Deep into Islam..

Genius

Genius

Legendary Member
Abou Baker Othman etc are the 'saviours' of Islam lol What happened to Ahl Albait? Where does Imam Ali fit in all this? You still don't want to understand is that I'm not Sunni. Shiism doesn't follow this bull or give any credit to these men after Muhammad's death.


No contradiction at all. God is merciful but his punishment is severe towards evil. That's Biblical too.

We do believe there's truth in the Bible of today. Many Christians reject the OT because they don't know how to justify it, strangely though while its connected to the NT which cannot exist without it. It draws reference onto it.

What people believe is not the point. The books are there and we can all read both. Why would I choose the Bible as a book of God, but the Qur'an not? lol

How about we change this thread topic, to make it fair, and compare the books from a literary and contextual perspective? That would be fun...
tell me ... is everything written? maktoub? or we make our choices? are we completely free or our destiny is predetermined??
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    This isn't true, the Quran was never manipulated. Caliph Othman decided to assemble the Quran in a single book after many of those who had the Quran memorized got killed in battle. There was no dispute in this process. And the biggest proof for all this is that today after 1400 years we only have a single version of the Quran despite the many many many sects that have emerged.


    إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
    nezlet mshakkale heik kamen? :p

    to begin with quoting the Quran to prove it is not manipulated is absurd. if this is the approach you want to adopt, we might as well not have this conversation to begin with.

    history indicates otherwise. history indicates that several other versions of the Quran were destroyed by outhman, that ali's input was not taken, and that the adopted copy was one that was kept with hafsa and collected by zaid bin thabet affter hundreds of the sa7aba who memorized parts of the quran died in the battle of the yamama more than 10 years after the prophet had passed away. and according to zaid himself many verses are included without validation.

    faith requires a component of blind belief, regardless of the evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called something else. personally i do not believe the quran is of a divine origin, and the evidence is within the Quran itself but i will neither mock you nor impose my perspective on you. the discussion is more of an academic nature and it is not a religious confrontation. the abrogations alone are a clear enough evidence, God does not abrogate, especially if you believe that the word of God is eternal. there exists other evidence as well. but i would rather uphold the historical one.

    but back to the at-tawba surah, would anyone care to venture an explanation for that? from the looks of it, it seems that God is absolving the muslems from previous commitments to a truce. i think this was the last medina sura, conveniently right before the conquest of mekka.
     
    Weezy

    Weezy

    Well-Known Member
    nezlet mshakkale heik kamen? :p

    to begin with quoting the Quran to prove it is not manipulated is absurd. if this is the approach you want to adopt, we might as well not have this conversation to begin with.

    history indicates otherwise. history indicates that several other versions of the Quran were destroyed by outhman, that ali's input was not taken, and that the adopted copy was one that was kept with hafsa and collected by zaid bin thabet affter hundreds of the sa7aba who memorized parts of the quran died in the battle of the yamama more than 10 years after the prophet had passed away. and according to zaid himself many verses are included without validation.

    faith requires a component of blind belief, regardless of the evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called something else. personally i do not believe the quran is of a divine origin, and the evidence is within the Quran itself but i will neither mock you nor impose my perspective on you. the discussion is more of an academic nature and it is not a religious confrontation. the abrogations alone are a clear enough evidence, God does not abrogate, especially if you believe that the word of God is eternal. there exists other evidence as well. but i would rather uphold the historical one.

    but back to the at-tawba surah, would anyone care to venture an explanation for that? from the looks of it, it seems that God is absolving the muslems from previous commitments to a truce. i think this was the last medina sura, conveniently right before the conquest of mekka.
    History indicates? How does it indicate so?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    History indicates? How does it indicate so?
    like so:

    Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which produced multiple copies of the text of the Qur'an as it exists today.[16] The reason was that various Muslim centres, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting the Qur'an and writing it down with stylistic differences.


    During the time of Uthman, by which time Islam had spread far and wide, differences in reading the Quran in different dialects of Arabic language became obvious. A group of companions, headed by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who was then stationed in Iraq, came to Uthman and urged him to "save the Muslim ummah before they differ about the Quran" . Uthman obtained the complete manuscript of the Qur'an from Hafsah, one of the wives of the Islamic prophet Muhammad who had been entrusted to keep the manuscript ever since the Qur'an was comprehensively compiled by the first Caliph, Abu Bakr . Uthman then again summoned the leading compiling authority, Zayd ibn Thabit, and some other companions to make copies of the manuscript. Zayd was put in charge of the task. The style of Arabic dialect used was that of the Quraysh tribe to which the Prophet Muhammad belonged. Hence this style was emphasized over all others.

    Zayd and his assistants produced several copies of the manuscript of the Qur'an. One of each was sent to every Muslim province with the order that all other Quranic materials, whether fragmentary or complete copies, be destroyed. As such, when the standard copies were made widely available to the Muslim community everywhere, then all other material was burnt voluntarily by the Muslim community themselves. The annihilation of these extra-Qur'anic documents remained essential in order to eradicate scriptural incongruities, contradictions of consequence or differences in the dialect from the customary text of the Qur'an. The Caliph Uthman kept a copy for himself and returned the original manuscript to Hafsah.

    While Shi'a and Sunni accept the same sacred text, the Qur'an, some claim that Shi'a dispute the current version, i.e. they add two additional surahs known as al-Nurayn and al-Wilaya.[17] Nonetheless, Shi'as claim that they are falsely accused of this, as they believe, like Sunnis, that the Qur'an has never been changed and it is with reference from sunni hadeeth books that this inference is drawn not only by uninformed shias but sunnis too.[18][19]

    source

    you can check the references on wikipedia.
     
    Weezy

    Weezy

    Well-Known Member
    The annihilation of these extra-Qur'anic documents remained essential in order to eradicate scriptural incongruities, contradictions of consequence or differences in the dialect from the customary text of the Qur'an.
    By extra Quranic documents, they don't mean extra verses that are not available in the current one. The most comprehensive document was adopted. The other assembled documents had missing verses or were compiled in an order different than the current one or were written in a different dialect. Burning them was essential to enforce a single version.

    No extra verses were dismissed.
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    My 2 cents:

    Islam today is going through the same crisis that Christianity went through one thousand years ago; i.e. Too many people taking it too seriously. Once enough Muslims realize that they are wasting their lives, time, and energy on imaginary beings, they will enter a golden era very similar to that of the Rennaisance. But that will happen in another 400 years.
    Dalzi; will call me a Kafir, which I'm proud to be. But I would like to point out that kuffar are the ones who advanced societies with scientific progress and philosphical critique.
     
    baleha

    baleha

    Well-Known Member
    When you are challenged with evidence, or claims of evidence, you need to present a counter argument against the validity / strength of the evidence or the veracity of the evidence.
    Is the below the logic you are using to promote the intactness of the Quran? That a mortal would have kept a copy safe with him? walla enno gharib 3ajib ...

    Are you able to present a continuous historical recounter of how the Quran was kept intact until the present day with names / dates?






    ...................

    That's Sunnism and that's exactly why the accuse us of having a different copy. Imam Ali would've kept one safe, don't you think? ;)
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    By extra Quranic documents, they don't mean extra verses that are not available in the current one. The most comprehensive document was adopted. The other assembled documents had missing verses or were compiled in an order different than the current one or were written in a different dialect. Burning them was essential to enforce a single version.

    No extra verses were dismissed.
    i will explain why what you focused on is so irrelevant and apologetic.

    10 years after the passing of muhammad, zaid bin thabet compiled his version of the Quran, and it has many weaknesses (we can discuss later) this version was then kept with abu bakr, then omar, then hafsa. the manuscript was kept in her private possession. it was neither used nor made public, which in turn raises some questions.

    meanwhile, two different versions were being used in syria and iraq, one of abdulla ibn mas3oud and the other is for ubbay ibn ka3b. these two were named by the prophet as ones from whom the qoran can be learned. meaning that they were two valid authorities on the subject. now the differences between these two versions became deep to the point where huzayfa ibn al-yamman had to rush to outhman and ask him to save the umma the islam before these differences would destroy it. meaning that these differences were not simply in the dialect but transcended that to deeper issues.

    the other important thing is that while zaid bin thabet's version was hidden and not well known, the versions of ubbay ibn ka3b and abdullah ibn mas3oud were the ones who were adopted by the majority of the muslem world. in addition, once uthman received the scripts from hafsa, he instructed zaid bin thabet along with three men from quraish to write down the quran, and he instructed them as follows:

    "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479)"

    that highlighted statement above, written by al bukhari himself, indicates that at least a portion of the quran is not written in the original tongue it was revealed in. even with all of that on the side, there are several accounts by credible people shedding doubts on the complete integrity of that copy and there are many shortcomings of the original integration by zaid bin thabet himself.

    so it is obvious that the Quran we have today is not in the original form that it was received in (and that's not even tackling the tashkeel issue).
     
    Dalzi

    Dalzi

    Legendary Member
    The Qur'an was reveled to the Prophet, memorized AND recorded during his lifetime. Nothing was lost and proof is in that both the Shia and Sunnis have the same Qur'an.

    I was not implying that Imam Ali kept his own Qur'an; I'm saying Imam Ali was mentally fit enough to have 'kept' the verses safe for fear of them being lost. Had they been lost, Ahl Albait followers would've had a different Qur'an to the Sunnis. While we do not agree with Sunnis on the fairytales of how it was 'saved' by some heroes, Ahl Albait had the same Qur'an Weezy has.

    إنّا أنزلنا الذكر و إنّا له لحافظون


    Had there been a million versions of it, it would've been fake. Despite the heavy disputes and differences among Muslims, the Qur'an remains a testimony for all and by which all will be judged. This is a miracle in itself.

    Dark Angel Tell me why the Bible is from God while the Qur'an isn't? The Qur'an is a Bible distilled to perfection. Why should we not believe in it when it's better! lol It's absurd... I'm not the type who doesn't question. I've questioned God's existence, not only his messengers. I actually found the truth after I looked at the Bible. It proves my beliefs.

    Rachel Corrie I thought You wanted a challenge platform!
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    i will explain why what you focused on is so irrelevant and apologetic.

    10 years after the passing of muhammad, zaid bin thabet compiled his version of the Quran, and it has many weaknesses (we can discuss later) this version was then kept with abu bakr, then omar, then hafsa. the manuscript was kept in her private possession. it was neither used nor made public, which in turn raises some questions.

    meanwhile, two different versions were being used in syria and iraq, one of abdulla ibn mas3oud and the other is for ubbay ibn ka3b. these two were named by the prophet as ones from whom the qoran can be learned. meaning that they were two valid authorities on the subject. now the differences between these two versions became deep to the point where huzayfa ibn al-yamman had to rush to outhman and ask him to save the umma the islam before these differences would destroy it. meaning that these differences were not simply in the dialect but transcended that to deeper issues.

    the other important thing is that while zaid bin thabet's version was hidden and not well known, the versions of ubbay ibn ka3b and abdullah ibn mas3oud were the ones who were adopted by the majority of the muslem world. in addition, once uthman received the scripts from hafsa, he instructed zaid bin thabet along with three men from quraish to write down the quran, and he instructed them as follows:

    "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479)"

    that highlighted statement above, written by al bukhari himself, indicates that at least a portion of the quran is not written in the original tongue it was revealed in. even with all of that on the side, there are several accounts by credible people shedding doubts on the complete integrity of that copy and there are many shortcomings of the original integration by zaid bin thabet himself.

    so it is obvious that the Quran we have today is not in the original form that it was received in (and that's not even tackling the tashkeel issue).
    are you discussing in theory only the Sunni viewpoint on the matter,or you are discussing history generally and the authenticity of the Holy Quran and of which you would welcome the Shia perspective?
     
    Dalzi

    Dalzi

    Legendary Member
    My 2 cents:

    Islam today is going through the same crisis that Christianity went through one thousand years ago; i.e. Too many people taking it too seriously. Once enough Muslims realize that they are wasting their lives, time, and energy on imaginary beings, they will enter a golden era very similar to that of the Rennaisance. But that will happen in another 400 years.
    Dalzi; will call me a Kafir, which I'm proud to be. But I would like to point out that kuffar are the ones who advanced societies with scientific progress and philosphical critique.
    :biggrin: Kafer stofel mennak la rabbak, no? As long as you don't interfere in my right to believe in whatever I want, why would I care? To each his own really... I'm going alone and so is everyone! I wish we left in groups :biggrin:
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    ...
    @Dark Angel Tell me why the Bible is from God while the Qur'an isn't? The Qur'an is a Bible distilled to perfection. Why should we not believe in it when it's better! lol It's absurd... I'm not the type who doesn't questioned. I've questioned God's existence not only his messengers! I actually found the truth after I looked at the Bible. It proves my beliefs.
    who said the bible is from God? the Quran wrongly postulates so, simply because whoever wrote it didn't have enough knowledge about Christianity, except some hear-say.


     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    i like the quasi academic approach false morel is adopting. below is surat at-tawba he suggested to begin with, translated to english, since the original arabic text is rather difficult to understand, even for maronites :p


    Verses 1-4:[1]
    “ [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land [during] four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. ”
    The famous Sword verse and the following verses (6-8) read as follows:[1]
    “ And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. How [can there be a treaty] while, if they gain dominance over you, they do not observe concerning you any pact of kinship or covenant of protection? They satisfy you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse [compliance], and most of them are defiantly disobedient. ”
    Verse 9-13:[1]
    “ They have exchanged the signs of Allah for a small price and averted [people] from His way. Indeed, it was evil that they were doing. They do not observe toward a believer any pact of kinship or covenant of protection. And it is they who are the transgressors. But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We detail the verses for a people who know. And if they break their oaths after their treaty and defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths [sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease. Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers. ”
    Verse 14 reads as follows:[1]
    “ Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people ”
    Verse 29 reads as follows:
    “ Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[2] ”
    The Surah explains how Allah views pagans and also the People of the Book:
    “ The Jews call 'Uzair the son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [3] ”
    Verse 37 documents the prohibition of Nasīʾ:
    “ Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition to Unbelief: The Unbelievers are led to wrong thereby: for they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, of months forbidden by Allah and make such forbidden ones lawful. The evil of their course seems pleasing to them. But Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.[4]

    source
    Aren't there some verses of the Qur'an that condone "killing the infidel"?
    By Huda, About.com Guide

    Question: Aren't there some verses of the Qur'an that condone "killing the infidel"?
    Answer: The Qur'an commands Muslims to stick up for themselves in a defensive battle -- i.e. if an enemy army attacks, then Muslims are to fight against that army until they stop their aggression. All of the verses that speak about fighting/war in the Qur'an are in this context.
    There are some specific verses that are very often "snipped" out of context, either by critics of Islam discussing "jihadism," or by misguided Muslims themselves who wish to justify their aggressive tactics.


    "Slay Them" - If They Attack You First
    For example, one verse (in its snipped version) reads: "slay them wherever you catch them" (Qur'an 2:191). But who is this referring to? Who are "they" that this verse discusses? The preceding and following verses give the correct context:
    "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter, But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful, If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193).
    It is clear from the context that these verses are discussing a defensive war, when a Muslim community is attacked without reason, oppressed and prevented from practicing their faith. In these circumstances, permission is given to fight back -- but even then Muslims are instructed not to transgress limits, and to cease fighting as soon as the attacker gives up. Even in these circumstances, Muslim are only to fight directly against those who are attacking them, not innocent bystanders or non-combatants.


    "Fight the Pagans" - If They Break Treaties
    A similar verse can be found in chapter 9, verse 5 -- which in its snipped, out of context version could read: "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." Again, the preceding and following verses give the context.
    This verse was revealed during a historical period when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, and pagan). Several of the pagan tribes had violated the terms of their treaty, secretly aiding an enemy attack against the Muslim community. The verse directly before this one instructs the Muslims to continue to honor treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. Then the verse continues, that those who have violated the terms of the treaty have declared war, so fight them, (as quoted above).

    Directly after this permission to fight, the same verse continues, "but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The subsequent verses instruct the Muslims to grant asylum to any member of the pagan tribe/army who asks for it, and again reminds that "as long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God loves the righteous."


    Conclusion
    Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an can be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants, or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes.
    The Islamic teachings on this subject can be summed up in the following verses (Qur'an 60:7-8 ) :
    "It may be that God will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies. For God has power (over all things), and God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
    God does not forbid you, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just."

    http://islam.about.com/od/terrorism/f/terrorism_verse.htm
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    are you discussing in theory only the Sunni viewpoint on the matter,or you are discussing history generally and the authenticity of the Holy Quran and of which you would welcome the Shia perspective?
    i am just analyzing the origin of the copy of the Quran that is in circulation today, and weighing it against the claim that it is the unchanged word of Allah.
     
    Dalzi

    Dalzi

    Legendary Member
    who said the bible is from God? the Quran wrongly postulates so, simply because whoever wrote it didn't have enough knowledge about Christianity, except some hear-say.

    The first teachings were from God, not the corrupted versions. It's good you say they're not from God coz he can't be that confused.

    We talk about the messages and teachings of Moses and Jesus when we say 'from God', not what a bunch of men wrote after.

    You follow what you consider a man made book and want to convince us it's right?
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    i am just analyzing the origin of the copy of the Quran that is in circulation today, and weighing it against the claim that it is the unchanged word of Allah.
    so from that I believe since it is a general discussion,the Shia perspective can come in.and also since we are to defend the Quran and Islam generally as a religion (and please when I am using words as "islam" and "muslims",I am not taking into considerations what Wahhabis/salafists or even sunnis generally believe or think,because in my view they are caused damage to Islam more than non-muslims have in their poor line of thinking and ideologies).also since those who are questioning the Quran happen mostly to be "smart" and "intelligent" Christians with an eye and taste for "logic" and "reason",i will also touch on the bible and Christian in a parallel way on each and every subject,even though I intend no offense to Christians.it is unfortunate I did not see this thread earlier.let us make a deal and proceed with our conversation.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The first teachings were from God, not the corrupted versions. It's good you say they're not from God coz he can't be that confused.

    We talk about the messages and teachings of Moses and Jesus when we say 'from God', not what a bunch of men wrote after.

    You follow what you consider a man made book and want to convince us it's right?

    the new testament is an account of witnesses about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his teachings. it also includes the early works of the apostles, and the letters they exchanged with young and established churches.

    these accounts that were compiled in distant regions of the world support each other along with supporting the historical evidence.
    we do not follow a book, we follow the Word (Christ). the Quran also wrongly assumes that a book was handed down by the Christ and moses. it is also wrongly assumes that we consider Christ to be the "son" of God in the strict meaning, the term is not one that denotes the aftermath of a sexual intercourse. Christ is the Word, and the Word became flesh. the quran mentions it without understanding its dimension, and even refers to Christ as the word of God.

    we can discuss these in a different thread if you want. but it makes no sense that God cannot preserve his word from being corrupted and had to try three different times wel telte thebte.
     
    Weezy

    Weezy

    Well-Known Member
    so from that I believe since it is a general discussion,the Shia perspective can come in.and also since we are to defend the Quran and Islam generally as a religion (and please when I am using words as "islam" and "muslims",I am not taking into considerations what Wahhabis/salafists or even sunnis generally believe or think,because in my view they are caused damage to Islam more than non-muslims have in their poor line of thinking and ideologies).also since those who are questioning the Quran happen mostly to be "smart" and "intelligent" Christians with an eye and taste for "logic" and "reason",i will also touch on the bible and Christian in a parallel way on each and every subject,even though I intend no offense to Christians.it is unfortunate I did not see this thread earlier.let us make a deal and proceed with our conversation.
    Who the hell do you think you are to discredit 1.4 billion Sunnites?

    Dark Angel, if you want to reach a conclusion with Muslims it's best you do so with those who form more than 90% of this Ummah.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    Did you hear about the Sanaa Quran found in Yemen? It is claimed that there are some differences between the text and a previous erased text written underneath it ... As if some corrections and modifications were made.
    Not sure where their research will lead ...

    Funny how prophets, Jesus, Mohammed both came and left and none wrote anything ....
    Wouldn't you think logically? since Dalzi is claiming the Quran is logical, that a prophet would logically write his holly perfect book and pass it along? instead of friends and disciples remembering the words of Allah and compiling it in a weird order hundreds years later ?? ,,,
    in the last sermon of the Prophet (s),in hadith ath-thaqalain,he made it clear he was leaving behind the Quran as a book.the Quran was written in the time of the Prophet (s).what happened later is writing what people memorized which brought discrepancies in text (i.e. people penned down what they thought was memorized scripture from one mouth to another).the Sanaa copy missionaries use for their wet-dreams is no different from the copies Usthman collected and destroyed because they were distorted.there was text discrepancies and that was put to a stop by making complete copies that the populations of different areas can use as yardstick.

    Jesus (as) did not pen what he preached nor is his injil written by him.his disciples penned what they heard from the master especially after Jesus (as) had left.the Prophet Muhammad (s) unlike Jesus (as) ensured that the final testament to humanity was preserved both in written and memorized forms.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    so from that I believe since it is a general discussion,the Shia perspective can come in.and also since we are to defend the Quran and Islam generally as a religion (and please when I am using words as "islam" and "muslims",I am not taking into considerations what Wahhabis/salafists or even sunnis generally believe or think,because in my view they are caused damage to Islam more than non-muslims have in their poor line of thinking and ideologies).also since those who are questioning the Quran happen mostly to be "smart" and "intelligent" Christians with an eye and taste for "logic" and "reason",i will also touch on the bible and Christian in a parallel way on each and every subject,even though I intend no offense to Christians.it is unfortunate I did not see this thread earlier.let us make a deal and proceed with our conversation.
    any approach that would explain why it is wrong to capture "unbelievers" and "mertaddeen" and "khawerij" and put them down to death by beheading or any other mean is more than welcome, especially one that proves these acts to be unislamic and in contradiction with the Quran. because at the end of the day, they are validating their actions from the Quran, all while screaming allahou akbar, and it seems that some Lebanese, including some forum members, seem to be influenced by this dry wind blowing from the wahhabi desert.

    PS: please feel free to address all the issues you also find wrong about Christianity, preferably in a different thread, as long as it is handled with tact and grace you can rest assured that there will be no offense. at least i wont be offended, cant talk in the name of others :)

     
    Top