₦airaland Forum

Isn't it funny that ONLY books and gospels that were banned from the bible for example the books written in Syriac and translated to arabic made their ways into the Koran?. . .Example the Syriac infancy gospel which was written in the 5th century. . .It was written in originally written in Syriac and later translated to arabic. . .It contains the story of baby Jesus speaking. . .From Wikiepedia. . .

The Arabic Gospel Of The Infancy Of The Savior:
Verse 2
"He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world."

Surah 19:29-34
"But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute

In both narratives Jesus is presented as a baby in the cradle giving a highly theological discourse in the presence of The Virgin Mary about his respective mission in both religions. . .

Another one the gospel of Thomas which was banned from the bible and burned but was common in arabia(it was found in Egypt) clearly states that Jesus was not crucified but another person, Same story then appears in the Koran. . .Another one is the book of Adam and Eve that wasn't included in the bible. . .Coincidence?. . .

Very funny how things written in gonstic gospels that do not appear in the bible that were circulating in arabia at that time just kept appearing in the Koran as divine revelations. . .Divine revelations indeed. . .

abubello: abraham was a muslim see genesis 17:3
ABRAHAM
"And Abram fell on his face.:
..."
So was Moses, Jesus and the other prophets they all worship God the muslim way:
1) JESUS
" and he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed,”
(Matthew 26:39)

2) MOSES AND AARON:
"then Moses and Aaron went away from the assaembly to the entrance of the tent and fell on their faces, "
(numbers 20:6)


3) ABRAHAM
"And Abram fell on his face,
(Genesis 17:3)


4) JOSHUA
", and Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did worship, "
(Joshua 5:14)

They all prostrated to God just as muslims do today. How do you guys explain this, coincidence?

Hope this poster knows that some Jews still fall on their faces today when praying facing Jerusalem?. . . Does that mean they are all Muslims?. . .Muslims are the ones that copid their own style of prayers because they have been praying like that long before Mohammed and his cronies came up with their islamic hypothesis about god. . .

Blown away by what exactly?. . .

sino: Then you should provide a similitude of the Qur'an, i swear i no go brag about it again!

Many books are better than the Koran. . . My secondary school biology text book explains the science of living things with the relationship they share with their environment better than the Koran can ever state it. . .

Yes indeed, i agree that other sources claiming the same info will butress the authenticity so also is a single account with no contradictory information.
Only if you want me to speculate that you are a bad person, then your family's account about you stands authentic until proven otherwise.
Lets work with the source we have, use a lot of our reasoning and objectivity, perhaps all will be clear.

False, outside sources are needed to know how credible ancient stories are. . . .Back then there was nothing life fictional stories everything was accepted and recorded as history. . . .A one sided report that is made to draw converts and make a person gain followers is not reliable, by the way all the hadiths as we know them today did NOT exist during the time of Mohammed most were written about 50 or more years after he died some as long as 100 years to have any real meaning. . .The fact that there are NO outside sources to corroborate what is written in them makes them more questionable. . .The hadiths are religious documents not history books to be used in history classes. . .

sino: @ mazaje
Authentic it is, up till now; no such book exist such as the Qur'an.

There is NOTHING in the koran that can not be written by men that lived at that time. . .There are MANY books that exist that are MUCH better in everything and every aspect of life. . .

The tales are one sided you say, can a stranger tell about your family more than you? You keep claiming different things, muslims are the only source cos they have agenda abi? What stopped the others from writing their own observations and stories?
The case of the "inlaw" and "christian revert" has been trashed by tbaba1234, you are only suggesting that they did influence the writing of the qur'an without adequate evidence. To me, your arguments holds no water.

If you know anything about history then you wouldn't be making this statement, historians measure different things before giving authenticity to certain historical claims, the more the different and diverse sources about a historical figure the more authenticity it gets. . .A story about me from my family that paints me only in good light and is written to make people revere and honour me is not to be accepted by others without external corroboratory stories from outside sources. . .Everything we know about Mohammed we know from people with an agenda who wrote a very one sided record of events about him. . .Most of what was written about him were in reverence of him and written to make people believe in him by his cronies. . .Tbaba123 did not thrash anything, even the Koran clearly acknaoledge the fact that even at that time people were accusing Mohammed of copying the stories of others, the Koran only states that they were lying. . .The hadith also talks about an ex Christian that wrote parts of the Koran for Mohammed. . .To say that the Arabs during the time of Mohammed were not familiar with the stories of the bible is just a very big lie. . .

Johndoe100: Thank you, this is the correct way to view this issue. All the women who say that divorce is ok, they should be ashamed of themselves. They must be loose women of easy virtue. A real woman would stay and fix her home.

How can only one person fix her home?. . .How can one person alone fight to save her marriage?. . .Will you advise you daughter to stay with a man that does not love her any more and constantly beats her up?. . .Will you remain in a marriage if your wife beats you up constantly?. . .

kulyie: But hnd in nigeria are hardly recognized,dey are always workin in banks and other places where they will be surbodinates,then again hnd graduates are always marginalized in regards to getin a gud job,but anyway thanks 4 d contribution

He can further his education. . .People with HND end up with PHD, it is very possible, many people with HND get good jobs, many become rich. . .He should be good at what ever he does and hope for luck cos that is all that matters. . . .

Will her education matter if he was very rich? I don't think it will matter. . .Will she feel uncomfortable if his take home pay was 1 million naira every month?. . .My friend who has a HND in Civil Engineering is married to a lady with a masters degree from Scotland. . .He is very rich and as such it didn't matter, a footballer friend of mine is also married to a girl that has a masters degree from England, he only attended secondary school but because he plays for a big club in Belgium it didn't matter. . .A person with a HND is very educated as long as Nigeria is concerned. . .

As for getting a PHD she should chill, when she gets married she can start the PHD unless if she doesn't have any plans of getting married at all then she can go ahead and do it or if she has plans of doing abroad. . .I have 2 cousins and 1 close friend ages 30-33 who have PHDs abroad came back to Nigeria and men are literally running away from them in Nigeria. . .No body wants to get close to them talk more of trying marry them. . .My cousin who is 32 is now planning on going back to Luxembourg where she obtained her PHD to be with her Cameronain guy who they schooled together hoping he will marry her cos she has given up on Nigerian men, she was actually going out with a lawyer that works in CBN but for some reasons he ran away, later she told me she heard him telling people that her can't marry her because she has a PHD, works in the University and earns more than him. . .Any guy that knows she has a PHD will just run as if its a curse. . .In Nigeria achievements like this are better obtained in your husbands house because of how people reason. . .

sino: Its quite strange to assume and portray that as an evidence to refute a valid and authentic proof.
We can continue to assume that christians and jews in mecca at the time of revelation thought the prophet (saw)...it still remains an assumption, and in the words of my lecturer; "assumption is the mother of all f.uckups" and that is why you are finding it difficult to prove otherwise.
You guyz(mazaje et al.) are just clutching at straws, your assumptions amount to nada!

What is the valid an authentic proof?. . .Even the hadiths have stated that Mohammed had an in law that was a Christain, a Christian revert wrote parts of the Koran for him according to a hadith, what more do you need?. . .Isn't it funny that the stories that were banned from the bible but accepted by some Arab christians are the one that found their way into the Koran?. . .The book of Adam and Eve which was not added into the bible canon is very similar to the story of Adam and Eve found in the Koran, and some of the banned Gospels etc. . .Yet muslims keep claiming divine authorship for a book that was clearly plagiarized. . .Mohammed did not write the Koran, so the entire argument is a no brainer, the Koran as we know it today did NOT exist during his time, we only stories upon stories by muslims with their very one sided story about what happened. . .Everything we know about Mohammed we know ONLY from muslims sources who had an agenda. . .NO neutral person has EVER written any thing about him that we know of. . .Compare that to say Jesus and what neutral people that have nothing to do with him have written about him. . .

tbaba1234: ^mazaje your nonsense about only 4 memorisers has been debunked... wait till macltunji opens it.. It was locked by spambot. you will do well not to be quoting what you don't understand...

I replied but the spam bot hid the message. . .

tiarabubu: Haba tbaba!

it has been proven through scholarly research that the Arabian peninsula had Christians and Jews but you say its only in Medina not Mecca, as if Mecca was an isolated city or an enclave!. It was not!

Prophet Muhammad tended to the business of his wife wouldn't he have travelled? wouldn't merchants have come in Mecca for trade? Was Mecca in pre-islamic Arabia a no go area for Jews and Christians? Unless the answers to this three are an emphatic NO and backed by proof, your claims of Mecca not having Christians and Jews is PURE BUNKUM.





Their heretical view of Jesus and similarity to that of Islam is what has triggered the accusation of plagiarism by the Quran! These were people who held cock and bull stories of Jesus and were made outcast by the main stream church. They find their way to Arabia, even turn up in Prophet Muhammad's family and his scribes. A few years later, BOOM, their exact same cock and bull stories surface in the Quran!

Yea right. The transition WAS easyyyyyy!

GBAM!. . .

cotton101: interesting topic and there is no right or wrong answer as each case has to be judged on its own individual merits. like someone mentioned here, most african woman do not divorce just like that, I can only speak for myself when I say I did it all to stay "married" (I put it in quotes cos sometimes you can be married but living worse than a single person). I took him back after beatings and cheating, insults and everything else you can imagine. However, there comes a time when enough is enough and trust me bringing up children in a toxic environment is the WORSE thing you can do.

so this staying for the kids has also got to be dealt with on an individual basis. I don't wish divorce on anybody and both parties (not just the woman) have to work on their marriage but there comes a point where one has to look at their life and wonder is this life? when you are driven to the point of suicide that is not marriage. Some things cannot be fixed and some people can never change.

Word. . . .

Divorce is good in some cases. . .There is a thing called marrying the wrong person, many people make that mistake and if you do then the best thing is to leave the person and move on. . .Some people are not just it, staying away from them is the best because living with them will only bring you pains and sorrow, it will eventual kill you. . . .I advised my aunt to leave her husband and she did, she was just looking for somebody to support her and I supported her, now she is a very happy person living on her own with her daughter than when she was living with that monster. . .So YES divorce is good sometimes. . .It is always an option in marriages that can not be salvaged. .

tbaba1234: Can't you see that you have no case for plagarism: The jews of medina and pagan Arabs of Mecca would have been so happy if they could identify someone, teaching him and they were much closer to him... If they did, you will not be trying such absurdities to see which one sticks:

Only that we do NOT have any record from the Jews or pagan arabs all the records we have were written by muslims with an agenda. . .The records were NOT neural but were written by people that are trying to spread their religion and gain more converts. . .Again NOTHING we know about Mohammed comes from a neutral source. . . .

Summary of claims so far:

1. Waraqa met the prophet twice; once when he was a kid and then he was not a christian or a priest
second, shortly after he got revelation, after which he promises to support him if he lives
He spent most of the intervening years out of mecca, where he became a priest and returned at old-age.
He died before the message kicked off...

According to muslim sources Mohammed has access to people that knew about the christian and jewish stories. . .That is the bottom line, he did NOT write the Koran. . .When he died and when the Koran was written some people just came up and stated that they had memorized some of what he said and they alone made that claim, we do not know who those people were and what they had access to. . .

Improbability: For 23 years, the message continued so unless waraqa came back from the dead.. this is absurd..

The Koran as we know it was NOT written by Mohammed, those that wrote it had access to many things we do not know about, if Mohammed had written the Koran as we know it then the muslim claim will fly but he did NOT others wrote the Koran as we know it very long after he died. . .We are talking about a book that was complied 2 times. . .

2. Slaves in mecca: There were non-arabs who could barely speak arabic... The Quran is in fluent arabic, the prophet understood only Arabic. How can people who speak no Arabic teach him such eloquent Arabic speech?

Improbability: The prophet only spoke Arabic, these slaves did not ... at least not conversational arabic. So this is a far fetched conclusion. The Arabs that made these claim ended up with the claim that the prophet was a magician. That was their last accusation. So they already vetted this one out.

Again you are repeating the Muslim claim as if it is factual. . .It is NOT. . .No neutral or external source corroborates any of the muslim claims. . .So the muslim claims remains just that a muslim claim. . .NO evidence to support it. . .

3. Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh claimed to teach the prophet: He only became muslim in Medina so unless he had a time machine, he could possibly have taught the prophet "all he knew" in Mecca (87 chapters were revealed in mecca). Besides He became muslim again before the conquest of Mecca. I guess he didn't think he taught him anymore.

Salman al farsi also became muslim in medina

Again, the propeht did NOT write the Koran. . .Everything we know about him through the hadith were written very long after he died. . .The Koran as we know it today was NOT written by him. . .It was written by many different people. . .We do NOT know what they know or how exposed they were, You keep on repeating the muslim claim that Mohammed alone wrote the Koran. . .He did NOT others wrote it and we do not know what they knew or had access to. . .

Improbability: He could not have taught him all he knew if he became muslim when most of the book has already been revealed.. He didn't have to come back if he thought it was false.

4. Other sources: The prophet was unlearned and would have required a massive library by ancient standards to have all the information from all the sources they attribute to him... I have never heard of the great library of Mecca, Have you?::

But the Prophet did NOT write the Koran. . .The muslim story is that the Koran was revealed to him but during compilation after he died we were told that some people just came and drooped what they claimed they heard and it was written into the Koran. . .

It all sums up to the absurd statement below:

The prophet had aprocryphal books, the present gospels, the torah, maybe some other historical books in his library with a dead translator (not in arabic) (waraqa) and a translator who could not speak the Arabic language,(the youth in mecca) one whose tongue was foreign. After he left mecca, (must have taken his library) where most of the stories had been revealed, there was a christian (salman, the other man) in medina who apparently taught him all he knew by taking a time machine to the past, and to the future to cover the period, he did not work with the prophet (since revelation continued).

This is your own ridiculous making, no body is saying the nonsense you wrote about, read it and laugh at yourself. . .The Prophet did not write the Koran, others did after he died. . .The present Koran as we know it is the work of others who used the Prophet as its source of divine revelation to give it more credibility. . .

All the while, escaping the glances of detractors and haters in his midst as he reads his scriptures, speaks to the dead, converses with a man who couldn't speak Arabic (apart from simple responses, that is) and gets a visitor from the future.

Your own making. . .

Unless you have some real concrete evidence or a story outside the absurdity above; then we can talk.
If you think plagarism, then your only conclusion should be, you do not know the source. Which is not a valid claim anyway.

Those that wrote the Koran and put it together plagiarized it from the Jews and Christians. . .Mohammed did NOT write the Koran as we know it and even the muslim sources acknowledge that he people were already accusing him of getting his stories from others. . .The Koran it self talks about it but tries to neutralize it by claiming they are liars. . .

tbaba1234: smh, this must be your worst effort at refuting anything

The Quran did not exist as a unified book but it was written down by scribes: It was also memorised by companions and family of the prophet. The only reason you know china exists (if you haven't been there) is because of consistent reporting...

I repeat the Koran as we know it today did not exist during the time of the prophet, it had to be copied from people and some other materials, like leaves bones ,stones etc. . .Those that did the complilation had ample opportunity to add what ever they wanted to add to the book. . .The Koran as we know it today was complied twice. . .

"The first original scripts of the Quran were written on small stones, pieces of leather and wood, bones and similar things. All of them were burnt!
The second original of the Quran verses were gathered together during the time when Abu Bakr was the Caliph. They were burnt, too!
The third original one consisted of “yazmas” (manuscripts) copied during the time when Othman was the Caliph. They do not exist anywhere in the world!
The investigations and conveyances have shown that the verses in today’s Quran are neither exactly the same as the ones which are claimed to have been “dictated by Muhammad to his scribes”, nor does the present Quran contain “all” of the verses that existed in the original one. Caliph Mervan explains his reasons for burning the original copy as follows;
“All that was written in the original Quran was conveyed into the “Mushafs” (later copies of the Quran) by Othman, so there was no need for the original one. If it had not been burnt, some suspicions would have arisen and the doubts around the “Mushafs” would not have ceased. I was afraid of that, so I had the original scripts burnt.” (Ref.: ıb Ebi Davud, Leiden 1937, pub., p.243-Suphi e's-Salih Mebahis Fi ulum-il Kuran)."

It is a lie to say that the Koran was memorized by family and companions of the prophet because even during the time of the prophet only 4 people had memorized the Koran. . .

The first hadith: Amr Ibnu'l-Ass conveys, “I heard the Prophet say, ‘Get the Quran from four people; Abdullah Ibn Mes'ud, Salim, Muaz and Übeyy Ibn Ka'b. (Buhari, Fadailu'l-Kuran 8.)

The second hadith: Enes conveys, “When the Prophet passed away, there was no-one other than only four people to have memorized the whole of the Quran; Ebu'd-Derda, Muaz Ibn Cebel, Zeyd Ibn Sabit and Ebu Zeyd." (Buhari.)

To say the prophet was not illiterate is like saying china does not exist... There are thousands of similar reports from unrelated people that verify the claim so unless there was a mass conspiracy you are so wrong...

Another lie, EVERYTHING we know about Mohammed me knew from muslims and their sources, we do NOT have any neautral or independent reports from him any where, even the hadiths as we know them were written very long after he died, some over a hundred years after he died to have any meaning as far as I am concerned. . . .All the sources that tell us about Mohammed are muslim sources with an agenda, NON is neutral. . . .Saying that Mohammed was an illiterate is a muslim claim. . .NO source outside the Koran or muslim heavily salted, twisted and one sided history records that any where. . .

Waraqa never said that, you are confusing two people... Waraqa was an old man that died before the message took off.. He preached his message to the Jews and christians he mwt so interaction is to be expected.

Are you lying again?. . .He was Mohammed's family and would have told him about the Jewish or Christian message. . .The Arabs of that time were already exposed to some of the Jewish stories already to say other wise is to lie to yourself. . .Even the Koran notes this when it says many in the time of mohammad were well aware of the several folks they thought were major influences in his "religion" . . . for example - Surah 16:10 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.

There was no reading of stories to the prophet from any one's book, these slaves could hardly speak arabic: The Quranic arabic is the standard for the Arabic language. The meccans were looking for a way to explain what was going on.. Do you know what they ended up with at the end of the day after it all failed? They called it magic...

False. . .There were Christians already and Mohammed interacted with them Waraqa was one. . .He was his inlaw. . .As pointed out by davidylan on the other thread. . .We know of the christian scribe Abdallah Bin Sa'd who was killed for reverting to christianity and for whom the hadith in sahih bukhari (which i just quoted earlier) was written - Mohammad bin Al-Hussein spoke to me, he said: Ahmad bin Al-Mufdil narrated: Asbat narrated from Al-Sudy: "Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: "I have received inspiration,' when he hath received none" until his [Allah] saying, "ye receive your reward, a penalty of shame". He [Al-Sudy] said: This verse was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi Al-Sarh, he embraced Islam, and used to write [Quran revelations] for the Prophet (SAW). So when the Prophet dictated him: "Who heareth and knoweth all things", he'd write it: "All-Knowing, All-Wise". So he doubted and reverted. Then he said, "If Mohammad gets inspiration, then I get inspiration too, and if Allah sent him his revelation then I was sent the same thing. For when Mohammad said, 'Who heareth and knoweth all things' I'd say, 'All-Knowing, All-Wise'" So he followed the Pagans, and he blew the cover of Ammar and Jubar [secret Muslims] to Ibn Al-Hudrumi or to Bani Abd Al-Dar, so they took them and tortured them until they reverted. Ammar's ear was cut off that day, so he [Ammar] went to the Prophet (SAW) and told him what had happened to him, but the Prophet (SAW) refused to handle his issue. So Allah revealed about [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh and his companions, "Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, - except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their bosom to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty" Who was "under compulsion" is Ammar and his companions, and who "open their bosom to Unbelief" is [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh. (Tafseer Al-Tabari)

Even going by the Islamic story you can clearly see that during the time of Mohammed some of the people knew and were exposed to Christianity, some were Jews, Mohammed as a merchant must have intereacted with them even if we are to go by the muslim claims but that is NOT it, we have stories told by muslims with an agenda and presented as factual when they are NOT. . .The Koran as we know it today was complied very long after the death of the prophet. . .The originals do not exist any where, all were burnt. . .The final compilation which was claimed to be done because they wanted avoid discrepancies in the Arabic language will not fly. . .

"However, Dr. Suphi e's-Salih, says in his work called “Mebahis Fi Ulumi'l-Kuran” (Beirut 1979), on pages 80, 84, 85, that this claim is far from being convincing. According Dr. Suphi, at that time, Arabic did not have signs and punctuation marks as to spell the same words to be pronounced in different ways. Back then, apart from the letters to write, the letters with no signs had no dots, either. In short, the “Mushaf” that was produced during the time of Caliph Abu Bakr could not have been written as to contain different dialects even if had been intended. In this case, the question, “What were the differences between Abu Bakr’s (later Hafsa’s) copy and those that were produced by Othman’s scribes?” remains unanswered. What was carried out by the new efforts? This is not explained in the hadith interpreted above. Yet, from an explanation which can be counted as the rest of the hadith, it can be inferred that the work that was done was not merely producing exactly the same copies of main copy of the Quran."

Again, How do you know China exists apart from consistent reporting? That is the same way we know the prophet was illiterate. He could easily have been discredited if the Quran says that and the people who knew him knew it was false..

Everything that we know about the Propeht we know ONLY from muslims sources with an agenda. . . There is NO report from him outside muslims sources that corroborates anything about his life. . .Muslims with their agenda and their one sided stories are the only sources that tell us about him. . . .

The quran gets rid of many of the absurdities in the bible like the global flood. the story of adam and eve is far more coherent, lot's wife, the appellation used for the leaders of Egypt. All the inaccuracies are thrown out.

The Koran contains its own absurdities. . .The regional flood story does NOT appear in the Koran alone. . .The story of Adam and Eve in the Koran is still meaningless. . .Appellations used for leaders of Egypt when the language was already dead long ago?. . .By the way there is actually NO record of Jews EVER being enslaved in Egypt during that period outside the bible. . .The Koran just picked up on the lie that was written inside the bible and presented it. . .Even Jews acknowledged the fact that the passover is a myth and the stories are not true. . .

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.


http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/were-jews-ever-really-slaves-in-egypt-or-is-passover-a-myth-1.420844

No historical record outside the Torah and the Koran that was later plagiarized from the Torah records that. . . The ancient Egyptians kept very meticulous records. . .Nothing about the Jews staying exist outside the legends written in the bible and later plagiarized in the Koran

He would need 2 really intense lectures for a revelation that spanned 23 years... Oh the absurdity. Besides, the accounts are recorded

He was in contact with others, by the way the Koran was we know it was NOT written by Mohammed and did NOT exist during his time, those that wrote it down had access to many things we just do not know. . .

The quran was written by scribes and memorised by many of his companions and wives... Its compilation was easy to do after the death of the prophet. In addition, there will be different copies of the Quran if there were differences in the text. And they would have fought over it because it had been memorised by many people already.

ONly 4 people memorized the whole Koran during his life time according to muslims sources. . . You are lying yet again. . .

Zeyd Ibn Sabit would include any verses in the Quran on condition that he had two witnesses to confirm the truth. Yet, there were some exceptions to this rule; there were some verses for which he felt the need to include with only one witness. (Example two verses of “Repentance”). . . .

To claim plagarism, you have to provide evidence::: you guys have failed thoroughly so far

The Koran was we know it did NOT exist during the time of Mohammed those that wrote it had ample of opportunities to plagiarize it from the scriptures of the Jew and Christians. . .Even the Koran acknowledges the fact that many people were saying that its stories were gotten from that of ancient people. . .It only attempts to neutralize it by claiming it is a lie. . .As expected you a book written by people with an agenda will always do that. . .So nothing new there. . .

tbaba1234: Well, we have to make use of the knowledge we know from back then, We know that scripture was in the hands of the learned priests and monks usually. We know there was no arabic scripture.

We also know the prophet was illiterate. Why? The Quran mentions it so if it was not true... That will be an easy way to discredit the prophet and his sayings as untrue because these people grew up with him and could tell if he was one of the learned ones.

In addition, there are thousands of reports from so many books that attest to this dating to his life-time so unless you think it was some kind of grand conspiracy, he was an illiterate prophet.

Half of the rabbis in Medina became muslim. Is that what you call debunking?. . . . . .Davidylan had you for breakfast in that thread, he completely destroyed your arguments, you lost the debate with him completely. . .

Lets put all the claims of plagarism together ... You tell me if it makes sense:

The prophet had aprocryphal books, the present gospels, the torah, maybe some other historical books in his library with a dead translator (not in arabic) (waraqa) and a translator who could not speak the Arabic language,(the youth in mecca) one whose tongue was foreign. After he left mecca, (must have taken his library) where most of the stories had been revealed, there was a christian (salman, the other man) in medina who apparently taught him all he knew by taking a time machine to the past, and to the future to cover the period, he did not work with the prophet (since revelation continued).

All the while, escaping the glances of detractors and haters in his midst as he reads his scriptures, speaks to the dead, converses with a man who couldn't speak Arabic (apart from simple responses, that is) and gets a visitor from the future.

That is basically what all the claims of plagiarism amount to... So unless you have some other solid evidence you can believe the junk above....

This has been debunked thoroughly here!!

https://www.nairaland.com/847660/why-hate-religion-love-jesus

Again you keep repeating the muslim claim as if they are factual. . .You do not know what happened then. . .You only accept the islamic narrative as if it is factual when it is not. . .Even slaves had access to some religious material as narrated by some of the prophets companions. . .

We had two young slaves. They read their books in their own language. Prophet Muhammad used to visit and listen to them. Just for this reason, the idolaters said, ‘Muhammad is learning from them…’ (Tebari, 14/119).

The propeht used to listen to slaves that read their religious materials in their own language. . .Going by that we can conclude that he got some of his knowledge of his later revelations from them. . .

saying that Mohammed was not exposed to christian and jewish writings and stories is a LIE, Waraqa was not a preist but he has access to the bible even some slaves had access to some religious text. . . Even the hadith say he was exposed to them. . .

Is that what you call debunking?. . . . .Davidylan had you for breakfast in that thread, he completely destroyed all your points, he won the debate hands down. . .Why are we here having this debate when you had already been served by davidylan on the other thread?. . .

tbaba1234: This is usually my easiest refutation because they just throw everything to see what sticks: Unfortunately they all defy logic.....



This is an ignorant statement... Sango is not considered to be the one true God.. Jesus called God ALLAHA because that is the Aramaic name for God. The Jews call him Elohim (Hebrew).. These languages are semitic and related. These three words come from the same root letters. They are basically the same words...

See as a Jew explains


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQjefT51E40


He starts talking at 0.36... So yes Moses & Jesus spoke semetic based languages and the word for GOd have the EXACT same root letters.

The point I was trying to make is that are the yorubas that believe in the yoruba supreme God muslims?. . .What is this nonsense video made by a random person with no identity mean?. . .The guy could be a muslism disguising as a Jew and spreading lies. . . .The name of God in Aramic according to Scholarly sources is NOT ALLAHA but ELAH. . .The guy in the video is clearly lying. . .He doesn't know what he is talking about. . .

This is not true, the Quran was written at the time of the Prophet... The prophet had 61 scribes and the verses were written... It was compiled into book form within a few years of his death by the first caliph and the third caliph.

FALSE, the Koran as we know it today did NOT exist during the time of Mohammed. . .The people that complied and wrote the Koran had more than enough time to add what ever they wanted add to the book form. . .Again you are just repeating the muslims claim as fact, they reality is they are not. . .

That is a lie, waraqa was dead at the time revelation was coming... The accusation you mention comes from someone else and it makes no sense because he was not in mecca when most the stories were revealed anyway... So unless he had a time machine... It is an unreasonable account.

Waraqa according to the hadith says Mohammed knew nothing, it says he said he taught him. . .What I am saying is that Mohammed was in contact with people that knew about Christianity and Judaism and their stories, he was familiar with them, he used to interact with slaves, he heard them read from their books as stated by some hadiths, many people at that time already accused him of copying his stories from others. . .He can not claim divine revelation when he was already in contact with Greeks, Jews and Christians that read to him and tell them about the christian stories even if we are to go by the muslims claims. . .The claim that Mohammed was an illiterate is just the muslim joker to brush aside the fact that all his stories were lifted from that of the jews and christians . . .

So unless waraqa came from the dead , and the other guy had a time machine.... They should not possibly be the source of revelation

From his two meeting with waraqa he could save the stories he heard and claim divine revelation later. . .The problem is that the Koran as we know it now in the book form did not exist during the life of Mohammed. . .

maclatunji: Of course, you are bewildered because you are ignorant and think yourself wise. When you see superior knowledge, you will get confused. So, you are so slow that you cannot distinguish between ethnicity and religion. Yes, Jesus (AS) was a Jew (ethnicity) but he was a Muslim (Islam was his religion, same for the other Prophets).

So simple but difficult for slow people to comprehend.

Repeating something over and over again does not make it true, Jews believe in a God and his name Jehovah Yahweh according to their religious book, he is NOT the same as Allah of the Koran. . .Jesus was NOT a muslim. . .Which external source outside the Koran says he was a muslim?. . .

maclatunji: ^Christians will deny that. We celebrate the exact event that involved Abraham and Ishmael (AS). We have not changed anything. The comparison you made shows desperation, give yourself a break! Muslim men are circumcised and evidence exists from the Qur'an that Abraham was ordered to do so and we follow from there as our Prophet also did. You enjoy disbelief, no amount of facts will help you if you have decided to ignore the truth.

What does the Koran say about Ishmael?. . .What is his mother's name?. . .How was Abraham a muslim?. . .Muslims claim that Jesus never spoke greek but the new testament was written in greek, they claim that Abraham never spoke hebrew but the old testament was written in hebrew, forgetting that most of the prophets do not even speak arabic, yet the Koran was written in arabic. . .Funny. .

maclatunji: @Mazaje, it is easy to copy and paste falsehood. You are even quoting rebuttals of your argument from the Qur'an, the next question that one will then ask is: how blind can you be? It is clear that as Muslims all the other Prophets especially Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (Peace be upon them) share similarities with Prophet Muhammad (SAW). It is quite obvious that the Prophet did not learn religion or history from anybody except through divine revelation because he clearly contradicted the false teachings of the Jews and Christians about the Prophets with the revelations that he received.

Falsehood?. . .You were indoctrinated since childhood and made to accept the stories and culture of a particular group of people as divine, yet you open your mouth and talk about other copying and pasting falsehood. . .It was VERY common knowledge that people accused Mohammed for plagiarizing his stories from the Jews and christians at that time, the writers of the Koran sought to brush it aside by declaring their accusations as false and claiming divine authorship. .They claim that Mohammed was an illiterate to brush aside the fact that most of his stories were copied from the bible, even some of the hadith talk about others(Greek and Jews) teaching him about what he knows. . .Everything we know about Mohammed we know through the mouth of muslims and the VERY twisted and one sided history they wrote and recorded. . .Their own narrative including their lies were written as the truth and presented for other people to accept. . .There is NO external source that corroborates any of the stories about Mohammed or any of the prophets found in the Koran the way their stories were written in the Koran. . .You were not there, you did not know what happened, you just believe and accept the stories you were indoctrinated with since childhood as factual when they are NOT. . .

A great example is that of the encounters detailed in Suratul Kahf, Chapter 18 of the Qur'an. It instructive to note that you have no knowledge of what you speak of and only rely on the false analysis of third parties. The likes of you are the the spiritual descendants of the Unbelievers in Mecca and beyond during the lifetime of the Prophet. You want to critique a concept, you have to study it independently rather than rely on the works of those who hold contrary opinions to it.

Now it is the points that you seek to assert that Suratul Kahf dispels. Read the circumstances that brought about this Chapter.

Circumstances of revelation
Muslim historian and hagiographer, Muhammad bin Ishaq, reported in his book Sira that the eighteenth chapter of the Qur'an (which includes the story of Dhu l-Qarnayn) was revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad by Allah on account of some questions posed by rabbis residing in the city of Medina – the verse was revealed during the Meccan period of Muhammad's life. According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad's tribe, the powerful Quraysh, were greatly concerned about their tribesman who had started claiming prophethood and wished to consult rabbis about the matter. The Quraysh sent two men to the rabbis of Medina, reasoning that they had superior knowledge of the scriptures and about the prophets of God. The two Quraysh men described their tribesman, Muhammad, to the rabbis.

The rabbis told the men to ask Muhammad three questions:

They [the rabbis] said, "Ask him about three things which we will tell you to ask, and if he answers them then he is a Prophet who has been sent; if he does not, then he is saying things that are not true, in which case how you will deal with him will be up to you. Ask him about some young men in ancient times, what was their story For theirs is a strange and wondrous tale. Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story And ask him about the Ruh (soul or spirit) – what is it? If he tells you about these things, then he is a Prophet, so follow him, but if he does not tell you, then he is a man who is making things up, so deal with him as you see fit."[7]

According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad was informed of the three questions from the rabbis, he said that he would have the answers in the morning but did not say "if God wills it". For fifteen days, Muhammad awaited eagerly for the revelation. Muhammad did not answer the question until then. Doubt in Muhammad began to grow amongst the people of Mecca. Then, after fifteen days, Muhammad received the revelation of al-Kahf as an answer to the questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kahf

What is all this?. . .You accept what the muslism wrote and regurgitate them as factual events when they are NOT. . .Where are the external sources out side the Koran that corroborate anything written about Mohammed by his cronies?. . .We have external documents non interested people that talk about biblical characters that agree with what is written in the bible, where are the external sources that agree with the story of Ishmel or Jesus as written in the Koran for example?. . .

tbaba1234: As regards plagarisation,
1. the bible was not translated into Arabic throughout the time of the prophet.
2. There is no way the prophet could have obtained that kind of knowledge, since there were very few christians in mecca and medina.
3. Religious books for christians was limited to the priest/monks (there were no printing press). The only person in mecca was Waraqa who died within a few days after the 23 year revelation started. The prophet only met him twice in his life.
3. There are no valid (or reasonable) claims of any one teaching him...
4, He was unlettered (could not read/write), The Quran makes that clear

So where did he plagarise from? You will have to provide evidence to make that kind of claim..
.

Bel'am, Yaish, Addas, Yessar, Cebr, Salman the Persian.

What does the Quran say about this?

The ”God ” in the Quran explains this with the customary oath:

"We take an oath that we know they (the unbelievers) say, ‘A mortal taught him,’ but the man to whom they allude speaks a foreign tongue, while this (The Quran) is eloquent Arabic speech. (Nahl (The Bee), verse: 103)

In the verses following the one above, the ‘infidels’ are threatened and defined as ‘liars’, ‘slanderers’ and they are informed that ‘a grievous punishment’ awaits them.

In the verse above, it is said that the person who was said to be instructing Muhammad was a foreigner, not an Arab.

Some people claim that it was a Greek slave named Bel'am who taught Muhammad.

Muhammad’s cousin Ibn Abbas conveys:

The Prophet was teaching a slave in Mecca. The slave was a foreigner. He was worshipping idols. His name was Bel’am. The idolaters saw him when he was going in to pay a visit to Muhammad or while he was leaving. And they said, “The one who taught Muhammad everything was Bel’am.” (See Taberi, Cami’ul-Beyan, 14/119).
Some sources indicate that other slaves named Yaish and Cebr could have been teaching Mohammad, too.

It is also possible that the teachers of Muhammad could have been CEBR, YESSAR, and ADDAS, who were all from Yemen.

The Hadramis had two young slaves. One of these two was Yessar and the other one was Cebr, both of whom were from Yemen. The testimony of the owners of those two slaves is as follows:

We had two young slaves. They read their books in their own language. Prophet Muhammad used to visit and listen to them. Just for this reason, the idolaters said, ‘Muhammad is learning from them…’ (Tebari, 14/119).
In the quotation from Fahruddin Razi, there is a 3rd slave: Huvaytıb’s slave Addas. (See F. Razi, interpretation, 24/50)

It is noticeable that whether Greek or Yemeni, the viewpoints about the relationship between Muhammad and the slaves were different.
The viewpoints of Muslims regarding this relationship are somewhat different than the viewpoints of the idolaters, who the Muslims called “infidels”.
According to some Muslims, there was a relationship of ‘teaching and learning’ between Muhammad and the slaves, but the teacher was Muhammad, the learners were the slaves. According to idolaters, the truth was just the opposite. That is, the teachers were the slaves. Muhammad was learning from them.

According to some other Muslims, the relationship between Muhammad and the slaves never went beyond a ‘reading- listening’ relationship. The slaves read their holy books in their own language, and ‘the Prophet’ only ‘listened’ to them.

However Muslims cannot answer the following questions:

1.If Muhammad did not know their language, what was Muhammad constantly doing amongst them? And what benefits did Muhammad get by listening to the slaves if he did not know their language?
2.In short, the defence Muslims put forward is far from logic. From where does the Muslims’ faith come?

Muhammad’s own explanation to this question is very illuminating:

“The Moslems’ faith is from Yemen.”

The following hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) exists in the books of Hadiths containing the contribution of Buhari’s ‘e’s-Sahih’ and is regarded as the most authoritative. According to this hadith, ‘wisdom’ is also from Yemen. What is more, ‘canon law’ comes from Yemen, too. (See Buhari, e’s-Sahih, Kitabu’l-Meğazi/74; Tecrid, hadith no: 1362; Muslim, e’s-Sahih, Kitabu’l-Iman/81-91, the hadith n: 51-52 and other books of hadiths.)
This hadith, according to researchers, is amongst the ‘mutevatır hadiths (it is quoted directly from Muhammad), conveyed from the most reliable sources, and it was conveyed from eleven people who were all the Prophet’s friends. (See, Ebu'l-Feyz Muhammad, Lukatu'l-Lai'l-Mütenasire Fi Ahadisi'l-Mutevatıre, Beirut, 1985, p.42-43, hadith no: 10).

Some commentators, with some far-fetched interpretations, try to show that what’s meant with Yemen here is ‘Mecca and Medina’. (See, Tecrid, 1362 numbered hadith, explanation of Kamil Miras). But in some quotations of the hadith, it is clear that the place mentioned here is Yemen that is known to anyone in geographic sense.

So, according to this hadith, with ‘faith’, ‘wisdom’ and ‘comprehension (fıkh) (here fıkh should be used in its dictionary meaning)’ Islam originated from Yemen, so it was foreign to Arabs.

The one who taught Muhammad was a Persian called Salman or… (Selman Farisi)

Some agree that the foreigner who taught Muhammad was the one who was mentioned in Nahl Sura (The Bee), verse 103 is Salman the Persian. (See, Taberi, the same reference above).

It is known by everyone that Salman later identifies himself as a Muslim and becomes famous among Muslims, and has a close relationship and co-operation with Muhammad. Being a Muslim provides him with many benefits; first, freedom, that is to say getting out of slavery. Later, fame, esteem, and material and moral benefits…

It is also claimed by some that the foreigner who is said to have taught Muhammad was a “scribe”, who was converted to Islam first but later left this belief. (see, Taberi, the same reference). This is what happens to the “scribe”;
This slave first becomes a Muslim. He also co-operates with Muhammad like Salman did. But later, something happens and he denounces Islam and makes an explanation:
“It was me who taught Muhammad and whatever I taught him took place in the Quran as revelations…”
Shortly afterwards, the man either died or was killed. As for his corpse, somehow it never stayed where it was buried.

Muhammad’s men were spreading rumours:

“This event is the reflection of God’s wrath. The man angered God very much. Now the situation is apparent. He is buried, but the earth does not, cannot admit him. The earth is afraid of God. For this reason, it rejects the unbeliever. This should be ‘taken as a warning from God to others…”
The man was buried but after a few days, in the morning he was seen lying out of the grave. This happened a few times. (The fact that the corpse was found out of the grave specially in the mornings arises suspicion because it is a high possibility that Muhammad’s followers took the corpse out at night by digging the grave. If it was God who took out the corpse to give warning, why did he do it at night?) Certainly the dark was the best condition to conceal the truth.

One of Muhammad’s friends Enes (son of Malik), a long time later, would narrate the event as follows:

There was a man from the House of Neccar…He was a Christian, who later became Muslim. He read Al Baqara and Ali Imran Suras. He also wrote revelations for the Prophet. Later, he converted back to Christianity. He started to say, ‘Muhammad only knows what I taught him. He does not know anything else. (See, Buhari, e's-Sahih, Kitabu'l Menakıb/25,v.4,p.181-182;Tecrid, hadith no: 1477)

According to Enes, God got angry with this man and killed him by breaking his neck. The Christians buried him. In the morning, however, they found his corpse outside the grave. And the corpse was without a shroud. The Christians said, ‘Muhammad’s men took off his shroud, and left him just like that.’ They buried the man again, deeper this time. The next morning, the same thing happened. Later, again the Christians buried him, even deeper. The next morning, the same situation and the same speculations.... Then they thought that it would go on like that, so they gave up burying the corpse.

However there was another man who said similar things like the man from the House of Naccar. He was Abdullah, son of Sa’d son of Ebu Serh. But he did not experience the same faith as the man from the House of Naccar although Muhammad declared his execution. By means of the mediation of his foster brother Othman, he was forgiven. Later, he even became the Governor of Egypt. (Death, 656-657. See Islam Encyclopaedia).

The answer in the verse

How satisfactory is the answer in the Quran to the people who claim that it was a mortal – not God - who taught Muhammad?

The answer, as can be inferred from the verse cited above, is as follows;

The person who is claimed to have taught Muhammad is not an Arab but the Quran is in clear Arabic, so it can’t be him who taught Muhammad.

However, a foreigner who knew Arabic could have given Muhammad some information from ‘the rumours of the old’; from the Torah, the Bible and other ‘holy texts’. This is what has been put forward.
Isn’t it possible that Muhammad presented the information that he got from others in his own style by pouring them into Arabic moulds.

Moreover, even Muslim researchers write with examples that the ‘clear Arabic’ Quran contains many words from different languages like ‘Hebrew’, ‘Greek’, ‘Syrian’, and ‘Coptic’… (See, Suyuti, el Itkan Fi Ulumi’l-Kur’an, Arabic, Egypt, 1978, 1/178-185)

Doesn’t the presence of so many foreign words in the Quran support the allegation that ‘a foreigner’ (or foreigners) gave information to Muhammad?

It is also possible that one or more Arabs did teach Muhammad as well as some foreigners. One example that is very important for Islam was a man called ‘Museylime’. Museylime was a degrading name. In addition, Muslims called Museylime ‘a big liar’. This is a blasphemy for a Muslim. It is clear that his name was ‘Muslim’. It is very important to notice that his name takes us to the roots of the words ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’.

This man who was degraded and looked down on by Muslims was called ‘Compassionate’. He was also called ‘The Compassionate of Yemame’. In fact the man was well known with this name. This is also very interesting.

Another interesting thing is these words that people from Mecca say to Muhammad:

According to the information we have received, the one who teaches you is that man of Yemame, the man called Rahman (not God). We tell you this under oath to God, we don’t believe Rahman. (see, Ibn Ishak, Siyer, verification and stall: Muhammad Hamidullah, Arabic, Konya, 1981, p.180, paragraph: 254).

Is there no ground for people of Mecca to say this?

Museylime, actually ‘Muslim ’, or with his other name ‘Rahman’, was from The House of Hanife, which belongs to Yemame tribe. Interesting three names: ‘Muslim’, ‘Hanife’, ‘Rahman’. These names, especially when the first two come together, become more interesting.

In the Quran, Abraham, who was introduced as the ‘name father’ for the ‘Muslims’, (See, Hacc, verse: 78), was called as both ‘Hanif’ and ‘Muslim’. (See, Bakara: 135; Ali Imran: 67, 95; Nisa: 125; En'am:161; Nahl: 120,123.). Abraham is the Prophet of Sabii Religion, which short means ‘star worshipping’. This is the conclusion that I reach by research from the Islam sources: Muhammad was also called a Sabii when he first appeared in his struggle.(see, Buhari, e’s-Sahih, Kitabu’t Teyemmüm, /6, v.1, p.89). The language of Sabii Religion is also Syriac. ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Hanif’ and ‘Rahman’ come from this language just like ‘Allah’, ‘Quran’, Furkan’, ‘Book’, ‘angel’ and so many other words (See Aziz Günel,The History of Turk Syrians, Diyarbakır,1970,p.46-48;Suyuti el Itkan,1/180-184;Orientalist Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran,Kahire,1938,p.12 and others).

Likewise, from my research I have concluded: “Star Worshipping”, while it became an institution as a religion, and a source for Christianity and Judaism, also comprised the Muslims and the Hanifs in the Middle East. First there were Muslims, and then Hanifs, a subdivision, appeared. Abraham was the Prophet of this subdivision. Muslim (Museylime) known as ‘Rahman of Yemame’ and Muhammad, who had obviously learned many things from him, belonged to this subdivision. (For further information about Sabii Religion, see, Eren Kutsuz-Turan Dursun, 'Saçak Magazine', February 1988, volume: 49.)

Rahman of Yemame could have been only one of the sources that Muhammad benefited from. Of all the people mentioned above and others, either just one of them or all together, could have been ‘teachers’ of Muhammad. According to 4th verse of Al Furqan Sura, Muhammad’s helpers, in other words his teachers, were described as ‘a community’, in other words ‘a group of people’. This verse and two verses following this one means;

“Deniers claim ‘this Quran is the fabrication of Muhammad. A group of people have helped him.’ They said, ‘The Quran is full of stories from the past. Others wrote it and read it to him all the time.’ O, Muhammad, say, ‘The Quran has come from the one who knows the secrets of the earth and the skies’. Without a doubt, he is the forgiver’ “(Al Furqan, verse: 4-6).(Official translation of the Quran by the Presidency of Religious Affairs of Turkey)

People who say the Quran is a ‘fabrication’ also say the following:

1.A group of people helped Muhammad,

2.Muhammad got the Quran verses from others and had them written down,

3.The verses were constantly read to Muhammad day and night,
‘The verses consist of ‘the tales of the old’.

As a counter argument, the Quran says:

“Those are lies and unfair claims. God brought down the verses of the Quran. He knows the secret of the earth and the skies.” Son of Hars Nadr felt the need to warn people in Mecca when Muhammad started to introduce himself as ‘God’s Prophet’ by putting himself in a rank between God and people, and undertaking the task of delivering God’s messages to people. And he said :

Never believe this man. All the things he puts forward and claims are from old tales. I can tell you more beautiful things than he can.” Nadr told them that he could tell them stories from Persian Tales, which were about the Persian Kings and heroes. (See, Taberi, Camin’l-Beyan, 18/137-138)

Was Nadr right?

Does anything from the tales of the old exist in the Quran?

As it is known, in the Quran there are a lot of stories called ‘kıssa’. Many of them take place, firstly in the Torah, in Jewish sources, and some in the Bible. When examined, some of those stories are the same as the tales of the past long before the Torah. For example, the tale about ‘the Deluge’ is almost the same in the Gilgamesh Legend. There are many more examples.

At the time of Muhammad, there were many believers of different religions in and around Mecca and Medina. The number of these people who knew old tales and ‘holy writings’ were not in short supply. It is known that there were some slaves who had this knowledge and that Muhammad promised to set them free and worked with them. Bel'am, Yaish, Yessar, Addas, Cebr and Salman the Persian are some of those slaves mentioned above in this article...

To think that they or some others helped Muhammad to create the Quran is not far from intelligence. Intelligence and logic can’t accept the claim that ‘a god’ sends messages from the skies choosing this person or that as a messenger. Human’s intelligence cannot accept such a thing but “faith”, which has nothing to do with intelligence, can.

http://www.turandursun.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&catid=38&lang=en

tbaba1234: Well, that is not the Islamic position:

Islam basically means to submit and surrender. those who submit and surrender to the will of God are called Muslims. Jesus, Moses, Salih, Abraham all submitted to the will of the creator and were therefore muslims. Jesus did not come with a religion called christianity (from christ) and moses did not come with a religion called Judaism (from judah). They both came with the message of obedience to a creator..

Africans who also submit to the will of their traditional God like Sango are muslims according to your logic. . .Moses was NOT a muslim, he never talked about Allah, the God hr talked about has a name and it is not called Allah according to the bible. . .

Now, these messengers were given revelation and knowledge they couldn't have possibly known otherwise. The Quran is one of such revelations. So whilst the prophet couldn't have known about some of these people. It was revealed to him by the master/owner of the heavens and the earth.

This would have made any sense if the Koran as we know it was written during the time of the prophet but it wasn't. . .

As regards plagarisation,
1. the bible was not translated into Arabic throughout the time of the prophet.
2. There is no way the prophet could have obtained that kind of knowledge, since there were very few christians in mecca and medina.
3. Religious books for christians was limited to the priest/monks (there were no printing press). The only person in mecca was Waraqa who died within a few days after the 23 year revelation started. The prophet only met him twice in his life.

Even the hadiths say that waraqa said he taught the prophet, he claimed according to the hadith that the prophet did not know anything and he helped him write the Koran. . .

3. There are no valid (or reasonable) claims of any one teaching him...
4, He was unlettered (could not read/write), The Quran makes that clear

Waraqa claimed he taugt him according to the hadith. . .The claim that Mohammed was unlettered is the muslims joker to counter the claimed as to why most of the stories found in the bible were also found in the koran. . .The Koran as we know it was not written during the time of Mohammed.

So where did he plagarise from? You will have to provide evidence to make that kind of claim..
.
The Quran also tells the prophet that he was oblivious of these stories:

Where else but from the bible. . . .You do not know how exposed there were back then, you only accept their claim of Mohammed being an illiterate and the Koran's divine authorship. . . .

That is from the news of the unseen which We reveal to you, [O Muhammad]. And you were not with them when they cast their pens as to which of them should be responsible for Mary. Nor were you with them when they disputed. (Surah 3:44)

And you, [O Muhammad], were not on the western side [of the mount] when We revealed to Moses the command, and you were not among the witnesses
[to that]. (Surah 28:44)

The news is from the unseen....

The news is from people that copied it from another source. . .NON of the stories written by the prophets in the Koran have external sources to back them up. . .Read about Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jesus, NOTHING outside the Koran backs the story of Jesus as portrayed in the Koran for example the stories about Jesus found in the Koran are to be found in the Koran alone and some gospels that were not included in the bible, compare that with what some secular historians have written about biblical prophets and their sources. . . .When historian want to find out about these prophets the bible and what it says about them is what they run to NOT the Koran. .

maclatunji: ^Can you point to a place where Jesus (AS) said: "I am Jesus (AS) and I have brought Christianity to you as a religion?" All Prophets including Jesus (AS) were Muslims.

You argue from a disadvantaged position- Of course, you will not accept that.

Where did Moses or Abraham mention Allah as his God?. . .The talked about a God who says his name called Jehovah Yahweh and NOT Allah. . .The God talked about in the OT is very different from that of the Koran. . .Deny all you want but that is the fact. . . .

tbaba1234: Again an unfair assessment, How does hamza's works translate to all of the muslim work? There are many classical views recorded in the Islamic books that address the same issues hamza talks about (the existence of God etc). Those views are not dependent on willaim craig or any other person. So, hamza using william craig's arguments on creation or even plagiarizing them is only hamza's problem not an average muslim's problem. So your criticism should be limited to hamza as an individual.

In addition, hamza debates are not only about the existence of God, he talks about a host of other issues like Islam and Humanism etc. In many of his other debates, he doesn't need william craig.

You do not know how he will fare with other guys until they have a debate.

I have seen him argue about the existence of God and the moral argument wit some atheist, and I was wondering if it was William Craig speaking, most of his arguments for the existence of God and his moral arguments are lifted DIRECTLY from Craig. . .The guy is very good no doubt, but he would have earn my respect if he was original on his own instead of being a plagiarist. . .I am talking specifically about his arguments on the existence of God. . .Sure he talks about Islam very well no doubt but that is not my point. . .Any body that can win William Craig will win him since their arguments are the same. . .

tbaba1234: Not true... I think it is unfair for you to say that... He has had a variety of talks and debates,,, Many of which are original ideas .... Maybe some parts were taken from other theistic argument but he has developed many of these arguments (and taken the silly parts out) . He has built a pretty solid case for the existence of God and very few atheists have succeeded in really challenging his position from the debates, i have seen.

His humanist background gives him an edge.

Very false, his first cause argument are copied DIRECTLY from William Craig, so are his ontological, moral, design arguments and cosmological arguments, ALL his point are lifted DIRECTLY from William Craig, it is very false to say he uses other theistic arguments, he uses that of William Craig SPECIFICALLY. . .He isn't original but a plagiarist. . . I agree he has won most of the atheist I have seen him debate which are very poor debaters any way, if he meets atheist like Sam Harris, Hector Havalos, Victor Stinger, David Tabash and Daniel Rice he won't stand a chance, these are some of the best atheist debaters around, they are the only atheist I have seen debate and win William Craig whose arguments he uses. . .If he is such a debater why not for his own arguments why use that already established arguments of a Christian? William Craig sat down and formulated them himself. . .He is a plagiarist. . .I repeat, why are muslims always copying or plagiarizing christians and their materials, can't they be original on their own?. . .

He isn't original, all his arguments are lifted from that of William Lane Craig. . .Why do muslims always plagiarize Christian work?. . .

tbaba1234: No clause in a marriage contract is expressly stated in any book... It gives the woman a choice within limits but it does not restrict her to the choices she can make. So it is clear.. Do you want every clause a woman puts in her marriage contract to be defined for her. if that is the case, she really has no choice.. does she?

Islam just sets the boundaries and the couple set up their contract within those boundaries, Anything that goes against the Quran is not allowed, that's all. Does not getting married to more than one wife violate an obligatory Islamic principle?? No it doesn't... So it is permissible...

Shikena..

All am saying is that it is not to be found in the Quran or hadith , it is not explicitly stated, it is only based on the interpretations of scholars. . .Injunctions on polygamy, divorce and how to sleep for example are explicitly stated. . .This one is not. . .No where is it written that before you get married the woman is allowed to write a contract. . .It does not appear any where, it is based solely on the interpretation of scholars. . .Some mumslims that strictly abide only by what the Quran says will discard this and not accept it, since it is not found any where in there. . .

tbaba1234: It is clear... The rules of setting up a marriage contract is clear, same as that of divorce.... Do you want every clause in a marriage contract to be spelt out?...

Polygamy is conditional on treating the wives fairly... It is not compulsory on every muslim. The husband gives up that right himself by accepting a contract. A muslim is bounded by his condition.

No it is not very clear. . .Actually it is not stipulated directly. . .

“Whoever stipulates a condition that is not in the Book of Allaah it is not valid, even if he stipulates a hundred times.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2155) and Muslim (1504).

Is the marriage contract based on this saying?. . .Stating that your husband should marry only one wife is not in the Quran. . . .I am NOT saying that polygamy is a must for muslims. . .Just saying that the contract clause is vague and based solely on the interpretation of scholars. . . .

tbaba1234: There are a million clauses a woman can put in her marriage contract; a polygamy clause is just one of it. You will not find where they say you can put this clause or that clause. There is general guideline to the clauses that can be put on a marriage contract... Anything that is not an obligatory or impermissible act is fair game to be included in the contract.

The Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) it says: “The Muslims are bound by their conditions, except a condition that forbids what is permissible or permits what is forbidden.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1352). And he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever stipulates a condition that is not in the Book of Allaah it is not valid, even if he stipulates a hundred times.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2155) and Muslim (1504).

The basic principle with regard to the conditions stipulated by both partners in the marriage contract is that it is a valid condition that must be fulfilled, and it is not permissible to break it, because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The condition which most deserves to be fulfilled is that by means of which intimacy becomes permissible for you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2721) and Muslim (1418).

The Quran says

“O you who believe! Fulfil (your) obligations”

[al-Maa’idah 5:1]

“And fulfil (every) covenant. Verily, the covenant will be questioned about”

[al-Isra’ 17:34

With regard to the woman stipulating that the husband should not take a second wife, the opinion of scholars is that this condition is permissible, and if the husband breaks it, the wife has the right to annul the marriage and take her dues in full.

Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If he stipulates that he will not take her out of her house or her city, or that he will not travel with her or will not take another wife, then he is obliged to fulfil that, and if he does not do so, then she has the right to annul the marriage. This was narrated from ‘Umar, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqaas and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allah be pleased with them).

It should be noted that if the husband breaks this condition, his wife does not become divorced as a result of that, rather she has the right to annul the marriage, and she may either annul it or give up the condition and accept what her husband has done, and remain as his wife.

This is more like the interpretation and opinions of prominent schorlars and not a clear cut injuction from the Quran or hadith with regards to the marriage contract. . . Its not as clear as the injuction to marry more than one wife or the laws governing divorce for example. . thanks all the same. . .

idprincess: well he has more money than me. And he's more exposed than me.

Madam stop deluding yourself and wasting your time, go and look for a man that is ready, no need seeing trouble and walking right into it. . .By the time he will be 30 you will be 37 hope you know what that means? Save your self all the drama. . .

tbaba1234: Where is the contract for marriage written? because you know, it is just a clause right?

I just want to know whete it is written in the hadith that a woman can sign a contract clause against polygamy and also have the right to ask for divorce if he husband breaks his promise before she marries . . If the Prophet of islam made that statement I just want you to provide it. . .Wanna show it to a friend. . .