FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Why is the Quran the last message?
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:26 am    Post subject: Why is the Quran the last message?  Reply with quote

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.
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HomoErectus
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 332


Location: Germany
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 !
_________________
Upright is better than bent-over !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Alighieri Alert; Reply with quote

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.
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tvebak
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 280


Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.


Last edited by brainout on Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pazuzu bin Hanbi
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 156


Location: Save Warp
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
_________________
$_=q{$_=q{Q};s/Q/$_/;print};s/Q/$_/;print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baal
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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".

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum