The Qur'an:Guidance to Mankind

[Imam ahmad]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

That entire thing is copied and pasted from a website. Also, no source was given.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Bowman]

More webpaste from brother ahmad...

Qur’an: The Word of Allah (swt).

No, it is not, brother.

We have already been over this...

Bring forth one single solitary ayah, out of the 114 chapters comprising your book of faith, which states anything like...."This here Koran is the word of 'allah'..."

When we study the Quran even superficially from the viewpoint of its wording, styles, and meaning, we will certainly conclude that it is completely different from all the other books in the world. So, in rank and worth it is either below all of them-even Satan cannot claim this, nor does he conceive of it-or above them. Since it is above all of them, it must be the Word of God.

Why is it that numerous chapters in your book of faith are named in honor of Satan and his demons?

Demons even narrate portions of the Koran, brother!

And yet you claim that it came from God?

Come on...

[Imam ahmad]

"If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful." (al-Baqara, 2.23)

Who do you think the 'We' in the verse is?

Why is it that numerous chapters in your book of faith are named in honor of Satan and his demons?

Demons even narrate portions of the Koran, brother!

And yet you claim that it came from God?

You still have to prove it, just saying something doesn't make it a fact Bowman.

[Bowman]

Who do you think the 'We' in the verse is?

The attempt by the authors of the Koran to copy the Biblical Trinity.

You still have to prove it, just saying something doesn't make it a fact Bowman.

There are at least 9 such chapters from the Koran which are named in honor of Satan and his demons, as thus…

· Chapter 1 “The Opening” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 31 “The Devourer” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 16 “The Swarm” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 44 “The Rising Evil” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 72 “The Demons” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 100 “The Horses of the Warriors” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 104“The Accuser” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 113“Hell” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 114“The People” named in honor of Satan

Now…what kind of holy book honors Satan and his demons in this fashion?

That’s right, brother…only a book that is from Satan himself.

[Imam ahmad]

The attempt by the authors of the Koran to copy the Biblical Trinity.

How is it an imitation of the Trinity, when The Qur'an specifically calls the Trinity a falsehood.

In response to that Bowman Shiekh Salih Al Munajjid said,

"It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allaah, the One” [al-Ikhlaas 112:1] – and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.” (Reference: Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109). And Allaah knows best".

Of course you are going to say that is the common answer given by Muslims, at the very least I've put forth proof other than my own ideals. I at the very least consult scholars, and those more knowledgeable than me. You merely give your own opinions, and expect them to pass as facts, and evidence for your arguments.

There are at least 9 such chapters from the Koran which are named in honor of Satan and his demons, as thus…

· Chapter 1 “The Opening” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 31 “The Devourer” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 16 “The Swarm” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 44 “The Rising Evil” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 72 “The Demons” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 100 “The Horses of the Warriors” named in honor of Demons
· Chapter 104“The Accuser” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 113“ @#!*% ” named in honor of Satan
· Chapter 114“The People” named in honor of Satan

Now…what kind of holy book honors Satan and his demons in this fashion?

That’s right, brother…only a book that is from Satan himself.

Exactly what Muslim excepts this as proof? For that matter what is the evidence that these chapters of the Qur'an honor demons, Surah 114 for example, doesn't honor demons, but rather works as a prayer to seek refuge from demons, and other forms of evil. I tell you what, find me one scholar that agrees with you, and I'll consider your argument.

[Bowman]

How is it an imitation of the Trinity, when The Qur'an specifically calls the Trinity a falsehood.

The Koran never once denounces the concept of the Biblical Trinity; rather, it promotes what it is by sharing what it is not.

In response to that Bowman Shiekh Salih Al Munajjid said,

"It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allaah, the One” [al-Ikhlaas 112:1] – and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.” (Reference: Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109). And Allaah knows best".

Of course you are going to say that is the common answer given by Muslims, at the very least I've put forth proof other than my own ideals. I at the very least consult scholars, and those more knowledgeable than me. You merely give your own opinions, and expect them to pass as facts, and evidence for your arguments.

Plural of Majesty never existed in ancient Arabia or anywhere in the Ancient Near East (ANE).

Exactly what Muslim excepts this as proof? For that matter what is the evidence that these chapters of the Qur'an honor demons, Surah 114 for example, doesn't honor demons, but rather works as a prayer to seek refuge from demons, and other forms of evil. I tell you what, find me one scholar that agrees with you, and I'll consider your argument.

What are we to think of a book of faith that opens with the statement to worship the Devil – and then ends with a chapter entitled “Hell”…in which the writer literally screams out in a plea for help?


Observe the formula set forth in the second to last chapter of the Koran, aptly named “Hell”…


قل أعوذ برب الفلق

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alfalaqi

113.1 Say: "I seek refuge from Hell's Lord."




This same exact formula is carried over into the final chapter of the Koran…


قل أعوذ برب الناس

Qul aAAoothu birabbi alnnasi

114.1 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord."


In context…

114.1-6 Say: "I seek refuge from the people's lord, the people’s king, the people’s god, from the evil whisperer, the devil, whom he whispers in the people's heart, from the jinn and the people.


Sura 114 lists-out the things that the writer seeks refuge from:

• From the people’s lord
• From the people’s king
• From the people’s god (lower case…“allah”)
• From the evil whisperer, the devil
• From the jinn (demons)
• And from the people, themselves

All of these things listed in this ayah are the evil things, from which, refuge is sought.

Now…

What kind of a book of faith is this?

[Bowman]

It is another argument for the Divine authorship of the Quran that it refers to certain facts of creation recently established by modern scientific methods. How, except on account of its Divine authorship, is it possible for the Quran to be literally true on matters of which people had not the least inkling at the time when it was revealed? For example, if the Quran were not a Divine Revelation, would it have been possible for it to contain such a verse as this:

"Do not the unbelievers realize that the heavens and the earth were one unit of creation before we split them asunder?" (al-Anbiya’, 21.20).

Whether the Quran really does refer, explicitly or implicitly, to the kinds of facts the sciences deal with, and the relationship between the Quran and modern sciences, are matters of considerable controversy among Muslim intellectuals. We should therefore treat the subject at length.

No doubt you meant 21.30...not 21.20....

أولم ير الذين كفروا أن السموت والأرض كانتا رتقا ففتقنهما وجعلنا من الماء كل شيء حي أفلا يؤمنون

Awa lam yara allatheena kafaroo anna alssamawati waal-arda kanata ratqan fafataqnahuma wajaAAalna mina alma-i kulla shay-in hayyin afala yu/minoona

21.30 Did those whom they disbelieved not see that the heavens and the earth, the two were closed up, so we rent them asunder, and we made from the water every thing, living one, so do they not believe?



Looking at this verse, the writers of this piece clearly were communicating Biblical eschatology - and not any modern scientific phenomenon such as the ‘big bang’ or evolution.

The verse preceding this is discussing Hell.

21.30 is simply an extension of 21.29, which further elaborates upon the disbelievers not comprehending the end times in which Jesus opens the seals and splits both heaven and earth – just as described in the Book of Revelation.

The mentioning of water here, as in numerous other areas of the Koran, refers to the rebirth of mankind as a new creation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So…this first selection cannot possibly have intrigued any early Muslim (even if they were literate!) to pursue the natural sciences…you would not launch from discussing Hell into an immediate discussion of natural creation.

This verse would, however, point to the Holy Bible as the source of inspiration for the ones able to comprehend it.

[Imam ahmad]

21.30 is simply an extension of 21.29, which further elaborates upon the disbelievers not comprehending the end times in which Jesus opens the seals and splits both heaven and earth – just as described in the Book of Revelation.

Where is your proof of this? You seem to forget, that as a Muslim I don't regard the Bible as the word of Allah. I do believe that Jesus(pbuh) recieved revelation from Allah as all the Prophets did (may Allah grant them peace), but not the Bible as we have it today. So you are going to have to bring something other than [U]your[/U own opinions, and interpretations on the Qur'an, something you don't have the authority to comment on, and give another interpretation separate from the understanding of Muslims.

[Bowman]

Where is your proof of this? You seem to forget, that as a Muslim I don't regard the Bible as the word of Allah. I do believe that Jesus(pbuh) recieved revelation from Allah as all the Prophets did (may Allah grant them peace), but not the Bible as we have it today. So you are going to have to bring something other than [U]your[/U own opinions, and interpretations on the Qur'an, something you don't have the authority to comment on, and give another interpretation separate from the understanding of Muslims.

All you have to do is read the context, brother.

What does 21.29 talk about?


That's right....'Hell'...its in the Arabic and any translation you choose to use.

You think that it would go from talking about Hell to talking about the big bang?

lol.....come on....stop letting islam do the thinking for you, brother...

[Imam ahmad]

Read the context? hmmm interesting concept, but I'll stick with something that has actual proof, rather than wild interpretations with no proof.

[Dan Zebiri]

Actually, ya ahmad, the quranic reference to the Trinity within itself; is a great falsehood and a laughable fallacy:

"And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?.."

sura al-maida 116, pickthall

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?.."

sura al-maida 116, hilai-khan.

This quranic ayat (verse) WRONGLY describes the Trinity as: 'Jesus Christ, his mother Mary', as 'two Gods, besides Allah'(God). So the quran's Trinity here is: God, the virgin Mary, and their Son. This was never the Trinity as found in the Injil / New Testament.

It is actually a fallacious MISrepresentation of the real Trinity, which Jesus / 'Isa al-Masih seven centuries EARLIER had announced as:

"..(God) The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.." and found in Matthew 28:18-20.

Where do you think muhammad got his such ridiculous idea of a false Trinity from (as in sura 5/116)?

Obviously he had never read the Verses in Matthew above for himself! If he did he would never have allowed such an unorthodox, baseless verse creep into his quran! And by not checking out the facts for himself he fell prey to aberrant forms of Christianity that seemed to 'worship the virgin Mary' as a god (besides God).

But, the facts of the historical record documenting the real Trinity in the NT / Injil never taught such an aberrancy!

Once again the quran shows its inaccuracy and unreliability. It underscores what I said earlier the the quran is an untrustworthy source for facts and for that matter, also for truth.

Wassallaam, Dan.

How is it an imitation of the Trinity, when The Qur'an specifically calls the Trinity a falsehood.

In response to that Bowman Shiekh Salih Al Munajjid said,

"It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. He may also use the word ana (I), indicating one person, or the third person huwa (he). All three styles are used in the Qur’an, where Allaah addresses the Arabs in their own tongue. (Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 4/143).

“Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, sometimes refers to Himself in the singular, by name or by use of a pronoun, and sometimes by use of the plural, as in the phrase (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Verily, We have given you a manifest victory” [al-Fath 48:1], and other similar phrases. But Allaah never refers to Himself by use of the dual, because the plural refers to the respect that He deserves, and may refer to His names and attributes, whereas the dual refers to a specific number (and nothing else), and He is far above that.” (Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 75).

These words, innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), and other forms of the plural, may be used by one person speaking on behalf of a group, or they may be used by one person for purposes of respect or glorification, as is done by some monarchs when they issue statements or decrees in which they say “We have decided…” etc. [This is known in English as “The Royal We” – Translator]. In such cases, only one person is speaking but the plural is used for respect. The One Who is more deserving of respect than any other is Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, so when He says in the Qur’an innaa (“Verily We”) and nahnu (“We”), it is for respect and glorification, not to indicate plurality of numbers. If an aayah of this type is causing confusion, it is essential to refer to the clear, unambiguous aayaat for clarification, and if a Christian, for example, insists on taking ayaat such as “Verily, We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’an)” [al-Hijr 15:9 – interpretation of the meaning] as proof of divine plurality, we may refute this claim by quoting such clear and unambiguous aayaat as (interpretation of the meanings): “And your god is One God, there is none who has the right to be worshipped but He, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful” [al-Baqarah 2:163] and “Say: He is Allaah, the One” [al-Ikhlaas 112:1] – and other aayaat which can only be interpreted in one way. Thus confusion will be dispelled for the one who is seeking the truth. Every time Allaah uses the plural to refer to Himself, it is based on the respect and honour that He deserves, and on the great number of His names and attributes, and on the great number of His troops and angels.” (Reference: Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, p. 109). And Allaah knows best".

Of course you are going to say that is the common answer given by Muslims, at the very least I've put forth proof other than my own ideals. I at the very least consult scholars, and those more knowledgeable than me. You merely give your own opinions, and expect them to pass as facts, and evidence for your arguments.



Exactly what Muslim excepts this as proof? For that matter what is the evidence that these chapters of the Qur'an honor demons, Surah 114 for example, doesn't honor demons, but rather works as a prayer to seek refuge from demons, and other forms of evil. I tell you what, find me one scholar that agrees with you, and I'll consider your argument.

[OneSizeFit]

Actually, ya ahmad, the quranic reference to the Trinity within itself; is a great falsehood and a laughable fallacy:

Where do you think muhammad got his such ridiculous idea of a false Trinity from (as in sura 5/116)?
.

ya know this is an interesting point, i don't think Mohammed fabricated the belief in Mary as a goddess alongside god the father and Jesus, historical evidence seems to point to the fact that Mary both the mother of Jesus, the blessed virgin, and Magdalene as interchangeable figures, alongside the holy spirit as being the feminine aspect of the unified god (the Gospel of the Hebrews mentions this). i think there were christian sects that saw Mary as a manifestation of god. its really not that far fetched because it still survives in the RCC and EO. Jesus as the manifestation of the Father, the two Marys as manifestations of the Spirit or God the Mother, the Virgin universe, the formless Holy Spirit. like tradition teaches, the Trinity is an everlasting familial relationship between separate but equal persons of the same substance. obviously three masculine deities in an everlasting fellowship makes naught of the female presence and necessity on earth.

[Dan Zebiri]

Why was why I said that this proves Muhammad never read or had access to the original (Canonical) Gospels for himself, nor read / heard them in his language (arabic)

IF he did, he would never have absorbed the fallacious idea of the unorthodox trinity - 'Father, Mother and Son' as 'gods beside God/Allah'.

Because the actual (4) Gospels never espoused that idea. Which underscores the fact that there probably was no Arabic Injil / Or translation of the Gospel, until AFTER the death of muhamad.

I am talking purely about the content of Scripture here, and not about the practices of the RCC or the EO.

[Bowman]

Read the context? hmmm interesting concept, but I'll stick with something that has actual proof, rather than wild interpretations with no proof.

We can show proof of anything that we state, brother.

Islam, however, cannot...

[OneSizeFit]

I am talking purely about the content of Scripture here, and not about the practices of the RCC or the EO.

It wasnt exactly like you could go to amazon and order a bible/concordance, or go to bible.com, and look up 24 different translations in 600AD, especially since the canon was still more or less in flux between 400AD and the time of Muhammad.

Only scholars (early church fathers) had access to the canonized gospels. But there were jewish and christian tribes in the arabian peninsula, furthermore the tribes that most likely settled in Arabia were the ebionites and they did not use the catholic canonized gospels but used the Gospel of Hebrews, and the in the that Gospel Jesus refers to the Spirit as his mother.

Holy Spirit

Within Judaism, the Shekinah (or "visible" cloud of the Presence) is a feminine word, thought to be Yahvah's feminine aspect; therefore, they called the Spirit the "mother". Thus in the Gospel of the Hebrews we should not be surprised, that after the temptation of Jesus it says, “Even so did my Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor." It should also be noted that “Spirit” in Hebrew is feminine, while in Latin it is masculine and in Greek it is neuter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...ws#Holy_Spirit

fascinating stuff.

I think the key to Muhammad's interpretation of Christian theology is based on the Gospel of Hebrews. Jerome had a copy and we are lucky enough to have some key verses via his testimony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews