|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 11, 2014 15:53:44 GMT -6
Or a self-serving social climber: wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad%27s_Just_In_Time_RevelationsHonestly, I'd rather present this material from Karen Armstrong's sympathetic biography, Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time, but it occurs sporadically over a series of chapters and isn't readily available in a form I can reproduce here. Suffice it to say that even those with a great deal of respect for what Muhammad accomplished have noticed the convenience of many of the Surah, which seem to have sprung from the lips of God just in time to justify Muhammad's not-so-pious agenda. Woodrow, you certainly don't seem to be harming anyone with your belief that the Quran is so special that only God could have written it, but you come off as amazingly gullible on that point. And, no small wonder that you (and other reasonable co-religionists) wish to distill the essence of Islam down to three Surah--much of the rest is fucking embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 20, 2014 8:16:42 GMT -6
I just now saw this.
At the moment just addressing why I do not believe the Qur'an was the work of Muhammad(saws)
Muhammad never claimed credit for it
Muhammad was never raised above the status of a Human in the Qur'an or in life.
Over a 23 year period of revelation, the harmonious rhythm was maintained. Even though the dialect spoken was not one in usage. Even to this day no one has been able to write a single logical sentence using the Tajweed pronunciation of the Qur'an.
Contrary to popular belief very little of the Qur'an was revealed in "Secrecy" most of the revelations came while Muhammad(saws) was speaking before a crowd.
My own personal experience with the Qur'an. I originally got a copy for the purpose of studying the Arabic language. Didn't take me long to discovery the Arabic of the Qur'an is not applicable to spoken Arabic. While one can learn Qur'anic Arabic, it will not enable them to understand conversational Arabic. Yet, a person with even a minimal grasp of any of the Arabic dialects, has no trouble understanding the Qur'anic Arabic.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 20, 2014 9:18:32 GMT -6
Woodrowli,
If not Muhammad, to whom should we attribute Qur'an authorship? A friend of Muhammad? Obviously, Muhammad could do no wrong, and he was always right even when he was wrong. That was a god given right only for Roman dictators and Popes leading up to Muhammad's lifetime. That's not good company(not that I have to remind you, I'm sure).
God does not speak through prophets. Prophecies/revelations are dubious spiritual practices at best. If you were god, how would you reveal your hopes and desires to humanity?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 20, 2014 12:00:37 GMT -6
Woodrowli, If not Muhammad, to whom should we attribute Qur'an authorship? A friend of Muhammad? Obviously, Muhammad could do no wrong, and he was always right even when he was wrong. That was a god given right only for Roman dictators and Popes leading up to Muhammad's lifetime. That's not good company(not that I have to remind you, I'm sure). God does not speak through prophets. Prophecy/revelation are disgusting spiritual practices. If you were god, how would you reveal your hopes and desires to humanity? Hi Stevec First some differences between Islamic and Christian beliefs. We do not believe God(swt) is omnipresent. We do not believe the Creator enters or becomes part of the creation. Although he is all knowing and knows all that occurs withing that which he created. We do not believe Angels have free will, they are the perfect created messengers and servants of God(swt). Think in terms of a radio operated drone. God(swt) reveals his messages through angels, the angels in turn give the message to who ever they were sent to. I am convinced that Muhammad(saws) was not the author of the Qur'an. To state who is. I will state what others believe and their stated reasons why. Muhammad(saws) claimed the revelations came to him through the Angel Gabriel. He places his belief upon his contact with, who he believed to be, the Angel Gabriel. this took place in the year 610 during the month of Ramadan in a cave located on Mount Hira. He initially thought he was going insane or had faced a demon. It is his wife that convinced him it was an Angel His wire's Uncle a Christian Monk was the first person to believe Muhammad(swt) was being called to be a Prophet. The First Surah revealed was al-'Alaq which was revealed in 2 parts. the first part (1-5) in the Cave at Hira and the second part (6-19) while he was praying in the vicinity of the Ka'abah This is what began convincing the people that knew Muhammad(saws) that he was getting a revelation from God(swt) Another view is that Muhammad(saws) was following or possessed by a a demon. The last most common view is that Muhammad was hallucinating and possibly having epileptic seizures. But nothing actuaiiy supports that as most of the revalations occured in public and no one describes anything like seizures, loss of consciousness etc. |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 20, 2014 13:26:29 GMT -6
At the moment just addressing why I do not believe the Qur'an was the work of Muhammad(saws) Muhammad never claimed credit for it Nor do New Age channelers claim credit for what they say. Neither, typically, are New Age channelers. They merely have an unusual ability to receive teachings that they insist are not their own ideas or thoughts. They, too, speak prophetically and sometimes attract followers of the teachings that come "through" them. And you know this for a fact just how? You were there with Muhammad? I've explained exhaustively once before why this could be possible without the language being "otherworldly" at all. This happened (supposedly) fourteen hundred years ago with, as far as I'm aware, no independent corroboration that it did indeed occur as you describe. How can you be at all assured that it did other than this being tradition which you accept as fact? |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 20, 2014 18:06:12 GMT -6
At the moment just addressing why I do not believe the Qur'an was the work of Muhammad(saws) Muhammad never claimed credit for it Nor do New Age channelers claim credit for what they say. Neither, typically, are New Age channelers. They merely have an unusual ability to receive teachings that they insist are not their own ideas or thoughts. They, too, speak prophetically and sometimes attract followers of the teachings that come "through" them. And you know this for a fact just how? You were there with Muhammad? Yes the New age channelers do make the same claims. But, that does not seem to be proof of anything. Neither proves the other is right or wrong. No I was not with Muhammad at the time. But, the Qur'an does have the same rhythm in all 114 Surat. While I speak the Darija dialect of Arabic I have no difficulty in understanding the Qur'anic Tajweed. I can not understand any other dialect. Although I am slowly learning MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) but as far as understanding the Saudi, Yemeni or Egyptian dialects I am lost. Oddly the written Arabicis understood world wide, but the pronunciations vary extremely even when spelled the same. ie: The Name of Morocco in Saudi Arabic is Maghreb, in Egyptian Arabic it is Marrakesh and in Darija Arabic it is Qued el-Ouezzan but it is spelled the same in all dialects. It does not appear in Qur'anic Arabic. But getting back to the point, no examples of Qur'anic Arabic appear outside the Qur'an It does not seem likely anyone could carry on a conversation using Qur'anic Arabic. No one has shown any examples of it existing outside the Qur'an. The slow melodious rhythmic speech pattern is not conducive for any 2 way conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 20, 2014 18:39:55 GMT -6
I've explained exhaustively once before why this could be possible without the language being "otherworldly" at all. This happened (supposedly) fourteen hundred years ago with, as far as I'm aware, no independent corroboration that it did indeed occur as you describe. How can you be at all assured that it did other than this being tradition which you accept as fact? True you explained how it could be from causes that are other than "Unwordly"which also supports the concept there can be languages that no one can write an original sentence in. Yes it does come from tradition, if you consider the Ahadith tradition. the ahadith are independent witness reports of what they saw Muhammad do or heard him say, All of the Authenticate Hadith with high reliability have a minimum of 4 different witnesses. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 20, 2014 21:17:24 GMT -6
Woodrowli,
Perfect? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
If you were god, would you use angels to deliver messages to one man who would then be responsible for communicating that message to his community?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 21, 2014 0:47:14 GMT -6
Woodrowli, Perfect? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." If you were god, would you use angels to deliver messages to one man who would then be responsible for communicating that message to his community? God(swt) has not sent it to just one man. The same message was sent through all the prophets ever since Adam. Part of our trial in this life is to seek the message and use our own resources to verify it.
When I speak of the angels as being perfect messengers my intent is to indicate they can only do exactly as directed, with no deviation.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 21, 2014 8:36:23 GMT -6
Woodrowli, Perfect? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." If you were god, would you use angels to deliver messages to one man who would then be responsible for communicating that message to his community? God(swt) has not sent it to just one man. The same message was sent through all the prophets ever since Adam. Part of our trial in this life is to seek the message and use our own resources to verify it.
When I speak of the angels as being perfect messengers my intent is to indicate they can only do exactly as directed, with no deviation.
Woodrowli, 1. If you were god, would you send angels to communicate messages to single individuals throughout history? 2. During your lifetime, can you identify one person in any culture on Earth who has clearly been blessed with angelic visitation and the gift of prophecy? |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 21, 2014 9:24:14 GMT -6
God(swt) has not sent it to just one man. The same message was sent through all the prophets ever since Adam. Part of our trial in this life is to seek the message and use our own resources to verify it.
When I speak of the angels as being perfect messengers my intent is to indicate they can only do exactly as directed, with no deviation.
Woodrowli, 1. If you were god, would you send angels to communicate messages to single individuals throughout history? 2. During your lifetime, can you identify one person in any culture on Earth who has clearly been blessed with angelic visitation and the gift of prophecy? 1. If I were God(swt) I would resign and let anyone else take the job. But no, I would not not send one person for all people. Neither did Allaah(swt) In one way or another every person on earth has been given the same message. A person can be a Muslim even if they have never heard of Muhammad(saws) or the Qur'an. To be Muslim requires a person to submit to Allaah(swt) to the best of their abilities and knowledge. No one will be punished for what they can not do nor for what they have no knowledge of. 2. No Human since Muhammad(saws) has the gift of prophecy. Muhammad(saws) was the last Prophet and there will be no more. It is difficult to separate Angelic visitation from coincidence. They probably are not mutually exclusive. One can not prove a conincidence is not the result of an Angelic visitation. Nor can one prove an Angelic visitation is not just a coincidence. I had several events occur in my life that are a bit out of the ordinary. One being when I was shot down over Viet Nam. After I was hit and before I lost concousness I tried to set my course to Da Dang. Instead I ended up crashing in the Gulf of Tonkin very close to a recently surfaced sub and was rescued. another oddity I am Mongol (Lithuanian Tatar- Lietuva Lipkas) people of my race have virtually no facial hair. I never had to shave. Except occasionally a scraggly Fu-Manchu mustache that looked like a Caterpiller with the mange. Yet the very first Ramadan after I accepted Islam I grew a thick, fist length, snow white beard. Which I still have. I attribute those to intervention of Allaah(swt) through an angel. Can't prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 21, 2014 10:19:09 GMT -6
Woodrowli, 1. If you were god, would you send angels to communicate messages to single individuals throughout history? 2. During your lifetime, can you identify one person in any culture on Earth who has clearly been blessed with angelic visitation and the gift of prophecy? 1. If I were God(swt) I would resign and let anyone else take the job. But no, I would not not send one person for all people. Neither did Allaah(swt) In one way or another every person on earth has been given the same message. A person can be a Muslim even if they have never heard of Muhammad(saws) or the Qur'an. To be Muslim requires a person to submit to Allaah(swt) to the best of their abilities and knowledge. No one will be punished for what they can not do nor for what they have no knowledge of. [/quote] One person for all people was not part of the question. You seem to admit though, that there is a flaw in sending angels to communicate to single individuals within various cultures. That was what I was searching for, an admission from a slightly less omnipotent and omniscient being who has a gut sense that he could have devised a better way of communicating with humanity than our supposed CREATOR has done. As a consequence, I would submit to you first, as someone more wise than god, before I would submit to this flawed Creator. Your claim that there are no advantages/consequences to submitting, or not, to god trivializes the whole god concept to the point where it becomes nonsensical and silly. I might as well submit to a bowl of Jello, for all its advantages and worth. Well ain't that convenient, the people of Muhammed's generation and culture lucky, and you special. The rest of us over the last 1400 years have only lunatics, superstitions, and bizarre legends to hold onto without a renewal commitment from god. I must be more wise than god, I could have done a better job, and I'm considerably short in the omniscience department. Perhaps it doesn't mean what I think it means. |
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 21, 2014 10:54:08 GMT -6
1. If I were God(swt) I would resign and let anyone else take the job. But no, I would not not send one person for all people. Neither did Allaah(swt) In one way or another every person on earth has been given the same message. A person can be a Muslim even if they have never heard of Muhammad(saws) or the Qur'an. To be Muslim requires a person to submit to Allaah(swt) to the best of their abilities and knowledge. No one will be punished for what they can not do nor for what they have no knowledge of. One person for all people was not part of the question. You seem to admit though, that there is a flaw in sending angels to communicate to single individuals within various cultures. That was what I was searching for, an admission from a slightly less omnipotent and omniscient being who has a gut sense that he could have devised a better way of communicating with humanity than our supposed CREATOR has done. As a consequence, I would submit to you first, as someone more wise than god, before I would submit to this flawed Creator. Your claim that there are no advantages/consequences to submitting, or not, to god trivializes the whole god concept to the point where it becomes nonsensical and silly. I might as well submit to a bowl of Jello, for all its advantages and worth. Well ain't that convenient, the people of Muhammed's generation and culture lucky, and you special. The rest of us over the last 1400 years have only lunatics, superstitions, and bizarre legends to hold onto without a renewal commitment from god. I must be more wise than god, I could have done a better job, and I'm considerably short in the omniscience department. Perhaps it doesn't mean what I think it means. [/quote] We do not place Muhammad(saws) above the other Prophets. All Prophets are equal and all were given the same message. The only Prophet that will return to earth is Jesus(as) To complete his Purpose on Earth and destroy the anti-Christ. We do believe there were many Prophets sent. Only know the names of those Named in the Bible, Tanakh and Qur'an. But the actual number sent probably was over 100,000 We do not believe that non-Muslims are automatically designated to be hellfire fuel. We also do not believe Hell will be eternal for all sent there. The majority will eventually reach heaven. If I were to live by Pascal's wager Atheism makes the most sense as Atheists are not worshiping a false god. The sin of Shirk (Worshiping a False god) is about the only sin that gets an eternal ticket to Hell. Actually not quite true. It is worded they will stay there until the god they worshiped frees them. Long wait if one is worshiping a non-existent god. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 21, 2014 11:23:25 GMT -6
God, hell, heaven, and all the prophets become meaningless when the delivery system is flawed. Perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience have to perform as expected or else those benchmarks are meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Jun 21, 2014 12:23:10 GMT -6
God, hell, heaven, and all the prophets become meaningless when the delivery system is flawed. Perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience have to perform as expected or else those benchmarks are meaningless. Why does it have to perform as we expect or desire? It is our purpose to serve, not to be served. Life on earth is our trial to prove our worthiness of heaven. None will face any trials they do not have the resources to get a passing grade on. |
|
