News:

About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - you gunna eat that

#11
General Issues / Questions / Re: Quran only mistakes
October 16, 2010, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: Maseehullaah on October 16, 2010, 07:03:42 PM
What I'm saying is that Allaah preserved His Word through the effort of men. Did Allaah drop the Quraan with all its Surahs and Ayats arranged in the right order? did it come down from the clouds as a book between two covers?

Or was it revealed upon the tongue of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? Was it not compiled during the caliphate of 'Uthmaan رضى الله عنه, some two or three decades after the passing away of the Prophet?

So the exact same objection you raise against the Hadeeth can also be made about the Quraan. There is a saying, "Don't throw stones at someone's house if your own house is made of glass"

The earliest complete manuscripts we have of the Quraan are in fact found to be compiled at least a century after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away:

John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." [Gilchrist, "Jam' Al-Qur'an", p. 153]

Even the first hadith compilation we have, the Saheefah of Hammaam ibn Munnabih is dated to earlier than that, the mid-first century of the Islaamic calendar. It contains 138 narrations or Hadiths, 98 of which can be found in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim!

Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts

This looks like a personal copy and it's older than what the historians you have cited have said.  It could even be contemporary to the Prophet's time.  

Of the conclusion that we are throwing stones from a glass house, the Hadith are running about 250-300 years after the prophet's death in terms of actual written actualization.  That is far more than any estimate for the dating of the Quran and the written actualization I have offered, which clearly gives a solid edge in authenticity to the Quran if we are rating by age.  Key word here is "written actualization."  I do not know of manuscripts containing the safeehah of hammaam ibn munnabih actually being dated back to 100 years post prophet.  That is based on historical accounts.  If you relied on that same cocktail of historical accounts concerning the Quran (written down much later than they occurred), you would come to the conclusion that the Quran existed either during the prophets time or at the time of Umar, which is again much earlier than the same contemporary oral accounts of hadiths.

Further, the Quran is much smaller than the hadith so it is theoretically easier to maintain it.  

It would be silly to argue that the Quran didn't rely on man made transmission because all Muslims at least believe that the Quran came through the prophet.  Yet, the man made process of accumulation that the hadith went through are far more prone to suspicion due to lack of authenticity than the Quran.  I think the confusion here is that some think Quran only followers only discount the hadith because of historical uncertainty.  In fact, I believe that a nice yet uncertain general story can be made from the hadiths yet the uncertainty of the story we find in the Quran.  Hence the appeal to uncertainty as a way of pointing to Quranic superiority.

...I have memorized most of the Quran in Arabic Maseelulah and I'm a Quran only follower.  I can recite a lot of verses in English too.  

Independent of that though I am shocked at how illiterate concerning the Quran most traditional Muslims actually are.  Even people I know who have memorized the Quran do not actually know what it means.  This included my self back in the day when I was memorizing the book in Arabic.  Don't take this as a generalization because the most intelligent Muslim I know actually memorized the Quran in arabic, but still, we spend our time understanding the verses on this website instead of reciting something we don't understand (which does have its own beauty).


Peace

#12
Quote from: Raaajah on September 12, 2010, 07:15:00 PM
eat that
That is what you think! May be that is not what he thinks, why is he short of concluding it. Let him say that SHE will go to hell. I don't think so if some ones fail in any test he will go to hell.

Fair enough...
#13
Quote from: Raaajah on September 12, 2010, 06:51:48 AM
Edip Yuksel
But the question still is unanswered, will she go to hell?

Peace

In Bro Edip's words, "she loses the divine test."  He thinks she is going to hell assuming all the shirk stuff.  I disagree.

Salaam
#14
Peace Prince,

I don't think so because there are so many pluralist verses in the Quran that emphasis diversity and good works like...

5:48
For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

Also...
49:14
PICKTHAL: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This verse is interesting as mere utterance does not make the 'wandering Arabs' Believers.  Logically then, mere utterance in the contrary position should not make people disbelievers.  In facts, the 'wandering Arabs' are given solace in the fact that they can still obey the laws of 'Allah and his messenger' and be Muslims.  These good deeds will not be withheld from reward.

Salaam
#15
Peace

The second interpretation I offered seems viable and would close the contradictions (imo), which I thought there were between pluralist verses and 5:72-5:73.  Here would be the clearest (not necessarily best) translation in my opinion (bolded part for extra emphasis).

Muhammad Sarwar: Those who say that God is the third of the Three, have, in fact, turned to disbelief. There is no Lord but God, the only One Lord. If they will not give-up such belief, the disbelievers among them will suffer a painful torment.

Thus, if we work from the framework that disbelief is comprehensive in mind and action, which I believe is supported in the Quran, than mere utterance is not disbelief.  The said people would have to stop from what they are saying (i.e. doing bad stuff). The emphasis would be not on the utterance but the disbelief.


Quote from: Wakas on September 09, 2010, 07:51:57 AM
peace yget,

Perhaps we should consider another portion to see if it is also relevant:

"...surely will afflict those who kafaru among/from them a punishment painful..."


This would be a nice supplement to the interpretation I offered above since "among/from them" indicates reference to a particular group of people.  Thus, by calling them "those who say Jesus is God," the Quran could just be applying a convenient moniker for maybe a tribe or group of people that were particularly bad at the time.  

Peace
#16
Peace

Muhammad Asad
5:73 Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a trinity" - seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.

Edip-Layth
5:73 Ingrates indeed are those who have said, "God is the third of trinity!" There is no god but One god. If they do not cease from what they are saying, then those who reject from among them will be afflicted with a painful retribution

Muhammad Ahmed & Samira
 73. Those who said: "That God (is) third (of) three." had disbelieved, and (there is) no God except from one God, and if they do not end/stop from what they say, a painful torture will touch (E) those who disbelieved from them.


http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=73

The relevant portion in the corpus would "and if not they desist from what they are saying."

I put the parts of the verse that I felt were relevant in bold.  My question then would be is the Quran asking the disbeliever to desist from saying what they are saying or is the Quran asking the disbeliever to desist from what they say as in believing that Jesus is God?  The difference is small but important.  If the Quran is asking the disbeliever to desist from saying Jesus is God, then the source of disbelief is the disbelievers words and thus, all modern Christians are going to hell (no matter how good they are) according to the Quran, since they often say 'Jesus is God.'  If the Quran is asking the disbeliever to desist "from what they say" as in put an end to the disbelief of heart and actions they say they have (not desist from saying but desist from what they are saying), then simply saying "Jesus is God" is not the source of disbelief and good Christians are saved (Hooray).  The second interpretation fits in well with 2:62 and all the other verses in the Quran, which preach pluralism.  IMO, the second interpretation is viable if the corpus Quran translation is a perfect Arabic to English translation.  I don't know the nuances of Arabic though so this might not be the case and the first interpretation could be inevitable.

Salaam
#17
Peace

The relevant verse is
5:72
YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.


I am of the opinion that good works outweigh the mere utterances of shirk.  This verse contradicts that.  I'm sure Mother Teresa said 'Jesus is God' many times in her life.  I feel that a Good God would not send a good and morally upstanding person to hell for saying that.

Salaam
#18
Quote from: Wootah on September 04, 2010, 10:00:34 PM
I think God does have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist. Namely that it gives people the opportunity to choose God.
Al-kidr, I think, represents a common Islamic position on good and evil and not being sure of which is which. I just came out of church today and the sermon was related to this thread topic, not specifically, but it was on Joseph in the Old Testament in Genesis and how his brother's treated him and how God used that wickedness of his brothers for good. But at no time was the wickedness of the brothers anything other than wickedness. In Christianity God can make good come from bad but the bad is never ever considered good or necessary.



Peace

I see...It is interesting and noteworthy that Moses is so utterly opposed to the "evil acts" he sees.  I guess the story of Al khidr can be interpreted that way as well.  Maybe, a case of the Quran trying to give an explanation for some forms of evil in the world by appealing to the limits of human rationality.  We do not have the ability to comprehend butterfly effects and maybe natural problems that lead us to question God are not as evil as we would take them at face value when all relevant events are taken in to consideration...Sort of an appeal to the limits of human intuition. 
Peace
#19
Quote from: Wootah on September 03, 2010, 10:33:16 PM
Hi mate. Yes it all leads to the fundamental philosophical issues in Christian theology but we should all attempt to understand how our own religions/ideologies address the question.

Your answer here troubles me:you have to prove that God can not have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist, which you could not do.

It reminds me of the Islamic green man, al-kidr, and the story of him doing evil but it is actually good when he explains why. Is it hadith or koran I can't remember right now? The thing is that the consequence of your view, if you actually tried to hold it as a practicing belief is that you can never judge anything. How do you call something good or bad if you believe what you said? How do you know, ever?

Peace,

I was just saying that in order for the logical problem of evil to be successful in proving that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent God does not exist, THEN you would have to prove that God can not have a morally acceptable reason for allowing evil to exist.  Don't get me wrong. This does not solve the emotional problem nor does it solve other evidential formulations of the argument, which I acknowledge are different beasts to deal with.

I lost you in the second paragraph.  I think al-kidr is a unique case that can not be superimposed on to humanity.  Also, I do not deny human ability to differentiate between Good and Evil in some cases.

Peace
#20
double post