Is The Quran Superior?

[Link]

God is one in essence and three in person.

A person is an essence. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Link]

I’m not completely sure what you mean. What I’m talking about are the variations in what was written down at different times, as with this old manuscript, for example, one of the oldest discovered:

The Sana'a manuscript, is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence. It contains only three chapters. It was found, along with many other Quranic and non-Quranic fragments, in Yemen in 1972 during restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a. The manuscript is written on parchment, and comprises two layers of text (see palimpsest). The upper text conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic Quran, whereas the lower text contains many variants to the standard text. An edition of the lower text was published in 2012.[27] A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment containing the lower text to before 671 AD with 99% probability.[28]

The Yemeni authorities took exception to the academics involved pointing out the different variations in the text, and banned some of them from accessing it. That kind of thing makes it hard to take claims based in dogma rather than arguments from evidence seriously.

There are different recitations 10 of them. From my research all the Sana'a manuscript fall under one of these 10.

 

[Jimmy]

A person is an essence. It doesn't make sense.

Well u know what I mean. Or maybe you don’t. In that case I can’t help you

 

[Link]

Well u know what I mean. Or maybe you don’t. In that case I can’t help you

Trinity is a contradiction in terms. It was made to make ambiguous what is otherwise is a very clear Prophecy of Mohammad (s). The holy spirit/ghost was made into something ambiguous while the original it's a station held by chosen ones from humans and from Angels. For example Gabriel is an instance of the holy spirit upon Angels, while Jesus was the holy spirit on earth while on earth. Mohammad (s) is also the holy spirit, and so is Elijah (a) when Jesus (a) left up to when Mohammad (s) came. Putting these together and the prophecy is clear.

 

[Pawpatrol]

lol. I believe in the trinity. One god existing as three separate entities. Or stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person.

Sounds like insanity.

 

[Jimmy]

Sounds like insanity.

It’s oh so sweet

 

[Jimmy]

Sounds like insanity.

Father= infinite space,. Love etc
Son = god in flesh. His return will bring a new heaven and earth.
Holy Spirit. The relationship between the father and son. Also the relationship between the son and humankind as well as the relationship between the father and humankind.


it’s quite simple

 

[Pawpatrol]

Father= infinite space,. Love etc
Son = god in flesh. His return will bring a new heaven and earth.
Holy Spirit. The relationship between the father and son. Also the relationship between the son and humankind as well as the relationship between the father and humankind.


it’s quite simple

Not as simple as having one God.

 

[Jimmy]

Not as simple as having one God.

Yes, there’s only one Daddy

 

[Augustus]

The fact that many people have said different things about a date, doesn't mean the date can't be known.

True, but the fact that a date has such a wide range of proposed dates is also incongruous with the ideas that the tremendous detal and minutiae covered by the hadith reflects an accurate historical record. Not least as the Year of the Elephant most likely corresponds to events that happened a couple of decades before Muhammad's purported birth.

Early exegetes clearly don't understand parts of the Quran including who counts as people of the book (Sabians). Why should a non-Muslim beleive they are accurate historical records when they remembered trivial details but not much bigger ones?

Muslims and non-Muslims tend to use different methodologies when looking at this history, especially as the Islamic version relies on a kind of Divine Providence to make. Muhmammad, his companions and their immediate successors unusually virtuous generations.

For me, there are some clear historical inaccuracies in the exegesis and Sirah, which means I find it hard to trust them as accurate overall. Muslims tend to trust that the piety of the believers made sure that they were accurate in what they recorded and transmitted.

The are 2 different hermeneutical frameworks in operation, and given that neither side's view can be 'proved' it comes down to interpretation of evidence.

I personally think much of the sirah, especially things like occasions of revelation, are clearly exegetical rather than historical. Things like the moon splitting and night journey (beyond their miraculous nature) donlt even seem like they match the purpose of Quranic text. The moon splitting portends the apocalypse rather than being a past event and the night journey seems to be referring to Moses (which would match A Jewish tradition and better match the context). The idea that the Abu Lahab verses relate to his wife throwing sticks at Muhammad rather than being a poetic warning against coveting worldly status rather than piety and salvation seems highly implausible to me.

Something like Abraha's attack on the ka'baa in the year of the Elephant seems to be based on an event that happened 15 years before Muhammed was born (and likely didn't involve Mecca) in which Abraha was successful as there is a commemorative inscription.

But seeing as Abraha disappears from the record after that, it can't be 'proven' that something didn't happen later than that to match the Muslim tradition.

The non-Muslim can say that it seems probable that the tradition is wrong, but the Muslim can say that there is no evidence to prove that the Muslim tradition is wrong. It comes down to what weight you give to what evidence.

 

[Muffled]

Muslims think the Quran hasn’t lost its purity from translations like the Torah and the Gospel and therefore is superior and is the infallible and uncorrupted word of God…

…but wasn’t it written by men? So to say it’s the literal word of a God is out of touch I think.

I believe even if it were more pure it would still be inferior to the New Testament.

 

[Muffled]

It would be circular reasoning to say Bible is corrupt because God or his Messenger (s) said so.

However, a better way would be to show an alternative view, and than you can assess which one is true and more rational, and Quran facilitates the thinking to see that.

There are major differences between the Bible and Quran on:

Haroun (not the type to vie with Moses over his authority)
Talut (Saul) (not the type to get jealous over Dawood)
Sulaiman (is not the type to be chosen then die a pagan)
etc

The Quran and hadiths hold Prophets (a) at a greater standard.

I think there is a great contradiction in the Bible, it emphasizes on who God chooses, but then also de-emphasizes on them and shows they can be be corrupted and even die a pagan as did Solomon per the Bible.

I believe Hadiths lack origination credibility and in many cases contain falsehood.

 

[Link]

I believe Hadiths lack origination credibility and in many cases contain falsehood.

Some do, but they also contain the cure, insights, and guidance necessary for mankind.

 

[Jimmy]

I believe even if it were more pure it would still be inferior to the New Testament.

I agree. I like the story of Jesus

 

[Link]

I agree. I like the story of Jesus

People hold on to what they are familiar with. Very few people venture out of their familiarity.

 

[Pawpatrol]

True, but the fact that a date has such a wide range of proposed dates is also incongruous with the ideas that the tremendous detal and minutiae covered by the hadith reflects an accurate historical record

Actually the number of proposed dates is insignificant.

Not least as the Year of the Elephant most likely corresponds to events that happened a couple of decades before Muhammad's purported birth.

What are those events? There is a consensus among the scholars of Islam that he was born on the year of the elephant. Claims opposed to that are baseless (the chains of the narrations are weak).

Early exegetes clearly don't understand parts of the Quran including who counts as people of the book (Sabians). Why should a non-Muslim beleive they are accurate historical records when they remembered trivial details but not much bigger ones?

I don't know what you're talking about. You can spell it out or let's just leave it be.

For me, there are some clear historical inaccuracies in the exegesis and Sirah

Everyone (educated) knows there are. The scholars do not claim the sirah or the various exegesis' of the Quran are flawless. The important thing is that we know what about it is reliable and what is not.

Things like the moon splitting and night journey (beyond their miraculous nature) donlt even seem like they match the purpose of Quranic text. The moon splitting portends the apocalypse rather than being a past event and the night journey seems to be referring to Moses (which would match A Jewish tradition and better match the context). The idea that the Abu Lahab verses relate to his wife throwing sticks at Muhammad rather than being a poetic warning against coveting worldly status rather than piety and salvation seems highly implausible to me.

Your opinion carries no value here.

 

[stvdv]

Muslims think the Quran hasn’t lost its purity from translations like the Torah and the Gospel and therefore is superior and is the infallible and uncorrupted word of God…

…but wasn’t it written by men? So to say it’s the literal word of a God is out of touch I think.

Those believing their Faith is superior make their belief inferior by degrading Love to some dualistic, materialistic commodity

 

[Link]

Those believing their Faith is superior make their belief inferior by degrading Love to some dualistic, materialistic commodity

Isn't this a self-contradiction? You are condemning faiths that deem their faith superior thereby putting one's that do not on a higher pedestal.

I think the truth if proven by clear proofs, those who follow it cannot be equated to those who do evil and follow misguidance thinking they are guided.

 

[Augustus]

What are those events? There is a consensus among the scholars of Islam that he was born on the year of the elephant. Claims opposed to that are baseless (the chains of the narrations are weak

A consensus among Islamic scholars, not among academic scholars of Islam.

The events would relate to the Axumite general Abraha.

Although it seems more plausible that the verses relate to 2and 3 Maccabees and the legendary attack on Mecca was a later invention (hence the dating problems)

I don't know what you're talking about. You can spell it out or let's just leave it be.

Early exegetes did not understand parts of the Quran which demonstrates a break in transmission of understanding.

For example people had no idea about the mysterious letters or who the Sabians were

Alternately, many exegetes clearly were guessing about even fairly straightforward homilies.

Reading the Quran as homily: the case of Sarah's laughter
Gabriel Said Reynolds )
Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Al Ṭabarī(d 310/923), for example, provides six different, and mutually exclusive, explanations for the laughter, proposing one thereof as “more correct,” but not ruling out the others Abū Isḥāq ath- aʿlabī (d 427/1036) also offers six different explanations. Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d 606/1209) lists nine.]Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

The important thing is that we know what about it is reliable and what is not.

Some mutawatir Hadith are among the most likely to be fictitious.

Unless you are already a believing Muslim, why should you consider them even remotely probable?

Your opinion carries no value here.

Carries as much value as yours or anyone else’s. Coming to a discussion forum and complaining about people having opinions that differ to your own is a bit ridiculous.

I personally am very sceptical about scholars who see the moon splitting as anything other than an exegetical fiction, but it’s your right to hold the opinion it actually happened.

Unlike you, I don’t see anything wrong with people having opinions that differ to my own.

 

[Link]

Some mutawatir Hadith are among the most likely to be fictitious.

Unless you are already a believing Muslim, why should you consider them even remotely probable?

Salam

I understand your doubt as a non-Muslim. But even from outsider perspective, there has to be the view that at least a certain amount of people were interested in preserving the truth. I believe Sunnis were not those people, so I too reject some of their "mutawatir" hadiths, but you should start from the viewpoint there would be a certain amount of people interested in passing the truth.

Then you give hadiths a proper chance to interpret the Quran and see which side has the rational clear interpretation of the Quran. The words related to Twelver Shiism are all in the Quran including "Twelve", it's all a matter of properly reciting, reflecting and perceiving.

If the sent ones are not given a chance to prove their case in the Quran and we rely on third parties to understand Islam, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

I found the hadiths of Ahlulbayt (a) to be insightful and healing to the dark magic that blocks people from the Quran. That and there is a guide in each era who knows how to awaken souls.