The Quran wasn't a book, it was speech.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The Koran isn't supposed to completely harmonize with the NT. It's supposed to correct its irreverent anthropomorphism that has made Western thought dualistic and completely blind to the body and nature, creating psychosis. That's why Islam was able to integrate for more than a millennium in Africa and Asia without destroying the host culture, unlike Christianity which tried to erase all indigenous identities to make them copy the European White Man.

But religion is religion and man is man. There are psychotics in every religion and no religion. And all these texts are interpreted heavily so we can make them all harmonize or not harmonize how we see fit. Considering the OT or the NT don't even harmonize completely and contradict each other within each other, the Koran wins as far as being one consistent book and not 66 different books bound together.

To a non-Christian with sympathies toward the other Abrahamic faiths, you are losing the debate because no one else but you thinks that NT is proof of anything. I might as well say that you are wrong about the earth being round because some Greek philosopher 2500 years ago said it was flat. That's how much weight whatever your bible says carries. To a Christian you would possible be winning the debate, especially if they hate Islam.

To an atheist we all sound like idiots trying to prove whose piece of paper (or written record of speech) wins in the Desert Sky Award. Yay! First place! ...... Objectively no one can win this debate.

You're wrong cause my Koran says so.
You think I'm wrong because your NT says so.
We're both wrong according to Judaism.
And to an atheist we sound retarded.

I'm at least capable of understanding the objective view even if I have my own beliefs and experiences that make me not an atheist.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: WarminIndy
You do realise how hilarious your discussion looks to an outsider? Isurrender says that there is no abrogation in the Quran, and that the Hadith are false, and you respond by saying that there IS abrogation in the Quran, and the proof is that there is abrogation in the Quran (also some pretty weird A, B and C logic).

And because God refers to God as "God", this is proof that there are different authors?

Still, none of the examples you provided show abrogation occurring within the Quran. You posted two verses saying the same thing and say one abrogated the other, then you post a verse explaining inheritance in case the husband dies and another in case the wife dies, and say they abrogate each other?

Please reread the verses again.

At the end of each verse it says "this abrogates the verse....".

That means that the Quran is abrogated.

As you can apparently read and formulate understanding from what you read, then I assume that you simply didn't read the whole verses. Shall I post them again?

First, go to Quran online, it shows the English and Arabic verses.

Surah 2:16

We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

Abrogation within the Quran, because the verse indicates previous verse in the Quran.

Surah 2:240

... this Verse has been cancelled (abrogated) by Verse 4:12

Surah 6:69

of this Verse was cancelled (abrogated) by the Verse 4:140 ..

Notice this one, 6:69 comes later, but verse 6:69 is abrograted by a previous verse? How then is it possible that an earlier verse abrogates a verse that isn't written yet? The only way this is possible is if the verse 6:69 is out of order.

But here you go, the most telling of that very thing,

Surah 16:101

And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse - and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down - they say, "You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]." But most of them do not know.

Substituting a verse in place of a verse....and they accuse Christians of that very thing. WE, the author is not Allah, the speaker is not Allah because Allah is then called He. When MOHAMMED substitutes a verse for a verse, the people say to MOHAMMED he is an inventor of lies....Mohammed is the WE along with his fellow co-writers.

If the WE is intended to be the Royal WE, then wherever it is used in that way throughout the Quran, it then applies to Mohammed and his companions who took verses of other religious texts out of context, many mistakes made and then substituted verses within the same Quran.

a reply to: AudioOne

Amen

a reply to: WarminIndy

I have read the verses in question and I am certain they do not abrogate one anouther. They work together, building on each other.

Thier are no verses in the Koran that change and thus negate any of the other verses.

If you can't understand then you will have to be more clear on why YOU believe they are abrogated.

I can't clarity any further because I'm not sure what you believe.

And again the substitution, abrogation, build from one text to another. They do not abrogate themselves, but rather their predecessors. Doing away with regulations that separate us, such as self-righteous rituals.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Please reread the verses again.

At the end of each verse it says "this abrogates the verse....".

I have no idea what and where you've been reading, but no, it doesn't.
If it is from your quranonline link, surely you have enough reading comprehension to understand that one translator's interpretation isn't a translation (especially if you look at the other translators who say something completely different). Do you seriously think the Quran itself is saying "And then therefore this verse has been abrogated by this other one"?

originally posted by: babloyi

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Please reread the verses again.

At the end of each verse it says "this abrogates the verse....".

I have no idea what and where you've been reading, but no, it doesn't.
If it is from your quranonline link, surely you have enough reading comprehension to understand that one translator's interpretation isn't a translation (especially if you look at the other translators who say something completely different). Do you seriously think the Quran itself is saying "And then therefore this verse has been abrogated by this other one"?

OK here is the link again

Quran.com and that site is not translated by anyone else except Muslims.

This shows the Sahih and Musin Khan, if you don't agree with their translations, there is the Arabic right there to show you what it says.

Are you saying now that Sahih and Musin are not to be read?

But how about this...Mohammed was not the author nor was Allah the author of the Quran....

Surat Al-'An`ām (The Cattle) Sahih International

And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."

Mohammed DIDN'T get a book, how about that? So now, if the Quran came later, where did it come from? Oh right, Uthman.

But you wouldn't know that without Hadith, now would you?

Go ahead, I gave you the verses, go get a Quran and look at the verses, then come back and rebut the word abrogation, because YOUR Sahih transliterated it. It wasn't by anyone else, but Muslims.

ETA, this is a verse not abrogated but shows the above verse to be a contradiction.

Surat 'Ibrāhīm 14:1 Alif, Lam, Ra. [This is] a Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that you might bring mankind out of darknesses into the light by permission of their Lord - to the path of the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy -

Was Mohammed given a book or not?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: babloyi

originally posted by: WarminIndy

And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."

Mohammed DIDN'T get a book, how about that? So now, if the Quran came later, where did it come from? Oh right, Uthman.

.

The problem is "O Mohammed". Mohammed gave us the Koran so this verse is not speaking to Mohammed.

The Koran says that a prophet will come who can interpret the three Abrahamic texts and reconcile them into one. The prophet will not come with another book of scripture, only interpretation.

This is how the passage should read.

Even if we sent down with the future prophet another book along with the interpretation, a written scriptue that they could touch with thier hands the disbelievers would say "This is but magic".

Whether the messenger comes only to interpret or brings a new scripture it wouldn't matter to the disbelievers. This is the point of the message.

Since Mohammed gave us the Koran, this verse cannot be about Mohammed, because that would create a contradiction. So it is obviously about the future prophet who is only an interpreter.

originally posted by: babloyi

originally posted by: WarminIndy

And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."

Mohammed DIDN'T get a book, how about that? So now, if the Quran came later, where did it come from? Oh right, Uthman.

.

The problem is "O Mohammed". Mohammed gave us the Koran so this verse is not speaking to Mohammed.

The Koran says that a prophet will come who can interpret the three Abrahamic texts and reconcile them into one. The prophet will not come with another book of scripture, only interpretation.

This is how the passage should read.

Even if we sent down with the future prophet another book along with the interpretation, a written scriptue that they could touch with thier hands the disbelievers would say "This is but magic".

Whether the messenger comes only to interpret or brings a new scripture it wouldn't matter to the disbelievers. This is the point of the message.

Since Mohammed gave us the Koran, this verse cannot be about Mohammed, because that would create a contradiction. So it is obviously about the future prophet who is only an interpreter.

Well, God forbid there should be any contradictions, and there are many.

It's not up to me to keep pointing out your verses that contradict each other and I can't be responsible if you don't acknowledge them, it's your faith.

The problem is that when you say there are no contradictions, you misrepresent your own faith. There are contradictions, we find them all the time, but it's not our faith.

You keep on believing as you wish, but don't make up stories to justify the contradictions, if you can live with the contradictions, then go ahead and live with it.

But don't lie about the contradictions because you are under an obligation to make sure other Muslims stay Muslim, they have the right to know what the Quran really says and if they can't live with the contradictions, they have the right to make up their own mind about their faith.

Even if no one reads our posts and converts, at least they will know the truth about the contradictions. Let me ask this, why is it a sin for someone for someone to no longer believe in Mohammed?

Is it because Allah says so or Mohammed says so?

We don't require our apostates to be killed or ridiculed or even their hands cut off. But you guys seem to require absolute subjugation of each other's minds and hearts. Why is that?

We say believe in God, Jesus said believe in God, Jesus also said believe in Him, but Jesus never said that one would have their hands cut off, because Jesus taught that your actions in this life determine your judgement.

There is a place for those who are good, because God is a just God, and God would never say to cut someone else's hand off, Jesus said if your own hand offends you, to cut it off, meaning that if there is something about you that you find offensive to you, cut it away from your life. Not that He was saying to literally do it, only allegorically.

I don't understand your religion that requires such total and absolute subjection to each other. Even the prodigal was welcomed back home to the father, as Jesus taught. Not only that, the father killed the fatted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal. Why do yours go in hiding for their lives?

I don't understand your type of peace. And I do not say that in any way to be an argument, only that I just do not understand it, because the peace in Jesus is more than just in submission to other people, the peace in Jesus is that you have peace in your life to think about God and live in happiness. People who are subjected to each other have no real peace.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Okay, you seem a bit confused, let me see if I can help with that site.
Here is a link to the verse that you mentioned (Surah 6, verse 69).
For me, it defaults to Sahih International, which isn't my first choice for a translation, but whatever, it works in this case. Please go ahead and read what it says. Now, you can see in the corner is "Muhsin Khan". Tick that box. Suddenly Muhsin Khan's translation pops up. Now this is definitely one that I wouldn't use at all. He has a bad habit of inserting his own opinion in brackets. And look how much bigger his translation is! Most interesting, take note of the last line, "[The order of this Verse was cancelled (abrogated) by the Verse 4:140]". Now guess what DOESN'T appear in the original arabic. Go ahead and guess . To verify, feel free to tick the other translation boxes and see what they say.

Hope that helps!

As for your "book" confusion, I hope you can comprehend the difference between a written book on parchment descending from the heavens into Muhammad's hands, and Muhammad being given a book in recitation, which he then recites to all his followers as it is revealed to him piece by piece.
If there are contradictions in the Quran, you certainly haven't come anywhere near unveiling them.

And I don't mean to be dismissive, but what you "don't understand" is your own understanding of how another religion works, not that religion itself.
Peace!

a reply to: AudioOne

The Koran isn't supposed to completely harmonize with the NT. It's supposed to correct its irreverent anthropomorphism that has made Western thought dualistic and completely blind to the body and nature, creating psychosis.

This might be your opinion, but the OP doesn't see the contradiction between the Bible and Koran, but seems to think they belong together in one codex.

That's why Islam was able to integrate for more than a millennium in Africa and Asia without destroying the host culture, unlike Christianity which tried to erase all indigenous identities to make them copy the European White Man. 

Islam has had its fair share in erasing indigenous identities, look no further than Mosul, the Yazidi, and the Turkish occupation of Sicily. Don't pretend Islam has always had clean hands, there are monsters hiding in every faith.

My goal was never to convert you, but to present LITERARY evidence that the Koran and the Bible do not compliment each other.

You say the Biblical scriptures are compromised, I say the burden of proof is on you. I already revealed the mystery of the first 40 syllables in Matthew 24. That is but one example. There is more in the OT too...books that long predate the Koran

a reply to: AudioOne

And to an atheist we sound retarded.

You don't. You seem to understand that if it were objectively true, it would no longer be a matter of faith.

But, yes, I have to image the atheists here on ATS are munching on popcorn and enjoying the back and forth about how "my iron age mythology is objectively truer than yours... no mine is... no MINE!... no MINE!"

I know I'm finding it amusing.

a reply to: ElectricFeel

I am not convinced that an illiterate man can suddenly become Shakespeare. Even then, Shakespeare did not write his plays in one sitting. Even Romeo and Juliet went through the editing process, spelling/grammar mistakes, tweaks here and there.
The Quran was narration, speech. Yet it's grammatical accuracy and attention to detail is astounding. As a reasonable person, I cannot believe that is a coincidence.

I channel insight all the time from the Subconscious since I was child. In fact, my next thread will be information from one of those channelling. Would what I share be considered the word of God as well considering it did not arise from my conscious mind or own doing?

I have immersed myself in Sufism (mystical and un-distorted path of Islam) along with Gnosticism, Kabbala, Buddhist, and Vedic teachings. I did so not to learn, but to understand my own experiences through shared teachings throughout the ages. I like coming across insight that reflects my own experiences.

This speech laid the foundation for Arabic grammar for the next 1400 years.
The Koran was only formally written down and distributed much later.

What I'm getting at is this: The Quran, along with the Bible and Torah are distorted watered down teachings.

He had a co-author?: The Quran wasn't a book. It was SPEECH. It was revealed in response to various circumstances. Muhammad would go limp and still and start reciting the words. There was no editing process, no filter, no preparation.

Yes, I understand this well based on what has been told to me after I come out that state by onlookers. Does this make me a prophet speaking on behalf of God?

When I post my thread based on one of many channelling sessions would you accept it as the word of God...?

Muslims practice Namaz as a form of prayer and worship. Are you sure back in Mohammed's days that is what it was for...?

I personally find stretching and limbering up the body before going into trance meditation allows for less stiffness and soreness after I come out of the trance....

I believe you will find the true non- distorted teachings in Rumi's work. Or the ancient Sufi poet Hafiz. The Quran, like the Bible, has been cut and pasted to the point it makes no sense anymore.

Yet, the math remains sound in both...