Ok risking sounding ignorant, but who is supposed to have given the Koran to the Islamic faith. In the english translation it uses “we” did this or “we” did that. I guess the angels are supposed to have given the Koran to Mohammed or something. I do remember something in another thread about Muslims beleive the Koran was given to them from Heaven not originally written from men or something, I don’t know.

I find it interesting that so many Christians beleive the Koran says that Christians are infedels and so many Muslims now say that, but just in Sura II, the Cow, It says plainly that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are of the same God and should be together under God. Right in the very beginning of the Koran it says straight out about us being of the same God and that Christians and Jews are not part of the infedels. I fail to see why groups of Islam exist that hate jews and why they hate Christians when the Koran says we all are of the same God, the compassionate, the merciful.

My main topic of this thread is who or what the Koran was originally beleived to have written it. I know the Christian Bible was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit, but don’t know about the Koran. We can talk about the second part too, but please keep it decent and polite as these topics normally don’t on here.


There is a problem here. When dealing with the Qur’an one can not say, “in the very begginging of the Qur’an it says” as the writings in the Qur’an are not in chronological order.

Some of the earliest writings are at the end of the book.

You will find places where it does call Jewish and Christian people the “people of the book” but you will also find where it calls them infidels.

My main point is that the Qur’an is not layed out in chronological order as the Bible is.

My main topic of this thread is who or what the Koran was originally beleived to have written it. I know the Christian Bible was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit, but don’t know about the Koran. We can talk about the second part too, but please keep it decent and polite as these topics normally don’t on here.

It is believed that the Qur’an is the word of God dictated to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel.


So in other words the Koran contradicts itself? No Muslim has noticed that their Holy book is contradictory, or is there something they have in responce to it. To say something regardless of chronological order like following the same God, then later say other wise is, for lack of better word at the moment, retarded. I’ll keep my eyes open for where it says Christians are infidels, then my view on Islam my take a sharp turn south.

So the “we” implies Gabriel and God, ok.


Actually Islamic doctine acknowledges that the Qur’an does contradict itself. They say that the later sayings in the Qur’an, if they contradict something earlier, are to be held and th earlier sayings are to be ignored.

In some cases it is just that God has changed his mind, in other cases they point to the “Satanic versers”, that is that Satan has snuck in these verse. The Qur’an is not taken alone. One does not interpret the Qur’an for oneself. One has an Imam that one follows who gives you the correct interpretations. There are also the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad that are used.

So the “we” implies Gabriel and God, ok.

I don’t know that the “we” implies that. I think it is more of the royal “we”.


I don’t know that the “we” implies that. I think it is more of the royal “we”.

Well such a beleif of changing mind of God and satanic verses is stupid at least in my mind. When it comes to interpretation doesn’t it come down to Shi’ite and sunni, one has the teachings more based on a hierarchy like the the Catholic Church and the other like protestants. I always mix them up, the ottoman empire was one majority who was better and had a more structure to it, then after it colapsed soon the other group became the majority, that is which ever it is now, and they are more like protestants, each cleric can say something and everyone follows theirs in that mosque or region. This much I know to be historically correct.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “royale” we.


Not totally. The Shi’ite and the Sunni are split over that to some extent but they are also split over the amout of the Hadith that they find authortitive.

As for interpreting, again, it is not for the average muslim to do, it is only for the Imam to do.

I agree on the God contradicting himself and the idea of Satanic verses, but this is what they believe.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “royale” we.

The royal we goes to the way that the kings and queens used to speak, it also goes to the way that bishops and popes used to speak.

When making decrees and statements they would use the word “We” in the proclaimation instead of using “I”.

It is used within the Bible in places to.


My problem with the Koran being dictated by the Archangel Michael is that the Koran would therefore have been a complete delivered package but recent discoveries have shown that the Koran must have been put together over a long period…maybe centuries. This is known as an evolutionary text ie it was added to, deleted, revised, expanded by many people. This was as a result of thousands of old copies being found in a mosque roofspace which was undergoing restoration. This was explosive information to say the least and scholars publicising it have been persecuted and even killed.


Here is some more info on the finding of the manuscripts:

" The manuscripts, thought to be the oldest surviving copies of the Koran, were discovered in the ancient Great Mosque of Sa’na in 1972, when the building was being restored after heavy rainfall, hidden in the loft in a bundle of old parchment and paper documents. They were nearly thrown away by the builders, but were spotted by Qadhi Isma’il al-Akwa, then president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, who saw their importance and sought international assistance to preserve and examine them. "


It was the Archangel Gabriel not Michael.

Also muslims believe that the writing of the Qur’an was not done in one complete package but that it occured over a long period of time. The Archangel only dictated portions of it with each “visit”.


Sorry ByzCath you’re right, Gabriel not Michael. Here is my info re manuscripts. [guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html - 28k - ](“http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html - 28k -”)


I just tried that link and no go, just Google 4048586 and you’ll get it.


Re the word infidel it means unbelievers, I think. St Thomas Aquinas uses the word so I think it must have a common word to use for people of different faiths.


Well, I know that when the royal “we” is used in Papal Encyclicals, it is taken from an instance in one or more of the Gospels where Jesus refers to He and Peter as “us” or “we”. I forget where that is exactly though, but I know that it is when He asks Peter to pay for the temple tax for the both of them.


The royal we comes from feudalism; a lord would use it because they were speaking for themselves and their domain. That’s also possibly the origin of using plural pronouns for politeness in French (vous), German (Sie), etc.

Spanish and Romanian use titles–your mercy (usted, short for vuestra merced) and your lordship (domneavoastra/domnulvoastra)–as pronouns.

In Semitic languages, though, there is something called ‘honorific plural’. For instance, Elohim, one of the words for God, actually means ‘gods’, but it doesn’t imply polytheism; it just means that the thing being spoken of is great. That’s probably the origin of the “we” in the Qu’ran.

“Infidel” literally means “not of the faith,” and it seems to have been fairly neutral. Aquinas also used “Gentiles”, the nations, which was the polite Latin expression for barbarians. “Barbaroi” being Greek for “gibberish-talkers”.




great…at last Muslims will realize that they were under the Imams’ false teachings of “uncorrupt” Quran…maybe they’ll learn to believe what the Ahadith say regarding changes and ommitions and additions in Quran…got any link regarding the discovery?


in fact, many Muslims are under the illusion that it was compiled during Muhammad’s time. Hence, they argue, you canonized the bible in the 4th century but we got the Quran compiled during Muhammad’s time!:rolleyes:


While some may believe this it is my understanding that the Qur’an was compiled sometime after the death of Muhammad. I believe this was done by the first caliph.

Also there were different versions until one of the caliphs gathered all those that were different from what he liked and had them destroyed.


yep…if not mistaken, the Ahadith show it was compiled more than 150 years after Muhammad’s death…there were various Qurans and Muslims began to fear further corruption and Uthman burnt Allah’s word and kept his version.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.