Comparing the Bible to the Qur'an.

[Augustus]

Firedragon, your transparent attempt to derail a comparison between the Qur'an and the bible are duly noted. I will get into this with you if, and only if, you start a thread.

Nothing you have said changes the fact that both the Qur'an and the bible exist, and that people are forever trying to compare them.

It’s interesting that you think pointing out that the Quran lacks narrative when compared to the Bible and consequently that for 99% of Muslims, the Quran has been interpreted through Hadith and sirah is somehow “derailing” a thread on the Quran and Bible.

You surely can’t be that ignorant that you think the Islamic tradition is irrelevant to this thread.

and if it is relevant, it’s even harder to argue that the fact Islamic tradition has always been significantly debated in both Islamic and secular scholarship is irrelevant to the topic.

It’s about as rational as arguing we should ignore how secular historical and scientific knowledge have influenced how people have come to understand the Bible. It’s just very odd that anti Christian polemics aim to maximally discredit Christian traditions, but anti Islamic polemics seek to promote Islamic theology over secular scholarship.

Every thread you start pretends to be an attempt to discuss a topic, but is just another transparent vehicle for your sophomoric polemics and resistance to learning even the most elementary facts about the topic you pretend to have studied for decades.

 

[stevecanuck]

It’s interesting that you think pointing out that the Quran lacks narrative when compared to the Bible and consequently that for 99% of Muslims, the Quran has been interpreted through Hadith and sirah is somehow “derailing” a thread on the Quran and Bible.

The Qur'an can be considered independently of hadith. It says what it says. Period.

You surely can’t be that ignorant that you think the Islamic tradition is irrelevant to this thread.

and if it is relevant, it’s even harder to argue that the fact Islamic tradition has always been significantly debated in both Islamic and secular scholarship is irrelevant to the topic.

It’s about as rational as arguing we should ignore how secular historical and scientific knowledge have influenced how people have come to understand the Bible. It’s just very odd that anti Christian polemics aim to maximally discredit Christian traditions, but anti Islamic polemics seek to promote Islamic theology over secular scholarship.

Every thread you start pretends to be an attempt to discuss a topic, but is just another transparent vehicle for your sophomoric polemics and resistance to learning even the most elementary facts about the topic you pretend to have studied for decades.

Again, the Qur'an can be studied in stand-alone fashion. For example, it says that Allah is an enemy to the unbelievers. How can anything change that?

 

[Dimi95]

Islam is challenged and question in the way it's brought.

That's the only important thing from critical point of view.

And it does not stand strongly..

Sometimes the answers are not wrong , but the questions.

@Augustus
By what you say and what you present us here (Fred Donner) you are practicly saying that is very possible that today's Quran and the one revealed are very different.
If it's different? What can you answer to this question?
What possibilities are open?

The messege of the Bible is REPENT , BELIVE and you will be SAVED.
It was in the past , it is today and it will be in the future.
No matter what me , you , Donner , Trump and everbody else has to say about it.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Again, the Qur'an can be studied in stand-alone fashion. For example, it says that Allah is an enemy to the unbelievers. How can anything change that?

Do you know the difference between believers and unbelievers?
It is explained here in the Quran:

Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His messengers, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,-

They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.

To those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran 4:150-152



The Quran repeatedly says messengers were sent to all people. So if any muslim is unable to tell the difference between Muhammad and any other true/false messenger then they are as the unbelievers.

Because someone cant believe the Quran, if they dont even know what it is saying.

To hear and understand one messenger would be to hear and understand them all. Therefore clearly being able to identify them and separate the true messengers from the false ones, as a believer could do. Not a single true messenger would be rejected.

 

[Augustus]

The Qur'an can be considered independently of hadith. It says what it says. Period.

It can be, but most Muslims don’t do that and you didn’t do that in your OP.

If you are so insistent on analysing the Quran alone why did you explicitly do the opposite in your OP?

Again, the Qur'an can be studied in stand-alone fashion. For example, it says that Allah is an enemy to the unbelievers. How can anything change that?

The meaning of any language, not just the Quran, is entirely contextually dependent. To pretend otherwise is inane.

It’s never likely to be a particularly inclusive statement, but has quite a broad scope of interpretation.

What’s an unbeliever?

Who qualifies?

Where are you getting this information from?

 

[stevecanuck]

It can be, but most Muslims don’t do that and you didn’t do that in your OP.

If you are so insistent on analysing the Quran alone why did you explicitly do the opposite in your OP?

Let's just cut the BS and answer me this - Do you know any Muslims who doubt the accepted 610-622-632 timeline? I never met one.

But again, who cares? Forget the timeline if you want to. Just look at the words in the Qur'an. The timeline doesn't change a single word of the Qur'an. Btw, you have yet to invent a scenario in which "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" might mean something other than "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers".

The meaning of any language, not just the Quran, is entirely contextually dependent. To pretend otherwise is inane.

No it isn't. That's BS.

It’s never likely to be a particularly inclusive statement, but has quite a broad scope of interpretation.

What’s an unbeliever?

Who qualifies?

Anyone who "rejects Allah's signs" is an unbeliever. The Qur'an tells you that a few hundred times. I'm surprised you missed it.

Where are you getting this information from?

Al Qur'an al kareem.

 

[stevecanuck]

Do you know the difference between believers and unbelievers?
It is explained here in the Quran:

Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His messengers, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,-

They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.

To those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran 4:150-152



The Quran repeatedly says messengers were sent to all people. So if any muslim is unable to tell the difference between Muhammad and any other true/false messenger then they are as the unbelievers.

Because someone cant believe the Quran, if they dont even know what it is saying.

To hear and understand one messenger would be to hear and understand them all. Therefore clearly being able to identify them and separate the true messengers from the false ones, as a believer could do. Not a single true messenger would be rejected.

The Qur'an must be accepted as God's final revelations as given to His final prophet, Mohamed. Anything less than complete acceptance of that makes one a disbeliever. I think we agree on this.

 

[Dimi95]

Do you know the difference between believers and unbelievers?
It is explained here in the Quran:

Those who deny Allah and His messengers, and (those who) wish to separate Allah from His messengers, saying: "We believe in some but reject others": And (those who) wish to take a course midway,-

They are in truth (equally) unbelievers; and we have prepared for unbelievers a humiliating punishment.

To those who believe in Allah and His messengers and make no distinction between any of the messengers, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran 4:150-152



The Quran repeatedly says messengers were sent to all people. So if any muslim is unable to tell the difference between Muhammad and any other true/false messenger then they are as the unbelievers.

Because someone cant believe the Quran, if they dont even know what it is saying.

To hear and understand one messenger would be to hear and understand them all. Therefore clearly being able to identify them and separate the true messengers from the false ones, as a believer could do. Not a single true messenger would be rejected.

Quran , Surah 9:31 :
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary.
And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

John Chapter 14 explains all your questions on your verse.

Take "The Father is greater than i" that you want to quote as "evidence" when you quote the Bible.That argument that all are oftenly using.Zakir Nair says its also often..
Read the whole Chapter and come back here and tell us what you think.But at first be honest with yourself..

 

[Augustus]

No it isn't. That's BS.

You think it is BS to say the meaning of words is always contextually dependent?

You don’t think connotation, irony, hyperbole, metaphor and dozens of other widely understood features of language exist?

If these exist, language is always contextually dependent.

Let's just cut the BS and answer me this - Do you know any Muslims who doubt the accepted 610-622-632 timeline? I never met one.

But again, who cares? Forget the timeline if you want to. Just look at the words in the Qur'an. The timeline doesn't change a single word of the Qur'an

Most Muslims use the traditions, yes.

You use the traditions when it suits and pretend they are irrelevant when it doesn’t suit.

The traditions change (or perhaps ‘clarify’) the meaning of the Quran.

This is a fact agreed upon by basically all Muslims and secular scholars alike.

So it makes sense to either look at what Muslims actually believe, or to try to use secular critical historical methods to analyse the history and beliefs of Muslims and how they have changed over time and place.

What makes no sense is to make up some methodology where you ignore both the beliefs of Muslims and critical historical scholarship.

What constitutes a believer has probably ranged from followers of Mohammad and some Jews and Christians to only those who are part of a small doctrinally correct sect.

Anyone who "rejects Allah's signs" is an unbeliever. The Qur'an tells you that a few hundred times. I'm surprised you missed it.

What are these signs? What constitutes accepting them? What constitutes rejecting them?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

The Qur'an must be accepted as God's final revelations as given to His final prophet, Mohamed. Anything less than complete acceptance of that makes one a disbeliever. I think we agree on this.

Not quite. It is regarding the acceptance of all true prophets/messengers. A believer will only accept the Quran if Muhammad can be clearly known to be one of them.

Otherwise they would not really be believing in what the Quran says, just believing in their own imagination of what it says.

To the unbelievers the Allah's of their imagination would be false gods.

Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition? Quran 45:23

To an unbeliever all of the true prophets/messengers are sealed.

Say: "Think ye, if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed up your hearts, who - a god other than Allah - could restore them to you?" See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); yet they turn aside. 6:46

The signs/symbols of all the true prophets/messengers would show which gods are the one Allah.
One message = One God.

 

[danieldemol]

Firedragon, your transparent attempt to derail a comparison between the Qur'an and the bible are duly noted. I will get into this with you if, and only if, you start a thread.

Nothing you have said changes the fact that both the Qur'an and the bible exist, and that people are forever trying to compare them.

I'd just like to note that @Augustus is not firedragon, other than that carry on.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Read the whole Chapter and come back here and tell us what you think.But at first be honest with yourself..

If a message gets rejected it is not just rejecting the messenger, it is rejecting the sender of the message.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. John 14:24

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 12:48-49

But the message was not being heard:
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

 

[Dimi95]

If a message gets rejected it is not just rejecting the messenger, it is rejecting the sender of the message.

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. John 14:24

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 12:48-49

But the message was not being heard:
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

And then..

John 14:
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me,but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

And then we go to:
John 10:30
"The Father and I are one."

And then we go to:
John Chapter 1:
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be."

And i will explain to you what you do.
You take only the claims that will support your belief, everything else is secondary..
You don't threat his words equally..

 

[WonderingWorrier]

And then..

John 14:
And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.
I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me,but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me.

And then we go to:
John 10:30
"The Father and I are one."

And then we go to:
John Chapter 1:
"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be."

And i will explain to you what you do.
You take only the claims that will support your belief, everything else is secondary..
You don't threat his words equally..

So was David and God also as one?

Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,

The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

2 Samuel 23:1-2

Or do you think there is a difference?

 

[Dimi95]

So was David and God also as one?

Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,

The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

2 Samuel 23:1-2

Or do you think there is a difference?

....Then some of the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

But he replied to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights,so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights."

We can go wherever you want and the answer,the point will be the same.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

....Then some of the scribes and Pharisees told Jesus “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

But he replied to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves a sign. Yet no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, because just as Jonah was in the stomach of the sea creature for three days and three nights,so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights."

We can go wherever you want , the answer the point will be the same.

So a confirmation sign. As all signs do, and they can be confirmed. Because the signs are done with words. It is a sign language.

There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe. Quran 12:111

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:22-24

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Quran 4:157

 

[Dimi95]

So a confirmation sign. As all signs do, and they can be confirmed. Because the signs are done with words. It is a sign language.

There is, in their stories, instruction for men endued with understanding. It is not a tale invented, but a confirmation of what went before it,- a detailed exposition of all things, and a guide and a mercy to any such as believe. Quran 12:111

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:22-24

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Quran 4:157

Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.


John 14:5-7
“Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?
Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Matthew 11:57
All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.

 

[Dimi95]

And..

Surah 3:49:
..and make him a messenger to the Children of Israel ˹to proclaim,˺ ‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a ˹real˺ bird—by Allah’s Will. I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will. And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you if you ˹truly˺ believe..

Look how the sign is used , then use that same critirea that you used on the Bible verse..

Or you won't use the same standard?

 

[stevecanuck]

You think it is BS to say the meaning of words is always contextually dependent?

Yes, I'm saying it's BS, but only because you said "always".

You don’t think connotation, irony, hyperbole, metaphor and dozens of other widely understood features of language exist?

If these exist, language is always contextually dependent.

You continue to ignore my question:

How can "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" mean something other than "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers"?

There will be no further response until you actually converse with me.

 

[stevecanuck]

I'd just like to note that @Augustus is not firedragon, other than that carry on.

Then they must have been separated at birth...