Messages

46

General Discussions / Re: Is Quran Corrupted?

« on: February 23, 2016, 07:05:54 AM »

You're welcome

BTW, if your dad wants to know about the process of Quranic compilation, Joseph has articles (as usual).

http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20compilation%20of%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

(this talks about how the Quran was compiled differently from the hadiths, so it is not corrupted while the hadiths probably are)

http://quransmessage.com/articles/seven%20readings%20FM3.htm

(this talks about how many people believe there are 7 versions of the Quran, but there aren't really)

I hope you can convince him.

If you can't, don't get discouraged. I once spent ages debating Quran-centrism online with some ultra-conservative person who just wouldn't listen. 

47

General Discussions / Re: My humble apologies!

« on: February 22, 2016, 07:15:33 AM »

I am currently attempting to applaud Good Logic while simultaneously typing.

There are people devoted to God in pretty much every religious denomination, even in generally polytheistic religions like Hinduism.

And I've noticed that devoted Christians who focus on the concept of one God (even though they still believe in the Trinity) often get their prayers answered. There are very accomplished religious healers and believers in that sect. Even though they believe that Jesus is God's son, they seem to believe it out of ignorance, because God definitely seems to love them despite their Trinitarian belief system.

God only gets mad when you are aware that you're doing something wrong but still refuse to correct it.

Sstikstof: I get what you said about people overreacting. You know what I once saw on a Salafist "Islamic" website? This sentence: "He who has rejected the Sunnah (as divine guidance) is a kafir and an apostate from Islam."

Sheesh!

This is also the website whose administrator advertised the death penalty for apostasy. So he (admin) was basically stating that anyone who is Quran-centric should be EXECUTED.

I honestly thought this whole Quranic belief system would be easier to spread. Apparently not.

Mia

48

General Discussions / Re: Qiyamah

« on: February 22, 2016, 07:06:32 AM »

I've felt that way too before.

Hearing about all the insanity people are perpetrating in the name of God is distressing.

I recommend that you think about all the good things you can do before Judgement Day. Then you can continue living a good life while looking forward to it.

49

Discussions / Re: Ask Javed Ahmed Ghamidi> What is Humanity!

« on: February 21, 2016, 12:27:50 PM »

This verse could also possibly mean to "cut off their means for sustenance", to "cut off the means for committing the crime", and a range of other things (misconceptions website ).

I have a question--If a person commits adultery and is found out with 4 witnesses, and then they repent BEFORE the punishment is decided, are they pardoned or do they still undergo the punishment?

Also I found this on the website Hassan linked:

"By virtue of the law set out by God for equivalence in 5:45, a thief who robs another person should be made to compensate the victim by working for him till the victim is fully paid for all damage incurred. Simply going to prison will not compensate the victim in any way!"

I take this to mean that in ordinary cases of crime, the person must work off their penalty. In a crime case where the perpetrator is unrepentant and steals valuable items repeatedly, the actual amputation of the hand might be due.

I'm probably rambling now, but it's interesting to note that today's version of sharia, in which any theft is automatically punished with severing the hand, has failed in every country it's been implemented in. Most Muslim countries are currently backward, dictatorial places with open intolerance and misogyny. However, there was a time when people used their common sense and followed the Quran. In Muslim Spain and the early days of the Islamic Middle East, the residents of those countries were actually very successful. Muslims were at the forefront of science, justice, and innovation. They conquered a lot of territory without forcing their religion on anyone or murdering civilians. It was quite impressive.

And then...stupidity happened. 

Sorry about the long comment

Mia

50

General Discussions / Re: My humble apologies!

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:45:27 AM »

I don't understand this Javed Ghamidi person's viewpoints. He's kind of lingering between accepting hadiths and sunnah and not accepting them. He needs to make up his mind. It's quite clear from reading the Quran that hadiths and sunnah have no religious authority (although they can be studied to understand history and culture).

51

General Discussions / Re: Is Quran Corrupted?

« on: February 17, 2016, 07:42:45 AM »

Salam ...

I don't know what empirical evidence to offer except for the authenticity of ancient Quranic manuscripts. I can start with the Sana Quran. It has 2 layers of text, an upper layer and a lower layer. The lower layer has minor variants and is not exactly identical to today's Hafs Quran. Many people use this to discredit the Quran and claim it is corrupted. However, the differences between the lower text of the Sana Quran and today's Quran are simply spelling differences that don't change the meaning of the verses. The upper text of the Sana Quran is exactly identical to today's Hafs version. This shows that the Quran as it exists today, was also in existence during Muhammad's time, and that the certified Hafs Quran has not been changed throughout history, aside from spelling. Plus, spelling doesn't count, because the Quran is a recitation and spelling does not affect recitation.

For more information, please see this link. Scroll down to about halfway and read from there.

http://ponderingislam.com/2015/02/05/understanding-the-sanaa-manuscript-find/

Here is an excerpt:

"This will probably come as a surprise to some of you: some revisionist scholars have held that the Qur’an is some sort of composite text originating later than the traditional dating. The easiest way to disprove that something does not exist is to show that object existing! Since we actually do have a Qur’an dating from during this time, we can safely put to rest any fanciful ideas on the origins of the Qur’an."

This basically means that the Quran existed in full form during Muhammad's time and that Muhammad's Quran was identical to ours except for minor spelling/numbering variants.

There are other ancient Quranic manuscripts such as the Tashkent Quran, which is currently, I believe, on display in a museum.

In the interest of academic honesty, it should be noted that early Qurans did not contain diacritical marks. That is because the Quran was revealed to Muhammad by oral transmission, and "honorable scribes" (described in the Quran) wrote it down. The addition of marks does not constitute corruption because these marks do not change the text; they simply make it more legible for people who don't understand Arabic. Anyone who knows Arabic can read the Quran without any diacritical marks, and Qurans without diacritical marks still, obviously, exist. However, marks have been added for clarity.

Sorry, I think I repeated myself a few times. You can tell me if anything was unclear. Hope you can convince your dad

52

General Discussions / Re: My humble apologies!

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:24:03 AM »

This exchange is getting mildly confusing, but I get what you're saying.

The Quran says its verses are made clear for people who think. The implicit Quranic verses have to be considered through the lens of the explicit verses (3:7). This means that issues are made clear when people consider all the verses on a topic. When they do so, the "best meaning" in the verses becomes reasonably clear, so that there is little doubt in what it is.

Some scholars aren't so good at taking into account all the verses on a specific topic. They come to the Quran with preconceived ideas, seeking to find verses that confirm these ideas. This is why their interpretations aren't the "best meaning." However, I've found  that Joseph Islam's articles always take into account pretty much every single verse on a given topic. They're not written with a definitive conclusion in mind.

Generally, when multiple verses on a topic are taken together, the best meaning becomes clear and there is little need to debate it anymore. However, sometimes things are still slightly open-ended. For example, on the head-covering issue, the word "khimar" has multiple meanings. This shows that the Quran adapts to different styles of living and that any type of decent clothing is appropriate, whether or not the hair is covered. There is no need to assign a specific dress code.

Hope I made things a little clearer...?

53

General Discussions / Re: Those who guard their Furuwj (tear[weakness]/private parts) – 70:29

« on: February 16, 2016, 07:09:21 AM »

Salam,

I kind of forgot what the exact question was, but on that topic, I believe that if you've repented, there is no need to administer the punishment, even if people find out. The issue should be closed.

54

General Discussions / Re: Wearing trouser/pants below ankle!

« on: February 15, 2016, 09:27:31 AM »

Salam,

I'm not annoyed by the ban on code 19 discussions, since they were getting a bit out of hand. I was just wondering why you decided to ban them altogether. There are many topics that are debated on this forum, like hadith validity and certain aspects of Quranic narratives. People are sometimes divided over these things and seek to promote their views on these issues. It's similar to what's being done with Code 19.

Maybe you could simply ban attempts to promote the views of Rashad's followers. However, if people only wish to discuss the veracity of Code 19 without specifically promoting Rashad's views, would that be alright?

I'm just wondering. And I also enjoy refuting people who think God's book had major errors for 1,400 years. (Sorry.)

Mia

55

General Discussions / Re: Is Quran Corrupted?

« on: February 15, 2016, 09:22:49 AM »

Salam Wakas,

Is Misconceptions also your own website? I like it a lot. It helped at the beginning when I was struggling to understand certain concepts.

56

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: February 15, 2016, 09:21:19 AM »

As I said, the pledge results in our nature of wanting to worship God. You'll notice that in societies where monotheism isn't well-known, people tend to make up their own gods. Kind of like Hinduism. This shows that people always desire something to look up to and pray to. It's natural.

We forgot the exact words of the pledge; however, we remembered its essence. We should worship God.

God was just reminding us of something we inherently knew.

57

Islamic Duties / Re: First Masjid in India at the time of Prophets Ministry in 629 AD

« on: February 13, 2016, 11:46:57 AM »

I'm sorry to say this, but honestly, y'all are totally missing the point of this post. Instead of getting into technicalities that will never be solved, why don't we just accept the point of this message? The early Muslims prayed and fasted. If Sardar wants to share more evidence of this with us, then it's perfectly good and beneficial.

58

General Discussions / Re: Jinn

« on: February 13, 2016, 11:43:33 AM »

Salam all

I came across one thing in this article that really blew it for me. It seemed to state that the idea of invisible beings that live in an extra dimension was ridiculous, and thus we should avoid believing in it, and try to find some other possible explanation. I realized the problem with this reasoning. God can make anything He wants. So why can't He make jinn? God is also invisible, so why do the makers of this article believe in Him if they find the idea of invisible beings ridiculous?

The "jinn" that the Arabs believed in before the advent of Islam were indeed ridiculous, supernatural, and nonsensical beings. They were said to have magical powers and were given the reverence of gods (bad, bad, bad). They were a mashup of the spiritual ideas of different cultures. The Quran, as I see it, redefined jinn, established their rank as creations of God, and abolished the silly ideas of magical godlike creatures the Arabs had turned them into.

59

General Discussions / Re: My humble apologies!

« on: February 13, 2016, 11:38:29 AM »

Definitely true. I wish more people knew about this, but I don't really have the independence to spread the message as of right now.

Interestingly, the idea that hadiths hold no religious authority wasn't that shocking to me. I'd been slightly annoyed by hadiths from the start, and it made perfect sense that religion should be based on God's direct revelation only (along with our understanding and discussion, obviously). The thing that woke me up was the fact that I realized I knew practically nothing about my religion, except for ritualistic prayer, which I routinely avoided when I was younger. I had to learn more, and it was basically a process of starting from scratch. Hence my occasionally frantic posting on this forum previously.

60

Discussions / Re: Torah Preservation

« on: February 13, 2016, 11:34:44 AM »

Salam Good Logic,

You made a good point. Personally, I believe it's unclear what the state of the Torah was at that time, although I'm inclined to believe it was mostly intact, because God wouldn't tell people to judge by corrupted scriptures.