Oldest Quran Manuscript - University of Birmingham

Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#2
Of interest:

The oldest copies of the Holy Qur'an did not mention Mecca, neither by name nor by implication.

"There is no reference in the Holy Koran to the city of Mecca by name nor by implication. ALL references, in the Holy Koran, to the City of Peace refer to Jerusalem NOT to Mecca." - http://jahtruth.net/kaba.htm
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#3
Of interest:

The oldest copies of the Holy Qur'an did not mention Mecca, neither by name nor by implication.

"There is no reference in the Holy Koran to the city of Mecca by name nor by implication. ALL references, in the Holy Koran, to the City of Peace refer to Jerusalem NOT to Mecca." - http://jahtruth.net/kaba.htm
1)
The Kaaba is not a solid rock, it is a house with a door and a room within. However the verse doesn't talk about praying with the Kaaba.
The verse calls it the BAYT (house).

2) Remember the word for peace in Arabic (salam) is similar to hebrew. Jeru Salem(city of peace).

Here is the transliteration of 2:126
126.
Waith qala ibraheemu rabbi ijAAal hatha baladan aminan waorzuq ahlahu mina alththamarati man amana minhum biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri qala waman kafara faomattiAAuhu qaleelan thumma adtarruhu ila AAathabi alnnari wabisa almaseeru

English translation
And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!

Do you see any word like 'salam' mentioned there?

Aminan is an Arabic name for girls that means “calm”, “at peace”, “not afraid”.

3) the differences in scripture boil down to mythos truth. Genesis for example tells us the story of creation and it is scientifically absurd, yet it is a mythos truth. The wisdom in it was it's ability to give people guidance and meaning with their limited knowledge of the world. If God had told them the earth was spherical and there was a thing called gravity, that there are trillions of galaxies etc..would that really help?
If Arabs believe it's Ismael and Jews believe it's Isaac...what difference does it make?

Still, I've read the Genesis version of the sacrifice story and it makes no sense. According to the mosaic law, a son born by a maidservant has the rights of a son born by a wife. Ismael was every bit Abraham's son as Isaac was. Not once is there any indication that Abraham doesn't regard Ismael as a son. Yet it says "take your son, your ONLY son".
In the Islamic version, Abraham had Ismael only...no other son at that time. He was tested and guided to sacrifice his only son. It's only because he was willing and had faith, that God gifted him Isaac.
This version makes far more sense.
Otherwise if Abraham already knew he had another older son, would it be a true test to sacrifice Isaac?
The story in genesis tells us Hagar took the boy to the desert of Paran..she carried/lifted the boy. The boy cried etf. Yet he was 13 yrs old at the time.
At 13 I was stronger than my mum. She made me carry things...and I certainly didn't cry like a kid.

4) Paul said Mt Sinai was in Arabia.
you know Jordan or anywhere near the Sinai peninsula is not Arabia. Jordan is the Levant region.
the geography in the Torah is all over the place, that's the problem.

for example it mentions a spring of water that rose form the place where Ismael was LIFTED (remember according to the genesis version he was 13 yrs old...in the Islamic version he was a baby)..
How come for 1500 yrs minimum Mecca has had the zamzam water?
go on YouTube and watch some videos on how this water is pumped and distributed all over the world. Millions of Muslims all over the world drink it every day.
It just happens to be in Mecca, near the kaba.
Where is the genesis version?
Remember what God told Abraham about Ismael? "I will BLESS him"
How many ppl in the Bible have that said about them?

You know without the zamzam spring, there would be no Mecca and probably no pilgrimage. The reason Mecca became a place of rest for travellers and a place of pilgrimage was because of the zamzam. So when God said He would bless Ismael and make him a great nation...why is it all of this really has its foundation around a source of water? Just think about that.

4) the Torah was rewritten by Ezra the scribe. It isn't the original.
we do not know of there was alterations and if so...their purpose. As I pointed out there is a thing called mythos. So if the Torah was rewritten was it written in a different way to maybe bring the Jews back to the faith after they lived in Babylon?

5) chronicles and kings...contain the same stories with different numbers for example. That is an example of clear contradiction. Is such a contradiction from God?
If that is true for those texts why isn't it true for any other?
eg kings says Solomon lost faith at the hands of foreign pagan women. IN Ecclesiastes Solomon talks about how he tested himself with wealth and women...and then concluded "it is all vanity" eg he was not swayed by the pussy. He didn't write "all these women made me lose faith"
In fact Jewish rabbis have even said that the king's version of Solomon's downfall was written for other reasons.
I could speculate that Jews in Babylon dabbled in channelling and magic trying to be like Solomon and control spirits. These stories were given to scare them....see..that is an example of mythos in scripture.
It's actually widely acknowledged amongst religious Jews that magical arts were practices in Babylon. They have written many books on the topic.

The point here is that there's a lot you don't know...and that link jahtruth is a load of shite.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#5
The point here is that there's a lot you don't know...and that link jahtruth is a load of shite.
An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.

But as to the original comment regarding Mecca/Makka not being mentioned in the oldest copies, there are also other independent researchers who have been coming to the same conclusion through conducting their own independent analysis in that according to their finding :-

1- Makkah/Mecca is never found mentioned anywhere in the Koran
2- that the Kaba was never in Mecca
3- that all of the references to the Kaba (and synonyms) most closely resemble Jerusalem

"....the Ka'Ba as with the other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house)
(8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house)
(2x), al-masgid al-Harâm (the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the
holy place of pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically.
As a result, it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to
Jerusalem...."

No "Mecca" (Makka) and no "Bakka" in the Quran To Sure 48:24 and 3:96 A philological analysis...
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/t...lysis-confirms-jahs-king-of-kings-bible.5926/


Further, if one considers that:

"Ishmael's mother, who was called Hagar, was an Egyptian and was the hand-maiden (servant) of Sarah who was Abraham's first and legitimate wife.

The well of Beer-lahai-roi, where Hagar went whilst pregnant with Ishmael when she ran away the first time, is between Kadesh-Barnea and Bered (South of Beersheba) on the route to Egypt, her home-land.

Sarah sent Hagar away with Ishmael and she naturally went towards Egypt her home-land NOT to Mecca. They went to Beer-sheba in Paran on the edge of the Negev desert, as is stated by God in the Book of Genesis that God gave to Moses.

On both occasions when Hagar left Abraham she went towards Egypt her home-land, which is quite a natural thing to do.

Hagar found Ishmael an Egyptian wife. They did not go to or live in Mecca. Mecca is more than 1000 miles from Mt. Moriah across desert and much too far away for Ishmael to hear of Abraham's death and be able to return in time to assist Isaac with Abraham's burial (Genesis 25 v 9)."

It naturally follows that the following statement makes sense (but also in itself because even without the above, it is well known that hadiths - too numerous to list - contradict the Holy Koran. So, from that alone it should be obvious that they cannot be from God if they contradict Scripture).

"The story about Mecca was made up by the Meccans to advertise and promote Mecca (in their advertising brochure - the Hadith) and is a complete fabrication. It has NOTHING to do with the Holy Koran. The Hadith contradicts God's Koran."

http://jahtruth.net/kaba.htm

"Mecca as a city didn't exist before 700, museums in saudi arabia are empty, they never found an artifact from the 7th century, they even built huge buildings around the kaaba, they never found something." (from the first link above).

Uncomfortable as it may be when long held beliefs are challenged, resorting to ad hominems are not going to help anyone to get closer to the truth, they only serve to attempt shutting down discussion.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#6
An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.

But as to the original comment regarding Mecca/Makka not being mentioned in the oldest copies, there are also other independent researchers who have been coming to the same conclusion through conducting their own independent analysis in that according to their finding :-

1- Makkah/Mecca is never found mentioned anywhere in the Koran
2- that the Kaba was never in Mecca
3- that all of the references to the Kaba (and synonyms) most closely resemble Jerusalem

"....the Ka'Ba as with the other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house)
(8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house)
(2x), al-masgid al-Harâm (the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the
holy place of pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically.
As a result, it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to
Jerusalem...."

No "Mecca" (Makka) and no "Bakka" in the Quran To Sure 48:24 and 3:96 A philological analysis...
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/t...lysis-confirms-jahs-king-of-kings-bible.5926/


Further, if one considers that:

"Ishmael's mother, who was called Hagar, was an Egyptian and was the hand-maiden (servant) of Sarah who was Abraham's first and legitimate wife.

The well of Beer-lahai-roi, where Hagar went whilst pregnant with Ishmael when she ran away the first time, is between Kadesh-Barnea and Bered (South of Beersheba) on the route to Egypt, her home-land.

Sarah sent Hagar away with Ishmael and she naturally went towards Egypt her home-land NOT to Mecca. They went to Beer-sheba in Paran on the edge of the Negev desert, as is stated by God in the Book of Genesis that God gave to Moses.

On both occasions when Hagar left Abraham she went towards Egypt her home-land, which is quite a natural thing to do.

Hagar found Ishmael an Egyptian wife. They did not go to or live in Mecca. Mecca is more than 1000 miles from Mt. Moriah across desert and much too far away for Ishmael to hear of Abraham's death and be able to return in time to assist Isaac with Abraham's burial (Genesis 25 v 9)."

It naturally follows that the following statement makes sense (but also in itself because even without the above, it is well known that hadiths - too numerous to list - contradict the Holy Koran. So, from that alone it should be obvious that they cannot be from God if they contradict Scripture).

"The story about Mecca was made up by the Meccans to advertise and promote Mecca (in their advertising brochure - the Hadith) and is a complete fabrication. It has NOTHING to do with the Holy Koran. The Hadith contradicts God's Koran."

http://jahtruth.net/kaba.htm

"Mecca as a city didn't exist before 700, museums in saudi arabia are empty, they never found an artifact from the 7th century, they even built huge buildings around the kaaba, they never found something." (from the first link above).

Uncomfortable as it may be when long held beliefs are challenged, resorting to ad hominems are not going to help anyone to get closer to the truth, they only serve to attempt shutting down discussion.

An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.
No, the rest of my post did refute it loud and clear. The mere FACT that this website openly misquotes the Quran and presents absolutely idiotic assertions like 'the kaba is a rock' 'it is solid' tells me everything I need to know.

'independent researchers'
they're athiests and faux christians.
Those people claimed the real Mecca was in Petra. They claimed the original mosque pulpit's pointed towards Petra. They made such claims without ANY evidence. Making claims doesn't mean shit in my books.

In fact this is a recent discovery
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...osques-in-the-world-found-in-israel-1.7539392
One of the Earliest Rural Mosques in the World Found in Israel
The modest edifice – which measures six square meters and was probably built to serve just one or two families in the village – provides silent testimony to the rapid spread of Islam after its advent and arrival in what is today Israel around 636 C.E

Not much remains of the ancient building, but the foundations of the walls feature the hallmark prayer niche facing southeast, towards Mecca.

How did they know they were facing Mecca around 1,300 years ago? “Astronomic knowledge,” Avni says. It has been shown that the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and the Levant had extremely advanced astronomic knowledge, going back well over 4,000 years: Babylonian knowledge of the skies predated the ancient Greeks by centuries. Which raises the question of how accurate the readings were. “It isn’t as accurate as compasses and GPS, but their deviations were minor, at most about 5 percent. They knew which direction to face,” Avni says.

This clearly answers all those Petra claims.
So basically you have zero ground to base an argument off 'independant researchers' who made up the petra claim to diss islam.

Furthermore, since this mosque is dated to 636CE, it outdates the earliest Quran manuscript.

As for Mecca not being mentioned by name. It was called Bakkah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah
Bakkah is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an,Translation: " Verily the first House set apart unto mankind was that at Bakka, blest, and a guidance unto the worlds."

As for the rest of what you wrote, you've ignored the context in what I wrote. Clearly you're out of your depth here.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#7
Do the newer copies?
The popular English translations that are interpreted from a hadith perspective have it inserted.
An ad hominem response does not refute the position that is held and of course there is a lot that we all do not know.
No, the rest of my post did refute it loud and clear. The mere FACT that this website openly misquotes the Quran and presents absolutely idiotic assertions like 'the kaba is a rock' 'it is solid' tells me everything I need to know.

'independent researchers'
they're athiests and faux christians.
Those people claimed the real Mecca was in Petra. They claimed the original mosque pulpit's pointed towards Petra. They made such claims without ANY evidence. Making claims doesn't mean shit in my books.

In fact this is a recent discovery
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...osques-in-the-world-found-in-israel-1.7539392
One of the Earliest Rural Mosques in the World Found in Israel
The modest edifice – which measures six square meters and was probably built to serve just one or two families in the village – provides silent testimony to the rapid spread of Islam after its advent and arrival in what is today Israel around 636 C.E

Not much remains of the ancient building, but the foundations of the walls feature the hallmark prayer niche facing southeast, towards Mecca.

How did they know they were facing Mecca around 1,300 years ago? “Astronomic knowledge,” Avni says. It has been shown that the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and the Levant had extremely advanced astronomic knowledge, going back well over 4,000 years: Babylonian knowledge of the skies predated the ancient Greeks by centuries. Which raises the question of how accurate the readings were. “It isn’t as accurate as compasses and GPS, but their deviations were minor, at most about 5 percent. They knew which direction to face,” Avni says.

This clearly answers all those Petra claims.
So basically you have zero ground to base an argument off 'independant researchers' who made up the petra claim to diss islam.

Furthermore, since this mosque is dated to 636CE, it outdates the earliest Quran manuscript.

As for Mecca not being mentioned by name. It was called Bakkah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah
Bakkah is mentioned in sura 3 (Al-i-Imran), ayah 96 of the Qur'an,Translation: " Verily the first House set apart unto mankind was that at Bakka, blest, and a guidance unto the worlds."

As for the rest of what you wrote, you've ignored the context in what I wrote. Clearly you're out of your depth here.
According to you, are the people who wrote the following also out of their depth, please?

1 year ago
"The first house of God set up for man is the one in Bakka . 81: ie Mecca ], (
set ) for the blessing and guidance for people around the world ( al-'alamun )
".

Syntax: Even an Arabist will notice that something is wrong with the syntax of
this sentence. The predicate of this sentence is the last sentence: "is the one
in Bakka ". This ends the sentence. This is followed by (in the Arabic
accusative) "for the blessing and guidance of the people". Because this addition
is missing the verb that governs this accusative, to Paret has been forced to
the verb ( set ) to repeat in parentheses to justify the following accusative.
Paret does not realize that the actual verb that governs this accusative is just
this lettering " bakka " (allegedly) " in Bakka ".

The Koranic lettering ( rasm ) shows two undefined ciphers and two unique k and
h ( ? Kh ). The final hour is provided with two points, be interpreted as Arabic
feminine ending, what is also at "Bakka ta has wrongly assumed". For the end- h
can also denote the masculine personal suffix, which here refers to " bayt"
(house) in the antecedent. The author therefore proposed the following
conjecture in his abovementioned study (page 336, note 352):

inna awwala baytin wudi'a li-n-nasi la-lladi tayyaka-hu mubarakan wa-hudan
li-l-'alamin

This conjecture restores the syntax of this sentence as follows:

"The first (holy) house created for the people is the one that he has fenced (
fenced ) as a blessed (sanctuary) (and) to guide people ."

This understanding is supported by Sura 17: 1 where it is said of the " distant
house of prayer ": alladi bârak-nâ hawla-hu = "whose environment we have blessed
". An alternative verbal form for the chosen letter bi-Bakka follows elsewhere.

Result of the philogical discussion of the expression ( fî batni makka ) " in
the valley bottom of Mecca ":

Arabic batn is Syro-Aramaic karsa again, meaning here: in the midst of [9] .

makka means Syro-Aramaic "melee , physical altercation ".

The discussed passage from Surah 48:24 should therefore be understood as follows:

"He is the one who in the midst of a (physical) conflict has removedtheir hands
from you and your hands from them ..."

If Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an after that, it will be clarified in a
next post what may be meant by the Ka'ba , the central sanctuary of Islam.

1 year ago
http://www.imprimatur-trier.de/2012/imp120706.html

...... Consequences of the misreading of bi-Bakka and the misinterpretation of
Makka (Mecca)

Did the in-depth philological analysis suggest that the Koran neither has a
primary place called Bakka [5]yet another modified secondary name Makka (Mecca)
knows, since these putative place names are based on a misreading or
misinterpretation of unrecognized Syro-Aramaic expressions, so can with the
two-time occurring expression "umm al-qurâ" (Sura 6:92 and 42: 7) (literally
"mother of the cities" = supposedly "capital") also not meant Mecca. At the same
time, this leads to the realization that Ka'ba, which has been mentioned twice
in the Quran (Sura 5:95, 97), the central sanctuary of Islam, could not have
been in Mecca. What place and what exactly the Koran with the Ka'Ba as with the
other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house) (8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the
old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house) (2x), al-masgid al-Harâm
(the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the holy place of
pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically. As a result,
it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to Jerusalem."



It says in the Koran -

Sura 34:44. But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent Apostles to them before thee as Warners.

So how then could Abraham possibly have been described as having gone to Mecca (like modern English versions present it) in Sura 2:125 without it then internally contradicting Sura 34:44?

Which proves the modern and popular english versions wrong.

These should all say:

King of kings' Bible, Koran, Sura
2:125. Remember We made The House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety and take ye the station of Abraham (Mt. Moriah) as a place of prayer and We Covenanted with Abraham and Isaac, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (there, in prayer).
2:126. And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of PEACE (Jeru-SALEM in Hebrew), and feed its people with fruits,- such of them as believe God and in the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith,- for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire,- an evil destination (indeed)!"
2:127. And remember Abraham and Isaac raised the foundations of The House (with this prayer): "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.
2:128. "Our Lord! make us "True in Faith", bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people "True in Faith", bowing to Thy (will) and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites and turn unto us (in Mercy) for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

(which as can be seen, then makes perfect sense).
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#8
The popular English translations that are interpreted from a hadith perspective have it inserted.

According to you, are the people who wrote the following also out of their depth, please?

1 year ago
"The first house of God set up for man is the one in Bakka . 81: ie Mecca ], (
set ) for the blessing and guidance for people around the world ( al-'alamun )
".

Syntax: Even an Arabist will notice that something is wrong with the syntax of
this sentence. The predicate of this sentence is the last sentence: "is the one
in Bakka ". This ends the sentence. This is followed by (in the Arabic
accusative) "for the blessing and guidance of the people". Because this addition
is missing the verb that governs this accusative, to Paret has been forced to
the verb ( set ) to repeat in parentheses to justify the following accusative.
Paret does not realize that the actual verb that governs this accusative is just
this lettering " bakka " (allegedly) " in Bakka ".

The Koranic lettering ( rasm ) shows two undefined ciphers and two unique k and
h ( ? Kh ). The final hour is provided with two points, be interpreted as Arabic
feminine ending, what is also at "Bakka ta has wrongly assumed". For the end- h
can also denote the masculine personal suffix, which here refers to " bayt"
(house) in the antecedent. The author therefore proposed the following
conjecture in his abovementioned study (page 336, note 352):

inna awwala baytin wudi'a li-n-nasi la-lladi tayyaka-hu mubarakan wa-hudan
li-l-'alamin

This conjecture restores the syntax of this sentence as follows:

"The first (holy) house created for the people is the one that he has fenced (
fenced ) as a blessed (sanctuary) (and) to guide people ."

This understanding is supported by Sura 17: 1 where it is said of the " distant
house of prayer ": alladi bârak-nâ hawla-hu = "whose environment we have blessed
". An alternative verbal form for the chosen letter bi-Bakka follows elsewhere.

Result of the philogical discussion of the expression ( fî batni makka ) " in
the valley bottom of Mecca ":

Arabic batn is Syro-Aramaic karsa again, meaning here: in the midst of [9] .

makka means Syro-Aramaic "melee , physical altercation ".

The discussed passage from Surah 48:24 should therefore be understood as follows:

"He is the one who in the midst of a (physical) conflict has removedtheir hands
from you and your hands from them ..."

If Mecca is not mentioned in the Qur'an after that, it will be clarified in a
next post what may be meant by the Ka'ba , the central sanctuary of Islam.

1 year ago
http://www.imprimatur-trier.de/2012/imp120706.html

...... Consequences of the misreading of bi-Bakka and the misinterpretation of
Makka (Mecca)

Did the in-depth philological analysis suggest that the Koran neither has a
primary place called Bakka [5]yet another modified secondary name Makka (Mecca)
knows, since these putative place names are based on a misreading or
misinterpretation of unrecognized Syro-Aramaic expressions, so can with the
two-time occurring expression "umm al-qurâ" (Sura 6:92 and 42: 7) (literally
"mother of the cities" = supposedly "capital") also not meant Mecca. At the same
time, this leads to the realization that Ka'ba, which has been mentioned twice
in the Quran (Sura 5:95, 97), the central sanctuary of Islam, could not have
been in Mecca. What place and what exactly the Koran with the Ka'Ba as with the
other synonymous expressions al-bayt (the house) (8x), al-bayt al-? Atîq (the
old house) (2x), al-bayt al- Harâm (the holy house) (2x), al-masgid al-Harâm
(the holy prayer house) (15x), al-maš? ar al-Harâm (the holy place of
pilgrimage) (1x), this question will be discussed philologically. As a result,
it will be seen that all these terms are most closely related to Jerusalem."

Also, it says in the Koran -

Sura 34:44. But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent Apostles to them before thee as Warners.

You copy pasted material from a german website that is anti-islam...

1) Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamin (mankind and jinn).
(سورة آل عمران, Aal-i-Imraan, Chapter #3, Verse #96)

Inna awwala baytin wudiAAa lilnnasi lallathee bibakkata mubarakan wahudan lilAAalameena

The argument presented in the link, goes off a different style of argument
https://translate.google.com/transl...atur-trier.de/2012/imp120406.html&prev=search
it points out that 'Baca' means 'weeping' in hebrew and therefore it only would make sense if the Quran said 'weeping' (in arabic) rather than Bakkah...
this style of argument...is SHIT lmao.
In the english translations of psalm 84, they specifically say 'Baca' not 'weeping'.
However i answered you before on the geography in the bible..it is all muddled up and makes little sense. There are places like kadesh, kadesh barnea, the desert of zin, desert of paran, the well (of hagar, forgot the name) all of which is just all over the place and makes little sense. I'm not making this up or exaggerating, there is lots of material today just on the original location of Kadesh. There are jewish historians with varied opinions. Then you have mt sinai itself, which Ron Wyatt's documentary showed was in present day Saudi.

i won't call that link 'out of it's depth' as such, it is more like a load of points that arent actually even points..it is just saying shit

eg it offers this as the more accurate translation of the verse in question
inna awwala baytin wudi'a li-n-nasi la-lladi tayyaka-hu mubarakan wa-hudan li-l-'alamin
compared to the actual one
Inna awwala baytin wudiAAa lilnnasi lallathee bibakkata mubarakan wahudan lilAAalameena

imagine i said
'oh look, it says Jerusalem, but it should say 'city of peace' and in the context it can refer to a random city in asia that was a city where there was peace...
derp
if i said that, you would think ive lost the fucking plot. That is what the argument in this link is doing.
Seriously, don't present me with another bs argument.

Did you bother accepting you were wrong on the other points I answered? of course not.
So all those Petra claims, inc the ones posted on here many times by these christians...got owned by a discovery in israel..it's quite nice that. Maybe the jews are okay afterall.
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#9
Quote:

"The Hadith has made it impossible for Moslems to understand the Koran's true meaning and to read the Bible and fulfill God's Covenant as God commands them to do in the Koran - Suras 16:91 and 5:8 and that is exactly what the Meccans wanted.

Mecca was an evil place when Mohammed Mustafa was born and the Meccans drove him and the TRUE KORAN out because it was about Jerusalem and would have ruined their pilgrimage-business to their black rock and idol-worship.

After Mohammed's death the Meccans changed the Koran and betrayed him and God.

Mecca has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Abraham; Ishmael; Isaac or God.

God tells people repeatedly in the Koran to read the Bible e.g. Sura 6:154-157). The Meccans then claim that the Almighty God has allowed the Book, that He commands people to read, to have been lost forever. That is not logical and is an insult to God.

Of course the True Bible still exists as confirmed by God Himself in His Holy Koran (Sura 32:23) and the most accurate translation of The Bible in print is still the Authorised king James Bible in the old English, as confirmed by the "Dead Sea Scroll" of the Book of Isaiah (referred to in Sura 52:2-3) which in no way differs from the Book of Isaiah in the king James Bible.

Therefore the moslems are calling God a liar, which is a satanic thing to do. Satan called God a liar in the Garden of Eden and God condemned Adam and Eve for believing Satan's lies. These satanic lies are now being continued by the moslems when they contradict God by saying that the True Bible no longer exists, after God has told us in His Holy Koran - Sura 32:23 that:-

"We did indeed aforetime give the Book (Torah) to Moses: be then NOT IN DOUBT of its (The Torah) reaching (THEE - the readers of this Koran - moslems): and We made it a Guide to the Children of Israel."


This information is not refutable. The true Bible exists since this is God's Will.

It says so, in the Koran.

P.S. None of this is meant to be personal, towards anyone, in any way whatsoever, so hopefully, it won't be taken as being such. The truth and finding it is what is important.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#10
As well as:

Sura 34:44. But We had not given them Books which they could study, nor sent Apostles to them before thee as Warners.

(Therefore according to the Koran, it simply cannot be possible, that either Abraham or Ishmael ever went to Mecca, despite whatever else the Meccans like to claim.)

Mecca has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Abraham; Ishmael; Isaac or God.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,762
Likes
6,211
#11
God tells people repeatedly in the Koran to read the Bible e.g. Sura 6:154-157). The Meccans then claim that the Almighty God has allowed the Book, that He commands people to read, to have been lost forever. That is not logical and is an insult to God.
There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#12
There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.
How is that a good one when I've been saying the same thing in favour of the Bible ?
However the key thing is that Allah tells us He sent messengers with Hikmah(wisdom) to teach the Bible.
For example throughout the gospels you have Jesus saying things like "the Son can do nothing on His own"
And yet you frigging worship the Son.
Yet you're so divorced from reality you didn't even realise The Son...as The Logos/Image of God is a universal idea and not limited to a single man. The Logos is the sum total of all creation. Yet you do not regard all of creation as God. Yet God is Immanent in all things...and that is what the Son is...it is God's Expression through which He Immanently reveals Himself. Yet this is exactly what the new testament teaches...and yet Christians still refuse this.
Faux Christians...you guys don't even know who Philo we or Plotinus and even then most don't know who at Augustine was...yet want to tell Muslims about theology.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#14
Are you saying the word of God has been lost forever, or that Christians are commanded in the Bible to commit violence for God's sake?

Neither is true.
I haven't kept up with the thread so don't know exactly what you're trying to say. @bible_student was trying to diss islam/muslims by pointing out that the Quran supports the Bible, keep in mind he also disses Hadith. Yet, in fact the hadith also support the pro-bible argument and I also am pro-bible.


-The Quran directly confirms the Truth/guidance in the Torah and Gospel, in the PRESENT tense..and that is a game changer. It isn't just 'wherin WAS the Truth and guidance' instead it repeats many times 'wherein IS truth and guidance'.

-In the hadith, the prophet Mohammad held the Torah in his hand and said 'I BELIEVE IN YOU'. Basically you know how Jesus was challenged with the law of stoning for adultery? Jesus responded "He who is without sin may cast the first stone" and Jesus was accused of breaking the law of Moses. The jews challenged Mohammad on this matter too...instead he ordered them to bring out their book and read the verse of stoning. In the hadith it is called 'the divine verse'.

-The problem is the Quran and hadith suggest something has been 'changed'. However, on closer inspection it is clear cut explained in the hadith that the sahaba used to read translations of the Torah in arabic given to them by the jews in Madina. The problem there was, those translations were personally written and not really trustworthy. In otherwords, it wasnt the Torah itself that was the problem, it was the translations/interpretations. That is no different to what it says in Jeremiah ie 'the lying hand of the scribes has altered it'..the scribes wrote interpretations.
Yet the biggest irony is that the very verse in the Quran which references this 'corruption' (not of the book itself but the scribes), is misinterpreted by muslim interpretors/translators. in fact there are many instances where muslim translators have changed the meaning of words in the Quran to suit their own ignorant perspective.
For example one of my fav ones...
in Psalm 110, you have the words ADONAI and Adoni. THE Lord/God...and lord/master. Basically in hebrew or at least in the israelite/jewish mindself, there is a distinction in the 2 terms.
in arabic, there is only the word Rabb, just like in english there is only the word Lord.
Now a person with common sense knows for example that Lord Alan Sugar, is not God. Yet Christians misinterpret the word 'lord' when applied to Jesus..and take it as Adonai rather than Adoni, ie THE Lord/God. So this type of error in human thinking, was obviously taken into account by Mohammad when someone called him 'rabb' (lord), he told that person to not call him rabb, but call him syed/master instead. so in the muslim mindset, the word Rabb is exclusively used for God.
YET there is a verse in the Quran which references the story of Joseph when he was tested by Potiphar's wife. in it, he tells her 'my RABB has been good to me' (speaking of Potiphar). Now obviously in the authentic context, he would have used a word similar to Adoni/lord and did not mean God. Due to the erroneous nature of this word, most muslim translators have instead changed the complete meaning of the verse so it suggests Joseph was talking about THE God.
This is either an error...or it is deliberate, eitherway it proves that muslim interpretors are just as guilty as jewish ones spoken of in Jeremiah 3.
Most muslims who spout opinions, do not even know about this, it goes over their head because they dont really pay attention, they just go with the crowd and repeat whatever feels good, just like christians.


-The Hadith collections came during the Abbasid era when they ruled persia..and it just happens ALL the hadith scholars/imams like Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Abu Dawood, Imam Al-Tirmindhi were persian or at least from the Abbasid territory that region. Since this is obviously after the Quran's revelation, so there is nothing directly confirming the hadith as a divine source or anything special to follow. However there are clearly verses confirming the Torah and Gospel. In otherwords, the Bible>Hadith. Yet ive encountered problems when ive quoted the bible for example to explain/add context to a Quranic verse or ironically even explain hadith. People have said 'the bible holds no currency, only use the Quran, Hadith aswell as popular consensus'.
These people are ignorant and do not appreciate that some things in the Quran are derived from a judeo-hellenistic-christian context
for example Jahannum/Hell comes from Gehenna which comes from the valley of ben hinnom. so to understand the idea of Jahannum in islam, one would at least need to know about it's history in the bible. That is common sense.
similarly there are many things in hadith that originate in the bible. For example it says that the anti-christ/dajjal will fly on a giant white donkey with big ears :) I used to wonder 'why does it say donkey, why not bird?' because i believe it was a description of Aeroplanes. YET, on closer inspection, the word donkey was used in reference to the messiah riding the donkey in Zechariah 9:9.
so to appreciate a simple hadith here, would require at least a little insight from the bible yet again.
Another example is in Surah 17, Al-Isra which is a Jerusalem centric chapter. It highlights the destruction of the jewish temples (both). For muslims to delve deeper on this, they would clearly need to know the prophecies and their fulfillment in history...and that opens up a lot eg to know about Titus and 70AD onew ould even need to go as far as studying Daniel 9's Seventy week prophecy.
Another example is in a particularly lengthy hadith prophecy, where it foretold the coming of dajjal, the second coming of Jesus and the death of dajjal at his hands..it also told us about the Gog & Magog. That particular one, can be understood far better when reading Ezkiel 38/39. Yet you have someone like Imran Hossein with a completely stretched out personal/biased interpretation where he says the modern system is the 'gog and magog world order' and refers to the jewish ashkenazi's as 'gog and magog'..and this guys view is hugely popular due to youtube views.
Another example is in Chapter 18, where it mentions 'dhul qarnain' (the 2 horned one), this random character who was guided by God and conquered lands..and then erected a wall to stop Gog & Magog. Yet to know why he is called 'dhul qarnain' requires someone to read and understand the book of Daniel ie Daniel 8, the '2 horned ram' and likewise to have read Isaiah 45. Reading Isaiah 45 and reading the connected verses in chapter 18, make it clear to me that dhul qarnain was Cyrus the great.

Beyond all that, we have the prophetic example in the bible...and that also means there are contexts we muslims deal with..that the jews also experienced along with receiving the prophetic guidance in that time. That changes things. For example once, after 9/11, Sheikh Hamza yusuf sat with George Bush in the White House. He received lots of criticism from muslims and was accused of being an arse kisser and phony, for breaking bread with an enemy of muslims.
Yet, we see Daniel serving and even praying for the well being of the same king, who massacred jews. Why? because these prophets looked at these type of events with God's intention in mind..they blamed themselves, the nation etc, rather than blame the invader. This makes total sense because in the Quran chapter 17 (the Jerusalem centric one), it refers to the babylonian's as OUR SERVANTS!!!

so to me, i see consistency throughout..even in what 'appears' different, i see consistency.
For example, The crucifixion verse 4:157 is the ONLY reference to the crucifixion in the entire Quran and hadith. The verse reads
'They said in boast, WE killed Christ Jesus'
and it then says 'They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them'

A basic person reads it and says 'clearly it means he did not die' but they dont really delve deeper into the meaning of death itself and it's relation with sheol/barzakh/the grave.
the appearance of death=passing away of the body.
actual death=being spiritually bound to the grave/Earth due to our carnal attachments. think of terminology like 'the cords of sheol' eg in the hadith the prophet described a serpent with 99 heads biting us to the extent of our sins. The serpent represents the nafs ie our carnal nature.
What happens when a person let's go of their personal/carnal needs and puts the cause of God first, then dies? that person is NOT dead...as the Quran tells us 'Think not of the slain as dead, they are alive'. They are alive because their carnal nature itself was put to death in God's cause, so it is impossible for them to experience death eg they cannot be bound to the grave/sheol.
Basic common sense, that...and yet it seems the ave person even most the christians i talk to don't even seem to understand how this makes sense. Even they just read the verse at face value without even thinking through what it actually says.

or that Christians are commanded in the Bible to commit violence for God's sake
that's a diffeent topic..i dont know why you brought that up though..no context for it.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#16
I was responding to your post directed at me. You at least keep up with your own posts, don’t you?
Where did I mention anything about violence?
I'm barely functioning these days man...sleep patterns all over the place and I'm doing 5 tasks on the go.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#17
There's a lot I find in Islam that is illogical and an insult to God, but that's a good one. Another one is the idea that God needs his followers to defend him with violence.
Ok I get you now.
I don't recall any instance in the Qur'an or hadith where God needed to be defended with violence. The political system and people's lives needed defending for sure...and often attacks against Islam are interpreted as attempts to dehumanise and belittle is in a context to justify war against us...eg like the way Hollywood depicted muslims. Afterall there isn't a superpower or two bombing your country. There wasn't a war against your political system.
we see the likes of Sam Harris and the black female ayaan who openly talk about the need to wipe out Muslims. We've seen what happened to Jews..and we've seen what Jews did to orthodox christians.
So yeh I can understand(without personally agreeing with it often) why Muslims react with violence.

Still, I'll tell you something quite funny....
It's the fact you said 'illogical' and 'an insult to God'
Yet God said anyone who blasphemes will be put to death...and you believe in hellfire..eternal hellfire for athiests at the very least.
How is that any different? Break it down it's the same thing eg God doesn't like that someone swears at him...thererlee that person has to be killed.

You faux Christians are dumb as fk.
 





Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
309
Likes
492
#18
I'll tell you something quite funny....
It's the fact you said 'illogical' and 'an insult to God'
But it's indeed illogical to believe that God told us to go read a gospel we can't have since He supposedly allowed us to lose it forever.



God said anyone who blasphemes will be put to death
Where ? Who should put anyone to death for this specific reason and according to what ?
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
1,564
Likes
778
#19
I have done my best to respond below to previous statements but please don't take my word for it and do your own research. Peace be upon you.
1)
The Kaaba is not a solid rock, it is a house with a door and a room within. However the verse doesn't talk about praying with the Kaaba.
The verse calls it the BAYT (house).
The true Kaba (House of God) is Abraham's Station (Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem).
Not the black rock (which is solid) that they then built the cube on with it as one of its corners.

The Kaaba Black Stone: A Holy Stone from Outer Space? (no; it's just a rock)
https://www.ancient-origins.net/art...aba-black-stone-holy-stone-outer-space-003661

According the Koran, Abraham and Ismael could also not have gone to Mecca because of Sura 34:44 which says no Apostles or Books that they could read were sent to the people in Mohammed's area before he was sent to them as a Warner. So, if Mohammed was in Mecca and warned the people there, then it means that Abraham and Ishmael could not have been there before him, because the Koran says so (if my understanding of this sura is correct).

2) Remember the word for peace in Arabic (salam) is similar to hebrew. Jeru Salem(city of peace).

Here is the transliteration of 2:126
126.
Waith qala ibraheemu rabbi ijAAal hatha baladan aminan waorzuq ahlahu mina alththamarati man amana minhum biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri qala waman kafara faomattiAAuhu qaleelan thumma adtarruhu ila AAathabi alnnari wabisa almaseeru

English translation
And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!

Do you see any word like 'salam' mentioned there?

Aminan is an Arabic name for girls that means “calm”, “at peace”, “not afraid”.
Sura 2:126. And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of PEACE (Jeru-SALEM in Hebrew), and feed its people with fruits,- such of them as believe God and in the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith,- for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire,- an evil destination (indeed)!"

A secure city is a city of peace because the two things (peace and security) go hand in hand.

Yusuf Ali
2:126 And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of Peace, and feed its people with fruits,-such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith,-for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire,- an evil destination (indeed)!"

And again, it cannot refer to Mecca. The word Mecca does not mean the City of Peace, the word Jerusalem DOES mean City of Peace in Hebrew.

So even if you want to try and insist that the word for security is not the same as peace (salam) and that security and peace are somehow unrelated, even then, security is still closer to Jeru-salem (peace comes from security) than to Mecca (which does not mean city of peace, or city of security). So whichever way it is looked at, Jerusalem fits while Mecca does not fit.

If Sura 2:126 has Abraham going to Mecca then you have that interpretation contradicting Sura 34:44, but not if you have Sura 2:126 correctly saying that Abraham went to Jeru-salem (as it also says that he did, in the Bible) then you don't have it contradicting Sura 34:44, proving that to be the correct interpretation.

3) the differences in scripture boil down to mythos truth. Genesis for example tells us the story of creation and it is scientifically absurd, yet it is a mythos truth. The wisdom in it was it's ability to give people guidance and meaning with their limited knowledge of the world. If God had told them the earth was spherical and there was a thing called gravity, that there are trillions of galaxies etc..would that really help?
God gave people the simple story in Genesis about the creation of Adam and Eve to keep it simple enough for us to understand what we need to and you can also tell the story to children so that they are able to understand it. That does not mean that it is not true, it's just simplified enough for us to be able to remember and understand it.
If Arabs believe it's Ismael and Jews believe it's Isaac...what difference does it make?
One of them has to be true and the other not. One may say that it does not matter, yet it has had people fighting and disagreeing (causing division). It does matter, because knowing the Truth is what matters, or what should matter to people. If people all believe the truth, then they have no reason to disagree and go to war against each other, so in the end it does matter. We should love and seek the truth above all.
Still, I've read the Genesis version of the sacrifice story and it makes no sense. According to the mosaic law, a son born by a maidservant has the rights of a son born by a wife. Ismael was every bit Abraham's son as Isaac was. Not once is there any indication that Abraham doesn't regard Ismael as a son. Yet it says "take your son, your ONLY son".
God's Plan was for it to be Isaac as He told the promise to Abraham. Sarah then tried to intervene by giving Hagar to Abraham, but this did not change God's original plan, as He told it to Abraham. In Genesis, it says that after God carried out His Plan and promise regarding Isaac, then He blessed Ismael and that Abraham loved Ismael also.
In the Islamic version, Abraham had Ismael only...no other son at that time. He was tested and guided to sacrifice his only son. It's only because he was willing and had faith, that God gifted him Isaac.
This version makes far more sense.
Otherwise if Abraham already knew he had another older son, would it be a true test to sacrifice Isaac?
According to the Bible account, Isaac was Abraham's miracle child that he waited almost a hundred years to have with his wife Sarah who he loved. God promised Abraham that Sarah would give him a son. Sarah intervened by giving her servant Hagar to Abraham and Ishmael was born, but God made a promise to Abraham that He fulfilled despite Sarah's intervention. If you consider that after waiting a hundred years, and then having Isaac (laughter) given to him and then having time to get to know Isaac and then having to offer him.. this is the penultimate test of Abraham's obedience and love for God, and it is also according to God's Promise to Abraham.
The story in genesis tells us Hagar took the boy to the desert of Paran..she carried/lifted the boy. The boy cried etf. Yet he was 13 yrs old at the time.
At 13 I was stronger than my mum. She made me carry things...and I certainly didn't cry like a kid.

4) Paul said Mt Sinai was in Arabia.
you know Jordan or anywhere near the Sinai peninsula is not Arabia. Jordan is the Levant region.
the geography in the Torah is all over the place, that's the problem.

for example it mentions a spring of water that rose form the place where Ismael was LIFTED (remember according to the genesis version he was 13 yrs old...in the Islamic version he was a baby)..
How come for 1500 yrs minimum Mecca has had the zamzam water?
go on YouTube and watch some videos on how this water is pumped and distributed all over the world. Millions of Muslims all over the world drink it every day.
It just happens to be in Mecca, near the kaba.
Where is the genesis version?
Remember what God told Abraham about Ismael? "I will BLESS him"
How many ppl in the Bible have that said about them?
At a bare minimum, Abraham (12:2, 22:17), Ishmael (Gen 17:20), Isaac (Gen 26:3, 26:24), Sarai (Gen 17:16), Jacob (Gen 32:29), Joseph (Gen 49:25) to name a few names where God said He would bless them, found only in the Book of Genesis.
You know without the zamzam spring, there would be no Mecca and probably no pilgrimage. The reason Mecca became a place of rest for travellers and a place of pilgrimage was because of the zamzam. So when God said He would bless Ismael and make him a great nation...why is it all of this really has its foundation around a source of water? Just think about that.
Water is of course a blessing from God as well as being a necessity for human life. The story of Abraham and Ismael going to Mecca though, if believed creates an internal contradiction in the Koran (according to my understanding of it), so it does not fit. However, if interpreted in the same way as the Torah has it, then there is none.
4) the Torah was rewritten by Ezra the scribe. It isn't the original.
we do not know of there was alterations and if so...their purpose. As I pointed out there is a thing called mythos. So if the Torah was rewritten was it written in a different way to maybe bring the Jews back to the faith after they lived in Babylon?
Since God has promised to guard His Scriptures, we can be assured that His promise is kept. People back in the day used to memorize it completely and there are some people who still do the same thing today, like with the Quran, etc.
In 2 Esdras 14 it mentions Ezra's memory being strengthened.
5) chronicles and kings...contain the same stories with different numbers for example. That is an example of clear contradiction. Is such a contradiction from God? If that is true for those texts why isn't it true for any other?
No, if there are indeed contradictions present, and it's not just a matter of people misreading it, then that means there is still an error somewhere. Chronicles and kings are historical accounts of Israel's doings and would certainly not be considered to be of the same level of importance as the Torah is (first 5 books - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). In the Qur'an God mentions the Torah specifically and says not to doubt it (Sura 32:23).
eg kings says Solomon lost faith at the hands of foreign pagan women. IN Ecclesiastes Solomon talks about how he tested himself with wealth and women...and then concluded "it is all vanity" eg he was not swayed by the pussy. He didn't write "all these women made me lose faith"
Well, what if (Solomon) was not able to see it? So he may not have been admitting it to himself at the time he wrote what he did in Ecclesiastes. His ego could have blinded him to it, not wanting to admit it? However, I don't know this for a fact, although it does seem like a possible explanation. Even Solomon, the wisest man, not being able to admit to himself what really happened. Maybe he didn't see it (yet) for what it really was, or he could also have regained faith after it happened. Saying it's all vanity, is saying it's like chasing after the wind. So, it depends on how you interpret what he says. In the end, the Scripture has to be in agreement with itself for it to be correct. Also in the Quran it says to seek the best meaning in it.
In fact Jewish rabbis have even said that the king's version of Solomon's downfall was written for other reasons.
They have said many things and wrote the Talmud which changes the words from their correct places. Jesus called them out as being unrighteous frauds and serpents and God removed them from authority over the people.
I could speculate that Jews in Babylon dabbled in channelling and magic trying to be like Solomon and control spirits. These stories were given to scare them....see..that is an example of mythos in scripture.
It's actually widely acknowledged amongst religious Jews that magical arts were practices in Babylon. They have written many books on the topic.
No doubt they have written many books. The Jewish "rabbis" have kept adding to it to this day with their Talmud ("traditions of their fathers") but Jesus condemned the Talmud, and them too for writing their own legislation which they have done even though the Torah forbids it (Deut. 4:2).
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,492
Likes
2,675
#20
But it's indeed illogical to believe that God told us to go read a gospel we can't have since He supposedly allowed us to lose it forever.




Where ? Who should put anyone to death for this specific reason and according to what ?

Read my other post (the lengthy one) where I talked about bible...because I'm one of those who believes the Quran supports previous scriptures.

Also, the blasphemy punishment is in the Torah. Yes, it isn't the NT...but it is still from God.