I am Fawzia, from an Iranian Shia family. I was a Shia for all my childhood & some of my teens, then appalled by some hadiths, I decided to try & salvage my faith by sticking to the Quran alone.
However, I have ceased to be a Quranist Muslim, I am agnostic ex Muslim now. I hope I can contribute here.
:welcome: :welcome:
Welcome Fawzia, Glad you joined and good to have your perspective here. did you grow up in Iran and did you know other Qur'anists? Did your family know?
Quote from: Fawzia on November 01, 2009, 10:00:24 PM
However, I have ceased to be a Quranist Muslim, I am agnostic ex Muslim now. I hope I can contribute here.
:welcome:
Feel completely free to post. Good questions (i.e. ones that make you start thinking) are just as important as answers. Questioning one's assumptions are vital to spiritual growth and understanding
:peace:
Peace
Sarah
Quote from: Fawzia on November 01, 2009, 10:00:24 PM
I am Fawzia, from an Iranian Shia family. I was a Shia for all my childhood & some of my teens, then appalled by some hadiths, I decided to try & salvage my faith by sticking to the Quran alone.
However, I have ceased to be a Quranist Muslim, I am agnostic ex Muslim now. I hope I can contribute here.
:welcome:
Thank you for the warm welcome everyone!
Quote from: dc2 on November 01, 2009, 10:25:12 PM
Welcome Fawzia, Glad you joined and good to have your perspective here. did you grow up in Iran and did you know other Qur'anists? Did your family know?
Yes, I grew up in Iran, I'm from an upper middle class family in Iran. My mom's family was more devout than my dad's. One of my uncles had even become Communist before the Iranian revolution, & wanted to overthrow of the Shah to be followed by a Communist state,rather than an Islamic theocracy.Now he lives in Britain, is a millionaire & says that while he's still a non believer, he's not commie anymore. Mom's family was devoutly Muslim & my mom is still a regularly practicing Muslim.
One of my first cousins from my mom's side is a hadith rejector, she's one of the smartest & nicest people I know. She lives in Germany with her husband & kids, her husband was a non practicing Protestant who too converted to Quranist Islam.
I found her family much more enlightened than most hadith acceptors, & they had a very satisfying faith, so I decided to give it a try.The mosm important influence was these Quranist sites, I spent hours online reading all their material & would sometimes mentally argue with them.
However, I find that many stuff in the Quran are also not very acceptable to me, somehow if I had to be intellectually honest, I couldn't call myself a Muslim.I felt that if I was rejecting all the hadiths, at least all the Quran should be stuff I find morally correct.
I don't think any God would like it if I falsely pretended & God would see through this pretence.
In addition, while my life has been quite free from discrimination(I don't have anyAyaan Hirsi Ali type sob stories) & my parents were fully accepting of my apostasy & most Muslims too haven't harassed me in anyway for leaving Islam-a very unpleasant incident had happened to an aunt of mine, which I felt was due to the Quran. That forced me to finally leave Islam altogether.
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Fawzia:
Quote-a very unpleasant incident had happened to an aunt of mine, which I felt was due to the Quran. That forced me to finally leave Islam altogether
.
YES ! That's brilliant. Because the Quran has NEVER been misappopriated or mistranslated. All the 'sciences' of understanding the Quran like 'ABROGATION' must be true. Wow.
and
QuoteI do not need or want to study Arabic-it has little use in the world, thanks to Islam.
No no, of course we don?t. We can and should trust ALL translators. In fact, the more they are ?against? Islam, the more we should believe them because they are incapable of lies.
and
QuoteOf course,like many unpleasant stuff, Muslims might now like to change this, like they changed "beat" to "leave
Yes yes yes! How dare these people try to change what has been written in stone! After all ,the people who understood the Quran before us were the most brilliant human beings on earth. They actually thought Muhammad was bewitched and didn?t know what he saying.
QuoteAlso, there is Fatima & Ali's marriage as a precedent
Yes yes. And we must blame the Quran for this too, since it?s in surah 116, ayah 320. Good point there, Fawzia.
Wow Fawzia, you?re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I?d love to visit you some time. I?m pretty sure you?ll win this ?Quranist of the Year? award. There is only one another nominee : Geert Wilders (but I wouldn?t like to propose to him).
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 03:05:11 AM
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Fawzia:.
YES ! That's brilliant. Because the Quran has NEVER been misappopriated or mistranslated. All the 'sciences' of understanding the Quran like 'ABROGATION' must be true. Wow.
and
No no, of course we don?t. We can and should trust ALL translators. In fact, the more they are ?against? Islam, the more we should believe them because they are incapable of lies.
and
Yes yes yes! How dare these people try to change what has been written in stone! After all ,the people who understood the Quran before us were the most brilliant human beings on earth. They actually thought Muhammad was bewitched and didn?t know what he saying.
Yes yes. And we must blame the Quran for this too, since it?s in surah 116, ayah 320. Good point there, Fawzia.
Wow Fawzia, you?re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I?d love to visit you some time. I?m pretty sure you?ll win this ?Quranist of the Year? award. There is only one another nominee : Geert Wilders (but I wouldn?t like to propose to him).
:rotfl: Abdal this is really funny.
AbdalQuran,
Although your sarcasm might be offensive to some, I think you did a good job of not trying to sound too offensive but driving your point home as well. You hit up Fawzia on some really good points that I'm sure she has not fully thought through. Although I would love to know what that incident with her aunt was that the Quran is to blame for. And I love her accusation that Quranists have changed 'beat' to 'leave.' I guess you can't expect her to understand the language aspect of this if she's not even interested in Arabic. I personally accept both 'hit' (it's not beat) AND leave. But if you don't take the whole Quran into context anyone who only wants to follow part of the Quran and follow the rest of their desires will not take other passsages that talk about excessiveness, extremism and trying to harm fellow believers or anyone unjustly. But anyway, I'll just wait to see how she's going to reply to your post (it was funny, wierd, but funny). And I hope she goes into detail about her aunt. Besides that I want to state that as a Quranist I respect her right to choose whatever she wants to believe, even if it does entail a degree of ignorance or unjustified bias. It is her choice. So yeah, Fawzia pls explain about your aunt and I promise you that I will do my best not to ridicule you or disparage you. Although I might be dissapointed and have less respect for you (the opposite could occur) but I will always respect your God given rights to belief and disbelief in the Quran and/or faithfulness and unfaithfulness to God and/or willful ignorance or willful education and pursuit of of understanding and knowledge.
Godbless,
Anwar
Fawzia,
Welcome, belief in GOD and Goodness is the ultimate thing, not belief in Quran or written words. Quran ALONE makes no sense as God's guidance is everywhere right here before our eyes.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 03:05:11 AM
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Fawzia:.
YES ! That's brilliant. Because the Quran has NEVER been misappopriated or mistranslated. All the 'sciences' of understanding the Quran like 'ABROGATION' must be true. Wow.
and
No no, of course we don?t. We can and should trust ALL translators. In fact, the more they are ?against? Islam, the more we should believe them because they are incapable of lies.
and
Yes yes yes! How dare these people try to change what has been written in stone! After all ,the people who understood the Quran before us were the most brilliant human beings on earth. They actually thought Muhammad was bewitched and didn?t know what he saying.
Yes yes. And we must blame the Quran for this too, since it?s in surah 116, ayah 320. Good point there, Fawzia.
Wow Fawzia, you?re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I?d love to visit you some time. I?m pretty sure you?ll win this ?Quranist of the Year? award. There is only one another nominee : Geert Wilders (but I wouldn?t like to propose to him).
Lovely, long, sarcastic post. I'm not simply speaking of translations-I have spoken to enough Saudi Arabs. Cousin marriages, btw, aren't even due to Fatima & Ali precedent only,unfortunately, there's nowhere in the Quran where cousin marriage is baned, even repeated cousin marriages.
I uderstand the desperation of many Muslims to salvage their faith by insisting that all hadiths are fabricated, even by insisting that the Quran is quite incapable of proper translation, & even Saudi & Yemeni Arabs et al can't read it properly, only the most morally acceptable translations are correct, otherwise its mis translation! ;D
I was one of these folks too! Fortunately, I was able to see that this sort of massive denial leads to nothing.
peace Fawzia,
I'd be interested to see a list of your strongest objections to The Quran.
As a side note, I am currently writing an article on the infamous 4:34. GW, I will be finished it shortly, for all to see.
Quote from: progod on November 02, 2009, 07:33:27 AM
AbdalQuran,
Although your sarcasm might be offensive to some, I think you did a good job of not trying to sound too offensive but driving your point home as well. You hit up Fawzia on some really good points that I'm sure she has not fully thought through. Although I would love to know what that incident with her aunt was that the Quran is to blame for. And I love her accusation that Quranists have changed 'beat' to 'leave.' I guess you can't expect her to understand the language aspect of this if she's not even interested in Arabic. I personally accept both 'hit' (it's not beat) AND leave. But if you don't take the whole Quran into context anyone who only wants to follow part of the Quran and follow the rest of their desires will not take other passsages that talk about excessiveness, extremism and trying to harm fellow believers or anyone unjustly. But anyway, I'll just wait to see how she's going to reply to your post (it was funny, wierd, but funny). And I hope she goes into detail about her aunt. Besides that I want to state that as a Quranist I respect her right to choose whatever she wants to believe, even if it does entail a degree of ignorance or unjustified bias. It is her choice. So yeah, Fawzia pls explain about your aunt and I promise you that I will do my best not to ridicule you or disparage you. Although I might be dissapointed and have less respect for you (the opposite could occur) but I will always respect your God given rights to belief and disbelief in the Quran and/or faithfulness and unfaithfulness to God and/or willful ignorance or willful education and pursuit of of understanding and knowledge.
Godbless,
Anwar
I will post about my aunt in detail, maybe somedays later. I don't have inordinate amount of time on my hands. I would make a separate thread on it maybe, for now let me concentrate on these. :)
But I would surely post in detail.
Quote from: Wakas on November 02, 2009, 10:24:43 AM
peace Fawzia,
I'd be interested to see a list of your strongest objections to The Quran.
As a side note, I am currently writing an article on the infamous 4:34. GW, I will be finished it shortly, for all to see.
Yes Wakas, I will surely post the list of my strongest objections to the Quran, shortly, although not immediately. I would read your article on 4:34 as well.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 02, 2009, 10:00:44 AM
Lovely, long, sarcastic post. I'm not simply speaking of translations-I have spoken to enough Saudi Arabs. Cousin marriages, btw, aren't even due to Fatima & Ali precedent only,unfortunately, there's nowhere in the Quran where cousin marriage is baned, even repeated cousin marriages.
So if the Q doesn?t ban it, that automatically makes the Q not divinely inspired? Well that?s your perogative to choose but if you want to parade your logic around here, you may need some rhetorical bullet-proof vests. So far, your logic can be at best called ?subjective?.
Quote
I uderstand the desperation of many Muslims to salvage their faith by insisting that all hadiths are fabricated, even by insisting that the Quran is quite incapable of proper translation, & even Saudi & Yemeni Arabs et al can't read it properly, only the most morally acceptable translations are correct, otherwise its mis translation! ;D
Wow, desperation to salvage faith by calling hadith fabricated! Hey , since you were a ?Quranist? for 10 months, you must have known the Quranist argumentation against hadith and even accepted it for those 10 months. Now suddenly we?re ?desperate? . So this means that you believe the hadith-believers are correct. I therefore CHALLENGE you to defend THEIR position. We can then see how much of a ?Quranist? you were.
Who said ?morally acceptable? translations are correct? I guess you must have been the most ill-informed ?Quranist? on earth. Of course with your POOR attitude to scholarship, I can?t expect anything else. You think learning the Arabic language is beneath you yet you don?t mind thinking that Quranists are trying to pander to other (read: Western) moral standards. Is this a RATIONAL act on your part? Is it RATIONAL to refuse to verify information because it?s not worth your time yet venture to call other people ?desperate?? I don?t think it?s rational. I think it?s ARROGANCE based on SELF-HATE. It probably came from your angst-driven rant about the Iranian revolution. Rejecting Quran, burning it, putting it in the toilet or whatever you like is your perogative but if you want to pass your rejection off as ?rational?, you?ve got a looooooooong way.
Quote
I was one of these folks too! Fortunately, I was able to see that this sort of massive denial leads to nothing.
If you were a Quranist, you?d never think junking hadith is a ?desperate? act. Quranists know the overwhelming evidence against acceptance of hadith. I don?t believe you, not that it matters.
When Wakas posts his article , I?m waiting to see your masterful logic and scholarly comments.
deleted
Quote from: Recluse on November 02, 2009, 11:33:44 AM
Welcome Fawzia,
As a strong believer, I'm always saddened to hear Muslims leaving Islam, but I respect your decision. People have the choice to believe or reject. What I find very striking is that so many Iranians seem to leave Islam, especially those who live abroad. I have yet to meet a Muslim Iranian. I'm from Turkey, your neighbour :)
The "Islamic" revolution has succeeded in making Islam the enemy of the people. People now associete Islam with the goverment that opresses them, tells them how to dress, etc.
Quote from: Tareq on November 02, 2009, 11:41:08 AM
The "Islamic" revolution has succeeded in making Islam the enemy of the people. People now associete Islam with the goverment that opresses them, tells them how to dress, etc.
Peace Tareq,
That is also my impression. Also, perhaps shia Islam, which has some really bizarre concepts, is part of the problem as well. But then, sunni Islam is far from perfect either..
Quote from: Recluse on November 02, 2009, 11:58:32 AM
Peace Tareq,
That is also my impression. Also, perhaps shia Islam, which has some really bizarre concepts, is part of the problem as well. But then, sunni Islam is far from perfect either..
Peace recluce,
Funny thing is that both sides,sunni and shia, can see how full of shit the other side is. If only enough people would look in the mirror and apply the same scrutiny to themselves that they apply to others, what a wonderfull world it would be.
Quote from: Tareq on November 02, 2009, 12:06:34 PM
Peace recluce,
Funny thing is that both sides,sunni and shia, can see how full of shit the other side is. If only enough people would look in the mirror and apply the same scrutiny to themselves that they apply to others, what a wonderfull world it would be.
:bravo:
Quote from: Tareq on November 02, 2009, 11:41:08 AM
The "Islamic" revolution has succeeded in making Islam the enemy of the people. People now associete Islam with the goverment that opresses them, tells them how to dress, etc.
Exactly. I'm an Iranian Muslim myself (though I was born and raised here in the States).
Welcome Fawzia. To the others, please do not get angry or sarcastic when discussing issues with Fawzia or anyone else. Responding peacefully is the best way.
Quote from: CavemanDoctor on November 02, 2009, 12:17:58 PM
Exactly. I'm an Iranian Muslim myself (though I was born and raised here in the States).
Welcome Fawzia. To the others, please do not get angry or sarcastic when discussing issues with Fawzia or anyone else. Responding peacefully is the best way.
Dear Caveman,
Believe me, there's no anger involved here. I don't know if Fawzia is real or not even, let alone am I bothered about. She can believe whatever she wants, its between her and God. What really is interesting to me is the analysis of their language and thought. Fawzia claims to be a quranist yet now she considers junking hadith to be 'desperate act to salvage their faith'. She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ?
Quote from: CavemanDoctor on November 02, 2009, 12:17:58 PM
To the others, please do not get angry or sarcastic when discussing issues with Fawzia or anyone else. Responding peacefully is the best way.
She seems to be the one who is "angry" :hmm
Fawzia, I'm sorry about the attitude from some people on this forum. When I found this forum I thought discussions would be civil. Sadly this often isn't the case. Some of us here would like to hear your point of view with resorting to snottiness (no, it's not funny, nor the way to have any kind of useful discussion). Please just ignore them. They aren't worth wasting your time with a response.
Are you kidding me, read her posts and see her attitude.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 12:42:24 PM
She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ?
Would you please apply the same principle to all those who cannot read even a single word of the Quran in arabic and entirely depend upon translations.They are not ready to learn arabic to study the Quran. Or this principle is only for "Fauzia" ?
Regards
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 12:42:24 PM
She's also very against the study of Arabic, preferring to speak to Arabs to judge the Quran. Would you call such a person 'objective' (if 'objective' didn't mean 'blatantly biased', that is) ?
A lot of us here, including myself, do not know Arabic. I do intend to learn Arabic in future, but it may be a long time from now, since I don't have the time for it with classes and all. I don't see how not knowing Arabic equates to being 'not objective'
You might accuse her of being unnecessarily harsh and racist towards South Asians in the UK, but I don't think you can say she's biased on the basis of not having studied Arabic.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 02, 2009, 12:48:45 AM
a very unpleasant incident had happened to an aunt of mine, which I felt was due to the Quran.
Was it due to the Quran, or was it due to a particular interpretation of the Quran? How do you know that it was the right interpretation?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 03:05:11 AM
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Fawzia:.
YES ! That's brilliant. Because the Quran has NEVER been misappopriated or mistranslated. All the 'sciences' of understanding the Quran like 'ABROGATION' must be true. Wow.
and
No no, of course we don?t. We can and should trust ALL translators. In fact, the more they are ?against? Islam, the more we should believe them because they are incapable of lies.
and
Yes yes yes! How dare these people try to change what has been written in stone! After all ,the people who understood the Quran before us were the most brilliant human beings on earth. They actually thought Muhammad was bewitched and didn?t know what he saying.
Yes yes. And we must blame the Quran for this too, since it?s in surah 116, ayah 320. Good point there, Fawzia.
Wow Fawzia, you?re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I?d love to visit you some time. I?m pretty sure you?ll win this ?Quranist of the Year? award. There is only one another nominee : Geert Wilders (but I wouldn?t like to propose to him).
AbdalQuran,
I am sure that you know a lot more about the Quran than many of us here since you have given time to its study. But that does not mean that those of us who haven't have not brought up good questions. If instead of being accusatory, and somewhat offensive (what was all that about proposing and giving the Quranist award), you are more civil, it might make us more open and willing to listen to your arguments (and I am sure you have good ones) rather than being put off by your attitude. I would have PM'ed this to you, but this actually applies to others on this forum who have a similar attitude, and is also directed at them, and not to you alone.
A condescending attitude in your posts can draw attention away from the good points you make.
Peace,
Sarah
Quote from: dc2 on November 02, 2009, 12:54:33 PM
When I found this forum I thought discussions would be civil. Sadly this often isn't the case. Some of us here would like to hear your point of view with resorting to snottiness (no, it's not funny, nor the way to have any kind of useful discussion).
agreed. There is no point to being condescending in one's attitude towards those who don't know how to read Arabic. The Quran tells the believers/submitters to be patient and understanding. Putting off people with one's attitude does not lead to any productive discussion or learning.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 02, 2009, 10:00:44 AM
I'm not simply speaking of translations-I have spoken to enough Saudi Arabs. Cousin marriages, btw, aren't even due to Fatima & Ali precedent only,unfortunately, there's nowhere in the Quran where cousin marriage is banned, even repeated cousin marriages.
I uderstand the desperation of many Muslims to salvage their faith by insisting that all hadiths are fabricated, even by insisting that the Quran is quite incapable of proper translation, & even Saudi & Yemeni Arabs et al can't read it properly, only the most morally acceptable translations are correct, otherwise its mis translation! ;D
I was one of these folks too! Fortunately, I was able to see that this sort of massive denial leads to nothing.
You do realise that Saudi Arabs are blindsided by tafseer and hadiths and don't read the Quran with an unbiassed perspective?
I don't see why the Quran should ban cousin marriages. There are health risks, but that doesn't justify a complete ban.
Hadiths are fabricated. One doesn't have to be a Quranist or even a Muslim to see that the 'isnad' or chain of narration, even if sound, doesn't take into account the errors or the fact that Bukhary rejected nearly all (98%) of hadiths. It's pretty obvious. Remember Chinese Whispers? Imagine that over 200years.
What exactly are we denying? Words have multiple meanings, if a word means 'beat' or 'leave' we should always take the one that makes the most sense in context and is logically consistent. Can you explain to me how beating one's wife would solve the problem of marital discord? It would only increase it. A separation would allow both parties to think things over more clearly.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 01:22:45 PM
agreed. There is no point to being condescending in one's attitude towards those who don't know how to read Arabic. The Quran tells the believers/submitters to be patient and understanding. Putting off people with one's attitude does not lead to any productive discussion or learning.
I don't think ANYONE here was being
condescending towards Fawzia's inability to understand Arabic. No one at all. Lets reread what Fawzia's wrote:
I do not need or want to study Arabic-it has little use in the world, thanks to Islam.Who's being condescending here? I tell you it was THIS statement which prompted me to first respond to this person. If a person came in and sincerely said, 'i cant believe God sends books and if he did, it wouldnt be the Quran', that's fine. But look at THIS statement above. It's the statement of a condescending person so come on, you wanna lie down for this person? Not me.
Quote from: Q_student on November 02, 2009, 01:08:11 PM
Would you please apply the same principle to all those who cannot read even a single word of the Quran in arabic and entirely depend upon translations.They are not ready to learn arabic to study the Quran. Or this principle is only for "Fauzia" ?
Regards
No, it also applies to 'Grammar Gurus' who claim 'this waw is waw of state' without evidence.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
AbdalQuran,
I am sure that you know a lot more about the Quran than many of us here since you have given time to its study. But that does not mean that those of us who haven't have not brought up good questions. If instead of being accusatory, and somewhat offensive (what was all that about proposing and giving the Quranist award), you are more civil, it might make us more open and willing to listen to your arguments (and I am sure you have good ones) rather than being put off by your attitude. I would have PM'ed this to you, but this actually applies to others on this forum who have a similar attitude, and is also directed at them, and not to you alone.
A condescending attitude in your posts can draw attention away from the good points you make.
Peace,
Sarah
Oh yeah, I?M the one with the condescending attitude. Gee, thanks. Btw, I?m not disparaging Fawzia?s knowledge but rather her ATTITUDE. She clearly looks down on Islam which is fine but if she comes to a Quranist forum, I?m not going to be her verbal toilet, sorry.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 01:38:56 PM
I do not need or want to study Arabic-it has little use in the world, thanks to Islam.
Who's being condescending here? I tell you it was THIS statement which prompted me to first respond to this person. If a person came in and sincerely said, 'i cant believe God sends books and if he did, it wouldnt be the Quran', that's fine. But look at THIS statement above. It's the statement of a condescending person so come on, you wanna lie down for this person? Not me.
I am not saying that you should take it lying down, I think that you should take apart her arguments, one after the other, without taking the same attitude she has. I do not approve of her attitude, it's dismissive and racist (see her other thread) but that's no reason for you to stoop to her level.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 01:46:51 PM
Oh yeah, I?M the one with the condescending attitude. Gee, thanks.
She clearly looks down on Islam which is fine but if she comes to a Quranist forum, I?m not going to be her verbal toilet, sorry.
It's true, you were being condescending, I didn't say she wasn't. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible for you to say the same thing in a non condescending manner, isn't it.
I thought what separated the Free-minds forum from others is that all points of view are welcome, as long as they are not insulting posts directed at a single individual. She didn't attack you personally, so if you wish, you may correct her by posting your points to the best of your knowledge. How did she make you, specifically, her 'verbal toilet'
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 01:12:14 PM
A lot of us here, including myself, do not know Arabic. I do intend to learn Arabic in future, but it may be a long time from now, since I don't have the time for it with classes and all. I don't see how not knowing Arabic equates to being 'not objective'
You might accuse her of being unnecessarily harsh and racist towards South Asians in the UK, but I don't think you can say she's biased on the basis of not having studied Arabic.
Sigh....she says that we're being apolegetic by picking 'separate' over 'beat'. Great but can she verify this? No she can't. Does she want to call us 'desperate to salvage our religion'? Yes she does. So how is she calling us 'desperate'? With not only zero study on the issue but by siding with the people who claim it's 'beat'. What do you call a person like this? A master of objective analysis?????? That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies!
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 01:55:24 PM
With not only zero study on the issue but by siding with the people who claim it's 'beat'. What do you call a person like this? A master of objective analysis?????? That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies!
thank you
you finally got my point, that is what she's guilty of, not taking the time to study, and also by deliberately choosing to think it's beat, and not because she hasn't studied Arabic (the language)
Please be more specific, and not write things like 'That would make Hitler the Karen Armstrong of Jewish Studies! '
I am not the only person on this forum who would be put off against someone with an attitude like that. On an online forum, that comes off as shouting, and it tends to weaken the force of your arguments (which are usually good) which I believe, is something you don't want.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 01:51:54 PM
It's true, you were being condescending, I didn't say she wasn't. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible for you to say the same thing in a non condescending manner, isn't it.
I thought what separated the Free-minds forum from others is that all points of view are welcome, as long as they are not insulting posts directed at a single individual. She didn't attack you personally, so if you wish, you may correct her by posting your points to the best of your knowledge. How did she make you, specifically, her 'verbal toilet'
I really don?t get you. How am I being condescending? It?s not like I went ?hey, you read translations, therefore you?re automatically wrong?. THAT would be condescending. I?m calling out this person for the ATTITUDE she displays. She wants to choose a side, fine. But don?t go calling us apologists when she doesn?t know her behind from her elbow and doesn?t even think its worth the bother to learn what is necessary. And if she does, don?t expect us to give a gandhi-smile and say ?would you like the other cheek too?? Sorry but that?s not how it works. If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
I dunno if you notice, but there are some atheists, haters, anti-religious people who come in here with their emotional-offload agenda. They don?t enough venting time at home so they come here and have a good time at our expense. This makes us their verbal toilets. As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
I really don?t get you. How am I being condescending? It?s not like I went ?hey, you read translations, therefore you?re automatically wrong?. THAT would be condescending. I?m calling out this person for the ATTITUDE she displays. She wants to choose a side, fine. But don?t go calling us apologists when she doesn?t know her behind from her elbow and doesn?t even think its worth the bother to learn what is necessary. And if she does, don?t expect us to give a gandhi-smile and say ?would you like the other cheek too?? Sorry but that?s not how it works. If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
I dunno if you notice, but there are some atheists, haters, anti-religious people who come in here with their emotional-offload agenda. They don?t enough venting time at home so they come here and have a good time at our expense. This makes us their verbal toilets. As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
Wanted to echo Sarah's thoughts. You are not responding peacefully abdalquran. Me saying that does not equate to me agreeing with Fawzia's beliefs, or even condoning Fawzia's approach/condescension. You do not have to meet her condescension with condescension of your own. You don't have to be sarcastic. Like Sarah said, the tone of your posts can be off-putting and tends to weaken your arguments.
The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace. 25:63
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
If you come across nice, you?ll get nice words back. I honestly don?t mind criticism. What I mind is when people want to get something off their chest by belittling the faith of others. That?s really wrong. You want to be critical, fine (great even) but be SUBSTANTIALLY critical. Fawzia-critical = rantings, at best.
As far as I can see, Fawzia is a fake. She was never a Quranist. She looks down on Quranists for ?desperately trying to salvage our faith by junking hadith?. Well if a person thinks of Quranists this way, don?t be expecting some kind of hare krishna like song and dance from the Quranists. She thinks we?re idiots and she has no time to tell us why. Wow, you gotta love the benevolence there, doncha. Mother Theresa herself would be aspiring to such compassion.
That's not true, let me remind you of this http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg224172#msg224172
You didn't come up with a good reason as to why this version should even be in print, and you even suggested that it's only printed in some small enclave of North Africa (not true, since the one I saw at home was bought in Saudi Arabia by my dad's friend.). You were being rude to me, even though I was never rude to you. I was nice to you, but I did not get nice words back.
You don't know if she is a fake, she may be, but maybe not. I would ignore her, since she doesn't have anything useful points to make, although she has brought up one good question about the 'milk siblings' verse. In my opinion, the best way to treat people who are like this, is to break their arguments down one by one, be polite while doing so, and if they don't change their attitude, ignore them, since by then they have proved themselves to be people who are unwilling to learn.
:welcome: Fawzia,
I think the core problem is your view of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim", and you thinking that they are proper nouns. Also, looking at Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. for a representation of islam is not a good start.
See:
http://www.free-minds.org/peacefulness
http://www.free-minds.org/node/10
http://islamicreform.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=53
Quote from: CavemanDoctor on November 02, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace. 25:63
Thank you so much for that verse, caveman doctor, I was looking for it for a long time. :peace: :angel: :group:
@ abdulquran, one takes things lying down when one doesn't provide a refutation, but the refutation itself can be said in a polite manner. You can be gentle in demeanor, but firm in belief
Peace
Sarah
Quote from: progressive1993 on November 02, 2009, 02:57:39 PM
:welcome: Fawzia,
I think the core problem is your view of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim", and you thinking that they are proper nouns. Also, looking at Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. for a representation of islam is not a good start.
See:
http://www.free-minds.org/peacefulness
http://www.free-minds.org/node/10
http://islamicreform.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=53
exactly
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 02:56:05 PM
That's not true, let me remind you of this http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg224172#msg224172
You didn't come up with a good reason as to why this version should even be in print, and you even suggested that it's only printed in some small enclave of North Africa (not true, since the one I saw at home was bought in Saudi Arabia by my dad's friend.). You were being rude to me, even though I was never rude to you. I was nice to you, but I did not get nice words back.
Sorry, that's not rude. Thats just not taking the usual sceptics line for granted, lol. If you think I was rude, kindly point it out and if I agree, I will apologise.
As for Warsh, you, your dad, your dad's friend, his friend, his friend's friend and etc ad nauseum is not evidence for me. I checked with the saudis myself on this and other than for qiraat studies (very minor branch in universities) they don't even allow this to be recited in masajid. We can open up that subject again in another thread if you want.
Quote from: CavemanDoctor on November 02, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace. 25:63
Actually I got to differ from you on that. Firstly Fawzia is not simply jaahil as per 25/63. (jahiloon are people who are superficial and unable to penetrate the core of things). Fawzia is a racist who also came to incite. Her tone betrays that hostility and I invoke 4/148 as proof of my policies for her:
Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, EXCEPT WHERE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things
So while I respect your comment, I'm sorry but I see this very differently.
Fawzia's slight arrogance and tone reflects her insecurity and her inner fear from the unknown.
It is fine.
I have seen worse.
But you will notice that Muslims who leave Islam become very hostile and even worse than the people who are born non-muslims. This could be true to all religions.
The worst atheists and critics of Christianity for example are ex-Christians.
They simply want to feel good about their choice and to look down on people who didn't adopt their rebellion.
Actually some of us did the same to the Sunnis.
Aren't humans a bunch of predictable losers??
Quote from: Rami on November 02, 2009, 04:03:12 PM
Actually some of us did the same to the Sunnis.
Aren't humans a bunch of predictable losers??
yep, in general, but not all of us
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 03:34:27 PM
As for Warsh, you, your dad, your dad's friend, his friend, his friend's friend and etc ad nauseum is not evidence for me. I checked with the saudis myself on this and other than for qiraat studies (very minor branch in universities) they don't even allow this to be recited in masajid. We can open up that subject again in another thread if you want.
i was referring to the whole thread, it seems to me that you are the only one who doesn't see how rude you come across in your posts.
Who told you that the Warsh version is not recited in the mosque? It is, because it is considered to be an authentic reading of the Quran, even though it is a variant.
Explain to me why this variant is even in print today, if it's not acceptable.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:14:03 PM
i was referring to the whole thread, it seems to me that you are the only one who doesn't see how rude you come across in your posts.
Who told you that the Warsh version is not recited in the mosque? It is, because it is considered to be an authentic reading of the Quran, even though it is a variant.
Explain to me why this variant is even in print today, if it's not acceptable.
you can look away from evidence, and pretend it isn't evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in PRINT.
???
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:14:03 PM
i was referring to the whole thread, it seems to me that you are the only one who doesn't see how rude you come across in your posts.
I?m the ONLY one? So you?ve asked the entire Free-minds community? Wow, you must?ve done a lot of pm work. Either that you consider your opinions as the democratic consensus?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:14:03 PM
Who told you that the Warsh version is not recited in the mosque? It is, because it is considered to be an authentic reading of the Quran, even though it is a variant.
Oh, it was a friend of a friend of a donkey of a friend of a friend of a friend. But that?s evidence according to you. Unless of course you meant, YOUR friends (and parents) only? I dunno, since you consider yourself the democractic consensus then anything's possible.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:14:03 PM
Explain to me why this variant is even in print today, if it's not acceptable.
Because Sunnis accept it as a variant thanks to the hadith of 7 ahruf. However, it is not the dominant ?rescension?, not even close. Even your much sought after ?which quran? article author admits that.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:15:38 PM
you can look away from evidence, and pretend it isn't evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in PRINT.
YES ! Exactly. That's the intelligence of the God of the Quran. The minute someone modifies the text and PRINTS some copies, automatically his 'protection' of the Quran is nullified. Some 'knower of the known and unseen' He is, huh ?
Take RK's 'sans 9/128-129' as proof of corruption as well. You may as well use it. Also, since there are other books which QUOTE the Quran, that's like printing the Quran without the rest of the Quran so THAT'S proof too, lol.
Jeez.....
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Oh, it was a friend of a friend of a donkey of a friend of a friend of a friend.
could you have said this differently?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:37:36 PM
could you have said this differently?
No I can't cuz it was a talking donkey. However, that doesn't diminish the validity of my evidence because in the mythical world of the internet, your dad's friend (and for that matter, you) are as mythical as my friend of a friend's talking donkey. Nothing but typeface on screen.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Because Sunnis accept it as a variant thanks to the hadith of 7 ahruf. However, it is not the dominant ?rescension?, not even close. Even your much sought after ?which quran? article author admits that.
provide me with relevant articles and hadiths. How am I to know what you are talking about if all you doubt is shout and make wild accusations about me 'pm'ing everyone?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:37:36 PM
could you have said this differently?
don't worry, donkey is very innocent and cute animal:
(http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Shrek_2_Donkey_poster.jpg)
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 02:56:05 PM
That's not true, let me remind you of this http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg224172#msg224172
You didn't come up with a good reason as to why this version should even be in print, and you even suggested that it's only printed in some small enclave of North Africa (not true, since the one I saw at home was bought in Saudi Arabia by my dad's friend.).
How far has this Warsh variant travelled, it's clearly not just in North Africa. Explain to me why it is not justified, considering how old it is, and the fact that they didn't have a computerised system then to record things in an error free manner.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:40:31 PM
No I can't cuz it was a talking donkey. However, that doesn't diminish the validity of my evidence because in the mythical world of the internet, your dad's friend (and for that matter, you) are as mythical as my friend of a friend's talking donkey. Nothing but typeface on screen.
where is your evidence?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:41:25 PM
provide me with relevant articles and hadiths. How am I to know what you are talking about if all you doubt is shout and make wild accusations about me 'pm'ing everyone?
Here's a good article on it. It's by a Fawzia but he quotes Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi's book 'introduction to the sciences of the Quran' which is an essential book on the subject:
http://www.answering-islam.org/PQ/notrevealed.htm#top
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:45:23 PM
where is your evidence?
It's a little difficult to bring my observations to you, isnt it? Apprently, you're in the USA which im not.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:46:03 PM
Here's a good article on it. It's by a Fawzia but he quotes Abu Ammar Yasir Qadhi's book 'introduction to the sciences of the Quran' which is an essential book on the subject:
http://www.answering-islam.org/PQ/notrevealed.htm#top
thanks, now give me proof that the Hafs variant is correct to the last letter.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:47:00 PM
It's a little difficult to bring my observations to you, isnt it? Apprently, you're in the USA which im not.
huh? when did i say observation?
hmm.... Hello Folks, over here!! Fawzia was a Quranist for 10 months. :o
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:50:10 PM
huh? when did i say observation?
You didnt. You said 'evidence'. My evidence is based on observation which I obtained through research. So in effect, its as mythical as your father's friend.
Quote from: RasulHamsa on November 02, 2009, 04:52:25 PM
hmm.... Hello Folks, over here!! Fawzia was a Quranist for 10 months. :o
Maybe 10 seconds....
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:54:02 PM
You didnt. You said 'evidence'. My evidence is based on observation which I obtained through research. So in effect, its as mythical as your father's friend.
does that mean that the book my father's friend bought isn't real? Are you familiar that you need only one counterexample to disprove a rule? in this case, the rule being that the hafs version is the only correct one?
have some water please:
(http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/images/Glass_of_water.jpg)(http://www.benefits-of-honey.com/images/Glass_of_water.jpg)
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:49:27 PM
thanks, now give me proof that the Hafs variant is correct to the last letter.
Once again, its simple. Quran pegs its 'protectedness' or dhikr or eminent one. 'Hafs' is the eminent one and therefore it is the subject to test. If you find it a mistake with it, bring it forward.
Quote from: RasulHamsa on November 02, 2009, 04:57:35 PM
have some water please:
why thank you, I just realised that I am thirsty and should take an antihistamine.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 04:58:26 PM
Once again, its simple. Quran pegs its 'protectedness' or dhikr or eminent one. 'Hafs' is the eminent one and therefore it is the subject to test. If you find it a mistake with it, bring it forward.
where does it say that in the Quran?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:56:30 PM
does that mean that the book my father's friend bought isn't real? Are you familiar that you need only one counterexample to disprove a rule? in this case, the rule being that the hafs version is the only correct one?
What your father friend brough, if you're telling the truth, is NOT the Quran familiar to the overwhelming majority. Therefore, it is NOT dhikr.
Like I said, if you believe the 'one counter example' theory, then your God is a real dumb God because all it takes is a printer and that's it, his protection goes down the flusher. Not worth worshipping.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 04:59:06 PM
where does it say that in the Quran?
15/9 and 41/42 talks about adh-dhikr and its protectedness. 80/11-16 is also about adh-dhikr and speaks of the term 'marfu3ah' or 'raised high' which is once again, what you call the 'hafs' version.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:01:12 PM
What your father friend brough, if you're telling the truth, is NOT the Quran familiar to the overwhelming majority. Therefore, it is NOT dhikr.
Like I said, if you believe the 'one counter example' theory, then your God is a real dumb God because all it takes is a printer and that's it, his protection goes down the flusher. Not worth worshipping.
majority rules? it's not a Quran someone just printed, but by an established printing house, and it's not just one, but one of many. your argument about popularity does not make much sense, considering how old both variants are
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:02:50 PM
15/9 and 41/42 talks about adh-dhikr and its protectedness. 80/11-16 is also about adh-dhikr and speaks of the term 'marfu3ah' or 'raised high' which is once again, what you call the 'hafs' version.
explain, not everyone here studies the Quran in Arabic, and translations often do not include multiple meanings of the Arabic words. Make things easier for everyone, ok?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:03:35 PM
majority rules? it's not a Quran someone just printed, but by an established printing house, and it's not just one, but one of many. your argument about popularity does not make much sense, considering how old both variants are
Yeah, thats the point, both are OLD. Hafs and warsh but warsh can NEVER overtake hafs. It just simply cannot be done because of the Muslim's iconisation of the Quran. They have abandoned its teachings but they practically worship the text.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:07:57 PM
Yeah, thats the point, both are OLD. Hafs and warsh but warsh can NEVER overtake hafs.
It just simply cannot be done because of the Muslim's iconisation of the Quran. They have abandoned its teachings but they practically worship the text.
huh? those two statements don't seem to connect with each other. since when has one overtaking another been a point? it's just opinion
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:04:47 PM
explain, not everyone here studies the Quran in Arabic, and translations often do not include multiple meanings of the Arabic words. Make things easier for everyone, ok?
Fair enough:
We have, without doubt, sent down Adh-dhikr ; and We will assuredly guard it (15/9)
Those who reject Adh-dhikr when it comes to them while indeed it is an honoured book. No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise (41/41-42)
80/11-16:
By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction: Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance. It is) in pages held (greatly) in honour, Raised high and purified, by the capacities of travellers-Honourable and Pious and Just.
Re: Hello Folks, Fawzia here! I was a Quranist for 10 months.
follow the rest of discussion here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg229938#msg229938 (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg229938#msg229938)
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:09:27 PM
huh? those two statements don't seem to connect with each other. since when has one overtaking another been a point? it's just opinion
Warsh remains a minority and can never overtake Hafs as the dominant edition. Of course its opinion but its based on my reading of Quran and what IT wants its reader to do. You instead took the 'which quran' guy as your evidence. So you stick with that and have fun...
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:17:21 PM
Warsh remains a minority and can never overtake Hafs as the dominant edition. Of course its opinion but its based on my reading of Quran and what IT wants its reader to do. You instead took the 'which quran' guy as your evidence. So you stick with that and have fun...
it's not a question of dominance, but authenticity. I am not saying that Hafs is fake, I am saying that both may be acceptable. You have rejected the Warsh variant based on your opinion only.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:20:47 PM
it's not a question of dominance, but authenticity. I am not saying that Hafs is fake, I am saying that both may be acceptable. You have rejected the Warsh variant based on your opinion only.
you base your rejection on other people's opinion?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:15:34 PM
Those who reject Adh-dhikr when it comes to them while indeed it is an honoured book. No falsehood can approach it from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise (41/41-42)
80/11-16:
By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction: Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance. It is) in pages held (greatly) in honour, Raised high and purified, by the capacities of travellers-Honourable and Pious and Just.
I don't see how small transcription errors indicate falsehood. Regardless of whether I wrote
I m going out
OR
I am goin out
They both mean "I am going out"
Quote from: RasulHamsa on November 02, 2009, 05:22:52 PM
you base your rejection on other people's opinion?
I haven't rejected anything, other than the hadiths, but that is based on the Quran
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:20:47 PM
it's not a question of dominance, but authenticity. I am not saying that Hafs is fake, I am saying that both may be acceptable. You have rejected the Warsh variant based on your opinion only.
That's why the Quran says adh-DHIKR in singular and not dhukoor or adhkaar in plural. There can only ONE eminent one, not two, not seven. Again, sure its my opinion but my opinion is based on the Quran, not on some fake orientalist assumptions and hadith, unlike some people.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:24:18 PM
I haven't rejected anything, other than the hadiths, but that is based on the Quran
False, you accepted Warsh because SUNNIS accept Warsh and sunnis accept Warsh because of 7 ahruuf hadith. Do the math...
You're comparing your language use with God's use? God uses VERY precise language to describe the ideology. One word out of place and the whole system breaks down. It's cool tho, you study what you like.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
I don't see how small transcription errors indicate falsehood. Regardless of whether I wrote
I m going out
OR
I am goin out
They both mean "I am going out"
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:25:20 PM
False, you accepted Warsh because SUNNIS accept Warsh and sunnis accept Warsh because of 7 ahruuf hadith. Do the math...
Where did the Warsh variant come from?
When did it appear?
How old is the oldest Quran, and why does it have differences that match neither the present Hafs nor the present Warsh variants?
Has there been some variation over time?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:26:57 PM
It's cool tho, you study what you like.
did you have to include this sentence? you don't think you are being rude here?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:29:08 PM
did you have to include this sentence? you don't think you are being rude here?
No , I don't. I am giving you my whole-hearted approval to do whatever you like since it's your God-given right.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:28:14 PM
Where did the Warsh variant come from?
When did it appear?
How old is the oldest Quran, and why does it have differences that match neither the present Hafs nor the present Warsh variants?
Has there been some variation over time?
For Warsh and its history, read the book I quoted for you above by Yasir Qadhi. For oldest Quran, I don?t buy any of it since dhikr isn?t mushaf (which is the sunni term for oldest codices) . Dhikr is whatever is eminent. Masahif aren?t eminent and god knows who wrote them.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:35:46 PM
For Warsh and its history, read the book I quoted for you above by Yasir Qadhi. For oldest Quran, I don?t buy any of it since dhikr isn?t mushaf (which is the sunni term for oldest codices) . Dhikr is whatever is eminent. Masahif aren?t eminent and god knows who wrote them.
how did they know what parts were correct and what werent' to get the present day Hafs variant then?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 02, 2009, 05:36:54 PM
how did they know what parts were correct and what werent' to get the present day Hafs variant then?
Who said they were interested in them? You met these people? How you know they were interested in authenticity?
From the time of the Prophet, the Quran was already written and vouchsafed. The Quran calls itself 'kitaab' (15/1, 27/1) which always implies something written and arranged and this dissemination already took place then. That is why, if you compare it with these 'textual variations', none of them ever gained any popularity because they were simply invented by volition of hadith. The best was Warsh and even then, only a small section of Muslims accepted it.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:41:53 PM
From the time of the Prophet, the Quran was already written and vouchsafed.
How old is the oldest surviving Quran? Was it written by Muhammad himself (or his compatriots)? Have you seen it? A scan or the original manuscript in the museum maybe? Is it just like the Hafs? or does it have differences from both?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:41:53 PM
From the time of the Prophet, the Quran was already written and vouchsafed.
Where is the Original Script ?
Regards
Kindly refer to reply #89. You two need to reconsider your 'old=gold' mindsets. Quran doesn't agree with it at all. That's my last reply on the matter.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 12:39:23 AM
Kindly refer to reply #89. You two need to reconsider your 'old=gold' mindsets. Quran doesn't agree with it at all. That's my last reply on the matter.
That's fine, but you haven't answered my question. You just made an unsupported statement that the Quran doesn't agree with 'it', when there is nothing in the Quran that refers specifically to choosing one variant over other, after the elapse of some 1400 years.
Rather than refer me to a book that may not be easily accessible to me, why don't you summarise how the Hafs was established as dhikr/eminent for the benefits of myself and other readers on this forum?
You haven't given me or Qstudent any logical reason to reconsider our mindsets.
I am assuming that you have studied the Quran fairly thoroughly, in Arabic, and have studied something of its historical origins. Is there any reason why you are choosing not to answer my questions. I believe they have been quite reasonable.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 05:35:46 PM
For Warsh and its history, read the book I quoted for you above by Yasir Qadhi. For oldest Quran, I don?t buy any of it since dhikr isn?t mushaf (which is the sunni term for oldest codices) . Dhikr is whatever is eminent. Masahif aren?t eminent and god knows who wrote them.
When was the Hafs variant established as dhikr/ eminent? Was it at the the time of Prophet (while he was alive) or was it some time (a few decades to a few centuries) after his death?
Let me tell you a problem with our debate. You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation. You stated this in that other thread. I on the other hand accept Quran's statements since as a source of history, Quran was obeyed by the Prophet and sahaba. I quoted you some ayaat above on the matter. 15/1 and 27/1, for example and there are others.
Let me play the role of a secular historian. As a secular historian, I believe Muhammad was a guy who authored Quran. In it, he wrote several things including the fact that Quran was preserved, how its preserved (refer to reply 89, before you ask again), in what form its preserved, etc. Then we got the sahaba who were fanatically devoted to this so-called prophet (see 33/6 as proof example). So these people carried out what they considered to be 'divine' commandments. Therefore this 7 ahruuf crap from which you got your warsh reading is false. Because IF all the readings were divine as sunnis claim, the fanaticism they displayed MUST have extended to all the 7 ahruuf. Sunnis desperately answer this disparity by claiming that 7 ahruuf were mostly abrogated. This is their hodge-podge approach to the Quran. You're using the same hodge-podge approach in your discourse.
However, as a secular historian, I would be asked, how do I know they did this? I would answer by replying ?the snooker ball? effect. In order to analyse the original position of snooker balls (post-first break, that is) , one has to see present position of the table.
Compare the historicity of the Quran with the historicity of hadith. According to hadith history itself, bukhari was busy looking for hadith circa 240-250 years after the prophet. Does this sound like the fanatical devotion of the sahaba and the tabi3een at play there? The same people who kissed the ground the Prophet walked on allowed his hadith to be fragmented so that bukhari can come by 250 years later? I don?t think so. With Quran, you will never find any kind of debate as to what Quran is being talked about. It is quite simply, dhikr. The only way such a universal accepted position this text can get if it was spread right from the beginning. You can test this with the phenomenon of the huffaz, the memorisers of Quran. The only way the huffaz can know of ?alternative? readings is by consulting hadith. Warsh is one step above but even north Africans know its not the ?Hafs?.
Hope that answers your question.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
Let me tell you a problem with our debate. You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation. You stated this in that other thread.
False. I believe that the Quran has been preserved, just not preserved to the very last letter. The absence of really old manuscripts which are exactly the same, letter for letter, to the present Hafs variant suggests that small errors may have creeped in over time. How am I wrong in thinking this?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
As a secular historian, I believe Muhammad was a guy who authored Quran.
I am confused, isn't the Quran authored by God and transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 12:58:00 AM
When was the Hafs variant established as dhikr/ eminent? Was it at the the time of Prophet (while he was alive) or was it some time (a few decades to a few centuries) after his death?
Ask yourself this, when some idiot in Gitmo was accused (no proof mind you, just ACCUSED) of putting a quran in the toilet, the whole Muslim world had riots with flag-burning and what not. What kind of fanatical devotion to Quran do you think Muhammad and his companions had? You think even if Muhammad was an illiterate at first, he wouldnt have learnt literacy just to check on his companions (he didnt know who hypocrites were, 9/101). You think even if there was a LETTER missing, these guys wouldnt have quelled it? Warsh changed ACTUAL WORDS and you think these guys would be like 'yeah, no worries, its like 'i am going' and 'i am goin'.?
The preminence of 'hafs' is proof (according to Quran) of its identity. If warsh was dhikr, it would be as preeminent. Even Christian criticis of Islam (ppl like nabeel qureishi and david wood) admit this. They can only attack Quran's authenticity by going to hadith and ITS 7 ahruuf comment which acknowledges Warsh.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
Then we got the sahaba who were fanatically devoted to this so-called prophet (see 33/6 as proof example). So these people carried out what they considered to be 'divine' commandments.
Then where is even one surviving copy of an old manuscript? I don't see how the Hafs variant can be established as the only acceptable variant without physical evidence.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:20:51 AM
What kind of fanatical devotion to Quran do you think Muhammad and his companions had? You think even if Muhammad was an illiterate at first, he wouldnt have learnt literacy just to check on his companions (he didnt know who hypocrites were, 9/101). You think even if there was a LETTER missing, these guys wouldnt have quelled it?
First of all, I believe that Muhammad was literate, or else how could he be a successful 'caravan merchant' if that's what he really was (I don't know).
I am not saying that the original written document had any errors, I am just considering the possibility that copies made from this original document (which we don't have ) have transcription errors, especially after decades or centuries in which many many hundreds of written copies had to be made, painstakingly, by hand, in an era with no printing press, computers, paper, or indelible ink.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:18:59 AM
False. I believe that the Quran has been preserved, just not preserved to the very last letter. The absence of really old manuscripts which are exactly the same, letter for letter, to the present Hafs variant suggests that small errors may have creeped in over time. How am I wrong in thinking this?
Read what i wrote again: You don't accept Quran as evidence for its preservation
Here's what you stated:
if you want to authenticate something, you have to refer to something else, by default.in http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.15 reply #23
So you go ahead, refer to 'something else by default'. Those things also say verses have been forgotten etc, so u just stick with whatever's left, ok? Have fun.
As for the small errors, you can keep repeating like the cock at dawn but until you bring some errors, it wont be worth much.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
Therefore this 7 ahruuf crap from which you got your warsh reading is false. Because IF all the readings were divine as sunnis claim, the fanaticism they displayed MUST have extended to all the 7 ahruuf. Sunnis desperately answer this disparity by claiming that 7 ahruuf were mostly abrogated.
I am not saying that the Warsh variant is equal to the Hafs in divinity. What I am concerned about is the presence of old copies that have parts similar to the Hafs, and some parts similar to the Warsh, and some parts like neither. I think the Hafs/ Warsh division is an artificial one, and it doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the absence of old surviving copies that are exactly like the Hafs. Why do you think that is?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
Compare the historicity of the Quran with the historicity of hadith. According to hadith history itself, bukhari was busy looking for hadith circa 240-250 years after the prophet. Does this sound like the fanatical devotion of the sahaba and the tabi3een at play there? The same people who kissed the ground the Prophet walked on allowed his hadith to be fragmented so that bukhari can come by 250 years later? I don?t think so. With Quran, you will never find any kind of debate as to what Quran is being talked about. It is quite simply, dhikr. The only way such a universal accepted position this text can get if it was spread right from the beginning. You can test this with the phenomenon of the huffaz, the memorisers of Quran. The only way the huffaz can know of ?alternative? readings is by consulting hadith. Warsh is one step above but even north Africans know its not the ?Hafs?.
Hope that answers your question.
I am not interested in the Hadiths, so that is irrelevant. As for the historicity of the Quran, I am interested in physical evidence, i.e. old manuscripts.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:22:16 AM
Then where is even one surviving copy of an old manuscript? I don't see how the Hafs variant can be established as the only acceptable variant without physical evidence.
I really thank God that the author of the Quran didn't think like you. Cause then all it'd take is some guy putting one extra dot somewhere (changing a 'sod' into a 'dhod' for example) and there goes the entire preservation of Quran. As I said, stick to your manuscripts, keep digging in the desert, maybe you'll find a manuscript dated even BEFORE muhammad. And while you're busy finding this holy grail of manuscripts and maybe wrestling it from Harrison Ford, I'll stick with Quran, thanks.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:32:18 AM
I am not interested in the Hadiths, so that is irrelevant. As for the historicity of the Quran, I am interested in physical evidence, i.e. old manuscripts.
THAT'S what you call physical EVIDENCE?????? Evidence do not speak for themselves. If you found a piece of paper lying in the desert with a bismillah and a few lines about Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, you'll probably think 'Aha, another textual variant' so as i said, have fun with that. You and secular historians can turn a blind eye to the Quran's statements about itself. You have to turn to something else, remember you said?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:26:35 AM
First of all, I believe that Muhammad was literate, or else how could he be a successful 'caravan merchant' if that's what he really was (I don't know).
I am not saying that the original written document had any errors, I am just considering the possibility that copies made from this original document (which we don't have ) have transcription errors, especially after decades or centuries in which many many hundreds of written copies had to be made, painstakingly, by hand, in an era with no printing press, computers, paper, or indelible ink.
How do you know he was a caravan merchant? Quran says that? which ayah please?
Yeah, before printing presses, people made mistakes by default even if they were careful, sure. Its like God fatally decreed it so, lol.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:12:11 AM
However, as a secular historian, I would be asked, how do I know they did this? I would answer by replying ?the snooker ball? effect. In order to analyse the original position of snooker balls (post-first break, that is) , one has to see present position of the table.
There is a little problem with your analogy. A better analogy would be DNA in cells, which are transcribed and replicated at each cell division, one nucleotide after another. The Quran has to be copied by hand and transcribed in a similar manner when writing new copies, letter by letter, word by word.
Errors are made in DNA replication, at a fairly low rate, but since there are so many bases (letters), there are many errors in total. There are some mechanisms for 'proof-reading' that reduce the number of errors, but don't eliminate them. So a few errors remain. Over each replication, they are carried forward, and they accumulate more errors, but except for a small minority of bases (letters/ words) the newest DNA thread (written Quran) is very very close to the original.
With your snooker ball problem, there is no replication, or error in the snooker ball. The snooker ball itself moves from one position to another, it isn't copied many many times, and we still have the original snooker ball at the end of the snooker ball's motion
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:20:28 AM
I am confused, isn't the Quran authored by God and transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad?
You know what, you're not reading my posts properly. You're reading it like you treat Quran, in fragments. I wrote:
Let ***me play the role*** of a secular historian. As a secular historian, I believe Muhammad was a guy who authored Quran
Please read carefully.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:37:17 AM
How do you know he was a caravan merchant? Quran says that? which ayah please?
Yeah, before printing presses, people made mistakes by default even if they were careful, sure. Its like God fatally decreed it so, lol.
I said I don't know, I am just supposing that he was literate since that aya (don't remember the number) is usually mistranslated as 'illiterate' instead of 'gentile'
most historical accounts of him ( I am supposing from the hadiths, but I don't believe in their authenticity) say that he was a caravan merchant.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:35:20 AM
THAT'S what you call physical EVIDENCE?????? Evidence do not speak for themselves. If you found a piece of paper lying in the desert with a bismillah and a few lines about Fatima, the daughter of the prophet, you'll probably think 'Aha, another textual variant' so as i said, have fun with that. You and secular historians can turn a blind eye to the Quran's statements about itself. You have to turn to something else, remember you said?
I am not referring to single pieces of paper, but actual Qurans, containing most, if not all the pages. They are there in museums
I am using the snooker balls to simulate LAWS OF PHYSICS. If you hit a ball at an angle, it wont move like if you hit it dead on. If Quran was like you said, full of scribal errors, then each Muslim country, local authorities, masjids etc would have REAL issues with 'which Quran' because textual authenticity is a big issue with Muslims and it always has been.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:39:07 AM
There is a little problem with your analogy. A better analogy would be DNA in cells, which are transcribed and replicated at each cell division, one nucleotide after another. The Quran has to be copied by hand and transcribed in a similar manner when writing new copies, letter by letter, word by word.
Errors are made in DNA replication, at a fairly low rate, but since there are so many bases (letters), there are many errors in total. There are some mechanisms for 'proof-reading' that reduce the number of errors, but don't eliminate them. So a few errors remain. Over each replication, they are carried forward, and they accumulate more errors, but except for a small minority of bases (letters/ words) the newest DNA thread (written Quran) is very very close to the original.
With your snooker ball problem, there is no replication, or error in the snooker ball. The snooker ball itself moves from one position to another, it isn't copied many many times, and we still have the original snooker ball at the end of the snooker ball's motion
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:32:53 AM
I really thank God that the author of the Quran didn't think like you. Cause then all it'd take is some guy putting one extra dot somewhere (changing a 'sod' into a 'dhod' for example) and there goes the entire preservation of Quran. As I said, stick to your manuscripts, keep digging in the desert, maybe you'll find a manuscript dated even BEFORE muhammad. And while you're busy finding this holy grail of manuscripts and maybe wrestling it from Harrison Ford, I'll stick with Quran, thanks.
irrelevant. all baseless accusations. where do harrison ford and pre Muhammad Qurans come into the picture?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:43:22 AM
I am not referring to single pieces of paper, but actual Qurans, containing most, if not all the pages. They are there in museums
Ok and you saw the guy wrote them? I didn't. For all I know, it could be a guy who wants to put Quran in doubt. So you can believe what you like. Quran NEVER told us to refer to these 'mushaf'.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:42:10 AM
I said I don't know, I am just supposing that he was literate since that aya (don't remember the number) is usually mistranslated as 'illiterate' instead of 'gentile'
most historical accounts of him ( I am supposing from the hadiths, but I don't believe in their authenticity) say that he was a caravan merchant.
Don't beat about the bush please. You got it from hadith JUST like you got authority of Warsh from hadith. So stick with your warsh and hadith.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:43:58 AM
I am using the snooker balls to simulate LAWS OF PHYSICS. If you hit a ball at an angle, it wont move like if you hit it dead on. If Quran was like you said, full of scribal errors, then each Muslim country, local authorities, masjids etc would have REAL issues with 'which Quran' because textual authenticity is a big issue with Muslims and it always has been.
it is also true that people in Egypt at that time might not have had access to copies being made in Persia , for example, due to geographical distance.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:46:16 AM
explain
So you go digging in the middle east. you find a lost fragment of something which resembles Quran but with 'textual variants'. You date it and its from 'time of muhammad' (which you know thanks to hadith, lol). Does that mean Muhammad wrote it? Does that mean Muhammad approved of it? Evidence is what we INTERPRET to be evidence. I dont trust your interpretation, sorry.
So what are you saying Quran has errors? and isn't preserved?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:43:58 AM
If Quran was like you said, full of scribal errors, then each Muslim country, local authorities, masjids etc would have REAL issues with 'which Quran' because textual authenticity is a big issue with Muslims and it always has been.
that would be true if you think people don't make mistakes, but they do.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:48:27 AM
it is also true that people in Egypt at that time might not have had access to copies being made in Persia , for example, due to geographical distance.
Yesss and that would account for the war between egypt and persia over the Quran, right? They warred because each claimed to have the 'right' Quran?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:46:55 AM
Don't beat about the bush please. You got it from hadith JUST like you got authority of Warsh from hadith. So stick with your warsh and hadith.
The warsh variant may be referred to in the hadith, but that is not relevant. You have not answered as to why there are no old Qurans that are purely Hafs.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:50:09 AM
that would be true if you think people don't make mistakes, but they do.
What, so there's no probability of perfect transcription OR do you just discount that probability even though you have no proof of 2 Hafs having any discrepencies. Face it, you don't have this proof so you need to deal with that.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:50:35 AM
Yesss and that would account for the war between egypt and persia over the Quran, right? They warred because each claimed to have the 'right' Quran?
Huh? what war?
please don't divert the topic.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:51:49 AM
The warsh variant may be referred to in the hadith, but that is not relevant. You have not answered as to why there are no old Qurans that are purely Hafs.
what are all the old Qurans that are preserved?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:52:22 AM
What, so there's no probability of perfect transcription OR do you just discount that probability even though you have no proof of 2 Hafs having any discrepencies. Face it, you don't have this proof so you need to deal with that.
well that's natural, 2 copies of variant A are supposed to be the same, or else both would not be called variant A. They'd be called something else.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:51:49 AM
The warsh variant may be referred to in the hadith, but that is not relevant. You have not answered as to why there are no old Qurans that are purely Hafs.
Changing the goalposts again. What do you mean by 'old quran'. At first you were babbling about manuscripts now you're talking about old qurans? Make up your mind please. You don't seem to know what you want. I told you already, if you wanna play indiana jones, go right ahead. You dont trust what quran says about itself so what can i do about it? Do what you want.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:53:49 AM
well that's natural, 2 copies of variant A are supposed to be the same, or else both would not be called variant A. They'd be called something else.
LOL, so going by your crap DNA theory, Hafs replications SHOULD have errors right? After all, Hafs has been spread throughout the world. So bring forward these discrepencies then...if you can, that is.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:54:36 AM
Changing the goalposts again. What do you mean by 'old quran'. At first you were babbling about manuscripts now you're talking about old qurans? Make up your mind please. You don't seem to know what you want. I told you already, if you wanna play indiana jones, go right ahead. You dont trust what quran says about itself so what can i do about it? Do what you want.
I used them interchangeably. I meant the same thing.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:52:33 AM
Huh? what war?
please don't divert the topic.
THere was no war because there was no problems even if they didnt have paper (historically speaking).
Quote from: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 01:49:51 AM
So what are you saying Quran has errors? and isn't preserved?
I think it has been preserved. I don't see how small errors in present day copies mean that it isn't preserved.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:57:42 AM
THere was no war because there was no problems even if they didnt have paper (historically speaking).
:offtopic:
Quote from: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 01:52:52 AM
what are all the old Qurans that are preserved?
they all have slight differences, many are much closer to Hafs, while some are closer to Warsh, some differ from both. The division into Hafs and Warsh seems arbitrary
Quote from: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 01:52:52 AM
what are all the old Qurans that are preserved?
You see, the other Sarah want to find some old copy of the Quran which probably says 'i am an old quran, please trust my version' to which she'll automatically jump up and down saying 'yessss, this is the original quran'.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 01:59:26 AM
You see, the other Sarah want to find some old copy of the Quran which probably says 'i am an old quran, please trust my version' to which she'll automatically jump up and down saying 'yessss, this is the original quran'.
ad hominem attack. baseless accusation again.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:00:32 AM
No, its a rhetorical device.
hardly,
according to your logic, small change= war
how does that work?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 01:59:19 AM
they all have slight differences, many are much closer to Hafs, while some are closer to Warsh, some differ from both. The division into Hafs and Warsh seems arbitrary
Yeah, so you go play indiana jones with them since to you, God preserves Quran by 'old qurans' (its like 'senior citizens rule' for Quran). You can go decide which 'version' is the right 'version'.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 02:02:28 AM
hardly,
according to your logic, small change= war
how does that work?
Muslims are FANATICAL about the Quran. They don't study it but to them, its divine. So IF any problems ever arose concerning the text, there is NO way it would have been simply passed over. There would have been a war which there wasnt. So you do the math.
Well.. afaik what we have today is known as uthmani script which is hafs, evidences can be found in galleries. A friend of mine went to a exhibition a few months back in London.
Here's a photo
there's evidence of old manuscripts, they're preserved dunno by who.
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9753/dsc02258k.jpg)
image quality isn't good but hope that helps you
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:03:18 AM
Yeah, so you go play indiana jones with them since to you, God preserves Quran by 'old qurans' (its like 'senior citizens rule' for Quran). You can go decide which 'version' is the right 'version'.
senior citizen rule? wow
a very simple question
why do the old copies differ from each other?
Quote from: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 02:06:24 AM
Well.. afaik what we have today is known as uthmani script which is hafs, evidences can be found in galleries. A friend of mine went to a exhibition a few months back in London.
Thanks Sarah :)
I see 8th and 9th century written in the picture. Could you please tell me how far they date back, while still being identical to each other? I am curious
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 02:06:45 AM
senior citizen rule? wow
a very simple question
why do the old copies differ from each other?
Why would I care? I don't know who wrote them. Could be some devils for all I know. Why do you care about them? How do you know they are credible at all? The same way you know Muhammad was a merchant?
starts from 7th century afaik, i don't have much info on it sorry when i get in contact with my friend i'll let you know :)
anyway i don't get these questions it's like saying give me the original bible for me to believe that the bible existed
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:10:50 AM
Why would I care? I don't know who wrote them. Could be some devils for all I know. Why do you care about them? How do you know they are credible at all? The same way you know Muhammad was a merchant?
because their existence suggests that the Hafs may not have been the standardised variant until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 02:13:59 AM
because their existence suggests that the Hafs may not have been the standardised variant until a few centuries after the Prophet's death.
'Suggests that', WHO suggests it? You? Why would I trust you? The Prophet himself mentions his own enemies so why on earth would I accept it as a textual variant? Maybe the enemies of Muhammads wrote it cuz they knew people would be like 'yesss, this is a variant, quran is not perfectly preserved'.
Quote from: Sarah on November 03, 2009, 02:11:08 AM
starts from 7th century afaik, i don't have much info on it sorry when i get in contact with my friend i'll let you know :)
Thanks Sarah. I hope you don't think I am trying to say that the present day Quran can not be trusted. I do believe in it wholly, but I am not so sure that the people who have made copies between the end of the 6th to the 7th century did it perfectly. It just seems unlikely to me, and hard for me to believe without solid proof, when I know that really old variant manuscripts exist.
My belief in the Quran isn't dependent on the Quran being preserved to the last later. If it has slight errors, I don't mind, since it's only a few human errors. If there are no errors, I am amazed by these people's dedication and grateful to God for its perfect preservation. Since God has said that "They" will preserve the Quran, but didn't say it will be preserved to the last letter, I don't know if the latter is true.
As for the picture you posted, are the 7th, 8th, 9th century and following copies identical to each other to the last letter? That would be truly amazing.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:17:45 AM
'Suggests that', WHO suggests it? You? Why would I trust you? The Prophet himself mentions his own enemies so why on earth would I accept it as a textual variant? Maybe the enemies of Muhammads wrote it cuz they knew people would be like 'yesss, this is a variant, quran is not perfectly preserved'.
or maybe there is no conspiracy, you have no proof to choose one variant over another, when the actual one may incorporate elements of both.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 02:22:19 AM
or maybe there is no conspiracy, you have no proof to choose one variant over another, when the actual one may incorporate elements of both.
Yeah, like i said in the beginning, to you, Quranic statements aren't proof. You said as much here:http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.15 (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.15) in reply 23. You'd rather take the historical assumptions so you go ahead with that. Try to find which word God actually used when he already told you what to go for. And if you have time left in your life, then maybe u can spend a little actually studying its teachings. Cuz thats not what God wants us to do, waste our time debating over 'which quran' (like the author of that article) just like which hadith, instead of actual application.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:29:39 AM
Try to find which word God actually used when he already told you what to go for. And if you have time left in your life, then maybe u can spend a little actually studying its teachings. Cuz thats what God wants us to do, waste our time debating over 'which quran' (like the author of that article) just like which hadith, instead of actual application.
To which I'll quote 3:7 again.
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ - as well as others that are allegorical.* Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ** which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion,*** and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning.**** Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say:
"We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.
*The above passage may be regarded as a key to the understanding of the Qur'an. Tabari identifies the ayat muhkamat ("messages that are clear in and by themselves") with what the philologists and jurists describe as nass - namely, ordinances or statements which are self-evident (zahir) by virtue of their wording (cf. Lisan at-'Arab, art. nass). Consequently, Tabari regards as ayat muhkamat only those statements or ordinances of the Qur'an which do not admit of more than one interpretation (which does not, of course, preclude differences of opinion regarding the implications of a particular ayah muhkamah). In my opinion, however, it would be too dogmatic to regard any passage of the Qur'an which does not conform to the above definition as mutashabih ("allegorical"): for there are many statements in the Qur'an which are liable to more than one interpretation but are, nevertheless, not allegorical - just as there are many expressions and passages which, despite their allegorical formulation, reveal to the searching intellect only one possible meaning. For this reason, the ayat mutashabihat may be defined as those passages of the Qur'an which are expressed in a figurative manner, with a meaning that is metaphorically implied but not directly, in so many words, stated. The ayat muhkamat are described as the "essence of the divine writ" (umm al-kitab) because they comprise the fundamental principles underlying its message and, in particular, its ethical and social teachings: and it is only on the basis of these clearly enunciated principles that the allegorical passages can be correctly interpreted. (For a more detailed discussion of symbolism and allegory in the Qur'an. see Appendix 1.)
**Lit., "that of it".
***The "confusion" referred to here is a consequence of interpreting allegorical passages in an "arbitrary manner" (Zamakhshari).
****According to most of the early commentators, this refers to the interpretation of allegorical passages which deal with metaphysical subjects - for instance, God's attributes, the ultimate meaning of time and eternity, the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, the nature of the beings or forces described as angels, and so forth - all of which fall within the category of al-ghayb, i.e., that sector of reality which is beyond the reach of human perception and imagination and cannot, therefore, be conveyed to man in other than allegorical terms. This view of the classical commentators, however, does not seem to take into account the many Qur'anic passages which do not deal with metaphysical subjects and yet are, undoubtedly, allegorical in intent and expression. To my mind, one cannot arrive at a correct understanding of the above passage without paying due attention to the nature and function of allegory as such. A true allegory - in contrast with a mere pictorial paraphrase of something that could equally well be stated in direct terms - is always meant to express in a figurative manner something which, because of its complexity, cannot be adequately expressed in direct terms or propositions and, because of this very complexity, can be grasped only intuitively, as a general mental image, and not as a series of detailed "statements": and this seems to be the meaning of the phrase, "none save God knows its final meaning".
http://www.geocities.com/masad02/003
In my opinion, only a few things are important, believing in God alone, not committing shirk, being honest, helping others.
(I am done discussing this, since I don't see it as being important. Whether or not there are textual variants is not something that is important to me. If there are, I accept that humans are imperfect. If there aren't , then wow wow
I don't believe that my salvation is dependent on accepting or rejecting either of the above possibilities)
I had thought, earlier, that you have some proof for the Hafs variant being the right one, or some explanation for the presence of really old variants. But you don't. My belief in the Quran, unlike yours, isn't tied to it being preserved to the last letter. I am glad if it is, but I am not troubled if it isn't. The main message is the same. And no, changing a single letter in some unambiguous place in the Quran doesn't make it fall apart.
I do apply Quranic teachings in my life to the best of my knowledge and ability, which is why, even though I could have gotten angry with you in my posts over this forum, I have answered each and every one of them with civility, even though you have made baseless accusations, made ad hominem attacks; because that is the right thing to do. To stand up firmly for one's beliefs, without being overbearing or condescending. I don't know if you care to apply Quranic teachings in your life, but I'll neither assume that you do nor that you don't, since it's not my place to judge, it's upto God alone.
Peace
Sarah
Good, lets leave it at that. You practise it how you see it, I'll do the same. God is probably more flexible than either of us.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:46:20 AM
Good, lets leave it at that. You practise it how you see it, I'll do the same. God is probably more flexible than either of us.
well, definitely more than you
lol
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 02:47:05 AM
well, definitely more than you
lol
i'll leave you with your childish cheap shots. hopefully they can satisfy you since providing good arguments isn't an option.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 03, 2009, 02:56:28 AM
i'll leave you with your childish cheap shots. hopefully they can satisfy you since providing good arguments isn't an option.
:laugh:
I'll leave that for the readers to decide.
The rest of the original thread is here
'Is the present day Quran preserved to the last letter?"
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599050.msg221833#msg221833
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 03:59:02 AM
'Is the present day Quran preserved to the last letter?"
Is any holy book?
Quote from: Rev.John on November 03, 2009, 04:58:44 PM
Is any holy book?
That's what I was trying to argue, we can't say that it is without physical proof
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 03, 2009, 05:05:20 PM
That's what I was trying to argue, we can't say that it is without physical proof
Maybe thinking helps, instead of blind belief in what one is told.
Quote from: Rev.John on November 03, 2009, 05:07:02 PM
Maybe thinking helps, instead of blind belief in what one is told.
? I think, in this case, we need to examine old manuscripts
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 11:18:28 AM
So if the Q doesn?t ban it, that automatically makes the Q not divinely inspired? Well that?s your perogative to choose but if you want to parade your logic around here, you may need some rhetorical bullet-proof vests. So far, your logic can be at best called ?subjective?.
As I said before, my objection to the Quran itself has to do with multiple more stuff than simply the "cousin marriage" thing. I did say that I am going to narrate them all gradually. However, I can't do all that in a single thread or at the same time. I like everyone else, have many things to do in my daily life, but surely I will make a list of stuff I object to gradually.
Yeah, sure my logic is subjective, so is everyone else's whenit comes to something like the Quran or any other holy book. Its not mathematics. A Muslim guy who adores the Quran & someone like Sebastian Faulks who finds it devoid of ethical innovation or originality, or an atheist like Sam Harris, who finds it among the mot violent of religious books(he claims to have read the religious texts of all faiths) all are entitled to their own opinions-there's no way to decide that only one opinion is correct, as I said, coz this isn't mathematics & no one can be declared right or wrong.
Cousin marriages btw, although certainly not my only or even primary objection to the Quran, were an important issue for me, coz it was one of the very first stuff which made me notice that if a book claims to be from the Creator, it should have such knowledge & declare it out loud, however a book by human hads would reflect the prejudices, hangups & prevailing customs of its time, & not banning repeated cousin weddings, but banning marriages to milk sisters should more of a primitive society reflecting their beliefs.
I will surely post my other objections later.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 11:18:28 AM
Wow, desperation to salvage faith by calling hadith fabricated! Hey , since you were a ?Quranist? for 10 months, you must have known the Quranist argumentation against hadith and even accepted it for those 10 months. Now suddenly we?re ?desperate? . So this means that you believe the hadith-believers are correct. I therefore CHALLENGE you to defend THEIR position. We can then see how much of a ?Quranist? you were.
Who said ?morally acceptable? translations are correct? I guess you must have been the most ill-informed ?Quranist? on earth. Of course with your POOR attitude to scholarship, I can?t expect anything else. You think learning the Arabic language is beneath you yet you don?t mind thinking that Quranists are trying to pander to other (read: Western) moral standards. Is this a RATIONAL act on your part? Is it RATIONAL to refuse to verify information because it?s not worth your time yet venture to call other people ?desperate?? I don?t think it?s rational. I think it?s ARROGANCE based on SELF-HATE. It probably came from your angst-driven rant about the Iranian revolution. Rejecting Quran, burning it, putting it in the toilet or whatever you like is your perogative but if you want to pass your rejection off as ?rational?, you?ve got a looooooooong way.
Hey, I wasn't at all the one who began this sort of rude name calling! :D
Look at the post of someone else here, who began by being extremely rude to me: This is abdul quran's looong post, claiming how incredible stupid I am, for rejecting even the Quran,
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 03:05:11 AM
Dear Fawzia,
On behalf of all the Quranists, I'd like to nominate you for 'Quranist of the Year' award for your outstanding scholarship and awareness of Quranist issues and methodology on reading the Quran. Wow, I must say, I've never encountered your kind of brilliance and objectivity before. Tell me, are you married? If not, I'd like to propose marriage to you. I'm sure all our kids will be 'Super-Quranists' thanks to your genes.
Let me quote to you some what you said so we can understand your brilliance.
Wow Fawzia, you’re so intelligent. May I inquire , are you a professor of logic at Harvard or Oxford? If so, I’d love to visit you some time. I’m pretty sure you’ll win this ‘Quranist of the Year’ award. There is only one another nominee : Geert Wilders (but I wouldn’t like to propose to him).
I am a newbie here, I didn't say anything rude at all at first, simply gave my reasons for apostasy & rejecting even Quranist Islam. I am being taunted for my lack of intelligence there & scolded for lacking adequate knowledge-none of you guys wanted to object to his extreme rudeness to a newbie.
Yet, if I reply in a similar vein, due to others rudeness-I get more rudeness. :)
Rejecting the Quran didn't come due to the Iranian Islamic Revolution, although I did veer extremely close to apostasy, as I have frankly stated, due to Iranian conditions. I did try to stay Muslim, albeit a Quranist Muslim. I however, felt that the Quran too has enough primitive or objectionable material.
As far as learning Arabic is concerned, yes I don't have the time right now to learn it. Other than reading the Quran, not much practical use comes out of learning that language-which is a sorry but true fact. As far as learning it to read the Quran is concerned, when we google Free minds & come to the Home page itself, I encounter an "invitation" to people of all religions-Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc to check out the Quran, God's final word(supposedly).
My Quranist cousin says that the Quran is the "condensed essence of all previous religions". Did she study Hebrew & Aramaic for Judaism & Christianity, Sanskrit for Hinduism, Pali & Prakrit for Buddhism etc? Certainly not.
If Allah claims to be for all the world, & if the Quran claims to be so easy to understand-both of which are claimed, it should be just as easy to understand through translations & I have read plenty.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 02, 2009, 11:18:28 AM
If you were a Quranist, you?d never think junking hadith is a ?desperate? act. Quranists know the overwhelming evidence against acceptance of hadith. I don?t believe you, not that it matters.
When Wakas posts his article , I?m waiting to see your masterful logic and scholarly comments.
Sure, you don't believe me. :) I am an extremely fair complexioned Iranian with hazel eyes, & while its obvious that I am not black(I'd have loved to be black btw, I like the balcks I know a lot) I can reasonably pass off as a both an European or from the mid East or Sauth Asia.
I never hide it from any Muslim that I have left the faith. I have been called everything from an evangelical Christian to a Jew to a Hindu to whatnot in response. ;)
If they don't believe me when they see me(they are more likely to believe when I am with my family & siblings, than when I am out shopping with friends), how can I believe any Muslim to believe me online? ;D
Muslims I know find it impossible to accept that someone has chosen to leave their religion, out of absolute free choice & after reading the texts or even after reading the Quran- they either try to believe that the person wasn't Muslim in the first place, or else it must have been the trauma of some Islamist Revolution, someone might have had a truamatic childhood etc!
Yeah, hadith rejection does come from the fact that they were written many years later, but I have noticed that may Quranists reject them simply ased on the objectionable stuff they contain. Muhammad's multiple marriages, child bride, marriages to his daughter in law, violence on other faiths & the numerous misogynistic hadiths are where rejection springs from. Had Muhammad been presented as a Buddha or Jesus like guy, I wonder whether there would be this strong a need to reject his life stories, not that it matters for me too.
I have found enough in the Quran to reject it as well.
Quote from: Tareq on November 02, 2009, 11:41:08 AM
The "Islamic" revolution has succeeded in making Islam the enemy of the people. People now associete Islam with the goverment that opresses them, tells them how to dress, etc.
Yeah sure, any Muslim who rejects the Quran is either lying & was never Muslim in the first place, or the rejection was based on Islamist movements in their country or(if its a woman) evil patriarchal practices in their so called Muslim family which has nothing to do with the Quran! :yeah:
Sure, the beginning of my apostasy was indeed the conditions in Iran, but I did make a thorough study of the Quran as well. As I said, aI don't have Ayaan Hirsi like stories to narrate, my family was extremely enlightened.
I'm sure Muslims will continue to deny that any non oppressed once Muslim female actually studied the Quran & rejected it based on its own merits & demerits! :D
Quote from: Recluse on November 02, 2009, 11:58:32 AM
Peace Tareq,
That is also my impression. Also, perhaps shia Islam, which has some really bizarre concepts, is part of the problem as well. But then, sunni Islam is far from perfect either..
Hahahahaha! ;D :whatever:
Difficult to make anyone believe if they insist on shutting their eyes to the fact!
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I am a newbie here, I didn't say anything rude at all at first, simply gave my reasons for apostasy & rejecting even Quranist Islam. I am being taunted for my lack of intelligence there & scolded for lacking adequate knowledge-none of you guys wanted to object to his extreme rudeness to a newbie.
First of all, you did say things that are rude, and somewhat racist, on the other thread.
Secondly, caveman doctor and dc2 and I all objected to abdulquran's rudeness on this thread.
Fawzia, can I ask you a quick question. It's something I always wonder about ex-muslims. If you reject the idea that mohammed was divinely inspired to recite the Qur'an, do you have any thoughts on what you suppose his agenda or motives might have been in doing what he did or do you maybe believe he was mad for example?
It's something I always wonder about and I must admit, it's one of the main reasons I continue to believe the Qur'an. I just don't see for example why he didn't name jesus as the son of god in order to attract the christians to his ranks more easily or recount the jewish stories as they were written in their books like one about joseph or that eve was created from adam's rib or that God rested on the 7th day after creation etc. And why at the age of 40 (if we are to believe the reports) did he suddenly get the urge to call his people to monotheism even though he was surely aware of the hostilities he would face.
Genuine question - not criticizing you, just looking to hear your thoughts.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:13:11 AM
I'm sure Muslims will continue to deny that any non oppressed once Muslim female actually studied the Quran & rejected it based on its own merits & demerits! :D
False, you can't generalise the stupidity of some individuals to say that every muslim person will do that. It might be better if you say that some people are like that, rather than Muslims as a group
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
If Allah claims to be for all the world, & if the Quran claims to be so easy to understand-both of which are claimed, it should be just as easy to understand through translations & I have read plenty.
How can you be sure that those translators have not mistranslated? That and the fact that most Arabic words have multiple meanings, and the fact that your typical traditional Muslim translator translates with reference to hadiths of questionable authenticity.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I have found enough in the Quran to reject it as well.
I am curious. Do post
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Yeah, hadith rejection does come from the fact that they were written many years later, but I have noticed that may Quranists reject them simply ased on the objectionable stuff they contain. Muhammad's multiple marriages, child bride, marriages to his daughter in law, violence on other faiths & the numerous misogynistic hadiths are where rejection springs from. Had Muhammad been presented as a Buddha or Jesus like guy, I wonder whether there would be this strong a need to reject his life stories, not that it matters for me too.
uh? parts of the Talmud present Jesus as a pig and his mother as a whore? Does that mean it is true?
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 04, 2009, 12:34:50 AM
First of all, you did say things that are rude, and somewhat racist, on the other thread.
Secondly, caveman doctor and dc2 and I all objected to abdulquran's rudeness on this thread.
Well, I apologise for all my rudeness, most of it unintentional.
Thanks for your & others objection to abdulquran.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 04, 2009, 12:36:45 AM
False, you can't generalise the stupidity of some individuals to say that every muslim person will do that. It might be better if you say that some people are like that, rather than Muslims as a group
I stand corrected, I will say some Muslims, or rather too many Muslims of my acquaintance have said this.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 04, 2009, 12:42:00 AM
I am curious. Do post
I will eventually. I am a student, I have other commitments as well.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 04, 2009, 12:43:19 AM
uh? parts of the Talmud present Jesus as a pig and his mother as a whore? Does that mean it is true?
I never aid that there aren't enough genuine reasons to reject hadiths, I wouldn't have beome a hadith rejector had I not found sufficient reasons. However, some Muslims of my acquaintance-online & offline who're turning Quranist do actually take this step more from the attempt to reject the obnoxious way Muhammad is portrayed in hadiths, rather than due to any genuine & extensive scholarship.
Quote from: dc2 on November 04, 2009, 12:36:06 AM
Fawzia, can I ask you a quick question. It's something I always wonder about ex-muslims. If you reject the idea that mohammed was divinely inspired to recite the Qur'an, do you have any thoughts on what you suppose his agenda or motives might have been in doing what he did or do you maybe believe he was mad for example?
Genuine question - not criticizing you, just looking to hear your thoughts.
Well, for one thing, this enabled him to get multiple wives & get these wives to obey him, through divinely mandated revelations: I am not even speaking of hadiths, simply Quran.
33:30 O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.
So we see even from the Quran that this person Muhammad is having multiple wives & they're supposedly getting threats from the Creator if they are lewd. Naturally, saying such stuff will make wives obedient & multiple wives & chaste wives is something Muhammad will get via claims of revelations.
33:31 And whosoever of you is
submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision.
Again, via Allah Muhammad can get his wives to be submissive here, like he could get them to be chaste in the earlier verses.
Its like a carrot & stick policy, be lewd & God'll punish you & be submissive & He'll reward you. ;D
Anyone who has more than a single wife knows that managing more than one can be difficult & many men like "obedient" wives, of course, men hate "lewd" wives.
Claiming divine revelations helps his cause. 8)
Next, Muhammad is interfering in others affairs via Allah.
33:36 And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.
So Muhammad can poke his nose into everyone's affairs, with Allah on his side.
People like power & influence, which claiming to be the last Prophet is getting Muhammad.
Next, we see Allah is helping Muhammad marry his foster daughter in law, to outlaw the belief that people cannot marry their adopted son's wife.
This seems a convenient way of getting a woman, getting Allah to speak up.
33:37 And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled.
Next, Muhammad is being told by Allah that all sorts of women are lawful for him to marry, but this si specially for him, not for other believers:
33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee;
and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; - this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess; - in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
These sexual excesses would make other wives, not to mention people angry-yet by claiming that Muhammad is a Prophet, he could get people to shut up & his wives to silently tolerate such behavior for fear of being tormented by Allah after death. :D
Muhammad was not the first person to claim such revelations, nor the last. There's a guy called Joseph Smith in USA in the 19th century who made similar claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr
There are many cult founders who use God as a convinient means of justifying their sexual excesses & perversions, Smith too had multiple wives via convenient revelations.
Quote from: dc2 on November 04, 2009, 12:36:06 AM
It's something I always wonder about and I must admit, it's one of the main reasons I continue to believe the Qur'an. I just don't see for example why he didn't name jesus as the son of god in order to attract the christians to his ranks more easily or recount the jewish stories as they were written in their books like one about joseph or that eve was created from adam's rib or that God rested on the 7th day after creation etc. And why at the age of 40 (if we are to believe the reports) did he suddenly get the urge to call his people to monotheism even though he was surely aware of the hostilities he would face.
Well had he accepted Jesus as God's son, he would've lost his special place as Last Prophet!
If God's Son came & went, & rose from the dead, & taught so many kind & good stuff, people would ask him what he was doing as a new Prophet!
There're many places in the Quran wherein Allah tells people to obey Muhammad. By demoting Jesus to another Prophet & making himself the last Prophet, he managed to raise his position & actually justify his claims that as Jesus was simply another Prophet, he was also sent.
As far as monotheism is concerned, he was impressed by monotheism & preferred it to polytheism, just like Commie leaders in the 20th century decided to preach & fight for atheism, getting rid of the last remaining God.
The fear of persecution didn't stop Joseph Stalin or Enver Hoxha from preaching their atheism, why should it stop Muhammad?
People like Alexander or Genghis Khan are only ruling for a short time, Muhammad by starting a new faith could occupy a special place in many lives for millennia! Add to that the sexual excesses justified by Allah, he had as much good reason for proclaiming himself Prophet as Joseph Smith etc had.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Yeah, sure my logic is subjective, so is everyone else's whenit comes to something like the Quran or any other holy book. Its not mathematics. A Muslim guy who adores the Quran & someone like Sebastian Faulks who finds it devoid of ethical innovation or originality, or an atheist like Sam Harris, who finds it among the mot violent of religious books(he claims to have read the religious texts of all faiths) all are entitled to their own opinions-there's no way to decide that only one opinion is correct, as I said, coz this isn't mathematics & no one can be declared right or wrong.
Disagreed.
You?re entitled to your rejection. Notice I never called you on it. You think cousin-marrying should be mentioned. Ok, that?s not a problem with me. That?s your business what you believe but you made some statements which a person of integrity should defend. Are you or are you not a person of integrity?
You claim that those who leave hadith are desperate to salvage their faith, did you not? Therefore as a person of integrity, I challenge you to show me how desperate I am? Because I don?t believe for a second you were EVER a Quranist. Reading your last paragraph below proves my point.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Cousin marriages btw, although certainly not my only or even primary objection to the Quran, were an important issue for me, coz it was one of the very first stuff which made me notice that if a book claims to be from the Creator, it should have such knowledge & declare it out loud, however a book by human hads would reflect the prejudices, hangups & prevailing customs of its time, & not banning repeated cousin weddings, but banning marriages to milk sisters should more of a primitive society reflecting their beliefs.
Ok, that?s reasoning. Other people are entitled to theirs.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I will surely post my other objections later.
Yeah, also don?t forget to tell us how racially deficient Muslims are, to kinda strengthen your point. That really helps keep us sweet.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Hey, I wasn't at all the one who began this sort of rude name calling! :D
No, you?re a racist. That?s miles above mere ?name-calling?.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Look at the post of someone else here, who began by being extremely rude to me: This is abdul quran's looong post, claiming how incredible stupid I am, for rejecting even the Quran,
I am a newbie here, I didn't say anything rude at all at first, simply gave my reasons for apostasy & rejecting even Quranist Islam. I am being taunted for my lack of intelligence there & scolded for lacking adequate knowledge-none of you guys wanted to object to his extreme rudeness to a newbie.
Yet, if I reply in a similar vein, due to others rudeness-I get more rudeness. :)
LOL.
Don?t be ridiculous.
I called you out for one reason and one reason only: your ATTITUDE. You think Quranists are being apologetic by changing ?beat? to ?separate? and we?re desperate to salvage our faith. THAT?S why I replied to you. I don?t give a monkeys what you reject, that?s your business. But if you?re gonna tell us we?re playing around with the language, you better have something better than ?I spoke to arabs?. That?s the kind of reasoning which would severely cast you into disrepute.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Rejecting the Quran didn't come due to the Iranian Islamic Revolution, although I did veer extremely close to apostasy, as I have frankly stated, due to Iranian conditions. I did try to stay Muslim, albeit a Quranist Muslim. I however, felt that the Quran too has enough primitive or objectionable material.
Oh so you found Quranism appealing then? Tell me, why did you say junking hadith is a ?desparate attempt to salvage faith?. Were you one of the desperate then? What arguments did you employ in this desperation?
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
As far as learning Arabic is concerned, yes I don't have the time right now to learn it. Other than reading the Quran, not much practical use comes out of learning that language-which is a sorry but true fact. As far as learning it to read the Quran is concerned, when we google Free minds & come to the Home page itself, I encounter an "invitation" to people of all religions-Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc to check out the Quran, God's final word(supposedly).
So now you have no TIME to learn it? I see. A few days ago it was just beneath you. Good change of tactic there.
So tell me, is it a decent thing to do to call Quranists ?apologists? when you don?t know and refuse to learn Arabic? Is that ?rude? you think to call us ?desperate to salvage our faith?? Don?t run from answering this, ok.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
My Quranist cousin says that the Quran is the "condensed essence of all previous religions". Did she study Hebrew & Aramaic for Judaism & Christianity, Sanskrit for Hinduism, Pali & Prakrit for Buddhism etc? Certainly not.
Oh so now you have Quranist FAMILY members? Wow?.
And what has your Quranist cousin have to do with me? I never said crap about ?essence of all previous religions?. I don?t use any ?previous? in my engagement with the Quran.
During these 10 months when you became a Quranist, were you comatose? If so, everything would make sense.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
If Allah claims to be for all the world, & if the Quran claims to be so easy to understand-both of which are claimed, it should be just as easy to understand through translations & I have read plenty.
What does ease of understanding have to do with correctness of translation? A concept may be easy but there could be a ton of diversionary material covering it. Funny how an ex-QURANIST doesn?t understand this.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Sure, you don't believe me. :) I am an extremely fair complexioned Iranian with hazel eyes, & while its obvious that I am not black(I'd have loved to be black btw, I like the balcks I know a lot) I can reasonably pass off as a both an European or from the mid East or Sauth Asia.
Irrrelevant.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
I never hide it from any Muslim that I have left the faith. I have been called everything from an evangelical Christian to a Jew to a Hindu to whatnot in response. ;)
If they don't believe me when they see me(they are more likely to believe when I am with my family & siblings, than when I am out shopping with friends), how can I believe any Muslim to believe me online? ;D
Repeat: Do not give a monkeys what you are.
Only care that you defend your remarks about Quranists and your views.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Muslims I know find it impossible to accept that someone has chosen to leave their religion, out of absolute free choice & after reading the texts or even after reading the Quran- they either try to believe that the person wasn't Muslim in the first place, or else it must have been the trauma of some Islamist Revolution, someone might have had a truamatic childhood etc!
Or a self-hating racist who needs to find a fresh, dissociated identity. Kinda like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs in a manner of speaking.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Yeah, hadith rejection does come from the fact that they were written many years later, but I have noticed that may Quranists reject them simply ased on the objectionable stuff they contain. Muhammad's multiple marriages, child bride, marriages to his daughter in law, violence on other faiths & the numerous misogynistic hadiths are where rejection springs from. Had Muhammad been presented as a Buddha or Jesus like guy, I wonder whether there would be this strong a need to reject his life stories, not that it matters for me too.
GOOD. Now we have something to work with. I will counter-interrogate this in my next post. Please go there.
For a sort of outsider, this is very confusing but interesting stuff
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 01:01:47 AM
I never aid that there aren't enough genuine reasons to reject hadiths, I wouldn't have beome a hadith rejector had I not found sufficient reasons. However, some Muslims of my acquaintance-online & offline who're turning Quranist do actually take this step more from the attempt to reject the obnoxious way Muhammad is portrayed in hadiths, rather than due to any genuine & extensive scholarship.
why does it matter what reasons they choose? The important question is, are there genuine reasons to reject hadiths? If there are, then we should. If other people have other personal subjective reasons to do the same, it's their personal business. It's not relevant
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:05:56 AM
Yeah, hadith rejection does come from the fact that they were written many years later, but I have noticed that may Quranists reject them simply ased on the objectionable stuff they contain. Muhammad's multiple marriages, child bride, marriages to his daughter in law, violence on other faiths & the numerous misogynistic hadiths are where rejection springs from. Had Muhammad been presented as a Buddha or Jesus like guy, I wonder whether there would be this strong a need to reject his life stories, not that it matters for me too.
I have found enough in the Quran to reject it as well.
Firstly, whatever you reject from Q uran is no concern of mine. I am now interested in your statements about rejection of hadith. I have for you a few questions:
1. Do you find the Quran supportive of rejection of hadith?
2. These ?objectionable? hadith, by what standards do Quranists reject them?
3. Why did YOU become a Quranist?
That?s all for now. Too many questions allow for digression. Lets keep it nice and tight.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 02:09:04 AM
Well, for one thing, this enabled him to get multiple wives & get these wives to obey him, through divinely mandated revelations: I am not even speaking of hadiths, simply Quran.
33:30 O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.
So we see even from the Quran that this person Muhammad is having multiple wives & they're supposedly getting threats from the Creator if they are lewd. Naturally, saying such stuff will make wives obedient & multiple wives & chaste wives is something Muhammad will get via claims of revelations.
33:31 And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision.
Again, via Allah Muhammad can get his wives to be submissive here, like he could get them to be chaste in the earlier verses.
Its like a carrot & stick policy, be lewd & God'll punish you & be submissive & He'll reward you. ;D
Wow, you were a Quranist for 10 months and this is what you came up with? I think we need to change ?Quranist of the Year? to ?
Comatose Quranist of the Year?.
First and foremost, 33/30 is talking about MANIFEST LEWDNESS. Lewdness is not disobedience. 33/30 is telling them, that if they are immoral, their punishment is doubled. It never says obey your husband. It never gives Muhammad the authority to punish them either. They are simply mothers to believers and so hold a higher moral standing.
33/31 is talking about ?Allah and his MESSENGER?. I dunno if this is a ?desperate attempt to salvage my faith? (by using Quran to explain Quran) or whatever but the MESSENGER only judges by the Quran (4?/65, 4/105) so when the woman obeys the messenger here, we?re not talking about Muhammad?s whims and fancies. You may object by saying ?well Muhammad authored Quran too? so I will counterpose the question to you ?then why doesn?t it tell these ladies ?don?t ever reject him for sex? or ?always obey whatever he asks?. The Quran NEVER serves Muhammad?s whims and fancies.
Your 10 month Quranist ?tour of duty? needs a little touch up story there, Fawzia.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 01:01:47 AM
I never aid that there aren't enough genuine reasons to reject hadiths, I wouldn't have beome a hadith rejector had I not found sufficient reasons. However, some Muslims of my acquaintance-online & offline who're turning Quranist do actually take this step more from the attempt to reject the obnoxious way Muhammad is portrayed in hadiths, rather than due to any genuine & extensive scholarship.
Please tell us:
1. What are
genuine reasons to reject hadith?
2. What is 'genuine and extensive scholarship'? An example would be good.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 03:51:14 AM
Wow, you were a Quranist for 10 months and this is what you came up with? I think we need to change ?Quranist of the Year? to ?Comatose Quranist of the Year?.
First and foremost, 33/30 is talking about MANIFEST LEWDNESS. Lewdness is not disobedience. 33/30 is telling them, that if they are immoral, their punishment is doubled. It never says obey your husband. It never gives Muhammad the authority to punish them either. They are simply mothers to believers and so hold a higher moral standing.
33/31 is talking about ?Allah and his MESSENGER?. I dunno if this is a ?desperate attempt to salvage my faith? (by using Quran to explain Quran) or whatever but the MESSENGER only judges by the Quran (4?/65, 4/105) so when the woman obeys the messenger here, we?re not talking about Muhammad?s whims and fancies. You may object by saying ?well Muhammad authored Quran too? so I will counterpose the question to you ?then why doesn?t it tell these ladies ?don?t ever reject him for sex? or ?always obey whatever he asks?. The Quran NEVER serves Muhammad?s whims and fancies.
Your 10 month Quranist ?tour of duty? needs a little touch up story there, Fawzia.
Muslims I know, in my daily life as well as online are usually as full of insults as ever, if not outright death threats, if someone should reject their "glorious book." ;D
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 10:55:09 AM
Muslims I know, in my daily life as well as online are usually as full of insults as ever, if not outright death threats, if someone should reject their "glorious book." ;D
Lol, no one gives a toss what you accept or reject but your reading of 33/30-31 is LAUGHABLE. As Jack says, you're clutching at straws and it shows. I await your rebuttal to my answer (if you got time to scrape one up despite your busy schedule).
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 10:55:09 AM
Muslims I know, in my daily life as well as online are usually as full of insults as ever, if not outright death threats, if someone should reject their "glorious book." ;D
I smell contradiction
Quote from: Fawzia on November 02, 2009, 12:48:45 AM
In addition, while my life has been quite free from discrimination(I don't have anyAyaan Hirsi Ali type sob stories) & my parents were fully accepting of my apostasy & most Muslims too haven't harassed me in anyway for leaving Islam-a very unpleasant incident had happened to an aunt of mine, which I felt was due to the Quran. That forced me to finally leave Islam altogether.
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 11:02:51 AM
I smell contradiction
No contradiction at all.
First I said,
In addition, while my life has been quite free from discrimination(I don't have anyAyaan Hirsi Ali type sob stories) & my parents were fully accepting of my apostasy
& most Muslims too haven't harassed me in anyway for leaving Islam-a very unpleasant incident had happened to an aunt of mine, which I felt was due to the Quran. That forced me to finally leave Islam altogether.
I said
most Muslims, not all Muslims. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call somone trying to insult me out of an internet forum as "harassment". I have received more than one death threat on the net as well.
Offline, I've received no death threats, although many tried to talk me into accepting Islam back, some tried to ridicule my intelligence, education etc into trying to make me accept Islam again.
But then, that too is hardly harassment-I believe everyone has the right to proselytize, even atheists & polytheistic idolators,& however much I dislike Islam, I woudn't deny them this right. And everyone, including Muslims have the right to be rude.
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 11:02:51 AM
I smell contradiction
Lets not forget the change in the attitude to Arabic. At first it was a totally racist attitude and now its a whiny 'but i dont have the time', lol.
You know how it is with these fakes once they're exposed, Sarah.
Fawzia you indicated a mostly pleasant experience yet now you state "in my daily life as well as online are usually as full of insults". Insults are not considered pleasant.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 11:09:40 AM
Lets not forget the change in the attitude to Arabic. At first it was a totally racist attitude and now its a whiny 'but i dont have the time', lol.
You know how it is with these fakes once they're exposed, Sarah.
too true.. Makes me wonder actually what brings a person with no interest in muslims and islam to a place like this?
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
too true.. Makes me wonder actually what brings a person with no interest in muslims and islam to a place like this?
To practise their 'cut and paste' scholarship. I'm waiting to see Fawzia's defense of her statement that abandoning hadith is a 'desperate attempt by Quranists to salvage their faith'. That's gonna be fun.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 11:09:40 AM
Lets not forget the change in the attitude to Arabic. At first it was a totally racist attitude and now its a whiny 'but i dont have the time', lol.
You know how it is with these fakes once they're exposed, Sarah.
Sure, anyone leaving Islam is either a fake or abused by violent cultural Muslims or brainwashed by the West. Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't racist although Muslims love to hold up that race card. Its getting to be an old trick now.
Disliking Islam isn't a crime either.
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
Fawzia you indicated a mostly pleasant experience yet now you state "in my daily life as well as online are usually as full of insults". Insults are not considered pleasant.
too true.. Makes me wonder actually what brings a person with no interest in muslims and islam to a place like this?
Where did I indicate some extraordinarily pleasant experience? I said I have lead a reasonably good & privileged life, have parents supportive of my apostasy & no genital mutilation, attempted honor killing type experience.
I do have interest in Islam & Muslims, only I am not going to learn Arabic. This forum has sub forums about Judaism, Xtianity, Hinduism, Buddhism & this site invites people of all these religions to learn about Quranist Islam.
Have all the members bothered to learn up Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Gurmukhi etc?
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 11:26:40 AM
Sure, anyone leaving Islam is either a fake or abused by violent cultural Muslims or brainwashed by the West. Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't racist although Muslims love to hold up that race card. Its getting to be an old trick now.
Disliking Islam isn't a crime either.
Islam isn't a race but Muslims don't subscribe to Islam totally either. Muslims are subscribers to a culture which has taken on various hues over time. There are hundreds of different hues of Pakistanis, for example but they are all part of the Pakistani 'race' (where race is a constructed group). However, you attacked ALL pakistanis in this thread, even attacked the non-Pakistani Samia. That makes YOU a racist.
Hey, don't forget my questions to you, ex-Quranists. I can't wait to see your answers.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 11:26:40 AM
Sure, anyone leaving Islam is either a fake or abused by violent cultural Muslims or brainwashed by the West. Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't racist although Muslims love to hold up that race card. Its getting to be an old trick now.
Disliking Islam isn't a crime either.
Where did I indicate some extraordinarily pleasant experience? I said I have lead a reasonably good & privileged life, have parents supportive of my apostasy & no genital mutilation, attempted honor killing type experience.
I do have interest in Islam & Muslims, only I am not going to learn Arabic. This forum has sub forums about Judaism, Xtianity, Hinduism, Buddhism & this site invites people of all these religions to learn about Quranist Islam.
Have all the members bothered to learn up Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Gurmukhi etc?
I have to agree that Muslim is not a race, nor is Christianity or even Judaism and, as a God-alone Christian, I have no intention to learn Arabic either, I have an English translation that serves me well, even though I understand that the translation may not be totally accurate. But I do not understand why you should lump all Muslims, or even worse, all Islam together as one. They are not. You can't do that with any religion.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 11:29:49 AM
Islam isn't a race but Muslims don't subscribe to Islam totally either. Muslims are subscribers to a culture which has taken on various hues over time. There are hundreds of different hues of Pakistanis, for example but they are all part of the Pakistani 'race' (where race is a constructed group). However, you attacked ALL pakistanis in this thread, even attacked the non-Pakistani Samia. That makes YOU a racist.
Hey, don't forget my questions to you, ex-Quranists. I can't wait to see your answers.
What did I attack Samia for? Her claim that cousin marriages don't happen in the UK, well it does happen amongst the Pakistani community frequently, & unfortunately "forced" marriages too happen. Surely I can attack anyone for their ignorance or deliberate attempts to mislead. ;D ;D
I can now claim that you folks insulted my Shia heritage numerouys times, but I realise that there was no such thing.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 11:42:53 AM
What did I attack Samia for? Her claim that cousin marriages don't happen in the UK, well it does happen amongst the Pakistani community frequently, & unfortunately "forced" marriages too happen. Surely I can attack anyone for their ignorance or deliberate attempts to mislead. ;D ;D
I can now claim that you folks insulted my Shia heritage numerouys times, but I realise that there was no such thing.
You attacked Pakistanis for something which a statistic claimed. A statistic by definition is based on a given sample but you extended it to ALL Pakistanis. Hence, you're a racist.
I never attacked shia, nor mentioned Iran nor even care if you're some alabaster skinned iranian. In terms of personality, you're clearly a smeegol and that's what I'm going to highlight.
Why do you keep avoiding my above questions? Are you afraid of getting exposed?
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 11:47:02 AM
You attacked Pakistanis for something which a statistic claimed. A statistic by definition is based on a given sample but you extended it to ALL Pakistanis. Hence, you're a racist.
I never attacked shia, nor mentioned Iran nor even care if you're some alabaster skinned iranian. In terms of personality, you're clearly a smeegol and that's what I'm going to highlight.
Why do you keep avoiding my above questions? Are you afraid of getting exposed?
Again, Pakistan isn't a race, and its a right to dislike anyone or anything, as long as one doesn't discriminate legally, socially, economically. I never used any word like ALL.
Why should I be afraid of being exposed? I admitted straightaway that I am an ex Muslim & that I don't like many stuff about Islam & the Quran.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 11:54:48 AM
Again, Pakistan isn't a race, and its a right to dislike anyone or anything, as long as one doesn't discriminate legally, socially, economically. I never used any word like ALL.
A 'pakistani' is a person with a single origin (insofar as 'origin' refers to a demarcated piece of land) and that is pakistan. When you say 'Pakistanis', you have made a sweeping generalising comment and hence you're a racist.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 11:54:48 AM
Why should I be afraid of being exposed? I admitted straightaway that I am an ex Muslim & that I don't like many stuff about Islam & the Quran.
Good, so answer the questions above. Refer to this thread reply 176. Here are the questions again:
1. Do you find the Quran supportive of rejection of hadith?
2. These ?objectionable? hadith, by what standards do Quranists reject them?
3. Why did YOU become a Quranist?
We'll see if the 10-month Quranist really was :P
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 02:42:16 AM
You claim that those who leave hadith are desperate to salvage their faith, did you not? Therefore as a person of integrity, I challenge you to show me how desperate I am? Because I don?t believe for a second you were EVER a Quranist. Reading your last paragraph below proves my point.
Ok, that?s reasoning. Other people are entitled to theirs.
Yeah, also don?t forget to tell us how racially deficient Muslims are, to kinda strengthen your point. That really helps keep us sweet.
No, you?re a racist. That?s miles above mere ?name-calling?.
LOL.
Don?t be ridiculous.
I called you out for one reason and one reason only: your ATTITUDE. You think Quranists are being apologetic by changing ?beat? to ?separate? and we?re desperate to salvage our faith. THAT?S why I replied to you. I don?t give a monkeys what you reject, that?s your business. But if you?re gonna tell us we?re playing around with the language, you better have something better than ?I spoke to arabs?. That?s the kind of reasoning which would severely cast you into disrepute.
Oh so you found Quranism appealing then? Tell me, why did you say junking hadith is a ?desparate attempt to salvage faith?. Were you one of the desperate then? What arguments did you employ in this desperation?
So now you have no TIME to learn it? I see. A few days ago it was just beneath you. Good change of tactic there.
So tell me, is it a decent thing to do to call Quranists ?apologists? when you don?t know and refuse to learn Arabic? Is that ?rude? you think to call us ?desperate to salvage our faith?? Don?t run from answering this, ok.
Oh so now you have Quranist FAMILY members? Wow?.
And what has your Quranist cousin have to do with me? I never said crap about ?essence of all previous religions?. I don?t use any ?previous? in my engagement with the Quran.
During these 10 months when you became a Quranist, were you comatose? If so, everything would make sense.
What does ease of understanding have to do with correctness of translation? A concept may be easy but there could be a ton of diversionary material covering it. Funny how an ex-QURANIST doesn?t understand this.
Irrrelevant.
Repeat: Do not give a monkeys what you are.
Only care that you defend your remarks about Quranists and your views.
Or a self-hating racist who needs to find a fresh, dissociated identity. Kinda like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs in a manner of speaking.
GOOD. Now we have something to work with. I will counter-interrogate this in my next post. Please go there.
I am no racist again, as Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't a crime. Speaking against Islam isn't a crime. Speaking about any Muslim nation isn't a crime either.
As long as I don't make any call for any harassment or deportation, I do have my fredom of speech.
I have seen many(again not ALL) speak against Israel(& India, USA, Britain,even Singapore & Philippines), that doesn't automatically mean they're anti Semites who'd kill Jews given the chance. While I disagree, I don't jump on their throats with the "race" card.
I never claimed that all Muslims who turn Quranists do so to salvage their faith, but I do know plenty like that.
You started off by being rude, why should I reply politely?
It was you who questioned my intelligence & reasoning abilities.
Don't expect politeness when you start off with rudeness.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 04, 2009, 12:01:35 PM
A 'pakistani' is a person with a single origin (insofar as 'origin' refers to a demarcated piece of land) and that is pakistan. When you say 'Pakistanis', you have made a sweeping generalising comment and hence you're a racist.
A demarcated piece of land again isn't analogous to a race, in any case, one can begin a negative statement with Pakistanis, Shias, Sunis, Wahhabis etc.
A statement like "Wahhabis treat women poorly" isn't any reason to call another an evil person.
As far as Pakistani cousin marriaes are concerned, that was the results of numerous surveys. ;D
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:04:21 PM
I am no racist again, as Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't a crime. Speaking against Islam isn't a crime. Speaking about any Muslim nation isn't a crime either.
As long as I don't make any call for any harassment or deportation, I do have my fredom of speech.
Once again, you made sweeping statements about people of a certain origin or culture. THAT makes you racist.
Criticising Islam doesnt make u a racist. Get that straight, ok.
No one here wants to take away your right to speak. In fact, it's good that you have that right so the world can see what a racist you are.
QuoteI never claimed that all Muslims who turn Quranists do so to salvage their faith, but I do know plenty like that.
When you don't use the qualifier 'some' or whatever, thats EXACTLY what you did. Now are we ready for a change of statement.
Question : do you or do you not believe the Quran supports Quran alone doctrine? Yes or no.
QuoteYou started off by being rude, why should I reply politely?
Who's asking you to be polite? Be rude to me all you want. You being nice doesn't send me to ruptures of divine love, don't worry.
QuoteIt was you who questioned my intelligence & reasoning abilities.
What intelligence and reasoning abilities? Intelligence implies actually reading and understanding what one is writing. When one simply rejects the study of the LANGUAGE of the text because it's not worth her time, that would make argumentation impossible.
Look at the question about jinn. You couldn't even produce an analysis of the Quran which YOU quoted. At first you even tried to pass off someone else's article as proof of what Quran says? This is 'reasoning ability' only in the widest possible definition of the term.
So my questions await you. No need to be polite, call me anything you like but don't run away.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:07:40 PM
A demarcated piece of land again isn't analogous to a race, in any case, one can begin a negative statement with Pakistanis, Shias, Sunis, Wahhabis etc.
A statement like "Wahhabis treat women poorly" isn't any reason to call another an evil person.
As far as Pakistani cousin marriaes are concerned, that was the results of numerous surveys. ;D
A 'race' is a construct. You need to do some reading. Do you know at one point, even the Irish weren't considered 'white'? Then they were included into it for political reasons (to overcome ethnic minorities in America, apparently). In the same way, 'Pakistani' wasn't a race before Pakistan was formed but now it is and you made a sweeping statement about ALL of them. That makes u a 'racist'.
Don't be deluded into thinking race is biological, ok. Find out the origins of Boris Johnson and you'll see how ephemeral the whole notion is.
Peace,
Just because someone made a racist remark, doesn't mean that he (in this case, she) is bound to be a "racist" for life. God knows what will happen through the rest of your life, or my life, or her life.
Hence let's avoid the labeling of a person. God knows better.
And let's avoid expressing your judgment over other person. God is the Best Judge.
Let's not say "you're a racist" or "you're a k-f-r" or you're a "sh-r-k" (fortunately the last two has not been said on this thread)
Instead, if you found the one is not willing to cooperate with you on the discussion,
JUST LEAVE.
There is clear distinction between "debate" and "discussion". The first being inter-ego fighting and the latter, inter-goodwill cooperation. And the signs of goodwill (or lack thereof) can easily be found in one's actions or words.
If you found such debate "ridiculous", please read on.
31:6 And of the people is he who buys the amusement of speech to mislead from the way of Allah without knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.
There are options:
Leave the 'ridiculous' side until another topic is made...
4:140 And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah, they are denied and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together -
6:68 have similar theme. (ed)
... or stay, ridicule the one who ridicules.
11:38 And he constructed the ship, and whenever an assembly of the eminent of his people passed by him, they ridiculed him. He said, "If you ridicule us, then we will ridicule you just as you ridicule.
However verse 4:140 should already warn you what could happen if you stay--and this warning could also happen to any side:
23:110 But you took them in mockery to the point that they made you forget My remembrance, and you used to laugh at them.
So, Peace. And i suggest those who are willing to give her a chance to make a condition. For example,
if she did not answer or respond in the best way possible (and that is up to you to assess) in the next n posts,
then let her be left in this thread until she change topic (or better, attitude).
notes: Translations are from Sahih international--cleaned from parentheses and everything inside them.
Removed translation for 6:68, as i am not yet sure about a certain word in the translations.
As always, 17:36.
clarification--
abdalquran, my post above might seem to be directed to only you--but it is not. It's for everyone, actually.
As for you, abdalquran, I know how to be in your position. As Coldplay says, "A rush of blood to the head". And it is not singular, it is plural rushes, as accumulating through the thread. Or maybe you have such a saintly control over your blood circulation, i don't know... but you get my idea.
By the way, i'm also worried with your ID--as far as God has given me knowledge, the Quran is not God. In fact, i often think of the Quran as one of His messengers (ed), just like the previous Scriptures. Do you have any reason for that name?
San,
Quote from: san on November 04, 2009, 06:17:40 PM
Peace,
Hence let's avoid the labeling of a person. God knows better.
And let's avoid expressing your judgment over other person. God is the Best Judge.
Nice one.
I didn?t say ?extraordinarily pleasant experience? remember you said:
Quote?my parents were fully accepting of my apostasy & most Muslims too haven't harassed me in anyway for leaving Islam?
You still feel like a contradiction you said
Quote?I do have interest in islam & muslims?
Yet in the other thread
Quote
?I admit that I do have my biases, like anyone else.To say I am not too fond of Islam is an understatement.?
#92 http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599394.90
Talking about that thread.. would be good if you weren?t evasive and only responded to cousin marriages, even then you're still selective.
So anyway back to your questions and comments. Yeah it does invite people to learn about islam Quranicly though remember it is a forum and it?s filled with people?s opinions.
Why would all members need to learn up Hebrew, Aramaic Sanskrit etc? If peoples interests is Quranic the focus would be Quran and possibly learning Arabic or understanding it. Some people with interest in other religions or grew up with backgrounds learning other language may know them, but not me.
anyway your beliefs are your choice, as are mine. I hope you gain whatever it is you wish to learn from this forum
Peace.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:04:21 PM
I never claimed that all Muslims who turn Quranists do so to salvage their faith, but I do know plenty like that.
What does that prove? Rather than attacking individuals who happen to be Muslim/ Quranist for the wrong reasons, why don't you tell us of your arguments against the 'system'
There are atheists who are good and moral people, who do good things and avoid hurting other people because that is what they feel is right. There are other people who are atheists and they cause harm to others since they fear no retribution. I don't see how either type of person represents atheism. Atheism is only a system/ lack of religion, and it should be examined based on its principles, and not on the actual actions of those who claim to be atheist.
Why should the same argument hold for those who claim to be Muslim/ Quranist? Instead of pointing to people who are 'wrong' why don't you point to the flaws of this system?
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 10:26:09 PM
Why would all members need to learn up Hebrew, Aramaic Sanskrit etc? If peoples interests is Quranic the focus would be Quran and possibly learning Arabic or understanding it. Some people with interest in other religions or grew up with backgrounds learning other language may know them, but not me.
LOL Sarah, I was laughing my head off when I read this too. Another thing which made me laugh was this:
Quoteam no racist again, as Islam isn't a race, disliking Islam isn't a crime. Speaking against Islam isn't a crime. Speaking about any Muslim nation isn't a crime either.
I can almost smell the vehement desperation to somehow to derogate Islam. It's like a little child stomping her feet. As I said, these people come here to use this place as a verbal toilet and when they can't do their number twos (i.e. when ppl actually talk back), things get ugly.
Quote from: abdalquran on November 05, 2009, 02:29:16 AM
I can almost smell the vehement desperation to somehow to derogate Islam. It's like a little child stomping her feet. As I said, these people come here to use this place as a verbal toilet and when they can't do their number twos (i.e. when ppl actually talk back), things get ugly.
Peace,
God willing--one last suggestion to
those would rather offend Fawzia in any way than to leave her alone (so she could change her attitude first).
Fawzia and God knows how many other people keep coming back to a thread discussing religions. Do you know why? God knows best.
They might have decided on something before reaching a whole understanding. Be they satisfied or not with their decision--they might still be unconsciously seeking for guidance, while at the same time they could be fulfilling their egos, thanks to the people who help keep the fire in them burning.
How? Everytime we offend those people, their egos are fulfilled. Their proofs and reasons--to hate or reject God's given way--accumulate. Remember, they don't necessarily be logical--they have emotions too.
God knows best how our words or actions could hurt the feelings of others, despite of our original intention.
Please observe
6:108 And do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their RETURN, and He will inform them about what they used to do.yes, in the case of atheists, they may have no god which we could scoff at, but that is on the outside--we have no idea of what actually their god is (or what their gods are) in their heart.
Now please for a moment see the verse this way: It is His message to His believers, and it is God's attention to the disbelievers' side.
Shocking, no? Remember, any insult will not reach God's majesty and glory, so why would God express, "lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge"? And what use would that be for the believers' side? (well there is one i could think, but please read on)
What if God meant it as His mercy for the (at present) disbelievers (polytheists and atheists alike), "not to insult God in enmity without knowledge"? God knows how sorry and wretched one would feel, if he or she would later RETURN to Him. And if he or she stay in disbelieve--do you know how hard that is, losing trust on God, losing hope on the Best of Hopes, losing direction, losing the ever-sustaining feeling of Mercy? Those who have been in Fawzia's position, for even just a moment long, would understand this by heart. It is an emptiness you don't want to be in, ever again.
As for the believers' side, of course they will be enraged if God is insulted before them--but is that a good thing for them? Or would God prefer peace and relieve in their heart? That is God's mercy for the believers.
---
Now, do you think God has no mercy on Fawzia? Do you think God has abandoned her?
If you don't think it appropriate to give "nice words" to her, then refrain from giving "words that *might* hurt her" beyond her faults (and God bless you if you did just that). And do you know, exactly, what are the words that might not hurt her beyond her faults? Or God knows better than you?
If you think God knows better than you, then please follow His message. Leave her alone, until communication on her side is changed (topic and or attitude).
Do yourself--and her--a favour by following God's suggestion. Or are you trying to stand between God and her?
And to Fawzia, please do yourself a favour by the best you can think of. This is a matter of eternity (or at least, the rest of your life), as you might've been well aware of. Take time.
Peace,
Peace San,
Do you think it is wise to be nice or 'leave alone' someone who mocks or ridicules your beliefs? Somehow that doesn?t seem wise. True some things can be said differently but in no way can a person change another?s attitude or perspective that comes within them not based on others. I could be the nicest/evilest person in the world and still be mistreated or have biased attitudes/perspective placed upon me.
People should defend truth and what is haqq not let people run all over it. Just because one hopes for better it doesn?t mean we need to give them a cushion and ensure they?re all comfy. Life isn?t about cushioning on hope.
I feel you?re directing yourself to abdalquran, as far as i can see he was just responding back to her in the same tone Fawzia started.
Peace Sarah,
To be nice? No--that is not necessary. Just leave him/her. 'Leave alone' someone who mocks or ridicules your beliefs? Yes, there are reasons for that, based on Quran, which i was trying to present in my last few posts (i know i don't have the best explanation).
No way can a person change another's attitude or perspective? Agreed. No way. God changes the person. That's why we better follow God's suggestion.
You could the nicest/evilest person in the world and still be mistreated or have biased attitudes/perspective placed upon you? We have similarity here. Everyone has the chance to be in your position as well. So--neglecting others who are mistreating you--what would you rather be for God? Nicest or Evilest?
Thus, if you intend to defend truth and what is haqq, please follow God's message. Leave them who ridicules the beliefs. That's not equal to being nice to them. Do you think people reading this thread cannot decide for themselves, what is true, haqq, and what is wrong?
Can people run all over the truth? No, their words have no effect whatsoever on the truth. They only reveal their own state.
In this case of sibling marriage, i am actually very interested myself. However should i discuss it with Fawzia, in the current state she's in? No.
Do 'we need to give them a cushion'? No, indeed. And don't you think that her "cushion" and "comfy" might be our replies to her, at all?
Regarding tone, it does indeed matter. It is between fulfilling her flames and emptying her flames. I don't know how soon will her "flames" be emptied, but for sure it will not be too soon if we keep on feeding her back--she'd have enough wood or gas for a couple days and maybe weeks...
Peace, Sarah ;) <-- not an apologetic smile ...
... but this one is --> ;)
Quote from: Fawzia on November 04, 2009, 12:13:11 AM
Yeah sure, any Muslim who rejects the Quran is either lying & was never Muslim in the first place, or the rejection was based on Islamist movements in their country or(if its a woman) evil patriarchal practices in their so called Muslim family which has nothing to do with the Quran! :yeah:
Did I say that "any Muslim who rejects the Quran is either lying & was never Muslim in the first place, or the rejection was based on Islamist movements in their country..."
I'm not putting words in your mouth so please don't put words in mine. My personal belief is that the whole purpose of the
not so Islamic
not really revolution in Iran was to turn Iranians into athiests, and has succeded in doing so. I for one could care less what you or anyone believes, I'm happy with my beliefs. And You're coming off exactly like the closed-minded "Muslims" you despise. You some kind of Wahabi Athiest or something?
PS, The Persian empire was no different than other empires, it oppressed,stole land,and forced it's way on others, just like any other empire. But you can romanticize it if it makes you happy ;)
Quote from: Tareq on November 05, 2009, 10:19:01 AM
Did I say that "any Muslim who rejects the Quran is either lying & was never Muslim in the first place, or the rejection was based on Islamist movements in their country..."
I'm not putting words in your mouth so please don't put words in mine. My personal belief is that the whole purpose of the not so Islamic not really revolution in Iran was to turn Iranians into athiests, and has succeded in doing so. I for one could care less what you or anyone believes, I'm happy with my beliefs. And You're coming off exactly like the closed-minded "Muslims" you despise. You some kind of Wahabi Athiest or something?
PS, The Persian empire was no different than other empires, it oppressed,stole land,and forced it's way on others, just like any other empire. But you can romanticize it if it makes you happy ;)
I rejected Islam based on the Quran itself, not only hadiths nor on the basis of what happens in Iran.
Sure the Persian empire was like any other empire-exactly like the Islamic empire. I don't romanticize it, however I have seen plenty of Muslims(not all) romanticize bloody Islamic conquests, stealings of lands, carrying of kaffir women etc.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 05, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
I rejected Islam based on the Quran itself, not only hadiths nor on the basis of what happens in Iran.
Never accused you of such. All I'm saying is that it's the knee-jerk reaction alot of people will have. All recent "revolutions" are social engineering.
Quote from: Fawzia on November 05, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
Sure the Persian empire was like any other empire-exactly like the Islamic empire. I don't romanticize it, however I have seen plenty of Muslims(not all) romanticize bloody Islamic conquests, stealings of lands, carrying of kaffir women etc.
I agree. And that's exactly my point, the good ol human tradition of "everybody's shit stinks but mine".
Quote from: san on November 05, 2009, 02:50:08 AM
Peace,
God willing--one last suggestion to those would rather offend Fawzia in any way than to leave her alone (so she could change her attitude first).
Fawzia and God knows how many other people keep coming back to a thread discussing religions. Do you know why? God knows best.
They might have decided on something before reaching a whole understanding. Be they satisfied or not with their decision--they might still be unconsciously seeking for guidance, while at the same time they could be fulfilling their egos, thanks to the people who help keep the fire in them burning.
How? Everytime we offend those people, their egos are fulfilled. Their proofs and reasons--to hate or reject God's given way--accumulate. Remember, they don't necessarily be logical--they have emotions too.
God knows best how our words or actions could hurt the feelings of others, despite of our original intention.
Please observe
6:108 And do not insult those they invoke other than God, lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge. Thus We have made pleasing to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their RETURN, and He will inform them about what they used to do.
yes, in the case of atheists, they may have no god which we could scoff at, but that is on the outside--we have no idea of what actually their god is (or what their gods are) in their heart.
Now please for a moment see the verse this way: It is His message to His believers, and it is God's attention to the disbelievers' side.
Shocking, no? Remember, any insult will not reach God's majesty and glory, so why would God express, "lest they insult God in enmity without knowledge"? And what use would that be for the believers' side? (well there is one i could think, but please read on)
What if God meant it as His mercy for the (at present) disbelievers (polytheists and atheists alike), "not to insult God in enmity without knowledge"? God knows how sorry and wretched one would feel, if he or she would later RETURN to Him. And if he or she stay in disbelieve--do you know how hard that is, losing trust on God, losing hope on the Best of Hopes, losing direction, losing the ever-sustaining feeling of Mercy? Those who have been in Fawzia's position, for even just a moment long, would understand this by heart. It is an emptiness you don't want to be in, ever again.
As for the believers' side, of course they will be enraged if God is insulted before them--but is that a good thing for them? Or would God prefer peace and relieve in their heart? That is God's mercy for the believers.
---
Now, do you think God has no mercy on Fawzia? Do you think God has abandoned her?
If you don't think it appropriate to give "nice words" to her, then refrain from giving "words that *might* hurt her" beyond her faults (and God bless you if you did just that). And do you know, exactly, what are the words that might not hurt her beyond her faults? Or God knows better than you?
If you think God knows better than you, then please follow His message. Leave her alone, until communication on her side is changed (topic and or attitude).
Do yourself--and her--a favour by following God's suggestion. Or are you trying to stand between God and her?
And to Fawzia, please do yourself a favour by the best you can think of. This is a matter of eternity (or at least, the rest of your life), as you might've been well aware of. Take time.
Peace,
:bravo:
Quote from: Fawzia on November 05, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
I rejected Islam based on the Quran itself, not only hadiths nor on the basis of what happens in Iran.
Sure the Persian empire was like any other empire-exactly like the Islamic empire. I don't romanticize it, however I have seen plenty of Muslims(not all) romanticize bloody Islamic conquests, stealings of lands, carrying of kaffir women etc.
Fawzia, I'll ask you once more the same question.
what are your objections to the Quran itself, and give reasons that are not based on the actions of individuals but on what the QURAN ACTUALLY SAYS.
Your seeing muslims romanticise 'bloody Islamic conquests, stealings of lands, carrying of kaffir women' does not apply to us, nor do we have any reason to feel responsible or apologetic for that, since WE DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH THEM.
Fawzia, I have to ask, are you here to discuss problems with the Quran, or are you here to bash muslims as a group based on the actions of some so-called 'muslim' individuals? It seems to me that all you have done is muslim-bashing and south asian- bashing
Quote from: Sarah on November 05, 2009, 03:11:05 AM
Do you think it is wise to be nice or 'leave alone' someone who mocks or ridicules your beliefs? Somehow that doesn?t seem wise.
People should defend truth and what is haqq not let people run all over it. Just because one hopes for better it doesn?t mean we need to give them a cushion and ensure they?re all comfy. Life isn?t about cushioning on hope.
I feel you?re directing yourself to abdalquran, as far as i can see he was just responding back to her in the same tone Fawzia started.
Peace
I don't think it's wise to leave alone someone who is being mocking, but it can be done without being mocking or sarcastic. If there is one thing I have noticed, it's that being mocking or sarcastic has a tendency of masking good arguments, since one focuses on the sarcastic tone, and not on the arguments.
Defence of truth is by providing good arguments for one's own side, rebuttals to points against one's own side, breaking down arguments from the other side, and doing so via logical arguments. There is no need to be rude. There is no need to stoop to their level. Truth stands free from error, and it rests on reason, not on rantings and rudeness.
AbdulQuran has been rude, Sarah. If you just look at the tone of his posts, and compare them to mine, yours, or that of anyone else on this thread, I think it is fairly obvious that he deserves to be called out for it. Why should he have to respond back in the same rude tone Fawzia started? If you look at the earlier parts of this thread, you can see that he has been extremely rude to me, making wild accusations that 'my friend of a friend is a donkey' and that the Quran my dad's friend bought is 'mythical' and so on. I haven't been rude to him in return, despite the fact that he has not been civil. Why should he respond back in the same tone Fawzia has used? It's only because he chooses to be rude.
Peace,
Sarah
Quote from: Sarah on November 04, 2009, 10:26:09 PM
Talking about that thread.. would be good if you weren?t evasive and only responded to cousin marriages, even then you're still selective.
So anyway back to your questions and comments. Yeah it does invite people to learn about islam Quranicly though remember it is a forum and it?s filled with people?s opinions.
Why would all members need to learn up Hebrew, Aramaic Sanskrit etc? If peoples interests is Quranic the focus would be Quran and possibly learning Arabic or understanding it. Some people with interest in other religions or grew up with backgrounds learning other language may know them, but not me.
anyway your beliefs are your choice, as are mine. I hope you gain whatever it is you wish to learn from this forum
Peace.
:bravo:
exactly, Fawzia, instead of bashing the people who do strange, evil and criminal things, ( be it female genital mutilation, witch burning, murder of 'apostates' etc) why don't you focus on the Quran for once? This is a forum, just like Sarah said, for the serious study of the Quran, ok, not for supporting each and every evil committed by every 'so-called' Muslim, so please stop spamming this forum with descriptions of stupid things done by some so called muslims who don't even follow the Quran, ok?
:giveup:
Sarah
Quote from: from sarah_bd_geminAbdulQuran has been rude, Sarah. If you just look at the tone of his posts, and compare them to mine, yours, or that of anyone else on this thread, I think it is fairly obvious that he deserves to be called out for it. Why should he have to respond back in the same rude tone Fawzia started? If you look at the earlier parts of this thread, you can see that he has been extremely rude to me, making wild accusations that 'my friend of a friend is a donkey' and that the Quran my dad's friend bought is 'mythical' and so on. I haven't been rude to him in return, despite the fact that he has not been civil. Why should he respond back in the same tone Fawzia has used? It's only because he chooses to be rude.
Try reading your own posts. Certainly, from my perspective he comes off as the bigger man here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230059#msg230059
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230057#msg230057
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Abdalquran, which is heavily clouding your judgment.. I suggest reading 21:58-63. Abraham, the leader of mankind is being a bit 'rude', don't you think? There's also 4:148 and 60:4...We have to stand up to the truth and can't be nice for the sake of being nice. Someone comes into my house with guns blazing, I am not gonna sit here and start screaming 'peace!'. That won't solve the problem.
Quote from: Jack on November 05, 2009, 07:44:54 PM
Try reading your own posts. Certainly, from my perspective he comes off as the bigger man here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230059#msg230059
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230057#msg230057
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Abdalquran, which is heavily clouding your judgment.. I suggest reading 21:58-63. Abraham, the leader of mankind is being a bit 'rude', don't you think? There's also 4:148 and 60:4...We have to stand up to the truth and can't be nice for the sake of being nice. Someone comes into my house with guns blazing, I am not gonna sit there and start screaming 'peace!'. That won't solve the problem.
Wow Jack, that is quite fair, those are just two, where, I'll admit, I did take a jibe at him, but it was pretty mild, and well deserved. What about the other posts preceding that? or the ones on the other thread about the preservation of the Quran to the last letter? If you don't think his tone was off putting, or that he didn't say things like ' my friend of a friend is a donkey,' then you are not being judging fairly. I didn't even start by being rude to him, I was fairly patient. I am also not the only person on this thread to call out on him for being overtly rude.
Besides, when have I not stood up for what I believe in the truth? I have argued against every silly accusation Fawzia has made when I had time to.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg229908#msg229908
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg229913#msg229913
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230008#msg230008
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230038#msg230038
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230043#msg230043
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 05, 2009, 08:17:38 PM
Wow Jack, that is quite fair, those are just two, where, I'll admit, I did take a jibe at him, but it was pretty mild, and well deserved. What about the other posts preceding that? or the ones on the other thread about the preservation of the Quran to the last letter? If you don't think his tone was off putting, or that he didn't say things like ' my friend of a friend is a donkey,' then you are not being judging fairly. I didn't even start by being rude to him, I was fairly patient. I am also not the only person on this thread to call out on him for being overtly rude.
Besides, when have I not stood up for what I believe in the truth? I have argued against every silly accusation Fawzia has made when I had time to.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg229908#msg229908
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg229913#msg229913
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230008#msg230008
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230038#msg230038
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230043#msg230043
Quotebut it was pretty mild, and well deserved.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Sister, that's from your view. You take what he says too personally. Don't. He means no harshness by it. I'm just an outsider, not trying to take sides or anything. He's just using sarcasm to make a point. Don't take it so personally.
QuoteIf you don't think his tone was off putting, or that he didn't say things like ' my friend of a friend is a donkey,' then you are not being judging fairly. I didn't even start by being rude to him, I was fairly patient.
Well, I am not judging anyone. :) If I was ever unfair, I couldn't live with myself.
You are confusing sarcasm with rudeness. Don't take it personally sis. If he meant to be mean/rude/whatever, why would he agree to disagree?? That makes no sense. A lot of arguments, in my experience, arise from confusion and misunderstanding the other's intentions, etc.
QuoteBesides, when have I not stood up for what I believe in the truth? I have argued against every silly accusation Fawzia has made when I had time to.
You have, and a good job at that. But, that's your methodology, others have a different approach. But you see she's clearly here with an agenda, and her views need to be called out as they are. Sarcasm is a good tool for this. Much like how Abraham showed the absurdity of his father's view, using sarcasm.
Quote from: Jack on November 05, 2009, 09:26:27 PM
You take what he says too personally. Don't. He means no harshness by it.
You are confusing sarcasm with rudeness. Don't take it personally sis. If he meant to be mean/rude/whatever, why would he agree to disagree??
Peace Jack
you don't know that 'he means no harshness by it.' Let me remind you that he started with all that rudeness/sarcastic comments out of the blue. It was uncalled for.
He might be just getting a kick out of being rude and sarcastic since everyone can hide behind the anonymity of the net, for all I know. Does that mean that it is possible that he might not have intended to be harsh? Well yes, but maybe not.
I don't think I am confusing sarcasm with rudeness, I think I would know the difference between sarcastic comments and rude comments directed at myself in which he says that I'll 'jump up and down.' Besides, tone of 'voice' doesn't carry over in text in an online forum, so it's usually better to avoid sarcasm when it can be so easily misunderstood. Most people know that.
I don't know why he agreed to disagree. Maybe because he realised that he didn't have concrete evidence, and because I didn't respond to him in the same rude tone he used on me?
I have no doubt that you are not taking sides, I have not accused you of that. But when you are on the receiving end of off-putting remarks and rude comments where someone says that I would play 'Indiana Jones with "that"' it can be hard to have a proper, civilised discussion, which is the very purpose of this forum. By that, I mean that it's hard for me to not take it personally.
I can understand that a lot of people are very irked by the comments Fawzia made on this thread. I know I am. They have no basis in logical reasoning. And that proves that she has an agenda. But I don't, I am here to learn, and to ask legitimate questions, and I don't see how sarcasm is a good 'tool' against me. Not that I am suggesting that you have said so, but regardless of whether AbdulQuran's comments are rude or sarcastic, that is not the tone I would expect or feel like I should even tolerate.
:peace:
Sarah
Quote from: Jack on November 05, 2009, 07:44:54 PM
Certainly, from my perspective he comes off as the bigger man here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230059#msg230059
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230057#msg230057
You seem to have a personal vendetta against Abdalquran, which is heavily clouding your judgment..
Well, he clearly is the 'bigger man' over here, considering that I am not a man :laugh:
I don't think you can fairly say that I have a 'personal vendetta' against him. I don't. I'd be just as annoyed with someone else who treated me similarly.
I know you aren't taking sides, I just wanted to mention that it was this statement that made me think you were. That's all.
Peace
Sarah
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 05, 2009, 01:12:45 PM
Fawzia, I'll ask you once more the same question.
what are your objections to the Quran itself, and give reasons that are not based on the actions of individuals but on what the QURAN ACTUALLY SAYS.
Your seeing muslims romanticise 'bloody Islamic conquests, stealings of lands, carrying of kaffir women' does not apply to us, nor do we have any reason to feel responsible or apologetic for that, since WE DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH THEM.
Fawzia, I have to ask, are you here to discuss problems with the Quran, or are you here to bash muslims as a group based on the actions of some so-called 'muslim' individuals? It seems to me that all you have done is muslim-bashing and south asian- bashing
Hi Sarah,
I have made a thread on what the Quran actually says, here it is:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599413.msg230541#new
This thread has been read around 40 times, unfortunately I get no answers. I had requested both Wakas & anyone else to answer.
Please answer if you feel like it, or at least read it.
This isn't about South Asian Muslims, Middle Eastern Muslims or North African Muslims, Sub Saharan African Muslims only-it concerns the entire Muslim ummah & will become even more important in the coming decades, & its an issue which is very pertinent.
As far as I know, only extremely few Muslim nations, the Turkish Constitution, which isn't based on the Quran at all, gives women -like female children & widows, the same inheritance rights that it gives men in a similar position, yet the real world is rapidly changing.Somalia did give women equal inheritance rights, yet the Islamist movements there have again been a setback.
With family sizes shrinking rapidly all over the world including in many Muslim nations which have around 2 children or less currently, & with more women than men going in for higher education even in nations like Iran & Saudi-many daughters are now the only ones to care for aged parents & many wives are either out earning their husbands or will outearn husbands in future generations, yet the Quran stifles change here.
Quote from: sarah_bd_gemini on November 05, 2009, 01:23:28 PM
AbdulQuran has been rude, Sarah. If you just look at the tone of his posts, and compare them to mine, yours, or that of anyone else on this thread, I think it is fairly obvious that he deserves to be called out for it. Why should he have to respond back in the same rude tone Fawzia started? If you look at the earlier parts of this thread, you can see that he has been extremely rude to me, making wild accusations that 'my friend of a friend is a donkey' and that the Quran my dad's friend bought is 'mythical' and so on. I haven't been rude to him in return, despite the fact that he has not been civil. Why should he respond back in the same tone Fawzia has used? It's only because he chooses to be rude.
Gemini, why don't you face it, you're the kind of person who sets different standards of behaviour: one for herself and one for others (namely, me). As Jack has pointed out (thanks Jack), you weren't exactly conciliatory to me (I simply call your behavour RUDE, not that I care what you say) in the other thread where you said
well, definitely more than you in reply #153 of this (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230059#msg230059) thread.
But for you, its ok. Just look at what you wrote here (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg230587#msg230587) :
I did take a jibe at him, but it was pretty mild, and well deservedWow, in your case, its MILD? And well-DESERVED? So Fawzia, the virulent racist who doesn't have time to answer questions but starts multiple-threads deserves your utmost politeness but when when it comes to your jibe at me, it's 'well-deserved'. You're a hypocrite and a half, you know that. Why didn't you practise your Gandhi-like stoicness in my case? Because I was ripping your 'variant reading' crap, perhaps? It must burn you a lot that you can't produce a single defect among the so-called 'Hafs' but you need to go with the pathetic 'if its in print, its a variant' rubbish.
By the way, Quran sanctions not-nice language (su' min al-qawl - see 4/148) when an injustice has been done (illa man dhulima). I don't have to be nice to some halfwit who came here to defecate on us and whenever we point out what QURAN says, 'she' fends it off with a pathetic 'i'll stick to reviewed (sic) traditional translations'. So have a look at 4/148, I dunno maybe your current 'variant' or whatever the heck you call it says something else, God knows.
As for saying 'your friend of a friend is donkey', I think you have some serious reading comprehension issues. Here's what I said (http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599400.msg229913#msg229913). I was talking about MY friend's donkey, not yours. I wasn't even calling my friend a donkey, let alone yours. So kindly stop your LIES. It's RUDE.
And about 'mythical', I don't know if you're familiar with philosophy at all, but in philosophy (specficially a branch called 'phenomenology') something which exists in a consciousness or a shared consciousness (what a discourse like ours creates) is called a 'myth'. It's myth because I've never seen it. I never met your dad's friend, your dad or even you (thank heaven for small favours eh) so you are all MYTHS to me.
Do try to read properly in the future, it really helps when you don't twist what other people say.
Simmer down Abdal... :muscle:
Fawzia, Asr be kheyr! Shoma chestur hastin?
I want to welcome you to this place of rejects. This is a plaza of heretics, some might assert, and I am proud to say that I belong here. There is nothing in Islam, true Quranic Islam, that states that wrestling with our faith will never occur. For certain, I do not hold the Hadiths and the Sunnah to be as elevated as al Quran by virtue that al Quran was recited by Allah to our Prophet Muhammed's, pbuh, blessed ears. I have serious misgivings about Sharia Law on this basis. The Law of Allah was expounded to the Prophet Moses. When the Prophet Isa, pbuh, came to us, he said that he did not come to change one letter of the Law of Allah, and the injeel is congruent this statement. And so, why should we believe that Sharia Law reflects the true will of Allah? Because learned philosophers and clerics said that Sharia Law is righteous?? We must obey and submit to Allah, not men/women who would set themselves up as Allah.
I pray for your spiritual journey. May Allah will reveal the straight path and guide you upon it like a merciful father. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon you!
Shab be kheyr. Ba?adan mibinamet.
Dariush