Total Posts:181|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Alternative theories of the Quran?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:08:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
These are the facts.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. He never lied
3. He saw, in a cave, an angelic figure that recited the Quran to him
4. The angelic figure said it was Gabriel and it was sent by God
5. This kept on happening on and off for 23 years
6. The Quran is the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language

Given these facts, what are the theories that you can come up with alternative to the one that is currently holding sway (that it was indeed sent by God)? Remember, you cannot say that these facts are incorrect (for the sake of this argument) and none of these facts should be invalidated by your theory.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:07:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:08:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
These are the facts.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. He never lied
3. He saw, in a cave, an angelic figure that recited the Quran to him
4. The angelic figure said it was Gabriel and it was sent by God
5. This kept on happening on and off for 23 years
6. The Quran is the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language

Given these facts, what are the theories that you can come up with alternative to the one that is currently holding sway (that it was indeed sent by God)? Remember, you cannot say that these facts are incorrect (for the sake of this argument) and none of these facts should be invalidated by your theory.

This is really rediculus. but the 1st point is irrelavent as he could have a scribe do it.
#2 is really all you need, if no one can say that any of your facts are wrong.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:08:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
These are the facts.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. He never lied
3. He saw, in a cave, an angelic figure that recited the Quran to him
4. The angelic figure said it was Gabriel and it was sent by God
5. This kept on happening on and off for 23 years
6. The Quran is the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language

Given these facts, what are the theories that you can come up with alternative to the one that is currently holding sway (that it was indeed sent by God)? Remember, you cannot say that these facts are incorrect (for the sake of this argument) and none of these facts should be invalidated by your theory.

Well, if I must accept these facts, then I would guess that the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dressed up as an angel and fooled him.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 1:42:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
He wasn't illiterate? Nah you made rules stating I'm not allowed saying that. I'll go with somebody else writing the whole thing while collaborating with Muhammad. They could have claimed to be an "angel" to make the Qur'an seem divine thus infallible.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:17:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 1:42:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
He wasn't illiterate? Nah you made rules stating I'm not allowed saying that. I'll go with somebody else writing the whole thing while collaborating with Muhammad. They could have claimed to be an "angel" to make the Qur'an seem divine thus infallible.
That is a mere hypothesis, and the Arabs would have recorded probably hundreds of independent sources speaking of external help to the beloved Prophet. There is no single evidence for him getting help to write the Qur'an. And if he did then it is funny how not a single non-Muslim Arab could write something to challenge the Qur'an back then. In fact, they converted once the Qur'an challenged them to do so. So I think your hypothesis fails on every account.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:19:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And you also accept #2 that he did not lie, which is true because he had perfect belief in what he did and said, whether you believe in his message or not. He believed he was the Prophet of God, and that the Qur'an was revealed to him. So, accepting the fact that he did not lie - you must move on to say that he would not lie about getting help from other sources.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The hadith record how the Prophet urinated. They record a random event where a goat ate a copy of the Qur'an. They would record names, events, etc. of all that lead to the Prophet getting help to write the Qur'an. Yet we see nothing.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:22:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:17:20 PM, Mirza wrote:

That is a mere hypothesis, and the Arabs would have recorded probably hundreds of independent sources speaking of external help to the beloved Prophet. There is no single evidence for him getting help to write the Qur'an. And if he did then it is funny how not a single non-Muslim Arab could write something to challenge the Qur'an back then. In fact, they converted once the Qur'an challenged them to do so. So I think your hypothesis fails on every account.

No, I doubt they would have, considering the Hadiths seem to be from after he left the cave. There would have been no witnesses so for all we know he could have been lying about the whole "speaking to an angel" thing and made the verses up himself to get other people to write down. I'm not saying this is fact, but it's still a little something to think about and a fatal flaw in the theology of Islam.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:28:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:22:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
No, I doubt they would have, considering the Hadiths seem to be from after he left the cave. There would have been no witnesses so for all we know he could have been lying about the whole "speaking to an angel" thing and made the verses up himself to get other people to write down. I'm not saying this is fact, but it's still a little something to think about and a fatal flaw in the theology of Islam.
You said he got help, now you say he wrote it himself. You're changing the subject. If there were no witnesses - then how about the occasion of Battle of Uhud where some Qur'anic verses were revealed to inspire him and the Muslims?

No record shows he wrote the Qur'an prior to going to the cave either. That would contradict every biography of him that we have.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:30:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:28:00 PM, Mirza wrote:

You said he got help, now you say he wrote it himself. You're changing the subject. If there were no witnesses - then how about the occasion of Battle of Uhud where some Qur'anic verses were revealed to inspire him and the Muslims?

No record shows he wrote the Qur'an prior to going to the cave either. That would contradict every biography of him that we have.

No, no. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if he was in the cave alone, which I'm pretty sure is the accepted view, then there would have been no witnesses to prove he talked to an angel.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:31:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:27:09 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:17:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
And he was illiterate. That's a fact.

Why is that a 'fact'?
Because we can prove that from various sources describing him. You can go deep asking for "proof" but I can also ask why Hu Jintao is the leader of China, and whatever evidence someone gives I can reply "well, you don't have direct proof!" Not making much sense.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:35:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:30:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:28:00 PM, Mirza wrote:

You said he got help, now you say he wrote it himself. You're changing the subject. If there were no witnesses - then how about the occasion of Battle of Uhud where some Qur'anic verses were revealed to inspire him and the Muslims?

No record shows he wrote the Qur'an prior to going to the cave either. That would contradict every biography of him that we have.

No, no. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if he was in the cave alone, which I'm pretty sure is the accepted view, then there would have been no witnesses to prove he talked to an angel.
That's the same. We never said the entire Qur'an got revealed to him on that occasion. Chapter 96, surah Iqra, was partially revealed there. At first I believe five verses of it were revealed.

The first chapter of the Qur'an was not the first to be revealed. It was chapter 96. So take together all 114 chapters and look at how they were revealed and during which occasions.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:43:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the Qur'an we know today was compiled after Muhammad's death. There's no evidence suggesting stuff wasn't changed.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:46:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:31:40 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:27:09 PM, Meatros wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:17:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
And he was illiterate. That's a fact.

Why is that a 'fact'?
Because we can prove that from various sources describing him. You can go deep asking for "proof" but I can also ask why Hu Jintao is the leader of China, and whatever evidence someone gives I can reply "well, you don't have direct proof!" Not making much sense.

We can?

It's my understanding that a few fringe scholars doubt that he existed:
http://archive.newsmax.com...

"We thus know his life down to the minutest details."

The evidence for this is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed," the "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq. The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira, as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years."


Now, I don't want to go as far as saying he didn't exist, however I think your claim that we have 'proof' is absurd.

Further, let's assume he had a biographer walking around with him - why believe the claims?

It seems circular to me.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:48:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:43:23 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the Qur'an we know today was compiled after Muhammad's death. There's no evidence suggesting stuff wasn't changed.
That's a huge misnomer. People memorized the Qur'an to each and every letter - and they continue to do so today. It is normal to hear about kids younger than 10 having memorized the Qur'an.

When the Prophet was alive, the Qur'an was written on tablets, deerskin, and other things. People had memorized it, and those who were closest to the Prophet witnessed the final compilation of the Qur'an a few years after he died. If a single verse of the Qur'an got changed, how do you think people would react? Even a child would notice the changes. Now, remember that the one who compiled it was Uthman, and he was a companion of the Prophet. How could he not know that the Qur'an was in its perfect form? Moreover, all the people who memorized the Qur'an and all the scholars had unanimously agreed that the Qur'an should be compiled as it was in the form during the life of the Prophet. Any change would be impossible.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:52:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:46:08 PM, Meatros wrote:
We can?
Yes. I can refer to non-Muslim sources if you wish.

It's my understanding that a few fringe scholars doubt that he existed:
http://archive.newsmax.com...

"We thus know his life down to the minutest details."
Sorry that's like saying Africa doesn't exist or whatever nonsense you can think of. Mere assertion.

The evidence for this is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed," the "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq. The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira, as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years."
The Sirat ul-Rasul by Ibn Ishaq is by no means the only source of the Prophet.

Now, I don't want to go as far as saying he didn't exist, however I think your claim that we have 'proof' is absurd.

Further, let's assume he had a biographer walking around with him - why believe the claims?

It seems circular to me.
No it's not. Archaeological evidence, historical method (combination of reports of independent sources), his grave, his influence, etc. would have been impossible to be there by a non-existent figure. Completely impossible.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 2:57:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:52:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:46:08 PM, Meatros wrote:
We can?
Yes. I can refer to non-Muslim sources if you wish.

That lived when he lived?


It's my understanding that a few fringe scholars doubt that he existed:
http://archive.newsmax.com...

"We thus know his life down to the minutest details."
Sorry that's like saying Africa doesn't exist or whatever nonsense you can think of. Mere assertion.

What? What you quoted and your response doesn't make any sense.


The evidence for this is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed," the "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq. The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira, as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years."
The Sirat ul-Rasul by Ibn Ishaq is by no means the only source of the Prophet.


Do we have any from when the prophet lived?

Now, I don't want to go as far as saying he didn't exist, however I think your claim that we have 'proof' is absurd.

Further, let's assume he had a biographer walking around with him - why believe the claims?

It seems circular to me.
No it's not. Archaeological evidence, historical method (combination of reports of independent sources), his grave, his influence, etc. would have been impossible to be there by a non-existent figure. Completely impossible.

I'm not arguing for his non existence, I'm pointing out that claiming you have 'proof' that he was illiterate is absurd. I'm pointing out that there are some scholars who doubt his existence. These scholars have arguments, which you might find weak, but that's beside the point. The point is that you do not have proof. You might have some evidence to support it and you might not. Evidence is not the same thing as proof.

You know this, right?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:57:18 PM, Meatros wrote:
That lived when he lived?
That does not matter at all. The earliest sources are not necessarily the most authentic sources. Nonetheless, yes I believe we have writings left over by non-Muslims who described certain events at those times.

What? What you quoted and your response doesn't make any sense.
It says about us knowing the life of the Prophet to the smallest details. That's rubbish.

Do we have any from when the prophet lived?
Oral transmissions, and yes we have the Qur'an. It was clearly there during his life, and it states that he was an unlettered Prophet. In fact, the Qur'an says little about Prophet Muhammad's life, but it explicitly mentions his illiteracy, and we know for a fact that these verses were not changed nor disputed by Muslims or non-Muslims.

I'm not arguing for his non existence, I'm pointing out that claiming you have 'proof' that he was illiterate is absurd. I'm pointing out that there are some scholars who doubt his existence. These scholars have arguments, which you might find weak, but that's beside the point. The point is that you do not have proof. You might have some evidence to support it and you might not. Evidence is not the same thing as proof.
We have more evidence to support the claim that he was illiterate than the evidence to prove otherwise, thus it is more reasonable to believe in the greater evidence than the lesser evidence, and name it proof.

You know this, right?
Yes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:07:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 3:06:00 PM, Mirza wrote:
It says about us knowing the life of the Prophet to the smallest details. That's rubbish.
I meant knowing only very small details of his life.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:08:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:08:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
These are the facts.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. He never lied
3. He saw, in a cave, an angelic figure that recited the Quran to him
4. The angelic figure said it was Gabriel and it was sent by God
5. This kept on happening on and off for 23 years
6. The Quran is the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language

Given these facts, what are the theories that you can come up with alternative to the one that is currently holding sway (that it was indeed sent by God)? Remember, you cannot say that these facts are incorrect (for the sake of this argument) and none of these facts should be invalidated by your theory.

Explanation:
1. The angel was the devil
Reason:
1. Under many religions, supernatural beings can transform
2. The devil is a supernatural being
.:.
Just look at the Muslim countries...

I don't believe in this theory LOL
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 2:46:08 PM, Meatros wrote:
It's my understanding that a few fringe scholars doubt that he existed:
http://archive.newsmax.com...


I'm not sure how that's relevant. You can find fringe scholars for any position.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:13:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 3:06:00 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:57:18 PM, Meatros wrote:
That lived when he lived?
That does not matter at all. The earliest sources are not necessarily the most authentic sources. Nonetheless, yes I believe we have writings left over by non-Muslims who described certain events at those times.


I'd be interested in seeing them.

What? What you quoted and your response doesn't make any sense.
It says about us knowing the life of the Prophet to the smallest details. That's rubbish.

Okay....

If this is *NOT* the case then how can you possibly prove that Muhammad never lied???

Do we have any from when the prophet lived?
Oral transmissions, and yes we have the Qur'an.

In other words, no.

It was clearly there during his life, and it states that he was an unlettered Prophet. In fact, the Qur'an says little about Prophet Muhammad's life, but it explicitly mentions his illiteracy, and we know for a fact that these verses were not changed nor disputed by Muslims or non-Muslims.


Wait, what?

So the Qur'an says very little about Muhammad and you think you can prove that he never lied?

Why should we just assume that the Qur'an is accurate? How can you prove that Muhammad was actually illiterate as opposed to just pretending he was when other people were around?

I'm not arguing for his non existence, I'm pointing out that claiming you have 'proof' that he was illiterate is absurd. I'm pointing out that there are some scholars who doubt his existence. These scholars have arguments, which you might find weak, but that's beside the point. The point is that you do not have proof. You might have some evidence to support it and you might not. Evidence is not the same thing as proof.
We have more evidence to support the claim that he was illiterate than the evidence to prove otherwise, thus it is more reasonable to believe in the greater evidence than the lesser evidence, and name it proof.


More evidence is not 'proof'. You are confusing abduction/induction with deduction.

What evidence do we have that he was illiterate? The precious little that we have about him, according to you!

You know this, right?
Yes.

You seem to be confusing deduction with abduction.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:15:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 3:11:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/29/2011 2:46:08 PM, Meatros wrote:
It's my understanding that a few fringe scholars doubt that he existed:
http://archive.newsmax.com...


I'm not sure how that's relevant. You can find fringe scholars for any position.

Right, I agree. They are not fringe scholars because they are pulling something out of there butts. They have evidence that they are interpreting in an odd way. My point is against the claim of 'proof' and the certainty of Mirza.

It's highly unlikely that the fringe scholar is correct, however it is possible. That's the point I'm making.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 3:08:04 PM, vardas0antras wrote:

Explanation:
1. The angel was the devil
Reason:
1. Under many religions, supernatural beings can transform
2. The devil is a supernatural being
.:.
Just look at the Muslim countries...

I don't believe in this theory LOL

lol, alot of people are convinced that Muhammad spoke to satan actually.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 5:07:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:08:04 AM, Indophile wrote:
These are the facts.

1. Muhammad was illiterate
2. He never lied
3. He saw, in a cave, an angelic figure that recited the Quran to him
4. The angelic figure said it was Gabriel and it was sent by God
5. This kept on happening on and off for 23 years
6. The Quran is the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language

Given these facts, what are the theories that you can come up with alternative to the one that is currently holding sway (that it was indeed sent by God)? Remember, you cannot say that these facts are incorrect (for the sake of this argument) and none of these facts should be invalidated by your theory.

response: no theory can invalidate the qur' an.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:15:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 3:06:00 PM, Mirza wrote:

Do we have any from when the prophet lived?
Oral transmissions, and yes we have the Qur'an. It was clearly there during his life, and it states that he was an unlettered Prophet.

Mirza, this argument is at best silly. How do you know that it is divine scripture - well for one thing he was not literate. Oh really, how to you know that. Well it says that in the divine scripture.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 8:51:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:15:23 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:

Do we have any from when the prophet lived?
Oral transmissions, and yes we have the Qur'an. It was clearly there during his life, and it states that he was an unlettered Prophet.

Mirza, this argument is at best silly. How do you know that it is divine scripture - well for one thing he was not literate. Oh really, how to you know that. Well it says that in the divine scripture.
In that context I said that he was illiterate, and the Qur'an confirms that.