Dubai Forums archive (old posts) - to navigate to the current version click Dubai Forums
Dubai Expat Help Dubai Chat Dubai Romance Dubai Auto Used Dodge for sale in Dubai Dubai High Tech Dubai Guide Sharing accommodation available in Dubai Accommodation in Dubai Jobs in Dubai Available Professionals in Dubai Learn Arabic Philosophy Forum
Dubai Expat Forum - Philosophy and Religion Forums

Quranic and Biblical integrity


shafique
I do not know Andrew Rippin's credentials, but let us address what he has said:
'variant readings' - as noted in the previous thread, variant readings are known about and relate to pronunciations of the same underlying words.
'verse order' - depends on what the variation is and whether it changes any of the meanings (but I can't see how this will be the case).
It is hard to argue against an unspecific comment in an article - the Sana'a document was written in an older Arabic script and is not complete. The main method of preservation and transmission of the Quran is the memorisation and recitation of the oral transmission of God's words.
I'll therefore wait to read about which specific verses or words of the Quran are in question.
In the mean time we can still discuss the internal consistency of the Quran vs that of the Bible.

Great - we'll take one at a time and I'll let you choose the issues.

It wasn't obvious to me that there was any substance to the allegations - but as I said, if it is obvious then there should be specific verses and words you can bring to our attention to discuss.

Ok - as I said we'll tackle the numerous instances you cite one at a time (and you choose which ones).
The theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not is exactly what is described - a debate over theology.
I think we were at odds in the other thread because I said Christian sects had major differences over theology. I stated this as an obvious fact, and unfortunately was challenged over this.
Muslims also have major differences over theology - hence why there are different sects and schools of thoughts.
This does not have anything to do with whether the Quran contains contradictions or not. It does contain verses that are allegorical - but no contradictions.
Let's be clear - a contradiction would be if one verse said the Father of Joseph was Mr A, and another verse said it was Mr B - and both refer to the same Joseph. However, saying that a person is a son in one verse and a husband in another is not a contradiction (but saying a person is a sister and a husband, would be).
Whilst the Quran is untainted and guaranteed by God not to be corrupted, the way in which people misuse religion and attribute things to Islam despite what is in the Quran was also prophecised - there will always be people who twist words and try and mislead people.
As for the theological debate over whether the Quran was created or not - I believe it was created, as only God is a non-creation. However, the Quran was part of God's plan for the universe and therefore was with Him from when the universe was created.
To my knowledge, this has been a largely philosophical debate within various schools of thought and not a major divisive issue (unlike the issue of hereditary leadership of the Muslims for instance).
Anyway, if you would like to choose a specific aspect of the Quran that you think shows a contradiction or inconsistency - then I will answer that.
Many thanks,
Shafique
freza Re: comments on the Sana'a manuscripts, I agree with you in that there isn't specific info to reference on the what exactly the significant open questions the author is referring to. There isn't much info on the studies of the Sana'a manuscripts in general since I understand it's still an ongoing study.
about the theological disputes of the past I don't think that paragraph describing the dispute implies that the Quran wasn't technically created rather the opposing view that the Quran is not the exact words of God, not created by him so to speak but by man.
Re: Contradictions you can address the ones in the other link provided for example in the biblestudymanuals link it says:
"In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet [historically] the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament."
and then
"Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved."

2:62 “ Those who believe in the Qur’an and those who follow the Jewish scriptures and Christian and Sadians and who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. ”
compared to:
3:85 " And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. "
This here does not appear to be a different way of saying things rather it appears to be a noticeable contradiction. shafique
So, until we have some more specific points to discuss there is nothing more to discuss on this point.

I see your argument. However, I think it is moot because the Quran itself claims to be the literal words of God, and no Muslim has ever disputed this clear claim. Therefore the discussion over created/non-created does not have the implication you point to - that it is a dispute over whether it is the word of God or not.

Excellent, this is a specific point which we can discuss and agree whether the Quran's verses are contradictory or not.
I do not see a contradiction in the verses and believe they are both clear.
2.62 clearly states that provided non-Muslims do not commit the sin of worshiping another God, believe in accountability of actions and do good works - then they will have their reward with God and have nothing to fear.
3.85 says that Islam is the only religion acceptable to God (also see 3.19 and 5.4 which clarify this point). What 2.62 stipulates are some of the core beliefs of Islam and that rewards will be given if these are followed.
The Quran therefore teaches that Muslims (followers of Islam) do not have the monopoly of God's salvation (which is what the Jews believe and the verses around 2.62 are referring to Jewish beliefs - but the context isn't important to my argument here).
That God will reward Jews, Christians and Sabians who do good works etc is an excellent teaching of the Quran, in my opinion. What they are practicing will be in line with the core teachings of Islam, after all.
The God of the Quran is Just, Merciful and Logical.
However, God's final religion is Islam according to the Quran, and those that decide not to follow it will be among the losers. Some people will be punished more than others, others will be rewarded more than others.
The confusion may be because Christianity teaches only one way of achieving salvation and condemns those who do not believe in Christ to 'non-salvation' after death. The Quran teaches that each person will be judged by God alone and He will decide.
3.85 does not condemn all non-Muslims to hell, but says that those who reject Islam will be among the 'losers'.
I therefore respectfully submit that there is no contradiction here.
Let me know if you agree or not freza before we move on to another point of your choice (let's clear this one up first before moving on).
Wasalaam (peace),
Shafique shafique John 18 shows that at least one of the disciples carried a sword and used it to draw blood:
John 18:9-11 (New International Version)
9This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."[a]
10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear . (The servant's name was Malchus.)
11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
Cheers,
Shafique freza if they have nothing to fear why the: "3:85 And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. "
If Islam doesn't have a monopoly of God's salvation why then will followers of other religions "will NEVER be accepted of him" and will "lose" in the hereafter?? What will they lose? Isn't it clear that they will lose their salvation? They will have their reward in one verse then they seem to lose it in another...
Also, what about the Jewish-Christian friendship in the other verses? And why are Muslims told not to have Christian friends? shafique Freza, Being among the losers means that they won't get the full rewards that those obedient servants of God will get - if you reject the message of God and present another religion, then this will not be given precedent. What it does not say is that they will necessarily go to Hell - something that the Quran is completely consistent on. I agree with you, if the Quran had said all non-Muslims go to hell and then 2.62 would contradict this. However, 3.85 does not say this. As explained in my previous post - everyone will be rewarded on their own merits. Amongst the muslims, there will be those who will have higher ranks than others, similarly amongst all other people. Do you agree with the Islamic teaching that God should/will judge people on their merits? If yes, then do you also believe that God would reveal one true final message that is universal? If so, then these verses offer no contradiction and are logical - God will not hold other religions above His final universal religion, but will judge each person on their merits - including whether they rejected or accepted Islam. Cheers, Shafique shafique double post shafique triple! post freza what are those "full rewards"? Can you be more specific as to the meaning of "full rewards" Just a little heaven instead of a lot? And how do you get the losers = not full rewards. And why the "NEVER be accepted of HIM" ? <-- these are strong words, that seem quite final in their message. Never be accepted of God. How is this not so bad?
and also, why can't Muslims have Christian friends according to the Quran? shafique
Do you agree that this is not a contradiction then - as you are asking another question now?
The Islamic concept of heaven is that one will continue to progress and advance in the form that we will take in the after-life. The more pious will be closer to God - those who fulfill all the requirements God has laid down will have better rewards than those who do not.
The Quran says we cannot have any real concept of what the after-life will be like, but it gives us similitudes only - eg. it will be like gardens with rivers etc.
Whether Muslims can have Christians as friends or not is another question and I'll be happy to deal with this after we finish with this part of the discussion.
Cheers,
Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique Apologies, I overlooked the fact you did refer to 5.51 and 57 in your original post. These do say do not take Jews and Christians as friends (in 5.51) and 5.27 says do not take those who make fun of your religion (Islam) from among those who were given the book before (i.e. Jews and Christians). I do not see these verses as being relevant to the other verses relating to who will be saved in the hear-after. I think the question about the reason behind these verses is a valid one, but not relevant to the discussion about contradictions. As I said, I'm happy to expound on the meanings of these verses - they don't say we can't be friendly with Jews and Christians generally. The first verse is about those who were scheming against the Muslims - the second verse specifically specifies that Muslims should not take as friends those who mock their religion. The practice of the Prophet showed how these verses are to be implemented - for example he received the Bishop of Najran and his delegation and offered his own mosque to them for them to offer their Sunday worship in. Similarly there were very good relations with the Christian rulers of Abyssinia who gave shelter to Muslims early on, and never had a military conflict with the muslims after they rose to power. Again - the verses are internally consistent and non-contradictory. Cheers, Shafique freza No.
beautiful virgins etc.
Interesting. However what about the "NEVER be accepted of Him"part? To progress and to have step by step access to rewards is one thing. But to NEVER be accepted is another.
Re: Christians as friends:
Sura 5.51 “Sura 5.51: " O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. "
ok, where exactly in 5.51 does it say those Jews and Christians who make fun of Islam? Why does it say that Jews and Christians are friends when they weren't? And YES there is a big contradiction between stating that Jews and Christians are in God's favor to telling Muslims not to have Jew and Christian friends and calling them unjust and suddenly unfavorable to God. Contradictory for sure. you mentioned 5:27, The Cain/Abel story? or am I misunderstanding? on to 5:27 another issue that I read about comes up: [5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous.
a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems... shafique Freza,
5.27 was a typo - I meant 5.57 (the other verse you referred to).
'Never accepted of him' means exactly what it says - God will not accept another religion above Islam and 'they will be among the losers' means exactly what it says 'at the day of judgment these will be among those who will be rewarded less'.
So 'full rewards' means the maximum rewards you could get by fully following God's laws and wishes.
Once you are dead and in front of God, it is too late to change what one did on earth and religion is something that only applies to this life, as it relates to one's belief and actions on earth (this is the Islamic concept of religion).
When it comes to the day of judgment one is presenting one's life to God and He is judging you on your merits. Presenting a different religion other than Islam will not be accepted as a religion, but your ultimate fate depends on your thoughts and actions.
Thus there is no contradiction between one verse saying Christians etc will be rewarded by God for their actions should they believe in One God, believe in the day of Judgment and do good works ; and with the other verses saying that the ultimate and universal religion of God is Islam.
Let me know what aspects of this concept are still unclear and whether there remains a contradiction in the meanings of the verses.
[And yes, 'virgins', is a metaphor as well - other verses talk of 'pure consorts' and that these consorts are companions for women as well as men - and as we won't have our physical bodies or carnal senses, these references are similitudes only]
Cheers,
Shafique valkyrie
this is what v98.6 says:
Those who reject (Truth),
Among the People of the Book
And among the Polytheists,
Will be in Hellfire,
To dwell therein (for aye).
They are the worst
Of creatures
The verse is followed up by: Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures
Is the part 'those who believe' referring to only (which is how I'm reading it) Muslims, or does it include all believers in that verse?
Also, Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse is that the disbelievers will dwell in hell forever.
&tid=58900 shafique Valkyrie, The verse and Ibn Kathir's commentary speak of 'some' of the unbelievers, not all the unbelievers. The issue over whether hell is eternal or not is a different issue - I disagree with Ibn Kathir that hell is eternal, but that is not really relevant to 2.62 which says some Jews and Christians and Sabians will be rewarded by God. In fact, by implication, 2.62 complements 98.6 in that those who aren't going to be rewarded according to 2.62 will be going to hell as per 98.6. Cheers, Shafique shafique I thought I'd post an apparent contradiction in the NT:
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice , but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7
And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9
The question that comes to mind is whether the people with Paul heard a voice or not. Both verses cannot be accurate as they are contradictory. Therefore one must be false and not the word of God.
Or am I missing something here? Perhaps it doesn't matter that one verse is not true? Or are these verses not talking about the same incident (the 'vision' of Paul on the road to Damascus?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique For freza - I didn't realise I had posted a contradiction from the Bible in the post above (my memory must be going! :) ) Anyway - I'd be interested in your explanation of the above. I think it shows that at least one of these verses isn't true and therefore isn't the word of God. Cheers, Shafique freza your memory is not the only thing that has been "going"....
This is clearly a case of lost in ancient Greek translation. No contradiction, not if you look at the correct translation. Have you?
Here's a word per word analysis: &chapter=22&verse=9&tab=analysis
I love the way to try to stir things up. keep trying ...I'm sure it serves a very significant and self-important purpose. *smirk* shafique Freza - good try, but no cigar. The translation I give is accurate according to the ancient Greek - even your link says so!
If you hover over the note in the translation (in the link you gave above) which they say is 'understand' the note says:
" tn Grk “did not hear” (but see Acts 9:7). BDAG 38 s.v. ἀκούω 7 has “W. acc. τὸν νόμον understand the law Gal 4:21; perh. Ac 22:9; 26:14…belong here.” If the word has this sense here, then a metonymy is present, since the lack of effect is put for a failure to appreciate what was heard."
i.e. The correct/accurate translation is "did not hear" but as this contradicts the other verse, we choose to interpret 'did not hear' as 'did not understand'.
Thanks for showing that the word for word translation I posted is correct in the original Greek. I presume you do not know ancient Greek and that you didn't check the note - so I don't blame you for believing that the translation I quoted above was not accurate. You can now see that it was (and in any case, the quotes are from a standard Bible).
Do you want to try again? Or will you accept that there is a literal contradiction in these verses that can only be explained by changing the meaning of 'hear' in Greek? [And yes, I did do my homework before posting the contradiction above and did check that both verses use the same Greek word for 'hear', so there is no 'wriggle room' here.]
[And it also interesting that you chose a 'newer' translation that is less accurate than the King James, New Standard Bible etc that all give the correct word for word translation. I suspect your chosen translation just seeks to hide the contradiction(but they did give a note to show it wasn't a literal translation)! I wonder how many other intentional 'mis-translations' there may be?]
Cheers,
Shafique
freza Actually the reason why I like NetBible is because it does include several different versions of the Bible including the King James version (did you notice that KJV was there??? and did you read the word analysis on it?) And of course I read the commentary - the commentary does not at all support your views on contradiction. Following is why..
Now I do not know ancient Greek. But I assume you do as you seem to be a person who has an extremely profound knowledge of all things related to the Bible. *cough* Even so, let me quote for an actual theologian who explains this supposed contradiction of the Acts in question.
Fr. John Echert writes: shafique freza - the theologian comes up with an explanation for the contradiction, but agrees that the translations I posted are accurate. In a nutshell the argument is 'did not hear' does not mean the opposite of 'did hear' - but rather means 'did hear, but did not understand'. Also the quote from Mat 13.13 shows the distinction between the words for 'hearing' and 'understanding'! I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced. All it shows is that the Bible does contain contradictions which require some fancy logic to overcome. Next you'll be trying to convince me there is a population problem! :) Cheers, Shafique ebonics
the height of irony freza Shafique,
The words in question clearly have other meanings which have been used before in the Bible with their alternate meanings. How can you have missed this so obviously???
you're like a blind man who's blind because he refuses to see!!!
hopeless!
To hear a sound and to hear the voice of God are two distinct things. The way God has appeared or has communicated to people throughout Biblical history has been in mysterious and unique ways. From burning bushes to thunder to languages that sound like gibberish to people that can not "hear" the voice of God. Sorry but a ridiculously inflated but deluded ego is nothing against theology who has academic value and a long history of examination of Bible literature and semantics. you are attempting to pit this non-contradiction against other texts that actually support this trend of using alternate forms of a word to imply that of voice, sound and actually hearing/not hearing what is meant to be heard and by whom throughout the Bible.
I hate to point this out, but Answeringislam has an explanation to a dude who has wrote things..well who is as obsessed with prejudice of things not his, kinda like you are. But then, again, he's been instructed to do so, well, then again, just like you have...
Nucleus Why all these personal insults freza? freza what do you consider a personal insult nucle? I'm only stating the truth, uncomfortable maybe, but not an insult. besides, Shafique likes it, it makes him want to save more souls. freza revisiting....
Can you tell us exactly where in your teachings does "full rewards" equal this definition here.
who determines what is a metaphor and what is not in the Quran? A metaphor must be interpreted, so why claim the Quran requires no interpretation? What is your criteria for what is a metaphor and what is not? And why criticize the Bible for exactly this, its metaphorically language and its need for proper interpretation?
You didn't answer why it is stated that Christians and Jews were friends. or maybe I missed something, was this a metaphor? Does not sound like one, sounds like an error. Where again does it state that Christians and Jews were mocking Islam?
And on to a different contradiction. Blood sacrifices, quoting again:
[5:27] "Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. "
a "flesh" or more appropriately "blood" offerings was accepted by God it seems... ebonics in the quran, the question of which was made first earth or heaven (i dont normally bring this one up, because its a pathetic argument if you ask me, but its about as pathetic as the hear did not understand argument) Heaven in 79:27-30 Earth in 2:29 and 41:9-12 there's heaps of these little one word glitches in the quran that other people brought up before and you gave some explanations that makes teh above statement of faith causes some tortuous logic - coming from you, is a bit VERY rich. ebonics
you cant be serious?
is this in relation to the promises of the afterlife?
mate i have heard, COUNTLESS friday lectures from cleriks on tv, telling people how to abstain from everything because the after life will have everything they abstained from including alcohol, virgins, BOYS (in a twisted way making it ok to be a homosexual in heaven).... countless i tell you.
i love friday lectures, they're seriously hillarious.
in conclusion, it dawned on me that islam is now like how christianity was in the middle ages in europe.... i came to this realisation when i thought of the state of the people that listen to things like fatwas, that allow cleriks to run their lives due to their personal opinion and nothing else.
in the middle ages the church had all the control, a king couldnt lift his finger without asking the priest first, people were commoners, farmers, uneducated, and they just followed what the priest tells them blindly. then the church lost its grip, people got educated, broke free, and moved on.
islam still hasnt broken out of that cycle, some 500 years on... and the fact that where muslims are at their highest concentration (and extremism) are extremely backward 3rd world countries - just goes to prove that lack of proper education and knowledge is the determining factor of such backward culture - people only find light in knowledge, and the vast majority of these people barely have a secondary education....
huge generalisation, but for the most part accurate, i cant imagine any pakistani taxi driver or truck driver here ever having enough brains to question his faith - he just goes on with what he got taught... same goes with pakistan, afghanistan, indonesia, gulf countries doing whatever they can to censor anything that is slightly off their beliefs (internet and TV here being prime example)
i should prepare a thesis on this. shafique
freza - I have to point out that you weren't stating the truth when you said I had quoted a wrong translation.
I am happy to concede that Christians have an explanation for this contradictory verse - I am personally not convinced by it, and others can make up their own minds. For me, given it is the same author and that the Greek word is the same, and it describes the same event - it is a clear contradiction. In one they heard but did not see, in the other they did not hear.
Therefore, I cannot understand why I am being called a blind man for quoting an accurate translation and you are somehow more enlightened for telling us something that was not correct.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique ebonics - I agree with you that Islam is going through the equivalent of the Middle Ages in Christianity when religion was being misused.
quote="freza"]revisiting....

Can you tell us exactly where in your teachings does "full rewards" equal this definition here.


The verses I quoted before from the Quran saying that Christians etc will go to heaven provided they don't worship other Gods etc.



The Quran itself - as I stated before, the Quran is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions.

The Quran itself says there are clear verses and metaphoric ones:

The Quran also says that the after life will be 'like nothing we can imagine' - and also says in a few places that the descriptions of the after-life are metaphorical. I'll get the quotes for you and post separately.




I think you will find I did address this question explicitly. I think Valkyrie or Flying Dutchman raised the question.



Sorry, can you explain what the contradiction is. The Quran is quite clear on the subject of sacrifices and their meanings, so this is an interesting one for me - please let me know what verses are contradictory so I can clarify this point for you. freza Nope, no fancy logic, but actual facts which you have glossed over.
and I meant that you choose not to accept an explanation that is backed up by other actual examples in the Bible. there is evidence that these words in question have been used in a different context but you can't see it? (kinda ironic considering the subject :-))
translation of the word applied correctly is the issue here. you assumed that there is only one applicable translation and that that sole application is the one that contradicts these two passages of the same event.
akoo or akouw means to hear *but* it also means, to comprehend, understand, perceive and obey. And it has been used as such in the Bible, there are SEVERAL examples, as found in the quoted by John Echert above and as found by simply looking the word up. (Acts 3:22, Acts 4:19, Galatians 4:21 are some examples). We agree on this.
Fwnh (phon) means: voice but it also means sound.
ouk means not, negative or refused.
Now you state that there must be a clear contradiction in the translation of this passage compared to another one when the problem seems to be that you refuse to see it translated as it was meant to be interpreted. There is no dispute that there are more than one meanings to the words in question. There is no dispute that it has been used in more than one way in the bible itself. So why insist that it was used in an erroneous way here? Now let's look at logic. Why would the same author contradict himself when relating this same account? It does not make any sense. It makes a lot more sense that different words were used to explain the same event.
Here's a passage that I find significant in this recurring theme around the word in question. And I'm quoting form the NKJV,
John 8:43 " Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. "
another version of it is: " Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. "
The issue here is not a problem with one's ears/hearing. Rather it's a profound admonition to follow and fully understand God's words. On the subject we're discussing it's an example of a differentiation between hearing and comprehending/obeying/accepting of truth with that key Greek word akouw which in this case is obviously not about being able to physically "hear"
If you were to say that this passage means that it's about literally not being able to hear, I would again say that your translation is wrong. shafique Ok, let's get this straight
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice , but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7
In this verse, the Greek word used is akou, and means 'to hear' - clearly says they heard a voice but saw no man.
And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9
In this verse the same word is used 'akou' only here whilst it literally means 'to hear', you argue it should be interpreted as 'understand'.
But the scholar you quoted says:
As recorded by St. Matthew our Lord used this Greek verb interchangeably: “13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniami).
.. so the Greek to 'understand' is suniami and not akou.
Therefore in summary, to get round the literal contradiction we must believe that in 22.9 akou does not mean 'hear' but in 9.7 it does.
I continue to be impressed with the level of faith of Christians that the Bible hasn't been corrupted - 10/10 for effort.
I hope you don't mind too much if I choose not to believe your interpretation.
Cheers,
Shafique freza Wow, talk about taking things out of context! Sorry Shafique but you can not use errors to back up your allegations of supposed errors. The bona fide Bible scholar that I quoted explained that akouo has several meanings, and presented examples of this fact...which you proceeded to ignore.
but here in the quote that you took out of context he is clearly referring to the use of the word akou to have two meanings (in the same sentence no less!) he was certainly NOT referring to the word understand suniami. (btw, "understand" as you can see comes in a variety of words, there is no one absolute Greek word that is used exclusively for "understand" in the Bible but rather the use depends on varying applications and circumstances. A simple lookup on a Greek Lexicon will prove this. ex. yet another word that means "understand"is found below.)
let's back up again and examine John Eckert's explanation some more: on 1Corinthians 14:2 akou clearly is translated to mean: UNDERSTAND.
on Matthew 13:13 Eckert is referring to the second ackouo* as meaning: understand. as in they have the means (physically hearing) but choose not to use them to: understand/perceive.
yet another previous example that you ignored: John 8:43
I'm using the KJV since it's your fav. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. or Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching.
in this case understand is not akou , nor is it suniemi but rather the word ginosko.
however, hear is akou , but it is quite obviously not literal, that a person can not hear but rather that he/she can not perceive/understand/accept. freza
ok. pls quote where it says this, clear vs metaphoric. shafique freza - I have nothing more to add on these two verses. If you have some new information about the Greek language, please let me know - otherwise it is closed. Nothing to see here, please move on. Cheers, Shafique shafique double post shafique
Sure thing - Chapter 3 v 7:
He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical . But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.
Cheers,
Shafique freza
ummmm. right.
so you won't even acknowledge that you took the scholars words out of context or that the key word in question has several meanings, as a proven fact (as is the norm in most languages). mmkay. freza
ok, what I get from reading it straightforward is that perverse people seek hidden or metaphorical meanings out of the Quran for the intention of discord? Why? Why are metaphors described in this negative light? No one knows it's hidden meaning? But you have described some passages as metaphors, why is it that you know? "none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." this seems contradictory to the previous sentences. pls explain. shafique There are clear verses that are the basis of the Quran. These are unambiguous.
There are some allegorical verses which talk about creation, the nature of God etc. The after life and its descriptions are by necessity allegorical, for the Quran states:

We will raise you into a form of which you have not the slightest knowledge. Surah Al-Waqiah (Ch. 56: V.61)
See how God gives you various shapes in the womb. Surah Al-Imran (Ch. 3: V.6)
Your first creation and your second creation will be identical. Surah Luqman (Ch. 31: V.28)

If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be in the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife.
So, all the descriptions of heaven/hell are allegorical/metaphorical.
I interpret the verses above to say that after death, our souls will go through the same sort of transformation we all underwent in the wombs of our mothers. However, as 3.7 says, only God knows the truth.
3.7 does not say we should not ponder over the meanings of the metaphorical verses, but rather states clearly that they are peripheral to Islam and the Quran and that only the perverse will cause disruption by focussing on the metaphorical verses and ignore the basis of the Quran - which details how to live with one another and how to relate to the Creator.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
i actually laughed at this logic, full laughed out loud.. shafique ebonics - do you believe the laws of physics and matter etc will apply in the life after death? Seeing requires light, eyes and matter off which light will bounce off and be received by the eyeball, sending neurons firing up the optic nerve and decoded in the visual cortex. I don't believe we will have eyes, brains or any material body in the after life - and I don't believe there will be photons or atoms in that place. I'd be interested if you believe otherwise. Cheers, Shafique ebonics completely agree, so whats this talk of virgins, boys, gold this, silver that, comfortable couches, food, trees... arent these things all made of atoms? shafique
They are all metaphors - its like describing a colour to a blind person, you say it is a 'hot' colour, or a 'cold' colour. Describing heaven as a garden through which rivers flow, where life will be easy, with pure companions and non-intoxicating wine etc - are all metaphors.
This is quite common in everyday life - when/if you have kids you will know that you often need to simplify concepts to fit the capacity of understanding of the recipient.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
is that personal interpretation? because i could swear every lecture i watched spoke of it as literal?
"do not committ "zina" , it will reduce your chances with the never ending virgins of heaven" and not exactly in those words... shafique It's what I have been taught 56v61 means and there are many Hadith that make it clear that we won't have physical bodies in the after-life. I am told that the Arabic meaning of the verse makes it clear that this is the case - would you mind looking up the verse and telling me what you think it means. (There are some muslims who do have some weird beliefs - in my opinion - eg some believe that the 'houris' of heaven are actually females and they came down to earth from Heaven at the time of Adam and fathered the other humans at the time. So I would not be surprised if some muslims believe there will actually be virgins, wine etc in heaven.) Cheers, Shafique freza got that, some things are allegorical some are not. same as in the Bible.
I agree with ebonics, this is not an explanation. Not having slightest knowledge means just that. It's quite absolute. Why then will you assume some knowledge of what you have been told you haven't the slightest knowledge of and by God no less?
" He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. So allegorical writings are NOT part of the foundation? But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah." This is clearly saying that to interpret allegories is for the perverse! Why would a perverse person even bother with the Quran? A person who seeks to understand the Quran profoundly is not what I would call perverse, on the contrary, they would be interested in deepening the understanding of the basis for their belief. "And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." This is vague and telling at the same time. Believe as in having Faith. But don't you criticize the faith of others? In knowledge of what? general intelligence? Knowledge of religion? Knowledge of what exactly? Perverts can be smart too you know. I can't get over how the label of perverse is there for people that seek deeper knowledge..seems such a strange thing to state. It wouldn't seem strange if it said something like "those who intend to twist the meanings of allegorical language" but it doesn't state this...
where does it state this clearly? And if the Quran is nothing but goodness and nothing but the word of God, how can its metaphors not be part of its foundation? Makes little sense. shafique
Yes.

Yes - not having the slightest knowledge is absolute. Therefore any explanations of the afterlife can only be metaphors that will not reflect reality - in the same way that a blind man who hears descriptions of colour will only really experience colour when he is given the facility of sight. That is not to say that you can't try and explain what colour is to him - but at the end of the day, however good the explanations he hears, he will still have no idea what colour is until he experiences sight for the first time.

The Quran is saying that those who focus on the allegorical and ignore the clear verses are doing so only to be obstructive. It is clear that the basis of the Quran is the unambiguous verses.
The Quran is more than a set of instructions though - there are more verses enjoining believers to study nature than there are verses stating what man should or should not do (the law bearing verses).

I repeat, it does not say that one should not study the Quran deeply, but says that those who focus on the ambigous/allegorical verses and ignore the fundamental teachings are the ones that are perverse. Note that all the allegorical verses do not change how a Muslim should act towards others or pray to God - therefore they are just in the realm of 'theoretical'.

The Perversity is only where the clear verses are over-looked and the focus is on the allegorical verses. That would not be a bright thing to do - for a pervert or non-pervert :)

Where does it say it clearly? The verse states that the clear verses are the foundation of the Quran - they clearly instruct on how to deal with other people, animals and how to live one's spiritual life. The allegorical verses deal with metaphysical aspects of creation and the afterlife, they don't impact on the clear instructions on how to behave and pray.
The metaphors are therefore not part of the foundation of the Quran, but part of the beautiful ramparts and embellishments of the edifice that is Islam. It is all good - but to argue about whether the window on right of the building is perfectly aligned or not is peripheral to the fact that the building is covered and provides shelter - the walls and the roof are the clear verses, the decorations and position of the windows are the allegorical verses (to use an allegory of my own)
And, as you say, allegories are used by previous prophets as well.
Cheers,
Shafique freza But a color is a reality for those that see. Knowing about Afterlife according to the Quran is NOT something that can be explained because no one living has knowledge of it unlike seeing people who know colors and can explain it or try to explain it to the blind. Also metaphors are used throughout ancient religions and works of literature and philosophy to explain and transcend mysteries OF LIFE as this is what matter in the human experience. Why use metaphors solely to explain afterlife and you state later, creation/nature you say? Creation can't entirely be considered metaphysical when the universe is still physically expanding eons after creation. I get the feeling that metaphors are in the Quran in more ways than these examples and some might be "borrowed" but used differently as the Quran has borrowed so much of the Bible, right?
Isn't this stating that some people might focus on non-significant things that are in the end "theoretical" for their own purposes - to twist the Quran in another direction and this would perverse the important aspects or the "foundation" of the Quran? Well then that sounds like what some people have done with the Bible. People that you defend for some reason.
Yes, so then why do you criticize allegorical language in the Bible and the need for scholars to interpret it? When you yourself have interpreted words in the Quran. You have stated before that you don't think the Bible should have to be interpreted, that it should be taken literally. But the Quran has things that are not literal. How can you explain this double standard? shafique
Knowledge of the afterlife is a reality for the author of the Quran - God. Therefore He uses metaphors that can make some sense to humans.

I don't believe God has to borrow from earlier revelations - earlier scriptures are records of revelations by God to earlier Prophets, but all of these have been corrupted to some degree. None of the earlier scriptures have a guarantee of purity contained in them.

I don't defend anyone that misuses religion - be it the Quran or the Bible. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. To be clear - misuse in this sense would be to focus on the allegorical verses and not follow the clear injunctions of the Quran. I totally agree that Christian violence and intolerance was a misuse of the Bible - but I see this as distinct from interpretations of the text for theological reasons.

No - I have on the contrary stated that I also choose which verses to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically - I have been clear on this point. We just have different views on which verses are metaphorical and which are literal.
For example, we both agree that the prophecies of the 2nd coming of Elijah - descending in a blazing chariot - are metaphorical and were fullfilled in John the Baptist. Jews however reject this interpretation and insist that Elijah needs to bodily return. Therefore you and I agree on one metaphorical interpretation and disagree with the Jewish interpretation.
On the other hand, you take Jesus' claim of being 'Son of Man' metaphorically, but 'Son of God' literally. I take both metaphorically.
When Jesus says 'I have only come to the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' - I take him at his word.
Therefore there is no double standard - I use the same technique and just choose different verses from you.
I would also point out that you don't need scholars to interpret the Quran - the clear verses are clear and are the foundation of Islam. Scholars and ordinary people have full access to all of the Quran and all who understand Arabic can consult dictionaries and lexicons for all the words in the Quran. Interpreting the metaphorical verses is something that you can take into account other peoples views on them - but there aren't definitive views and many verses have many layers of meanings (but remember these are all about the metaphysical). Scholars are there to give insights and opinions - but they don't change what the clear verses of the Quran evidently say.
On the point of needing scholars to interpret the allegorical verses of the Bible - that is stretching the point. I have pointed out contradictions that aren't in parables or allegories - describing what happened on the road to Damascus is not an allegory, but a description of the event. I don't see why putting a different meaning of the word 'to hear' is an allegory.
In listing contradictions in the Bible, I have not quoted any parables.
And anyway - my intention was to show that we should not take everything in the Bible literally and need to interpret what is in there. I maintain that my interpretation is valid - you would view it as heretical. (The Bible is not literally the word of God, contains some human mistakes - some intentional but many unintentional, and in any case the final selection of the books of the Bible were done by 'scholars' called together by Constantine - and they selected the books according to their view of Theology)
Cheers,
Shafique freza or the true mortal authors of the Quran..
The Quran not only borrowed heavily from the Bible but has even borrowed from Jewish traditions. But you know this.
:) you don't? the Quran, according to what you have explained, warns against those that want to bend or misuse some of its message by focusing on certain aspects while ignoring the fundamental one. Yet when I and others criticize offshoot groups like the JW who base their flimsy ideology on fixations rather than foundations, you label us as intolerant and haters. hhmmm
Of course, to your own convenience.
It is not an allegory but it has a deeper meaning that is consistent with a theme that runs through out the Bible. Can see, can hear but doesn't capture, perceive or act upon. It is a fact that the word in question has different meanings and has been used in its variations in the Bible. That you choose to ignore this, is telling, but not surprising.
I do see a lot of contradictions and double standards in your thoughts. You certainly do not apply the same rules that you use to judge the works of the Bible as you do to observe the Quran. Not by a long shot. If you don't mind seeming so biased, then I guess you'll continue on your quest. What I find disappointing is that these critiques are not at all signs of uniqueness of an inquisitive individual, but rather they are the norm of what I have heard from other people of your faith with the same exact accusations and arguments and they state these things because that's what has been instructed onto them not because they've reached their own conclusion. shafique Talking about interpretations of scripture, this old article appeared as a 'top story' on the BBC News website today: It's about what the Bible says about being Gay. Makes interesting reading - Christians using the Bible to justify both sides of what is a clear cut argument for most people - is Homos.e.xuality against God's law or not? Both sides have 'scholars' on their teams, so it is an interesting one to watch - and still hasn't been resolved yet. The African protestants (who now send missionaries to England to convert the people to Christianity!) are anti-gay, whilst the 'western' churches are pro-gay. Cheers, Shafique ebonics
you are told wrong, ill give you a word for word translation when i get a free chance. shafique freza, you say you criticise JW for 'flimsy' interpretations. Can you please elaborate on what interpretations are flimsy. What about the issue of whether being gay is a sin or not - see my post above - is it not the case there are scholars on both sides of the argument, both quoting from the Bible. Which side is right, and how did you decide? At least we now agree that the Bible needs to be interpreted and that we both agree on some verses and disagree with others. It appears that this is no different from groups within the Christian community. Had Arius and his followers won the arguments in the Council of Nicea, then the Bible would not contain the references to Trinity etc. The point is that he was in the Council at the time and his views were valid Christian views at the time. The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that the Quran is internally consistent and Muslims take their faith from what is written in the Quran. The Bible in its current form was selected by theologians based on their belief of Christianity - the books selected were those which tied in with their beliefs, rather than their beliefs coming from the book. The Quran corrects many of the errors that are in the Bible - eg. Lot's wife does not transform into a pillar of salt, but stays behind when Lot and the rest of the family leaves. The honour of Israelite prophets is restored - Lot is not a drunkard who sleeps with his daughters, nor do prophets offer their virgin daughters to thugs. So to say that the Quran borrows from the Bible shows an amazing lack of research, or a prejudice based on writings by opponents of Islam. You also continue to ignore the big fact that the Quran is internally consistent on the main points of religion - how to live one's life vis-a-vis other people and how to worship God and attain ultimate salvation. I have not seen you address these fundamental issues in your various critiques of Islam. The Bible has textual issues and additions (Mark 16 is universally acknowledged by scholars as an addition, for example). I don't hold this against the Bible - it is what it is, and doesn't claim to be the literal word of God. The Quran, by contrast, does claim to be the literal word of God and has been preserved as so. Therefore, you should concede, on the factual basis of textual integrity the Quran is the same text that was dictated by Muhammad and compiled in his lifetime and not one letter has changed - but the Bible has issues over content, integrity and internal contradictions stemming from human failings of recollection and textual additions. Also the compilation of the Bible took place some 300 years after Jesus' ministry and to this day we have many different interpretations of some core beliefs of Christianity - of which Trinity is just one. Muslims are by no means unified in their theology, but the Quran is pure, accessible and hence open to scrutiny. Despite all the divisions amongst Muslims, the integrity of the Quran is remarkable from a human perspective, but expected when you consider that the Quran claims to be from God and God says in it that He will protect the Quran from any corruption. Therefore, the textual integrity of the Quran is a prophecy fulfilled (references to Yemeni Qurans which use old scripts have not shown there have been different Qurans in existence). That said, I am interested on where you stand on what God says about gays in the Bible (the Quran says it is a sin - so agrees with the views of the African Christians). Cheers, Shafique shafique double post shafique
You see a lot of contradictions and double standards - perhaps you can help me understand my weakness then.
From my perspective, I have said the Quran contains clear verses and allegorical verses. I have said the Bible contains allegorical verses as well as clear verses (such as 'I have come only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel').
Where there are alleged contradictions in the Quran, I have not changed the meaning of a word to suit my argument.
I take Jesus' words at face value in the Bible, and like you reject many literal interpretations of Biblical verses. I don't reject any verses of the Quran, but that is because it claims to be all the word of God. So I would not call this double standard - what I am doing for the Bible is following your example and not following all the verses literally.
However, you seem to believe that you have many examples of my double standards - I'd be interested in a list of a few of these, as I don't really want to be unfair and apply double standards.

So, you have discussed with Muslims in the past and I am no different from them in critiquing the Bible. Is that really surprising? The Quran is clear that Islam is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies and therefore Muslims will have a common view of Christians - in the same way I am sure that all Christians will give Jews similar arguments why they are wrong to stay with Judaism and reject Jesus as their Messiah.
A Muslim trying to convince a Christian that Islam is a true religion will use pretty much the same line of reasoning a Christian will use when trying to preach to a Jewish person (the new prophet fulfils the prophecies in your book, brings a new law, but does not fulfil all the prophecies literally as you were expecting etc etc). The Jews continue to reject Jesus and believe that their interpretation of the OT is correct, the Christians disagree with them.
Christians will continue to reject the Quran and insist that their interpretation of the OT and NT is correct - Muslims will disagree with them.
So you see, we have a lot in common!
Cheers,
Shafique freza Will you drop your council of Nicea argument already. It's tired! And really is that all you have? I stress again, how original my dear! When the fact of Jesus being the basis of Christianity not because he was one more Jewish prophet but because he was the true prophet (according to some), the son and God brought to flesh and resurrected, that is what really matters to Christians. Do you really need more? C'mon now!
Re: Quran, 1st I think that Islam is a very beautiful religion, I've said it before. But when it comes to the Quran I don't think it is very original nor that it was written by God, nope. I think it's mostly imagination, was put together according to men and it was copied from the Bible - the inspiration of it, and from stories, Jewish legends that Mohammad heard from his wives, associates, during his travels and encounters with other cultures etc. I think that Mohammad suffered from a brain malady and probably had seizures that brought on some weird visions which he thought were from God. I find it very strange that he was one really sinful prophet. I'm not sure if he ever repented from his sins. That's such a Christian thing to say, isn't it? ha. Christianity is often accused of inherent misogyny, I think there is some truth in this accusation. But Jesus' teachings were meant to be quite the opposite, his message was all-inclusive. That some Christian groups took steps back into misogyny when they were first arising at the helm of men, it's a shame really, but not surprising. Mohammad's treatment of women is hhmm...well...From underage s.ex to s.ex slaves to wife beatings etc. It could be argued this behavior was the norm around his time, things were vastly different back then. Well yes, but didn't he establish strict moral codes that completely went against what he actually practiced at one point or another? I can't seem to reconcile how this troubled sinful prophet created such a great religion.
Re: JW. You've read up a lot on the big Christian denominations but the one you admire, the one that you use to support some of your critiques, you don't know much about? Very odd. Well let's see, when did Jesus return to earth according to the JW? Did he return in 1874 or 1914? Maybe you know because the JW have kinda gotten confused about the exact date themselves. He returned to earth invisibly. But is he still here? *cough* How do you feel when a JW says that only 144,000 Witnesses (and no one else) will go to heaven? Wait, didn't some people that become JW before the 1930s get their last minute ticket to heaven too? Yup. How many JW are there now a days, a few million...ok, but they won't all get to go to heaven because in the Bible it says that only 144,000 will get to go..in the Bible according to the wacky! You still want to talk about flimsy ideologies or not? How about next time you bring up the JW, you do so to uncover their inconsistencies...
Re: Homose.xuality. Some Christian groups condemn it - I think it's within their right as a group to uphold certain moral standards as they see fit. And frankly if people don't like it, they can just leave the group, right? Having said this, I think that Christianity's fundamental message is that of acceptance of everyone, regardless of their place in life, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and to exclude people based on their differences goes against what Jesus taught. The principle message of Jesus is that of love and salvation. This doesn't mean that he overlooked sin and evil. But I don't think he equated homosexuality with evil, not even sure if he equated it with sin. Scholars are not sure themselves, you're right. Then again, not all things of the Bible have an explanation, (parts of it are still mysterious ad evolving). But I do think that in these issues the stronger message cancels the lesser arguments and the stronger message in this case is that of acceptance/inclusion. ebonics
that is the bottom line
everytime shafique goes " we consider muhammad the purist human to ever live" i didnt know weather to laugh or cry shafique
I agree it's an old argument - but happens to be the truth though. No problems - I understand it makes you mad.

Great - we agree that Islam is beautiful religion. You've got to hand it to the 'authors' of the Quran though - they made prophecies that came true and managed to preserve the Quran, and (as you say) give the details of a beautiful religion.
It's a shame you believe the misinformation about the Prophet, pbuh - I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I'm happy to deal with each of the accusations - but perhaps that is best done in another thread rather than one talking about the integrity of the Quran.
[Edit - however, what you have written is interesting - Islam is a great religion, but you have questions over the actions of the Prophet. Ok - then you should have no issues with people following the religion - as it is 'great' and 'beautiful'. As long as we don't go against these principles taught in the Quran, you have no issue with this. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?]
As for JW - you obviously deny they are Christians and say they are a Cult - and yet they base their teachings on the Bible. You demonstrate a lot of hatred for one who calls themselves a Christian!

The problem is freza is that you keep saying there is consensus in Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible. Yet you quite clearly admit that many Christian Biblical scholars clearly believe that God condemns all hom.o.se.xuals whilst you apparently disagree with these scholars.
You put your interpretation above those of all the African priests, scholars and yes, the Catholic church.
The Bible is therefore open to interpretation and therefore comes down to a personal choice as to which interpretation to believe in.
I just submit that I am within my right to take Jesus at his word when he says 'I have come unto the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' or when he says 'Why callest me good? There is none good but God' or when he refers to himself as 'Son of Man'.
It is interesting that in a thread about Quranic and Biblical integrity you state that Islam is beautiful, but say you have problems with the Prophet, pbuh. So the teachings are pure and beautiful, but you have problems with the messenger who brought the message.
Are you saying you agree with the Quranic instructions then (as it is beautiful) and have no further need to examine the teachings/integrity of the Quran - but want to move on to examining the personality and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? [I'm happy to do so, but let us clear up that you agree with me that the Quran's teachings in terms of how humans should deal with each other and how to pray to God cannot be faulted]
In a way, I am surprised that attacks against the Prophet didn't rear their heads sooner - but no matter, the false accusations have all been refuted by Christian historians, but perhaps you are not aware that the accusations against Muhammad, pbuh, are wrong. (I presume you don't believe that Jews drink the blood of Christian children etc - beliefs that were disseminated in the past and, shockingly, believed)
Finally, why does it feel that every time I ask you for direct references (in this case to where I have applied 'double standards') you resort to mud-slinging?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
I challenge you to find a quote from me saying this in this or any other recent thread.
btw 'purest' is the correct spelling.
However, this is the belief of Muslims - but we have been instructed not to make a big deal of this point - all Prophets are pure and sinless, we make no distinction between the veracity of prophets. Muhammad, pbuh, is the 'seal' of the Prophets because he brought the final religion.
However, as with freza, it is interesting that you call a misrepresentation/slander of the Prophet, pbuh, the 'bottom line' in a thread that is about the Quran vs Bible!
Wow - talk about playing the player and not the ball!! :)
Freza says Islam is a beautiful religion - do you disagree with her? She is saying that the Quran's message is beautiful - for Islam is defined as what the Quran teaches - which ends the discussion with her over the Quran, and we seem to agree that the Bible needs interpretation.
Cheers,
Shafique rudeboy lol shaf the man take it easy freza is going nuts :D ebonics the point is its hard to take a prophet seriously with his colourful history. if u havent said that before shafique, excuse my failing memory - i recall you did.. i maybe wrong. of course that directly influences this thread about quranic integrity, it was he that supposedly learnt all this, and recited it....... which makes quran's validity, coming from him, questionable.... just a tad. shafique
No probs ebonics. There has been a lot of disinformation about the Prophet, pbuh, but fortunately there are now modern day historians that have put the record straight ('western' and Christian historians I mean). There are still some criticisms of him - but as I said, that is a topic best served in a different thread.

I'm sorry, I can't see the link. The Quran is what was dictated by the Prophet, pbuh. His conduct may be a reflection on how to practice the injunctions of the Quran, but I can't see how the actions would affect the integrity of the text of the book - which is what I thought we were discussing.
That said, I do believe that the Prophet's, pbuh, is an exemplar and embodied the Quran - showing us how to behave - as a son, orphan, nephew, husband, father, employee, employer, oppressed, in war, in peace, as a judge, as an emperor and above all as a sincere servant of God.
freza is right though - a beautiful religion like Islam could not come from a paedophile, misogynist or wife beater. My contention is that it did not - but again, this can be dealt with in another thread.
Cheers,
Shafique freza edit: double post freza Be cool bro, we're having a "healthy" discussion here, right?
hehehe! I didn't know this childish side of you. Your argument of the council Nicea doesn't make me mad, why should it? It's what I said it is - a very tired argument and an erroneous one at that. According to Arius Jesus was half-and-half, divine/human. Disagreements were about what Jesus was "made up of" not his condition of divinity and man and certainly not his resurrection. The life and works of Jesus would mean very little (one can almost say nothing) and certainly would not have fulfilled the New Advent and his prophecy if he had not resurrected after death. Despite what you're erroneously trying to make it out to be, the Nicean council is one of those things that most Christians have a consensus about. Perhaps this is what bothers you...
Islam is a beautiful religion yes. It photographs well! Visually stunning, rich traditions, teaches unity and a mostly good way of life. But the beginnings and foundation of this religion are HIGHLY questionable. A great paradox!
There's no question that Islam is a great religion, by its sheer number of followers and influence. I have NO issues with people following this religion, why should I? People follow what works for them and what they've grown to love. I think modern Islam is far more cohesive than early Islam, it's become a better and improved religion. But I still think that the basis - the Quran and Mohammad - leave a lot of questions and a lot to be desired
lol! I'm a hateful one, aren't I? darn!! that really hurts! :D The Witnesses are nice people I think, they have mostly good but misguided intentions, they dress nicely and are very hard working in spreading their message. But they're obsessed with other's "contradictions" because they can't see their own. They can't be right if others are not accused of being wrong. (Sounds familiar?) Their foundation is really whack. Not just a little but a whole lot. You don't even need to scratch the surface of their belief system to find inconsistencies. Shafique I've asked you this several times before but you've so far ignored me. Why is it that haven't countered JW Bible claims and inconsistencies????
And the problem is......what? Consensus on the important stuff: Jesus, God, love, be good, resurrection, salvation. You know, the important things. Re: Homosexuality: groups interpret them according to their standards. So what?The consensus though is that homosexuality is sinful. Some disagree, but the bigger picture is what matters.
there you go again! No Shafique, taking words out of context to fit your bias is not acceptable. Examine these passages correctly, in their full context and then argue against them.
I didn't state these factoids to attack or offend, but it's part of history, it is important for the examination and credibility (or lack of it) of the claims of the Quran. aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! Did you say "historians"? You mean, scholars prove that Mohammad was not a misogynist, s.e.x obsessed, violence-prone and erratic prophet? But you're so opposed to those historians when it comes to studying the Bible. I don't get it! Maybe this was a typo?
one of my favorite bedtime stories, don't ruin it please. shafique
What did I say about name calling? :)

Nothing about the council particularly bothers me - there was a healthy debate over interpretations of the Bible, one side one out- they were given a task by Constatine to compile a Bible from the many gospels that were in existence. Despite selecting books which were in-line with their views, there still existed contradictions in the Bible. It should upset you that they didn't do a better job. :)
What was bad was what came later - the intolerance shown by those who won the argument about how to interpret the Bible.
You obviously haven't done your research about Arius and his followers - Arians were eventually branded heretics and many were persecuted for just holding a different interpretation of the Bible.

So, you appear to disagree with Jesus when he says you should judge a tree by it's fruit! :)
You would say the fruit is nice, juicy and wholesome, but because someone told me the farmer was a jerk, I refuse to eat the fruit! (And Islam photographs well! :) )

Cool. If only everyone had this tolerant view - including many Muslims who don't follow the verse of the Quran 'there is no compulsion in religion'.

I can't see how you can divorce Islam from the Quran (or from the Prophet, pbuh) - but you seem to be able to do so. Interesting (hence my quote from the Bible about fruit/tree).
I agree that many have questions - hence these discussions to dispel misinformation.

freza - I have discussed with JW and countered their claims. What part of this statement did you not understand previously?
I am challenging your point that all Christians have the same core interpretations of the Bible - this is evidently not the case. I am challenging your narrow view that if someone has a different core interpretation from you they are classed 'non-Christian' by you despite the fact they consider themselves Christian.
For the record, I consider both of you (JW and you) are misinterpreting Jesus' message.

So, do Gays attain salvation or go to hell? Isn't this a fundamental, core issue for someone who is Gay?
My point is that on this fundamental point, scholars of the Bible have opposing views.
I also do not understand how there is consensus if some disagree. Are you saying that the scholars who say Gay bishops are ok are wrong?
The African scholars/priests do not say that 'the bigger picture is what matters' as they are threatening to break away from the Anglican church for what they see as variant interpretations of the Bible. Were you unaware of this threat?

:) See, there you go saying I should not take Jesus at his words. We can discuss this in another thread. (all Christian scholars are quite clear that the 'lesser commission' clearly tells disciples to only preach to Israelites, but as I say we can discuss your misinterpretation in another thread)

So, another example of blaming the tree for beautiful fruit. It's a shame you haven't kept up with the more reputable Christian scholars who have disowned the disinformation/slander about the Prophet etc. Again, it shows that a critical study of the Quran does not raise any fundamental problems/contradictions - so people resort to smear campaigns. Shame that.
However, if you do sincerely believe these 'factoids' I can give you all the references to correct your misunderstanding. If you are interested, we can start a new thread.

Careful, your prejudice is showing.
Yes, I said historians. I don't have any issues with historians studying the Bible - they tell me, for example, who actually wrote the gospels rather that what is commonly is attributed to them by 'legend'. I quoted the first serious historian who went to primary sources - the celebrated Edward Gibbon - and in his book 'History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' he shows the difference between what the Church said their history was and what actual historical scholarship shows.
He also had a few chapters on Islam in that book.
So, yes, I did mean what I typed - historians.
And, for the record, Muhammad, pbuh, was not a misogynist (he gave women rights that European women only got a whole thousand years later) etc - all of the accusations are so easy to dispel I can only conclude that you have chosen not to do any independent research on Islam's prophet and are just repeating what you've been told/read from biased sources.

I hope you are joking - but the frightening thing is that I'm not 100% sure you are! [serious]
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman About Quranic integrity: does it mean that there always has been only one version of the Quran throughout history? And never did different versions (or codex) exist next to each other? ebonics according to shafique, and muslims, it is the "literal" word of god.. like god spoke those words, exactly how they are, and they got documented after muhammad read them, and relayed them to people that can write. im saying that muhammad's history prior to that, doesnt suggest that he'd be an honest person in relaying this message (the fact he actually recieved the message from god direct is a complete different debate) case in point, the verse that says regarding women captured through means of war - "and whatever your right posessed" and not in those words... the explaination was that having s.e.x slaves after war back in those days was deemed "ok" - the quran reflected that. what sort of god would tell you that s.e.x with the women that you captured at a battle is ok? personally i think muhammad added that verse specifically to allow himself to have whatever relationships he pleased when he went to war. but to a person blind with his faith, such logical assumption is fatwa punishable by death, cutting of hands, tongues, whatever else they can cut whilst at it. shafique
The Quran is an Aural revelation which was transmitted Orally - the primary means of transmission was recitation and memorisation.
As such there has only been one version of the Quran - one authentic Arabic set of verses (and here authentic means undisputed).
During the lifetime of the Prophet, the Quranic revelations were recited time and time again and memorised by thousands of people. To this day the number of people having memorised the Quran increases each year.
Written records of the Quran were checked against the memory of people - not the other way round. Arabic writing evolved over time, with different scripts etc. There are mistakes in some transcriptions of the Quran - but because of the fail-safes, none of these mistakes have ever been considered anything but mis-transcriptions (because there is no doubt what the true words were).
What confuses some people is that there are different ways in pronouncing the same Arabic word - i.e. different dialects of Arabic will have different pronunciations. This produced different 'Quirat' or ways of pronouncing the Quran - however in all the words are the same (in meaning).
However, if a non-Arab mispronounces an Arabic word, the danger is that they are changing the meaning. This began to happen in the Khalifa Umar's time - and he took the decision to standardise the written representation of the aural revelation - i.e. compile the standardised Quran - showing how the words are to be pronounced in the Quraish pronunciation of what is known as Fursa/Classical Arabic. Not all of the existing written Qurans were destroyed - some were returned to their owners, but most were.
[The main point is that the Quran had only one set of words, Arab speakers could pronounce them differently without changing the meanings for themselves.]
At the time there were many, many non-Muslims in Arabia and none of these Arab speakers accused the compilers of changing the Quran or doing more than writing down what was memorised. The accusations of variant readings etc came much later and were levelled by 'orientalist' opponents of Islam. (And also note that there were divisions amongst muslims too in this period - Shia/Sunni tensions were in their early stages - and yet there is no dissension on the Quranic revelations).
So the short answer is that there has always been only one aural revelation of the Quran in history. There have been written codices which varied from one another, but these were either phonetic representations of different pronunciations or because of transcriptural errors.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
So, how do you know, which one is the correct one and which is one contains errors? shafique
The primary source of preservation is the word-perfect memorisation of thousands of Muslims (now millions of Muslims).
This is what the scholars did at the time they compiled the 'standard' Quran - when they decided on the definitive written version that could be used as a standard from then on (primarily for non-Arabic speakers). So after the standard text was produced, this could be used to check to see which was accurate or not. (Some texts with variant readings are accurate in meanings, but represent different pronunciations - so both are 'right')
If a sentnence conains some splling errors - an English speaker will still read it properly and understand the meaning, someone who does not understand Arabic will read it phonetically and be saying gibberish. So the presence of variant spellings/pronunciations of an oral revelation does not show that there were many different revelations, but just records the fact that written transmissions aren't always accurate.
I forgot to say in the previous post that the Quran was also written down by scribes as the revelations were revealed - multiple scribes, not just one - but the primary means of preservation was memorisation. The Quranic verses were recited many times each day and also the whole Quran was recited many times during Ramadhan.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman Out of intrest, from which year is the earliest written still extisting codex? Flying Dutchman
So, the integrity of the Quran is based on the assumption of people perfectly remembering the Quran instead of a written version?

Not if the word "no" is left out, which will give a complete other meaning to a sentence... ebonics
muhammad himself, supposedly memorised it sura by sura, and relayed it for people to document.... not forgetting/skipping/altering 1 word in the process. and it still remained the literal word of god
would that be accurate shafique? shafique double post shafique
Yes.
If all the printed Qurans in the world today were burnt/destroyed, the Quran will continue to be preserved via its primary source of preservation.
It is a concept that is hard to fathom given our reliance on the written word - but the facts are amazing. Millions who can recite word for word the Quran from beginning to end.
Incredible as it may sound, the results are there for all to see/critique - there is only one Quran despite all the divisions amongst Muslims and scrutiny of Arab speaking opponents of Islam from the earliest periods.
As I said before, the Quran is the only scripture that contains a guarantee that the scripture would not become corrupted (all other scriptures talk of the punishments that will befall those that do corrupt that particular scripture, whilst the Quran has no such punishment but instead has a guarantee/prophecy that God will protect the Quran).

Leaving a word out is not a spelling error, but you are right if words are ommitted or changed in meaning there will be a problem - that is why a standardised version of the written representation was required, to remove the chance of this becoming a possibility - either unintentionally by non-Arab speakers who don't understand the recitations, or maliciously by others.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
And before the first written representation (from which year does the oldest still remaining version date?) all versions contained the exact same words, only a difference in prononciation existed? shafique
That is right - thousands memorised the Quran word for word, and today millions continue to do so. But there were also scribes writing down the words - Umar became a muslim only after he found his sister reading from an extract of the Quran. The primary source of preservation was memorisation though.
All Muslims who offer their prayers are reciting chapters of the Quran word for word in the original Arabic. The opening chapter of the Quran is a prayer and constitutes the most read prayer in the history of mankind - with it being recited at least a billion times a day, every day ( a Muslim offering their daily prayers will recite it at least 30 times a day).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
The Quran was also written down as each verse was revealed, so when the last revelation came, the Quran was complete also in written form.
The order of the Quran was also revealed to the Prophet (the order is in different order to that of the revelation - some of the later verses were revealed first and vice versa) - so ordering of the verses/chapters was also written down.
What happened though was that these written Qurans were done in scripts which did not have diacretical marks and there was variation between scribes who transcribed words differently (but would read it back the same). There were also errors in some of the texts - some spelling, others physical (such as smudges etc). Some just had bad handwriting.
So, the clearest and most authentic versions of the Quran were those recited by the various Hafiz's of the time - including the Prophet and his companions.
The standardised texts were only produced when word got back to the Caliph/Khalifa that in the outskirts of the then Islamic empire, Muslims who did not understand Arabic were reciting the Quran and (unintentionally) changing the meaning - and that this was the fault of badly transcribed Qurans.
He ordered that the written Qurans be gathered and that a standard version be produced which could be sent out to the main centres of the Islamic empire to be as Standard references. Copies of these Qurans are the oldest extant written representations of the Quran.
However, I repeat, the main means of preservation/safeguarding of the Quran was memorisation and this process dates back (uninteruptedly) to the recitations of the Prophet, pbuh, himself. In his lifetime he checked and checked again that the words were faithfully memorised and not a word was added or subtracted.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
Are the originals still available for study?

But there is no difference in words or meaning between the different versions before the standardized codex?

So what's that, 8th century?

This raises some problems for me, I would rather see a written copy and do not trust people's memory. Flying Dutchman DP :oops: shafique [Firstly a Correction - the standardised texts took place under the Khalifa Uthman, not Umar as I have typed in the previous posts - sorry, just having one of those days]
To my knowledge only fragments of Qurans dating before the standardised versions exist.
The standardised versions were compiled during the lifetime of those who had heard the Quran recited by the Prophet, and the thousands who memorised it since.
The final verses were revealed in around 632 CE and the standardised versions under Uthman were compiled in the 650's CE - i.e. less than 30 years after the death of the Prophet, pbuh.
For non-Arabic speakers, the written Quran and translations are the most important ways of preserving/studying the Quran. The consensus amongst all Muslims is that there is one Quran and one set of words (I discount latter day 'submitters' who have deleted some verses of the Quran to fit a mathematical code).
However uncomfortable it makes us feel, or our personal preferences for means of study, the Quran's primary means of preservation and transmission has been oral recitation and memorisation.
It also interesting to note that skeptics of the origins of the Quran do not raise questions about the core message of the Quran - the religious messages within it (much like freza who says that the religion is beautiful) - but point to differences in written fragments which are (for the ones I've looked at) easily explained as issues with pronunciation and transcription.
I'm more than happy to explore these issues - as very often when we look at the claims against the Quran and show that they aren't what they first seem (and many are just malicious) - it only shows Islam and the Quran in a good light. However, these are at the periphery of religion - the core teachings of Islam are left unchallenged - it's like ignoring the fruit and arguing on whether the trunk of the tree looks ugly or not depending on what light shines on it!
cheers,
Shafique shafique Edit - instead of stating this was a double post, let me add a bit. There is a common 'accusation' that the extant copies of the Quran in Samarkand and Tashkent are not original Uthmani standard Qurans produced in the 650s as the traditions have it. This is based on an assertion that the texts use the 'kufic' script which only was used in the 8th century, so these Quran's can't be 7th century. However, this premise is addressed in this website which shows (giving many references) that Kufic script does not date to the 8th century, but at least 300 years earlier: (piece of trivia - the website quotes Joseph Smith's writings - I've had the pleasure of meeting and debating with him in person and pointing out the errors in his work to him - he has written a detailed essay on why he thinks the Quran is a 8th or 9th century piece of work) Cheers, Shafique Flying Dutchman
Okay, I agree with you, But I notice that Muslims place emphasis on the idea that the Quran contains the literal and exact words of God and is never corrupted. I see muslims use this argument againt the Bible (that the Bible is corrupted p.e.).
Different versions of the Quran did exist and to some extent the contents of the Quran depends on people´s memory. I also didnot see a clear statement that all versions contain the same words, so there might be a difference. I find it hard to believe, considering the circumstances, that the present codex of Quran are the exact words of Mohammed (pbuh), let only the exact the words from God. If you look at the facts I think nobody can be 100% sure, it´s a matter of faith. And this brings us back to the integrity of the Quran, which cannot be proven by historical facts.
It is prephiral, as the main message didnot change I assume, but again I think it is fair to doubt the integrity of the Quran and doubt whether the original words are not corrupted. freza The MAJORITY in the council agreed with a LONG-STANDING view. That the council was even brought together shows that there wasn't as much intolerance as you believe towards debate. The view of the heads of the Christian churches were important enough to merit a debate. What they ended up agreeing upon and reinforcing is a common view. The Arians were in the minority, were they not? And even if they debated certain aspects of Christology, they still thought of Christ as devine! Not a mere mortal. Even so, what is the big deal with Christian groups disagreeing? Disagreements are not unique to Christianity. In this case one position prevailed due to validity, otherwise Arianism would be relevant now and it isn't. Arians were deemed heretics. How unusual? How unexpected? Seriously. Also, what exactly do you call persecution in this particular case? Was it equal to the treatment of apostates throughout early history of Islam?
very very condescending of you. but no that's not it. Good things can come out of bad beginnings. Are paradoxes so difficult to grasp for you? I have no problem with stating that though the origins are not solid and even false, the outcome can be somewhat good. and even photogenic.
please point me to the thread where you discussed JW claims. I must have missed it.
woah! hold it there. people don't go to hell just for being gay lol! And of course the subject of hell is debatable. Add that to your list of healthy debates that you bend to mean "contradictions". Most Christian groups do view homosexuality as a sin, yes. But Jesus invited sinners to hear his message and preached inclusion for those most marginalized by society. That's why I say, the bigger picture is what matters.
Scholars shouldn't have much of an input in this. It's up to the council of the particular group/churches that make such decisions about an issue that [SHOCK!! HORROR!] does not change the BASIS of Christianity. You know the basics: Jesus, God, Resurrection, Gospel, love thy neighbor, etc.
ok.
wow, and I wasn't even trying to hide it.
Well, he "gave" them rights, huh? hhmm. Did he "give" them the right to be the EQUAL of man? Because the Quran states the opposite, about equality, right? In a Hadith, when Aysha (in the presence of a woman whose husband beat her up because she complained about his impotence) says that Muslim women suffer more than non-believers, why do you think she said that?
they don't do it anymore because many christians now eat pork and their blood isn't kosher. they prefer to drink the blood of muslims now. ufff pls. shafique
Yes, Muslims do point out to the purity of the Quran vs the Bible. However I point out that the Bible does not claim to be the literal word of God, so we should not hold this fact against the Bible.

People recited the same words differently. I would not call this a different 'version'. However, there were no differences in any words of the revelations.

Sure, if one only looks at the written word, there is this doubt. However, when one takes into account the primary way of preservation, this doubt loses its importance.

Sure - in fact the Quran itself invites challenge and scrutiny. It sets itself up as a stand-alone testimony that can be judged on what is written/recited.
The differences that are pointed to in versions of the Quran do not affect any of the main themes. Given that there are serious divisions amongst Muslims over theology, the fact that no two 'versions' of the Quran address any of these main points of division is a clear testimony (for me at least) that the variations were merely mistakes and not man-made intentional re-writings of what was revealed to Muhammad, pbuh.
So, yes, we should not take Muslim claims that the Quran is pure and uncorrupted at face value. Yes, there are codices with variations. My contention is that these variations are innocent mistakes and the original revelations are still intact - as they were always primarily preserved by recitations. I have yet to see any evidence that contradicts this view.
That said, the Quranic text is now preserved in a form that is unchanged for at least a millenium and we can therefore also look at the integrity of this text.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Hold on, the council was brought together to decide which of the competing views of Christianity will be adopted as 'standard' and to choose a Bible. Arius' view was also long standing.

Nothing wrong with debate - as long as all are seen as Christian. What becomes bad is when the Arians were branded as heretics (i.e. non-Christian) and were persecuted and killed.
I raised Arius at the Council of Nicea as an example of different interpretations of the Bible on fundamental aspects of Christian theology. You denied that there were any serious disagreements over Biblical interpretation on fundamentals of Christianity. The divinity of Christ is fundamental - and Arian theology is branded as 'heretic' today and adherents were persecuted in the past.
So, are you saying that Arius' views are not heretical after all? I could be wrong, I am taking the Christian opponents of arianism at their word that Arius was wrong - please let me know whether you think their views are valid Christian views and are in accordance with the Bible.

Great - we now agree that there was persecution of Christians by Christians. You seem to be saying that might is right - those who can prevail and persecute the minorities within their religion are correct. Hmm.
And, since you ask, no I don't see the persecutions of Christians by Christians as equal to treatment of apostates in early Islam (firstly there weren't any mass killings seen under Christianity, and there weren't any of the same fundamental differences between sects in early Islam - the initial civil wars were over the paying of tax (Zakaat) not theology).

You see, I quote Jesus and you call this condescending. When a paradox asks me to believe that black is white, I do find it hard to swallow.

Yes, we have observed this paradox.

You asked previously if I had pointed out contradictions to JW, I replied that I had. Why would I list them here when no one is advocating their point of view? Back-biting is a sin :)
I only raised them as examples of groups calling themselves Christian and interpreting the Bible - contrasting them as latter day examples of such division vs the early ones such as Arianism (and there were other divisions pre-dating this as well).

Sorry, was that a 'yes' or 'no'.
African anglicans seem to say that a practicing hom.o.s.ex.ual goes to hell. They base this belief on the Bible.
Do you agree or disagree.
Are there any scholars who disagree that they all go to hell?

So whether one achieve Salvation or goes to hell is 'debatable'. Hmm.
Remind me again whether salvation is a fundamental concept of Christianity or not - I'm getting a little confused here (I always thought it was the fundamental concept - how to achieve salvation and avoid hell).

Is not achieving salvation a 'basic' basis of Christianity?
I am shocked I have had the totally wrong impression of Christianity for all these years. Please confirm that achieving salvation and not going to hell is not fundamental or a basis of Christianity.

Glad we agree that Islam gave women rights. You now are asking whether they are equal rights - well, in matters of spirituality, yes - in matters relating to differences in biology men and women have different rights and responsibilities.
Women's rights in the Bible and Quran can be compared and contrasted - but it won't be pleasant reading for you, so I'll only carry on if you insist on the contrast.

:) Good try. As I said, I'm happy to address what Islam teaches about treatment of women and the Prophet's conduct - a new thread perhaps?
I'm still shocked that you said salvation is not a basic of Christianity!

Glad to see you have a sense of humour.
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
What I meant is different written versions, before the current standardized Quran. So, you are absolutely sure that no differences in words exists between different written version of the Quran?

Well, since the primary source is people´s memory, this raises more doubt with me. But this is a preference, I trust written texts more than texts that have been past on by memory for decades. If you want to be sure that your message gets across generations, what would you do, pass it on by word to several people or write it down on paper?

Agree

I agree if you mean the message, but not the original words. Do you believe the current Quran contains the exact literal words from God?

Like I said, this is what worries me the must shafique
I am absolutely sure. There are textual errors in some manuscripts as explained before, but these were corrected by Uthman's standardisation.
I just read also that the Sana'a manuscripts in Yemen dating from early Islam were also written in Kufic script - which is the script of the standardized Qurans in Samarkand and Tashkent (so the earliest extant Qurans are from around 650's CE)

As I said before, the decision has been vindicated by the fact that the Quran has been preserved. The earliest written extant Qurans date from within 30 years of the death of the Prophet - and historians/scholars have examined the evidence and concluded that there is no evidence that they are not the words narrated by Muhammad, pbuh.
Where there are variations - these are minor textual errors. (But if you find otherwise, please let me know) And the variations pre-date the standard texts (which came very early on).

Worries are good - it makes people question and examine the evidence. I've learnt something today because of this discussion - so I'm grateful!
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman So allow me to summarize what I learnt today. The preservation of the Quran during the first 30 years depended on recitals. Before the standardized Quran was written, there were minor differences between different written versions. Not comprosing the message though. Shafique, I know you always like to have to last word, so go ahead :D :D :D freza The only wrong "interpretation" here is yours. The council of Nicea was convened to discuss the divinity of Jesus and to examine and verify the already circulating books of the Bible. Already established because manuscripts of such where already in existence and compiled before Nicea, namely the Muratorian Canon. The Council examined and verified authorship of the books and only excluded those that were not verifiable (two). Proving veracity, getting to the Truth is a good thing you know. How the council of Nicea supports your disdain for the Bible, well I can't see it, but I hardly think you need an excuse when you've already pre-judged everything about it.
can you quote historical references for this.
They're not entirely correct. Spreading misconceptions is not something to be desired, one would think. Proof of absolute divinity in Christianity: Jesus own words prove it.
riiiiigght. others would argue it was spreading of Islam by the sword.
why so much evasion??? WHAT specific contradictions of the Witnesses have you pointed out? I repeat: Specific. Please specify from their doctrines and Bible.
OK. You ignore the basic teachings of Jesus and fixate on homosexuality instead. Why? Here's a concept for you: Salvation involves a lot more than an individual's se xual preference. Yeah, I know - a b s o l u t e l y...MIND-BOGGLING!!!
What are you 10 years old? dude :lol:
on the subject of homosexuality. doesn't the Quran say that homosexuality is a sin but then all a homosexual needs to do is to repent from this "sin"? Isn't this a lot less harsh than the "punishment" for adultery? And doesn't this contrast with the carnal language in the Quran, specifically beautiful young guys (ghilman) who are around in heaven for entertainment purposes? The Quran doesn't seem to make such a big deal of homoeroticism or eroticism in general (actually sexual prowess is boasted by Mohammed, right?) Perhaps Mohammad was tolerant of homosexuality but observed that the Christians and Jewish tradition weren't that open to it and decided to add that little sin label there? [Serious question. And since I know you're going to dismiss it, is there anyone else here who can address it?]

Did I previously mention Salvation? Here's another mind-boggling concept. For Christians, salvation involves leading a meaningful life and accepting Jesus as their savior. !!GASP!! shafique
Ok - here it is:
No (and I've said this before) the primary means of preservation has always been oral recitation from memory.
The written text agrees with this unbroken chain of preservation back to the time it was revealed by the Prophet, pbuh.
We can separately look at the history of the 'written' Quran, but the very name 'Quran' means 'that which is recited' - it claims to be the literal word of God which was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, pbuh.
But to look at the history of the 'Quran' by definition we are examining the recited word, not the written word. So, I would agree with your statement if you inserted 'written' before the word Quran. :)
Let me know if this is unclear and I'll clarify.
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
So the Council of Nicea only rejected 2 books. I thought the list of apocryphal books was longer. Could you provide me with a reference.
You seemed to imply that Arius accepted the Council of Nicea's findings and all was lovely dovely. In fact Arius refused to sign the creed and was exiled.
Arius taught that Jesus wasn't Divine, but was created. The same view of Unitarian Christians today.

Sure, Encyclopaedia Britannica under 'Arianism' - first Arian persecution occured under Emperor Valens.

'They are not quite right' / 'Jesus own words prove it'. Shame that argument did not wash with Arius and all who don't believe in the Trinity. As I said before, it shows that there is not a consensus on what the Bible says.

:) Never mind, we'll forgive the obvious error. You talk about violence against 'apostates' - which by definition is against people who were Muslims. Please try and keep up with your own arguments.

:) I'll happily set any Witnesses that post here straight, but I don't see any point in pointing out the contradictions here - it would serve no purpose as there aren't any JW's here to defend their views.

Sorry, I could not find an answer in your text above - do practicing Gays go to heaven or hell. Are they saved or damned?
The Biblical scholars of the past that said they are damned are supported by the current African anglicans, Catholics etc. You say that it may not be important.
Is not the salvation of one's eternal soul the main concept of Christianity?
If it is not, then do you agree that pious hindus will go to Heaven (eg. will Mahatma Ghandi go to heaven?) The Christians I have consulted all say that no - he is hell bound. The Christians who uphold that the Bible condemns gays also say that gays go to hell for the sin.
And it is not my fixation - but a fundamental issue that is causing big issues in the Anglican church (and it all revolves around interpretation of the Bible).
So what is it - do gays go to hell or are they saved? Where in the Bible does your view come from?

Most 10 year olds would answer the question. And what did I say about name calling?

Yes it does say it is a sin (as does the Bible from what I can see - but I'm not a scholar). Repenting from a sin also means not doing it - so yes Islam does teach that repentance for sins is what a believer should do. However Islam teaches that s.e.x outside marriage is punishable if proven - therefore it ho.mo.se.xuality is punishable by society.

Sorry, must try harder. Hom.o.se.xuality is treated just as harshly as adultery and fornication.
You must also have forgotten the previous posts which talk about the afterlife being all metaphorical. There won't be men and women in heaven, just souls. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of prejudice.

I knew you had a sense of humour. I've heard a lot of criticism of Islam - but to accuse it of being pro-Gay takes the biscuit! Thanks, I needed a laugh. (and given your leap of fantasy is based on the false premise that gay liasons aren't punishable, there is no need to answer it further)

Well, you'll have to find someone who shares your view that Islam is pro-Gay for someone to explain it to you. Good luck, let me know how you get on.

I understand that - the question is whether a Gay Priest or Gay Christian who accepts Jesus as saviour and still sleeps with a man will be saved or not. The Bible says no, but some scholars say yes. Who is right - the Bible or the liberal scholars?
It's only the third time (I think) that I've asked - but hey, I'm persistent.
[Wow - still am in awe at my ignorance - Salvation is not a fundamental belief of Christianity and Islam is pro-Gay! :roll: :) You are a bundle of laughs!]
Cheers,
Shafique Flying Dutchman
I think its clear to me now. Thanks for your time and patience. shafique FD - yes that's a good summary.
freza - thanks for your input as well. I always read that the books of the Bible were first agreed at the Council of Nicea at the same time that the Nicean Creed was agreed.
Reading up on the First Council of Nicea, I could not find references to Bible selections - but did find out some information about the compilation of the Bible. I'll post that info in a new thread.
When I am mistaken, I am mistaken - and on this point I concede I had the wrong idea of the Council of Nicea - that it was responsible for the selection of books of the Bible. It was responsible for agreeing what the canon of the Church was - specifically on the issue on whether Jesus was Divine or a created. (And the main thrust of my arguments is that there was dissension over the interpretation of what the Bible said, which I don't think is changed).
Arians, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians appealed to Scripture , quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I".
The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Cheers,
Shafique Nucleus
Just a minor clarification, during the first 30 years written Quran existed but it was not standardized into Quraishi dialect. Quraishi dialect was the Makkan dialect.
So imo mode of preservation was both written and memorization. However, Quran's tradition stems in recitation, hence, it was named "Recitation". It is recited multiple times completely every year since the time of Prophet (pbuh).
Another thing Quran is easy to memorize:
1. It is in poetic form, so it is like memorizing poetry or lyrics which makes easier.
2. There is a lot of repetition so once a person starts memorizing Quran, it becomes easy as the person progresses.
If you go to madrassa you see even many 8 year olds have memorized complete Quran. freza Re: Apocrypha/Necea: Determining apocrypha and establishing canon was a process that started quite early on; some claims are that it started as early as A.D. 30 but the most significant cited evidence is found around A.D. 100-125 when an early process of authoritative compilation was found in the the writings of Ignatius of Antioch around the year 110.
But I also need to make corrections/clear things up: Necea's main reason for meeting was indeed to discuss the divinity of Jesus in response to the Arian controversy, clearly the main purpose. But I should have said around the time of the Necea Council ecclesiastical scholars were studying and debating those two writings that I mentioned earlier which are Hebrews and Revelations - of inclusion into the NT. They were not rejected (well, not by "most") but back then, they had not agreed on a rejection but were still debating because the authorship of the writings was (and is still) in question. And even to this day the debate and investigation of these two works continues.
First, the definition of apostates vary and the word can be applied to other "renunciants" or disbelievers besides Muslims. But I was actually referring to the the Wars of Apostasy, as you were in mentioning conflicts over taxes, right? But some argue that other reasons for the battles also included spread of Islam through fear: to target tribes that were not "fully" Islamic because of their geographical location and/or proximity to other cultural influences.
You had previously mentioned that you agree with the JW's interpretation of their Bible because they go back to their origins, or something like that, true? OK, I pointed out factoids (our new favorite word) about their belief system so that you can analyze it and extract *the truth* the way you analyze other works of the Bible here without a care in the world. But I see that you're clearly not up to this challenge. fine.
Re: Gays. Are all gays condemned to hell simply for the fact of being gay? No. Salvation is for everyone who believes and wants it (John 3:16) and we mere humans can hardly be the judges of someone else's eternal soul! :-)
(as to Creed or lack of it, it matters not when it comes to facing God and eternal life.)
My questions are just that. Pls don't make them bigger than they are. This "heaven" scene:" They shall there exchange, one with another, a cup free of frivolity, free of sin., Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them: youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded. " this means what again? I know you say it doesn't mean what it looks like it means (hanky panky in heaven with beauties of a questionable gender). But imagery and symbolism are so important in religions (and so telling) why do you think authors of the Quran chose this imagery? shafique
FD - you are completely correct. I was going to clarify exactly the same point that the written Quran was there from outset.
Also, we can't know for sure what proportion of the written Qurans had no differences from the 'standardised' texts - it could very well be a low percentage. (i.e. we shouldn't assume that all the written Qurans before the standardised texts contained errors - eg Hafsa's Quran was returned to her and not destroyed)
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Thanks for the clarifications -I too was getting my facts wrong. I started a new thread about the canonisation of the Bible. Some Churches to this day haven't canonised Revelations (eg Syrian Church), and some Churches have more than the 27 books (eg Coptic).
So, we should be careful about specifying which Bible we are debating!
The council of Nicea was convened to discuss the interpretation of the Bible on the question of Divinity of Jesus. Arius and his followers used the Bible in defence of their views. They however lost - only 2 of the bishops voted in favour of Arius - and they and Arius were banished. (Arius later was allowed back by Constantine though)

Apostates has a specific meaning to me - apologies for not realising you were using it in a non-literal way.
The wars of apostacy in early Islam were over taxes.
I'm not aware of any scholar/historian referring to any spread of Islam by force as an attack against apostates.

I am happy to point out where I agree with them and that they base their views on divinity of Jesus on the Bible. Trying to goad me into listing where I disagree with their other views won't work - I repeat I don't see the relevance in doing so here.

I am impressed by your tolerance - most believing Christians will happily condemn all non-Christians to Hell, and many will also condemn Gays to the same fate.
I can see why you find Islam beautiful - many Christians I have debated have criticised Islam for precisely the sentiments you have just given - that God is the final judge about who goes to Heaven and it is not our job to second guess God, and only God knows who will be saved.
However, it would be fair to say that not all Christians believe that gays who believe in Jesus will be saved (or have I misunderstood the opposition to gays by Christian scholars/churches?)

The imagery of heaven portrays a blissful environment - gardens, rivers, 'pure companions', good food and drink etc. This is promised to all believers, men and women. 'Hanky panky' is not mentioned - so I'll let you conclude/research where all this '72 virgins' talk comes from and why it is being disseminated.
It seems obvious to me why this type of imagery is used - it isn't salacious or profane, but very serene. If one has a dirty mind though - one can twist words for one's purpose.
However, as discussed before, the Quran is explicit that the afterlife descriptions are metaphorical (for we cannot know what it will be like).
Cheers,
Shafique freza Re: Wars of Apostasy: &id=135193
Re: interpretation etc. You seem to take issue with certain established Christian groups following a certain criteria on interpretation. Yet you say that groups that interpret things to fit their agenda are OK in doing so (JWs). But then you that you know a lot of Christians who don't get and don't practice what the real message of their religion is - Christians that will rather concern themselves with the condemnation of others instead of focusing on their own self-realization. So you're actually making a point for me here: Proper interpretation of the Bible is essential otherwise people will deviate from its message.
I hope that you can finally see my point!
btw, I find it so strange that you call me tolerant when a few days ago I was hateful and very intolerant! I get the feeling you'll revert to calling me hateful soon enough though. :evil: :D
But how unreal and metaphorical was this imagery really? from my understanding, these beautiful creatures that served refreshments (and possibly other things) were a part of some segments of Eastern society's version of the red-light district; and sometimes not that "underground". Would you really describe images of nymphs as "serene"? You're saying that only dirty-minded people will connect these passages with eroticism but the scenes could very well be describing things that were actually taking place back then. So what comes to mind here is: if the afterlife is indescribable, why even attempt to describe it and in this manner...btw, what's the pearl metaphor all about
Re: What you've been discussing with Flying Dutchman. Reciting by memory is nice and everything but I don't think that memorizing something equals understanding it. I think there has been too much emphasis on stating that the Quran is uncorrupted writings while not enough emphasis on corroborating these claims in an more open and exhaustive manner. It's almost as if the writers of the Quran had to heed again questioning and deep examination because they feared what this might uncover. For example: Muslims say that Mohammad was an (the) exemplary prophet. I say, he didn't even meet the basic criteria for what makes a true prophet when prophets before him met challenges and requirements of attestation but he didn't. I get the feeling you will reply with: "he didn't have to, he was special - the Quran says so." shafique
No - my point has always been that the Bible is open to interpretation. Your point of view is valid from within 'established Christian groups' - but similarly JW and other Unitarians have their own points of views/interpretations. These interpretations date back to the foundation of the Church - the Nicean creed that Jesus is same nature as God was disputed in 325 and is disputed now.
I think we agree that the Bible requires interpretation and can't function as a standalone document by which one lives one's life (you say you need scholars to tell you how to interpret the words of the Bible). I agree with you - but it then comes down to which scholars you choose to believe.
Thanks to the discussion, I now know that there is not even unity amongst all Christian churches as to which books should form part of the NT. So we must even be careful to specify which Bible we are talking about.

I think you are still intolerant of other Christians' viewpoints, but extremely tolerant about gays going to heaven and that God ultimately decides on the day of judgement.

Because it is the best description that we can understand.

Beats me - what is the Quranic reference and I'll look it up.

Agree with you 100%.

The Quran being uncorrupted is just an interest factoid - it is only important to the extent that Islam depends on what is revealed in the Quran.

This doesn't make much sense. Contrast the Quran with the Bible - for much of Christian history the Bible was not accessible to the lay-Christian and even today the meanings of words are disputed and the original text is written in languages no longer used. The Quran is recited in toto by all Muslims, accessible to all and invites criticism and study.
How does this equate to a suppression/cover up of the Quran's meanings?

I know you say he didn't - but I don't agree with this statement. I agree with you that he needs to meet the standards and requirements of prophethood for his message to be followed and I'm happy to explore all of these in another thread (so I certainly do not say he doesn't have to).
I'll start a new thread to discuss this - shall we use the Bible as a common source of criteria for a true prophet?
Cheers,
Shafique shafique
Thanks - this is an interesting read. I take your point about reasons it gives for the wars - the third one is that some did not genuinely convert, and fourth that distant tribes were coming under the influence of Romans.
I've not seen the wars presented as above - the reasons for the wars was that the tribes in question did not recognise the authority of the Khalifa and refused to pay the Zakaat (tax). I understood that all were Muslim tribes and hence why it has been called 'Wars of Apostacy'.
It's not clear from the article whether the forth reason referred to tribes who had not accepted Islam - but the list of the armies does list who they fought (using terms such as 'renegade' , 'revisionary' etc to describe the opponents - all tying in with them being apostates).
I therefore see why you made the comments you did - it is a fair conclusion to draw, but not one I'm sure is valid - it may just come down to a badly described reasons for the war. I'll try and get some quotes from Western historians on these wars - but if anyone has references for the specific tribes mentioned - perhaps they can post here whether any of them were non-Muslim.
As an aside, some of the wars were fought in this region!
FD - also interestingly the article has a section on the compilation of the Quran. The Hafsa's Quran that was returned to her was compiled in the first Khaliphate:
After Zayd, may Allaah be pleased with him, accomplished the task and had organized the Quran into one book, he submitted the precious collection to Abu Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, who kept it in his possession until the end of his life. During ‘Umar's Caliphate it was placed in the custody of his daughter, Hafsah, may Allaah be pleased with her, the Prophet's wife. Finally, in the days of ‘Uthmaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, when different readers began to recite it differently, the Caliph had several copies of it made, and distributed them to the various countries, which comprised the Islamic world. The modern edition of the Quran is the ‘Uthmaan copy, which is considered the standard to which every other copy should conform.
Cheers,
Shafique freza The Bible should be interpreted to extract its entire and correct message. This does not mean it is open for anyone to interpret it as they wish, nope.Not necessarily. We've discussed this before. Memory problems I suppose...No. The Apocryphal books in question might or might not be included in some groups' Bibles - interchangeably. If they are, they're usually under a supplementary section. But If not included, they do not change the core message of the Bible at all . But let's understand why the writings in question are considered for exclusion by some groups. The Apocrypha are of uncertain authorship but overall considered genuine. What decision were Bible scholars to take if they come upon writings whose authorship can not be verified but the writings appear genuine and worthwhile at the same time? It's a damned if they do (include them) and damned if they don't. Your criticism is an example of this damned thing. I think that one group choosing to include Apocrypha writings while another choose to exclude them is actually a sign of a healthy debate - it provides an alternative to an issue which is difficult to decide upon for obvious reasons.haha. I'm not intolerant of Christian viewpoints, I'm just not too fond of absurdities masquerading as religion. btw, how intolerant are you?The Bible propagated in a variety of languages early on in Christian history precisely to be accessible to people of different regions. Are you saying that these factoids invalidate the Bible...in some way? :-) When the meaning of a certain word is disputed and research is exhausted the purpose it to reach a conclusion, not to reach a dispute. :-) The Quran is accessible to all but the evidence of the authenticity of the Quran - is it accessible to all too? shafique
Arius used the whole Bible and mades a pretty good case for Jesus not being the same material as God the father.

It must be my age. :)
Are you saying that we can understand the Bible as a stand alone book without scholars? I must have missed that post.
If I chose to believe Arius' interpretation of the Bible, I would believe Jesus was created and not of the same nature as God. Would I be wrong or right on this point?

You must not have read the other thread on the compilation of the Bible.
Coptic Bibles have more than 27 books in the NT. Syrian Christian Bibles do not include Revelations and Hebrews.

Are Revelations and Hebrews considered Apocrypha? I thought that the Council of Trent (in the Western Christian Church, specified that they were not).

'appear genuine' is a little subjective.

Intolerance is displayed when you say another group who call themselves Christian are not 'real Christians'.
The Quran says 'There is no compulsion in Religion' - I don't deny any group from calling themselves Christian, Muslim or whatever they say they are.

I guess I have a Euro-centric view of Christianity where the Bible was not known by lay people until quite late on and after stiff resistance from the Clergy. There was a great reluctance to even translate the Bible into everyday language.
Before the Bible was 'compiled', there was a lot of debate within the community about what it all meant (one of the debates resulted in the Council of Nicea).

They invalidate the contention (which few make) that there is a consensus of Biblical interpretation - I still think Arius' arguments are still valid today as they are based on the Bible - he used the Bible for his interpretations (as did Origen before him). Even after the Council of Nicea made their decision, many Bishops continued to preach what Arius taught and Arius himself was welcomed back to the fold and his teachings re-instated.

What do you mean evidence of authenticity?
The Quran is the Quran - a set Arabic words claiming to be the literal word of God - how will it prove that it is not something else?
This thread is about the integrity of the Quran - we have seen in another thread that I can back up claims of no contradictions in the Quran, so it is free of internal contradictions. It also claims to contain a complete and final set of religious values. It fulfils all the criteria of a Divine scripture and is unique in not having any evidence of it being changed since it was revealed.
I also don't understand the question - if the Bible is known to have changed over time (eg Mark 16 added) and contains contradictions/errors - are you advocating that the Bible should be rejected because of these additions/errors?
Are you saying there is some doubt about the Quran because it appears to be too perfect?
It is audacious to believe that the Quran is the work of a number of authors - that they could fool all the people of Arabia (the majority of whom were opposed to Muhammad, pbuh, and sought to kill him) and have the chutzpah to make prophecies about the religion and claims about the Quran that were to be proved correct!
The Bible tells us that only true prophets make prophecies that come true. So, if Muhammad, pbuh, is not the narrator of the Quran - who are these other 'true prophets' who told lies (that the Quran is the literal word of God)?
The evidence that the Quran is true is historical empiral evidence and also the fulfilment of prophecies contained in the Quran (the very name itself is a prophecy that has literally come true - the opening chapter is the most recited prayer in human history, and 'Quran' means that which will be recited often).
Cheers,
Shafique shafique Re: wars of apostacy,
Bernard Lewis in 'The Arabs in History' says that the wars were political and not religious. Wikipedia's summary has some good references (and it appears that some Muslims have called the wars 'religious' rather than 'political' - I was always told by Muslim scholars that the wars were political!)
#Ridda-Wars

This phenomenon was later regarded as primarily a religious movement by Arabic historians. However, the early sources indicate that in reality it was mainly political.[18][19] After all, the revolting Arabs only refused to pay taxes, but they did not refuse to perform the salah.[19] Bernard Lewis states that the fact that Islamic Historians have regarded this as a primarily religious movement was due to a later interpretation of events in terms of a theological world-view.[16] The opponents of the Muslim armies were not only apostates, but also - if not most of them - tribes which were largely or even completely independent from the Muslim community.[19] However, these revolts also had a religious aspect: Medina had become the centre of a social and political system, of which religion was an integral part; consequently it was inevitable that any reaction against this system should have a religious aspect.[20]
Cheers,
Shafique Nucleus I'm not FD :)
shafique
Sorry Nucleus, will be more careful next time :lol:
At least I didn't call you another name! :wink:
Cheers,
Shafique freza Shafique
Re: More/Less books in the Bible of different Christian groups....so what? What is the issue here? They differ in the number of books, we discussed this already - some writings are questionable either in origin, authorship, message, some groups think that even if the authorship is uncertain the "inspiration" is not. These differences of weather to include or not include disputed writings, don't invalidate the true message of the Bible, why should they.
(btw, I think the Coptic Church also photographs very well, it's very beautiful in a mysterious and "noir" way).
I don't consider myself intolerant of Christian groups, despite the label you have so easily put on me. I think I'm just being discerning.
OK, some questions for you: Why don't you tell us your own personal version of Jesus. No, not the Islamic version, but your own individual thoughts. What Jesus version do you prefer? I suppose that the Arian one?
What would you call a Muslim who does not believe that Mohammad was a prophet? What is the technical term for such a person?
Re:You are one very confident man to make these statements! However I don't think you have cleared up all the Quranic contradictions that have been pointed out to you, I think you have simply formulated replies that seem satisfactory to you . I think there is no evidence that the Quran wasn't changed and edited while it's own mistakes prove that some parts might have been altered to fix some of the contradictions as early Islam perhaps took form. shafique
I agree with you - you are saying it comes down to one's opinion which books/scholars to believe in. We agree there is not one definitive collection of books called the Bible - it depends on which books you include or exclude.
No issue with this - just wanted clarification on the 'integrity' of the Bible. Thanks to this thread we discover (at least I do) that we need to clarify which collection of books we are referring when speaking about the Christian Bible. Contrast that with the Quran.

'discerning' / 'intolerant' - hey why quible over words. :)

Ok - my vision of Jesus is as per the Bible. A son of a Virgin, brought up as a Jew, a scholarly man who preached to the poor and railed against the corrupt authorities. He fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish Messiah metaphorically - he did not take up arms as they expected, nor did Elijah physically descend from heaven. He taught from with the Mosaic law and merely brought the Jews back to the true teachings - an Eye for Eye was in the Mosaic law, but so was forgiveness.
As Jesus himself said, he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it. He did not bring a new law and advocated all his disciples to only preach to the House of Israel - to whom Jesus himself said he was sent.
Jesus was metaphorically the Son of God, as he was also metaphorically the Son of Man. The prayer he taught us starts with 'Our Father'.
He clearly states in the Gospel of John that 'The Father is greater than I'.
Therefore, yes I do agree with Bishop Arius that Jesus is not one with God the father but was created by him.
I believe we should pray like he did (prostrating himself before God) and should pray to whom he prayed (God).
I also believe him when he says in the Bible that there are many things that had to be revealed in the future and that a 'Comforter' would come with a message for mankind for all to follow.
Above all, I believe him to be a truthful, humble and sincere servant of God.

Sure, they are an unbeliever, a kafir. Non Jews are called Gentiles. Non-Christians are called...?

The thread is still open - and yes all the answers are satisfactory to me.

You can lead a horse to water....
:)
Cheers,
Shafique freza Oh wise one Shafique - why don't you tell those Bible scholars and archaeologists how to classify with writings and books that can not be verified - for lack of evidence - you know very small things like this. You surely must have the ONE and ONLY and Integral answer!
The Quran is based on Jewish and Christian traditions. So the Christian Bible is corrupt but the Quran is not. Oh wait..it's not admitted that the Quran is based on...ok, never mind then.
No Compulsion in Religion. Just severe criticism of other religions. right.
aaahhhhhh Master of Passive (and sometimes not so passive) Aggressiveness, you have some mad skills bro! (Is Nucleus paying attention to this? Or does he only pay attention to the really obvious ones?)
Re: Jesus version. I asked: your own individual thoughts.
Are Kafir people correct according to you? shafique
Nope, I'm not the one who claims to have 'discerning' views about who is and is not Christian. I am happy to take the differing views of the Bible at face value - that the writings are ambiguous and need scholars to debate.
We agree that even the number of books is contentious!

I don't consider pointing out facts about the Bible being a criticism. I take the Bible at its word - that it is not literally the word of God. I, like you, choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore - we just disagree on the choices.

Ahh, young one the weak is force in you.

Those were my individual thoughts - did you think I had the tea boy typing?
I have read all the Biblical quotes for myself in context and take Jesus' words at face value. I have also read what Paul has written and disagree with him when he changes Jesus' ministry.

Correct in what?
I believe some unbelievers will be going to heaven and are better people than me, I also believe that any who have conciously rejected any of the Prophets of God are wrong - so a Jew is wrong to have rejected Jesus and any non-Muslim is wrong to reject Muhammad, pbuh.
We both agree that God is the final judge on who gets salvation though.
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics why do none jewish westerners get labeled "kafirs" by muslim clerics? and why do jews get labelled monkeys and pigs? shafique
To my knowledge non-Jewish westerners who are muslim are called 'Muslim'.
:lol:
Cheers,
Shafique ebonics
playing smart again shafique
none jewish & none muslim westerners.. shafique
You know what they say - in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king! :)
Cheers,
Shafique outworldish You guys are more and well versed then i am. And i am very limited in knowledge. brothers and sisters, there is a guy who is posting things on this section of the forum named Apple Pie....... articles such as Jesus is God says Koran... Jesus was crucified until death says Koran... Jesus is the Son says Koran... ..... would you please help and deal with this issue..... so i can also benefit and understand more..... thanks



Dubai Forum | Paris Forum | Vegan Forum | Brisbane Forum | 3D Forum | Classified Jobs in Dubai | Listings of Jobs in London | London classified ads Portal
| © 2021 Dubai Forums | Privacy policy