Quotes Series: From Quran- Authored by G-d not by Muhammad

[paarsurrey]

Wrong please? Again, again, again, and again, you put too much emphasis on the "Book of Certitude" as the whole of Baha'i Revelation of God, and it is NOT. Your extreme selective bias against the Baha'i Faith is clearly apparent.

Nonetheless, Baha'u'llah proclaim His message a Manifestation of the Word of God.

“From time immemorial,” Bahá’u’lláh, speaking of God, explains, “He, the Divine Being, hath been veiled in the ineffable sanctity of His exalted Self, and will everlasting continue to be wrapt in the impenetrable mystery of His unknowable Essence… Ten thousand Prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at God’s forbidding voice, ‘Thou shalt never behold Me!’; whilst a myriad Messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon their heavenly thrones by the interdiction ‘Mine Essence thou shalt never apprehend!’” “How bewildering to me, insignificant as I am,” Bahá’u’lláh in His communion with God affirms, “is the attempt to fathom the sacred depths of Thy knowledge! How futile my efforts to visualize the magnitude of the power inherent in Thine handiwork—the revelation of Thy creative power!” “When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee,” He, in yet another prayer revealed in His own handwriting, testifies, “I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!”

“The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days,” Bahá’u’lláh further states in the Kitáb-i-Íqán, “being thus closed in the face of all beings, He, the Source of infinite grace … hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness to appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable Essence… All the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy and chosen Messengers are, without exception, the bearers of 114 His names and the embodiments of His attributes… These Tabernacles of Holiness, these primal Mirrors which reflect the Light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles.”

Your extreme selective bias against the Baha'i Faith is clearly apparent.

"Kitab-i-Iqan"*/"Book of Certitude*" was not selected by me for study, it was selected/suggested to me by the Bahaism people themselves as the top of the two books to be read by me to make of equal size of the Quran for a comparison with the Quran as a direct Word of Revelation authored by G-d, to prove that neither Quran is authored by Muhammad nor "Kitab-i-Iqan"/"Book of Certitude" is authored by Bahaullah .

"Kitab-i-Iqan"/"Book of Certitude" utterly failed to have be authored by G-d, it proved to be the handwork or handicraft of Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí who self acquired/proclaimed with the title of Bahaullah, never given to him by G-d.
The comparison proved to me that:

• As a talkative man talks too much without substance that is the case of Bahaullah, who wrote too much without substance that makes difficult even for his followers to read all of it.

Right, please?
I am not against Bahaullah and his followers. Bahaullah has died so his case is with G-d, why should I be against him. As for his followers they have the right and free to believe in whatever suits them. I have expressed what I have sincerely come to conclude from my search/research, and I have no fear to express it out for others to know it.Right, please?

Regards
_____________
*The Kitáb-i-Íqán (Persian: كتاب ايقان‎, Arabic: كتاب الإيقان‎ "The Book of Certitude") is one of many books held sacred by followers of the Bahá'í Faith; it is their primary theological work. One Bahá'í scholar states that it can be regarded as the "most influential Quran commentary in Persian outside the Muslim world," because of its international audience.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the Book of Iqan or simply The Iqan.
Kitáb-i-Íqán - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

"Kitab-i-Iqan"*/"Book of Certitude*" was not selected by me for study, it was selected/suggested to me by the Bahaism people themselves as the top of the two books to be read by me to make of equal size of the Quran for a comparison with the Quran as a direct Word of Revelation authored by G-d, to prove that neither Quran is authored by Muhammad nor "Kitab-i-Iqan"/"Book of Certitude" is authored by Bahaullah .

"Kitab-i-Iqan"/"Book of Certitude" utterly failed to have be authored by G-d, it proved to be the handwork or handicraft of Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí who self acquired/proclaimed with the title of Bahaullah, never given to him by G-d.
The comparison proved to me that:

• As a talkative man talks too much without substance that is the case of Bahaullah, who wrote too much without substance that makes difficult even for his followers to read all of it.

Right, please?
I am not against Bahaullah and his followers. Bahaullah has died so his case is with G-d, why should I be against him. As for his followers they have the right and free to believe in whatever suits them. I have expressed what I have sincerely come to conclude from my search/research, and I have no fear to express it out for others to know it.Right, please?

Regards
_____________
*The Kitáb-i-Íqán (Persian: كتاب ايقان‎, Arabic: كتاب الإيقان‎ "The Book of Certitude") is one of many books held sacred by followers of the Bahá'í Faith; it is their primary theological work. One Bahá'í scholar states that it can be regarded as the "most influential Quran commentary in Persian outside the Muslim world," because of its international audience.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the Book of Iqan or simply The Iqan.
Kitáb-i-Íqán - Wikipedia

No problem with most of the above except that is not main issue here of your assertions concerning the Book of Certitude from the perspective of the Quran ONLY Islamic perspective.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure,its called logic,makes sense,then there would be no doubt or disbelief.

And there is:
[2:3]ذٰلِکَ الۡکِتٰبُ لَا رَیۡبَ ۚۖۛ فِیۡہِ ۚۛ ہُدًی لِّلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ ۙ﴿۳﴾
This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah
Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I only agreed with what I colored in magenta while I was replying the post of our friend @stvdv , one may discuss one's viewpoint with him.
Right, please?

So you're just agreeing to a few random words with no particular context?
Owkay.
Doesn't seem to make much sense though.

Yet, the poster our friend @stvdv for whom my reply was intended, primarily, rated my comments as "informative" as it made sense to him. Thus one's remarks on my reply to him seem to be superfluous, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I usually quote from the link that provides translation by Sher Ali:
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 1: Al-Fatihah
To help understand one could also use the followings:
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran for word for word translation and grammar.
al-Fatihah 1:1
This site provides 50+ translations of Quran including some rendered by Non-Muslims, Jews and Christians; there is no restriction if some Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people also do it.
The original text in Arabic is secure and protected. Quran uses about 3000 root-words of vocabulary, not much if one starts learning it.
I understand directly from the original Arabic text, just for information, please.

I don't doubt the accuracy nor the availability of the translations or of the original text in Arabic.

But I am still curious on how easy it would be to tell apart the meanings in that language.

"to tell apart the meanings in that language."

I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate for me/us. Right, please?


Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I only agreed with what I colored in magenta while I was replying the post of our friend @stvdv , one may discuss one's viewpoint with him.
Right, please?

Yet, the poster our friend @stvdv for whom my reply was intended, primarily, rated my comments as "informative" as it made sense to him. Thus one's remarks on my reply to him seem to be superfluous, please. Right, please?

Regards

If ratings of posts are an indication of quality and validity / accuracy, I guess I'm doing pretty good then with my 1700 likes and over 700 winners.



But off course it doesn't mean diddly squat

 

[paarsurrey]

I am of course not proficient in Arabic at all, but I think that you have pointed out a practical need to distinguising between a Creator God and a God who begets.

I understand that the standard interpretation would be that here the Qur'an is stating that God does not have biological sons as such. Fair enough, but not necessarily a clear or inequivocal interpretation.

For all I know, it can be a self-evident, even ridiculously easy distinction for a native writer of Arabic. But I will respectfully point out that it isn't all that evident for me from where I stand.

(I think that we can both simply agree that the God of the Qur'an is presented as Creator of Existence, but feel free to elaborate on that if you want to.)

"you have pointed out a practical need to distinguising between a Creator God and a God who begets."

One has understood correctly. G-d does not beget, it is a wrong creed of the most of Christianity people that God begets. They got it from perhaps from Jesus wrongly who said that Jesus was son of God or god. Jesus never meant it literally and physically but metaphorically, and that is not begetting. The understanding of the Christianity people has been repudiated by Quran with reasons and arguments, irrefutably. Right, please?
God is Creator , he does not beget.Right, please?
In this brief verse it has been reasoned that Jesus is neither god nor son of god.

There is another aspect to this (or all verses of Quran) verse of Quran:
[112:4]لَمۡ یَلِدۡ ۬ۙ وَ لَمۡ یُوۡلَدۡ ۙ﴿۴﴾
‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 112: Al-Ikhlas translation/interpretation by Sher Ali

Now from the website I recommended to one with 50+ translations, it has been interpreted/translated as :
Muhammad Asad "He begets not, and neither is He begotten;
Wahiduddin Khan

He does not give birth, nor was He born,
Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar He procreated not nor was He procreated
T.B.Irving He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered,
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab He has never had offspring, nor was He born.
Syed Vickar Ahamed

"He begets not (has no descendents, no children, none), nor was He (ever) begotten;
Bijan Moeinian

God is neither born nor has given birth (to have a son or a daughter.)
al-Ikhlas 112:3
The rest of the translations are all like one of this. These are all correct translations/interpretation whether done by Muslims or Non-Muslims. And all of these are concur with other verses of Quran conveying the same meanings. If some one translates incorrectly, in other verses of Quran on other places reject those meanings. This illustrates that a natural word of Arabic used in Quran though has many meanings, yet it does not created any ambiguity. All translations are correct unless refuted/repudiated/contradicted by Quran itself in other places of Quran. And this principle has been mentioned in Quran itself. Right, please?
This created diversity and motivates to have in-depth study of Quran- the Word of G-d, authored by G-d and not by Muhammad and is like Nature- the Work of G-d, created by G-d and not by Science and or any Scientist, anything in it. Right, please?
Well of course one could differ with me freely, yet we remain fast friends. Right, please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I usually quote from the link that provides translation by Sher Ali:
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 1: Al-Fatihah
To help understand one could also use the followings:
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran for word for word translation and grammar.
al-Fatihah 1:1
This site provides 50+ translations of Quran including some rendered by Non-Muslims, Jews and Christians; there is no restriction if some Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people also do it.
The original text in Arabic is secure and protected. Quran uses about 3000 root-words of vocabulary, not much if one starts learning it.
I understand directly from the original Arabic text, just for information, please.

"to tell apart the meanings in that language."

I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate for me/us. Right, please?


Regards

I find myself wondering about the Arabic vocabulary, and how the Qur'an uses it.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the meanings and usage of the words have changed along time in part because the Qur'an uses them.

But in any case, most languages have a variety of words with the general meaning of "creator" or "originator". Some of those are more specific than others.

By my understanding of the Qur'an, it definitely says that Allah is a creator, but apparently it also says outright that it is not a creator of its own literal sons.

There may or may not be some form of nuance in there, depending on the exact words used. And that nuance was probably shaped along the centuries by the Qur'an itself and other cultural influences.

 

[England my lionheart]

And there is:
[2:3]ذٰلِکَ الۡکِتٰبُ لَا رَیۡبَ ۚۖۛ فِیۡہِ ۚۛ ہُدًی لِّلۡمُتَّقِیۡنَ ۙ﴿۳﴾
This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah
Right, please?

Regards

There's no doubt somebody authored the book so that part is in no doubt but there is no evidence to suggest it was a god,all author's of books are afaik human.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quotes Series: From Quran- Authored by G-d not by Muhammad

"Usually a direct word will be prefaced by the word "say." "

Quran is authored by G-d as per the criterion suggested by our Christian friend @Muffled in post #97 in this thread . G-d tells Muhammad with the word "say" and or "قُلۡ" in Arabic original language and I have quoted many such verses in my previous posts .
Yet there are other styles (many of them) that depict that the Converse is direct from G-d with Muhammad. Since I daily read some portion of Quran(1/120) very early in the morning, so I will be quoting as I observe them while I read Quran. The words "اَلَمۡ تَرَ" or "Dost thou" is another style of direct address to Muhammad by G-d. And "یٰۤاَیُّہَا النَّبِیُّ" or "O thou Prophet" is yet another one:

[32:11]وَ قَالُوۡۤا ءَ اِذَا ضَلَلۡنَا فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ءَ اِنَّا لَفِیۡ خَلۡقٍ جَدِیۡدٍ ۬ؕ بَلۡ ہُمۡ بِلِقَآیِٔ رَبِّہِمۡ کٰفِرُوۡنَ ﴿۱۱﴾
And they say, ‘What! when we are lost in the earth, shall we then become a new creation?’ Nay, but they are disbelievers in the meeting of their Lord.
[32:12]قُلۡ یَتَوَفّٰٮکُمۡ مَّلَکُ الۡمَوۡتِ الَّذِیۡ وُکِّلَ بِکُمۡ ثُمَّ اِلٰی رَبِّکُمۡ تُرۡجَعُوۡنَ ﴿٪۱۲﴾
Say, ‘The angel of death that has been put in charge of you will cause you to die; then to your Lord will you be brought back.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 32: As-Sajdah
Right, please?

1. Is there any such verse in the Torah of the Judaism where G-d has directly addressed Moses, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
2. Is there any such verse in the Bible of the Christianity where G-d (not Jesus, who Jesus was never god or son of god) has directly addressed Jesus, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
3. Is there any such verse in Kitab-i-Iqan by Bahaullah (where G-d has directly spoken to Bahaullah, Bahaullah was never a god), there cannot be any verse as G-d did not speak to Bahaullah directly? If there is any, please quote it here. Right, please?

Regards
____________
I observe that Quran right from its start to its end is a direct Converse and in a sense a continuous dialogue between G-d and Muhammad providing live guidance, and through Muhammad to his companions, to the other people of his time and the world in large and for all times to come to all humanity. Right, please?

 

[paarsurrey]

There's no doubt somebody authored the book so that part is in no doubt but there is no evidence to suggest it was a god,all author's of books are afaik human.

How would one get certain that the Quran/Recitation is authored by G-d, but not authored by Muhammad? Kindly give reasons to that effect, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I find myself wondering about the Arabic vocabulary, and how the Qur'an uses it.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the meanings and usage of the words have changed along time in part because the Qur'an uses them.

But in any case, most languages have a variety of words with the general meaning of "creator" or "originator". Some of those are more specific than others.

By my understanding of the Qur'an, it definitely says that Allah is a creator, but apparently it also says outright that it is not a creator of its own literal sons.

There may or may not be some form of nuance in there, depending on the exact words used. And that nuance was probably shaped along the centuries by the Qur'an itself and other cultural influences.

By my understanding of the Qur'an, it definitely says that Allah is a creator, but apparently it also says outright that it is not a creator of its own literal sons.

Quran doesn't say that G-d has any literal sons. I have not read it in Quran. In fact, Quran says its opposite. Please quote if there is any such verse in Quran and in the meantime please ponder on the following verse:

[6:101]وَ جَعَلُوۡا لِلّٰہِ شُرَکَآءَ الۡجِنَّ وَ خَلَقَہُمۡ وَ خَرَقُوۡا لَہٗ بَنِیۡنَ وَ بَنٰتٍۭ بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَہٗ وَ تَعٰلٰی عَمَّا یَصِفُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰۱﴾٪
And they hold the Jinn to be partners with Allah, although He created them; and they falsely ascribe to Him sons and daughters without any knowledge. Holy is He and exalted far above what they attribute to Him!
[6:102]بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّ لَمۡ تَکُنۡ لَّہٗ صَاحِبَۃٌ ؕ وَ خَلَقَ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۱۰۲﴾
The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
[6:103]
ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ رَبُّکُمۡ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ خَالِقُ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ فَاعۡبُدُوۡہُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ وَّکِیۡلٌ ﴿۱۰۳﴾
Such is Allah, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am
Right, please/

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If ratings of posts are an indication of quality and validity / accuracy, I guess I'm doing pretty good then with my 1700 likes and over 700 winners.

But off course it doesn't mean diddly squat

Sorry, my arguments was that the poster whose post I responded understood my point and by a way of appreciation rated it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I am of course not proficient in Arabic at all, but I think that you have pointed out a practical need to distinguising between a Creator God and a God who begets.

I understand that the standard interpretation would be that here the Qur'an is stating that God does not have biological sons as such. Fair enough, but not necessarily a clear or inequivocal interpretation.

For all I know, it can be a self-evident, even ridiculously easy distinction for a native writer of Arabic. But I will respectfully point out that it isn't all that evident for me from where I stand.

(I think that we can both simply agree that the God of the Qur'an is presented as Creator of Existence, but feel free to elaborate on that if you want to.)

But I will respectfully point out that it isn't all that evident for me from where I stand.

Sorry sir, I didn't get one's viewpoint. Please elaborate for me.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are certainly peaceful enough here in these forums, at the very least.

I admire that, even while I can't in good faith claim to understand your views.

Speaking of that... would you be willing to try and enlighten me at some point about the matter of Oneness of Divinity?

My own religious views have only a very peripheral and accessory role for divinity concepts, which goes a long way towards explaining why I find Islaam so exotic. From my perspective, it is just way too busy with that God idea for anyone's good.

But if I understand a single thing about Islaam, I understand that it insists on the importance of belief in the One True God, and that it abhors belief in false, other Gods.

That is fairly odd to me, since it is dangerous to rely on the accuracy of one's own understanding of any deity. I would expect a serious religionist to put a lot of effort into not falling into such a trap, no matter how sincerely theistic or monotheistic that person might be.

Still, I have at least a general sense of what is meant by the warning against belief in false gods. It is an odd warning to me, because from where I stand there are no "true" Gods to begin with.

But sure, someone who believes that there both true and false beliefs about God would want to make the difference clear, and all the more so if those god-beliefs happen to be important to him. That is exotic, but fairly internally coherent.

But apparently Islaam goes a bit further than that. There are many indications of something that I just don't quite understand. Some form of perception that for Muslims it is important to understand, accept or believe that "God has no associates". Maybe that is just a warning against polytheism? I am just not sure.

I once described the Qur'an as a connection to Allah and got a respectful but firm response that stated in no unclear terms that it is not so. For some reason that specific Muslim, at least, found it unproper and wrong of me to say that the Qur'an is a connection to Allah.

That sure surprised me. I still don't know what to make of that, truth be told, and I tentatively assume that translation challenges play a role into it. Maybe some word for "connection" in Arabic has stronger conotations than I can guess.

But it may be something more theological in nature as well. Perhaps Allah as described in the Qur'an, that God with no associates, would likewise have no connections to Muslims either for similar reasons?

I hope that you can see what I mean. From my perspective, clearly the God of the Qur'an has associates and the Qur'an is a connection to that God. I don't believe that such a God actually exists, mind you, but as I understand the words' meanings it is just fair, even a simple technical observation, that Allah is associated with, at the very least, the prophets tha the Qur'an specifically names, and that it is just as fair to remark that the Qur'an certainly seems to mean to connect people with the God that it describes.

Do you feel like commenting or clarifying any of the above? Thanks in advance.

Sir, I am interested to respond to all the points in one's mind. I have read one's post twice but could not understand it fully. My suggestion is that one elaborates one point in a post, so that we may go systematically. Right, please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

How would one get certain that the Quran/Recitation is authored by G-d, but not authored by Muhammad? Kindly give reasons to that effect, please?

Regards

Allah is defined by the Qur'an, and that makes this difficult to answer. The question is in some senses circular.

That said, we can arrive at some related, very significant conclusions, the first few among those being claims from the Qur'an itself or unavoidable conclusions from reading the same.

1. Allah, as defined by the Qur'an, claims to be responsible for the original contents of the Christian Gospels and of the Jewish Torah.

2. Therefore, Allah is either a fabrication, an impostor of some sort, or the "true" force behind the original intents of Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible to find a fourth possibility, because that would contradict the Qur'an and make Allah a fabrication from Muhammad and the Qur'an, which is just a specific case of the first possibility.

3. As a consequence, Allah would need to be fully aware of the original and then current validity of Judaism and Christianity. Which it indeed, according to the Qur'an, has measured and found very wanting and in need of a third revelation, hence the Qur'an.

4. For the above reasons, the validity of the Qur'an is in fact very easy to gauge. It has a self-imposed duty to be supremely well-informed about the Torah and the Gospels, Judaism and Christianity, as well as another, just as self-imposed duty to be the expression of supreme divine wisdom.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sire, I am interested to respond to all the points in one's mind. I have read one's post twice but could not understand it fully. My suggestion is that one elaborates one point in a post, so that we may go systematically. Right, please/

Regards

We seem to be aiming for fairly separate goals, @paarsurrey . Not so much incompatible as unconnected.

I am trying to understand why it seems to be so important for Muslims to emphasize that Allah is the only true God. That is difficult for me, because I am a sincere ignostic. The claim does not have any clear meaning in and of itself; one has to attempt to define Allah before it can be analyzed. We have to establish what God would be and what it would mean for it to be "one", to be "true", and to have or lack "associates".

Maybe there are exceptions that I am not aware of, but I sure the sense that Muslims very consistently reject not only the idea that Allah could have alternate voices or aspects, but also the legitimacy of that idea. Presumably the Qur'an is very clear in that respect. I assume that it makes enough direct statements to that effect.

But that creates an unsolvable logical problem, because the Qur'an shows little to no ability to understand or even accept the existence of some rather basic theological ideas that it would really need to use often and very well in order to fulfill its own self-imposed expectations. Most saliently, the Qur'an goes out of its way to mesh unbelief, polytheism and "evil" into one and the same thing, to the point of making its own intents often inescrutable and quite needlessly confusing. Worse still, that may well be the point. Contradictory doctrine makes for busy adherents as they try to create logical interpretations and convince their own companions, year after year, century after century.

Worse still is that, ultimately, the Qur'an simply does not have much of an interest in religion, or even a functional understanding of same. It is only interested in tribal ethics and legalist claims about the specific rights that Muslims should grant to those of several degrees of acceptance of its own claims.

Why would a true God, let alone the presumable One True God, send such a message? Why would it put itself into such a dubious position and, frankly, not even try to explain it?

Such a stance is not conductive to an appreciaton of how convincing and truthful either the Qur'an or Allah are, but rather to the conclusion that both are categorically man-made.

And knowing that, I may well be in fact unable to appreciate why it is so important for Muslims to state that God has no associates. I literally do not know what they mean by God, nor why seeking to spread scripture would not be association.

Clearly, Muslims have their own expectations that diverge significantly from mine and they do not often understand that others will not necessarily share those same expectations.

 

[paarsurrey]

How would one get certain that the Quran/Recitation is authored by G-d, but not authored by Muhammad? Kindly give reasons to that effect, please?

Allah is defined by the Qur'an, and that makes this difficult to answer. The question is in some senses circular.

That said, we can arrive at some related, very significant conclusions, the first few among those being claims from the Qur'an itself or unavoidable conclusions from reading the same.

1. Allah, as defined by the Qur'an, claims to be responsible for the original contents of the Christian Gospels and of the Jewish Torah.

2. Therefore, Allah is either a fabrication, an impostor of some sort, or the "true" force behind the original intents of Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible to find a fourth possibility, because that would contradict the Qur'an and make Allah a fabrication from Muhammad and the Qur'an, which is just a specific case of the first possibility.

3. As a consequence, Allah would need to be fully aware of the original and then current validity of Judaism and Christianity. Which it indeed, according to the Qur'an, has measured and found very wanting and in need of a third revelation, hence the Qur'an.

4. For the above reasons, the validity of the Qur'an is in fact very easy to gauge. It has a self-imposed duty to be supremely well-informed about the Torah and the Gospels, Judaism and Christianity, as well as another, just as self-imposed duty to be the expression of supreme divine wisdom.

1. Allah, as defined by the Qur'an, claims to be responsible for the original contents of the Christian Gospels and of the Jewish Torah.

I don't agree with one here. Quran authored by Allah is responsible only for that of His Word that he Conversed with Moses directly and directly with Jesus not its remnants called by the Judaism people as Torah or by the Christianity as Gospel. Please check it , or else please quote the Quran verses to find the truth of the matter. Right, please?
If the Judaism people or Christianity people would have had any direct Converse of G-d with Moses or Jesus with them they are welcome to quote it here as I have requested them several times in this thread:

1. Is there any such verse in the Torah of the Judaism where G-d has directly addressed Moses, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
2. Is there any such verse in the Bible of the Christianity where G-d (not Jesus, who Jesus was never god or son of god) has directly addressed Jesus, please?If yes, please quote it here. Right, please?
3. Is there any such verse in Kitab-i-Iqan by Bahaullah (where G-d has directly spoken to Bahaullah, Bahaullah was never a god), there cannot be any verse as G-d did not speak to Bahaullah directly? If there is any, please quote it here. Right, please?

Right,please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I thought that the Qur'an claimed the Torah and the Gospels to be genuine revelations from Allah. Am I mistaken about that?

 

[England my lionheart]

How would one get certain that the Quran/Recitation is authored by G-d, but not authored by Muhammad? Kindly give reasons to that effect, please?

Regards

Sure,I think that an omniscient supreme entity would have the knowledge to know the world's not flat or the stars are not there to throw at demons,the way the book is written is quite primitive imo.

So to be sure it was indeed authored by a supreme being it would be faultless and without violence and warbooty which includes slavery in it it's contents,which imo it is not,it's a very threatening coercive book and I cannot see any love in it,I do see a conduit for the opposite.

There is also the question of language,because it's in Arabic and not a widespread language it doesn't translate well into others so the poetry or prose that's vaunted by islams followers is totally lost in another language,the claim "make another like it" seems a bit of a damp squib.