Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Tvebak

Why is the Quran the last message?

I was thinking we could have a thread dedicated to debate what the Quran itself have to say about wether it's the last book to arrive to earth from "god".

Please post your arguments for or against.

Cheers.
HomoErectus

Which bears the question - last "messenger" - why ?

After all, being a "prophet" was a quite an inflationary profession, taken up by many jobless people, having no other talents or qualifications....

Why did the muslims stop counting on all the "prophets" that roamed the earth, and they still do, there's plenty of "prophets" around !
brainout

On Muhammed being the Last Prophet.



Tvebak, "the last prophet" is a common claim since the first century AD.  So in the larger historical context, Muhammed was one of many who claimed to be the last one.  Christianity is rife with people claiming to be the final prophet:  you can turn on Trinity Broadcasting Network on almost any day and see someone making that claim.

Mormonism is based on that.  So is Catholicism.  To them, the "last" is an office, to be serially filled from one person to the next (kinda like the dalai lama, in Tibetian religions) until Christ returns.

I've been trying to figure out why anyone even thinks there is SUPPOSED to be a last one.  Christ said John was the last one, Matt 11:14 (explaining Malachi 4:5, which is the actual prediction of the last prophet).

Near as I can come to an answer:  it's just someone thinking he's important.  You and HomoE don't believe in God or demons so you won't agree with me when I posit that demons are playing with such claimants, making them feel special.  I truly think now that Muhammed was himself a Christian, but gone bad.  Bible says demons get to mess with you when that happens.  So that to me accounts for the fixation on the Bible which Qu'ran evidences.

Same kind of characteristics are seen in other last prophets of notoriety, like David Koresh, Jim Jones, that Mormon guy (Jeffs?), to name a few current ones.  But there are dozens.  Some guy is even calling himself Christ in Brazil, named "Henry Christ" -- I got that from a Brazilian friend of mine, you can search it on the web.

No shortage of wacko claimants.  So in this context, I think Muhammed is just another one.

As for what doctrinal justification there would be for a "last prophet", I don't know.  Qu'ran presents a DOWNGRADED spiritual life and moral code, not an improvement on what went before.  So I really don't know what else could make the claim, even relevant.

My answer doesn't help, huh.  It's the best I've got, sorry.

The Last revelation as a 'book'.


I can do better with the "last book on earth" idea.  The root idea has always been that Divine Revelation was progressive.  A Free God will not impose Himself, so instead of giving you all the knowledge at once, you are given a little bit at a time, to grow up on.  A "covenant" is about a set of information which you live on, and (like teaching children) you obey or disobey the covenant with consequences.

As you already know, the Bible is just such a collection of books showing how the Covenant changes from Adam through Christ.  Book of Hebrews sums up well the meaning of it.  Of course, whether one believes in that message or not, the idea was that all the development would culminate in Christ, the Pinnacle.  Idea to get His Head in our heads to have spiritual intimacy with God.

So that leaves no room for improvement.  You can reject it, accept it, poorly live on it, whatever.  But in terms of rules, there wouldn't logically be anything higher, presuming God exists in the first place.  BIBLE's Christianity has no rituals (religion creates them, and you'll not find them in the Bible).  BIBLE's Christianity doesn't advocate church-state (never mind the wacko Christian oxymoronic right).  It's a vertical relationship, God to the believer.  That believers need teaching and congregate for that reason;  that they are to remember the Eucharist (the lone ceremony, and even it has no set rules), is where the 'covenant' stands at present.  Next stop, is the Millennium, which is really just a hybrid wrap up of history, fulfilling a promise back to the Jews since David (Christ was to be born in David's 1000th anniversary-of-Kingship year, and He was).

So I don't see anything in the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon (another contender book making the same claims and having the same kind of leader) that 'improves' on what Christ legated.  Rather, both go back to rather silly legalism which has its origins in pagan culture (obvious for Qu'ran, whereas Book of Mormon is warmed-over gnosticism).

Again, that's the best I can offer as a short answer. Smile
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Alighieri Alert;

brainout wrote:
I truly think now that Muhammed was himself a Christian, but gone bad.
Interesting! I say this because Dante, who penned the Divine Comedy, also believed this. He believed that Muhammad (and ‘Ali, in fact) had caused a schism in the Christian Church. Accordingly he depicts Muhammad in Hell suffering eternal torment. And since people suffer what sins they wrought on earth, Dante has Muhammad repeatedly split open from sternum to groin.
Tvebak

Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers
brainout

Re: Alighieri Alert;

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
brainout wrote:
I truly think now that Muhammed was himself a Christian, but gone bad.
Interesting! I say this because Dante, who penned the Divine Comedy, also believed this. He believed that Muhammad (and ‘Ali, in fact) had caused a schism in the Christian Church. Accordingly he depicts Muhammad in Hell suffering eternal torment. And since people suffer what sins they wrought on earth, Dante has Muhammad repeatedly split open from sternum to groin.


Whoa, Pazuzu, really?  I saw the picture someone made of Muhammed being tortured as you note above, but I didn't know it was from Dante.  I've got Divine Comedy, I think.  

There ought to be proof if Muhammed was a Christian, somewhere.  I don't know if I'm supposed to spend a lot of time on it, yet.  In the "Jesus is God says Koran" thread at FFI, Apple Pie and I are in somewhat of a tussle over this, because he thinks Muhammed didn't even exist, but that the name "Muhammed" is but a participle meaning "Praised One" (or similar import) referring to Jesus the Christ.  I disagree with him.  I disagree with him on a few other things also.  However, I need to do more homework, this whole Qu'ran inquiry in the Arabic is new to me, my 'job' for 2008.  Might turn into a semi-career, I don't know yet.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

The wonderful Patricia Crone presents some thoughts here about Muhammad and how much or how little we know of him, but in the opening section she seems pretty certain that he did in fact exist.

As for The Divine Comedy, check out the volume INFERNO, Canto number XXVIII (2Cool.
brainout

Canto XXVIII (28 ) of Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri

Divine Comedy, section Inferno, Canto XXVIII, published by Chicago University Press, 1952, for Encyclopedia Britannica Great Books, page 41 wrote:
8th Circle, beginning at line 22: "Truly a cask by losing mid-board or stave is not so split open, as one I saw who was cleft from the chin to where the wind is broken;  his entrails were hanging between his legs, his pluck was visible, and the dismal sack which makes ordure of what is swallowed.  While I fix myself on all seeing him, he looked at me, and with his hands opened his breast, saying:  'Now see how I rend myself;  see how mangled is Mahomet.  In front of me goes Ali weeping, cleft in the face from chin to forelock;  and all the others whom thou seest here were, when living, sowers of scandal and of schism, and therefore are they so cleft.  A devil is here behind that fashions us so cruelly, putting again to the edge of the sword each of this throng when we have circled the doleful road;  because the wounds are closed up before one pases again before him.  But who art thou that art musing on the crag, perhaps to delay going to the punishment that has been adjudged on thine own accusations?'"


Continuing at line 55 wrote:
" 'Now say then to Fra Dolcino, thou who perhaps wilt shortly see the sun, if he wish not speedily to follow me hither, so to arm himself with provisions that stress of snow may not bring the victory to the Novarese, which to gain othewise would not be easy.' Mahomet said to me this word, after he had lifted one foot to go on, then to depart he stretched it on the ground."


Something must be missing in translation or in me, lol.  I don't see where it says Muhammed was a Christian, but it clearly says he's in the 8th circle for being schismatic.  What am I missing?

Thank you for that article link (click here).  I found one paragraph in it very inaccurate (or maybe there's a typo, for its "neither" is inaccurate); but the rest was pretty good, well worth reading.  Here's the paragraph which the author needs to fix:  
Quote:
It is difficult not to suspect that the tradition places the prophet's career in Mecca for the same reason that it insists that he was illiterate: the only way he could have acquired his knowledge of all the things that God had previously told the Jews and the Christians was by revelation from God himself. Mecca was virgin territory; it had neither Jewish nor Christian communities.


Qu'ran itself attests that Jews and Christians were there then.  If there were none, most of the Qu'ran wouldn't be relevant.  We also know from history that large numbers of Jews and Christians were there, fleeing from the many wars over Jerusalem.  So it wasn't "virgin territory", the Arabian peninsula, including Makka.  If Makka was a trading center, then clearly Christians and Jews were in it.  

Then again, the rest of the article is so good, maybe the "neither" is a typo?

Thank you again, beloved-of-God Pazuzu.  I might not be back for several days, at least.  Work has come in.  Will miss you!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Hope you enjoy your work, and see you soon. In reference to what you’ve stated above, I think she refers to Jews & Christians in Makkah as opposed to anywhere in ‘Arabia. I know that Muhammad’s uncle Abu Talib followed Christianity, but I thought that the rest of those in Makkah simply worshipped others gods and goddesses (pagans) and didn’t follow Christianity or Judaism (the Jews lived in Yathrib, later known as Madinah).

As for Dante’s beliefs, I didn’t intend to imply that he stated these in his poem itself, oopsie! Let me throw a quote at you:
http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/papers/dai wrote:
Dante does not punish Mohammed and Ali for heresy, but rather for schism, indicating that they brought about schism in the Christian Church. Mohammed and [‘A]li are not only responsible for heresy, as Dante believed, because in addition to forming a religion that went against the ideals and established views of Christianity, they also caused dissent and schism within the Christian community. During the Middle Ages, there was a prevalent belief that Mohammed was an apostate Christian, possibly even a cardinal. Furthermore, Mohammed possessed a deep reverence for Christ, for he regarded him as being the greatest of prophets, and considered his birth to be a wonderful event. Even though Mohammed might have been an apostate, he was still a member of the Christian community, thus, when he decided to break sway from Christianity to form Islam, he took with him many followers of the Christian god. Since the Muslim religion began to attract many individuals, eventually consuming almost all of the East, Dante must have felt that these individuals were "stolen" from Christianity, and would have been part of his religious community if it were not for Mohammed. For this reason, Dante feels that Mohammed caused dissent, or schism, in the Christian community, and was not responsible simply for heresy.

OK, so it doesn’t explicitly state that Dante thought Muhammad an apostate Christian, but you can infer that from the information if you like… Wink
Baal

The term "Last Messenger" is not accurate. If muhammad called himself the last messenger it would have implied the last messenger sent to you, as in, the latest one.

But he called himself "Khatim Al Mursaleen", the "Seal of those Sent", implying he is the "Final Prophet".
BMZ

Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ
HomoErectus

BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


WHO "declares" ?

And who believes any "declaration" ?

Declare what you want... all day long, and all of the night !
Fine with the rest ot the world...
Who cares ?

Understand what I'm tryin' to say ?
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


Hi BMZ

Thanks for the answer.

And no I did not think you are Ahmed  Wink

Well I don't consider this as a "powerful declaration", it just says "this is the book", or as Shakir renders it "this book". Anyways you have to take what follows in consideration; "there's no doubt therein" or the like. It proclaims that it's a "good", or a special, book, but it does not proclaim that it will be the last book send down, at least not in that verse.

Cheers.
Tvebak

Baal wrote:
The term "Last Messenger" is not accurate. If muhammad called himself the last messenger it would have implied the last messenger sent to you, as in, the latest one.

But he called himself "Khatim Al Mursaleen", the "Seal of those Sent", implying he is the "Final Prophet".


Hi Baal

This is a part of the subject, but I was not refering the muhammad as "last messenger", I was refering to the quran as the last message, argued only from the quran.

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

Hello all

The Quran is the last message from the one and only God, the one who also sent the Zaboor, Torah and Injil

show us other books that the same god sent after the Quran and when you do you will prove your case, until then the Quran will stay the last message from the one and only God

Salam
AhmedBahgat

Baal wrote:
The term "Last Messenger" is not accurate. If muhammad called himself the last messenger it would have implied the last messenger sent to you, as in, the latest one.

But he called himself "Khatim Al Mursaleen", the "Seal of those Sent", implying he is the "Final Prophet".


LOL

was MOhammed ordered in the Quran to say that he was Khatim Al Mursaleen or Khatim Al Anbiaa?

please check what you said before you come back with another confused answer

cheers
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Nobody ‘ordered’ Muhammad to say anything. Now, unlike a lot of people who acted militantly hostile towards Islam, I can accept the possibility that some of the times — especially early on in his career as a ‘prophet’ — he honestly did believe he received revelations from his god, but nobody ordered him to say anything. He did it himself.
AhmedBahgat

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
Nobody ‘ordered’ Muhammad to say anything. Now, unlike a lot of people who acted militantly hostile towards Islam, I can accept the possibility that some of the times — especially early on in his career as a ‘prophet’ — he honestly did believe he received revelations from his god, but nobody ordered him to say anything. He did it himself.



hmmm

so the hundreds of times we read the word Qul.... (Say.....), is not an order to say hundreds of things?

oh well, donlt worry about answering my question, this is because I have dismissed ya
BMZ

Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


Hi BMZ

Thanks for the answer.

And no I did not think you are Ahmed  Wink

Well I don't consider this as a "powerful declaration", it just says "this is the book", or as Shakir renders it "this book". Anyways you have to take what follows in consideration; "there's no doubt therein" or the like. It proclaims that it's a "good", or a special, book, but it does not proclaim that it will be the last book send down, at least not in that verse.

Cheers.


Hi Tvebak,

Shakir's translation is just a very ordinary translation. Shakir and Hilali & Mohsin Khan, followed that translation using the first translation in English by Maulana Muhammad Ali of India. It is not a scholarly translation.

The verse is "Zaalik-al-kitabo laa raib". Translated word by word, it would mean "This is the book no doubt." Al-kitaab means The Book.

In proper English, it would mean,"Without any doubt, this is the Book.

The verse does not mean, "This is the Book. There is no doubt in it."

Cheers

BMZ
BMZ

HomoErectus wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


WHO "declares" ?

And who believes any "declaration" ?

Declare what you want... all day long, and all of the night !
Fine with the rest ot the world...
Who cares ?

Understand what I'm tryin' to say ?


Yes, I understand and I don't care either, if others don't care.
Mutley

BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


Hi BMZ

Thanks for the answer.

And no I did not think you are Ahmed  Wink

Well I don't consider this as a "powerful declaration", it just says "this is the book", or as Shakir renders it "this book". Anyways you have to take what follows in consideration; "there's no doubt therein" or the like. It proclaims that it's a "good", or a special, book, but it does not proclaim that it will be the last book send down, at least not in that verse.

Cheers.


Hi Tvebak,

Shakir's translation is just a very ordinary translation. Shakir and Hilali & Mohsin Khan, followed that translation using the first translation in English by Maulana Muhammad Ali of India. It is not a scholarly translation.

The verse is "Zaalik-al-kitabo laa raib". Translated word by word, it would mean "This is the book no doubt." Al-kitaab means The Book.

In proper English, it would mean,"Without any doubt, this is the Book.

The verse does not mean, "This is the Book. There is no doubt in it."

Cheers

BMZ


Well, the way I read it, it meant "I'm lying to you, but don't tell anybody else".  Laughing   Laughing  

But on a more serious note, the second translation seems to fit well with the concept that they would find much discrepancy in it if it wasn't true, and the challenge of writing a sura like it.
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello all

The Quran is the last message from the one and only God, the one who also sent the Zaboor, Torah and Injil

show us other books that the same god sent after the Quran and when you do you will prove your case, until then the Quran will stay the last message from the one and only God

Salam


Hello Ahmed

That is not the point of this thread, the point is why is the quran the last message according to the quran itself. Please feel free to put forward your arguments.

Cheers
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
Dear Ahmed (or BMZ) could you gives us your views on the matter. Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?

Cheers


Just saw your post . By the way, I am not Ahmed.  Smile

Now to your question."Why do you consider the Quran to be the last message?"

Because Qur'aan, in the opening verse, after the opening words Alif, Laam, Meem, makes a very powerful declaration, which is: "ZAALIK-AL-KITAAB  and it means "This IS the Book".

Once it has been declared that Qur'aan IS the Book, the question of another book or other books coming after does not arise.

BMZ


Hi BMZ

Thanks for the answer.

And no I did not think you are Ahmed  Wink

Well I don't consider this as a "powerful declaration", it just says "this is the book", or as Shakir renders it "this book". Anyways you have to take what follows in consideration; "there's no doubt therein" or the like. It proclaims that it's a "good", or a special, book, but it does not proclaim that it will be the last book send down, at least not in that verse.

Cheers.


Hi Tvebak,

Shakir's translation is just a very ordinary translation. Shakir and Hilali & Mohsin Khan, followed that translation using the first translation in English by Maulana Muhammad Ali of India. It is not a scholarly translation.

The verse is "Zaalik-al-kitabo laa raib". Translated word by word, it would mean "This is the book no doubt." Al-kitaab means The Book.

In proper English, it would mean,"Without any doubt, this is the Book.

The verse does not mean, "This is the Book. There is no doubt in it."

Cheers

BMZ


Hi BMZ

As I said in the my last comment this does not state that it's the last book! It states that it's a special book. And this is the case no matter how the "proper english" sounds. I understand your emphazing the "the", but please try to understand that it can be understood differently  Wink  Now I cannot believe that this is the only thing you rely on?

Cheers
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello all

The Quran is the last message from the one and only God, the one who also sent the Zaboor, Torah and Injil

show us other books that the same god sent after the Quran and when you do you will prove your case, until then the Quran will stay the last message from the one and only God

Salam


Hello Ahmed

That is not the point of this thread, the point is why is the quran the last message according to the quran itself. Please feel free to put forward your arguments.

Cheers


Hello

well, if there was  a first message then there must be a lsat message and it just happen to all of us that it is the Quran, now if you don't like that it is the last message then tough luck to you

cheers
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello all

The Quran is the last message from the one and only God, the one who also sent the Zaboor, Torah and Injil

show us other books that the same god sent after the Quran and when you do you will prove your case, until then the Quran will stay the last message from the one and only God

Salam


Hello Ahmed

That is not the point of this thread, the point is why is the quran the last message according to the quran itself. Please feel free to put forward your arguments.

Cheers


Hello

well, if there was  a first message then there must be a lsat message and it just happen to all of us that it is the Quran, now if you don't like that it is the last message then tough luck to you

cheers


Hello Ahmed

I'm sure that you understand that this is not what I wanted this thread to be about. I wanted people to argue from the quran wether it says it is the last book/message or not. I'm sure you can put up a coherent and well articulated argument for that quran says that it is the last message.

Cheers.

PS. And you should know by now that I don't consider there have ever been a "message" since there's none to give that message, in my barbie-world.
AhmedBahgat

Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Tvebak wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Hello all

The Quran is the last message from the one and only God, the one who also sent the Zaboor, Torah and Injil

show us other books that the same god sent after the Quran and when you do you will prove your case, until then the Quran will stay the last message from the one and only God

Salam


Hello Ahmed

That is not the point of this thread, the point is why is the quran the last message according to the quran itself. Please feel free to put forward your arguments.

Cheers


Hello

well, if there was  a first message then there must be a lsat message and it just happen to all of us that it is the Quran, now if you don't like that it is the last message then tough luck to you

cheers


Hello Ahmed

I'm sure that you understand that this is not what I wanted this thread to be about. I wanted people to argue from the quran wether it says it is the last book/message or not. I'm sure you can put up a coherent and well articulated argument for that quran says that it is the last message.

Cheers.

PS. And you should know by now that I don't consider there have ever been a "message" since there's none to give that message, in my barbie-world.


Hello

Well, if you are living your barbie world, why you think I should consider that?

well, it makes no difference to me that you indulge yourself in your barbie world, what makes a differnce to you is the so many stupid questions you ask while you never acceot an answer, in a way you are nothing but an arrogant time bandit

cheers
Tvebak

AhmedBahgat wrote:

Hello

Well, if you are living your barbie world, why you think I should consider that?

well, it makes no difference to me that you indulge yourself in your barbie world, what makes a differnce to you is the so many stupid questions you ask while you never acceot an answer, in a way you are nothing but an arrogant time bandit

cheers


Hello

If you don't want to contribute to the subject on the thread, then please don't waste space with your personal opinion about my person.

As to not accept an answer, I accept answers but I would like to have the freedom to discuss them anyway.

Cheers

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home