It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
a reply to: LABTECH767
There is no proof, link or information that supports the idea that the Saudi Royal family are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH. I have no clue where you read that mate, or what your source is.
And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.
Non-muslim, native arabic speakers with a strong knowledge in arabic literature have tried to reproduce their own version or Quranic verses in an attempt to match the level of the Quran, but failed miserably.
You can believe all you want whether your god is the same or different from any other religion, the fact remains that Islam is still an Abrahamic faith and Muslims will continue to believe that there is only one god.
That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware.
What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.
So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: ElectricFeel
The enemies of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) insulted Muhammed with all kinds of insults, but never did they call him a peadophile. How come?
The main reason is that we can't apply contemporary sensibilities to the sixth century. Child marriages at that time were quite common for a number of reasons… and, in fact, was often encouraged.
Even the Catholic church sanctioned marriages with girls as young as 10 at the time.
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What? Everything I said is widely agreed upon by Historians. Joseph, as an old man, DEFINITELY married Mary when she was a young teenager. He MAY have waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus (I really doubt that since I don't believe that Mary could have been divinely impregnated), but that is DEFINITELY an example of an adult having sex with a minor.
You can show us contemporary evidence of what you have just said? I noted the word "DEFINiTELY" in your above post and was surprised that you have contemporary evidence. Could you show us your contemporary definite historical evidence?
And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ElectricFeel
I believe in God but My god is not and I will swear this, my god is not the god of Islam, he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Jesus who is his son and was Crucified despite 600 year's later a new religions claims he was not.
Perplexed by this new experience, Muhammad made his way to home where he was consoled by his wife Khadijah, who also took him to her Ebionite cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal. Waraqah was familiar with Jewish and Christian scriptures. Islamic tradition holds that Waraqah, upon hearing the description, testified to Muhammad's prophethood,[2][10] and convinced Muhammad that the revelation was from God.[11] Waraqah said: "O my nephew! What did you see?" When Muhammad told him what had happened to him, Waraqah replied: "This is Namus (meaning Gabriel) that Allah sent to Moses.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
Nope, just because you descend from Abraham, which much of the world does by now, doesn't mean you follow the same God as Abraham.Ishmael didn't follow the same God, Esau really didn't follow the same God, and the Arabs as known in the Bible, certainly did not not follow the same God as Abraham.
Pardon me, but you guys say that you are an Abrahamic faith, that Ishmael the son of Abraham is your forefather....and then you say that Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt Adam's ka'aba....
But here Mohammed is saying that your forefathers were not warned....and yet Abraham and Ishmael were your forefathers????
This is called Cognitive Dissonance, to hold two contradictory beliefs. Either the forefathers were warned because it is an Abrahamic religion....or the Quran is wrong in saying the forefathers were not warned.
Which is it?
ETA: Let me clarify the question. IF you claim that the Arabs descended from Abraham and Ishmael, and Abraham and Ishmael were warners...then it is impossible for the Arabs to not have been warned.
So which is it, are their forefathers Abraham and Ishmael or did the Quran make a mistake?
originally posted by: haman10
You're ATS owner right ?
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: ElectricFeel
The enemies of prophet Muhammed (pbuh) insulted Muhammed with all kinds of insults, but never did they call him a peadophile. How come?
The main reason is that we can't apply contemporary sensibilities to the sixth century. Child marriages at that time were quite common for a number of reasons… and, in fact, was often encouraged.
Even the Catholic church sanctioned marriages with girls as young as 10 at the time.
Freedom of speech is allowed here to a level that the prophet of 1 billion people can be called peadophile ? muslims can be called animals ? and islam a $h!tty religion ?
Hmm . insulting back would for sure reduce me to their level . so go on .
By calling our prophet a peadophile , he doesn't become one . by calling me an animal , i don't become one either .
So insult us till your hair turns gray
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ISeekTruth101
And no, the Quran was not edited or changed in any shape or form. The verses were revealed, memorised and then noted down. It was then all put together into the Quran, as a collection. Do not make up lies. The Quran has never been tampered with since it was revealed, it is practically impossible to make up your own verses without a native Arabic speaker realising that you are reciting lies. This is due to the eloquent level of Arabic that the Quran was revealed in, it simply cannot be reproduced, and google translate will not help you.
Muslims often claim that the manuscript of the Qur'an housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey is one of the oldest sources. Muslims say it dates from around 650 A.D. There is an insurmountable problem with this. This document is written in Kufic (also known as al-Khatt al-Kufi) script. Coins in the British Museum show that the first coins using the Kufic script date from the mid to end of the 8th century. The only script used during and after Muhammad's days was the Jazm script. Source= www.bibleprobe.com...
Something does not add correctly does it?
The Hadith records that Muhammad allowed different versions of the Qur'an. Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours". So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!". On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way this Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you." (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 514)
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: ... Therefore I (Umar) suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" ... Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 509)
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch
Read the whole thread; I've already posted evidence of this. Why you'd think I wouldn't back my claims up is ludicrous. I'm ALWAYS willing to provide a link for my claims.
That being said, as I already told another poster in this thread, I had no idea that people would want to debate that point as I just thought it was common knowledge. Clearly, I'm not surprised YOU don't agree with it (I'm kind of curious what ages you think Joe and Mary were when they were married actually), but I really wasn't trying to debate some Christian point in a Muslim thread. I'm trying to learn more about the Muslim faith so I can debate that and not so much debate Christianity. If you want to discuss this further, make a thread. You know I'll be along shortly.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ISeekTruth101
You are the one who said it was an Abrahamic faith because that is how people think it is. I put nothing into your mouth.
The point is, if you call it an Abrahamic faith then you are going to have to prove it is.
Zoroastrianism is not the religion of Abraham or Ishmael or Isaac and Jacob, so how do you reconcile Zoroastrianism within that? And you guys claim there are 900 prophets that you are to know, so do you know the 900 prophets?
Either Abraham and Ishmael were warners and so therefore the forefathers were warned, or the Quran was wrong. The original question, were Abraham and Ishmael the forefathers who were warners or did the Quran get it wrong?