Is The Quran Superior?

[Pawpatrol]

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

So not among the laymen pity they can't get to an agreement. Probs because they don't understand Islamic sciences.

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

The only person to truly interpret the Quran is the prophet (saws) as he did. No one has ever and will ever understand all of the Quran.

"in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific.1 As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allāh. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding." 3:7

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

The Quran is not a book of rhymes and there is not a word in it in a place by accident. Why Sarah laughed is indeed a bit unclear, but — it really doesn't make much of a difference. Your thinking the explanation is "straightforward" only demonstrates your ignorance of the Quran.

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

Am I supposed to ask again?

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

Doesn't matter if you do or don't. I haven't asked anyone to accept any hadith. I do suggest that people shouldn't talk about something they know nothing about.

Carries as much value as yours or anyone else’s

When I say "here", I mean on the topic. Neither mine nor your opinion have any value.

 

[Augustus]

Probs because they don't understand Islamic sciences

Academic scholars who have spent their lives studying Islam ( and may be Muslims themselves) don’t understand the Islamic Sciences?

Don’t be silly That’s not a serious argument.

The only person to truly interpret the Quran is the prophet (saws) as he did. No one has ever and will ever understand all of the Quran

I find it hard to believe he never told anyone who the Sabians were.

Your thinking the explanation is "straightforward" only demonstrates your ignorance of the Quran

Again, it is a straightforward reference to a biblical verse.

It’s not a grand mystery of the universe.

I do suggest that people shouldn't talk about something they know nothing about.

I wouldn’t assume the only reason people can disagree with you is that they “know nothing”.

Why do you trust anything in Islam if you are not allowed to hold any opinion on it unless you are a world leading expert?

Do you just uncritically accept whatever you are told or do you evaluate the evidence to the best of your capabilities?

Why do you believe the moon splitting definitely happened?

Neither mine nor your opinion have any value.

Why not?

If you are a Muslim you have to judge whether or not you find the narratives to be true.

You have an opinion and you are confident enough in it to base major aspects of your life around it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

All religious texts, whether Torah, New Testament, Vedas, Book of Mormon, or Quran... are ALL written by men. Usually they go through an early period where the are still being redacted, and then reach a final form that remains constant.

This includes the Quran. In the beginning there were many different versions. King Uthman basically had them all collected and destroyed all except the one version he preferred. It is King Uthman's version that exists today.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I like that Quran says people should believe Jesus. But, how do they know is Bible corrupt?

They "know" the Bible is corrupt the same way that Christians "know" that the Torah is obsolete.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Academic scholars who have spent their lives studying Islam ( and may be Muslims themselves) don’t understand the Islamic Sciences?

If they're non Muslims studying in non Muslim universities then they don't. You can prove me wrong by providing proof of a single one who does.

I find it hard to believe he never told anyone who the Sabians were.

I find it hard to believe he did and that someone didn't forward the information — but I also find it irrelevant information. It makes no difference at all.

Again, it is a straightforward reference to a biblical verse.

It's not a biblical reference. Thank you for demonstrating my earlier point regarding non Muslim "scholars" of Islam. They make grave mistakes and don't even notice, admit or care.

Why do you trust anything in Islam if you are not allowed to hold any opinion on it unless you are a world leading expert?

What does me being allowed to have an opinion on a topic have to do with me trusting information?

People trust doctors, though their opinion (regarding their illness and treatment) is usually neither asked nor respected (in the sense that the doctor would suddenly change the books of medicine because the patient thinks such-and-such.) Fact of the matter is that the doctor knows and the patient does not.

Do you just uncritically accept whatever you are told or do you evaluate the evidence to the best of your capabilities?

I evaluate the evidence to the best of my capabilities. That's what I did before I accepted Islam, and that's what I continue to do (which is why I don't follow any of the four madhabs).

Why do you believe the moon splitting definitely happened?

It has been mentioned in the Quran and in several definitely authentic hadiths.

If you are a Muslim you have to judge whether or not you find the narratives to be true.

Sure. And if a doctor showed me my test results and concluded I have cancer, we could say that if I believe the doctor then it is my opinion that I have cancer, but that's a strange way to speak.

 

[Pawpatrol]

t is King Uthman's

A caliph, not a king.

 

[Link]

In the beginning there were many different versions

There is no proof of this.

 

[Link]

They "know" the Bible is corrupt the same way that Christians "know" that the Torah is obsolete.

We have a different way of epistemology then Christians and Jews. We can conclude both on logical reasoning provided by Islam or by the miraculous nature of the Quran that the Islam is true. There is even books by Sufi deemed saints that prove Islam by sheer logic and spiritual concepts without even resorting to the Quran or hadiths.

You are not familiar with all the proofs offered in the Quran for Islam based on logical reasoning nor the Sufi saint books that prove Islam nor are you familiar with the subtle miracles of the Quran that includes it's musical perfection to the degree that all voices are beautified when reciting Quran and Quran is beautiful with all types of voices and tones and speed.

My biggest reason is because I witness the dark magic on the Quran that blocks humanity from perceiving the clear signs and clear insights and clear recitation and it has lead me to certainty in seeing Satanic forces opposed to the Quran. The Quran is vividly clearer the deeper you go unlike most books, the clarity of it's insights significantly changes with knowledge.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

lol. He prayed to god. Jesus is god in the flesh.

Where does the Bible say “god in the flesh”?

Jesus said, “God is a spirit.” (John 4:23,24) Notice, Jesus didn’t say “Father” there. He said “God”.

There’s only one God, separate from Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8:5,6)
Jesus’ own words confirmed it at John 17:3.

I don’t understand why people have to go beyond that… Jesus made it clear his power came from his Father.

 

[Jimmy]

Where does the Bible say “god in the flesh”?

Jesus said, “God is a spirit.” (John 4:23,24) Notice, Jesus didn’t say “Father” there. He said “God”.

There’s only one God, separate from Jesus. (1 Corinthians 8:5,6)
Jesus’ own words confirmed it at John 17:3.

I don’t understand why people have to go beyond that… Jesus made it clear his power came from his Father.

• I and the Father are one: (John 10:30)
• Before Abraham was, I am
• If you've seen me, you've seen the Father

 

[Link]

It has been mentioned in the Quran and in several definitely authentic hadiths.

Mohammad (s) the west wants to treat him as if he didn't perform miracles, they parrot things (Islamic academics) like that the Quran was the only miracle. I've witnessed it from professors, and the class starts arguing with the professor about it.

A lot of the Quran is about the logic of why miracles are proofs and addressing the doubts people will accuse the doer of being a sorcerer or rather possessed.

The Quran doesn't make sense without believing Mohammad (s) did do miracles, too much of it is emphasizing on miracles of the past and relating it to Mohammad (s) as being similarly told to be a sorcerer or rather possessed by his enemies. Even from an outsider perspective, why put yourself in a position about miracles, emphasize so much about it, but not be able to perform it?

They are better off denying Mohammad (s) as a historical truth, but they can't do that either.

 

[Augustus]

If they're non Muslims studying in non Muslim universities then they don't.

Are you of the opinion there is some Divine barrier that prevents most non-Muslims from understanding or do you think non-Muslims are just too stupid to understand or perhaps that anyone who understands would be a Muslims so tautologically non-Muslims don’t understand?

What is unique about this issue that magically prevents non-Muslims from being able to grasp this particular topic?

It has been mentioned in the Quran and in several definitely authentic hadiths.

What convinces you that they are definitively true?

Sure. And if a doctor showed me my test results and concluded I have cancer, we could say that if I believe the doctor then it is my opinion that I have cancer, but that's a strange way to speak

I’d say it’s more like someone saying that they’d heard a rumour you had cancer, had a copy of a generic test non specific to you, couldn’t explain many of the results and when questioned about them just said “it’s a mystery, you aren’t supposed to understand them but trust me the doctor who did the test understood them.

I evaluate the evidence to the best of my capabilities. That's what I did before I accepted Islam

What evidence did you find most persuasive?

It's not a biblical reference.

So the Abraham, Moses, Jesus et al mentioned are not those in the Bible?

Unless you think this, it is by definition a Biblical reference.

I find it hard to believe he did and that someone didn't forward the information — but I also find it irrelevant information. It makes no difference at all.

If you want to evaluate evidence it certainly makes a difference whether or not the folk memory is accurate

Unless you expect people to uncritically accept what they are told which you claim you do not.

To me it seems someone looking at evidence would have to consider this, or the fact that Mecca was supposed to be a major trade and pilgrimage site but no one ever mentioned it in the historical record despite the Roman and Persian militaries being full of Arab mercenaries and Arabia being a major point of imperial rivalry between the 2 in the centuries leading up to Muhammad’s birth.

 

[1213]

They "know" the Bible is corrupt the same way that Christians "know" that the Torah is obsolete.

Interesting, I don't think the Torah is obsolete. I think it is the foundation of Christianity. Calling it obsolete would be as silly as saying "you can remove the foundations of your house, they are obsolete now that the house is ready".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting, I don't think the Torah is obsolete. I think it is the foundation of Christianity. Calling it obsolete would be as silly as saying "you can remove the foundations of your house, they are obsolete now that the house is ready".

Well, I appreciate your plug for the Torah

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is The Quran Superior?

G-d Himself revelated its text in Arabic, dot for dot and word for word, please, right?:
"15:10
Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian."

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Right?

Regards
___________________________
15:10
اِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا الذِّکۡرَ وَاِنَّا لَہٗ لَحٰفِظُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is The Quran Superior?

G-d Himself revelated its text in Arabic, dot for dot and word for word, please, right?:

Why do you keep asking these sorts of questions? Muslims believe this. Everyone else doesn't. Nor is it any secret that Muslims believe this. If you want a good post, give the REASONS why you believe it, so that a good discussion can ensue. Otherwise you have a very boring and short thread where you say, "This is true, yes, right?" and others respond, "No, it's not, right?"

 

[1213]

Well, I appreciate your plug for the Torah

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

I don't think that means Torah is obsolete.

But, what do you think the old covenant means?

And what is the new covenant?

I think the new covenant was done trough Jesus. And in it, the law is written in persons heart. There are certain conditions and promises, as there was also in the older covenant that was made through Moses. And i think the new covenant has greater promises, but, it has the same law. In a way I think the goal is the same, people should be righteous. The difference is in how the law is received and why people should obey it.

If one takes part of the new covenant, it is not necessary to take part of the older one. That doesn't mean the older is not valid anymore, or that it doesn't have right things. It could be compared to, you could have an old Morse code system, or computer and internet to send your message to me. Both work, but the other is more advanced and does the same job in better way. Still the goal is the same. In the case of the covenants, the goal is that people are righteous. Torah teaches also what righteous means, that is why it is important and not obsolete.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't think that means Torah is obsolete.

Can you explain what you mean in light of the Hebrews verse? If Hebrews says the old covenant is becoming obsolete, then what do you mean when you don't think it means that?

But, what do you think the old covenant means?

"Old Covenant" is an expression that Christians have. Jews do not say that. Christians refer to the covenant between God and Israel as the Old Covenant. This covenant was originally made with Abraham, although version 2.0 was given to Moses.

And what is the new covenant?

Are you asking for the Christian idea or the Jewish idea?

For me, the "New Covenant" Jeremiah's describes is a description of how life will be in the world to come. No one will have to learn right from wrong, and everyone will know God.

I think the new covenant was done trough Jesus.

Well sure, since you are Christian.

And in it, the law is written in persons heart.

The problem is, the Law is NOT written on people's hearts. We all have to teach our children right from wrong. So basically, the New Covenant has not yet come into being.

The difference is in how the law is received and why people should obey it.

How has the motivation for obedience changed? I obey God simply because he is God, King of the universe and worthy of my obedience.

If one takes part of the new covenant, it is not necessary to take part of the older one.

If the original covenant is eternal, forever, it shall not pass away "until heaven and earth pass away" as Jesus says, that would mean that it applies to Jews today just as in Moses' day. Of course, non-Jews have never had the obligation to the Torah, not back then, and not now.

That doesn't mean the older is not valid anymore, or that it doesn't have right things.

These seems to contradict your first remark. Which is it? Does the "new covenant" mean the old is obsolete, as Hebrews says, or not? And if its not obsolete, does this not mean that the obligation to the Law is still upon Jews?

It could be compared to, you could have an old Morse code system, or computer and internet to send your message to me. Both work, but the other is more advanced and does the same job in better way. Still the goal is the same. In the case of the covenants, the goal is that people are righteous. Torah teaches also what righteous means, that is why it is important and not obsolete.

The idea that the Christian "new covenant" is superior to God's covenant with Israel flies in the fact of what the Tanakh teaches, which is that the Law is PERFECT. (Psalm 19) If it's perfect, it can't be improved upon.

 

[1213]

Can you explain what you mean in light of the Hebrews verse? If Hebrews says the old covenant is becoming obsolete, then what do you mean when you don't think it means that?

I think it means, you don't have to take part of the old covenant, if there is a new one.

"Old Covenant" is an expression that Christians have. Jews do not say that. Christians refer to the covenant between God and Israel as the Old Covenant. This covenant was originally made with Abraham, although version 2.0 was given to Moses.

There are many covenants in the Bible. In this case I mean with old covenant the one that was done through Moses, that has the law and commandments. But, maybe it should be called Covenant of Moses, instead of old covenant.

For me, the "New Covenant" Jeremiah's describes is a description of how life will be in the world to come. No one will have to learn right from wrong, and everyone will know God.

Ok, then I think we have the same idea. I just think that happens through the words of Jesus and you could already have it.

The problem is, the Law is NOT written on people's hearts. We all have to teach our children right from wrong. So basically, the New Covenant has not yet come into being.

It could be. Jesus tells how it can happen. By asking Holy Spirit.

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your chil-dren, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13
I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever,-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world can't receive; for it doesn't see him, neither knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.
John 14:16-17
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26
When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26
When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, don't be anxious how or what you will answer, or what you will say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that same hour what you must say."
Luke 12:11-12
However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

How has the motivation for obedience changed? I obey God simply because he is God, King of the universe and worthy of my obedience.

People can have different motives. But, generally many people obeyed because they had to do so. They were forced to do so, and they didn't want to do so, but because of fear or hope of a reward did so. Such a person is not very righteous. More righteous is to obey because one understands it is good and right and loves God.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

These seems to contradict your first remark. Which is it? Does the "new covenant" mean the old is obsolete, as Hebrews says, or not? And if its not obsolete, does this not mean that the obligation to the Law is still upon Jews?

I think, if one goes by the new covenant, he also fulfills the old one. The new is about how to fulfill it, not about how to nullify it.

It should not be that one keeps the covenant because of an obligation, but because one understands it is good and loves God. It should be freely and willingly, not by obligation and against persons will.

 

[Pawpatrol]

Are you of the opinion there is some Divine barrier that prevents most non-Muslims from understanding or do you think non-Muslims are just too stupid to understand or perhaps that anyone who understands would be a Muslims so tautologically non-Muslims don’t understand?

What is unique about this issue that magically prevents non-Muslims from being able to grasp this particular topic?

You gave me one example of it yourself. You said, and I paraphrase, the Quran verse regarding Abraham's wife was debated unnecessarily since it was a clear biblical reference and bible says such and such so, problem solved

While there are references in the Quran to the stories that are also mentioned in the Bible, they're not references to the Bible, they're revelation (new, at that) from God, and because the Bible has been corrupted, and the Quran hasn't, we can't seek such simple-minded conclusions based on what the Bible says.

Big problem.

What convinces you that they are definitively true?

I assume you mean the hadeeths. They are mutawaatir hadeeths, the definition of which is that the narrators are so many, it is inconceivable that so many people would have lied or been mistaken.

What evidence did you find most persuasive?

If I had to pick one thing, I would say the justice of Allah in the Quran.

Unless you think this, it is by definition a Biblical reference.

I don't think so. It doesn't refer to the Bible. The Bible just happens to mention a similar story.

If you want to evaluate evidence it certainly makes a difference whether or not the folk memory is accurate

Agreed.

To me it seems someone looking at evidence would have to consider this

That we don't know exactly who the sabians were? Seriously? I'm actually really amazed how silly arguments people make to try to prove Islam wrong.

or the fact that Mecca was supposed to be a major trade and pilgrimage site but no one ever mentioned it in the historical record despite the Roman and Persian militaries being full of Arab mercenaries and Arabia being a major point of imperial rivalry between the 2 in the centuries leading up to Muhammad’s birth.

I don't have time to dive into that, but it doesn't concern me.