₦airaland Forum

[quote author=PAGAN  9JA link=topic=837980.msg9965512#msg9965512 date=1326574818]NO. but we can imagine a world without christianity AND an Afghanistan-like islamic situation.[/quote]we will live like savages! Sacrificing babies for some sun god!

Can you imagine the whole world like Afghanistan?

*yawn* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(1)

but there was none [ Gospels] in the Arabic Languge

None of what you have said has proven that an Arabic Bible or scripture existed [In PreIslamic Arabia] in any significant form.

If in Pre-Islamic times  there were Christians and Jews in Arabia, and there were written forms of Arabic language, its perfectly logical that there will be written scriptures in Arabic also.

You dispute this because of the next obvious  assumption which is that the Prophet could have copied from the Gospels. That assumption is there already since its obvious that the Gospels (through the the presence of Jews and Christians) were in Arabia before Islam and didn't have to be in a written form to be copied.

"In fact, the whole choice of material (borrowed religious material found in the Quran) is such as to suggest that it came from the memories of men and was communicated to him (Muhammed) orally" - Richard Bell

There are a few scholars who have focused on the prevalence of  gospels in ARABIC as against in Hebrew or the communication between Jews, Christians and Arabs. These can also be found in several Hadith;

(a)

Syriac Infancy Gospel text was originally written in Syriac, possibly during the fifth-sixth century , but later became translated into an Arabic text, which has since been lost. Its earliest known mention was by Isho'dad of Merv, a ninth-century Syrian church father, in his biblical commentary concerning the Gospel of Matthew. The narrative of the Arabic Infancy Gospel, particularly the second part concerning the miracles in Egypt, can also be found in the Qur'an. According to some critical scholarship, its presence in the Qu'ran may be due to the influence the Gospel had amongst the Arabs. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Infancy_Gospel

(b)

Middle Arabic proper is mirrored in what is perhaps the earliest Christian Arabic text in our possession. This though undated, presumable belongs to the end of the eighth century.  B. Violet seems justified in ascribing to the end of the eighth century a bilingual Greek-Arabic psalm fragment found in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus-------
but has found an important note revealing that part of the text of the manuscript was translated into Arabic far back as AD 772 - Joshua Blau The emergence and linguistic background of Judaeo-Arabic: a study of the origins of middle arabic


(c)

"Emphasis has been placed in recent years on the too long forgotten fact that Arabia at the time of Muhammad as not isolated from the rest of the world, as Muslim authors would have us believe. There was at that time, as indeed for long before, full and constant contact with the surrounding peoples of Syria, Persia, and Abyssinia, and through intercourse there was a natural interchange of vocabulary. Where the Arabs came in contact with higher religion and higher civilization, they borrowed religious and cultural terms. This fact was fully recognized by the earliest circle of Muslim exegetes, who show no hesitation in noting words as of Jewish, Christian, or Iranian origin. Later, under the influence of the great divines, especially as ash-Shafi'i, this was pushed into the background, and an orthodox doctrine was elaborated to the effect that the Quran was a unique production of the Arabic language. The modern Muslim savant, indeed, is as a rule seriously distressed by any discussion of the foreign origin of words in the Quran. - Arthur Jeffrey


(d)

"The fact that Islam regarded Christianity as a religion from which something could be learnt, and did not disdain to borrow from it, is acknowledged by the Muslim theologians themselves, (1) and the early elements of Hadith literature offer us a great wealth of examples which show how readily the founders of Islam borrowed from Christianity. We do not here allude to those vague borrowings which in the earliest times of Islam, through verbal communications with Christian monks or half-educated converts, helped in building up the form and content of the faith, and which appear in the form of isolated technical expressions, Bible legends, and so forth; but we mean those borrowings which are presented in a more definite shape, and evince a certain, if not a very extensive, knowledge of the Christian Scriptures."- Ignaz Goldziher



(2)

You ask for Arab linguists and scholars opinion on the Quran, I give you some and you challenge them as being biased, discredited and Muslim Haters (sincerely who wouldn't be described as such if he speaks unflatteringly about the Quran) .

Since you have a habit of challenging authors of my sources, lets take a look at yours;

Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot : He is noted to be well versed in the ancient literature of India. A translator and an Orientalist, he hardly qualifies as a linguist.

A. T. Welch; apart from an obscure mention in http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/19/viewall/#_ftnref9780 and similar sites (where you get your quotes), he doesnt have a good following in the academic world

Kenneth Cragg - An Anglican Priest and Scholar whose major goals in life is to improve Muslim and Christian relations is not someone who will want to rock the boat. His unusual high praise of the Quran is likely for a "politically correct" posture. This is what he had to say about the Quran - There are ambiguities in the Qur'an  ----- the Qur'an contains passages that say God himself ordained human diversity in order that people might compete together to be the best. God has sanctified diverse cultures by giving each a pattern of worship, a ritual to follow. Another verse says that there is no people to whom a prophet has not been sent.  He again speaks on the difficultirs of Arab Scholars that are per cieved to go against the norm ie Quran and the Prophet We must be concerned about the Muslim scholars who are persecuted in their own countries or are forced into exile Again poses the question Can Islam move toward accepting the secular state -- secular in the sense that the state treats equally citizens of any and every tradition, consonant with public order and the common good? This may sound like off point, but it affects the free critique of Religious text in Arabia - http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=500

John Burton His work on the Quran was merely to establish its transmission through the ages from the Prophet to this day. I don't see any high praise for its contents

Taha Hussein The man didnt have nice things to say about the Quran at some point, and was prosecuted for his views. For someone with radical views, I have doubts if the quotes you made from him were not made by him to appease the authorities.
The Stream of Days (1943).-Gāhilī}(a  book by Taha) in which he expressed doubt about the authenticity of much traditional Arabic poetry, claiming that it may have been faked during ancient times due to tribal pride and competition between those tribes. In this book, he also hinted indirectly that the Quran should not be taken as an objective source of history. Naturally this book excited the intense anger and hostility of al-Azhar and many other traditionalists, and he was prosecuted with the accusation of insulting Islam, but the public prosecutor stated that what Taha Hussein said was the opinion of an academic researcher and no legal action was taken against him, although he lost his post at Cairo University in 1931. His book was banned but was later published with slight modifications under the title "On Pre-Islamic Literature". = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taha_Hussein



While it is clear that the Quran is a product of the rich poetry background of the preislamic era of Arabia, many will exaggeration its beauty based on their perception of it, others will not be so sure owing to a variety of reasons ranging from what they see as incompleteness, errors or prejudice. What ever it is one thing is clear, not all share your enthusiastic admiration for the the Book.

One of the few distinct impression gleaned from a first perusal of the bewildering confusion of the Quran, is that of the amount of material therein which is borrowed from the great religion that were active in Arabia at the time when the Quran was in process of formation. From the fact that Muhammad was an Arab, brought up in the midst of Arabian paganism and practicing its rites himself until well on into manhood, (1) one would naturally have expected to find that Islam had its roots deep down in this old Arabian paganism. It comes, therefore, as no little surprise, to find how little of the religious life of this Arabian paganism is reflected in the pages of the Quran. ,  , it is plain that Muhammad drew his inspiration not from the religious life and experiences of his own land and his own people, but from the great monotheistic religions which were pressing down into Arabia in his day - Auther Jeffrey

and you think if you search on nairaland you wont find it?i think recently "Judek" did.and if i put in the time i'd bring it out.

and please let it be the last time you talk of the evil bible,full of confusion and contradiction.

I Laugh in Swahili 

Typical of you, when cornered you:

(a) Say some one else did it
(b) Say "the Bible has contradictions too" (then refer to threads where, unfortunately for you, you also being hammered for your folly)
(c) make fresh baseless allegations
(d) change the topic, and finally, my favourite
(e) Explode in insults 

From your last post (exploding in frustration), its obvious you have been shown your folly 

[size=15pt]CASE CLOSED[/size]

Ok LagosShia, Let me put you through:

(i)

Old Testament declaration;

Deuteronomy 6:1 - 4
verse 1 These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess - --- verse 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Thousands of years later in new Testament

Mark 12:28 - 29

Verse 28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

Verse 29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

See why picking verses in isolation shows your (and wherever you are cutting and pasting from) little understanding of the Bible

(2)

From the Old testament a prophesy

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: A young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Thousands of years later, In the new testament, a fulfilment of that prophesy;

Matthew 1:22 & 23
Verse 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

Again picking verses in isolation

(3)

From the Old testament, a Prophesy

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

In the New Testament a fulfilment of that Prophesy

Matthew 2:3 -6
“‘Verse 3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.

(4)

from the old testament, a prophesy

Malachi 3:1
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Thousands of years later, in the New testament, a fulfilment of the prophesy

Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way before you.’

(5)
From the old testament

Isaiah 49:8
This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

and in the new testament

2 Corinthians 6:2
Verse 1 As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain 2 For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

SO where is the plagiarism when reference is made from the quotes always when the quotation is not law.

LagosShia, watch and learn!

LagosShia:
because Jesus (as) accroding to christian belief was the "beloved" and "begotten son of god" who was "killed" by his own "father" as an act of "love"!!!!

OFF POINT LagosShia

This is what is going on:

*Muhammad nicknames his weapons, and he nicknames himself "the obliterator."

Christ never owned weapons because he never waged war on people.

*Muhammad in his Quran commands that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes (Sura 24:2). Reliable hadiths (Muhammad's words and deeds outside of the Quran) command stoning them.

Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery. The men who had gathered around to stone her dropped their rocks and left. She stayed, weeping, until Christ told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1—11).

*Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives (Sura 4:34).

Neither Christ nor the New Testament authors permit this or practiced this.

*Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off (Sura 5:38).

Christ never said to do this. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that thieves should work with their hands, not get them cut off in order to share with those in need (Ephesians 4:28). In this matter (and in many others) Paul excels Muhammad.

*Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses and political enemies.

Christ never assassinates any of his enemies and certainly not poets (even bad ones).

*Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land (Sura 5:33).

Christ the Prince of Peace dies for the sins of the world, so that "corruption" and the "fighting" would stop.

*Muhammad marries a prepubescent girl, Aisha, and consummates his marriage with her while she is still only a girl. For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad's domestic acts even for Seventh Century Arabia, readers should refer to this article. The Quran itself allows such unjust marriages for other Muslims, as well (Sura 65:4).

Christ never did this, and he never said to do this.

*Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous, "virgin—rich" Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war (Suras 44:51—56, 52:17—29, 55:46—78, 61:10, 4:74, 9:111).

Christ's "Martyrdom" on the cross means that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to be guaranteed heaven. They need only trust in him.

*Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children. This atrocity is celebrated in his Quran (Sura 33:25—27)

Christ was a Jew and loves his own people. Moreover, he loves the whole world——even the polytheists whom Muhammad slaughters——and redeems it by his death, burial, and Resurrection. He was not sent to slaughter people.

*Muhammad launches his own military Crusade in AD 630 with 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantines (who never showed up) (Sura 9:29).
Christ never did this. What Medieval Europeans do in his name is not foundational to Christianity. Only Christ and the New Testament are, and they did not endorse a military holy war. Muhammad, on the other hand, is foundational to Islam, and he did launch his Crusades against Byzantines Christians, and he does endorse and go out on many military holy wars.

Please answer these points so everyone will be better educated.

LagosShia:
"it is written",where is it "written"?in the moon?

that aside,why do you quote Malachi 3:1,did you see "it is written" there too?and is "it is written" in all the verses i presented which is nothing les than plagiarism?

LagosShia, you my friend are REALLY something else. Oya, watch carefully;

From the OLD TESTAMENT is this statement

Malachi 3:1
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

Then thousands of years later it is now refered to in the NEW TESTAMENT as follows:

Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way before you.’

GET IT??  

I will not tutor you so next time. If you can't comprehend, don't challenge what you can't understand.

Davidylan asked for the "significance of ransom" in Islam.so he got the answer from an Islamic scholar.

Why not from YOU?

Its like me quoting Pastors Adeboye or Oyedepo to respond to your enquiries on the Bible? That would be silly really.

LagosShia:
mumu! as if christians dont have bible commentary.but anyways let me answer you:

Davidylan asked for the "significance of ransom" in Islam.so he got the answer from an Islamic scholar.

Yes oh! there are commentaries for the Bible for people going to theological schools etc BUT who has quoted them here?

its because the Bible is very clear on its own ( I have not had cause to use them in replying you and I have not seen ANYBODY who has)

When Muslims quote the Bible DO THEY QUOTE COMMENTARIES? BUT when other scholars examine the Quran, it has to be with the Hadith to understand the situation,

Have you ever heard that Christians quote commentaries or accounts of the life of Jesus (eg as in ur Hadith) on matters of faith? Because there is no need.

The BIBLE is STAND ALONE

MTN? are they still here?

lagosShia is not here to learn but ridicule.

that's why it would appear elementary concepts eludes his understanding.

LagosShia:
you wanted to know who was sacrificed.so the verses i presented present a sequence of events in Abraham's (as) life and him begetting two sons.

other verses tell us too he was the son of Abraham and he was righteous and a prophet. me too i would like to know how to prepare Sushi.does the bible teach you that?

the essence of the test is recorded to in the Quran.the religious significance of a "sacrifice" is devotion.

"This was indeed a plain trial".(Quran 37)

for more on the "ransom" and who it was,read the commentary of Ayatollah Mehdi Pooya:

hey why did you have to use a "commentary" to fill in the gaps?

couldn't you have just relied on the Quran?



you just confirmed part of what brentkruge wrote

this report must be the most baseless report in years. for one Fashola is not an employee of the Federal Government, second is that he doesn't control the police to do anything about the protest. three he is from the opposition so any attempt to query him his party will just release the details to the public and its popularity will just soar. ACN and Tinubu will not let that juicy opportunity pass.

Governor Babagida Muazu tried to prevent rallies see the destruction that happened in Minna, that sleepy and docile city. imagine what lags will be.

its a farce

(i)
I think I have shown the contradictions in your posts throughout our encounter. You can go through them yourself. i have made my point and will not go back to them.

I am surprised that you choose to explain away a Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4.56.81 among others. One thing is clear, the gospels were known in Arabia. And assuming we have only that Hadith to depend on and there were no gospel texts anywhere in Arabia (as you claim), its obvious Waraqa used to read (or recite as you prefer) them (obviously to an audience, in which recitation will fit in perfectly) and Khadijah knew (obviously) what he was doing and therefore sought assistance when the Prophet had his first visions.

Also, Christians are active witnesses ever since the great commission by Jesus ( Matthew 28:16–20), it will be impossible to have them in pagan Arabia and they not attempt to spread their faith. the Jews were there with their Torah especially in Medina where they controlled the city, how possible is it that their religious stories and mode of worship would not be known by their Arab neighbours? impossible.

But I shall let that pass cos I have made my points quite clear.


(ii)
As per the opinions of Arabic Linguist and scholars on the Quran, let me quote quite a few.

(a)

"Among the Muslim scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole prevailed, were some such as Ebrahim an-Nazzam who openly acknowledged that the arrangement and syntax of the Qur'an are not miraculous and that works of equal or greater value could be produced by other God-fearing persons"
"The Qur'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qur'an's eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings" - Twenty Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad, Ali Dashti

(b)
Rafiqul-Haqq and Newton demonstrate in their foundational essay a study of several errors in the Quranic Arabic grammar, and provide corrected readings based upon accepted rules of Classical Arabic grammar (too many to summarize here) - M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, The Qur'an: Grammatical Errors

Muslims claim the Qur'an not just to be a human literary masterpiece, but a divine literary miracle. But this claim does not square with the facts. For the Qur'an, which we have in our hands contains obvious grammatical errors which is plain to see for all who know Arabic. The Qur'an, because of these errors, is not even a masterpiece. If, humanly speaking, the Qur'an cannot be called a masterpiece, can anyone honestly call it a divine literary miracle? - M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton

(c)

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on -Gerd-R. Puin

(d)
the wide extent to which both the text of the Koran and the learned Islamic account of Islamic origins have been distorted, a deformation unsuspectingly accepted by Western Islamicists until now - Koranic scholar Günter Lüling wrote in The Journal of Higher Criticism

(e)
The Qur’an contains 107 and 275 foreign words respectively taken from the Persian, Assyrian, Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, and Ethiopian languages- some of which are:
Persian: Ara’ik and Istabraq (al-Kahf 18: 31) meaning couches and brocades respectively, Abariq (al-Waqi’ah 56: 18) meaning ewers, Ghassaqan (al-Naba’ 78: 25) meaning pus, Sijjil (al-Fil 105: 4) meaning baked clay;
Aramaic: Harut and Marut (al-Baqarah 2: 102), Sakina (al-Baqarah 2: 248) meaning God’s presence;
Hebrew: Ma’un (al-Ma’un 107: 7) meaning charity, Ahbar (al-Tawbah 9: 31) meaning Rabbis;
Ethiopian: Mishkat (al-Nur 24: 35) meaning niche;
Syraic: Surah (al-Tawbah 9: 124) meaning chapter, Taghut (al-Baqarah 2: 257; al-Nahl 16: 36) meaning idols, Zakat (al-Baqarah 2: 110) meaning alms, Fir’awn (al-Muzzammil 73: 15) meaning Pharaoh;
Coptic: Tabut (al-Baqarah 2: 248) meaning ark.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 1505), the great Muslim philologist and commentator. (This could mean multiple editing over the years or the lack of consistent usage of proper language a prose of such expected quality should have)

(f)
The quote is important cause is shows the Quran is incomplete:
“Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama , but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them” - Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, .

(g)

ln examining the purity of the Arabic from the perspective of vocabulary, Alphonse Mingana demonstrated that rather a large number of words used in the Qur'an, both religious and common, are derived from Syraic, a liturgical language, which originated from the pre-Hellenistic lingua franca, Aramaic. Essentially several words in the Quran are not pure Arabic. A. Mingana, "Syraic Influence on the Style of the Koran"

(h)
"From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it." - Salomon Reinach

(Matthew 7:15-23) from Jesus Sermon on the Mount:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

Comment by kmgy:

"The Bigger the Lie, the More the People will Believe it" - Adolf Hitler. Islam is rooted in the Biggest Lie ever and more than one billion people believe it.

Sir, I think you are being unfair to me on the following;

[size=15pt](i)[/size]

Why did YOU quote western researchers to portray the beauty of the Quran and then turn around to refuse me that privilege? Thats not fair.

You presented quotations from western scholars who rate the Quran highly and challenge me. I provided quotations from western scholars who criticize the Quran and tell you why Arabs will seldom carry out an objective critique of the Quran. You say;

I said present me with an Arab Linguist: Someone who has studied THE LITERATURE of the arabic language,  I gave an exact challenge;

A RENOWED ARAB LINGUIST OR LITERATEUR

You have given me orientalists,  Who studied islamic history and read the english translation of the quran. People who were muslim haters.

Earlier I told you

This challenge is not objective.

There are a lot of people who will disagree with you. Your position the Quran is from a definitely not going to be an objective one  because you are a devout Muslim. I say so because as with matters of faith, its very subjective. A lot of scholars have some negative things to say when looking at it (Quran) on its merit, as is i.e. linguistic style, arrangement, language. Also, another set will rate it highly. All based on prior relationship with the book. There could be a few that owe no one allegiance (e.g. atheists) but would Muslims agree to this group offering a critique? I doubt.

So lets just keep our opinions to ourselves.

also

There are thousands of studies which call to question the authenticity and veracity of the Quran from its authorship, accuracies,  assumptions, language, structure, arrangement, authority, interpretations, style etc. Also, some scholars have very very unflattering view of the Quran. Quoting them will serve no purpose other than elongating the debate. I would rather stick to the main religious texts and sparingly use such texts to reinforce my position.

How do really expect an Arab linguist to objectively look at the Koran from a true unbiased critical view? Its either they are Muslims or as you know, researchers in the middle east are circumspect when it come to religious inquiries. Its like asking me to go to the Rome and get a person who would criticise the Pope/Church/Bible.

You quoted western researchers like A.T. Welch, a non-Muslim orientalist; Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg; John Burton and wouldnt let me do same. 

You also know that any serious scholarly research work is always scrutinised and opinions written, jsut because in the opinion of another researcher on a work is not the basis to dismiss it entirely. I can list several more in depth studies that have dismissed the Quran. But I still maintain my position that its not the best way to examine the Quran.


[size=15pt](2)[/size]
you dispute (a) the existence of the gospel in Arabic in  Arabia before the Prophet received his revelations (b) written texts in preIslamic Arabia;

There was no written scripture of the bible in the Arabic language until way after the death of the prophet

and

It is a documented fact that christian scriptures did not exist in arabic until the death of the prophet.

but I subsequently quoted Sahih Bukhari 4.56.81 where it was stated
The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet)
to prove that there were the scriptures in Arabic in Preislamic Arabia. You say Waraqa read the gospels in Hebrew.

Again I quoted:
Jonah (Yunus) 10:94, Late Meccan. "If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you, "
In this verse, Prophet Mohammed was asked to be read to from the Gospel. Since he was an Illiterate, the gospel would have been read in Arabic.

then you wrote

It is important to note the pre islamic arab had a predominantly oral culture. So waraqa recited/read (iqra (arabic word)) the gospel in arabic to arabs because there was no written down text in the arabic language.

Remember, you earlier said he read in Hebrew, now you say he recite/read (two different things) the gospel in Arabic to Arabs.

then I got you proofs otherwise;

Sura 96:3 Read! And thy Lord is Most honourable,- Sura 96:4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
This Sura meant the written words were no strangers in pre-Islamic Arabia

Arabic literature did not begin with the Qu'ran. In the ka'aba , there were a number of poems "hanged" on the walls http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/640hangedpoems.asp this shows that there were written words in Pre-Islamic arabia (to this point you wrote "True, no arguments there" meaning you agreed to it)

Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad)

And I concluded: The Hadith and the Koran (as I have shown) all alluded to the existence of write form of language in Arabia at the time of the Prophet.

to buttress my point further, I quoted Hadiths to back up the assertion that there was a written form of Arabic Language in PreIslamic Arabia in addition to the availability of the Gospels

It is VERY clear that people DID write the Prophets revelation at a point. As per your request for scholarly work on the issue, here it is:

Since most sahabah were unable to read or write, they were ordered to learn from the prisoners-of-war the simple writing of the time. Thus a group of sahabah gradually became literate. As it was initially spoken, the Quran was recorded on tablets, bones and the wide, flat ends of date palm fronds. Most chapters were in use amongst early Muslims since they are mentioned in numerous sayings by both Sunni and Shia sources, relating Muhammad's use of the Quran as a call to Islam, the making of prayer and the manner of recitation. However, the Quran did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran (From Cambridge  History of Islam; Introduction to the Quran)

Also

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the[b] board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write:[/b] 'Not equal are those Believers who sit, ", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order for me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95) (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Number 512)

And again

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq, that he heard Bara' talking about the Qur'anic verse: "Those who sit (at home) from among the believers and those who go out for Jihad in the way of Allah are not equal" (iv. 95). (He said that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered Zaid (to write the verse). He brought a shoulder-blade (of a slaughtered camel) and inscribed it (the verse) thereon. The son of Umm Maktum complained of his blindness to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this) descended the revelation: "Those of the believers who sit (at home) without any trouble (illness, incapacity, disability)" (iv. 95). The tradition has been handed down through two other chains of transmitters. (Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4676)

You wrote: The scribes are usually the last to know about a revelation. So to say he was at the 'frontline' of revelation is inaccurate.
as you can see from the above, Zaid, a scribe, was among the FIRST to hear a revelation and record it. He WAS at the frontline of the revelation.


Finally, you wrote:

I think you misunderstood my request: My request was for you to show me a Scholarly work that shows that scriptures from the bible were written in arabic at the time of the prophet. It wasn't,

No sir, I would rather depend on the Quran and Hadith; they are supreme and above any other.

Then lastly,

I never said there were no written stuff,  I can't keep repeating myself.

As you can see from the above, your requests/assertions on the matter werent exactly consistent. Besides that I would rather stick with the Hadith and Quran for authenticating issues like this. I have shown you through the Hadiths (as shown above) the following facts; the gospels were in Arabia before the during the time of the Prophet and the art of reading and writing were wide spread. This are as follows,

(a) There were the written Gospels BEFORE Prophet Mohammed was called by God and his relation (Wife' Cousin) had access/were knowledgeable in them.
(b) One of Prophet's Secretaries wrote his revelations for him (before leaving Islam)
(c) Written peotry was hung on the walls of the Kaaba
(d) Prophet Muhammed had revelations written down on the spot through Secretaries using camel shoulder blades and ink


finally, despite your earlier assertion, you contradict yourself somewhat;

I never said there were no written stuff,  I can't keep repeating myself.

They were a few of the companions who could write, That has never

I know there were companions who could write,

The quran was preserved by both the memorization of the companions and the work of scribes.

I expected you, like we both did earlier at different instances, to acknowledge your mistakes. We learn everyday.

LagosShia:
you are mistaking me for your brother "frosbel" or a christian.when your beliefs are hammered flat,you start insulting the Prophet (sa) and calling names.bring your questions up.they will be answered and then you'd get hammered as usual and christianity's falsehood would be expose.

for God's sake this is the 21st century and people still identify themselves with the falsehood of christianity.the devil is wicked!

You are one very BIG LAIR! In fact it takes a lot patience to be in the same thread with you.

I never insult religious figures whether Buddha, Muhammed or Confucius! That's not my style.

You call people fo.ols, b*tches, cockroaches etc and you call Jesus names (for example just go through YOUR post on THIS page)

I have a feeling you are not in good health. You forget things you post, can't comprehend, call people names, repost allegations that have been answered before, accuse people for the very thing you do, pretend you debate but are more of a ridicule.

You need to check yourself. *shakes head* 

PS I expect more insults coming 

Number one

The sun sets in a muddy pool/spring -- Sura Sura 18:90

It is scientifically proven that the sun does not go down in a muddy spring.

This seems to presuppose a flat earth, which we know is utter rubbish. If Allah was all knowing and made the earth, how come he forgot that the earth was round an d the sun went round it not in a muddy pool?

Honestly, which is more difficult to believe?

The sun setting in a muddy pool/earth is flat or a blood red moon?

@eccentric

the problem with some people is that they are not here to learn or ask honest questions or satisfy their curiosity. they are here to ridicule

so your being nice, civil and explaining the best you can elicts not appreciation(even if the poster doesn't agree) but insults.

so you see, the rules of courtesy doesn't exist with some of them. If you want to be civil with these guys you are wasting your time. just state the facts in a couple of lines or leave them in their ignorance.

Also remember that largely because of deficient education or rabid hatred for Christianity, verses are picked in isolation, figurative phrases are deliberately twisted and presented as wished as often as they can to overwhelm you and wear you down.

I have been here long enough to notice.

[size=15pt](i)[/size]

(i) Pre islamic arab had a predominantly oral culture, but part of it is written. How could Waraqa had "read" the gospel if it wasnt written? We would have been told he recited. While I agree that word Iqra (Sūrat al-Iqrā)(إقرا, "Read" may mean read or recite, It leads us to another  in Sura 19:2 (where the Prophet was commanded to read, and he said he  was unlettered). It couldnt have been "recite" cos even an unlettered man could.

i.) The first word Angel Gabriel spoke to Muhammad, peace be upon him, was "Iqra", which comes from the same root for Quran, and it was a command to "Recite!" (Many people, even Muslims today think this word meant 'read', but it is incorrect because the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not able to read or write). Immediately we see the importance of going back to the most authentic and original source - the Quran in Arabic - to better understand the meanings.

(i) I agree with you that the words "إقراء" (from قراءة) and "اتل" (from  تلاوة) are not used only for reading out from a written document but is also used for a verbal rendering of a statement. Even though several Islamic sources translete the word as READ. It leads me to question why the Prophet will be asked to recite and he  would turn it down on the basis of being unlettered?

[size=15pt](ii)[/size]

(ii) Sura 96:3 Read! And thy Lord is Most honourable,- Sura 96:4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
This Sura meant the written words were no strangers in pre-Islamic Arabia

Iqra means recite not read,  check classical dictionaries or ask an arab speaker if you know one.

(ii) The Quran is clear in 93:3&4: Recite, and your Lord is the most Generous who taught by the pen. If the Quran says this, then it those go to show that there were WRITTEN Arabic test in preislamic Arabia. It has NOTHING to do with the Prophet being unlettered. If there were no written text, how come God told Prophet Muhammed the above quotation?


[size=15pt](iii)[/size]

(iii) Arabic literature did not begin with the Qu'ran. In the ka'aba , there were a number of poems "hanged" on the walls http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/640hangedpoems.asp this shows that there were written words in Pre-Islamic arabia

iii) True, no arguments there

(iii) You accept its true, so that's settled.

[size=15pt](iv)[/size]

(iiii) While written language was not well developed in preIslamic Arabia ( before 610 AD), the influx of Jews (and their torah and better developed written language since 600 BCE) and the Christians (with their gospels) were recorded and documented especially in Medina. They provided the basis for the writting down of the Quran as shown in

iv) The jews in medina had their books in hebrew, and it was only with the learned men mainly,

(iv) The Jews had their books in Hebrew, yes. My position is that, as with the case in other parts of the world, it would have influence the development of written language. Pre historic civilisations borrowed and learnt skills that were spread by merchants, settlers, migration etc

[size=15pt](v)[/size]

(v) Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad)

The Hadith and the Koran (as I have shown) all alluded to the existence of write form of language in Arabia at the time of the Prophet.

And the existence of the Jews must have brought with them the torahs as these were developed writings from 600BCE

Modern biblical scholars have concluded that the written books (Torah) were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c.600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c.400 BCE). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah )

This is a none issue

The issue is that these books were NOT IN THE ARABIC LANGUAGE,  If you have a renowned scholar that says otherwise,  please show me his works.

(v) Quotation from the Hadith IS an issue. I would rather follow the Hadith than your words. The Hadith is very clear;

Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad)

It is VERY clear that people DID write the Prophets revelation at a point. As per your request for scholarly work on the issue, here it is:

Since most sahabah were unable to read or write, they were ordered to learn from the prisoners-of-war the simple writing of the time. Thus a group of sahabah gradually became literate. As it was initially spoken, the Quran was recorded on tablets, bones and the wide, flat ends of date palm fronds. Most chapters were in use amongst early Muslims since they are mentioned in numerous sayings by both Sunni and Shia sources, relating Muhammad's use of the Quran as a call to Islam, the making of prayer and the manner of recitation. However, the Quran did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran (From Cambridge  History of Islam; Introduction to the Quran)

Also

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit, ", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet. He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order for me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95) (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 61, Number 512)

And again

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Ishaq, that he heard Bara' talking about the Qur'anic verse: "Those who sit (at home) from among the believers and those who go out for Jihad in the way of Allah are not equal" (iv. 95). (He said that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ordered Zaid (to write the verse). He brought a shoulder-blade (of a slaughtered camel) and inscribed it (the verse) thereon. The son of Umm Maktum complained of his blindness to the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). (At this) descended the revelation: "Those of the believers who sit (at home) without any trouble (illness, incapacity, disability)" (iv. 95). The tradition has been handed down through two other chains of transmitters. (Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4676)

There are a lot of people who will disagree with you. Your position the Quran is from a definitely not going to be an objective one  because you are a devout Muslim. I say so because as with matters of faith, its very subjective. A lot of scholars have some negative things to say when looking at it (Quran) on its merit, as is i.e. linguistic style, arrangement, language. Also, another set will rate it highly. All based on prior relationship with the book. There could be a few that owe no one allegiance (e.g. atheists) but would Muslims agree to this group offering a critique? I doubt.

So lets just keep our opinions to ourselves.

Now your job is simple, show me a single arab linguist that states differently.

I told you earlier that I would rather not go into this as some scholars will be bias either because of their faith or censorship (Arab Scholars are not as free as their western counterparts to critically examine religious texts)

Let me quote a few researchers on the opinions on the Quran:

(a) [The Qur'an] is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions. - Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, (Cambridge, 1977) p. 18

(b) the Qur'an is not always presented as the speech of God. Numerous critics of the Qur'an have pointed to instances where God is mentioned in the third person. Regarding these critics, Benjamin Walker writes:
"Some asked what need there was for God to take oaths like any mortal being, as when he swears by the fig and olive, and by Mount Sinai (95:1); by the declining day (103:1); and by the stars, the night and the dawn (81:15-18). Above all, they asked why the Almighty had to swear on himself
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman

(c) From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it - Reinach, Salomon, Orpheus: A History of Religion, (New York, 1932), p. 176, as cited in both Warraq, Quest for the Historical Muhammad, p. 9, and Katz, Bernard, The Ways of an Atheist, (Prometheus, 1999), p. 145

There are many more, but I would rather leave it at that.

So you see, some scholars do not share your opinion moreso proceed on any structural dissection of the text. They dismiss the text in unflattering terms.

davidylan:
I wonder.  Just one example

4.) Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom[size=18pt] it is written[/size]: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way before you.’

Malachi 3:1
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.

I put that in bold just in case Mr. lagos Shia is blind.

LagosShia:
as usual,when you have nothing to say about the topic you start arguing.

what do you think of 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37?

if that is not plagiarism,then you need a dictionary to check the meaning.

the instances i presented in the OP have no "it is written".this is just obvious you dont read before rushing to type and wasting other people's time.

Dear LagosShia, It is you sir who don't read but rush off to type. Just look at YOUR post below

LagosShia:
1.) Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mark 12:29
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.


2.) Matthew 1:23
“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[a] (which means “God with us”).

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: A young woman will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.


3.) Matthew 2:6
“‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.

Micah 5:2
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”


4.) Luke 7:27
This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,who will prepare your way before you.’

Malachi 3:1
“I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.


EVEN PAUL DID NOT AVOID BUT COPIED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT:

5.)Isaiah 49:8
This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

2 Corinthians 6:2
For He says, "In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.

You made me eat my dinner 5 mins late!

If the Bible is corrupt, why use it? You shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. its amazing too a lot of Muslims know more about the "flaws" in the Bible than Christians know anything about the Koran.

Most Christians don't bother to go out of their way to seek faults. They just wanna get on with their lives.

I also notice the paranoid feelings in the Muslims world especially in the middle eas about evangelizing to the extent that it attracts severe penalties. There are rumours about evangelizing ranging from converts being paid, to being smuggled out of the country for conversion. Hence apart from injunctions forbidding apostasy, some Muslims are hostile to evangelism. However, a convert to Islam is highly celebrated like a captured trophy.

Sir, I wanted to keep away but had to come back because of what you wrote:

It is important to note the Pre-Islamic arab had a predominantly oral culture. So waraqa recited/read (iqra (arabic word)) the gospel in arabic to arabs because there was no written down text in the arabic language.

(i) Pre islamic arab had a predominantly oral culture, but part of it is written. How could Waraqa had "read" the gospel if it wasnt written? We would have been told he recited. While I agree that word Iqra (Sūrat al-Iqrā)(إقرا, "Read" may mean read or recite, It leads us to another  in Sura 19:2 (where the Prophet was commanded to read, and he said he  was unlettered). It couldnt have been "recite" cos even an unlettered man could.

(ii) Sura 96:3 Read! And thy Lord is Most honourable,- Sura 96:4 He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-

This Sura meant the written words were no strangers in pre-Islamic Arabia

(iii) Arabic literature did not begin with the Qu'ran. In the ka'aba , there were a number of poems "hanged" on the walls http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/640hangedpoems.asp this shows that there were written words in Pre-Islamic arabia

(iiii) While written language was not well developed in preIslamic Arabia ( before 610 AD), the influx of Jews (and their torah and better developed written language since 600 BCE) and the Christians (with their gospels) were recorded and documented especially in Medina. They provided the basis for the writting down of the Quran as shown in (v)

(v) Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 (A Christian who converted to Islam wrote Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad)

The Hadith and the Koran (as I have shown) all alluded to the existence of write form of language in Arabia at the time of the Prophet.

And the existence of the Jews must have brought with them the torahs as these were developed writings from 600BCE

Modern biblical scholars have concluded that the written books (Torah) were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c.600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c.400 BCE). ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah )

The first thing to understand here is that the Quran was revealed in an oral form at  different points and at different times and was memorized by the companions and family of the prophet. The scribes are usually the last to know about a revelation. So to say he was at the 'frontline' of revelation is inaccurate.

This is a general position, (I thought so too) but Sahih Bukhari 4.56.814 shows otherwise. There was obviously some writing done;

Bukhari 4.56.814  (A Christian who converted to Islam[b] wrote [/b]Muhammad's revelations; then he reverted back to Christianity and claimed that Muhammad knew nothing and he wrote the Quran for Muhammad).

The Quran comes up with a simple challenge: Bring a chapter like it,

There is no arabic linguist that will tell you that there is anything like the Quran in the Arabic Language. There is no argument even from those that do not accept islam about the eloquence of the text.

There is no argument about this.

We have the blueprint, go ahead and produce a chapter like it,  This is an objective challenge.

This challenge is not objective.

There are a lot of people who will disagree with you. Your position the Quran is from a definitely not going to be an objective one  because you are a devout Muslim. I say so because as with matters of faith, its very subjective. A lot of scholars have some negative things to say when looking at it (Quran) on its merit, as is i.e. linguistic style, arrangement, language. Also, another set will rate it highly. All based on prior relationship with the book. There could be a few that owe no one allegiance (e.g. atheists) but would Muslims agree to this group offering a critique? I doubt.

So lets just keep our opinions to ourselves.

frosbel:
I think we have to firstly establish if LagosShia's education was restricted to Quran Recitation in a Koranic school ONLY. 

He seems to have some problem grasping simple scientific principles. !!!

Honestly sometimes i wonder. I try to ignore him, but for the sake of gullible people, I spend my precious time even explaining rudimentary things. 

The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Its a simple figurative language that many Muslims cant get their heads around. It simply means that the moon shall turn red, which happens during an eclipse. The writers were depicting the signs that will accompany the signs they were talking. A double darkening of the sun and moon.

If anyone studies basic astronomy, then you will all know it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for the moon to turn into blood. It would almost be like saying the moon is made up of cheese (who knows maybe it is according to the Bible!).

No scientist who isn't a Christian will ever believe such a wild claim, that the moon will be turned into blood, heck even Christian scientists will deny such a thing!

I challenge any Christian to bring me scientific proof of how the moon can be turned into blood; I would really love to know how!

Incidentally during the last lunar eclipse of the moon of December 2011, Scientist described it as "super sized - BLOOD RED moon"

http://www.space.com/13874-total-lunar-eclipse-dec-10-preview.html

Since its so difficult to understand, For example if I say his family is of blue blood, to LagosShia the colour of his family's blood is blue not red!

LagosShia na wa oh! 

The Bible tells us how Satan came about

Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function." He was called the morning star due to his intended status and special favour. Morning star is used to describe a position of favour

God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God,  rather than "just" being the Angel of God.


(i) Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

(ii) Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17)

(iii) He fell from his exalted position: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

(iiii) The reasons were pride and ambition: 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: Isaiah 14:12

(v) His destination is clear: John 17:  talks of the time of judgment, the prince of this world will be driven out.
Hell was not made for man. Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. But those who do not receive Christ as their Lord and Savior will be sent to Hell, and have their part in the lake of fire.

So the origin of the Devil is clear, how he was made, how he was exalted but became the one that sinned and currupted the nations. He judgement is assured

SO what is the problem? That Jesus and the Devil are heavenly beings? that the Devil was once declared an anointed  Cherub, a higher class of angels and had a  special purpose until iniquity was found in him? And God had seized from him the titles and his positions in his presence. So his earlier discription of beign a morning star shows how highly placed he was. SO when Jesus is described in such figurative way he is equated with the devil?

Its not so hard to grasp is it?

The Bible is so clear on how Lucifer was once exalted, created special till he fell and was driven out.

the origin of Lucifer is well known, his previous exalted status acknowledged the , his present doomed state revealed and his future doom foretold. Clear as day!

So whats the fuss?

maclatunji:
Nasir El Rufai: 'Leadership has nothing to do with pride, it has to do with getting things right.'

was he not at the fore front of deregulation and privitization during OBJ time. Wetin happen mallam? cos you no dey power? Leadership has nothing to do with pride abi? What of demolitions inspite of court orders.

I wish our politicians are consistent. they are trying to hijack the protest from the masses. imagine Dino Melaye running up and down. Didnt he want to fight Bankole for his millions? He wasnt thinking of the masses then.

The crooks will say the right words and hijack this, soon we vote them back into power and the cycle repeats itself. Naija we hail thee.  

Thanks for your reply.

I will like to say that it is  not my intention to derail your thread, which is essentially about about giving answers to questions on Islam. So, I will give a quick short reply so that the discussions can continue (without going back and forth).

(i)

The hadith only says he wrote the scripture in hebrew,  It never said he wrote from the gospel to arabic. So waraqa wrote in hebrew, that is all we have here,  The hadiths never said he was translating anything.

Sahih Bukhari, Book 55, Number 605:
"Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."

It said he read from the Gospels in Arabic. That meant that the Gospels were in pre Islamic Mecca. When someone reads the Gospels in Arabic, what does that mean? There has to have been a translation either by Waraqa himself or someone.

In fact its likely the Gospels were translated by someone before Waraqa. Because he "used to read the Gospel in Arabic" likely means its from a document, already translated, read to Meccans (else how would they know he had them) and so the Meccans were aware of the Gospel and very likely had it. And Waraqa, being a convert would have shared his faith with Khadijah (how else would she know to consult him).

Its really clear. I have taken the liberty to provide the Islamic version of the hadith so you can read yourself;

Sahih Bukhari, Book 55, Number 605:
فرجع بها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يرجف فؤاده، فدخل على خديجة بنت خويلد رضي الله عنها فقال: (زملوني زملوني) فانطلقت به خديجة حتى أتت به ورقة بن نوفل بن أسد بن عبد العزى، ابن عم خديجة، وكان امرءا تنصر في الجاهلية، وكان يكتب الكتاب العبراني، فيكتب من الإنجيل بالعبرانية ما شاء الله أن يكتب، وكان شيخا كبيرا قد عمي، فقالت له خديجة: يا بن عم، اسمع من ابن أخيك فقال له ورقة: يا بن أخي ماذا ترى؟ فأخبره رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خبر ما رأى، فقاله له ورقة: هذا الناموس الذي نزل الله به على موسى، يا ليتني فيها جذع، ليتني أكون حيا إذ يخرجك قومك، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم


(ii)

There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground).

This was a man who made a damaging claim against the authorship of the Quran. It was acknowledged he used to write the revelation and made claims about what the Prophet said. Of course, I expect some divine punishment to be meted out to him by writers of the Hadith to limit the damages this man may have  done to the authorship of the Holy Scriptures. The Hadith did not say explicitly why he was so "punished". Also, for a writer of revelations, i expected him to have been a convert due to the divine nature of what he was writing. But he didn't. He recanted. Why? Being in the front line of the revelation of all time yet he recanted? Did he find something objectionable? likely. If he made some insertions of his own (saying the Prophets knew nothing of what he wrote) What were they? Where properly expunged? Or was he deriding the Prophet for being unlettered i.e. pride? We may never know.

(iii)

As regards the Quran completeness and preseravtion, Scholarly work done by both western and eastern scholars attest to this:

I have stated else where in this forum that quoting scholars' opinions to support religious positions are not the best way to advance such debates because if you so choose you will find the most rabid and irrational positions on both sides.

There are thousands of studies which call to question the authenticity and veracity of the Quran from its authorship, accuracies,  assumptions, language, structure, arrangement, authority, interpretations, style etc. Also, some scholars have very very unflattering view of the Quran. Quoting them will serve no purpose other than elongating the debate. I would rather stick to the main religious texts and sparingly use such texts to reinforce my position.



Best wishes.

WE MUST REFORM THIS SYSTEM OR WE COLLAPSE AS A NATION

nadkaf:
I am sure it is not Sanusi's job to call this fellow to order. If he is indeed in your LG, why not raise the necessary awareness in your community to call him to order? If correction must start, let it start from the grassroots! We are castigating the federal government yet we let the local officials get away with murder!!!!

True, very true. During this strike them for go him house protest and ransack the place to send a message