undisputed facts about Quran
-
who is this muhammad, a courier service i think that deleiver quran to everywhere. what this verse is talking about, and these are not the transaltions of any traditional muslims these are quran alone based translations,
Like I said even if you take it as a name in that verse then you still did not prove that he is the receiver of the book we call the quran and also no proof of time and place.
Only with help of Bukhary & Co you can make these kind of claims. -
Like I said even if you take it as a name in that verse then you still did not prove that he is the receiver of the book we call the quran and also no proof of time and place.
Only with help of Bukhary & Co you can make these kind of claims.same you cannot prove from quran muhammad is not the reciever of quran,
but history is witness , not only one person plantey of them ,
burden of proof is on your head,
having no proof of claims or burden of proof means case by default win by bukhari & co. simple daily law of courts. lolxx
have a good day.
-
same you cannot prove from quran muhammad is not the reciever of quran,
Yes that is true, just like you and anyone else here can not prove that it was not Michael or Anna who was the receiver.
but history is witness , not only one person plantey of them ,
burden of proof is on your head,
having no proof of claims or burden of proof means case by default win by bukhari & co. simple daily law of courts. lolxx
have a good day.
RED No it's not. It is you who is claiming that the receiver was a certain man named Mohammed and lived 1400 years ago somewhere in the middle east, I did not claim that.
-
I really don't get what i wrong with Muhmmad, the prophet, be it a name or an eithet or a distinction or whatever. the Qur'anmakes no secret of the name of prophets, and no ecret of things being revealed to htem and of hem beeing "pampered" by god. ?Why is there such an outrage the the receiver and trnasmitter of the Qur'an to the people should be ombody known and acknowledged by God just as Musa was or 'sa was or so many prophets as are named and acknowledged in the Qur'an. We are told to treat all prophets alike not to disdain Muhammad down under all the others.
This is something I just don't get. Do we get fewer points if we praise Muhammad (and by Muhammad I understand the transmitter of the Qur'an to the people) tahn if we praise other prophets, like Musa, Ibrahim, and darling 'Isa-Jesus? And by this I do not mean at all any disrespect for 'Isa, by no meansand quite the opposite, but simply point out that for some people it seems it is more distinguished and select to be in love with Jesus than to have any words for Muhammad that are not short of hostile. I mean you loose category if you praise Muhammad. ?What is this nonsense? You can praie all the prophets except Muhammad.Of ocurse som say that Muhammad is not the reciver of the Qur'an, I don't give a damn which name the reciver had, but smebody did receive the Qur'an and somebody is aluded many times in the Qur'an as the transmitter of it, then let us say it is not Muhammad, somebody is, then who?
Salaam
-
I really don't get what i wrong with Muhmmad, the prophet, be it a name or an eithet or a distinction or whatever. the Qur'anmakes no secret of the name of prophets, and no ecret of things being revealed to htem and of hem beeing "pampered" by god. ?Why is there such an outrage the the receiver and trnasmitter of the Qur'an to the people should be ombody known and acknowledged by God just as Musa was or 'sa was or so many prophets as are named and acknowledged in the Qur'an. We are told to treat all prophets alike not to disdain Muhammad down under all the others.
This is something I just don't get. Do we get fewer points if we praise Muhammad (and by Muhammad I understand the transmitter of the Qur'an to the people) tahn if we praise other prophets, like Musa, Ibrahim, and darling 'Isa-Jesus? And by this I do not mean at all any disrespect for 'Isa, by no meansand quite the opposite, but simply point out that for some people it seems it is more distinguished and select to be in love with Jesus than to have any words for Muhammad that are not short of hostile. I mean you loose category if you praise Muhammad. ?What is this nonsense? You can praie all the prophets except Muhammad.What I do not get is why people get sensitive if Mohammed is the subject.
I did not say anything wrong about him, I only said that it can not be proved with only the quran that a man named Mohammed who lived 1400 years ago in the middle east is the receiver of the quran. If people insist that it is him, then that's totally ok with me but the fact stands that that understanding is purely based on Bukhary & Co, it can not be derived from the quran.Mohammed (if he existed) is for a lot of people who believe in the quran more then other messengers, you can witness this in this forum a lot, and that is I think not really healthy.
Of ocurse som say that Muhammad is not the reciver of the Qur'an, I don't give a damn which name the reciver had, but smebody did receive the Qur'an and somebody is aluded many times in the Qur'an as the transmitter of it, then let us say it is not Muhammad, somebody is, then who?
Salaam
BLUE I have no idea.
From my understanding the receiver of the quran is mohammed (the meaning of the word) but can be anybody and is in fact not important unless you want to study the origin of the quran. -
Yes that is true, just like you and anyone else here can not prove that it was not Michael or Anna who was the receiver.RED No it's not. It is you who is claiming that the receiver was a certain man named Mohammed and lived 1400 years ago somewhere in the middle east, I did not claim that.
lol, you said its bukhari and company who claimed that, and then i handle their case becoz they are not alive, and in the light of historical evidences and historical records by multiple chains of multiple regions make them win the case,
on the other hand a person mr bender deny to accept the perosnalty of that perosn and moreover he dnt have any evidence so far not any witness soo far,, not any historical record ,,so far , not any logical record so far,, in light of his own persoanl idea, court by law given the decison in the favor of bukhari and company.
thats what it mean, lol
peace.
-
BLUE I have no idea.
and in the ending statement of mr bender he clearly say i have no idea, who recieved it, so case by default is illogical when there is no idea who recieved it ? how can be an idea its not muhammad ? moreover its the issue 1400 years old only history can verify it. and history already play their role,
questions and answers of mr bender contradict with eachother.
peace and have a good day.
-
as a good friend i want to share one verse with mr bender. hope so it will help, quran is very helpful for people always .
Edip-Layth (Quran A Reformist Translation)
3340 Muhammed was not the father of any man among you, but he was the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. God is fully aware of all things.The Monotheist Group (The Quran A Monotheist Translation)
3340 Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
3340 Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men,but is God's Apostle and the Seal of all Prophets And God has indeed full knowledge of everything.Rashad Khalifa (The Final Testament)
3340 Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.Shabbir Ahmed (Quran As It Explains Itself)
3340 Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is God?s Messenger and the closing seal of all Prophets. God is Knower of all things.there are three main parts of this verse for believers , first is muhammad is not father of any men, second , he is the last prophet , third God is knower of all things,
third thing clear everything , lol
and God is telling us that muhmmad(praised one) is the last prophet, what else left moreover the interpretation is not by any bukhari and company group.burden of proof is always on ...... you.
-
Please excuse me. Redundant post.
Be well
Amenue -
What I do not get is why people get sensitive if Mohammed is the subject.
I did not say anything wrong about him, I only said that it can not be proved with only the quran that a man named Mohammed who lived 1400 years ago in the middle east is the receiver of the quran. If people insist that it is him, then that's totally ok with me but the fact stands that that understanding is purely based on Bukhary & Co, it can not be derived from the quran.Mohammed (if he existed) is for a lot of people who believe in the quran more then other messengers, you can witness this in this forum a lot, and that is I think not really healthy.
BLUE I have no idea.
From my understanding the receiver of the quran is mohammed (the meaning of the word) but can be anybody and is in fact not important unless you want to study the origin of the quran.You re evading the issue and on top of it you say that people get ensitive on Muhammad. I have already said, I do not care which name it is, or whether it is a name or an epithet or whatever, what I say is again, there is obviously in the Qur'an a person who is addressed as the messenger sent y God to transmit th Qur'an. And I have said that it would be really intriguing why God mentions so many messengers and talks about the scriptures or missions given to them, and when we come to Muhammad or whatever name to cknowledge to him the same as to other prophets, neither more nor less.
It is not being sensitive, it is being intrigued by and attituted that seems inconsistent. o His name is not Mhyammed, why would God name very other Prophet and not the one He is talking about in so much of Qur'an, We have Musa, Ibrahim, Yusuf, Maryam, 3ia, et etc. etc. o either the one who got revealed the Qur'an is not named either it is called Muhammad or somethin gelse we have missed in te Qur'an. Either there is an answer to that which is logical and consistent or there is not. I guess what you are saying is that there is ot an answer to that.
I do get that the Qur'an is revealed to everybdy who cares to receive it, but so has been the case with every previous or later scripture, that is o answer nor an explantion for making the reception of the Qur'an, as narrated in the Qur'an itself an exception in the way that God has dealt with the Prophets. Was Muhmmad to be an outcast amonst the Prophets, without name nor recognition of his mission?
Nobody, well not I, am aking to crown Myhammad for president or anything la that that you call ensitive, I am just at a loss, always have been at a loss as to why he should be singled out for divesting him of the usual things which are vested on other prophets, like a name, an existence and an aknowledgement of his mission.
Salaam
-
lol, you said its bukhari and company who claimed that, and then i handle their case becoz they are not alive, and in the light of historical evidences and historical records by multiple chains of multiple regions make them win the case,
Yes they win I loose.
But in the end you and all of your resources still have no quranic proof, still hearsay.on the other hand a person mr bender deny to accept the perosnalty of that perosn and moreover he dnt have any evidence so far not any witness soo far,, not any historical record ,,so far , not any logical record so far,, in light of his own persoanl idea, court by law given the decison in the favor of bukhari and company.
thats what it mean, lol
and in the ending statement of mr bender he clearly say i have no idea, who recieved it, so case by default is illogical when there is no idea who recieved it ? how can be an idea its not muhammad ? moreover its the issue 1400 years old only history can verify it. and history already play their role,
questions and answers of mr bender contradict with eachother.
peace and have a good day.
Me having no idea does not make your assumption true.
And what history are you talking about?May I ask why you switched to 3rd person?
as a good friend i want to share one verse with mr bender. hope so it will help, quran is very helpful for people always .
Edip-Layth (Quran A Reformist Translation)
3340 Muhammed was not the father of any man among you, but he was the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. God is fully aware of all things.The Monotheist Group (The Quran A Monotheist Translation)
3340 Mohammed is not the father of any of your men, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
3340 Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men,but is God's Apostle and the Seal of all Prophets And God has indeed full knowledge of everything.Rashad Khalifa (The Final Testament)
3340 Muhammad was not the father of any man among you. He was a messenger of GOD and the final prophet. GOD is fully aware of all things.Shabbir Ahmed (Quran As It Explains Itself)
3340 Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is God?s Messenger and the closing seal of all Prophets. God is Knower of all things.there are three main parts of this verse for believers , first is muhammad is not father of any men, second , he is the last prophet , third God is knower of all things,
third thing clear everything , lol
and God is telling us that muhmmad(praised one) is the last prophet, what else left moreover the interpretation is not by any bukhari and company group.burden of proof is always on ...... you.
Nice verse but can you highlight for me the part where it says that Mohammed is the receiver of the book we call the quran?
-
Nice verse but can you highlight for me the part where it says that Mohammed is the receiver of the book we call the quran?
ok so do you want me to teach you 2+2 = 4
ok then last prophet = last revelaed book( quran)
second last = second last revealed book(bible)or do you also have anyother book apart from quran ,
let me guess what will b your next question,
show me a verse from quran, 2+2= 4
hence you did not show me a verse this math equation is wrong,,,, rotfl rotfl rotfl
-
Yes they win I loose.
yeh thats what happen when you claim something without proof , you just waste your court fee( i mean time)
-
You re evading the issue and on top of it you say that people get ensitive on Muhammad. I have already said, I do not care which name it is, or whether it is a name or an epithet or whatever,
I did not say Huruf gets sensitive but people, I know that it is for you not a sensitive subject.
It is not being sensitive, it is being intrigued by and attituted that seems inconsistent. o His name is not Mhyammed, why would God name very other Prophet and not the one He is talking about in so much of Qur'an, We have Musa, Ibrahim, Yusuf, Maryam, 3ia, et etc. etc. o either the one who got revealed the Qur'an is not named either it is called Muhammad or somethin gelse we have missed in te Qur'an. Either there is an answer to that which is logical and consistent or there is not. I guess what you are saying is that there is ot an answer to that.
RED yes that is all what I am saying, from the quran alone there is no answer to this question, at least I did not find any and I never read any from someone else.
It's actually very simple those who insist that it was Mohammed and that it can be proved from the quran that it was him, then bring on the verses.I do get that the Qur'an is revealed to everybdy who cares to receive it, but so has been the case with every previous or later scripture, that is o answer nor an explantion for making the reception of the Qur'an, as narrated in the Qur'an itself an exception in the way that God has dealt with the Prophets. Was Muhmmad to be an outcast amonst the Prophets, without name nor recognition of his mission?
Nobody, well not I, am aking to crown Myhammad for president or anything la that that you call ensitive, I am just at a loss, always have been at a loss as to why he should be singled out for divesting him of the usual things which are vested on other prophets, like a name, an existence and an aknowledgement of his mission.
Salaam
what I say is again, there is obviously in the Qur'an a person who is addressed as the messenger sent y God to transmit th Qur'an. And I have said that it would be really intriguing why God mentions so many messengers and talks about the scriptures or missions given to them, and when we come to Muhammad or whatever name to cknowledge to him the same as to other prophets, neither more nor less.
There are a lot of good people (including messengers) in the quran without a name.
-
ok so do you want me to teach you 2+2 = 4
ok then last prophet = last revelaed book( quran)
second last = second last revealed book(bible)or do you also have anyother book apart from quran ,
let me guess what will b your next question,
show me a verse from quran, 2+2= 4
hence you did not show me a verse this math equation is wrong,,,, rotfl rotfl rotfl
I also used to do these kind of maths.
yeh thats what happen when you claim something without proof , you just waste your court fee( i mean time)
You are the one who is claiming something. I said I do NOT know. So if you have something better than the math above then please enlighten me if not then I guess you just know as much as I do.
-
ok so do you want me to teach you 2+2 = 4
ok then last prophet = last revelaed book( quran)
second last = second last revealed book(bible)or do you also have anyother book apart from quran ,
let me guess what will b your next question,
show me a verse from quran, 2+2= 4
hence you did not show me a verse this math equation is wrong,,,, rotfl rotfl rotfl
Salaamun Bender,
Don't you have wall around where you are sitting, go hit your head instead brickwall
-
For me the traditional theory, thus a man named Mohammed who lived 1400 years ago in mecca who received the quran, is a likely as a woman named Sof?a who lived 3000 years ago in Cadiz who received the quran.
Surprising considering
http//www.islam-and-muslims.com/External-References-Islam-Hoyland.pdf -
Salaamun Bender,
Don't you have wall around where you are sitting, go hit your head instead brickwall
good advise actually. but quote him not me. i dnt want to get myself blame ,lol
-
I also used to do these kind of maths.
excellent atleast you beleive in math.
