Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

lol shaf the man take it easy freza is going nuts

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.

ebonics wrote: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.

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.

ebonics wrote: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.

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

edit:

double post

Be cool bro, we're having a "healthy" discussion here, right?

shafique wrote:

freza wrote:Will you drop your council of Nicea argument already. It's tired!

I agree it's an old argument - but happens to be the truth though. No problems - I understand it makes you mad.

hehehe! I didn't know this childish side of you. Your argument of the council Nicea doesn't make me mad, why should it? It's what I said it is - a very tired argument and an erroneous one at that. According to Arius Jesus was half-and-half, divine/human. Disagreements were about what Jesus was "made up of" not his condition of divinity and man and certainly not his resurrection. The life and works of Jesus would mean very little (one can almost say nothing) and certainly would not have fulfilled the New Advent and his prophecy if he had not resurrected after death. Despite what you're erroneously trying to make it out to be, the Nicean council is one of those things that most Christians have a consensus about. Perhaps this is what bothers you...

shafique wrote: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.

Islam is a beautiful religion yes. It photographs well! Visually stunning, rich traditions, teaches unity and a mostly good way of life. But the beginnings and foundation of this religion are HIGHLY questionable. A great paradox!

shafique wrote:[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?]

There's no question that Islam is a great religion, by its sheer number of followers and influence. I have NO issues with people following this religion, why should I? People follow what works for them and what they've grown to love. I think modern Islam is far more cohesive than early Islam, it's become a better and improved religion. But I still think that the basis - the Quran and Mohammad - leave a lot of questions and a lot to be desired

shafique wrote: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!

lol! I'm a hateful one, aren't I? darn!! that really hurts! The Witnesses are nice people I think, they have mostly good but misguided intentions, they dress nicely and are very hard working in spreading their message. But they're obsessed with other's "contradictions" because they can't see their own. They can't be right if others are not accused of being wrong. (Sounds familiar?) Their foundation is really whack. Not just a little but a whole lot. You don't even need to scratch the surface of their belief system to find inconsistencies. Shafique I've asked you this several times before but you've so far ignored me. Why is it that haven't countered JW Bible claims and inconsistencies????

shafique wrote: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.

And the problem is......what? Consensus on the important stuff: Jesus, God, love, be good, resurrection, salvation. You know, the important things. Re: Homosexuality: groups interpret them according to their standards. So what?The consensus though is that homosexuality is sinful. Some disagree, but the bigger picture is what matters.

shafique wrote: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'.

there you go again! No Shafique, taking words out of context to fit your bias is not acceptable. Examine these passages correctly, in their full context and then argue against them.

shafique wrote:In a way, I am surprised that attacks against the Prophet didn't rear their heads sooner

I didn't state these factoids to attack or offend, but it's part of history, it is important for the examination and credibility (or lack of it) of the claims of the Quran.

shafique wrote: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.

aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Did you say "historians"? You mean, scholars prove that Mohammad was not a misogynist, s.e.x obsessed, violence-prone and erratic prophet? But you're so opposed to those historians when it comes to studying the Bible. I don't get it! Maybe this was a typo?

shafique wrote:(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)

one of my favorite bedtime stories, don't ruin it please.

freza wrote:hehehe! I didn't know this childish side of you.

What did I say about name calling?

freza wrote:According to Arius Jesus was half-and-half, divine/human. Disagreements were about what Jesus was "made up of" not his condition of divinity and man and certainly not his resurrection. .. Despite what you're erroneously trying to make it out to be, the Nicean council is one of those things that most Christians have a consensus about. Perhaps this is what bothers you...

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.

freza wrote: Islam is a beautiful religion yes. It photographs well! Visually stunning, rich traditions, teaches unity and a mostly good way of life. But the beginnings and foundation of this religion are HIGHLY questionable. A great paradox!

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! )

freza wrote:
There's no question that Islam is a great religion, by its sheer number of followers and influence. I have NO issues with people following this religion, why should I?

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'.

freza wrote: People follow what works for them and what they've grown to love. I think modern Islam is far more cohesive than early Islam, it's become a better and improved religion. But I still think that the basis - the Quran and Mohammad - leave a lot of questions and a lot to be desired

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 wrote:lol! I'm a hateful one, aren't I? darn!! that really hurts! The Witnesses are nice people I think, they have mostly good but misguided intentions, they dress nicely and are very hard working in spreading their message. But they're obsessed with other's "contradictions" because they can't see their own. They can't be right if others are not accused of being wrong. (Sounds familiar?) Their foundation is really whack. Not just a little but a whole lot. You don't even need to scratch the surface of their belief system to find inconsistencies. Shafique I've asked you this several times before but you've so far ignored me. Why is it that haven't countered JW Bible claims and inconsistencies????

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.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote: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.

And the problem is......what? Consensus on the important stuff: Jesus, God, love, be good, resurrection, salvation. You know, the important things. Re: Homosexuality: groups interpret them according to their standards. So what?The consensus though is that homosexuality is sinful. Some disagree, but the bigger picture is what matters.

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?

freza wrote:there you go again! No Shafique, taking words out of context to fit your bias is not acceptable. Examine these passages correctly, in their full context and then argue against them.

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)

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:In a way, I am surprised that attacks against the Prophet didn't rear their heads sooner

I didn't state these factoids to attack or offend, but it's part of history, it is important for the examination and credibility (or lack of it) of the claims of the Quran.

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.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote: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.

aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Did you say "historians"? You mean, scholars prove that Mohammad was not a misogynist, s.e.x obsessed, violence-prone and erratic prophet? But you're so opposed to those historians when it comes to studying the Bible. I don't get it! Maybe this was a typo?

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.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:(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)

one of my favorite bedtime stories, don't ruin it please.

I hope you are joking - but the frightening thing is that I'm not 100% sure you are! [serious]

Cheers,
Shafique

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?

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.

Flying Dutchman wrote: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?

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

shafique wrote:There have been written codices which varied from one another, but these were either phonetic representations of different pronunciations or because of transcriptural errors.

So, how do you know, which one is the correct one and which is one contains errors?

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:There have been written codices which varied from one another, but these were either phonetic representations of different pronunciations or because of transcriptural errors.

So, how do you know, which one is the correct one and which is one contains errors?

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

Out of intrest, from which year is the earliest written still extisting codex?

shafique wrote:The primary source of preservation is the word-perfect memorisation of thousands of Muslims (now millions of Muslims).

So, the integrity of the Quran is based on the assumption of people perfectly remembering the Quran instead of a written version?

shafique wrote:If a sentnence conains some splling errors - an English speaker will still read it properly and understand the meaning,

Not if the word "no" is left out, which will give a complete other meaning to a sentence...

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:The primary source of preservation is the word-perfect memorisation of thousands of Muslims (now millions of Muslims).

So, the integrity of the Quran is based on the assumption of people perfectly remembering the Quran instead of a written version?

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?

double post

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:The primary source of preservation is the word-perfect memorisation of thousands of Muslims (now millions of Muslims).

So, the integrity of the Quran is based on the assumption of people perfectly remembering the Quran instead of a written version?

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).

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:If a sentnence conains some splling errors - an English speaker will still read it properly and understand the meaning,

Not if the word "no" is left out, which will give a complete other meaning to a sentence...

Leaving a word out is not a spelling error, but you are right if words are ommitted or changed in meaning there will be a problem - that is why a standardised version of the written representation was required, to remove the chance of this becoming a possibility - either unintentionally by non-Arab speakers who don't understand the recitations, or maliciously by others.


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Leaving a word out is not a spelling error, but you are right if words are ommitted or changed in meaning there will be a problem - that is why a standardised version of the written representation was required, to remove the chance of this becoming a possibility - either unintentionally by non-Arab speakers who don't understand the recitations, or maliciously by others.

And before the first written representation (from which year does the oldest still remaining version date?) all versions contained the exact same words, only a difference in prononciation existed?

ebonics wrote:
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?

That is right - thousands memorised the Quran word for word, and today millions continue to do so. But there were also scribes writing down the words - Umar became a muslim only after he found his sister reading from an extract of the Quran. The primary source of preservation was memorisation though.

All Muslims who offer their prayers are reciting chapters of the Quran word for word in the original Arabic. The opening chapter of the Quran is a prayer and constitutes the most read prayer in the history of mankind - with it being recited at least a billion times a day, every day ( a Muslim offering their daily prayers will recite it at least 30 times a day).

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:
And before the first written representation (from which year does the oldest still remaining version date?) all versions contained the exact same words, only a difference in prononciation existed?

The Quran was also written down as each verse was revealed, so when the last revelation came, the Quran was complete also in written form.

The order of the Quran was also revealed to the Prophet (the order is in different order to that of the revelation - some of the later verses were revealed first and vice versa) - so ordering of the verses/chapters was also written down.

What happened though was that these written Qurans were done in scripts which did not have diacretical marks and there was variation between scribes who transcribed words differently (but would read it back the same). There were also errors in some of the texts - some spelling, others physical (such as smudges etc). Some just had bad handwriting.

So, the clearest and most authentic versions of the Quran were those recited by the various Hafiz's of the time - including the Prophet and his companions.

The standardised texts were only produced when word got back to the Caliph/Khalifa that in the outskirts of the then Islamic empire, Muslims who did not understand Arabic were reciting the Quran and (unintentionally) changing the meaning - and that this was the fault of badly transcribed Qurans.

He ordered that the written Qurans be gathered and that a standard version be produced which could be sent out to the main centres of the Islamic empire to be as Standard references. Copies of these Qurans are the oldest extant written representations of the Quran.

However, I repeat, the main means of preservation/safeguarding of the Quran was memorisation and this process dates back (uninteruptedly) to the recitations of the Prophet, pbuh, himself. In his lifetime he checked and checked again that the words were faithfully memorised and not a word was added or subtracted.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The Quran was also written down as each verse was revealed, so when the last revelation came, the Quran was complete also in written form.

Are the originals still available for study?

shafique wrote:What happened though was that these written Qurans were done in scripts which did not have diacretical marks and there was variation between scribes who transcribed words differently (but would read it back the same). There were also errors in some of the texts - some spelling, others physical (such as smudges etc). Some just had bad handwriting.

But there is no difference in words or meaning between the different versions before the standardized codex?

shafique wrote: Copies of these Qurans are the oldest extant written representations of the Quran.

So what's that, 8th century?

shafique wrote:However, I repeat, the main means of preservation/safeguarding of the Quran was memorisation and this process dates back (uninteruptedly) to the recitations of the Prophet, pbuh, himself. In his lifetime he checked and checked again that the words were faithfully memorised and not a word was added or subtracted.

This raises some problems for me, I would rather see a written copy and do not trust people's memory.

DP

[Firstly a Correction - the standardised texts took place under the Khalifa Uthman, not Umar as I have typed in the previous posts - sorry, just having one of those days]

To my knowledge only fragments of Qurans dating before the standardised versions exist.

The standardised versions were compiled during the lifetime of those who had heard the Quran recited by the Prophet, and the thousands who memorised it since.

The final verses were revealed in around 632 CE and the standardised versions under Uthman were compiled in the 650's CE - i.e. less than 30 years after the death of the Prophet, pbuh.

For non-Arabic speakers, the written Quran and translations are the most important ways of preserving/studying the Quran. The consensus amongst all Muslims is that there is one Quran and one set of words (I discount latter day 'submitters' who have deleted some verses of the Quran to fit a mathematical code).

However uncomfortable it makes us feel, or our personal preferences for means of study, the Quran's primary means of preservation and transmission has been oral recitation and memorisation.

It also interesting to note that skeptics of the origins of the Quran do not raise questions about the core message of the Quran - the religious messages within it (much like freza who says that the religion is beautiful) - but point to differences in written fragments which are (for the ones I've looked at) easily explained as issues with pronunciation and transcription.

I'm more than happy to explore these issues - as very often when we look at the claims against the Quran and show that they aren't what they first seem (and many are just malicious) - it only shows Islam and the Quran in a good light. However, these are at the periphery of religion - the core teachings of Islam are left unchallenged - it's like ignoring the fruit and arguing on whether the trunk of the tree looks ugly or not depending on what light shines on it!

cheers,
Shafique

Edit - instead of stating this was a double post, let me add a bit.

There is a common 'accusation' that the extant copies of the Quran in Samarkand and Tashkent are not original Uthmani standard Qurans produced in the 650s as the traditions have it.

This is based on an assertion that the texts use the 'kufic' script which only was used in the 8th century, so these Quran's can't be 7th century.

However, this premise is addressed in this website which shows (giving many references) that Kufic script does not date to the 8th century, but at least 300 years earlier:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... kufic.html

(piece of trivia - the website quotes Joseph Smith's writings - I've had the pleasure of meeting and debating with him in person and pointing out the errors in his work to him - he has written a detailed essay on why he thinks the Quran is a 8th or 9th century piece of work)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:However, these are at the periphery of religion - the core teachings of Islam are left unchallenged - it's like ignoring the fruit and arguing on whether the trunk of the tree looks ugly or not depending on what light shines on it!

Okay, I agree with you, But I notice that Muslims place emphasis on the idea that the Quran contains the literal and exact words of God and is never corrupted. I see muslims use this argument againt the Bible (that the Bible is corrupted p.e.).
Different versions of the Quran did exist and to some extent the contents of the Quran depends on people´s memory. I also didnot see a clear statement that all versions contain the same words, so there might be a difference. I find it hard to believe, considering the circumstances, that the present codex of Quran are the exact words of Mohammed (pbuh), let only the exact the words from God. If you look at the facts I think nobody can be 100% sure, it´s a matter of faith. And this brings us back to the integrity of the Quran, which cannot be proven by historical facts.
It is prephiral, as the main message didnot change I assume, but again I think it is fair to doubt the integrity of the Quran and doubt whether the original words are not corrupted.

shafique wrote: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.

The MAJORITY in the council agreed with a LONG-STANDING view. That the council was even brought together shows that there wasn't as much intolerance as you believe towards debate. The view of the heads of the Christian churches were important enough to merit a debate. What they ended up agreeing upon and reinforcing is a common view. The Arians were in the minority, were they not? And even if they debated certain aspects of Christology, they still thought of Christ as devine! Not a mere mortal. Even so, what is the big deal with Christian groups disagreeing? Disagreements are not unique to Christianity. In this case one position prevailed due to validity, otherwise Arianism would be relevant now and it isn't. Arians were deemed heretics. How unusual? How unexpected? Seriously. Also, what exactly do you call persecution in this particular case? Was it equal to the treatment of apostates throughout early history of Islam?

shafique wrote: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!

very very condescending of you. but no that's not it. Good things can come out of bad beginnings. Are paradoxes so difficult to grasp for you? I have no problem with stating that though the origins are not solid and even false, the outcome can be somewhat good. and even photogenic.

shafique wrote:freza - I have discussed with JW and countered their claims. What part of this statement did you not understand previously?

please point me to the thread where you discussed JW claims. I must have missed it.

shafique wrote:So, do Gays attain salvation or go to hell? Isn't this a fundamental, core issue for someone who is Gay?

woah! hold it there. people don't go to hell just for being gay lol! And of course the subject of hell is debatable. Add that to your list of healthy debates that you bend to mean "contradictions". Most Christian groups do view homosexuality as a sin, yes. But Jesus invited sinners to hear his message and preached inclusion for those most marginalized by society. That's why I say, the bigger picture is what matters.

shafique wrote: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?

Scholars shouldn't have much of an input in this. It's up to the council of the particular group/churches that make such decisions about an issue that [SHOCK!! HORROR!] does not change the BASIS of Christianity. You know the basics: Jesus, God, Resurrection, Gospel, love thy neighbor, etc.

shafique wrote: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.

ok.

shafique wrote:Careful, your prejudice is showing.

wow, and I wasn't even trying to hide it.

shafique wrote: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.

Well, he "gave" them rights, huh? hhmm. Did he "give" them the right to be the EQUAL of man? Because the Quran states the opposite, about equality, right? In a Hadith, when Aysha (in the presence of a woman whose husband beat her up because she complained about his impotence) says that Muslim women suffer more than non-believers, why do you think she said that?

shafique wrote:I hope you are joking - but the frightening thing is that I'm not 100% sure you are! [serious]

they don't do it anymore because many christians now eat pork and their blood isn't kosher. they prefer to drink the blood of muslims now. ufff pls.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Okay, I agree with you, But I notice that Muslims place emphasis on the idea that the Quran contains the literal and exact words of God and is never corrupted. I see muslims use this argument againt the Bible (that the Bible is corrupted p.e.).

Yes, Muslims do point out to the purity of the Quran vs the Bible. However I point out that the Bible does not claim to be the literal word of God, so we should not hold this fact against the Bible.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Different versions of the Quran did exist and to some extent the contents of the Quran depends on people´s memory. I also didnot see a clear statement that all versions contain the same words, so there might be a difference.

People recited the same words differently. I would not call this a different 'version'. However, there were no differences in any words of the revelations.

Flying Dutchman wrote:
I find it hard to believe, considering the circumstances, that the present codex of Quran are the exact words of Mohammed (pbuh), let only the exact the words from God. If you look at the facts I think nobody can be 100% sure, it´s a matter of faith. And this brings us back to the integrity of the Quran, which cannot be proven by historical facts.

Sure, if one only looks at the written word, there is this doubt. However, when one takes into account the primary way of preservation, this doubt loses its importance.

Flying Dutchman wrote:It is prephiral, as the main message didnot change I assume, but again I think it is fair to doubt the integrity of the Quran and doubt whether the original words are not corrupted.

Sure - in fact the Quran itself invites challenge and scrutiny. It sets itself up as a stand-alone testimony that can be judged on what is written/recited.

The differences that are pointed to in versions of the Quran do not affect any of the main themes. Given that there are serious divisions amongst Muslims over theology, the fact that no two 'versions' of the Quran address any of these main points of division is a clear testimony (for me at least) that the variations were merely mistakes and not man-made intentional re-writings of what was revealed to Muhammad, pbuh.

So, yes, we should not take Muslim claims that the Quran is pure and uncorrupted at face value. Yes, there are codices with variations. My contention is that these variations are innocent mistakes and the original revelations are still intact - as they were always primarily preserved by recitations. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts this view.

That said, the Quranic text is now preserved in a form that is unchanged for at least a millenium and we can therefore also look at the integrity of this text.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:The MAJORITY in the council agreed with a LONG-STANDING view. That the council was even brought together shows that there wasn't as much intolerance as you believe towards debate.

Hold on, the council was brought together to decide which of the competing views of Christianity will be adopted as 'standard' and to choose a Bible. Arius' view was also long standing.

freza wrote:The view of the heads of the Christian churches were important enough to merit a debate. What they ended up agreeing upon and reinforcing is a common view. The Arians were in the minority, were they not? And even if they debated certain aspects of Christology, they still thought of Christ as devine! Not a mere mortal. Even so, what is the big deal with Christian groups disagreeing?

Nothing wrong with debate - as long as all are seen as Christian. What becomes bad is when the Arians were branded as heretics (i.e. non-Christian) and were persecuted and killed.

I raised Arius at the Council of Nicea as an example of different interpretations of the Bible on fundamental aspects of Christian theology. You denied that there were any serious disagreements over Biblical interpretation on fundamentals of Christianity. The divinity of Christ is fundamental - and Arian theology is branded as 'heretic' today and adherents were persecuted in the past.

So, are you saying that Arius' views are not heretical after all? I could be wrong, I am taking the Christian opponents of arianism at their word that Arius was wrong - please let me know whether you think their views are valid Christian views and are in accordance with the Bible.

freza wrote:Disagreements are not unique to Christianity. In this case one position prevailed due to validity, otherwise Arianism would be relevant now and it isn't. Arians were deemed heretics. How unusual? How unexpected? Seriously. Also, what exactly do you call persecution in this particular case? Was it equal to the treatment of apostates throughout early history of Islam?

Great - we now agree that there was persecution of Christians by Christians. You seem to be saying that might is right - those who can prevail and persecute the minorities within their religion are correct. Hmm.

And, since you ask, no I don't see the persecutions of Christians by Christians as equal to treatment of apostates in early Islam (firstly there weren't any mass killings seen under Christianity, and there weren't any of the same fundamental differences between sects in early Islam - the initial civil wars were over the paying of tax (Zakaat) not theology).

freza wrote:very very condescending of you. but no that's not it. Good things can come out of bad beginnings. Are paradoxes so difficult to grasp for you?

You see, I quote Jesus and you call this condescending. When a paradox asks me to believe that black is white, I do find it hard to swallow.

freza wrote:I have no problem with stating that though the origins are not solid and even false, the outcome can be somewhat good. and even photogenic.

Yes, we have observed this paradox.

freza wrote:please point me to the thread where you discussed JW claims. I must have missed it.

You asked previously if I had pointed out contradictions to JW, I replied that I had. Why would I list them here when no one is advocating their point of view? Back-biting is a sin

I only raised them as examples of groups calling themselves Christian and interpreting the Bible - contrasting them as latter day examples of such division vs the early ones such as Arianism (and there were other divisions pre-dating this as well).

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:So, do Gays attain salvation or go to hell? Isn't this a fundamental, core issue for someone who is Gay?

woah! hold it there. people don't go to hell just for being gay lol!

Sorry, was that a 'yes' or 'no'.

African anglicans seem to say that a practicing hom.o.s.ex.ual goes to hell. They base this belief on the Bible.

Do you agree or disagree.

Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

freza wrote: And of course the subject of hell is debatable. Add that to your list of healthy debates that you bend to mean "contradictions". Most Christian groups do view homosexuality as a sin, yes. But Jesus invited sinners to hear his message and preached inclusion for those most marginalized by society. That's why I say, the bigger picture is what matters.

So whether one achieve Salvation or goes to hell is 'debatable'. Hmm.

Remind me again whether salvation is a fundamental concept of Christianity or not - I'm getting a little confused here (I always thought it was the fundamental concept - how to achieve salvation and avoid hell).

freza wrote:

shafique wrote: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?

Scholars shouldn't have much of an input in this. It's up to the council of the particular group/churches that make such decisions about an issue that [SHOCK!! HORROR!] does not change the BASIS of Christianity. You know the basics: Jesus, God, Resurrection, Gospel, love thy neighbor, etc.

Is not achieving salvation a 'basic' basis of Christianity?

I am shocked I have had the totally wrong impression of Christianity for all these years. Please confirm that achieving salvation and not going to hell is not fundamental or a basis of Christianity.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote: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.

Well, he "gave" them rights, huh? hhmm. Did he "give" them the right to be the EQUAL of man?

Glad we agree that Islam gave women rights. You now are asking whether they are equal rights - well, in matters of spirituality, yes - in matters relating to differences in biology men and women have different rights and responsibilities.

Women's rights in the Bible and Quran can be compared and contrasted - but it won't be pleasant reading for you, so I'll only carry on if you insist on the contrast.

freza wrote:Because the Quran states the opposite, about equality, right? In a Hadith, when Aysha (in the presence of a woman whose husband beat her up because she complained about his impotence) says that Muslim women suffer more than non-believers, why do you think she said that?

Good try. As I said, I'm happy to address what Islam teaches about treatment of women and the Prophet's conduct - a new thread perhaps?

I'm still shocked that you said salvation is not a basic of Christianity!

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:I hope you are joking - but the frightening thing is that I'm not 100% sure you are! [serious]

they don't do it anymore because many christians now eat pork and their blood isn't kosher. they prefer to drink the blood of muslims now. ufff pls.

Glad to see you have a sense of humour.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:People recited the same words differently. I would not call this a different 'version'. However, there were no differences in any words of the revelations.

What I meant is different written versions, before the current standardized Quran. So, you are absolutely sure that no differences in words exists between different written version of the Quran?

shafique wrote:Sure, if one only looks at the written word, there is this doubt. However, when one takes into account the primary way of preservation, this doubt loses its importance.

Well, since the primary source is people´s memory, this raises more doubt with me. But this is a preference, I trust written texts more than texts that have been past on by memory for decades. If you want to be sure that your message gets across generations, what would you do, pass it on by word to several people or write it down on paper?

shafique wrote:So, yes, we should not take Muslim claims that the Quran is pure and uncorrupted at face value. Yes, there are codices with variations. My contention is that these variations are innocent mistakes

Agree

shafique wrote:and the original revelations are still intact

I agree if you mean the message, but not the original words. Do you believe the current Quran contains the exact literal words from God?

shafique wrote:as they were always primarily preserved by recitations.

Like I said, this is what worries me the must

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:People recited the same words differently. I would not call this a different 'version'. However, there were no differences in any words of the revelations.

What I meant is different written versions, before the current standardized Quran. So, you are absolutely sure that no differences in words exists between different written version of the Quran?

I am absolutely sure. There are textual errors in some manuscripts as explained before, but these were corrected by Uthman's standardisation.

I just read also that the Sana'a manuscripts in Yemen dating from early Islam were also written in Kufic script - which is the script of the standardized Qurans in Samarkand and Tashkent (so the earliest extant Qurans are from around 650's CE)

Flying Dutchman wrote:Well, since the primary source is people´s memory, this raises more doubt with me. But this is a preference, I trust written texts more than texts that have been past on by memory for decades. If you want to be sure that your message gets across generations, what would you do, pass it on by word to several people or write it down on paper?

As I said before, the decision has been vindicated by the fact that the Quran has been preserved. The earliest written extant Qurans date from within 30 years of the death of the Prophet - and historians/scholars have examined the evidence and concluded that there is no evidence that they are not the words narrated by Muhammad, pbuh.

Where there are variations - these are minor textual errors. (But if you find otherwise, please let me know) And the variations pre-date the standard texts (which came very early on).

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:as they were always primarily preserved by recitations.

Like I said, this is what worries me the must

Worries are good - it makes people question and examine the evidence. I've learnt something today because of this discussion - so I'm grateful!

Cheers,
Shafique

So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though.
Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead