| shafique |
I do not know Andrew Rippin's credentials, but let us address what he has said: 'variant readings' - as noted in the previous thread, variant readings are known about and relate to pronunciations of the same underlying words. 'verse order' - depends on what the variation is and whether it changes any of the meanings (but I can't see how this will be the case). It is hard to argue against an unspecific comment in an article - the Sana'a document was written in an older Arabic script and is not complete. The main method of preservation and transmission of the Quran is the memorisation and recitation of the oral transmission of God's words. I'll therefore wait to read about which specific verses or words of the Quran are in question. In the mean time we can still discuss the internal consistency of the Quran vs that of the Bible.
Great - we'll take one at a time and I'll let you choose the issues.
It wasn't obvious to me that there was any substance to the allegations - but as I said, if it is obvious then there should be specific verses and words you can bring to our attention to discuss.
Ok - as I said we'll tackle the numerous instances you cite one at a time (and you choose which ones). The theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not is exactly what is described - a debate over theology. I think we were at odds in the other thread because I said Christian sects had major differences over theology. I stated this as an obvious fact, and unfortunately was challenged over this. Muslims also have major differences over theology - hence why there are different sects and schools of thoughts. This does not have anything to do with whether the Quran contains contradictions or not. It does contain verses that are allegorical - but no contradictions. Let's be clear - a contradiction would be if one verse said the Father of Joseph was Mr A, and another verse said it was Mr B - and both refer to the same Joseph. However, saying that a person is a son in one verse and a husband in another is not a contradiction (but saying a person is a sister and a husband, would be). Whilst the Quran is untainted and guaranteed by God not to be corrupted, the way in which people misuse religion and attribute things to Islam despite what is in the Quran was also prophecised - there will always be people who twist words and try and mislead people. As for the theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not - I believe it was created, as only God is a non-creation. However, the Quran was part of God's plan for the universe and therefore was with Him from when the universe was created. To my knowledge, this has been a largely philosophical debate within various schools of thought and not a major divisive issue (unlike the issue of hereditary leadership of the Muslims for instance). Anyway, if you would like to choose a specific aspect of the Quran that you think shows a contradiction or inconsistency - then I will answer that. Many thanks, Shafique |
| freza |
| Re: comments on the Sana'a manuscripts, I agree with you in that there isn't specific info to reference on the what exactly the significant open questions the author is referring to. There isn't much info on the studies of the Sana'a manuscripts in general since I understand it's still an ongoing study. about the theological disputes of the past I don't think that paragraph describing the dispute implies that the Quran wasn't technically created rather the opposing view that the Quran is not the exact words of God, not created by him so to speak but by man. Re: Contradictions you can address the ones in the other link provided for example in the biblestudymanuals link it says: "In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet [historically] the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament." and then "Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved." 2:62 “ Those who believe in the Qur’an and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and Christian and Sadians and who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. ” compared to: 3:85 " And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. " This here does not appear to be a different way of saying things rather it appears to be a noticeable contradiction. |
| shafique |
So, until we have some more specific points to discuss there is nothing more to discuss on this point.
I see your argument. However, I think it is moot because the Quran itself claims to be the literal words of God, and no Muslim has ever disputed this clear claim. Therefore the discussion over created/non-created does not have the implication you point to - that it is a dispute over whether it is the word of God or not.
Excellent, this is a specific point which we can discuss and agree whether the Quran's verses are contradictory or not. I do not see a contradiction in the verses and believe they are both clear. 2.62 clearly states that provided non-Muslims do not commit the sin of worshiping another God, believe in accountability of actions and do good works - then they will have their reward with God and have nothing to fear. 3.85 says that Islam is the only religion acceptable to God (also see 3.19 and 5.4 which clarify this point). What 2.62 stipulates are some of the core beliefs of Islam and that rewards will be given if these are followed. The Quran therefore teaches that Muslims (followers of Islam) do not have the monopoly of God's salvation (which is what the Jews believe and the verses around 2.62 are referring to Jewish beliefs - but the context isn't important to my argument here). That God will reward Jews, Christians and Sabians who do good works etc is an excellent teaching of the Quran, in my opinion. What they are practicing will be in line with the core teachings of Islam, after all. The God of the Quran is Just, Merciful and Logical. However, God's final religion is Islam according to the Quran, and those that decide not to follow it will be among the losers. Some people will be punished more than others, others will be rewarded more than others. The confusion may be because Christianity teaches only one way of achieving salvation and condemns those who do not believe in Christ to 'non-salvation' after death. The Quran teaches that each person will be judged by God alone and He will decide. 3.85 does not condemn all non-Muslims to hell, but says that those who reject Islam will be among the 'losers'. I therefore respectfully submit that there is no contradiction here. Let me know if you agree or not freza before we move on to another point of your choice (let's clear this one up first before moving on). Wasalaam (peace), Shafique |
| shafique |
| John 18 shows that at least one of the disciples carried a sword and used it to draw blood: John 18:9-11 (New International Version) 9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."[a] 10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear . (The servant's name was Malchus.) 11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
Also, what about the Jewish-Christian friendship in the other verses? And why are Muslims told not to have Christian friends? |
| shafique |
| Freza, Being among the losers means that they won't get the full rewards that those obedient servants of God will get - if you reject the message of God and present another religion, then this will not be given precedent. What it does not say is that they will necessarily go to Hell - something that the Quran is completely consistent on. I agree with you, if the Quran had said all non-Muslims go to hell and then 2.62 would contradict this. However, 3.85 does not say this. As explained in my previous post - everyone will be rewarded on their own merits. Amongst the muslims, there will be those who will have higher ranks than others, similarly amongst all other people. Do you agree with the Islamic teaching that God should/will judge people on their merits? If yes, then do you also believe that God would reveal one true final message that is universal? If so, then these verses offer no contradiction and are logical - God will not hold other religions above His final universal religion, but will judge each person on their merits - including whether they rejected or accepted Islam. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| double post |
| shafique |
| triple! post |
| freza |
and also, why can't Muslims have Christian friends according to the Quran? |
| shafique |
Do you agree that this is not a contradiction then - as you are asking another question now? The Islamic concept of heaven is that one will continue to progress and advance in the form that we will take in the after-life. The more pious will be closer to God - those who fulfill all the requirements God has laid down will have better rewards than those who do not. The Quran says we cannot have any real concept of what the after-life will be like, but it gives us similitudes only - eg. it will be like gardens with rivers etc. Whether Muslims can have Christians as friends or not is another question and I'll be happy to deal with this after we finish with this part of the discussion. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| Apologies, I overlooked the fact you did refer to 5.51 and 57 in your original post. These do say do not take Jews and Christians as friends (in 5.51) and 5.27 says do not take those who make fun of your religion (Islam) from among those who were given the book before (i.e. Jews and Christians). I do not see these verses as being relevant to the other verses relating to who will be saved in the hear-after. I think the question about the reason behind these verses is a valid one, but not relevant to the discussion about contradictions. As I said, I'm happy to expound on the meanings of these verses - they don't say we can't be friendly with Jews and Christians generally. The first verse is about those who were scheming against the Muslims - the second verse specifically specifies that Muslims should not take as friends those who mock their religion. The practice of the Prophet showed how these verses are to be implemented - for example he received the Bishop of Najran and his delegation and offered his own mosque to them for them to offer their Sunday worship in. Similarly there were very good relations with the Christian rulers of Abyssinia who gave shelter to Muslims early on, and never had a military conflict with the muslims after they rose to power. Again - the verses are internally consistent and non-contradictory. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
Re: Christians as friends: Sura 5.51 “Sura 5.51: " O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. " ok, where exactly in 5.51 does it say those Jews and Christians who make fun of Islam? Why does it say that Jews and Christians are friends when they weren't? And YES there is a big contradiction between stating that Jews and Christians are in God's favor to telling Muslims not to have Jew and Christian friends and calling them unjust and suddenly unfavorable to God. Contradictory for sure. you mentioned 5:27, The Cain/Abel story? or am I misunderstanding? on to 5:27 another issue that I read about comes up: [5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems... |
| shafique |
| Freza, 5.27 was a typo - I meant 5.57 (the other verse you referred to). 'Never accepted of him' means exactly what it says - God will not accept another religion above Islam and 'they will be among the losers' means exactly what it says 'at the day of judgment these will be among those who will be rewarded less'. So 'full rewards' means the maximum rewards you could get by fully following God's laws and wishes. Once you are dead and in front of God, it is too late to change what one did on earth and religion is something that only applies to this life, as it relates to one's belief and actions on earth (this is the Islamic concept of religion). When it comes to the day of judgment one is presenting one's life to God and He is judging you on your merits. Presenting a different religion other than Islam will not be accepted as a religion, but your ultimate fate depends on your thoughts and actions. Thus there is no contradiction between one verse saying Christians etc will be rewarded by God for their actions should they believe in One God, believe in the day of Judgment and do good works ; and with the other verses saying that the ultimate and universal religion of God is Islam. Let me know what aspects of this concept are still unclear and whether there remains a contradiction in the meanings of the verses. [And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well - other verses talk of 'pure consorts' and that these consorts are companions for women as well as men - and as we won't have our physical bodies or carnal senses, these references are similitudes only] Cheers, Shafique |
| valkyrie |
this is what v98.6 says: Those who reject (Truth), Among the People of the Book And among the Polytheists, Will be in Hellfire, To dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst Of creatures The verse is followed up by: Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures Is the part 'those who believe' referring to only (which is how I'm reading it) Muslims, or does it include all believers in that verse? Also, Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse is that the disbelievers will dwell in hell forever. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=98&tid=58900 |
| shafique |
| Valkyrie, The verse and Ibn Kathir's commentary speak of 'some' of the unbelievers, not all the unbelievers. The issue over whether hell is eternal or not is a different issue - I disagree with Ibn Kathir that hell is eternal, but that is not really relevant to 2.62 which says some Jews and Christians and Sabians will be rewarded by God. In fact, by implication, 2.62 complements 98.6 in that those who aren't going to be rewarded according to 2.62 will be going to hell as per 98.6. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| I thought I'd post an apparent contradiction in the NT: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice , but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7 And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9 The question that comes to mind is whether the people with Paul heard a voice or not. Both verses cannot be accurate as they are contradictory. Therefore one must be false and not the word of God. Or am I missing something here? Perhaps it doesn't matter that one verse is not true? Or are these verses not talking about the same incident (the 'vision' of Paul on the road to Damascus? Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| For freza - I didn't realise I had posted a contradiction from the Bible in the post above (my memory must be going! :) ) Anyway - I'd be interested in your explanation of the above. I think it shows that at least one of these verses isn't true and therefore isn't the word of God. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| your memory is not the only thing that has been "going".... This is clearly a case of lost in ancient Greek translation. No contradiction, not if you look at the correct translation. Have you? Here's a word per word analysis: http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Act&chapter=22&verse=9&tab=analysis I love the way to try to stir things up. keep trying ...I'm sure it serves a very significant and self-important purpose. *smirk* |
| shafique |
| Freza - good try, but no cigar. The translation I give is accurate according to the ancient Greek - even your link says so! If you hover over the note in the translation (in the link you gave above) which they say is 'understand' the note says: " tn Grk “did not hear” (but see Acts 9:7). BDAG 38 s.v. ἀκούω 7 has “W. acc. τὸν νόμον understand the law Gal 4:21; perh. Ac 22:9; 26:14…belong here.” If the word has this sense here, then a metonymy is present, since the lack of effect is put for a failure to appreciate what was heard." i.e. The correct/accurate translation is "did not hear" but as this contradicts the other verse, we choose to interpret 'did not hear' as 'did not understand'. Thanks for showing that the word for word translation I posted is correct in the original Greek. I presume you do not know ancient Greek and that you didn't check the note - so I don't blame you for believing that the translation I quoted above was not accurate. You can now see that it was (and in any case, the quotes are from a standard Bible). Do you want to try again? Or will you accept that there is a literal contradiction in these verses that can only be explained by changing the meaning of 'hear' in Greek? [And yes, I did do my homework before posting the contradiction above and did check that both verses use the same Greek word for 'hear', so there is no 'wriggle room' here.] [And it also interesting that you chose a 'newer' translation that is less accurate than the King James, New Standard Bible etc that all give the correct word for word translation. I suspect your chosen translation just seeks to hide the contradiction(but they did give a note to show it wasn't a literal translation)! I wonder how many other intentional 'mis-translations' there may be?] Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| Actually the reason why I like NetBible is because it does include several different versions of the Bible including the King James version (did you notice that KJV was there??? and did you read the word analysis on it?) And of course I read the commentary - the commentary does not at all support your views on contradiction. Following is why.. Now I do not know ancient Greek. But I assume you do as you seem to be a person who has an extremely profound knowledge of all things related to the Bible. *cough* Even so, let me quote for an actual theologian who explains this supposed contradiction of the Acts in question. Fr. John Echert writes:
|
| shafique |
| freza - the theologian comes up with an explanation for the contradiction, but agrees that the translations I posted are accurate. In a nutshell the argument is 'did not hear' does not mean the opposite of 'did hear' - but rather means 'did hear, but did not understand'. Also the quote from Mat 13.13 shows the distinction between the words for 'hearing' and 'understanding'! I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced. All it shows is that the Bible does contain contradictions which require some fancy logic to overcome. Next you'll be trying to convince me there is a population problem! :) Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
the height of irony |
| freza |
| Shafique, The words in question clearly have other meanings which have been used before in the Bible with their alternate meanings. How can you have missed this so obviously??? you're like a blind man who's blind because he refuses to see!!! hopeless! To hear a sound and to hear the voice of God are two distinct things. The way God has appeared or has communicated to people throughout Biblical history has been in mysterious and unique ways. From burning bushes to thunder to languages that sound like gibberish to people that can not "hear" the voice of God. Sorry but a ridiculously inflated but deluded ego is nothing against theology who has academic value and a long history of examination of Bible literature and semantics. you are attempting to pit this non-contradiction against other texts that actually support this trend of using alternate forms of a word to imply that of voice, sound and actually hearing/not hearing what is meant to be heard and by whom throughout the Bible. I hate to point this out, but Answeringislam has an explanation to a dude who has wrote things..well who is as obsessed with prejudice of things not his, kinda like you are. But then, again, he's been instructed to do so, well, then again, just like you have... http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r01.2.7.html |
| Nucleus |
| Why all these personal insults freza? |
| freza |
| what do you consider a personal insult nucle? I'm only stating the truth, uncomfortable maybe, but not an insult. besides, Shafique likes it, it makes him want to save more souls. |
| freza |
revisiting....
You didn't answer why it is stated that Christians and Jews were friends. or maybe I missed something, was this a metaphor? Does not sound like one, sounds like an error. Where again does it state that Christians and Jews were mocking Islam? And on to a different contradiction. Blood sacrifices, quoting again: [5:27] "Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. " a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems... |
| ebonics |
| in the quran, the question of which was made first earth or heaven (i dont normally bring this one up, because its a pathetic argument if you ask me, but its about as pathetic as the hear did not understand argument) Heaven in 79:27-30 Earth in 2:29 and 41:9-12 there's heaps of these little one word glitches in the quran that other people brought up before and you gave some explanations that makes teh above statement of faith causes some tortuous logic - coming from you, is a bit VERY rich. |
| ebonics |
you cant be serious? is this in relation to the promises of the afterlife? mate i have heard, COUNTLESS friday lectures from cleriks on tv, telling people how to abstain from everything because the after life will have everything they abstained from including alcohol, virgins, BOYS (in a twisted way making it ok to be a homosexual in heaven).... countless i tell you. i love friday lectures, they're seriously hillarious. in conclusion, it dawned on me that islam is now like how christianity was in the middle ages in europe.... i came to this realisation when i thought of the state of the people that listen to things like fatwas, that allow cleriks to run their lives due to their personal opinion and nothing else. in the middle ages the church had all the control, a king couldnt lift his finger without asking the priest first, people were commoners, farmers, uneducated, and they just followed what the priest tells them blindly. then the church lost its grip, people got educated, broke free, and moved on. islam still hasnt broken out of that cycle, some 500 years on... and the fact that where muslims are at their highest concentration (and extremism) are extremely backward 3rd world countries - just goes to prove that lack of proper education and knowledge is the determining factor of such backward culture - people only find light in knowledge, and the vast majority of these people barely have a secondary education.... huge generalisation, but for the most part accurate, i cant imagine any pakistani taxi driver or truck driver here ever having enough brains to question his faith - he just goes on with what he got taught... same goes with pakistan, afghanistan, indonesia, gulf countries doing whatever they can to censor anything that is slightly off their beliefs (internet and TV here being prime example) i should prepare a thesis on this. |
| shafique |
freza - I have to point out that you weren't stating the truth when you said I had quoted a wrong translation. I am happy to concede that Christians have an explanation for this contradictory verse - I am personally not convinced by it, and others can make up their own minds. For me, given it is the same author and that the Greek word is the same, and it describes the same event - it is a clear contradiction. In one they heard but did not see, in the other they did not hear. Therefore, I cannot understand why I am being called a blind man for quoting an accurate translation and you are somehow more enlightened for telling us something that was not correct. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| ebonics - I agree with you that Islam is going through the equivalent of the Middle Ages in Christianity when religion was being misused. quote="freza"]revisiting....
The verses I quoted before from the Quran saying that Christians etc will go to heaven provided they don't worship other Gods etc.
The Quran itself - as I stated before, the Quran is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions. The Quran itself says there are clear verses and metaphoric ones: The Quran also says that the after life will be 'like nothing we can imagine' - and also says in a few places that the descriptions of the after-life are metaphorical. I'll get the quotes for you and post separately.
I think you will find I did address this question explicitly. I think Valkyrie or Flying Dutchman raised the question.
Sorry, can you explain what the contradiction is. The Quran is quite clear on the subject of sacrifices and their meanings, so this is an interesting one for me - please let me know what verses are contradictory so I can clarify this point for you. |
| freza |
and I meant that you choose not to accept an explanation that is backed up by other actual examples in the Bible. there is evidence that these words in question have been used in a different context but you can't see it? (kinda ironic considering the subject :-)) translation of the word applied correctly is the issue here. you assumed that there is only one applicable translation and that that sole application is the one that contradicts these two passages of the same event. akoo or akouw means to hear *but* it also means, to comprehend, understand, perceive and obey. And it has been used as such in the Bible, there are SEVERAL examples, as found in the quoted by John Echert above and as found by simply looking the word up. (Acts 3:22, Acts 4:19, Galatians 4:21 are some examples). We agree on this. Fwnh (phon) means: voice but it also means sound. ouk means not, negative or refused. Now you state that there must be a clear contradiction in the translation of this passage compared to another one when the problem seems to be that you refuse to see it translated as it was meant to be interpreted. There is no dispute that there are more than one meanings to the words in question. There is no dispute that it has been used in more than one way in the bible itself. So why insist that it was used in an erroneous way here? Now let's look at logic. Why would the same author contradict himself when relating this same account? It does not make any sense. It makes a lot more sense that different words were used to explain the same event. Here's a passage that I find significant in this recurring theme around the word in question. And I'm quoting form the NKJV, John 8:43 " Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. " another version of it is: " Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. " The issue here is not a problem with one's ears/hearing. Rather it's a profound admonition to follow and fully understand God's words. On the subject we're discussing it's an example of a differentiation between hearing and comprehending/obeying/accepting of truth with that key Greek word akouw which in this case is obviously not about being able to physically "hear" If you were to say that this passage means that it's about literally not being able to hear, I would again say that your translation is wrong. |
| shafique |
| Ok, let's get this straight And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice , but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7 In this verse, the Greek word used is akou, and means 'to hear' - clearly says they heard a voice but saw no man. And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9 In this verse the same word is used 'akou' only here whilst it literally means 'to hear', you argue it should be interpreted as 'understand'. But the scholar you quoted says: As recorded by St. Matthew our Lord used this Greek verb interchangeably: “13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniami). .. so the Greek to 'understand' is suniami and not akou. Therefore in summary, to get round the literal contradiction we must believe that in 22.9 akou does not mean 'hear' but in 9.7 it does. I continue to be impressed with the level of faith of Christians that the Bible hasn't been corrupted - 10/10 for effort. I hope you don't mind too much if I choose not to believe your interpretation. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| Wow, talk about taking things out of context! Sorry Shafique but you can not use errors to back up your allegations of supposed errors. The bona fide Bible scholar that I quoted explained that akouo has several meanings, and presented examples of this fact...which you proceeded to ignore. but here in the quote that you took out of context he is clearly referring to the use of the word akou to have two meanings (in the same sentence no less!) he was certainly NOT referring to the word understand suniami. (btw, "understand" as you can see comes in a variety of words, there is no one absolute Greek word that is used exclusively for "understand" in the Bible but rather the use depends on varying applications and circumstances. A simple lookup on a Greek Lexicon will prove this. ex. yet another word that means "understand"is found below.) let's back up again and examine John Eckert's explanation some more:
on Matthew 13:13 Eckert is referring to the second ackouo* as meaning: understand. as in they have the means (physically hearing) but choose not to use them to: understand/perceive. yet another previous example that you ignored: John 8:43 I'm using the KJV since it's your fav. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. or Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. in this case understand is not akou , nor is it suniemi but rather the word ginosko. however, hear is akou , but it is quite obviously not literal, that a person can not hear but rather that he/she can not perceive/understand/accept. |
| freza |
ok. pls quote where it says this, clear vs metaphoric. |
| shafique |
| freza - I have nothing more to add on these two verses. If you have some new information about the Greek language, please let me know - otherwise it is closed. Nothing to see here, please move on. Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| double post |
| shafique |
Sure thing - Chapter 3 v 7: He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical . But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
ummmm. right. so you won't even acknowledge that you took the scholars words out of context or that the key word in question has several meanings, as a proven fact (as is the norm in most languages). mmkay. |
| freza |
ok, what I get from reading it straightforward is that perverse people seek hidden or metaphorical meanings out of the Quran for the intention of discord? Why? Why are metaphors described in this negative light? No one knows it's hidden meaning? But you have described some passages as metaphors, why is it that you know? "none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." this seems contradictory to the previous sentences. pls explain. |
| shafique |
| There are clear verses that are the basis of the Quran. These are unambiguous. There are some allegorical verses which talk about creation, the nature of God etc. The after life and its descriptions are by necessity allegorical, for the Quran states: We will raise you into a form of which you have not the slightest knowledge. Surah Al-Waqiah (Ch. 56: V.61) See how God gives you various shapes in the womb. Surah Al-Imran (Ch. 3: V.6) Your first creation and your second creation will be identical. Surah Luqman (Ch. 31: V.28) If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be in the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife. So, all the descriptions of heaven/hell are allegorical/metaphorical. I interpret the verses above to say that after death, our souls will go through the same sort of transformation we all underwent in the wombs of our mothers. However, as 3.7 says, only God knows the truth. 3.7 does not say we should not ponder over the meanings of the metaphorical verses, but rather states clearly that they are peripheral to Islam and the Quran and that only the perverse will cause disruption by focussing on the metaphorical verses and ignore the basis of the Quran - which details how to live with one another and how to relate to the Creator. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
i actually laughed at this logic, full laughed out loud.. |
| shafique |
| ebonics - do you believe the laws of physics and matter etc will apply in the life after death? Seeing requires light, eyes and matter off which light will bounce off and be received by the eyeball, sending neurons firing up the optic nerve and decoded in the visual cortex. I don't believe we will have eyes, brains or any material body in the after life - and I don't believe there will be photons or atoms in that place. I'd be interested if you believe otherwise. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
| completely agree, so whats this talk of virgins, boys, gold this, silver that, comfortable couches, food, trees... arent these things all made of atoms? |
| shafique |
They are all metaphors - its like describing a colour to a blind person, you say it is a 'hot' colour, or a 'cold' colour. Describing heaven as a garden through which rivers flow, where life will be easy, with pure companions and non-intoxicating wine etc - are all metaphors. This is quite common in everyday life - when/if you have kids you will know that you often need to simplify concepts to fit the capacity of understanding of the recipient. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
is that personal interpretation? because i could swear every lecture i watched spoke of it as literal? "do not committ "zina" , it will reduce your chances with the never ending virgins of heaven" and not exactly in those words... |
| shafique |
| It's what I have been taught 56v61 means and there are many Hadith that make it clear that we won't have physical bodies in the after-life. I am told that the Arabic meaning of the verse makes it clear that this is the case - would you mind looking up the verse and telling me what you think it means. (There are some muslims who do have some weird beliefs - in my opinion - eg some believe that the 'houris' of heaven are actually females and they came down to earth from Heaven at the time of Adam and fathered the other humans at the time. So I would not be surprised if some muslims believe there will actually be virgins, wine etc in heaven.) Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
" He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. So allegorical writings are NOT part of the foundation? But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah." This is clearly saying that to interpret allegories is for the perverse! Why would a perverse person even bother with the Quran? A person who seeks to understand the Quran profoundly is not what I would call perverse, on the contrary, they would be interested in deepening the understanding of the basis for their belief. "And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." This is vague and telling at the same time. Believe as in having Faith. But don't you criticize the faith of others? In knowledge of what? general intelligence? Knowledge of religion? Knowledge of what exactly? Perverts can be smart too you know. I can't get over how the label of perverse is there for people that seek deeper knowledge..seems such a strange thing to state. It wouldn't seem strange if it said something like "those who intend to twist the meanings of allegorical language" but it doesn't state this...
|
| shafique |
Yes.
Yes - not having the slightest knowledge is absolute. Therefore any explanations of the afterlife can only be metaphors that will not reflect reality - in the same way that a blind man who hears descriptions of colour will only really experience colour when he is given the facility of sight. That is not to say that you can't try and explain what colour is to him - but at the end of the day, however good the explanations he hears, he will still have no idea what colour is until he experiences sight for the first time.
The Quran is saying that those who focus on the allegorical and ignore the clear verses are doing so only to be obstructive. It is clear that the basis of the Quran is the unambiguous verses. The Quran is more than a set of instructions though - there are more verses enjoining believers to study nature than there are verses stating what man should or should not do (the law bearing verses).
I repeat, it does not say that one should not study the Quran deeply, but says that those who focus on the ambigous/allegorical verses and ignore the fundamental teachings are the ones that are perverse. Note that all the allegorical verses do not change how a Muslim should act towards others or pray to God - therefore they are just in the realm of 'theoretical'.
The Perversity is only where the clear verses are over-looked and the focus is on the allegorical verses. That would not be a bright thing to do - for a pervert or non-pervert :)
Where does it say it clearly? The verse states that the clear verses are the foundation of the Quran - they clearly instruct on how to deal with other people, animals and how to live one's spiritual life. The allegorical verses deal with metaphysical aspects of creation and the afterlife, they don't impact on the clear instructions on how to behave and pray. The metaphors are therefore not part of the foundation of the Quran, but part of the beautiful ramparts and embellishments of the edifice that is Islam. It is all good - but to argue about whether the window on right of the building is perfectly aligned or not is peripheral to the fact that the building is covered and provides shelter - the walls and the roof are the clear verses, the decorations and position of the windows are the allegorical verses (to use an allegory of my own) And, as you say, allegories are used by previous prophets as well. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
|
| shafique |
Knowledge of the afterlife is a reality for the author of the Quran - God. Therefore He uses metaphors that can make some sense to humans.
I don't believe God has to borrow from earlier revelations - earlier scriptures are records of revelations by God to earlier Prophets, but all of these have been corrupted to some degree. None of the earlier scriptures have a guarantee of purity contained in them.
I don't defend anyone that misuses religion - be it the Quran or the Bible. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. To be clear - misuse in this sense would be to focus on the allegorical verses and not follow the clear injunctions of the Quran. I totally agree that Christian violence and intolerance was a misuse of the Bible - but I see this as distinct from interpretations of the text for theological reasons.
No - I have on the contrary stated that I also choose which verses to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically - I have been clear on this point. We just have different views on which verses are metaphorical and which are literal. For example, we both agree that the prophecies of the 2nd coming of Elijah - descending in a blazing chariot - are metaphorical and were fullfilled in John the Baptist. Jews however reject this interpretation and insist that Elijah needs to bodily return. Therefore you and I agree on one metaphorical interpretation and disagree with the Jewish interpretation. On the other hand, you take Jesus' claim of being 'Son of Man' metaphorically, but 'Son of God' literally. I take both metaphorically. When Jesus says 'I have only come to the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' - I take him at his word. Therefore there is no double standard - I use the same technique and just choose different verses from you. I would also point out that you don't need scholars to interpret the Quran - the clear verses are clear and are the foundation of Islam. Scholars and ordinary people have full access to all of the Quran and all who understand Arabic can consult dictionaries and lexicons for all the words in the Quran. Interpreting the metaphorical verses is something that you can take into account other peoples views on them - but there aren't definitive views and many verses have many layers of meanings (but remember these are all about the metaphysical). Scholars are there to give insights and opinions - but they don't change what the clear verses of the Quran evidently say. On the point of needing scholars to interpret the allegorical verses of the Bible - that is stretching the point. I have pointed out contradictions that aren't in parables or allegories - describing what happened on the road to Damascus is not an allegory, but a description of the event. I don't see why putting a different meaning of the word 'to hear' is an allegory. In listing contradictions in the Bible, I have not quoted any parables. And anyway - my intention was to show that we should not take everything in the Bible literally and need to interpret what is in there. I maintain that my interpretation is valid - you would view it as heretical. (The Bible is not literally the word of God, contains some human mistakes - some intentional but many unintentional, and in any case the final selection of the books of the Bible were done by 'scholars' called together by Constantine - and they selected the books according to their view of Theology) Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
I do see a lot of contradictions and double standards in your thoughts. You certainly do not apply the same rules that you use to judge the works of the Bible as you do to observe the Quran. Not by a long shot. If you don't mind seeming so biased, then I guess you'll continue on your quest. What I find disappointing is that these critiques are not at all signs of uniqueness of an inquisitive individual, but rather they are the norm of what I have heard from other people of your faith with the same exact accusations and arguments and they state these things because that's what has been instructed onto them not because they've reached their own conclusion. |
| shafique |
| Talking about interpretations of scripture, this old article appeared as a 'top story' on the BBC News website today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3205727.stm It's about what the Bible says about being Gay. Makes interesting reading - Christians using the Bible to justify both sides of what is a clear cut argument for most people - is Homos.e.xuality against God's law or not? Both sides have 'scholars' on their teams, so it is an interesting one to watch - and still hasn't been resolved yet. The African protestants (who now send missionaries to England to convert the people to Christianity!) are anti-gay, whilst the 'western' churches are pro-gay. Cheers, Shafique |
| ebonics |
you are told wrong, ill give you a word for word translation when i get a free chance. |
| shafique |
| freza, you say you criticise JW for 'flimsy' interpretations. Can you please elaborate on what interpretations are flimsy. What about the issue of whether being gay is a sin or not - see my post above - is it not the case there are scholars on both sides of the argument, both quoting from the Bible. Which side is right, and how did you decide? At least we now agree that the Bible needs to be interpreted and that we both agree on some verses and disagree with others. It appears that this is no different from groups within the Christian community. Had Arius and his followers won the arguments in the Council of Nicea, then the Bible would not contain the references to Trinity etc. The point is that he was in the Council at the time and his views were valid Christian views at the time. The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that the Quran is internally consistent and Muslims take their faith from what is written in the Quran. The Bible in its current form was selected by theologians based on their belief of Christianity - the books selected were those which tied in with their beliefs, rather than their beliefs coming from the book. The Quran corrects many of the errors that are in the Bible - eg. Lot's wife does not transform into a pillar of salt, but stays behind when Lot and the rest of the family leaves. The honour of Israelite prophets is restored - Lot is not a drunkard who sleeps with his daughters, nor do prophets offer their virgin daughters to thugs. So to say that the Quran borrows from the Bible shows an amazing lack of research, or a prejudice based on writings by opponents of Islam. You also continue to ignore the big fact that the Quran is internally consistent on the main points of religion - how to live one's life vis-a-vis other people and how to worship God and attain ultimate salvation. I have not seen you address these fundamental issues in your various critiques of Islam. The Bible has textual issues and additions (Mark 16 is universally acknowledged by scholars as an addition, for example). I don't hold this against the Bible - it is what it is, and doesn't claim to be the literal word of God. The Quran, by contrast, does claim to be the literal word of God and has been preserved as so. Therefore, you should concede, on the factual basis of textual integrity the Quran is the same text that was dictated by Muhammad and compiled in his lifetime and not one letter has changed - but the Bible has issues over content, integrity and internal contradictions stemming from human failings of recollection and textual additions. Also the compilation of the Bible took place some 300 years after Jesus' ministry and to this day we have many different interpretations of some core beliefs of Christianity - of which Trinity is just one. Muslims are by no means unified in their theology, but the Quran is pure, accessible and hence open to scrutiny. Despite all the divisions amongst Muslims, the integrity of the Quran is remarkable from a human perspective, but expected when you consider that the Quran claims to be from God and God says in it that He will protect the Quran from any corruption. Therefore, the textual integrity of the Quran is a prophecy fulfilled (references to Yemeni Qurans which use old scripts have not shown there have been different Qurans in existence). That said, I am interested on where you stand on what God says about gays in the Bible (the Quran says it is a sin - so agrees with the views of the African Christians). Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
| double post |
| shafique |
You see a lot of contradictions and double standards - perhaps you can help me understand my weakness then. From my perspective, I have said the Quran contains clear verses and allegorical verses. I have said the Bible contains allegorical verses as well as clear verses (such as 'I have come only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel'). Where there are alleged contradictions in the Quran, I have not changed the meaning of a word to suit my argument. I take Jesus' words at face value in the Bible, and like you reject many literal interpretations of Biblical verses. I don't reject any verses of the Quran, but that is because it claims to be all the word of God. So I would not call this double standard - what I am doing for the Bible is following your example and not following all the verses literally. However, you seem to believe that you have many examples of my double standards - I'd be interested in a list of a few of these, as I don't really want to be unfair and apply double standards.
So, you have discussed with Muslims in the past and I am no different from them in critiquing the Bible. Is that really surprising? The Quran is clear that Islam is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies and therefore Muslims will have a common view of Christians - in the same way I am sure that all Christians will give Jews similar arguments why they are wrong to stay with Judaism and reject Jesus as their Messiah. A Muslim trying to convince a Christian that Islam is a true religion will use pretty much the same line of reasoning a Christian will use when trying to preach to a Jewish person (the new prophet fulfils the prophecies in your book, brings a new law, but does not fulfil all the prophecies literally as you were expecting etc etc). The Jews continue to reject Jesus and believe that their interpretation of the OT is correct, the Christians disagree with them. Christians will continue to reject the Quran and insist that their interpretation of the OT and NT is correct - Muslims will disagree with them. So you see, we have a lot in common! Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| Will you drop your council of Nicea argument already. It's tired! And really is that all you have? I stress again, how original my dear! When the fact of Jesus being the basis of Christianity not because he was one more Jewish prophet but because he was the true prophet (according to some), the son and God brought to flesh and resurrected, that is what really matters to Christians. Do you really need more? C'mon now! Re: Quran, 1st I think that Islam is a very beautiful religion, I've said it before. But when it comes to the Quran I don't think it is very original nor that it was written by God, nope. I think it's mostly imagination, was put together according to men and it was copied from the Bible - the inspiration of it, and from stories, Jewish legends that Mohammad heard from his wives, associates, during his travels and encounters with other cultures etc. I think that Mohammad suffered from a brain malady and probably had seizures that brought on some weird visions which he thought were from God. I find it very strange that he was one really sinful prophet. I'm not sure if he ever repented from his sins. That's such a Christian thing to say, isn't it? ha. Christianity is often accused of inherent misogyny, I think there is some truth in this accusation. But Jesus' teachings were meant to be quite the opposite, his message was all-inclusive. That some Christian groups took steps back into misogyny when they were first arising at the helm of men, it's a shame really, but not surprising. Mohammad's treatment of women is hhmm...well...From underage s.ex to s.ex slaves to wife beatings etc. It could be argued this behavior was the norm around his time, things were vastly different back then. Well yes, but didn't he establish strict moral codes that completely went against what he actually practiced at one point or another? I can't seem to reconcile how this troubled sinful prophet created such a great religion. Re: JW. You've read up a lot on the big Christian denominations but the one you admire, the one that you use to support some of your critiques, you don't know much about? Very odd. Well let's see, when did Jesus return to earth according to the JW? Did he return in 1874 or 1914? Maybe you know because the JW have kinda gotten confused about the exact date themselves. He returned to earth invisibly. But is he still here? *cough* How do you feel when a JW says that only 144,000 Witnesses (and no one else) will go to heaven? Wait, didn't some people that become JW before the 1930s get their last minute ticket to heaven too? Yup. How many JW are there now a days, a few million...ok, but they won't all get to go to heaven because in the Bible it says that only 144,000 will get to go..in the Bible according to the wacky! You still want to talk about flimsy ideologies or not? How about next time you bring up the JW, you do so to uncover their inconsistencies... Re: Homose.xuality. Some Christian groups condemn it - I think it's within their right as a group to uphold certain moral standards as they see fit. And frankly if people don't like it, they can just leave the group, right? Having said this, I think that Christianity's fundamental message is that of acceptance of everyone, regardless of their place in life, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and to exclude people based on their differences goes against what Jesus taught. The principle message of Jesus is that of love and salvation. This doesn't mean that he overlooked sin and evil. But I don't think he equated homosexuality with evil, not even sure if he equated it with sin. Scholars are not sure themselves, you're right. Then again, not all things of the Bible have an explanation, (parts of it are still mysterious ad evolving). But I do think that in these issues the stronger message cancels the lesser arguments and the stronger message in this case is that of acceptance/inclusion. |
| ebonics |
that is the bottom line everytime shafique goes " we consider muhammad the purist human to ever live" i didnt know weather to laugh or cry |
| shafique |
I agree it's an old argument - but happens to be the truth though. No problems - I understand it makes you mad.
Great - we agree that Islam is beautiful religion. You've got to hand it to the 'authors' of the Quran though - they made prophecies that came true and managed to preserve the Quran, and (as you say) give the details of a beautiful religion. It's a shame you believe the misinformation about the Prophet, pbuh - I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I'm happy to deal with each of the accusations - but perhaps that is best done in another thread rather than one talking about the integrity of the Quran. [Edit - however, what you have written is interesting - Islam is a great religion, but you have questions over the actions of the Prophet. Ok - then you should have no issues with people following the religion - as it is 'great' and 'beautiful'. As long as we don't go against these principles taught in the Quran, you have no issue with this. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?] As for JW - you obviously deny they are Christians and say they are a Cult - and yet they base their teachings on the Bible. You demonstrate a lot of hatred for one who calls themselves a Christian!
The problem is freza is that you keep saying there is consensus in Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible. Yet you quite clearly admit that many Christian Biblical scholars clearly believe that God condemns all hom.o.se.xuals whilst you apparently disagree with these scholars. You put your interpretation above those of all the African priests, scholars and yes, the Catholic church. The Bible is therefore open to interpretation and therefore comes down to a personal choice as to which interpretation to believe in. I just submit that I am within my right to take Jesus at his word when he says 'I have come unto the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' or when he says 'Why callest me good? There is none good but God' or when he refers to himself as 'Son of Man'. It is interesting that in a thread about Quranic and Biblical integrity you state that Islam is beautiful, but say you have problems with the Prophet, pbuh. So the teachings are pure and beautiful, but you have problems with the messenger who brought the message. Are you saying you agree with the Quranic instructions then (as it is beautiful) and have no further need to examine the teachings/integrity of the Quran - but want to move on to examining the personality and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? [I'm happy to do so, but let us clear up that you agree with me that the Quran's teachings in terms of how humans should deal with each other and how to pray to God cannot be faulted] In a way, I am surprised that attacks against the Prophet didn't rear their heads sooner - but no matter, the false accusations have all been refuted by Christian historians, but perhaps you are not aware that the accusations against Muhammad, pbuh, are wrong. (I presume you don't believe that Jews drink the blood of Christian children etc - beliefs that were disseminated in the past and, shockingly, believed) Finally, why does it feel that every time I ask you for direct references (in this case to where I have applied 'double standards') you resort to mud-slinging? Cheers, Shafique |
| shafique |
I challenge you to find a quote from me saying this in this or any other recent thread. btw 'purest' is the correct spelling. However, this is the belief of Muslims - but we have been instructed not to make a big deal of this point - all Prophets are pure and sinless, we make no distinction between the veracity of prophets. Muhammad, pbuh, is the 'seal' of the Prophets because he brought the final religion. However, as with freza, it is interesting that you call a misrepresentation/slander of the Prophet, pbuh, the 'bottom line' in a thread that is about the Quran vs Bible! Wow - talk about playing the player and not the ball!! :) Freza says Islam is a beautiful religion - do you disagree with her? She is saying that the Quran's message is beautiful - for Islam is defined as what the Quran teaches - which ends the discussion with her over the Quran, and we seem to agree that the Bible needs interpretation. Cheers, Shafique |
| rudeboy |
| lol shaf the man take it easy freza is going nuts :D |
| ebonics |
| the point is its hard to take a prophet seriously with his colourful history. if u havent said that before shafique, excuse my failing memory - i recall you did.. i maybe wrong. of course that directly influences this thread about quranic integrity, it was he that supposedly learnt all this, and recited it....... which makes quran's validity, coming from him, questionable.... just a tad. |
| shafique |
No probs ebonics. There has been a lot of disinformation about the Prophet, pbuh, but fortunately there are now modern day historians that have put the record straight ('western' and Christian historians I mean). There are still some criticisms of him - but as I said, that is a topic best served in a different thread.
I'm sorry, I can't see the link. The Quran is what was dictated by the Prophet, pbuh. His conduct may be a reflection on how to practice the injunctions of the Quran, but I can't see how the actions would affect the integrity of the text of the book - which is what I thought we were discussing. That said, I do believe that the Prophet's, pbuh, is an exemplar and embodied the Quran - showing us how to behave - as a son, orphan, nephew, husband, father, employee, employer, oppressed, in war, in peace, as a judge, as an emperor and above all as a sincere servant of God. freza is right though - a beautiful religion like Islam could not come from a paedophile, misogynist or wife beater. My contention is that it did not - but again, this can be dealt with in another thread. Cheers, Shafique |
| freza |
| edit: double post |
| freza |
Be cool bro, we're having a "healthy" discussion here, right?
|
| shafique |
What did I say about name calling? :)
Nothing about the council particularly bothers me - there was a healthy debate over interpretations of the Bible, one side one out- they were given a task by Constatine to compile a Bible from the many gospels that were in existence. Despite selecting books which were in-line with their views, there still existed contradictions in the Bible. It should upset you that they didn't do a better job. :) What was bad was what came later - the intolerance shown by those who won the argument about how to interpret the Bible. You obviously haven't done your research about Arius and his followers - Arians were eventually branded heretics and many were persecuted for just holding a different interpretation of the Bible.
So, you appear to disagree with Jesus when he says you should judge a tree by it's fruit! :) You would say the fruit is nice, juicy and wholesome, but because someone told me the farmer was a jerk, I refuse to eat the fruit! (And Islam photographs well! :) )
Cool. If only everyone had this tolerant view - including many Muslims who don't follow the verse of the Quran 'there is no compulsion in religion'.
I can't see how you can divorce Islam from the Quran (or from the Prophet, pbuh) - but you seem to be able to do so. Interesting (hence my quote from the Bible about fruit/tree). I agree that many have questions - hence these discussions to dispel misinformation.
freza - I have discussed with JW and countered their claims. What part of this statement did you not understand previously? I am challenging your point that all Christians have the same core interpretations of the Bible - this is evidently not the case. I am challenging your narrow view that if someone has a different core interpretation from you they are classed 'non-Christian' by you despite the fact they consider themselves Christian. For the record, I consider both of you (JW and you) are misinterpreting Jesus' message.
So, do Gays attain salvation or go to hell? Isn't this a fundamental, core issue for someone who is Gay? My point is that on this fundamental point, scholars of the Bible have opposing views. I also do not understand how there is consensus if some disagree. Are you saying that the scholars who say Gay bishops are ok are wrong? The African scholars/priests do not say that 'the bigger picture is what matters' as they are threatening to break away from the Anglican church for what they see as variant interpretations of the Bible. Were you unaware of this threat?
:) See, there you go saying I should not take Jesus at his words. We can discuss this in another thread. (all Christian scholars are quite clear that the 'lesser commission' clearly tells disciples to only preach to Israelites, but as I say we can discuss your misinterpretation in another thread)
So, another example of blaming the tree for beautiful fruit. It's a shame you haven't kept up with the more reputable Christian scholars who have disowned the disinformation/slander about the Prophet etc. Again, it shows that a critical study of the Quran does not raise any fundamental problems/contradictions - so people resort to smear campaigns. Shame that. However, if you do sincerely believe these 'factoids' I can give you all the references to correct your misunderstanding. If you are interested, we can start a new thread.
Careful, your prejudice is showing. Yes, I said historians. I don't have any issues with historians studying the Bible - they tell me, for example, who actually wrote the gospels rather that what is commonly is attributed to them by 'legend'. I quoted the first serious historian who went to primary sources - the celebrated Edward Gibbon - and in his book 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' he shows the difference between what the Church said their history was and what actual historical scholarship shows. He also had a few chapters on Islam in that book. So, yes, I did mean what I typed - historians. And, for the record, Muhammad, pbuh, was not a misogynist (he gave women rights that European women only got a whole thousand years later) etc - all of the accusations are so easy to dispel I can only conclude that you have chosen not to do any independent research on Islam's prophet and are just repeating what you've been told/read from biased sources.
I hope you are joking - but the frightening thing is that I'm not 100% sure you are! [serious] Cheers, Shafique |
| Flying Dutchman |
| About Quranic integrity: does it mean that there always has been only one version of the Quran throughout history? And never did different versions (or codex) exist next to each other? |
| ebonics |
| according to shafique, and muslims, it is the "literal" word of god.. like god spoke those words, exactly how they are, and they got documented after muhammad read them, and relayed them to people that can write. im saying that muhammad's history prior to that, doesnt suggest that he'd be an honest person in relaying this message (the fact he actually recieved the message from god direct is a complete different debate) case in point, the verse that says regarding women captured through means of war - "and whatever your right posessed" and not in those words... the explaination was that having s.e.x slaves after war back in those days was deemed "ok" - the quran reflected that. what sort of god would tell you that s.e.x with the women that you captured at a battle is ok? personally i think muhammad added that verse specifically to allow himself to have whatever relationships he pleased when he went to war. but to a person blind with his faith, such logical assumption is fatwa punishable by death, cutting of hands, tongues, whatever else they can cut whilst at it. |
| shafique |
The Quran is an Aural revelation which was transmitted Orally - the primary means of transmission was recitation and memorisation. As such there has only been one version of the Quran - one authentic Arabic set of verses (and here authentic means undisputed). During the lifetime of the Prophet, the Quranic revelations were recited time and time again and memorised by thousands of people. To this day the number of people having memorised the Quran increases each year. Written records of the Quran were checked against the memory of people - not the other way round. Arabic writing evolved over time, with different scripts etc. There are mistakes in some transcriptions of the Quran - but because of the fail-safes, none of these mistakes have ever been considered anything but mis-transcriptions (because there is no doubt what the true words were). What confuses some people is that there are different ways in pronouncing the same Arabic word - i.e. different dialects of Arabic will have different pronunciations. This produced different 'Quirat' or ways of pronouncing the Quran - however in all the words are the same (in meaning). However, if a non-Arab mispronounces an Arabic word, the danger is that they are changing the meaning. This began to happen in the Khalifa Umar's time - and he took the decision to standardise the written representation of the aural revelation - i.e. compile the standardised Quran - showing how the words are to be pronounced in the Quraish pronunciation of what is known as Fursa/Classical Arabic. Not all of the existing written Qurans were destroyed - some were returned to their owners, but most were. [The main point is that the Quran had only one set of words, Arab speakers could pronounce them differently without changing the meanings for themselves.] At the time there were many, many non-Muslims in Arabia and none of these Arab speakers accused the compilers of changing the Quran or doing more than writing down what was memorised. The accusations of variant readings etc came much later and were levelled by 'orientalist' opponents of Islam. (And also note that there were divisions amongst muslims too in this period - Shia/Sunni tensions were in their early stages - and yet there is no dissension on the Quranic revelations). So the short answer is that there has always been only one aural revelation of the Quran in history. There have been written codices which varied from one another, but these were either phonetic representations of different pronunciations or because of transcriptural errors. Cheers, Shafique |
| Flying Dutchman |
So, how do you know, which one is the correct one and which is one contains errors? |
| shafique |
The primary source of preservation is the word-perfect memorisation of thousands of Muslims (now millions of Muslims). This is what the scholars did at the time they compiled the 'standard' Quran - when they decided on the definitive written version that could be used as a standard from then on (primarily for non-Arabic speakers). So after the standard text was produced, this could be used to check to see which was accurate or not. (Some texts with variant readings are accurate in meanings, but represent different pronunciations - so both are 'right') If a sentnence conains some splling errors - an English speaker will still read it properly and understand the meaning, someone who does not understand Arabic will read it phonetically and be saying gibberish. So the presence of variant spellings/pronunciations of an oral revelation does not show that there were many different revelations, but just records the fact that written transmissions aren't always accurate. I forgot to say in the previous post that the Quran was also written down by scribes as the revelations were revealed - multiple scribes, not just one - but the primary means of preservation was memorisation. The Quranic verses were recited many times each day and also the whole Quran was recited many times during Ramadhan. Cheers, Shafique |
| Flying Dutchman |
| Out of intrest, from which year is the earliest written still extisting codex? |
| Flying Dutchman |
So, the integrity of the Quran is based on the assumption of people perfectly remembering the Quran instead of a written version?
Not if the word "no" is left out, which will give a complete other meaning to a sentence... |
| ebonics |
muhammad himself, supposedly memorised it sura by sura, and relayed it for people to document.... not forgetting/skipping/altering 1 word in the process. and it still remained the literal word of god would that be accurate shafique? |
| shafique |
| double post |
| shafique |
Yes. If all the printed Qurans in the world today were burnt/destroyed, the Quran will continue to be preserved via its primary source of preservation. It is a concept that is hard to fathom given our reliance on the written word - but the facts are amazing. Millions who can recite word for word the Quran from beginning to end. Incredible as it may sound, the results are there for all to see/critique - there is only one Quran despite all the divisions amongst Muslims and scrutiny of Arab speaking opponents of Islam from the earliest periods. As I said before, the Quran is the only scripture that contains a guarantee that the scripture would not become corrupted (all other scriptures talk of the punishments that will befall those that do corrupt that particular scripture, whilst the Quran has no such punishment but instead has a guarantee/prophecy that God will protect the Quran).
|