How much time do we really have?

[mikeb768]

Except that's not exactly what happened. Your link above glosses over it, but according to the ahadith recorded by At-Tirmidhi, Abu Bakr lost his bet (your link gets around this by claiming that Abu Bakr extended the bet before he lost it, but that's not supported by At-Tirmidhi). After Q 30:1-6 were revealed, Abu Bakr went and told this to the Quraysh.

According to one tradition recorded by At-Tirmidhi, the Quraysh told Abu Bakr to set a time limit of his choosing for their bet, and he picked five years. After that five years had passed, and the Romans weren't victorious, Abu Bakr told Muhammad about his failed bet, and Muhammad told Abu Bakr that he should have bet nine years, not five, since bid'i means "less than ten".

According to another tradition recorded by At-Tirmidhi, it was the Quraysh who suggested the time limit for the bet, saying that since bid'i means anywhere between three and nine, they should split the difference and make the bet for six years. Abu Bakr agreed, and when six years passed with no Roman victory, the Quraysh took what they had won per the terms of the bet. When the Romans defeated the Persians the next year, the Muslims rebuked Abu Bakr for only betting six years, and he replied that since the prediction was for "three to nine years" and victory came in seven years, he may have lost the bet but the prediction of Muhammad was true.

You'll note the discrepancy here in just exactly when the Roman victory was supposed to have happened. Your link above says that the Roman victory came nine years after Q 30:1-6 was revealed (though it doesn't say what specifically that "victory" was), which matches one of the traditions relayed by At-Tirmidhi. But the other tradition relayed by At-Tirmidhi says that the Roman victory actually happened two years earlier. Other traditions, as related by Abul A'la Maududi, say that the Roman victory happened exactly ten years after Q 30:1-6 was revealed, because "bid'i in Arabic applies to a number up to ten" (and he counts from 614 AD, rather than the 615 AD used by others to determine when the "Roman victory" happened).

We can see what's happening here: people after the fact are doing things like making charts of events by year (such as the one at your wiki length above about the hadith of the prediction), picking some event of their own choosing, declaring it the "Roman victory" of the ayah, and then retrofitting what Muhammad must have meant by bid'i (and when he said it) in order to make sure that their chosen event fits within the prediction. And, as we can see with the evolution of the story about Abu Bakr's bet going from him losing, to him losing but declaring that Muhammad's prediction was right after all, to him winning, the "miraculousness" of the prediction became ever more embellished as time went on.

Are claiming that Abu Bakr won the bet within 7 to 9 years? Or that he didn't win the bet but that Ubayy still ended up giving him 100 camels anyway?

What exactly are you saying?

Also if you think the link which I posted was not the best source then why not provide us with a better one?

 

[A'isha]

Are claiming that Abu Bakr won the bet within 7 to 9 years? Or that he didn't win the bet but that Ubayy still ended up giving him 100 camels anyway?

What exactly are you saying?

I'm saying that there are conflicting traditions that show distinct signs of later retconning and embellishment, which pokes several very large holes in your argument that Q 30:1-6 was an exact prediction that was miraculously fulfilled.

Also if you think the link which I posted was not the best source then why not provide us with a better one?

Here you go.

 

[mikeb768]

I'm saying that there are conflicting traditions that show distinct signs of later retconning and embellishment, which pokes several very large holes in your argument that Q 30:1-6 was an exact prediction that was miraculously fulfilled.

Here you go.

I disagree, if Abu Bakr was allowed to "double down" on the wager by Ubayy, and the prediction still took place within a "few" years time, which was exactly what was original claim in the first place. [Quran 30:1-6], the statement made in the Quran requires no "retroactive continuity" as you are claiming.

Also do you really expect us to pay $27.95 to have access to the same sources which you are supposedly quoting from?

 

[A'isha]

I disagree, if Abu Bakr was allowed to "double down" on the wager by Ubayy, and the prediction still took place within a "few" years time, which was exactly what was original claim in the first place. [Quran 30:1-6], the statement made in the Quran requires no "retroactive continuity" as you are claiming.

The fact that there are numerous differing (and, more importantly, contradictory) traditions about the prediction, the fulfillment, and the bet shows that there most certainly was a retroactive continuity. All you've done is pick the one you like best.

Also do you really expect us to pay $27.95 to have access to the same sources which you are supposedly quoting from?

It's Ibn Kathir! If you're going to try and proclaim the miraculousness of the Qur'an based on the traditions, you could at least bother to actually read and reference those traditions yourself, rather than googling random websites that you think maybe sorta possibly could support whatever it is you think you're trying to prove.

 

[mikeb768]

The fact that there are numerous differing (and, more importantly, contradictory) traditions about the prediction, the fulfillment, and the bet shows that there most certainly was a retroactive continuity. All you've done is pick the one you like best.



It's Ibn Kathir! If you're going to try and proclaim the miraculousness of the Qur'an based on the traditions, you could at least bother to actually read and reference those traditions yourself, rather than googling random websites that you think maybe sorta possibly could support whatever it is you think you're trying to prove.

Aisha, you are really grasping at straws, don't you think? Also you still haven't managed to provide us with a link to the actual source of your claims.

What gives you the impression that the website "The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) -The Pride of the Universe-" is just a random source/not a legitimate source?

 

[A'isha]

Aisha, you are really grasping at straws, don't you think? Also you still haven't managed to provide us with a link to the actual source of your claims.

That is the source! It's on pages 50-51!

What gives you the impression that the website "The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) -The Pride of the Universe-" is just a random source/not a legitimate source?

Er, because that's what it is? It's basically some Turkish blog.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That is the source! It's on pages 50-51!

Pages 50, 51 you say?
http://books.google.de/books?id=jAHs9Wboz4gC&lpg=PP1&hl=de&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

For Mike. Who seems a little confused.

 

[mikeb768]

That is the source! It's on pages 50-51!



Er, because that's what it is? It's basically some Turkish blog.

Not sure what you have against the Turks or why you are going out of your way to misrepresent their website as being a "blog" (as you claim).

The following statement can be easily found on the About page for their website
"We decided to renew our website in 2011. Thanks to the contribution of the team we formed, and the authors and academicians that are experts in their fields, we renewed the design and content of website as a result of the hard work for several months and present it to you."

Here is a better link to Jami` at-Tirmidhi (collection of hadith compiled by Imam Abu `Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi) Link

Maybe you will be able to show us where in there you were able to find this information? You've actually read through all 46 books of of hadith? Wow that is quite impressive, most Muslims have not even done this.

Reminds me of a joke by Kamal El Mekki, which I would post if I could find it.

 

[mikeb768]

Pages 50, 51 you say?
http://books.google.de/books?id=jAHs9Wboz4gC&lpg=PP1&hl=de&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

For Mike. Who seems a little confused.

You do realize that the link which you provided actually supports what I first posted and not what Aisha has been claiming, right?

 

[A'isha]

Not sure what you have against the Turks

Nothing.

or why you are going out of your way to misrepresent their website as being a "blog" (as you claim).

The following statement can be easily found on the About page for their website
"We decided to renew our website in 2011. Thanks to the contribution of the team we formed, and the authors and academicians that are experts in their fields, we renewed the design and content of website as a result of the hard work for several months and present it to you."

Which "authors and academicians"?

Here is a better link to Jami` at-Tirmidhi (collection of hadith compiled by Imam Abu `Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi) Link

Maybe you will be able to show us where in there you were able to find this information?

Here you go:

So when Allah revealed these Ayat, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, went out, proclaiming throughout Makkah: 'Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious, in Bid' years (30:1-4).' Some of the Quraish said: 'Then this is (a bet) between us and you. Your companion claims that the Romans will defeat the Persians in Bid' years, so why have have a bet on that between us and you?' Abu Bakr said: 'Yes.' This was before betting has been forbidden. So Abu Bakr and the idolaters made a bet, and they said to Abu Bakr: 'What do you think - Bid' means something between three and nine years, so let us agree on the middle.' So they agreed on six years; Then six years passed without the Romans being victorious. The idolaters took what they won in the bet from Abu Bakr.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You do realize that the link which you provided actually supports what I first posted and not what Aisha has been claiming, right?

Mike, you have manouvered yourself into a position where you claim that the sky is blue, I'll go outside and check.

And no, I think that Aisha is in the right on this one.

 

[mikeb768]

Nothing.



Which "authors and academicians"?



Here you go:

It's as interesting debate, but none of this has any impact on the fact that the Quran mentioned this would occur in a few years time, and then it actually did occur within a few years time. If anything the hadiths only provide further proof that the claim was in circulation prior to the event taking place.

 

[Scorpion]

It's as interesting debate, but none of this has any impact on the fact that the Quran mentioned this would occur in a few years time, and then it actually did occur within a few years time. If anything the hadiths only provide further proof that the claim was in circulation prior to the event taking place.

You are desperately trying to claim the quran is something it is not, on the flimsy evidence of nothing but a few lucky guesses by Muhammad.

But the truth is the quran is largely bunk, and if God was the author of it he is a mumbling, moronic monster.

 

[A'isha]

It's as interesting debate, but none of this has any impact on the fact that the Quran mentioned this would occur in a few years time, and then it actually did occur within a few years time. If anything the hadiths only provide further proof that the claim was in circulation prior to the event taking place.

Not really, no.

You know how you said that the traditional date of the revelation of Q 30:1-6 was 614 to 615 AD? Look what else I found in At-Tirmidhi:

Abu Sa'eed narrated: "On the Day of Badr, the Romans had a victory over the Persians. So the believers were pleased with that, then the following was revealed: 'Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated, up to His saying: 'the believers will rejoice - with the help of Allah... (30:1-5)'" He said: "So the believers were happy with the victory of the Romans over the Persians."

Far from being revealed when the Romans were on the ropes in their war against the Persians, this hadith says that the "prediction" of Roman victory was made in 624 AD (when the Battle of Badr occurred), after the turning of the tide in the Roman-Persian war (and after the Muslims had already heard about a Roman victory!)

 

[mikeb768]

Not really, no.

You know how you said that the traditional date of the revelation of Q 30:1-6 was 614 to 615 AD? Look what else I found in At-Tirmidhi:



Far from being revealed when the Romans were on the ropes in their war against the Persians, this hadith says that the "prediction" of Roman victory was made in 624 AD (when the Battle of Badr occurred), after the turning of the tide in the Roman-Persian war (and after the Muslims had already heard about a Roman victory!)

Are attempting to refute your own reference which was posted previously that Abu Bakr lost the bet? Link

The wars between the Persians and the Romans spanned over many years, just look at the previous post #234

And where in the link does it say "first/only" revealed, it could have just been repeating/reaffirming what had been previously stated, could it not?

 

[A'isha]

Are attempting to refute your own reference which was posted previously that Abu Bakr lost the bet? Link

Uh, no, considering that my position all along is that there are many conflicting traditions, which show a distinct pattern of an evolution and embellishment of a story.

The wars between the Persians and the Romans spanned over many years, just look at the previous post #234

Yes, and by the time of Badr, the Romans were no longer losing that war, but winning, making a prediction of their eventual victory made on "the Day of Badr" distinctly less miraculous.

And where in the link does it say "first/only" revealed, it could have just been repeating/reaffirming what had been previously stated, could it not?

Now who's grasping at straws?

 

[mikeb768]

You are desperately trying to claim the quran is something it is not, on the flimsy evidence of nothing but a few lucky guesses by Muhammad.

But the truth is the quran is largely bunk, and if God was the author of it he is a mumbling, moronic monster.

Scorpion, as it stands you (or anyone else for that matter) have managed to provide any proof, which would warrant any of the things which have been mentioned in the OP being removed or even revised for that matter.

I am not a mathematician, but I think most would agree that it is quite improbable that a book which was spoken into being, by a man who lived over 1400 years ago, a man who could not read or write, would contain so many correct predictions (9/10).

Also scholars seem to disagree with you regarding the literary quality of the Quran, "The Quran is widely regarded as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language." Link

 

[Scorpion]

Also scholars seem to disagree with you regarding the literary quality of the Quran, "The Quran is widely regarded as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language." Link

That does not say much for other Arabic literature, as the quran is repedetive and poor in narrative. A good example of that is sura 12, which is obviously a half remembered rendition of the story of Joseph copied from the bible. But sura 12 is incomprehensible unless you have already read the Genesis account of Joseph. Sura 12 leaves out vital details that make the story of Joseph understandable in the bible. Like the relationship of Joseph to his brothers. The Genesis account of Joseph is four times longer than sura 12 much of the story was left out of the quran, probably because someone read the bible to Muhammad, and he could not remember all the details.

 

[TimCallahan]

We live in very interesting times where we are able to sit back and watch while so many scientific facts which were mentioned in the Quran (over 1400 years ago) are finally coming into the light. Another interesting realm where the Quran manages to provide insight are the prophecies and historical references which are made therein. The Quran contains a number of different prophecies (most of which have already taken place).

Okay, let's take a look at probability and other factors in your quoted fulfilled prophecies and historical facts:

The Quran correctly predicted that the Romans would in a few years time defeat the Persians.
[Quran 30:2-4] Link

Quran correctly predicted that Abu Lahab a staunch enemy of Islam would die as a disbeliever.
[Quran 111:1-5] *Critics may make the claim that this is not hard thing to predict, although Abu Sufyan another well known enemy of Islam later accepts Islam. Link1, Link2

Quran correctly predicted that the Muslims would be able to reenter the Sacred Mosque (Mecca).
[Quran 48:27] Link

Everyone of these have a 50% probability of being right or wrong. There's nothing in anyway impressive here.

Quran correctly identifies a close ally of the Egyptian Pharaoh during the time of Moses, by the name of Haman.
[Quran 28:6, 8, 38; 29:39; 40:24, 36] Link

Nonsense. Haman was the villain of the Book of Esther. Muhammad obviously conflated and garbled the two books. That's a major screw up on Muhammad's part. Ergo, the Qur'an is not divinely inspired.

Quran correctly predicted the Jewish people would be gathered together from among various nations, such as in the creation of state of Israel.
[Quran 17:104] Link

Here's what Q 17: 103, 104 actually says (bracketed material added for clarity):

So he [Pharaoh] wanted to wipe them off of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him. After his death We told the Children of Israel, "Live in the land, and when the promise of the Hereafter is fulfilled, We shall bring you to the assembly of all people.

This says nothing about, " . . . the Jewish people would be gathered together from among various nations, such as in the creation of state of Israel."

Quran states that God would preserve the Pharaoh who lived during the time of Moses as a sign for later generations.
[Quran 10:90-92] Link1, Link2

And yet, Q 17:103, quoted above says, "So he [Pharaoh] wanted to wipe them off of the earth, but We drowned him and those with him." So which is it?

The city of Iram (Lost city) which is mentioned in the Quran and was thought to be a myth was rediscovered around this time.
[Quran 89:6-8] Link

No, actually the lost city in the desert found in modern times is the city of Ubar. There's speculation it is the same as Iram, but speculation only.

In the Quran God promises to protect the Quran from changes/corruption.
[Quran 15:9] *Muslims are in agreement regarding the integrity of the text. Link1, Link2

Actually, in the process of the collection of the surahs of the Qur'an, it was revised a number of times.

In the Quran God promises to make Islam the Dominant religion in the World (despite the polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers being averse to this).
[Quran 61:9] *Suni Islam is understood to have between 1.2 to 1.4 billion followers (2006), Surpassing Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion around the time of 2006. Link

Cjhristianity remains the world's largest religion. You, and the Qur'an, are wrong again.

So far the only prophecy which seems to have not yet occurred (before what are considered to be the “Major Signs/Events”), seems to be discovery of the exact location where Noah's Ark came to rest. This is despite countless expeditions and even recent claims.

In the Quran God tells us he has left the Ark of Noah “as a sign” for those who choose to accept his advice/warnings.
[Quran 54:13-15; 11:44]

So, since the ark hasn't been found, the prophecy is unfulfilled and amounts to nothing.

The Return of Jesus [Also not yet occurred, although this is event is said to occur as one of the Major Signs]
In the Quran God plainly states that Jesus was not killed or crucified, but God lifted him up, and that he will be sent back before the comes to an end as a sign for those who disbelieve.
[Quran 4:156-158; 43:61]

[qimg]http://s8.postimg.org/i8qzfh6sx/Islamic_End_Times_Timeline_2014.jpg[/qimg]
[Islamic Eschatology Timeline]

The idea that Jesus wasn't actually crucified was created by Basilides, a Gnostic, in the second century.It's a late myth that Muhammad bought into.

Some Jews believe that the year 2239 represents the “latest time for the initiation of the Messianic Age”, from my understanding they base this idea off of “the Hebrew year 6000”. Although I would be hesitant to place a specific time or year on the arrival of the Messiah, is it fair to say that 9 out of 10, or 90% of the prophecies and historical references which the Quran mentions will take place, have already taken place or been confirmed (not Including the Major Signs)?

Please take a look at the timeline image which has been included. I wasn't able to find a decent one online, so I just put one together myself. If you notice something which needs correcting please just mention it in the thread and I will take a look when I get the chance. Also a great lecture which may help to provide some insight into the topic is "The Return of Jesus Christ" by Kamal El-Mekki.

Included for Context - Minor Signs of "Yawm al-Qiyāmah" (The End of The World), Major Signs of "Yawm al-Qiyāmah" (The End of The World)

Everything that happens that's momentous is read into supposedly inspired books as a sign of the end.

 

[mikeb768]

That does not say much for other Arabic literature, as the quran is repedetive and poor in narrative. A good example of that is sura 12, which is obviously a half remembered rendition of the story of Joseph copied from the bible. But sura 12 is incomprehensible unless you have already read the Genesis account of Joseph. Sura 12 leaves out vital details that make the story of Joseph understandable in the bible. Like the relationship of Joseph to his brothers. The Genesis account of Joseph is four times longer than sura 12 much of the story was left out of the quran, probably because someone read the bible to Muhammad, and he could not remember all the details.

Why do you keep coming back with this same argument despite me actually showing you on more than one occasion, the Quran was not copied from the Bible.

By looking at just two of the things mentioned in the OP we can see examples of why the claim of "The Quran is copied from the Bible" is quite off base.

1) The person known as Haman, who is mentioned in both books. Link
2) The book The Bible, the Qu'ran and Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, which was written by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. Many aspects of Science that can be found in the Bible do not seem to be in agreement with science, with the Quran this is not the case.

So we are left to answer the question, if Muhammad had copied the Bible when reciting the Quran how did he managed to leave out all of the scientifically incorrect information which is found in the Bible, but then managed to included statements which are not found in the Bible, but which are scientifically sound?