Muhammads knowledge divine or learned?

[vskipper]

A. I don't see a problem in God giving Gabriel a different mission in the era of Muhammad. Angels in the first place were created with the sole nature to receive orders and apply them. Gabriel was generally the connection from God. Different messages and tasks could take place in such a role. Jesus was mentioned in the Quran way much more than Muhammad. That gives Jesus a special place, but it does not belittle Muhammad.

B. Actually, Muhammad did obtain Christian and Jewish teachings audibly from Christians and Jews. God even told Muhammad in the Quran to refer to them for some teachings. Some of those teachings that show clearly even these days are the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth teaching, forbidding adultery and fornication, and forbidding eating pork.

Funny because in the Torah there a couple instances of several angels such as the ones that approached Ibrahim. Matter of fact the Book of Luke, if I'm not mistaken, is the only book in the Old AND New Testament that mention Gabriel.

Now you concede that Muhammad had prior knowledge of Judaic & Christian teachings. So (in my thinking anyway) the individual truly concerned with eternity is going to ask, 'how do I know that Muhammad did not just intermix poetic form with the stories and teachings he had learned? Matter of fact there are two seperate Judac practices that are incredibly similar to wudu & ghusl.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Dude start bring credible sources to the table if you have a point to make.

Your opinion means nothing and carries no credibility.

Not a single word you posted addresses my reply. I am sorry your religion leaves you with no credible evidence to bring to the table.

Nor I had the intention in the first place, to address spam and trolling, that is. As long as the sources the OP and I are discussing have the possibility to be credible to both of us only, your credibility argument is not in place.

I'm sorry you have a grudge against my religion, and other religions too.

Now, please stick to the topic if you have anything related to its points of discussion.

Funny because in the Torah there a couple instances of several angels such as the ones that approached Ibrahim. Matter of fact the Book of Luke, if I'm not mistaken, is the only book in the Old AND New Testament that mention Gabriel.

It's okay, there is not problem in what the Torah says. What I fail to see is why does it bother you the fact that Gabriel's name is not mentioned so much in the older books. Do you mean that it means he's not worthy of delivering the message to the prophet? I don't think it is a good reason for that. Or maybe that he never existed? Well, he was mentioned at least once, so we cannot say that either.

Sorry for being dense, but please cope with me a little more. Does the sole fact that Gabriel was mentioned only that much times in the older books prove something? Please answer yes or not, then clarify.

Now you concede that Muhammad had prior knowledge of Judaic & Christian teachings. So (in my thinking anyway) the individual truly concerned with eternity is going to ask, 'how do I know that Muhammad did not just intermix poetic form with the stories and teachings he had learned? Matter of fact there are two seperate Judac practices that are incredibly similar to wudu & ghusl.

Yes I do concede that Muhammad had prior knowledge of Judaic & Christian teachings.

I personally cannot give a perfect proof. All I can say is that Muhammad was sent to believe, follow and supersede (but not completely change) the previous two religions, and that the God that sent him is the same God that sent the previous prophets and religions. Maybe if you read some parts of the Quran that tell things a man like Muhammad could never have told? Things that were not mentioned in the previous books. Maybe as one example that the salt water and the fresh water don't mix because of a barrier even though the are connected to each other at some places (once the barrier is broken, they will mix to just a limited extent, but don't take over each other completely). Salt water and fresh water at home do mix because the barrier is not there. There were no rivers where Muhammad lived to say so himself, so I believe it was revealed to him from God. Or maybe the composition of the human body is the same as earth and after death it goes to earth, or the fact that there is no life at all, no matter what, without water. Sorry but I'll have to ask you to search yourself if they were mentioned in the previous religions. As far as I know they are not, but I could be wrong. Also, if there are proofs the examples above are wrong, please tel me so I can update my knowledge.

 

[Shad]

Maybe as one example that the salt water and the fresh water don't mix because of a barrier even though the are connected to each other at some places (once the barrier is broken, they will mix to just a limited extent, but don't take over each other completely). Salt water and fresh water at home do mix because the barrier is not there. There were no rivers where Muhammad lived to say so himself, so I believe it was revealed to him from God. Or maybe the composition of the human body is the same as earth and after death it goes to earth, or the fact that there is no life at all, no matter what, without water. Sorry but I'll have to ask you to search yourself if they were mentioned in the previous religions. As far as I know they are not, but I could be wrong. Also, if there are proofs the examples above are wrong, please tel me so I can update my knowledge.

In the Quran it says the barrier can not be transgressed, as is passed. If salt and fresh water do mix at all this barrier has been transgressed. So you are rationalization the verse by contradicting the verse. The idea of fresh and salt water not mixing dates back to Aristotle, which he got wrong as well. If these waters did not mix to a high degree we would see an increasing amount of fresh water in bodies of salt water at the point of contact with fresh water. We see estuaries however estuaries can shrink or expand, estuaries being the point of mixing. Fresh water mixes with salt water becomes various degrees of brackish water. The brackish water flow further away from the fresh water, providing a source of current either within the water like temperate or external like wind. The water mixes with the salt water evidential becoming homogenous within a salinity and temperate based division; very cold and very salty, cold and salty, warm and less salty. However these layers allow movement of water molecules between these layers due to further mixing of salinity factors and temperatures. The confusion here is mistaking the mixing points of contact with actually barriers.

 

[Shad]

Just for your own sake, please contemplate on what you just said above.

Many people were illiterate. Most of the old cathedrals were designed and build by illiterate masons. There were no blueprints but rather a working scale model. Illiteracy is as a disadvantage these days as the education system is built around text based models. In the past education for many trades was direct apprenticeship and hands on experience not reading texts.

 

[Smart_Guy]

In the Quran it says the barrier can not be transgressed, as is passed. If salt and fresh water do mix at all this barrier has been transgressed. So you are rationalization the verse by contradicting the verse. The idea of fresh and salt water not mixing dates back to Aristotle, which he got wrong as well. If these waters did not mix to a high degree we would see an increasing amount of fresh water in bodies of salt water at the point of contact with fresh water. We see estuaries however estuaries can shrink or expand, estuaries being the point of mixing. Fresh water mixes with salt water becomes various degrees of brackish water. The brackish water flow further away from the fresh water, providing a source of current either within the water like temperate or external like wind. The water mixes with the salt water evidential becoming homogenous within a salinity and temperate based division; very cold and very salty, cold and salty, warm and less salty. However these layers allow movement of water molecules between these layers due to further mixing of salinity factors and temperatures. The confusion here is mistaking the mixing points of contact with actually barriers.

Hmm.. the Quran only says God created two waters that don't mix. Looking around we find that there are examples that it is true, and the example I gave was the river and see meeting but neither the river becomes salt nor the see becomes fresh. The Quran did not give examples at all, it just mentioned that such a thing was created. It in not like fresh and salt waters never mix. Taking that verse as a general rule that some waters never mix is wrong and contradicts with the meaning of the verse.

But either ways, Aristotle talked about it first, so this argument is void to the OP'er and me. Hence even if it is wrong or right, it lost its value. Of course the OP'er will have to confirm that Aristotle really did say it first. For now I personally think it was related to him from other sources, but that's just me.

Many people were illiterate. Most of the old cathedrals were designed and build by illiterate masons. There were no blueprints but rather a working scale model. Illiteracy is as a disadvantage these days as the education system is built around text based models. In the past education for many trades was direct apprenticeship and hands on experience not reading texts.

Very well said.

You said most, while he said everyone was illiterate. You're in my favor proving him wrong. I appreciate your support.

 

[Sleeppy]

Hmm.. the Quran only says God created two waters that don't mix. Looking around we find that there are examples that it is true, and the example I gave was the river and see meeting but neither the river becomes salt nor the see becomes fresh. The Quran did not give examples at all, it just mentioned that such a thing was created. It in not like fresh and salt waters never mix. Taking that verse as a general rule that some waters never mix is wrong and contradicts with the meaning of the verse.

But either ways, Aristotle talked about it first, so this argument is void to the OP'er and me. Hence even if it is wrong or right, it lost its value. Of course the OP'er will have to confirm that Aristotle really did say it first. For now I personally think it was related to him from other sources, but that's just me.

The Quran says Allah created two waters that don't mix; you gave the example that rivers don't mix with seas? If you're conceding that they do in fact mix, it doesn't serve as a relevant example, at all. The fact that the Quran doesn't give any examples makes the entire verse meaningless. What is the point of the verse? What is the meaning of the verse?

 

[vskipper]

Hmm.. the Quran only says God created two waters that don't mix. Looking around we find that there are examples that it is true, and the example I gave was the river and see meeting but neither the river becomes salt nor the see becomes fresh. The Quran did not give examples at all, it just mentioned that such a thing was created. It in not like fresh and salt waters never mix. Taking that verse as a general rule that some waters never mix is wrong and contradicts with the meaning of the verse.

But either ways, Aristotle talked about it first, so this argument is void to the OP'er and me. Hence even if it is wrong or right, it lost its value. Of course the OP'er will have to confirm that Aristotle really did say it first. For now I personally think it was related to him from other sources, but that's just me.



Very well said.

You said most, while he said everyone was illiterate. You're in my favor proving him wrong. I appreciate your support.

1. I am not confirming anything because I didn't say it. My knowledge of Aristotle is limited outside of political science. However, if Shad would like to cite some sources on the matter it would be of great use seeing as how the early Catholic church (who had a significant presence in Syria) commonly intermingled Greek philosophy with their teachings.

2. It seems you want flat out stated thought instead of intellectual discussion. Okay here goes:
Based on reason of his exposure to it I cannot help but to think that he memorized lessons & later it came forth from him to become the Qur'an. I think that Muhammad suffered some kind of episode (possible stroke or epileptic seizure) and in this episode the only name he could think of was Gabriel because that was the only angel name known. I also believe that a lot of the things he did are clear signs that he had severe OCD

 

[Smart_Guy]

The Quran says Allah created two waters that don't mix; you gave the example that rivers don't mix with seas? If you're conceding that they do in fact mix, it doesn't serve as a relevant example, at all. The fact that the Quran doesn't give any examples makes the entire verse meaningless. What is the point of the verse? What is the meaning of the verse?

Maybe

But I don't see why the Quran must give examples to make a point that is mentioned. There are two waters that meet but don't mix in this life as a fact. This fact goes in agreement with the verse.

 

[YmirGF]

Maybe

But I don't see why the Quran must give examples to make a point that is mentioned. There are two waters that meet but don't mix in this life as a fact. This fact goes in agreement with the verse.

Aside from the fact that they do indeed mix. Just sayin'

 

[Sleeppy]

Maybe

But I don't see why the Quran must give examples to make a point that is mentioned. There are two waters that meet but don't mix in this life as a fact. This fact goes in agreement with the verse.

But you don't know which two waters indicate that the verse is factual? Or even why it matters? If you don't see a problem with that, that's fine.. Believing everything the Quran says, because it says to, is your right.-- I'm Christian; I stopped believing everything the Bible said a while ago, and started verifying everything.. It's the only way to remain honest. If you don't have honesty, you have deception and sin.

 

[Smart_Guy]

But you don't know which two waters indicate that the verse is factual? Or even why it matters? If you don't see a problem with that, that's fine.. Believing everything the Quran says, because it says to, is your right.-- I'm Christian; I stopped believing everything the Bible said a while ago, and started verifying everything.. It's the only way to remain honest. If you don't have honesty, you have deception and sin.

I don't need to know. I know that one of them at least, as a fact, is the rivers and sees meeting without mixing.

I'm not telling you to believe me. I don't have the right to do that.

I don't have honesty? Why can't people keep a discussion decent these days?

And good one, calling yourself Christian while not believing what the Bible says.

1. I am not confirming anything because I didn't say it. My knowledge of Aristotle is limited outside of political science. However, if Shad would like to cite some sources on the matter it would be of great use seeing as how the early Catholic church (who had a significant presence in Syria) commonly intermingled Greek philosophy with their teachings.

2. It seems you want flat out stated thought instead of intellectual discussion. Okay here goes:
Based on reason of his exposure to it I cannot help but to think that he memorized lessons & later it came forth from him to become the Qur'an. I think that Muhammad suffered some kind of episode (possible stroke or epileptic seizure) and in this episode the only name he could think of was Gabriel because that was the only angel name known. I also believe that a lot of the things he did are clear signs that he had severe OCD

Why the sudden change in attitude?

1. You did not say it, Outhouse said it. I see you're losing track to you own thread.

2. I wanted to change track of an intellectual discussion? You wanna change a decent discussion to childish come backs (the way of calling names), you should have said this in the beginning. You should have told us from the beginning you only were a hater with ulterior motives against Islam.

I can't believe I respected you. I was wrong. This will be my last post here. Call it running away if you want, because it is. It is running away from childishness.

 

[vskipper]

Wow overreact much?

I redirect you to post #26

You seemed like you were having trouble understanding what I was driving at so I stated it outright. If you will read my words you will see I say "I believe". That is called an opinion. Now if you disagree with it fine but calling my opinion childish is childish.

P.S.
I don't have ulterior motives. I simply have my current thoughts and I am ever questing after the trith and God. Nothing more, nothing less. Reason must be a factor and my mind must be open to alternatives or I will never be open to truth.

 

[Shad]

Hmm.. the Quran only says God created two waters that don't mix. Looking around we find that there are examples that it is true, and the example I gave was the river and see meeting but neither the river becomes salt nor the see becomes fresh. The Quran did not give examples at all, it just mentioned that such a thing was created. It in not like fresh and salt waters never mix. Taking that verse as a general rule that some waters never mix is wrong and contradicts with the meaning of the verse.

Rivers are not single objects but an identification of many objects, water molecules along with other elements and chemicals. Brackish water is salt water which is found in estuaries since by definition it is salt water. Now it may not have the same level of salt water in an ocean but is still salt water. Water which is not salt water, has no salt in it at all, is fresh water. Since rivers flow it is the fresh water flowing into salt water. The brackish water is the mixing of fresh water bodies flowing into salt water bodies. Since currents along with other mechanics such as wind and gravity, continue to move the fresh water further into the salt water body. The fresh water mixes with the salt water further and further from brackish to salinity found in ocean layers. Salt molecules are diluted into the fresh water turning it to salt water. Thus there is no barrier but a point of mixing. Barrier is the wrong word to use thus is in error. The word used,transgress, is wrong as well since we see the opposite the verse is false. The Quran gave a fine example which can be applied to rivers, seas, oceans, lakes, etc. Surah 25:53 Salt water and fresh water. So the verse is plainly in error.

The Dead Sea is a body of salt water yet has a fresh water source. If water did not mix there would be an increasing area of fresh water. More so the size of the Dead Sea would increase, overflow its banks completely to encompass more and more of the Jordan river valley. However this is not the case as fresh water mixes with the salt water. Also there is evaporation with leaves salt behind. So due to the above mixing and evaporation we can conclude salt is soluble in water, experiments at home can confirm both.

The polarity between salt and water will well known and is common middle-school science

1. The polarity of water molecules enables water to dissolve many ionically bonded substances

2. Salt (sodium chloride) is made from positive sodium ions bonded to negative chloride ions

3. Water can dissolve salt because the positive part of water molecules attracts the negative chloride ions and the negative part of water molecules attracts the positive sodium ions.

4. The amount of a substance that can dissolve in a liquid (at a particular temperature) is called the solubility of the substance

5. The substance being dissolved is called the solute, and the substance doing the dissolving is called the solvent.

But either ways, Aristotle talked about it first, so this argument is void to the OP'er and me. Hence even if it is wrong or right, it lost its value. Of course the OP'er will have to confirm that Aristotle really did say it first. For now I personally think it was related to him from other sources, but that's just me.

It shows that this incorrect knowledge was already present for centuries before the Quran and widely available due to Hellenization and Romanization. Since this knowledge was repeated in the Quran it is not divine as a divine being would not be in error. Thus in this case the verse was learned, repeated in error and assumed divine due to the presupposition based ideology.

Very well said.

You said most, while he said everyone was illiterate. You're in my favor proving him wrong. I appreciate your support.

Just pointing out the conflict between modern views and past views. Many ideas of the past were completely normal and acceptable which we find absurd or objectionable in the present.

 

[Shad]

1. I am not confirming anything because I didn't say it. My knowledge of Aristotle is limited outside of political science. However, if Shad would like to cite some sources on the matter it would be of great use seeing as how the early Catholic church (who had a significant presence in Syria) commonly intermingled Greek philosophy with their teachings.

Source: The Internet Classics Archive | Meteorology by Aristotle

 

[vskipper]

Dont bother Shad. I stated my highly probable opinion & rather than discuss the matter smart guy left

 

[Shad]

Not highly probable but well established opinion back by evidence and experimentation. The conclusion of the errors in this verse are apparent when compared to factual science.

 

[Maldini]

What kind of a stupid deity would share his knowledge with a single person inside a cave rather than sharing it openly with everyone?

What was he, deep throat?

It's funny a lot of Muslims or other faith people, If I ask them to give me 100 dollars and in return I will give them a thousand in two weeks, they wouldn't risk 100 dollars unless they are sure I'm legitimate, but they are willing to accept a story of a guy who went into a cave in the middle of desert 1400 years ago and suddenly became the most holy person in the world who knew everything was better than everyone, as if it it's a hard undeniable fact.

 

[vskipper]

I think Muhammad is highly intriguing pyschologically. He believed in his 1st encounter that he was choking and heard a voice. When he returned he was trembling and shaking. In later revelations it is said that he would go into convulsions.During these it was said that he was absent from this world. He was unresponsive to others. My mind thinks epileptic seizures.

Next during what is known as wudu & ghusl respectively everything is done in terms of three. My mind thinks OCD

 

[Maldini]

I think Muhammad is highly intriguing pyschologically. He believed in his 1st encounter that he was choking and heard a voice. When he returned he was trembling and shaking. In later revelations it is said that he would go into convulsions.During these it was said that he was absent from this world. He was unresponsive to others. My mind thinks epileptic seizures.

Next during what is known as wudu & ghusl respectively everything is done in terms of three. My mind thinks OCD

No because he simply abused his position as a prophet among people to form an empire. he was not stupid or mentally ill in my opinion, he was pretty smart.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't need to know. I know that one of them at least, as a fact, is the rivers and sees meeting without mixing.

I'm not telling you to believe me. I don't have the right to do that.

I don't have honesty? Why can't people keep a discussion decent these days?

And good one, calling yourself Christian while not believing what the Bible says.

I believe what I can verify. Rivers do mix into the seas; this is verifiable. To state otherwise is dishonest. You've been deceived-- which is hardly your own fault, I have no reason to be indecent with you.