bated breath for the end. Shall manyquestion ever find the truth for the authenticity of the qur'an ? My answer : Allahu'alam bissawab. Wassalam.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
05/30/03 at 03:09:06
[quote author=manyquestions link=board=lighthouse;num=1053788250;start=0#4 date=05/24/03 at 17:41:31]A third respondent offered scientific proofs.  I need to look at those and do more investigation. Thanks for the responses and I continue to look for more evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.  Let me know what you think![/quote] I've been eagerly awaiting your response manyquestions to the science questions but I haven't received an answer to the sole post I wrote.   I'd like to make a suggestion, and that is to perhaps answer the questions in the order that they were asked and hopefully that will simplify matters and help in your research.  The beauty of science is that it isn't something subjective (usually that's the case) like wheather some text is the most beautiful thing they have read (which has absolutely no meaning whatsoever to someone such as yourself who doesn't know the Arabic language).  That is really the focus and direction I wanted to take this discussion. [quote] In the NT Jesus is the FINAL prophet.  Muslims may not like that, disagree with it, say that is corrupted, etc. but that is what the NT teaches. [/quote] I was very surprised to see you say this.   This is not what the Bible teaches and there a couple of places one can go to in the Bible to see this. King James version  below: "And this [is] the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them." Deuteronomy 33:1 This is a chronological succession of prophets. This prophesy is reported at the end of Deuteronomy in association with the story of the death of prophet Moses (pbuh). It was a blessing and glad tidings bestowed by prophet Moses upon his followers just prior to his death. It was designed to give his followers hope upon the occasion of the passing of their prophet that God is not abandoning them, rather, the best is yet to come, and He shall continue to bless mankind with His guidance and His light. Sinai is a reference to Moses (pbuh). It is an obvious reference to mount Sinai where Moses (pbuh) received his revelation (Exodus 19:20). Seir is a reference to Jesus (pbuh). It is usually associated with the chain of mountains West and South of the Dead Sea extending through Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus (pbuh). It was later extended to include the mountains on the East side as well (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 783). However, Seir is also identified with the Northern border of the tribal territory of Judah and usually with Saris near Kesla (Chesalon), barely nine miles West of these two cities (The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, by Allen C. Myers, pp. 921-922, and The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, V4, p. 262) Prophet Moses (pbuh) never in his lifetime entered Palestine, and thus, this could not be a reference to him. Paran is a reference to the city of Makkah in the Arabian Peninsula. The wilderness of Paran is where Abraham's wife Hagar and his eldest son Ishmael settled (Genesis 21:21) in the Arabian desert, specifically, Makkah. (We can go into a detailed discussion on this topic as well).   Makkah is, of course, the capital of Islam in Arabia and the birthplace of Mohammed (pbuh). Mount Paran is the chain of mountains in that same region which the Arabs call the "Sarawat mountains". Muhammad (pbuh) received his first revelation in the cave of "Hira'a" located in these mountains. Jesus never in his life traveled to Paran. Mohammed, however, was born there. He became the prophet of Islam there. And it was the capital of the Islamic religion in that day and this. No prophet of the Bible ever came from the Arabian city of Paran (Makkah). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the only prophet of God who has ever fulfilled this prophesy. We also read in verse 33:2 that a fiery law shall issue forth from the right hand of the prophet from Paran. Muhammad (pbuh) did indeed come with a new law called the Shari'ah. The reference to "right" hand is a reference to strength, justice, and guidance. In Islam, all clean and desirable actions are performed with the "right" hand (eating, shaking hands, etc.), while all other actions are done with the left hand (washing one's private parts, picking up garbage, etc.). In the Qur'an, the good are described on the Day of Judgment as receiving their book of deeds in their "right" hands, while the wicked receive theirs in their "left" hand. This can be seen for example in Quran: Al-Haqah(69):13-37. This general attitude is also conveyed in the Bible. We read: "Biblical phrases referring to the right hand reflect a widespread human cultural attitude, namely the recognition that for most people the right hand is both stronger and more adept than the left, and is the hand with which many tasks are instinctively undertaken ... Eccl. 10:2 links 'a wise man's heart' with his right hand, and 'a fool's heart' with his left. When the Son of Man separates the sheep from the goats at the Last Judgment, it is to the damned 'on the left hand' that he says, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire' (Matt. 25:41) ...The right hand is often mentioned as a symbol of strength, both for human beings and anthropomophically for God (e.g. Job 40:14; Isa. 48:13)" A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition In English Literature, David Lyle Jeffrey, p. 442. This fiery law that shall issue from the right hand of the prophet from Paran will be a new law for the children of Israel and not the same one they had been practicing in the time of Moses (pbuh) and later. This is held out by simple logic; if I already own something, then I can not say that my neighbor shall bring "for me" this same "something" which I already own. In such a case, he would have "brought" nothing and it would have been more logical to say he would "confirm" the preexistent law. No prophet of the Bible ever in his lifetime either came from Paran or preached the replacement of the law of Moses (pbuh). Even Jesus (pbuh) came to confirm and reinforce the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-19), as explained in detail in chapter one. Muhammad (pbuh) is the only prophet of God who fulfilled both of these requirements. However, if we look closely, we will find that the prophesy contains one more requirement. It tells us that this prophet from Paran who will bring a fiery new law shall come with 10,000 saints. Once again, two years before the death of prophet Muhammad (pbuh), in the year 630 AD, he lead 10,000 of his followers to their final and decisive victory against the pagans of Makkah (see chapter 10). This was one of the most bloodless victories of all history. The Muslims took control of Makkah, the capital of paganistic Arabia, virtually without a single casualty. Upon entering Makkah victorious, Muhammad did not take its inhabitants as prisoners. Even though these people had been torturing himself and his companions, and killing many of them over many years, still, Muhammad commanded that they not be tortured, nor should retribution be sought against them. Rather, he pardoned them all and set them free. Most of them entered into Islam. Once again, we find that prophet Moses (pbuh) was appointed seventy very close and devout followers (Exodus 24:1-9, Numbers 11:16-25). Jesus (pbuh) was appointed eleven very close and devout followers (if we were to exclude Judas), as seen in Matthew 10:1-5, Mark 3:14-19, etc. Prophet Muhammad, once again, was the only one to fulfill this requirement. Mr. Kais Al-Kalbi asks the question: "When this verse Deut 33:2 was translated from Hebrew to English, the phrase '10,000 saints' was kept the same. But when this verse was translated from Hebrew to Arabic, the phrase '10,000 saints' was intentionally changed to 'holy valley', why?" Prophet Muhammad the last messenger in the Bible, third edition, Kais Al-Kalbi, pp. 231-232. The wording also bears out this chronological succession of prophets. Came: daybreak and the arrival of the sun in the morning. Rose up: like the light of dawn. Shined forth: Mid-day sun which lights up the Earth from East to West. Islam has indeed come to shine all over the earth as the mid-day sun. If the prophecies above from the Bible were not referring to our beloved Prophet peace be upon him and his army, then who else are they referring to? Would you please bring me one Christian or Jewish event that took place in the Holy City of Paran (Mecca), or any city or event in the Bible that involved 10,000 Christian or Jewish saints?   This is just one example, and there are more.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nomi
05/30/03 at 18:15:32
[slm] all, did anyone answer this ?! ... i havn't gone through all the posts so plz dont mind if its already answered Mark wrote [quote] 2.  How can the Quran be reconciled to other divine books?  Sofia writes about “calling people back to the original message.”  Are you saying that the Bible is corrupt?  Others have said this in their posts, but don’t many verses in the Quran say there is no corrupting the words of Allah?  How can God’s word be corrupted?   [/quote] We believe that bible and Qur'an are both the words of God, God explicitly mentioned it in The Noble Qur'an that HE Himself will protect it but there is no such thing in the bible, So God (Allah) didn't ever took the responsilibilty to protect the bible from corruption, why? well that can be answered as well but... why did Allah even sent the bible ? why dint HE sent the Qur'aan in the very beginning ? i'm not putting these questions to you what i'm wondering about is that you are just negating everything by few strokes of your keyboard by saying that "it proves nothing", sorry but dont u think that you are being opinionated, you are more than welcome here but you just gave this impression !! as you are more zealous to text your ideas than making an effort to understand and think deep about what others are telling you Asim Zafar [i]PS: i'm sorry to my muslim bretheren if my post disappointed you, admins can always delete this, i wont mind even one bit[/i]
05/30/03 at 18:19:53
Nomi

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Tesseract
05/30/03 at 21:53:55
Assalamu 'alaikum,        [quote]We believe that bible and Qur'an are both the words of God, God explicitly mentioned it in The Noble Qur'an that HE Himself will protect it but there is no such thing in the bible, So God (Allah) didn't ever took the responsilibilty to protect the bible from corruption, why? [/quote]             I was watching a lecture by Jamal Badawi that he delivered in Ontario, Canada back in 96 and the title of his lecture was "The Preservation of Qur'an". Jamal Badawi has quoted verses from Qur'an where Allah (God) says that the responsibility to protect previous Scriptures was given to humans, which they failed, so finally God sent Final Message ( Qur'an) but this time took responsibility to protect it. I'll have to go through the video again to quote the verses. Wassalam.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/31/03 at 17:35:26
Greetings to all, and thanks for forbearing for a little while as I was unable to post for a few days.... There is much to respond to so I’ll do the best I can to summarize succinctly thoughts and replies. First, some don’t seem to understand the nature of faith or what I’m looking for.  No one is asking for faith to be eliminated or become needless.  But faith must be based on credible evidence.  I believe George Washington was the first president of the United States.  I never met him or saw him yet there are credible sources that tell of him and so I believe (have faith) that he was the first president.  My question is “what is the credible basis for faith that the Quran is the Word of God?” So many have CLAIMED to have a message from God.  It is clearly a serious and significant claim, perhaps the most important of all.  What is the basis for accepting this claim? Second, there is much misunderstanding about the Bible.  The Bible Christian read today (and the Old Testament that Jews read today) is NOT an interpretation of men.  The Bible was written originally, though no of those original autographs now exist (as with the Quran).  Various copies of the autographs and copies of copies of the autographs have been collected up, painstakingly studied, dated, analyzed so that what was in the original can be determined.  This is a very exact science, and it is NOT done just by Christians or Jews with an agenda.  Indeed, some of the best work is done by atheists who have “no axe to grind.”  It is a science, involving language analysis and paleography.  From this study comes the text of scripture IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.  That text is then translated into English or German or Arabic or any other language.  But the translation is done carefully and as literally true to the original as possible.  Thus when one reads the King James Version one is reading a very, very good translation of the original words of God.  In fact, since more manuscripts have been found since the KJV was done in 1611 we have even more confidence in the integrity of scripture.  The Dead Sea Scrolls have also significantly advanced our understanding of the Old Testament scriptures, and again, proven that there were not and are not material changes in the text of scripture. BTW, Muslims consistently charge the Bible with being corrupted.  As I have pointed out this is (1) illogical because the Quran says the words of God cannot be changed and Muslims accept the Bible as God’s word so how can it be changed?  The Bible contains many promises that it will not be corrupted (1 Peter 1:25: “the word of the Lord endures forever.”).  Secondly, to say such would be a blasphemy against God who apparently cannot protect the word He gives so He has to keep giving a new one every so many years.  Now I want to press an additional point: (3) there is no evidence of any kind of the textual corruption of the Bible that Muslims consistently assert.  By Mohammed’s time the text of the Bible is ironclad set w/o any doubts of any kind.  How could Jews and Christians, by the time of Mohammed, very much rival groups have conspired to corrupt the Bible, and how did they spread those corruptions all through the known world so quickly, replacing every single copy of the “pristine” original?  Such is surely impossible.  Thus, we see that CHARGING the Bible has been corrupted is easy but is a charge that Muslims must not make and that no one can sustain. Third, there is an amazing lack of critical thinking in many posts.  One said “I believe in the Quran simply because I am Muslim.”  The corollary to that is “Why are you a Muslim?”  And the other of course would be “Because the Quran tells me so.”  Wow.  That’s a circle for sure!  Believing the Quran simply because one feels like it, many others do, it appeals to me when I read it, or it is beautiful simply does not constitute proof of its inspiration.  Think of a courtroom, folks.  Would what you are saying be accepted as testimony by a judge?  That’s the kind of hard data and facts we’re looking for here.  No one would say “I know he is the murderer by the way he looks - the black hat and shifty eyes.”  That’s not acceptable.  It’s not evidence.  It’s too subjective. Yet many have posted here that very kind of subjective material.  Yes, there is lots of very flattering material written about Mohammed – BY MUSLIMS.  There seems to be no recognition by Muslims that there ARE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE MOHAMMED STORY other than the “official one.”   One wrote “Everybody in central Arabia, whether they were friend or foe became his follower by the end of his lifetime” is just not true – it is not historically verifiable from unbiased, non-Muslim sources.  So saying everyone loved him, no one ever said he was a liar, even his enemies converted, etc. may be true – but it fails to recognize that there are certainly alternative views of the life of Mohammed.  Thus citing great stories about Mohammed as the greatest man ever, and then saying since he was such a great man his book must be from God is much less than compelling. Another wrote “do you know of any other prophet of God who came after him, who’d you’d consider false, that is as well-known, studied, and followed?”  Does the name Joseph Smith ring a bell?  He is the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), one of the largest and fastest growing religious groups in the world.  There are MILLIONS of Mormons running around today.  One may say he hasn’t had the impact on the world Mohammed has (and that is so) but Mohammed has a 1300 year start on him.  Mormonism has been around only for a little more than 100 years and what they’ve done in that time is impressive.  Give the Mormons another millennia and it is entirely possible that Joe Smith will be BETTER known than Mohammed.  And yes, his life is studied endlessly, and he was persecuted, and even killed for his teachings.  In fact, his story is remarkably similar to Mohammed’s.  They both claimed to receive a new revelation from God, they both led a religious movement, they both believed in polygamy, they both became very powerful in their religious movement. So, if Mohammed’s claims are proved because he became famous and a lot of people followed him then what of Joseph Smith?  Do we have to believe him true?  What of where his revelation contradicts Mohammed’s? Along this line there is again the claim of the Quran’s beauty.  Beauty proves nothing – and again many here seem to be unaware of some very opposite views of the Quran. Yes, a lot of people say it’s a masterpiece, etc.  but DO YOU REALIZE CREDIBLE SCHOLARS say it’s a jumbled mess, the Arabic isn’t that good, that isn’t that beautiful and that there are MANY Arabic pieces far superior to it?  It’s not a question of “Go out there and produce something better” – LOTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED ALREADY.  So, you don’t think what’s been done is better?  That’s okay, it just illustrates my point that beauty is too subjective to use as a proof of inspiration.  But it’s not like every last person on the planet agrees this is THE best book on the planet.  There is a pretty significant number of folks with a dissenting view. Third, there is nothing in the Bible, Old and New, that speaks of Mohammed.  I’m glad that many Muslims agreed to that in their posts.  As to the quote from Deuteronomy 33:1 it says NOTHING of Mohammed.  It’s all about Moses and his Law.  Note the quote: “Now this is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. 2 And he said: The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came with ten thousands of saints; From His right hand Came a fiery law for them. Yes, He loves the people;All His saints are in Your hand; They sit down at Your feet; Everyone receives Your words. Moses commanded a law for us.”  It’s a word about Moses and his law, not about anything in the future, Christian or Muslim or otherwise.  One simply cannot read into the text “Seir” and decide that means “Christians” or “Paran” and decide that means Muslims or Mohammed.  There is nothing in this text to justify such symbolism or demand that we look for anything other than the obvious meaning: God comes from everywhere in His great glory and with His angels and gave Moses the Law.  Period. And again, as several acknowledged, it’s not fair to say “the Bible is corrupt” and then, when it suits one, go to that “corrupt” book to find proof your guy is a prophet.  That’s not fair. Third, some of what is said about Mohammed here is appalling to me, as a Christian.  We believe the Bible teaches clearly that no man is to be worshiped (Acts 10:26), yet much of what is said about Mohammed on these posts borders on worshiping a man if it is not outright worshiping him.  Muslims can say they worship Allah alone but from what I’ve seen here Mohammed is getting plenty of attention of the deepest devotion and affection and reverence that should be reserved only for God.  It’s very scary for me to see some of this stuff.  What Mohammed was, and is, he was just a man! Fourth, and finally back to the question of how do we know the Quran is inspired, is the scientific foreknowledge argument, particularly embryology.  This is the only evidence offered yet in the discussion that is credible and that meets the test of being “real” evidence.  If Mohammed knew details of human anatomy well before science did, details that could only be revealed by the Creator, then Mohammed would indeed be an inspired man.   However, the claims of Muslims for Quranic foreknowledge have been well researched and found to be empty of value.   See these sites: [quote] DEVIANT MISSIONARY SITES DELETED I will not repeat all of the arguments here – the sites speak for themselves. So, in conclusion, I’m still asking for the credible basis for Mohammed’s claim that his message was from God.  I have been very brief here and forthright here, I do not mean to offend.  I realize that saying Mohammed may have been a fake is very offensive to Muslims and I don’t want to offend (any more than Muslims want to offend Christians by saying Jesus is NOT divine).  In the history of the world there have probably been a zillion people who claimed God had given them THE path of truth.  If I’m going to follow the path of Islam I want to know what says this way is THE way instead of a false path.  That’s a fair question, I think.  Until then I remain many questions a.k.a. Mark
05/31/03 at 20:47:02
bhaloo

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
05/31/03 at 22:37:30
[slm] Before I answer Mark's lies and attacks on Islam, let me first address this point. [quote author=Nomi link=board=lighthouse;num=1053788250;start=30#30 date=05/30/03 at 18:15:32][slm] all, did anyone answer this ?! ... i havn't gone through all the posts so plz dont mind if its already answered We believe that bible and Qur'an are both the words of God, God explicitly mentioned it in The Noble Qur'an that HE Himself will protect it but there is no such thing in the bible, So God (Allah) didn't ever took the responsilibilty to protect the bible from corruption, why? well that can be answered as well but... Asim Zafar [i]PS: i'm sorry to my muslim bretheren if my post disappointed you, admins can always delete this, i wont mind even one bit[/i][/quote] First of all the Bible is not previous revelations.  This is a false premise.  The term Bible means a book and is the title for a compilation made by a council of men in the fourth century.  (The council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. where an officially sanctioned collection was voted into approval.  Although today Catholic and Protestant versions differ in their contents.) Some Muslims mistakenly call the New Testament the Injeel, or the Gospel of Jesus, may he be blessed.  This is a serious mistake.  The Injeel that Allah revealed to Jesus was an oral Message only.  (This is consistant with the Arabic term Kitab, (Book) for the Quran was being called a "Kitab" long before it was written.  The word "Kitab" then, can be used as a term denoting an organized body of teachings.  See Quran 2:2) The first 4 books of the NT which are called Gospels are nothing more than the attempts by some later Christians to write biographies of his life and work. At the council in 325 AD where they were deciding which books to consider sacred, they had hundreds of such Gospels to choose from.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
05/31/03 at 23:42:53
[i]The first 4 books of the NT which are called Gospels are nothing more than the attempts by some later Christians to write biographies of his life and work. At the council in 325 AD where they were deciding which books to consider sacred, they had hundreds of such Gospels to choose from. [/i] I find this amazing, and yet so typical of what too many Muslims want to say about the Bible.  When it suits them they quote it freely, as in the supposed Paran prophecy.  When not, it is a bogus book put together by men. Yet as I said above in my post CHARGING the Bible with being corrupted is not the same as proving it.  Is the one who said the first 4 books of the NT are noting more than later attempts aware that: 1.  there were lists of what was considered canonical and non-canonical circulating among Christians by the early 100's, THREE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA?  ever heard of Marcion, friend? 2.  there are mss existent that date as early as 80 or 90 AD of Gospels. The John Rylands fragment is a papyrii of John's gospel and the Magadalen fragments are of Matthew.  these were in existence and circulating within the life times of people who would have known and seen the events they described.  Imagine someone writing a book today and saying Russia won the Cold War or Iraq defeated the US coalition in Gulf Storm I.  So it is with the NT. In close, notice that instead of answering the charges against the Quran he instead attacked the NT.  PROVING THE NT IS A FAKE WON'T MAKE THE QURAN INSPIRED!  It just means there is one MORE book we shouldn't follow after or believe in -- but this thread is devoted to proofs for the QURAN! I look forward to hearing (finally) some of those! many questions

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
05/31/03 at 23:46:34
I'm very appalled at the lies that Mark has been making up about Islam and he has resorted to attacking Islam, though he initially came on the board saying he had come to "learn about the Quran's authenticity".  He has violated the constitution of the board and has had his post edited and he is now being publically warned.   [quote] The Bible was written originally, though no of those original autographs now exist (as with the Quran).   [/quote] The Bible was not originally written nor is there any proof of this anywhere, some people attempted to write biographies of Jesus's life many years after his death (in some cases 200 years later) and these were known as Gospels and later at the Nicean council of 325 AD it was decided on which were to be chosen.  I apologize to the Muslim readers for sidetracking, but addressing the issue of the Quran, this excellent book on the study of the Quran will address the oral and written history of the Quran.  Pictures of pages from the original manuscript can be seen in the actual book itself. http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/Denffer_uaq/ The text have been preserved, alhumdullilah. [quote] And again, as several acknowledged, it’s not fair to say “the Bible is corrupt” and then, when it suits one, go to that “corrupt” book to find proof your guy is a prophet.  That’s not fair. [/quote] Why did you lie?  No one acknowledged this except you just now.  But this is a VERY weak argument.  Let me give you can example.  If someone wrote a book on the car I drove and made everything up except a few things except perhaps the color and model of the car, what would I say about the book?  I would say it is a corrupt book, but there are 2 things in it that are correct.  Why?  Because these 2 things are what conform with the truth.  The same can be said of the BIble.   What Muslims accept as the truth in the Bible is what is in there that confirms with Islam.   [quote] My question is “what is the credible basis for faith that the Quran is the Word of God?” [/quote] Over the years I have dealt with many christian missionaries and other similiar people that are not interested in wanting to learn the truth but rather have come to attack Islam.  There are many ways to respond to this question for the person that is SINCERE, and just some of these were listed in this thread.  I've found over the years that the best way to deal with the other category of people is to go with the scientific approach. [quote] As I have pointed out this is (1) illogical because the Quran says the words of God cannot be changed and Muslims accept the Bible as God’s word so how can it be changed? [/quote] This is a lie, and no where does the Quran say this.  The Quran mentions the Taurat and Injeel, none of which are the Bible.  Consequently the rest of your argument (the the Bible is not corrupted) falls apart completely since it was corrupted to begin with, and no Muslim accepts the Bible as the word of God. [quote] So, if Mohammed’s claims are proved because he became famous and a lot of people followed him then what of Joseph Smith?  Do we have to believe him true?  What of where his revelation contradicts Mohammed’s? [/quote] This is absolutely false and a lie.  The are no contradictions in the Quran, it is perfect, and without fault.  The book of Mormon which Smith uses is man made and has many errors in it, I've talked to Mormons before, and they believe in their book because they "feel" it is right or that God told them.  They don't have any proofs for their beliefs. [quote] Yes, a lot of people say it’s a masterpiece, etc.  but DO YOU REALIZE CREDIBLE SCHOLARS say it’s a jumbled mess, the Arabic isn’t that good, that isn’t that beautiful and that there are MANY Arabic pieces far superior to it?  It’s not a question of “Go out there and produce something better” – LOTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED ALREADY.  So, you don’t think what’s been done is better?  That’s okay, it just illustrates my point that beauty is too subjective to use as a proof of inspiration.  But it’s not like every last person on the planet agrees this is THE best book on the planet.  There is a pretty significant number of folks with a dissenting view. [/quote] Not credible by my standards or anyone with any sense of knowledge, nor has anyone produced a verse like it.  Again this is another reason why I like to use the scientific approach when dealing with such people. [quote] Fourth, and finally back to the question of how do we know the Quran is inspired, is the scientific foreknowledge argument, particularly embryology.  This is the only evidence offered yet in the discussion that is credible and that meets the test of being “real” evidence. [/quote] This is a complete lie.  I provided a link to you and have asked you before to examine the many scienitifc links in the book with the opinion of top Scientifc scholars (non-Muslims) who commented on the Quranic verses.  yet you did not answer this?  Why?   Why haven't you answered these scientific proofs? http://www.it-is-truth.org/it-is-truth/Index.shtml [quote] Third, there is nothing in the Bible, Old and New, that speaks of Mohammed.  I’m glad that many Muslims agreed to that in their posts. [/quote] Once again you have lied, which Muslims said this?  I'll be happy to show you the verses in the Bible where it mentions the Prophet (SAW). [quote] As to the quote from Deuteronomy 33:1 it says NOTHING of Mohammed [/quote] Please provide us with proof who this refers to then , since you claim to be a knowledgable christian.  I would recommend you read Muhammad in the Bible (by a former priest who has converted to Islam, All praise is due to Allah).  Dr. Jamal Badawi also has another book by the same title.  and I know of another former priest, Yusuf Estes who is very active.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
momineqbal
06/01/03 at 02:18:29
[slm], Just curious if the questioner has even read the Quran or its meaning in English.
06/01/03 at 02:19:06
momineqbal

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
06/01/03 at 03:57:13
[slm] [quote] If Mohammed knew details of human anatomy well before science did, details that could only be revealed by the Creator, then Mohammed would indeed be an inspired man.   However, the claims of Muslims for Quranic foreknowledge have been well researched and found to be empty of value.   See these sites: DEVIANT MISSIONARY SITES DELETED I will not repeat all of the arguments here – the sites speak for themselves. [/quote] Mark has once again resorted to making things up to get his point across.  The now deleted website links he put up, are not well researched, nor does the writer of those wild claims have knowledge of Arabic, in fact much of his writings are on the fly.  How do I know?  I used to deal with him (the writer of those articles) and other similiar people  a few years back.  Going through his mumbo jumbo he brings up 2 points which I'll address here. 1). A claim that Quran 86:6-7 is scientifically wrong.  The translation he use says that sperm comes FORTH from the backbone.  He makes a leap of logic and says that what the Quran is saying is the kidneys.  A translation of the Quran I have says it comes from the loins (I certainly dont think anyone will have a problem with that).   And someone on the board with a deep understanding of the Arabic language can insha'Allah answer this in detail. 2).  His 2nd claim is that the Quran is scientifically wrong in Quran 23:12-14.  But yet, Dr. Keith Moore (and I believe another embryology scientist) at the it is the truth website refer to these verses as proof for the creation of man!!!!   In fact if Mark had read the website I had mentioned earlier he would have saved himself from much embarassment.   Here is another example of Mark's deception: [quote] In close, notice that instead of answering the charges against the Quran he instead attacked the NT [/quote] The purpose of my posting that response was to correct the Muslim brother who was not aware of the fact that the NT is man made as is the Bible, and they are not infact the word of God.  In fact in doing this, this has responded to your claim that Muslims accept it as the word of God, when the fact is that NO, Muslims do not accept it as the word of God, and that it is a corrupt book. [quote] but this thread is devoted to proofs for the QURAN! I look forward to hearing (finally) some of those! [/quote] A link to many scientific proofs was provided by me, and I have had to remind you, why have you avoided this?   At first you told us you would look at it, but now you make this wild claim.  Why are you being deceptive?
06/01/03 at 16:12:49
bhaloo

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nistar
06/01/03 at 12:11:17
[slm]   [quote]But faith must be based on credible evidence[/quote] One area of proofs for the Qur'an can be found in the hadith collections and biography of the Prophet (pbuh) -- where the events surrounding the revelation are recorded in detail.  The hadith collections have their specific scientific validation process -- and are accepted by the majority of scholars as valid historical records.  (Scholars: Muslim and non....when Nistar talks about scholars, more often than not, she is talking about the spheres of Religious Studies, Philosophy, or Sociology....just to let you all know about my filters) [quote]Yes, there is lots of very flattering material written about Mohammed – BY MUSLIMS.  There seems to be no recognition by Muslims that there ARE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE MOHAMMED STORY other than the “official one.”[/quote] To begin with, please see the following non-Muslim authors for flattering material about the Prophet: - Frederick Mathewson Denny - John Espisito - Annemarie Schimmel - Steven Schwartz - David Waines - W. Montgomery Watt They have based their scholarship on the "official" story.  In the back of each volume, you will find bibliographies of other such authors. [quote] BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF NICEA?  ever heard of Marcion, friend?[/quote] Marcion was branded heretical for his Gnostic Theology by the (for a lack of a better name) "Proto-Orthodox" Church.  Please see "The NT: A Historical Introduction to the Early Chriatian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman; and similar works by Richard Elliott Friedman. Peace, Nistar

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
06/01/03 at 12:34:41
[slm] Thanks sister Nistar on the information on Marcion, I'll be sure to add this to my material.  Some more good came out of this, I was searching and finally found a dialog I was looking for, it mentions some more scientific proofs that are not mention at the it is the truth website. Religion and the Scientist ...seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different world... And there they were, on a flight from Cape Town to Durban, seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different worlds.......After the formalities were covered, the conversation continued........ Bob: I don't believe in God, but rather in science and technology, something tangible you see, but if you can prove to me scientifically that God does exist then I would consider such a thought. Yunus: Okay, you being interested in technology, please answer this question......with regard to an advanced machine or electronic device, who would be the one to know the most about its  mechanism or functioning? Bob: Well, perhaps the person who has invented or manufacturad such a machine. Yunus: Can we agree that it is the maker or creator of the product who would know every-thing there is to know about the product. Bob: I don't see why not, it sounds reasonable. Yunus: Being knowledgeable in these matters, the next question I'd like to ask you is, Just how did the world or the universe come into existence? Bob: According to recent scientific research, the whole universe was one gigantic mass, which scientists call the primary Nebula, they tell us that it was a cosmic explosion or a secondary explosion that gave rise to the sun, the stars, the planets and even the Earth we live on. Yunus: Is this what you believe? Bob: Yes of course, these are established facts based on scientific proofs. In fact, this idea was realised in 1973 and termed the 'BIG BANG' theory. Yunus: I see, well I have a surprise for you....In the Holy Quraan, chapter 21, verse 30 says. "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart". Here we can see that the Holy Quraan is speaking about this 'BIG BANG' theory and let me tell you that the Holy Quraan was revealed over 1400 years ago. Bob: I have heard about the Quraan, but can you refresh my memory. Yunus: Sure, the Muslim believes the Quraan to be the word of God, pure and unadulterated which was revealed verbally to the Prophet _____ of Islam, Mohammed, Peace be upon him, through the agency of the Angel Gabriel. The Holy Quraan was completed over a period of 23 years, that is over the prophetic life of the Prophet _____________ of Islam. Bob: Are you sure that the Quraan is over 14 centuries old and secondly, that the Quraan has not been changed. Yunus: Absolutely, it is a historical fact that the Holy Quraan was completed in the seventh century and has remained unchanged ever since. Historians, whether friends or foes to Islam,  testify to this. Bob: Well then, perhaps it's a guess. Yunus:.....What does science say about the shape of the Earth ? Bob: Previously, Man thought that the Earth was flat, until Sir Frances Drake in 1607 finally proved it to be spherical. Today, the term Geoid is used to describe this spherical shape. Yunus: Amazingly the Holy Quraan in chapter 31, verse 29 says, "Have you not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night." The use of the word merges emphasizes a slow gradual change, and this is not possible if the earth is flat. Bob: Go on. Yunus: Further in chapter 39, verse 5, it says, "He coils the night upon the day and he coils the day upon the night." The word used in the original arabic text is "Kaw'wara" which means coils or winds, the significance of this verb is that you usually coil something around a rather spherical object. You say that this fact was discovered recently, well relatively recently, who could have mentioned this in the Holy Quraan over 1400 years ago ? Bob: I'm not convinced. Yunus: Fine, tell me where the light of the Moon comes from? Bob: Centuries ago people thought that the Moon was a miniature version of the Sun and that both emitted their own light, but recently studies confirmed that the Moon reflected the Sun's light. Yunus: The Holy Quraan in chapter 25, verse 61 mentions, "Blessed is the one who placed the constellations in the Heaven and placed therein a lamp and a Moon reflecting light." Here the Sun is referred to as a lamp for it has its own illumination, while the Moon is said to have reflected light or borrowed light, meaning not its own. Bob: Its probably conjecture...guesswork. Yunus: For the sake of a discussion I won't argue. Anyway, let us proceed....... When I was in school in the 80's, my teacher told me that the Sun remains stationary whilst the planets although rotating around their axes do revolve around the Sun as well. Bob: Is that what your Quraan says, that the Sun is stationary....Ha! Yunus: No, the Holy Quraan does not say this. This is what I learned in school. Bob: Today, science has advanced. We have come to know that the Sun does in fact revolve around its own axis. You see, the Sun if observed with the apppropriate scientific apparatus reveals to possess the "Black spots". Continuous observation shows that these black spots take 25 days to complete a revolution. Therefore we conclude that the Sun rotates and that it takes approximately 25 days to complete one full rotation around its axis. Yunus: Well, this is nothing new to the muslim for it is revealed in the Holy Quraan in chapter 21, verse 33, "(God is) the One who created the night, the day, the Sun and the Moon, each one spinning around its own axis (travelling in an orbit)". Here it is evident that the Sun and the Moon both rotate and further the celestial law of orbital movement is made mention of. You tell me who could have mentioned these scientific facts in the Holy Quraan which you say was discovered recently by your scientists ? Before you answer that question, tell me......is there a difference between a star and a planet? Bob: Yes, today we know that stars are heavenly bodies like the Sun in that they produce their own light, while planets on the other hand, do not produce their own light....like the earth on which we live. Yunus: The Holy Quraan mentions scientific facts not only in the field of astronomy. Bob: I'm listening. Yunus: In several verses of the Holy Quraan the details of the water cycle is mentioned. It explains that the water from the earth and ground rises up and forms clouds .............. these clouds condense, there is lightning and rain falls from the clouds. This is evident from the following quotations ...........chapter 39, verse 21,  "Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground, and come forth as springs.......", In chapter 23, verse 18, "We sent down water from the sky measure and lodged it in the ground and we certainly are able to withdraw it", and also in chapter 24, verse 43, "Have you not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And you see rain drops falling from the midst of it ........" Bob: According to my knowledge, the first coherent account of the water cycle was presented by Bernard Palissy in 1580. Yunus: This is the exact distinction that the Holy Quraan makes between stars and planets. In chapter 86, verse 1-3, "By the sky and the night visitor, who will tell you what the night visitor is, the star of piercing brightness", which obviously refer to the stars. The planets are described as ornaments in chapter  37, verse 6, as it reads, "We have indeed adorned the lowest heaven with ornaments, the planets". Bob: ...............................  Hmmmmmm.........................It is no secret that the Arabs were advanced in the field of astronomy, and perhaps it was these learned astronomers that passed their findings to the Prophet _____________. Yunus: I do agree that the Arabs were advanced in astronomy, but I'm afraid that you have the order or sequence of events incorrect. Bob: What do you mean?! Yunus: Let me remind you that the Holy Quraan was revealed centuries before the Arabs became  advanced in this field of astronomy, so it was the Arabs who learnt about astronomy from the Quraan and most definitely not vice versa. The Holy Quraan in chapter 30, verse 48 mentions that, "God is the one who sends forth the winds which raised up the clouds. He spreads them in the sky as he wills and breaks them into fragments. Then you  see rain drops issuing from within them.....". While on the topic of Geography, I am sure you understand what is meant by the term "Folding". Bob: Yes, you see.... the crust of the earth is relatively thin and mountain ranges due to the phenomenon of folding provides stability for the earth. Yunus: The Holy Quraan in chapter 78, verse 6-7 gives us an indication of the very same phenomenon as it says, "Have we not made the earth an expanse and the mountains stakes". Here the word "stakes" is synonymous with the word pegs as in holding the earth in place. Further the first part of this verse shows us that the earth is not flat for it is an expanse ..... meaning that you can walk and walk without falling off. The former idea is clarified in chapter 21, verse 31....."We placed the ground (mountains) standing firm so that it does not shake with them". Here we are told that mountains allow for the maintenance of the earths stability by preventing the earth's shape to change in such a way so as to cause it to move out of its orbit. Permit me to go on ........scientists pointed out recently that salt water and fresh water do not mix.......is that correct ? Bob: That is correct.....this phenomenon is observed at various locations......for example the region where the Nile river meets with the Mediterranean sea and more especially in the Gulf stream where these two bodies of water flow together for thousands of kilometres. Yunus: In chapter 25, verse 53 it reads, ....... "God is the one that has let free two seas, one is sweet and palatable and the other is salty and bitter. He placed an unseen barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to pass". A similar message is given in  chapter 55, verses 19 and 20, "He has loosed the two seas. They meet together. Between them there is an unseen barrier which they do not transgress........" Bob: Maybe some Arabs whist diving or swimming made such an observation. Yunus: Unlikely, what you fail to realize is that the Holy Quraan too testifies that it is an unseen barrier and therefore it could not and still cannot be observed. Bob: I see..... according to Darwinism and the theory of evolution, it is claimed that all life began in the sea or oceans.........can you tell me what does your Quraan say about this.....if anything at all. Yunus: Yes, but first tell me just why does this theory have such a conclusion.....that life began in the  Oceans.... Bob: Well, one of the reasons is that the chemical make-up or composition of human and animal life shows that water is the chief constituent. In fact between 50 and 90 %. Yunus: In chapter 21, verse 30, it also says.............."And We made every living thing from water. Will they still not believe". Can you imagine that in the deserts of Arabia, where there is obviously a scarcity of water, who would have guessed that not only man but every living thing is made from water. Bob: I am aware that Cytoplasm, the main constituent of the cell is composed of approximately eighty percent water and that every living creature is of fifty or ninety percent water. Yunus: Who could have mentioned these facts in the Quraan over 1400 years ago ?...there are over hundreds of facts in the Holy Quraan that modern science cannot find fault with today. On the topic of theories .......Can you explain to me just what is meant by the theory of drifting continents. Bob: Sure, all our continents were at one time parts of one consolidated land mass, then following an explosion, they were scattered or rather pushed away all over the surface of the earth. Therefore if you look carefully at the world map, you would see for example that the East coast of South America would fit neatly against the West coast of Africa. Yunus: A similar idea is reflected in the Holy Quraan in the chapter 79, verse 30, "and the earth He extended after that and then drew from it water and pastures". It says that the Earth passed through a stage when God had caused the land masses to drift apart. Bob: Are you using scientific knowledge to prove the Quraan ? Yunus: No, the Quraan is not a book of science but rather a book of signs. In fact, it has over 6000 signs (verses) out of which 1000 of these deal with scientific knowledge. I am not using science to prove something correct, you need a yardstick or knowledge that is absolute, something ultimate..... Yunus: To the educated men like yourself, those that do not believe in God, science is generally your yardstick.....but to the Muslim, the Holy Quraan is our ultimate yardstick....the Quraan is also referred to as the "Furqaan" which is the arabic word meaning, the criterion between that which is right and that which is wrong. Therefore I am using your yardstick 'science' to prove to you what is said in the Holy Quraan. What your yardstick has said in relatively recent times ...... mine has said 14 centuries ago. Can we agree,  therefore, that the Quraan is superior to science and that the Quraan is the ultimate yardstick. Bob: Tell me more. Yunus: The Quraan says in chapter 20, verse 53, "(God is the one) who sent down rain from the sky and with it brought forth a variety of plants in pairs". Here the Holy Quraan mentions a scientific fact which was discovered much later in history ..... that is .......the plant kingdom too has male and female types. This is also echoed in chapter 13, verse 3, "...........and of all fruits (God) placed on the earth two pairs ......." Yunus: A branch of the field of Zoology has recently pointed out that there exists various social dynamics in the animal world. The Holy Quraan tells us the same, that the animals and birds live in communities in chapter 6, verse 38, "There is no animal on earth, no bird which flies on wings, that (does not belong to) communities like you .....". Yunus: If I tell you that the Holy Quraan tells us of ants talking to one another, you will probably laugh, but the branch of Zoology that I am telling you about, has found the animal or insect which closely resembles the dynamics of the human, is the ant ....... for apart from an extremely 'advanced' system of communication (as is mentioned in the Holy Quraan, chapter 27, verse 18'), They ..... the ants bury the dead and can have what can be said to be an equivalent of a market place. Bob: Perhaps your Prophet _____________ was a very observant man who made notes of them. Yunus: First I would like to inform you that history years witness that the Prophet _____________ of Islam was an illiterate man in that he had no formal schooling and therefore could not read nor write. In fact at that time a great majority of Arabs were illiterate with only a negligible number who were literate. Nonetheless, it is also mentioned that it is the female bee that collects honey ........ Do you think that anybody could be so observant as to pick this up? You have just reminded me about something even more significant; in chapter 16, verse 69, it reads, "...... from their (bees) bodies comes a liquor of different colours wherein is a remedy for men." Today the medical scientist tell us that there are antiseptic qualities and applications of honey. Furthermore, I believe that it is used in the treatment of various allergies. Bob: No wonder the Russian soldiers used to apply honey on their wounds. Yes, and as a result, the wounds left very little scar tissue. Yunus: In chapter 16, verse 66, the Holy Quraan described blood circulation with regard to the production of milk in the cow ....... a thousand years before William Harvey made it famous to the western world. Let us examine the above mentioned  reference, "Verily, in cattle too is a lesson for you, we give to you to drink of what is in their bodies, coming from a conjugation between the contents of the intestine and the blood, a milk, pure and pleasant for those who drink it." Bob: Tell me ...... what does the Quraan say about human beings? Yunus: This question calls for a dissertation, for the Quraan deals with humans from before the time of conception until after death. .....But will you accept a brief exposition on some of the human embryo logical data or proofs presented in the Quraan? Bob: Please go on. This is interesting. Yunus: We know that after fertilization, the egg or ovum descends from the fallopian tube to lodge itself inside the uterus for gestation. This is described in chapter 22, verse 5, ".... We cause whom we will to rest in the womb for an appointed term......". As you know, there are structures or elongations from the egg which develops to draw nourishment from the uterus which is necessary for growth. These structural formations make the egg or rather the zygote seem to be literally clinging to the uterus ....... this, doubtedly, is a scientific discovery of modern times for the western world. Did you know this appearance of clinging is described five times in the Holy Quraan. For example, in chapter 96, verses 1 & 2, "Read, in the name of your Lord who fashioned man from something which clings". Similar ideas are found in chapter 22, verse 5 - chapter 23, verse 14 and chapters 40 & 75. Furthermore, foetal growth is described in great detail in chapter 23, verse 14, with regard to the development of the skeleton. "Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; Then made that clot into a lump (foetus); then We made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones with flesh ............" ........ the verse goes on further in this manner of description. Also with regard to the order or sequence of the senses, the Holy Quraan in chapter 32, verse 9 says, "......... He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and of sight........". Today, medical cience cannot argue with this sequence  development of the senses in the foetus for it confirms that the development of hearing is completed by five months of pregnancy and that the eye is split open by the seventh month of pregnancy. These facts and more have been brought to light by the western world as late as 1940. Furthermore, Professor Keith More, an embryologist at the university of Toronto in Canada, was asked to make a comparative study of the Embryo logical data in the Holy Quraan with that of modern scientific knowledge and he responded as follows, "The 1300 year old Quraan contains  messages so accurate about embryonic development that muslims can reasonably believe them to be from God." Bob: If this is true then how come it has not been recorded in the media? Yunus: But it was ....... check the archives ......for example ....... the citizen, a Canadian Newspaper dated 22 November 1984, under the heading "Ancient Holy Book 1300 years ahead of its time". Or the times of India,  New Delhi ...... dated 10 December 1984 under the caption "Koran scores over modern sciences." Bob: This is really fascinating......don't stop..........continue.... Yunus: At this point I am reminded of a very powerful verse of the Holy Quraan which appears in chapter 41, verse 53, "Soon shall we show them our signs in the (furthest) regions of the earth , and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the truth......". Yunus: The holy Quraan even speaks about  diabetics. Bob: What do you mean? Yunus: You see, certain foodstuffs are declared unfit for human consumption and are therefore prohibited. Bob: While we are on the topic of food ....... tell me why is it that a muslim is very particular about the words Halaal and Haraam ...... What do they mean? Yunus: That which is permissible is termed Halaal and that which is not permissible is termed Haraam and it is the Quraan which draws the distinction between the two. Bob: Can you give me an example ? Yunus: Yes, Islam has prohibited blood of any type. You will agree that a chemical analysis of blood shows that it contains an abundance of uric acid, a chemical substance which can be injurious to human health. Bob: You're right about the toxic nature of uric acid, in the human being it is excreted as a waste product....... in fact we are told that 98% of the bodies uric acid is extracted from the blood by the kidneys and removed through urination. Yunus: Now I think that you'll appreciate the special prescribed method of animal slaughter in Islam. Bob: What do you mean ? Yunus: You see.....the wielder of the knife, whilst taking the name of the Almighty, makes an incision through the jugular veins, leaving all other veins of the neck intact. Bob: I see.....this causes the death of the animal by a total loss of blood from the body, rather than an injury to any vital organ. Yunus: Yes, were the organs, example the heart, the liver, or the brain crippled or damaged, the animal could die immediately and its blood would congeal in its veins and would eventually permeate (spread throughout) the flesh. This implies that the animal flesh would be permeated and contaminated with uric acid and therefore very poisonous ...... only today did our dietitians realise such a thing. Bob: Again, while on the topic of food........ Why do Muslims condemn the eating of pork or ham or any foods related to pigs or swine. Yunus: Actually, apart from the Quraan prohibiting the consumption of pig flesh, ......in fact the Bible too in Leviticus chapter 11, verse 8, .....regarding swine it says, "of their flesh (of the swine) shall you not eat, and of their carcase you shall not touch; they are unclean to you." Further, did you know that a pig cannot be slaughtered at the neck for it does not have a neck ..........that is according to its natural anatomy. A Muslim reasons that if the pig was to be slaughtered and fit for human consumption the  creator would have provided it with a neck. Nonetheless, ........all that aside, I am sure you are well informed about the harmful effects of the consumption of pork, in any form, be it pork chops ...... ham ...... bacon....... Bob: The medical sciences find that there is a risk for various diseases as the pig is found to be a host for many parasites and potential diseases. Yunus: Yes, even apart from that ....as we talked about uric acid content in the blood.....it is important to note that the pig's biochemistry excretes only 2% of its total uric acid content...... the remaining 98%  remains as an integral part of the body. This explains the high rate of Rheumatism found in those who  consume pork. Bob: Let's fasten our seatbelts ......I think we are going to land shortly .... I guess its true - time does fly when you're having fun. I've never heard these arguments before and I'd like to hear more.......just what is the basic theme of the Holy Quraan anyway ? Yunus: The basic theme is of salvation, in this life and in the life hereafter..... it does not fall into the category of any known arts or sciences of the world, but since it addresses itself to mankind, it touches on almost all the disciplines which concern Him. Thus the Quraan surprisingly encompassed truths which were to be discovered and confirmed much later as our discussion has shown. Yunus: This reminds me of the wise words of Sir Francis, who said, "It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty". Thereafter nobody said a word ........they each sat back and looked forward waiting for touch down.........
06/01/03 at 16:13:37
bhaloo

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
06/01/03 at 14:33:44
[slm] Too bad, I thought this discussion was going somewhere too :/ Bro Mark - you havent responded to the individual themes in the posts, and many of your misgivings are repeats of what we have already attempted to answer. Perhaps a closer look at the replies and commenting on individual posts (or if that is too much, the shared messages in the posts) would be more helpful  :) ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
AbdulJalil
06/02/03 at 00:19:34
Assalamu Alaikum Brother bhaloo,there are two excellent articles about Quran 86:6-7 that refute the  missionaries, who twist verses. I am quoting here one of them. If anyone wants the second one, which is also excellent, you can message me, because i do not agree with everything that is on the website that has the article. In this one, the way the brother explained it, not only refute the claims  against  the Qur'an, but actually add to the scientific miracles of the Qur'an !!! By Mohammad Shafi J. Aga In the Name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful IT WAS THE QURAAN THAT FIRST REVEALED THE FACT OF BLOOD CIRCULATION IN HUMAN BODY In Sura 96, Verse 2 (Q: 96.2), the Quraan says, "Khuliqal insaana min alaq" which means, "(Allah) created a human being from `alaq'". The accepted meaning of `alaq' is that initial embryonic stage, when it is in the form of a leech-like clot of blood clinging to or suspended from the wall of the uterus. At this stage, although there is a rudimentary formation of the human cardiovascular (blood circulatory) system, the heart has not started beating and the embryo has not yet acquired distinct human characteristics. 2. In a later-revealed Sura (Sura #86), however, the Quraan speaks of another ingredient or raw material, other than `alaq', which has gone into the making of `insaan'. Verses 5 to 8 of this Sura run as follows: "Falyanzuril insaanu minma khuliq. Khuliqa minmaain daafiq. Yakhruju minbainis sulbi wattaraaib. Innahu alaa raj'eihi laqadir." [`Insaan' should then consider by what (means) he/she has been created. He/she has been created by (means of) gushing fluid. Which (fluid) comes out from between the spine and the ribs. Verily it is indeed capable of being returned.] 3. I am aware that the translation I have given in the above paragraph is not the orthodox one. But then, as anybody can see, the orthodox translation has deviated from the plain meaning of the words used in the Quraan to suit the translators' own ideas about the message, the verses are conveying. 4. The preconceived idea of the translators is that the gushing fluid, referred to in the above-quoted verses of Sura #86, is semen that spurts out of the male organ, penis, during the sexual act. But with this preconceived idea, the translators had a problem. Semen, obviously, does not gush out from between the backbone and the ribs; nor, for that matter, is it produced there. Then, is the Word of Allah, na'auzubilLah, wrong? NO, explain the translators, the semen-producing organs are originally embedded, in the foetus, between the backbone and the ribs, but they gradually descend, until birth of the child, to their position, at birth, between the legs. 5. Even an adolescent can say that the translators' above explanation is nothing but stretching of their imaginations in a vain bid to justify their interpretation of the Divine Verses. [There are other explanations given, which are equally un-convincing.] Such justifications cannot but cast doubts on the veracity of the Quraan being the Word of Allah. And Allah says of the Quraan: "Zalikal kitabu la raiba feehi" (This is the book wherein there is no doubt) [Q: 2.2]! 6. The Quraan itself says that the meanings of some of the verses may not be clear to mankind initially for some period of time because of the limits of its (mankind's) knowledge. But, "soon will We show them Our Signs in the regions, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this (Quraan) is the Truth" [Q: 41.53]. It is therefore imperative for true believers to stick to the plain meaning of Quraanic Verses and refrain from devious interpretations, even when the plain meaning is not understandable. The expanding sphere of human knowledge may make the meaning clear at some future point of time. 7. The plain meaning of the Verses under consideration [Q: 86.5 to 7] is that Allah created `insaan' by means of the fluid that gushes out from the cavity enclosed by the back on one side and the ribs on the other. At the time, in the seventh century A.D., when these Verses were revealed, people could not understand the full implication of the Verses. The level of their knowledge about the intricacies of the human body was too low. They could not then understand as to what fluid could gush out of the said cavity. It was only ten centuries later, when the English physician, William Harvey*, announced his discovery of blood circulating around the body in a closed circuit, that mankind became aware of blood gushing out of the heart located in the cavity formed by the ribs and the backbone. Now we know how the pumping action of the heart makes the blood gush out into the aorta. So now we know what fluid it is that gushes out from the exact place described in the Quraan. The fluid is nothing but blood. Why, then, do we, the people of the modern age, not accept this simple truth? Why do we still insist that the fluid is semen, when deep down in our hearts, we know that semen does not spurt out from the spot in the human body, so exactly described in the said Verses? 8. After the creation of the first man and woman by Allah, semen of course is the source derived from man for the creation of Adam and Eve's succeeding progeny. But semen is not the only source. The other source is the female egg. Neither of these two sources, however, can be said to be the ready-to-use materials from which `insaan' is created. After fertilization, the two sources together have to undergo numerous changes till the formation in the uterus of what Allah calls `alaq'. Now this `alaq' is the ready-to-use material with which `insaan' is created as stated by Allah Himself [Q: 96.2 cited above]. 9. With the tremendous advances made in human knowledge during the last 13 centuries since the revelation of the Quraan, we now know that `alaq' or the leech-shaped embryo in the mother's womb has the rudimentary (undeveloped) forms of the heart and the network of blood vessels. The rudimentary heart and blood-vessel-network is even filled with blood (the tiny embryo's own distinctive blood and not the mother's), but there is no heartbeat and no consequent circulation of the blood. `Alaq' is thus merely the source from which a human being is to be created, but it is not an `insaan' yet. Except for the cardio-vascular system, no other organ system has reached a functional state therein. In fact, there is not even a rudimentary formation of any other distinctly human organ at this stage. 10. The Quraan (Q: 96.2) says, I repeat, that `alaq' is the material from which `insaan' is created. But `alaq' is not `insaan'; it is only a raw material for the latter. Something else, other than `alaq', is therefore logically required for the creation of `insaan'. It is my humble submission that the Verses (Q: 86, verses 5  through eight) provide a clue to the other thing required. This other thing cannot be semen for the obvious reason that semen has already gone into the making of `alaq'. 11. As explained in para 7 above, the gushing fluid referred to in Verses (Q: 86.5 to eight) could only be blood. One may, however, ask, how could blood be the thing, other than `alaq', from which a living `insaan' is created, when blood might be part of `alaq' itself? Yes, it is not blood, per se, which is the other thing required, but it is the gushing fluid (blood), together with the motive force behind it, which is required to convert `alaq' into a living thing, `insaan'. 12. When blood stops gushing out of the heart, life ceases to exist. As a necessary corollary to this statement of fact, one has to admit that life begins when the heart in the embryo starts ticking and blood starts gushing out therefrom at the beginning of the 4th week after conception. It is with this gushing blood that primitive organs are formed and the embryo takes distinctly human shape by the end of the 8th week. Without this gushing blood, the embryo would not develop into the infant, capable of coming out into the world and continuing to live therein. Even after birth, the creating and developing work of the gushing blood continues till the infant turns into a fully developed `insaan'. It is this gushing blood which sustains every cell of the body by regularly supplying oxygen and nourishment to it and draining out wastes therefrom. Without this gushing blood, the cells would all be dead, life would cease to exist, and there would be no `insaan'. 13. In the light of the above discussion, is there any doubt now that along with `alaq', it is the blood gushing out of the heart by means of which `insaan' has been created and sustained? Is there any doubt now that the gushing fluid referred to in the Verses, (Q: 86.5 & 6) is not semen but blood gushing out of the heart? Is there any doubt now that the said Verses had revealed a scientific truth in the seventh century, when the truth dawned on the scientific world only over a thousand years later? Is there any doubt now that the Quraan is the book of Allah? Only those will have doubts who are "deaf, dumb, blind and therefore do not understand" (Q: 2.171). 14. The Verse, (Q: 86,verse eight), is generally so translated as to mean that Allah is capable of resurrecting `insaan' on the day of judgement, after his death in this world. The crucial word in the Verse is `raj'eihi'. `Raj'ei', of course, means return. But what does `hi', meaning `his/its' pertain to - to `insaan' or to `gushing fluid' both referred to in the preceding Verses? In the traditional translation, of course, `hi' has been taken to mean `his' and is construed to pertain to `insaan', occurring in the earlier Verse #5. But the interpretation of Verse #8, thus made, appears to be rather contrived. This `contrivance' was naturally to be expected from interpreters/translators at the time of the revelation of the Verses, and for centuries later, because of the limitation of human knowledge about the intricacies of the human body, at that time. If the Verse were to be then interpreted to mean that the gushing fluid was capable of being returned to where it originated from, it would make no sense to the people living then. But now, this interpretation would not only make sense, but would be a natural corollary to the interpretation given to the immediately preceding Verses above, in this write-up. 15. Look at the implication of this interpretation: The Holy Quraan had revealed the fact of blood circulation in the human body, long back in the seventh century, whereas the world of science came to know of it about a thousand years later! * 16. But, alas, most of humanity would persist in being "summunm, bukmun, umyun, fahum la yaqiloon" (Q: 2.171)! *Note: It has come to my knowledge, after I first wrote the above piece, that blood circulation was first discovered, not by William Harvey, but by a Muslim, Ibn Nafees, in the twelfth century AD itself. But, even then, the fact remains that blood circulation was first revealed, earlier, in the Quraan.
06/02/03 at 00:21:48
AbdulJalil

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
AbdulJalil
06/02/03 at 00:33:02
Assalamu Alaikum i wanted to add that i think if the brother see the other excellent article, he would not have said in point #4, and #5 ,that the explanation given about semen as the gushing fluid is wrong.  Both explanations can be  correct, which is a miracle of the Qur'an! If you see the other excellent article you will see why gushing fluid can be both!
06/02/03 at 01:21:44
AbdulJalil

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
panjul
06/02/03 at 02:48:38
[slm] Mark wants us to prove with evidence 'out of this world' that the Quran is a revealed text. I caught that on from his very first post. and that is why i asked him to prove to us why he believes that the Bible is a revealed text. So when he proves that, i will look at his evidence and see what kind of evidence he presents and if indeed his methods are different from ours and if they prove without doubt, then maybe i can teach my ignorant self some of his methods, try to copy that and convince him that Quran was indeed revealed. Mark--you said that muslims have only written nice things about Mohammad (S)--not true, non-muslims have also written things about him that are nice and they believe his historical record to be true. I don't know about the Christians that you associate with and what they think of him and what kind of pseudohistorians you get your history from about Prophet Muhammad (S)--the sites that the moderator deleted speak for themselves. As far as comparing the morman founder to Prophet Muhamma (S) with the things--bad one.  ::)  His life is more comparalbe to the lives of the Biblical prophets. And as far as polygamy goes, all the Biblical prophets practiced it. As for Jesus (A), he never said anything for it, but he never said anything against it either. The whole deal against polygamy was started by Paul who said that it is better to stay unmarried 'cuz women are not as good of creatures as men.  ??? (something to that effect, i know that it was a negative comment against women) Listen you yourself. You said that if give a a millenia, mormans can grow as large as the Muslims. It didn't take the Prophet (S) that long to spread the message. It took Christianity (after it was corrupted by Paul) longer than Islam to gain the followers it has today. your larger numbers say nothing, Christianity came before Islam. But soon inshllah, muslims will outnumber Christians. And that scares you, doesn't it? And it scares others too and that is why you have people like Jerry Fallwelll and the like going to Iraq under the guise of giving aid to try to convert people. Islam spread so fast, and is growing so fast because because it is the truth. these missionaries--they are so happy with a few conversions, with people who are illiterate, who are so poor that they have no access to education. But everyday, some of the brightest and the educated come into the fold of Islam. Muslims aren't even that active in spreading Islam like Christians are. (but they should be). Listen, if you ar here with an agenda--you came to the wrong place buddy. May God guide us all to the right path and keep us on it always. Ameen. Any mistakes are mine, and only Allah is the Most Perfect.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Fozia
06/02/03 at 09:31:29
The bible is split into chapter’s right, and named after its authors e.g. Mathew, Luke etc. Now correct me if I'm wrong but were not these gentlemen born waaay after Jesus, how comes the chapters weren't named and written after the 12 apostles????? Surely [i]they[/i] would have been best to comment on Jesus’ life and teachings as apposed to someone born a few centuries after the fact???? Whereas the unlettered prophet 's(pbuh), teachings Sunnah and the Quran were compiled during his lifetime and by people who knew him well such as his wives and companions. As for the assumption that the bible is perfect word for word no matter the translations, consider this. Some languages have words for things which others do not, for arguments sake lets use French, in French you get 'Tu' and 'vous' both can mean 'you' but one is for use amongst friends or young people and the other is meant for use whilst addressing strangers or elders I think the latter can also be used collectively (correct me if I'm wrong it's been years since I practiced), how do you translate this if you don't actually have the equivalent in English, you basically lose something in the translation. In addition consider that the original bible was revealed in Aramaic as it certainly wasn't in English, however Aramaic is a dead language now, you can't go to an Aramaic country and learn the tongue from the natives so you don't know where the translation has been lost. Unlike Arabic which is alive and thriving and you can go and learn the language to read the quran as it should be read. So actually yes the bible you read is corrupt. As for your charge of others having excelled against the quran, why have these verses not been mass marketed and made available for all and sundry???? I don't know of any non-Muslim who would let such an opportunity to deal Muslims a great blow go by. Whatever your considerations of our beloved prophet (P.B.U.H), he didn't spend his life for material gain so it is unfair and completely wrong for you to belittle him by comparing him with the mormon head, I don't know much about him but I bet he wasn't considered truthful and honest by all who ever met him. If you think Mohammed [saw] spread Islam for personal gain why would he have hidden the fact that he wrote the quran??? If he were a fake and had bested the best poets in Arabia why did he refute authorship, either he was a liar and wanted material gain, i.e. fame wealth and everything else that goes with it or the quran really is the word of Allah... Certainly if I could write as beautifully as the author of the quran I certainly wouldn't hide the fact, rest assured I'd make a killing from the royalties...
06/02/03 at 10:16:32
Fozia

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
sofia
06/02/03 at 17:12:08
First, I apologize to Mark, for having assumed that he had some knowledge of basic Islaamic principals. I blame myself (and Muslims, collectively) for not having clarified what the fundamental principals of Islaam are, before getting into other, secondary topics. Second, I apologize for this being so long. Everyone, please refrain from using your post to bash the Bible. It does not answer Mark's original question, which is about the Qur'aan. So try to focus on the Qur'aan. And please remember, Mark is not Muslim. He has probably not even been given the basic information about what Islaam is from an authentic source, so we need not behave harshly with him. Our job is only to convey the truth and help guide. We are not the Controller of hearts (only God is). So after all is said and done, it's up to him to decide where truth is. [That doesn't negate the fact that we should all know about our religion, and equally as important, how to convey it to others. I remind myself first. Alhamdulillah, M. AlShareef's Usool-ud-Da'wah course just started here, which I'd recommend to everyone. In fact, I wish he'd contribute to this thread.] [color=green]"Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful exhortation; and argue with them in ways that are better and more gracious: for your Lord knows best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan, 16:125) Mark--If you're really interested in finding out about the Qur'aan's authenticity, please read some of the suggested articles/books/links we've posted here, in addition to a reliable translation of the Qur'aan. My suggestions: [url=http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm]The Bible, Quran and Science[/url] by Dr. Maurice Bucaille (In its entirety). [url=http://cyberistan.org/islamic/comparekjv.html]The Last Prophet[/url]. Otherwise, here are some basic principals about Islaam that you need to know before we can discuss the authenticity of the Qu’raan: 1. Tawheed Islaam is the largest and most widely-followed monotheistic religion in the world. The most fundamental principal about Islaam and upon which all else is based, is [i]tawheed[/i], or pure monotheism. Muslims believe in One God, who is free from imperfections, the All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Most-Merciful, Eternal and Unique. He is known by the characteristics He gives to Himself. He is the Creator and not created. He is unlike man, who is created by Him with certain limitations. God created the earth and the entire universe (and other things that are unknown to us), and sustains it and its inhabitants. Inherent to being the Creator Who is free from imperfections, God is free from needing any partners, helpers or intercessors. There is no concept of sainthood in Islaam. There is no intercessor between any human-being and God (i.e., Islaam does not teach that only certain people can communicate with God or receive repentance). And none of his prophets are "divine." There is no other God, but God. Associating anyone with God or with His unique qualities, is a form of shirk (associating something with God; polytheism). Shirk falls outside the pale of Islaam, and is considered the most serious sin in Islaam. Islaam is absolutely uncompromising in this single most important concept that is the basis of the entire religion, and of all previous divine teachings. [color=green]"Say: He is God, the One and Only. God, the One whom all turn to and depend on. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 112:1-4) [color=green]"God! There is no god but He -- the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there that can intercede in His presence, except as He permits? He knows what is in front of them and what is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 2:225) 2. The Purpose and Mode of Revelation God teaches human beings how to serve and worship Him, and how to interact in society. Mankind has a duty to both God (the Creator--like praying to Him properly, always being aware of His knowledge, having fear and hope in Him, etc) and to humanity (His Creation--like doing unto others as you would have done unto you, not backbiting/slandering, keeping one's word, bringing ease and facilitation and not hardship to people, feeding the poor, taking care of the orphans, upholding and fighting for the legitimate rights of others, etc). In order to teach humanity these universal principals, God sent Messengers with His Words to mankind. These Messengers were human beings sent to humanity throughout time with the same universal principals, starting from Adam and ending with Muhammad, peace be upon them. Throughout time, the message became distorted through the hands of man. Additional prophets were sent, one after the other, all with the purpose of guiding humanity back to the original teachings of God. None of the messengers distorted the message themselves, nor ever claimed to be God, Himself. So for example/ Moses and Jesus, upon them be peace, were sent to a people who had distorted the true message of God sent by previous prophets. Had they been sent to people who had preserved the message perfectly, they would have been followed by all and not persecuted in the least. In fact, it would have been unnecessary to even send them with the Word of God. However, all of the prophets were persecuted. As would be logical even to the human brain, the last revelation sent to the last prophet should be consistent with the previous revelations, complete and preserved to sustain humanity with guidance until the end of time on earth. It is not a general claim that the Word of God will “never pass away,” but a direct statement of protection of the words of the Qur’aan. Nor does God ask the reader to preserve the Qur’aan - it is not mankind’s role to preserve the Word of God. [i]No other revelation was written in its entirety at the time it was revealed and retained to this day[/i] as you’ve already alluded to. [color=green]"Without doubt, We have sent down the Message; and We will verily guard it (from corruption)."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 15:9) [color=green]” And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: None can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 18:27) [color=green]”The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words, for He is the one who hears and knows all.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 6:115) [color=green]"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers. We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit [Gabriel]. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what you desire not, you are puffed up with pride? Some you called impostors, and others you slay!"[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 2:87) [color=green]"We have sent you (Muhammad) inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 4:163) 3. Paradise and Hell-fire: Accountability Because God's revelation explains to mankind what their purpose is (how to worship God, how to interact with society, etc), God measures humanity on how closely they follow and uphold the true teachings sent by Him and understood by them. Everything is known to Him; He is the All-Knower, All-Hearing, All-Seeing. There is no limit to God's knowledge. Every act and even every thought of His Creation is known to Him. He is the Most-Just and The Judge, Who will ultimately judge humanity on the Day of Judgment, and assign each human-being the result of their actions - Paradise or Hell-fire. These places are only know to man (for he has never seen them nor can fully conceive of them) as they are described by God in words that are understandable to mankind - to create a sense of fear and hope in the heart. There is no human being who will have any of his/her deeds escape the knowledge of God, whether it was done in open or in private. And there is no human being who will be wronged in the least by Him; i.e., He will reward the doers of good beyond measure, but He will punish only according to the evil deed done. Also, He will not lay a burden of anyone else's sins on someone, just as He will not remove the sins of one man due to the good deeds done by another. Each soul bears the consequence of the actions brought forth him/herself. The foremost characteristic of God in Islaamic teachings, is His Love, Mercy and Forgiveness for His Creation. Every human being will make mistakes or sin. Every deed is judged by its level of sincerity and its intentions (ie, was a good deed done to please God, or really just to be seen by mankind?), whether it be repentance, charity, prayer, helping our neighbor, etc. It is only by the Grace of God that a human being will enter Paradise without any punishment -- not because s/he was free from doing any sin. However, each human will be judged according to how much they strived for perfection in faith and character. And only He is the Judge, who knows the secrets and intentions of the heart -- no human being can know with any certainty, who will be assigned Paradise or Hell. [color=green]"Say: "Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than God, when He is the Cherisher of all things? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself, and no bearer of burdens can bear the burdens of another. Your goal in the end is towards God: He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 6:164) 4. Pillars of Islaam and the Articles of Faith As almost everyone knows, the pillars of Islaam are based on five: the first and foremost is the testimony of faith (shahadah) - that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is His (last) messenger (and only a messenger, not a partner in Lordship). The rest of the pillars are based on prayer, charity, fasting and making the pilgrimage (or Hajj) at least once if one can afford it. The articles of faith are belief in: -One God -His Messengers -His Books -His Angels -the Day of Judgment, and -Divine Decree: this concept encompasses certainty in God's perfect knowledge, His power to plan and execute His plan. A Muslim cannot exclude prophethood of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, David, Abraham, Noah, etc, from their beliefs. Doing so, would take them outside the fold of Islaam. Similarly, a Muslim cannot exclude having certainty that previous revelations were sent to previous prophets. Those that are mentioned in the Qur'aan are the: -Scrolls sent to Abraham -Torah (Taurah) sent to Moses -Psalms (Zaboor) sent to David -Gospels (Injeel) sent to Jesus -and of course, the Qur'aan as revealed to Muhammad. Other messengers are mentioned in the Qur'aan as well, peace be upon them all. None of them were creators/authors of the respective Words and/or Books sent to them, nor did they claim this. They are simply messengers sent to convey the Truth and guide humanity. They were inspired by God, with His Word. This is the very basis for prophethood. None of the prophets are worshipped by Muslims, since again, this would take any Muslim outside the fold of Islaam. There is no one worthy of being worshiped, except God. Islaam teaches Muslim that there is not one prophet who is superior to any other; so there is not one nation that is superior to any other. All were sent with a message from God. And no where in the Qur'aan, are we taught that the prophets had questionable character; i.e., they had to be trustworthy, faithful, truthful individuals who upheld the teachings they conveyed, in order to be followed. Who would follow a "prophet" who was not known to be trust-worthy and truthful by his people? Not least of all, the Prophets did not ascribe partners to God. Anything like this would reflect a limitation in God for having chosen ill-suited messengers to convey a true message from a True God. And God is above all imperfections. [color=green]"Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 3:45) [color=green]"Say: 'We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God (in prayer).'"[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 2:136) Most of the revelations were sent by God through the Arch-Angel, Gabriel (Jibreel) to each perspective Messenger. He is simply an angel charged with sending the revelations down to man, and is not worshipped in any way by Muslims. Angels are not like human beings, because they do not have free-will. They simply follow the command of God. Human beings are given free-will, and are thus, susceptible to God's Judgement. [color=green]"Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel--for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe --whoever is an enemy to God and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! God is an enemy to those who reject Faith."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 2:97-98) 5. Humanity There is no hierarchy or caste system of human beings in Islaam. All men and women were created equal in the sight of God, and will get rewarded and/or punished in an equal manner; i.e, according to his/her deeds. The first sin to have been recorded in Islaamic teachings is that of Satan’s (shaytaan) jealousy of and trickery towards Adam and Eve, who eventually ate from the forbidden tree in Paradise. Both Adam and Eve were blamed for their own sin and sent to Earth (along with their future progeny) to dwell there for some time. Humanity was given free will, as mentioned, to follow Satan, their own vain desires, or to follow God. Each soul bears the burden of its own sins, and there is no "original sin" concept in Islaam. Also, jealousy and arrogance/pride based on class, tribalism, race, gender, etc., are considered major sins in Islaam. Muslims are taught to serve their fellow man, remove pride from their hearts, pray next to each other, etc -- regardless of race, wealth, age, etc. [color=green]"O mankind! We created you from a single male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 49:13) [color=green]"For Muslim men and women- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise- for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 33:35) There are many more points about Islaamic teachings that I think are important, such as our role in the environment, with animals, the rules of warfare, the rights of the poor/marginalized, etc. However, the above is meant to be used as both an "intro to Islaam" and as a reason for my belief in the authenticity of the Qur'aan. Why I believe in the Qu'raan You see, Mark, I believe God is One. He is not a man-God. I would not worship a God who was not perfect; ie, like a human. Polytheism is not a natural belief and has to be taught through customs and false-beliefs -- not by logic and wisdom. Belief in One God or a Higher-Being is a natural disposition (called fitrah in Islaam. I haven't provided proofs for God here, since that’s maybe a debate for another thread). If anything, people may have a problem accepting a certain Messenger, rather than accepting a Higher-Being. As you'll see even from your own teachings, the Jews refused almost all prophets, but ultimately refused belief in Jesus. Jews and Christians refuse belief in Muhammad. [i]Even though the messengers/prophets were all sent with same universal principals![/i] It may be due to fear of losing one’s status, tribalism/racism, not wanting to do away with custom (old habits die hard), etc. God knows best, but it happened with each and every Prophet. Again, Islaamic teachings do not reject any prophet of God, and Muslims must believe in Jesus and Moses, as well as all other true Prophets of God, peace be upon them all. [color=green]"Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary, because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 5:78) [color=green]”The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food [unlike God, Who does not need to eat]. Look at how God makes His signs clear to them; yet look at how they are deluded away from the truth!”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 5:75) [color=green]”And when Jesus came with clear signs, he said: ‘I have come to you with Wisdom and in order to make clear to you some of the points in which you differ. Therefore, fear God and obey me. Surely, God! He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. This is the straight path.’”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 43:63-64) I believe God to be Just, Loving and Merciful. He is All-Knowing, All-Wise. He did not send humanity a message that is too hard to understand and/or follow. He did not send a message filled with contradictions (on even who He is!) or passages that only refer to specific times and/or people. [color=green]”And God makes the Signs plain to you: for God is full of knowledge and wisdom.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 24:18) [color=green]”This is the Book of no doubt, for those who fear God”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 2:2) [color=green]"Here is a plain statement for mankind; a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 3:138) In other words, He did not create Hell to set mankind up to believe in falsehood or even believe in partial falsehood. The definition of  authenticity is [i]complete[/i] authenticity, not partial. And the definition of distortion is [i]any[/i] distortion, not some. He sent messenger after messenger to guide humanity back on track. He tested mankind in how closely they could preserve His Words. He knew full-well that they could not, and it is by His Knowledge alone, that He did not preserve the very first message as He preserved the last message. But if you think about it, [i]why else would God send messengers, one after the other, unless there was a deviation of the previous divine revelation?[/i] It makes perfect sense to me that the last message is the one that is complete, perfected and preserved. And along with that, it makes perfect sense to me that Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) was the seal of the prophets, sent with the last revelation that has not and cannot be changed. [color=green]“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God, and the seal of the Prophets. And God has full knowledge of all things.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 33:40) I believe humanity was taught the same universal principals throughout time. Even and especially in regards to how we pray to God. People have changed, but God has always remained One. A well-known description of how believers in any Abrahamic tradition pray, is by bowing and prostrating. [color=green]"Remember when We made the House a place of assembly for mankind and a place of safety--and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer--and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (in prayer)."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 2:125) [color=green]"O Mary! Worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 3:43) [color=green]"(David) said: 'He has undoubtedly wronged you in demanding your ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly, many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other. Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?' And David gathered that We had tried him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to God)."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 38:24) I believe we were all created equal. There is no "chosen nation" or "chosen tribe" (see again, 49:13). Every single one of us has the right to know who God is and how to worship Him. I'd find it odd to not have a [i]specific[/i] guidebook of such a paramount concern, when we have a how-to-manual on things as mundane as setting up our computer. This concept is shared by People of the Book, who have had experience with a guidebook. None of us should be deprived of the right to educate ourselves as much as possible about our Creator and the role He created us for. And none of us are so debased by God, that we cannot ask Him directly for any of our needs. [color=green]”When My servants ask thee concerning Me, tell them I am indeed close: I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calls on Me: So let them obey Me and believe in Me, that they may walk in the right way.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 2:186) [color=green]"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God, who forgives all sins. Surely, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 39:53). I believe the Qur'aan is true, because it is the only Bokk that holistically fulfills all of the basic principals of a perfect God. It does not contradict my spiritual or physical life. In fact, it confirms it. Any mistakes in this post are mine. [color=green]"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 5:3) [color=green]”In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Recompense. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Guide us on the straight Way; the way of those on whom You have bestowed Thy Grace, not of those who have earned Your anger, nor of those who have gone astray.”[/color] (Translation of the Qur’aan 1:1-7) [color=green]"Say: 'O People of the Book! Come to common terms between us and you: That we worship none but God, that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others for Lords/patrons other than God.' If then they turn back, say: 'Bear witness that we are Muslims [ie, have submitted to God's Will]."[/color] (Translation of the Qur'aan 3:64)
NS
06/04/03 at 14:22:44
sofia

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
06/06/03 at 01:23:00
Hello all.  I have not posted for a few days and wanted to provide an explanation of why not. First, I owe the board and all readers a sincere apology.  I did violate the Jannah constitution by posting two links to anti-Islamic sites.  I sincerely apologize for this – it happened because I didn’t read carefully the constitution and so didn’t know I was violating  the constitution.  But that doesn’t excuse what I did.  It’s my fault and I bear responsibility for it.  And I do apologize.  And it won’t happen again. Second, I am tremendously offended at the tone, nature, and direct accusations of several of the posts here.  I came here because the forum was offered for those “curious about Islam.”  Now I am slammed for “having an agenda buddy” and am outright called a liar. When I have told my friends I am trying to research Islam they have all laughed at me, believing Muslims will not listen, are completely closed-minded, don’t care about the truth and only want to attack anyone who disagrees with them.  The recent nasty grams I have received have only confirmed what I was told by others.  If this is what Islam is all about then it CANNOT be from God, for the people of God would never act this way toward one seeking truth. I am not a liar.  To be called such is deeply offensive to me.  I come from a land of honor and courage.  To insult a man’s honor is a terrible thing, and not to be done lightly.  Look at what Bhaloo said” “I'm very appalled at the lies that Mark has been making up about Islam.”  What lies?  I have asked questions, I have pressed my points and I have raised hypothetical questions about the possibility of this or that being so.  Yet I have told no lies.  None.  What an unfair and incendiary charge to make! Notice that his charges that I lied simply don’t work. For example, I pointed out that not all accept scientific foreknowledge of the Quran.  Bhaloo said “Why did you lie?  No one acknowledged this except you just now.” Really?  What about Lady Mulanski’s post on Science in which she said “I agree, people do sometimes seem to read too much into a particular verse.” I said that the charges the Bible is corrupt are wrong because “this is (1) illogical because the Quran says the words of God cannot be changed and Muslims accept the Bible as God’s word so how can it be changed?” Bahloo says “This is a lie, and no where does the Quran say this.”  Really?  How about 10:95: “if thou (Mohammed) art in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto thee, then question those WHO READ THE SCRIPTURE (that was) before thee.  Verily the truth from thy Lord hath come unto them.  So be not of the waverers.”  How about 29:46: “And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in a way that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is One.”  Don’t wiggle around and try to say this isn’t the Bible that we have today.  That is EXACTLY what is being discussed in those verses because it’s what the “people of the Book” have in Mohammed’s time! Can anyone change Allah’s words?  Of course not!  “There is naught that can change His words.” (6:115-116).  “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the hereafter - there is no changing the words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph” (10:65). Bhaloo’s charges that I lied are seen to be incorrect.  Further, even if I was dead wrong why say such an inflammatory thing as “you are a liar?”  Couldn’t he say, in a kinder and gentler way, “you are mistaken?”  But no - I am a liar.  How hurtful and mean. Bhaloo also chooses to deal with all that I said about possible alternative views of Mohammed’s life and writings by simply saying “Not credible by my standards or anyone with any sense of knowledge, nor has anyone produced a verse like it.”  Well, that’s impressive.  The standard by which all history and scholarship are judged is Bhaloo.  If he says “it’s not credible” that’s it, that alone settles it.  Thanks Bhaloo for settling that!  Anything else you want to settle for us, like should baseball use the designated hitter or whether Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction since you are all the All-Knowing Bhaloo? I use sarcasm here to reveal the depths of Bahloo’s failure – both to treat me with dignity and to sustain his case. Want more? I said “Third, there is nothing in the Bible, Old and New, that speaks of Mohammed.  I’m glad that many Muslims agreed to that in their posts.”  Bhaloo replied “Once again you have lied, which Muslims said this?” See the post earlier, sir: “The argument that The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) was found in the Bible drew me to Islam. I didn't believe it then and I continue to not believe it (but it caused me to research the religion, and God gave me other clear signs as to why Islam is for me...” Bhaloo also asks why I did not answer all his scientific foreknowledge stuff, and then insults me more about being a liar. Yet I did answer him!  I posted (unfortunately, in violation of the Constitution) two websites that deal with Muslim scientific foreknowledge.  Bhaloo dismissed them both with another cavalier wave of his keyboard: “The now deleted website links he put up, are not well researched, nor does the writer of those wild claims have knowledge of Arabic, in fact much of his writings are on the fly. How do I know? I used to deal with him (the writer of those articles) and other similar people a few years back. Going through his mumbo jumbo he brings up 2 points which I'll address here. “” If the sites are so lame I wonder why Bhaloo is afraid to let anyone see their contents?  In fact, these are not the only two sites that deal with the Quranic foreknowledge arguments.  There are many of these and they are well researched.  There is also much material in books, some even written by former Muslims WHO SPEAK ARABIC.  The result of my study of this material along with the material advanced by Bhaloo and many others is to believe the foreknowledge argument holds no merit or value whatsoever.  I do not believe the Quran has ANY scientific foreknowledge that can be proven to be UNKNOWN in the time of Mohammed or that the Quran, in Arabaic or any other language, clearly refers to. Let me finish up my responses by covering a few other responses.  Nistar made two points: 1. “The hadith collections have their specific scientific validation process -- and are accepted by the majority of scholars as valid historical records.”  That is simply not so.  Many scholars dispute everything in the hadiths, which is not surprising because even Muslims debate which Hadiths have the strongest traditions, etc.  Some may think they are valid history but that’s a long way from saying “the majority of scholars” do.  Nistar would need to cite proof of this assertion. 2.  Marcion was branded heretical for his Gnostic Theology by the (for a lack of a better name) "Proto-Orthodox" Church.  Please see "The NT: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman; and similar works by Richard Elliott Friedman. This is so.  But it does not detract from my original point that there were KNOWN canonical lists in the first century.  Marcion drew up such a list – the books he accepted versus the ones that all accepted.  I don’t need Marcion to be a fine Christian to sustain the point: the NT was not put together at the Council of Nicea but was known in complete form hundreds of years earlier.  In fact, the historical documentation that an ENEMY of the Gospel knew which books made up the Bible makes the point even stronger.  Thank you for confirming this point, Nistar. 3.      Thank you Sofia for a kind and gentle and informative post.  I am going to start a new thread to ask a few more (information only) questions so I can better understand Islamic doctrine.  Perhaps you will post again there. So where are we now?  I started this thread by saying I had “Many Questions.”  I have received many answers.  For example . . . 1.  Muslims aren’t interested in searching for truth, at least not on this board.  If someone asks hard questions instead of trying to provide answers they are attacked, called liars and their posts are edited.  That’s nice. 2.  I have yet to see any real proof of the Quran’s inspiration.  The scientific foreknowledge argument is the only argument with potential, it has been weighed and found very wanting. 3.  I am drawing these posts to a close.  Why?  First, I don’t care to be ruthlessly attacked as Bhaloo has done, nor do I believe it is productive to discuss anything with someone who treats searchers in such a way.  Bahloo, if your goal is to run off those who give serious thought to their service to God then count yourself a success!  Secondly, I believe I have heard most of the proofs that Muslims wish to offer for the Quran.  I continue to evaluate them but at this point, I have not been convinced by them.  As I said before, there is a real lack of critical thinking on some people’s parts here, and I hope that in a small way I may have caused even one person to think again about the very serious question “Is the Quran really a message from God, and how can we know that it is such?” So I came with Many Questions.  I leave with Many Answers. Mark

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
panjul
06/06/03 at 01:31:25
If this is what Islam is all about then it CANNOT be from God, for the people of God would never act this way toward one seeking truth. That would be something nice to say to Jerry Fallwell and his buddies or any other priest across the country that makes it into the news spewing hatred against the muslims. I am going to steal your thoughts and write that to them. Good one.

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
06/06/03 at 01:50:27
[i][/i]That would be something nice to say to Jerry Fallwell and his buddies or any other priest across the country that makes it into the news spewing hatred against the muslims. I am going to steal your thoughts and write that to them. Good one. [i][/i] To this I can only say "amen."  No one has the right to spew hate in the name of God.  No one.  This is not to say, I hasten to add, that we cannot study, dialog, or disagree strongly and firmly, for if our faith is not weak as water then we will rise to meet a challenger with kindness and integrity.  But the man who claims to follow Christ but spews hatred is no follower of Jesus (John 13:33-34). So send it on to Jerry & Co.! mark

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
06/06/03 at 01:53:46
I said I was closing my posts but just had to add one more.  The dialog with the scientist and Yunus that was posted above was so one-sided, so devoid of logic and reasoning, and so hokey that it clearly needed some real editing.  I've been edited recently (ahem) so I thought it only fair to "fix" this piece too.  Enjoy. Religion and the Scientist   ...seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different world... And there they were, on a flight from Cape Town to Durban, seated side by side, two gentlemen from two different worlds.......After the formalities were covered, the conversation continued........   Bill: I don't believe in God, but rather in science and technology, something tangible you see, but if you can prove to me scientifically that God does exist then I would consider such a thought.   Yunus: Okay, you being interested in technology, please answer this question......with regard to an advanced machine or electronic device, who would be the one to know the most about its  mechanism or functioning?   Bill: Well, perhaps the person who has invented or manufactured such a machine.   Yunus: Can we agree that it is the maker or creator of the product who would know every-thing there is to know about the product.   Bill: I don't see why not, it sounds reasonable.   Yunus: Being knowledgeable in these matters, the next question I'd like to ask you is, Just how did the world or the universe come into existence?   Bill: Well, that’s a complicated question.  Many scientists think the world came into being through some sort of blast or big bang, but there is lots of conflicting data.  Some think the world was created in an instant by some Being that scientists cannot explain.  I expect most scientists would say they believe the Big Bang theory. Yunus: I see, well I have a surprise for you....In the Holy Quraan, chapter 21, verse 30 says. "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart". Here we can see that the Holy Quraan is speaking about this 'BIG BANG' theory and let me tell you that the Holy Quraan was revealed over 1400 years ago.   Bill: Hmm.  That really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.  To say “I split them apart” is not the same as saying “I made a big explosion” is it?  A surgeon can split things apart without there being any sound at all.  That really looks like you’re trying to read something in there that just isn’t there. Yunus: Well, yeah, it kind of does.  But the Quran is the word of God, and it is a historical fact that the Holy Quraan was completed in the seventh century and has remained unchanged ever since. Historians, whether friends or foes to Islam,  testify to this.   Bill: Really?  Actually, many historians doubt what you are citing as “historical fact.”  When the field of textual criticism has analyzed the Quran many scholars have concluded it is not what it purports to be. Yunus: No way!  It is the very word of God – that is what we are taught, that it has not been changed since the seventh century. Bill: Unfortunately, that is what people are taught.  However, the Quran certainly bears the mark of human origins.  It contradicts the Bible, adopts various ideas from other sacred books, and reflects much of the conventional scientific thinking of Mohammed’s day.  For example, 18:86 says the sun sets in a muddy spring!   Yunus: Oh my!  That isn’t very scientific.  Maybe that’s just a place where the Quran is speaking figuratively.   Bill:  You may well be right.  We all use figurative language, like speaking of “sunset.”  However, how can we take one verse in the Quran and say “this is very literal and shows scientific foreknowledge” and then, in another place, say “this is figurative?”  That’s pretty inconsistent. Yunus: I guess you are right.  But I know there are amazing foreknowledge facts in the Quran, like the fact that the earth is not flat as so many thought.  Amazingly the Holy Quraan in chapter 31, verse 29 says, "Have you not seen how God merges the night into the day and merges the day into the night." The use of the word merges emphasizes a slow gradual change, and this is not possible if the earth is flat.   Bill: From the word “merges” you get that the earth isn’t flat?  You are kidding right? Yunus: Well, it sounded better when I was taught that by other Muslims.  What about  chapter 39, verse 5, it says, "He coils the night upon the day and he coils the day upon the night." The word used in the original Arabic text is "Kaw'wara" which means coils or winds, the significance of this verb is that you usually coil something around a rather spherical object. Bill: Your argument defeats itself.  You say “usually coil” but you can coil a rope around a box.  Would it be fair to argue that the Quran teaches the world is a box? Yunus: Yeah, that is lame.  But did you know that the Quran tells the moon reflects light from the sun? Bill: Well I’d hope so!  Babylonian astronomers before the time of Christ knew that, and also knew that the world moved around the sun, and not the sun around the earth as some later Europeans thought Yunus: What about my water cycle proof?  In several verses of the Holy Quraan the details of the water cycle is mentioned. It explains that the water from the earth and ground rises up and forms clouds .............. these clouds condense, there is lightning and rain falls from the clouds. This is evident from the following quotations ...........chapter 39, verse 21,  "Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground, and come forth as springs.......", In chapter 23, verse 18, "We sent down water from the sky measure and lodged it in the ground and we certainly are able to withdraw it", and also in chapter 24, verse 43, "Have you not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And you see rain drops falling from the midst of it ........"   Bill: Yunus, those verses just say that God makes rain come from the clouds!  Give me a break – a three year old knows that! Yunus:  Yeah, you’re right again.  That was really weak.  I’m not even going to make the “peg mountain” argument because it’s just obvious I’m looking for something, anything, to try and say the  Quran is a supernatural book.  But Mohammed was an illiterate man, so he could have done the great things he did? Bill: A lot of illiterate people function very well in society.  It’s a common misconception to say “illiterate equals stupid.”  No, illiterate just means untrained in how to read.  It doesn’t mean a person was or is dumb.  But it’s a mistake to try and make something out of nothing.  Muslims of late have tried to find scientific foreknowledge in the Quran, but the verses they are turning to just make them look foolish and like they are forcing the text to say what it doesn’t.  Are you familiar with the embryology argument some Muslims try to make? Yunus: I was just going to make that argument! Bill: Please don’t.  It simply doesn’t hold water.  It’s based on the belief that people in the time of Mohammed didn’t know where babies came from (simply not so) and based on making a whole lot more out of Arabic words than the text will bear for them to mean.  Of course, if you quote some doctor in Canada from over 20 years ago (like that really has anything to do with modern embryology) as support it sounds impressive, but when you really look at the argument nothing is there of any real substance. Bill: Let me give you some more information showing how the Quran can’t be used as a science book.  You know, I’m sure that Muslims must not eat pork.  This is a very old prohibition that goes back to the days when meat could not be prepared properly or refrigerated.  In such times pork could be dangerous and the prohibition against it made sense.  But today there is nothing wrong with pork.  If it is prepared and cared for correctly it can not only delicious but very nutritious.  If Mohammed and the Quran knew so much why doesn’t the Quran specify pork can be used if it is prepared correctly?  If the Quran had discussed trichinosis in careful detail, or had given a blueprint for the world’s first freon refrigeration system, or had even talked about how to prepare pork so people wouldn’t get sick – now that would be something.  But now the prohibition means nothing.  It just keeps Muslims from enjoying part of God’s creation. Yunus: You believe in God? Bill: Absolutely!  But I believe in a God who can give His word and it not be corrupted or supplanted or contradicted by so-called later revelations.  I believe in the God of the Bible, a book truly attested as being inspired. Yunus: Well, as a Muslim I believe in the Bible but I believe it was corrupted and so the Quran came to replace it. Bill: Yes, that’s a common charge against God’s word.  Of course, proving that the Bible is corrupt is very different from just saying that.  Too often Muslims know next to nothing about the Bible – not even how it was written, or that it was a complete book by the end of the first century or that hundreds of manuscripts that exist proving it has not been corrupted.  Someone just tells them “Oh, the Bible – it’s corrupt, read the Quran instead” and for some reason they just believe that.  But let me ask you: is the Bible the word of God? Yunus: Yes.  The Prophet (pbuh) said in 29:46: “And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in a way that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is One.”   Bill: How then can any Muslim teach the Bible is corrupt for the Quran says “There is naught that can change His words.” (6:115-116).  “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the hereafter - there is no changing the words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph” (10:65).  Think about it Yunus: if the Bible is the word of God it cannot be altered or corrupted, unless God somehow is a failure and lacks the power to protect His word!  And if the word of God can be corrupted once how can one know that it won’t be corrupted again?  That’s what the Mormons say – ALL revelation has been corrupted so we need their latest book.  Yet the Bible is clear: “the word of the Lord abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).  If God’s word is what we need so we can serve God acceptably then would God let it be corrupted or ruined?  Of course not! Yunus:  That makes sense.  I think there has been a lot I’ve just swallowed without critical thinking or careful study. Bill: Let’s talk more about these things.  Exploring the truth can only be good for us both!  Remember, truth has nothing to fear from investigation. Those who have an agenda will try to hide the truth by editing what people write, forbidding people to look at websites or think for themselves.  When asked hard questions instead of answering kindly or even saying “you might be making a good point” they will threaten or even call a person names, like liar. Yunus: Oh my, that’s no good.  That just obstructs the finding of truth!  We know Allah wants us to find the truth.  He obstructs the truth is no friend of God’s! Bill: Yes indeed.  Such behavior is sad, isn’t it?  I can see that you aren’t of that mindset!  So let's fasten our seatbelts ......I think we are going to land shortly .... I guess its true - time does fly when you're having fun.  Let’s talk some more about the Bible as we descend….

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
06/06/03 at 08:25:14
[slm] Just to reply to the above post by brother mark... Yunus: I see, well I have a surprise for you....In the Holy Quraan, chapter 21, verse 30 says. "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart". Here we can see that the Holy Quraan is speaking about this 'BIG BANG' theory and let me tell you that the Holy Quraan was revealed over 1400 years ago.     Bill: Hmm.  That really doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Big Bang theory.  To say “I split them apart” is not the same as saying “I made a big explosion” is it?  A surgeon can split things apart without there being any sound at all.  That really looks like you’re trying to read something in there that just isn’t there. That is just one translation of the verse, another is ''...that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as a single unit of creation) before we clove them asunder?'' Sounds alot more noisy don't it :D But it's obvious that the basic idea for the ''Big bang'' and the verse in the Quran are consistent - joined together then split apart. The translation you have denotes how much sound there is! Yunus: Well, it sounded better when I was taught that by other Muslims.  What about  chapter 39, verse 5, it says, "He coils the night upon the day and he coils the day upon the night." The word used in the original Arabic text is "Kaw'wara" which means coils or winds, the significance of this verb is that you usually coil something around a rather spherical object.   Bill: Your argument defeats itself.  You say “usually coil” but you can coil a rope around a box.  Would it be fair to argue that the Quran teaches the world is a box? The word kawaara is used when one is coiling a turban around a head, i.e. something spherical in nature. Further more, a cubic, rectangular, elliptical, flat, pyramidal Earth would not allow for ''gradual'' changes in night and day, as once it dissappeared around the corner, that is that, one moment the sun is there, then its not. However, I can see how that one may have a problem with that 'merges' verse, as it is an observable phenomenon, but I think it makes more sense when you place it in conjuction with this verse. Bill: Unfortunately, that is what people are taught.  However, the Quran certainly bears the mark of human origins.  It contradicts the Bible, adopts various ideas from other sacred books, and reflects much of the conventional scientific thinking of Mohammed’s day.  For example, 18:86 says the sun sets in a muddy spring!   Yunus: Oh my!  That isn’t very scientific.  Maybe that’s just a place where the Quran is speaking figuratively.   Bill:  You may well be right.  We all use figurative language, like speaking of “sunset.”  However, how can we take one verse in the Quran and say “this is very literal and shows scientific foreknowledge” and then, in another place, say “this is figurative?”  That’s pretty inconsistent. Reading verse 18:86 we see: ''Until, when [i]he[/i] reached the setting of the sun, [i]he[/i] found it set in a murky spring of water: Near it [i]he[/i] found a People:''... and so on-- [i]he[/i] denotes that we are being shown this from Dhul-Qarnain's perspective, a story is being told here, (sura 18 has many tales in it e.g of Moses (pbuh), Adam (pbuh) and the ''companions of the cave'' and of the two men with gardens) and as it is a story we see things from Dhul Qarnayns perspective. However, it is apparant that many of the verses that contain references to science in them are not meant to be seen figuratively. These things are being told by an ''outside source'' not someones perspective. It is inconsistent, but that's literary technique. Sometimes, a parable is given to guide by example, then a clear sign thats meant to be seen more objectively. You cannot treat the whole Quran as if it is completely figurative or completely objective, and that having bits of both is ''cheating!''. Bill: Well I’d hope so!  Babylonian astronomers before the time of Christ knew that, and also knew that the world moved around the sun, and not the sun around the earth as some later Europeans thought The Babylonians may have known it, but the Arabs certainly didn't. Yunus: What about my water cycle proof?  In several verses of the Holy Quraan the details of the water cycle is mentioned. It explains that the water from the earth and ground rises up and forms clouds .............. these clouds condense, there is lightning and rain falls from the clouds. This is evident from the following quotations ...........chapter 39, verse 21,  "Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground, and come forth as springs.......", In chapter 23, verse 18, "We sent down water from the sky measure and lodged it in the ground and we certainly are able to withdraw it", and also in chapter 24, verse 43, "Have you not seen that God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them a heap. And you see rain drops falling from the midst of it ........"   The key here isnt that water comes from clouds which is an observable phenomenon, but that water sent down from the sky is ''lodged'' in the ground, and God is ''certainly able to withdraw it''. This is not an observation one could have made in 7th century Arabia. Bill: A lot of illiterate people function very well in society.  It’s a common misconception to say “illiterate equals stupid.”  No, illiterate just means untrained in how to read.  It doesn’t mean a person was or is dumb.  But it’s a mistake to try and make something out of nothing.  Muslims of late have tried to find scientific foreknowledge in the Quran, but the verses they are turning to just make them look foolish and like they are forcing the text to say what it doesn’t.  Are you familiar with the embryology argument some Muslims try to make? Again, why would Muhammad (saw) wish to pose as a fraud? He said he didnt write the Quran, and he got no material gain out of being the Prophet of God at all. He didnt give up his preaching when he had the opportunity to do so for great wealth and power, and he died penniless. Why? Lets take a quick look at one of the statements made about embryology: the leech-stage everyone talks about. The word used to describe the foetus at this stage is 'alaqah (23:12-14). Which can have three meanings. 1) leech 2) suspended thing 3) blood clot. Does it look like a leech? Yes. Is it suspended within the uterus? Yes. At this stage, the blood in the embryo does not circulate til the third week, hence the ''blood clot''. The embryo also receives its nutrients from the blood of the mother, hence the leech parable. The scientist most well known for his acceptance of Islam due to these verses is Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore, author of [i]Before we are Born: Essentials of Embryology[/i] now in its sixth edition, [i]The Developing Human: Clinically Orientated Embryology[/i] now in its seventh addition and various other works and translated into eight languages. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.  There, he was Associate Dean of Basic Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine and for 8 years was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy.  In 1984, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  He has directed many international associations, such as the Canadian and American Association of Anatomists and the Council of the Union of Biological Sciences. What a string of qualifications! Bill: Let me give you some more information showing how the Quran can’t be used as a science book.  You know, I’m sure that Muslims must not eat pork.  This is a very old prohibition that goes back to the days when meat could not be prepared properly or refrigerated.  In such times pork could be dangerous and the prohibition against it made sense.  But today there is nothing wrong with pork.  If it is prepared and cared for correctly it can not only delicious but very nutritious.  If Mohammed and the Quran knew so much why doesn’t the Quran specify pork can be used if it is prepared correctly?  If the Quran had discussed trichinosis in careful detail, or had given a blueprint for the world’s first freon refrigeration system, or had even talked about how to prepare pork so people wouldn’t get sick – now that would be something.  But now the prohibition means nothing.  It just keeps Muslims from enjoying part of God’s creation. Muslims make the point of saying that the Quran isnot a science book, but that it contains ''manifest signs''.We are not allowed to eat pork not simply because of dietary reasons, but also for reasons of 'faith' - because the Quran tells us not to. Many scholars are agreed that the pig is seen as an 'unclean' animal because it eats filth and offal. The argument of ''missing out'' can also be applied to Christianity here. There are many ways in which we miss out on ''enjoying'' Gods creation. Maybe God didnt want us to commit fornication because of the risk of AIDS or illigitimate children. Modern contraceptives have changed all that, but I think there are very few clerics that would decide this legitimizes fornication/adultery etc  :P Bill: How then can any Muslim teach the Bible is corrupt for the Quran says “There is naught that can change His words.” (6:115-116).  “Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the hereafter - there is no changing the words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph” (10:65).  Think about it Yunus: if the Bible is the word of God it cannot be altered or corrupted, unless God somehow is a failure and lacks the power to protect His word!  And if the word of God can be corrupted once how can one know that it won’t be corrupted again?  That’s what the Mormons say – ALL revelation has been corrupted so we need their latest book.  Yet the Bible is clear: “the word of the Lord abides forever” (1 Peter 1:23).  If God’s word is what we need so we can serve God acceptably then would God let it be corrupted or ruined?  Of course not! I believe many have stated before that these verses refer to the Quran and *not to the Bible. Bill: Yes indeed.  Such behavior is sad, isn’t it?  I can see that you aren’t of that mindset!  So let's fasten our seatbelts ......I think we are going to land shortly .... I guess its true - time does fly when you're having fun.  Let’s talk some more about the Bible as we descend…. I think that many (not all) arguments, no matter from what religion tend to be 'preachy' and rather patronising, as it is given from the position of one of superiority (from the teacher to the student). However, I have no doubt that these are given in the best of faith, and not just to score a point, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan... Now, let me go on the offensive abit here  ;D - as a christian, you believe that the Bible is the incorrupted word of God. Why are there so many versions of the Bible? For example Protestants reject the ''apocrypha'' of the Catholic bible -- the loss of seven whole books is serious, I would say! I know that the King James Version (1971) was accused of having ''grave defects''  that are ''so many and so serious'' as to call for revision as more ancient manuscripts have been found. In the ''most ancient'' copies of the Revised Standard Version, there was no metion of Mark 19:16 (i.e. no mention of Jesus' miraculous ascension to heaven.) This is one of the only 2 mentions made of the ascent. Therefore, a cornerstone of Christian belief had been expunged, because it was seen as false. However, these verses (mark 19:16 and Luke 24:51) were reinstated due to complaints. Also, in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutronomy there are no less that 700 hundred places where it says ''The Lord said unto Moses'' and ''Moses said unto the Lord''-- either this is a literary style or neither moses nor god wrote these words, but a third person, possibly writing from hearsay. Again, the Gospel according to Matthew: the Rev JB Phillips of the anglican church says, Early tradition ascribed this gospel to the apostle matthew, but scholars nowadays [i]almost all [/i] reject this view.'' However, he still feels it is ''convenient'' to call this book the book of Mattew. ''The author ha plainly drawn on the 'mysterious Q [quella - sources] whic may have benn a collection of pral traditions. ''mysterious'', ''may have been'', convenient'' - we dont know who the author is, but it certainly isnt God in other words. Again, if we compare II Kings 19 and Isiah 37 we findthey are completely identical, verses one thru to 37. Word for word they are identical, although they are credited to different authors living centuries apart, both claimed to be inspired by God. Collins RSV has to say about this: the book if Isiah is [i]mainly[/i] credited to Isiah. Parts of it [i]may have[/i] been written [i]by others[/i]   I have a list of authors for the various books of the Bible, and they contain words like [i]geberally credited[/i] and [i]unknown[/i] and [i]major part credited to...[/i] and to on. Wouldnt it be possible for these 'inspired' scholars to pretend to be inspired and be fakes in much the same way you think Muhammad (pbuh) might have been? I would have thought that it would be easier. How do u reconcile the above arguments to your belief as a Christian? Im not trying to be rude or offend you :) ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Fozia
06/06/03 at 09:11:19
1. Say : O ye that reject Faith! 2. I worship not that which ye worship, 3. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 4. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, 5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. 6. To you be your Way, and to me mine. Surah 109

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
06/06/03 at 14:56:01
In my posts on this board my beliefs in the Bible have been clear and so many questions about the Bible have been posed to me.  Sofia was kind enough to post some very basic information about Muslim beliefs so I thought I’d do the same kind of thing about the Bible. First, most Christians accept the Bible as the literally inspired Word of God.  This means that God told the writers of the Bible exactly what to write.  This process involved hundreds of years in the case of the Old Testament, as Moses is believed to have authored much of the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and Malachi (author of the last book of the O.T.) lived about 400 years before Jesus’ coming.  That spans approximately one thousand years! The New Testament was written in a significantly shorter time.  It was completed by the close of the first century AD. Second, yes there are people who call themselves Christians who dispute everything I just wrote.  You can find so-called Bible scholars who claim the Bible isn’t inspired, that Isaiah didn’t write Isaiah, or that parts of the Bible have fallen out and been lost.  The infamous Jesus Seminar even votes on which parts of the Gospels they think Jesus really said! These guys and what they say are about as welcome to most Christians as Salmon Rushdie would be in most mosques!  Muslims love to quote these guys at Christians and that just infuriates Christians and makes most of us think Muslims don’t have a clue when it comes to the Bible.  THOSE MEN ARE NOT REAL CHRISTIANS, THEY DON’T REPRESENT REAL CHRISTIANITY.  I don’t expect the people on this board would be too happy with some one using the teachings of Osama Bin Laden to represent all Muslims.  Clearly he speaks for someone but I don’t believe he speaks for all.  The Reverend J.B. Phillips doesn’t speak for all Christians, okay?  So please don’t ask me to answer for what Philipps or his ilk say, okay? I don’t know all the procedures in Islam that result in a person receiving a death sentence like Rushdie did but Muslims need to know there is no such procedure in “Christianity.”  Christianity is a pretty broad term - it encompasses just about anybody and everybody who wants to say “I’m a Christian.”  I talked to two Jehovah’s Witnesses recently (a group that doesn’t accept Jesus’ deity) and they told me “Yes, we’re Christians too!”  Methinks not.  But the term “Christian” isn’t trademarked or registered.  So someone like Bishop Spong or Phillips can say all kinds of heretical things about Jesus and even the Bible and no one passes a death sentence upon him or makes him shut up.  The Inquistion is long gone -- and that's not all good (okay, just kidding about that). :) By the way, the pseudo-scholars that Muslims quote about Bible corruption would slam the Quran in exactly the same way.  They don’t accept the supernatural and they don’t believe in inspiration.  They are not the friends of anyone who has faith of any kind. They are destructive, biased and prejudiced against all things religious.  If the Quran were open to textual criticism they'd savage your stuff with the same evil biases, refusal to look at plain evidence and outrageous preconceived notions too. Third, why are there so many different Bibles?  Because the Bible has been translated from its original languages (Hebrews, Aramaic and Greek) by different groups into the common language of today.  Christians do not believe the Bible has to be read in Greek (though some are trained to do so, and yes, I can read some Greek) to be understood.  It is not like Arabic and the Quran.  You can read an English Bible or a Swiss Bible or a Russian Bible and if the translators did their job well you’ll get the real stuff.   As language changes (the King James Version uses 17th century English, with its “thee” and “thou” talk) new Bibles appear to “update” the language of the Bible.  The teachings of the Bible remain the same.  Words change so newer translations come along to meet the needs of the time. That said, there is debate among scholars about the Bible and its contents.  No one possesses the original Bible manuscripts.  What we have are copies of the originals – many of which are very very old.  Scholars consult these, dating the manuscripts, looking at punctuation, capitalization, syntax, grammar, etc. to determine exactly what the text says, has anything been added to it, what is original, what is not.  As more manuscripts are found they are compared too.  Also, as secular documents are discovered our vocabulary of the original language increases and translation is again bettered. All that said, the Bible is 99% certain with scholars fussing over punctuation, word order and other very minor matters like that.  NO CARDINAL TEACHING OF THE BIBLE IS SUBJECT TO DEBATE, nor is a significant teaching found in one mss but not in others.  The text of the Bible is very certain.  For more on this subject you can read FF Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture or Neil Lightfoot’s “How We Got the Bible.”  The process is amazing, God’s hand is everywhere in it and again, real Christians have enormous confidence that God’s word has been given and protected so that we have exactly what God wants us to have right now. Four, what about the apocrypha?  Yes, Catholic Bibles have some extra books.  Those books were added centuries after the time of the NT and represent some material kind of like Hadiths and also some history.  Nothing new is in them and nothing is in there that contradicts the rest of the Bible.  I don’t believe that material is inspired but I’m not going to panic if a Catholic wants me to use his Bible.  In fact, I know of a man who carried a Catholic Bible with him when he went to evangelize Catholics – that way it wasn’t an issue. Now, on to Lady Muranski’s objections to the Bible: [i][/i]In the ''most ancient'' copies of the Revised Standard Version, there was no metion of Mark 19:16 (i.e. no mention of Jesus' miraculous ascension to heaven.) This is one of the only 2 mentions made of the ascent. Therefore, a cornerstone of Christian belief had been expunged, because it was seen as false. However, these verses (mark 19:16 and Luke 24:51) were reinstated due to complaints.[i][/i] There is so much misinformation in this one paragraph!  First, there is no such thing as a “most ancient” RSV. The RSV is a translation of the Bible done in the early 1900's.  It’s not old at all, compared to the Bible itself. Second, the book of Mark ends in chapter 16.  There is no Mark 19:16 in any Bible anywhere.  This post would be about like me attacking the Quran for something said in Surah 511.  Someone would say “Excuse me?  511?”  There is no nineteenth chapter in Mark. I expect that Lady Muranski is asking about the end of Mark chapter 16.  And it is true that there are some mss that don’t have those verses.  However, very reliable mss that are also very old contain them.  They are commonly accepted to be part of the Bible. Yet even if it was taken out it wouldn’t take away the doctrine of the ascent of Christ.  That is taught in Luke 24 and in Acts 1.  So there are THREE accounts of the ascent, not two. "Also, in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutronomy there are no less that 700 hundred places where it says ''The Lord said unto Moses'' and ''Moses said unto the Lord''-- either this is a literary style or neither moses nor god wrote these words, but a third person, possibly writing from hearsay. " Yes, a third person may have written some of the material in Genesis-Deuteronomy.  Moses’ death is recorded at the end of Deuteronomy – I expect he didn’t write that.  But the Bible nowhere says “These are the words of Moses, believe them because Moses wrote them.”  We don’t know who wrote many of the books of the Bible.  The claim of inspiration is not founded on authorship. "Again, the Gospel according to Matthew: the Rev JB Phillips of the anglican church says,. " I dealt with Phillips above. "Again, if we compare II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 we find they are completely identical, verses one thru to 37. Word for word they are identical, although they are credited to different authors living centuries apart, both claimed to be inspired by God. " “Credited to authors living centuries apart?”   Sorry but that is simply mistaken.  Isaiah lived during Hezekiah’s time and was a contemporary of his.  The material is in two different books but it is not contradictory. "Wouldnt it be possible for these 'inspired' scholars to pretend to be inspired and be fakes in much the same way you think Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) might have been? I would have thought that it would be easier. " Yep.  Forgery and fakery is always possible.  That’s why there has to be solid evidence of inspiration, and the protection of the Bible’s integrity.  There is much that can be said about that but I would urge each reader to do their own research.  Again, as I’ve said many times, Muslims claim the Bible is corrupted but that is a tall order when it comes time to prove it.  The Bible has been beaten on by critics for a long, long time (before Islam was even around!) and it’s doing nicely, thank you very much.  Read McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict or the books I cited above. All that said, much of my faith in the Bible comes because I don’t believe God will allow His word to be corrupted.  He has promised to keep it and I believe Him!  In some ways, the God of Islam is too small and too weak for me!  He gives His word and then has to keep giving it again and again or something.  Finally He gives the Quran and says “This one I’m protecting and preserving.”  Yeah right.  If other words of God have been corrupted then one must logically admit that it is possible that any word from God could be corrupted.  I don’t buy that for a moment. I hope these thoughts will better inform Muslims about the Bible and I hope they are not offensive to Muslims.  Mohammed thought very highly of the Bible.  I wish his followers today did the same! Mark

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Yousef
06/06/03 at 15:39:17
What do you consider 'protection' to be? The first Bible was canonized 300 years after the death of your god. In latin, do you know Latin? Brings me back to my question, What do you consider 'protection' to be? The number of books in the Bible basically depends upon the Church one is following. The Protestant Church (66 books) Roman Catholic Church (73 books) Anglican Church: ["The Anglican church falls between the Catholic church and many Protestant denominations by accepting only the Jewish canon and the New Testament as authoritative, but also by accepting segments of the apocryphal writings in the lectionary and liturgy. At one time all copies of the Authorized or King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments." (Bruce M Metzger & Michael D Coogan (Ed.), Oxford Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, pp. 79] Greek Orthodox Church: ["The Bible of the Greek Orthodox church comprises all of the books accepted by the Roman Catholic church, plus I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates I and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other Eastern churches have 4 Maccabees as well (ibid)] Coptic Church: ["Athanasius issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle not only in the Greek but also in Coptic, in a slightly different form - though the list of the twenty seven books of the New Testament is the same in both languages. How far, however the list remained authoritative for the Copts is problematical. The Coptic (Bohairic) translation of the collection known as the Eighty-Five Apostolic Canons concludes with a different sequence of the books of the New Testament and is enlarged by the addition of two others: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of Paul (not mentioned individually); two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles of Clement." ( Bruce M Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 225.)] Ethiopic Church: ["The Ethiopic church has the largest Bible of all, and distinguishes different canons, the "narrower" and the "broader," according to the extent of the New Testament...The New Testament in what is referred to as the "broader" canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the "narrower" New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81." ( Metzger, Oxford Companion To The Bible, pp. 79.)] Syriac Church : ["This represents for the New Testament an accommodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church."(Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, pp. 219)] [Peshitta is still followed by the Christians in the southern state of Kerala in India.] So which one do you obtain?

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
manyquestions
06/06/03 at 16:16:23
"What do you consider 'protection' to be?" The word of God is protected and perserved so that its message is not lost and its ability to function and do what God means it to do is not impaired. "The first Bible was canonized 300 years after the death of your god. In latin, do you know Latin?" that's simply not so.  Jesus knew and quoted what He called the Scriptures (Matt. 21:42).  that would be the Old Testament.  The NT was completed before the end of the first century and several lists of books accepted by the early church as canonical were in existence in those very early days.  btw, those works would be in Greek, not Latin. and yes, there are some groups that accept the apocrypha and others do not.  my last post made it clear that nothing in the apocrypha contradicts the rest of the Bible.  so again, it's not significant, nor is it a sign of the Bible's corruption.  it is a sign of an ongoing thorough discussion as to what is and is not God's word -- something denied in Islam. I'm not sure why Muslims resist this so much.  did not your prophet say that the Scriptures verify his work?  and again, how can God's word be corrupted?  how can that happen if it is the word of God?  and if it HAS happened how do we know it's not happened again with the Quran?  these are questions no one here will touch, and I'll probably get thrown off the board for asking but they are legitimate questions. mark

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Yousef
06/06/03 at 16:39:41
[quote]The NT was completed before the end of the first century and several lists of books accepted by the early church as canonical were in existence in those very early days.  btw, those works would be in Greek, not Latin.[/quote] Wait a minute, the two books of Timothy were written around 150 AD, thats Second century, the books of John around 120 AD, again thats second century. so again, it's not significant, nor is it a sign of the Bible's corruption. [u] it is a sign of an ongoing thorough discussion as to what is and is not God's word [/u]-- something denied in Islam. :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o Is that a joke Mr. Mark, you don't know what is and what isnt god's word, and you are arguing about [i]corruption[/i]. So the catholic bible is not curropted nor is the potestant bible, although there are some books [i]missing[/i]

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Ameeraana
06/06/03 at 17:10:59
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.   (Jeremiah 8 : 8 ) is this not meaning that the bible was corrupted?  If not, let me know what it refers to please. Ameera
06/06/03 at 17:15:03
Ameeraana

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nabila
06/06/03 at 18:00:01
[slm] I agree with Brother Yousef on this - how can the revelation of God's word be 'debatable?' and yes, there are some groups that accept the apocrypha and others do not.  my last post made it clear that nothing in the apocrypha contradicts the rest of the Bible.  so again, it's not significant, nor is it a sign of the Bible's corruption.   Whether the apocrypha do or do not contradict the rest of the Bible isnt the point. The very fact that they are missing denotes that there is a question mark hanging over that section of what many hold to be God's word. If that part, why not other parts? What would you consider to be a sign of the Bible's corruption? and again, how can God's word be corrupted?  how can that happen if it is the word of God?  and if it HAS happened how do we know it's not happened again with the Quran?  these are questions no one here will touch, and I'll probably get thrown off the board for asking but they are legitimate questions. Again, this guarantee of incorruptibility is extended only to the Quran, not to any other book. We know it wont happen with the Quran because Allaah has told us so. I think that this proves that it is 'faith' that keeps this together. Muslims 'believe' that the Quran is the word of God, the same way you 'believe' the Bible to be the Word of God. Id be interested in knowing what is it about the Bible that makes you believe in its authenticity? How were the inspired writers verified as to their authenticity? I would have thought that it would have been easier to corrupt the Bible than the Quran. The claim of inspiration is not founded on authorship. Then how is the character and morals of the person verified? How does one know that this person was of good character and his words could be accepted? To apply your argument about the Prophethood of Muhammad -- you didnt know these people, how do you know what they were like, that they were trustworthy, and not liers? Again, I think this leads us back to the matter of faith; that you have 'faith' in the Bible, hence I think it should be acceptable that a part of our religion is based on faith too. :) All that said, much of my faith in the Bible comes because I don’t believe God will allow His word to be corrupted.  He has promised to keep it and I believe Him!  In some ways, the God of Islam is too small and too weak for me!  He gives His word and then has to keep giving it again and again or something.  Finally He gives the Quran and says “This one I’m protecting and preserving.”  Yeah right.  If other words of God have been corrupted then one must logically admit that it is possible that any word from God could be corrupted.  I don’t buy that for a moment. Lol Mark what you feel about 'our' God is what I feel about 'your' God! Subjectivity is a beautiful thing :D He has to keep giving his word again and again - think of how many nations there are on Earth, in different parts of the globe, and speaking different languages. Is he suposed to leave them without guidance til Muhammad  [saw] came along? The Quran said that We sent a messenger to every nation''. Perhaps Allaah (swt) thought that the time was right for a final revelation (note the rapid expansion of Islam during and after the lifetime of the Prophet) that would benefit the entire world. Again, this is a matter for faith. What happened to the people born before the advent of Jesus (peace be upon him)? Most of the Prophets are thought to be concentrated arounf the ME region - what about those in China, Japan, the Americas? If you feel that the word of God is incorruptible, then why aren't Christian's Jews? Didnt Jesus say, ''I came to fulfill the old law, and not make a new one (paraphrasing :/) Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions about Christianity - like I said in your other thread, most of my stuff is off the net, so Im not sure how much of it is propaganda, and how much of it is genuine study. ma asalaamah and take care

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
bhaloo
06/07/03 at 01:34:01
Asalaam alaikum to those who are rightly guided, I was in a hurry this morning and basically the whole day that I didn't have time to post till now.  But alhumdullilah at the Friday prayer, the khutbah was on the very topic of this thread.  The khatib mentioned several incidences including one incidence where Abu Bakr (ra) was debating some Jew (maybe it was a Christian) and this man was very insulting to Islam, so he (ra) slapped him.  The khatib mentioned a verse from surah Baqrah that was revealed in response to this (sorry I forgot the verse) saying to the effect of the severe punishment the enemies to Islam will face.  Subhan'Allah.  And the khatib mentioned more instances and the punishment these people will face in the hereafer for belittling the signs of Allah (SWT).  Alhumdullilah this was a good reminder to myself that ultimately there will be justice, and that Allah (SWT) will deal with those people.  It was an amazing coincidence that the thread topic was on this. [quote author=manyquestions link=board=lighthouse;num=1053788250;start=45#46 date=06/06/03 at 01:23:00]Second, I am tremendously offended at the tone, nature, and direct accusations of several of the posts here.  I came here because the forum was offered for those “curious about Islam.”  Now I am slammed for “having an agenda buddy” and am outright called a liar. [/quote] Why do you think MANY are offended by your posts and are angry at you?  It is because you are very insulting in your posts, twisting what people are saying, ignoring what proofs many have provided, claiming people on the board said things when they haven't, when people provide you with scientific proofs and refute the FALSE claims you bring you COMPLETELY IGNORE it.  Whoever said you have an agenda, I definitely agree with them, and  so do others.  You didn't come here for answers to questions.  You didn't even bother to research the answers provided.  When someone provides you with DETAILED proof on something, you  put up some random anti-Muslim website with a little mention of 1 of the topics and say that its well researched, when the truth is that the author of those articles doesn't even know arabic nor did he even address the claims of the proofs.  The information you provided didn't even RESPOND to the DETAILED proofs provided, especially from the it-is the truth website.  This is very insulting.  You want proof, but you refuse to look at anything being presented to you and have decided to close your mind to what others have said.  How very childish. [quote] When I have told my friends I am trying to research Islam they have all laughed at me [/quote] I agree with your statement up to this point, because you don't want to listen to what others have to say.  Instead you have come here to start a fight and try to anger Muslims.   [quote]  What lies?  I have asked questions, I have pressed my points and I have raised hypothetical questions about the possibility of this or that being so.  Yet I have told no lies.  None.  What an unfair and incendiary charge to make! For example, I pointed out that not all accept scientific foreknowledge of the Quran.  Bhaloo said “Why did you lie?  No one acknowledged this except you just now.” Really?  What about Lady Mulanski’s post on Science in which she said “I agree, people do sometimes seem to read too much into a particular verse.” [/quote] She said people do SOMETIMES SEEM TO READ TOO MUCH into a particular verse.  In no way does this mean she is negating scientific foreknowledge in the Quran.  This is a complete twisting of words!!! [quote] I said that the charges the Bible is corrupt are wrong because “this is (1) illogical because the Quran says the words of God cannot be changed and Muslims accept the Bible as God’s word so how can it be changed?” Bahloo says “This is a lie, and no where does the Quran say this.”  Really?  How about 10:95: “if thou (Mohammed) art in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto thee, then question those WHO READ THE SCRIPTURE (that was) before thee.  Verily the truth from thy Lord hath come unto them.  So be not of the waverers.”  How about 29:46: “And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in a way that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is One.”  Don’t wiggle around and try to say this isn’t the Bible that we have today.  That is EXACTLY what is being discussed in those verses because it’s what the “people of the Book” have in Mohammed’s time! [/quote] In no way does this refer to the BIBLE.   Within the same surah, verse 37: [10:37]And this Qur'an is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the Worlds. In Arabic, the wording is as follows: Wa maa kaana haaz-al qur'aanu 'an yuftaraa min doon-ilLaahi wa laakin tasdeeq-qallazee bayna yadayhi wa tafseel alkitaabi laa rayba feehi mir-Rabb il 'aalameen. The translation, word for word, (as per 'Study the Noble Qur'an') is as follows. Note, the translation, just like the above, is an interpretation in itself in the rendering into English. [Wa] And [maa kaana] not was [haadh-al] this the [qur'aanu] Qur'an as ['an]which [yuftaraa] could (ever) be produced [min] from (by) [ doon-il] other than [Laahi] Allah (God) [wa laakin] but (it is) [tasdeeq-qal] a confirmation of [lazee] that which [bayna] (was) between [yadayhi] His (pair of) hands (before)[wa] and [tafseel al] an explanation of [kitaabi] the book [ laa] (there is) no [rayba] doubt [feehi] in it [mir-Rabb] from the Lord [il 'aalameen] of the worlds. The Arabic helps to distinguish reference. For example, [allazee bayna yadayhi] refers to 'that which was between (under the control of) both hands', and in, the context of the scriptures, therefore the 'old scripture' or 'Law'. From other references (which refers to the Torah as Al Furqan – the criterion (between right and wrong), the inference is that it is the 'old Law', or 'old directives' of Allah. This is the clear meaning, so the translation reads "that (scripture) which was before it", "it" being al qur'aanu. The literal meaning of Al Qur'an is derived from "qarana", which means "to recite accurately that which is read". Originally 'to read' (qrn) meant 'to follow script on paper with one's eyes and reproduce the words they make', but the very first verse that was ever revealed to Muhammad gave the word another dimension. Gibreel ordered Muhammaad, solla allahu alayhi wassalam, to "read! In the Name of the Lord", but he said "I cannot read," meaning he was an illiterate. But Gibreel insisted, so eventually he understood he must recite the words that were impressioned on his mind. Thus, 'read (qrn)' has extended its meaning (for Muhammad) to 'recite accurately what is revealed'. In other words, al Qur'an means 'The accurate recital of the revelation of the Lord to Muhammad, his prophet.' Since no one after Muhammad, solla alahu alayhi wassalam, has received revelation, 'qarana' has come to mean 'recite accurately what is written in the Qur'an', hence 'one who has committed the Qur'an to memory and recites it accurately' is called a 'qarr'i' (reciter). This is the clear meaning to the word al qur'aanu. Finally, we come to the word [al Kitabi]. Al Kitabi is a word often used in the Quran in reference to people (Ahul Kitab), 'the family' of the book. Most frequently, these are the previous people who have received and studied scripture (the Christians, Jews and Sabians), but also include the Muslims. All are from the religion of Abraham, whose 'scrolls' contained the message of Allah – what could be called the original 'book' given to mankind.  Thus 'book' is generific in meaning, referring to revealed scripture in general. Sometimes, it is used more specifically to refer to particular books, such as the Injeel, the Zabor, the Taurat and the Qur'an. And at yet other times, it refers to "the foundation (of the) book", or ummul kitab (the mother of the book). When it is the latter, this is understood in two ways. Either the pre-inscribed tablet, in which the books of Allah and the fate of the universe and of each of everything in it are recorded, Or the fundemental Obligatory Concepts, Commands and Laws of the religion as revealed by Allah. In verse 3.7, the phrase "they are the basis of the book" is actually the translation/interpretation of the phrase "they are ummul (the mother of) Kitab (the book)" – referring to the 'clear verses'. In other words, al kitabi has a general meaning which can be captured by the expression "Message of God to mankind concerning his (mankind's) religion (ordained by Him/Allah)". Thus the meaning here is that the particular (Qur'an) is a clear explanation of the general (revealed message that existed before it). in conclusion, no it does not refer to the bible (a collection of man made documents, from different people's perspectives). [quote] Want more? I said “Third, there is nothing in the Bible, Old and New, that speaks of Mohammed.  I’m glad that many Muslims agreed to that in their posts.”  Bhaloo replied “Once again you have lied, which Muslims said this?” See the post earlier, sir: “The argument that The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) was found in the Bible drew me to Islam. I didn't believe it then and I continue to not believe it (but it caused me to research the religion, and God gave me other clear signs as to why Islam is for me...” [/quote] You claimed *MANY MUSLIMS* agreed to that in *THEIR POSTS*.  So far you provided one post from Nistar, and insha'Allah I'll clearify the matter with her.  One is not MANY.  Please provide proof with a few more Muslims as you claimed.   [quote] Bhaloo also asks why I did not answer all his scientific foreknowledge stuff, and then insults me more about being a liar. Yet I did answer him! [/quote] No you didn't.  the website you provided did not answer those questions or the scientific proofs provided by the *TOP NON-MUSLIM SCIENTISTS* in their field.  You would have people on this board believe that an athiest that wrote an article on embryology (not to mention the guy doesn't know arabic and didn't know the meaning of the passages he was citing) has more knowledge then expert scientists who were told what the Arabic meant by a well versed sheikh.  And you didn't even ATTEMPT to address the other 11 or 12 proofs provided. [quote]  I posted (unfortunately, in violation of the Constitution) two websites that deal with Muslim scientific foreknowledge. [/quote] First mark tries  to apologize, then he says this: [quote] If the sites are so lame I wonder why Bhaloo is afraid to let anyone see their contents?  In fact, these are not the only two sites that deal with the Quranic foreknowledge arguments.  There are many of these and they are well researched. [/quote] when the information was thoroughly refuted on the board, mark did not even acknowledge it and instead complains about why the website can't be put up.  first he apologizes and says that he will NEVER do it again, and then slanders me by saying im afraid to let anyone see their contents, when in fact the contents were posted here.   and there's that "well researched" word again.   [quote]  I do not believe the Quran has ANY scientific foreknowledge that can be proven to be UNKNOWN in the time of Mohammed or that the Quran, in Arabaic or any other language, clearly refers to. [/quote] you are certainly no expert.  the it is the truth website provided at least 10 expert non-Muslim scientists in their fields that admitted that the verses in the Quran came from somewhere outside of this planet because the knowledge in them didn't exist at that time.  these are expert scientists in their field.  the very best. [quote]  Marcion was branded heretical for his Gnostic Theology by the (for a lack of a better name) "Proto-Orthodox" Church.  Please see "The NT: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman; and similar works by Richard Elliott Friedman. ....... In fact, the historical documentation that an ENEMY of the Gospel knew which books made up the Bible makes the point even stronger.  Thank you for confirming this point, Nistar. [/quote] or perhaps he chose which books were more in tune with his heretical beliefs.  why wasn't the gospel of barnabas included? Furthermore as proofs for Muslims that the Bible is not valid scripture, and that the message has been corrupted, nor is any religion valid but Islam, I use these proofs: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] “Say (O Muhammad): “O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allaah” [al-A’raaf 7:158] “Verily, Allaah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners (in worship) with Him, but He forgives whom He wills, sins other than that” [al-Nisaa’ 4:116]. “And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! … They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allaah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tauraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).” [al-Tawbah 9:30-31]. “Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: “We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,” and “Hear and let you (O Muhammad) hear nothing.” And Raa‘ina [in Arabic it means “Be careful, listen to us, and we listen to you”, whereas in Hebrew, it means “an insult”] with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islâm). And if only they had said: “We hear and obey”, and “Do make us understand,” it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allaah has cursed them for their disbelief…” [al-Nisa’ 4:46] “Because of their breaking the covenant, and of their rejecting the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allaah, and of their killing the Prophets unjustly, and of their saying: “Our hearts are wrapped (with coverings, i.e. we do not understand what the Messengers say)” — nay, Allaah has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief, so they believe not but a little. And because of their (Jews) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary) a grave false charge (that she has committed illegal sexual intercourse);  And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Eesaa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allaah,” — but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them the resemblance of ‘Eesaa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)]…” [al-Nisa’ 4:155-157] “Verily, those who disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allaah and His Messengers (by believing in Allaah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, “We believe in some but reject others,” and wish to adopt a way in between.  They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment” [al-Nisa’ 4:150-151] “Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allaah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary)…” [al-Maa’idah 5:17] “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no Ilaah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilaah (God —Allâh). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them” [al-Maa’idah 5:73] ;============================= Mark claims that the Bible is the word of God and he claims that the Quran says its protected, yet the Quran clearly says above in the interpretation of meaning that they are disbleviers who believe in the trinity. so how can the Bible be the word of God?  the fact is it isn't, and the verses from the Quran support this belief as well.  this refutes mark's claim and all the other claims he came up derived from it.   “Verily, those who disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allaah and His Messengers (by believing in Allaah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, “We believe in some but reject others,” and wish to adopt a way in between.  They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment” [al-Nisa’ 4:150-151]

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
saadia
06/11/03 at 15:09:40
[slm] At the risk of being redundant or beating a dead horse....I came across this today at equran.org and thought this might be of interest to Mark (and everyone else of course  :-*  ) if he is indeed sincere about his intentions... Allah knows best. Authenticity of the Quran [u]Introduction[/u] It is known that the text of the Qur’an was both recited from memory, during the time it was revealed, by the Prophet and the believers who surrounded him, and written down by designated scribes among his followers. This process lasted for roughly twenty-three years during which many unofficial copies were made. An official copy was made within one year after the Prophet’s death at the instruction of Caliph Abu Bakr. Here we must note a highly important point. The present text of the Qur’an benefited in its original preparation from the advantage of having its authenticity cross-checked by the text recited from memory as well as the unofficial written texts. The memorized text was of paramount importance at a time when not everyone could read and write, but everybody could memorize. [u]Preservation during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet[/u] As has been established, the Prophet always arranged for each passage of the Qur’an to be recorded in writing as soon as it was revealed. It was customary for the Prophet to ask the transcriber to read out the verses after writing them down. According to Zayd ibn Thabit, if any part was missed out in the writing, he would correct it and only after this written work was fully completed would the Prophet allow the propagation of those verses (Majmauz Zawaid, vol.I, p. 60). It has been established from authentic traditions that each year during the month of Ramadan, Gabriel would come to the Prophet and recite before him all the Quranic verses revealed up till that time in the order in which they exist today, after which the Prophet would repeat the verses in exactly the same order. This dual process has been termed al-Irza, ‘mutual presentation,’ in the books of hadith. And, in the last year of the Prophet’s life, when the revelations had been completed, Gabriel came to the Prophet and recited the entire Qur’an in the existing order twice, and similarly the Prophet also recited to Gabriel the entire Qur’an twice. This final presentation is called al-Arz al-Akhirah in the books of hadith. (Fathul Bari, p. 659-663) Many of the Companions learned the whole text of the Qur'an, every syllable of it, by heart. All the illustrious Companions, without an exception, had memorized at least some portions of the Holy Qur'an, for the simple reason that it was obligatory for them to recite it during worship. An estimate of the number of the illustrious Companions may be obtained from the fact that one hundred and forty thousands Companions had participated in the Last Pilgrimage performed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH). A considerable number of the literate Companions kept a private record of the text of the Qur'an and satisfied themselves as to the purity of their record by reading it out to the Holy Prophet (PBUH). [u]Preservation after the demise of The Holy Prophet[/u] It is an incontrovertible historical truth that the text of the Holy Qur'an extant today is, syllable for syllable, exactly the same as the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had offered to the world as the Word of God. After the demise of the Holy Prophet, the first Caliph Hadhrat Abu Bakr (PBUH) assembled all the Huffaz and the written records of the Holy Qur'an and with their help had the whole text written in Book form. In the time of Hadhrat 'Uthman (PBUH) copies of this original version were made and officially dispatched to the Capitals of the Islamic World. Two Of these copies exist in the world today, one in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent. Whosoever is so inclined may compare any printed text of the Holy Qur'an with those two copies, he shall find no variation. And how can one expect any discrepancy, when there have existed several million Huffaz in every generation since the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and in our own time? Should anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake. In the last century, an Institute of Munich University in Germany collected FORTY-TWO THOUSAND copies of the Holy Qur'an including manuscripts and printed texts produced in each period in the various parts of the Islamic World. Research work was carried out on these texts for half a century, at the end of which the researchers concluded that apart from copying mistakes, there was no discrepancy in the text of these forty-two thousand copies, even though they belonged to the period between the 1st Century Hijra to 14th Century Hijra and had been procured from all parts of the world. This Institute, alas! perished in the bombing attacks on Germany during World War II, but the findings of its research project survived. Another point that must be kept in view is that the word in which the Qur'an was revealed is a living language in our own time. It is still current as the mother tongue of about a hundred million* people from Iraq to Morocco. In the non-Arab world too, hundreds of thousands of people study and teach this language. The grammar of the Arabic language, its lexicon, its phonetic system and its phraseology, have remained intact for fourteen hundred years. A modern Arabic-speaking person can comprehend the Holy Qur'an with as much proficiency as did the Arabs of fourteen centuries ago. This, then, is an important attribute of Muhammad (PBUH), which is shared by no other Prophet or Leader of Religion. The Book which God revealed to Him for the guidance of mankind is today's in its original language without the slightest alteration in its vocabulary. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compiled from the introduction of    The Meaning of the Quran by Shk Abul Maududi

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nomi
06/11/03 at 17:28:35
Assalamo Alaikum to those who are rightly guided [i]Mark why dont you comment on this....[/i] [center][size=2]How Many Sons does God really have[/center][/size] =>Son? How come Christians take the "God's Son" title literally with Jesus and they don't take it literally for the rest of the prophets and people who were called the Sons of God? e.g. In John 3:16 Jesus was called God's only Begotten Son. In Exodus 4:22 "Thus saith Jehova, Isreal is my son, even my firstborn." Isreal was called God's First Son. In Jeremiah 31:9 "I am a father to Isreal, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Ephraim is God's First Son and First Born. In Psalm 2:7 "... Jehova had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." David was called God's Begotten Son. =>God? How come Christians take the "God" (theos in Greek) title literally with Jesus in Isiah 9:6 and they don't take it literally for the rest of the prophets and people who were called Gods ? The Prophets who were called "God" in the Bible are as follows: Prophet Moses in Exodus 7:1 The Devil in Corinthians 4:4 (the word for God in this verse is theos in Greek, the same used for Jesus that was translated as "God") Multiple Prophets in Psalms 82:6 King David in Psalm 45:3 Note: The only unique title given to GOD in the Bible that was not given to others at all are Jehova, GOD, and GOD LORD. "God", "Most Mighty" and "Almighty One" are titles that were given to Jesus, other Prophets and to Satan himself in the Bible. Very important note: Did you know that in the languages of Arabic and Hebrew the father of the house can be called the God of the house? Jesus was the God (father or leader) of his people and their father according to Isiah 9:6. Jesus being the leader and the king, it is normal for him to be called the father of his people (Father in Isiah 9:6), and because he is their father he automatically becomes their God. My father is my God in Arabic and Hebrew. so? Asim Zafar
06/12/03 at 08:36:20
Nomi

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
Nomi
06/12/03 at 08:33:44
[slm] Although i've modified the post above but still for those of you who have already read it, i made a wrong selection of words coz as "hedayah" (guidance) is only in the hands of Allah so HE can bless anyone with that provided the person is searching for it. Having said that "Neeyah" (intention) is something that Allah knows best about so we shouldn't judge someone like that. Taking the judgemental part back and looking forward to the answers Asim Zafar
06/12/03 at 09:01:07
Nomi

Re: questions about the Quran's authenticity
eleanor
06/14/03 at 05:41:07
[slm] a project for Mark: go into any store and see how many different versions of the Bible you can buy. Note the differences - some have more chapters, some have the same number of chapters but less verses etc... then see how many Qur'ans you can find where only *one* verse is missing or only *one* chapter is missing. when you have finished this project then report back and tell us which book has been messed with. actually - save yourself the time, don't even try because you will fail. No matter what Qur'an you pick up, there will not be a single difference. In the Arabic version not even one little accent over a letter will be missing. It's impossible because Allah made it so. It is not  a valid claim to say that just because some chapters are missing doesn't mean the message has changed. There are a few Surahs in the Qur'an that I haven't read yet and still I have received the "message" of Islam from the Qur'an. But that does not mean by a long shot that it is okay to just leave out a few for whatever reasons. (astafirullah) corrupt is corrupt is corrupt. Whether it be the changing of words or the leaving out of chapters. Who decides to leave out chapters or verses? Who has decided they are greater than the Almighty and can therefore decide to make a few "minor" changes. This is shirk my friend, this is placing oneself higher than God and this is very serious. And finally - who did write the Moses story?  ??? I want to know the author. His name, when he wrote it and his "credentials". Trustworthy or corrupt?
06/14/03 at 05:42:26
eleanor
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board A R C H I V E S Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org