-
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!
Who wrote the Quran?
- Thread starter 3n1
- Start date
hello
The Quraan is a book sent from GOD to Mohamed (pbuh) in several events through Gebreial (the sacred spirit) .... and there was people who were hearing it from Mohamed (pbuh) and then write it .....and in the end .....Gabrial checked all of it with Mohamed (pbuh) and then the freinds of Mohamed collected all the "Suras" in a book as the order of Mohamed (pbuh) which was from GOD
i hope u can understand what i mean
and i will be always there if you realy want 2 learn about Islam
The Quraan is a book sent from GOD to Mohamed (pbuh) in several events through Gebreial (the sacred spirit) .... and there was people who were hearing it from Mohamed (pbuh) and then write it .....and in the end .....Gabrial checked all of it with Mohamed (pbuh) and then the freinds of Mohamed collected all the "Suras" in a book as the order of Mohamed (pbuh) which was from GOD
i hope u can understand what i mean
and i will be always there if you realy want 2 learn about Islam
Like all holy books, they are written by man, from the thoughts of man of what they believe in their heart to be a the right religion, based on their frustrations, in-differences, feelings of in-completness etc in other simular religions.
They justify this fact and attract followers by saying they recieved it as a messanger by man. What facinates me with Islam, is it is more like the Jewish religion, yet they cannot tolirate Jews.
The Holy Koran of islam is no more then a grossly inaccurate translation of the old testiment and the jewish holybook (plus some things taken from the christians). If you rean the introductory section of the Koran where they talk about the birth of islam and their messanger, it outlines how muhhummard as a trader would oftern talk to christian monks and other religious figures in his travels. This fact alone only leads to muhhummad's own slow collection of information and summary of this information in his own words which finnaly lead to the birth of the Koran.
The difference between muhummard and the other messangers of god, was that muhhummard claimed to be visited by god's right hand angel, where the others where given the revelations directly from god. This fact alone makes the religion dicey and suspicious. Islam is more a Jewish sect created from the teachings of moses that are outlined throughout the jewish holybook.
The siad fact is, muhhummard never wanted his followers to look into the other two religions and oftern critised both of them, leaving a fowl taste and negitive views amongst muslims about these religions. But the fact that muhhummard states that it is against the rule for a muslim to convert to another religion or even consider looking into another religion justifys my point that muhhummard never wanted his follows to realise that he is guilty of gross plagarism and false statements. If this was the case, Islam today would not even be what it is now.
They justify this fact and attract followers by saying they recieved it as a messanger by man. What facinates me with Islam, is it is more like the Jewish religion, yet they cannot tolirate Jews.
The Holy Koran of islam is no more then a grossly inaccurate translation of the old testiment and the jewish holybook (plus some things taken from the christians). If you rean the introductory section of the Koran where they talk about the birth of islam and their messanger, it outlines how muhhummard as a trader would oftern talk to christian monks and other religious figures in his travels. This fact alone only leads to muhhummad's own slow collection of information and summary of this information in his own words which finnaly lead to the birth of the Koran.
The difference between muhummard and the other messangers of god, was that muhhummard claimed to be visited by god's right hand angel, where the others where given the revelations directly from god. This fact alone makes the religion dicey and suspicious. Islam is more a Jewish sect created from the teachings of moses that are outlined throughout the jewish holybook.
The siad fact is, muhhummard never wanted his followers to look into the other two religions and oftern critised both of them, leaving a fowl taste and negitive views amongst muslims about these religions. But the fact that muhhummard states that it is against the rule for a muslim to convert to another religion or even consider looking into another religion justifys my point that muhhummard never wanted his follows to realise that he is guilty of gross plagarism and false statements. If this was the case, Islam today would not even be what it is now.
DontFearMe
Member
The word "Quran" literally means "recitation." Muhammad was an illiterate man, so for those who claim he just copied stories from the bible and twisted them is pure conjecture and they can never prove it. There were witnesses to the revelation of numerous verses of the Quran. The wife of Muhammad said that sometimes when revelations would come to the prophet he would break out in a heavy sweat, other times it could be different. For the most part for early muslims, the quran was memorized, nothing unusal for an illiterate society who had a keen sense of memory and oral traditions as a result. Try listening to the quran, here is a linke. Chapter is named after Jesus' mother Mary. http://207.134.72.98/quran/sghamdi/s19.ram
chookyman,
You wrote "What facinates me with Islam, is it is more like the Jewish religion, yet they cannot tolirate Jews.
The Holy Koran of islam is no more then a grossly inaccurate translation of the old testiment and the jewish holybook (plus some things taken from the christians)."
Islam is nothing like the Jewish religion. It is, for example, very clear that the Old Testament aka the TaNaK admits that there are other gods; Islam is perfectly monotheistic.
There have been many periods in history when Jews were not only tolerated but respected. Those periods were when Islam ruled, in stark contrast with the Christian treatment of Jews throughout history.
The Muslim view is that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are adulterations of the heavenly Qur'an, not the other way round. I haven't seen the originals, so I won't judge either religion on this one. You must admit, for example, that there are no instances of genocides in the Qur'an, as the OT frequently relates happened during the Israelitic invasion of Palestine. (Fortunately, there is no evidence that the Bible relates the truth in those cases.)
You wrote "What facinates me with Islam, is it is more like the Jewish religion, yet they cannot tolirate Jews.
The Holy Koran of islam is no more then a grossly inaccurate translation of the old testiment and the jewish holybook (plus some things taken from the christians)."
Islam is nothing like the Jewish religion. It is, for example, very clear that the Old Testament aka the TaNaK admits that there are other gods; Islam is perfectly monotheistic.
There have been many periods in history when Jews were not only tolerated but respected. Those periods were when Islam ruled, in stark contrast with the Christian treatment of Jews throughout history.
The Muslim view is that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are adulterations of the heavenly Qur'an, not the other way round. I haven't seen the originals, so I won't judge either religion on this one. You must admit, for example, that there are no instances of genocides in the Qur'an, as the OT frequently relates happened during the Israelitic invasion of Palestine. (Fortunately, there is no evidence that the Bible relates the truth in those cases.)
You know I like the points you raised in your last parragraphs. However I must disagree with you on mostly everything.
1) You say there are no instances of genocides in the Qur'an, well explain the many academic documents which talk about, which has become known today, "The Sword of Islam". This in itself reflects a simularity to the great crusades of the christians, in islamic style. Of course muslims will say it was Muhhammad defending himself, but yet a muslim will not admit to the fact that Muhhammad's warriors went onto convert or kill. So if this is not a genocide at the sword of Islam, what is it then? It certently represents a genocide towards the end.
2) Getting back to another parragraph, It never stops to amaze me how muslims keep on saying that Islam has always been around and is not a new religion, that it is the last verses of the old testimate. Look, muslims claim to this fact because they say they follow the religion of Abraham. Abraham never ever refered to his faith as Islam, nor did he ever record it any form of communication.
The old testimate is that, no tother, no more addition. This is purely the Muslims doing what the Jews and Christians did, trying to justify and secure their religion inline with the monotheistic religion started by Abraham. Islam is a new religion in the sence of the monotheistic faith. It was born the day your messanger first resited his first verse to be recorded by pen.
3) It is a known fact that Muhhammud was an illiterate man. Worthy of great praise for his effort in civilising the uncivilised nomads and tribes of his time, but for his effort in teaching people the importantance of brotherhood, empowerment of the less empowerment etc. It is known that Muhammad in his early days was a merchant type, traveling here to there, meeting many religious figures, listening and talking to people he meet around the camp fire on throughout his travels. During this time he would have gethered much information about both monotheistic religions and their ways.
For starters, Muslims cannot eat pork. This rule infact came from the Jews and their religion. When you read through the Qur'an, you can tell it is based more on the traditions and values which where long istalled by the Arabic peoples long before Islam and the Qur'an came about. People today are not stupid, simplistic thinkers, and unknowedgble as what people where in those days. The world has so much information collected by many authorities, recorded and available through many sources, so it is easier to obtain the truth as it really is and hard cold facts.
I am not a Jew, but the Jewish people have more right then any other monotheistic religion to claim that they are the right way and their belief is the true word of God. Abraham, Mosses, Noah, Jesus where all Jews (Jesus later started is own faith like Muhammad).
There is one fact of life which no one can argue about the authenticy of religions as it lays with the monotheistic religions. This is, that all messangers or prohits before muhhammad recieved the message directly from god, spoke directly to god, where as Muhhammad never did and only spoke and recieved his messanger by Gebreial. This alone makes the the Islamic religion to many suspicious of its true authenticy to what Muhhammad lays claim to. This alone can be debated that Islam and Muhhammad is nothing more then a fraud if one wishes to make those claims, but no one wants to rock the boat due to the backlash it would cause by Muslims.
No matter what faith we follow, everything, everything must be questioned. Even in the Quar'an, the old and new testimates God says to us not to accept faith blindly.
1) You say there are no instances of genocides in the Qur'an, well explain the many academic documents which talk about, which has become known today, "The Sword of Islam". This in itself reflects a simularity to the great crusades of the christians, in islamic style. Of course muslims will say it was Muhhammad defending himself, but yet a muslim will not admit to the fact that Muhhammad's warriors went onto convert or kill. So if this is not a genocide at the sword of Islam, what is it then? It certently represents a genocide towards the end.
2) Getting back to another parragraph, It never stops to amaze me how muslims keep on saying that Islam has always been around and is not a new religion, that it is the last verses of the old testimate. Look, muslims claim to this fact because they say they follow the religion of Abraham. Abraham never ever refered to his faith as Islam, nor did he ever record it any form of communication.
The old testimate is that, no tother, no more addition. This is purely the Muslims doing what the Jews and Christians did, trying to justify and secure their religion inline with the monotheistic religion started by Abraham. Islam is a new religion in the sence of the monotheistic faith. It was born the day your messanger first resited his first verse to be recorded by pen.
3) It is a known fact that Muhhammud was an illiterate man. Worthy of great praise for his effort in civilising the uncivilised nomads and tribes of his time, but for his effort in teaching people the importantance of brotherhood, empowerment of the less empowerment etc. It is known that Muhammad in his early days was a merchant type, traveling here to there, meeting many religious figures, listening and talking to people he meet around the camp fire on throughout his travels. During this time he would have gethered much information about both monotheistic religions and their ways.
For starters, Muslims cannot eat pork. This rule infact came from the Jews and their religion. When you read through the Qur'an, you can tell it is based more on the traditions and values which where long istalled by the Arabic peoples long before Islam and the Qur'an came about. People today are not stupid, simplistic thinkers, and unknowedgble as what people where in those days. The world has so much information collected by many authorities, recorded and available through many sources, so it is easier to obtain the truth as it really is and hard cold facts.
I am not a Jew, but the Jewish people have more right then any other monotheistic religion to claim that they are the right way and their belief is the true word of God. Abraham, Mosses, Noah, Jesus where all Jews (Jesus later started is own faith like Muhammad).
There is one fact of life which no one can argue about the authenticy of religions as it lays with the monotheistic religions. This is, that all messangers or prohits before muhhammad recieved the message directly from god, spoke directly to god, where as Muhhammad never did and only spoke and recieved his messanger by Gebreial. This alone makes the the Islamic religion to many suspicious of its true authenticy to what Muhhammad lays claim to. This alone can be debated that Islam and Muhhammad is nothing more then a fraud if one wishes to make those claims, but no one wants to rock the boat due to the backlash it would cause by Muslims.
No matter what faith we follow, everything, everything must be questioned. Even in the Quar'an, the old and new testimates God says to us not to accept faith blindly.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Let's be careful not to get into a debate here, please. Thanks 
If there is something you would like to debate, we have the proper forum for that.
If there is something you would like to debate, we have the proper forum for that. DontFearMe
Member
Like usual chooky conjects and brings no proof. no debate on that.1
DontFearMe
Look, I don't have time to start bringing you the resources of my facts, as I have other things to do which would be considered even more important. Be thankful I take the time to express my view in my way in regards to what other people write.
Most of the points I raise are common knowledge, logic / commonsence, and are widely available. This is just you sad attempt to be little me and trying to shoot me down because I threaten your beliefs and that what you value.
Look, I don't have time to start bringing you the resources of my facts, as I have other things to do which would be considered even more important. Be thankful I take the time to express my view in my way in regards to what other people write.
Most of the points I raise are common knowledge, logic / commonsence, and are widely available. This is just you sad attempt to be little me and trying to shoot me down because I threaten your beliefs and that what you value.
DontFearMe
Member
chookyman said:
Now who is the one to say what is common knowledge and what isn't? I'm not belittling you, however like I said earlier, if you want to make a claim, back it with evidence.
Hay look, if you want facts and know your faiths, then you only need to look in your holybook collection and you will find them all there. Everything I say comes from what I read. If you want to turn this forum into some accademic essay or assignment I suggest you study religion at university and not here.
I like your point that if we want to know facts about our faith that we should look to our "holy book collection", cause we will find them there. However in all the statements you made you never gave anybody any evidence, quotes, or verses from these books. Now this doesn't help anybody out cause nobody can check to make sure that your statements are true or not. Any how, since you claim that your to busy to put these quotes in your responses I figured I would help you out by giving some quotes from my book collection.chookyman said:Hay look, if you want facts and know your faiths, then you only need to look in your holybook collection and you will find them all there. Everything I say comes from what I read. If you want to turn this forum into some accademic essay or assignment I suggest you study religion at university and not here.
All of the quotes in this post are from the book "The Complete Idiots Guide To The Koran." Written by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov.
Regarding your statement, "You say there are no instances of genocides in the Qur'an, well explain the many academic documents which talk about, which has become known today, "The Sword of Islam".
Since you never gave us any of the names of these "academic documents" I have decided to provide the following quote from the book I mentioned above.
"Like both Judaism and Christianity, Islam has, and has always had, adherents willing to die for their beliefs. The common Western notion, however, that the worldwide popularity of Islam is the result of its having been forcibly imposed upon millions of people who would otherwise have had nothing to do with it, is absurd. This idea is also more than a little insulting to the 1.7 billion Muslims of the world.
No Muslim armies battled in Indonesia (the country with the largest number of Muslims in the world today) or on the east coast of Africa (a region where the faith experienced dramatic growth in the twentieth century). And despite some of the least flattering media coverage imaginable, Islam has emerged as the fastest-growing religion in the United States over the last 50 years. There was, of course, no military campaign to impose Islam in the United States--or, for that matter, in Europe, where it has spread with similar vigor.
The often-overlooked truth is that, while Christian armies slaughtered Muslim men, women, and children during the Crusades, Muslim armies practiced a system of humane warfare that limited the application of violence to combatants and required respect for the religious practices of civilians. Consider, too, that Muslim leaders ruled in Spain for roughly 800 years and in India for roughly 1,000 years. In neither case were non-Muslims forced to convert under the threat of violence. (European armies, however, systematically repressed and murdered Muslims in Spain following military victory there!)
The question of whether any movement can assume global dimensions, and thrive for more than fourteen centuries by means of force, rather than by means of powerful-yet peacful-quiding principles, is an interesting one. While we ponder it, we can consider the existence of the 14 million Arabs who taday practice the Coptic Christianity of their ancestors. Islam simply cannot have been founded upon the idea of forced conversion-otherwise, Arab Christians would never have escaped annihilation centureis ago when they refused to convert to Islam.
Although Islam's initial triumphs certainly had a military dimension, just as the spread of Christianity in Europe did, the faith endured and spread because of its message, not because of compulsion and the sword. Indeed, the Koran forbids forced conversion.
In his book "Islam at the Crossroads", historian DeLacy O'Leary writes that "History makes it clear... that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."
I hope this post helps give some credibility to those who were wondering about the statements made by Chookyman.
Now moving on to Chookyman's next topic, I again have decided to quote sections from the same book mentioned above.
Chookyman stated that "It never stops to amaze me how muslims keep on saying that Islam has always been around and is not a new religion, that it is the last verses of the old testimate. Look, muslims claim to this fact because they say they follow the religion of Abraham."
From the afore mentioned book:
"Non-Muslims frequently refer to Islam as having been "founded" by Muhammad in the seventh century C.E. The Muslim view, however, is that faith in the One God has been revealed to humanity consistently from the very earliest moments of human experience, and that Muhammad was the last in a long series of Prophets chosen by Allah. It is therefore incorrect to refer to Muhammad as some kind of social, religious, or cultural innovator operating independently of Allah. It is iqually incorrect, believers insist, to suggest that Muhammad, and not Allah, was the author of the Koran.
Muhammad is, from this point of view, the receiver of the final divine revelation to mankind. The religion that accompanies that revelation, however, shouldn't be confused as originating as a result of the thoughts and actions of a single man. It is eternal, and it commences with the Creation."
And a little further in the book it has this to say regarding the Prophets.
"Muslims revere the messages of the Prophets-but they also believe that, as a matter of historical fact, people who aren't Prophets have often revised and misinterpreted the experiences and teachings of the Prophets-in some cases breaking those experiences into separate religions. In the Koran, we read that Allah doesn't want humanity to distinguish between the messages of his Prophets, but instructs people to regard them as a single faith:
(Muslims), say, "We believe in God and what He has revealed to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and their descendants, and what was revealed to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among them and to God we have submitted ourselves." Koran (2:136)
Chookyman also stated "Abraham never ever refered to his faith as Islam, nor did he ever record it any form of communication.", and "I am not a Jew, but the Jewish people have more right then any other monotheistic religion to claim that they are the right way and their belief is the true word of God. Abraham, Mosses, Noah, Jesus where all Jews (Jesus later started is own faith like Muhammad)."
As far as I know Abraham never called himself a Jew either. So saying that just because he didn't call himself a Muslim doesn't mean that he wasn't giving the same message as Muhammad. You can call the religion or message whatever you want, whats important is whether or not the essential message is the same.
Chookyman stated that "It never stops to amaze me how muslims keep on saying that Islam has always been around and is not a new religion, that it is the last verses of the old testimate. Look, muslims claim to this fact because they say they follow the religion of Abraham."
From the afore mentioned book:
"Non-Muslims frequently refer to Islam as having been "founded" by Muhammad in the seventh century C.E. The Muslim view, however, is that faith in the One God has been revealed to humanity consistently from the very earliest moments of human experience, and that Muhammad was the last in a long series of Prophets chosen by Allah. It is therefore incorrect to refer to Muhammad as some kind of social, religious, or cultural innovator operating independently of Allah. It is iqually incorrect, believers insist, to suggest that Muhammad, and not Allah, was the author of the Koran.
Muhammad is, from this point of view, the receiver of the final divine revelation to mankind. The religion that accompanies that revelation, however, shouldn't be confused as originating as a result of the thoughts and actions of a single man. It is eternal, and it commences with the Creation."
And a little further in the book it has this to say regarding the Prophets.
"Muslims revere the messages of the Prophets-but they also believe that, as a matter of historical fact, people who aren't Prophets have often revised and misinterpreted the experiences and teachings of the Prophets-in some cases breaking those experiences into separate religions. In the Koran, we read that Allah doesn't want humanity to distinguish between the messages of his Prophets, but instructs people to regard them as a single faith:
(Muslims), say, "We believe in God and what He has revealed to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and their descendants, and what was revealed to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among them and to God we have submitted ourselves." Koran (2:136)
Chookyman also stated "Abraham never ever refered to his faith as Islam, nor did he ever record it any form of communication.", and "I am not a Jew, but the Jewish people have more right then any other monotheistic religion to claim that they are the right way and their belief is the true word of God. Abraham, Mosses, Noah, Jesus where all Jews (Jesus later started is own faith like Muhammad)."
As far as I know Abraham never called himself a Jew either. So saying that just because he didn't call himself a Muslim doesn't mean that he wasn't giving the same message as Muhammad. You can call the religion or message whatever you want, whats important is whether or not the essential message is the same.