What's new
By:

Does it bother you that Al-Qur'an was not written by a prophet...

F

franklin

Well-Known Member
...but by a group of post-prophet scholar (similar to the compilation of the various bibles)?

Joseph Smith wrote a bible.
Muhammed did not.
The 12 Apostles did not.
Maya did.
Maya did not.
Nostradamus did.
Moses did not.
Isaiah did not.
Ishmael and Isaac did not.

Does this bother anyone? It doesn't bother me but I know a lot of people take issue with things like Apostolic Fathers writing or adopting apostolic reincarnations 60+ years after death.
 
Bible means books.

Qur'an means "to recite"

The Qur'an has had unbroken chains of narration from the last prophet Muhammad (SAW) ever since to today. Today tens of millions of people have memorized the Qur'an. They are called Hafiz which means a gaurdian. It is basically someone who guards or protects the Qur'an so it is not corrupted by memorizing it in its entirety so that others cannot burn the books and change them like was done with the bible.

They only wrote down the Qur'an after a battle ensued in which 700 people who had the Qur'an memorized died.

The Qur'an is unique in which that as soon as it was revealed people knew right away that it was the word of God. Because of this, the prophets companions painstakingly made sure that the Qur'an has kept its integrity. In the life time of some people who sat on the last prophets lap, the Atlantic ocean to Persia was almost entirely Muslim.

There are tribes in Africa that don't know how to read and write and have never seen the written version of the Qur'an that know the Qur'an word for word to this day.

There are bible scholars that say "we don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (5 copy's) of the bible."

I think what would bother me is if my book states that Native Americans are from Israel and there isn't a trace of Israel DNA in them. That would bother me a lot.
 
The Black Swordsman said:
Bible means books.

Qur'an means "to recite"

The Qur'an has had unbroken chains of narration from the last prophet Muhammad (SAW) ever since to today. Today tens of millions of people have memorized the Qur'an. They are called Hafiz which means a gaurdian. It is basically someone who guards or protects the Qur'an so it is not corrupted by memorizing it in its entirety so that others cannot burn the books and change them like was done with the bible.

They only wrote down the Qur'an after a battle ensued in which 700 people who had the Qur'an memorized died.

The Qur'an is unique in which that as soon as it was revealed people knew right away that it was the word of God. Because of this, the prophets companions painstakingly made sure that the Qur'an has kept its integrity. In the life time of some people who sat on the last prophets lap, the Atlantic ocean to Persia was almost entirely Muslim.

There are tribes in Africa that don't know how to read and write and have never seen the written version of the Qur'an that know the Qur'an word for word to this day.

There are bible scholars that say "we don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy (5 copy's) of the bible."

I think what would bother me is if my book states that Native Americans are from Israel and there isn't a trace of Israel DNA in them. That would bother me a lot.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are a bad follower of Muhammed.

The Imommies fought over what the true stories were and compiled after finalizing votes. Again, this doesn't bother me (and is actually is impressive like the Council of Nicea, etc.) although I wonder if it's a sticking point to others, expecially lions like you.
 
franklin said:
Wrong. You are a bad follower of Muhammed.

The Imommies fought over what the true stories were and compiled after finalizing votes. Again, this doesn't bother me (and is actually is impressive like the Council of Nicea, etc.) although I wonder if it's a sticking point to others, expecially lions like you.
Click to expand...

If you read the new Testament, the story of Jesus gets more and more exaggerated after each progressive writer going from Matthew -> Mark -> Luke -> John. For example the women who checked to see the tomb of Jesus (SAW, a great prophet of Islam) saw that the body was not there. The story Ends. However if you go to John, he adds on details since it was boring like they saw a ghost afterwards and told the city etc.

I am wrong according to your inferior wrong opinion about Muhammad (SAW) btw.

Edit: Also I would like your thoughts on
"Mormon researchers such as anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy (who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, henceforth LDS) and former-LDS and plant geneticist Simon Southerton state that the substantial collection of Native American genetic markers now available are not consistent with any detectable presence of ancestors from the ancient Middle East, and argued that this poses substantial evidence to contradict the account in the Book of Mormon. Both Murphy and Southerton have published their views on this subject (Southerton 2004)."
 
Also I don't want to put LDS on the defensive so I will put out something regarding Islam and Historical accuracy.

"In the Qur'an, the title of the Ruler of Egypt during the time of Joseph is specifically said to be "king" whilst that of the Ruler of Egypt during the time of Moses is specifically said to be "pharaoh". This is interesting because in the narration of Yusuf in the Bible, the title pharaoh is used interchangeably. But according to historical sources, the title pharaoh only began to be used to refer to the rulers of Egypt (starting with the rule of Thutmose III) in 1479 BCE - approximately 21 years after the prophet Joseph died.
The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! expound to me my vision, if it be that ye can interpret visions." [Qur'an 12:43]
"Then after them We sent Mûsa (Moses) with Our Signs to Fir'aun (pharaoh) and his chiefs, but they wrongfully rejected them. So see how was the end of the Mufsidûn (mischief-makers, corrupters)." -Al-Araf 7:103
"And the king said: "Bring him to me." But when the messenger came to him, [Yusuf] said: "Return to your lord and ask him, 'What happened to the women who cut their hands? Surely, my Lord (Allah) is Well-Aware of their plot.'" -Yusuf 12:51
And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. -Genesis 47:11"

Qur'an corrects history, the BoM contradicts it.
 
The Black Swordsman said:
If you read the new Testament, the story of Jesus gets more and more exaggerated after each progressive writer going from Matthew -> Mark -> Luke -> John. For example the women who checked to see the tomb of Jesus (SAW, a great prophet of Islam) saw that the body was not there. The story Ends. However if you go to John, he adds on details since it was boring like they saw a ghost afterwards and told the city etc.
Click to expand...

That might mean something if John was based on Luke was based on Mark was based on Matthew. The synoptic gospels were all based on Mark, and John was a separate writing altogether. It doesn't go Mark -> Matthew/Luke. You're taking advantage of the compilation process to find a mountain where there isn't even a mole hill.
 
Religion is made up by man to explain things they don't understand. Every body has a right to believe what they want but the truth is really not known by anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top