I was trying to show you how your chain of transmission was never utilised for the koran
Actually, the Qur'an transmission is the most authentic transmission if you're comparing it to hadith texts. Here, the hadith you posted is even discussed in these links:
http://www.iad.org/Quran/recording.html
From that website:
"His scribes used leather, parchments, leaves and tablets to write down the verses. These manuscripts were kept in the safe custody, and it is reported that in fact they were kept in the house of the Prophet. "
From Bukhari 6 201:
By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, 'How dare you do a thing which the Prophet (pbuh) has not done?' Abu Bakr said,
'By Allah it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started locating the Qur'anic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart)
If the manuscripts were kept in a safe place in the prophet's house why would Zaid complain about the collection of the koran equivalent to moving mountains, if all he had to do was just go to the safe place in the prophet's house and get it.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/q ... y.html#Top
This is from this site regarding Bukhari 6 201
"The words of Zaid may raise some confusion: How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done? This doen't mean that the Qur'an was not written in the Prophet's time, but it means that that the Qur'anic was scattered and not collected into one volume. The Prophet (pbuh) didn't leave the complete Qur'an in a single volume for all the Ummah, because most of his companions had memorized it and some had their own copies"
There is a logical problem with this if some had their own copies why panick over gathering another copy to collate the koran, was Zaid so worried that he was scared of just getting another copy (surely it says the same thing as all the others) and using it, why would Abu Bakr ask Zaid to collect the koran if other people already had their own copies
If you decide to post these apologetic websites that gloss over the hadiths and contradict it, you lose credibility. I hope you have noticed that I have dealt with islamic material alone, I have not referred you to any website, can you not show me the same courtesy instead of referring me to a bunch of websites that contradict and romanticize your own hadiths.
What is the point of our discussion if all you do is point me to a mass page document of apologetic material and say 'read', have you noticed all I have done with you is apply our God given logic amidst your quran and sunnah, I was hoping for a discussion in your own words is that so hard?
Bear in mind there is no record of a previous prophet undergoing these symptoms when obtaining messages from God, this looks like someone who is spiritually and physically unwell.
And of whom would the records be? Jesus (pbuh) was born with knowledge of the Scripture and the revelations to Moses (pbuh) came when he was alone and often directly written.
The direct revelation of the Qur'an had strong physical effects on the Prophet and you'll also read hadiths that his face would also turn red during revelation.
How about Joshua, Samuel, David or any of the other authors of the 66 books in the bible, surely there would have been one occurence one mention of these fascinating symptoms whenever God brought a revelation to them?, the old testament does not shy from such issues it shows the good and the bad, it would have mentioned something as the prophets collapsing foaming at the mouth whenever they received a revelation from God.
The new testament says the Spirit of God is calm bear that in mind.
What 'laws' did Noah practice that was dissimilar to Araham, do you realise the convenant was to Abraham's and his seed, that progeny was to be seperated out and made as a shining light to the world, does your koran even highlight why the Israelites had to be freed from Egypt?
Yes the Qur'an speaks much about the Children of Israel. They were favored by God but then broke their covenant.
Would you like to elaborate on how they broke their convenant?
no links pls.
Noah had some 'laws' and Abraham had a set of additional 'laws']
I didn't mean laws, I meant "rites of worship". It's clear that Noah and Abraham (pbut) did not necessarily worship in the same exact way as Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) had much more revealed to him.
which in your opinion included circumnavigating the ka'ba and the hajj pilgrimage, then along comes Moses but he didn't circumnavigate the ka'ba or do the hajj pilgrimage (ask yourself why)
The Hajj is a reenactment of the events in which Abraham, Ishmael, and Hajar participated.
Where is your evidence for this, is it a coincidence that the pagan arabs practiced these same rites circumnavigating the ka'ba kissing the ka'ba even to the point of cutting their hair, where is your evidence hagar participated in such a rite?
then along comes Mohammed to bring everybody back to circumnavigating the ka'ba and the hajj pilgrimage which Jesus and all the other prophets after Moses did and their followers corrupted it with no archaelogical evidence for this stance.
Who do you think built the Kaaba?
According to your hadiths, it was built by God with adam to conduct morning prayers, later destroyed and rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael, ofcourse there is no archaelogical evidence for this or any other evidence other than islam, how about the alternative scenario of Mohammed practicing politics by trying to bribe the pagans into his new religion by claiming what they already practiced such as venerating the black stone was really done by the patriachs so they can continue doing it but do it now under his new religion, this sounds much more logical (and is what is agreed upon by many an islamuc scholar) than God built it with Adam for morning prayers.
So the early unitarians in the arabian peninsula didn't worship Jesus?
I find your claim about unitarians just as convenient as your claim that the pagan idol worshippers had the true message of God.
No the early Unitarians didn't worship Jesus.
So what did they think of Jesus, did they believe He was a Son of God, did they believe He was just another prophet? if they did so you do realise they longer qualify as christians, they might as well be jews, are you sure you are not confusing sects of judaism in the arabian peninsula as your unitarians?
How can you be sure that Jesus (pbuh) said that? Also, how are you sure that he didn't live his life according to the Mosaic laws?
I have the scripture that says He said that.
when do you differentiate who is allah and who is mohammed?
By default, God is speaking, except when it says something like "Say, (O Muhammad)"
Do you honestly think Mohammed would get his scribes together and tell them this is the revelation from allah I received this morning..." Say....". It is believed the say: in the koran was added and is not in the original arabic by many.
I am asking you to apply some logical sense to this sura I am not asking you to refer me to an islamic apologist website with mass produced irrelevant material, look at the above sura and ask yourself if someone was being asked a lot of questions and he just wanted to be left alone, doesn't it look like he just made it up?. Think, this is for all mankind what on earth does this command about not raising your voice above the voice of the prophet have to do with a message for all mankind?
As I said, some revelations were specific to their time. Obviously this is not something anyone can or is supposed to observe today because the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
Then ask yourself why did Mohammed put it there and claim allah revealed this message to him as the final messenger, do you not see that t is eerily convenient that allah is giving in the whims of his prophet, there is no evidence of any previous message from the two previous revelations where God tells his prophet to put down in his holy text that He said no one should raise their voice above that of him, simple logic tells me there is a fine line between allah and mohammed.
This is not a case of wallowing in defeat or victory, it seems you are being evasive over what I asked, let me get straight to the point, it is good that you mention it is a major prophecy (lets face it thats the only major prophecy in your koran), think about it the message for all mankind's major prophecy has a prediciton that the romans would defeat the byzantines, done over a bet... it's like me having a camp fire discussion and saying " Bush will defeat saddam in about 3 months, who wants to bet with me". I hope you are aware that Yusuf Ali says Mohammed's "short time" meant it would occur between 3 to 9 years, when in fact the victory occurred some 14 years later.
You didn't read the website. There are so many intricacies to the Prophecies. One of them is it identifies the area of the Dead Sea as the lowest part of the land, which it is. Another is that the prophecy says that the Romans will be victorious when they had just been heavily defeated by the Persians.
Rest assured I read it, I also noticed it was some several pages of exergesis and links on the ONE prophecy, it looked like the writer was trying to shift focus that THIS IS THE ONLY MAJOR PROPHECY IN THE KORAN by writting chunks of irrelevant material about it a case of quantity to replace quality, If I tell you "Bush will defeat Saddam in 3 months and it takes over 12 months" have I successfully made a prophecy?
How exactly does this help us identify that this is from God what about events in the next 1400 years, is this the best prediction that the islamic god could do in his message to all mankind, a prediction outcome that is too close to the event?
Oh I see. Well you're only looking at Prophecies to determine what is and isn't from God.
Bear in mind God is omniscient He knows the beginning from the end, it is expected from an omniscient being to be able to predict the future.
Look at the rest of the Qur'an apart from its prophecies, it's a miraculous revelation even if it contained no prophecies, that's how you know it is from God.
I am sorry but I see no miraculous revelation when I read the quran, and hadiths, the contents in it are what I would expect to come out of the mind of a man, stories and events that surround his local neighbourhood in the arabian peninsula, obtaining respect from the Quraish and jews who were laughing at him and nothing else.
Do you think this early muslims thought it was figurative?
No, and many people don't. I'd be interested to know if he got sick or died though.
I am not here to make anybody look bad so I will not discuss this anymore.
"Historical, rational or medical grounds cannot substantiate the theory of Epilepsy or any such ailment, because the Prophet (sal) was of exceptional mental/physical health till his death"
This is true, the Prophet didn't have any congenital diseases or illnesses.
Bukhari 7 549 "I never saw anybody suffering so much from sickness as Allah's Apostle"
Yes the Prophet didn't have any diseases, but that doesn't mean he wasn’t afflicted by colds or fevers.
Narrated Abdullah:
I visited the Prophet during his ailments and he was suffering from a high fever. I said, "You have a high fever. Is it because you will have a double reward for it?" He said, "Yes, for no Muslim is afflicted with any harm but that Allah will remove his sins as the leaves of a tree fall down."
Please read again what you have just said in light of the hadith I posted!.
show us those verses in the quran that say the previous revelations were distorted, notice I asked for the koran and not the hadith, no need for links the verses should suffice.
Here's a few:
Have you any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly? (2:75)
"But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others)." (5:13)
Many great islamic scholars do not believe the bible was corrupted:
Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
BUKHARI (810-870) " " " "
(he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " "
(probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " "
(he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
teachers.)
Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
"In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
those Scriptures were generally known and widely
circulated, having been handed down from generation to
generation."
You have already acknowledged Mohammed had access to jewish scriptures and he told Zaid to study the book of the jews, Mohammed didn't write the koran, Zaid and the scribes that he and uthman hired did, how do we know they simply didn't plagiarise already existent material, rhyming poems and claim it is divine, what exactly is the miracle of having text with multiples of 19?
First of all, I don't really go by numerological claims and the number 19 miracle, I'm not too sure about the person who tried to do that. But this is an excellent "mathematical miracle":
http://fakir60.tripod.com/occurence_of_ ... _the_q.htm
Second of all, there are significant differences in Prophetic stories, David and Solomon are named as Prophets, and instances of this nature.
Interesting they are named as prophets, what exactly did they predict in the quran?
How come in the bible these eminent 'prophets' require other prophets Samuel and Nathan respectively to convey messages from God to them.
Thirdly, it's a grievous mistake to think that the Qur'an is just a rhyming poem. You do realize that nobody has been able to emulate the Qur'an to this day?
Have you heard of the Holy Furqan?
Plus, why are you speaking in such vague terms, where do you think the Qur'an is plagiarized and when did it happen?
Well the solomon stories I believed is plagiarised from the II Targum of Esther.
I believe the story of Abraham in sura 21:51-71 is plagiarised from the the Midrash Rabbah
The story of Cain and the "whoever kills a soul has killed a whole nation" I believe is plagiarised from the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar.
I believe the concept of getting into paradise by walking across a bridge is plagiarised from Zoroastrian literature
Considering the first known archaelogical koran is dated over 150 years after the death of Mohammed and the conflicting accounts of the koran's production in the hadiths there would have been plenty of time to assimilate these stories and fabricate hadiths about their authenticity.
Why didn't the Jews and Christians of Arabia even assert this, wouldn't you think they'd be the first to make this claim?
Of course they did:
Read sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:
"But the unbelievers say: 'Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.' In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: 'Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."
Think about why this sura is there, think about it logically, isn't it a little bit strange that Mohammed needs his allah to justify a sura that he is not plagiarising when the unbelievers, jews and pagans were laughing at him for just that.
How does islam differ from any other religion that say do good works, and legalism to the point of being obsessively compulsive?
Look at my signature. The key is belief. Good works will bring you closer to God after you have believe in Him. Second of all, the difference is that Islam is from God, while other religions were written by men.
Their legalisms and rules are not divine, no matter how intricate they may be. All the laws and rites of worship in Islam are the way that God has revealed to mankind that mankind should live, to institute the rule of God in their lives and society because it is better for them, if they only knew.
So says every religion, how do we know what is true judge the message from their scriptures
that is all we have and the lifestyle of the messenger, when the contradictions start to pile up in the lifestyle of the alledged messenger of God to the point that it defies the morality of the common humanist something should be scrutinised.
Please let us look at the story of Abraham and the alledged sacrifice of Ishmael in your koran you said the koran is more accurate tell me if it is so accurate why doesn't it mention Ishmael by name as the sacrifice?
why doesn't it even mention Hagar the mother of the arabs during the entire Koran
I do hope you are aware that the promise to Abraham of a son
occurs after the birth of Ishmael
you would have thought someone so pre eminent as the mother of the arabs and the mother of Ishmael the alledged sacrifical son would at least get a mention in the holy text, a reference at least.
So what are you saying? You're angry that Hajar's name is not in the Qur'an? Why does that make you mad or perplex you?
You misunderstand what I am trying to say, I don't understand why you would think I am angry, why don't you ask yourself why Hagar is not there not even in the hadiths; think about it.
You wouldn't know Abraham had another wife unless you read the bible, you wouldn't know who Ishmael's mother was unless you read the bible, you wouldn't know that Abraham's name was not always Abraham unless you read the bible.
First of all, The Prophet's (pbuh) role was as an exegete. Second of all, yes of course, the Qur'an confirms what was revealed to the Jews and Christians, but it corrected it.
It corrected it into a mish mash of aprocryphal tales without any chronology?
These observations are concurrent with someone who heard stories from the jews and simply incorporated it into a new religion. It would explain why there is no chronology in the Koran
If the Qur'an was from anyone besides God, they would have tried very hard to be meticulous about dates and times.
I find your above statement interesting, so God doesn't really care that we know the message is from Him? by sending us something that makes chronological sense to us?
If your koran's description of the sacrifice is so accurate tell me why is there a split school of thought within islam on who the sacrificial son was? that many have to resort to the bible to remotely justify their claim that it was Ishmael.
Bro, there is no split school of thought. All Muslim know that Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed. They acknowledge this every year after Hajj. Those Muslims were showing you with Bible quotes how the story of the Qur'an is even more plausible and accurate using the narrative and descriptions of the Bible. Please read them again.
From Al Tabari (2: pp. 82-86)
"The earliest sages of our Prophet's nation disagree about which of Abraham's two sons it was that he was commanded to sacrifice. Some say it was Isaac, while others say it was Ishmael. Both views are supported by statements related on the authority of the Messenger of God. If both groups of statements were equally sound, then - since they both came from the Prophet - only the Quran could serve as proof that the account naming
Isaac is clearly the more truthful of the two."
If the commandment contradict themselves I have to quadruple check from what I know that I indeed am hearing from God.
And when does that happen?
When an alledged messenger denies the message of the two previous revelations, and claims they are both corrupt. Wouldn't you?
I read how Mohammed obtained followers by promising them quraish booty and paradise if they died following him in stealing booty from honest businessmen and enslaving their women, how he attacked quraish caravans repeatedly, how his followers killed and stole booty in the sacred month of rahab (incidentally it is very revealing on sura 9:5, have you ever wondered why God would ask his followers to respect a pagan festival such as rahab?)
Ok, millions of followers by promising people booty? Honest businessmen who weren't trying to murder the Muslims and the Prophet (pbuh)? What an Orientalist account. If you want to believe that, that's up to you. When you don't believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was commanded by God, idle suspicion will always be lodged into your thinking. That's like feeling sorry for Pharoah and his armies when they were afflicted by God.
I wonder if you have read the hadiths of Ishaq, Bukhari, Muslim and Tabari I obtained all this information from, rest assured I am not making this up, not getting them from apologetic sites I am getting them from your religious material.
And if you don't believe God sent Jesus to die for our sins, you put yourself back in the spiritual bonds of legalism.
I only believe what was revealed by God, not what was written by men. God always brings signs to verify his word.
Men who spend nights in caves worshipping pagan dieties all their lives till they are in their forties have to be scrutinised when they purport to have recevied a revelation from God, how do we know it is from God or the devil especially when the message conflicts the two previous revelations agreed upon as coming from God, surely you see the logic in this?
Very simple, I look at the prophecies in the previous revelations (old testament) I look at them fulfilled in the new testament
And the Qur'an also verifies that Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah.
what do you understand is meant by the term messiah, the moment your koran mentions that Jesus was the messiah should have prompted you to investigate the implication of that term.
islam on the other hand needs to discredit and insult the intelligence of the followers of the same God who sent both previous revelations to justify it's existance.
God asks you to put your trust in Him alone, not the words of men.
Your prophet comes to me with no prophecies of any merit, a book he never wrote with the first archaelogical evidence of one over 150 years after his death, whose am I putting my trust in by believing him if not a man.
Bukhari vol 5 266
"By Allah, though I am the apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me"
Commenting on the notion that some people believe that God owes them paradise for anything they've done or believed:
From Sahih Muslim:
Book 039, Number 6761:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is none whose deeds alone would entitle him to get into Paradise. It was said to him: And, Allah's Messenger, not even you? Thereupon he said: Not even I, but that my Lord wraps me in Mercy.
Peace bro
Still implies your prophet doesn't know if he will enter paradise or not, don't twist what those two hadiths say it is clearly implied.