Muhammads knowledge divine or learned?

[Shad]

I proved to you that the Barazakh is a type of a barrier that allows passing through with rules, by giving you an example of its usage in Quran. whether you beleive in what we say or not, this does not matter, what matter is how it is been used to convey the meaning.

In a certain context but not in the context we are talking about. The exception in one verse does not necessarily apply to all uses. You have also created an internal contradiction in the verse.

The only way to say is not correct, is to say the Muslims do not believe that when they die, they go to the day of Judgement through the Barazakh. but if it turns that we beleive that we do go through it, then that confirms what the arabic language conveys by using the word Barazakh; the same word used in the verse you trying to disprove.

For a different verse sure but we are not talking about that verse.

All you have done is to go in circle. you did not know what to do; I gave you the words in arabic , I gave the reference of the meaning in arabic, I gave its usage in arabic from the Quran itself, and you never have been able to refute that, all you did, is to put claims from your head, why do not you give me an example from another verse in the Quran to prove your case.

This is not required as you are quoting out of context.

So I have provided the prove, you provided nothing to show it is wrong. the words of your mouth is not a prove of any thing.

Creating an internal contradiction is not a prove, it renders the whole verse moot. There are also other tasfirs which talk about this verse in context of fresh and salt water and a land divide. So you are going against common interpretation in order to recover the errors of the verse. As above you have to create an internal contradiction using another verse by imposing an exception which is not part of the verse itself.

 

[outhouse]

I mean no offense, but if what you have is called intellectual, I do not need it.

So you don't need intellect to be a muslim? I have thought this for a while but I was not sure.

No I do not agree. you do not put words in my mouth. the myth is the way you think.

NO you put the words there, you said your book is not historical.


That means it has no history that can be called credible

 

[Al-Fatihah]

No

You need to prove Abraham has historicity, because your book makes that claim.


I have proved he factually does not have historicity.



This means they are not historical figures. And this is credible.

Response: And the proof is provided by the Qur'an challenge, since the challenge shows that it is humanly impossible to create the Qur'an, thus proving it is the true word of Allah. To show that it is false requires you to create a chapter like the Qur'an and prove it is humanly possible to do. Dozens of posts later, you still fail to create one. Thus your own failure refutes you.

 

[outhouse]

And the proof is provided by the Qur'an challenge, .

All it proves is LIES are believed by those with no knowledge on the topic they debate

 

[outhouse]

Your challenge is a LIE.

I have found a factual discrepancy. Your challenge factually has no validity.


Your book claims abraham as a real person.

But Abraham factually does not have any historicity as existing.

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

This means Abraham factually has no historicity as ever existing in reality.

 

[Shad]

QUR'AN CHALLENGE

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

Other texts can contain not errors so this challenge fails. If I find no contraction in a human text does this mean it is from God as well? If humans are capable of doing this the whole point becomes moot


And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Produce a meal like my girlfriend, if you can not her cooking is from the Gods. Produce a painting like Picasso's, if you can not it is from God. These challenges makes the Quran look worse. Also the challenge is only judged by Muslims so the judges are already biased. This renders the challenge moot.

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough followers to help him/her/ them conquer and rule a nation by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."

Genghis Khan and Alexander both conquered large areas of land larger than Muhammad did in his life time. Genghis's successors conquered an area larger than any of the Muslim Empires.

 

[outhouse]

The flood of noah factually did not happen as written in your book.

Do you have any evidence at all it did, or is this more unsubstantiated plagiarized mythology

 

[Britedream]

In a certain context but not in the context we are talking about. The exception in one verse does not necessarily apply to all uses. You have also created an internal contradiction in the verse.



For a different verse sure but we are not talking about that verse.



This is not required as you are quoting out of context.



Creating an internal contradiction is not a prove, it renders the whole verse moot. There are also other tasfirs which talk about this verse in context of fresh and salt water and a land divide. So you are going against common interpretation in order to recover the errors of the verse. As above you have to create an internal contradiction using another verse by imposing an exception which is not part of the verse itself.

Shad, you are trying to interpret the arabic through your english.
Barazakh: is always used in the context of connecting two things.
In medicine, we call the Isthmus, that connect the two lobe of the thyroid,Barazakh.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Your challenge is a LIE.

I have found a factual discrepancy. Your challenge factually has no validity.


Your book claims abraham as a real person.

But Abraham factually does not have any historicity as existing.



This means Abraham factually has no historicity as ever existing in reality.

Response: You claim he did not exist because you don't have something to say he did . Then according to your own logic, Abraham did exist since you have no historicity as to who made him up, when, how, and why. Thus supporting the fact the Qur'an is true and refuting yourself.

 

[outhouse]

Response: You claim he did not exist because you don't have something to say he did . Then according to your own logic, Abraham did exist since you have no historicity as to who made him up, when, how, and why. Thus supporting the fact the Qur'an is true and refuting yourself.

Could we see a little reasoning?


There is none in your reply.

This is not about lack of evidence, it is about the evidence we have.


Why you do you avoid what credible professors say? Do you hate all education and knowledge?

 

[outhouse]

Thus supporting the fact the Qur'an is true.

It is not a supporting fact

The Koran is not true in many places.


You avoid and denounce credible education and knowledge, it is called fanaticism and fundamentalism.


It is just like trying to get a YEC to admit to the facts of evolution. No amount of credible knowledge will change their minds.



It should be embarrassing to all muslims to see their own kind avoid reality so hard.

 

[outhouse]

Your false prophet had to steal love from a 6 YEAR OLD after plagiarizing mythology.

And we should believe all the mythology on the Koran is credible?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Could we see a little reasoning?


There is none in your reply.

This is not about lack of evidence, it is about the evidence we have.


Why you do you avoid what credible professors say? Do you hate all education and knowledge?

Response: And the evidence we have is that the Qur'an cannot possibly be created by a human as proven by the Qur'an challenge. Yet you continue to claim the story of Abraham was made up, yet have no historicity as to who made him up, when, where, how and why. so from a historical point, your argument fails according to your own standards and supports the fact the Qur'an is true.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Your false prophet had to steal love from a 6 YEAR OLD after plagiarizing mythology.

And we should believe all the mythology on the Koran is credible?

Response: Yet the following thread proves your claim as false.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...68322-muhammad-saw-his-marriage-aisha-ra.html

 

[Al-Fatihah]

QUR'AN CHALLENGE



Other texts can contain not errors so this challenge fails. If I find no contraction in a human text does this mean it is from God as well? If humans are capable of doing this the whole point becomes moot


And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful."

Produce a meal like my girlfriend, if you can not her cooking is from the Gods. Produce a painting like Picasso's, if you can not it is from God. These challenges makes the Quran look worse. Also the challenge is only judged by Muslims so the judges are already biased. This renders the challenge moot.

Here we have a test which proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the Qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an. For when trying to produce a chapter like the Qur'an, the skeptic will learn first-hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.



Genghis Khan and Alexander both conquered large areas of land larger than Muhammad did in his life time. Genghis's successors conquered an area larger than any of the Muslim Empires.

Response: No one said that a text with no error is from God, and the challenge itself even acknowledges this. Yet the challenge shows that every logical reason why a person would lie is NOT in the Qur'an. Something you can test and observe yourself, thus it is scientific. And every reason why someone would not lie IS in the Qur'an, which you can also test and observe yourself. Therefore, the author is truthful. So since you fail to find otherwise, then the author of the Qur'an is truthful.

As for the rest, the challenge is not to conquer large land, but for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer and rule a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. So have you conquered and ruled a nation? NO. Have you conquered and ruled the street you live on? NO. Thus you've done absolutely nothing in answering the challenge and have been dodging it from the beginning. Thus your ducking and dodging to attempt the challenge once again confirms your denial to the fact that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah.

 

[outhouse]

The Koran is not true in many places.


You avoid and denounce credible education and knowledge, it is called fanaticism and fundamentalism.


It is just like trying to get a YEC to admit to the facts of evolution. No amount of credible knowledge will change their minds.



It should be embarrassing to all muslims to see their own kind avoid reality so hard.

 

[outhouse]

The flood of noah factually did not happen as written in your book.

 

[Desert Snake]

The flood of noah factually did not happen as written in your book.

funny how non-believers often go after one of things that is very probable.
/not saying im a bible skeptic, but the 'flood' is a gimme./ there are numerous narratives, large boat, and other floods happen all the time.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

The Koran is not true in many places.


You avoid and denounce credible education and knowledge, it is called fanaticism and fundamentalism.


It is just like trying to get a YEC to admit to the facts of evolution. No amount of credible knowledge will change their minds.



It should be embarrassing to all muslims to see their own kind avoid reality so hard.

Response: You failed to show anything false in the Qur'an and actually showed by your own standards that your argument is false since you have no historicity as to who made up Abraham, when, where, when, how and why. So you refuted yourself and demonstrated that Islam is true. Thanks.

 

[outhouse]

The flood of noah factually did not happen as written in your book.