There are many reasons why (I believe) the Quran could not be from God. Let me share one with you.

It is this: the omission of the book of Daniel -- his deeds and acts!

I recently started to meddle in the Quran. I downloaded an English version. Pressed Ctrl + F and then typed Daniel. Viola, nothing.

To my utmost surprise, no mention of Daniel is made.

Nothing at all. Not even in a passing remark or a very brief summary. As in - nada!

Then, I come to the conclusion that something is fundamentally wrong somewhere and I want Muslim nairalanders to prove me wrong.

The book is rich in everything. From start to finish, the book screams of divine power, divine love, God's watchfulness, God's omniscience, God's oneness, you name it. How then can it be said that Islam's prophet omitted him?

I went back to my Bible and saw a footnote in my translation, the NLT, that says Chapter 2 : 4 and onwards to Chapter 7 was written in Aramaic. I had to take a very good look again maybe my eyes is paining me - written in Aramaic, I asked myself? Oh, I see.

I have had to ask myself countless times if language was the barrier because it clearly is.

Obviously, I mean, the Book wasn't available (or readable) in 5 - 6th century Arabia and hence the silence about his acts and deeds. But if that is the case, then clearly and logically, the Quran is not inspired.

Edit: You have to understand that at the tail end of Jewish monarchies, the people spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, so it is not unusual of Daniel who was an elite and of the royal house to speak and write in both languages.

Daniel clearly understood Aramaic and Hebrew. Classical or Imperial Aramaic was the main language of the Persian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires.

When Sennacherib would invade Judah; king Hezekiah sent ambassadors to meet with the Assyrian commander-in-chief and you can read their admission of both languages. They understood both languages.

Then Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah said to the Assyrian chief of staff, “Please speak to us in Aramaic, for we understand it well. Don’t speak in Hebrew, for the people on the wall will hear.”

Isaiah 36:11

If we talk of prophetic books in the Hebrew bible, you'd definitely talk of Daniel. Bar Ezekiel no other book is as prophetic as Daniel. Why then is the Quran silent about him?

Dear muslims in the house, ayam waiting.

I have roasted plantain (boli) for you if you can satisfy my curiosity other than what I already believe.

Oya na, Oya.

ISelectMySins:
I have roasted plantain (boli) for you if you can satisfy my curiosity other than what I already believe.

Oya na, Oya.

The book of Daniel was not written in a language Mohammed could understand so he had to avoid the book at all cost. I'm sure he didn't even know that any prophet such as Daniel existed.

Meanwhile, Adam was a prophet according to Islam. Jokers.

FxMasterz:


The book of Daniel was not written in a language Mohammed could understand so he had to avoid the book at all cost. I'm sure he didn't even know that any prophet such as Daniel existed.

Meanwhile, Adam was a prophet according to Islam. Jokers.

What you said in the bolded: absolutely, I agree with you a million percent. I actually want someone to prove me wrong. Seems I might have to move my train of thought to Reddit where a lot of erudites would share their opinion on the subject.

In fact, if you do not understand a language especially one that has a different lettering system, you could hardly make head or tail of what is said or its content. You don't know if it's an erotic message, an instruction on how certain recipes are made or a divine message. You can't make a head or tail of anything. And not just that, because of its language barrier, it hardly flies around.

If Muhammad is indeed a prophet of God and got his message by divine revelation, then why is it that God didn't inspire him with this message? After all, the Quran is supposed to be a complete book and a guide for mankind.

Here is the thing my friend: a large bulk of the miracles (chapter 2 to chapter 7) of the book were written in Aramaic - the language of Babylonia and for good reasons too. If the miracles in the book didn't happen, they could have shut it down. Completely! Totally! I wonder what rebuttals our Islamic apologist would give in this instance because a lot of apocryphal and deutero-cannoical books which are not acceptable by mainstream Christian and Jewish communities is in the Quran. I wonder what apology would be given

The God of Daniel is my God.

Please, if you know any sound muslim apologist here, kindly quote him. I hardly check this section, so I don't really know ardent commenters.

This thread is just too dry for my liking lol.

Should we call the book of Daniel, Islam's Achilles' heel?

In as much as I would try to commend your efforts at starting an intellectual convo, my dear friend you succeeded in making no sense.

Why is the omission or inclusion of Daniel a deal breaker.

Aramaic and Arabic are two distinct languages, they maybe mutually intelligible. They both are Semitic languages.

Moreover you weren't able to hit the nail on the head on why the Al-Quaran is not divinely authored.

Your points lack cohesion and logical presentation.

THEGALADIMA:
In as much as I would try to commend your efforts at starting an intellectual convo, my dear friend you succeeded in making no sense.

Why is the omission or inclusion of Daniel a deal breaker.

Thanking you for taking your time to read what I wrote.

Religious books are not just books of do's. They are also supposed to instruct people on heresy and ungodly paths. Sins of commission - what we do - are just as bad as the ones we fail to do - omit, or sins of omission. It is a big deal, my friend, a very big deal breaker, you cannot just omit a divine revelation. I am going to try to argue your cause.

Now, suppose the book of Daniel was omitted for one of the following reasons. I will try to cover all possible possibilities.

1. The events written therein never happened at all - there was no Daniel in Babylon who tells the king his dream and then goes ahead to interpret it; there was no Nebuchadnezzar who ruled in Babylon at so-and-so time, there was no fiery furnace prepared by the King whose hotness killed the kings bodyguards but which did not scorch the three Hebrew men; there was no handwriting on the wall; Daniel's vision of when the anointed one would come, his vision of the ram and goat, his vision of the future and that of the human race, et al, are all forgeries. They never happened. There was not a Daniel in the Lions den. Everything in the Book of Daniel are pure forgeries. They never happened.

2. Not everything in the book are forgeries. Some events in the book happened, but most did not. Daniel was probably in a Cheetah's den, the handwriting on the wall was caused by a little boy, Nebuchadnezzar existed but his father had more authority than he did, et al. In this case, the original book is corrupted - truth mixed with lies.

3. Not everything in the book are forgeries. Most events in the book happened, but some did not. Daniel was in the Lion's den with his friends. The three Hebrew men got a revelation that they should not bow down and God actually manifested himself, et al.

4. Muhammad was not aware that such a book existed (the book was written in a strange land - Babylonia) and if he knew, he couldn't read it.

5. Allah, for his own good purpose, didn't reveal the occurrence to Muhammad for whatever reasons.

I am not supposed to include (2) and (3) as omission because partial forgeries are no reasons for omission. I don't even know why I am calling this omission because ignorance is not the same as omission. The Quran has a knack for exposing forgeries or partial forgeries with its own narratives. it never keeps mum when people err in their beliefs as it regards to God. Hence, (2) and (3) cannot be said to be reasons why the Quran doesn't talk about it.

Now on (5). Why would God reveal a book to the Jewish and even pagan communities in Babylon that screams of his omnipotence, omniscience, ability to predict the future with absolute certainty, his love, his watchfulness towards those who are faithful to him, and not reveal it to Muhammad? I have to ask you, is the book an esoteric book that talks about things that should not be known by his creature? If God did not hide his absolute power in narrating with great detail how the world came about and how man came about, why would he want to conceal this? After all, the book is not just all about miracles, miracles, miracles, power. It talks about other things that God wants us to know, too.


Again, I have to hammer on (5) because this, to me, is the Muslim's ONLY forte: why would God conceal his handiwork from his servants which he wrought through those who were faithful to him in a strange land. Isn't this supposed to be a prop for faith especially to Muslims and Arabs in particular who claim that Ishmael is as much a partaker of the covenant? Isn't this supposed to be evidence even for Muhammed that miracles can happen in any land, not just in Jewish lands. Does he need more proof than this book to confound those who argue with him?

A Korean would not be able to read Chinese and vice versa even though they seem to share a common writing system and used the same alphabet in the past.

AntiChristian and other Muslim apologists, the floor is all yours.

ISelectMySins:
Please, if you know any sound muslim apologist here, kindly quote him. I hardly check this section, so I don't really know ardent commenters.

They've seen the thread. They've avoided it like a plague. Some of them are Lukuluku69, Legalwolf, Antichristian, Expanse200, etc. They're many. You can visit one of TenQ's threads to copy a long list of those Muslims. He usually posts a list of them at the end of his posts after asking them pertinent questions.

ISelectMySins:
Please, if you know any sound muslim apologist here, kindly quote him. I hardly check this section, so I don't really know ardent commenters.

I've helped you copy them from TenQ. Let's hope they'll respond:

References are included next page!


All my Friends on Nairaland:
LegalWolf Vanessa7 AntiChristian Empiree, Rash4ductluv, BabaHeekmat, aekymbahd, motayoayinde, drlateef, Thatfairguy1, MrCodeSolo , Hisbah21, atsleepboy1 , Lordmoh , OBALOLA55, x123xlolls , Lukuluku69 , mhmsadyq, Ibsaq , Herkeym001 , Sulasa07 , hakeemhakeem , abduljabbar4 ,olaalekan ,Friend22 , uthlaw , Exc2000 , AbuTwins ,Akhirastriver ,Akinbahm , Sino , KayB , youngdroly , jaggabban , ukeleh , Realismailakabir , Bami8064 Greatgr , Gaskiyamagana , compton11, Alfarouq , MrCodeSolo Satmaniac saintHot, drlateef, Donkmore Akinbahm , IMEI , FATHAT , talk2hb1 , iamrealdeji , Encyclopedia1 , SWATMan rolams aheeqilmaktoom , Bintdawood , Flanker , Raheeqilmaktoom , rolams ,honesttalk21 , Negroid001 , Nvestor02 , Coolsat, iamrealdeji madridguy Almunjid MohammadSAW , STRI1 Explore2xmore satmaniac Ohyoudidnt , 4islam ThatFairGuy1 BroOptimist. Bakrabas. Musa95 Ibrahimlagosian Explore2xmore
hakeemhakeem ItsReal correctguy101 Qasim6 youngdroly Bliss52 Qasim6 truthday Almunjid hayzedibd ahmedio2017
cc: MightySparrow SIRTee15 ANTIlSLAM innotutorial FxMasterz advocatejare

FxMasterz:


I've helped you copy them from TenQ. Let's hope they'll respond:

References are included next page!


All my Friends on Nairaland:
LegalWolf Vanessa7 AntiChristian Empiree, Rash4ductluv, BabaHeekmat, aekymbahd, motayoayinde, drlateef, Thatfairguy1, MrCodeSolo , Hisbah21, atsleepboy1 , Lordmoh , OBALOLA55, x123xlolls , Lukuluku69 , mhmsadyq, Ibsaq , Herkeym001 , Sulasa07 , hakeemhakeem , abduljabbar4 ,olaalekan ,Friend22 , uthlaw , Exc2000 , AbuTwins ,Akhirastriver ,Akinbahm , Sino , KayB , youngdroly , jaggabban , ukeleh , Realismailakabir , Bami8064 Greatgr , Gaskiyamagana , compton11, Alfarouq , MrCodeSolo Satmaniac saintHot, drlateef, Donkmore Akinbahm , IMEI , FATHAT , talk2hb1 , iamrealdeji , Encyclopedia1 , SWATMan rolams aheeqilmaktoom , Bintdawood , Flanker , Raheeqilmaktoom , rolams ,honesttalk21 , Negroid001 , Nvestor02 , Coolsat, iamrealdeji madridguy Almunjid MohammadSAW , STRI1 Explore2xmore satmaniac Ohyoudidnt , 4islam ThatFairGuy1 BroOptimist. Bakrabas. Musa95 Ibrahimlagosian Explore2xmore
hakeemhakeem ItsReal correctguy101 Qasim6 youngdroly Bliss52 Qasim6 truthday Almunjid hayzedibd ahmedio2017
cc: MightySparrow SIRTee15 ANTIlSLAM innotutorial FxMasterz advocatejare

Wow, wow. Only me, all this mighty battalion.

For this lol, you deserve 100 cold maltina.

Allah chooses what to include in His book. Some Prophets in the Quran are not in the bible. Jesus infancy is scantily mentioned in the Bible but detailed in the Quran.

Holy Quran is different from the Bible and using Bible as criteria to validate Quran is wrong approach. You explicitly assumed Bible as standard criteria (Confirmation Bias) for which to judge Quran.

Set your objectives of studying Quran and be wary of your innate bias.

So Daniel is your reason the Qur'an is not the word of Allah?

I am tempted to ask you what kind of weed you smoke?

The Qur'an is not a summary of all previous scriptures!

And its not a must to talk about Daniel or Joshua by name! Allah has said He did send messengers to all nations!

So is it necessary to mention the messengers sent to Africa and each and every nations?

No! He picks whatever He wills to reveal to his Prophet and we believe it wholly!

About Daniel called Daniyal in Arabic and islam, we believe no doubt he may have been one of the Prophets. There are many Prophets not mentioned in the Qur'an but mentioned in the Sunnah!

When the Muslims conquered Tastar, they came across the grave of Prophet Daniel. And he was reburied somewhere else by the Muslims so that the people won't turn him to another God as they did Jesus worshipping him.

And also his scripture was discovered. Daniyal foretold the Messiah as well as Muhammad (Salallahu alayhi wasalam) in his scripture!

The Muslims read the scripture when they conquered Iraq!

Auki:
Allah chooses what to include in His book.

No sir, this is a weak defense for why the book of Daniel is not foretold/retold/explained or even mentioned in the Quran. A mere acknowledgement of his prophet-hood or otherwise as is done for others who are only mentioned once, twice, or even three times might suffice. Just coming up with a blanket reason that indicates divine sovereignty is lame. If I tell you that God chooses what he chooses and he has chosen that I remain a Christian, should that be taken as a reasonable explanation by a Muslim apologist who wants me to embrace Islam to back off? No. God is sovereign in the affairs of men, granted, but this is so silly. Every act of God must never be swept off the carpet and made to look as if it never happened. If certain characters of the Quran are only mentioned once, then why should this be taken as a reason why Daniel wasn't mentioned at all? Do you understand me?

Auki:
Some Prophets in the Quran are not in the bible. Jesus infancy is scantily mentioned in the Bible but detailed in the Quran.

Here, you have posited a problem that is no problem at all. If the Quran mentions prophets that are not in the bible, it is because the books that talk about such prophets are in doubt and hence were not canonized. They can still be used for instructions as the Catholic church does for some books, but they are not authoritative.The Quran definitely has its source; these non-cannoized books are its source.

The infancy Gospel of Thomas (which in mainstream Christendom is taken for an apocryphal) mentions with great clarity the situation surrounding Christ birth and his infancy. These non-cannoised books have been written several hundred years before Muhammad was born and he used them as his source. If these books were canonized, they would have certainly being an addition to the Christian bible today, but there are many manuscript floating around. Do you know how many books are not parts of Christian canon and yet Muhammad consulted these books?

Just because you have more details on certain subjects doesn't make it reliable. The Jewish and Christian communities rejected a lot of books. A lot. Quite a lot. Some, because of its heretical and esoteric nature, some because the writers wrote it under a different name, some because of its content and many other reasons I have not bothered to study the subject. Do you know the number of scriptures that Christians and Jews in days gone by accept as part of scripture that is ruled to be defective today? Do you know? Ah, it would blow your mind. The prophet of Islam consulted these books and granted some of these books are quite efficacious.

Auki:

Holy Quran is different from the Bible and using Bible as criteria to validate Quran is wrong approach. You explicitly assumed Bible as standard criteria (Confirmation Bias) for which to judge Quran.

Set your objectives of studying Quran and be wary of your innate bias.

If i don't use the Bible as an objective source, what else would I use? You know and me and you agree that the Bible, let me be a bit specific, the Hebrew bible which we call the Old testament had been completed more than 900 years before Muhammad was born. Now, I want to learn. If we want to validate the Quran, what should we use? The Quran? Of course not, we cannot use the Quran to validate the Quran; it has to be something else. it doesn't have that authority, but I ask again, what should we use?

AntiChristian:
So Daniel is your reason the Qur'an is not the word of Allah?

Yes, one of the reasons. Muhammad could not consult the book of Daniel because it was written in a different language in a strange land. Not many manuscript floating around when he lived and if they were, he couldn't make a head or tail of it.

If the Quran is inspired as claimed, then he need not consult any book. The scanty nature of the book coupled with its strange alphabet and symbols made it inaccessible and unreadable.

AntiChristian:

The Qur'an is not a summary of all previous scriptures!

Sadly, it is a poor summary of previous divine revelations. Almost everything, if not everything, in the Bible had happened before Muhammad was born. Everything! That is why the Bible is very, very narrative in its approach. God revealed to Moses how the Heavens, the earth and the elements were created. Moses could not have known these details. However, God did not have to reveal to Moses what happened between himself and the Israelite at the wilderness because Moses himself was there. He was an eyewitness. It was a live event. He could give a first-hand account of what happened there.

The Quran summarizes what happened; it doesn't state what happened. If you want to know what happened, read the Bible.

AntiChristian:

And its not a must to talk about Daniel or Joshua by name! Allah has said He did send messengers to all nations!

Are you a joker or a clown? It is not a must? Is this some thoughtless statement or what? It is not a must for God to tell us he created the universe? It is not a must for God to inform us of his will? It is not a must for God to require us to worship him? If you bring that logic, I would argue that is is not a must to even worship God and serving God is not obligatory on the creature.


Yes, yes, yes, God is under no obligations whatsoever to his creatures, but the sovereignty of God cannot be taken as a reason why God refrains from strengthening the faith of believers. Besides, God's will in this instance is not clear, so it must not be taken as an affirmative. The main message of the book is not about miracles.

AntiChristian:

So is it necessary to mention the messengers sent to Africa and each and every nations?

No! He picks whatever He wills to reveal to his Prophet and we believe it wholly!

Yes, it is necessary if they are sent from the only true God.

Let me give you one example. Job, I am talking of the book of Job in the Bible. Job is not a Jews, but he is included in the canons of Scripture by both Christians and Jews. He lived in the land of Uz which many believe to be in the East, maybe Arabia, during the times of Moses.

AntiChristian:

About Daniel called Daniyal in Arabic and islam, we believe no doubt he may have been one of the Prophets. There are many Prophets not mentioned in the Qur'an but mentioned in the Sunnah!

When the Muslims conquered Tastar, they came across the grave of Prophet Daniel. And he was reburied somewhere else by the Muslims so that the people won't turn him to another God as they did Jesus worshipping him.

And also his scripture was discovered. Daniyal foretold the Messiah as well as Muhammad (Salallahu alayhi wasalam) in his scripture!

The Muslims read the scripture when they conquered Iraq!

The Sunnah is not an authoritative source of Islamic teaching.

Large swath of them-say, he-said, she-said-that-the-prophet-said. More like the Jewish Midrash. If it is not in the Quran, there is no reason to believe it. Besides, the Sunnah was compiled many years after Muhammad's death. By your admisssion, the Quran is very, very incomplete and should not be taken as authoritative


When the Muslims conquered Tastar, O my goodness, who did this to you? This should be called the first joke of the 21st century.

ISelectMySins:


No sir, this is a weak defense for why the book of Daniel is not foretold/retold/explained or even mentioned in the Quran. A mere acknowledgement of his prophet-hood or otherwise as is done for others who are only mentioned once, twice, or even three times might suffice. Just coming up with a blanket reason that indicates divine sovereignty is lame. If I tell you that God chooses what he chooses and he has chosen that I remain a Christian, should that be taken as a reasonable explanation by a Muslim apologist who wants me to embrace Islam to back off? No. God is sovereign in the affairs of men, granted, but this is so silly. Every act of God must never be swept off the carpet and made to look as if it never happened. If certain characters of the Quran are only mentioned once, then why should this be taken as a reason why Daniel wasn't mentioned at all? Do you understand me?



Here, you have posited a problem that is no problem at all. If the Quran mentions prophets that are not in the bible, it is because the books that talk about such prophets are in doubt and hence were not canonized. They can still be used for instructions as the Catholic church does for some books, but they are not authoritative.The Quran definitely has its source; these non-cannoized books are its source.

The infancy Gospel of Thomas (which in mainstream Christendom is taken for an apocryphal) mentions with great clarity the situation surrounding Christ birth and his infancy. These non-cannoised books have been written several hundred years before Muhammad was born and he used them as his source. If these books were canonized, they would have certainly being an addition to the Christian bible today, but there are many manuscript floating around. Do you know how many books are not parts of Christian canon and yet Muhammad consulted these books?

Just because you have more details on certain subjects doesn't make it reliable. The Jewish and Christian communities rejected a lot of books. A lot. Quite a lot. Some, because of its heretical and esoteric nature, some because the writers wrote it under a different name, some because of its content and many other reasons I have not bothered to study the subject. Do you know the number of scriptures that Christians and Jews in days gone by accept as part of scripture that is ruled to be defective today? Do you know? Ah, it would blow your mind. The prophet of Islam consulted these books and granted some of these books are quite efficacious.



If i don't use the Bible as an objective source, what else would I use? You know and me and you agree that the Bible, let me be a bit specific, the Hebrew bible which we call the Old testament had been completed more than 900 years before Muhammad was born. Now, I want to learn. If we want to validate the Quran, what should we use? The Quran? Of course not, we cannot use the Quran to validate the Quran; it has to be something else. it doesn't have that authority, but I ask again, what should we use?

1. In Islam, God is supreme and He is owner of wisdom. He decides what to include as message to mankind.

2. Quran is a message from Allah, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or any human being. It is free from errors and a guide for those who preserve them from evil and follow the straight path.

3. Stories in the Quran are for lessons. Not just a mere story.Quran specifically acknowledged that not all prophets were included.

4 Muhammad(Pbuh) is not the author of Quran. He was never being to school.

5. Some of the bible manuscript were not accepted. The Quran is complete and the same through out the world. One version. Which of the bible version will you regard as criteria.

6. My intend is to help to those that sincere only. Not here for argument

Auki:


1. In Islam, God is supreme and He is owner of wisdom. He decides what to include as message to mankind.

You neither addressed the topic nor answered the question I asked especially the last one, but anyway, thanks for responding - even though you are making this seem bigger than you.

Now back to what you said, it is not my intention to debate Islam with you. I am sticking specifically to the topic I created - on the absence of Daniel. If you want me to debate Islam with you, I am more than ready. Create a new thread.

Auki:

2. Quran is a message from Allah, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or any human being.

If the Quran is a message from Allah, then it is incomplete. A message about what, specifically? Is it a message that is based on what he's done in the past? If yes, with whom did he wrought it and to whom is the message addressed?

Let me give you an example. In the bible, God called a JEWISH man named Jonah to preach to one of Israel's fiercest enemies - Assyria. Jonah was to go to their capital city Nineveh, a city of more than 120, 000 people. This is by my own estimation a very, very large city by the standard of the time. Jonah tries to hide from God by boarding a ship in the opposite direction. God sends a mighty whirlwind, a tempest, that threatens to break the ship apart. Jonah gets thrown and by divine providence, a big fish swallows him. He somehow finds his way there and shouts at the top of his lungs -- in fourty days time, Nineveh would be destroyed.

The message was specifically for them, not for the Israelite or the Arabians. A warning message that is very specific in whom it is directed to, but that is not always the case. I know why I elaborated on Jonah because I was going to ask you this: Did Allah send the Quran to the Jews too? In what way is the Quran very different from the Hebrew bible other than a different perspective on the person of Jesus.

If you take the Hebrew bible and the Quran, a very, very unbiased reader would tell you that the Hebrew bible is far more richer, more elaborate and more descriptive of events that happened in the past than the Quran even though it might contains discrepancies. The Quran is not thorough at all. It tells its own version and then goes ahead to exult the divine. The Quran would say something like :"... and XYZ did what we instructed of him and they were confounded. Surely, God is watching and all powerful." The latter makes the former believable but one needs to separate truth from a praise of the divine. People believe the Quran because it praises and exult God more than it tells the truth. After all, there is no way to know the truth

Auki:

It is free from errors and a guide for those who preserve them from evil and follow the straight path.

I am not arguing for it being inerrant, but for the benefit of doubt, I would say why wouldn't it be free from error when one person wrote everything. If you ask two eye-witnesses who witnessed an event to make their contributions on certain event. You are almost guaranteed to hear conflicting stories even if they all agree on the crux of the matter. This is where the Bible almost sweeps the Quran off balance. The bible was written by many authors over different span and they seem to agree on the crux of the matter.

Auki:

3. Stories in the Quran are for lessons. Not just a mere story.Quran specifically acknowledged that not all prophets were included.

Stories are not just for lessons, sir. The are also for instructions even those that we call miracles, so to speak. God doesn't do miracles only because he wants you to know that he is in charge of the elements. He does miracles to instruct you, to strengthen and help your beliefs too. Any work of God that doesn't show the full extent of God is incomplete and should not be regarded.

Auki:

4 Muhammad(Pbuh) is not the author of Quran. He was never being to school.

I would have easily believed you if more than six or let's say seven people wrote it. The Hebrew bible or the New Testament cannot be said to be written by ten people. You have been fed a lie all your life, man. Muhammad is very much literate and has access to all we have access to and even more.

5. Some of the bible manuscript were not accepted. The Quran is complete and the same through out the world. One version. Which of the bible version will you regard as criteria.

6. My intend is to help to those that sincere only. Not here for argument

[/quote]

How do we verify/validate the Quran? Please answer me. With which holy book do we compare, cross check, and verify its claims?

ISelectMySins:


Yes, one of the reasons. Muhammad could not consult the book of Daniel because it was written in a different language in a strange land. Not many manuscript floating around when he lived and if they were, he couldn't make a head or tail of it.

If the Quran is inspired as claimed, then he need not consult any book. The scanty nature of the book coupled with its strange alphabet and symbols made it inaccessible and unreadable.




Sadly, it is a poor summary of previous divine revelations. Almost everything, if not everything, in the Bible had happened before Muhammad was born. Everything! That is why the Bible is very, very narrative in its approach. God revealed to Moses how the Heavens, the earth and the elements were created. Moses could not have known these details. However, God did not have to reveal to Moses what happened between himself and the Israelite at the wilderness because Moses himself was there. He was an eyewitness. It was a live event. He could give a first-hand account of what happened there.

The Quran summarizes what happened; it doesn't state what happened. If you want to know what happened, read the Bible.



Are you a joker or a clown? It is not a must? Is this some thoughtless statement or what? It is not a must for God to tell us he created the universe? It is not a must for God to inform us of his will? It is not a must for God to require us to worship him? If you bring that logic, I would argue that is is not a must to even worship God and serving God is not obligatory on the creature.


Yes, yes, yes, God is under no obligations whatsoever to his creatures, but the sovereignty of God cannot be taken as a reason why God refrains from strengthening the faith of believers. Besides, God's will in this instance is not clear, so it must not be taken as an affirmative. The main message of the book is not about miracles.


Yes, it is necessary if they are sent from the only true God.

Let me give you one example. Job, I am talking of the book of Job in the Bible. Job is not a Jews, but he is included in the canons of Scripture by both Christians and Jews. He lived in the land of Uz which many believe to be in the East, maybe Arabia, during the times of Moses.



The Sunnah is not an authoritative source of Islamic teaching.

Large swath of them-say, he-said, she-said-that-the-prophet-said. More like the Jewish Midrash. If it is not in the Quran, there is no reason to believe it. Besides, the Sunnah was compiled many years after Muhammad's death. By your admisssion, the Quran is very, very incomplete and should not be taken as authoritative


When the Muslims conquered Tastar, O my goodness, who did this to you? This should be called the first joke of the 21st century.

You can go ahead and look for the authoritative book you created for Muslims! It seems you're the same as those tenq and the likes!

They already have a standard for your books and even your beliefs!

Sai da safe!

AntiChristian:


You can go ahead and look for the authoritative book you created for Muslims! It seems you're the same as those tenq and the likes!

They already have a standard for your books and even your beliefs!

Sai da safe!

Lies with EVIDENCES from Islamic Literatures. Are you not the one who will complain that your sources are Maudu or Daif?


Sorry sir.

You are just been caught in the web of Islamic fabrications

AntiChristian:


You can go ahead and look for the authoritative book you created for Muslims! It seems you're the same as those tenq and the likes!

They already have a standard for your books and even your beliefs!

Sai da safe!

The Hebrews started a "conspiracy" that God made a covenant with their ancestors and not his brother. Fine. At that time and for several thousand years after, we have no counter or opposing report to that effect. Ishmael or his descendants or anyone didn't come forward with a contrary report. We have no revelation that debunks the claim the Hebrews made to that effects. Only silence. We see no line of prophets that are of his brother's genealogy.

We would have even loved to read their works, to hear what they have to say. However, we have a long, a very long line of prophets that come from this said Hebrew. They came in record numbers explaining previous revelations. In fact, events that are totally unrelated to their genealogy and statehood was explained in very great details - like giving an explanation for how the world was created, why it is the way it is, and many more. Of this line of brother, we had some claiming prophet-hood and drawing the people's attention to divine displeasure.

But nothing from the other side.

Nothing at all, probably because there's no contention for anything. And if there was, there is no proof for thousand of years for our perusal.

Then, all of a sudden, after thousands of years, one of a descendant of his brother (which I think is even very contentious) comes out under divine inspiration and wants to explain everything that had had transpired between God and his other brothers. He comes and is re-telling his own narrative about how it went between God and his brother. He is not talking of a line of prophets from his own brother's side whose manuscript was unavailable. He is not talking of the covenant God made with his ancestors the Ishmaelites and its terms and conditions. After all, the Ishmaelites have been in existence for as long as the one has been. To the observant mind, clearly, he agrees that God made a covenant with the one and not with the other. If this is not fucking deadshit crazy and suspicious to you, then I wonder what can be.

Nothing can be very vexatious if this isn't. If the Israelite's rebellion against God their creator in the wilderness just some days after he parted the Red sea for them, their constant worship of idols, their inability to fully occupy the Promised land God had given them, God's beautiful attributes like his angry and instant judgment, the fall of Jerusalem and the northern Kindgom through warfare, their constant sinning and more. If all these I listed and many more of their shortcomings were not concealed, deleted, hidden or whatever, why do we need a different explanations for what happened. Can they be more sinful than they have openly admitted? Why do we need Muhammad at all.

if you talk of standards, then I ask you. On what do you base your standards? Look, Muhammad is a standard but there is no prophets before him, even Arabs, to verify his prophet-hood. If there is, bring it forward and I would embrace Islam.

And by the way, what is sai da safe?

TenQ:

Lies with EVIDENCES from Islamic Literatures. Are you not the one who will complain that your sources are Maudu or Daif?


Sorry sir.

You are just been caught in the web of Islamic fabrications

What is this? How many monikers are you using to look for attention here?
When did i complain such to you?
And what does Mawdoo" and Daif mean?

AntiChristian:


What is this? How many monikers are you using to look for attention here?
When did i complain such to you?
And what does Mawdoo" and Daif mean?

Are you already dazed %and not seeing clearly !?
Fabricated and Weak!

Do you have other meanings to the words?

Is it u true that you class some of your hadiths as Maudu and Daif?

TenQ:

Are you already dazed %and not seeing clearly !?
Fabricated and Weak!

Do you have other meanings to the words?

Is it u true that you class some of your hadiths as Maudu and Daif?

What about it?

ISelectMySins:


The Hebrews started a "conspiracy" that God made a covenant with their ancestors and not his brother. Fine. At that time and for several thousand years after, we have no counter or opposing report to that effect. Ishmael or his ancestors or anyone didn't come forward with a contrary report. We have no revelation that debunks the claim the Hebrews made to that effects. Only silence. We see no line of prophets that are of his brother's genealogy.

We would have even loved to read their works, to hear what they have to say. However, we have a long, a very long line of prophets that come from this said Hebrew. They came in record numbers explaining previous revelations. In fact, events that are totally unrelated to their genealogy and statehood was explained in very great details - like giving an explanation for how the world was created, why it is the way it is, and many more. Of this line of brother, we had some claiming prophet-hood and drawing the people's attention to divine displeasure.

But nothing from the other side.

Nothing at all, probably because there's no contention for anything. And if there was, there is no proof for thousand of years for our perusal.

Then, all of a sudden, after thousands of years, one of a descendant of his brother (which I think is even very contentious) comes out under divine inspiration and wants to explain everything that had had transpired between God and his other brothers. He comes and is re-telling his own narrative about how it went between God and his brother. He is not talking of a line of prophets from his own brother's side whose manuscript was unavailable. He is not talking of the covenant God made with his ancestors the Ishmaelites and its terms and conditions. After all, the Ishmaelites have been in existence for as long as the one has been. To the observant mind, clearly, he agrees that God made a covenant with the one and not with the other. If this is not fucking deadshit crazy and suspicious to you, then I wonder what can be.

Nothing can be very vexatious if this isn't. If the Israelite's rebellion against God their creator in the wilderness just some days after he parted the Red sea for them, their constant worship of idols, their inability to fully occupy the Promised land God had given them, God's beautiful attributes like his angry and instant judgment, the fall of Jerusalem and the northern Kindgom through warfare, their constant sinning and more. If all these I listed and many more of their shortcomings were not concealed, deleted, hidden or whatever, why do we need a different explanations for what happened. Can they be more sinful than they have openly admitted? Why do we need Muhammad at all.

if you talk of standards, then I ask you. On what do you base your standards? Look, Muhammad is a standard but there is no prophets before him, even Arabs, to verify his prophet-hood. If there is, bring it forward and I would embrace Islam.

And by the way, what is sai da safe?

Population of Muslims in the world now is around 2 billion and it is envisage to be the most populous by 2050.

I just want to know, did the Bible (previous prophets) warn us about this "False prophet" from Arabia that will be claiming to worship the same God of Abraham, Moses and the likes?

If we have been warned, I will like you to direct me to those verses.
If not, are u going to discard the fact that those Biblical prophets were sent by God, God that should be all knowing?

AntiChristian:


What about it?

It is your scholars that fabricated your religious texts to a point that more than half is unreliable!

How then can you insinuate that someone who gave you Evidences from your own religious books is not retelling facts?

AntiChristian:


You can go ahead and look for the authoritative book you created for Muslims! It seems you're the same as those tenq and the likes!

They already have a standard for your books and even your beliefs!

Sai da safe!

Qasim6:



Population of Muslims in the world now is around 2 billion and it is envisage to be the most populous by 2050.

I just want to know, did the Bible (previous prophets) warn us about this "False prophet" from Arabia that will be claiming to worship the same God of Abraham, Moses and the likes?

If we have been warned, I will like you to direct me to those verses.
If not, are u going to discard the fact that those Biblical prophets were sent by God, God that should be all knowing?

Qasim, I'm sorry but I don't understand hat you're asking and why you're talking about a "false" prophet in a thread that is majorly about the absence of Daniel or his deeds in the Quran?

The earlier previous prophet didn't warn about a prophet from Arabia for many reasons, but there might actually be a warning about him even in the book of Daniel that I have thundered on; and no, I am not kidding you. Daniel talks about many historical events that even him did not understand. At one point in time, he was trying to pock-nose and he was told to go his way, that what he is told is kept secret.

I would pick some random verses from the 12th book of Daniel and bold them.

But you, Daniel, keep this prophecy a secret; seal up the book until the time of the end, when many will rush here and there, and knowledge will increase.”

I heard what he said, but I did not understand what he meant. So I asked, “How will all this finally end, my lord?”

But he said, “Go now, Daniel, for what I have said is kept secret and sealed until the time of the end.

So divine revelation are not always black and white. Such revelations would not be explicitly stated. And after all, it might be part of the divine plan. That said, the book talks of events that would happen for a time, times, and half a time. What mortal is able to interpret that? None my brother.

So not feel smug thinking, well since no previous prophets calls him out, then they must have endorsed him. No sir, that is batshit crazy way of thinking.

The earlier prophets, however, did give a litmus to know true and false prophets. The first one is this: he must be from God.

Clearly, Muhammad fails this basic test of sound prophet-hood because his narratives of earlier revelations contradicts to a very, very remarkable degree theirs and there's no way to prove his.

There has not been a very coherent, detailed, amazing, beautiful and remarkable story of the past as is found in Genesis. The book of Genesis should be regarded as the first and last book of creation.

Let me use the Fall. I just googled Quranic narrative of the Fall and man, would I say I am disappointed? No. Of course not. There are many versions of creation story, but if you call yourself a prophet of God and contradict in your own narratives the account of everything as given in Genesis. Then clearly, you are not a prophet. Besides, do we even need another narrative about what has already been narrated? Do we need another narratives now when we already had a long line of prophets who had agreed with what was written by not contradicting same? If someone calls himself a prophet and comes up with that idea, what would you call him? Should we take just one person's narrative as true when atleast 100 people who lived at different aeons say otherwise? Is this a reasonable thing to do?

ISelectMySins:


Qasim, I'm sorry but I don't understand hat you're asking and why you're talking about a "false" prophet in a thread that is majorly about the absence of Daniel or his deeds in the Quran?

You don't need to spell out the false prophet accusation, what kinda prophet use previous revelations to write his then claim he is receiving revelation from God?

It is a two sided sword bro, it cut both ways. Since according to you the absence of Daniel from the Qur'an is the ultimate litmus test for divine authorship of the Qur'an, why can't we just reverse that and see what warnings do we have from Daniel and all other previous prophets about a certain false Prophet from Arabia?

ISelectMySins:


The earlier previous prophet didn't warn about a prophet from Arabia for many reasons, but there might actually be a warning about him even in the book of Daniel that I have thundered on; and no, I am not kidding you. Daniel talks about many historical events that even him did not understand. At one point in time, he was trying to pock-nose and he was told to go his way, that what he is told is kept secret.

I would pick some random verses from the 12th book of Daniel and bold them.

But you, Daniel, keep this prophecy a secret; seal up the book until the time of the end, when many will rush here and there, and knowledge will increase.”

I heard what he said, but I did not understand what he meant. So I asked, “How will all this finally end, my lord?”

But he said, “Go now, Daniel, for what I have said is kept secret and sealed until the time of the end.

They didn't warn??, there might actually be warnings?? Which one is it??

If there are warnings you can bring them forth.

ISelectMySins:

So divine revelation are not always black and white. Such revelations would not be explicitly stated. And after all, it might be part of the divine plan. That said, the book talks of events that would happen for a time, times, and half a time. What mortal is able to interpret that? None my brother.

Oh oh, you are talking of how something might have been part of divine plan.? I thought u r like second in command to God that know what God should reveal and what he shouldn't.

ISelectMySins:


So not feel smug thinking, well since no previous prophets calls him out, then they must have endorsed him. No sir, that is batshit crazy way of thinking.

No bro, you thinking The all knowing God would have been completely silent about a false prophet that would pull that kinda huge following is dogshit crazy way of thinking

ISelectMySins:


The earlier prophets, however, did give a litmus to know true and false prophets. The first one is this: he must be from God.

Clearly, Muhammad fails this basic test of sound prophet-hood because his narratives of earlier revelations contradicts to a very, very remarkable degree theirs and there's no way to prove his.

You can't just make claims, why not bring forth some of those contradictions that has been proven that the Qur'an account is false while the biblical account is the absolute truth.

ISelectMySins:

There has not been a very coherent, detailed, amazing, beautiful and remarkable story of the past as is found in Genesis. The book of Genesis should be regarded as the first and last book of creation.

Coherent and detailed like portraying a sixteen years old Ishmael as a babe that Hagar was carrying around right?

ISelectMySins:

Let me use the Fall. I just googled Quranic narrative of the Fall and man, would I say I am disappointed? No. Of course not. There are many versions of creation story, but if you call yourself a prophet of God and contradict in your own narratives the account of everything as given in Genesis. Then clearly, you are not a prophet. Besides, do we even need another narrative about what has already been narrated? Do we need another narratives now when we already had a long line of prophets who had agreed with what was written by not contradicting same? If someone calls himself a prophet and comes up with that idea, what would you call him? Should we take just one person's narrative as true when atleast 100 people who lived at different aeons say otherwise? Is this a reasonable thing to do?

I'm just going to give u a short narration in response to this.

When the Europeans first came across the Qur'an and found there in story of Moses, Pharaoh and a certain Haman (Haman according to Qur'an is one of the chiefs of Pharaoh); They called Prophet Muhammad all sort of unprintable names, that he picked Haman from the book of Esther and muddled it up with story of Moses. Haman according to the book of Esther was an aide to a Persian King.

Today, most Biblical scholars believe book of Esther is fictional because it doesn't line up with Persian History. guess the only book of the old testament missing from the dead sea Scrolls?

While with the decoding of hieroglyphs in the 19th century, we now know there was a certain Haman in ancient Egypt.

Auki:
Allah chooses what to include in His book. Some Prophets in the Quran are not in the bible. Jesus infancy is scantily mentioned in the Bible but detailed in the Quran.

Holy Quran is different from the Bible and using Bible as criteria to validate Quran is wrong approach. You explicitly assumed Bible as standard criteria (Confirmation Bias) for which to judge Quran.

Set your objectives of studying Quran and be wary of your innate bias.

The evidence that the Qur'an is not from God abound.

Allah says that
1. The sun set in some murky waters
2. Women have reproductive fluid coming from their ribs
3. Solomon died while standing on his walking stick for almost one year and no one knew
4. Aalah gave Muslims permission to do prostitution (pleasure marriage =Mutah)

the list go on and on. Can this be God?

AntiChristian:
So Daniel is your reason the Qur'an is not the word of Allah?

I am tempted to ask you what kind of weed you smoke?

The Qur'an is not a summary of all previous scriptures!

And its not a must to talk about Daniel or Joshua by name! Allah has said He did send messengers to all nations!

So is it necessary to mention the messengers sent to Africa and each and every nations?

No! He picks whatever He wills to reveal to his Prophet and we believe it wholly!

About Daniel called Daniyal in Arabic and islam, we believe no doubt he may have been one of the Prophets. There are many Prophets not mentioned in the Qur'an but mentioned in the Sunnah!

When the Muslims conquered Tastar, they came across the grave of Prophet Daniel. And he was reburied somewhere else by the Muslims so that the people won't turn him to another God as they did Jesus worshipping him.

And also his scripture was discovered. Daniyal foretold the Messiah as well as Muhammad (Salallahu alayhi wasalam) in his scripture!

The Muslims read the scripture when they conquered Iraq!

It seems you are not aware that
Allah says that
1. The sun set in some murky waters
2. Women have reproductive fluid coming from their ribs
3. Solomon died while standing on his walking stick for almost one year and no one knew
4. Aalah gave Muslims permission to do prostitution (pleasure marriage =Mutah)

the list go on and on. How can this be from God?

Auki:


1. In Islam, God is supreme and He is owner of wisdom. He decides what to include as message to mankind.

2. Quran is a message from Allah, not Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or any human being. It is free from errors and a guide for those who preserve them from evil and follow the straight path.

3. Stories in the Quran are for lessons. Not just a mere story.Quran specifically acknowledged that not all prophets were included.

4 Muhammad(Pbuh) is not the author of Quran. He was never being to school.

5. Some of the bible manuscript were not accepted. The Quran is complete and the same through out the world. One version. Which of the bible version will you regard as criteria.

6. My intend is to help to those that sincere only. Not here for argument

Unfortunately, these are sincere lies you have adopted

It seems you are not aware that
Allah says that
1. The sun set in some murky waters
2. Women have reproductive fluid coming from their ribs
3. Solomon died while standing on his walking stick for almost one year and no one knew
4. Allah gave Muslims permission to do prostitution (pleasure marriage =Mutah)
5. Allah copies badly the law of Retribution from Moses

the list go on and on. How can this be from God?

Can God make these obvious errors?