The Quran and Jesus’ Crucifixion

[julimma]

And didn’t you read in the bible were Paul was later converted to Christianity by Christ himself on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians? Or you just Cherry pick verses in the bible to suit your Claim?

 

[jas84173]

The account in the Quran was stolen from Gnostic beliefs and is present in some Gnostic writings.
Muhammad was a fraud who grew up in an area where heretics were exiled.

 

[mhmtas63]

The account in the Quran was stolen from Gnostic beliefs and is present in some Gnostic writings.

Muhammad was a fraud who grew up in an area where heretics were exiled.

There were intellectual Christians and Jews who were able to understand such thing. And if the revelation preached by prophet Muhammad were been known by everyone then why people were so surprised to hear?

The point is very clear but if you wish rationalize I cannot help.

 

[SalamKhan]

The amount of ignorance I have read on this thread thus far, is simply astounding. I cannot tell if people are deliberately providing false/incorrect information, or they are attempting to address a subject when they are neither informed well enough nor competent to address.

The writing and recitation of the Qur’an for example, is what we call mutawatir, there isn’t a shadow of a doubt that our Prophet Muhammad (S) transmitted what we find today in the Qur’an, to his companions. As for the Uthmanic recension, not even Shi`ahs reject it, despite their rejection of Uthman as a usurper.

As for the miracles performed by our Prophet Muhammad (S), there are many recorded; this can easily be ‘googled’.

As for the actual topic, whether Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A) was crucified or not, this is not treated as a historical matter, what the Qur’an denies, is that Prophet Isa ibn Maryam (A) was truly the one who died on the cross, regardless of what people saw. We believe this on the grounds that it was revealed to us by Allah, and divine knowledge supercedes human knowledge.

Hypothetically speaking, Allah did not at all have to send any revelation or prophet to mankind, He could have left mankind to be doomed to perpetual trial and error. But if Allah were to commision a man to be Prophet, then this man must have a reputation of being truthful and noble among his people even prior to being commissioned to Prophethood, so that he can be trusted. Yet the church’s greatest theologian, Thomas Aquinas, claims that the good life is not necessary for a prophet, making it practically impossible to distinguish between a true Prophet and a false prophet.

 

[jas84173]

It wasn’t a surprise to anyone. What was the surprise was going in and slaughtering anyone who wouldn’t submit.
Muslims use Gnostic texts to justify their beliefs all the time. The Gospel of Truth very much so.
Muhammad like Mani claimed to be the paraclete. Just another false prophet.

 

[HarryStotle]

We believe this on the grounds that it was revealed to us by Allah, and divine knowledge supercedes human knowledge.

Well, no, actually. You “believe this” on the grounds that Mohammed was telling the complete truth about what he was revealed based upon a blind trust that he was NOT being deceived and NOT trying to deceive, even though his “official” teachings constantly changed (were abrogated frequently) and were not very securely transmitted – most were, in fact, destroyed.

In any other context, these grounds would be dismissed as being the most unreliable and ludicrous of all possible grounds – I.e., some lone human being, whose character and stability remain largely unknown, passed on to us what came to him in a dream from a purported messenger of God while the man was alone in a cave at night. And the messages that resulted from that dream were hastily written on scraps of whatever was available at the capricious whim of that man in order to make infallible whatever desire of his he wished to portray as having the sanction of God. Most of these scraps were destroyed but some organized into a single work a hundred years later by a warlord attempting to give divine authority to his military ambitions.

I suppose you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes ignorance and what constitutes sound motives of credibility as opposed to sheer credulity.

 

[HarryStotle]

A religion should not be cocnsist of a doubtful vision.

Funny you should say that.

There is only one religion that consists of and is based almost entirely upon one “doubtful vision.”

 

[SalamKhan]

@HarryStotle You might want to try and read the rest of my post, before attempting to respond to a small section of it. In our theology, there is a criteria for what a true Prophet is, unlike Catholic theology where the criteria is more or less arbitrary.

Even prior to being commissioned as a Prophet, we believe that having a reputation of truthfulness and nobility among one’s own people is necessary for the would be Prophet, otherwise there is no reason to trust his claim to Prophethood; Thomas Aquinas on the other hand said that a good life is not required for prophecy. Likewise, he must be intelligent, to the point of being able to grasp what is being revealed to him all at once, otherwise he cannot be trusted to convey to others, what was revealed to him; Thomas Aquinas rejected this, because he believed it made prophecy too ‘natural’ rather than supernatural.

After being commissioned to Prophethood, first and foremost the doctrine he brings forth must be reasonably sound, meaning his doctrine cannot contradict what can necessarily be known in general by reason alone. What we know about Allah in general, that He is the necessary existent, without beginning and without end, that He is unlike contingent things, that He is self subsistent, that He is one, that He is living, knowing, powerful, willing, etc. can all be known by reason alone. But, what we know about Allah in detail, that He is seeing, hearing, speaking, that He rewards goodness and punishes evil, etc. this cannot be known by reason alone regardless of if they are not impossibilities, and since these are unseen matters then we can only accept them with certainty from authority; that is, a trustworthy teacher.

And yet, Catholics believe in the Trinity and Incarnation, both of which blatantly conflict with what is necessarily known about God in general.

As for miracles, that is, an extraordinary break in nature; this is necessary but only to affirm his claim to Prophethood, following all aforementioned requirements.

Again, the writing and recitation of the Qur’an is mutawatir in wording, meaning word for word, what we find in the Qur’an today, this is what was transmitted from our Prophet Muhammad (S) to his companions; the word ‘mutawatir’ means mass-transmitted, to the point that it is impossible for anything to be fabricated by the mass number of narrators, due to their unanimous agreement. As for the Uthmanic recension, you are utterly ignorant of the matter, so please don’t speak as if you’re competent or informed on the subject.

 

[HarryStotle]

Even prior to being commissioned as a Prophet, we believe that having a reputation of truthfulness and nobility among one’s own people is necessary for the would be Prophet, otherwise there is no reason to trust his claim to Prophethood;

Based upon the life of Mohammed, his qualities of truthfulness and nobility don’t exactly shine forth like the early morning sun.

Thomas Aquinas on the other hand said that a good life is not required for prophecy. Likewise, he must be intelligent, to the point of being able to grasp what is being revealed to him all at once, otherwise he cannot be trusted to convey to others, what was revealed to him; Thomas Aquinas rejected this, because he believed it made prophecy too ‘natural’ rather than supernatural.

I would side with Aquinas on this.

If we are speaking of the individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, then a good life consistently lived would give us a strong sense of that.

However, God can, as Jesus says, “Raise children of Abraham from stones.” Revelation, as God revealing something of his plans to human beings, is God directly intervening in reality and doesn’t on that account have a dependency upon the natural state of things. The Apostles, for example, weren’t particular stellar with regard to their reliability and trustworthiness.

God did, in fact, at least once prophecy using Balaam’s donkey. So are you claiming that Balaam and the rest of us should only have accepted the prophecy if the donkey had “a reputation of truthfulness and nobility?” Hard to see how we could establish that.

Even the donkey seems to disagree with your view when he replied to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

 

[SalamKhan]

@HarryStotle It is common knowledge among Muslims that our Prophet Muhammad (S), even prior to him being commissioned to Prophethood, had a great reputation among his people for being truthful and noble, because all of the rigorously authenticated sources point to this. I’m not what you’re trying to pull with that claim, it just makes me question your integrity even more.

So you concede that requirements for prophecy is more or less arbitrary in your religion. And all the while you reject our Prophet (S)… There is no benefit for you or me in furthering this discussion. So I’ll cease responding to you.

 

[HarryStotle]

So you concede that requirements for prophecy is more or less arbitrary in your religion.

I would suppose that if by “more or less arbitrary” you mean God acts “more or less” arbitrarily when he chooses a prophet, then you need to take that up with God. I cannot resolve your problem concerning how God chooses prophets.

I am not one to suppose that God does act arbitrarily when he chooses prophets so I wouldn’t equate God choosing prophets on some other grounds (other than a “good reputation”) to his just being arbitrary, necessarily. You may think that, but I don’t.

In fact, almost all of the prophets of the Old Testament were mistreated and often rejected by the people who preferred to make their own judgements about who was and who was not sent by God.

Here are Jesus’ words regarding whether or not the people of Jerusalem were reliable and authoritative in their capacity to determine who were the real prophets sent to them…

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matt 23:37)

It seems prophets of God don’t stand out as having “good reputations” among the people generally, but that doesn’t stop God from choosing them anyway.

So it appears that Jesus, whom you admit is a prophet, was not so keen on your idea that people, in general, had the capacity to decide who was and who was not a legitimate prophet, based upon their reputation or some other, acceptable to the people, standard.

Jesus himself was judged by those who believed themselves capable of judging who were and who were not legitimate prophets based upon human standards. Their verdict was that he was not a prophet, and so they crucified him for claiming to be from God.

 

[De_Maria]

Augustine3:

Witnesses around Paul saw a miraculous bright light during his first encounter with Jesus.

Paul’s apostleship has been endorsed by Peter and the other apostles.

Paul’s credibility has been proven by his miracles

So your men have credibility but others not?

Not Mohammed. He claims he saw an angel. No one else saw it. He claims God told him to write the Quran. He never did it. He never produced any miracles to back up his claims to be a prophet.

 

[De_Maria]

So you concede that requirements for prophecy is more or less arbitrary in your religion.

God does all things out of love.

 

[SalamKhan]

@HarryStotle sigh I’ll reply one last time.

"I would suppose that if by “more or less arbitrary” you mean God acts “more or less” arbitrarily when he chooses a prophet, then you need to take that up with God. I cannot resolve your problem concerning how God chooses prophets.

I am not one to suppose that God does act arbitrarily when he chooses prophets so I wouldn’t equate God choosing prophets on some other grounds (other than a “good reputation”) to his just being arbitrary, necessarily. You may think that, but I don’t."

And so you cannot distinguish between a true Prophet and false prophet, and so you have no business deciding whether our Prophet Muhammad (S) was true or false.

"In fact, almost all of the prophets of the Old Testament were mistreated and often rejected by the people who preferred to make their own judgements about who was and who was not sent by God.

Here are Jesus’ words regarding whether or not the people of Jerusalem were reliable and authoritative in their capacity to determine who were the real prophets sent to them…"

Reading isn’t your strong suit, because I specifically mentioned the reputation of the would be Prophet, prior to actually being commissioned to Prophethood (by Allah, NOT by the people). Of course, after claiming Prophethood, it is well known that our Prophet (S) became despised and mistreated, and was driven out from Makkah, was plotted against, etc. Here, you exposed your ignorance of Islam, because the Qur’an frequently mentions how many of the Prophets were rejected and despised by their own people. You should stop being so arrogant and prideful now…

 

[Augustine3]

It is common knowledge among Muslims that our Prophet Muhammad (S), even prior to him being commissioned to Prophethood, had a great reputation among his people for being truthful and noble, because all of the rigorously authenticated sources point to this. I’m not what you’re trying to pull with that claim, it just makes me question your integrity even more.

There are many good people out there who live according to their conscience good moral lives but don’t believe in God.

even prior to him being commissioned to Prophethood, had a great reputation among his people for being truthful and noble

He also had people killed who wrote against him.
Source: List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad - WikiIslam

So you concede that requirements for prophecy is more or less arbitrary in your religion.

Can you please show me proof of your claim?

 

[HarryStotle]

And so you cannot distinguish between a true Prophet and false prophet, and so you have no business deciding whether our Prophet Muhammad (S) was true or false.

I don’t remember saying that there is no way to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. You set up a false dichotomy and were trying to claim that either the prophet had to be determined by his “good reputation” among the people or else any determination would be completely arbitrary. Why would we think those were the only two options?

What “business” I have deciding is not up to you to say.

Reading isn’t your strong suit, because I specifically mentioned the reputation of the would be Prophet, prior to actually being commissioned to Prophethood (by Allah, NOT by the people). Of course, after claiming Prophethood, it is well known that our Prophet (S) became despised and mistreated, and was driven out from Makkah, was plotted against, etc. Here, you exposed your ignorance of Islam, because the Qur’an frequently mentions how many of the Prophets were rejected and despised by their own people. You should stop being so arrogant and prideful now…

Well, we could go through the OT prophets to determine their reputations prior to their “being commissioned” if you like, but it may not turn out in your favour. Recall what they said about Jesus: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” And his own cousins and extended family weren’t exactly impressed by him or his reputation.

You still haven’t addressed the problem of Balaam’s donkey, who from his own mouth admitted he wasn’t exactly prophet material. I mean what kind of good reputation could a donkey really earn among the people?

Besides, if all the prophets became despised after their commissioning, wouldn’t you think the people would eventually catch on that the gift of prophecy and commissioning from God would mean a complete reversal of their esteem for said prophet? So why would God be restricted to selecting prophets with good reputations among the people when those reputations would suffer drastically after the prophet began to speak God’s word? Why would God be restricted in that way when clearly the loss of the prophet’s reputation among the people means nothing to him. Why wouldn’t God just choose someone the people hated anyway, and that way they could just move forward with the proper conviction that God doesn’t really take very seriously their views on a prophet’s reputation from the beginning.

 

[HarryStotle]

A few quotes from Scripture:

(Luke 6:26) “Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets

(1 Sam 16:7) But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

(Jeremiah 17:5) Thus says the Lord: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.

(Isaiah 51:7) “Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings.

(Jeremiah 1:5) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Notice that the Lord formed Jeremiah to be a prophet from “before” he was born. That would have nothing to do with his reputation among the people.

 

[De_Maria]

Quran also caution Muslims and even prophet Muhammad. God do that for their faults. So People of Book…

You can continue your discussion with the others. I just want to make a few points.

First, Islam is built upon the book put together by one man, Uthman.
2nd, Muhammed never completed the task he claimed God gave him to do.
3rd, Why does anyone believe this doubtful vision which was not witnessed by anyone?

That’s all, thanks.

 

[mhmtas63]

You can continue your discussion with the others. I just want to make a few points.

First, Islam is built upon the book put together by one man, Uthman.

2nd, Muhammed never completed the task he claimed God gave him to do.

3rd, Why does anyone believe this doubtful vision which was not witnessed by anyone?

That’s all, thanks.

Sory but you look like narrow-minded. Firstly Uthman did not compile a new book but he just made several copies from original with Quraysh dialect to be send to other Islamic countries.

Muhammad complited His task by witness of thousands of Muslims. Here from the Last Sermon of prophet Muhammad:

When the sun passed its zenith, he ordered that Al-Qaswa be saddled for him, and came to the bottom of the valley, where he addressed the people and said:

“Your blood and your wealth are sacred to one another, as sacred as this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this land of yours. All matters of the Jahiliyyah are abolished beneath my feet. The blood feuds, and the first blood feud that I abolish is that of Rabiah bin Al-Harith, who was nursed among Banu Laith and killed by Hudhail. The Riba (usury) of the Jahiliyyah is abolished, and first Riba that I abolish is that of Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib; it is all abolished. Fear Allah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allah, and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the Word of Allah. Your rights over them are that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to tread on your bedding. If they do that, then hit them, but in a manner that does ot cause injury or leave a mark. Their rights over you are that you should provide for them and clothe them in a reasonable manner. I have left you something which, if you adhere to it, you will never go astray: The Book of Allah. You will be asked about me. What will you say? They said: ‘We bear witness that you have conveyed (the Message) and fulfilled (your duty) and offered sincere advice.’ He gestured with his forefinger towards the sky and then towards the people, (and said) “O Allah, bear witness, O Allah bear witness,” three times.

As I explained in previous posts there are thousand witness of revelation.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sory but you look like narrow-minded. Firstly Uthman did not compile a new book but he just made several copies from original with Quraysh dialect to be send to other Islamic countries.

What happened to those four original codices from Uthman’s recension?

Why were all the original manuscripts burned by Uthman?