Can you prove that the Quran has been altered yaa ayyuhaal kafiroon?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

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:

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/compara...t-watch-video-3-42-time-video.html#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

 

[rav]

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.

 

[Malaikah]

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

 

[Basirah]

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.

 

[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.

 

[ranma1/2]

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.

 

[Basirah]

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"?

 

[ranma1/2]

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.

 

[Basirah]

there is no such thing as de-evolution.

You think so?

 

[ranma1/2]

You think so?

in science, to my knowledge there is no such thing.
Got a link?

 

[Trumble]

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/compara...t-watch-video-3-42-time-video.html#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!

 

[i_m_tipu]

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

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.

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.

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???

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.

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

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

I like living

Because
otherwise the civilization will be 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."

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.

 

[ranma1/2]

Please stop typing 733t, its annoying and its hard to take anything you say seriously.

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.



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.

 

[Basirah]

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?

 

[vorx]

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.

 

[wilberhum]

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:

 

[vorx]

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..

 

[wilberhum]

As far as i am concerned yes

You are one in a million. Heck, maybe one in a billion. :skeleton:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

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

Shakespeare? He was born on 1616 CE.

He was actually born in April 1564. He died in 1616 (CE).

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