₦airaland Forum

INJESUSNAME:
He asked for chapter and verse in the Bible. Is that so hard, or you are only trying to make muhamed action justifyable?

This case points at these muslim guys' typical lopsided logic. They claim a thing is so and so in the Bible, and you ask them to show how from the Bible and they run away to somewhere else or sometimes to something else. 

They look for issues in the Bible to use in justifying the errors in the Quran. Yet they turn round and claim the same Bible is corrupted. Ask them when it was corrupted since the same Quran referred to it, and they can't answer. Ask them to show us which Bible the Quran referred to, they are stuck.

[size=5pt]

Teekrayne:
...................... You are free to ask any question provided you are objective in the manner @ which you ask the question! If I know it, I'll let you know and if I don't know it, I'll own up ...................... Now to answer your question, these are the verses!!...... "And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" [Qur'an 11:78]................................................... ........................... In Chapter 7 verses 65, 73 and 85 Prophets Hud, Saleh and Shu‘ayb are referred to as "brothers" of their respective peoples.



"And unto (the tribe of) A'ad (We sent) their brother, Hud. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah serve Him. Will ye not ward off (evil)"? [Qur'an 7:65]



"And to (the tribe of) Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah serve Him. A wonder from your Lord hath come unto you. Lo! this is the camel of Allah, a token unto you; so let her feed in Allah's earth, and touch her not with hurt lest painful torment seize you". [Qur'an 7:73]



"And unto Midian (We sent) their brother, Shu‘ayb. He said: O my people! Serve Allah. Ye have no other Allah serve Him. Lo! a clear proof hath come unto you from your Lord; so give full measure and full weight and wrong not mankind in their goods, and work not confusion in the earth after the fair ordering thereof. That will be better for you, if ye are believers" [Qur'an 7:85]

The people of Lot are also mentioned in chapter 50 verse 13 as the brothers of Lot except for the word "banati" which means my "daughters".... In 11:78, all other references have used the word "akhun" which means "brother".
Another one........


"The ‘Ad, Pharaoh, the brethren of Lut", (Qur'an 50:13)

And in another place, the Qur'an addresses the believers as brothers-in-faith.

"The Believers are but a single brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy". [Qur'an 49:10]

May we all be guided!

[/size]

Are you sure you know what you are putting down here?

You were not asked to look for places where you see 'brother' or 'sister' and quote them to claim you've answered the questions. 

The issue is can you show us in the Quran another example of two (2) persons separated by hundreds of years where the YOUNGER was referred to as either the 'brother' or 'sister' of the OLDER like in this case of Mary and Aaron and not 'son' or 'daughter'?

Teekrayne:
................. Its not a mandate you accept!!! You asked me to defend the "error" according to you and I did!
...............................................
The words "sister", "brother", "son" and "daughter" in Arabic usage have very wide connotations.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ASSUME THAT THESE KINSHIP LINKS ARE TO INTERPRETED IN MODERN TERM. THE WORDS "SISTER" and "DAUGHTER", like their male counterparts, in Arabic usage can indicate ...... May God help us all

Is there any example of this kind of usage in ancient literature? I doubt.

If in the face of facts you still choose to accept error you can only be left with your right to believe what you want to believe. 

If you want to believe ANYTHING in defiance of all evidence against your previously held view, so be it. 

No one can force another to reject or believe anything. 

But you must realize that wherever you put your faith determines your eternal destiny. The choice is yours. 

frosbel2:
You are a brain washed fanatic and no different to Boko Haram.

I agree there is a plague of Islamic terrorism in the world today, but this is committed by a substantial minority not by the majority.

Go and get de-brainwashed.

[size=14pt]Warning!![/size]
This frosbel2 or original frosbel
are suspect.

Teekrayne:
............................................................................. NB: ALLAH is INFALLIBLE but the MUHAMMAD(SAW) is FALLIBLE because he was/is a human......
The question now is why the epithet “O SISTER OF AARON”?
From the immediate context it is obvious this epithet was used to draw Mary's attention, which could mean the following things.

Firstly, it was to remind her of her similarity to Aaron in her piety and worship of God. Thus the statement becomes a reprimand to her having borne a child without being married, a shocking sin given her
Secondly, the epithet yā ukhta harūn or "O sister of Aaron" was also to remind Mary of her pious ancestor MIRIAM, the sister of Aaron (and Moses), who was given the title "prophetess"

Both these explanations have a support from a ḥadīth of Prophet Muḥammad(SAW).

"The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the NAMES OF APOSTLES AND PIOUS PERSON§ WHO HAD GONE BEFORE

... God bless us all.

If it's so OBVIOUS there would be no need for the tonnes of Muslim 'explanations' on it, don't you think so?

How does "similarity to Aaron in her piety and worship of God" come in here and is not stated in any way?

And she's been reprimanded for a child that God himself gave her?

And she's also being reminded of her "pious ancestor MIRIAM, the sister of Aaron (and Moses)," and this is very OBVIOUS in the text?

Naming people after"APOSTLES AND PIOUS PERSON§ WHO HAD GONE BEFORE THEM."does not translate into calling them 'sister' of so and so does it?


This clearly shows how Muslims lump together so many varied things and in the end 'brainwash' themselves into accepting a position that even the Quran does not state. 

First, let's note these
- Aaron and Mary the mother of Jesus    were not contemporaries. 
- Mary was NOT from the same tribe as Aaron. 

Having said that let's proceed. 
The best description of Mary in relation to Aaron (if indeed it was not an error Mohammed made) would have been to address her as 'daughter' of Aaron, not 'sister'. 
     - like was pointed out earlier, they     did not live during the same period. 
     - The difference in time - centuries - should NOT ordinarily lend itself to her being seen as a 'sister' of her ancestor. 
     - If Mohammed said people used to do that he was wrong. In referring to relationship to predecessors they would rather say 'son' or 'daughter' of so and so, not 'brother' or 'sister' of their forebear. 

Another error Muslims make is to think that Mary the mother if Jesus was of the same tribe as Aaron. Her lineage was not from Aaron. Aaron was from the tribe of Levi. Mary was from the tribe of Judah. So Muslims CANNOT argue using same-tribe claim to say they could be addressed as brother and sister. 
Aaron and Mary are not from the same tribe.
     - Even if they were of the same tribe, the long span in generations between Aaron and Mary should have made her be addressed as his 'daughter' rather than sister. 

Imagine if the statement were "Mary sister of Adam" , simply because Adam was her forebear. What sense would that make?

All in all, it is clear that the Quran made a gross mistake here in erroneously stating that Mary the mother of Jesus was either directly related to Aaron or was a contemporary of his. 

truthman2012:
Stop lying.

This is type of lies allahh told here:
https://www.nairaland.com/2507051/muhammad-vs-other-prophets

Lying is these guys' nature. 

They quote unsubstantiated writings. 

They want their assumptions to be regarded as truth. 

They create 'standards' as the need arises so as to justify their position or their 'prophet's misdeeds. 

They then pat themselves on the back for writing long posts, for misquoting the Bible they can NEVER understand and for using lopsided logic.

1. The Mary of the Quran is not the Mary of the Bible. 
2. The Quran says its Mary was the sister if Aaron the brother of Moses. 
3. This places that Mary about 1,600 before Mary the mother of Jesus was born!
4. The writer of the Quran confused 'Miriam' or 'Mariam' of Aaron's time with the 'Mary' of Jesus whose name can also be called 'Mariam'. 
5. That is clearly how the mix-up came about. 
6. This is one of the very many areas in the Quran that punctures its claim of divine authorship. 
7. Muslims who cannot explain this resort to pointing out non-existent "contradictions" in the Bible rather than honestly face the truth.

The story of Jesus' Birth

The Quran in sura 19:29-30 mentions that Jesus spoke when he was still in the cradle. This story is not found in the Bible. It was plagiarized by the writers of the Quran from an apocryphal fable written in the first or second century AD titled  "The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ". 

In the fable it states that: "Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said I am Jesus the son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee... ..."

The Quran however changed "son of God" to "slave (or servant) of Allah". Of course the 'switch' was done to fall in line with islam's rejection of Jesus as the Son of God. The plagiarism is nevertheless still evident.

Demmzy15:
To read more http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html

So you're quoting an Islamic source to make people accept their skewed position?

Targum is not just one or two items but many. It forms part of the Jewish traditional literature, and is said to have originated as early as the time of the Second Temple. This is well before Christ. 

Maybe your dates may be for the Targums you have conveniently chosen but certainly not for all. 

The King Solomon and Queen of Sheba Story

Only those who want to be distractive and deceptive will deny the fact that Mohammed lived in a heterogeneous setting in Arabia, with Christians, Jews and others living together.

Mohammed’s references to these people in the Quran should at least silence any overzealous apologist of Islam who would want to claim that there couldn’t have been any influence of other religions and their materials on Mohammed.

An example of Jewish influence is that of a story in sura 27:27-44 related by Mohammed that tells how King Solomon met with the Queen of Sheba. This story in the Quran is based on the ‘Targum’, a paraphrase of the Old Testament based on oral translations of Jewish history and scripture. The conspicuous similarity between the stories of the Quran and a targum written nearly 1,000 years earlier leaves one in no doubt as to where the Quran (Mohammed) got his plot from.

No doubt Mohammed, or whatever his source was, trusted extra-canonical books, materials and stories more than the authentic ones such that books written centuries later than the originals were relied upon much more than the original ones.
Mohammed therefore relied on other sources for the content of his Quran.

Demmzy15:
Oya lemme allow you use dating to refute. I'm waiting o

Lmaooooo is that the strategy you want to use and run?!

Empty speculations as usual, you've failed to prove anything. I've said it from beginning, Islam didn't plagiarized but everything came from Allah, The All Knowing. I know you're trying to save yourself from humiliation, but that's too late. Any reasonable person reading surely knows you've failed. Go get a lif

If the stories found in the Quran already exist in some other writings and you still claim that "Islam didn't plagiarized but everything came from Allah" what can we say except to tell you that you have the right to believe whatever you can. Wherever that leads you is your ultimate responsibility.

[quote author=Demmzy15 post=36577407][/quote]Looks like we are back to dates! 

You're lumping too many things together and confusing yourself. 

So you are trying to argue that if the Bible was supposedly copied from other works it's ok for the Quran to plagiarize. In other words you are saying that it doesn't matter that the Quran copied from other materials. Which means the Quran cannot claim originality. 
Interesting.

Demmzy15

Don't be mischievous by misquoting me. What I said was that "dating may not be precise". I never said "they carry no weight". The two are not the same. Is this how you guys carry on your deception? What a pitiable attempt at gaining points. 

Maybe you gave that misleading representation of what i stated because you want to twist things. That is deception. 

Moses' record predates the other. So which is likely to have borrowed from the other? 
The answer should be obvious but in case you miss it - Moses' is the authentic one. 

Apply the same to any other such material you come across.

Demmzy15:
Patricia Crone is no Professor but a scholar, historian.

She's not a scholar on Islam

Dr. Ali Khan is ...

You are yet to show that Patricia Crone denied her 2008 statement that:
 "One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns, recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another Semitic language in their turn."
 
What was the CENTRAL THESIS of their 1977 book? Certainly not what I quoted above. 
You are the one trying to use your takkiyah to confuse people. 

Nothing Dr Ali Khan said in what you quoted refutes the fact that Mohammed relied on other sources for the content of his Quran. 

Unless you want to lie, the 2008 article was very objective, so this statement in it is surely Patricia Crone's findings on this matter. You cannot attempt to disprove it by going back in time to other unrelated issues. You went back to an incident of 2006 to dispute a 2008 article? Clap for yourself!!

Where in this 2008 article did she admit she was wrong? Can we even trust a Muslim apologist statement of a conversation with her?
When you make such statements as above - Patricia Crone is not .... .... Dr. Ali Khan is .... .... do you know what that tells about you?

Stick to the main issue. Mohammed's stories were influenced by other writings. Admit it and let's move on. 

Demmzy15

Like they say 'Talk is cheap'. It's easy for you to write anything. But be sure you're honest, ok?

You're wrong @underlined, not only that the Quran was committed in the memory, it was also written down during the time of the Prophet Muhammad(sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam).

"Zayd Ibn Thabit was the scribe of the Prophet. Others among his noble scribes were Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Ibn Mas’ud, Mu’awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan, Khalid ibn Al-Waleed and Az-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. - Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani, Al-Isabah fee Taymeez as-Sahabah, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1978

"The verses were recorded on leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms." - Al-Harith al-Muhasabi, Kitab Fahm al-Sunan, cited in Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi ‘Uloom al-Quran, Vol.1, p.58.

What is clear is this (unless you want to re-write history in 2015): there was NO UNIFIED COPY of the Quran during Mohammed's lifetime. What was the Quran supposed to be? Was it not 'RECITATIONS'? And like you said they were on "leather, parchment, scapulae (shoulder bones of animals) and the stalks of date palms". And these were by DIFFERENT writers. right?

Thank God you said "Chances", possibility doesn't necessarily mean probability. You need to know the difference. The Quran was revised with the Prophet every Ramadhan, so it's not possible. Even critics of Islam have admitted, it's not possible for the Prophet to plagiarize because there were no influence in Makkah and Medina as of that time.

I could throw this Patricia Crone and Cook's book into the thrash because they've disavowed the book.

"In 1991, Patricia Crone and Michael Cook disavowed the views that they presented in this book."- Culled from Wikipedia

She claimed Muslims and Jews joined forces or teamed up against Christians. What is surprising is that she claimed the Quran was written only until the late 7th century around the Caliph of AbdulMalik which is not true, the Qur'an was standardized during the time of Uthman many years before AbdulMalik. She also claimed that the religion of Islam was formed by Arabs and Jews in the year 690AD, when in fact the Prophet died in 632AD.

A new Qur'an found as totally refuted Patricia's claim about the Qur'an of it written in the end of the 7th century(approximately 670-699AD) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/world-oldest-quran-manuscripts-uk-150722110034399.html

Moreover, the book was just speculating. No reasonable point was mentioned, worst of all is the misinformation of history. Even a right thinking person would know this book is irrational.

Patricia Crone was a professor of Islamic history so you can't just dismiss her works as 'speculating' and 'irrational'. 'Irrational'? Whao!
She knows her onions. Unless you would prefer a different yardstick is used in examining the Quran and Islam than is used for other historical documents. She didn't just write one book or one article but several.

You are quoting a 1991 post about a disclaim. See a 2008 position:
In an article: What do we actually know about Mohammed? 10 June 2008 in openDemocracy this is what she wrote:
"One explanation for these features would be that the prophet formulated his message in the liturgical language current in the religious community in which he grew up, adapting and/or imitating ancient texts such as hymns, recitations, and prayers, which had been translated or adapted from another Semitic language in their turn."
This is clear enough or do you need it to be simplified? Ok, in simple language it's that Mohammed borrowed from other writings.

Can you honestly prove that "The Quran was revised with the Prophet every Ramadhan"?
Can you honestly prove that "there were no influence in Makkah and Medina as of that time"?
So only people of one culture, one religion and one language were in these places at that time? Really?

Mr. Man, please give me the page of this so-called fabrication in her book. I've read the full rebuttal to her book and nothing as such was mentioned. Download the pdf here http://www.sultan.org/books/Patricia_crone_english_reply.pdf&sa=U&ved=0CAoQFjAAahUKEwiDxYWvrYvHAhXDDSwKHSZVA1o&sig2=ZlpDLTO4yEO8XFdFdf6tSA&usg=AFQjCNGIqy6VoTwLCi0VYnhXs1UgbAqHRA

Ogbeni your story is too much, you've failed again. Even the Patricia Crone has denied you, so you're alone. You don't present anything tangible rather than speculations. Weren't dullards o

When you are bringing up issues OUTSIDE the focus of discussion what you are doing is muddling up matters.
What we are looking at here is: Where did Mohammed's stories come from?
Not dates in history.
Any student or reader of history knows that dating may not be precise. New information can always lead to revision of dates. Different dating systems can lead to differences. So, your attempt to use differences in dates to disprove Patricia Crone holds no water. It's not even our main issue here.

Eratosthenes:
Plagiarism things....

Demmzy15:
bless you for the good work you're doing too

Mohammed's messages were transmitted orally for a very long time before being reduced to writing. Chances are that even those who eventually put his messages down in writing had to refer to other sources to fill in gaps that they needed to make their writings more credible. 

Cook and Patricia Crone in their extremely interesting and intellectually stimulating work Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977) point out how both the literature of Islam - the Quran - and it's traditions and rituals were not only borrowed from other books but also other religions and their practices. 

In Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (1980), Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987), and later works Patricia Crone showed how Muslim traditions drew on a common pool of material fabricated by the storytellers.

At the end of the day the books of Islam came out of an attempt to reconcile distortions arising from various allegiances within Islam such as those to a particular area, tribe, sect or school of thought, etc. 

[quote author=Demmzy15 post=36505238][/quote]

I would advise you to get a copy of the Quran and read. You keep saying the Quran is presenting nothing, when you don't even know anything about the Quran.

@the bolded – relative to our context the Quran presented nothing new.

 

Of course and also Judaism and Christianity, but the question is, did they have any influence in Arabia during the time of Prophet Muhammad?!

Yes! They influenced his creation of a new religion.

You're still saying the same thing, looks like you didn't read my earlier post


You're still speculating, out of over 6,000verses of the Quran you present only "In the Name of Allaah the Beneficent the Merciful" in which you gave no reference/source for. Don't think I'm a fool, "Samaritans" influenced Christianity and Judaism not Islam.

Many parts of the bible and Talmud have striking resemblance to the Samaritan books, you then ignore that and say because "In the Name of Allaah the Beneficent the Merciful" is "supposedly" the same, then Islam copied out rightly. If you think like, you need brain check.

Now, tell me what you’ve put down here that’s different from my submission that the Samaritan’s earlier writings influenced Islam’s. The emphasis is on ‘EARLIER’. If a man writes something today which details can be found in a book written 100 years ago, will you say that today’s book is really presenting something “NEW”?

One indisputable fact is this: Mohammed was not presenting anything new. 

The Samaritans existed well before Mohammed. 

Their literature therefore preexisted that of Islam. 

If, as we have seen, Islam's writings bear resemblance to theirs that already existed it can be safely said that Mohammed and Islam were not presenting anything new but may either have been influenced by theirs or copied in part from theirs.

Samaritan Influence
Islam copied from many sources including the Samaritans. The Samaritans were well established centuries BC. A fixed distinctive in their literature was the unity, absolute holiness and righteousness of God. 

A recurring phrase in their liturgy was "There is no God but the One". Anyone can easily see the striking similarity of the Muslim declaration of: "There is no God but Allah." to theirs. 

The Muslim formula "In the name of God" (bismillah) is found in Samaritan scripture as beshem.

The opening chapter of the Koran known as the Fatiha, opening or gate, often considered as a succinct confession of faith is interestingly similar to a Samaritan prayer, which can also be considered a confession of faith, which begins with the words: Amadti kamekha al fatah rahmeka, "I stand before Thee at the gate of Thy mercy." Fatah is the Fatiha, opening or gate.

The influence of the Samaritans, who were already well established before islam came, can therefore be seen in these Islamic adaptations. 

[size=5pt]

Demmzy15:
You guys have been saying the same thing over and over again. These are just speculations, it's left to you to prove where did he copy. Remember that "Possibility does not necessarily mean probability". The Quran refers mostly Injeel and Torah, It is very possible that those true stories were maintained in the Bible and the Qur'an simply came to confirm their authenticity, especially when we take into consideration that this is one of the functions of the Qur'an. (Surah 5:48)

[/size]

Objective Muslim scholars and other researchers of Islam have proven that not was the Quran prepared by different hands, it's sources of stories were varied too. 

Just relax and you'll get samples of such sources and the proof you want. 

truthman2012:
@ plainbibletruth

Good!

Thank you.

Frosbel, it would appear to me that you are the one who is disillusioned and need a lot of sorting out to do.

Where Did Mohammed’s Stories Come From?

No true Muslim will doubt the fact that some of the stories found in the Quran were previously mentioned in the Bible. However what many Muslims may not know is that, apart from the Bible, there are clear evidence that the Quran got materials from pre-Islamic writers, Jewish folktales, Arabic apocryphal fables and other books.

This therefore challenges the claim of ORIGINALITY and even divine authorship of the Quran. It is not in doubt that Mohammed interacted with Jews and Christians and must have heard stories of the Bible from them. Even some of his very close friends and associates were Jews and Christians. His main secretary was said to be a Jew. This association may even account for the presence many Persian, Syriac, Hebrew, Old Egyptian, Assyrian and Greek words in the Arabic Quran. The Quran therefore is not really ‘Pure Arabic’. Other words that are not Arabic are found there.

The fact of these many foreign words really dents the Quran’s claim of it being ‘Arabic, pure and clear’ as evidence of its divine authorship. Apparently many Arabians actually questioned Mohammed on this. That is why we find such portions such as Sura 16: 103 “And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language” and Sura 25: 4-6 “And those who disbelieve say, "This [Qur'an] is not except a falsehood he invented, and another people assisted him in it." But they have committed an injustice and a lie.And they say, "Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."Say, [O Muhammad], "It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful." which were meant to counter the accusations.

So there was really nothing new the Quran was presenting. Instead it was either giving its own version of previously known stories or copying them outright. Maybe it is in following Sura 6:89/90 “Those are the ones to whom We gave the Scripture and authority and prophethood. But if the disbelievers deny it, then We have entrusted it to a people who are not therein disbelievers.” The least the Quran could have done was to acknowledge these sources rather than claim originality and divine authorship.

Reputable Muslim scholars know for sure that Mohammed had knowledgeable people in Jewish and Persian religion and Christianity around him who influenced him and his composition of the Quran. A number of Islamic books confirm this. Mohammed’s contemporaries knew this and must have challenged him on this. This is why he tried to argue against them in Sura 9: 127; 16:103; 25;4-6.


Mohammed did not just get these people to help him write down his ‘revelations’, he was actually helped by them in getting some of the stories he then had written down. This was a common knowledge in Arabia and particularly Mecca.

Incidentally, many of the stories in the Quran have no context unless one goes back to the original sources of such stories, which may be the Bible or any of the books of fables, which form the source materials of most of the Quranic stories. Otherwise, for many of the stories, getting a fair understanding of them comes only from the guess work of Islamic commentators; with each commentator coming up with his own interpretation of any particular story.

lexiconkabir:
@plainbibletruth i came up with historical fact? sorry to say but i dont think you are being intelligent, will Allah be revealing the oppression of the makkans to the muslims when they already knew that they were being oppressed? pls choose your words intelligently and carefully! and yes, you did not say anything about the bible verse i gave you, why?

If my response is not clear to you then nothing may be clearer. 

I choose to focus on the topic of the thread. Your going to the Bible is unrelated to what we are both discussing unless you want to show how. 

You have not been able to show how your position on the verses is the right one. You didn't address my points one by one. You took up space writing on Quran translations, wikipedia, CNN stories, etc when you could have spent the same space addressing my points. 

When Muslims argue about which Quran translations we must use or not use, which Hadith is authentic or first grade or second grade and when to use wikipedia or not, isn't it clear that these all add to your confusion; don't you think?

lexiconkabir:
@plainbibletruth first, let me ask you. can you please show me where i changed the meaning?

Two Contradicting portions of the Quran were quoted by the OP:
Those that said Allah said no one can believe except he Allah wills it:
No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.
[Qur'an 10:100].
[Quran 10:99 Pickthal] And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
And those taking an opposing view that instructs Mohammed to fight people until they accept Allah:
Qur'an (8:39) - “And FIGHT them until there is no more Fitnahm (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Qur'an (9:29) - " FIGHT those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

In attempting to explain the contradiction you came up with this:

but if you know the historical background of that statement only then it will make sense, the same thing applies to those verses, when the muslims where oppressed by the makkans and later resulted into fighting them.

The issue then is that NOWHERE in those quranic passages did it say that it was "when the muslims where oppressed by the makkans and later resulted into fighting them" that Mohammed was now asked to fight.

That is why i said:

that in order for you to show that your 'translation' is the right one you need to prove that this portion of the Quran was given after Mohammed was fought by the Meccans and Meccans alone and also that it does not include any other people? And by so doing it must be that you had 'special revelation' from Allah to "fill-in-the-blanks" that were not there in the Quran?

How "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" comes to mean "fight Meccans who oppress (or fight) you" is simply AMAZING!

If "No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah" does it then make sense for Allah to now instruct that Mohammed fight them who do not believe when except by his will they cannot believe?

The fact that the Quran did not mention what you stated nor imply it meant you were simply adding you own meaning to the passages.

lexiconkabir:
@plainbibletruth let me ask you a question, do you understand arabic? i guess not, how then did you get to know i peddled in words! i dont know why you guys enjoys giving false claims! about muhammad, tell me what you think about isiah 29:11-12, who are they refering to? i really gtg, tell me what you think but dont spam me, i will see your answers when i'm back, thank you!

1. I only quoted you and asked questions. Those words were yours. So what is the "false claims!" here?

2. Your going to the Bible is confirming my earlier observation - I'm talking about this thread and what you posted in response to the OP and you're referring me to the Bible?

3. Is your silence an admission of flaw in your presentation?

4. If not, How did "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" come to mean "fight Meccans who oppress you" as per your interpretation?

lexiconkabir:
Thanks for your observation, but i dont think you were here from the beginning of the thread, to see that i refuted the claims
............
.............
Thats what i'm doing.

Remember the thread started by pointing out that whereas Allah said no one can believe except he Allah wills it, he then, on the other hand, instructs Mohammed to fight people until they accept Allah. 

I believe this was the crux of the matter. 

But you spent most of your initial posts in digression from this core issue. 

After several promptings you came to an interpretation that the fight was only for "when the muslims where oppressed by the makkans". BUT the verse NEVER said 'fight those who oppress you'. So how you came to conveniently 'interpret' "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" to mean ''fight those who oppress you' is, to say the least, amazing!

Now you blame others that they "peddle in some words into the translations that are not into in the original arabic text to prove your lies"
But are you not adding words here yourself? 

[Btw, if you refer me to "a place in the bible where muhammad was being referred to as said in the Quran" you may still end up adding your words to what the Bible is actually saying, so don't bother. The Bible says NOTHING about the Quran or Mohammed. On the other hand the Quran says much about, and confirms, the Bible as the Word of God. ]

IF your 'interpretation' is the right one, why didn't the book that claims to make things 'clear and simple' not just simply say so - that is assuming that this portion of the Quran was actually 'revealed' to Mohammed AFTER and not before he started facing opposition.

 So, do you see that in order for you to show that your 'translation' is the right one you need to prove that this portion of the Quran was given after Mohammed was fought by the Meccans and Meccans alone and also that it does not include any other people? And by so doing it must be that you had 'special revelation' from Allah to "fill-in-the-blanks" that were not there in the Quran?

How "Fight those who do not believe in Allah" comes to mean "fight Meccans who oppress (or fight) you" is simply AMAZING!

tartar9, Demmzy15, Rilwayne001, DravenCreighton, lexiconkabir, 

It's interesting that NONE of you Muslim guys is ever able to clearly explain the Quran's contradictions and inconsistencies WITHOUT bringing in your so-called contradictions in the Bible. This way you end up muddling things up making arguments to go to and fro thereby diverting attention from the real bone of contention - the Quran's glaring incongruity. 

The "out-of-context" argument is actually a weak argument and a defeatist position for Muslims. 
Does the Quran have any context?
Is any story complete in any one sura? Can Muslims fully understand many, if not all, of the stories in the Quran without reference to the Bible or perhaps any of the other books of Jewish or Arabian fables from which it derived its materials?
Is it not Muslim translators of the Quran who inserted lots of phrases and clauses in bracket in the text because without them not much sense can be made from such verses? 

The fact that Muslims have not been able to stick to the Quran (a book that says it makes things so clear and simple) to explain it shows clearly that they themselves have difficulty with the book.

Demmzy15:
Look can you leave me alone? If you can't comprehend, then I can't force you. I have presented proofs from the Quran, hadith and even tafsir but you still want to claim boss when in fact you're a kid.

The Quran commanded us to obey the Prophet and his words are found outside the Quran like the hadeeth, etc

You asked for proof, have you forgotten, and I presented it and you're now saying 'leave me alone'?

Nobody is forcing anyone here. If you don't want to dialogue it's up to you.

Surely if Abraham and Ishmael were performing all these rituals allegedly done by them - including circling round stones, kissing stones and throwing stones (stones! Stones! Stones!) - there should have been other records of their doing them apart from in Islam that came several hundred years after them. The plain truth is that their names (including those of other 'Prophet's' - Moses, Noah, etc) were introduced to give credibility to Islam.

[quote author=Demmzy15 post=36207965][/quote]

Really? Please proves.

I don't need any prove for that, Allah has confirmed it so that's OK by me! Shikena

You want me to prove but you don't want to prove.
Anyhow, see: Encyclopedia Britannica
First Encyclopedia of Islam

Nonsense, you've started again ba? Typical fan of Sam Shamoun

Who is he? In NL?

**yawns** read our above posts, I tried to be reasonable with you but I can see you don't deserve it.

The fact that most of these rituals are NOT FOUND in the Quran (which ordinarily should be regarded more than anything else) but in the traditions speaks volume. We see extra-quranic materials given more prominence than that which is supposed to be the holy book. How Muslims fail to see the red-flag in this beats comprehension. 

What we see is actually the Islamization of pagan rituals.

Demmzy15:
Yes and hope it's not your problem, Christians baptised themselves in River Jordan during pilgrimage because Jesus and other disciples did.

Because Allah commanded us to.


If you were paying attention, we mentioned earlier that she was looking for water.


I posted an answer to either you or truthman2012, go back and read


Why do Christians go for pilgrimage?

Guy stop asking unreasonable questions, you aren't asking to know more but to show your folly.

There is absolutely nothing in history to prove Muslims' claim that these rituals were practiced by Adam, Noah and Abraham. Any claim that it is so is nothing but pure myth, totally unverifiable in history. Most of these rituals including the Hajj have been shown by history to be solely of Arab pagan origin. 

There is no evidence in history, apart from that concocted by Islam, to prove that Abraham or even Hagar were ever in Mecca. The bringing in of Abraham is to give islam's absurdity a makeover. 

It is clear that Mohammed sought ways to attract Jews, Christians and even the pagans to his new religion. The initial worship facing Jerusalem must have been an attempt at this to gain Jewish support. The running between two mountains is  certainly to draw the pagans into his new religion as seen by the reduction in Meccan opposition to him after the incorporation of this ritual into his religion. 

In order to make them attractive to those he wanted to bring into his new religion Mohammed became very imaginative and drew from the different beliefs of the people around him and attached his own meanings to the rituals as he felt convenient.