Jump to content
SoRoUsH

Do we know who volunteered to be crucified?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, andres said:
8 hours ago, Qa'im said:

 

Wich texts of James the Just are you refering to?

How do they clash with Galatians, Acts and Jude when it comes to the crucifixion?

So the Jamesian sects don't directly clash with the crucifixion as a historical event, but they are often described as being "of the circumcision". Meaning, the Jerusalem Church, the Ebionites and others followed the Law, and therefore did not have the same views on original sin, atonement, and the abrogation of the Law. These, after all, are the most important theological details of the crucifixion. The Jerusalem Church and its bishop remained this way until the Bar Kochba revolt (132 CE), where they fled Jerusalem, and were replaced by a new Roman Pauline Church. The crucifixion furthermore is not even mentioned in the Didache, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Gospel of Thomas, the surviving excerpts of the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Infancy Gospels, all of which have Jamesian roots or influences. It's likely that, if they believed in the crucifixion, they did not believe it had much relevance or significance theologically.

3 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

You stated our Ahlul Bayt (as) have condemned Paul. May I see acceptable traditions on this? I've searched in the past to see if they had said anything regarding James, but I couldn't find anything. 

We don't have "sahih" reports on this, but there are reports in classical books, and every report that mentions Paul (directly or indirectly) mentions him negatively. Judging from Christian history, I can understand why. Here is one from Tafsir al-Qummi:

عن أبي عبد الله ع قال ما بعث الله نبيا إلا و في أمته شيطانان يؤذيانه و يضلان الناس بعده فأما صاحبا نوح فقنطيفوص [فغنطيغوص‏] و خرام، و أما صاحبا إبراهيم فمكثل [مكيل‏] و رزام، و أما صاحبا موسى فالسامري و مرعقيبا [مرعتيبا] و أما صاحبا عيسى فبولس [يرليس يرليش‏] و مريتون [مريبون‏] و أما صاحبا محمد (ص) فحبتر [جبتر] و زريق [زلام‏]

This reference from Tafsir al-Qummi mentions one who "Christianized the Christians":

(بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم قل أعوذ برب الفلق) قال: الفلق جب في جهنم يتعوذ أهل النار من شدة حره فسأل الله أن يأذن له أن يتنفس، فأذن له فتنفس فأحرق جهنم قال: وفي ذلك الجب صندوق من نار يتعوذ أهل الجب من حر ذلك الصندوق، وهو التابوت وفي ذلك التابوت ستة من الاولين وستة من الآخرين فاما الستة التي من الاولين، فابن آدم الذي قتل أخاه، ونمرود ابراهيم الذي ألقى ابراهيم في النار، وفرعون موسى، والسامري الذي اتخذ العجل، والذي هود اليهود، والذي نصر النصارى، واما الستة التي من الآخرين فهو الاول والثانى والثالث والرابع وصاحب الخوارج وابن ملجم لعنهم الله (ومن شر غاسق إذا وقب) قال: الذي يلقى في الجب فيه يقب (يغب فيه ط)

 

3 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

One persisting concern is that God made it seem to, at least, some people, those in power and capable of spreading propaganda, that Jesus was crucified. Those people evil as they may have been, sincerely, believed they crucified and killed Jesus. They, in turn, spread the information regarding what seemed to happen to Jesus. They didn't doubt, since God made it seem that way to them. Consequently, most historians, secular or not, accept the crucifixion of Jesus. Yes, there are inconsistencies in the story, but the essence of the story that Jesus was crucified and died is accepted by most, if not all historians. 

We have strong critics of the Bible such as Bart Ehrman, who deny and question almost everything in the Bible, except the fact that Jesus was crucified and died. I have read many books on Christianity and not one of them rejected this historical event. 

So, we can agree that they were and are misled, but we should understand that it's merely impossible to question the fact of this event, not the details, from a non-islamic perspective. A non-muslim historian or researcher, who doesn't rely on Islamic texts for his/her research (and why would he/she?) would have no reason to question the occurring of Jesus's crucifixion and death. 

So, when we agree that "God made it seem that way," how can we expect to effectively argue against it without bringing the Islamic alternative story? In other words, we start from a position of faith (or dogma in this case), trying to convince others that all historical books and non-muslims have got it wrong, because it says so in the Qur'an. 

Do you see the challenge? 

With all due respect brother: As a skeptic in the authenticity of our own tradition, which is very well-preserved in comparison to the historical sources we are dealing with, are you not able to see the ambiguities and frailties of this event? The whole account is recorded by totally "majhool" narrators - this is enough for you to reject something from an Islamic book, so why not a much older book? The historians that believe in this event believe it because no other alternative account exists. They accepted the statements of Tacitus, Josephus, and the Gospels regarding the crucifixion at face value. It is true that there is no 1st century reference that says that Jesus was not crucified. But these texts are all written decades later by Romans and Greeks; and the texts that may come from the actual community of believers do not speak of this event. I noted many inconsistencies in the crucifixion narrative in my first post, hence the Quranic phrase, " And surely, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. "

But if one is really hell-bent on accepting these texts regardless, one can still argue that Jesus was nailed to the cross, but did not die. That would be consistent with the Quranic Arabic. But again, Im not convinced that such a compromise needs to be made, especially since the substitution hadiths exist in Sunni and Shii books.

So I don't think we need to resort to faith alone on this issue, there are enough questions (both historical and theological) about the crucifixion and its significance. In the end, the main concern of Muslims is not the event itself, but its implications: that faith in it absolves us from our sins. This idea has no basis in Islam or Judaism, and there are enough Christian contradictions to this claim as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Qa'im

I absolutely see the weakness of the crucifixion story, if I apply the standards of ilm ul-rijal to it. 

However, my point was, others don't have such standards and don't have any reason to want or rely on such standards. 

The crucifixion story is accepted by all, except Muslims. So, only a Muslim would have a reason to question the very essence of the events. Others do not have that reason. They have "sufficient" textual evidence to accept it. They have no reason or need to scrutinize it. 

We do, because our Qur'an supplies a different story. This is why I said questioning it comes from faith, it comes from Islam, our faith. Without Islam, without Qur'an, the story has "sufficient" evidence, according to most historians, to be accepted in essence. 

Thank you for providing those two hadiths. I wish they were acceptable (Sahih, hasan, or mawthaq).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the Ismaili's also accept the death of Jesus.

When God said, ‘Jesus, I will cause you to die and will raise you to Me and I will purify you of those who believe not. I will set thy followers above the unbelievers till the Resurrection Day. Then unto Me shall you return, and I will decide between you, as to what you were at variance on.’
– Holy Qur’an 3:55

In these verses, the Qur’an is responding to boastful claims made by Jesus’s Jewish enemies that they had killed and crucified him; nowhere does the Qur’an deny the fact of Jesus’s crucifixion. What is being denied is the agency and role of Jesus enemies in the death of Jesus. Historically, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, with the support of some of his Jewish adversaries among the pro-Roman Jewish leadership. However, some Jewish rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud claimed that Jesus was tried, stoned, and hanged by the Jewish leadership according to Jewish law. The Talmud states that: “Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry.” In the same section, the Talmud quotes a rabbi accusing Mary the mother of Jesus of being a harlot: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters” (see Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud, 2007, pp. 63-74). Therefore, the Qur’an is answering back against the slanderous claims made of Mary and Jesus in the Talmud by denying the claim of Jewish enemies of Jesus to have killed him and asserting that it was God caused Jesus to die and that He exalted Jesus and raised him up. Thus, the Qur’an reinterprets the crucifixion and undercuts Rabbinical claims to have disgraced and shamed Jesus by asserting that Jesus’s death was, in reality, a victory for God and a vindication of Jesus.

https://ismailignosis.com/2017/12/24/the-quranic-jesus-and-the-historical-jesus-a-messianic-prophet/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Gabriel Said Reynold's article: The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive?

Of course he has his own biases [he is a practicing Catholic teaching at Notre Dame]

 

Quranic material

The locus classicus for the question of Jesusdeath is sūrat al-nisā(4) 1578. In verse 157 the Quran begins, “. . . and as for their statement, We killed the Christ, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of God, they did not kill him or crucify him, and continues with the phrase: wa-lakin shubbiha la-hum. The passive verb shubbiha here is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter.

As Todd Lawson points out it is a hapax legomenon in the Quran; indeed it is the only time the root sh.b.h. appears in the second form. That it appears in the passive voice here (according to the standard vocalization, at least) renders its meaning still more elusive. The entire phrase, in fact, is per se ambiguous and translators are accordingly divided. Some, following the prevalent Islamic tradition, understand this phrase to mean something like, Rather his image was made to appear to them. Arberrys translation which is often quoted in secondary literature has, Only a likeness of that was shown to them. These translations suggest that someone other than Jesus died in his place.

Yet other translators seem to follow a remarkably different interpretation of wa-lakin shubbiha la-hum. Thereby the phrase is applied not to Jesus, but to the event of the Crucifixion, and understood to mean, It was made unclear to them. Pickthall, for example, translates, But it appeared so unto them. Yusuf Ali similarly has, But so it was made to appear unto them. The recent translations of Fakhry and Abdel Haleem are similar. Of course, these translations might still be read in accordance with the traditional Islamic notion that Jesus escaped death. A translator has recourse to ambiguity. A commentator, on the other hand, does not.

Indeed, the short phrase wa-lakin shubbiha la-hum compels classical Muslim commentators to take a definitive position on the death of Christ. For the most part they justify their position with various (and often contradictory) haggadic narratives that describe how a substitute took the place of Jesus on the Cross. Yet those narratives appear to be a product of exegesis, and not its source.

On the other hand, the Quran itself never denies the death of Jesus but rather alludes to it in several passages. In one passage the Quran has Jesus himself declare, Peace upon me on the day I was born, on the day I die, and on the day I will be sent forth alive(Q 19.33). Here Jesus speaking miraculously as an infant implies that his death will be like that of any other human. In fact, the words of Jesus in this verse are a formula found also 18 verses earlier (Q 19.15). There it is Zechariah calling down peace on his son John on the day of his birth, death and resurrection.

Elsewhere the Quran seems to allude to that death as an event of history. Sūrat al-māida (5) 17 asks, If God desired to take the life (yuhlika) of Jesus the Son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth, who could resist Him?Here the Quran implies that the death of Jesus like all deaths was the act of God. Elsewhere in this same Sūra the Quran notes: Jesus, son of Mary, is only a Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him(Q 5.75). Once again this is a formula, in this case a formula applied elsewhere to the Qurans own prophet: Muhammad is only a Messenger. Messengers have passed away before him(Q 3.144).

The clearest reference to Jesusdeath may be later in sūrat al-māida. In a verse that is part of a larger dialogue (vv. 1168) between God and Jesus, Jesus remarks I was a witness to them as long as I remained among them. You became the watcher of them when you made me die (tawaffaytanī). The verb tawaffā (verbal noun: tawaffī) that appears here causes significant confusion among Muslim exegetes. Yet the Quran itself offers no cause for confusion. Tawaffā appears in twenty-five passages in the Quran, and twice in relation to Jesus (here and Q 3.55). For twenty-three of those passages the Muslim commentators generally follow the standard definition of this term, namely Gods act of separating the soul from the body, or making someone die. In fact, Muslims often pray the concluding words of sūrat al-aʿrāf (7) 126: rabbanā afrigh ʿalaynā sabran wa-tawaffanā muslimīn, O our Lord, fill us with patience and make us die Muslims.

For the two verses where tawaffā is applied to Jesus, however, Muslim exegetes generally search for a secondary meaning of the term. Thus they reconcile these two verses with the doctrine of Jesusescape from death. Modern translators follow them with amazing fidelity. Pickthall, for example, translates tawaffaytanī, tookest me; Yusuf Ali, didst take me up; Arberry, didst take me to Thyself; and Fakhry, took me to yourself. Abdel Haleem, on the other hand, translates obliquely, but accurately, You took my soul.

In this regard it is noteworthy that the second occurrence of tawaffā in relation to Jesus, sūrat āl ʿImrān (3) 55, precedes a reference to God causing Jesus to ascend to Him: God said, O Jesus, I will make you die (mutawaffīka), raise you up to me (rāfiuka ilayya), purify you from those who disbelieved, and lift those who have followed you above the disbelievers until the Day of Resurrection, then you will all return to me(Q 3.55a).

According to this sequence, God indeed raised Jesus to heaven, but only after He first caused him to die. With this insight we might then return to sūrat al-nisā(4) 1578. In verse 157, as mentioned above, the Quran denies that the Jews killed Christ. In verse 158(a) the Quran insists that instead rafaʿahu Allāhu ilayhi, God raised him to Himself. In other words, precisely the same sequence of sūrat āl ʿImrān (3) 55 is implied: God (and not the Jews!) first made Jesus die, and then made him ascend to heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Qa'im said:

So the Jamesian sects don't directly clash with the crucifixion as a historical event, but they are often described as being "of the circumcision". Meaning, the Jerusalem Church, the Ebionites and others followed the Law, and therefore did not have the same views on original sin, atonement, and the abrogation of the Law. These, after all, are the most important theological details of the crucifixion. The Jerusalem Church and its bishop remained this way until the Bar Kochba revolt (132 CE), where they fled Jerusalem, and were replaced by a new Roman Pauline Church. The crucifixion furthermore is not even mentioned in the Didache, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Gospel of Thomas, the surviving excerpts of the Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Infancy Gospels, all of which have Jamesian roots or influences. It's likely that, if they believed in the crucifixion, they did not believe it had much relevance or significance theologically.

We have different theological  opinions on many things. (Just like you Muslims have) Paul and James the Just also had disputes. We know this from Pauls letters. Paul was originally a Pharisee and Jews had 600 laws, of which Jews did not agree internally either. 

Nothing indicates that Ebionites or other first century Christians differed on Jesus being Crucified or not. Later on, crucifixion was questioned, for example by Muhammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kirtc said:

صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ

 

I see a few translations above are misleading. to my best ability this translates to.. "nor did they crucify him but it appeared to them so"

so it shows that someone did get crucified and it appeared to be Jesus a.s but wasn't.

OP has the topic wrong in asking who volunteered.. no where does it mention he (who was crucified) was a volunteer lol, but I have heard it was Judas who took his place on the cross. 

"It appeared to them so" does not necessarily mean someone was crucified. The crucifixion itself could be an illusion. 

Had the Quran been clear, for example by stating Jesus was replaced or saying that Jesus on the Cross was an optical illusion, translaters had not needed to make interpolations. Interpolations are often a bad habit, aimed at indoctrinating readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 2:52 PM, SoRoUsH said:

سلام, 

The conventional belief is that Jesus (as) was not crucified, and instead, a man was made to look like him, who was taken by the Romans. 

Do we know anything at all about this person? Was he a disciple? Was he a believer in Jesus? 

Thank you! 

 

(As always, I appreciate authentic/acceptable traditions from our Ahlul Bayt (as). ) 

I am not aware of any widely accepted authentic hadith that say who it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Messiah (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
The Messiah
Messiah Poster - LC.jpg
The Messiah
Directed by Nader Talebzadeh
Produced by Abdollah Saeedi
Written by Nader Talebzadeh
Starring Ahmad Soleimani Nia
Music by Loris Tjeknavorian
Cinematography Sadegh Mianji
Release date
  • 18 October 2007(Festival of Cinema and Religion)
Country Iran

Mesih (Persian: بشارت منجی‎), more commonly and officially referred to as The Messiah,[1][2][3][4][5] but also referred to as 'Jesus',[6] "Good Tidings of the Savior" in Persian,[7] 'Jesus, the Spirit of God',[8][9][10][11][12] 'Messia'[4] is a 2007 film from the Islamic Republic of Iran, directed by Nader Talebzadeh, depicting the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective, based not only on the canonical gospels, but also the Qur'an, and, it would seem, the Gospel of Barnabas.[8] The latter conforms to the Islamic interpretation of the origins of Christianity. Iranian actor Ahmad Soleimani Nia plays the role of Jesus.[13][14][15] Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.[16]

Talebzadeh said of The Passion of the Christ, "Gibson's film is a very good film. I mean that it is a well-crafted movie but the story is wrong."[1] The film has two endings, one from the Christian Bible and one from the Qur'an.

It is a two-hour-plus feature film and a TV series shot for Iranian TV.[7]

 

https://www.aparat.com/v/fsCMz/زیبا_ترین_قسمت_سریال_بشارت_منجی(حضرت_عیسی(ع))

https://www.aparat.com/v/twXgQ     (it shows  crucification from  both point of view of Christanity & Islam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 3:20 AM, Arminmo said:

One of the objections that Christians have about that gospel is that if it is from that time, why it’s been written in Spanish! language of that time was either Greek,Aramaic,... as if we give you your original Quran in Japanese language wont you laugh at us?!

so they don’t believe in it.they say it’s been modified.

The original bibles were never written in Aramaic but Greek they were translated into Aramaic much later after the Syriac Churches split from the Greek Church of Constantinople.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Mary witnessed the Curcifiction of Jesus how would a mother not know the face of her son. The Romans and Rabbis would have been to definitely identify if it was really Jesus or not since they knew his face well. For example, the Roman historian, Tacitus (who was born in a.d 55), wrote in his Annals (15:44) an explanation of how Nero, the emperor (who died in a.d 68) blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in order to deflect rumors that he had started the blaze. In this passage Tacitus alludes to a fact which no one disputed: Christ had been crucified under Pontius Pilate. If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ's suffering and death. Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalem the very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-great-offense-was-jesus-really-crucified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

"It appeared to them so" does not necessarily mean someone was crucified. The crucifixion itself could be an illusion. 

Had the Quran been clear, for example by stating Jesus was replaced or saying that Jesus on the Cross was an optical illusion, translaters had not needed to make interpolations. Interpolations are often a bad habit, aimed at indoctrinating readers.

the quran tell us to pray.. it doesnt have any details on how to pray.. that is why we rely on hadiths as well.. islam is quran + hadith. I linked a book with hadith on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirtc said:

 

Also Mary witnessed the Curcifiction of Jesus how would a mother not know the face of her son. The Romans and Rabbis would have been to definitely identify if it was really Jesus or not since they knew his face well. For example, the Roman historian, Tacitus (who was born in a.d 55), wrote in his Annals (15:44) an explanation of how Nero, the emperor (who died in a.d 68) blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in order to deflect rumors that he had started the blaze. In this passage Tacitus alludes to a fact which no one disputed: Christ had been crucified under Pontius Pilate. If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ's suffering and death. Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalem the very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-great-offense-was-jesus-really-crucified

 

In Shia Islam view only infallible could bury the infallible you can google it that some sites are saying that Lady Mary died before Jesus & Jesus purified her body & buried her so she can’t witnessed the curicification.

and story of crucification inspired from story of Osiris the Egyptian god & Mithraism That practiced hiddenly by Romans.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Islamic Salvation said:

From Gabriel Said Reynold's article: The Muslim Jesus: Dead or alive?

Of course he has his own biases [he is a practicing Catholic teaching at Notre Dame]

Salam and thank you brother. 

Reading this article made me make a few distinctions in my mind. 

Clearly, in Arabic, different words for  "killing" and "dying" have been used. According to the article, and the verses that was used in it, it can be inferred that Jesus's enemies didn't kill him but Jesus's soul was separated from his body at some point in time. 

Now, this brings forward the next distinction, the difference between dying and having one's soul separated from one's body. "Mawt" and "Tawaffa" are clearly two different Arabic terms. So, Jesus's soul may have separated from his body, without Jesus dying in the ordinary sense. This would make Jesus's "death" just as miraculous as his birth.

I do not know and cannot understand how a soul can leave the body without a person dying. The closest example that I can think of is sleeping. When we sleep it's said that our "nafs" leaves the body. It's important to point that in Islam there's no word that denotes "Soul," there's only "nafs" that some translators have translated as "soul." So, when we sleep, our "nafs" leaves our body. If it's not our turn to die, it returns. 

Another relevant example is that of The People of the Cave, who slept for a few centuries. For a few centuries their "nafs" was outside of their bodies. 

As bizarre and unconventional as this may seem, could it be that Jesus's body is being preserved in a spatial location, whereas his soul/nafs is raised to the fourth heaven? And when it's his time to return, his soul/nafs will return to that preserved body?

 

 

 

 

Edited by SoRoUsH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirtc said:

the quran tell us to pray.. it doesnt have any details on how to pray.. that is why we rely on hadiths as well.. islam is quran + hadith. I linked a book with hadith on the issue.

Of course. The Bible does not tell everything either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 5:37 AM, Mishael said:

Also Mary witnessed the Curcifiction of Jesus how would a mother not know the face of her son. The Romans and Rabbis would have been to definitely identify if it was really Jesus or not since they knew his face well. For example, the Roman historian, Tacitus (who was born in a.d 55), wrote in his Annals (15:44) an explanation of how Nero, the emperor (who died in a.d 68) blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in order to deflect rumors that he had started the blaze. In this passage Tacitus alludes to a fact which no one disputed: Christ had been crucified under Pontius Pilate. If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ's suffering and death. Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalem the very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-great-offense-was-jesus-really-crucified

The Quran says 'they killed him not nor did they crucify him' regarding Jesus(a.s). So for muslims, this statement is enough. Sorry, but you are not going to convince any muslims to go against Quran, and probably not that many objective readers by posting translated, non eye witness  accounts written many decades after the events happened. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

The Quran says 'they killed him not nor did they crucify him' regarding Jesus(a.s). So for muslims, this statement is enough. Sorry, but you are not going to convince any muslims to go against Quran, and probably not that many objective readers by posting translated, non eye witness  accounts written many decades after the events happened. 

Yet you believe a book that came 600 years later written by Arabs who were probably polytheists. As for me the numerous evidence for the crucifixtion of Jesus and the Bible are enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Yet you believe a book that came 600 years later written by Arabs who were probably polytheists. As for me the numerous evidence for the crucifixtion of Jesus and the Bible are enough.

Not probably, they were polytheists before Islam just as most of the people around Jesus(p.b.u.h) were also polytheists. Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and the close members of his family were not, however, they were on the original faith of Abraham(p.b.u.h) who was a monotheist. We don't rely on human accounts to verify Quran, and the Quran was not authored by fallible people, as the Bible was. It was authored by God Almighty and revealed to Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Not probably, they were polytheists before Islam just as most of the people around Jesus(p.b.u.h) were also polytheists. Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) and the close members of his family were not, however, they were on the original faith of Abraham(p.b.u.h) who was a monotheist. We don't rely on human accounts to verify Quran, and the Quran was not authored by fallible people, as the Bible was. It was authored by God Almighty and revealed to Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). 

Sorry but historically Mohammeds ancestors had names like Abd Al Uzza or Abd Manaf who was an ancestor of Mohammed these are all pagan names not monotheistic ones. Actually there are many different versions of the Quran in existence both in organization, chapters, numbering, and wording order it's not a great feat to notice this. Actually Muslims rely on the Bible and Torah to verify the Quran for some odd reason so I think that's something you have to tell your fellow Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mishael said:

Actually Muslims rely on the Bible and Torah to verify the Quran

We never need to rely on your corrupted changed Bible to verify our book. Our book is verified by known people , not like yours but unknown writers. See Wikipedia gospel of mark,book of Genesis by yourself.

Edited by Arminmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Arminmo said:

We never need to rely on your corrupted changed Bible to verify our book. Our book is verified by known people , not like yours but unknown writers. See Wikipedia gospel of mark,book of Genesis by yourself.

Tell that to Mohammed and Allah 

Surah 10:94

So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Arminmo said:

We never need to rely on your corrupted changed Bible to verify our book. Our book is verified by known people , not like yours but unknown writers. See Wikipedia gospel of mark,book of Genesis by yourself.

We know all are writers you guys don't even know when your book was complied you Muslims keep giving different answers on the origins of the collection of the Quran. And as I'm said I'm not willing to go along in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×