If Muhammad wasn't an actual prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?

[YmirGF]

*listens to the sound of crickets*

 

[McBell]

How insolent of you. You dare imply that mere mortals have the capacity to judge god? Shouldn't you be cowering under a rock 'lest you be smote to a cinder?

I am not the least bit worried or concerned about being "smote to cinders" by the imaginary friends of others.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

We all know that Muhammad (PBUH) was an unlettered man. If he wasn't actually a prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?
It would be better if you have actually read the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as it cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

This idea is found in all religions that have some sort of revelation from a divine being. The premise is that the person or persons responsible for the revelation cannot possibly be anything other than one chosen by their divine power. However, this is all presupposition. It assumes that one, or most, people generally accept the idea that either the text is divine in origin, or that the person responsible is a divine conduit. The Quran, like the Bible, the Vedas, etc., are all products of the human imagination and intellect. It doesn't matter that Mohammed couldn't read. He could think, and he could imagine, and he could create. This is the origin of the Quran.

 

[Iti oj]

We all know that Muhammad (PBUH) was an unlettered man. If he wasn't actually a prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?
It would be better if you have actually read the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as it cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

it takes me an hour to read/translate a single Surah. Not fluetn at all so I can't speak fully, but maybe sensory derivation with long periods of not sleeping or eating in high altitudes is ripe conditions for hallucinating...

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

it takes me an hour to read/translate a single Surah. Not fluetn at all so I can't speak fully, but maybe sensory derivation with long periods of not sleeping or eating in high altitudes is ripe conditions for hallucinating...

Which is the way alot of mystical experiences come about, and even for Mohammed, who had spent days fasting and praying in a cave before he started to have his visions.

 

[PolyHedral]

You mean he severely disrupted his body's ability to process both memory and sensory input before having a vision?

 

[1948_its_happening]

Islam like all Abrahamic religions states that the testimony of a witness is only worth entertaining if there are 2 or more witness's. This is particularly important when the new witness's contradict many others before them.

Muhammed was one witness who contradicts all the prophets before him.

Islam expects us to believe that one man at the end of a long line of prophets has the annointing to claim all the other prophets scripture is corrupt and he alone has come to correct it.

Islam denies the resurrection and that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. There is no salvation outside of Christ. Ask all the prophets before the one witness Muhammed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You mean he severely disrupted his body's ability to process both memory and sensory input before having a vision?

He was better fit to perceive those visions/theophanies. Other prophets were also similar in that regard which is one of the things that sets them apart from normal people.

Islam like all Abrahamic religions states that the testimony of a witness is only worth entertaining if there are 2 or more witness's. This is particularly important when the new witness's contradict many others before them.

Muhammed was one witness who contradicts all the prophets before him.

Islam expects us to believe that one man at the end of a long line of prophets has the annointing to claim all the other prophets scripture is corrupt and he alone has come to correct it.

Islam denies the resurrection and that Jesus is the eternal Son of God. There is no salvation outside of Christ. Ask all the prophets before the one witness Muhammed.

If you ask the Jews they'll tell you that Jesus Christ wasn't resurrected, and wasn't even a Messiah in the first place. Also, Judaism contradicts a lot of other religions that came before it. Which "witnesses" are you talking about?

All I'm saying is, most religions contradict each other and deny a lot of each other's ideas. At least Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets.

By the way, I didn't mean for any of this to come across as confrontational. It's just the way it's paragraphed, if anything.

 

[Caladan]

We all know that Muhammad (PBUH) was an unlettered man. If he wasn't actually a prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?
It would be better if you have actually read the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as it cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

First of all I have to say that your point of reading the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as a prerequisite is ridiculous. only a few members here read Arabic, and even they speak modern Arabic and not Classical Arabic. the other thing is that reading Arabic is completely irrelevant to the natural premise that the Qur'an like any other scripture of the major world religions is the product of men. if you base the entire history of the Qur'an on only just one man, not surprisingly the prophet, you are on shaky ground.

 

[Caladan]

If you ask the Jews they'll tell you that Jesus Christ wasn't resurrected, and wasn't even a Messiah in the first place. Also, Judaism contradicts a lot of other religions that came before it. Which "witnesses" are you talking about?

All I'm saying is, most religions contradict each other and deny a lot of each other's ideas. At least Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets.

By the way, I didn't mean for any of this to come across as confrontational. It's just the way it's paragraphed, if anything.

Modern scholars claim that this is because Muhammad thought that he is revealing to the Arabs universal teachings that were already found in Judaism and Christianity. its not because Islam is doing other religions any favours.

 

[Debater Slayer]

and so the point becomes lost, son, much like the idea that every person in Arabia considered Muhammad's poetry to be the best thing since the Kabbah. Given that we only have the commentaries of Muslims to go by doesn't bode well for any thoughts to the contrary.

I'm aware of the fact that this is a months-old post, but the thread's revived, and you're still here anyway so I'll have a go at it.

There were a lot of non-Muslims poets as well contemporary to Muhammad. They could have taken the challenge being that they had enormous skills in language.

English. Oh wait, that nullifies my argument, I suppose.

Being a native Arabic speaker, I can't and won't pretend to fully appreciate the Qur'an simply due to lack of enough academical qualification.

Good on you, by the way. Reading through it in English takes quite some time and effort I suppose.

Oh never mind, it doesn't sound like you are a particularly serious or skilled debater anyway.

Now you're assuming I'm not serious, despite going through more than 5 pages so far into this thread.

But this is your personal opinion after all, and I respect your right to tell it however disagreeing with it.

I simply do not believe you. Given your insistence on the wondrous nature of the Qur'an in Arabic, it follows that any attempts to imitate the Qur'an would also have to be done in Arabic. No doubt you would be inclined to move the goal posts in a heartbeat if anyone came close.

They would be, and there were people who could step up if they felt like it, but they didn't. Shouldn't that tell you anything?

I'm not one to determine who "comes close" and I'm certainly not sure if there are any imaginary "goal posts". The whole thing is pretty clear and it's not like there are any tricks or ploys involved.

True, however, the point is that both "extremist" and "moderate" Muslims still cow tow to the same ideology.

Only on certain concepts, like the oneness of God and Him being omnipotent, for example. Otherwise interpretations widely differ.

Actually there is precious little in the pages of the Qur'an that qualifies as a "scientific insight" but that doesn't seem to stop many Muslims from chanting tired canard. I wonder why only Muslims find their arguments persuasive? What's with that?

There were some scientists who converted because of it, but you're right; it won't persuade everyone, which is just fine considering that at the end of the day, all people are responsible for their own decisions. You can't force someone into conversion just because you were persuaded.

First of all I have to say that your point of reading the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as a prerequisite is ridiculous. only a few members here read Arabic, and even they speak modern Arabic and not Classical Arabic. the other thing is that reading Arabic is completely irrelevant to the natural premise that the Qur'an like any other scripture of the major world religions is the product of men. if you base the entire history of the Qur'an on only just one man, not surprisingly the prophet, you are on shaky ground.

I said that it would be "better to", not a prerequisite. It's definitely preferred being that Arabic is the text's main language, much like how most rhetoric/linguistically-rich texts are better read in their original versions.

As for the transcription, Qur'anic history certainly went on after the prophet's death (the Qur'an was collected in one book and ordered etc.), and is much richer than being limited to just a few years.

Modern scholars claim that this is because Muhammad thought that he is revealing to the Arabs universal teachings that were already found in Judaism and Christianity. its not because Islam is doing other religions any favours.

Or maybe because some of the ideas of Judaism/Christianity were correct and so are present in Islam? Why look at it one way without considering the other?

 

[1948_its_happening]

If you ask the Jews they'll tell you that Jesus Christ wasn't resurrected, and wasn't even a Messiah in the first place. Also, Judaism contradicts a lot of other religions that came before it. Which "witnesses" are you talking about?

All I'm saying is, most religions contradict each other and deny a lot of each other's ideas. At least Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets.

By the way, I didn't mean for any of this to come across as confrontational. It's just the way it's paragraphed, if anything.

There is not one contradiction between the old and new testament. The Jews simply don't think any of the new testament is holy scripture.

When I speak of witness's I speak of all the writers of both the old and new testament. They affirm each other and there is pure congruency.

The Qu'ran contradicts both new and old testament stories and its written by one man apparently. He is one witness and he contradicts all other writers of scripure.

So either he is a liar or everyone else is?

 

[Caladan]

I said that it would be "better to", not a prerequisite. It's definitely preferred being that Arabic is the text's main language, much like how most rhetoric/linguistically-rich texts are better read in their original versions.

It's still a ridiculous thing to post. as you already know the vast majority of members here do not speak Arabic. nor is it important to a debate at hand. as readers can approach both traditional and secular scholarship about the Qur'an, its history or it's origins in English.
I doubt you will get many members who have actually read the Qur'an let alone read it in Arabic.
I read it in two languages, English and Hebrew, a Hebrew translation that preserved some of the qualities of the Classical Arabic text.

Or maybe because some of the ideas of Judaism/Christianity were correct and so are present in Islam? Why look at it one way without considering the other?

Because when you consider the other argument, you quickly understand it is not objective.

what are your objective arguments that Muhammad was a prophet and that the Qur'an is the product of revelation. and how can anyone consider them without belief or more specifically Islamic belief?

 

[Breathe]

In my humble opinion, the Quran came from Muhammad.

Even if Muhammad was an illiterate or barely literate man, that does not change his poetic abilities that he may have, does it?

The revelations he claimed to have, after all, came slowly -- possibly slow enough for someone to decide on what to reveal in advance to make something truly amazing to give the masses. Or, maybe they were his poetry expressing the amazement at things he had seen during his mystic expressions coupled with his own opinions.

We'll never know for sure, though.

 

[Caladan]

In my humble opinion, the Quran came from Muhammad.

Even if Muhammad was an illiterate or barely literate man, that does not change his poetic abilities that he may have, does it?

The revelations he claimed to have, after all, came slowly -- possibly slow enough for someone to decide on what to reveal in advance to make something truly amazing to give the masses. Or, maybe they were his poetry expressing the amazement at things he had seen during his mystic expressions coupled with his own opinions.

We'll never know for sure, though.

At which point to we part from discussing a traditional point of view and begin to stick to it in favour of non traditional scholarship?
I can respect tradition. but when people take traditionalist interpretation as exclusive over secular scholarship and promote it, the traditional discussion is starting to lose favour with me.
which is a shame considering there is not always much respect for tradition today.

 

[Breathe]

At which point to we part from discussing a traditional point of view and begin to stick to it in favour of non traditional scholarship?
I can respect tradition. but when people take traditionalist interpretation as exclusive over secular scholarship and promote it, the traditional discussion is starting to lose favour with me.
which is a shame considering there is not always much respect for tradition today.

I suppose this is one of the difficulties of discussing the secular origins of religious revelations and figures.

 

[Caladan]

I suppose this is one of the difficulties of discussing the secular origins of religious revelations and figures.

I think the difficulties arise when the traditionalist POV is pushed. then it becomes a dividing power instead of being the unifying element that tradition should be.

It's how I feel anyway. I would find many beautiful things with a tradition or a religion. but when people start to push the traditional beliefs of this religion and mix them with science and objective history that beauty starts to wane.

 

[Photonic]

He's was a man, men write stuff.

Ever been to a library?

 

[Breathe]

I think the difficulties arise when the traditionalist POV is pushed. then it becomes a dividing power instead of being the unifying element that tradition should be.

It's how I feel anyway. I would find many beautiful things with a tradition or a religion. but when people start to push the traditional beliefs of this religion and mix them with science and objective history that beauty starts to wane.

I totally understand where you're coming from, and I wholeheartedly agree.

It has been my experience that quite a significant number of people cannot see their traditional beliefs in any way other than the traditional way, and giving ways contrary to that view are seen as either offensive, stupid, or both.

 

[Iti oj]

Where do any other holy books come from, besides the bible and torah that are claimed to come from the same god, how about the vedas? Egyptian book of the dead? Etc