• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Muslim views on Jesus

firedragon

Veteran Member
You dont understand at all. Atheist here, no religious faith involved, just hard facts, evidence and data.

Alright. Inn that case, why did you give me a Christian Faith based web site that has made new assumptions to a 1500 year old canon? If you can show me the reasoning you find in that webpage in any patristic writings of the 3rd century I would accept it as valid reasoning to the old canon.

Its a faith based post-hoc justification.
 

allright

Active Member
I believe those are not truisms. You have to prove your statements.

I believe no true Christian will go to Hell whether Islam is true or not.

I believe Muslims have a fighting chance of avoiding Hell.


Believe based on what

The Bible is as clear as a pin. You either accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior or you your eternally
dead

and what does a fighting chance mean
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Can you show me a vulgate that is older than Sinaiticus? Do you have a manuscript that is older than sinaiticus?


The vulgate was written about 90 years after the bible was canonised. And has changed little since.

Manuscript??? No,
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Alright. Inn that case, why did you give me a Christian Faith based web site that has made new assumptions to a 1500 year old canon? If you can show me the reasoning you find in that webpage in any patristic writings of the 3rd century I would accept it as valid reasoning to the old canon.

Its a faith based post-hoc justification.


Am i not allowed to use any source that is relevant?

Yes, faith is, it follows current understanding of faith, not history.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
9ca502be1421db6edbd88119919e81a5.gif


Can't get over the Sufi dance, it is like a kaleidoscope.

For Muslims, Qur’an was not only a revelation from Allah, but “the miracle of miracles.” The “miracle of Qur’an” is a popular doctrine accepted and upheld by Muslims. Muhammad himself claimed that Qur’an is his miracle:

upload_2019-9-21_7-33-47.jpeg


“Again and again when miracles are demanded from the Prophet of God by the cynical and frivolous few, he is made to point to the Qur’an – Message from High – as ‘The Miracle.’ THE MIRACLE OF MIRACLES And men of wisdom, people with literary and spiritual insight, who were honest enough to themselves, recognized and accepted Al-Qur’an as a genuine miracle.” (Al-Qur’an, The Miracle of Miracles, p. 12.)

Why this doctrine is very important for Muslims? The “miraculousness of the Qur’an is the “foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the propethood of Muhammad”:

upload_2019-9-21_7-39-28.jpeg


“This absolute confidence in the miraculousness of the Qur’an has remained unshaken among Muslims to this day. In a sense, this is the foundation of Islam and the most essential evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad…the prophetic office of the Prophet – upon whom be peace – is built upon this miracle.’ A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, observes that ‘Muslims do not claim any miracles for Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethod is the sublime beauty and greatness of the revelation itself, the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches of natural law which confound human reason.’ ” (Answering Islam, p. 103-104.)

A contemporary Muslim author, Faruqi, said “Muslims do not claim any miracles fir Muhammad. In their view, what proves Muhammad’s prophethood is the sublime beauty and greatness if the revelation itselfm the Holy Qur’an, not any inexplicable breaches if natural law which confround human reason.”

Thus, proving that the “miracle of Qur’an” is “not a miracle at all” will refutes the “prophethood of Muhammad.”


THE ISLAM’S DOCTRINE OF INIMITABILITY

Ask a Muslim to prove the “miracle of Qur’an” abd they will point to their doctrine called “the costrine of inimitability.” This is how they explain their “doctrine of inimitability”:

upload_2019-9-21_7-40-6.jpeg


“The Qur’an is the word of God revealed to Muhammad through the Holy Spirit Gabriel, and it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” (Islam in Focus, p, 217)

Muslims claim that “it is beyond human imagination to produce anything like it.” Muhammad himself claimed that only God can produced the Qur’an:

“This Qur’an is not such As can be produced By other than God…” (Surah 10:37, ALI)

They claimed that no man can produced the like of Qur’an and that only God can produced the Qur’an because of the “literary beauty” of Qur’an:

“They believe that Qur’an ‘is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 181)

They claimed that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. Thus, they concluded the following:

“Say: ‘If the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like of this Qur’an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other.” (Surah 17:88, ALI)

For Muslims, the literary beauty of Qur’an is a miracle for no one can produce the like of it and that the diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations are second to none. This is the core reason why they say that Qur’an is a “miracle.”


THE FLAWS OF THEIR ARGUMENT FOR QUR’AN

(1) Even if the Qur’an is the most eloquent book in Arabic, this would hardly prove it had divine authority. For the same could be argued for the most eloquent book in Hebrew, Greek or any other language. Homer would qualify as a prophet for producing the Iliad and the Odyssey. Shakespeare is without peer in the English Language.

(2) It is logical fallacy to argue that simply because it is eloquent that God must have said it. Not because God said it, He would say it most eloquently. The sovereign God (whom Muslims accept) could choose to speak in plain everyday language, if he wished.

(3) There is no logical connection between literary eloquence and divine authority. Even it were proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur’an far surpassed all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man’s strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman’s beauty her virtue. Not because that woman is the most beautiful woman iin the Not because that man is the strongest man in the world, it doesn’t prove that he is a prophet of God.

(4) Eloquence is highly questionable as test for divine inspiration. At best it only proves that Muhammad was extremely gifted. After all Mozart wrote his first symphony at the age of six! In fact Mozart was even more talented, since his entire music corpus was produced before age thirty-five. Muhammad did not begin to produce the suras of the Qur’an until age forty. But what Muslim would say that Mozart’s works are miraculous like the Qur’an?

(5) The so-called “inimitability” (that no one can produced the like of it) is not a valid test for divine authority. Would Muslims accept the challenge to produce a work like Romeo and Juliet or else accept the divine inspiration of the works of Shakespeare? In fact, other religious leaders have given the beautiful literary style of their work as a sign of its divine origin. Would Muslims accept the inspiration of these works? For example, the Persian founder of the Manichaeans, Mani, ‘is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete (‘Helper’) Jesus promised in John 14 because he produced a book called Artand, full of beautiful pictures.’ Further, ‘he said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself.’ Yet, no Muslim will accept this claim. Why then should non-Muslim accept literary beauty as a valid test for divine authority.


QUR’AN’S LITERARY BEAUTY, ELOQUENCE
AND DICTION ARE SECOND TO NONE?


Even though we accept (for the sake of argument) that literary beauty and eloquence is a valid test for divine authority, still, the Qur’an fails.

In terms of literary beauty and style:

“The Islamic scholar, C.G. Pfander, points out that ‘it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.’ For example, ‘some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu’allaqat, or the Magamat or Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion.’ ” (Ans. Islam, p. 187)

In terms of eloquence and diction:

“Eloquence” means “discourse marked by apt and fluent diction”:

upload_2019-9-21_7-42-32.jpeg

“1a: discourse marked by force and persuasiveness suggesting strong feeling or deep sincerity; esp: discourse marked by apt and fluent diction, and imaginative fervor <the poetry of western nations ~ in meter – George Santayana> b: the art or power of using such discourse…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 737)

“Diction” means “correctness, clearness, or effectiveness of wordings used”:

“…choice of words esp. with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness: wording used…” (Webster’s’ Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, 1961, p. 627)

What Muslim scholars admits regarding Qur’an:

“The Iranian Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti contend, however, that the Qur’an possesses numerous grammatical irregularities. He notes that…The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs infected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects…Dashti concludes: ‘to sum up, more than one hundred Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.”

An example of grammatical irregularities in Qur’an as pointed out by Ali dashti, a Muslim scholar:

“He (Ali Dasgti) lists numerous examples (74:1; 4:160; 20:66; 2:172, and so on), one of which is ‘In verse 9 of sura 49 (ol-Hojorat), ‘If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them’, the verb meaning ‘have started to fight’ is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the dual like its subject ‘two parties’.”

Other examples of literary flaws in Qur’an:

“Anis A. Shorrosh list other literary flaws in the Qur’an. For example, in 2:177 he points out that the word Sabireen in Arabic should have been Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence. Likewise, Sabieen is more correct Arabic than Sabioon in 5:69. Also, Shorrosh notes that there is “a gross error in Arabic” in 3:59.”

giphy.gif
[/QUOTE]
 
No. I dont disagree with you because you didnt make a case. And there wasnt anything factually incorrect in what you said.

So your complaint was that I should have spent a significant effort to provide further evidence to support an easily verifiable claim that you agree is perfectly correct? :D
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So your complaint was that I should have spent a significant effort to provide further evidence to support an easily verifiable claim that you agree is perfectly correct? :D

You didnt make a claim. Your claim was others claimed something with out reading any of their material and verifying the validity with any kind of analysis. I was pointing to that.

You personally didnt make any claim. Not to me.
 
You didnt make a claim.

I'm not sure you understand what a claim is then. I claimed you were objectively wrong in claiming all scholars support your position, they don't. As you claim to have read all the scholars who disagree, you must know why your claim was false.

I have provided objective proof of my claim in a post you replied to. Feel free to go back and check.

Your claim was

So I did make a claim then... ;)

Your claim was others claimed something with out reading any of their material and verifying the validity with any kind of analysis. I was pointing to that.

An incorrect assumption you jumped to based on prejudice, arrogance and an inability to carefully read the posts you respond to. You actually even quoted part of one of the articles I linked to that proves my point, yet apparently I've not read.

I simply rejected your demand to prove a something that I wasn't even arguing in the first place as it was irrelevant. If someone notes that "some people think 9/11 was an inside job", they have no need to prove that 9/11 was factually an inside job in order for their claim to be correct.

I did try telling you that you were barking up the wrong tree, but you appeared to be fixated on repeating your initial mistake.

You personally didnt make any claim. Not to me.

See point 1 ;)


So do you agree that:

a) some scholars think there were more than one author
b) some scholars think certain parts predate Muhammad
c) some scholars think certain parts post-date Muhammad

Note: I'm asking if you believe such scholars exist, not asking if you agree such arguments are correct. You can still think they exist while strongly believing they are all completely wrong and that their arguments are the most stupid and irrational nonsense ever written.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I'm not sure you understand what a claim is then. I claimed you were objectively wrong in claiming all scholars support your position,

Okay. Can you prove that Christoph Luxemburg is a Classical Arabic philologist, palaeographer, scholar and says Quran was written by more than one person?

** Because you quoted him. Lets see if you understand your problem.
 
Last edited:

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
Luxemburg's book ("Syrio-aramaic reading.....") was one of the funniest things I'd ever read :D

Unfortunately there are people out there that are dumb enough like him to base an argument off unverified assumptions before bringing in bits of 'evidence' to filter to his agenda. Plus anyone that knows Arabic would SMH.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
a) some scholars think there were more than one author
b) some scholars think certain parts predate Muhammad
c) some scholars think certain parts post-date Muhammad

Yeah, plenty of 'scholars' (and conspiracy theorists) try to put the key in every hole they can possibly imagine, I've heard some pretty absurd s*** over the years. When it doesn't make for good investigation, it usually makes for good ironic humor (if not outright cringe).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Luxemburg's book ("Syrio-aramaic reading.....") was one of the funniest things I'd ever read :D

Unfortunately there are people out there that are dumb enough like him to base an argument off unverified assumptions before bringing in bits of 'evidence' to filter to his agenda. Plus anyone that knows Arabic would SMH.

His argument is that Christoph is a scholar/Philologist of Classical Arabic.

No. It's wrong. Thats a lie. BECAUSE its a pen name. No one knows who this guy is. So no, he doesn't know he was a scholar.
 
Top