Originally posted by KSoze
The Qu'ran is false if certain aspects of the bible are proved false...Your beliefs rely on a corrupted document called the bible. There is no way
around the fact that the Qu'ran relies on the bible.
I've already said many times that Islam is not based on the Bible and that Muslims believe that the Qur'an is sourced from God, not the Bible.
Muhammad was known to be illiterate, he could only talk and recite. Of course you will say prove it and I could say you prove he copied the Bible
(I'll come to "proof" later).
Is the bible version or the qu'ran version of Noah's flood correct? I don't want to hear, "the Qu'ran says this so it must be
I don't understand your reasons in saying this. "Is the Moon made from cheese or rock?" and I don't want to hear "NASA said it's rock."
You just agreed that the Bible is corrupt, so if someone is a Muslim you can understand why they choose the Qur'anic version, yes? If you believe in
God and that He wrote the Qur'an you simply don't disagree with the Qur'an, but you can try to disprove it with science or whatever else you wish
and if you do maybe you will become a disbeliever.
Explain to me why in the world would anyone change the bible to say noah's son died in the flood. What would be the point?...I dont believe in
the literal flood story myself but I want to know why would the biblical scribes forgot to include that noah's son drowned
There's no point to consider, because there's no story-change, as the Bible wasn't used. Man innocently forgets or summarises too much, translation
causes (innocent) error hence the difference. Just a correction: I thought the Bible didn't forget to note the son's fate, but says all his sons
went with him in the Ark.
there are a lot of things the Qu'ran says were corrupted yet it offers no explaination for the corruption.
It doesn't point at the Bible and say this and that is wrong, but gives its own version. It only points to the original Torah and Gospel which have
now been lost or corrupted.
However, If your going to use that kind of criteria then the very evidence you accept as truth (such as noah's flood) is from a corrupt source (the
bible) and may very well be corrupted.
Once again, Muslims don't believe the source of the Qur'an is the Bible. You have to, at least temporarily, accept this to understand Islam and
judge it fairly (my last few paragraphs will hopefully explain why).
The Qu'ran says that noone can change gods words in many places. I'm confused, I thought these messengers (Jesus, moses, etc) were sent by god and
that they spoke from god...Now, either they spoke from god and there message was pure or they weren't from god at all....which means muslims shouldnt
be borrowing from its pages.
You see this is the problem with translations, some translators call it the "words (and decrees)" and others call it the "decisions" of Allah (see
). What this means is that Allah has already decided what is the right religion for us and no man,
however much they reject the Messenger, can change that opinion of His. This isn't about holy books. Again, it's only your opinion that the Qur'an
is borrowed from the Bible.
"The verification of the Qu'ran was done long ago"- When, where, what methods were used. I'm simply wanting to know what represents reality, this
This is something a historian should answer. What I understand is, right after Muhammad's death all the various written-down and memorised parts of
the Qur'an was brought to one place, including for the Hadith. Comparisons were made and a book was compiled, the chapter order is not in revealed
order. The large number of sources gave it a good chance of being exactly how Muhammad recited it. I would have to find out more on this to give you a
proper answer. I shouldn't have said verification, because that implies proof (which I still am coming to), but what I mean is no-one has come up
with anything that has scholars in major rifts about veracity.
If the Qu'ran is true then I'll convert. I'm 100% serious. Show me the error of my ways if you can
Keep this in mind, It does not matter if the Qu'ran is in the original language with no contradictions. There are many such books, but none of them
purport to be THE word of god. The contents of the Qu'ran must be put to the test. Which is exactly what I am doing...so far it hasn't faired well
I don't know about that, show me a big book without some error or contradiction, pretty much every book has second revisions, the Qur'an is the only
1400 year old first edition still in print (grammar, spelling) error-free according to Arabs anyway. You say the contents must be put to the test, but
you also say you are assuming it is based on the Bible - not a very fair test is it? First assume it is from God, at least. What tests you done? The
only tests you can use are self-contradictory statements or definite disagreement with science (which is not always a conclusive test) to disprove
"The Qu'ran says so, that is enough to a Muslim"
This sums up belief my friend. The qu'ran says so; therefore, I believe. You ask not for proof. Truth must be arrived at by testing; god will stand
the test. There is alot of evidence showing jesus wasn't born of a virgin. Study the roots of christianity and you will see this. You cannot be
positive of the virgin birth. However, you are already convinced of the truth because you've pledged allegiance to the pages of the qu'ran. I
understand your situation completely; I've been there.
Not true, Muslims do and should ask for "proof." But proof means nothing, so only disproof is worthy; I'll try to explain...
Let me define proof
. Also define Truth as the unknown true nature of everything, the ultimate
theory which science is heading to. Around you there is evidence
and science makes up belief
to explain the evidence
. If a
certain belief seems to best fit
or even exactly does fit evidence
, it becomes a theory
but is that proof
is true? No
. I'll give an example:- Newton's Laws seemed to best fit
the evidence seen in motion of mass under force,
but this theory falls apart at speeds approaching light. This is bad because all "proven theories" derived from his laws are now technically wrong.
Einstein came along with a theory that seems to fit the evidence better. This doesn't mean Einstein is correct though, later on we might find new
evidence that needs a new theory. We are just assuming our theories fit in with the Truth because a scientist said so and because it hasn't been
disproven. A belief can be disproven quickly with current evidence but a theory is perhaps just waiting for evidence to discredit it. So you cannot
prove anything without knowing the Truth, when you "prove" things you only prove them based on unproven theories anyway. Only disproof works.
So scientists pull out beliefs that look to fit evidence and when they do fit they hope no evidence comes along to disprove them, they take mini-steps
in belief toward the Truth. On the other hand Islam takes a giant leap of belief and we are given that Truth straight off. Science may one day crawl
up near the Truth and disprove Islam along the way, we have to wait and see. Until then atheism is a religion just as much as Islam. The question is
which is more likely to you?
Evolution of life is just a belief, there's not even any evidence to make it a theory yet, where's the famous missing link? Remember the Piltdown
man, a scientist was caught cheating by burying ape and man bones together! I sense desperation there. There is a huge structural difference between
man and ape, even a pig is closer in places! How about difference in intelligence and emotional behaviour, I'd say the gap is looking enormous. By
the way, I reckon solid evidence showing that man evolved from ape along with a theory of genetic mechanism to enforce it would be the best way to
disprove Islam. There are many other many things assumed in atheism too. How about that organic molecules form by chance, okay I let you off with one
molecule, but you would need an incredible amount to stably maintain the first building blocks let alone finding the right combination to form one
cell. If scientists claim "we can show it's the tendency of carbon and hydrogen atoms to form organic molecules" this is like saying there's a
grand design, still could fit in with a God theory.
On one hand there is a (albeit vague) history of incredible events surrounding Prophets giving their evidence to cause a belief, on the other,
Darwin's observation causing belief. We could go into why the powers-that-be encourage you to believe Darwin but that could be a long topic too.
Which belief seems to best fit
our existence (evidence) to you: That there is a God and He created us or that we just formed by chance, that we
have to contemplate infinity (which has driven scientists to suicide because it's more unimaginable than God, just try it) and that we'll revert to
nothing but starmatter. I think out of all the God beliefs Islam is the only one with original evidence and fits in best with science while being less
incredible than atheism.
I know I've given a bad explanation somewhere but ask if there's something you don't understand; the long paragraphs probably encourage
skim-reading but try to think about my idea of "proof" and theory.