Questions for Muslims

[Rival]

and mentioned in far older versions of the Bible too, although the name is "Ahmed" which is the Hebrew for Muhammad.

No he isn't. I've conceded that he is in the Qur'an but he is 100% not in the Bible. And if he was, how come no-one for over 600 years realised it? And please don't pull out the Song of Solomon crap, I feel sorry for Muslims when they do that.

 

[Faronator]

No he isn't. I've conceded that he is in the Qur'an but he is 100% not in the Bible. And if he was, how come no-one for over 600 years realised it? And please don't pull out the Song of Solomon crap, I feel sorry for Muslims when they do that.

I myself would like to see his mention in The Bible as well or at least a credible source although I remain neutral in this argument. I am just curious as to what he is talking about lol.

 

[Augustus]

Anyway, if you do a tree ring analysis, still there could be variations. And the maximum contamination can only make a difference of 20 years to the dating. Thus, earliest dating could be 548 and the latest dating 625 or to be more accurate a maximum of 623.

I'll reply properly to your post later. Just a quick note on RC dating:

"But one has to remain aware of the fact that the results are to be matched with other evidence. The analysis of dated parchment will certainly lead to a higher accuracy in the calibration process. For the moment, it underlines the limitations of this technique.The famous “Qurʾan of the Nurse” is one of the best-documented manuscripts at hand. Its colophon and its deed of waqf allow us to know that the copy was completed in 410/1020 An analysis performed on a piece of parchment taken from the manuscript helped to evaluate the accuracy of the measurements. A French laboratory determined the radiocarbon age of the parchment as BP 1130±30.64 This result was then calibrated and gave a date range comprised between 871 and 986ad, with a probability of 95%." (The Qurans of the Umayyads - Francois Deroche)

Similar to the Birmingham Quran - 95% accuracy but still significantly too early. Add 40 or so years to the Birmingham fragment and it ends up late 7th C as the textual details seem to suggest.

Looking at RC dating of ME manuscripts, the trend seems to be consistently too early, not too late, providing greater support for miscalibration.

 

[FearGod]

If you can't accept that there was no such religion as Islam before Muhammad, we are going to have problems.

Islam isn't a name of a person or a place such as Christ or Judah or Buddha ....etc

Islam is submission to God's will, it has no specific historical event or a person to follow, it's
simply our relationship with God as individuals and not as followers with a group of people.

 

[icehorse]

To Raahim (post #5) and Useless (post #34),

You both imply that Christianity is responsible for slaughtering human beings in the name of religion and Islam is not?

The best estimates that I've heard are that over the last 1300-1400 years, BOTH religions can be blamed for 200 - 300 million murders EACH.

In this regard, I wouldn't say Islam is worse than Christianity, I'd say they are both horrible.

 

[Shad]

There is no crystal clear historical evidence to the city of Mecca. There are only evidences taken from documents written years later. The Quran also does not refer to a city called Mecca. But there is no evidence to suggest the area was called by another name during that time either.

It is mentioned in the Quran. Bakkah is the old name of Mekka. More so the house of God built by Abraham is the Kaaba which is the same site as the one in Mecca now. At least according to Islam.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=96
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=96

 

[OurCreed]

I have quite a few.

a) If Islam is God's perfected religion and God sent Jesus as a mere messenger, why is Christianity the world's dominant religion and has been nearly since its inception? Why would Allah do that?

b) How is the Qur'an perfect and universal if it can only be studied and properly understood in Arabic? Also, why does the oldest copy not match up to any known copy we have today?

c) Why do all the earliest Mosques face Petra? And why does Petra fit the descriptions given in the Qur'an, not Mecca?

d) Provide me some non-Islamic evidence that Mecca existed in the time of Muhammad.
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca. This is 300 years after Muhammad’s death" http://www.academia.edu/1776803/The_Mecca_Question

e) Why couldn't Allah preserve the original message and where were the supposed 24,000 messengers that were sent to everywhere? Evidence?

f) Why isn't the word 'Muslim' or 'Muhammad' used during the Arabian conquests? Why do these words only appear years after Muhammad?

Thanks.

Salam, peace be upon you. The answers are rather simple.

a) Christianity is not the dominant religion. As you can see, there are hundreds of sects and denominations, and countless church communities all over the world. There is no unification in the religion. Second point is that most of Christianity today is not from the teachings of Jesus, but other folks who came after Jesus and added their own sayings and interpretations, such as Paul. Third reason also is regarding atheism. There are a lot of people out there who think religion is the same as culture. They consider themselves Christian/Catholic, but they don't really believe in God, nor do they practice anything of their religion. They are the same as atheists or agnostics. Here in the west, this is very plainly obvious. Many people identify themselves as "Christian" or "Christian family", but they cannot be considered true representatives of Christianity at all. I'm not generalizing, I'm laying out the facts that anyone can plainly see if they come to the west.

b) Firstly, the Qur'an, even though it is in Arabic, it talks about itself. The Qur'an says in chapter 3, verse 7, that the majority of its verses are clear and straightforward. There is no ambiguity in them. So the translations will make it easy, there is no need to go deep into the text to figure out what the Qur'an is saying. However, the Qur'an does say that there are some verses which can have multiple interpretations, and only God, and the people God blesses with knowledge, will be able to understand these verses. But these unclear verses don't have anything to do with commands, teachings, or beliefs. So anyone who wants to do a critical understanding of Islamic law will be able to do that, because all the laws, teachings, and beliefs, are made clear with no ambiguity. Just make sure you use multiple translations, some translations are bad. Another point of interest, the Arabic of the Qur'an is classical Arabic, the Arabic people speak today is Modern-Standard Arabic. The two are not 100% the same. So modern day Arabs still have to learn the Arabic of the Qur'an to understand its words, just like everyone else. Nobody speaks classical Arabic today. And regarding the oldest copy not matching up with the known copy today, can you provide any references to show where this is the case?

c) Mosques are built by people. What people do is irrelevant to what Islam says or teaches. The Qur'an teaches to face towards Mecca, specifically, Masjid-al-Haram, which is the big black house that all Muslims face in Mecca. That is what we should be facing.

d) http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/03/mecca-before-christianity-historical.html
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/85...explaining-the-origins-of-islam-part-i-of-ii/

e) The Qur'an clearly states that "There are messengers which we have made known to you and messengers which we have not made known to you." There have been thousands of messengers, we don't have evidences for their existence. The Qur'an simply refers to some of them by name and their stories. Whether one believes in their existence or not is irrelevant, God doesn't expect you to believe they existed. Only those who believe the Qur'an is the word of God will believe in their existence, and learn the lessons from them.

f) First, back this claim up with references. Thank you.

 

[OurCreed]

Also, the Qur'an never once mentions Muhammad; Muslims put that in there where it merely says "the messenger". This might not even refer to Muhammad for all anyone knows

The Qur'an mentions Muhammad 4 times by name.

PROOF: http://corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=muhammad

 

[Neo Deist]

Rival, the answers you seek (and probably already know) are:

1. Arabs wanted their own religion and Islam was created, using much of the theology found in Judaism.
2. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet and won the hearts and minds of those flocking to Islam.
3. The Quran is basically a copy of other religious texts that are far older, but was spiced up for the Arabs.
4. People see/believe what they want and will spin stuff to make it fit.

 

[Augustus]

1. Arabs wanted their own religion and Islam was created, using much of the theology found in Judaism.

Most Arabs had their own religion, they were Christians and Jews. Why do you think they collectively 'wanted' their own religion?

The Quran has a far closer connection to Christianity than Judaism also and clearly reflects a Christian environment.

2. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet and won the hearts and minds of those flocking to Islam.

It certainly seems there was a Prophet called Muhammed who had a religious message (possibly preaching the eschaton), it is far less certain that there was an 'Islam' for them to flock to. Many Jews and Christians were involved in the Arab conquests and the word Islam doesn't appear on the historical record for 90ish years AH.

3. The Quran is basically a copy of other religious texts that are far older, but was spiced up for the Arabs.

This is what people who have read 1 or 2 critical websites always say. It doesn't stand up to any real analysis though. It is a commentary/discourse on existing scripture, rather than a 'copy'.

"Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience. In it there are frequent references to biblical patriarchs, prophets, and other gures of Late Antique, Jewish, and Christian religious lore. One hears of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, and Jonah, among others from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, one reads of Jesus, Mary, Zecharaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples from the New Testament, but no mention of Paul and his epistles. What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts. So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth- century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic" S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic

"a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture."Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic - G. Dye

4. People see/believe what they want and will spin stuff to make it fit.

Which is why popular websites are not a good place to learn about Islamic history from.

 

[Neo Deist]

My premise in post #49 stands.

 

[DawudTalut]

........

c) Why do all the earliest Mosques face Petra? And why does Petra fit the descriptions given in the Qur'an, not Mecca?

Peace be on you.
It was due to calculation methods, IMO.

Magnetic declination was considered to find correct Kaaba direction latter.


Magnetic declination or variation is the angle on the horizontal plane between magnetic north (the direction the north end of a compass needle points, corresponding to the direction of the Earth's magnetic field lines) and true north (the direction along a meridian towards the geographicNorth Pole). This angle varies depending on position on the Earth's surface, and changes over time.

Example of magnetic declination showing a compass needle with a "positive" (or "easterly") variation from geographic north. Ng is geographic or true north, Nm is magnetic north, and δ is magnetic declination
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination

==================================================================
According to Needham (1962), changes in magnetic declination were discovered in China around 720 CE when the astronomer Yi-Xing measured magnetic declination (see Figure 14.2b). The compass arrived in Europe some time in the 12th century. Magnets and compasses were discussed in a letter (Epistola) by Petrus Peregrinus written in 1269 (finally printed in 1558). Apparently the idea of declination did not accompany the compass. The deviation of magnetic north from true north was not rediscovered by Europeans until the early 1400s. Europeans began to make systematic measurements of declination in the early 1500s. Magnetic inclination was discovered in the mid-1500s in Europe.

http://magician.ucsd.edu/essentials/WebBookse89.html

===================================================================

More https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass#Muslim_world

===================================================================

Mere few degrees' difference at original place would create lot of difference near Mecca.

==================================================================

Kabaa is a buidling in Al-Haram mosque, in Mecca. To Kabaa Muslims face during worship. Muslims do not worship Kabaa:

[Quran 2:145] Verily, We see thee turning thy face often to heaven; surely, then, will We make thee turn to the Qiblah which thou likest. So, turn thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you be, turn your faces towards it. And they to whom the Book has been given know that this is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not unmindful of what they do.

[2:150] And from wheresoever thou comest forth, turn thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; for that is indeed the truth from thy Lord. And Allah is not unmindful of what you do.

[2:151] And from wheresoever thou comest forth, turn thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you be, turn your faces towards it that people may have no argument against you, except those who are unjust — so fear them not, but fear Me — and that I may perfect My favour upon you; and that you may be rightly guided.

[3:97] Surely, the first House founded for mankind is that at Becca, abounding in blessings and a guidance for all peoples.

[alislam.org/quran]

==================================================================

Additional Information:
EXPLANATION ABOUT BLACK STONE AND KABAA
Based on Writting of AHMADIYYA MUSLIM PROMISED MESSIAH MAHDI (on whom be peace)
1= Black stone is there to show as model for a spiritual matter. In Islam, Allah has placed models for important commandments. For example, it is commanded that a believer should offer his or her sacrifice through their self and faculties. And physical sacrifice of animal is token model for this philosophy. Blood and meat of animal do not reach to Allah but only the righteousness of heart reaches..Meaning that a believer should live life as if his or her low self-desires are sacrificed by their own hands. They live according to guidance of God.


2= Parallel to spiritual matters, Allah makes physical matters as model. Kaba is made for that purpose. According to Holy Quran, human is made for worship of God. [it is vast subject: worship indicate recognition, love, fear of losing Him, obedience, paying His and His creation's right, successful life and Hereafter, meeting Lord.]

Worship is of two types:

i-Through humbleness.

ii-Through love and sacrifice.



Explanation:
i- Five daily Islamic Salaat is the worship, in which body stands, bow and prostrate as physical model of the states of soul. Body and soul both offer Salaat. There are prayers in each of these action. In prostration, heart do fall prostrate before Lord. Body and soul affect each other in prayer.



ii- In the second kind of worship through love and sacrifice, body and soul affect each other too. In love, human soul always revolves around beloved and kiss beloved’s place. Similarly, Kaba is physical model for true lovers so that they show their enthusiasm of love. People at Hajj make circuits around kaba in love, they remove their beauties and shave heads, and kiss the black stone as the stone of beloved's place. This physical fire of love creates heat in spiritual love and soul revolve around the Beloved and metaphorically kisses His station.


There is no idol-worship in it. One kisses one's friend's letter too. No Muslim worship Kaba and do not seek anything from blackstone. This is physical model declared by God Himself. We do sajdah (islamic prostration) at earth but we do not worship earth. We kiss blackstone but not for balckstone. Stone is stone it cannot benefit or hurt to anyone. It is Hand of the beloved which pointed that this stone is model of His station.


[Reference: Based on writings of Ahmadiyya Muslim Promised Messiah and Mahdi (on whom be peace) be peace), Ruhani Khazain, vol 23]

 

[icehorse]

Firstly, the Qur'an, even though it is in Arabic, it talks about itself. The Qur'an says in chapter 3, verse 7, that the majority of its verses are clear and straightforward. There is no ambiguity in them. So the translations will make it easy, there is no need to go deep into the text to figure out what the Qur'an is saying. However, the Qur'an does say that there are some verses which can have multiple interpretations, and only God, and the people God blesses with knowledge, will be able to understand these verses. But these unclear verses don't have anything to do with commands, teachings, or beliefs. So anyone who wants to do a critical understanding of Islamic law will be able to do that, because all the laws, teachings, and beliefs, are made clear with no ambiguity. Just make sure you use multiple translations, some translations are bad.

Wow! A lot of contradictions in this paragraph. Also, you must understand that for the 6 billion people who aren't Muslims, when the Quran talks about itself (which I agree it does), non-Muslims don't think this is any evidence at all. By analogy, if I tell you that I'm the prophet, do you believe me? Of course not. So for the Quran to declare itself "clear" (or for that matter, for the Quran to declare anything about itself), is meaningless. Similarly, the Quran says over and over again that Allah is merciful. Given the rest of the book, that claim seems inaccurate. If you were to read a version of the Quran in which the phrase "Allah is merciful" is removed throughout, no one would conclude that Allah is merciful.

 

[DawudTalut]

....... Similarly, the Quran says over and over again that Allah is merciful. Given the rest of the book, that claim seems inaccurate. If you were to read a version of the Quran in which the phrase "Allah is merciful" is removed throughout, no one would conclude that Allah is merciful.

Peace and mercy be on you.

1=Mercy of Allah encompasses everything but it does not mean He will not cure the aggressors. Ttreatment is mercy too. He will consider the circumstances of individual too.

[Quran 35:46] And if Allah were to punish people for what they do, He would not leave a living creature on the surface of the earth; but He grants them respite until an appointed term; and when their appointed time comes, then they will know that Allah has all His servants under His eyes.

2=A lot of mercy @ https://www.alislam.org/quran/searc...&swep=N&swaotw=&rpp=10&search=Search&slang=EN

 

[icehorse]

Hi Dawud,

We'll just have to agree to disagree. IMO, the Quran does NOT describe a merciful God.

 

[Augustus]

My premise in post #49 stands.

Stands as evidence that lots of people on the internet seem to believe that it's not important to have actually read much on a topic before they fell free to comment on it with a high degree of certainty.

If you actually are interested in the subject there's lots of resources here and a basic summary of some of the ideas here.

Tl;dr, it's very complex and hard to say anything with a high degree of certainty as contemporary evidence is very limited and to some extent ambiguous.

 

[OurCreed]

Wow! A lot of contradictions in this paragraph. Also, you must understand that for the 6 billion people who aren't Muslims, when the Quran talks about itself (which I agree it does), non-Muslims don't think this is any evidence at all. By analogy, if I tell you that I'm the prophet, do you believe me? Of course not. So for the Quran to declare itself "clear" (or for that matter, for the Quran to declare anything about itself), is meaningless. Similarly, the Quran says over and over again that Allah is merciful. Given the rest of the book, that claim seems inaccurate. If you were to read a version of the Quran in which the phrase "Allah is merciful" is removed throughout, no one would conclude that Allah is merciful.

Where are the contradictions in the paragraph? Did you even read chapter 3, verse 7?

Everything else you are saying is irrelevant. I never said the Qur'an talking about itself is evidence. But it is a point to note that the Qur'an ain't just a book that says a bunch of things and goes away. It's a book that has prepared itself for people coming on to refute its words.

"So for the Quran to declare itself "clear" (or for that matter, for the Quran to declare anything about itself), is meaningless."

How? You just made a statement without any support.

"Similarly, the Quran says over and over again that Allah is merciful. Given the rest of the book, that claim seems inaccurate. If you were to read a version of the Quran in which the phrase "Allah is merciful" is removed throughout, no one would conclude that Allah is merciful."

What are you implying with the rest of the book? If there was no mention of God being merciful, we would still have the other attributes mentioned, such as God being loving, being just, gracious, bountiful, and the rest of His attributes. A person would still be able to conclude God is merciful. And the rest of the Qur'an doesn't speak of God being un-merciful. God is merciful, but He is also just. So He punishes those who deserve punishment, just like governments do in today's world.

 

[Neo Deist]

Stands as evidence that lots of people on the internet seem to believe that it's not important to have actually read much on a topic before they fell free to comment on it with a high degree of certainty.

If you actually are interested in the subject there's lots of resources here and a basic summary of some of the ideas here.

Tl;dr, it's very complex and hard to say anything with a high degree of certainty as contemporary evidence is very limited and to some extent ambiguous.

I don't really care about Islam or any other religion. Most are just copy cats of what came before, they are all man made, their books were written by human hands, and the people that wrote/founded them had very little scientific or medical knowledge.

 

[Augustus]

The thing we dont have an English version of it, if you do, please let me know where I could buy one.

I don't think there is one, only in French

Predating Muhammed is of nearing zero percent.

It's certainly very unlikely.

Even if the RC dating is accurate (which I don't think it is), it would be much more likely to be at the end of the range rather than the beginning due to the additional evidence from the script and the existing traditions.

I know the text contains nokths that are accepted to have been developed later. But that theory is also a late development. See, there are many Muslim scholars who have been proponents of Ahadith based propositions. Since Ahamed and others also record that there was a ban in writing anything other than the Quran down after the prophets death there is a question if anyone wrote hadith down for 30 years after the prophet. Many scholars concede that the ahadith dictated what goes into the Quran. Thus if there is a Quran written during his lifetime or even 12 years later as carbon-14 dating of the Birmingham manuscript concludes, then the proposition that Hadith deemed what went into the Quran and not fails.

This is why many Muslim scholars are skeptical about the manuscript having such an early date.

Possibly. With things from this era little can be known with a high degree of certainty and many people do have their agendas.

Also we were born and bred to understand that the Quran was written on various material and collated later after the prophet died. Its very difficult to gulp down that nope, it could have been collated earlier. The manuscript has the 18th and 20st chapters. According to tradition the first chapter to be revealed was chapter 96. In that order there are 25 surahs in between chapter 20 and 18. This means a bare minimum of 25 chapters would have been collected at the time, in one collection. Same handwriting, same everything. If we deem that the chapters upto 18 were there, thats a total of 69 chapters. More than half the Quran in terms of number of chapters, in length, more. All meccan.

This depends on whether or not you accept that the accepted chapter separation always existed or were a later addition.

Hidden Origins of Islam has a myriad of things I have problems. Luxenburgs study of varying points between classical Arabic and Aramaic has many flaws to a person studied classical Arabic. It is actually kind of hypocritical to change Alnikathus here, there and around in an older language to see how the meaning changes. Thus, I dont side with him at all, though his work is commendable as an academic study.

The book is not particularly persuasive overall (well the chapters I've read), as it tends to make it's own case and fails to address much of the contradictory evidence. Luxenberg suffers from the problem that he tries to stretch a hypothesis far beyond its breaking point. The idea that knowledge of Syriac can aid understanding of certain passages seems to yield some results. The idea that the whole text is simply a translation of much older sources is fanciful and requires him to speculate wildly and play fast and loose with the text and his methodology.

Luxenberg only contributed one chapter though, there are a few interesting things in some of the other chapters, but overall the book is far too revisionist given its failure to address and refute existing scholarship.

 

[OurCreed]

To Raahim (post #5) and Useless (post #34),

You both imply that Christianity is responsible for slaughtering human beings in the name of religion and Islam is not?

The best estimates that I've heard are that over the last 1300-1400 years, BOTH religions can be blamed for 200 - 300 million murders EACH.

In this regard, I wouldn't say Islam is worse than Christianity, I'd say they are both horrible.

Human actions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the principles prescribed by religion. That's a logical fallacy at that.