/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Can you prove that the Quran has been altered yaa ayyuhaal kafiroon?



IbnAbdulHakim
07-02-2007, 11:55 AM
Peace


now i know if someone looks deep enough they can even "supposedly" prove that man has come from monkeys. If someone researches stubborn on his views he can even conclude "supposedly" that fish were once birds or vice versa but what i find interesting is just what do the atheists and other rejectors of islam use to deny the fact that the Quran has stood the test of time?

what can you bring forth?

we declare that the Quran has stood the test of time because any alterations were immediately fixed due to the memorisation of the quran by thousands of Muslimeen

now can you find a widely accepted quran other then the one the millions of muslims read on a daily basis? and if you think this same quran has been changed a couple of hundreds of years ago PROVE IT!
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
rav
07-04-2007, 04:12 PM
Shalom Aleikhem (Peace be upon you),

I really do not want to get into a debate here, alright. I have a few points though that I must point out because you are resting on a few assumptions that I must disagree with. (1) The fact that the Quran has stood the ‘test of time’ is irrelevant because books from Shakespeare have stood a huge amounts of time and other texts from such religions as the Sikh would argue that their books have stood and equal amount of time. The amount of time a book stands uncorrupted does not make it legitimate. (2) Uthman made a verdict that if any verse differed, then the Quraishiite version was to take priority. Clearly, this showed that there were already differences. Uthman also had all other versions committed to flame. There would be no necessity to do so if there weren't already differences. Here is some information from an Islamic site:

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

http://islamicvoice.com/July2006/Que...Naik/index.php

How could there be a conflict or any sort in regards to the text of the Quran if it was memorized by so many? Why did some get it wrong, and why were there differing opinions which led Uthman to the conclusion that he should burn every copy of the Quran that did not meet the Quraishiite version?

Also, during Umars farewell speech, he addressed different issues. The speech is included in Sahih Bukhari, and in it there is a reference to an alleged verse in the Qur'an named the Verse of Rajm. The alleged verse is quoted as:

"O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father."

Also from Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421:

"'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims)."

Is their a verse in the Quran concerning this today?

I would also like to ask that I get your answers (not some Islamic sites) to genuine objections I have concerning some of your statements. I am not here to challenge Islam, nor debate about the Quran because regardless of if it was ever corrupted; I do not view it as a book even from the original that contains any sort of holiness. I just wish to challenge some of the bold statements you have made in your post.

Either way, I wish you peace and happiness in your practice of a purely monotheistic religion.
Reply

wilberhum
07-04-2007, 05:13 PM
now i know if someone looks deep enough they can even "supposedly" prove that man has come from monkeys.
I usually lose interest in a debate when the originator opens with a distortion, misstatements of accepted theories, or an outright lie.
Reply

جوري
07-04-2007, 06:27 PM
:sl:
I will sit this one out as well, however will add only a brief point or two a response to Rav:
In 1450 Johannes Gutenberg made his first printing press and only then were many hundreds of copies made of any book and distributed to answer why some books are better preserved, the answer is, simply because of their newness...
Sikhism is only 500 yrs old ( it isn't divinely inspired- that is a topic for another day and another thread) and I'll not descend to that my religion is divinely inspired and yours is man made or yours is corrupted by the hands of scribes-- William Shakespeare also born sometime around 1564 again, post Gutenberg. So I believe that should take care of how painstaking it is to preserve something in its original form 15 centuries ago to something written 4-5 centuries ago. And also take care of why one would want to destroy any distortions conjured by folk with poor memorization skills or amnestic episodes, you can see where there would be a great deal of confusion and innovations. It isn't like you can make a tiny note of correction on the Sunday edition of the part one scribe misquoted. I have no interested in defending the Quran or wanting to prove anything from this point on I'll leave it to someone scholarly or the original thread starter
Peace
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
rav
07-04-2007, 06:39 PM
Shalom (Peace),

Those are good points purest, I assume that the Quran, if preserved was indeed a much greater accomplishment, and in no way is my aim to attack Islam. The original poster made some strong statements so I merely gathered a few reasons as to why someone may believe something different than him. A lot of my religion rests on faith as well, so I am the first who will refuse to stand up and make a declaration stating something like "my religion is right and yours is wrong" because we cannot really prove any such thing. That was my point in posting. I doubt I could keep up or comprehend half of the vast knowledge of Islam you hold in your brain Purest, but I feel like I am obligated to point out that no religion is definitive and can make such a declaration, (including mine), which is why Judaism does not expect the entire world to follow the Torah, but only those who actually witnessed the miracles (and their descendants).

Nowhere in my post do I say the Quran is corrupted. What I say is that there is a possibility it is... and you can rest your faith on that G-d kept it together and uncorrupt, but we have to label that as 'faith', especially since the Quran speaks on that 'substitution' of ideas and commandments is normal in Islamic law in accordance to what the Quran teaches, so therefore, yes, it can all be explained, but with faith in G-d, not faith in absolute proof, which is absolutely fine, since faith in G-d is a beautiful thing indeed.

May we all come together and form a bridge of understanding in hopes of achieving world peace despite our differences. That is my prayer.
Reply

- Qatada -
07-04-2007, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
Shalom Aleikhem (Peace be upon you),

I really do not want to get into a debate here, alright. I have a few points though that I must point out because you are resting on a few assumptions that I must disagree with. (1) The fact that the Quran has stood the ‘test of time’ is irrelevant because books from Shakespeare have stood a huge amounts of time and other texts from such religions as the Sikh would argue that their books have stood and equal amount of time. The amount of time a book stands uncorrupted does not make it legitimate.


That's a totally different issue, and no - Sikhism began around 700 years after the message revealed to Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) [Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak who was born in (1469–1538 CE)]

Shakespeare? He was born on 1616 CE. Which is around a similar time period as the Sikhi's, except maybe around 100years after.


The message revealed to Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was around 700/800years before the above mentioned characters.


So them examples aren't really good examples. Nor were the whole plays or religious texts memorised by these people. Word by word, letter by letter.


Quoting brother Ansar:
I'll try to give you a comprehensive answer as to why the Qur'an is regarded the way it is by so many people.
1. The Power of the Qur'anic Message:
-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.
-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.
2. The Power of the Qur'anic Style:
-it is Interactive, the text seems alive as it responds to the very questions that arise in one's mind at that moment. It speaks to the reader and delivers specific yet universal advice.
-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
-it is Memorizable; the Qur'an is the only book in the world which is continuously being memorized by millions of people and recited daily. No other book has been committed to memory by so many followers, as though it fits in one's mind as a key in a lock.
-its Language, the Qur'anic arabic is a stunning miracle in itself, its style is powerful and its recitation is melodious. More info: Here, Here, Here.
3. The Power of the Qur'anic Text:
-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.
-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, which could not have been known by any normal human being 14 centuries ago. (see here). Many Muslims have also found the Qur'anic perfection extends even to various mathematical miracles within the text. As well, there are the Qur'anic Prophecies.
-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.
This is just my summary of the miraculous features Muslims find in the Qur'an. For more information, please see section 3c of The First and Final Commandment.

(2) Uthman made a verdict that if any verse differed, then the Quraishiite version was to take priority. Clearly, this showed that there were already differences.

This isn't the case at all. Did you know the Qur'an was revealed in 7 different dialects for the different arab tribes?

THE AHRUF

First there is the issue nof Ahruf (dialects/modes). The Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf, as is proved in many mutawaatir ahadith. This was because different tribes pronounced and spelled words differently. The forms matched the dialects of following seven tribes:

1.Quraysh
2.Hudhayl
3.Thaqîf
4.Hawâzin
5.Kinânah
6.Tamîm
7.Yemen

The revelation of the Qur'an in seven different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the various tribes. At the same time the Qur'an challenged them to produce a surah like it in their own dialect so that they would not complain about the incomprehensibility.

Regarding whether or not these ahruf have been preserved, there are three opinions, the strongest being that of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ash-Shatibee, Ar-Raazi, Ibn Katheer and Ibn Al-Jazaree and many others. They say that when Uthman rd was compiling the Qur'an, he had Zaib ibn Thabit record it without the vowelation and consonants to accomodate the different Ahruf. At some points where the ahruf differed greatly, they recorded it according to the Quraysh dialect. There are 4 benefits which show the Wisdom of Allah revealing the Qur'an in seven ahruf:

1. To facilitate the memorization of the Qur'an. The arabs did not all speak arabic in the same way. The ahruf eased the memorization and was significant in the preservation of the Qur'an.

2. To prove the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. For despite all the differences, the meaning of the Ahruf did not contradict one another, but rather were complimentary.

3. To prove the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad saws, for despite the fact that he was illiterate, the revelation of the Qur'an occured in different tribal dialects and different words, all of which consisted of the most fluent and eloquent speech of his time.

4. To honour the ummah of the Prophet Muhammad saws and show its superiority over all other nations.

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...aat-ahruf.html


Therefore, when Uthman did burn the copies - he preserved it in the Quraysh dialect since that was the dialect of Allaah's Messenger (peace be upon him) i.e. Quraysh, a descendant of Abraham (peace be upon him.)

more info about the preservation of Qur'an by the companions can be seen here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/738055-post2.html



Uthman also had all other versions committed to flame. There would be no necessity to do so if there weren't already differences. Here is some information from an Islamic site:
There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an. Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey.

http://islamicvoice.com/July2006/Que...Naik/index.php
How could there be a conflict or any sort in regards to the text of the Quran if it was memorized by so many? Why did some get it wrong, and why were there differing opinions which led Uthman to the conclusion that he should burn every copy of the Quran that did not meet the Quraishiite version?

From what we see above, there were 7 dialects the Qur'an was revealed in.
The Qur'an continued to be read according to the sevenahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah [companions] and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to theharf of Quraysh.

[8] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

From there, we see that the Qur'an was revealed in 7 dialects as the Messenger of Allaah stated;


From Abû Hurairah:
The Messenger of God(P) said: "An All-knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'an in seven ahruf."[2]
[2] Ibid.


And not just that, the famous companions who had memorised the 7 dialects were still alive to know the original way of recitation, so even if confusion was to come up from new muslims, the companions were still alive to know the difference between what is the correct recitation, and what isn't the correct recitation.


Some of the personal copies which were burnt may have had notes on i.e. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (a famous companion of Allaah's Messenger) had a personal copy which he writ himself, but he had also written the Prophetic sayings which he had heard also on the copy for his own personal notes, yet if someone was to read these in the future - then they may have mistaken it for Qur'an. Therefore this also was burnt. Which proves that it wasn't the Qur'an which was in error, rather it was the people who may have misunderstood.
Now a few words on Qirâ'ât:
A Qirâ'ât is for the most part a method of pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur'an. These methods are different from the seven forms or modes (ahruf) in which the Qur'an was revealed. The seven modes were reduced to one, that of the Quraysh, during the era of Caliph 'Uthman, and all of the methods of recitation are based on this mode. The various methods have all been traced back to the Prophet(P) through a number of Sahaabah [companions] who were most noted for their Qur'anic recitations. That is, these Sahaabah recited the Qur'an to the Prophet(P) or in his presence and received his approval. Among them were the following: Ubayy Ibn K'ab, 'Alee Ibn Abi Taalib, Zayd Ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Abu ad-Dardaa and Abu Musaa al-Ash'aree. Many of the other Sahaabah learned from these masters. For example, Ibn 'Abbaas, the master commentator of the Qur'an among the Sahaabah, learned from both Ubayy and Zayd.[9]
The transmission of the Qur'an is a mutawâtir transmission, that is, there are a large number of narrators on each level of the chain. Dr. Bilaal Philips gives a brief account of the history of recitation in his book:
Among the next generation of Muslims referred to as Taabe'oon, there arose many scholars who learned the various methods of recitation from the Sahaabah [companions] and taught them to others. Centres of Qur'anic recitation developed in al-Madeenah, Makkah, Kufa, Basrah and Syria, leading to the evolution of Qur'anic recitation into an independent science. By mid-eighth century CE, there existed a large number of outstanding scholars all of whom were considered specialists in the field of recitation. Most of their methods of recitations were authenticated by chains of reliable narrators ending with the Prophet(P). Those methods which were supported by a large number of reliable narrators on each level of their chain were called Mutawaatir and were considered to be the most accurate. Those methods in which the number of narrators were few or only one on any level of the chain were refered to as shaadhdh. Some of the scholars of the following period began the practice of designating a set number of individual scholars from the pervious period as being the most noteworthy and accurate. By the middle of the tenth century, the number seven became popular since it coincided with the number of dialects in which the Qur'an was revealed.[10]


SOURCE:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...at/hafs.html#1
Also, during Umars farewell speech, he addressed different issues. The speech is included in Sahih Bukhari, and in it there is a reference to an alleged verse in the Qur'an named the Verse of Rajm. The alleged verse is quoted as:
"O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father."
You can read the below point to understand the issue of abrogation insha Allaah (God willing.) Since this issue of rajm is similar to the example below. i.e. in abrogation.



Also from Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3421:
"'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims)."
Is their a verse in the Quran concerning this today?


This is explained in your own question in the exact hadith which you quoted;
Here is the hadith that supposedly talks about the "missing verse" from the Quran...

Saheeh Muslim
Book 008, Number 3421:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim...

هو بضم الياء من ( يقرأ ) ومعناه أن النسخ بخمس رضعات تأخر إنزاله جدا حتى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم توفي وبعض الناس يقرأ خمس رضعات ويجعلها قرآنا متلوا لكونه لم يبلغه النسخ لقرب عهده فلما بلغهم النسخ بعد ذلك رجعوا عن ذلك وأجمعوا على أن هذا لا يتلى
There is a dumma on the letter ya'a and it means that the abrogation of the five sucklings came very late until the time that the Prophet peace be upon him died and a few people were reciting the five sucklings verse making it part of the Qur'an for he (Muhammad PBUH) did not inform them of its abrogation. So when he did inform them afterwards they stopped reciting it and formed a consensus that this verse should not be recited anymore (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Commentary on Hadith no. 2634, Source)

Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Al Nisaa'i..


فقيل إن الخمس أيضا منسوخة تلاوة إلا أن نسخها كان في قرب وفاته صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم فلم يبلغ بعض الناس فكانوا يقرءونه حين توفي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم ثم تركوا تلاوته
It is said that the five's (verse on five sucklings) recitation has been abrogated and its abrogation came near the death of the Prophet peace be upon him so he did not inform some of the people. So they used to recite it as part of the Quran after the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death. Then they left its recitation. (Al Sindi, Sharh Sunan Al Nisaa'i, Commentary on Hadith no. 3255, Source)
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid said...
For breastfeeding to have the effect of transmitting its benefits from the nursing woman to the child suckled, it must meet certain conditions, which are:
  1. The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child’s life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling…” [al-Baqarah 2:233].
  2. The number of breastfeedings must total the known five feeds, in which the child eats his fill as if eating and drinking. If the child leaves the breast for a reason, such as to take a breath or to switch from one breast to the other, this (i.e., each separate time the child latches on) is not counted as one breastfeeding. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa’i, and the opinion favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim. The definition of rad’ah (one breastfeeding) is when the child sucks at the breast and drinks until the milk enters his stomach, then he leaves the breast of his own accord. The evidence for the number five (number of breastfeedings) is the report from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “There was in the Qur’aan [an aayah which stipulated that] ten [was the number of] breastfeedings which created the relationship of mahram, then this was abrogated [by another aayah which stipulated] five. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and [the aayah which stipulated five] was still being recited as part of the Qur’aan.” (Reported by Muslim, 1452). In other words, the abrogation came so late that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, some people had not yet heard that this aayah had been abrogated, but when they heard that it had been abrogated, they stopped reciting it, and agreed that it should not be recited, although the ruling mentioned in the aayah remained in effect. This is an abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling, which is one type of abrogation. (Source)
We can clearly see that the evidence shows that the consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet was that the verse's recitation was meant to be abrogated and it was commanded by the Prophet. However, the command came just a very short while before the Prophet's death and therefore not everyone was informed about it and some still thought that it was part of the Quran. However, once they have been informed that the Prophet ordered its abrogation they stopped reciting it. However, most scholars today believe that its implementation has not been abrogated, only its recitation (e.g. like the verse on stoning)

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions


If you want info about the issue of abrogation, then refer to this link:

http://www.islamicboard.com/164414-post2.html


And here's a small snippet of info in regard to abrogation as a worldly example;
It is analogous to a Professor who asks his students to perform 30 minutes of studying everyday for the first week. During the second week, he 'abrogates' his initial command and asks his students to perform 1 hour of studying every day. The Professor did not make a mistake initially, nor did he react to an unforeseen event. Rather, he had always planned to give a lighter load the first week to his students, and then increase the workload the next week because he knew they would be ready for it. In fact, he had his plan for the entire course written down and recorded. So when he initially gave the order to perform 30 minutes of homework, he knew that he would later abrogate this command.



And Allaah knows best.




Regards.
Reply

rav
07-04-2007, 07:42 PM
Shalom (Peace), Interesting reading material, it was actually fascinating. However, I have a few comments on your post. I really don’t want to debate, because there is no point. I would like to explore a few areas with you though.

This isn't the case at all. Did you know the Qur'an was revealed in 7 different dialects for the different arab tribes?
Therefore, when Uthman did burn the copies - he preserved the Quraysh dialect since that was the dialect of Allaah's Messenger (peace be upon him) i.e. Quraysh, a descendant of Abraham (peace be upon him.)
Okay, but why does this website say differently? (written by Dr. Zakir Naik):

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an.

Have you heard of the Alaama Siyootee and Mulla Ali Qari regarding Quranic text collections? Can you explain their significance?

Plus, does this (below) have any truth to it?

According to tradition, the next step was taken under ‘Uthman (644-656). One of ‘Uthman’s generals asked the caliph to make such a collection because serious disputes had broken out among his troops from different provinces in regard to the correct readings of the Koran. ‘Uthman chose Zayd ibn Thabit to prepare the official text. Zayd, with the help of three members of noble Meccan families, carefully revised the Koran comparing his version with the "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa, ‘Umar’s daughter; and as instructed, in case of difficulty as to the reading, Zayd followed the dialect of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe. The copies of the new version, which must have been completed between 650 and ‘Uthman’s death in 656, were sent to Kufa, Basra, Damascus, and perhaps Mecca, and one was, of course, kept in Medina. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed.

Does this quote not reveal that some people strongly disputed concerning the definite Quranic text? The claim in the original post was that Muslims learned the Quran straight from Muhammad or from the people whom he trained. Had that been the case, all people would have learned the very same Quran. The difference should be merely concerning a number of people knowing a smaller amount of it compared to others. Since the disputes are of a serious nature therefore they are about differing Quranic texts and not just about dialects and number of suras and verses.

Apparently, it was more than just a pronunciation thing. If that were the case, it would only have been an uncomplicated mission of replicating Hafsa's version and distributing it. But he didn't do that, did he? He formed a group to evaluate it with other versions. This shows that the disparity was more than mere pronunciation or spelling as you would have us believe wouldn’t it? Or am I possibly missing something? Please correct me if I am.

Could you also explain how we can differentiate between authentic hadiths’s and unauthentic ones? I am taking classes on Islamic history and religious practice at a local university currently along with other philosophy courses and from Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 467:

'By the night as it envelops 'By the day as it appears in brightness; By (Him Who created) male and the female.' (92.1-3) Abu Ad-Darda' then said to me, "Did you hear it (like this) from the mouth of your friend ('Abdullah bin Mas'ud)?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I too, heard it (like this) from the mouth of the Prophet, but these people do not consider this recitation as the correct one."

it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture
Is that being totaly honest? I have heard numerous times on this site that the only true way to understand the Quran is by understanding Arabic, and the arabic culture. Does this not restrict 80% of Muslims from understanding the Quran properly since you can "never translate it" 100% showing its meaning?

it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
I think that is an assumption and I think Muslims who find meaning in it might, but other religious texts may very well offer the same thing to its followers that the Quran cannot offer. We do not know such things as you say.


Disclaimer: please correct me on any misstatements I made, and show me the correct understanding by way of Islamic holy texts. Since I am still in a learning process about Islamic history.

I want to thank you as well for putting so much time into correcting any misconceptions I held about your religion.
Reply

- Qatada -
07-04-2007, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
Shalom (Peace), Interesting reading material, it was actually fascinating. However, I have a few comments on your post. I really don’t want to debate, because there is no point. I would like to explore a few areas with you though.

It's alright, no worries insha Allaah.


Okay, but why does this website say differently? (written by Dr. Zakir Naik):

There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an in order to preserve the original text of the Qur’an.
I've stated in my above post (maybe you missed it because i added more to it [maybe when you started replying].) I stated:


format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Some of the personal copies which were burnt may have had notes on i.e. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (a famous companion of Allaah's Messenger) had a personal copy which he writ himself, but he had also written the Prophetic sayings which he had heard also on the copy for his own personal notes, yet if someone was to read these in the future - then they may have mistaken it for Qur'an. Therefore this also was burnt.


Have you heard of the Alaama Siyootee and Mulla Ali Qari regarding Quranic text collections? Can you explain their significance?

I havn't heard of them, sorry.


Plus, does this (below) have any truth to it?
According to tradition, the next step was taken under ‘Uthman (644-656). One of ‘Uthman’s generals asked the caliph to make such a collection because serious disputes had broken out among his troops from different provinces in regard to the correct readings of the Koran. ‘Uthman chose Zayd ibn Thabit to prepare the official text. Zayd, with the help of three members of noble Meccan families, carefully revised the Koran comparing his version with the "leaves" in the possession of Hafsa, ‘Umar’s daughter; and as instructed, in case of difficulty as to the reading, Zayd followed the dialect of the Quraysh, the Prophet’s tribe. The copies of the new version, which must have been completed between 650 and ‘Uthman’s death in 656, were sent to Kufa, Basra, Damascus, and perhaps Mecca, and one was, of course, kept in Medina. All other versions were ordered to be destroyed.
This is explained here:
The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah [companions] and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.
[8] Ibid., pp. 28-29.
The different troops from different provinces may have not known of the different dialects of the Qur'an and therefore confusion may have arised amongst them. Some even mixed up the different styles of recitation which caused them confusion (at Uthman's time, Islaam had spread really far in the world, there were many native speakers) and therefore to stop the confusion - Uthman [a successor and companion of Allaah's Messenger] compiled it in the Qurayshi dialect so there was less confusion amongst the people. Especially to those who were knew in entering Islaam.

Does this quote not reveal that some people strongly disputed concerning the definite Quranic text? The claim in the original post was that Muslims learned the Quran straight from Muhammad or from the people whom he trained. Had that been the case, all people would have learned the very same Quran. The difference should be merely concerning a number of people knowing a smaller amount of it compared to others. Since the disputes are of a serious nature therefore they are about differing Quranic texts and not just about dialects and number of suras and verses.

If you've read the above, or even the basic position on this. We've stated that the Qur'an was in 7 different dialects, therefore there would be differences, and those who were new to this and ignorant of the concept - they were confused. Why? Because there were new muslims who may not have even understood the concept of dialects since not all of them were arabs. Nor were all the people literate, therefore they may have been confused if one was to recite in a slightly different manner. This is the main reason why Uthman actually compiled it under the Qurayshi dialect - to unite the people.


Apparently, it was more than just a pronunciation thing. If that were the case, it would only have been an uncomplicated mission of replicating Hafsa's version and distributing it. But he didn't do that, did he? He formed a group to evaluate it with other versions. This shows that the disparity was more than mere pronunciation or spelling as you would have us believe wouldn’t it? Or am I possibly missing something? Please correct me if I am.

I think i'll give an example since it seems you're abit confused;


As one can see, the different recitations are almost completely identical except for a few words which are pronounced differently. For example,
Hafs: wa hûwa al-azîz al-hakîm
Qaloon: wahwa al-azîz al-hakîm

Translation: And He is the AllMighty, the AllWise.
The meaning is the same, however the pronunciation is slightly different. Since the different tribes had different dialects.

Therefore it may have been that one companion heard one dialect, whereas another may have heard another which was similar in meaning, yet slightly different in pronunciation.



Could you also explain how we can differentiate between authentic hadiths’s and unauthentic ones? I am taking classes on Islamic history and religious practice at a local university currently along with other philosophy courses and from Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 467:
'By the night as it envelops 'By the day as it appears in brightness; By (Him Who created) male and the female.' (92.1-3) Abu Ad-Darda' then said to me, "Did you hear it (like this) from the mouth of your friend ('Abdullah bin Mas'ud)?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I too, heard it (like this) from the mouth of the Prophet, but these people do not consider this recitation as the correct one."
I havn't encountered that hadith before, maybe you could clarify who 'these people' are? I don't have access to Fath Al Baari (an explanation of Sahih Al Bukhari by Ibn Hajar Al Asqalaani) - so if you could get hold of that, it may give an explanation to the hadith you quoted. However, i'm not sure therefore i'm sorry that i'm unable to answer that question.

In regard to the rules on authenticity of ahadith, you may want to refer to this link:

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...m-hadeeth.html



Is that being totaly honest? I have heard numerous times on this site that the only true way to understand the Quran is by understanding Arabic, and the arabic culture. Does this not restrict 80% of Muslims from understanding the Quran properly since you can "never translate it" 100% showing its meaning?

The point the brother was making is the fact that the ways of Qur'an are applicable to any place and anytime, it's nothing to do with translating it. Nor is the Qur'an for the arab race only, it isn't from arab culture. Infact, alot of the pre-ignorant practises of the arabs were replaced by Islamic laws and practises. So it's not all to do with arabic culture. Culture is different to religion, yet culture is permitted so long as it doesn't contradict Islaam - our submission to Allaah.




If you want to read more on this topic, you can refer to this link:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...raat/hafs.html




And Allaah knows best.




Regards.
Reply

rav
07-04-2007, 09:03 PM
Some of the personal copies which were burnt may have had notes on i.e. Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (a famous companion of Allaah's Messenger) had a personal copy which he writ himself, but he had also written the Prophetic sayings which he had heard also on the copy for his own personal notes, yet if someone was to read these in the future - then they may have mistaken it for Qur'an. Therefore this also was burnt. Which proves that it wasn't the Qur'an which was in error, rather it was the people who may have misunderstood.
Well did Dr. Naik not say there were “mistakes” not merely instances where mistakes could have been made? Also, can you please provide a source or more in-depth reading that I could do on this specific subject that you are telling me of? Thank you in advance.

This is explained here:
The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah [companions] and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.
[8] Ibid., pp. 28-29.
1. Does this book cite or source any of these claims? Or are these possible explanations to what could have happened. How do we know that the above is this case based on Islamic texts?

2. Is it true that when Uthman standardized the Quran, there were no vowels?

Plus, let us assume for now that Hafsa's version is the perfect and definitive version. And hence this would mean that Hafsa's version was already in the Quraishiite form. However, it appears not. Since, Uthman had to instruct the scribes:
Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."
How can there be disagreement when Hafsa's version was "perfect", and hence, through proof by contradiction, can we assume that Hafsa's version was perfect in the first place?

The point I am trying to make, my friend is not that the Quran is corrupt. I would not know that for sure, nor do I not think anyone can. However, the trouble with Quranic exposure and the collection of it is that there is only hearsay through and through and that is not sufficient to prove the claim of the original poster.

Important: Can you read this article and comment on it for me?

[link removed]

Thanks you in advance for all your time and help. You should consider being an Imaam, or working for a religious organization because you have a huge amount of knowledge in that head of yours. You are a smart guy my friend!
Reply

- Qatada -
07-04-2007, 11:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
Well did Dr. Naik not say there were “mistakes” not merely instances where mistakes could have been made? Also, can you please provide a source or more in-depth reading that I could do on this specific subject that you are telling me of? Thank you in advance.
It would be really useful if you could bring the relevant points or evidences for the claim. Since Zakir Naik may say many things, but we don't always know what he's referring to.

I've done a little research, and i'll quote the following:


The Qur'an copy of Abdullah Ibn Mas`ud, had different (variant readings) from almost all other copies. I'll quote some examples.

An example of different pronunciation in Surah Al Baqarah:

2: 70 Ibn Mas'ud reads al-baqira in place ofal-baqara

An example of different spellings in Surah Al Baqarah:

2: 19 He reads kullama in place of kullama
I'm unsure how the website was able to quote this, however it is from Answering-Christianity.com. And they are trustworthy in quoting Islamic evidences. It may have been clarified to Ibn Mas'ud and he explained this to others later during his lifetime, which got passed down in history? Allaah knows best.



1. Does this book cite or source any of these claims? Or are these possible explanations to what could have happened. How do we know that the above is this case based on Islamic texts?

The book may have sources on where the author got his information from.[which is likely to have chains of narrations from the classical Islamic history books.]

If he (the author) really wanted to make assumptions, then he could have done so. But i think he would have stated that as an assumption if that was his intention. However, he portrayed it as a fact. Therefore it is likely to be a fact and an event within our history.



2. Is it true that when Uthman standardized the Quran, there were no vowels?
His solution to the second peculiarity -- the absence of vowels -- was to send a Qari (recitor) along with the copy of the Qur'an to preserve the correct reading that the hundreds of companions had learnt from the Prophet. This was clearly not a satisfactory solution. Later, at the insistence of Zayd, the Governor of Basrah (45-53 H), dots were assigned as vowel points. Then during the reign of Abdul Malik (65-85 H.) Hajjaj bin Yusuf appointed scholars to assign new symbols for vowels while dots were used to distinguish different letters...

(Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, 2000, "Journal of the Muslim Research Institute", Canada)


Plus, let us assume for now that Hafsa's version is the perfect and definitive version. And hence this would mean that Hafsa's version was already in the Quraishiite form. However, it appears not. Since, Uthman had to instruct the scribes:
Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."
How can there be disagreement when Hafsa's version was "perfect", and hence, through proof by contradiction, can we assume that Hafsa's version was perfect in the first place?

To say that Hafsa's version was perfect 'therefore it could only be in the Qurayshi dialect form' is wrong. Since any of the 7 dialects can be authentic and perfect.


Acceptance of Variant Readings

Variant Readings can be accepted if they meet the following criteria for acceptance:
  1. A reading with correct Arabic grammar
  2. Traced back to the Prophet (pbuh)
  3. Agreement with the Uthmanic text
Further more, the variant readings should also meet the following criteria for preference:
  1. A reading with correct Arabic grammar
  2. Agreement with the Uthmanic text
  3. Reported/preferred by the majority
Further more, the variant readings can be divided as follows (taken from von Denffer's "Ulum al Qur'an"):
  1. The mutawatir (transmitted by many; they include the seven well-known readings)
  2. The ahad (transmitted by one, they number three, going back to the sahaba and together with the seven make up ten).
  3. The shadh (exceptional; they go back to the tabi'un only)
From the above, the current text of the Qur'an (Uthmanic), is mutawatir.

http://www.answering-christianity.co...-reply.html#5c

Therefore it may have been that the version which Hafsah (may Allaah be pleased with her) had is another dialect (to the Qurayshi one.) If you were to ask me if it is the Qurayshi dialect or another dialect, i would say i don't know. Since i need to do the research myself, and for now i am unable to find out whether it was the Qurayshi dialect or another.


So if you were to say that it's the Qurayshi dialect, i'd be happy if you could bring proof for that please. If not, then i am in a similar position. And again, just to clarify - for it to be in any of the 7 dialects is sufficient to make it perfect, since they are all tawaatir narrations (i.e. narrated by many people, to the extent that they couldn't have all lied upon it together.)


Thanks you in advance for all your time and help. You should consider being an Imaam, or working for a religious organization because you have a huge amount of knowledge in that head of yours. You are a smart guy my friend!


I am simply a layman, yet alone a student of knowledge. Thankyou for your kind words however.


I have removed that site which you linked to, since that rejects ahadith and its authentic sciences altogether in ignorance. They reject the life story of Allaah's Messenger and our rich Islamic history, claiming that it is hearsy, and if they feel that this is wrong - then they've lost nearly all their religion altogether. So i wouldn't refer to that site if you want to understand Islaam.



And Allaah knows best.




Regards.
Reply

rav
07-05-2007, 05:40 AM
It would be really useful if you could bring the relevant points or evidences for the claim. Since Zakir Naik may say many things, but we don't always know what he's referring to.
I believe he was refering to other Quran copies that differed. Dr. Naik wrote, "There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an"

The book may have sources on where the author got his information from.[which is likely to have chains of narrations from the classical Islamic history books.]

If he (the author) really wanted to make assumptions, then he could have done so. But i think he would have stated that as an assumption if that was his intention. However, he portrayed it as a fact. Therefore it is likely to be a fact and an event within our history.
If I find time one day I will look into seeing if the book is at a library, if I am already there.

I'm unsure how the website was able to quote this, however it is from Answering-Christianity.com. And they are trustworthy in quoting Islamic evidences.
I would hope they are more responsible when quoting Islamic sources than when quoting Jewish sources which they butcher.

I have removed that site which you linked to, since that rejects ahadith and its authentic sciences altogether in ignorance. They reject the life story of Allaah's Messenger and our rich Islamic history, claiming that it is hearsy, and if they feel that this is wrong - then they've lost nearly all their religion altogether. So i wouldn't refer to that site if you want to understand Islaam.
I thought the website was an Islamic one. I have not seen anything on the site that says it is not. They believe in the Quran etc, but admit the fact that there are other copies that had to be burned etc.

When I have more time I will look deeper into some of the info in your post. Until then - peace.
Reply

ranma1/2
07-05-2007, 07:56 AM
I guess I should ask why do you think that the Koran is unchanged?
Is it due to man or god? If it is because of god then why did god not keep his message pure with his prior prophets? I have a couple questions.
Do the original texts actually exists or are there just copies? How many times of Chinese whispering occurred before it was written down? What about the non Koran bits, the hadiths etc..

And now to a posts.


1. The Power of the Qur'anic Message:
-it is universal, unrestricted by time and applicable to any nation/culture. The Qur'an is by far the most widely followed and acted-upon book in the world. As for the Bible, most Christians follow the Church over the Bible, and each denomination has its own bible anyway. The fact that there is no other book in the world that forms the constitution of the lives of billions of followers is itself a sign.



How can the message be universal if it cant be translated perfectly? Why must you have scholars tell you what it means? Why do so many disagree with it? And your last sentence seems to be untrue. Please support it.

-it is practical and logical, it can be established practically in society and is logically able to address the fundamental questions relating to all aspects of our universe.
It does not seem practical and seems illogical in many instances.


-it is comprehensive, addressing all fundamental sectors of human life, be it spritual, physical, mental, social/societal, politcal, environmental, economic, etc.
No it doesn’t, if it did you would not need hadiths would you? And even those are not.

-it is natural, in concordance with a person's nature and what they feel deep inside to be the truth.
nope.

-it is clear and consistent, free of the changes in worldview and understanding that dominate the works of human beings.
It is so clear you have to have scholars tell you what it means.

-it is deep, having provoked thousands upon thousands of volumes of exegesis, expounding upon its meaning and revealing fascinating details that many people otherwise miss in their reading of the Qur'an.
Deep? So is shakespear. The bible etc…. deepness does not a holy book make.


2. The Power of the Qur'anic Style:
-it is Interactive,

Evidence? Ive read it and got no such interaction.

-it is Inerrant, free from contradictons and discrepancies, or other errors that would normally be found in the works of human beings.
Except it is not.

-it is Memorizable;
Wow just like the abcs, the bible, shakespear, the princes bride, etc…

-its Language, ..
Wow its soo cool god could not translate it perfectly inot other languages and even modern speakers have to have scholars tell them what it means.

3. The Power of the Qur'anic Text:
-it is Preserved, even after fourteen and a half centuries, the Qur'an is recited today exactly as it was first revealed. Thus it was free of the tampering that befell other religious scriptures.


The current version perhaps. Do you have the originals? And what about prior to it being written down? How many Chinese whispers did it go through?

-its other Remarkable features; many Muslims find a striking concordance between many Qur'anic statements and established scientific truths, ….
This has been discussed to death, but to sum it up. There is no special knowledge in the Koran, any actual knowledge was known at the time. Anything else is reading what is not there.


-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.
Evidence? John smith also had it revealed. Same with jesus. What about the religion of the GFSM? Scientology? Buddhism ect…
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-05-2007, 10:19 AM
hi, ranma1/2

sorry to Interfere
want 2 comment on some of ur points.
i do not read all ur comments thou.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I guess I should ask why do you think that the Koran is unchanged?
Is it due to man or god? If it is because of god then why did god not keep his message pure with his prior prophets?
Why thier is hair in our head instead of leaves.
U know I can question millions of questions like that.

Look Mr. U r human one of the creature of the earth. Difference between other creatures to us is we have free thinking capacities and growing knowledge. There are uncountable amount of frame beyond ur seeing and knowledge. We human just question too much.

Look our Creator usually do not interfere on our way of thinking, knowledge.

The Final message Holy Quran was sent on the most appropriate time of the earth. And prove is The Holy Quran is preserve in the millions of people’s heart, and in books by generations still today InsAllah in the future people will preserve IT perfectly with their own way of thinking and knowledge.

People do not have their own way of thinking and knowledge to preserve and understand all the message of his Creator before the Quran was revealed. When they earn those criteria Our Creator sent his Fianl message. (Allah knows the best)

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
How can the message be universal if it cant be translated perfectly? Why must you have scholars tell you what it means? Why do so many disagree with it? And your last sentence seems to be untrue. Please support it.
Pls give me any alternative option that on which language Quran should reveal. Then I may comment on this question. [Think u r a creator of something (Calculator) and u want to reveal ur law (software program and manual) to ur creation
on which way and language u will reveal ur law? think ... give me a ans
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
It does not seem practical and seems illogical in many instances.
U know
Some enjoy killing
Some enjoy robbing
Some enjoy mischiefing
Some enjoy annoying other
Some enjoy piousness of heart
Some enjoy doing stand firm on justice.
Many people many mind

And u know if world will gone a run with ur concept than this world will be collapsed. U need explanation I give u insAllah.

If I believe there is no God.
I will rob who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will kill who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will rape who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
Will go on and on.
Think pls…

There must be a one general Law to all of us which is most fair and just.
There must be one final stoppage where we all have to stop for the ultimate justification.

Otherwise the civilization of the world will collapse.
Reply

ranma1/2
07-05-2007, 02:22 PM
Im not sure if i should reply, please try to avoid l33t speak and such. it makes it annoying to read. Also I find it hard to understand your points.
If you dont understand why we have hair instead of leaves then please read a basic book on biology.

format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
hi, ranma1/2

....

Pls give me any alternative option that on which language Quran should reveal. ....on which way and language u will reveal ur law? think ... give me a ans
....
.
Well if i were god i would have done a better job of getting my message across. How many thousand prophets did alah send? And still he hasnt gotten his message across. Heck different prophet factions have shown up and fight each other. "jews, christians, muslims etc..."

Holy book wise i would have made a holy book for everyone. Its magic since im god and all. It will be read perfectly by all even thosethat cant read would understand my word perfectly. Free will would still be there "as best as it can be if im all knowing and all" since they could choose what they wanted to do, but there would be zero doubt as to if i exists.
Thats just one basic option.

format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
....If I believe there is no God.
I will rob who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will kill who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will rape who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
Will go on and on.
.
If you believe this to be true then please kill yourself or at the very least move away from society. Of course this is not true. I myself believe there are no gods. And i dont rob, kill etc... One basic reason is I like living. And who would stop you? Well society for one. Even in a "lawless" one you have to worry about others deaming you a threat.

format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
There must be a one general Law to all of us which is most fair and just.
There must be one final stoppage where we all have to stop for the ultimate justification.

Otherwise the civilization of the world will collapse.
And what is this law? And why must there be one? Civilization hasnt dont that well under any god. "although the GFSM is likley our best option."
Reply

- Qatada -
07-05-2007, 02:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
I believe he was refering to other Quran copies that differed. Dr. Naik wrote, "There were other personal collections of the portions of the Qur’an that people had with them. These might have been incomplete and with mistakes. Uthman (R.A.) only appealed to the people to destroy all these copies, which did not match the original manuscript of the Qur’an"



I still won't fully understand this concept unless it's explained further with proofs, or maybe with proof to clarify what dialect the copy of Hafsa (may Allaah be pleased with her) was.

If I find time one day I will look into seeing if the book is at a library, if I am already there.

Alright, kool.


I would hope they are more responsible when quoting Islamic sources than when quoting Jewish sources which they butcher.

I stated in the post:

And they are trustworthy in quoting Islamic evidences.

I know the stuff which is mentioned about other religions is controversial, however i specifically stated that it quoted 'trustworthy Islamic evidences.' - according to my knowledge.

If you feel that it was my intention to take a cheap shot, then that wasn't my intention at all. Rather it had many explanations to the doubts which others have in regard to the issue that we're discussing right now. And that's the reason why i linked to it.



I thought the website was an Islamic one. I have not seen anything on the site that says it is not. They believe in the Quran etc, but admit the fact that there are other copies that had to be burned etc.

I think you as a Jew should understand the concept of the 'oral tradition' and any Jew who doesn't accept that has lost a huge part of their religion. The same can be said about the people who reject the Sunnah (Prophetic example and teachings.)




When I have more time I will look deeper into some of the info in your post. Until then - peace.

Alright, it's ok.




Peace.
Reply

- Qatada -
07-05-2007, 03:00 PM
Ranma, your former questions have been addressed here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/785553-post51.html



format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2

Well if i were god i would have done a better job of getting my message across. How many thousand prophets did alah send? And still he hasnt gotten his message across. Heck different prophet factions have shown up and fight each other. "jews, christians, muslims etc..."

Do you understand the concept of Prophets? The many Prophets who came to their own people to make the message clear to them. This was done on a minor scale, especially when humanity wasn't all directly connected to one another. I.e. the people in China probably didn't even know that the people of Aztecs lived maybe a few milleniums ago. So each Prophet was sent to a certain people at his nations scale.

Some accepted, others rejected. Those who rejected their Messenger usually went to the extent that they would harm and torture the believers, and due to the excessive wrongdoings of the disbelievers - Allaah would destroy them and allow the believers to settle in the lands after them for a temporary while.


Then Allaah will raise them up on the Day of Judgement and judge them on what they differed, and no-one will be dealt unjustly. Those who believed and did good works will be rewarded for their good by Allaah, and those who disbelieved - they will have no-one but themselves to blame, when the clear proofs came to them they rejected and turned away arrogantly. So Allaah will reject them on that Day the same way they rejected Him in this life. And those who are truthful will benefit from their truth, whereas those who belied Allaah's message will have no-one except themselves to blame.


So to say that ALL these Prophets had to come to repeat the same message - because Allaah couldn't portray it - is false. Since the people among them were successful, whereas there were losers amongst them also (i.e. those who denied the message.) Allaah however sent the final Message to His final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) for the whole world uptill the final hour, and after him there would be no more Messengers.



Holy book wise i would have made a holy book for everyone. Its magic since im god and all. It will be read perfectly by all even thosethat cant read would understand my word perfectly. Free will would still be there "as best as it can be if im all knowing and all" since they could choose what they wanted to do, but there would be zero doubt as to if i exists.
Thats just one basic option.

Allaah says (translation of the meaning):
And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.
[Qur'an 30: 22]

Yes, Allaah could send the Qur'an in one language. But He has created the world in a way that we speak in different languages, so we are in different colours - and these are His signs for us. He sent His Messenger who was an 'arab, who was well known for his trustworthiness, and honesty.


I will quote what the companion of Allaah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said about him;

He said: "O King, we were a people in a state of ignorance and immorality, worshipping idols and eating the flesh of dead animals, committing all sorts of abomination and shameful deeds, breaking the ties of kinship, treating guests badly and the strong among us exploited the weak.

"We remained in this state until Allah sent us a Prophet, one of our own people whose lineage, truthfulness, trustworthiness and integrity were well-known to us. "He called us to worship Allah alone and to renounce the stones and the idols which we and our ancestors used to worship besides Allah.


"He commanded us to speak the truth, to honor our promises, to be kind to our relations, to be helpful to our neighbors, to cease all forbidden acts, to abstain from bloodshed, to avoid obscenities and false witness, not to appropriate an orphan's property nor slander chaste women.

"He ordered us to worship Allah alone and not to associate anything with him, to uphold Salat (the prayer), to give Zakat (the charity) and fast in the month of Ramadan.

"We believed in him and what he brought to us from Allah and we follow him in what he has asked us to do and we keep away from what he forbade us from doing.


"Thereupon, O King, our people attacked us, visited the severest punishment on us to make us renounce our religion and take us back to the old immorality and the worship of idols.

"They oppressed us, made life intolerable for us and obstructed us from observing our religion. So we left for your country, choosing you before anyone else, desiring your protection and hoping to live in Justice and in peace in your midst."

This message spread over all the globe, and arabic was the most dominant language in the world uptill the late 18th century. It is the most eloquent of languages, the most powerful, and deep. It is the language which Allaah chose to convey the message to mankind. He is the Wise, All Knowing. So He knows best why He has revealed it in this tongue.


If you want to hear some Qur'an in arabic:
http://www.sabbir.com/DownloadHalal.html
http://quran.jalisi.com




If you believe this to be true then please kill yourself or at the very least move away from society. Of course this is not true. I myself believe there are no gods. And i dont rob, kill etc... One basic reason is I like living. And who would stop you? Well society for one. Even in a "lawless" one you have to worry about others deaming you a threat.

Can you define for me what is exactly good and bad? Trust me i've had a loooooooooooong debate with someone just a few days back. So i'm all up for it if you want to use the argument that it's just what society percieves as good or bad.



And what is this law? And why must there be one? Civilization hasnt dont that well under any god. "although the GFSM is likley our best option."

Prove to me it hasn't? Infact, when Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved the message. He recieved laws which even surpass the morals of society today!

You can refer to this link for more info in regard to that:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...mic-state.html


So if you want to say that Islaam hasn't freed mankind from the evil acts which take place in society, which were the norms at that time in history. If you want to say that Islamic civilization hasn't changed the world for the better, i can give you countless examples;

http://www.muslimheritage.com/




Regards.
Reply

rav
07-05-2007, 05:35 PM
I still won't fully understand this concept unless it's explained further with proofs, or maybe with proof to clarify what dialect the copy of Hafsa (may Allaah be pleased with her) was.
The dialect of Hafsa’s Quran was not in the form the Quran is in today?

I know the stuff which is mentioned about other religions is controversial, however i specifically stated that it quoted 'trustworthy Islamic evidences.' - according to my knowledge.

If you feel that it was my intention to take a cheap shot, then that wasn't my intention at all. Rather it had many explanations to the doubts which others have in regard to the issue that we're discussing right now. And that's the reason why i linked to it.
Okay, no problem, you are a better judge on how they use Islamic sources than I am, I suppose.

I think you as a Jew should understand the concept of the 'oral tradition' and any Jew who doesn't accept that has lost a huge part of their religion. The same can be said about the people who reject the Sunnah (Prophetic example and teachings.)
I understand that concept, but I was under the impression that this website accepted the “Sunnah”. I did not read further into it.


Allaah says (translation of the meaning):
And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.
[Qur'an 30: 22]

Yes, Allaah could send the Qur'an in one language. But He has created the world in a way that we speak in different languages, so we are in different colours - and these are His signs for us. He sent His Messenger who was an 'arab, who was well known for his trustworthiness, and honesty.
I'm sorry, but why is the entire world expected to believe Mohammad's message in arabic when the majority of the world does not speak arabic? Also, how can the message of the Quran be for all of mankind, when it was written in one specific langauge, using metaphors and such of that language which cannot be comprehended in other languages?

That it not the mark of a book that is meant for the whole world. Also, why was the Torah written in Hebrew than if the arabic language has such "deeper meaning" than all other language? Which by the way; I doubt such a claim.

Prove to me it hasn't? Infact, when Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved the message. He recieved laws which even surpass the morals of society today!
Are you defining morality?
Reply

- Qatada -
07-05-2007, 10:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
The dialect of Hafsa’s Quran was not in the form the Quran is in today?

I said i wanted to verify which dialect Hafsa's copy of Qur'an was in. I never stated that it was in another form of any sort.



I understand that concept, but I was under the impression that this website accepted the “Sunnah”. I did not read further into it.
It doesn't.



I'm sorry, but why is the entire world expected to believe Mohammad's message in arabic when the majority of the world does not speak arabic?

Allaah has sent it down as an arabic Qur'an, and even if people don't know the arabic language - they still can refer to translations of the meanings.

Like i stated in my earlier post, arabic was the dominant language in the world uptill the late 18th century. The same way English is today. Therefore anyone who is willing to understand the meaning of the Qur'an can do so, yet the Qur'an is only Qur'an i.e. in it's eloquence, depth etc. if it is in the arabic language.



Also, how can the message of the Quran be for all of mankind, when it was written in one specific langauge, using metaphors and such of that language which cannot be comprehended in other languages?

Even a student of knowledge who speaks arabic needs a teacher, so the verses aren't taken out of context and the explanation is clear. Therefore, having a teacher i.e. in the case of the companions of Allaah's Messenger, the Messenger of Allaah himself who taught it and it's interpretation.



That it not the mark of a book that is meant for the whole world. Also, why was the Torah written in Hebrew than if the arabic language has such "deeper meaning" than all other language?
The Torah was for the Children of Israeel during the times of the Prophets of the Children of Israeel. So any Prophet who was sent to his people made the message clear to them in their language.

And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

[Qur'an 14: 4]

Which by the way; I doubt such a claim.

You've got the right to your opinion, and i have the right to mine. :)



Are you defining morality?

I know that what Allaah defines as morality is moral and ethical. Since He is the Wise, All Knowing.




Regards.
Reply

rav
07-05-2007, 11:00 PM
I said i wanted to verify which dialect Hafsa's copy of Qur'an was in. I never stated that it was in another form of any sort.
Shalom Aleikhem (Peace be upon you),

Okay, I would love to hear which dialect it is in when you discover the answer.

Even a student of knowledge who speaks arabic needs a teacher, so the verses aren't taken out of context and the explanation is clear. Therefore, having a teacher i.e. in the case of the companions of Allaah's Messenger, the Messenger of Allaah himself who taught it and it's interpretation.
I would say the need for a teacher, and the comprehension of an entire language and culture are far different. Every arabic speaker has a clear advantage in terms of studying the Quran. Islam basicaly says that all who do not accept the Quran will burn in hell for eternity, yet the factors of not understanding it, it seems is not taken into account. The things you label the Quran as which make it an obviously "divine" book, many of them require the person to know arabic. It seems unjust that the whole world is expected to follow the Quran though. Maybe we have differing opinions of justice though.
________

A question: When Uthman burned the other copies of the Quran which you label as other dialects of arabic; was it proper for Uthman to burn Qurans that were just as valid, but just different in arabic dialect? Is that how you dispose of a Quran; by burning it?

You've got the right to your opinion, and i have the right to mine.
Of course you do.

I know that what Allaah defines as morality is moral and ethical. Since He is the Wise, All Knowing.
As you said above, we all have a right to our own opinion, so I would beg to differ that G-d expects a different moral system than what some of the Quran tells us, although the Quran with its biblical influence, (and lets not argue about how Mohammad found such influence, please) has some ideas like no pork which the Torah promotes.

Civilization hasnt dont that well under any god.
The Peoples Republic of China and the Soviet Union have certainly not given any sort of good reputation for setting up an anti-religious goverment in this day and age, while America one of the greatest countries on earth has much of its laws and morals based on Biblical understandings of morality.
Reply

ranma1/2
07-06-2007, 12:46 AM
Do you understand the concept of Prophets? The many Prophets who came to their own people to make the message clear to them. 。。

And it seems that he did a horrible job. I would have thought that with the many prophets he sent he would have gotten more results. How many again did he send? Who were they? Or is this all taken on faith?

Some accepted, others rejected. Those who rejected their Messenger usually went to the extent that they would harm and torture the believers, and due to the excessive wrongdoings of the disbelievers - Allaah would destroy them and allow the believers to settle in the lands after them for a temporary while.

Evidence? It seems very difficult to believe that a omnipotent being would have so much trouble. If I were a omnipotent being I would have easily done a better job.


Then Allaah will raise them up on the Day of Judgement and judge them on what they differed, and no-one will be dealt unjustly. Those who believed and did good works will be rewarded for their good by Allaah, and those who disbelieved - they will have no-one but themselves to blame, when the clear proofs came to them they rejected and turned away arrogantly. So Allaah will reject them on that Day the same way they rejected Him in this life. And those who are truthful will benefit from their truth, whereas those who belied Allaah's message will have no-one except themselves to blame.

So who decides what was a clear proof. I have not been given any clear proof. And talk about a selfish being. Remember what I considered good and bad? Once again just like the Christian religion all this is the carrot and stick method of gaining believers.
“listen officer I gave him a choice , his money or his life. He chose his life so I killed him. I gave him a choice officer, he chose to die.”

So to say that ALL these Prophets had to come to repeat the same message - because Allaah couldn't portray it - is false.

It seems to me that if your god was trying to get his message across it did a horrible job.

Yes, Allaah could send the Qur'an in “more than?” one language. But He has created the world in a way that we speak in different languages, so we are in different colours - and these are His signs for us. He sent His Messenger who was an 'arab, who was well known for his trustworthiness, and honesty.


Colours? British I take it? :)
This makes no sense, even I a humble and relavtivly stupid human can see that not sending down multiple translation would cause problems. Not to mention only having one messenger.
Lets just say for the sake of argument that his messenger was honest and trustworth “which we only have say so on this” he was relatively unknown outside of the Arabic world at the time so once again this would have been a poor plan. was it to difficult for god to make a better plan?


I will quote what the companion of Allaah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said about him;

….
This message spread over all the globe, and arabic was the most dominant language in the world uptill the late 18th century. link?
It is the most eloquent of languages, the most powerful, and deep. It is the language which Allaah chose to convey the message to mankind. He is the Wise, All Knowing. So He knows best why He has revealed it in this tongue.


And all of that is opinon. I find English to be a much more eloquent language and deeper as well. And once again with your allah knows best statement you are using circular logic. “how do we know that god wrote this? Well it says he said he did….”

Can you define for me what is exactly good and bad? Trust me i've had a loooooooooooong debate with someone just a few days back. So i'm all up for it if you want to use the argument that it's just what society percieves as good or bad.

Good and bad is subjective. For me in general I define good as selfless acts and bad as selfish acts. But in societies as you said good and bad is usually determined by those societes.

If you were born in germany and Christian during ww2 you would have likely been a nazi. If you were born white in the south in the past you could easily have been pro slavery or a member of the KKK. You could have burnt withes, you could have gone on crusades or Jihads etc… You could have been a cannibal. Etc..

Prove to me it hasn't?what again? Infact, when Allaah's final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved the message. He recieved laws which even surpass the morals of society today!

Proof? No. but the evidence shows that the quran hasn’t surpassed the morals of society. Do you have evidence it has? And if he received these better morals then why did he marry a 9 year old?

You can refer to this link for more info in regard to that:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...mic-state.html (The Rights of a Dhimmi (non muslim) & Muslim in an Islamic State.)


Where is this mentioned in the quran? And what does this have to do with morals?


So if you want to say that Islam hasn't freed mankind from the evil acts which take place in society, which were the norms at that time in history. If you want to say that Islamic civilization hasn't changed the world for the better, i can give you countless examples;
Please do. Or are you just going to list science that was not inspired by the quran?
What does Islamic civilization have to do with it anymore than Chinese, American etc…?_ We are talking about the quran not misc muslims that may have made a discovery. Imagine what the would be like without electricity. The light bulb. The car etc…..So I’m not sure what your point about is.
Now with your point of Islam freeing mankind from the evil acts please provide evidence.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-06-2007, 12:49 AM
Greetings,

I was glancing through this thread and stumbled upon two issues I'd like to comment on. The first pertaining to details regarding the historical compilation and preservation of the Qur'an. And the second being a direct response to comments I made previously in another thread on the forum.

First, let me just point out that we should be referring to scholarly, academic sources that provide the references and research for all conclusions. See my list of recommended books on Islam for the links to two books which cover the preservation of the Qur'an and its qira'at in a very detailed scholarly fashion (one book is by Yasir Qadhi and the other by M.M. Azami).

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual. The Qur'an is a living text, in that its recitation forms an integral part of the daily religious practice of each and every muslim in the world. The Imam recites from the Qur'an in the congregational prayers, and during Ramadan every year the entire Qur'an is recited from cover to cover in each mosque by the Imam from memory. Now let's take the example of the Holy Mosque in Makkah where literally millions of worshippers congregate during the prayers in Ramadan. Standing in that congregation there are countless thousands who have memorized the Qur'an and have come from every corner of the world and many more thousands who follow along with a pocket Qur'an. Even the slightest mispronunciation of a vowelization mark is instantly corrected.

Muslims everywhere memorize the Qur'an, many millions memorizing the entire Qur'an from cover to cover, such that Huffaadh (singl. Hafidh - one who has memorized the entire Qur'an by heart) are ubiquitous within the muslim community. It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an. If all the books in the entire world were to be lost or destroyed, only the Qur'an would be recovered letter for letter as it is preserved in the hearts of so many millions.

As far as the textual history goes, I'd like to mention a few points. The criteria used in the compilation of the Qur'an was that for each verse there had to be at least two witnesses, each of whom having not only memorized the verse (since practically all the companions had memorized the Qur'an) but had with them the parchment on which they recorded the verse in the presence of the Prophet himself. Uthman ordered the writing of several other copies of the text and sent them to the major cities, each accompanied with a knowledgeable recitor from amongst the companions to teach the people. When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion. When Uthman destroyed the unauthorized parchments it was a preventative measure to ensure that alterations of God's revelation would never take place.

I'd like to comment on what was mentioned regarding the Qur'an being revealed in arabic. The fact that the Qur'an's message is universal and transcends culture, nationality and ethnicity is not in any way negated by its revelation in a specific language. The message of Islam can be expounded and explained (and it indeed is) in any language. While it is true that knowledge of the arabic language is necessary for Islamic scholarship and a more complete appreciation of the Qur'an's miraculous beauty, this is not necessary for the basic practice of Islam and more importantly, anyone can learn arabic if they have the resources and invest a moderate amount of time and effort! Some of the greatest scholars of Islam have been non-arabs.
Every arabic speaker has a clear advantage in terms of studying the Quran.
Yes, people born speaking the arabic language do have a certain advantage in gaining understanding of the religion, but how is that advantage any different from an individual who has the opportunity and financial resources to go to an Islamic University over an individual who does not?? Moreover, most arabs don't even have that great of an advantage since the arabic of the Qur'an is still not the same as the street dialects of arabs and still requires a certain amount of learning irrespective of whether the student is arab or not. So whether you know arabic or not, nothing changes in terms of your capacity to learn and implement the religion and that is what you will ultimately be held accountable for.
Islam basicaly says that all who do not accept the Quran will burn in hell for eternity, yet the factors of not understanding it, it seems is not taken into account.
One's obligation to understand the message of the Qur'an is totally independent from whether one is able to hear a specific verse and translate it in their head. A person can have a sound understanding of the concept of Islamic monotheism, prophethood, and the hereafter without being able to understand a single sentence in arabic.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-06-2007, 02:47 AM
Hello Ranma1/2,

Your brief comments in an earlier post were written concerning an outline I wrote on some of the special features of the Qur'an. What you have not realized is that this outline was a brief sketch that I provided before going into detail substantiating each subpoint in several other threads, one of them entitled 'prove the quran is the word of God'. You can find it with the search facility.
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I guess I should ask why do you think that the Koran is unchanged?
Previous post is the tip of the iceberg. Study the historical preservation of the Qur'an yourself (I've mentioned two books in my last post) and you will come to the same conclusion. In fact, the vast majority of non-muslim orientalists, many of whom were quite hostile and quite vehement in their attacks on Islam, have yet agreed that the Qur'anic text is unaltered (note: obviously since they are non-muslim they will refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad saws).

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

If it is because of god then why did god not keep his message pure with his prior prophets?
Just like your other questions, this question was also answered in previous threads.

From other threads...
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Previous revelations were specific to the nation for which they were sent, hence the test for the people was to preserve the text. For the Qur'an, its message is universal, os insteading of being tested with preserving the text, Muslims have the test of propagating the message to the world, while God preserves the text. So everyone was tested, just in different ways.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
For previous revelations, God entrusted the duty of their preservation to their nation. But for the Qur'an, Muslims do not have the duty of its preservation but its propagation as the Qur'an is a revelation for all humanity (previous prophets were sent specifically to their nations).
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The nations who recieved the Tawrat and the Injeel were entrusted by God with the task of its preservation. But the final message from God, the Qur'an, was entrusted to Muslims with the task of its PROPAGATION to all the people of the world, and this time the task of its preservation was taken by God.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The Prophet Muhammad pbuh said: 'Every Prophet used to be sent to his people alone but I have been sent to all mankind'. (Sahîh Bukhârî)

In other words, the previous nations did not have the same test of having to propagate the message to all humanity, it was only their nation that had to implement it. For example, the people of Africa are not responsible for the message of Prophet Jesus pbuh.

The Qur'an however has been sent for all mankind, as God's final revelation. It is also interesting to note that this is an era where a universal message is more practical as it is the age of global communcation and exchange of ideas. So Muslims have the duty to propagate this message everywhere, and with that extra duty they are relieved of the task of preserving it.
Do the original texts actually exists or are there just copies?
According to the estimates of some of the most renowned scholars on the textual history of the Qur'an, such as M. M. Azami, there are approximately "250 000 copies of the Qur'an in manuscript form, complete or partial, from the first century of Hijrah onwards" (Azami, The History of the Qur'anic Text, p. 156). Some of these manuscripts have been featured online here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
What about the non Koran bits, the hadiths etc..
There's an article on the Load Islam page written by one of the former admins of this forum, regarding the preservation of the hadith. Furthermore there are numerous threads which discuss the topic. One of the mods could probably pick out the link for the article for you if you are unable to locate it.
How can the message be universal if it cant be translated perfectly?
A perfect Non sequitur fallacy. Logically speaking, there is no connection. On one hand you have the basic fact that translation can not capture exactly and perfectly all the subtleties and nuances associated with the beauty of the original verse, while on the other hand you have the fact that the message and teachings expounded in that scripture are universal in that they can be, and are practiced and understood by people from any background, as the Qur'an trancends culture, nationality, ethnicity and every other superficial barrier which divides human beings. No other system of laws has been introduced sucessfuly and implemented by peoples across different continents and cultures.
Why must you have scholars tell you what it means?
Since it is the inherent nature of language that allows for the possibility of misinterpretations in practically any set of instructions, God sent a messenger with the scripture to explain it and demonstrate how to implement it's teachings. The teachings of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh are referred to as the Sunnah, and the Qur'an and the Sunnah form the sources of legislation and guidance in Islam. Thus, for one to determine the ruling on any particular issue it entails sound knowledge of both these sources. So anyone can understand the Qur'an so long as they invest the time to acquire knowledge of these two sources. You can't just go from a superficial reading of a medical textbook to acting as a doctor and treating patients in the hospital, you need to study in medical school first. Likewise one needs to be qualified in terms of their Islamic knowledge in order to give rulings in Islamic jurisprudence. Knowledge is a prerequisite in any field. The fact that you need knowledge in no way negates the clarity of the texts you are acquiring knowledge from. They are two seperate issues.
Why do so many disagree with it?
Lack of knowledge. In this case, the problem is easily resolved by acceptance and knowledge of the teachings of the quran and sunnah. This question was also raised and discussed in the thread 'prove the quran...' and I explained there that all legitimate differences of opinion extend only to subsidiary issues of Islamic law and the main cause of any doctrinal differences amongst heretical groups or individuals would be lack of knowledge or refusal to accept those sources of knowledge as valid, for example the rejection of the teachings of the Prophet.
And your last sentence seems to be untrue.
Because you have not seen the explanation I had written alongside it, in the other thread. Islam is a complete way of life - it gives muslims guidance in ALL aspects of their lives whether spiritual, social, physical, environmental, societal, economic, political, moral, environmental, recreational, and so on and so forth. Thus, there is no other body of laws (LAWS - not just a set of beliefs) which has been accepted on such a wide scale, and this is what I meant by 'constitution'. Which other book has been taken up as a constitution at this level? The answer I often get is the New Testament, but again this misses the previous point about a complete system of guidance, directives and laws by which to regulate one's life.
It does not seem practical and seems illogical in many instances.
If you expect a response to this comment it would entail some objectivity and substantiating references with regard to those 'instances'.

No it doesn’t, if it did you would not need hadiths would you? And even those are not.
Learn about what the hadith are. The explanatory function of the teachings of the Prophet is dictated in the Qur'an itself. As for your simplistic denial, I need only respond by requesting that you pick up any basic text of Islamic jurisprudence and look at the expansive range of topics covered therein, the sources of which always must go back to Qur'an and Sunnah. Everyone of those different aspects of life I mentioned have references which provide a body of guidance in that area from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
nope.
I'm fascinated by your objective and meticulous refutation. :rollseyes Anyway, what I was referring to, and what you can read up on to understand the point, is the concept of the fitrah, the innate sense of right and wrong in-grained in human psychology. This is why the Qur'an points out that the believers are simply calling to ma'ruf - that which is known by people to be good, pure and righteous. Devotion to God, kindness and justice to all people, law and order in society, racial equality, the use of reason and the intellectual capacities God has endowed us with, the praise of the pursuit for knowledge, etc. You can take a glimpse of a list of some selected Qur'anic verses on my personal page.
It is so clear you have to have scholars tell you what it means.
Already answered. Clarity is not negated by requisite knowledge.
Deep? So is shakespear. The bible etc…. deepness does not a holy book make.
Answer the point about the commentaries. Just to give you an idea about the tip of the iceberg, there is a multi-volume commentary by Ibn al-Qayyim on just verse 5 of Surah Fatiha, entitled 'Madarij as-Salikeen'. This point is something better appreciated by those who have done some readings in Qur'anic exegesis.

Evidence? Ive read it and got no such interaction.
I explained the same concept in the other thread and referred to this article conveying the reflections of an Atheist (now Muslim) professor of Mathematics who read Qur'an and writes in an almost 'stream of conciousness' format:
http://www.islamicboard.com/188288-post1.html
You'll get a glimpse of what I'm talking about from that.

Except it is not.
lol, someone else also tried to challenge that point and my response was like this:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
What's this? Someone actually wants to debate me on alleged contradictions in the Qur'an?!! Be my guest! We'll even make a new thread for it! But you might want to prepare by reading through the 42 rebuttals I've written, available in the above link!
Needless to say, they did not take up my offer. I can challenge you to find any error and practically everything you come up with would have already been refuted on this very forum itself.

Wow just like the abcs, the bible, shakespear, the princes bride, etc…
As I said, the Qur'an has been memorized in its entirety by millions, even little children. There is simply no other book that has been so easily memorized. Sorry, not even the Bible. Where is someone who has memorized the entire New Testament let alone the entire Bible?! You may find maybe one person in the world who has performed such a spectacular feat after devoting their entire life to it but with the Qur'an it is considered totally normal to find even children who do it with ease and recite it cover to cover from memory. Such ease is not found in memorizing any other scripture.

Wow its soo cool god could not translate it perfectly inot other languages and even modern speakers have to have scholars tell them what it means.
Already answered above. And if you want a further taste of that point, listen to some Qur'anic recitation.

Do you have the originals? And what about prior to it being written down? How many Chinese whispers did it go through?
Already answered.

This has been discussed to death, but to sum it up. There is no special knowledge in the Koran, any actual knowledge was known at the time. Anything else is reading what is not there.
It's one thing for you to say it, it is another to substantiate it under the standard of objectivity. Take a look at just this one example that I decided to explore and debate with other forum members and found that no solid case could be made against it:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post559757
Take a careful look at the detailed responses I've provided Trumble with.

-its Authorship; the context in which the Qur'an was revealed leaves the reader with no other conclusion than the fact that it could only be the word of God.
Evidence?
You'll see what I was referring to along with substantiating evidence in the following posts:
http://www.islamicboard.com/176538-post11.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/193795-post26.html



If anything, I hope my current post demonstrates the value of the search facility!

Regards
Reply

rav
07-06-2007, 04:12 AM
Hi Ansar, I apologize right now for a very disorganized post, full with random questions I have for you and problems with some parts of your post.

Greetings,

I was glancing through this thread and stumbled upon two issues I'd like to comment on. The first pertaining to details regarding the historical compilation and preservation of the Qur'an. And the second being a direct response to comments I made previously in another thread on the forum.

First, let me just point out that we should be referring to scholarly, academic sources that provide the references and research for all conclusions. See my list of recommended books on Islam for the links to two books which cover the preservation of the Qur'an and its qira'at in a very detailed scholarly fashion (one book is by Yasir Qadhi and the other by M.M. Azami).
Shalom (Peace),

I must ask you this Ansar; you speak about books that are scholarly, and academic, but if we did that, would you seriously accept my references to academic material on the development of the Quran? What do you define as “academic” because the academic world in universities when studying the Quran and its development have come to very diverse conclusions about its origins and development, theories which differ greatly from the Islamic accounts of the Quran’s origins.

One fallacy that many people commit in discussing the preservation of the Qur'an is ignoring its oral and educational tradition, focusing merely on the textual. The Qur'an is a living text, in that its recitation forms an integral part of the daily religious practice of each and every muslim in the world. The Imam recites from the Qur'an in the congregational prayers, and during Ramadan every year the entire Qur'an is recited from cover to cover in each mosque by the Imam from memory. Now let's take the example of the Holy Mosque in Makkah where literally millions of worshippers congregate during the prayers in Ramadan. Standing in that congregation there are countless thousands who have memorized the Qur'an and have come from every corner of the world and many more thousands who follow along with a pocket Qur'an. Even the slightest mispronunciation of a vowelization mark is instantly corrected.
The same could be said about the Torah, the same things go on all across different synagogues, and people have indeed memorized the Torah, and we have chains from Rabbi’s going back all the way to Moshe Rabbeinu and the same occured during the readings of the law in times long ago as well. That topic above your elaborating on is not the problem in this dialogue about the Quran, Ansar. We are discussing the Quran’s development.

As I said, the Qur'an has been memorized in its entirety by millions, even little children. There is simply no other book that has been so easily memorized. Sorry, not even the Bible.
If Christians or Jews but heavy emphasis on the practice it woud occur, the fact is that we do not put a heavy prize on who can memmorize verses and train our children to memmorize at early ages.

Muslims everywhere memorize the Qur'an, many millions memorizing the entire Qur'an from cover to cover, such that Huffaadh (singl. Hafidh - one who has memorized the entire Qur'an by heart) are ubiquitous within the muslim community. It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an. If all the books in the entire world were to be lost or destroyed, only the Qur'an would be recovered letter for letter as it is preserved in the hearts of so many millions.
The memorization of a book does not give the book validity. It basically means that the book has simply been memorized by millions. If the church declared that kids beginning at very young ages would be sent to schools where they must memorize Bible verses, then the reaction to such a declaration would be in areas where these types of schools are the best available (i.e. Africa), you would begin to see people memorizing the Torah. Also, there has never been a generation where a man has not memorized the Torah, according to our tradition. Although going off topic, my conclusion is that the Quran is no more legitimate because it has been memorized.

As far as the textual history goes, I'd like to mention a few points. The criteria used in the compilation of the Qur'an was that for each verse there had to be at least two witnesses,
As I quoted before from the work of Dr. Naik, he writes: “These might have been incomplete and with mistakes.”

The Quranic text we have today is the one that was endorsed by the then 3rd Caliph of Islam, who burned all the obtainable copies of the Quran that differed with his version of the Quranic text. Does that sound anything like perfect revelation sealed flawlessly? If he burnt other dialects to lessen confusion, than first, is it proper to burn the Quran in any dialect? Second, as I said before: Apparently, it was more than just a pronunciation thing. If that were the case, it would only have been an effortless task of replication Hafsa's version and sending it out. But he didn't do that. He commissioned an assembly to contrast the copy with other versions. This shows that the distinction was more than mere pronunciation or spelling as some have suggested. Wouldn’t it?

Let us assume for now that Hafsa's version is the perfect and definitive version. And hence this would mean that Hafsa's version was already in the Quraishiite form. However, it appears not. Since, Uthman had to instruct the scribes:

Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."

How can there be disagreement when Hafsa's version was ‘perfect’?

Plus, I remember reading in the Hadith that if the person heard someone recite a verse and he could fine no one else, but he “remembered” the verse or hearing of it, he would add it in and count himself as the second witness. Could you clarify this?

Also an example:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):
'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)
Also, about the Tashkent Quran, here are some things I have read about this copy, please correct me if I am wrong Ansar, because I have no use to attack Islam or Christianity, but live my life in peace since many opinions within Judaism say Muslims can go to heaven! I therefore, in the process of taking classes in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, must have a few things clarified which people do learn.

The pronoun huwa [he] is at hand in the Tashkent-Samarqand original of the Quran chapter 2, verse 284, while the contemporary Arabic version has the word “G-d”.


Also, if we read what Mawlana Modudi states in his tafseer, one cannot fail to realize that if the Quran had been so preserved then how such discrepancies could occur… right? I have a huge amount of reading material that I would love for you to go over, but I don’t want to trouble you. However, if you want, I found a huge number of links that I have gone over and found very interesting.

Can we really trust all of the preservations though? Two witnesses? There could have been one mistake, right? Is just one all it takes?

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 523:
Narrated 'Alqama:

While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas'ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him), "It was not revealed in this way." Then Ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle and he confirmed my recitation by saying, 'Well done!' " Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him, "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?" Then he lashed him according to the law.

A few other questions:

-I have heard that in books like AL-Itqaan by Suyooty, quite a few centuries back can come across evidence in which they evidently tell us that people used to have Quran’s with different sura’s and verse orders eg ibn masood, abu moosa, ubaee bin ka'b etc. Can you comment on this, or let me know the information you have about this? Thank you in advance.

-Sunnis have their own Hadith collections like Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Nisaee, Abu Dawud and Ibn Maaja etc etc. These are rejected by Shiites as forgeries. Likewise Sunnis have their own Fiqh collections like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Humbly etc. which are also rejected by Shiites.

-The Shiites also have their individual Hadith collection recognized as Al-Kafi by Imam Yaqub Kalayni. And similarly they have their own Fiqh by name of Fiqh Al-Jaferia. These are rejected by Sunnis completely as forgeries.

So why can we not trust their copies and their accounts, and are there main differences?

Which sect of Islam or Hadith should one reject or accept when converting to Islam?

I have found some reasons to doubt that you can 100% prove your claims and resting on faith is not a bad thing, but the original poster cannot make such an ardent claim to all non-Muslims.

Also questions on these:

Can you explain them to me, or direct to links of Islamic commentaries?

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 522:
Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:

Once 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud delivered a sermon before us and said, "By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle . By Allah, the companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah's Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them." Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech).

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) : By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom.

Your comments on Arabic I will have to respectfully disagree with, on the account that Islamic and Judaic logic in this matter differ.

Example:

The scriptures, only call on Israel who witnessed G-d's deeds to follow and keep his laws. No other nation is threatened or blamed for not accepting the Torah/Law; they are not obligated to, for they did not witness the miracles which prove the truth of the Torah/Law! Moses did not demand that the children of Israel should believe in him, for none of them ever disputed the truth of the law, which they had witnessed together with him. But the books of Islam and Christianity vehemently curse everyone in the world who disbelieves them although they did not demonstrate their proofs to the whole world. Judaism says the non-Jews who did not receive the proofs that the Torah is divine do not need to follow it.


Again sorry for the cluster and disorganization, but I had little time… I hope you can forgive me, my next post will be much better written and not all over the place, so I hope you can follow.

Peace.
Reply

Malaikah
07-06-2007, 05:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
I'm sorry, but why is the entire world expected to believe Mohammad's message in arabic when the majority of the world does not speak arabic? Also, how can the message of the Quran be for all of mankind, when it was written in one specific langauge, using metaphors and such of that language which cannot be comprehended in other languages?
It isn't like people can't learn to read Arabic. I mean, they are willing to learn a language just for the sake of, or to increase employment prospects. So surely then, learning Arabic for the reason of being able to read the Quran directly is a much more worthy reason (for a Muslim at least).

And it isn't like there would be much use sending an english Quran to an Arabic-speaking prophet. :thumbs_up
Reply

Basirah
07-06-2007, 05:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
It isn't like people can't learn to read Arabic. I mean, they are willing to learn a language just for the sake of, or to increase employment prospects. So surely then, learning Arabic for the reason of being able to read the Quran directly is a much more worthy reason (for a Muslim at least).

And it isn't like there would be much use sending an english Quran to an Arabic-speaking prophet. :thumbs_up
Dear Malaikah, If you were to formulate a guess, about how much of the world has the time or financial ability to learn a new language? Let alone the ability to understand metaphors in Arabic. I'm afraid the number is not to high.
Reply

vorx
07-06-2007, 06:08 AM
The Qur'an itself is not just a book. It is a lifestyle and history of old civilizations. It is science and philosophy. it is a complex books and well written.

But yeah, the thing with evolution that bothers me is how can we resemble monkeys and apes almost 90% of their organism and Adam was "supposedly" the first human being. It is kinda hard to know since the Qur'an and modern science only hint clues and not the whole pictures and everything is sketchy

I can't tell if Adam was once a specimen with half a human body and half a fish tail like a mermaid. Who knows? nobody.

I see fossils and i see preserved life form. Probably evolution is alive but probably God is creating as we speak and puts things in earth without evolutionary origin. Who knows?

It is mentioned in the Qur'an that man was created from water. That is evolution theory right there in the Qur'an. It is also said in the Qur'an that some civilization was cursed to be monkeys. Please correct me if i am wrong, as i forgot the sourse verses when i read it.
Reply

ranma1/2
07-06-2007, 06:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by vorx
The Qur'an itself is not just a book. It is a lifestyle and history of old civilizations. It is science and philosophy. it is a complex books and well written.

But yeah, the thing with evolution that bothers me is how can we resemble monkeys and apes almost 90% of their organism and Adam was "supposedly" the first human being. It is kinda hard to know since the Qur'an and modern science only hint clues and not the whole pictures and everything is sketchy

I can't tell if Adam was once a specimen with half a human body and half a fish tail like a mermaid. Who knows? nobody.

I see fossils and i see preserved life form. Probably evolution is alive but probably God is creating as we speak and puts things in earth without evolutionary origin. Who knows?

It is mentioned in the Qur'an that man was created from water. That is evolution theory right there in the Qur'an. It is also said in the Qur'an that some civilization was cursed to be monkeys. Please correct me if i am wrong, as i forgot the sourse verses when i read it.
i cant comment to much on the quran but evo theory has no comment on the formation of life but what happened after life appeared.
The comment of life coming from water if a poor one. Life today is mostly composed of water but it came from a variety of elements.
Reply

Basirah
07-06-2007, 06:35 AM
The Qur'an itself is not just a book. It is a lifestyle and history of old civilizations. It is science and philosophy. it is a complex books and well written.
Friend, brother in humanity... do you believe that the Quran is a science book? You really believe this?

that some civilization was cursed to be monkeys.
Yes, I believe they were cursed to be "apes and pigs": "minkum fee alsabti faqulnah lahom kuunuuqiradatan khasi-eena", however is that not "de-evolution"?
Reply

ranma1/2
07-06-2007, 06:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Friend, brother in humanity... do you believe that the Quran is a science book? You really believe this?



Yes, I believe they were cursed to be "apes and pigs": "minkum fee alsabti faqulnah lahom kuunuuqiradatan khasi-eena", however is that not "de-evolution"?
there is no such thing as de-evolution.
Reply

Basirah
07-06-2007, 06:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
there is no such thing as de-evolution.
You think so?
Reply

ranma1/2
07-06-2007, 06:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
You think so?
in science, to my knowledge there is no such thing.
Got a link?
Reply

Trumble
07-06-2007, 07:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Take a look at just this one example that I decided to explore and debate with other forum members and found that no solid case could be made against it:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post559757
Take a careful look at the detailed responses I've provided Trumble with.
Please take an equally careful look at my responses while you are at it, particularly my alternative 'scientific' explanation in #47. I'm afraid Ansar is far less convincing in that thread than he seems to think he is!
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-06-2007, 10:21 AM
Re: ranma1/2

Look u does not believe in ur creator. U believes a creator of pin but u does not believe a creator of urs. U may forget it but I won’t that’s why I gave u a example
format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
Think u r a creator of something (Calculator) and u want to reveal ur law (software program and manual) to ur creation
on which way and language u will reveal ur law]
And look how u answer.
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Well if i were god i would have done a better job of getting my message across. How many thousand prophets did alah send? And still he hasnt gotten his message across. Heck different prophet factions have shown up and fight each other. "jews, christians, muslims etc..."

Holy book wise i would have made a holy book for everyone. Its magic since im god and all. It will be read perfectly by all even thosethat can’t read would understand my word perfectly. Free will would still be there "as best as it can be if im all knowing and all" since they could choose what they wanted to do, but there
Give answer according to ur faith & knowledge don’t answer according ur imagination.


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
If you believe this to be true then please kill yourself or at the very least move away from society. Of course this is not true..
If I believe on this to be true what do mean?????
This world can give u thousands of examples that people enjoy killing
This world can give u thousands of examples that people enjoy robbing, cheating……go on.
Do u denying this???
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I myself believe there are no gods. And i dont rob, kill etc
In every authentic religion in every age u will find this teaching. Than u following the teaching of religion. Why u doing that?? Religion suppose to be false.
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
And who would stop you? Well society for one. Even in a "lawless" one you have to worry about others deaming you a threat
??.. I was talking
When people believe there is no GOD
When people believe there no such thing which will catch them for their wrong doing.
When people believe there no such superior law to obey.
Than many people will start doing/thinking like that
format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
I will rob who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will kill who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
I will rape who r u to stop me I have one life and I want to do whatever my mind says.
Will go on and on.
And why u thinking anyone takes any other’s concept or idea or philosophy whyyyy?
if u believe every human is equal than no one's concept or idea or philosophy supirior to other

and believe me if this continue than people like u (disbeliever with some intellect) will come back to the teaching of religion.

why
Because
U
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I like living
Because
otherwise the civilization will be collapse.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
And what is this law? And why must there be one? Civilization hasnt dont that well under any god. "although the GFSM is likley our best option."
Allmost every powerful civilized civilization of times of the world found as a believer of GOD.

It does not make any sense if some people/nation follow some teaching of religion to survive from this earth but don’t believe in GOD
Example: ranma1/2 he is non believer but do not kill do not rob which mean he follow the teaching of religion.

A believer follows the LAW OF GOD in order to survive from this earth and the hereafter.

We r in same problem like in past
People talking about lot of issue. Very difficult to read so many thing.
I think we should talk on one subject or answer one question so that the questioner can’t skip anything. Also the reader may not say oh I’m lost.
Reply

ranma1/2
07-06-2007, 11:02 AM
Please stop typing 733t, its annoying and its hard to take anything you say seriously.


[QUOTE=i_m_tipu;786141]Re: ranma1/2

Look u does not believe in ur creator.
correct. I dont believe in any creator, espeically one concerned about me personally. no evidence for one.

U believes a creator of pin but u does not believe a creator of urs. U may forget it but I won’t that’s why I gave u a example
no clue what your saying here.

And look how u answer.
Give answer according to ur faith & knowledge don’t answer according ur imagination.

I gave a perfectly reasonable and better solution to getting message across. Please speak normally, Im really having trouble following you. If english is not your 1st language i can understand some but please try to speak "type" cleary.



If I believe on this to be true what do mean?????
This world can give u thousands of examples that people enjoy killing
This world can give u thousands of examples that people enjoy robbing, cheating……go on.
Do u denying this???
I doubt the only reason you dont go on killing people is because you will get punished by god. If that is then you need psychological help. it also does not say much about you as a person. Did you kill puppies as a kid before you found god?

In every authentic religion in every age u will find this teaching. Than u following the teaching of religion. Why u doing that?? Religion suppose to be false
authentic? what do you mean by this? And following what? If every religion has these "morals" then its clear you dont need a real god to give you them. its clear that we can make our own morality and in fact we do.

??.. I was talking
When people believe there is no GOD
When people believe there no such thing which will catch them for their wrong doing.
When people believe there no such superior law to obey.
Than many people will start doing/thinking like that

and who here seriously thinks there are no reprocussions? "perhaps those that are mentaliy unfit" Even a thief has to worry about people they steal from. If they get caught etc... Heck quite a bit of evil is done in the name of peoples own "gods". I forget who said it but there was a great qoute.
"A bad man will do evil, a good man will do good, but it takes religion to have a good man do evil and smile."

Why do people do good? becuase of empathy, the golden rule etc..
Altruism is benefitial. reciprocation is benefital. etc...


And why u thinking anyone takes any other’s concept or idea or philosophy whyyyy?
if u believe every human is equal than no one's concept or idea or philosophy supirior to other

and believe me if this continue than people like u (disbeliever with some intellect) will come back to the teaching of religion.

why Because U
Because
otherwise the civilization will be collapse.


i have no idea what your talking about . please be clear.
I belive the ideas of good and bad are subjective. So for me they are not equal. I have my own morals and ideas of good and bad as do you. We each think ours are better than others.



[B][I]Allmost every powerful civilized civilization of times of the world found as a believer of GOD.

and almost every civiliazation has murderd other civilizations. Almost all civ were meat eaters. etc...
And almost every civ was not islamic or christian.. etc....
And almost every civ believed in a different god.
So what is your point?

It does not make any sense if some people/nation follow some teaching of religion to survive from this earth but don’t believe in GOD.
Example: ranma1/2 he is non believer but do not kill do not rob which mean he follow the teaching of religion.

huh? ideas of moralituy existed long before islam. code of hamurabi?
im very inclear as to what you are trying to say.
Are you asking why do i have or follow similar rules or morals of other religions?
The answer to that is simple. There are some basic rules and moralities that have an advantage in survival.

A believer follows the LAW OF GOD in order to survive from this earth and the hereafter.
sounds pretty selfish not to mention what about other religions?

We r in same problem like in past
hmm you would have thought if relgion was the answer we wouldnt be.
Reply

Basirah
07-06-2007, 03:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
in science, to my knowledge there is no such thing.
Got a link?
Sarcasm my friend, sarcasm.

ومن نكتة

It does not make any sense if some people/nation follow some teaching of religion to survive from this earth but don’t believe in GOD
Example: ranma1/2 he is non believer but do not kill do not rob which mean he follow the teaching of religion.
Were there people in the times of Greek mythology that did not kill my friend?
Reply

vorx
07-06-2007, 09:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Friend, brother in humanity... do you believe that the Quran is a science book? You really believe this?
Read the Qur'an there is often tales of the formation of mountains, number of the earth's layers, orbit of the sun, locations of the stars, expansion of the universe, other lifeforms in the universe (the jinns), eclipses, etc...

I dont even know all the Qur'an and these are scientific discussions the Qur'an speaks about.
Reply

wilberhum
07-06-2007, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by vorx
Read the Qur'an there is often tales of the formation of mountains, number of the earth's layers, orbit of the sun, locations of the stars, expansion of the universe, other lifeforms in the universe (the jinns), eclipses, etc...

I dont even know all the Qur'an and these are scientific discussions the Qur'an speaks about.
Jinns - Scientific? :skeleton:
Reply

vorx
07-06-2007, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Jinns - Scientific? :skeleton:
As far as i am concerned yes. It tells in the Qur'an that God created jinns from a smokeless fire.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory or some extraterrestrial weird stuff but it is still a scientific theory for something to be born out of fire.

I am not a big fan of alien or human anatomy but my scientific interests are more concerned in geography and wild life, etc..
Reply

wilberhum
07-06-2007, 09:50 PM
As far as i am concerned yes
You are one in a million. Heck, maybe one in a billion. :skeleton:
Reply

czgibson
07-06-2007, 10:11 PM
Greetings,

Not a hugely important point for the purposes of this thread, but I am compelled to point it out:

format_quote Originally Posted by - Qatada -
Shakespeare? He was born on 1616 CE.
He was actually born in April 1564. He died in 1616 (CE).

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
It is not uncommon nor surprising to find children even as young as six or seven or younger who have completed their memorization of the entire Qur'an.
That, to me, is a scandalous waste of an education. Think of all the subjects such a child could have spent time learning about instead. I suppose to a Muslim it is considered valuable, but to a materialist like me, memorising the Qur'an is an activity that is, in practical terms, pretty pointless.

Peace
Reply

vpb
07-06-2007, 10:20 PM
That, to me, is a scandalous waste of an education. Think of all the subjects such a child could have spent time learning about instead. I suppose to a Muslim it is considered valuable, but to a materialist like me, memorising the Qur'an is an activity that is, in practical terms, pretty pointless.
It is better to teach the kid Qur'an, so he ends up worshipping Allah swt, respecting his parents, having high morals as a human being should have, instead of teaching the child 1+1=2, where that is something that will be learned in school.
It is better to know how to respect your father and mother, than knowing 1+1.
Reply

wilberhum
07-06-2007, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by vpb
It is better to teach the kid Qur'an, so he ends up worshipping Allah swt, respecting his parents, having high morals as a human being should have, instead of teaching the child 1+1=2, where that is something that will be learned in school.
It is better to know how to respect your father and mother, than knowing 1+1.
I would rather my child be able to add and know the world is round.
They don't need to memorise a book to respect me or god. :skeleton:
Reply

vpb
07-06-2007, 10:30 PM
I would rather my child be able to add and know the world is round.
they can learn all basic things about science in the Qur'an. (including the one you mentioned)

They don't need to memorise a book to respect me or god.

we are only discussing wether it is a waste of time or not. we are not talking about other options.
Reply

czgibson
07-06-2007, 11:18 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by vpb
they can learn all basic things about science in the Qur'an. (including the one you mentioned)
If you seriously believe that, you don't know very much about science. If what you say is true, then the Qur'an would feature on science courses the world over.

Has science featured much in your education, may I ask?

Peace
Reply

جوري
07-06-2007, 11:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
That, to me, is a scandalous waste of an education. Think of all the subjects such a child could have spent time learning about instead. I suppose to a Muslim it is considered valuable, but to a materialist like me, memorising the Qur'an is an activity that is, in practical terms, pretty pointless.

Peace
hello mr. Gibson
I know your reply wasn't directed at me, and to be honest I have seen this sort of debate so many times, after a while I lose interest, but do wish to pose a question for you if I may?---which do you suppose is worst for your child who just now grabbed an electrical socket, wattage or voltage? Don't look up the answer on line, tell me your first instinctual answer to that...
I could possibly tie this for you nicely, if I can get an honest response..
peace!
Reply

czgibson
07-06-2007, 11:55 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
hello mr. Gibson
I know your reply wasn't directed at me, and to be honest I have seen this sort of debate so many times, after a while I lose interest, but do wish to pose a question for you if I may?---which do you suppose is worst for your child who just now grabbed an electrical socket, wattage or voltage? Don't look up the answer on line, tell me your first instinctual answer to that...
I could possibly tie this for you nicely, if I can get an honest response..
peace!
My instinctual answer would be wattage, but I'm not sure. I do know that voltage on its own won't harm you at all. I'd be quite happy to have 2,000 volts put across my heart if there was no current involved. It would be like holding a battery that wasn't connected to a circuit.

I sense you're going somewhere with this, and I'm sure you'll bring us back to the topic of the thread in due course...

Peace
Reply

جوري
07-07-2007, 12:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


My instinctual answer would wattage, but I'm not sure. I do know that voltage on its own won't harm you at all. I'd be quite happy to have 2,000 volts put across my heart if there was no current involved. It would be like holding a battery that wasn't connected to a circuit.

I sense you're going somewhere with this, and I'm sure you'll bring us back to the topic of the thread in due course...

Peace
well, a volt-amp and a Watt are essentially the same thing, however
a volt would be a maximum power, where as the watt would refer to the time averaged power flow, it might mean a certain other thing in other fields (physics) who knows? but I am strictly speaking of child who is electrocuted and presents to PedER and in my own sphere of knowledge. When you get a child who seems so well behaved and not at all in shock after having touched an electrical circuit which zapped him, yet there are no visible evidence of burns anywhere, folks might assume all is duckie, if you don't admit this kid to the hospital D/C home, some time later that evening, he goes into seizures, rapid firing of all his neurons, cardiac arrhythmia and dies, and people wonder what the he*l happened? he was doing so well, just 12 hours ago? simply the wattage traveled to his purkinje fiber, stayed dormant and depolarized rapidly at a much later point...
To tie it in together for you and I admit it, it is an utterly outlandish analogy. Some things might not have an immediately visible affect, and might in fact seem well under physiological conditions, but you can have serious ramifications down the line.
I understand a "materialist" would possibly need to see the burns to conclude that there is some tissue damage? but a "spiritualist" might believe that there is damage indeed done though not so visible to the naked eye (an instinctual realization) . A materialist 200 yrs ago might not have even tied the two together for instance a lightening rod striking some kid who resumes his normal activity and dies say 2 days later? could be ruled out as a host of things....

In other words a Muslim is cautious and takes provisions for the trip to come... to you dear sir, you might feel, you'll find what you are looking for as you get there? or there is nothing at all once you get there?... a waste of time to you? sure!-- an absolute gem to others? absolutely!
there are those who believe that the Quran will be their companion in the here after, and in fact raise them in ranks per sura memorized.. not to mention a host of other benefits which would be an utter waste to make mention to at this point but spirituality in medicine in general has fantastic benefits comparable to the best SSRI's on the markets ....

Peace to you dear sir and I hope I have made my point, I am certainly not looking to make a case for Quranic memorization, to me and hopefully the 1.86 billion other practicing Muslims, the benefits are enormous... Maybe this seems to you like a diluted form or Pascal's Wager? he always rears his ugly head--the way I see it, there is absolutely nothing to lose memorizing the Quran, and everything to gain, even if there is nothing in the here after at least one will have lived a life of peace, purpose and spiritual fulfillment!

peace!
Reply

Trumble
07-07-2007, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

That, to me, is a scandalous waste of an education. Think of all the subjects such a child could have spent time learning about instead. I suppose to a Muslim it is considered valuable, but to a materialist like me, memorising the Qur'an is an activity that is, in practical terms, pretty pointless.
I agree, although again I'll happily accept that believing the Qur'an to be authored by one or more long dead Arabs rather than any God is a major contributor as to why. At least let the kids get old enough to make their own minds up as to their beliefs and whether they should spend valuable time on such a project.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2007, 03:04 AM
Hi Rav,

Thanks for your post. It seems that some of my points were either not conveyed clearly or not properly understood because some of your questions were already addressed. I don't mind giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the answers need some more elaboration which I hope to provide in the present post.
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
I must ask you this Ansar; you speak about books that are scholarly, and academic, but if we did that, would you seriously accept my references to academic material on the development of the Quran? What do you define as “academic” because the academic world in universities when studying the Quran and its development have come to very diverse conclusions about its origins and development, theories which differ greatly from the Islamic accounts of the Quran’s origins.
The book I have referred you to by M. M. Azami goes into great depth in its analysis of the various orientalist theories and fallacies in their discussions on qur'anic compilation, orthography, paleography, etc. So none of the material is new to me, I've studied the various theories and their refutations.
The same could be said about the Torah
I'm afraid not. As I've said before, I've gone through this point of discussion with many Jews and Christians and pointed out that the liturgical tradition in Judaism is starkly different from the Muslim practice and the integral role recitation of the Qur'an forms in the daily prayers (3 of which are audible) not to mention the congregational prayers of friday, eid, and most importantly during ramadan. You cannot so easily dismiss the recitation of the Qur'an from cover to cover in front of the entire congregation from memory. While Jews do maintain some of their past oral tradition, prayers in Judaism can be done in any language (as noted in the Talmud) and prayer services have been done from Siddurim for the past millenium. So the annual cycle through the short parshiyot can hardly be compared to the integral recitation of the Qur'an in Muslim lives. Where in Judaism do you have the entire congregation listening to the Rabbi reciting the ENTIRE Torah cover to cover from memory?? Take another look at the description I provided you with, rav. Take Ramadan prayers in the Masjid al-Haram as an example. Huffaadh from around the world come with all the other worshippers forming a congregation of millions all behind the Imam reciting the Qur'an from memory, along with many others following along in the text. Where is the similtude of this in Judaism?

When we look at Christianity and Judaism, how many kids have memorized the Torah in Hebrew? Or the New Testament in greek? Forget kids, how many scholars, priests and rabbis of these religions have memorized the scriptures?? Bring me even one scholar of Christianity or Judaism who has memorized the scriptures in the original language, and I will bring you 50 children who have memorized the Qur'an in arabic.


Now the fallacy you make in your present post is that you respond to my comments on the memorization and recitation of the Qur'an by saying, "Oh, that doesn't prove the book is true", which is an absolute strawman. I've spoken about proving the veracity of the message through other points in other threads and I only mentioned these facts in relation to 1) the preservation of the Qur'an and 2) the fact that the Qur'an is unique in regards to its tradition of memorization, and you should have no problem acknowledging that.

So again, when you mention the memorization of the Qur'an does not prove its validity, that's a strawman, and when you mention that Christians and Jews are just as capable of memorizing that is another strawman. Remember, we're talking scriptural preservation.
As I quoted before from the work of Dr. Naik, he writes: “These might have been incomplete and with mistakes.”
This is exactly the point I elaborated on earlier!

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion.
I explained in detail why the other parchments were burned. People had previously just been recording the verses on whatever they had available to them and there was hardly any verification. So after having compiled the authoritative text that was agreed upon by all the huffaadh and even each and every verse had been verified not only in the memories of the companions and their recorded parchments but with two independent witnesses having recorded it directly from the Prophet himself*, he then ordered that all other parchments should be disposed of and copies should be made from this authorised and verified compilation. Copies were then made from this and sent with a recitor to all the major cities of the Muslim empire. Why were all other copies disposed of? 1. Because they may have been written in a manner specific to one dialect creating confusion 2. With everyone having their own hand-written parchments there was also the possibility of scribal errors, and that is the point mentioned by Dr. Naik which you keep quoting.

*I'll give just one example of where this is mentioned:
Zaid was unwilling to accept any written material for consideration unless two companions bore witness that the received his dictation (for the writing) from the Prophet himself. (Fath al-Bari, ix: 14-15).

The Quranic text we have today is the one that was endorsed by the then 3rd Caliph of Islam, who burned all the obtainable copies of the Quran that differed with his version of the Quranic text. Does that sound anything like perfect revelation sealed flawlessly?
It wasn't just the 3rd caliph! This copy was verified not only by the memories of all the companions who had memorized it and the various parchments they possessed with the verse written on it, but for each and every verse TWO independent witnesses were required each having the parchment on which they had recorded the verse directly from the prophet himself. It doesn't get anymore meticulous and stringent than that!
If he burnt other dialects to lessen confusion, than first, is it proper to burn the Quran in any dialect?
Yes!! This is considered a dignified way of disposing of God's words. And this should not surprise you because many Jews do it too!! To quote one Rabbi:
If one of the seven names of G-G-d is explicitly used in Hebrew, of course it is improper to dispose of these divrei Torah sheets except in a geniza, or perhaps to burn or bury them in an very proper manner.

...In the case of the English dvar torah sheets that quote full verses of the Torah in English, and use various translations of the names of God that explicitly denote the Divine in English, halacha prohibits one from disposing of these sheets in an irreverent manner, such as simply discarding them in a garbage can full of rubbish; however, they need not be put in a geniza and can be disposed of in some other proper manner, such as burning in a dignified way, or even perhaps bundling them neatly together and putting them in a recycling bin or the like. The reason for this is that when the name of God is used in a language other than Hebrew, no technical prohibition against erasing it attaches, but yet it is improper to dispose of this material in an undignified manner. For more on this, see Minchat Yitzchak 1:17:(14). Of course, one cannot take such reading material into a bathroom of the like. [SOURCE]
So yes, when these parchments were burnt, a lot of them could have been perfect without any mistakes. But simply because they had not been verified and there was the possibility that they could contain mistakes, no chances were taken with the Qur'an.
Second, as I said before: Apparently, it was more than just a pronunciation thing. If that were the case, it would only have been an effortless task of replication Hafsa's version and sending it out. But he didn't do that. He commissioned an assembly to contrast the copy with other versions.
I'm afraid that's incorrect. First of all, the process I describe with the two witness and whatnot was done under the supervision by Zaid ibn Thabit for BOTH times - the compilation during the reign of Abu Bakr (which was kept with Hafsa) AND the compilation during the reign of Uthman. Now one may wonder why the same process would be repeated during the reign of Uthman when he could simply copy the manuscript Hafsa possesed. The reason, as explained by Azami based on all the historical evidence, is that Uthman's compilation was an autonomous compilation as many of the companions - who had been fighting in the armies and had been absent during the first compilation process with Abu Bakr - had now returned and thus the process was repeated for further verification. Once the final product was found to match the copy with Hafsa, copies were made of the Uthmanic manuscript and delivered to the major cities in the Muslim world.

Let us assume for now that Hafsa's version is the perfect and definitive version. And hence this would mean that Hafsa's version was already in the Quraishiite form. However, it appears not. Since, Uthman had to instruct the scribes:
Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."
How can there be disagreement when Hafsa's version was ‘perfect’?
As mentioned above, this point is easily understood in light of the fact that the compilation done with Uthman was autonomous and the witness process was repeated. The role of Hafsa's copy was simply further verification of the end product.
Plus, I remember reading in the Hadith that if the person heard someone recite a verse and he could fine no one else, but he “remembered” the verse or hearing of it, he would add it in and count himself as the second witness. Could you clarify this?
You'll have to show me the hadith you're talking about.
Also an example:
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 511:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):
'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129)
Yes, this is exactly what demonstrates the point I made earlier about the witness process. You will find hadith which mention that at the end the companions found one sentence was missing and they needed witnesses for and could only find one witness for it. The question: how did the companions know this phrase was missing? Because they had memorized the Qur'an. So they knew which verses they had gotten witnesses for and which verses remained, and at the end they got 2 witnesses for every verse - meeting the criteria I previously mentioned - and they got one witness Abu Khuzaimah for this verse and it was actually the fulfillment of a prophecy because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had told this companion that his witness was the equivalent of two witnesses and consequently he was actually known by everyone with the title of "Dhul-Shahadatain", the person who witness is that of two witnesses. So when the companions found that this was the only verse they had one witness for and yet this was the man who had been called Dhul-Shahadatain by the prophet, the realized the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Abu Bakr had not authorised him to record except what was already available [on parchment]. That is why Zaid refrained from including the final âyah of Surah Barâ'a until he came upon it in written form, even though he and his fellow Companions could recall it perfectly well from memory. (Fath al-Bari, ix:13)

Also, about the Tashkent Quran, here are some things I have read about this copy, please correct me if I am wrong Ansar, because I have no use to attack Islam or Christianity, but live my life in peace since many opinions within Judaism say Muslims can go to heaven! I therefore, in the process of taking classes in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, must have a few things clarified which people do learn.
Not a problem.
The pronoun huwa [he] is at hand in the Tashkent-Samarqand original of the Quran chapter 2, verse 284, while the contemporary Arabic version has the word “G-d”.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8746/arabicquranvj6.png
Azami examines these slight differences in the ancient manuscripts and discusses them in detail noting their extreme scarcity and provides a number of explanations, which for me to regurgitate would turn an already long post into a multipage essay. Suffice it to say that the presence of the teachers alongside each official copy, the ubiquitious recitation and memorization amongst muslims, and the countless other copies available for cross checking are the very reasons why even the slightest scribal error is immediately and outright rejected by the Muslim populace.
Also, if we read what Mawlana Modudi states in his tafseer
On which verse?
one cannot fail to realize that if the Quran had been so preserved then how such discrepancies could occur… right?
It would only be a case in point if an error had gone unnoticed and resulted in a variant text amongst Muslims. But Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants and even the slightest mistake could be recognized and rejected even by a child.
I have a huge amount of reading material that I would love for you to go over, but I don’t want to trouble you.
As I said, Azami does an excellent job of refuting the various orientalist theories you allude to and exposing their fallacies, all in a nice concise readable format, so I would refer you to his book for the response. I've examined this subject in quite some detail so I'm already familiar with the allegations.

Can we really trust all of the preservations though? Two witnesses? There could have been one mistake, right? Is just one all it takes?
You haven't been looking at the criteria I outlined. For each verse, the companions already have it memorized and probably dozens of parchments with it recorded, but that wasn't enough. They declared that for each and every verse two witnesses would have to come forth, each having recorded it on their parchment directly from the Prophet. So the witness's testimony was verified against the companion's memorization and the written parchments available. If even a child can spot a mistake in reciting then how could a congregation of the scholarly companions along with numerous parchments allow it to go unnoticed? Plus we even have the final checking with the manuscript of Hafsa! Its verification upon verification upon verification.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 523:
Narrated 'Alqama:

While we were in the city of Hims (in Syria), Ibn Mas'ud recited Surat Yusuf. A man said to him), "It was not revealed in this way." Then Ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited it in this way before Allah's Apostle and he confirmed my recitation by saying, 'Well done!' " Ibn Mas'ud detected the smell of wine from the man's mouth, so he said to him, "Aren't you ashamed of telling a lie about Allah's Book and (along with this) you drink alcoholic liquors too?" Then he lashed him according to the law.
First, when you quote a hadith could you please mention which source book you are quoting from (i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, etc. etc.). Simply providing the reference within that book is not enough.

Secondly, I have no clue what you are trying to demonstrate by quoting this narration. Please be more explicit.

Have you heard of the Alaama Siyootee and Mulla Ali Qari regarding Quranic text collections? Can you explain their significance?
I missed this in my earlier post. Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti and Mulla Ali Qari are two people, muslim scholars, not books.
-I have heard that in books like AL-Itqaan by Suyooty, quite a few centuries back can come across evidence in which they evidently tell us that people used to have Quran’s with different sura’s and verse orders eg ibn masood, abu moosa, ubaee bin ka'b etc. Can you comment on this, or let me know the information you have about this? Thank you in advance.
Sure. This subject is also explained in Azami's book if you're interested, and is the topic of an entire chapter (13).

First of all, the fallacy here is in forgetting the fact that individuals had their own personal copies for prayer use (remember the integral role of the Qur'an in muslim practice) and hence they included in their personal copies surahs they would frequently recite, and sometimes supplications (Duas). So when you'll read narrations like the one saying that surah 1, 113 and 114 were absent from Ibn Mas'ud's personal copy, it doesn't prove anything. It was their personal reading copies, never something they declared to be a complete and authoritative mushaf.

Secondly, most of the narrations on this topic have serious defects in their chains of transmission and are all weak or fabricated. And this is precisely the problem non-muslims and even many lay muslims have when approaching Islamic sources. They don't realize the difference between something like Al-Itqân fi Ulûm al-Qur'ân and Sahîh al-Bukhârî and regard narrations found in either of them on the same level. The reality is that the first book collects all narrations on specific topics relating to the sciences of the Qur'an, irrespective of their level of authenticity, while the latter contains authentic narrations only. Consequently, hadith scholars like the famous Imam An-Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hazm rejected such reports as spurious and inauthentic while others like al-Baqillani demonstrated their incoherence.
-Sunnis have their own Hadith collections like Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Nisaee, Abu Dawud and Ibn Maaja etc etc. These are rejected by Shiites as forgeries. Likewise Sunnis have their own Fiqh collections like Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Humbly etc. which are also rejected by Shiites.

-The Shiites also have their individual Hadith collection recognized as Al-Kafi by Imam Yaqub Kalayni. And similarly they have their own Fiqh by name of Fiqh Al-Jaferia. These are rejected by Sunnis completely as forgeries.

So why can we not trust their copies and their accounts, and are there main differences?
The short answer to the question of why shias and sunnis have different sources is that shias consider many of the most prominent companions of the prophet outright liars and instead rely on the shia infallible imams for guidance. The long answer is to actually go study the tremendous body of knowledge called 'Ulûm al-Hadîth (sciences of the prophetic narrations) and learn for yourself the details concerning the meticulous methodology used in the grading and analysis of prophetic traditions. Your question is a bit like asking why some people accept conventional medicine over 'witch-doctor' treatments - the answer entails a little bit of familiarity with both.

Likewise, when you ask which sect one should pick, it is like asking which is right - Judaism or Christianity. It would require a little more than a slight tangent from this thread to do justice to the topic so I would advise checking the sectarian section on the forum to learn a bit more about these differences.

Can you explain them to me, or direct to links of Islamic commentaries?
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 522:
Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama:

Once 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud delivered a sermon before us and said, "By Allah, I learnt over seventy Suras direct from Allah's Apostle . By Allah, the companions of the Prophet came to know that I am one of those who know Allah's Book best of all of them, yet I am not the best of them." Shaqiq added: I sat in his religious gathering and I did not hear anybody opposing him (in his speech).

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) : By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom.
What do you want me to explain? The commentaries are in arabic so you'll have to be more specific to let me know what you're looking for.

And once again, please cite the sources.
Your comments on Arabic I will have to respectfully disagree with, on the account that Islamic and Judaic logic in this matter differ.
You are free to disagree with anything I say. You have my permission!

Warm Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2007, 03:31 AM
Hi Trumble,

Hope you're well.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Please take an equally careful look at my responses while you are at it, particularly my alternative 'scientific' explanation in #47. I'm afraid Ansar is far less convincing in that thread than he seems to think he is!
Of course everyone is free to read the discussion and judge for themselves, that is ultimately what they will have to do. So read Trumble's post 47 and my response in 49 and make up your mind. And it's not to say the discussion is over either - it is always open to more input.
I agree, although again I'll happily accept that believing the Qur'an to be authored by one or more long dead Arabs rather than any God is a major contributor as to why. At least let the kids get old enough to make their own minds up as to their beliefs and whether they should spend valuable time on such a project.
very related comment of mine to callum:
http://www.islamicboard.com/534786-post29.html

But on another note, I wonder if there is a little bit of hypocrisy (not necessarily from you) from those westerners who criticize memorization as a waste of time and don't seem to realize what their kids are spending their time doing. How about the effects of television and video games on the intellectual activity of children??? That's not a 'scandolous waste of time'?! Let's check the statistics:
Most children plug into the world of television long before they enter school: 70% of child-care centers use TV during a typical day. In a year, the average child spends 900 hours in school and nearly 1,023 hours in front of a TV.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), kids in the United States watch about 4 hours of TV a day - even though the AAP guidelines say children older than 2 should watch no more than 1 to 2 hours a day of quality programming.

...But despite its advantages, too much television can be detrimental:
  • Research has shown that children who consistently spend more than 4 hours per day watching TV are more likely to be overweight.
  • Kids who view violent events, such as a kidnapping or murder, are also more likely to believe that the world is scary and that something bad will happen to them.
  • Research also indicates that TV consistently reinforces gender-role and racial stereotypes.
...To give you perspective on just how much violence kids see on TV, consider this: The average American child will witness 200,000 violent acts on television by age 18. TV violence sometimes begs for imitation because violence is often demonstrated and promoted as a fun and effective way to get what you want. [Nemours Foundation]
There is much more one can write about television and video games turning kids' brains into mush, but I'm assuming we're all relatively aware so there's no need.

At least in memorization there is greater intellectual activity involved in the use of one's brain to absorb procedural and declarative memories. Yes, someone who does not share the same interest would still regard it as a scandolous waste of time, like others may see the investment of time in other pursuits like the fields of music and art. If someone told me they spent 50 hours on just one painting or 1023 hours in front of tv, I would regard that as a scandalous waste of time! It goes without saying that this is the manner in which people perceive those activities that they are not interested in, as you have yourself partly acknowledged in your comment.

Take care,
Reply

Trumble
07-07-2007, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hi Trumble,

Hope you're well.
Likewise.

But on another note, I wonder if there is a little bit of hypocrisy (not necessarily from you) from those westerners who criticize memorization as a waste of time and don't seem to realize what their kids are spending their time doing. How about the effects of television and video games on the intellectual activity of children??? That's not a 'scandolous waste of time'?!
Oh, I agree. It would certainly be more than a 'little' hypocritical, but nobody here has suggested otherwise. Activity 'Y' being more productive than activity 'Z' is reason only to encourage 'Y' ahead of 'Z', not as an alternative to activities 'A' through 'X'.

There certainly are advantages to learning memorisation techniques but Qur'anic recitation cannot be justified outside of a purely religious context. Imagine what a boost the child's future career would have if the time and memorisation effort was devoted to learning foreign languages, for example? You make a fair point, though.. while I certainly think there are far more useful things a child could be doing I would be foolish indeed to claim that any more than a small minority of kids are actually doing them!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2007, 04:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
There certainly are advantages to learning memorisation techniques but Qur'anic recitation cannot be justified outside of a purely religious context.
Agreed.
You make a fair point, though.. while I certainly think there are far more usual [useful?] things a child could be doing I would be foolish indeed to claim that any more than a small minority of kids are actually doing them!
Rightly said.
Reply

جوري
07-07-2007, 04:34 AM
Arabic IS a foreign language to those who don't speak it, and to learn Quranic Arabic would certainly be the best form of Arabic to learn, in fact Arabic grammar as we know it today has its foundation in the Quran... further Arabic is the second most difficult language after Chinese, thus he who musters the Quran will certainly have many advantages above and beyond the your sole mention... They might grow up to teach A.S.L, work as translators in the United Nations, be professors of philosophy or theology.. yet surprisingly, each person I know that has the Quran memorized partially or fully, much to your dismay? has a fantastic career on the side.. I don't see how it is a deterrent or a hindrance form achieving or pursuing other fields on the sides? I was about to go through a long list of whom I know that has the Quran partially or fully memorized and what they do for a living, but realize it pointless in this setting!

peace!
Reply

Trumble
07-07-2007, 07:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Arabic IS a foreign language to those who don't speak it, and to learn Quranic Arabic would certainly be the best form of Arabic to learn, in fact Arabic grammar as we know it today has its foundation in the Quran... further Arabic is the second most difficult language after Chinese, thus he who musters the Quran will certainly have many advantages above and beyond the your sole mention...
Learning Arabic (Qur'anic or otherwise) and memorising the Qur'an are totally different projects. Neither requires the other, although certainly the second would be a lot easier having previously done the first!
Reply

i_m_tipu
07-07-2007, 08:08 AM
sorry for delay. im petty busy person. MIS manager of two comapnies.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Please stop typing 733t, its annoying and its hard to take anything you say seriously.
I really don’t understand why u keeps saying that. I found u touch all the point and give ur reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2

correct. I dont believe in any creator, espeically one concerned about me personally. no evidence for one.
There is no evidence of life in other planet. Even thou do u know how much money expensing to find life in other planet. If u know the figure u will really amazed.


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
no clue what your saying here.


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I gave a perfectly reasonable and better solution to getting message across. Please speak normally, Im really having trouble following you. If english is not your 1st language i can understand some but please try to speak "type" cleary.

I was saying clearly with example!!! That u should give on the basis of what u believes in.
I said u believe in a creator of pin, pen, toy, mobile etc. U does believe theses thing not come accidently but u believe u have no creator and human created accidently.

Again I m giving u details explanation with example
I m believe in Quran, Sunnah and logic and I try to give ans what Quran teaches me, what our beloved prophet (may peace be upon Him) teaches me, what my logic teaches me. right

Similarly I told u to give answer according to ur faith & knowledge and ask u not to give answer according ur imagination.

format_quote Originally Posted by i_m_tipu
Think u r a creator of something (Calculator) and u want to reveal ur law (software program and manual) to ur creation
on which way and language u will reveal ur law
I really don’t understand why these so hard to understood by you??


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I doubt the only reason you dont go on killing people is because you will get punished by god. If that is then you need psychological help. it also does not say much about you as a person.
That also mean majority of the people of the earth need psychological help.

Listen we have evil and good form in our heart.
Our evil form of heart makes us to do evil.
Similarly our good form heart makes us to do well.
A person can upgrade himself from evil -> soso good for any reason.
But trust me a person never upgrade himself from soso good ->good->better->best. Without fearing his creator, HIS punishment and HIS rewards. Even if he does it is rear.

Example : when a man fear his Creator, HIS punishment and HIS rewards by heart than he may not kill even if that person is very unfriendly/harmfull for him and he has perfect chance to do so.
He may not kill even if that person death carries huge wealth/benefit to him and he has perfect chance to do so.
He may not involve in adultery unlawful sexual relation.
He may not rob. Even there is huge unsecured wealth of others in front him
He may not cheat even there is chance to do so.
He will be humble
Etc.


We bound to accept good if we invited by others or by our heart onto good/truth if not our heart fully sealed.
Because our creator created us in that way.
Otherwise our creator is unjust to us which I don’t find & believe.
format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Did you kill puppies as a kid before you found god?
Form the teaching of Islam “Every child is sinless and Muslim” hope u find the ans.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
authentic? what do you mean by this?
Authentic mean flawless
(Truth stands out clear from error)

Al-Qur'an, 002.256 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
And following what? If every religion has these "morals" then its clear you dont need a real god to give you them.
"If every religion has these "morals" then its clear you dont need a real god??????"
Read this: If every religion has these "morals" then its clear religion give us this moral meaning our creator gives us these moral. What we r following.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
its clear that we can make our own morality and in fact we do.
We found our creator teaches us what is good & what is bad. We believe in it and we benefited. And those who follow it they also benefited.
And this is make sense
Applied it to the computer.
A computer/or any created (thou the truth is man just collect element from the earth and make a various thing and start thinking he is a creator or something like that) thing by human could not do/think/imagine beyond it capabilities so do we. We never invent/think superior law than our Creator.
that why at the end we r following the Law of GOD directly/ indectly

People agreed that the teaching of our creator is beneficial and this is proven practical fact. Some teaching of religion people neither unprove nor prove like believe in heaven believe in GOD.etc..

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
and who here seriously thinks there are no reprocussions? "perhaps those that are mentaliy unfit"
Excuse me who r u to tell others mentally unfit. What seems unfit to u that seem fit to them.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Even a thief has to worry about people they steal from. If they get caught etc... Heck quite a bit of evil is done in the name of peoples own "gods".
U may be forgetting giving punishment to the thief is a law of GOD. Many people give this punishment in many ways. Islam taught us the perfect practical way of giving punishment to the thief and we find a practical positive result for it. Example Saudia Arabia.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I forget who said it but there was a great qoute.
"A bad man will do evil, a good man will do good, but it takes religion to have a good man do evil and smile."
haahaa
Again what seems good to u that might bad for others.


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
Why do people do good? becuase of empathy, the golden rule etc..
Altruism is benefitial. reciprocation is benefital. etc...
Who told/teach u this golden rule?
Believe me ur empathy will gone a guide as long ur good form of heart survive with fighting with ur evil form of heart.
But when this question arrive in ur mind that “why I m fighting to myself. I should enjoy what my minds want to enjoy I have a little live to live”
Than think can u follow this golden rule. U cannot follow it in many situations in many moment.


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
I belive the ideas of good and bad are subjective. So for me they are not equal. I have my own morals and ideas of good and bad as do you. We each think ours are better than others.
“We each think ours are better than others”. That is the important point u have to understand nobody will follow or nobody will obey actually most truth is nobody can never obey each n every one’s idea of surviving.

Than what is the solution?
I give u mine
One superior law which is most just as a hole and which come from one superior being.

What is urs??

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
and almost every civiliazation has murderd other civilizations. Almost all civ were meat eaters. etc...
And almost every civ was not islamic or christian.. etc....
And almost every civ believed in a different god.
So what is your point?
How easily u r speaking. There are thousands of frames behind each and every incident/happing.
And another think u can cut ur hand by knife also can cut ur meal that does not mean knife is bad. The purpose of use is wrong but the using of knife is not wrong as a hole.
Some people using religion for their own interest and that do never allow u to say religion is wrong.

U know the time of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) people used to burry woman child alive, people buy woman, use woman, people use to create idol and make business, people cheats, Gambles, people worship nakedly etc. all this evil form called as a high spirit.
And if u read history Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) alone turn this barbaric Arab to a most powerful and civilized nation of the earth.

Many historians (including lot of non Muslims) have lots of comments. Read and u will amazed (InsAllah)


format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
huh? ideas of moralituy existed long before islam. code of hamurabi?
im very inclear as to what you are trying to say.
Are you asking why do i have or follow similar rules or morals of other religions?
The answer to that is simple. There are some basic rules and moralities that have an advantage in survival.
Very sad??
I really don’t know what Hamurabi code is
I do a search for study.
Cannot verify anything from that search.

Even thou I find Hamurabi code may be before Quran but not before religion.
Actually Hamurabi himself believe in GOD.

format_quote Originally Posted by ranma1/2
sounds pretty selfish not to mention what about other religions?
Believer means those who believe in his Creator and his command.
U has no religion do u.
Reply

Basirah
07-07-2007, 06:13 PM
Greetings and Peace Ansar Al ‘Adl, do you mind if I comment on your discussion with the other member? If I am intruding them simply delete my post and PM me anything you wish to clarify.
Bring me even one scholar of Christianity or Judaism who has memorized the scriptures in the original language, and I will bring you 50 children who have memorized the Qur'an in arabic.
Dearest Ansar Al’ Adl., how does this make the Quran anymore valid? I continue to look through your arguments and I find very few relevant points on the Quran. The Quran is highly memorized; okay, however, this is no proof of the Quran’s validity. It is testimony that in many areas of the Islamic world, children are forced from an early age to memorize verses of the Quran, and I will not comment on my own personal experience in such areas. The practice gives the Quran no legitimacy. It is a certainly extraordinary achievement, but does not make it divine.

When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion.
Source? (PS: if it is a book I would love the source the book cites).

It wasn't just the 3rd caliph! This copy was verified not only by the memories of all the companions who had memorized it and the various parchments they possessed with the verse written on it, but for each and every verse TWO independent witnesses were required each having the parchment on which they had recorded the verse directly from the prophet himself. It doesn't get anymore meticulous and stringent than that!
Untrue.

I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).

The passage speaks for itself without additional enquiry; we can see rather evidently that, in his hunt for the Qur'an, Zaid’ was reliant on one source alone for the final two verses of Surat at-Tauba. This indication suggests that no one else knew these verses and that, had they not been found with Abu Khuzaimah, the verses would have been absent from the Qur'anic manuscript.

Azami examines these slight differences in the ancient manuscripts and discusses them in detail noting their extreme scarcity and provides a number of explanations
I believe I have read the explanations you are speaking of and exactly what part of them convinced you? I’m honestly curious.

It would only be a case in point if an error had gone unnoticed and resulted in a variant text amongst Muslims. But Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants and even the slightest mistake could be recognized and rejected even by a child.
Really Ansar Al ‘Adl?

Examples:




This is from Sura 10: Verse 21. Now I will show you a comparison with arrows:



The fact is this; a theory I am currently looking into is that it was the original Khalifa, Abu Bakr who collected the Quran into one book. The document on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr and then with Umar (the succeeding Khalifa), and subsequent to him, it remained with Hafsa, 'Umar's daughter and one of Mohammad’s wives. This copy of the Quran, was the only replica made after Muhammad's own copy. It is from that copy that Uthman, the third Khalifa, made other replications to allocate to dissimilar regions of the Islamic kingdom. Uthman returned Hafsa's copy of the Quran to her. Her copy nevertheless was afterward put to fire by Marwan ibn Hakam (d.65/684). If the copies obtainable to Marwan ibn Hakam were identical like Muhammad's own copy that Hafsa's had, it would be no problem. These copies were different and caused M.B. Hakam a lot of political unrest, therefore he ended this tumult by smoldering the lone copy present for the Muslims by Muhammad. Burning of Hafsa's copy was very significant in a specific theory I am looking into, which of course, I assume as a Muslim you would reject.

****The Egyptian publication of 1924 of the Quran removed about 5300 alifs from the Turkish edition and switched them with short strokes, called dagger alifs. This of course only helps in the pronunciation and is not added as an extra alif, but why change; something so perfect already, in a most perfect form in any aspect of it? If you have information, it has always been a side curiosity of mine.

****2:125 in the Hafs version وَاتَّخِ ُ ذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take), but in the Warsh version, it is وَاتَّخَ ُ ذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). One is in the future ("shall") and the other is in the past ("have"). Which should be followed, and does the other version have any Muslim followers or is it entirely irrelevant and not ONE Muslim views the one which I know you will label incorrect as holy? If one Muslim views the opposite version as correct, does it not make this statement by you: “ Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants” as a false statement? Or am I possibly missing something that I have not taken into account?

Plus, do you know of the findings of Dr Gerd R. Puin on the Sa'na manuscripts which are written in a script that originates from the Hijaz - the region of Arabia where Mohammed resided, which makes them not only the oldest to have survived, but one of the earliest copies of the Quran ever, and he noticed trivial textual variations, eccentric ordering of the surahs, as well as unusual styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were palimpsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased.

The short answer to the question of why shias and sunnis have different sources is that shias consider many of the most prominent companions of the prophet outright liars and instead rely on the shia infallible imams for guidance.
What an unbiased way of terming it!

Your question is a bit like asking why some people accept conventional medicine over 'witch-doctor' treatments - the answer entails a little bit of familiarity with both.
I assure you that such an analogy would not make you very popular in Iran, nor in some very Shia areas. What a straw man!

Can you clarify your views on Shia Islam, and blatantly tell us that it is not “real” Islam already which it seems you are hinting.

Peace and Regards.
Reply

Umar001
07-07-2007, 07:17 PM
Just to mention from the outset, I feel no need to respond on Ansar's behalf as I think he and most other people are capable of responding themselves. But I do have some questions of my own.


format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).

The passage speaks for itself without additional enquiry; we can see rather evidently that, in his hunt for the Qur'an, Zaid’ was reliant on one source alone for the final two verses of Surat at-Tauba. This indication suggests that no one else knew these verses and that, had they not been found with Abu Khuzaimah, the verses would have been absent from the Qur'anic manuscript.
How did Zaid know to look for it if it was with noone else but Khuzaima? I mean, his words, 'I did not find it' indicate he was searching for it. So why would Zaid who did not know about it, search for it?

Do you know the background of it? You claim it speaks for itself without additional enquiry, but is that truly the case? I beg to differ.

I think that'll do for now.

Hope to hear from you,

Eesa
Reply

Basirah
07-07-2007, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
How did Zaid know to look for it if it was with noone else but Khuzaima? I mean, his words, 'I did not find it' indicate he was searching for it. So why would Zaid who did not know about it, search for it?

Do you know the background of it? You claim it speaks for itself without additional enquiry, but is that truly the case? I beg to differ.

I think that'll do for now.

Hope to hear from you,

Eesa
Dear Al Habeshi, I first wish to convey my happiness at all comments and critque. Now to your question:

He first writes: "I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari", so in other words, he found the last verse with Abi Khuzaima. Now that he has found this verse, he than writes: "and I did not find it with anybody other than him.", which would mean that after he heard of this verse, he looked for others to be the second to say they heard of the verse. Yet no one could be found. 'I did not find it', would mean that he looked for a second source to this verse, but none could be found.

Note, this tradition says two things: That Zaid had to scrounge up sections of the Qur'an from all over the area (palm foliage, stones, etc.) as well as from the reminiscences of men. Also, it says that Zaid found a verse of the Qu'ran which was recognized by only ONE companion. Thus, the suggestion that countless hundreds of companions all over knew the Qur'an wholly by mind is not supported by the above.

The reality is that Zaid in all probability did not get the sum of the original Quranic recitations into his collection. Hadithic tradition reveals this by telling us that numerous of the recitors were slain at the battle of Yamaama and that possibly many portions of the Qu'ran were irreversibly gone.

Regards.
Reply

asadxyz
07-07-2007, 09:05 PM
Dear Bsirah Peace;
As Brother Habeshi said ,I also do not want to interfere but just wanted to clarify a few points with your permission.

.

[i]I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).[/
i]
Dear as far as the interpretation of the Quranic Aya or Hadith is concerned ,it is by itself a science.If we start picking up material from here and there isolatedly and then placing our arguments on them ,then it is not fair.

I give you an example.Captopril is an Antihypertensive medicine.But it is contraindicated in Bilateral renal artery stenosis.If someone reads only first sentence in some book or the other one ,and tries to pick up the result ,then it is definitely wrong.
Now coming to the point.I am giving a Reference below about the last two Aya of Sura Tauba ,the other name Sura Baraa,at :


فتح الباري لابن حجر - (ج 14 / ص 193)
وَأَخْرَجَ اِبْن أَبِي دَاوُدَ مِنْ طَرِيق مُحَمَّد بْن إِسْحَاق عَنْ يَحْيَى بْن عَبَّاد بْنِ عَبْد اللَّه بْن الزُّبَيْر عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ " أَتَى الْحَارِث بْن خُزَيْمَةَ بِهَاتَيْنِ الْآيَتَيْنِ ، مِنْ آخِر سُورَة بَرَاءَة فَقَالَ : أَشْهَد أَنِّي سَمِعْتهمَا مِنْ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَوَعَيْتهمَا ، فَقَالَ عُمَر : وَأَنَا أَشْهَد لَقَدْ سَمِعْتهمَا
I translate the highlighted sentence:
Haarith bin Khuzama brought these two verses from the end of Sura Baraa'at (other name of Al Tauba)and said ." I testify that I heard both from the Holy prophet :arabic5: and remembered them.So said Umar ."I testify that certainly I heard both of them .
Now let me know what is the problem with them.






Examples:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8...oransarhz9.png


This is from Sura 10: Verse 21. Now I will show you a comparison with arrows:

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/4...4ansar2am2.png
Now the problem is with two images .Again let me say this is another example of ignorance on the Calligraphy of the Arabic language.
Let me give you another example :
In science books Greek letters are used very frequently. For difference Greek letter Delta is used .In lower case it has some other shape ,in upper case it is like triangle ,and some times it is simply written as "d".E.g dP = delta P = difference in pressure.All of these three forms convey the same meaning.No sensible person will say that these are different.I hope you understand them
Best of luck
Reply

Trumble
07-07-2007, 09:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
In science books Greek letters are used very frequently. For difference Greek letter Delta is used .In lower case it has some other shape ,in upper case it is like triangle ,and some times it is simply written as "d".E.g dP = delta P = difference in pressure.All of these three forms convey the same meaning.
No they don't. Greek delta is used as a measure of distance (along an axis). 'd' is the differential distance.
Reply

asadxyz
07-07-2007, 09:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
No they don't. Greek delta is used as a measure of distance (along an axis). 'd' is the differential distance.
Peace;
Would you please pick up some scientific dictionary and verify my statement.No doubt Delta is used for other meaning also.

Δ (Δ) the Greek capital letter delta; symbol for an increment, e.g., ΔG (see Gibbs free energy, under energy); also used alone as an abbreviation for change (as in temperature).
Reference:
http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns...dmd_d_01zPzhtm


Best of luck
Reply

جوري
07-07-2007, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Learning Arabic (Qur'anic or otherwise) and memorising the Qur'an are totally different projects. Neither requires the other, although certainly the second would be a lot easier having previously done the first!
learning a new language always starts with a book, certainly many non-Arabic speaking Muslims are introduced to Arabic only through the Quran, and that is actually the best book to start with if we are going to strictly pursue perfect linguistic skills and proper grammar over looking all else!
Peace
Reply

Umar001
07-07-2007, 10:53 PM
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

I will come back and reply, God willing, for now I think that link might be handy. :)
Reply

Trumble
07-07-2007, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
Peace;
Would you please pick up some scientific dictionary and verify my statement. No doubt Delta is used for other meaning also.
Your statement is wrong and cannot be so 'verified' in any scientific dictionary.

Δ (Δ) the Greek capital letter delta; symbol for an increment, e.g., ΔG (see Gibbs free energy, under energy); also used alone as an abbreviation for change (as in temperature).
That is indeed an explanation of how Δ is used. Your claim, though, was that this was the same use as 'd', i.e that Δx = dx. That claim is not correct. As I said dx (or d-whatever you like) is the differential increment - if you don't know what that means go look it up. Or not, as the case may be; this really is way off topic!
Reply

asadxyz
07-07-2007, 11:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Your statement is wrong and cannot be so 'verified' in any scientific dictionary.



That is indeed an explanation of how Δ is used. Your claim, though, was that this was the same use as 'd', i.e that Δx = dx. That claim is not correct. As I said dx (or d-whatever you like) is the differential increment - if you don't know what that means go look it up. Or not, as the case may be; this really is way off topic!
:sl:
You are dragging every thing off topic .Please pick up Chamber's twentieth century dictionary and read its supplement on Greek letters.I do not have its software copy ,otherwise would have copied pasted.
Best of luck
Reply

Basirah
07-08-2007, 12:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
Dear Bsirah Peace;
As Brother Habeshi said ,I also do not want to interfere but just wanted to clarify a few points with your permission.

Dear as far as the interpretation of the Quranic Aya or Hadith is concerned ,it is by itself a science.If we start picking up material from here and there isolatedly and then placing our arguments on them ,then it is not fair.

I give you an example.Captopril is an Antihypertensive medicine.But it is contraindicated in Bilateral renal artery stenosis.If someone reads only first sentence in some book or the other one ,and tries to pick up the result ,then it is definitely wrong.
Now coming to the point.I am giving a Reference below about the last two Aya of Sura Tauba ,the other name Sura Baraa,at :


فتح الباري لابن حجر - (ج 14 / ص 193)
وَأَخْرَجَ اِبْن أَبِي دَاوُدَ مِنْ طَرِيق مُحَمَّد بْن إِسْحَاق عَنْ يَحْيَى بْن عَبَّاد بْنِ عَبْد اللَّه بْن الزُّبَيْر عَنْ أَبِيهِ قَالَ " أَتَى الْحَارِث بْن خُزَيْمَةَ بِهَاتَيْنِ الْآيَتَيْنِ ، مِنْ آخِر سُورَة بَرَاءَة فَقَالَ : أَشْهَد أَنِّي سَمِعْتهمَا مِنْ رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَوَعَيْتهمَا ، فَقَالَ عُمَر : وَأَنَا أَشْهَد لَقَدْ سَمِعْتهمَا
I translate the highlighted sentence:
Haarith bin Khuzama brought these two verses from the end of Sura Baraa'at (other name of Al Tauba)and said ." I testify that I heard both from the Holy prophet :arabic5: and remembered them.So said Umar ."I testify that certainly I heard both of them .
Now let me know what is the problem with them.

Dear asad, may i have a link to your source and a link to commentary (it can be arabic) on it? thank you.



Now the problem is with two images .Again let me say this is another example of ignorance on the Calligraphy of the Arabic language.
Let me give you another example :
In science books Greek letters are used very frequently. For difference Greek letter Delta is used .In lower case it has some other shape ,in upper case it is like triangle ,and some times it is simply written as "d".E.g dP = delta P = difference in pressure.All of these three forms convey the same meaning.No sensible person will say that these are different.I hope you understand them
Best of luck

ignorance on the calligraphy? im afraid not. i would suggest reading it carefully, maybe zooming in on it if you would like.

________


dear woodrow, i have seen arguments like that before, however they are not flawless and do not take into account numerous things.
Reply

asadxyz
07-08-2007, 12:42 AM
[QUOTE=Basirah;787247]
Dear asad, may i have a link to your source and a link to commentary (it can be arabic) on it? thank you.
I have put the reference .It is Fathul Bari by Ibne Hajar.Unfortunately it is not on the website ,otherwise should have put the link.But you can verify if you catch hold of it.
Your Guru might be having it.

ignorance on the calligraphy? im afraid not. i would suggest reading it carefully, maybe zooming in on it if you would like.
I will definitely say that is calligraphic.Because even today some scripts put alif by "ا " and some as a vertical bar over the alphabet as it is on the yaa.This is a Calligraphic style.
________
Reply

Malaikah
07-08-2007, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Dearest Ansar Al’ Adl., how does this make the Quran anymore valid? I continue to look through your arguments and I find very few relevant points on the Quran. The Quran is highly memorized; okay, however, this is no proof of the Quran’s validity. It is testimony that in many areas of the Islamic world, children are forced from an early age to memorize verses of the Quran, and I will not comment on my own personal experience in such areas. The practice gives the Quran no legitimacy. It is a certainly extraordinary achievement, but does not make it divine.
If I am mistaken, the point of this thread is to show that the Quran has not changed from what it was during the Prophets (pbuh) time, not to show that it is the true word of God.

I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).

The passage speaks for itself without additional enquiry; we can see rather evidently that, in his hunt for the Qur'an, Zaid’ was reliant on one source alone for the final two verses of Surat at-Tauba. This indication suggests that no one else knew these verses and that, had they not been found with Abu Khuzaimah, the verses would have been absent from the Qur'anic manuscript.
He already answered this. The other companions knew the verses, but they needed to be witness to it, which is something different (I'm not sure what the difference is. Perhaps it is referring to the written form). And about him being the only person having this verse, he already answered that by saying this was the man who the prophet said was worth two witnesses, therefore all they needed was him because he counted as two witnesses already.
Reply

rav
07-09-2007, 01:49 AM
Shalom Aleikhem (Peace be upon you),

The book I have referred you to by M. M. Azami goes into great depth in its analysis of the various orientalist theories and fallacies in their discussions on qur'anic compilation, orthography, paleography, etc. So none of the material is new to me, I've studied the various theories and their refutations.
I understand that, and if I ever have enough free time I will look into reading the book, but your post said the following: “ First, let me just point out that we should be referring to scholarly, academic sources that provide the references and research for all conclusions.” All I did, was point out to you, that we could very well refer to scholarly, academic sources from the scholarly academia such as Gabriel Sawma that have presented research backing their opinions regarding the Quran. They’re research and conclusions although you may deny it are not of the intention of “debunking” Islam, but instead wish to study the origins of a book which so many revere. If such overwhelming evidence was provided in books which proved his arguments utterly wrong… if such “refutations” were existent than I see no reason why he would not reevaluate his positions regarding the origins and the development of the Quran. Do you think the intentions of the academia are suspect because I would not want to quote a book which has an agenda, so if any author I ask you about is suspect in his intention, I would love to know this before I read to much into their material.

While Jews do maintain some of their past oral tradition, prayers in Judaism can be done in any language (as noted in the Talmud)
Unture. Specific prayers must be said in Hebrew. The Torah recitation must also be in Hebrew.

I'm afraid not. As I've said before, I've gone through this point of discussion with many Jews and Christians and pointed out that the liturgical tradition in Judaism is starkly different from the Muslim practice and the integral role recitation of the Qur'an forms in the daily prayers (3 of which are audible) not to mention the congregational prayers of friday, eid, and most importantly during ramadan.
During the week, the Torah portion or “parasha” is read on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturday mornings and Saturday afternoons. The Torah is divided into 52 portions so throughout the entire Jewish year we can finish the reading of the Torah.

In any Orthodox synagogue in the world you will find people all over the congregation with books called “chumashim” who follow the Jew reciting the Torah during the prayer service. If a mispronunciation is made, or a mistake is made, than the congregation usually in close unison will correct the Torah reader in the middle of his recitation. Torah readings are an integral part of the Jewish prayer service. Not to mention that the majority of prayers found in “siddurim” are from Tanakh verses put together in verse orders from different books forming nice prayers. I would suggest buying "the Complete Artscroll Siddur" where they usually on the bottom of the siddur will reference different parts of the prayer to different verses from the Tanakh.

Where in Judaism do you have the entire congregation listening to the Rabbi reciting the ENTIRE Torah cover to cover from memory??
That is not a tradition of Judaism and Judaism does not encourage such practices. The reading of the law from the scroll however and the meticulous way of correcting the slightest mistakes 4 times a week, every week, every year is our tradition.

When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion.
Does the Hadith say this? I was under the impression the Hadith says soldiers were arguing so one version of the Quran had to unite the Muslims. The matter under question was that if it was merely other dialects or other text. Does the Hadith say which?

Yes!! This is considered a dignified way of disposing of God's words. And this should not surprise you because many Jews do it too!! To quote one Rabbi:
My minhag opposes the practice. Burial is the way of disposal of holy items. Not burning. Possibly this Rabbi follows a different minhag. The Talmud however says in Moed Kattan 26a, that you must tear your clothes (a sign of mourning) if you see a Torah scroll that is on fire or is burning, so I am not sure how this Rabbi views this clear passage in the Talmud.

Azami examines these slight differences in the ancient manuscripts and discusses them in detail noting their extreme scarcity and provides a number of explanations, which for me to regurgitate would turn an already long post into a multipage essay.
Could you provide a summary?

I have no clue what you are trying to demonstrate by quoting this narration. Please be more explicit.
I would suggest reading the narration again. An example of a man lying about memorizing a verse appears in the Hadith showing it could have been possible if no alcohol was smelt that the verse he claimed here heard may have somehow been compiled into the Quran. Hence my comment: “ There could have been one mistake, right? Is just one all it takes?

I missed this in my earlier post. Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti and Mulla Ali Qari are two people, muslim scholars, not books.
I know… I phrased it wrong. It should have been: “Have you heard of the [books by] Siyootee and Mulla Ali Qari regarding Quranic text collections?”

Secondly, most of the narrations on this topic have serious defects in their chains of transmission and are all weak or fabricated.
The dismissal of all evidence which does not suit you does not strengthen your argument in my humble opinion.

The short answer to the question of why shias and sunnis have different sources is that shias consider many of the most prominent companions of the prophet outright liars and instead rely on the shia infallible imams for guidance. The long answer is to actually go study the tremendous body of knowledge called 'Ulûm al-Hadîth (sciences of the prophetic narrations) and learn for yourself the details concerning the meticulous methodology used in the grading and analysis of prophetic traditions. Your question is a bit like asking why some people accept conventional medicine over 'witch-doctor' treatments - the answer entails a little bit of familiarity with both.
The most “prominent” is your label while; “liars” is there’s. I am sure I would receive a complete opposite side to the story from any knowledgeable Shiite scholar, so I still pose the question, that with the various interpretation that people have made of the Quran and Hadith and how they argue on many things… what sect does one convert to when converting to Islam, if they are to be saved from this ceaseless place of fire which burns the “unbelievers”?

Likewise, when you ask which sect one should pick, it is like asking which is right - Judaism or Christianity.
Not an applicable argument. Judaism does not contend nor even endeavor to convert non-Jews, nor do they believe in an eternal hell for all the “unbelievers”, so consequently, Islam which demands the acceptance of all of humanity to the teachings of Mohammad from Arabia; is not analogous to Judaism in these regards.

What do you want me to explain? The commentaries are in arabic so you'll have to be more specific to let me know what you're looking for.
If they are online, could you please post the Arabic commentaries? I can get them translated so they do not have to be in English. Thank you in advance.

Peace.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-09-2007, 04:56 AM
Greetings,
I made a relatively long post, and unfortunately mine was one of those lost in the server upgrade so I'm going to repeat what I previously wrote, to the best of my memory.
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Greetings and Peace Ansar Al ‘Adl, do you mind if I comment on your discussion with the other member? If I am intruding them simply delete my post and PM me anything you wish to clarify.
I don't mind at all for you to participate in the discussion or make some contribution, but unfortunately almost everything you have written was already previously explained in great detail. This shall be seen in what follows.
Dearest Ansar Al’ Adl., how does this make the Quran anymore valid? I continue to look through your arguments and I find very few relevant points on the Quran. The Quran is highly memorized; okay, however, this is no proof of the Quran’s validity.
I explicitly debunked this strawman fallacy in my previous post and devoted no less than two paragraphs to exposing the fallacy:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Now the fallacy you make in your present post is that you respond to my comments on the memorization and recitation of the Qur'an by saying, "Oh, that doesn't prove the book is true", which is an absolute strawman. I've spoken about proving the veracity of the message through other points in other threads and I only mentioned these facts in relation to 1) the preservation of the Qur'an and 2) the fact that the Qur'an is unique in regards to its tradition of memorization, and you should have no problem acknowledging that.

So again, when you mention the memorization of the Qur'an does not prove its validity, that's a strawman, and when you mention that Christians and Jews are just as capable of memorizing that is another strawman. Remember, we're talking scriptural preservation.
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
It is testimony that in many areas of the Islamic world, children are forced from an early age to memorize verses of the Quran
By such standards children would be considered 'forced' to learn in virtually every school in the world, 'forced' to memorize vocabulary, laws of arithmetic, material relating to science, art, etc. Children are no more 'forced' to memorize the Qur'an than are those forced to memorize historical facts or those forced to learn a second language in bilingual countries. Needless to say, such an appeal to ridicule does not improve your case.
Source? (PS: if it is a book I would love the source the book cites).
Azami covers Uthman's mushaf in chapter seven and provides copious references to classical Islamic sources detailing what I have summarized.

Untrue.

I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The verse is: 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ... (till the end of Bara'a)'. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).
After I covered this exact same incident and devoted such a large portion of my previous post to explaining it, it is simply beyond me how anyone could ignore or skip over the answer and then repeat the exact same question. Since you have not provided me with any reasons as to why you ignored the answer, I have no choice but to repost it:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Yes, this is exactly what demonstrates the point I made earlier about the witness process. You will find hadith which mention that at the end the companions found one sentence was missing and they needed witnesses for and could only find one witness for it. The question: how did the companions know this phrase was missing? Because they had memorized the Qur'an. So they knew which verses they had gotten witnesses for and which verses remained, and at the end they got 2 witnesses for every verse - meeting the criteria I previously mentioned - and they got one witness Abu Khuzaimah for this verse and it was actually the fulfillment of a prophecy because the Prophet Muhammad pbuh had told this companion that his witness was the equivalent of two witnesses and consequently he was actually known by everyone with the title of "Dhul-Shahadatain", the person who witness is that of two witnesses. So when the companions found that this was the only verse they had one witness for and yet this was the man who had been called Dhul-Shahadatain by the prophet, the realized the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Abu Bakr had not authorised him to record except what was already available [on parchment]. That is why Zaid refrained from including the final âyah of Surah Barâ'a until he came upon it in written form, even though he and his fellow Companions could recall it perfectly well from memory. (Fath al-Bari, ix:13)
I believe I have read the explanations you are speaking of and exactly what part of them convinced you? I’m honestly curious.
Well of course, in addition to what I presented, the studies from the companions which is referenced with Abu Ubaid's Fada'il. Since it featured prominently in the explanation, I'm sure you are familiar with it.

This is from Sura 10: Verse 21. Now I will show you a comparison with arrows
Both are identical. Read it out aloud (if you know how) if you don't believe me. Both of them read: idhâ lahum makrun fî ayâtinâ. Meaning: "one they conspired against Our Ayat". The difference is merely in the format in which the alif has been written, the latter having a minuscule alif due to the different convention used in the writing of the skeleton. Azami discusses orthography and the Qur'an in chapter ten and provides the following example of just how dramatic the changes in spelling conventions in the English language have been; Azami writes:

Below I have provided the verbatim title of a randomly chosen (and typically verbose) English treatise from the 17th century CE, to illustrate the orthographic changes that have taken place in under four centuries.

The Boy of Bilson: or, A True Discovery of the late notorious Impostures of certaine Romish Priests in their pretended Exorcisme, or expulsion of the Divell out of a young boy, named William Perry, sonne of Thomas Perry of Bilson, in the country of Stafford, Yeoman. Upon which occasion, hereunto is permitted A briefe Theological Discourse, by way of Caution, for the more easie discerning of such Romish spirits, and iudjing of their false pretences, both in this and the like Practices. [fn. Peter Milward, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age (A Survey of Printed Sources), The Scolar Press, London, 1978, p. 197. This is the actual title of a book published in 1622 CE. I have italicised the words that have different spellings than our current standard. Notice that 'judging' is written with an 'i' instead of 'j'.]
The spelling may seem laughable by our current criteria, but it is in complete accordance with the established standards of 17th century England. (Azami, p. 192)
Even today, it is well known that we have different spelling conventions in English like all other languages, including (ironically enough) the example of spelt and spelled. Now keeping in mind that the Qur'an is the oral recitation, the use of what we call 'reading aids' such as mini alifs or even color coding in modern 'tajweed qur'ans' is perfectly acceptable. Though we do not have the same dramatic spelling convention differences as seen above in english, we do have the use of the minuscule alif to alert the modern reader to the correct pronunciation of a word written with a skeleton according to the convention the he or she may not be familiar with. Whether writing the alif in a large or minuscule format, both conventions are perfectly acceptable and neither the meaning nor pronunciation change. A common example in arabic which Azami also cites is حتي and حتا both of which read hattâ and both are considered acceptable conventions.

This of course only helps in the pronunciation and is not added as an extra alif, but why change; something so perfect already, in a most perfect form in any aspect of it? If you have information, it has always been a side curiosity of mine.
As explained above, reading aid.

****2:125 in the Hafs version وَاتَّخِ ُ ذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take), but in the Warsh version, it is وَاتَّخَ ُ ذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). One is in the future ("shall") and the other is in the past ("have"). Which should be followed, and does the other version have any Muslim followers or is it entirely irrelevant and not ONE Muslim views the one which I know you will label incorrect as holy? If one Muslim views the opposite version as correct, does it not make this statement by you: “ Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants” as a false statement? Or am I possibly missing something that I have not taken into account?
It is a common fallacy amongst non-muslims to make the mistake of confusing the authentic Qira'ât with variants, when the reality is they are all authentic recitations of the same verse revealed to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself, and transmitted from him to us through mutawâtir chains of transmission. They are not 'variants' as they do not arise from textual uncertainty. This is explained by Azami on page 154 and he examines and refutes in great detail the conjecture of Godziher, Jeffery and others on the issue.

Plus, do you know of the findings of Dr Gerd R. Puin
Yep. Already answered on the forum.
http://www.islamicboard.com/27163-post2.html

I assure you that such an analogy would not make you very popular in Iran, nor in some very Shia areas.
I'm not interested in such popularity.
What a straw man!
A strawman is a sham argument set up to be defeated. Please show me by what form of reasoning or logic my analogy can be considered a straw man fallacy!
Can you clarify your views on Shia Islam, and blatantly tell us that it is not “real” Islam already which it seems you are hinting.
As I already said, visit the sectarian section on the forum and you will recieve all the details. Islam entails following what was revealed by Allah in the Qur'an, as it was explained by the Prophet and understood by his companions who were the direct recipients of the message. I have no qualms in pointing out, in an appropriate manner, the deviation of those who deviate from this. This has been done in the sectarian section of the forum.

Regards
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-09-2007, 06:04 AM
Greetings rav,
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
If such overwhelming evidence was provided in books which proved his arguments utterly wrong…
Sure, bring forward such evidence or research and then we can reevaluate his conclusions.
Unture. Specific prayers must be said in Hebrew. The Torah recitation must also be in Hebrew.
I said 'prayers in Judaism can be done in any language (as noted in the Talmud)'
The truth is that you can pray in any language you understand[5], but there is a tremendous advantage to praying in Hebrew. [LINK]
You mention a few points about Judaism but at the end of the day you admit
format_quote Originally Posted by Rav
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar
Where in Judaism do you have the entire congregation listening to the Rabbi reciting the ENTIRE Torah cover to cover from memory??
That is not a tradition of Judaism and Judaism does not encourage such practices. The reading of the law from the scroll however and the meticulous way of correcting the slightest mistakes 4 times a week, every week, every year is our tradition.
So if it is NOT a tradition in Judaism, then why make the parallel where it does not exist? And if your readings are from writing as opposed to reciting from memory then it you still have only a textual tradition! The muslim prayers entail recitation from memory which is NOT a textual tradition, but something ADDITIONAL to their textual tradition.

format_quote Originally Posted by rav
format_quote Originally Posted by ansar
When Uthman ordered that all other copies/parchments be either burned or erased it was because such copies were neither verified nor authorized under the consensus of the companions and consequently they could be written according to a specific dialect which would lead to confusion and bickering or they could even contain the odd scribal error which could also lead to confusion.
Does the Hadith say this?
Yes. Everything I am mentioning is based on the summation of all the references from the Ahadith which are quoted in detail in Azami's book. The issue was the possibility of future confusion and that could be due to the two things I mentioned in my quote.
My minhag opposes the practice.
A red herring. It makes absolutely no difference whether you agree or not with what the Rabbi said, the point is that it is considered the appropriate practice by Muslims and evidently Jews as well, though not all of them. If this was just an FYI you were providing on Judaism, then let's leave that to the comparative religion section please.
Could you provide a summary?
That would be what I said on this point:
Suffice it to say that the presence of the teachers alongside each official copy, the ubiquitious recitation and memorization amongst muslims, and the countless other copies available for cross checking are the very reasons why even the slightest scribal error is immediately and outright rejected by the Muslim populace.
...
It would only be a case in point if an error had gone unnoticed and resulted in a variant text amongst Muslims. But Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants and even the slightest mistake could be recognized and rejected even by a child.
I would suggest reading the narration again.
The narration says that in later times when Ibn Mas'ood was in Syria an intoxicated man came up to him and challenged this famous companion on a verse of the Qur'an he recited which clearly blew his cover and they realized he was drunk and for that he was punished.
An example of a man lying about memorizing a verse appears in the Hadith showing it could have been possible if no alcohol was smelt that the verse he claimed here heard may have somehow been compiled into the Quran.
No, what it shows is that if he hadn't done something as ludicrous as openly challenge a verse of the Qur'an he may have stumbled home with his intoxication unnoticed. He never said anything about memorization nor did he even claim to know the ayat, nor did he provide a verse he claimed to have heard, he just said Ibn Mas'ood was wrong. Any person this happens to would have simply had to verify the matter with some Qur'an teachers or manuscripts, and then they would see if they were wrong or right. The Qur'an was already memorized, written and compiled so nothing this intoxicated man said would have any effect.
The dismissal of all evidence which does not suit you does not strengthen your argument in my humble opinion.
If you don't understand or are not aware of the science of Mustalah al-Hadîth of the principles and methodology for the gradation and authentication of hadith, then please just say so. If you wish to learn about the different types of collections of narrations (musnad, jami, sahih, etc.) I am happy to enlighten you but it is not appropriate to resort to ad hominem attacks, especially when I stated that they were rejected on account of their weak chains of transmission, not because they 'did not suit me'! I would hope that we could maintain a higher degree of objectivity and respect than that. I even mentioned the names of the hadith scholars who have investigated the chains of transmission and had consequently rejected the reports as spurious.
what sect does one convert to when converting to Islam, if they are to be saved from this ceaseless place of fire which burns the “unbelievers”?
Islam entails following what was revealed by Allah in the Qur'an, as it was explained by the Prophet and understood by his companions who were the direct recipients of the message. I am fully confident that a convert who researches the issue themselves will be able to see the correct path of following Islam. If you want to know the sectarian differences, as I said before it takes more than just a brisk answer so please visit the sectarian section.
Not an applicable argument. Judaism does not contend nor even endeavor to convert non-Jews, nor do they believe in an eternal hell for all the “unbelievers”
A red herring once again. Irrespective of your beliefs on salvation, the truths of Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive (eg. trinity, vicarious atonement, etc.) and hence an answer as to which beliefs are veracious entails a much more involved discussion than a brisk answer.

If they are online, could you please post the Arabic commentaries? I can get them translated so they do not have to be in English. Thank you in advance.
If the references are in Sahih Bukhari you can look them up in the commentary of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani here:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...=1&doc=0#Desc1

Regards
Reply

al-muslimah
07-09-2007, 06:20 AM
Mashallah Qatada you have given wonderful proof.All paraise is to the one who has preserved his holy book and saved it from distortions like the ones in the BIBLE and TORAH of today.May Allah, the Almighty guide the Jews and Christians and every other disbeliever to the truth and light of Islam.Ameen
Reply

wilberhum
07-09-2007, 03:54 PM
you have given wonderful proof
There is no proof. Well if you redefine proof, you can claim anything.
Reply

جوري
07-09-2007, 04:34 PM
& in walks a deus ex machina to part with some "wisdom"--:rollseyes :mmokay:
Reply

wilberhum
07-09-2007, 05:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
& in walks a deus ex machina to part with some "wisdom"--:rollseyes :mmokay:
It looked like some was needed. :rolleyes: And you know how I love to help. :D
Reply

جوري
07-09-2007, 05:43 PM
I think the cat says it best...

peace!
Reply

wilberhum
07-09-2007, 05:46 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
That's funny. I had no idea that you had a sense of humor. :happy:

Good on you.
Reply

rav
07-09-2007, 10:46 PM
Shalom (Peace) Ansar Al-‘Adl, a few things which I desire to address in this post.

Sure, bring forward such evidence or research and then we can reevaluate his conclusions.
I do not think that you understood the premise of the first paragraph of my post. Here is what I wrote:

I understand that, and if I ever have enough free time I will look into reading the book, but your post said the following: “ First, let me just point out that we should be referring to scholarly, academic sources that provide the references and research for all conclusions.” All I did, was point out to you, that we could very well refer to scholarly, academic sources from the scholarly academia such as Gabriel Sawma that have presented research backing their opinions regarding the Quran. They’re research and conclusions although you may deny it are not of the intention of “debunking” Islam, but instead wish to study the origins of a book which so many revere. If such overwhelming evidence was provided in books which proved his arguments utterly wrong… if such “refutations” were existent than I see no reason why he would not reevaluate his positions regarding the origins and the development of the Quran. Do you think the intentions of the academia are suspect because I would not want to quote a book which has an agenda, so if any author I ask you about is suspect in his intention, I would love to know this before I read to much into their material.

If you re-read the above, you will see that I was not speaking of reevaluating the conclusions of M. M. Azami. What I spoke about is that the conclusions that M. M. Azami draws in his books were so significant and clearly refuted any other theory on the origin and development to shreds. Than the scholarly academic community, would not continue to rely and structure theories; that were so easy to refute. If such “refutations” which you claim are available were existent and essentially (as your claiming) debunked every single theory the academic community holds (that contradicts Islamic beliefs about the Quran’s development), than I see no reason why the academic community would not reevaluate their positions on the Quran.

I said 'prayers in Judaism can be done in any language (as noted in the Talmud)'
I understand what you said Ansar, the problem is that it is a fictional statement. All prayers cannot be done in any language noted in the Talmud. In the Talmud, you will find that there are specific prayers that must be said in Hebrew, the language of the Torah. So therefore, yes some prayers may be said in English or any language, but it is false to say that all prayers can be said in these languages. Specific prayers can only be said in Hebrew and this is said in the Talmud.

So if it is NOT a tradition in Judaism, then why make the parallel where it does not exist?
The practice of children memorizing verses of the Torah is not a tradition within Judaism. However the parallel exists for this reason: In every generation the Torah has been memorized by Rabbi’s and Talmidei Chachamim (Knowledgable Torah scholars). I am sure many more Muslim children can be found, and no one is denying that, however, in every generation we have had Jews memorize the Torah from Jewish communities that range from Yemen, Iran, Israel, France, Morocco, Russia, Lithuania, and Germany. The practice still remains although it is no longer as wide spread in our day because the ease of printing the text of the Torah. I can refer to you books (in Hebrew) that tell stories of thousands of our beloved Rabbis and their disciples in Europe who memorized the Torah because of fear that the Germans would burn every Torah and Judaism would cease to exist. The above has no part in the actual topic we are discussing; I am just correcting misstatements about Judaism that you hold.

Yes. Everything I am mentioning is based on the summation of all the references from the Ahadith which are quoted in detail in Azami's book. The issue was the possibility of future confusion and that could be due to the two things I mentioned in my quote.
Could you at least summarize Azami’s positions on a few of the topics, or at least provide the references to certain Hadith that he cites in his book, so I could look them up?

A red herring. It makes absolutely no difference whether you agree or not with what the Rabbi said, the point is that it is considered the appropriate practice by Muslims and evidently Jews as well, though not all of them. If this was just an FYI you were providing on Judaism, then let's leave that to the comparative religion section please.
Not a red herring I am afraid. It is not “I” who agree or disagree, it is how the Rabbi formed the conclusion that you can ever burn a holy object like a Torah scroll. It says without doubt or need for interpretation in the Talmud (source: Moed Kattan 26a) that you may not burn a Torah scroll, or any book with Torah in it, and if you see one burning you must immediately tear your clothes (a practice associated with mourning). I was not the one that brought up the practice of burning holy objects in Judaism, you were. So therefore, I felt the need to correct a statement made by you and a Rabbi that this practice is allowed, or even tolerated within Judaism when the opinion on Judaism that you quoted is one that utterly disagrees with what the Talmud says on the matter.

That would be what I said on this point:
Suffice it to say that the presence of the teachers alongside each official copy, the ubiquitious recitation and memorization amongst muslims, and the countless other copies available for cross checking are the very reasons why even the slightest scribal error is immediately and outright rejected by the Muslim populace.
...
It would only be a case in point if an error had gone unnoticed and resulted in a variant text amongst Muslims. But Muslims have forever been united on one text free of variants and even the slightest mistake could be recognized and rejected even by a child.
If that is the summary of what his argument is in his book than let me ask you this:

1. What Hadith does he quote to support the notion of “ubiquitous” recitation and memorization amongst Muslims at this time with the “countless” copies available for cross checking, when the Quran was first being compiled?

2. Do you have a scanner where you could possibly scan and send to me the pages that deal with this issue that he “refutes” and the references to the Hadith that he provides?

The narration says that in later times when Ibn Mas'ood was in Syria an intoxicated man came up to him and challenged this famous companion on a verse of the Qur'an he recited which clearly blew his cover and they realized he was drunk and for that he was punished.
Well I have a few questions now: What Hadith can I find which say this could never have happened again; i.e. some random person saying he heard a verse. What Hadith can I find says that every verse had a text reference written down on a paper of some type and this was a requirement?

Islam entails following what was revealed by Allah in the Qur'an, as it was explained by the Prophet and understood by his companions who were the direct recipients of the message. I am fully confident that a convert who researches the issue themselves will be able to see the correct path of following Islam. If you want to know the sectarian differences, as I said before it takes more than just a brisk answer so please visit the sectarian section.
I’m afraid so many people have drawn conclusions from the Quran and created their own “sects” and the fact that holy books to one side are labeled forgeries by other sides, reveal that it is indeed not that simple.

A red herring once again. Irrespective of your beliefs on salvation, the truths of Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive (eg. trinity, vicarious atonement, etc.) and hence an answer as to which beliefs are veracious entails a much more involved discussion than a brisk answer.
Judaism and Christianity are not of the same religions. The two religions are much more different than the Sunni-Shiite dispute, so therefore again I say that your correlation is erroneous. Judaism believes all do not have to convert to it, while Islam makes the claim that the entire world must “submit” to the teachings of Mohammad. Therefore, what Judaism believes in respect to Christianity is something entirely different. The only reason such a topic was even brought up, is to show that a group of Muslims, which make up over one hundred million, believe in something completely different than you do, so it may be “a red herring” in your opinion, but to me, it is an honest inquiry of mine.

If the references are in Sahih Bukhari you can look them up in the commentary of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani here:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D...=1&doc=0#Desc1
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-10-2007, 12:36 AM
hi rav,
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
What I spoke about is that the conclusions that M. M. Azami draws in his books were so significant and clearly refuted any other theory on the origin and development to shreds. Than the scholarly academic community, would not continue to rely and structure theories; that were so easy to refute. If such “refutations” which you claim are available were existent and essentially (as your claiming) debunked every single theory the academic community holds (that contradicts Islamic beliefs about the Quran’s development), than I see no reason why the academic community would not reevaluate their positions on the Quran.
1. Many of the orientalists who devised these elaborate theories which are refuted by Azami are now deceased so they don't have the opportunity to 'reevaluate'.
2. You say 'academic community' but are you really including Muslim scholars who are experts in the historical compilation and preservation of the Qur'an? Azami is not someone challenging the 'academic community' he is part of it as are thousands of Muslim scholars who have conducted extensive research in Ulûm al-Qur'an. The problem is that you say 'academic community' but what is clearly implied is 'western orientalist non-muslim community'. You are really referring to a restricted community of non-muslims many of whom hold - as Azami points out - the fallacious notion that Muslims cannot represent themselves and must be represented by western scholarship.
3. You neglect that every critic is the product of his or her environment and many of those who have formed these theories on the Qur'an write from a missionary backdrop with a vested interest and underlying motives for rejecting the account provided by Muslim scholarship. You neglect that in addition to our rational nature, human beings have an overwhelming emotional nature which entails that one does not always accept the most rational option.
4. How many of the modern proponents of such theories have studied Azami's material and commented on it? Why don't you be specific and ask who you are waiting for to change their mind instead of ambiguously referring to a so-called 'academic community'?
I understand what you said Ansar, the problem is that it is a fictional statement.
No, it is not and I even provided you with a reference which stated:
'
The truth is that you can pray in any language you understand[5], but there is a tremendous advantage to praying in Hebrew. [LINK]
And please show me where I used the word 'all' or 'every' in my statement about the Jewish prayers. What I said is identical to what I referenced.
The practice of children memorizing verses of the Torah is not a tradition within Judaism. However the parallel exists for this reason: In every generation the Torah has been memorized by Rabbi’s and Talmidei Chachamim (Knowledgable Torah scholars).
Again you mix issues and then go off on tangents which even you admit have no place in this discussion on the preservation of the Qur'an. You said yourself that the reading is from script, hence a textual tradition. For Muslims the memorization of scripture will never be decreased due to the role of print because recitation from memory is an integral component of the muslim prayers.
Could you at least summarize Azami’s positions on a few of the topics
That is what I have been doing this entire discussion!
or at least provide the references to certain Hadith that he cites in his book, so I could look them up?
For the point we were discussing, I gave a couple of references to Fath al-Bari which you can look up.
So therefore, I felt the need to correct a statement made by you and a Rabbi that this practice is allowed, or even tolerated within Judaism when the opinion on Judaism that you quoted is one that utterly disagrees with what the Talmud says on the matter.
It makes no difference what you think about the Rabbi's opinion. I never said this was the definitive ruling on the issue in Judaism, in fact I specifically said:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Yes!! This is considered a dignified way of disposing of God's words. And this should not surprise you because many Jews do it too!! To quote one Rabbi:
So your above comment that I spoke about what is or what is not allowed in Judaism is a manifest untruth. What I said is that this is considered a dignified way of disposing it, not only by Muslims but many Jews as well. If you personally do not find it dignified or believe that the correct ruling in Judaism is that it is not considered dignified, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. My statement stands exactly the same.
1. What Hadith does he quote to support the notion of “ubiquitous” recitation and memorization amongst Muslims at this time with the “countless” copies available for cross checking, when the Quran was first being compiled?
He provides some 38 references for completed memorization of specific companions and at least fifty others for ubiquitous recitation and teaching. Its funny because it is almost as if you seem to hold the imaginative notion that his entire argument is constructed on one or two hadith that say word-for-word his argument, whereas the reality is that it is a well-researched summation of thousands of references, page upon page with nearly every other sentence containing a reference.
2. Do you have a scanner where you could possibly scan and send to me the pages that deal with this issue that he “refutes” and the references to the Hadith that he provides?
I'm afraid I do not have a scanner to send you the pages, nor do I have any method of uploading the book onto the forum for your perusal. If you really want to read the book, you will most likely have to obtain it yourself.
Well I have a few questions now: What Hadith can I find which say this could never have happened again
This is just like what I mentioned earlier. By their very nature, Hadith, and all historical narration for that matter, talk about what DID happen, not what did NOT happen, let alone what could not happen!
What Hadith can I find says that every verse had a text reference written down on a paper of some type and this was a requirement?
I already quoted this for you from fath al-Bari with the reference; you can also check Mukhtasar Târîkh Dimashq of Ibn Manzur, xvi:171-2 for a quotation from Uthman where he lays out this criteria, as well as Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dawud pp. 23-24.
...reveal that it is indeed not that simple.
Exactly, a simple, 'brisk' answer will not do justice to the topic so instead of asking for one please go and visit the sectarian section yourself so you can educate yourself about the differences. I am amazed at how many times I have to repeat this.
Judaism and Christianity are not of the same religions.
I never said they were, in fact I said the complete opposite!! The truths held by each are mutually exclusive as are those held by heretical muslim sects. In both cases, it requires a little more research and investigation than simply asking, "which is right" and expecting the answer to be spoonfed to you in a simple bite-size format. If you are interested, you can begin your research with the sectarian section of the forum. If not, then let's not waste time playing cat-and-mosque asking for a simple answer to a major sectarian rift and then turning away when offered a source to look into the matter. You are looking for a simple answer while simultaneously rejecting the existence of any answer on the grounds of simplicity.
it is an honest inquiry of mine.
Great, so check out the sectarian section.

Warm Regards
Reply

thirdwatch512
07-10-2007, 01:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by vorx
The Qur'an itself is not just a book. It is a lifestyle and history of old civilizations. It is science and philosophy. it is a complex books and well written.
So is the Torah. The Torah is a great book that covers every aspect of life. Judaism is, and always has been a total complete way of life. I have a friend who converted to Judaism and made Aliyah to Israel, her name is Elisheva and I have never seen someone so happy as her.

As for "science" in the quran.. I laugh at people who calim that the quran has science.. You know, I rally do.They pick and choose what they accept as scieence and ignore everything else. Like that the sun and moon obey humans.. Um, any scientific proof behind that? Or that a tree was crying because mohammad would not preach under it.. LOL. Please show me some science that shows trees can think, and are smart enoguh to cry.

That being said though, I still do not find science significant for any religion. What some muslims have to realize is that their quran was NOT made to be a science book. That was not the intention of the quran. If it was made to be a science book, then
1. Early tafsir would have wirtten about it.
2. If it was scientific, it would be clear. People wouldn't just now(for the past 30 or so years) be commenteing on it. They would have been commenting on it back then.
3. If it was a science book, it would clearly show science. you wouldn't have to dig deep to find it.

If you read some tafisr from early times, you will see that people thought totally different then they do now. A common early islamic belief was that we were on a fish, and that the mountains had pegs in them to keep the fish from flopping LOL.

The qurans message is not a message of science. It is a message of Faith. Same with the Bible, and other religious books. Although I do not think the quran is from God, I know that the quran certainly was not made by mohammad to be some science book. And when you try and incorporate science in it, you just 1. Humiliate yourself and 2. Take away the whole message of quran
But yeah, the thing with evolution that bothers me is how can we resemble monkeys and apes almost 90% of their organism and Adam was "supposedly" the first human being. It is kinda hard to know since the Qur'an and modern science only hint clues and not the whole pictures and everything is sketchy

I can't tell if Adam was once a specimen with half a human body and half a fish tail like a mermaid. Who knows? nobody.

I see fossils and i see preserved life form. Probably evolution is alive but probably God is creating as we speak and puts things in earth without evolutionary origin. Who knows?
I agree that evoution is a very stupid belief.

Science changes all the time. And almost everything in science is a THEORY. It can not be 100% proven.

It is mentioned in the Qur'an that man was created from water. That is evolution theory right there in the Qur'an. It is also said in the Qur'an that some civilization was cursed to be monkeys. Please correct me if i am wrong, as i forgot the sourse verses when i read it.
The quran also says that humans were made form semen(but how was semen there when there were no humans) and from dust, and from clay, and just all kinds of different things.
Reply

rav
07-10-2007, 01:53 AM
Shalom,
1. Many of the orientalists who devised these elaborate theories which are refuted by Azami are now deceased so they don't have the opportunity to 'reevaluate'.
Fair enough, yet their theories are still accepted.

2. You say 'academic community' but are you really including Muslim scholars who are experts in the historical compilation and preservation of the Qur'an? Azami is not someone challenging the 'academic community' he is part of it as are thousands of Muslim scholars who have conducted extensive research in Ulûm al-Qur'an. The problem is that you say 'academic community' but what is clearly implied is 'western orientalist non-muslim community'. You are really referring to a restricted community of non-muslims many of whom hold - as Azami points out - the fallacious notion that Muslims cannot represent themselves and must be represented by western scholarship.
I’ll include anyone who has knowledge and scholarship on issues involving the Quran, I however prefer people who are unbiased. I look to avoid scholars who are out to prove the Quran to be a sham, with as much stringency as I look to avoid scholars which have an opposite agenda to prove the Quran to be divine. Impartiality is what I seek. As for scholarly works within the academic community:

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. [SOURCE]

Such scholars have differing opinions, and some view the Hadith

3. You neglect that every critic is the product of his or her environment and many of those who have formed these theories on the Qur'an write from a missionary backdrop with a vested interest and underlying motives for rejecting the account provided by Muslim scholarship. You neglect that in addition to our rational nature, human beings have an overwhelming emotional nature which entails that one does not always accept the most rational option.
Exactly! This is why I look for impartiality. Muslim scholars are the exact same products of their environments. In the academic community, do you really believe there is as much bias? Do you object to the notion that there is a genuine search for “truth”, instead of “justification”? Possibly not, but I see it in such a light. In no way have I shunned or rejected the books you have cited anyway.

4. How many of the modern proponents of such theories have studied Azami's material and commented on it? Why don't you be specific and ask who you are waiting for to change their mind instead of ambiguously referring to a so-called 'academic community'?
I’m honestly not sure who has reviewed his arguments. However if his arguments thoroughly refute all of the theories on the Quran’s development put forth by any scholar on Islam who is not an Orthodox Muslim, than I would assume that such theories would be reviewed since they were so utterly refuted. An example of who I am referring to. I have already provided one example which you have not commented on yet; “such as Gabriel Sawma that have presented research backing their opinions regarding the Quran” (Post 69 of this thread).

If you have not read his book, I would suggest you do, it is fascinating.

Here is a link: http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Misinter.../dp/0977860698

And please show me where I used the word 'all' or 'every' in my statement about the Jewish prayers. What I said is identical to what I referenced.
I sincerely apologize. I for some reason assumed you were saying that all prayers in Judaism do not have to be said in Hebrew.

Again you mix issues and then go off on tangents which even you admit have no place in this discussion on the preservation of the Qur'an. You said yourself that the reading is from script, hence a textual tradition. For Muslims the memorization of scripture will never be decreased due to the role of print because recitation from memory is an integral component of the muslim prayers.
I would suggest entering a “Kollel” although I am not sure if one exists where you live. In the Kollel’s Rav Shach rebuilt a common practice would be the head Rabbi would enter the study room, all close their books and one student is pointed to. The Rabbi quotes a passage and the Talmid chacham begins reciting from memory for as long as the Rabbi wills, then another student is pointed to and continues from where the other student left off. The memorization of the Torah and the recitation of the above between students of Torah is not an uncommon thing. It is merely not a part of the rituals that Jews are to follow. However, memorization and recitation is in no way absent, maybe not to the degree that Muslims place on it, but to say recitation is entirely “textual” is false. That is all I wished to point out from your original statement.

That is what I have been doing this entire discussion!
First, i’m looking for a list of his references to all the points you are making which obviously come from his book. I understand that you do not have a scanner so I will assume the responsibility of looking for his book. I just wanted assurance that his sources are purely from the Hadith and not from the Tafsir or other Islamic books that were written much later. Second, when I wrote: ” Also, about the Tashkent Quran, here are some things I have read about this copy, please correct me if I am wrong Ansar, because I have no use to attack Islam or Christianity, but live my life in peace since many opinions within Judaism say Muslims can go to heaven! I therefore, in the process of taking classes in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, must have a few things clarified which people do learn.
The pronoun huwa [he] is at hand in the Tashkent-Samarqand original of the Quran chapter 2, verse 284, while the contemporary Arabic version has the word “G-d”.”
you wrote the following: Azami examines these slight differences in the ancient manuscripts and discusses them in detail noting their extreme scarcity and provides a number of explanations, which for me to regurgitate would turn an already long post into a multipage essay.. I just wished to have an explanation that was a bit more in-depth.

For the point we were discussing, I gave a couple of references to Fath al-Bari which you can look up.
I must have looked over them or not have seen their relevance.

It makes no difference what you think about the Rabbi's opinion. I never said this was the definitive ruling on the issue in Judaism, in fact I specifically said:

Yes!! This is considered a dignified way of disposing of God's words. And this should not surprise you because many Jews do it too!! To quote one Rabbi:

So your above comment that I spoke about what is or what is not allowed in Judaism is a manifest untruth. What I said is that this is considered a dignified way of disposing it, not only by Muslims but many Jews as well. If you personally do not find it dignified or believe that the correct ruling in Judaism is that it is not considered dignified, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. My statement stands exactly the same.
The article speaks about a “dvar Torah sheet” which discusses Torah or topics on the Torah in another alphabet other than Hebrew. The notion of burning even those is a radical one that you find very few Jews do. However, something like a Torah scroll is not a question. You can not burn one Quote of the Torah in Hebrew let alone a scroll. That was the reason I asked about the burning of perfectly good Quran’s written in a different Arabic dialect. The issue in Judaism is a non-existent one. What you quoted was about a “dvar torah sheet”, burning a full translation of the Torah in English is not aloud. The fact is that the burning of the “perfect” Quran in a different dialect was a surprise to me because it is a sin in Judaism. If you have the Babylonian Talmud on hand, open up tractate Moed Kattan page 26a. According to Jewish law, if those Quran copies were copies of the Torah in a different dialect, it would be a sin, which is why I reacted with surprise.

He provides some 38 references for completed memorization of specific companions and at least fifty others for ubiquitous recitation and teaching. Its funny because it is almost as if you seem to hold the imaginative notion that his entire argument is constructed on one or two hadith that say word-for-word his argument, whereas the reality is that it is a well-researched summation of thousands of references, page upon page with nearly every other sentence containing a reference.
I suspected that it was the compilation of many references; I just wanted an example of one. Obviously to much too ask, so I will search for the book. Is it on amazon.com?

I already quoted this for you from fath al-Bari with the reference; you can also check Mukhtasar Târîkh Dimashq of Ibn Manzur, xvi:171-2 for a quotation from Uthman where he lays out this criteria, as well as Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dawud pp. 23-24.
Thank you.
Reply

wilberhum
07-10-2007, 04:15 AM
al-muslimah
there is proof you just don't relieze it.
There is no proof, you just don't understand the definition of Proof.
Unlike the JEWS and CHRISTIANS we have not changed our books
Even if it is true, it means absolutely nothing except you haven't changed your book.
Reply

جوري
07-10-2007, 04:31 AM
can we stop the smut or at least open a separate thread for smut under general chat? Unless you have something of substance as pertains to the topic then please sit this one out... every thread here ends us with this degenerative quality about it. I have to rummage through heaps of bunk, before I can read something of relevance... This isn't the therapist couch to purge yourself of whatever ails your mind... pls either go to general chat and open a psychobabble thread or experience your abreaction on the world Affairs section...
thank you
Reply

ranma1/2
07-10-2007, 04:36 AM
i think a good question is can you prove that the quran was not altered nor did it have any opportunity for change before it was put into written form?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-10-2007, 04:37 AM
Hello rav,
format_quote Originally Posted by rav
I look to avoid scholars who are out to prove the Quran to be a sham, with as much stringency as I look to avoid scholars which have an opposite agenda to prove the Quran to be divine. Impartiality is what I seek.
Though it can often be hard to find. The next best bet would be to investigate and learn the arguments and theories on both sides and weigh them against eachother, excercising one's own judgement.
An example of who I am referring to. I have already provided one example which you have not commented on yet; “such as Gabriel Sawma that have presented research backing their opinions regarding the Quran” (Post 69 of this thread).
Okay. I was not aware of his inclusion in the 'scholarly community' of orientalists who had studied the Qur'an nor was I able to find any information on where he studied Shari'ah or which branches of Shari'ah he studied. At any rate, Azami has also discussed various theories on the arabic language of the Qur'an and its alleged syriac origins, so you can check it out and compare what he says with what Sawma says and decide for yourself.
However, memorization and recitation is in no way absent, maybe not to the degree that Muslims place on it, but to say recitation is entirely “textual” is false. That is all I wished to point out from your original statement.
Fair enough.
According to Jewish law, if those Quran copies were copies of the Torah in a different dialect, it would be a sin, which is why I reacted with surprise.
Fine, but Islamically it is considered a dignified way of disposing of writings containing God's words.
I suspected that it was the compilation of many references; I just wanted an example of one. Obviously to much too ask, so I will search for the book. Is it on amazon.com?
I could not find it on amazon, but here is a link:
http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b7626.html

Take care,
Reply

ranma1/2
07-10-2007, 04:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Even if it is true, it means absolutely nothing except you haven't changed your book.

to pull a PA,
Well said.
Reply

wilberhum
07-10-2007, 04:42 AM
I think it was the most relative statements made. :thankyou:
Not near the eloquence of your master pieces that are more informative and precise than anyone else can write.
But then I guess it is all a matter of opinion. :D
If you don’t want a non-Muslim opinion, get out of “Refutations” and go to “Basics of Islam” or someplace like that. Then I won’t bother you. :shade:
Or maybe open your own forum and only allow “Like Minded” Muslims to join. :hiding:
Reply

جوري
07-10-2007, 05:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think it was the most relative statements made. :thankyou:
egocentricity and self-aggrandizement resolves in most people in their young adult life... I certainly hope at some point this too will happen for you...

Not near the eloquence of your master pieces that are more informative and precise than anyone else can write.
I don't understand what that means really? I am not partaking in this refutation-- however getting past your posts to follow it sequentially has been a little trying with all your unintelligible jabber.


But then I guess it is all a matter of opinion. :D
Indeed!
If you don’t want a non-Muslim opinion, get out of “Refutations” and go to “Basics of Islam” or someplace like that. Then I won’t bother you. :shade:
You are under some delusion that you are imparting with something of substance?... in fact, all you do is recycle your same one liners from one post to the next and one section to the next... this indeed is a refutation section and just so we are clear on what that entails here is a definition:
The speech act of answering an attack on your assertions!

Or maybe open your own forum and only allow “Like Minded” Muslims to join. :hiding:
I think it would be easier if you can accept and understand your limitations for a change and again just sit this one out!
peace!
Reply

wilberhum
07-10-2007, 05:18 AM
I think it would be easier if you can accept and understand your limitations for a change and again just sit this one out!
Not a chanced. I enjoy your post far too much. :thankyou:
But you will have to wait till tomorrow for more. I'm off to bed. :D
Reply

Malaikah
07-10-2007, 06:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
As for "science" in the quran.. I laugh at people who calim that the quran has science.. You know, I rally do.They pick and choose what they accept as scieence and ignore everything else. Like that the sun and moon obey humans.. Um, any scientific proof behind that? Or that a tree was crying because mohammad would not preach under it.. LOL. Please show me some science that shows trees can think, and are smart enoguh to cry.
Where does it say that about the sun and moon? As far as I am aware they obey only Allah.

And tree that wept, number one, that is not mentioned in the Quran, that was an event that happened and was witnesses by many people. Number two, it is called a miracle. ^o)

The qurans message is not a message of science. It is a message of Faith. Same with the Bible, and other religious books. Although I do not think the quran is from God, I know that the quran certainly was not made by mohammad to be some science book. And when you try and incorporate science in it, you just 1. Humiliate yourself and 2. Take away the whole message of quran
No one is claiming that the Quran is a science book, rather it contains scientific truths with in. And many scientists have converted to Islam because of it. The best scientific comment made in the Quran would be that of the evolution of the embryo.

If you read some tafisr from early times, you will see that people thought totally different then they do now. A common early islamic belief was that we were on a fish, and that the mountains had pegs in them to keep the fish from flopping LOL.
Proof? Even if some people did believe that, it is in no way an Islamic belief unless the view is supported in the Quran or by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him).
Reply

thirdwatch512
07-10-2007, 09:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
Where does it say that about the sun and moon? As far as I am aware they obey only Allah.
And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you. 14:33

In my opinion, it would only make sense for the sun and moon to only "obey" LOL God. But, I don't think muslims seem to only think that God gets the power. After all, what do you think happened with satan according to quran? He refused to bow down to Adam, a HUMAN.

And tree that wept, number one, that is not mentioned in the Quran, that was an event that happened and was witnesses by many people. Number two, it is called a miracle. ^o)
Yeah, so was it a "miralce" when "allah" asked the earth and skies come together, and they "willingly" "chose" to?

No one is claiming that the Quran is a science book, rather it contains scientific truths with in. And many scientists have converted to Islam because of it. The best scientific comment made in the Quran would be that of the evolution of the embryo.
Embryology according to quran is not accurate, but that is a whole other topic, and I really do not want to spend all day debating about it. But just read what the hadeeths say about it. In bukhari mohammad says that for 40 days it is sperm, then it becomes something that clings, then a chewed like substance, then it is clothed with flesh and such. Which is scientifically inaccurate, because it starts to cling after the 5th to 7th day, not 40, and it is a chewed like substance not for long. In fact, I wouldn't even say it is a chewed like substance. But, like I said, that is another topic.

Proof? Even if some people did believe that, it is in no way an Islamic belief unless the view is supported in the Quran or by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah upon him).
Wow, sometimes I honestly feel that non muslims here have more knowledge then the muslims on the quran.

Read al tabari
tafsir from ibn abbas
and al qurtubi
Reply

Malaikah
07-10-2007, 09:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you. 14:33

In my opinion, it would only make sense for the sun and moon to only "obey" LOL God. But, I don't think muslims seem to only think that God gets the power. After all, what do you think happened with satan according to quran? He refused to bow down to Adam, a HUMAN.
That means that He has allowed us to make use of them how we please. That should have been obvious to anyone able to read English.

And bowing was not meant to be worship, but is sign of respect. It was even permissible for humans to bow to other humans, such as when Prophet Yusuf's (Joseph) family bowed to him. But is is forbidden in the Law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

thirdwatch512, stop while you are ahead, you are demonstration a lack of understanding of Islam that would be laughed at even by Muslim with limited knowledge of Islam. :playing:

"I think"'s and "In my opinion" are the hallmarks of people talking about things which they have no knowledge.

Wow, sometimes I honestly feel that non muslims here have more knowledge then the muslims on the quran.
Wow, sometimes I honestly think non-Muslim who had the audacity to look up every single thing they can about things that might somehow be able to disprove the Quran really need a reality check and should realise their own Holy Book contains things that can equally be used to embarrass them, especially when twisted to take on meanings that aren't intended.
Reply

seeker_of_ilm
07-10-2007, 09:47 AM
:sl:

Can everybody please stick to the topic. This thread is about the preservation of the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan and its compatibility with modern science is a topic for another thread

Thanks
Reply

thirdwatch512
07-10-2007, 10:11 AM
Allowed us to make use of "them" as we please? Are you serious? Um, wow.. Ok..

And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you. 14:33

From what I can see, it says that the sun and moon are made subject to us. It would be illogical to say otherwise, when the verse is right in front of you.

Also, how exaclty is day and night subject to us? Never understood that.

Wow, sometimes I honestly think non-Muslim who had the audacity to look up every single thing they can about things that might somehow be able to disprove the Quran really need a reality check and should realise their own Holy Book contains things that can equally be used to embarrass them, especially when twisted to take on meanings that aren't intended.
To look it up?? Lol because goodness forbid you knew the tafsir and quranic books that spoke of how we are suposingly on some fish!! Even I, a non muslim knew which books they were in.

And please, do not make this a "religion vs. religion" issue. Just because your religion may be proven wrong in aspects, it doesn't all of a sudden make it all better if another religion is proven wrong lol. I am so sick of people getting debunked, and then coming up with the claim "well let's see what your religion has to say!!" No! Because it never justifies the belief.

And bowing was not meant to be worship, but is sign of respect. It was even permissible for humans to bow to other humans, such as when Prophet Yusuf's (Joseph) family bowed to him. But is is forbidden in the Law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
so if it was forbidden in quran, then why were they bowing down to Joseph?

"I think"'s and "In my opinion" are the hallmarks of people talking about things which they have no knowledge.
No, perhaps it's jsut someone who knows that they are not perfect, and may make mistakes here and there.
Also, you need to differentiate between fact and opinion. I put my opinion, because it might not be a fact for all.
Reply

Malaikah
07-10-2007, 10:54 AM
You have no right to interpret the Quran based on your opinion, and then use your interpretation to mock Muslims.

The Messenger of God said that if anyone interpreters the Quran base don their opinion and without knowledge then they should take their seat in hell.

And please, do not make this a "religion vs. religion" issue. Just because your religion may be proven wrong in aspects, it doesn't all of a sudden make it all better if another religion is proven wrong lol. I am so sick of people getting debunked, and then coming up with the claim "well let's see what your religion has to say!!" No! Because it never justifies the belief.
The point was that you can twist my religion and I can twist your too, but none of use is achieving anything by doing so.

so if it was forbidden in quran, then why were they bowing down to Joseph?
I already clarified that Joseph had a different law! Don't you know who he is? The son of Israel? He lived thousands of years before the Quran was revealed. Prohibitions in the Quran apply to the Muslims following the Prophet Muhammad, other prophets have their own prohibitions.

Now I have no desire of continuing this discussion since it is off topic.
Reply

thirdwatch512
07-10-2007, 01:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
You have no right to interpret the Quran based on your opinion, and then use your interpretation to mock Muslims.
PLEASE do me a favor and tell that to all the muslims that try to interpret the Bible in their own ways!

Also, I was not interpreting it on my own opinion. The verse clearly says what I had said. I put in bold where it clearly said that.

The Messenger of God said that if anyone interpreters the Quran base don their opinion and without knowledge then they should take their seat in hell.
So how are they supposed to interpret it without having their own opinion?


The point was that you can twist my religion and I can twist your too, but none of use is achieving anything by doing so.
I can agree with you there :)

I already clarified that Joseph had a different law! Don't you know who he is? The son of Israel? He lived thousands of years before the Quran was revealed. Prohibitions in the Quran apply to the Muslims following the Prophet Muhammad, other prophets have their own prohibitions.
His own law? So G-d's law does not stay consistent all the time?

And before you even mention that before the Torah.. Well, the Torah was given to the Jews at Sinai. It was G-d's covenant, everlasting with the Jews.

Now I have no desire of continuing this discussion since it is off topic.
K, sounds fine with me :)

Thanks for taking your time to put up with me! :-p
Reply

Final Fantasy
07-10-2007, 01:49 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that the Quran is exactly the way it was when Muhammad revealed it roughly 1450 years ago. When it was revealed, Muhammad's companions memorised parts of it, and wrote other parts down on leaves, animal bones and other things. The Quran was not compiled within Muhammad's time, so there wasn't even a standardised text in existence with which we can compare. All we have is the faulty human memory (for recitations) to show us that the Quran remained as one uniform "book" up until the time of Uthman. Uthman, of course collected all Quranic fragments/writings/recitations together; those that he had access to, and decided what the "offical version" of the Quran should be. He sent a copy of this "new" Quran off to each Town and ordered that all deviating copies be burnt.

How do we know that he did not add/subtract from the text? What were the differences in the Quran that required the "official version" to be established?

This event of course doesn't include the Missing Verses/sections of the Quran, such as the Verses of Rajm.


We only have Muslim's continual insistence that the Quran is "intact, uncorrupt and Unaltered" as evidence that the Quran is exactly as it was when Muhammad revealed it. However, what little evidence we have, actually points to the fact that the Quran is not exactly the same as Muhammad revealed it. It is plausible that the Quran has remained unaltered, but if Muslim's cannot prove it (beyond all doubt) then they cannot claim this as "fulfilled Prophecy."
Reply

asadxyz
07-10-2007, 03:09 PM
:sl: All
[=Final Fantasy;788206]There is absolutely no evidence that the Quran is exactly the way it was when Muhammad revealed it roughly 1450 years ago. When it was revealed, Muhammad's companions memorised parts of it, and wrote other parts down on leaves, animal bones and other things. The Quran was not compiled within Muhammad's time, so there wasn't even a standardised text in existence with which we can compare. All we have is the faulty human memory (for recitations) to show us that the Quran remained as one uniform "book" up until the time of Uthman. Uthman, of course collected all Quranic fragments/writings/recitations together; those that he had access to, and decided what the "offical version" of the Quran should be. He sent a copy of this "new" Quran off to each Town and ordered that all deviating copies be burnt.
Your knowledge about Quran is highly poor.The Holy Quran was given shape of a book by Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique first Kaliph.Then it was put on one dialect by Hazrat Uthmaan.
If the Holy Quran could be memorized word by word from Hazrat Uthman to present day why cannot it be memorized from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to Hazrat Abu Bakr or Hazrat Uthman.
As far as memory is concerned ,probably you are comparing the memory of Huffaz (memorizers of the Holy Quran) to that of yours or Atheists.You and I have no comparison in memory with them.{This is a miracle of the Holy Quran}The proof is that there are still millions of Huffaaz reciting the Holy Quran every yr.This memorization can occur with only any miraculous book not anything else.
If anyone denies this claim ,then instead of verbal argumentation he should bring any 10 persons who have memorized any other book of the size of the Holy Quran with that much accuracy.So simple.Go ahead and prepare them.Nothing succeeds like success.
قُلْ هَاتُواْ بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ﴿2:111﴾
Say to them, "Bring your proof, if you are right in your claim."



How do we know that he did not add/subtract from the text? What were the differences in the Quran that required the "official version" to be established?
The proof is always with Claimant.If there had been some addition or reduction in the Holy Quran ,then other Companions and also those who asassinated Hazrat Usmaan in enmity would have blamed him for this crime.But none of them did it.
If you have proof bring forward.
Best of luck
Reply

جوري
07-10-2007, 04:55 PM
I am going to say a quick note about "subject to you" by offering an Ibn Kahtir exegesis, and not get into this further. I don't think this is a recreational area for lay men to offer arbitrary meaning to divine text! .. I feel that there are only two or three members bringing something to the table here and the rest just want to affirm their existence with superficial understanding in the way of fiction, which I really wish the
Muslims on board wouldn't entertain..
وَسَخَّر لَكُمُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ دَآئِبَينَ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ
{
33}
[Pickthal 14:33] And maketh the sun and the moon, constant in their courses, to be of service unto you, and hath made of service unto you the night and the day.
To be honest, I am not sure what is a conundrum about this text? we certainly use the sunlight by day, as well as the moon by night, as well as the stars for direction, but rather than offering my own interpretation.. here is the whole sura sequentially...
:w:
Abraham 14
The Tafsir of Surah Ibrahim









(Chapter -14)









Which was revealed in Makkah







In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.




(1. Alif-Lam-Ra. (This is) a Book which We have revealed unto you in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness into light by their Lord's leave to the path of the Almighty, the Praised.) (2. Allah to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth! And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment.) (3. Those who prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter, and hinder (men) from the path of Allah and seek crookedness therein - they are far astray.)






Describing the Qur'an and warning Those Who defy it





Previously we discussed the meaning of the separate letters that appear in the beginnings of some Surahs.




((This is) a Book which We have revealed unto you...) Allah says, `This is a Book that We have revealed to you, O Muhammad. This `Book', is the Glorious Qur'an, the most honored Book, that Allah sent down from heaven to the most honored Messenger of Allah sent to all the people of the earth, Arabs and non-Arabs alike,




(in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness into light) We sent you, O Muhammad, with this Book in order that you might lead mankind away from misguidance and crookedness to guidance and the right way,'




(Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Awliya (supporters and helpers) are Taghut (false deities), they bring them out from light into darkness.) ﴿2:257﴾, and,




(It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light. ) ﴿57:9﴾ Allah said next,




(by their Lord's leave), He guides those whom He destined to be guided by the hand of His Messenger , whom He sent to guide them by His command,




(to the path of the All-Mighty,) Who can never be resisted or overpowered. Rather, Allah is Irresistible above everything and everyone else,




(the Praised.) Who is glorified and praised in all His actions, statements, legislation, commandments and prohibitions and Who only says the truth in the information He conveys. Allah's statement,




(Allah to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth!), is similar to,




(Say: "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah - to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth.) ﴿7:158﴾ Allah's statement,




(And woe unto the disbelievers from a severe torment. ) means, `woe to them on the Day of Judgment because they defied you, O Muhammad, and rejected you.' Allah described the disbelievers as preferring the life of the present world to the Hereafter, coveting the former life and working hard for its sake. They have forgotten the Hereafter and abandoned it behind their backs,




(and hinder (men) from the path of Allah), from following the Messengers,




(and seek crookedness therein) they seek to make Allah's path crooked, even though it is straight itself and does not deviate on account of those who defy or betray it. When the disbelievers do this, they become engulfed in ignorance and misguidance far away from truth, and therefore, there is no hope that they will gain guidance and correctness while on this state.




(4. And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.)






Every Prophet was sent with the Language of His People; Guidance or Misguidance follows the Explanation





Allah is Kind and Compassionate with His creation, sending Messengers to them from among them and speaking their language, so that they are able to understand the Message that the Messengers were sent with. Allah said next,




(Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills.) after the proof and evidence have been established for the people, Allah misguides whom He wills from the path of guidance and guides whom He wills to the truth,




(And He is the All-Mighty,) whatever He wills occurs and whatever He does not will never occurs,




(the All-Wise.) in His decisions, misleading those who deserve to be misled and guiding those who deserve guidance. This is from Allah's wisdom with His creation, every Prophet He sent to a people spoke their language and everyone of these Prophets were only sent to their people. Muhammad bin `Abdullah, Allah's Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, was sent to all people. It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Jabir said that the Messenger of Allah said,




(I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for worship and a purifier. The war booty has been made lawful for me and it was not lawful for anyone else before me. I have been given the right of Intercession (on the Day of Resurrection). Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only, but I have been sent to all mankind.) Allah said,




(Say: "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah...) ﴿7:158﴾




(5. And indeed We sent Musa with Our Ayat (saying): "Bring out your people from darkness into light, and remind them of the annals (or days) of Allah. Truly, therein are Ayat for every patient, thankful (person).'')






Story of Musa and His People





Allah says here, `Just as We sent you (O, Muhammad) and sent down to you the Book, in order that you might guide and call all people out of darkness into the light, We also sent Musa to the Children of Israel with Our Ayat (signs, or miracles).' Mujahid said that this part of the Ayah refers to the nine miracles.




(Bring out your people) he is being commanded;




(Bring out your people from darkness into light,) call them to all that is good and righteous, in order that they might turn away from the darkness of ignorance and misguidance they indulged in, to the light of guidance and the enlightenment of faith,




(and remind them of the annals (or days) of Allah) remind them (O Musa) of Allah's days, meaning, favors and bounties which He bestowed on them when He delivered them from the grip of Fir`awn and his injustice, tyranny and brutality. This is when Allah delivered them from their enemy, made a passage for them through the sea, shaded them with clouds, sent down manna and quails for them, and other favors and bounties. Mujahid, Qatadah and several others said this. Allah said next,




(Truly, therein are Ayat for every patient, thankful (person).) Allah says, `Our delivering of Our loyal supporters among the Children of Israel from the grasp of Fir`awn and saving them from the disgraceful torment, provides a lesson to draw from for those who are patient in the face of affliction, and thankful in times of prosperity. Qatadah said, "Excellent is the servant who if he is tested, he observes patience, and if he is granted prosperity, he is thankful for it.'' It is recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said,




(Verily, all of the matter of the believer is amazing, for every decision that Allah decrees for him is good for him. If an affliction strikes him, he is patient and this is good for him; if a bounty is give to him, he is thankful and this is good for him.)




(6. And (remember) when Musa said to his people: "Call to mind Allah's favor to you, when He delivered you from Fir`awn's people who were afflicting you with horrible torment, and were slaughtering your sons and letting your women live; and in it was a tremendous trial from your Lord.'') (7. And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed: "If you give thanks, I will give you more; but if you are thankless, verily, My punishment is indeed severe.'') (8. And Musa said: "If you disbelieve, you and all on earth together, then verily, Allah is Rich (free of all needs), Worthy of all praise.'')






Allah states that Musa reminded his people about Allah's annals and days and of Allah's favors and bounties that He bestowed on them, when He saved them from Fir`awn and his people and the torment and disgrace they used to exert on them.





They used to slaughter whomever they could find among their sons and let their females live. Allah delivered them from all this torment, and this is a great bounty, indeed. This is why Allah described this affliction,




(and in it was a tremendous trial from your Lord.) `for He granted you (O Children of Israel) a great favor for which you are unable to perfectly thank Him.' Some scholars said that this part of the Ayah means, `what Fir`awn used to do to you was a tremendous




(trial.)' Both meanings might be considered here and Allah knows best. Allah said in another Ayah ,




(And We tried them with good and evil in order that they might turn (to Allah). ) ﴿7:168﴾ Allah's statement next,




(And (remember) when your Lord proclaimed) means, proclaimed and made known His promise to you. It is possible that this Ayah means, your Lord has vowed and sworn by His might, grace and exaltness. Allah said in a similar Ayah,




(And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection.) ﴿7:167﴾ Allah said,




(If you give thanks, I will give you more;) meaning, `if you appreciate My favor on you, I will give you more of it,




(but if you are thankless) if you are not thankful for My favors, covering and denying, them,




(verily, My punishment is indeed severe), by depriving you of the favor and punishing you for being unappreciative of it.' A Hadith states that,




(A servant might be deprived of a provision (that was written for him) because of a sin that he commits. ) Allah said,




(And Musa said: "If you disbelieve, you and all on earth together, then verily, Allah is Rich (free of all needs), Worthy of all praise.'') Allah does not need the gratitude of His servants, and He is worthy of all praise even if the disbelievers disbelieve in Him,




(If you disbelieve, then verily, Allah is not in need of you) ﴿39:7﴾ and,




(So they disbelieved and turned away. But Allah was not in need (of them). And Allah is Rich (free of all needs), Worthy of all praise.) ﴿64:6﴾ In his Sahih, Muslim recorded that Abu Dharr said that the Messenger of Allah said that his Lord the Exalted and Most Honored said,




(O My servants. If the first and the last among you, mankind and Jinns among you, had the heart of the most pious and righteous man among you, that will not increase my kingdom in the least. O My servants! If the first and the last among you, mankind and the Jinns among you, had the heart of the most wicked man among you, that will not decrease My kingdom in the least. O My servants! If the first and the last among you, the mankind and Jinns among you, stood in one flat area and each asked me (what they wish), and I gave each one of them what they asked, that will not decrease My kingdom except by that which the needle carries (of water) when inserted in the ocean.'') Verily, all praise and glory are due to Allah, the Rich ﴿free of need﴾, the Worthy of all praise.




(9. Has not the news reached you, of those before you, the people of Nuh, `Ad, and Thamud And those after them None knows them but Allah. To them came their Messengers with clear proofs, but they put their hands in their mouths and said: "Verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent, and we are really in grave doubt as to that to which you invite us.'')






Earlier Nations disbelieved in Their Prophets





Allah narrated to this Ummah (followers of Muhammad ) the stories of the people of Prophet Nuh, `Ad and Thamud, and other ancient nations that belied their Messengers. Only Allah knows the count of these nations,




(To them came their Messengers with clear proofs,) they brought them evidences and plain, tremendous proofs and signs. Ibn Ishaq reported that `Amr bin Maymun said that `Abdullah said about Allah's statement,




(None knows them but Allah.) "The genealogists utter lies.'' This is why `Urwah bin Az-Zubayr said, "We did not find anyone who knows the forefathers of Ma`dd bin `Adnan.''






Meaning of, "They put Their Hands in Their Mouths





Allah said next,




(but they put their hands in their mouths) It is said that they pointed to the Messengers' mouths asking them to stop calling them to Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored. It is also said that it means, they placed their hands on their mouths in denial of the Messengers. It was also said that it means that they did not answer the call of the Messengers, or they were biting their hands in rage. Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b and Qatadah said that they belied the Messengers and refuted their call with their mouths. I (Ibn Kathir) say that Mujahid's Tafsir is supported by the completion of the narrative,




(and said: "Verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent, and we are really in grave doubt as to that to which you invite us.'') Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "When they heard Allah's Word, they were amazed and placed their hands on their mouths,''




(and said: "Verily, we disbelieve in that with which you have been sent.'') They said, We do not believe what you brought us, and have strong doubt in its authenticity. '




(10. Their Messengers said: "(What!) Can there be a doubt about Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth He calls you that He may forgive you of your sins and give you respite for a term appointed.'' They said: "You are no more than human beings like us! You wish to turn us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring us a clear authority.'') (11. Their Messengers said to them: "We are no more than human beings like you, but Allah bestows His grace to whom He wills of His servants. It is not ours to bring you an authority (proof) except by the permission of Allah. And in Allah (alone) let the believers put their trust.'') (12. "And why should we not put our trust in Allah while He indeed has guided us in our ways And we shall certainly bear with patience all the hurt you may cause us, and in Allah (alone) let those who trust, put their trust.'')






The Argument between the Prophets and the Disbelievers





Allah narrates to us the arguments that ensued between the disbelievers and their Messengers. When their nations doubted the Message of worshipping Allah alone without partners, the Messengers said,




((What!) Can there be a doubt about Allah...) about His Lordship and having the exclusive right to be worshipped alone, being the only Creator of all creatures Verily, none besides Allah is worthy of worship, alone without partners with Him. Most nations were, and still are, affirming the existence of the Creator, but they call upon intermediaries besides Him whom they think will benefit them or bring them closer to Allah. Their Messengers said to them,




(He calls you that He may forgive you of your sins) in the Hereafter,




(and give you respite for a term appointed.), in this worldly life. Allah said in other Ayat,




(Seek the forgiveness of your Lord, and turn to Him in repentance, that He may grant you good enjoyment, for a term appointed, and bestow His abounding grace to every owner of grace.) ﴿10:3﴾ However, their nations went on arguing against their prophethood, after they had to submit to the first evidence (that Allah Alone created everything).






Disbelievers reject Prophethood because the Messengers were Humans!





Their nations said,




(You are no more than human beings like us!) so why should we follow you just because you say so, even though we did not witness a miracle by your hands,




(Then bring us a clear authority.), a miracle of our choice.




(Their Messengers said to them: "We are no more than human beings like you...'') affirming that truly, they were only human being like their nations,




(but Allah bestows His grace to whom He wills of His servants.), with prophethood and messengership which is His choice,




(It is not ours to bring you an authority) according to your choice,




((except by the permission of Allah. ), after we beg Him and He provides us with a miracle,




(And in Allah (alone) let the believers put their trust.) in all their affairs. Their Messengers said to them next,




(And why should we not put our trust in Allah), after He had guided us to the best, most clear and plain way,




(And we shall certainly bear with patience all the hurt you may cause us), such as foolish actions and abusive statements,




(and in Allah (alone) let those who trust, put their trust.)




(13. And those who disbelieved, said to their Messengers: "Surely, we shall drive you out of our land, or you shall return to our religion.'' So their Lord revealed to them: "Truly, We shall destroy the wrongdoers.'') (14. "And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears standing before Me and also fears My threat.'') (15. And they sought victory and help; and every obstinate, arrogant dictator (who refuses to believe in the Oneness of Allah) was brought to a complete loss and destruction.) (16. In front of him is Hell, and he will be made to drink boiling, festering water.) (17. He will sip it unwillingly, and he will find great difficulty in swallowing it down his throat, and death will come to him from every side, yet he will not die, and in front of him, will be a great torment.)






Disbelieving Nations threaten Their Messengers with Expulsion





Allah narrates to us how the disbelieving nations threatened their Messengers, that being, expulsion from their land and banshiment. For instance, the people of Prophet Shu`ayb, peace be upon him, said to him and to those who believed in him,




(We shall certainly drive you out from our town, O Shu`ayb, and those who have believed with you.) ﴿7:88﴾ The people of Prophet Lut, peace be upon him, said,




(Drive out the family of Lut from your city.) ﴿27:56﴾ Allah said about the idolators of Quraysh,




(And verily, they were about to frighten you so much as to drive you out from the land. But in that case they would not have stayed after you, except for a little while.)﴿17:76﴾ and,




(And when the disbelievers plotted against you to imprison you, or to kill you, or to expel you out; they were plotting and Allah too was plotting; and Allah is the Best of those who plot. ) ﴿8:30﴾ Allah gave victory and aid to His Messenger after he emigrated from Makkah and gathered followers, supporters, and soldiers around him, who fought in the cause of Allah, the Exalted. Allah kept granting His Messenger more dominance until He opened for him Makkah, which sought to expel him. Allah gave him dominance over it, even when his enemies from Makkah and the rest of the people of the earth disliked it. Soon after, people began embracing the religion of Allah in large crowds and in a very short time Allah's Word and religion became high over all other religions, from the eastern and western parts of the world. Hence Allah's statement,




(So their Lord revealed to them: "Truly, We shall destroy the wrongdoers. And indeed, We shall make you dwell in the land after them.'') ﴿14:13,14﴾ Allah said in other Ayat,




(And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our servants, the Messengers, that they verily, would be made triumphant, and that Our hosts! They verily, would be the victors.) ﴿37:171-173﴾,




(Allah has decreed: "Verily, it is I and My Messengers who shall be the victorious. Verily, Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty.'')﴿58:21﴾




(And indeed We have written in Az-Zabur after Adh-Dhikr.) ﴿21:05﴾




(Musa said to his people: "Seek help in Allah and be patient. Verily, the earth is Allah's. He gives it as a heritage to whom He wills of His servants: and the (blessed) end is for the those who have Taqwa.'')﴿7:128﴾ and,




(And We made the people who were considered weak to inherit the eastern parts of the land and the western parts thereof which We have blessed. And the fair Word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because of their endurance. And We destroyed completely all the great works and buildings which Fir`awn and his people erected.)﴿7:137﴾ Allah said next,




(This is for him who fears standing before Me and also fears My threat. ) this warning is for he who fears standing before Him on the Day of Resurrection and fears His warnings and torment. Allah said in other instances,




(Then for him who transgressed all bounds, and preferred the life of this world, verily, his abode will be Hellfire. But as for him who feared standing before his Lord, and restrained himself from impure evil desires and lusts. Verily, Paradise will be his abode.)﴿79:37-41﴾ and,




(But for him who fears the standing before his Lord, there will be two Gardens.)﴿55:46﴾ Allah said next,




(And they sought victory and help) refers to the Messengers who sought the help and victory of their Lord over their nations, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid and Qatadah. `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said that this Ayah refers to the nations, invoking Allah's victory against themselves! Some idolators said,




(O Allah ! If this (Qur'an) is indeed the truth (revealed) from You, then rain down stones on us from the sky or bring on us a painful torment.) ﴿8:32﴾ It is possible that both meanings are desired here, for the idolators (of Quraysh) invoked Allah against themselves on the day of Badr, and the Messenger of Allah invoked Him for victory and support. Allah said to the idolators then,




((O disbelievers) if you ask for a judgment, now has the judgment come unto you; and if you cease (to do wrong), it will be better for you.) ﴿8:19﴾ Allah knows best. Allah said next,




(and every obstinate, arrogant dictator was brought to a complete loss and destruction.) those who were arrogant and rebelled against the truth. Allah said in other Ayat,




((Allah will say to the angels): "Both of you throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever - hinderer of good, transgressor, doubter, who set up another deity with Allah. Then both of you cast him in the severe torment.'') ﴿50:24-26﴾ The Prophet said,




(On the Day of Resurrection, Jahannam (Hellfire) will be brought and it will call the creatures, saying, "I was given the responsibility of every rebellious tyrant.'') Therefore, every tyrant has earned utter demise and loss when the Prophets invoked Allah, the Mighty, the Able for victory. Allah said next,




(In front of him is Hell,) Allah says that Jahannam is in front of every obstinate tyrant, awaiting him, and he will reside in it forever on the Day of Return. He will be brought to it in the morning and the afternoon until the Day of the Call,




(and he will be made to drink boiling, festering water.) in the Fire, his only drink will be from Hamim and Ghassaq, the former is very hot and the latter is very cold and rotten. Allah said in another instance,




(This is so! Then let them taste it - Hamim and Ghassaq. And other (torments) of similar kind all together!)﴿38:57-58﴾ Mujahid and `Ikrimah said that this festering water is made of puss and blood. Allah said in other Ayat,




(And be given to drink boiling water so that it cuts up their bowels. ) ﴿47:15﴾ and,




(And if they ask for help, they will be granted water like boiling oil, that will scald their faces.) ﴿18:29﴾ Allah's statement,




(He will sip it unwillingly), indicates that he will hate to drink this water, but he will be forced to sip it; he will refuse until the angel strikes him with an iron bar,




(And for them are hooked rods of iron.)﴿22:21﴾ Allah said next,




(and he will find great difficulty in swallowing it down his throat,) meaning, he will hate to swallow it because of its awful taste, color and unbearable heat or coldness,




(and death will come to him from every side,) his organs, limbs and entire body will suffer pain because of this drink. `Amr bin Maymun bin Mahran commented, "Every bone, nerve and blood vessel.'' Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah's statement,




(and death will come to him from every side,) "All types of torment that Allah will punish him with on the Day of Resurrection in the fire of Jahannam will come to him carrying death, if he were to die. However, he will not die because Allah the Exalted said,




(Neither will it affect them that they die nor shall its torment be lightened for them)﴿35:36﴾.'' Therefore, according to Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him and his father, every type of punishment will come to him (the obstinate, rebellious tyrant) carrying death with it, if he will ever die there. Yet, he will not die, he will instead receive eternal punishment and torment. Hence Allah's statement here,




(and death will come to him from every side, yet he will not die,) Allah said,




(and in front of him, will be a great torment.) even in this condition, he will still suffer another severe type of torment, more severe and painful from the one before it, harsher more bitter. Allah described the tree of Zaqqum,




(Verily, it is a tree that springs out of the bottom of Hellfire, the shoots of its fruits stalks are like the heads of Shayatin; Truly, they will eat thereof and fill their bellies therewith. Then on top of that they will be given boiling water to drink so that it becomes a mixture. Then thereafter, verily, their return is to the flaming fire of Hell.)﴿37:64-68﴾ Allah states that they will either be eating from the Zaqqum, drinking the Hamim, or being tormented in the Fire, again and again; we seek refuge with Allah from all of this. Allah also said,




(This is the Hell which the criminals denied. They will go between it (Hell) and the fierce boiling water!)﴿55:43-44﴾,




(Verily, the tree of Zaqqum will be the food of the sinners. Like boiling oil, it will boil in the bellies, like the boiling of scalding water. (It will be said) "Seize him and drag him into the midst of blazing Fire, then pour over his head the torment of boiling water. Taste you (this)! Verily, you were the mighty, the generous! Verily, this is that whereof you used to doubt!'')﴿44:43-50﴾,




(And those on the Left Hand - how (unfortunate) will be those on the Left Hand In fierce hot wind and boiling water, and shadow of black smoke, neither cool nor pleasant.)﴿56:41-44﴾, and, r




(This is so! And for the Taghun will be an evil final return. Hell! Where they will burn, and worst is that place to rest! This is so! Then let them taste it Hamim and Ghassaq. And other (torments) of similar kind all together!)﴿38:55-58﴾ There are many other similar Ayat that indicate that the punishment they will receive is of different kinds, and that it is repeated in various types and forms that only Allah the Exalted knows, as just recompense,




(And your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) slaves.) ﴿41:46﴾




(18. The parable of those who disbelieved in their Lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind blows furiously on a stormy day; they shall not be able to get aught of what they have earned. That is the straying, far away (from the right path).)






A Parable for the Deeds of the Disbelievers





This is a parable that Allah has given for the deeds and actions of the disbelievers who worshipped others besides Him and rejected His Messengers, thus building their acts on groundless basis. Their actions vanished from them when they were most in need of their rewards. Allah said,




(The parable of those who disbelieved in their Lord is that their works) on the Day of Judgment, when they will seek their rewards from Allah the Exalted. They used to think that they had something, but they will find nothing, except what remains of ashes when a strong wind blows on it,




(on a stormy day;) They will not earn rewards for any of the good works they performed during this life, except what they can preserve of ashes during a day of strong wind. Allah said in other Ayat,




(And We shall turn to whatever deeds they did, and We shall make such deeds as scattered floating particles of dust.)﴿25:23﴾,




(The parable of what they spend in this world is that of a wind which is extremely cold; it struck the harvest of a people who did wrong against themselves and destroyed it. Allah wronged them not, but they wronged themselves.)﴿3:117﴾,and,




(O you who believe! Do not render in vain your Sadaqah (charity) by reminders of your generosity or by injury, like him who spends his wealth to be seen of men, and he does not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day. His parable is that of a smooth rock on which is a little dust; on it falls heavy rain which leaves it bare. They are not able to do anything with what they have earned. And Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.)﴿2:264﴾ Allah said in this Ayah,




(That is the straying, far away from the right path) meaning, their work and deeds were not based on firm, correct grounds, and thus, they lost their rewards when they needed them the most,




(That is the straying, far away from the right path.)




(19. Do you not see that Allah has created the heavens and the earth with truth If He wills, He can remove you and bring (in your place) a new creation!) (20. And for Allah that is not hard or difficult.)






Proof that Resurrection occurs after Death





Allah affirms His ability to resurrect the bodies on the Day of Resurrection, stating that He has created the heavens and earth which are stronger than the creation of man. Is not He Who is able to create the heavens, high, wide and strongly built, which include in them the planets and stars and the various heavenly objects and clear signs. Is not He Who created this earth with all what it contains of land, valleys, mountains, deserts, green fields, barren lands, seas and various shapes, benefits, species and colors of trees, plants and animals




(Do they not see that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth, and was not wearied by their creation, is able to give life to the dead Yes, He surely, is able to do all things.)﴿46:33﴾,




(Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah (drop of sperm). Yet behold he (stands forth) as an open opponent. And he puts forth for Us a parable, and forgets his own creation He says: "Who will give life to these bones after they are rotten and have become dust'' Say: "He will give life to them Who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation!'' He Who produces for you fire out of the green tree, when behold you kindle therewith. Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth, able to create the like of them Yes, indeed! He is the All-Knowing Supreme Creator. Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be!'' - and it is! So glorified is He and exalted above all that they associate with Him, and in Whose Hands is the dominion of all things: and to Him you shall be returned.)﴿36:77-83﴾ Allah's statement,




(If He wills, He can remove you and bring (in your place) a new creation! And for Allah that is not hard or difficult.) means, it is not hard or impossible for Allah to do that. Rather, it is easy for Him, that if you defy His order, He takes you away and brings in your place another creation who is unlike you. Allah said in other Ayat,




(O mankind! It is you who stand in need of Allah. But Allah is Rich, Worthy of all praise. If He willed, He could destroy you and bring about a new creation. And that is not hard for Allah.)﴿35:15-17﴾,




(And if you turn away, He will exchange you for some other people and they will not be your likes.) ﴿47:38﴾




(O you who believe! Whoever from among you turns back from his religion, Allah will bring a people whom He will love and they will love Him.)﴿5:54﴾ and,




(If He wills, He can take you away, O people, and bring others. And Allah is Ever All-Potent over that.)﴿4:133﴾




(21. And they all shall appear before Allah; then the weak will say to those who were arrogant: "Verily, we were following you; can you avail us anything against Allah's torment'' They will say: "Had Allah guided us, we would have guided you. It makes no difference to us (now) whether we rage, or bear (these torments) with patience; there is no place of refuge for us.'')






Disbelieving Chiefs and Their Followers will dispute in the Fire





Allah said,




(And they shall appear) meaning, all the creatures, the wicked and the righteous among them, will appear before Allah the One, the Irresistible. They will be gathered on a flat plain that does not have anything those present could use for cover,




(then the weak will say) the followers who used to obey their chiefs, leaders and notables will say,




(to those who were arrogant) who rebelled against worshipping Allah alone without partners and obeying the Messengers,




(Verily, we were following you,), we obeyed your orders and implemented them,




(can you avail us anything against Allah's torment) They will ask, `can you prevent any of Allah's torment from striking us as you used to promise and vow to us' The leaders will say in response,




`(Had Allah guided us, we would have guided you.) but the statement of our Lord shall come to pass concerning us, and the destiny that He has appointed for us and you shall come true; the word of punishment shall befall the disbelievers,




(It makes no difference to us (now) whether we rage, or bear (these torments) with patience; there is no place of refuge for us.) we have no means of escape from what we are in, whether we face it with patience or grief.' I (Ibn Kathir) say that it appears that this conversation will occur in the Fire after they enter it, just as Allah said in other Ayat,




(And, when they will dispute in the Fire, the weak will say to those who were arrogant: "Verily, we followed you, can you then take from us some portion of the Fire'' Those who were arrogant will say: "We are all (together) in this (Fire)! Verily, Allah has judged between (His) servants!'')﴿40:47-48﴾,




((Allah) will say: "Enter you in the company of nations who passed away before you, of men and Jinn, into the Fire.'' Every time a new nation enters, it curses its sister nation (that went before) until they will be gathered all together in the Fire. The last of them will say to the first of them: "Our Lord! These misled us, so give them a double torment of the Fire.'' He will say: "For each one there is double (torment), but you know not.'' The first of them will say to the last of them: "You were not better than us, so taste the torment for what you used to earn.'')﴿7:38-39﴾, and,




(Our Lord! Verily, we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (right) way. Our Lord! Give them a double torment and curse them with a mighty curse!)﴿33:67-68﴾ Disbelievers will also dispute on the Day of Gathering,




(But if you could see when the wrongdoers will be made to stand before their Lord, how they will cast the (blaming) word one to another! Those who were deemed weak will say to those who were arrogant: "Had it not been for you, we certainly have been believers!'' And those who were arrogant will say to those who were deemed weak: "Did we keep you back from guidance after it had come to you Nay, but you were wrongdoers.'' Those who were deemed weak will say to those who were arrogant: "Nay, but it was your plotting by night and day: when you ordered us to disbelieve in Allah and set up rivals to Him!'' And We shall put iron collars round the necks of those who disbelieved. Are they requited aught except what they used to do)﴿34:31-33﴾




(22. And Shaytan will say when the matter has been decided: "Verily, Allah promised you a promise of truth. And I too promised you, but I betrayed you. I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me. So blame me not, but blame yourselves. I cannot help you, nor can you help me. I deny your former act in associating me (Shaytan) as a partner with Allah (by obeying me in the life of the world). Verily, there is a painful torment for the wrongdoers.'') K(23. And those who believed and did righteous deeds, will be made to enter Gardens under which rivers flow, - to dwell therein for ever (i.e. in Paradise), with the permission of their Lord. Their greeting therein will be: "Salam (peace!).'')






Shaytan disowns His Followers on the Day of Resurrection





Allah narrates to us what Iblis will say to his followers after Allah finishes with the judgement between His servants, sending the believers to the gardens of Paradise and the disbelievers to the lows (of the Fire). Iblis, may Allah curse him, will stand and address the latter, in order to add depression to their depression, sorrow to their sorrow and grief to their grief. He will declare,




`(Verily, Allah promised you a promise of truth.) by the words of His Messengers that if you follow them, you will gain safety and deliverance. Truly, Allah's promise was true and correct news, while I promised you then betrayed you.' Allah said in another Ayah,




(He (Shaytan) makes promises to them, and arouses in them false desires; and Shaytan's promises are nothing but deceptions.) ﴿4:120﴾




(I had no authority over you) Shaytan will say, `I had no proof for what I called you to, nor evidence for what I promised you,




(except that I called you, and you responded to me.) even though the Messengers establish the proof and unequivocal evidences against you and affirmed the truth of what they were sent to you with. But you disobeyed the Messengers and ended up earning this fate,




(So blame me not,) today,




(but blame yourselves.), because it is your fault for defying the proofs and following me in the falsehood that I called you to.' Shaytan will say next,




(I cannot help you), I cannot benefit, save, or deliver you from what you are suffering,




(nor can you help me.), nor can you save me and deliver me from the torment and punishment I am suffering,




(I deny your former act of associating me (Shaytan) as a partner with Allah.) or because you associated me with Allah before,' according to Qatadah. Ibn Jarir commented; "I deny being a partner with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.'' This opinion is the most plausible, for Allah said in other Ayat,




(And who is more astray than one who calls on others besides Allah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls to them And when mankind are gathered, they will become their enemies and will deny their worshipping.)﴿46:5-6﴾ and,




(Nay, but they (the so-called gods) will deny their worship of them, and become opponents to them.)﴿19:82﴾ Allah said next,




(Verily, the wrongdoers), who deviate from truth and follow falsehood, will earn a painful torment. It appears that this part of the Ayah narrates the speech that Shaytan will deliver to the people of the Fire after they enter it, as we stated. `Amir Ash-Sha`bi said, "On the Day of Resurrection, two speakers will address the people. Allah the Exalted will say to `Isa, son of Maryam,




(Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah'') ﴿5:116﴾ until,




(Allah will say: "This is a Day on which the truthful will profit from their truth.'')﴿5:119﴾ Shaytan, may Allah curse him, will stand and address the people,




(I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me.) Allah next mentioned the final destination of the miserable ones, who earned the disgrace and torment and having to listen to Shaytan address them, then He mentioned the final destination of the happy ones,




(And those who believed and did righteous deeds, will be made to enter Gardens under which rivers flow,) wherever they wish them to flow and wherever they may be,




(to dwell therein for ever,) and will never transfer or be transferred from it,




(with the permission of their Lord. Their greeting therein will be: "Salam (peace!). '') Allah said in other Ayat,




(Till, when they reach it, and its gates will be opened and its keepers will say: "Salamun `Alaykum (peace be upon you!)'') ﴿39:73﴾




(And angels shall enter unto them from every gate (saying): "Salamun `Alaykum (peace be upon you!).'') ﴿13:23-24﴾




(Therein they shall be met with greetings and the word of peace and respect.) ﴿25:75﴾




(Their way of request therein will be Subhanaka Allahumma (glory to you, O Allah) and Salam (peace!) will be their greetings therein (Paradise)! And the close of their request will be: Al-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil-'Alamin ﴿all praise to Allah the Lord of that exists﴾.)﴿10:10﴾




(24. See you not how Allah sets forth a parable A goodly word as a goodly tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches (reach) to the sky.) (25. Giving its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord, and Allah sets forth parables for mankind in order that they may remember.) (26. And the parable of an evil word is that of an evil tree uprooted from the surface of earth, having no stability.)






The Parable of the Word of Islam and the Word of Kufr





`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that `Abdullah bin `Abbas commented that Allah's statement,




(a parable: a goodly word), refers to testifying to La ilaha illallah, (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) while,




(as a goodly tree), refers to the believer, and that,




(whose root is firmly fixed), indicates that La ilaha illallah, (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) is firm in the believers' heart,




(and its branches (reach) to the sky.) with which the believer's works are ascended to heaven. Similar is said by Ad-Dahhak, Sa'id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Mujahid and several others. They stated that this parable describes the believer's deeds, good statements and good actions. The believer is just like the beneficial date tree, always having good actions ascending at all times, by day and by night. Al-Bukhari recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "We were with the Messenger of Allah when he asked,




(Tell me about a tree that resembles the Muslim, the leaves of which do not fall in summer or winter and gives its fruit at all times by the leave of its Lord.)'' Ibn `Umar said, "I thought of the date palm tree, but felt shy to answer when I saw that Abu Bakr and `Umar did not talk. When they did not give an answer, the Messenger of Allah said,




(It is the date palm tree.) When we departed, I said to `Umar, `My father, by Allah! I thought that it was the date tree.' He said, `Why did you not speak then' I said, `I saw you were silent and I felt shy to say anything.' `Umar said, `Had you said it, it would have been more precious to me than such things (i.e., would have been very precious to me).''' `Abdullah bin `Abbas said that,




(as a goodly tree), is a tree in Paradise. Allah said next,




(Giving its fruit at all times,) It is said that it means by day and by night. And they say that describes the believer as a tree that always has fruits during summer and winter, by night and by day. This is the parable of the believer whose good works ascend to heaven by day and by night and at all times,




(by the leave of its Lord, ) thus earning perfection and becoming beneficial, plentiful, pure and blessed,




(and Allah sets forth parables for mankind in order that they may remember.) Allah said next,




(And the parable of an evil word is that of an evil tree) describing the disbelief of the disbeliever, for it has no basis or stability. It is similar to the colocynth tree (a very bitter, unscented plant) which is also called, `Ash-Shiryan'. Shu`bah narrated that Mu`awiyah bin Abi Qurrah narrated that Anas bin Malik said that it is the colocynth tree. Allah said,




(uprooted), meaning, was cutoff from the root,




(from the surface of earth, having no stability.) therefore, existing without basis or stabililty, just like Kufr (disbelief), for it does not have a basis or roots. Surely, the works of the disbelievers will never ascend nor will any of them be accepted.




(27. Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world, and in the Hereafter. And Allah will cause the wrongdoers to go astray, and Allah does what He wills.)






Allah keeps the Believers Firm in This Life and in the Hereafter with a Word that stands Firm





Al-Bukhari recorded that Al-Bara bin `Azib, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Messenger of Allah said,








(When the Muslim is questioned in the grave, he will testify that, `La ilaha illallah', and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger, hence Allah's statement, (Allah will keep firm those who believe, with word that stands firm in this world, and in the Hereafter.) Muslim and the rest of the Group recorded it. Imam Ahmad recorded that Al-Bara bin `Azib said, "We went with the Messenger of Allah to attend a funeral procession of an Ansari man. We reached the grave site when it had not yet been completed. The Messenger of Allah sat, and we sat all around him, as if there were birds hovering above our heads. The Prophet was holding a piece of wood in his hand, poking the ground with it. He next raised his head and said twice or thrice,




(Seek refuge with Allah from the punishment of the grave.) He said next,




(When a believing slave is reaching the end of his term in the life of this world and the beginning of his term in the Hereafter, a group of angels, whose faces are white and as radiant as the sun, will descend onto him from heaven. They will carry with them white shroud from Paradise, and fragrance for enshrouding from Paradise. They will sit as far from him as the sight goes. Then, the angel of death, will come until he sits right next to his head, saying, "O, good and pure soul! Depart (your body) to Allah's forgiveness and pleasure.'' So the soul flows (out of its body), just as the drop flows out from the tip of the jug, and the angel of death captures it. When he captures the soul, they (the group of angels) will not leave it with him for more than an instance, and they will seize it and wrap it in that shroud, and in that fragrance. A most pleasant musk scent ever found on the earth, will flow out of the soul, and the angels will ascend it (to heaven). They will not pass by, but they will say, "Whose is this Tayyib (good) soul'' They (the angels who are ascending the soul) will reply, "Such person, the son of such and such person,'' -- calling him by the best names that he used to be called in the world. They will reach the lower heaven and will ask that its door be opened for him, and it will be opened for them. The best residents of every heaven will then see him to the next heaven, until he is brought to the seventh heaven. Allah, the Exalted and Ever High, will say, "List my servants record in `Illiyyin and send him back to earth, for I have created them from it, and into it I shall return them, and from it I shall bring them out once again.'' The soul will be joined with its body, and two angels will come to him, sit him up and ask him, "Who is your Lord'' He will say, "Allah is my Lord.'' They will ask him, "What is your religion'' He will say, "My religion is Islam.'' They will say to him, "What do you say about this man (Prophet Muhammad) who was sent to you'' He will say, "He is the Messenger of Allah.'' They will ask him, "And what proof do you have about it'' He will say, "I read the Book of Allah (the Qur'an), and had faith and belief in him.'' Then, a caller (Allah) will herald from heaven, "My servant has said the truth. Therefore, furnish him from Paradise, and let him wear from (the clothes of) Paradise, and open a door for him to Paradise.'' So he is given from Paradise's tranquillity and good scent, and his grave will be expanded for him as far as his sight can reach. Then, a man, with a handsome face and handsome clothes and whose scent is pleasant, will come to him, saying, "Receive the glad tidings with that which pleases you. This is the Day which you were promised.'' He will ask him, "Who are you; for yours is the face that carries the good news'' He will reply, "I am your good works.'' He will say, "O Lord! Hurry up with the commencement of the Hour, hurry up with the commencement of the Hour, so I can return to my family and my wealth.'')






فَيَقُولُ اللهُ: اكْتُبُوا كِتَابَهُ فِي سِجِّينٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ السُّفْلَى، فَتُطْرَحُ رُوحُهُ طَرْحًا ثُمَّ قَرَأَ






(And when the disbelieving person is reaching the end of his term in the world and the beginning of his term in the Hereafter, there will descend onto him from heaven angels with dark faces. They will bring with them Musuh, and will sit as far from him as the sight reaches. Then the angel of death will come forward and sit right next to his head, saying, "O impure, evil soul! Depart (your body) to the anger of Allah and a wrath from Him.'' The soul will scatter throughout his body, and the angel of death will seize it as when the thorny branch is removed from wet wool. The angel of death will seize the soul, and when he does, they (the group of angels) will not let it stay in his hand for more than an instance, and they will wrap it in the Musuh. The most putrid smell a dead corpse can ever have on earth will emit from the soul, and the angels will ascend with it. Whenever they pass by a group of angels, they will ask, "Whose is this evil soul'' The angels will respond, "He is such person son of such person,'' -- calling him by the worst names he was known by in the world. When they reach the lowest heaven, they will request that its door be opened for him, and their request will be denied. "For them the gates of heaven will not be opened, and they will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle.'' ﴿7:40﴾ Allah will declare, "List his record in Sijjin in the lowest earth.'' The wicked soul will then be thrown ﴿from heaven﴾. "And whoever assigns partners to Allah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky, and the birds had snatched him, or the wind had thrown him to a far off place.''﴿22:31﴾ His soul will be returned to his body, and two angels will come to him, sit him up and ask him, "Who is your Lord'' He will say, "Oh, oh! I do not know.'' They will ask him, "What is your religion'', and he will say, "Oh, oh! I do not know.'' They will ask him, "What do you say about this man (Prophet Muhammad) who was sent to you'' He will say, "Oh, oh, I do not know!'' A caller (Allah) will herald from heaven, "My servant has lied, so furnish him with the Fire and open a door for him to the Fire.'' He will find its heat and fierce hot wind. And his grave will be reduced in size, until his bones crush each other. Then, a man with a dreadful face, wearing dreadful clothes and with a disgusting smell emitting from him will come to him, saying, "Receive the glad tidings with that which will displease you! This is the Day that you have been promised.'' He will ask that man, "And who are you, for yours is the face that brings about evil'' He will say, "I am your evil work.'' He will therefore cry, "O, my Lord! Do not commence the Hour!'') Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah collected this Hadith. In his Musnad, Imam `Abd bin Humayd recorded that Anas bin Malik said that the Messenger of Allah said,




(Verily, when the servant is placed in his grave and his friends (or family) depart, as he hears the sound of their shoes, two angels will come to him. They will sit him up and ask him, `What do you say about this man (Muhammad)' As for the believer, he will say, `I bear witness that He is Allah's servant and Messenger.' He will be told, `Look at your seat in the Fire, Allah has replaced it for you with a seat in Paradise.') The Prophet said next,




(So he will see both seats. ) Qatadah added, "We were told that his grave will be enlarged up to seventy forearms length and will be filled with greenery for him until the Day of Judgement.'' Muslim collected this Hadith also from `Abd bin Humayd, while An-Nasa'i collected it from Yunus bin Muhammad bin Al-Mu'addah. Al-Hafiz Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi, may Allah grant him mercy, recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,




(When the dead - or one of you - is buried, two dark and blue angels will come to him; one is called `Munkir' and the other is called `Nakir'. They will ask him, `What did you say about this man (Muhammad)' He will reply, `What he used to say, that he is Allah's servant and Messenger. I bear witness that there is no true deity except Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger.' They will say, `We know that you used to say that,' and his grave will be made larger for him to seventy forearms length by seventy forearms length and will be filled with light for him. He will be told, `Sleep,' but he will reply, `Let me go back to my family in order that I tell them.' They will say, `Sleep, just like the bridegroom who is awakened by the dearest of his family, until Allah resurrects him from that sleep.' If he was a hypocrite, his answer will be, `I do not know! I heard people say something, so I used to repeat what they were saying.' They will say, `We know that you used to say that.' The earth will be commanded, `Come closer all around him,' and it will come closer to him until his ribs cross each other. He will remain in this torment, until Allah resurrects him from his sleep.) At-Tirmidhi said, "This Hadith is Hasan, Gharib.'' Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said,




(Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world, and in the Hereafter.)




(When he will be asked in the grave, `Who is your Lord What is your religion Who is your Prophet' He will reply, `Allah is my Lord, Islam is my religion and Muhammad is my Prophet who brought the clear proofs from Allah. I believed in him and had faith in him.' He will be told, `You have said the truth; you have lived on this, died on it and will be resurrected on it.') Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Prophet said,




(By He Who owns my life! The dead person hears the sound of your slippers (or shoes) when you depart and leave him. If he is a believer, the prayer will stand by his head, Zakah to his right and the fast by his left; the righteous deeds, such as charity, keeping relations with kith and kin and acts of kindness to people will stand by his feet. He will be approached from his head, and the prayer will declare, `No entrance from my side.' He will be approached from his right, and Zakah will declare, `There is no entrance from my side.' He will be approached from his left, and the fast will declare, `There is no entrance from my side.' He will be approached from his feet, and the acts of righteousness will declare, `There is no entrance from our side.' He will be commanded to sit up, and he will sit up while the sun appears to him just like when it is about to set. He will be told, `Tell us about what we are going to ask you.' He will say, `Leave me until I pray.' He will be told, `You will pray, but first tell us what we want to know.' He will ask, `What are your questions' He will be told, `This man who was sent among you, what do you say about him and what is your testimony about him' He will ask, `Muhammad' He will be answered in the positive and he will reply, `I bear witness that he is the Messenger of Allah and that he has brought us the proofs from our Lord. We believed in him.' He will be told, `This is the way you lived and died and Allah willing, you will be resurrected on it.' His grave will be made wider for him seventy forearms length, and it will be filled with light. A door will also be opened for him to Paradise. He will be told, `Look at what Allah has prepared for you in it.' He will increase in joy and delight and then his soul will be placed with the pure souls, inside green birds eating from the trees of Paradise. The body will be returned to its origin, dust. So Allah said, o




(Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world, and in the Hereafter.)) Ibn Hibban collected this Hadith, and his narration added the disbeliever's answer and his torment. `Abdur-Razzaq recor- ded that Tawus said,




(Allah will keep firm those who believe, with the word that stands firm in this world,) is in reference to La ilaha ilallah, while,




(and in the Hereafter) is in reference to the questioning in the grave. Qatadah commented, "As for this life, Allah will make them firm on the way of righteous- ness and good deeds,




(and in the Hereafter.) in the grave.'' Several others among the Salaf said the same.




(28. Have you not seen those who have changed the blessings of Allah into disbelief (by denying Prophet Muhammad and his Message of Islam), and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction) (29. Hell, in which they will burn, - and what an evil place to settle in!) (30. And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead (men) from His path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!'')






The Recompense of Those Who have changed the Blessings of Allah into Disbelief





Al-Bukhari said, "Allah's statement,




Have you not seen those who have changed the blessings of Alla0h into disbelief..., means, do you have knowledge in. Alla0h said in other Aya0t,




(Saw you not how.) and,




(Did you not think of those who went forth.)




(A lost people) ﴿25:18﴾ Ali bin `Abdullah narrated that Sufyan said that `Amr said that `Ata said that he heard Ibn `Abbas saying that,




"(Have you not seen those who have changed the blessings of Allah into disbelief), is in reference to the people of Makkah.'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Abu At-Tufayl said that Ibn Al-Kawwa' asked `Ali about Allah's statement,




(those who have changed the blessings of Allah into disbelief, and caused their people to dwell in the house of destruction) and `Ali said that it refers to the disbelievers of Quraysh on the day of Badr. He also said that the blessing of Allah was faith that came to the polytheists of Quraysh, and they changed this blessing into disbelief and led their people to utter destruction. This includes all disbelievers, for Allah sent Muhammad as a mercy and a blessing to all mankind. Those who accepted this blessing and were thankful for it, will enter Paradise, while those who denied it and disbelieved in it, will enter the Fire. Allah said next,




(And they set up rivals to Allah, to mislead from His path!) meaning, they set up partners to Allah whom they worship besides Him and called the people to worship them. Allah threatened them and warned them by the words of His Prophet ,




(Say: "Enjoy (your brief life)! But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!'') `Whatever you are able to do in this life, then do it, for no matter what will happen,




(But certainly, your destination is the (Hell) Fire!) for to Us will be your destination and end.' Allah said in other Ayat,




(We let them enjoy for a little while, then in the end We shall force them to (enter) a great torment.)﴿31:24﴾ and,




((A brief) enjoyment in this world! And then unto Us will be their return, then We shall make them taste the severest torment because they used to disbelieve.)﴿10:70﴾




(31. Say to My servants who have believed, that they should perform the Salah, and spend (in charity) out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.)






The Command for Prayer and Charity





Allah orders His servants to obey Him, fulfill His rights and be kind to His creatures. He ordained the prayer, which affirms the worship of Allah alone, without partners, and to spend from the provisions that He has granted them, by paying the due Zakah, spending on relatives and being kind to all others. Establishing the prayer requires performing it on time, perfectly, preserving its act of bowing having humility during it, and preserving its prostrations. Allah has ordained spending from what He granted, in secret and public, so that the people save themselves,




(before the coming of a Day), the Day of Resurrection,




(on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending.) on which no ransom will be accepted from anyone, if he seeks to buy himself. Allah said in another Ayah,




(So this Day no ransom shall be taken from you, nor of those who disbelieved.) ﴿57:15﴾ Allah said here,




(nor befriending.) Ibn Jarir commented, "Allah says that on that Day, there will be no friendship between friends that might save those deserving punishment from it. Rather, on that Day, there will be fairness and justice.'' Qatadah said, "Allah knows that in this life, there is mutual bargaining and there are friendships which people benefit from. A man chooses his friends and the reasons behind befriending them; if it was for Allah's sake, their friendship should be maintained, but if it was for other than Allah, their friendship is bound to be cutoff.'' I say that the meaning of this, is that Allah the Exalted is declaring that on that Day, no mutual bargaining or ransom will avail anyone, even if he ransoms himself with the earth's fill of gold if he could find that amount! No friendship or intercession shall avail one if he meets Allah while a disbeliever. Allah the Exalted said,




(And fear the Day when no person shall avail another, nor shall compensation be accepted from him, nor shall intercession be of use to him, nor shall they be helped.)﴿2:123﴾ and,




(O you believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the disbelievers who are the wrongdoers.)﴿2:254﴾




(32. Allah is He Who has created the heavens and the earth and sends down water (rain) from the sky, and thereby brought forth fruits as provision for you; and He has made the ships to be of service to you, that they may sail through the sea by His command; and He has made rivers (also) to be of service to you.) (33. And He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day to be of service to you.) (34. And He gave you of all that you asked for, and if you ﴿try to﴾ count the blessings of Allah, never will you be able to count them. Verily, man is indeed an extreme wrongdoer, ungrateful.)






Describing Some of Allah's Tremendous Favors





Allah mentions some of the favors He has done for His creatures, such as creating the heavens as a protective ceiling and the earth as a bed. He also sends down rain from the sky and, in its aftermath brings forth a variety of vegetation, fruits and plants of different colors, shapes, tastes, scents and uses. Allah also made the ships sail on the surface of the water by His command and He made the sea able to carry these ships in order that travelers can transfer from one area to another to transport goods. Allah also created the rivers that flow through the earth from one area to another as provision for the servants which they use to drink and irrigate, and for other benefits,




(And He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses), rotating by night and by day,




(It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.)﴿36:40﴾ and,




(He brings the night as a cover over the day, seeking it rapidly, and (He created) the sun, the moon, the stars subjected to His command. His is the creation and commandment. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of all that exists!) ﴿7:54﴾ The sun and the moon rotate in succession, and the night and the day are opposites, each taking from the length of the other or giving up some of its length,




((Allah ) merges the night into day, and merges the day into night.) ﴿35:13﴾ and,




(And He has subjected the sun and the moon. Each running (on a fixed course) for an appointed term. Verily, He is the Almighty, the Oft-Forgiving.) ﴿39:5﴾ Allah said next,




(And He gave you of all that you asked for), He has prepared for you all that you need in all conditions, and what you ask Him to provide for you,




(and if you ﴿try to﴾ count the blessings of Allah, never will you be able to count them.) Allah states that the servants are never able to count His blessings, let alone thank Him duly for them. In Sahih Al-Bukhari it is recorded that the Messenger of Allah used to supplicate;




(O Allah ! All praise is due to You, without being able to sufficiently thank You, nor ever wish to be cutoff from You, nor ever feeling rich from relying on You; our Lord!) It was reported that Prophet Dawud, peace be upon him, used to say in his supplication, "O Lord! How can I ever duly thank You, when my thanking You is also a favor from You to me'' Allah the Exalted answered him, "Now, you have thanked Me sufficiently, O Dawud,'' meaning, `when you admitted that you will never be able to duly thank Me.'




(35. And (remember) when Ibrahim said: "O my Lord! Make this city (Makkah) one of peace and security, and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols.) (36. "O my Lord! They have indeed led astray many among mankind. But whoso follows me, he verily, is of me. And whoso disobeys me, still You are indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)






Ibrahim's Supplication to Allah when He brought Isma`il to Makkah





Allah mentions here, while bringing forth more evidences against Arab polytheists, that the Sacred House in Makkah was established on the worship of Allah alone, without partners. He also states that Ibrahim, who establsihed the city, has disowned those who worship others besides Allah, and that he begged Allah to make Makkah peaceful and secure,




(O my Lord! Make this city (Makkah) of peace and security,) and Allah accepted his supplication. Allah said in other Ayat,




(Have they not seen that We have made (Makkah) a secure sanctuary.) ﴿29:67﴾ and,




(Verily, the first House (of worship) appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (Makkah), full of blessing, and a guidance for Al-'Alamin. In it are manifest signs, the Maqam of Ibrahim; whosoever enters it, he attains security.)﴿3:96﴾ Allah said here that Ibrahim supplicated,




(O my Lord! Make this city (Makkah) a of peace and security, ) saying, "this city'', after he established it, and this is why he said afterwards,




(All praise is due to Allah, Who has given me in old age Isma`il and Ishaq.) ﴿14:39﴾ It is well-known that Isma`il was thirteen years older than Ishaq. When Ibrahim took Isma`il and his mother to Makkah, while Isma`il was still young enough to nurse, he supplicated to Allah,




(O my Lord! Make this city (Makkah) a place of peace and security.) ﴿2:126﴾ as we in explained in Surat Al-Baqarah. Ibrahim then said,




(and keep me and my sons away from worshipping idols.) It is proper for whoever supplicates to Allah to also ask for the benefit of his parents and offspring, as well as himself. Ibrahim next mentioned that many among mankind were led astray because of idols, and he disowned those who worship them and referred their matter to Allah; if Allah wills, He will punish them, and if He wills, He will forgive them. `Isa, peace be upon him, said similar words,




(If You punish them, they are Your servants, and if You forgive them, verily, You, only You are the Almighty, the All-Wise.)﴿5:118﴾ This supplication refers this and all matters to Allah, not that it is actually going to happen. `Abdullah bin `Amr narrated that the Messenger of Allah recited Ibrahim's supplication,




(O my Lord! They have indeed led astray many among mankind.), and the supplication of `Isa,




(If You punish them, they are Your servants.) ﴿5:118﴾ then raised his hands and said,




(O Allah, Save my Ummah! O, Allah, Save my Ummah! O, Allah, Save my Ummah!) and cried. Allah said to the angel Jibril, "O Jibril, go to Muhammad, and Your Lord has more knowledge, and ask him what makes him cry.'' Jibril came to the Prophet and asked him, and he repeated to him what he said (in his supplication). Allah said, "Go to Muhammad and tell him this; `We will make you pleased with your Ummah, O Muhammad, and will not treat them in a way you dislike.'''




(37. "O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in an uncultivable valley by Your Sacred House in order, O our Lord, that they may perform Salah. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits so that they may give thanks.) This Ayah indicates that this was different supplication than the first one that Ibrahim said when he left Hajar and her son Isma`il in Makkah, before the Sacred House was built. This prayer, it appears, was said after the House was built, begging Allah and seeking His favor, and He is the Exalted and Most Honored. Ibrahim said here,




(by Your Sacred House...) then he,




(O our Lord, that they may perform Salah.) Ibn Jarir At-Tabari commented that this, "Refers to his earlier statement,




(the Sacred...),'' meaning, `You have made this House Sacred so that people establish the prayer next to it,'




(So fill some hearts among men with love towards them,) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Sa'id bin Jubayr said, "Had Ibrahim said, `The hearts of mankind', Persians, Romans, the Jews, the Christians and all other people would have gathered around it.'' However, Ibrahim said,




(among men), thus making it exclusive to Muslims only. He said next,




(and (O Allah) provide them with fruits) in order that they may be helped in obeying You, and because this is a barren valley; bring to them fruits that they might eat. Allah accepted Ibrahim's supplication,




(Have We not established for them a secure sanctuary (Makkah), to which are brought fruits of all kinds, a provision from Ourselves.) ﴿28:57﴾ This only indicates Allah's compassion, kindness, mercy and blessing, in that there are no fruit producing trees in the Sacred City, Makkah, yet all kinds of fruits are being brought to it from all around; this is how Allah accepted the supplication of the Khalil - Allah's intimate friend, Prophet Ibrahim, peace be upon him.




(38. "O our Lord! Certainly, You know what we conceal and what we reveal. Nothing on the earth or in the heaven is hidden from Allah.'') (39. "All praise is due to Allah, Who has given me in old age Isma'il and Ishaq. Verily, my Lord is indeed the All-Hearer of invocations.'') (40. "O my Lord! Make me one who performs Salah, and (also) from my offspring, our Lord! And accept my invocation.'') (41. "Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents, and (all) the believers on the Day when the reckoning will be established.'') Ibn Jarir At-Tabari said, "Allah said that Ibrahim, His Khalil, said,




(O our Lord! Certainly, You know what we conceal and what we reveal.) meaning, `You know the intention behind my supplication for the people of this town, seeking Your pleasure in sincerity to You. You know all things, apparent and hidden, and nothing escapes Your knowledge on the earth or in heaven.''' He next praised and thanked his Lord the Exalted and Most Honored for granting him offspring after he became old,




(All praise is due to Allah, Who has given me in old age Isma'il (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac). Verily, my Lord is indeed the All-Hearer of invocations.) `He accepts the supplication of those who invoke Him, and has accepted my invocation when I asked Him to grant me offspring. ' Ibrahim said next,




(O my Lord! Make me one who performs Salah,), preserving its obligations and limits,




(and (also) from my offspring,), make them among those who establish the prayer, as well,




(our Lord! And accept my invocation.), all of my invocation which I invoked You with herein,




(Our Lord! Forgive me and my parents,) Ibrahim said this before he declared himself innocent from his father, after he became sure that he was an enemy of Allah,




(and the believers), all of them,




(on the Day when the reckoning will be established.) on the Day when You will reckon Your servants and recompense or reward them for their deeds - good for good and evil for evil.




(42. Consider not that Allah is unaware of that which the wrongdoers do, but He gives them respite up to a Day when the eyes will stare in horror.) (43. (They will be) hastening forward with necks outstretched, their heads raised up (towards the sky), their gaze returning not towards them and their hearts empty.)






Allah gives Respite to the Disbelievers and is never unaware of what They do





Allah says, `O Muhammad, do not think that Allah is unaware of what the unjust disbelievers do. Do not think because Allah gave them respite and delayed their punishment that He is unaware or ignoring punishing them for what they do. Rather, Allah keeps full account of this for them and keeps it on record against them,




(but He gives them respite up to a Day when the eyes will stare in horror.) from the horror of the Day of Resurrection.' Allah next mentions how they will all be raised up from their graves and hurriedly gathered for the Day of Gathering,




(hastening forward), in a hurry. Allah said in other Ayat,




(Hastening towards the caller.) ﴿54:8﴾




(On that Day mankind will follow strictly Allah's caller, no crookedness will they show him.) ﴿20:108﴾ until,




(And (all) faces shall be humbled before the Ever Living, the Sustainer.) ﴿20:111﴾ Allah said: another Ayah,




(The Day when they will come out of the graves quickly.) ﴿70:43﴾ Allah said next,




(with necks outstretched) meaning, raising their heads up, according to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and several others. Allah said next,




(their gaze returning not towards them) meaning, their eyes are staring in confusion, trying not to blink because of the horror and tremendous insights they are experiencing, and fear of what is going to strike them, we seek refuge with Allah from this end. This is why Allah said,




(and their hearts empty.) meaning, their hearts are empty due to extreme fear and fright. Qatadah and several others said that the places of their hearts are empty then, because the hearts will ascend to the throats due to extreme fear. Allah said next to His Messenger ,




(44. And warn mankind of the Day when the torment will come unto them; then the wrongdoers will say: "Our Lord! Respite us for a little while, we will answer Your call and follow the Messengers!'' (It will be said:) "Had you not sworn aforetime that you would not leave (the world for the Hereafter).'') (45. "And you dwelt in the dwellings of men who wronged themselves, and it was clear to you how We dealt with them. And We put forth (many) parables for you.'') (46. Indeed, they planned their plot, and their plot was with Allah, though their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places.)






There will be no Respite after the Coming of the Torment





Allah mentions what those who committed injustice against themselves will say when they witness the torment,




(Our Lord! Respite us for a little while, we will answer Your call and follow the Messengers!) Allah said in other Ayat,




(Until, when death comes to one of them, he says: "My Lord! Send me back.'')﴿23:99﴾ and,




(O you who believe! Let not your properties divert you.) ﴿63:9-10﴾ Allah described the condition of the wrongdoers on the Day of Gathering, when He said,




(And if you only could see when the criminals shall hang their heads.) ﴿32:12﴾,




(If you could but see when they will be held over the Fire! They will say: "Would that we were but sent back (to the world)! Then we would not deny the Ayat of Our Lord. ..''!) ﴿6:27﴾ and,




(Therein they will cry.) ﴿35:27﴾ Allah refuted their statement here,




(Had you not sworn aforetime that you would not leave.) Allah says, `Had you not vowed before, that your previous state will not change, that there will be no Resurrection or Reckoning Therefore, taste this torment because of what you vowed before.' Mujahid commented that,




(that you would not leave.) refers to leaving this worldly life to the Hereafter. Allah also said,




(And they swear by Allah with their strongest oaths, that Allah will not raise up him who dies.) ﴿16:38﴾ Allah said next,




(And you dwelt in the dwellings of men who wronged themselves, and it was clear to you how We had dealt with them. And We put forth (many) parables for you.) Allah says, `you have witnessed or heard of the news of what happened to the earlier disbelieving nations, but you did not draw a lesson from their end, nor did what We punished them with provide an example for you,'




(Perfect wisdom but the warners benefit then not.)﴿54:5﴾ Shu`bah narrated that Abu Ishaq said that `Abdur-Rahman bin Dabil said that `Ali bin Abi Talib commented on Allah's statement,




(though their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places.) "He who disputed with Ibrahim about his Lord, took two eaglets and raised them until they became adult eagels. Then he tied each eagel's leg to a wooden box with ropes and left them go hungry. He and another man sat inside the wooden box and raised a staff with a piece of meat on its tip. So, the two eagles started flying. The king asked his companion to tell him what he was seeing, and he described the scenes to him, until he said that he saw the earth as a fly. So, the king brought the staff closer to the eagels and they started landing slowly. This is why Allah said, (وَإِنْ كَادَ مَكْرُهُمْ لِتَزُولَ مِنْهُ الْجِبَالُ) `though their plot was hardly one to remove the mountains from their places.''' Mujahid also mentioned that this story was about Nebuchadnezzar, and that when the king's sight was far away from earth and its people, he was called, `O tyrant one! Where are you headed to' He became afraid and brought the staff closer to the eagels, which flew faster with such haste that the mountains almost shook from the noise they made. The mountains were almost moved from their places, so Allah said,




(though their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places.)'' Ibn Jurayj narrated that Mujahid recited this Ayah in a way that means, "though their plot was such as to remove the mountains from their places.'' However, Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that,




(though their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places.) indicates that their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places. Similar was said by Al-Hasan Al-Basri. Ibn Jarir reasoned that, "Associating others with Allah and disbelieving in Him, which they brought upon themselves, did not bother the mountains nor other creatures. Rather, the harm of their actions came to haunt them.'' I (Ibn Kathir) said, this meaning is similar to Allah's statement,




(And walk not on the earth with conceit and arrogance. Verily, you can neither rend nor penetrate the earth, nor can you attain a stature like the mountains in height.)﴿17:37﴾ There is another way of explaining this Ayah; `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said that,




(though their plot was not such as to remove the mountains from their places.) refers to their Shirk, for Allah said in another Ayah,




(Whereby the heavens are almost torn.) ﴿19:90﴾ Ad-Dahhak and Qatadah said similarly.




(47. So think not that Allah will fail to keep His promise to His Messengers. Certainly, Allah is All-Mighty, All-Able of Retribution.) (48. On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens, and they (all creatures) will appear before Allah, the One, the Irresistible.)






Allah never breaks a Promise





Allah affirms His promise,




(So think not that Allah will fail to keep His promise to His Messengers.) His promise to grant them victory in this life and on the Day when the Witnesses shall come forth. Allah affirms that He is All-Able and that nothing He wills escapes His power and none can resist Him. Allah affirms that He is Able to exact retribution from those who disbelieve in Him and deny Him,




(Woe that Day to the deniers!)﴿77:15﴾ Allah said here,




(On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens,) meaning, His promise shall come to pass on the Day when the earth will be changed to an earth other than this earth that we know and recognize. It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Sahl bin Sa`d said that the Messenger of Allah said,




(On the Day of Resurrection, the people will be gathered on a white (barren), flat earth just like the wheat bread, it has no recognizable features for anyone.) Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said, "I was the first among all people who asked the Messenger of Allah about this Ayah,




(On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens,) saying, `O Allah's Messenger! Where will the people be then' He said,




(On the Sirat.)'' Muslim, but not Al-Bukhari, collected this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah also recorded it, and At-Tirmidhi said "Hasan Sahih''. Imam Muslim bin Al-Hajjaj recorded in his Sahih that Thawban the servant of the Messenger of Allah said, "I was standing next to the Messenger of Allah when a Jewish rabbi came to him and said, `Peace be to you, O Muhammad.' I pushed him with such a force that almost caused him to fall down and he asked me why I did that. I said, `Why did you not say, `O Messenger of Allah' The Jew said, `We call him by the name which his family gave him.' The Messenger of Allah said,




(Muhammad is indeed the name which my family gave me.) The Jew said, `I came to ask you about something.' The Messenger of Allah replied,




(Would it benefit you if I replied to your question) He said, `I will hear it with my ear.' The Messenger of Allah poked the ground with a staff he had and said,




(Ask.) The Jew said, `Where will the people be when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will the heavens' The Messenger of Allah said,




قال: فمن أول الناس إجازة؟ فقال:




، فقال اليهودي: فما تحفتهم حين يدخلون الجنة؟ قال:




قال: فما غذاؤهم في إثرها؟ قال:




قال: فما شرابهم عليه؟ قال:




. قال: صدقت، قال: وجئت أسألك عن شيء لا يعلمه أحد من أهل الأرض إلا نبي أو رجل أو رجلان. قال:




قال: أسمع بأذني. قال: جئت أسألك عن الولد، قال:




قال اليهودي: لقد صدقت وإنك لنبي ثم انصرف، فقال رسول اللهصلى الله عليه وسلّم:




(In the darkness before the Bridge (Jasr).) He asked, `Who will be the first to pass it' He said, (The poor emigrants (Muhajirin).) He asked, `What will their (refreshment) be when they enter Paradise' He said, (The caul of fish liver.) He asked, `What will they have after that' He said, (A bull of Paradise which grazed through its pathways will be slaughtered for them.) He asked, `From what will they drink' He said, (From a fountain whose name is Salsabil. ) He said, `You have said the truth. I have come to ask you something about which none of the inhabitants of the earth knows, with the exception of a Prophet or one or two other men.' He said, (Would you benefit by me informing you about it) He replied, `I would listen. I have come to ask you about the child.' He said, (The fluid of the man is white, and the woman's is yellow. When they meet, if the discharge of the man is greater than that of the woman, then it becomes a male, by Allah's permission. When the womans discharge is greater than the man's, it becomes a female by Allah's permission.) The Jew said, `You have told the truth and are indeed a Prophet.' Then he left. So Allah's Messenger said; (He asked me such things that I had no knowledge of it until Allah gave it to me.) Allah said next,




(and they will appear before Allah), describing when the creatures will be resurrected before Allah from their graves,




(the One, the Irresisti- ble.) Who has full power and control over all things and to Whom the necks and minds are subservient.




(49. And you will see the criminals that Day, Muqarranun (bound together) in fetters.) (50. Their garments will be of Qatiran (tar), and fire will cover their faces.) (51. That Allah may requite each person according to what he has earned. Truly, Allah is swift at reckoning.)






The Condition of the criminals on the Day of Resurrection





Allah said,




(On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens) `and the creations will be brought before their Lord, and you, O Muhammad, will witness the criminals who committed the crimes of Kufr and mischief,'




(Muqarranin) bound together, each with his or her like, just as Allah said,




(Assemble those who did wrong, together with their companions.) ﴿37:22﴾




(And when the souls are joined with their bodies.)﴿81:7﴾,




(And when they shall be thrown into a narrow place thereof, chained together, they will exclaim therein for destruction.) ﴿25:13﴾ and,




(And also the Shayatin from the Jinn (including) every kind of builder and diver, and also others bound in fetters.)﴿38:37-38﴾ Allah said next,




(Their garments will be of Qatiran (pitch),) that is used to coat camels. Qatadah commented that Qatiran (tar) is one of the fastest objects to catch fire. Ibn `Abbas used to say that the Qatiran, mentioned in the Ayah, is dissolved lead. It is possible that this Ayah reads as: (سَرَابِيلُهُمْ مِنْ قَطِرٍآنٍ) refering to heated lead that has reached tremendous heat, according to Mujahid, Ikrimah, Sa'id bin Jubayr Al-Hasan and Qatadah. Allah said next,




(and fire will cover their faces), which is similar to His other statement,




(The Fire will burn their faces, and therein they will grin, with displaced lips.)﴿23:104﴾ Imam Ahmad recorded that Yahya bin Abi Ishaq said that Aban bin Yazid said that Yahya bin Abi Kathir said that Zayd bin Abi Salam said that Abu Malik Al-Ash`ari said that the Messenger of Allah said,




(Four characteristics from the time of Jahiliyyah will remain in my Ummah, since they will not abandon them: boasting about their family lineage, discrediting family ties, seeking rain through the stars, and wailing for their dead. Verily, if she who wails, dies before she repents from her behavior, she will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection while wearing a dress of Qatiran and a cloak of mange.) Muslim collected this Hadith. Allah said next,




(That Allah may requite each person according to what he has earned.) meaning, on the Day of Resurrection. Allah said in another Ayah,




(That He may requite those who do evil with that which they have done.) ﴿53:31﴾ Allah said here,




(Truly, Allah is swift at reckoning.) when He wills to reckon a servants of His, for He knows everything and nothing ever escapes His observation. Verily, His power over all of His creation is the same as His power over one creature,




(The creation of you all and the resurrection of you all are only as a single person. )﴿31:28﴾ And this is why Mujahid said,




(swift at reckoning), means "keeping count.''




(52. This (Qur'an) is a Message for mankind (and a clear proof against them), in order that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He is the only One God and that men of understanding may take heed.)






Allah states that this Qur'an is a Message for mankind,







((So) that I may therewith warn you and whomsoever it may reach.) ﴿6:19﴾ This Qur'an is for all mankind and the Jinns, just as Allah said in the beginning of this Surah,




(Alif-Lam-Ra. (This is) a Book which We have revealed unto you in order that you might lead mankind out of darkness into light.) ﴿14:1﴾ Allah said next,




(in order that they may be warned thereby), or to receive and draw lessons from it,




(and that they may know that He is the only One God) using its proofs and evidences that testify that there is no true deity except Allah,




(and that men of understanding may take heed.) meaning those who have good minds. aThis is the end of the Tafsir of Surah Ibrahim, and all praise is due to Allah.
http://abdurrahman.org/qurantafseer/...14-IFrame.html
Reply

asadxyz
07-10-2007, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you. 14:33
Peace:/:sl:
The actual Aya is :
وَسَخَّر لَكُمُ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ دَآئِبَينَ وَسَخَّرَ لَكُمُ اللَّيْلَ وَالنَّهَارَ﴿14:33﴾

May I ask you which word in this aya you are translating as "subject to you"??
Best of luck
Reply

Basirah
07-10-2007, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
:sl: All
Your knowledge about Quran is highly poor.The Holy Quran was given shape of a book by Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddique first Kaliph.Then it was put on one dialect by Hazrat Uthmaan.
If the Holy Quran could be memorized word by word from Hazrat Uthman to present day why cannot it be memorized from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to Hazrat Abu Bakr or Hazrat Uthman.

The proof is always with Claimant.If there had been some addition or reduction in the Holy Quran ,then other Companions and also those who asassinated Hazrat Usmaan in enmity would have blamed him for this crime.But none of them did it.
If you have proof bring forward.
Best of luck
Dearest asad, I am afraid it is not as simple as you may believe it to be. Suyuti, the great muslim commentator was able to find five passages whose attribution to Allah is disputable. Ali Dashti also pointed to several passages which the speaker cannot have been Allah. (See: "Twenty-three years: A study of the prophetic career of Mohammad)

The second part of your argument is incorrect because you are the one claiming the Quran is divine, so you are the one who must offer up proof. Not the other way around. Therefore, you are the one who must offer up proof that the Quran was memmorized in the same way it is today, and YOU have to prove that there is a 0% chance any type of outside influence could have entered the Quran.
Reply

جوري
07-10-2007, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
Peace:/:sl:

Best of luck
This fellow basirah has been answered and extensively by bros. Ansar. This is a mere ploy for a dull rework of an ailing argument. I don't see caustic remarks as a presentable way to a refutation or to defend an argument-- rather just making the course unbearably pointless as well as indolent . I'd hope you see the transparency of this charade and not loan it further credence..
:w:
Reply

asadxyz
07-10-2007, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Dearest asad, I am afraid it is not as simple as you may believe it to be. Suyuti, the great muslim commentator was able to find five passages whose attribution to Allah is disputable. Ali Dashti also pointed to several passages which the speaker cannot have been Allah. (See: "Twenty-three years: A study of the prophetic career of Mohammad)

The second part of your argument is incorrect because you are the one claiming the Quran is divine, so you are the one who must offer up proof. Not the other way around. Therefore, you are the one who must offer up proof that the Quran was memmorized in the same way it is today, and YOU have to prove that there is a 0% chance any type of outside influence could have entered the Quran.
:sl:
Here is the point where all the non Muslims and some of Muslims have misconception.
All narrations are not equally acceptable and that why Muhaditthin have formulated a criteria for correctness of those narrations.
Above all narrations ,Quran is proved by Khabar-e-Mutawaatar and preserved by Memorization of millions of the Huffaaz.
This is what I have told earlier.If there was some change in the Quran by Hazrat Usmaan then his enemies would have blamed him right away and this could be a very genuine blame.Why didn't it happened??
Was there no muslim existing at that time? A question of common sense{Unfortunately common sense is very uncommon}.
There are /were many muslims who could easily sacrifice their lives for the honor and dignity of the Holy Quran.
Don't you think it is miraculous even if all books are destroyed in the world right now then the Holy Quran is the only book which will survive??.Think over it.

For the second part of my post please look at the topic of the thread.
Mabrook
Reply

Basirah
07-10-2007, 09:15 PM
Dear Ansar Al'-Adl, I'm sorry your post was lost. I hope my presence did not cause you to spend a huge amount more time.



By such standards children would be considered 'forced' to learn in virtually every school in the world, 'forced' to memorize vocabulary, laws of arithmetic, material relating to science, art, etc. Children are no more 'forced' to memorize the Qur'an than are those forced to memorize historical facts or those forced to learn a second language in bilingual countries. Needless to say, such an appeal to ridicule does not improve your case.


Under my experience of Quran memmorization, it cannot be compared to other types of learning. Quran memmorization had no aspect of critical thinking to it. You merely memmorized the verses. If we were aloud to think critically of each passage, it might have been benefitial.



It is a common fallacy amongst non-muslims to make the mistake of confusing the authentic Qira'ât with variants, when the reality is they are all authentic recitations of the same verse revealed to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself, and transmitted from him to us through mutawâtir chains of transmission. They are not 'variants' as they do not arise from textual uncertainty. This is explained by Azami on page 154 and he examines and refutes in great detail the conjecture of Godziher, Jeffery and others on the issue.


It is your tradition I believe which says:



Ibn Sirin writes, "the reading on which the Qur’an was recited out to the prophet in the year of his death is the same according to which people are reading the Qur’an today." (al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran)



So, does this not contradict the fact that the verse I posted: 2:125 in the Hafs version وَاتَّخِ ُ ذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take), but in the Warsh version, it is وَاتَّخَ ُ ذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). One is in the future ("shall") and the other is in the past ("have"). The above shows that although they seem the same, they are refering to a future action and a past action. Two different things. There are both valid Ahrûf?




A strawman is a sham argument set up to be defeated. Please show me by what form of reasoning or logic my analogy can be considered a straw man fallacy!

You compare the Sunni - Shia dispute with the analogy of one being convential medicine, while the other being "witch doctor", making the Shia outlook (under my interpretation of your post, correct me if i'm wrong), to be some type of "witchcraft" faith that is not comparable to convential medicine. Such a comparison is a straw man fallacy because your setting up a sham representation of Shia Islam using an analogy that is is what a "witch-doctor" is, compared to "convential medicine". That is a straw man fallacy my friend!
Reply

asadxyz
07-10-2007, 09:32 PM
Peace;

format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Dear Ansar Al'-Adl, I'm sorry your post was lost. I hope my presence did not cause you to spend a huge amount more time.


So, does this not contradict the fact that the verse I posted: 2:125 in the Hafs version وَاتَّخِ ُ ذوْا “WatakhIzu” (You shall take), but in the Warsh version, it is وَاتَّخَ ُ ذوْا “WatakhAzu” (They have taken/made). One is in the future ("shall") and the other is in the past ("have"). The above shows that although they seem the same, they are refering to a future action and a past action. Two different things. There are both valid Ahrûf?
!
Peace.
I am really shocked to see that you are so poor at Arabic.More and above with this much arabic knowledge you are criticizing the Holy Quran.
How can you translate what I have highlighted ??
Secondly what is your objection ?
Mabrook
Reply

Basirah
07-10-2007, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
Peace;


Peace.
I am really shocked to see that you are so poor at Arabic.More and above with this much arabic knowledge you are criticizing the Holy Quran.
How can you translate what I have highlighted ??
Secondly what is your objection ?
Mabrook
You're being very vague in your post. Why not suggest another traslation, or openly suggest what is wrong with the translation?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-10-2007, 10:30 PM
I'm asking only once more that people desist with the off-topic posts.

Greetings
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
Under my experience of Quran memmorization, it cannot be compared to other types of learning. Quran memmorization had no aspect of critical thinking to it. You merely memmorized the verses. If we were aloud to think critically of each passage, it might have been benefitial.
Memorization of Qur'an is comparable to memorization of any other material in any other subject. If you are asking about critical thinking with respect to the Qur'an, than that occurs in tafseer classes where students reflect on the meanings of the passages of the Qur'an. There are over 750 verses in the Qur'an which encourage thinking, pondering, contemplation and reflection.

It is your tradition I believe which says:

Ibn Sirin writes, "the reading on which the Qur’an was recited out to the prophet in the year of his death is the same according to which people are reading the Qur’an today." (al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran)
The example you quoted shows two valid recitations (Qira'ât) authentically transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.
You compare the Sunni - Shia dispute with the analogy of one being convential medicine, while the other being "witch doctor", making the Shia outlook (under my interpretation of your post, correct me if i'm wrong), to be some type of "witchcraft" faith that is not comparable to convential medicine. Such a comparison is a straw man fallacy because your setting up a sham representation of Shia Islam using an analogy that is is what a "witch-doctor" is, compared to "convential medicine". That is a straw man fallacy my friend!
I'm afraid not, because that is not the argument. The argument is that to ask for a simple answer as to which is 'right or wrong' in as detailed an issue as any sectarian divisions (not necessarily shia-sunni split) is like asking for a simple answer to conventional vs. witch-doctor medicine. Now it would be a straw man if I was criticizing a point or argument that my opponent never made. However, I never criticized an argument unless it was advanced by my opponent.

Hope that clarifies,

Regards
Reply

asadxyz
07-10-2007, 10:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
You're being very vague in your post. Why not suggest another traslation, or openly suggest what is wrong with the translation?
Peace;
This word واتّخذوا
is under discussion.Let me know its grammatical (صرفي’ نحوي ) analysis from you so that I should know where do you stand in Arabic so I can talk accordingly.
Mabrook
Reply

doorster
07-10-2007, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by thirdwatch512
And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you. 14:33

...........................
where did you graduate in Arabic? from University of Liars?

and He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day, to be of service to you.
Reply

Trumble
07-10-2007, 11:04 PM
And He hath made subject to you the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses; and the night and the day hath he (also) made subject to you.
That's the Yusuf Ali translation.

and He has made the sun and the moon, both constantly pursuing their courses, to be of service to you; and He has made the night and the day, to be of service to you
That's the 'Noble Qur'an' (Hilali-Khan) translation.
Reply

Basirah
07-10-2007, 11:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by asadxyz
Peace;
This word واتّخذوا
is under discussion.Let me know its grammatical (صرفي’ نحوي ) analysis from you so that I should know where do you stand in Arabic so I can talk accordingly.
Mabrook
I'm afraid beyond memmorization during childhood, I have not had a huge amount of study in arabic, so therefore, I understand words but for me to give you the morphological analysis of the grammar is beyond me. However, please tell me how I mistranslated it wrong!

أراك في مابعد
and Regards
Reply

doorster
07-10-2007, 11:12 PM
That's the 'Noble Qur'an' (Hilali-Khan) translation
Is it another name for Mohsin Khan or is he someone else? ( or may be it is 2 people's surnames?? Hilali-Khan)
Reply

doorster
07-10-2007, 11:24 PM
never mind God bless Google as it knows more than I do.
it is 2 people

Hilali Khan Quran translation

Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran Translated into the English Language By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali Ph.D. & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan ...
http://www.quranm.multicom.ba/transl...ali%20Khan.htm
Reply

Basirah
07-22-2007, 07:36 PM
Dear Ansar,

Memorization of Qur'an is comparable to memorization of any other material in any other subject. If you are asking about critical thinking with respect to the Qur'an, than that occurs in tafseer classes where students reflect on the meanings of the passages of the Qur'an. There are over 750 verses in the Qur'an which encourage thinking, pondering, contemplation and reflection.
I’m afraid in my experience, it was mindless memorization. There was no critical thinking process; mere “reflections” have nothing to do with critical thinking. Critical thinking consists of the mental process of analyzing and evaluating statements or propositions that have been offered as true.

The example you quoted shows two valid recitations (Qira'ât) authentically transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad pbuh.
All I can do is give a big sigh!

I'm afraid not, because that is not the argument. The argument is that to ask for a simple answer as to which is 'right or wrong' in as detailed an issue as any sectarian divisions (not necessarily shia-sunni split) is like asking for a simple answer to conventional vs. witch-doctor medicine. Now it would be a straw man if I was criticizing a point or argument that my opponent never made. However, I never criticized an argument unless it was advanced by my opponent.
Okay, so let us look at the analogy you’re using. If one is to convert to Islam, which side should they pick? It is very relevant, because if such a truth exists in the Quran, we surely want to be saved! I know of some very knowledgeable Shia scholars who would say Sunni Islam is completely wrong. I know of Sunni scholars who believe the same. No one is asking you who is right or wrong, you’re misunderstanding the question. What the question is about in my understanding of it, is that key things about Islam are disagreed on and that there is a Sunni Shia split, leads to the question that when someone is trying to prove the Quran, which view of the Quran should one take? Which Hadith? All these questions are relevant, because the ‘true religion’, gets a bit complicated when looking at the various beliefs held by its layman.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!